Approval and Promotion of Gay Marriage, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Same Sex Marriage or gay marriage has been introduced in line with the recognition of the equal rights of the members of the human society. It could be assumed that somehow, with the emergence of this matter, the recognition of human rights have been further strengthened as it supports not only the “supposed to be normal” but also that of the matters concerning what humans actually want. Although it already has been accepted legal and has been approved even by some religions around the globe, it still raises the question of whether or not it does support the immorality for the sake of imposing the rights of humans to “love” and be accepted as what and who they are.

In the discussion that follows, a definition of what gay marriage is and how it has been pursued by its supporters shall be presented. Along with that, a considerable indication on what is defined to be a folly of the law shall also be pointed out as the probable flaw of the legalization of such relationships among people belong to the same group of genders.

Understanding Gay Marriage

The year 2001 has been the turning point of the recognition of this particular law and how it has spurred from being a legal controversy into becoming a legally approved law in ten countries around the globe[1]. Among the countries that has approved this particular law are Argentina, Canada, Netherlands, Spain and several others that believed that same-sex marriage is a mere presentation of ‘love” and should be recognized as a normal form of bond between two people feeling that affection for each other[2]. Later on, some states in America opened their minds to the matter and accepted the said legal implication of human rights. This however did not only involve putting in the new law in line with the others, it specifically involved changing the existing marriage laws and structure that the international family code has ones known.

Marriage was a considered as a sacred connection between two people loving each other. Bounded by legalities and morals, two people [from opposite genders] are to be placed together, bonded and be set to create a family that would stand as the foundation of each society’s ground work. However, in the instance of introducing same-sex marriage to the society, this definition of marriage has slowly changed. Instead of being a moral bond, it has become a contract or partnership that simply puts two different people [some states and countries dropped the gender specifications on this part of the definition] to live together. It was as if marriage has become just a mere agreement between two people that has lesser concern on morals but on emotions.

To avoid the conflicts between the real meaning of marriage and that of the partnership of same-sex couples, the pursuance of other terms have been considered. Nonetheless, the term “gay marriage” has become a well known connotation that is used by many at present. Other states utilize the term “civil union”[3] however supporters of the said movement impose on the idea that this is a mere legalization, they want to be recognized as real couples; hence creating an impacting definition of the union as “marriage”.

What has been considered to pursue it?

The theory of emotivism specifically notes that ethical conditions grow in line with the emotional attitudes of the society[4]. What and how an individual feels about a matter is then considered to have a great impact on how the foundations of social ethics should change. Governed by the analytical and logical definition of what is right based on the current situations of the society, this theory supports change and recognizes it to be a huge contributory factor on how social norms should be recognized. Back then, marriages were considered to be for people belonging to different genders. Putting together two individuals from the same genders was a taboo that specifically raised a question of morality and defiance against the real definition of “families”. However, at the turn of the 19th century, when liberalization has been further introduced, the realization of the need to recognize human rights in different levels have been given way.

Even churches tried to use the bible’s admonition on putting together two people that love each other and should not be torn apart by anyone. Understanding that even gay individuals are humans two and have the capability to love, some religious leaders argue that why should these individuals be given lesser consideration than those undergoing heterosexual marriages? The recognition of equal rights among all demanded that even in marriage, people should be given the right to choose who they are supposed to live their lives with. Considerably, the recognition of this matter has lead towards the creation of a law that fully indicates who are allowed to marry or to live together in a legal term.

True, gays are humans too, and they too have emotions. However, churches might have forgotten the bible’s recommendation on the high standards of morality especially when it comes to marriage. Take note what Leviticus 18:22 states as it says: “…and you must not lie down with a male, same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing”[5]. Beside this, God himself has authored the first and legal union of marriage which he himself administered between a man and a woman and not otherwise. This imposes that God himself knew what marriage was for and how it should be recognized by humans at that. This vision of marriage has changed gradually and churches obviously began to load down on imposing these particular laws from the bible.

Media of course even makes the campaign for such matter a stronger pattern of social development. At present, when celebrities or important individuals in the society come out and mention that they are “gays”, people praise them for their courage and encourages them to be stronger in their chosen path of life. No more are they judged, instead they are helped and are further encouraged to live their lives normally as others in the society would. This further supports the course of promoting gay marriage and the legal background that backs it up as a form of an acceptable union between two people belonging to the same gender.

The application of emotivism has caused a debate about what should be considered right and what should be considered wrong. The covering of the fact that the conduct of homosexuals are at some point detestable especially when it comes to sexual immorality has all made the sexual preferences and actions of these individuals accepted and approved in line with the recognition of the right of humans to live the way they want to[6]; but what of the rights of others to live in a morally distinct society? Children who are born to such a society that welcomes such practice, would they not have a questionable understanding of the matter and be confused as to what should be right and what is not?

Theories that Could Resolve the Issue

Virtue ethics has been considered to be the character or the moral agent that contributes as a force that imposes the establishment of ethics to be based on morality and concern for what should be accepted good and right. Rather than the use of rules as suggested through the theories of deontology, the rule of consequentialism that virtue ethics suggest often define ethical values under the course of what would happen next if something is approved to be acceptable.

Virtue ethics lie in several forms of moral indicators such as arête or the excellence of virtue, phronesis or the practical and moral wisdom and eudaimonia or the flourishing of moral values[7]. In this case, the use of these three factors shall lead towards the recognition of what is more morally acceptable than what is emotionally weighty. Another aspect of this rule is the consideration of what is morally desirable. Morality basically involves a larger scope of consideration especially in line with the definition of what is good and what is not. In this case, considering what is clean and what is not should be realized.

True, gays are humans and are entitled to have feelings. However, if that feeling is morally intertwined with what is wrong, its recognition should be bounded. Some gay couples might say that they are doing nothing wrong nor are they hurting anyone in consideration with the relationships they establish with each other. Nonetheless, it should be considered how their pursuance of the liberalization of their relationships strongly lead to even the pursuance of marriages to be downgraded into being recognized as mere contracts of agreement between two people who seem to understand each other. The value of marriage and families is already in turmoil, with them coming in the scene, it could be analyzed how the situation worsened. Applying the principles of virtue ethics shall impose on the need to reconsider what the pursuance of gay marriages is doing to the society and its recognition of families and marriage as an institution and not as a mere connection between two people apparently sharing the same affection. A more serious consideration on what marriage and family is all about should be given practical attention to. Examination of values is then suggested in line with the application of the basic rules imposed through virtue ethics.

Reflection on the Issue

Personally, I am a non-supporter of the gay marriage campaign. I personally see it as a mere folly against the real meaning of marriage which is a contemplating connection between two people who simply do not have affection between each other but understands the issues related to the aspect of living together and creating a family of their own. Marriage is not supposed to be a simply signing of contract and living together as a couple. It should be a realized connection between two people who are ready to create a family of their own established on moral values that shall later on be viewed as the foundation of a good society.

The families around the globe are already facing a great deal of challenge in consideration with the desire to stay morally intact. Making changes in the code of family conduct and the recognition of marriage as its foundation even puts families into an uncanny situation. In this regard, I do propose the utilization of virtue ethics in line with the need to reconstruct the reputation of marriage as the basis of families that are established to create societies that are morally grounded. Relatively, deontology could help in creating a more direct form of rule that the society should consider in connection with this matter.

Conclusion

Liberalization has become one of the basic foundations of social advancement into modernization. It could not be denied that human individuals have embraced this culture of development. However, weighing its pros and cons is an important aspect of the situation. There are some ancient institutions that should be kept as they were to make sure that the modern societies remain as practically strong as they should be. One of the said institutions is that of marriage. Being a sacred union between two people for the sake of creating a family of their own based on the integral principles of morality, marriage and its meaning ought not be changed so as to welcome the needs of those who would want to pursue their personal needs. True, humans ought to have equal rights; however this does not mean that humans ought to ruin what has been institutionalized as the foundation of a food and refined form of a society that is founded on moral values. The world is already facing a tumultuous time of moral downgrade; as of now, it does not need any more issue that would push down the society of modern humans into the face of moral failure. The campaign towards the pursuance of gay marriages and its recognition in several other countries around the globe should be given another thought by legislators. The pros and cons of the situation should be given attention to as to how much they impact the society and its recognition of moral integrity especially in marriages and families that serve as the basic foundation of a society.

References   

Devettere, Raymond J. (2002). Introduction to Virtue Ethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..

Evans, Tanya. Women, Marriage and the Family, op. cit., in Barker, Hannah, & Elaine Chalus, eds., Women’s History, op. cit., p. 66 & n. 69.

Pepper, Stephen C. (1960). Ethics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Robert E. Goss, Amy Adams Squire Strongheart (Eds.), ed. (2008). Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship. New York, NY: The Harrington Park Press, An Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc

Ross, David (1939). Foundations of Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Satris, Stephen (1987). Ethical Emotivism. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

[1] Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..

[2] Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..

[3] Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..

[4] Pepper, Stephen C. (1960). Ethics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

[5] Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., Robin Fretwell Wilson (Eds.), ed. (2008). Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..

[6] Evans, Tanya. Women, Marriage and the Family, op. cit., in Barker, Hannah, & Elaine Chalus, eds., Women’s History, op. cit., p. 66 & n. 69.

[7] Devettere, Raymond J. (2002). Introduction to Virtue Ethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.