What are the justifications for making the same-sex marriage legal in all states and Canada?

The marriage

Do you know how many nations there are in our planet? Do you know what our common characteristic is? All the people in the world have feelings. We all can feel happiness, tiredness, hurt and so on.  For that reason every population have created a constitution which support the equal human rights. What about the love? Many people think that love can exist only between man and woman, that it is the only one right way. But, imagine that your child is a lesbian or gay. Will you support him/her if you know that it is the only way to be happy in his/her life? May be the answer is yes. So the same-sex marriage should be legal. Our society can admit it and the reasons for it are many.

Firstly, as human beings we have an equal rights. Freedom means freedom for everyone. Thus people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish. If they like somebody they should be able to be with him/her. If they want to be officially together in front of their relatives and in front of the country they should be free to do it. For example, a loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. It is why they are only objects according to law, not people who have rights and obligations. One of the most interesting questions is how should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans? Different countries, and even different states in a country, have different opinions. For example, according to a research made by Jones “the Canadian Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Charter of Rights, section 15, these laws were interpreted as allowing samesex couples to marry in the name of equality.”(Jones, 2007, p1)

Secondly, we should be tolerating with each other and not harming them. Since we were children, our parents and teachers from our schools had told us that we must respect other people and had been tolerant with them. For example, our mothers thought us to give our dolls or cars to other children to play with them, in the garden in front of a block. Or our teachers in first grades taught us to help our classmate no matter of his religion, color of skin, sex, etc. Moreover, in many constitutions it is written that we can do everything which not harm other people. For example, when we steal something we harm someone else. Let think a little bit about the case of same-sex marriage. The gay people are also people like heterosexuals, thus we should be tolerate with them and respect theirs` will. They will not harm us if they marriage but if we do not allow them to be with each other we will harm them. We will damage their lives. So, why we must be bad and create problems for them?

Thirdly, even the golden rule says to us that we must treat others in the way in which we want other treat us. However, many people firm that in different religion the same-sex marriage is said to be no right. But now is 21st century.  We pretend that our society is highly developed. Therefore, we should be able to interpretate better the rules in different religions and think about the common characteristics.  We can see that people in more developed countries started doing it. For example, Campbell and Monson (2008) stated it in their research:

While it is overly simplistic to attribute Bush’s victory entirely to his social conservatism generally, and his position on gay marriage specifically, there is nonetheless reason to think that gay marriage helped the Bush campaign mobilize two especially important constituencies—white evangelical Christians and Catholics. In states with a gay marriage ban on the ballot, more evangelicals and Catholics turned out to vote. (p399-419)

The golden rule is a rule which is typical for all religions in the world and it is also valid in business ethics. If we follow it we should put us in the situation of gays. We could imagine that our favorite person for who we will give everything and with whom we want to spend our life is from the same sex we are. Then we must think how we would feel in this position and the most important thing – how we would like other people threat us. Then we could decide how to treat gay and lesbians and is the same-sex marriage moral or wrong.

Fourthly, to be a gay or lesbian is something natural, it is even one of the main necessities in human`s life – the love. People need water and food in order to keep their lives. In the same way we also need love in order to be psychically live. We can choose the person with whom we will share our life but we cannot choose the person who we will love. To be homosexual or heterosexual is something which we cannot decide. For instance, in the same way we cannot decide what will be the color of our skin or the color of our hair. However, we all have the need to love and been loved. Thus we should fight for our right to survive and we should not been impressed to express freely our nature.

Furthermore, in the research of Halwani, Jaeger, et al.(2008), John Corvino has outlined five ways in which critics have frequently portrayed homosexuality as being unnatural:

The first portrayal (invoking statistical abnormality) does not seem

to capture what is immoral in an action. Many things we do fall outside

statistical norms, and yet we consider them to be ethically neutral if not

ethically valuable. In fact, great feats of accomplishment or altruism are

quite abnormal, and we praise them not only in spite of their abnormality

but because of their abnormality. The second portrayal (claiming that no

other animals practice homosexuality) is simply false: homosexuality

appears all across the animal kingdom. Furthermore, what do we gain from

looking at other animals? Complex rational function is not practiced by

other animals, and yet many of us think that there is some connection

between rationality and morality. The third portrayal (asserting that

homosexuality does not flow from innate desire) might also be false:

significant scientific data suggest that homosexuality is innate. Of course, the innateness of sexual desire cannot be what makes it permissible. After all, we consider many innate desires, like the disposition toward violence, to be impermissible. The portrayal of homosexuality as disgusting and repulsive is ethically unsound because, as I will show, it relies on a radically subjectivist position that cannot help but degrade into moral nihilism. This leaves the debate over the natural or principal purpose of sexuality as the only tenable argument, but one that is also doomed to fail, because it falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy (p.433-471).

Finally, we can see that homosexuality is something natural and we can understand that may be the same-sex marriage should be something normal, too.

On the other hand, there are many people who are against same-sex marriage because they are scared what will happen with gay and lesbian`s children, how it will influence them. People are just asking how will feel the children with gay parents, will they miss a mother or a father, what sex orientation they will have and many other questions of this type. Linde (2010) reports in her research that the same-sex marriage could limit children`s right to have both mother and father:

The well being of children of heterosexual unions is a key logic in rulings against samesex marriage in recent court cases in Washington, New York and the current court case over Proposition 8 in California. This paper will being with an examination of the historical development of children’s rights and welfare vis-à-vis their parents in the U.S. and in international law and how these arguments have been used to defend ‘traditional’ marriage. The paper will suggest that international law and institutions addressing children’s rights and welfare have created a globalized child, one that possesses the same needs and wants and requires identical rights. According to international laws and norms addressing children, all children under age 18 cannot be denied these rights regardless of gender, nationality, religion and other social markers that are employed to categorize children. This paper will argue that opposition to samesex marriage based on distinguishing rights for some children (those of heterosexual parents) as opposed to other children (those of queer unions) is ultimately unsustainable given the trends in children’s rights nationally and internationally in the last 60 years. (p.31)

In conclusion, there are different opinions about the same-sex marriage as well as there are various statements for and against it. Everybody has its own theories about what is right and what is wrong. As a whole we should tolerate other people`s opinions and in the case of the homosexual marriage we could accept it because if they marry they do not harm us. Moreover there are many orphan children who can receive better life with gay parents than fight to survive in live alone. If there is love which can spawn (born) a very good and happy family why we have to damage it and spread sadness in the world?

                                                     Reference

Jones, J. (2007). Common Constitutional Traditions and Same-Sex Marriage in the EU, USA, and Canada. Conference Papers — Law & Society, 1. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=119&sid=76eb1cee-60e9-4e29-90c6-d319908a05ff%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=sih&AN=2

Halwani, R., Jaeger, G., Stramel, J., Nunan, R., Wilkerson, W., & Murphy, T. (2008). What is gay and lesbian philosophy? Methaphilosophy, 39(4), 433-471. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=107&sid=1ec1369f-0067-4959-853c-3bfb60167495%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3

Campbell, D., & Monson, Q. (2008). Religion card. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 399-419. Abstract retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=107&sid=1ec1369f-0067-4959-853c-3bfb60167495%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=3

Linde, R. (2010). Lavender Diaper Babies: International Children’s Rights and the Battle over         Same-Sex Marriage. Conference Papers — International Studies Association, 1. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=107&sid=d6b103b2-87d8-4f0c-ac93-3b470fef929d%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=59232327

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s