Is same Sex Marriage Morally Right

When you look at a family portrait, what do you see? You see your parents, your siblings (if you have any), and yourself. There is nothing wrong with that, but let’s be more specific. Your parents are both the same gender. Does that change anything? Do you feel disgusted and/or sorry for them? Do you feel that the generation is now be threatened? For example, will there be a generation if everyone is ‘gay’ and can not reproduce? However you feel about this topic, you need to have the facts to back you up or your argument will be invalid. This essay will explain why same-sex marriage is morally right and why.

First we must know the definition of Same-Sex marriage. Same-Sex marriage is the marriage, in the full legal sense, of gay and lesbian couples. So, should homosexual should be permitted to enter legally sanctioned marriage? ( Vaughn 429) In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed which recognize same-sex marriages but allowed the states to choose if gay and lesbian marriages. In 2013, a federal judge and the Supreme Court threw this act away.

Same-sex marriage is something that will change how marriages are seen in the old days but, this is nothing new. Marriages has changed over the centuries. For example:

“The Court did not view marriage as an unchanging or fixed institution, rather: The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change ... [it] has evolved over time. The Court viewed the evolution from arranged marriage to marriage by choice as reflecting the understanding of marriage as a voluntary contract. The abandonment of the doctrine of coverture, which treated a married man and woman as a single male-dominated legal entity, was seen as reflecting a change in the status of women.”(HERMANN 373)

This is proof that marriages changes over the years. Also there are different types of marriages. Depending on your religion or region you were born there are traditions you do in those types of marriages. In a traditional wedding these days the bride wears white to symbolize purity. Before Queen Victoria in the 19th century, the favored color for the bride’s dress were red. If marriages can change back then, why can they not change now. In this time period, everything is different and has some way evolved from what it was.

Sexual orientation and gender identity has progressed throughout the years and now is letting itself known. Now it is going back to what the people want and knowing that everyone is different. Different people need different things. People need to listen to others and not just jump at each other throats when it comes to an issue. Everyone needs to try to get an understanding for one another. Always shooting down people and situations that they do not understand. When you fall in love with someone does it really matter in the end? Should their happiness be affected by your strict guidelines to having a great life? How can you tell them how to live if their lifestyle is different? “On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, making same-sex marriage the “law of the land" throughout the United States.”(Rains 191) The supreme court has already made the decision to let the gays and lesbians to be wed. This was declared over three years ago, so why is there still disputes? People bring their religious beliefs and apply it to others. Even though, this country was formed on having freedom to believe in whatever religion they want. It is wrong to push someone own religious beliefs onto someone else. Not everyone is devoted to such things like Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, and et cetera. Do not change people lifestyles just to fit your views. For those reason this essay will be on the utilitarian view and will use it as my evidence, since the other theories will group people into one lifestyle. A theory that condones same-sex marriages is Natural Law theory.

Natural Law theory does not like same-sex marriage since it is not ‘natural’. Natural Law theory really goes off of religious based arguments since he is catholic. Natural Law entails that God has given you everything you need and decides what best for us in his plan. Thomas Aquinas set this theory around being natural and being with the same-sex is not natural. But he is saying that being natural is based on a standard that set on a man with a woman. “When “nature” is taken in technical rather than ordinary usages, it looks like the notion also will not ground a charge of homosexual immorality. When unnatural means “by artifice” or “made by man,” one need only point out that virtually everything that is good about life is unnatural in this sense.” (Vaughn 440) This further proves of what do others know about being natural? Why do people rely on one person or theory to tell them what is natural and what is not? This also gives more evidence that gay marriage is moral.

His standards are based on his God. So this theory is pushing religious beliefs and someone life style on everyone else. Scalia goes through with this theory and tells his conclusion on a case: “Same-sex eroticism is only deviant if one believes, as Scalia's opinions suggest he must, that there is no such thing as gayness as an immutable characteristic, and that expressions of same-sex desire are immoral and can be made illegal. To Scalia, gay people are really straight but just don't know it and won't act like it.'" (Goetting 142)

Scalia is saying that there is no such thing as being ‘gay’. Scalia says that gay people are naturally straight but are confused. How does Scalia know how all gay people feel or act? Everyone is not the same. You can say, “...that one feature that distinguished people from most other animals is people’s ability to make over the world to meet their needs and desires, and that people’s wellbeing depends upon these departures from nature.”(Vaughn 440) What people’s reactions are and decisions to believe in whatever theory is based on them. Not one person or theory can make everything or everyone in one lifestyle. Utilitarian views everyone’s happiness. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that is on the results or consequences of our actions. Actions are looked at to see if overall gives your self or/and others happiness. Whatever action people do, at the end of it all, everyone wants to be happy. This is what drives our morality at the end of the day. In a utilitarian view on gay marriage if it can help achieve ultimate happiness for a large group of people then, it is morally acceptable.The gays and lesbians getting married does not negatively affect anyone in any way. If you have a religion that does not accept others as they are because of their sexality, then I do not see how it affect you. I remember someone would not sign off someone marriage because they were of the same-sex. If you have such strong beliefs that condone any marriage then, you should not be someone to sign off marriages. ‘Gay Marriage is a Fundamental Right’ gives, “the coalescence of three distinct legal principles asserted by the Court, and the reasoning undergoing them, that makes the Court's recognition of the fundamental right to marry for LGBTQ individuals inevitable.”(Goetting 138) These three principles are used to give out something like a set of rule on how they will give evidence to legalize same-sex marriage. On of these principles are:

“The right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967” (Goetting 138)

This principle is most likely based on utilitarianism views. It shows how the everyone’s happiness is accounted for getting married instead of just heterosexuals. Now everyone is thought of.

A good thing that can come out of same-sex marriages is that they can adopt. Everyone and other theories might say that is a bad environment to be in because it will influence them to be not straight. Well, let's play devil's advocate then, shall we? If you are a christian parent and your child is christian, is that bad? Or it will be a different story if they were atheist, or islamic. Again things change if everyone looks at a different mindset. When you become a certain age you will have to make your own choices in life. So, being homosexual parent does not hurt the child ability to grow up and become a citizen. At the end of things, the child will have a good loving home to be in instead of being an orphan in child care their whole life. There are always kids that need good homes.

Same-sex marriage gives people the ability to love one another on the same steps as a heterosexual person. In the Obergefell v. Hodges case, it made same-sex marriage the “law of the land" throughout the United States. That means that everyone can marry whoever they want and they do not have to be a certain gender. Sexual orientation and gender identity has progressed throughout the years and now is letting itself known. We have to advance our minds for the future of humanity. Not only technology wise, but people wise too. People are different and everyone does not repeat someone in a past life. So, lets adjust to people wants and needs. Just because someone is different does not make them inferior to you. Just because someone believes in a God, Allah, or et cetera; do not let them influence yourself or your life choices. Let everyone be happy and marry for love not for others’ standards.

Work cited Goetting, Nathan. “Gay Marriage Is a Fundamental Right.” National Lawyers Guild Review, vol.70, no. 3, Fall 2013, pp. 137–144. EBSCOhost, b5-3.sum.tec.sc.us:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=94145322&site=ehost-live. Hermann, Donald H. J. “Extending the Fundamental Right of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples: The United States Supreme Court Decision in Obergefell V. Hodges.” Indiana Law Review, vol. 49, no. 2, Mar. 2016, pp. 367–396. EBSCOhost, b5-3.sum.tec.sc.us:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=112446383&site=ehost-live. Rains, Robert E. “Icing on the Wedding Cake: Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Objections--Is There an Accommodation That Will Make Everyone Equally Happy (Or Unhappy)?” Vermont Law Review, vol. 42, no. 2, Winter 2017, pp. 191–225. EBSCOhost, b5-3.sum.tec.sc.us:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d b=a9h&AN=127797499&site=ehost-live. Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2008. Print.

Cite this page