KarMel
Scholarship 2008
|
Essay “What
Does it Matter if Two People Have the Same Hoo-hoos or Ha-has?”” By Richard
Espinoza |
Desciption of Submission: “The folly
opposition to same-sex marriage” - Richard
|
Any two adults should be allowed
to proclaim, and have federally honored, their commitment to one another by
the government. The debate over same-sex marriage brings to light the
withheld right of union between two clearly consenting partners of the same
sex. Two consenting, sane, of age individuals should be allowed to become an
economic unit. As culture enlightens, so should the government about modern
discrimination and oppression of personal prerogative. “Because marriage is a
basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State
should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share
fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil
marriage” (“Marriage Project”). Of course, there will always be a
naysayer in the furtherment of modern culture and social norms. “One
measurement of a good society is whether its individual members have the
autonomy to do as they choose in respects that principally concern only them”
(Grayling). I should state now that I am not attempting to advocate gay
rights, more so, my efforts are to draw appeal to overall human rights within
the institute of marriage and to open eyes. Those apposed to the union of two
men or two women attempt to argue their claim behind the “dying values” of
society and the dogmatic word of religion. The term “same-sex” marriage is
used because it does not imply any particular sexual preference to either of
the partners involved in the union. As apposed to “gay” marriage, “same-sex”
merely states that both partners are of the same gender. “Gay” marriage
implies that both partners are homosexual which the case is not always. One
(or both) partner(s) may be bisexual or even heterosexual in cases of
“if-we’re-thirty-and-still-single” marriages. The word standard is just the
same for the term “straight” marriage as proven in cases from the past and
even in modern times where an individual may marry someone of the opposite
sex as a “cover up” or later realize their latent homosexual nature after
years of marriage. Heterosexual marriage has been
around for centuries openly and proudly without opposition. Accordingly, the current
standards of contemporary marriage have not always been the standard. Only in
recent times has the union between a man and woman been for the pursuit of
“love” and a “soul mate”. According to past accounts in the research of
marriage conducted within the book entitled Intimate Relationships by Roland S Miller, Daniel Perlman, and
Sharon S. Brehm, marriage was more of an economic choice where the courting
period was not as long. Marriages were and can still be (rarely) found arranged
in other countries. The marriage age is, without parental consent, barely
eighteen as of this century. Also within this century,
interracial couples can legally marry (as of 1967). Religion and the
government have also come to their senses with making divorce legal and not a
sin with minor limitations. Polygamy has been banished, but the fleeting
rules of religion had once allowed such marriage as depicted in the Old
Testament on numerous accounts: “Then Moses was content to live with the man,
and he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses” (Holy Bible, Exodus, 2.21). “[…]
Moses […] had [then] married an Ethiopian woman” (Holy Bible, Exodus, 12.1).
The character of Jacob also engaged in multiple wives. “Then Laban said to
Jacob, “You […] are my relative […]” After being tricked to marry Leah when
desiring the younger sister Rachel: “It must not be done so in our country,
to give the younger before the firstborn […] we will give you this one also
[…] So he (Laban) gave him his daughter Rachel as a wife also” (Holy Bible,
Genesis 29). To wed ones cousin – side note – also suffered the same fate as
multiple wives. Homosexual relationships, or more broadly
suiting- “alterative lifestyles,” are argued to be abnormal and unnatural. It
would sound that unnatural things in life should have an amendment against
them drafted up, as well. I suppose that such unnatural accommodations such
as contraception, modern medicine, and automobiles must go. Continuing that mindset, the
validity of same-sex unions is questioned when children come into account.
Their inability to reproduce offspring naturally becomes an issue naysayers
rapidly throw out. I guess one can also argue that an infertile couple should
be denied a marriage license. Couples should present their fertility history
on the first date. After all, why should the two even date if natural
children cannot come about their consummation of “love?” Older couples past
their prime should be discouraged to court because those choosing to marry
would be selfish and not contributing to the superior society. The children involved in same-sex
unions would suffer detrimental blows to their psyche. Both parents are a
necessity and are why single parent “Gay marriage will change the
foundation of Society” (“Grove”). The ever-changing social norms of our
culture have been able allow women to work and “colored folk” to sit anywhere
on the bus. The “separate but equal” point of view, as proposed by civil
unions gives the same genius answer as did separate schools for African-Americans
during the previous round of civil rights. This next round has brought a
similar opposition to the surface. Same-sex marriage is said to be
the gateway to allowing behavior that is more immoral. The most common
hypothetical example used is that soon enough, “people will wish to marry
their animals”. All articulation aside, this fallacy is plain ignorant. When
bestiality becomes one of the last resorts, one can tell that the cons to
same-sex marriages are diminishing. Nevertheless, to answer that claim, an
animal has no legal standing and the language barrier may be a problem… The greatest giant in the path of
same-sex marriage is religion. As the The ultimate stand against
same-sex marriage is the “sanctity” and significance of marriage. American
media depicts its cream-of-the-crop (celebrities) marrying then annulling
(not allowing enough time for a divorce to be legally needed) their vows a
few times a year. Marriage seems so accessible to those on a whim but if
those two were committed with expectations against divorce, yet happened to
be of the same gender, then the wedding wagon must come to a screeching halt.
Past societies have openly viewed
same sex relations as a social norm, such as the Greek and Roman cultures actually
praising the notion. Native American tribes even observed same-sex couples:
“[…] [In] American tribes […] men were allowed to marry each other […]” (de
Botton 135). Homosexuals were allegedly perceived as divine beings sent to
add change on Earth. When other countries allowed full
acknowledgement of same-sex marriage (Religious Tolerance) their societies
did not crumble into the depths rivaling It should be the dual decision of
any two people involved in a serious relationship whether or not they choose
to make their love public and legal, regardless of their genders. The only
obstacles should be of personal preference and the couple’s choices. Law
should play not part of exclusion on who should leap through more hurdles in
attaining a license. Eventually all nations may allow some form of same-sex
union in which later generations will reflect with a sense of humor just as
this generation does concerning the ridiculous past debates of interracial marriage.
It is accepted and expected for individuals to change, evolve and enlighten.
So why is it when people in masses do so that it is questioned? “The false
veneer of a “Bill of Rights” in the Works Cited (n.a.).
12 points of same-sex marriage. 2005. 20 November 2006 http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html De
Botton, Alain. The Consolations of Philosophy. “Equal
Marriage for same-sex couples.” Grayling,
Dr Anthony. “Why a High Society is a Free Society”. The Observer. 19
May 2006.
<http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/grayling1.html Miller,
Rowland S., Perlman, Daniel, and Brehm, Sharon S..
“Love” Intimate Relationships.
[et al.] Nelson,
Thomas. Holy Bible, New King James Version. 1990 “Quotes,
Marriage Project” The Status of Same-Sex Couples. 2006. 23 November 2006
http://religioustolerance.org/hom_marriage.htm Rauch,
Jonathan. Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and
Good for |