Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Dec 30, 2004 1:40:11 GMT -5
ahhhh yes, yet another paper. don't worry, you don't have to post this extensively, this is just to start up some discussions.
Same sex couples have had problems in this country trying to get equal rights for some time now. Most notably, the issue of same sex marriage, or “Gay Marriage.” I hope to be able to, in this essay, show that marriage should not be limited to merely between a man and a woman.
In the 2004 presidential election in the US, in many states, there was a proposal on the ballot to amend each state’s constitution to limit and/or ban same-sex unions. Many of these passed, one of the more notable amendments, so called Proposal 2, in Michigan, not only banned same-sex marriages, but also any other kind of “similar union for any purpose.” It is this phrase which I want to talk about first. This phrase bans any form of civil union available to gay or lesbian couples. In other words, there is no longer any possible way for a same-sex couple to get any of the benefits available to traditional man-woman marriages, including tax breaks, an extension of health care, and any other benefits, to the spouse by the employer, even visiting rights at a hospital in which their spouse is a patient. The phrase “similar union for any purpose” eliminates any possibility for equality among heter- and homo-sexual couples. It has long been an ideal held by this country that all men are created equal, by passing a law such as this, the state is saying “we no longer acknowledge that gays or lesbians deserve to be given the same privileges and responsibilities of a ‘normal’ citizen of the United States.” This I do not believe is right, or, for that matter, legal.
An opponent may respond to this, they may believe that, because the issue of same-sex marriage is the defense of the sacred religious nature of the term and ceremony for ‘marriage,’ and because Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, a same-sex marriage is not something that should be allowed. The reason for the phrase “similar union for any purpose,” according to said opponent, would be to ensure that marriage, as a union between 2 people, remains strictly a union between a man and a woman, and that no other union exist that would encroach on marriage’s traditional place.
My response to this would be that, although it is the church’s right to describe the bounds of the ceremony which they created, it is not within their right to dictate how a nation will protect their traditions. In the United States, there is an ideal that goes something along lines of “separation of church and state.” This basically means that, when the government is making a decision, a person’s religious beliefs should not be taken into account, as there are so many differing view points. A religious system has no right to draw out the already enormous inequalities within our society, as we are a nation founded on equality.
If Gay Marriage were allowed or legalized, some people fear, it would damage the notion of ‘marriage’ itself. ‘Where do you draw the line?’ They would ask. If a government starts making exceptions for Gay Marriage, how much farther would it have to go before it started legalizing Polygamy for the Mormons? It is therefore argued that, because marriage has traditionally been defined as one man and one woman, there’s no reason to change it, that changing it now would be allowing room for many more changes later on. Marriage is a religious institution, a Christian institution, and allowing something like Gay Marriage would be eliminating any sort of definition of marriage itself.
Marriage is not simply a Christian institution. Marriage has been around historically since before civilization, a way of organizing societies and keeping track of lineages. Why do we now limit ourselves to the Christian view of Marriage when, as a nation, we have declared ourselves to be a secular state. Historically many kinds of marriage have existed, everything from one man many wives to one wife many men, and anything in between. Gay Marriage is not a far cry from the Christian ideal; after all, it is still two people.
The problem with this is, a government has to create limits, without limits, there will be people finding loopholes around the laws in place. Without limits, the populace will attempt to exploit the absence of any sort of set limit, if any kind of reason can be stated for a marriage, any kind of marriage allowed; it will destroy even the legal meaning of marriage, and render it a pointless and useless institution. The beginning of this can be seen today, with the popularity of divorce. Divorces have become so easy to get, a person getting married no longer sees marriage as a permanent thing.
Setting no limits is a bad thing, surely; however being too stringent with the rules will allow old, outdated institutions to remain in existence. As previously stated, by outlawing any form of Gay Marriage we are, in fact, conforming to previously held moral values. However, with these values being supported and adopted legally, we are also encouraging the negative aspects of said ‘values,’ such as discrimination. Because Gay or Lesbian pairs are unable to do the same thing a ‘normal’ person is allowed to do under the law, they are ‘obviously’ lesser people, and do not deserve as much respect. That sort of attitude can not be allowed to remain, as, whether a Gay person chooses his or her sexual preference or is born with it, we must not forget what our founding fathers said so eloquently, ‘all men are created equal.’ They should, therefore, be equal under the law.
This brings me to my next point. Not only is it wrong to ban same-sex marriages altogether, it is also wrong to limit them to civil unions. On the same principle of affirmative action, by creating legal divisions among people whether it be African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites, or Gays, Lesbians, and Straights, the division becomes part of the people’s subconscious, and therefore an innate separation and discrimination or prejudice exists. The integrity of the tradition of marriage is important, yes, but the continuation of social inequalities are a huge price to pay for something like this. By creating a difference in how couples are labeled, you are creating a difference in how they are perceived by society, and by individuals.
I believe that I have shown that bans on same-sex marriages are very detrimental to today’s society. Especially in the United States because of our so-called ‘ideal’ of equality and I see no reason why we should not attempt to approach such an ideal, whether achievable or not.
Same sex couples have had problems in this country trying to get equal rights for some time now. Most notably, the issue of same sex marriage, or “Gay Marriage.” I hope to be able to, in this essay, show that marriage should not be limited to merely between a man and a woman.
In the 2004 presidential election in the US, in many states, there was a proposal on the ballot to amend each state’s constitution to limit and/or ban same-sex unions. Many of these passed, one of the more notable amendments, so called Proposal 2, in Michigan, not only banned same-sex marriages, but also any other kind of “similar union for any purpose.” It is this phrase which I want to talk about first. This phrase bans any form of civil union available to gay or lesbian couples. In other words, there is no longer any possible way for a same-sex couple to get any of the benefits available to traditional man-woman marriages, including tax breaks, an extension of health care, and any other benefits, to the spouse by the employer, even visiting rights at a hospital in which their spouse is a patient. The phrase “similar union for any purpose” eliminates any possibility for equality among heter- and homo-sexual couples. It has long been an ideal held by this country that all men are created equal, by passing a law such as this, the state is saying “we no longer acknowledge that gays or lesbians deserve to be given the same privileges and responsibilities of a ‘normal’ citizen of the United States.” This I do not believe is right, or, for that matter, legal.
An opponent may respond to this, they may believe that, because the issue of same-sex marriage is the defense of the sacred religious nature of the term and ceremony for ‘marriage,’ and because Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, a same-sex marriage is not something that should be allowed. The reason for the phrase “similar union for any purpose,” according to said opponent, would be to ensure that marriage, as a union between 2 people, remains strictly a union between a man and a woman, and that no other union exist that would encroach on marriage’s traditional place.
My response to this would be that, although it is the church’s right to describe the bounds of the ceremony which they created, it is not within their right to dictate how a nation will protect their traditions. In the United States, there is an ideal that goes something along lines of “separation of church and state.” This basically means that, when the government is making a decision, a person’s religious beliefs should not be taken into account, as there are so many differing view points. A religious system has no right to draw out the already enormous inequalities within our society, as we are a nation founded on equality.
If Gay Marriage were allowed or legalized, some people fear, it would damage the notion of ‘marriage’ itself. ‘Where do you draw the line?’ They would ask. If a government starts making exceptions for Gay Marriage, how much farther would it have to go before it started legalizing Polygamy for the Mormons? It is therefore argued that, because marriage has traditionally been defined as one man and one woman, there’s no reason to change it, that changing it now would be allowing room for many more changes later on. Marriage is a religious institution, a Christian institution, and allowing something like Gay Marriage would be eliminating any sort of definition of marriage itself.
Marriage is not simply a Christian institution. Marriage has been around historically since before civilization, a way of organizing societies and keeping track of lineages. Why do we now limit ourselves to the Christian view of Marriage when, as a nation, we have declared ourselves to be a secular state. Historically many kinds of marriage have existed, everything from one man many wives to one wife many men, and anything in between. Gay Marriage is not a far cry from the Christian ideal; after all, it is still two people.
The problem with this is, a government has to create limits, without limits, there will be people finding loopholes around the laws in place. Without limits, the populace will attempt to exploit the absence of any sort of set limit, if any kind of reason can be stated for a marriage, any kind of marriage allowed; it will destroy even the legal meaning of marriage, and render it a pointless and useless institution. The beginning of this can be seen today, with the popularity of divorce. Divorces have become so easy to get, a person getting married no longer sees marriage as a permanent thing.
Setting no limits is a bad thing, surely; however being too stringent with the rules will allow old, outdated institutions to remain in existence. As previously stated, by outlawing any form of Gay Marriage we are, in fact, conforming to previously held moral values. However, with these values being supported and adopted legally, we are also encouraging the negative aspects of said ‘values,’ such as discrimination. Because Gay or Lesbian pairs are unable to do the same thing a ‘normal’ person is allowed to do under the law, they are ‘obviously’ lesser people, and do not deserve as much respect. That sort of attitude can not be allowed to remain, as, whether a Gay person chooses his or her sexual preference or is born with it, we must not forget what our founding fathers said so eloquently, ‘all men are created equal.’ They should, therefore, be equal under the law.
This brings me to my next point. Not only is it wrong to ban same-sex marriages altogether, it is also wrong to limit them to civil unions. On the same principle of affirmative action, by creating legal divisions among people whether it be African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites, or Gays, Lesbians, and Straights, the division becomes part of the people’s subconscious, and therefore an innate separation and discrimination or prejudice exists. The integrity of the tradition of marriage is important, yes, but the continuation of social inequalities are a huge price to pay for something like this. By creating a difference in how couples are labeled, you are creating a difference in how they are perceived by society, and by individuals.
I believe that I have shown that bans on same-sex marriages are very detrimental to today’s society. Especially in the United States because of our so-called ‘ideal’ of equality and I see no reason why we should not attempt to approach such an ideal, whether achievable or not.
