Immoral Proposal
Societies Immoral Proposal
As much as the world and America has evolved and developed in recent years, it is amazing how society still finds time to dehumanize and disregard the LGBT community. They endure the so much ridicule, especially when it comes to gay marriage making it legal. Is it just a religious issue, a personal issue across cognate minds, a political issue or is it just an ethical issue because it is not considered the norm? Whatever the case may be, religion and ethics play the most influential role in why this controversial topic is such a hard pill to swallow for most people.
Ethics of Gay Marriage
So what is it that makes gay marriage so unethical? The answer to that is the same thing that made it “wrong” for African American’s to eat at the same restaurant or to sit at the front of a bus like someone who is white during the civil rights movement…Discrimination. It is some ones or in this case a large number of peoples personal and mostly religious beliefs that make this so unethical. Yes, in the bible it says that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but does that have to apply to everyone? Not everyone believes that what is in …show more content…
the bible is fact. So how can Americans impose this on everyone? This is a free country, where we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so people should have the freedom to love whoever they want and to be with and marry whoever they want.
There are so many opinions and sometimes-outrageous reasons that explain why gay marriage is so “unethical”. Most believe that legalizing gay marriage is the gateway drug that will lead to other issues that some people define as immoral. For instance, if gay marriage is legal throughout the United States then that may lead to people protesting to get polygamous marriages legal. In extreme case, there are some that believe that if it is allowed for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, who’s to say that someone may not try to marry an animal or some inanimate object.
In a writing by Peter Sprigg sponsored by the Family Research Council titled “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’” the following alleged “harms” are outlined. 1.Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. 2,Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. 3.Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. 4.Fewer people would marry. 5. Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful. 6. Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime. 7.Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father. 8. More children would grow up fatherless. 9. Birth rates would fall. 10.Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow (bioethics.net).
There are so many things wrong with these harms.
The ones that stick out the most are number five and number seven. Number five has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. People are going to be people and regardless if this is legalized or not monogamy is brought on by gay marriage. People have been unfaithful in their marriages years before the legalization of marriage was brought to the forefront. When it comes to fewer children being raised by a mother and father in the household that may be a good thing. Obviously, without any external help a gay couple couldn’t have children that’s, why most adopt. There are so many children in not only America but in the around the world who need loving homes to go to and if it is a gay couple that can provide it then so be
it.
What is unethical is the fact that a couple is not truly recognized as a true couple because they have no rights. Their families are never considered whole because even though they may do everything together, in societies eyes they are still separate entities. Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending (gaymarriage.procon.org). Another thing that is unethical about not legalizing gay marriage is that it teaches people that it is ok to be biased or discriminate against someone who is in a homosexual relationship or even their children. Bullying is already an huge issue with adolescence today, but making it seem like that this is wrong just adds fuel to the fire. Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." (Gaymarriage.procon.org).
The Deontology Resolution
This way of thinking has got to change, but what measures can be taken? What can be done to bridge the gap and bring some type of commonality and understanding between people who are against it and the people who are fighting for the same rights any heterosexual couple is entitled to? As stated in the textbook there are ‘three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems’ ( Mosser, K. 2010). The ethical issue that can help attribute to the whole gay marriage debate is the deontology theory. The deontologist argues that we have a duty, or an obligation, to treat other people with respect; human beings have dignity, and we must take that dignity into consideration when dealing with them. (We also expect others to respect our dignity when they deal with us.)(Mosser, K. 2010). The main reason that people in heterosexual relationships are looked down upon is because in the bible it says that homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines the basis of God 's created order where God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman -- not two men, not two women -- to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It also undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife, the God-ordained means of procreation. It is also dangerous to society. (carm.org) But when you look at this from a deontologist point or view, anyone, whether they are gay, straight, bi-sexual, or transgendered must be treated the exact same as the next person. I think the deontologist looks at this ethical issue as such; if it is considered that everyone is a sinner what gives anyone the right to judge the next person just because the sin differently from you.
Resolution Challenges
With this kind of resolutions there are also many types of challenges that would not make this work. Two of the three alternative perspectives mentioned in the textbook that could challenge the deontology resolution would be relativism and emotivism.
Relativism is the idea that one 's beliefs and values are understood in terms of one 's society, culture, or even one 's own individual values. You may disagree with someone and believe your view is superior, relative to you as an individual; more often, relativism is described in terms of the values of the community in which one lives. ( Mosser. K 2010). Many people around the world especially most extremely conservative Christians, will take on this perspective of why and how gay marriage and homosexuality will never be acceptable. The fact that it is stated in the bible makes any ones emotional feeling towards either subject inferior to the word of God. There is no changing the minds or point of view to for them to tolerate this type sin.
The other alternative perspective that could challenge the deontology resolution is emotivism. Emotivism, as the name indicates, simply says that moral claims express an emotional response, or an attitude; we may have toward a given kind of behavior. ( Mosser. K 2010) . There is so much negativity put upon the issue of gay marriage. Most of it comes not from fact but from peoples emotioal feelings towards anyone with a homosexual orientation. Most of the emotional argument stems from the fact that gay marriage shouldn’t be a political issue. It’s a religious issue, a law made by God and it should not be questioned or modified just to make things fair so to speak.
Some of objections to emotivism are similar to those of relativism. Note, however, that the two theories are distinct. The relativist seems to be saying that it is true (or false) that a given act is wrong; but that truth is relative to the person making the moral evaluation. The relativist and the emotivism have different views about the content of moral claims, whether those claims can be true, and how we might evaluate them; on the other hand, many have argued that there ultimately isn 't a lot of difference between the two ( Mosser. K 2010).
Conclusion
No matter how it is looked at the gay marriage debate will always be an issue whether it is legal in one state, all 50 states, or even around the world. Yes, in the bible it says that is it absolutely wrong but these are human beings that deserved to be treated as such. In the bible God also says love thy neighbor as you love your self. Dehumanizing and ridiculing the LGBT community is not in any way shape or form ethical, humane, or the least bit American. Everyone should be treated with the same respect wherever they go regardless of religious background or sexual orientation.
References
Bioethics.net (2013, March 29). Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Ethical? | Bioethics.net. Retrieved December 7, 2013, from http://www.bioethics.net/2013/03/same-sex- marriage-is-it-ethical/
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. (n.d.). CARM -. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://carm.org/
Gay Marriage ProCon.org. (n.d.). ProConorg Headlines. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Thompson, W. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://gaymarriage.procon.org
As much as the world and America has evolved and developed in recent years, it is amazing how society still finds time to dehumanize and disregard the LGBT community. They endure the so much ridicule, especially when it comes to gay marriage making it legal. Is it just a religious issue, a personal issue across cognate minds, a political issue or is it just an ethical issue because it is not considered the norm? Whatever the case may be, religion and ethics play the most influential role in why this controversial topic is such a hard pill to swallow for most people.
Ethics of Gay Marriage
So what is it that makes gay marriage so unethical? The answer to that is the same thing that made it “wrong” for African American’s to eat at the same restaurant or to sit at the front of a bus like someone who is white during the civil rights movement…Discrimination. It is some ones or in this case a large number of peoples personal and mostly religious beliefs that make this so unethical. Yes, in the bible it says that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but does that have to apply to everyone? Not everyone believes that what is in …show more content…
the bible is fact. So how can Americans impose this on everyone? This is a free country, where we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so people should have the freedom to love whoever they want and to be with and marry whoever they want.
There are so many opinions and sometimes-outrageous reasons that explain why gay marriage is so “unethical”. Most believe that legalizing gay marriage is the gateway drug that will lead to other issues that some people define as immoral. For instance, if gay marriage is legal throughout the United States then that may lead to people protesting to get polygamous marriages legal. In extreme case, there are some that believe that if it is allowed for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, who’s to say that someone may not try to marry an animal or some inanimate object.
In a writing by Peter Sprigg sponsored by the Family Research Council titled “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’” the following alleged “harms” are outlined. 1.Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. 2,Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones. 3.Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. 4.Fewer people would marry. 5. Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful. 6. Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime. 7.Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father. 8. More children would grow up fatherless. 9. Birth rates would fall. 10.Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow (bioethics.net).
There are so many things wrong with these harms.
The ones that stick out the most are number five and number seven. Number five has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. People are going to be people and regardless if this is legalized or not monogamy is brought on by gay marriage. People have been unfaithful in their marriages years before the legalization of marriage was brought to the forefront. When it comes to fewer children being raised by a mother and father in the household that may be a good thing. Obviously, without any external help a gay couple couldn’t have children that’s, why most adopt. There are so many children in not only America but in the around the world who need loving homes to go to and if it is a gay couple that can provide it then so be
it.
What is unethical is the fact that a couple is not truly recognized as a true couple because they have no rights. Their families are never considered whole because even though they may do everything together, in societies eyes they are still separate entities. Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending (gaymarriage.procon.org). Another thing that is unethical about not legalizing gay marriage is that it teaches people that it is ok to be biased or discriminate against someone who is in a homosexual relationship or even their children. Bullying is already an huge issue with adolescence today, but making it seem like that this is wrong just adds fuel to the fire. Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." (Gaymarriage.procon.org).
The Deontology Resolution
This way of thinking has got to change, but what measures can be taken? What can be done to bridge the gap and bring some type of commonality and understanding between people who are against it and the people who are fighting for the same rights any heterosexual couple is entitled to? As stated in the textbook there are ‘three traditional theories that have a long history and that provide a great deal of guidance in struggling with moral problems’ ( Mosser, K. 2010). The ethical issue that can help attribute to the whole gay marriage debate is the deontology theory. The deontologist argues that we have a duty, or an obligation, to treat other people with respect; human beings have dignity, and we must take that dignity into consideration when dealing with them. (We also expect others to respect our dignity when they deal with us.)(Mosser, K. 2010). The main reason that people in heterosexual relationships are looked down upon is because in the bible it says that homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. It undermines the basis of God 's created order where God made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman -- not two men, not two women -- to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It also undermines the basic family unit of husband and wife, the God-ordained means of procreation. It is also dangerous to society. (carm.org) But when you look at this from a deontologist point or view, anyone, whether they are gay, straight, bi-sexual, or transgendered must be treated the exact same as the next person. I think the deontologist looks at this ethical issue as such; if it is considered that everyone is a sinner what gives anyone the right to judge the next person just because the sin differently from you.
Resolution Challenges
With this kind of resolutions there are also many types of challenges that would not make this work. Two of the three alternative perspectives mentioned in the textbook that could challenge the deontology resolution would be relativism and emotivism.
Relativism is the idea that one 's beliefs and values are understood in terms of one 's society, culture, or even one 's own individual values. You may disagree with someone and believe your view is superior, relative to you as an individual; more often, relativism is described in terms of the values of the community in which one lives. ( Mosser. K 2010). Many people around the world especially most extremely conservative Christians, will take on this perspective of why and how gay marriage and homosexuality will never be acceptable. The fact that it is stated in the bible makes any ones emotional feeling towards either subject inferior to the word of God. There is no changing the minds or point of view to for them to tolerate this type sin.
The other alternative perspective that could challenge the deontology resolution is emotivism. Emotivism, as the name indicates, simply says that moral claims express an emotional response, or an attitude; we may have toward a given kind of behavior. ( Mosser. K 2010) . There is so much negativity put upon the issue of gay marriage. Most of it comes not from fact but from peoples emotioal feelings towards anyone with a homosexual orientation. Most of the emotional argument stems from the fact that gay marriage shouldn’t be a political issue. It’s a religious issue, a law made by God and it should not be questioned or modified just to make things fair so to speak.
Some of objections to emotivism are similar to those of relativism. Note, however, that the two theories are distinct. The relativist seems to be saying that it is true (or false) that a given act is wrong; but that truth is relative to the person making the moral evaluation. The relativist and the emotivism have different views about the content of moral claims, whether those claims can be true, and how we might evaluate them; on the other hand, many have argued that there ultimately isn 't a lot of difference between the two ( Mosser. K 2010).
Conclusion
No matter how it is looked at the gay marriage debate will always be an issue whether it is legal in one state, all 50 states, or even around the world. Yes, in the bible it says that is it absolutely wrong but these are human beings that deserved to be treated as such. In the bible God also says love thy neighbor as you love your self. Dehumanizing and ridiculing the LGBT community is not in any way shape or form ethical, humane, or the least bit American. Everyone should be treated with the same respect wherever they go regardless of religious background or sexual orientation.
References
Bioethics.net (2013, March 29). Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Ethical? | Bioethics.net. Retrieved December 7, 2013, from http://www.bioethics.net/2013/03/same-sex- marriage-is-it-ethical/
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. (n.d.). CARM -. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://carm.org/
Gay Marriage ProCon.org. (n.d.). ProConorg Headlines. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Thompson, W. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://gaymarriage.procon.org