Introduction
The topic of the same-sex marriage has attracted heated debate over the years in the US. The protagonists and antagonists of this marriage institution have always clashed over moral standards of the society. In defining homosexual marriage, anthropologists formulate valid cross-cultural variations of modern and traditional forms. Same-sex marriage, just like any other form of marriage, is a union of two adults, in a domestic arrangement with each member having defined roles to play.
Over the years, homosexual couples have raised debates in the conservative American society. Specifically, religious and conservative groups have been the most active in opposing homosexual couples getting married. Despite these divergent opinions, homosexual couples have spread across several states in the US. Same-sex marriage is now legal in the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts. This paper supports the argument that marriage of homosexual couples should be allowed. The tenet of this position is based on basic human rights, the religious freedom of choice, and personal conscious in the face of choices.
Reasons for Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
Personal Conscious
Same sex marriage, just like any other form of marriage, is a union of two adults of the same sex in a domestic arrangement with each member having defined roles to play. Every person has the right to practice personal choice as long as the it does not affect the other parties. Apparently, same-sex marriage results from agreement between two adults without any coercion. It is practiced by adults who follow their free will of choice.
Apparently, there has never been any scientific research that confirms the common perception that same-sex marriage is destroying the social fabric. Since those involved in same-sex marriage are similar to those involved on other forms of marriages, it is fair to respect the choice of these consenting adults since perception or pedigree of morality is relative to lines of thought by a group of persons, who may be influenced by inner prejudice rather than facts.
For instance, the common ground for opposing same-sex marriage has been the defilement of the social norms. In reality, persons propagating such arguments are inspired by fear of what they do not understand. Therefore, promoting same sex-marriage will reverse the current perception that it is evil or against the norms of the society since all the stakeholders will embrace homosexuality as a normal relationship.
Religious freedom of choice
Despite the heated debate by nearly all religions across the globe in protest against same-sex marriage, there is no evidence from the religious teachings opposing the practice. For instance, in the Christian faith, there are only one or two verses in the entire Bible mentioning homosexuality and it is barely a topic in the holy book. Apparently, biblical literalism can be blamed for demonizing homosexuality. Besides, most fundamental Christians are hypocrites who have discarded all the other topics in the tome of the good book apart from the one or two verses on homosexuality. Thus, selective amnesia only promotes literalism instead of ‘contextualism’. In most cases, the consequences of socially constructing homosexuals and homosexuality as an abomination is destroying family relationships and promoting discrimination of the homosexuals by the society.
The relations in the family institution may also be strained since no one would want to accept or associate with homosexuals as members of such families. On the other hand, constructing homosexuality as an abomination may open the door for abuse of gay rights by their opponents. The abuse may be in the form of discrimination from participating in social events, religious activities, and free interaction. In fact, the society may internalize the selective amnesia approach when relating to the homosexuals irrespective of their feelings and freedom of religious choice. Just like any straight couple, same-sex marriage arises from exercising the freedom of religious choice at personal level. In my opinion, it would be very wrong to discredit the same-sex marriage as an institution on the basis of selective amnesia when those who are victimized have not committed any crime. Besides, “the ‘First Amendment’ of the constitution clearly states that a person’s religious views or lack thereof must be protected” (Sherkat, Vries, and Creek 15).
It is unfair to declare a marriage by two consenting adults as against religious fundamentalism when the parties involved are dedicated members of a particular faith. Therefore, there has never been any convincing religious view that discredits same-sex marriage, apart from wrong perceptions from those who cannot appreciate and respect the rights of others to religious freedom. Since marriage is a lay activity, it would be wrong for any government to pass laws against same-sex marriage just to satisfy the perceptions of some few individuals on the basis of religious disagreement.
Same-sex marriage and the basic fundamental rights
The basic fundamental rights include the respect of choice such as being part of same-sex marriage. Basically, there are several benefits that come as a result of same-sex marriage just like any other form of marriage. For instance, those involved in this form of marriage have rights to own joint property and be part of any activity that the straight couples are involved in. Therefore, any decision to oppose same-sex marriage falls in the category of minority discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Basically, “denying marriage to a homosexual couple is no different than denying marriage to Hispanic or black couples” (Hunter 1862).
Since marriage is founded on the basis of love, such form of discrimination may deny persons of same-sex the right to enjoy this basic fundamental right, despite the fact that this type of union is not criminalized in the US bill of rights. Since same sex marriage has been legalized in several states in the US, it may become an important institution that promotes creation of strong values in the family to minimize risks associated with risky sexual activities. For instance, “the problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD’s stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle” (Baker 7).
Potential of increasing child adoptions
Since same-sex marriage involves persons who cannot procreate as a result of sharing similar sexual orientation, there is potential of increasing the number of orphan children being adopted into functional families. In the case where same-sex couples wants a child, there are several avenues available in the form of adoption. As more children become adopted into such families, more orphans are given the opportunity to fully belong to a family as opposed to spending the rest of their lives in the orphanages. Basically, “since there are so many kids around the country in need of adoption, this is a good thing” (Greenberg 36).Through continued adoption of children, same-sex marriages may fill the gap that is current taken by the overcrowded and often underfunded orphanage institutions. From a fundamentalist perspective, this is an impetus towards strengthening the family bonds.
Conclusion
In summary, my stand on homosexuality is that it is free will practice which men and women engage in a like. The basis of participating in homosexuality has little to do with coercion, but self consciousness and need to curve a unique culture among the characters who explore their sexuality. Therefore, men and women are equal partners in the homosexuality and ‘straightness’ since the bodies of the homosexuals are their right, as long as self consciousness forms part of the right.
This means that homosexuals are free beings in the society with an equal space as the ‘straights’ to discover, experience, and willingly participate in sexual episodes with persons of their choice as long as the other party is a consenting adult. Besides, numerous personal and political benefits homosexuals get include marriage, property inheritance, and recognition as equals in the society within the laws in the US. The antagonists of same-sex marriage dismissed the homosexuals as contributors to weird sexism and hideous devilish acts. However, these harsh perceptions are influenced by opinions which cannot be quantified. The paper has shaded light on the rights of the homosexual such respect and acceptance, free will, and freedom in the face of the changing society. The need to protect these rights formed the rationale for my position of supporting same-sex marriage.
Works Cited
Baker, Brittney. “Same-Sex Marriage and Religion: An Inappropriate Relationship.” e- Research, 1.3 (2010): 1-9. Print.
Greenberg, David. The construction of homosexuality, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Print.
Hunter, Nan. “The future impact of same-sex marriage: More questions than answers.” The George Town Law Journal, 100.1(2012): 1855-1879. Print.
Sherkat, Darren, Kylan Vries, and Stacia Creek. “Race, religion, and opposition to same-sex marriage.” OpenSIU Journal, 1.4 (2009): 1-35. Print.