Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(2 votes)

RatingRated by

You must login to vote

Same-Sex Marriage: Unethical or None of Your Business?

In this day and age, there are thousands of social issues running rampant through politics, religion, and the media. With so many behaviors now deemed “acceptable” by some, yet frowned upon by others, we, the people, cannot help but be confused by the mixed signals being sent to us. Should teenage girls be allowed to run around town half-naked? Should abortions be an issue in government? Should it be okay for the President to cheat on his wife and then lie about it publicly? All issues have valid arguments coming from both the pro and con sides. However, I feel that it is not right to make an amendment that excludes same-sex couples from having a legally recognized marriage. I feel that it smells unpleasantly of bigotry and is, in my estimation, a breach of one’s freedom to express oneself. My opinion is based on my morals, ethics, and the way I really feel about other controversial issues.

Same-sex marriage is currently an issue in both politics and religion. Does the “union” of a man and another man or a woman and another woman fly in the face of tradition? Is it really unacceptable to recognize these individuals as legally married simply because it is not the traditional union of a man and a woman? Who can rightfully define what exactly a marriage should consist of? We all know that marriage should have a foundation of love, yet we also know that there are many marriages (even some high profile ones) that are obviously not truly based on love. In the Bible, it is made clear that Eve was made out of Adam so that Adam would not be lonely and so that there would be a way for man to procreate. Homosexuality is not a widely accepted concept throughout the religious world, from Christianity, to Judaism, to Buddhism. There is a fervor of homophobic-attitudes taught and preached in religion. In this respect I personally feel that if a church chooses not to recognize a same-sex marriage based on the teachings of the Bible, then that is fine; it is simply going along with the church’s doctrine. However, when politics become involved in the decision as to whether or not same-sex marriage should be legally recognized, a line must be drawn.

Lately, it has been all over the news. Who is a political figure fit to determine the “meaning” of marriage? Traditionally, marriages were based on financial situations, the necessity to procreate, and in some cases even love. In this day and age, with teen pregnancies occurring by the minute, there is surely no threat of us suddenly finding ourselves on the brink of extinction. Procreation is no longer a major concern as it was in historically; in fact there are many heterosexual couples who choose not to have children. Marriage should be based on the idea of a union between a person and another person who love each other and want to live their lives together—regardless of their sexual orientation.

The major stigma that I find attached to this entire topic is the fact that it seems to blatantly contradict what the United States of America tries to define itself as: a free country. A country in which one is free to express oneself, free to say what one wants, free to publish what one wants, yet not free to marry who one wants? Weird. Some say that marriage must be protected in order for children to grow up in an “emotionally stable” environment. It seems to me that an “emotionally stable” environment would be defined as a setting where children can grow up without being taught to be prejudiced and homophobic. Instead of focusing on what we shouldn’t do in order for children to grow up unbiased and unprejudiced, we, as a society, should focus on what we should do. If all society did was shelter children from the realities and concepts of life, our next generations would create world of prejudiced and close-minded individuals. Acceptance of a person’s color is something that is widely taught in the United States. Why should acceptance of a gay or lesbian marriage not be something that is taught as well? If children were initially brought up to accept and recognize same-sex couples for what they feel strongly for, there would be a smaller statistic for hate crimes and children wouldn’t grow up with prejudices with which society burdens them.

I feel that there is no validity to the claim that marriage must be preserved between a man and a woman. This claim is simply bogus and narrow-minded. Obviously, times have changed. “Traditions” in the U.S. have been changed or adjusted numerous times to suit people’s needs. When amendments in the constitution were written, women were considered subordinate and even seen as property of the men they married. This is certainly not the case in this day and age with women’s rights, etcetera. Traditions and customs change with time, and that idea needs to be accepted. I feel that members of Congress should take a step back and realize that a same-sex marriage is not the most ground-breaking or devastating development in the course of history. Congress needs to reassess its decision before it writes bigotry into our constitution.


The following comments are for "Same-Sex Marriage: Unethical or None of Your Business?"
by surfnsun04

Courts are in place to administer justice based on the laws handed down through legislation. I dread the day that the courts have more law making power than the representatives elected by the people. That is when you truly have to fear, because the prejudices of individual or panels of judges will outweight the chosen voice of the people.

Your article makes several engaging statements; some due to their insight and others due to the lack of consideration they show for opposing viewpoints. You've actually inspired me to write a response article (stay tuned, I'll post it on here heh heh).

Policing morality is the domain of the government. Laws against pedophelia, slavery, and other moral crimes exist within our country solely because these moral issues are deemed unacceptable in the country. This is a moral issue and should probably be put to a vote so the entire population can voice their individual opinion. Then and only then can laws reflecting the true will of the people be enacted.

I'll leave it at that for now. (Just a little teaser for the article heh heh) Expect something else by the weekend. ;)

( Posted by: Capulet [Member] On: March 11, 2004 )

echo that
I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, and Penelope's, too. The U. S. government has been trying to legislate morality for years, and this is one of the more blatant attempts. Personally, I see no need to worry whether another person is gay; in most cases another person's sexuality is not evident enough to merit detection, which is to say most of us mind our own business anyway. I am surprised you haven't mentioned the agenda our government wishes to impose by taking a fairly religious stance toward marriage and abortion.
Technically speaking, I think you were a little bit repetitious. It being such a great topic, you have so much you could delve into without ever repeating any of it.

( Posted by: brickhouse [Member] On: March 13, 2004 )

You said it surf
I liked this opinion very much. I think it was great the way it was. The reference to the President, was for me, DEAD ON! I can totally see what you are trying to say.

I agree that if acceptance of homosexuals was tought in schools the way that "african-american" issues are, then there would be a HUGE change in the plight of gays....for the better.

While marrige does include a minister and sometimes a religion (many people opt for having their weddings sans the GOD) it also includes a certificate and permit given by the GOVERNMENT, as permission to marry. So, the opinion that having a wedding has to include a religion that may not support gay marriges is bogus. Marrige is also a formal goverment contractual agreement between two people.

I don't know why any one would say "I don't know why there is so much attention to this subject" UM's because for years America has been preaching FREEDOM and EQUALITY.WE NEED FREEDOM FOR ALL LIKE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS< THAT'S WHY IT'S AN ISSUE...UGH! HELL we have gone to other countries to "liberate" them, meanwhile the same fucking president is attempting to stop homosexual unities. Now to me, that is part of the reason that, at times, I am ashamed to be an American. Why would you preach all this acceptance shit if you only extend it to certain groups. Why would you liberate women and children in another country because they are repressed and then take away rights in your own country. that is down right stupid as shit. When ya'll see God, tell him he created us to love anyone we want, and if he wanted it different, he shouldn't have created us with FREE WILL. He could have made us mindless clones, but he didn't, he gave us a choice, and it's up to him to take away the right to love and marry.

The view of gays is changing rapidly. i can tell you that the MEDIA has done more for the Human Rights Campaign than the U.S. government ever has. If it wasn't for all the gay shows on TV now, gay rights will still be back a couple of decades. The fact that these shows are successful, and thrive on LOYAL STRAIGHT AUDIENCES, goes to show that the PUBLIC abroad doesn't really have a problem, but the politicians putting a foot up homosexual asses trying to stop their freedom, is a feeble attempt to hang on to he part that religion in the constitution. America was based on freedom of religion, and many laws reflect that.

ALL I KNOW, IS THAT IF BUSH IS REELECTED AFTER MY VOTE, I WILL HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT THIS COUNTRY FOR THE TENURE OF THIS TERM! He is trying to make a predjudice statement, stupid texan back road asshole that he is. I think that his current attempt to ban gay marriage may be what kills his chance of being the Head Redneck in Charge. America is tired of OPPRESSING CERTAIN GROUPS. WE continue to do it, decade after decade we target a group and try and kill their spirit. it's alwasy that spirit that remains in the end, and everything else just fades away. Those people never forget what they had to do to overthrow the societal mindset, so when the big men pick on the next group, the group before is right there backing up new victims. Gays today are in the position that Martin Luther King, Jr. and his crusade were in 50 years ago. We will unite, and we will beat some constitutional ASS!

thanks for this piece, I enjoyed it, and share your sentiment, and unlike other responders, I think it was worded just fine. Sure, every piece could be wittled down and edited to death, but this one didn't need it. It's an opinion, and a DAMN GOOD ONE TOO! I just wish I had read it before I submitted my Gay Pop essay. it would have given me the perspectiveI was looking for. Thanks surfnsun04, you're FAB-U-LOUS!

( Posted by: johnb79 [Member] On: March 14, 2004 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.