The issue of homosexuals rights to get married is a volatile and highly relevant issue our state is confronting today. This issue has been a long clip in the devising. and many people have had to undue adversities in life because of the current state of affairs homosexual people face today. Homosexual Americans are non granted the same rights and societal credence that their heterosexual opposite numbers enjoy. This is a cause for concern.
In America. land of the free. how is our society excusing blazing exclusion and dogmatism towards a group of people who merely want to be accepted? Looking at the current state of affairs of homosexual rights will demo that there is merely one logical manner to continue: the legalisation of cheery matrimony. The assorted statements against cheery matrimony will be examined. First off. God does non detest homosexual people. By and large talking. those to oppose homosexual people view the life style as a wickedness against God and nature. That statement shows the dogmatism and ignorance of the mean spiritual individual in America.
If you view God as a loving all cognizing being. how can you have the right to judge person and say that God hates him or her because they are cheery? As human existences. we have to love. accept and digest everyone. this is what God taught. Not even the “best Christian” should hold the ability to judge anyone in this universe. Luke 6:37 provinces that. “Judge non. and you will non be judged ; condemn non. and you will non be condemned ; forgive. and you will be forgiven. ” Being homosexual is besides non against nature ; homosexualism has been around since the morning of clip and is practiced in the carnal universe instinctually. How can person state that something is non nature’s manner when over 1500 carnal species pattern homosexualism of course?
Society demands to see matrimony as a bond between two loving people. regardless of gender. These are people who want to profess their love for one another. and this should non be viewed from an outdated spiritual point of view. A landmark determination was made to let people of all gender the right to get married when the governor of Vermont signed a measure leting same-sex brotherhoods in 1999. Surveies have shown that this opinion has had no discernible negative effects on their population.
In add-on to that fact. many states presently allow homosexuals matrimony including: Belgique. Spain. Canada. South Africa. Norway. Denmark and Sweden ; their societies are more open-minded and accepting than in America. At first. spiritual groups adamantly opposed it. but now old ages subsequently the bulk of them have seen it to hold no negative consequence and no longer oppose the jurisprudence. Attitudes towards homosexual people are much more tame. and force towards homophiles is much lower in Europe.
They all have progressive citizens who are open-minded and hold lower self-destruction rates due to the cultural credence of the life style. While nowhere is perfect. we can look to these states and recognize that credence of homosexual matrimony is valid and allows for a by and large more peaceable population. Another statistic that is in favour of leting cheery matrimony is that research worker Darren Spendale found that 15 old ages after Denmark had granted same-sex twosomes the rights of matrimony. rates of heterosexual matrimony in those states had gone up. and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down. These findings would challenge the statement that leting homosexual matrimony would fade out the foundation of heterosexual matrimony.
Some reasonably recent assuring policies in America that trade with homosexual rights are as follows: on May 17. 2004 Massachusetts became the first province in the state to legalise cheery matrimony. after that New Jersey and Connecticut followed suit. New York besides allows the acknowledgment of cheery matrimony in other provinces. but they can non lawfully acquire married in the province. The most noteworthy policy that was made and late changed was the legalisation of cheery matrimony in California. and so the striking down of that jurisprudence with Proposition 8.
They legalisation of cheery matrimony was a large measure frontward for the homosexual rights job. and so a couple months subsequently. a large measure back. Traveling on. gender is non a chosen fact. despite what many uneducated and under informed members of society will reason. Why would an person in society choose to do their life harder. be discriminated against. and many times lose the support of those they love most? In the words of Dr. Henry Yestman. “sexual penchant is non a pick. you do non take to be homosexual or heterosexual as the instance might be” . Society should travel towards the point of view that it makes the individual alone and non “abnormal” .
Besides. Andrea Camperio-Ciani who is a Professor at the University of Padova claims that the theory of a individual homosexual cistron is non valid and that it is non a pick to be cheery. He has strengthened this claim by scientifically happening out what makes homosexual people gay. There is still a batch to happen out. but his new work is assuring. If a individual chooses to believe that the life style is a pick that is merely nescient on their portion.
Merely as the spiritual right wing is wholly off base. on the other side are the utmost homosexual militants. who merely hurt the homosexual rights motion ; journalist Alicia Colon who stated. “I know that the hawkish militants who leave no room for treatment do non stand for the bulk of the homosexual community” . expresses the thought in great words. Her statement is really true because the bulk of cheery people are non demanding particular rights or to be treated better than anyone else. merely to be treated the same as everyone else.
There are besides many misconceptions that are associated with people who are cheery. Cheery people are non the typical effeminate male or masculine female that is conjured up in the heads of many people. Another misconception is that all homosexuals work forces are promiscuous and incapable of holding stable relationships. To set all homosexual people into one stereotyped group is making a great ill service to one’s fellow homo. as with any stereotype. Peoples who oppose cheery brotherhoods focus on the point that matrimony is traditionally between a adult male and a adult female. Just because something has been done in the yesteryear does non do it right. Society should come on with the development of the people in it. Rules and Torahs are meant to be altering with the times.
To the people who oppose authorities benefits for same sex twosomes. inquire this: what difference will it do? If a same sex twosome gets married or have a civil brotherhood that has no affect on person a heterosexual couple’s matrimony. That individual would be the lone 1 who could put that affect upon themselves. One does non hold to hold with the homosexual life style. but should digest it and back up their fellow humans’ love for their spouse. Many heterosexual people abuse the right to get married. and have high divorce rates. are these people truly meriting of the right to get married? Currently we are prefering a certain type of human relationship. and that is non what America is approximately.
While there is evidently non traveling to be a consentaneous determination on the issue anytime shortly. everyone deserves the right to populate a happy like to the fullest extent they wish. without intervention from other persons or groups. The Constitution provinces that are work forces are created equal. Discrimination is non American and should non be tolerated. One does non hold to hold with everything about the homosexual life style. but they can make a tolerance and esteem their fellow humans’ right to hold a happy and productive life. while basking the benefits their other human opposite numbers do.
Bidsrup. Scott. Gay Marriage: The Arguments. 29 January 2010
& lt ; bidstrup. com/marraige. htm & gt ; .
Coghlan. Andy. Gay Brains Structured. 16 June 2008. 1 February 2010
& lt ; newsscientist. com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured & gt ; .
Colon. Alicia. The Gay Rights Wing. 20 October 2007. 31 January 2010
& lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //speakout. com/activism/opinions/2983-1. hypertext markup language & gt ;
Johnson. Ramon. Where is Gay Marraige Legal? 14 August 2008. 31 January 2010
& lt ; gaylife. about. com/od. samesexumarraige & gt ; .
Murphey. Jenny. Should Gay Couples Be Allowed To Marry. 2 February 2007. 31
January 2010 & lt ; speakout. com/activism. hypertext markup language & gt ; .
Paddock. C. Gay Brains are Wired Differently. 17 June 2008. 31 January
2010 MedNews: & lt ; World Wide Web. medicalnewstoday. com/articles/111663. php & gt ;
Stossel. John and Gene Binkley. Gay Stereotypes. 15 September 2006. 31 January
2010 & lt ; abcnews. travel. com/2020/Story? id=2537380 & gt ; .
Wikipedia. LGBT Social Movements. 2007. 31 January 2010
& lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/LGBT_social_movements & gt ;
World Stats. LGBT Social Movements. 2008. 31 January 2010
& lt ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www. internetworldstats. com/stats. htm & gt ;