Hey everyone! So recently I have seen quite a few people posting their work for writing assignments on the topic of homosexuality. Since I have taken an ethics course this semester, I have had the opportunity to openly write a lot more about the topic as well. I post this work simply with the hope that someone finds it entertaining or enjoyable, just as I have when I have read other's assignments. Please read at your leisure, and thanks! (Sorry it's so long) Online Discussion Post for Same Sex Marriage: Gays, homosexuals, or however such an individual chooses to identify have the legal, moral, and believe it or not, religious right to marriage. First of all, it is important to remember that being gay is similar to the color of our hair. The way we express our sexual preferences is a choice and how we expose our sexuality is a choice, much like how we can choose to express our hair color. Similarly, same-sex attraction can be masked but is still an uncontrollable absolute nonetheless; something that cannot be chosen. The only choice in the matter is how our preferences are expressed and shown to others. That being said, the rights of these individuals must be recognized. The rights of this country’s citizens shall not be abridged or denied. Therefore, withholding the choice of marriage and of a life between two individuals is a direct contradiction to the beliefs and principles that our nation was founded upon. It is a violation of the extensions of our constitution, although not directly stated, to withhold these rights from any citizen, despite sexual orientation. Another thing to consider is the idea that, if marriage is originally defined in the Bible, have we not kept up with our commitment to the separation of church and state? Many would agree that marriage today is founded upon the love between individuals, their desire to be together, and to some extent, the legal benefits of such a union. This right is therefore deserving of all citizens. We also have a moral obligation to marriage equality. Anyone who feels that they are currently in love or have ever been in love can understand the feelings associated with such emotion. A heterosexual would most likely find the idea of a relationship or even an attraction for someone of the same sex to be unappealing. The same follows for someone who is gay, only with someone of the opposite sex. It was never a choice of theirs, but regardless this person has fallen in love with another person (the difference being of the same sex) for any reason, most of the time probably for the same reasons heterosexuals fall in love. How can one who has experienced the joy of love and a significant other’s company consciously remove that from another’s life? Finally, as many may not believe, homosexuality has its place in both the Bible and the Church. It’s interesting to find that a religion that claims to be as accepting of all of God’s creations can deny the rights, freedoms, and happiness of individuals who may fully identify as Christians (or what-have-you) and follow the beliefs, yet still be outcast in a sense from their religious community. It doesn't make any sense that someone of faith and who is an asset to the community be treated as a second class citizen based on sexual orientation. The Bible teaches tolerance, acceptance, and love of thy neighbor yet breaks its golden policy in this one instance. In the end, marriage equality is the legal, moral, and Christian thing to accept. The love between two individuals should be recognized, especially considering that such same-sex attractions do not constitute choice in the matter and have a direct impact on the mental, physical, and spiritual well-being of fellow people, fellow humans. Term Paper on Same Sex Marriage: Homosexuality is pervasive throughout history and has existed in many cultures for thousands of years in the course of mankind. Relationships between such individuals have been just as common as the actions themselves. Despite such great historical precedence, homosexual, or more recently termed “gay” relationships, are still condemned within the world today. However, it is important to understand the dynamics of such relationships, as not only they themselves, but also their representation has evolved over time. Whether viewed as a blessing or a sin, such relationships are becoming more customary and must be recognized as a prevalent and irrefutable reality. As these types of interpersonal relationships become more commonplace, those who are engaged within them are beginning to seek the same fair treatment as their heterosexual counterparts who still remain in the majority. This creates some conflict between the two groups as the majority seeks to more or less maintain the status quo and the minority works towards change. This is where the question of ethics is introduced into the dilemma as to whether these relationships between members of the same sex have a right to be formally recognized before not only the law, but their respective religious institution and their peers. Perhaps the most significant factor in the debate over whether same sex marriage has any legitimacy is the religious factor. For those who have followed any of the debate, the Biblical phrase of “marriage is between a man and a woman” should bring forth strong memories. This is one of the strongest arguments against the issue. The citation of this line from the book of Matthew has become the “go-to” phrase, if you will, in the argument. This raises some interesting questions when evaluating this topic in light of the ethical issues of God and ethics. These ethical theories work towards not only answering the question of God’s existence, but also His will and influence. We must ask ourselves; if God truly does exist and represents all the good in the world, what bearing does that have on the goodness of same sex relationships? If God is responsible for the creation of all that is and all that He creates is good, then would that not make same sex marriage good or at the very least acceptable by extension? Finally, the theories associated with ethics and God state that God gave man a purpose and it is only moral to follow that purpose and therefore immoral to betray that purpose. In that case, is it not moral to follow our instincts as a guide, with our ingrained sense of sexuality being one of those God-given characteristics? These are all pertinent questions to ask when evaluating the ethicality of same sex marriage. However, these questions are far less considered in the real world debate. Rather, the proponents of same sex marriage simply feel that there is a place for such marriages to fit within the religion while the opponents simply cite phrases and personal interpretations from the Bible based more on personal convictions than objective analysis. Another significant issue with the debate over same sex marriage involves the quest for political and legal equality despite sexual orientation, regardless of the religious aspect. Many of the rights afforded to married couples by the state and federal government are withheld from same sex couples despite antidiscrimination laws that are in place and regularly enforced. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which reaffirms the Biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman, provides for many rights that would once be claimed by couples but are no longer applicable to partners of civil unions because it is not considered a marriage by federal standards. These rights are vital to both the financial success of a relationship, as many of them include rights to tax reductions and benefits, but also signify a greater meaning to those involved in the marriage. Same sex couples desire the recognition of their commitment to each other just as heterosexuals do, while at the same time feel that they deserve equal rights and benefits under the law. This plays into the idea of another ethical theory that we know as Ethical Egoism. This ethical theory tells us what we should or ought to do. In essence, our actions are only ethical when they are working in our own self interest. At first glance, it would appear that those in favor of same sex marriage are the ethical egoists in this situation. However, this theory plays in both ways. While it is true that there is a sense of ethical egoism among same sex proponents in that they seek marriage rights for their own benefit, something similar can be said for heterosexuals. Those in “traditional” marriages also seek those benefits but don’t have to publicly fight for the rights because they are already afforded to them. It is also undeniable that some heterosexuals, not all, are actively fighting against the cause of granting same sex couples these rights. In this case these individuals are acting in their perceived self interest as well (I say perceived because there doesn’t appear to be any real reason not to grant these rights other than personal convictions, which still fits in with ethical egoism). In this way both same sex couples and heterosexual couples become ethical egoists as both fight for what they believe is a solution to the issue. Both the ethical theories of God & ethics as well as Ethical Egoism have difficulties in dealing with the issue of same sex marriage. God & ethics doesn’t quite solve the issue of marriage equality because one side of the debate is too polarized from the other for there to be any meaningful compromise. The proponents of marriage equality will argue that such relationships can find a place within their religious beliefs while opponents believe there is no such place and strongly condemn the idea. Ethical Egoism also doesn’t quite solve the issue for generally the same reason; that there is not enough common ground between both sides. Proponents will tell you that same sex couples deserve the right to marriage and all the benefits that accompany that, but some heterosexuals take the opposite position and say that they simply do not, usually citing back to Biblical references and other sources that do not serve as concrete arguments in today’s society. As one may be able to tell from my tone within the previous statement, I myself am a fairly strong proponent for the acceptance of same sex marriage. I believe in a few principles that have led me to this position. I believe that two consenting adults should have the right to be with and act how they choose with whomever they choose behind closed doors. I believe that individuals not only in this country but around the world as well have a universal right to happiness, and that if marrying someone of the same sex is instrumental in achieving that happiness, then those individuals have that right. I also believe that the personal rights of freedoms of individuals should not be denied in any case, especially in a situation such as this in which the consequences are so insignificant and negligible for those around them. I personally promote a sense of tolerance and understanding for this issue, as no one can understand how the other person is feeling without directly being in their position. I am unsure of how this issue can be resolved. I think the most important step to solving this issue is reducing the role of religion in our formation of opinions. I think that most will agree that gay couples deserve the same rights but do not want to see them married because of a previous background in a religion and the ingrained idea that marriage only exists between a man and a woman. I believe that once religion no longer becomes so directly interpreted as it is in the case of the Bible then we can see some real progress in the founding of marriage equality. Homosexuality is becoming more and more prevalent in the world today. By extension, same sex relationships are also becoming more common and more accepted. The fight over whether these relationships can be formally recognized as a marriage however still rages on. In light of certain ethical theories, including God & ethics and Ethical Egoism, the issue is not able to be easily solved because of strong divisions between opponents and proponents. However, I remain hopeful that in the near future, same sex couples will receive the equal rights and treatment, both legally, religiously, and socially, that they deserve in America today.
