homosexual marriage and why it is morally permissible

[ralphie]

So... My sister wrote this for her Theory of Knowledge class and I thought it was pretty interesting. It's not done yet [has to be between 1800 and 2500 words and she only has 759]. But I thought I'd post it anyway. Tell me what you think.


Thesis
For this extended essay, gay marriage is the topic of choice. The topic of gay marriage captured my attention because it has been in the media so much that I began to realize how much intolerance there really is. Racial prejudice is still seen today, but it is homosexual prejudice that is rising. It is my belief that everyone should be allowed the same rights no matter their gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. However, there are many people that will quickly disagree. I have researched and found many objections to gay marriage. Many of the objections are reasonable, but I am going to offer logical explanations of why I disagree. Although there is no definite truth about which is morally right, for the purpose of this paper, I will prove that, in my opinion, homosexual marriage is morally permissible in every situation.


The Explanation and Analysis of Thesis
There are many ways to interpret the meaning of my thesis, but in this paper, I will use the word “homosexual” to mean someone having a primary sexual attraction to another person of the same sex. The term “bi-sexual” although it is not in my thesis will be used to mean a person sexually attracted to both genders. “Marriage” will be used to mean two persons being legal and religiously united. Even though not all religions call this marriage, they will be referred to as marriage as well. I use “morally” to mean acting with good and correct character according to the majority of individuals in the West which support Judeo Christian values. Larry Colero of Crossroads Programs Inc. says that personal ethics and personal morality are synonyms. He also says that the principles of personal ethics are as follows: “concern of others well-being, respect for the autonomy of others, trustworthiness and honesty, willing compliance with the law (with exception to civil disobedience), basic justice or being fair, refusing to take unfair advantage, benevolence or doing good, and preventing harm.” Lastly I will use the word “permissible” to mean allowed or permitted free from discrimination and all prejudice from society and within one’s self. In this essay I will explore the reasonable arguments against homosexual marriage, but I will also be presenting many of my own ideas supporting my thesis. Although I will have many arguments that I will either defend or reject, my main argument will be there allowing homosexual marriage will not threaten the foundation of marriage.

Support of Thesis
My first support of this thesis deals with the Christian outlook on homosexuality. Whether anyone would like to believe it or not, America is a primarily Christian based country. Unfortunately Christian religions believe that homosexuality is a sin. Christians are taught that everyone sins, but Jesus died so that their sins would be forgiven and that no sin is greater than the next. If this is the truth then homosexual Christians should not feel guilty for having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex because everyone sins.
Another idea is that all human actions are driven by self gratification. This means that everything we as humans do in life is done to make ourselves feel better. Our main purpose in life is to satisfy ourselves. If this is true and if homosexuals truly do love another person of the same sex then it would be because loving that person is satisfying to them. Is it right to forbid a person to do something that would make them even more happy as long as it’s not hurting anyone else? William Shakespeare said, “To thine own self be true.” That is exactly what everyone should do. Homosexuals have to deal with many objections of them being together when all they want to do is be happy. If a gay couple wants to be wed then they should be able to do what they want, not what everyone else wants them to do.
My third idea of why homosexual marriage is morally permissible is because it doesn’t break any moral laws. Everyone knows right from wrong. We were all taught this as children and it is believed that humans were even born with the sense of right and wrong.



Feedback. Anything. I'm in the process of trying to convince her to name it "Darth Cheney and His Plot To Take Over The World"


By the way, the grammar's off. I'm not finished editing it, and the paragraph spacing screwed up but... You all can manage, I'm sure.

 

[MrBishop]

Looking forward to commenting on this one. I've just 'attended' a series of lectures by a man called Bishop Spong. One of the topics that he covered was the blessing of same-sex unions. I like the way his mind works, and my statements might reflect those speeches. It may take a while, becuase I don't want to take this topic lightly...it's too easy to get attacked, especially on OTC, if you take this topic lightly.

A Message to the Anglican Communion
on the Subject of Homosexuality

 

[MrBishop]

OK...let me avoid the topic of gay-marriage for a second and become MrNitPicky. The written part of it is only a few words long, and it's already all over the place. She seems to be spreading herself out too thinly. She seems to be trying to defend homosexuality as a whole, then trying to defend the definition of morality, then seems to be aiming at how homosexuality can fit into the institution of marriage.

Certain things should be excluded from her arguments...this one..

why homosexual marriage is morally permissible is because it doesn’t break any moral laws

is just asking for it.

She haas to place 'moral laws' into context... does she mean moral laws in relation to the church, to the majority, to her own experiences.

Everyone knows right from wrong. We were all taught this as children and it is believed that humans were even born with the sense of right and wrong.

The problem is that knowing right from wrong isn't inate...it's taught. Because it's taught...the pupil (child), is going to be affected by his/her parents, teachers and peers. Knowing right from wrong is a developing skill. She'll also have to explain what she means by 'it is believed that...' who believes it? Children are born innocent and know nothing of right, wrong or fair. In general, children are born with themselves in the center of the Universe, and whatever they want is right, and what is denied them, is wrong. If I was your sister...I'd avoid that statement entirely. That 'born knowing right from wrong' statement is an arguement all to itself and could fill volumes. If she relies on it to prove her arguements...it would be simple to say that her proof is wrong, and therefore whatever is supported by it would be wrong too...hence, homosexuality is wrong and so is gay marriage.

I'm on a roll...but I'll let others go at this one before I continue.

 

[BeardofPants]

What? Only 2500 words, and you Americans call it a thesis?? That's a freaking essay. As far as I know, a thesis is supposed to be book length. (well, in NZ anyway. Fuck, even our dissertations are longer than 2500 words.)

 

[BeardofPants]

The problem is that knowing right from wrong isn't inate...it's taught.

Actually, some behaviours ARE innate. But the wording is off. I'd rephrase it altogether.

 

[MrBishop]

What? Only 2500 words, and you Americans call it a thesis?? That's a freaking essay. As far as I know, a thesis is supposed to be book length. (well, in NZ anyway. Fuck, even our dissertations are longer than 2500 words.)

Now, now...be nice BoP. It's Ralphie's younger sister... she might be in High School for all we know..in which case, 2500 words is a challenge.

For me though...2,500 words is a real challenge! How can you open a discussion, present the pros and cons, argue the points, and come to a conclusion..when you only have 2,500 words to do it in? Now..THAT's what I call a challenege.

 

[MrBishop]

Actually, some behaviours ARE innate. But the wording is off. I'd rephrase it altogether.

Try explaining that to my 2 year old, who thinks that biting or hitting someone in the face to get their attention is perfectly 'right'...so long as it's not happening to him.

Babies are 'tabula rasa'... a blank slate. If you're talking about breathing, the swallow reflex, and the toe-curl reflex...I'd say that you were correct. Those are inate (there without being taught)...but social behaviour, morals and ethics aren't inate. If they were, then everyone would be born with the same morals, ethics and rules of behaviour...and we damn well know that THAT ain't true.

 

[ralphie]

yeah... I'm just the grammar nazi here, folks.


I still think my title's better, and she's not finished with the "essay", meaning she has to write at least 1100 more words tonight. But okay.


For the most part, I get what she's saying, just because she's my sister and I've gotten used to the ditziness, so I think in moral law, she's trying to say by the vast majority of the population, but I'm not sure. I can ask her if you want.

I don't really like using religion in papers, but she's more of a hard-core christian than I am... seeing as to how I'm atheist. But okay.


I haven't really studied the thing yet.. I suppose I should do that instead of just fixing grammar.

Let me do that and reply back.

 

[MrBishop]

Tell her that it's easier to start with the major idea "saving the institute of marriage" or "homosexuality as a moral choice" and work her way down to the individual arguements either for or against the idea.

It makes it more like knocking all forms of support for what she's trying to disprove..and if an arguement has no suport, or weak support, it's far easier to knock to the ground in the conclusion.

Hope this makes sence.

 

[Squiggy]

My first support of this thesis deals with the Christian outlook on homosexuality. Whether anyone would like to believe it or not, America is a primarily Christian based country. Unfortunately Christian religions believe that homosexuality is a sin. Christians are taught that everyone sins, but Jesus died so that their sins would be forgiven and that no sin is greater than the next. If this is the truth then homosexual Christians should not feel guilty for having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex because everyone sins.

I'm a bit confused here....My understanding of Christianity isn't that Christ died for our sins so that we could do them all again. Wasn't it meant to give us a clean slate to try again....

 

[ralphie]

I'm a bit confused here....My understanding of Christianity isn't that Christ died for our sins so that we could do them all again. Wasn't it meant to give us a clean slate to try again....

"Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?" -Jules Feiffer



as far as I know, everyone sins. it's inevitable. It's not as much as so we could do them all over again. I agree with you there. He died so that we could at least have the chance to "save" [I'm using this word with reservation...] ourselves. Make the decision ourselves to be better people.

 

[Squiggy]

hmmm.... My own belief is that hypocrisy is the only sin...

 

[ralphie]

by the way...


she now has over 900 words! accomplishments!


anyway... I guess I'll post it when she's finished.

 

[RDX]

hmmm.... My own belief is that hypocrisy is the only sin...

Are you serious here? I'm not trying to knock you here (ok maybe a little), but is that really what you believe?

Now responding to the essay:

Although there is no definite truth about which is morally right

This should be stated as a matter of opinion, not as a fact. Most theists would say that there clearly defined absolute truths.

Although I will have many arguments that I will either defend or reject, my main argument will be there allowing homosexual marriage will not threaten the foundation of marriage.

To many people it does threaten the foundation of marriage. It redefines the meaning of marriage, and opens this to a whole new level. One could argue from a slippery slope point of view. If marriage is only relative, then what prevents a person from defining marriage as involving more than 2 people? Or how about people and animals? To many people, changing the classical definition of marriage is a very large threat to society.

Unfortunately Christian religions believe that homosexuality is a sin.

This is a fairly broad generalization. Although the majority of Christians oppose same sex marriages, there is a significant opposing view.

Christians are taught that everyone sins, but Jesus died so that their sins would be forgiven and that no sin is greater than the next.

Could, not would (if someone who read this didn't have the background, they would interpret this to mean that everyone is forgiven regardless of any action that they make to accept or reject that forgiveness. This is definetly a minority view among Christians).

Saying that all sins are equal, is for the most part correct, but many people would argue that the Bible does state some exceptions.

 

[Squiggy]

Yup...I'm serious. And i've said it many times in these forums....

 

[RDX]

If this is the truth then homosexual Christians should not feel guilty for having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex because everyone sins.

I'm with Squiggy on this one. You are entitled to your own views, but if the essay is addressing main stream Christianity, this is not a theologically sound statement.

Is it right to forbid a person to do something that would make them even more happy as long as it’s not hurting anyone else?

Again, this implies that no one is being hurt. And no one is being hurt physically, but to say that family members that oppose this view are not hurt by the marriage is incorrect. By the same reasoning, this also makes things like suicide and much drug use totally acceptable.

My third idea of why homosexual marriage is morally permissible is because it doesn’t break any moral laws. Everyone knows right from wrong. We were all taught this as children and it is believed that humans were even born with the sense of right and wrong.

I agree with MrBishop on this one. This portion of the essay is just asking to be run into the ground.

 

[RDX]

Yup...I'm serious. And i've said it many times in these forums....

Sry, haven't been around these forums that long. Are you then saying that rape, murder, child molestation, robbery, genocide, torture, etc are all fine under the condition that the person is truthful about what he did and makes no attempt to cover it up or mislead people?

 

[freako104]

how does that fit in at all? and what about those of us who dont believe in sin at all? As far as the morals and truths are concerned people have different views on it. some are simiar if they came from a collective source such as religion

 

[Squiggy]

Sry, haven't been around these forums that long. Are you then saying that rape, murder, child molestation, robbery, genocide, torture, etc are all fine under the condition that the person is truthful about what he did and makes no attempt to cover it up or mislead people?

Not saying that at all. What i AM saying is, if that person truely has no idea that he/she is doing something wrong, he/she has not sinned....

 

[BeardofPants]

Try explaining that to my 2 year old, who thinks that biting or hitting someone in the face to get their attention is perfectly 'right'...so long as it's not happening to him.

Babies are 'tabula rasa'... a blank slate. If you're talking about breathing, the swallow reflex, and the toe-curl reflex...I'd say that you were correct. Those are inate (there without being taught)...but social behaviour, morals and ethics aren't inate. If they were, then everyone would be born with the same morals, ethics and rules of behaviour...and we damn well know that THAT ain't true.

Bish, like I said: the wording would probably need to be re-phrased.

However, I pulled this up for you:
www.nel.edu/21_6/NEL21062000X001_Klein_.pdf

Nothing you haven't seen before, I'm sure. But an interesting read, regardless.