Every citizen of the United States cherishes the American Dream of being free and equal within his or her heart. Keeping this dream in mind, it may seem that equal rights for homosexuals are being justly supported in the American society. However, when members of this society are asked about the opinion about homosexual marriage, it seems that the American society is not truly in favor of gay equality as it may appear to be. The recently debated public votes showed that most of Americans voted for the Constitutional Amendment, which bans homosexual marriage. Ironically, all of these Americans who voted do believe that the homosexual community should have equal rights. However, the American still do not consider the notion of homosexual marriage a right that should be extended to homosexuals.
Assuming that homosexuals have a “choice” to the gender of the person they can feel attracted to is a tremendous misunderstanding underlying this debate. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, have no choice whatever to whom they are attracted (Mountjoy, 2013). According to opposition movements, such as Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, it is supposedly possible to prevent and treat homosexuality (Dobson, 2004, p.74). Dobson proceeds to claim that the life of homosexuals is not as carefree and easy-going as the entertainment media frequently portrays it to be (Dobson, 2004, p.72). It is highly unlikely that a member of the straight community can have an “expert opinion” on the likelihood that it is possible to “change” homosexuality or even on whether homosexuals lead happy lives or not. Research has already been done that proves that homosexuality is purely genetic. No one has the “choice” to live a life in which they have to face discrimination and prejudice.
The same assumption that homosexuals can choose leads to the notion that homosexuality is just about sex, frequently being referred to as a “sexual perversion.” However, the truth is that homosexuality has many different aspects. Homosexuality is not as much about sex as it is about affection and love. In any committed relationship, couples frequently express their love through sex. This happens to be true in both heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. Being homosexual represents who these people are and forms their identity; being homosexual is that significant to a homosexual person. This can only be understood by very few heterosexuals. Heterosexuals make the mistake of basing their definition of “normal” by using their own lives as an example.
Probably the most repeated and significant case against homosexual marriage is the notion that homosexuality is “immoral,” yet only religious beliefs serve as a basis for this “immoral” label. According to the First Amendment, no law shall be made by Congress that respects an establishment of religion, or prohibit people from freely exercising an establishment of religion ("Establishment clause," 2010). Although the right of religious freedom is clearly protected by the amendment, the irrelevance of the Bible in American law is also confirmed by it. America’s laws are not supposed to be based on religion. Yet, most American citizens who oppose homosexual marriage attempt to formulate their religious beliefs into laws and have them imposed onto others. There is nothing wrong in opposing homosexual marriage based on one’s religious beliefs. However, under the First Amendment, it is wrong to impose a low on the basis the Bible apparently condemns homosexuality. Different people are religiously inclined to different morals. Those who support homosexual marriage do not demand that their opponents should change their religious beliefs or should accept homosexuality into their religion. The homosexual community is only fighting to ensure that the laws of the country are determined, regardless of religious beliefs.
Most of the people who oppose homosexual marriage believe that only a man and a woman can get married to each other. The viewpoint of these people is that only members of the opposite sex should get married; otherwise, the marriage would not be traditional. These people also believe that the institution of marriage would be threatened by same-sex marriage. However, the truth is that this claim is not supported by any factual evidence. It seems highly unlikely that the institution of marriage would be threatened by allowing two people to marry, regardless of their gender. It seems unfair to grant the right to marry only to the straight society. After all, the definition of marriage is not set in stone. Recently, it has been said by many courts that there is no evidence why homosexuals should not be able to marry. The American principle of human rights has become apparent to these courts. It was determined in the case Lawrence vs. Texas that the application of the various sodomy laws in the United States on consenting, non-commercial American adults in private is not constitutional and cannot be enforced on them ("Lawrence v. Texas," 2003). In other words, the enforcement of sodomy laws that prohibit consenting homosexuals from engaging in anal or oral sex in private were deemed unjust and unconstitutional. In other words, direct prejudice seems to be the reasoning behind such beliefs and laws rather than a logical, solid reason that homosexuals should be denied their civil rights.
Throughout the world, there are many countries where homosexual couples who want to get married have extended rights. Denmark was the first country where these rights were introduced back in 1989. Later, these married homosexual couples were granted the right to legally adopt children in 2000. This granted other countries the opportunity to observe how the institution of marriage was only strengthened by legalizing homosexual marriage, for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Soon, Registered Domestic Partnerships was formed in Norway in 1993, and Registered Cohabitations was formed in Iceland in 1996. Homosexual marriage and rights of homosexual couples to adopt child wee extended by both of these legislations. Recently, Belgium, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands also agreed that marriage laws should not be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation because it is both unjust and “unconstitutional” ("Canadian charter of," 1982"). These countries have proven that there is no merit in the opposing fears that if homosexual marriages are legalized, it will lead to an increase in divorce rates and STDs, and a decrease in monogamous relationships. According to studies, the rates of STDs did not increase after homosexual marriage was legalized in all of these countries, rather divorce rates drastically decreased. Regardless of the evidence, people in the U.S. are still afraid of the notion of legalizing homosexual marriage, and this is the reason why only federal death benefits are extended to homosexual American couples, as of June 2003. Vermont is the only state where homosexuals can legally get married; however, no other part of the United States recognizes these marriages. Usually, the United States is regarded as an example of governing a democracy, yet the U.S. is afraid of passing legislation in favor of homosexual marriage.
In other arguments against homosexual marriage, it is stated that homosexual couples cannot provide an adopted child with the proper environment. What many of these critics do not acknowledge is that even child molesters, convicted felons of all sorts, murders, and so on out there have the right to get married and raise children. It does not seem very logical to prefer that over homosexual couples, who have no criminal history and actually embrace certain morals, to get married and raise adopted children. As long as a home filled with commitment, love and stability can be provided by homosexual couples, it is hard to see where the harm is done (Barlow, 2013). In every family, regardless of the gender of the parents, the first priority must always be the child, and to love the child, rather than being concerned that both parents are of the same gender
Those who oppose homosexual marriage also weave in the notion that marriage is for reproduction into the argument. If that were true, heterosexual couples who cannot have children should no longer remain married then. Fortunately, this is not the case since straight couples have the option of adopting a child. So if heterosexual, married couples who cannot have children can adopt a child, then even homosexual couples should have the right to adopt children as well. In fact, if members of the homosexual community were allowed to marry and adopt children, this would help decrease the number of children who are currently living without families in state homes. In summary, the straight community tends to base everything they believe and know to be true about homosexuals on stereotypes. There are those who assume that homosexuals are not able to form lasting relationships and are promiscuous. Relationships such as these exist in both the heterosexual and homosexual community, and in the latter, they represent a small percentage.
Homosexual marriage is defined as a legal union between two individuals of the same gender. The estimated size of the homosexual community who are dined the right of marriage is just 10%. The members of the homosexual community just want what every heterosexual takes for granted, the right to legally marry the person they love, so they can solidify their committed and loving relationship. One or all of the above arguments are used by most critics to deny homosexuals the right to marry. However, weakness in all these arguments can be seen quite clearly. Moving away from such illogical reasoning, which is either based on ignorance or prejudice, must take place as a country. Every American, regardless of his or her gender, should be allowed to marry his or her life partner. The American society needs to live up to the American Dream.
References
Barlow, R. (2013, Apr 11). Gay parents as good as straight ones. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. (1982). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html
Dobson, D. J. (2004). Marriage under fire: Why we must win this battle. Oregon: Multnomah Books.
Establishment clause. (2010, Aug 19). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
Lawrence v. texas. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
Mountjoy, P. (2013, Apr 14). Modern science says homosexuality is not a choice read more. Retrieved from http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/steps-authentic-happiness-positive-psychology/2013/apr/14/homosexuality-choice-modern-science-says-no/
