The sanctioning of gay marriage is a moral way forward and has positive outcomes in all aspects of life. Homosexuality it seems is a modern concept in terms of today’s news, especially as the legalization of gay marriages are now at the forefront of today’s current issues. The facts are, homosexuality is not a modern concept or a modern way of life, from as far back as history will allow us to delve it is believed that homosexuality in men has always existed. Many ancient writers, such as Strabo and Athenaeus, wrote that the Gauls or Celts commonly practiced homosexuality.
Aristotle wrote that the Celts “openly held in honor passionate friendship (synousia) between males”. Diodorus Siculus wrote that “Although the Gauls have lovely women, they scarcely pay attention to them, but strangely crave male embraces (arrenon epiplokas). (Norton) As we have moved through the centuries and certainly more towards the end of the last century and into this one, it has become a lesser taboo subject than it once was. The media has brought to our attention, positive and sometimes negative reactions to people who practice same sex relationships.
Even celebrities have, in some ways, brought about a wider recognition of homosexual behaviour and thankfully this has allowed a certain extent of acceptance. The familiarity of reading and viewing such issues has enabled a greater reception and a recognized tolerance for the gay community. From a libertarian point of view, we are discouraged and prohibited from causing any racial or discriminatory behaviour towards others; be more open minded towards differing lifestyles and opinions, and this should not be any different towards homosexuals, or those seeking to enter into a gay marriage.
Ostracizing homosexuals only leads to and breeds a misunderstanding and a promotion of discrimination. Homosexuals do not choose to live this way out of defiance or rebellion; they are born this way and should not be made to feel victimized. A further hindrance in the fight for legalization is the concept that allowing such justification would give confidence to those individuals having the need to marry their pets or walk down the aisle with their blow up dolls. This argument is preposterous as in the first instance there can never be an entry into marriage between any beast and a human.
The beast has no ability to speak and cannot therefore agree to marriage, the same goes for a doll or any animate object. It is difficult enough in this day and age to maintain any kind of relationship and being involved in a gay relationship is no different, perhaps in some cases it is harder, however as society has struggled to come to terms with this behaviour, it should be reminded that any relationship, if it is a healthy relationship, is a good relationship regardless of who is involved and their chosen sexuality.
The legalization of gay marriages will support and promote homosexuality and this should be regarded in a positive way for all those concerned. Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. (Cline) A communatarian standpoint would be that though the above concentrates solely on the personal benefits, the same can be realised when considering the families of gay couples and the communities they live in.
The acceptance and legalization of their unity promotes a healthy attitude and has a constructive influence on others, consequently this influence creates routine, stability, positive role models and a preferred society to live in. Homosexuals are not harming anyone with their intentions of marriage, it is simply the next level of their relationship and they should not be denied this as their right. “When your government puts into place laws that prevent people from being equal they set the stage for those who discriminate to feel justified.
” (Hosty) Legal classification has and can be changed; society and tradition have changed without the need for a legal approval therefore there seems no reason to uphold the argument. It has been said that homosexuality weakens the definition of marriage and that the belief and crusade for legalization will encourage and increase ‘fake’ marriages. Yet who is to say that this does not occur in heterosexual marriages. Attempting to pocket homosexuals into this category of behaviour is a poor attempt of a weak argument and should be disregarded when looking for blame in this area.
The procreation debate is another common case of contention, many believing that marriage should then result in reproduction and in endorsing homosexual behaviour the human race will suffer. Homosexuals do not influence heterosexual people; there will not come a time when there are no heterosexuals left due to homosexuals. Homosexuality is not a recruitment agency. It is not clear why straight people would stop procreating if gays could marry.
The factors driving people to reproduce — the needs for love and to love another, the purported instinct to propagate one’s genes, religious obligations — would still exist if Adam and Steve could marry. No couple has ever been required to procreate in order to marry. No couple has ever even been required to be able to procreate in order to marry. Sterile couples and old couples can marry. Couples physically able to procreate but who do not want to procreate can get married. (Carpenter)
Tradition and family values have also featured in the arguments against gay marriage, yet the world seems to be content to develop in technological and other social customs. No laws have been introduced to prevent heterosexual couples from living together outside of marriage, nor have there been any actions taken against single, heterosexual women adopting children, yet when it comes to homosexuals and the idea of them legally binding their love, this is unacceptable. According to The Bible it clearly condemns all sexual behaviors outside of marriage between one man and one woman.
Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments as an abomination and a violation of God’s standards for sexuality. (Coalition) Yet this is not a law, it is a book of beliefs, a book that many people claim to believe in, yet fail to live by its words. Only choosing what is to suit personal purpose is this referred to. Many people, who claim to believe in The Bible, and its beliefs in respect of homosexuals, do not take into account their own lives and that perhaps they flout the Books scriptures.
None of us live perfect lives, yet there are numerous bigoted people who drive for the argument against something as inoffensive as a homosexual couple showing their love. Statistically speaking it is known that homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals therefore the argument continues that legalization would be encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle. Numerous conflicts make homosexual behaviors abnormal, including rampant promiscuity, inability to maintain commitment, psychiatric disorders and medical illnesses with a shortened life span.
The sexual practices of homosexuals involve serious health risks and illness. Specifically, sodomy as a sexual behavior is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems. Unhealthy sexual behaviors occur among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Yet the medical and social science evidence indicate that homosexual behavior is uniformly unhealthy. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women, not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. (Fitzgibbons)
Heterosexuals also live unsavory lifestyles; drug users, criminals and sexual predators all come in different shapes, sizes, gender and color, being homosexual is not primarily unhealthy and if society were to accept this lifestyle more readily, perhaps the gay community may adapt their lifestyles and take less risks. A loving and stable relationship, albeit a homosexual one, generates maturity and respective values towards one another. Throughout history there have been many definitions of marriage. Usually; A legally recognized union of a man and a woman by ceremony or common law.
(Services) but more recently this has been generalized to identify marriage as two people who are married to each other. The emphasis being on the word ‘people’ implies that there has been an easing of attitude, therefore why would this definition change? If marriage is indeed meant only for procreation purposes, why are infertile couples allowed to enter into marriage when there will be no child borne from the relationship? There are heterosexual couples who have married in later life, with no desire for children and they do not come across such obstacles when making their decision.
From a utilarian aspect, a child will only develop positively in a loving and stable relationship; this can take place in a homosexual relationship just as well as in a ‘conventional’ relationship. There will always be a form of resistance where change is involved. Fear of the unknown, lack of knowledge and more importantly, ignorance will all factor in this struggle to change people’s opinions. The legalization of a gay marriage should not be about the sexuality of the couple; it should be about recognizing and celebrating a couple’s love for one another.
Marriages have changed erratically over the years, respectively considered to be ‘uncool’ or ‘unnecessary. In the past it was thought to be sinful to live with a partner and not enter into marriage, yet our views of this have changed. It is perfectly acceptable to have multiple partners and to cohabit with your chosen partner yet when it comes to those individuals who chose to live together and get married from the same sex, this is not acceptable. There are innumerable ‘slippery slope’ theories that have no ultimate backbone to their arguments.
Anyone it seems, no matter what they engage in, be it any kind of sexual deviance, religious beliefs, personal lifestyle choice, they are given permission to say “I do”, however, if those same people were to be homosexual, their permission would not only be denied but they would suffer judgment and prejudice from those standing court. A persons future happiness should not be determined by small minded and judgemental bureaucrats. It may be a more practical method to way up the statistics of the general public as they are, after all, the majority of the society we have to live in.
The statistics overleaf highlight the conclusion that there seems to be an opposition from the middle aged generation, unable to move on from tradition and their political persuasions. (Times) Carpenter, Dale. Independent Gay Forum – Gay Marriage and Procreation. 18 March 2004. 20 March 2008 <http://www. indegayforum. org/news/show/26665. html>. Cline, August. Gay Rights, Marriage & Homophobia: Ethical & Political Issues: Arguments for Gay Marriage: Moral and Social Arguments for Gay Marriage. 20 March 2008 <http://atheism.
about. com/od/gaymarriage/p/ProGayMarriage. htm>. Coalition, The Traditional Values. Traditional Values Defined – What Are Traditional Values? 20 March 2008 <http://www. traditionalvalues. org/defined. php>. Fitzgibbons, Rick. Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior. 18 September 2003. 20 March 2008 <http://www. personal. psu. edu/glm7/m160. htm>. Hosty, John. Live, Love, and Learn. 12 December 2005. 20 March 2008 <http://livelovelearn247. blogspot. com/2006/08/argument-points-of-gay-marriage. html>.
Norton, Rictor. “Taking a Husband”: “A History of Gay Marriage” Queer Culture. 21 February 2004 (amended 2006). 20 March 2008 <http://www. infopt. demon. co. uk/marriage. htm>. Services, Department of Human. Department of Human Services. 20 March 2008 <http://www. dhs. dc. gov/dhs/cwp/view,a,1345,q,605720,dhsNav_GID,1728,. asp>. Times, The Seattle. Rogue Pundit: Statistics, Gay Marriage and Equal Rights. 28 March 2004. 20 March 2008 <http://roguepundit. typepad. com/roguepundit/2004/03/statistics_gay_. html>. hhhh