Same-Sex Marriage: Unethical or None of Your Business?
You must login to vote
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.