Gay Marriage Essay

Marriage as defined by Chambers twenty-first Century Dictionary is one the province or relationship of being hubby and married woman. two the act or legal contract of going hubby and married woman and three the civil or spiritual ceremonial during which this act is performed ; a nuptials. Gay matrimony has been a subject that has been discussed in the United States for several old ages now. You have people that have different point of views on how they feel about cheery matrimony more so the large inquiry everyone argues is whether it is right or incorrect.

We will be discoursing cheery matrimony in this paper concentrating on the ethical jobs this issue faces. We will look at cheery matrimony from the deontology theory and so contract the theory from the relativism. emotivism and ethical egoism theory. Last I will discourse which of these positions I discussed is closer to my position on homosexual matrimony. Turning up I was ever told matrimony is between a adult male and a adult female and that God wants us to be married and be fruitful and multiply. fruitful significance holding kids. This is something that I was told by my parents. grandparents and the church.

I chose to discourse cheery matrimony because it is truly something that I have conflicting feelings about based on what I think is right and what I have been told is right. when I was turning up as a immature kid in a Christian environment. Many Christians quote that God found it unacceptable for same sex dealingss to take topographic point. because it is incorrect. Furthermore. God created adult female for adult male and adult male for adult female. non adult female for adult female or adult male for adult male. as stated in the book of Genesis. You have polls that have been conducted where people still think that homosexual matrimony is incorrect.

Then faith may be one of the most controversial issues sing cheery matrimony. many faiths find cheery matrimony to be immoral and a wickedness. I think that same sex matrimony should be allowed although many of my household and friends wouldn’t agree with my pick. I look at the issue like any other issue that our state has faced like adult females right to vote and bondage. I don’t believe a twosome should be discriminated or treated below the belt merely because of their sexual penchant.

The United States of America Constitute states that all work forces are created equal and have certain inalienable rights. Thomas Jefferson offered as his illustrations of such rights “life. autonomy. and the chase of happiness” ( Mosser. 2010 ) . So shouldn’t same sex twosomes be allowed to hold those same rights. shouldn’t they be able to bask the life of an American dream that we all aim to accomplish. By non being able to prosecute these rights we could look at this as a misdemeanor of the Constitution. This can show an ethical job for same sex matrimony. Deontology moralss claims that the manner to make up one’s mind if an action is moral is to analyze the purposes.

Mosser writes that “deontology looks at the ground for which an act is done. and the regulation harmonizing to which one chooses to move. Deontology doesn’t deny that Acts of the Apostless have effects ; instead. it insists that those effects should non play a function in our moral rating of such acts” ( Mosser. 2010 ) . Any clip there is an ethical issue there is an ethical job to follow that issue. First ethical job we will look at is cheery rearing. Many people believe that kids being raised by homosexual parents will strip them of normal development. Many Americans believe gay work forces and tribades should non hold or follow kids and that kids would non develop “correctly” with homosexual parents. although research has shown that same-gender twosomes are as nurturing and capable of parental duties as other twosomes. ” ( Avery. Chase. Johansson. Litvak. Montero. & A ; Wydra. 2007 ) . In the article Children Raised. 2001 a “study of 55 children–19 raised by sapphic twosomes. 10 by individual female parents. and 26 by heterosexual couples–found uniformity among the classs vis-a-vis societal accomplishments. wellbeing. and academic performance” .

I feel every bit long as a kid is being raise by people who love them whether they are male or female and if they are being raised by a same sex twosome the love the kid would acquire from both parents won’t deprive them of any development want. Although many kids may see some signifier of negativeness from other people like schoolmates or people who may be against cheery matrimony. You might hear sometimes how kids don’t understand why their parents can’t be married or they treated indifferently or talked about because their parents are cheery.

Another job we have is with control. Society deems that is okay for a heterosexual twosome to be out in public caressing and snoging each other in public. You have some metropoliss or provinces that may forbid this action for homosexual twosomes. Society sees this as incorrect and I think that is why you have a batch of people who are afraid to come out and state that they are cheery. Nowadays people are merely a little more unfastened to discourse their gender as before they were non because they were afraid of the reverberation that they may confront.

It is even worst for those who are in high power place like famous persons. authorities functionaries or people who may be good known throughout the community. every bit shortly as they reveal that they may be gay it is plastered all over the intelligence media. societal networking sites and assorted magazines. It is truly bad when they say oh this individual was out keeping custodies or seen snoging his spouse out in public. It is easier if you leave in a province that is more receptive to this similar California. New York and Massachusetts. You truly won’t see this behaviour being favored in the Bible belt ( the South ) .

My thing is leave them entirely if they chose that life style that is their pick. they should be allowed like any other individual in this state to freely walk out in public and keep custodies and portion a buss. Now another job is that some people believe that a same-sex twosome raising kids could destruct the household and societal background that our society presently accepts with an opposite-sex twosome. I think a kid could still develop usually when they are provided the same love and nurturing necessities of life when provided by either twosome whether homosexual or heterosexual.

A kid needs love and encouragement to turn and boom as an person and that can be provided by people whether homosexual or heterosexual. The environment a individual is raised in does lend to the type of individual that they become. if they are having love. support and being nurtured by a cheery twosome it’s no different than opposite twosomes. Couples whether homosexual or heterosexual will hold that influence to learn a kid what is incorrect and what is right in life. As a child spend clip with household members whether. homosexual or heterosexual this will be portion of the development procedure to learn a kid who they are.

I think a kid turning up in a same-sex matrimony or relationship will let a kid to larn tolerance and credence. They will be more prone to accepting things that others may non and be able to digest things more than others. do holding a kid in an opposite-sex matrimony or relationship they may non larn those same values every bit much as the other individual. Same sex matrimony would profit kids by increasing the lastingness and stableness of their parents’ relationship.

This will besides convey increased societal acceptable of and back up for same-sex households. although those communities that meet cheery matrimony with rejection or ill will might non happen. There truly is no grounds that heterosexual twosomes are any more effectual than same-sex twosomes at raising kids. Religion is another ethical job that we must look at when it comes to gay matrimony. Religion as defined by Collins English lexicon is “belief in. worship of. or obeisance to a supernatural power or powers to be godly or to hold control of human fate.

Two any formal or institutionalised look of such belief: the Christian faith. Last the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent commanding power or powers. Religion teaches us to believe in God or God or whoever we may believe in. it besides teaches us kindness towards others. forbearance. tolerance and many other things to assist us in our day-to-day lives. Religion besides teaches us to be able to accept other that may non be the same as us. Some people. including Christians. Jews. Catholics. etic…believe that it is incorrect for people of the same sex to hold a loving relationship with each other.

I think each faith might hold different reading on the instructions that is in the Bible. one time religion ay construe a subdivision of the Bible one why while another will construe that same subdivision a different manner. Does it might either religion right or wrong? No. it doesn’t it is one individual reading over another. Turning up in a Christian environment it was quoted from the Bible that God found it unacceptable for same-sex dealingss to take topographic point. because it is lubricious and incorrect. Then it says that God created adult male for adult female and adult female for adult male non adult male for adult male or adult female for adult female.

As a Christian many people say that the primary intent of matrimony is reproduction to be fruitful and multiple and that can non take topographic point in a cheery matrimony. Equal protection is another job. The federal authorities duty is to protect and maintain all citizens safe. this includes protection under the jurisprudence. Religion has played a factor in act uponing the ballots of authorities functionaries to guarantee equal protection under the jurisprudence for straight persons but non for homophiles. Bickford states that spiritual positions continuously look down on homosexualism and condemn it.

These positions continue to act upon the American authorities and the picks made when voting on Torahs for equal protection. Our authorities was formed on the footing of separation of church and province but some people are non able to accept that. So why is our authorities so influenced by spiritual organisation in ordering what action they should take when it comes to voting on these Torahs? I don’t know if they fear that they would be retaliated against or loose support or support from spiritual organisations.

I know everyone is entitled to their ain spiritual beliefs but to let those beliefs to harm citizens in our state is unacceptable and it isn’t right. These actions cause hatred to distribute throughout our state because of that. The authorities says that every citizen of the United States shall have equal rights. Now why did the authorities base on balls out the defence of matrimony act? The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal authorities from acknowledging same-sex matrimonies. I think this act is immoral and unjust because it restricts the rights of homosexual and sapphic citizens.

This act should non hold been passed because there truly isn’t a ground to warrant that act. Mosser states “The deontologist argues that we have a responsibility. or an duty. to handle other people with regard ; human existences have self-respect. and we must take that self-respect into consideration when covering with them. ( We besides expect others to esteem our self-respect when they deal with us. ) As the most celebrated deontologist. Immanuel Kant ( 1724—1804 ) . set the point. we should ne’er handle another individual merely as a agency to our terminals. or ends. but should see them as terminals in themselves.

In other words. I can’t merely utilize a individual to acquire what I want nor can person utilize me to acquire what he or she wants. We have to see that other person’s demands and desires. esteem them. and seek to avoid go againsting them” ( Mosser. 2010 ) . The deontologist in this facet would decide cheery matrimony as saying that all human existences should be treated every bit. They are human existences so they should be treated the same manner that others are being treated. If a adult female and a adult male is able to get married so a adult male and a adult male or a adult female and a adult female should hold that same option.

A deontologist would besides reason that a individual shouldn’t be treated otherwise merely because of their sexual penchants. Deontology is like populating your life by a set of regulations. Now the regulations can be used to force yourself into making the “right” thing. even if you’d instead non. Now this would assist by stating cheery matrimony is right and it is the right thing to make for same-sex twosomes. nevertheless there will ever be exclusions. and this is where the theory falls level on its face. You will ever hold person who will debate this theory.

Relativism is the thought that one’s beliefs and values are understood in footings of one’s society. civilization. or even one’s ain single values. ( Mosser. 2010 ) . Now relativism on the other manus would state for cheery matrimony that what’s incorrect for cheery matrimony is non needfully wrong for person else. Therefore. you have no right to state two work forces or two adult females that they can non get married. merely because you feel personally that it is incorrect. What you believe and hold as true is non necessary what person else believes and holds every bit true.

Relativism would reason that same-sex twosomes ould reason that matrimony is right because this is what they believe in it is portion of their values and beliefs. Relativism says that no affair how you argue a point even if every point is wholly proved you can non alter someone’s beliefs. This will non work because it is their belief based on how they were raised. faith or even their societal influences. I feel that at people whether heterosexual or homosexual should be afforded the same rights under the jurisprudence of our Constitution. I merely wish people would set their differences to the side when it comes to this subject about cheery matrimony.

What truly makes me disquieted is Christian people that I know in my household and at the church they are so speedy to judge person else and state it isn’t right but I am speedy to remind them that we are all evildoers. Even though you may non wish the life style person chose to go forth you can’t do that individual alteration who they are. If they chose to be with another adult male or another adult female that is their privilege. Then they are so speedy to acquire disquieted with the authorities when it comes to these issues. Everyone wants to convey church into political relations.

I truly thing that is a gluey state of affairs and it is so tough given the state that we live in because of the diverseness that our state has experienced. I merely experience that if person choses and wants to get married person from the opposite sex let them. I would state the theory that closely match my belief given the two that I discussed is relativism. I don’t see how cheery matrimony would convey injury to kids that are being raised by homosexual parents. I don’t believe same-sex twosomes should be deprived of certain benefits or rights because of their sexual orientation.

In the article in USA today for homosexual matrimony it states “But forestalling cheery parents from get marrieding injuries their childs. as does denying them equal rights to insurance and Social Security benefits. says Aimee Gelnaw. executive manager of the Family Pride Coalition” ( Elias. 2004 ) . Why should we deny them these rights that they should be entitled to? If two people want to acquire married. neither society nor the authorities should be involved. Religion should halt holding such a large influence of political policies and the deeper the contribution the more they lean towards delighting that peculiar faith.

As stated earlier our Country’s fundamental law allows for the chase of life. autonomy and the chase of felicity. Nothing gives one individual the right to make up one’s mind what is incorrect and what is right when it comes to same-sex twosomes. What would it be like if the Constitution merely allowed certain types of people to be married like merely people who tall and has blond hair or black hair. What if they put some judicial admission that merely whites can get married or merely inkinesss. I am certain that would do an indignation and scram favoritism.

See this is what happens when our authorities puts restrictions on its citizens. This documents has identified some of the ethical jobs with cheery matrimony we have examined what cheery matrimony is like utilizing the deontology and theory and contrasted it with the relativism theory. I am non cheery but I think that a individual should be able to take who they want to be with. I don’t think they should be discriminated against. and at the terminal of the twenty-four hours it is their pick who they decide they want a relationship with. whether it be a individual of the same or opposite sex.

Society is so caught up in being in everyone concern and who is making what we want to state people this is the right manner to populate or you should make things this manner because it is right. Who is to state what that something might be better or right for person else? Lets’ stop coercing our values and beliefs on others and let people to be who there are. If they are Christian and they are cheery or whatever faith they may be I say leave that between them and their God we should non be the 1s judging or reprobating them because of something that they believe in or desire. We are no better than the following individual.