Opposition_Evaluation

Opposition Evaluation Paper Natalie Vidos University of Phoenix Wealth and Power in America POL/443 Oscar Gonzalez July 03, 2010 Opposition Evaluation Paper The subject of gay marriage is one of great debate. This topic has strong polarizing viewpoints and each sect is very much unyielding within their arguments. The argument at hand is not one of every day rights. Most people agree that homosexuals should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, equal access to government benefits, and equal protection of the law. Once the subject then approaches the right to marry, all talk of equality abruptly stops. Nearly seventy percent of people in the U.S. oppose gay marriage, almost the same proportion as are otherwise supportive of gay rights (Eskridge, 1996, p. 96). This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue. The debate on this issue has many individuals running scared because of the scare tactics and hate propaganda used from the parties of the opposition. The major groups who oppose gay marriage are primarily religionists, and conservatives. These two groups hold mostly the same core values and view homosexuality as either a sin, a choice, or flat out pervasion. The thought process is that same-sex couples do not posses or can obtain an optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting argument considering that society does allow murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day. These same critics give this point hardly a second thought. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed' Why are the advocates of this argument not working to prohibit the above categories of people from raising children' The players in this hate spirited campaign are obviously ones with homophobic agendas. Many who call themselves “Christian” do not in any way get relieved of the fact that they are preaching hateful and unconstitutional messages to the public simply because they are trying to disguise their misinformation in religious doctrine. If one was to take arbitrary versions of the Bible so literarily, then why not the following one applying to Deuteronomy 25:5-10: "When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying 'I have no desire to marry her,' then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and declare 'This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house. Throughout Israel his family will be known as 'the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.'" (Deuteronomy) If the Bible is sacred and inviolate when it comes to the institution of marriage, then the above passage and all the other inconvenient ones require reverence too, do they not' Any one person would likely argue that this is an outdated and irrelevant stature for today’s modern world. The institution of marriage as it is practiced in the real world is a culturally defined institution, not biblically defined, as a reading of the above quotation should make quite clear, and it is time to recognize and face up to the cold reality that cultural values have changed since the Bible was written, and the institution of marriage has changed along with it. Gay marriage is simply part of that evolutionary process of social progress (Nava & Dawidoff, 1995, Chapter 1). The stereotype has it that gays are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted. Isn’t this true of heterosexual couples as well' When speaking about these types of behaviors and relationships, in both gay and straight sects, the majority of individuals practicing this are young people. As individuals grow and mature, both gay and straight persons typically long for commitment and monogamous relationships. In 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state could not deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. Despite this ruling, Americans continue to oppose laws allowing homosexual couples to marry or to form civil unions -- and the number opposing gay marriage is higher now than it was before the Massachusetts action. The numbers for opposition against gay marriage have been steadily rising according to poll conducted by CBS News and the New York Times. According to these sources, some 61 percent of respondents said they were against gay marriage, and only 34 percent said they were in favor of gay marriage. Almost half of Americans are now in favor of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman (Cosgrove-Mather, 2003) Truth of the matter is that the values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, and devoted partners. They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law. Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well (Bidstrup, 2009, para. 14) Gay marriage would greatly benefit heterosexual society. When individuals commit to monogamous unions, the participants are discouraged from engaging in promiscuous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers. Scandinavian countries such as Denmark have seen many positive attributes in their communities due to gay marriage. In 1989, the proposal of gay marriage becoming legal initially had all of Danish clergy opposing the issue. It is now a little over 20 years of the legalization of gay marriage and the benefits of that the communities have seen are so overwhelmingly positive, they now have turned past skeptics. (Bawer, 1993) The opposition believes that gay marriage would hurt the national interest of the United States but as more and more evidence piles up, the only interest these groups have is their own. They are simply tryong to preserve ancient and prejiduced ideologies that homosexuality is an act against God and the moral fiber. They say that legalizing homosexual marriages would violate the sanctity of marriage because gay sex is unnatural. The other major fear is that by legalizing gay marriage, this would legitimize homosexuality as a whole. The fear is that if that occurs, then homosexuality would be taught in schools and would pervert innocent young minds. Gay marriage has been a reality for Scandinavian countries for two decades now, it has been legal in Canada for several years, and many states acknowledge civil unions in America. If all that the opposition is saying is true, then why is it that if legalization is international and existent for decades, the world has not come to an end' Students are not being taught about gay sex in schools and the American youth is not being corrupted. Twenty years of gay marriage in Denmark has not brought about the collapse of civilization in that country. In fact, it remains higher on the United Nations Development Index than does the United States (Policy, 2010). It is doubtful that the collapse of civilization will be brought on in the United States by two men or two women saying "I do". Fear always has the effect of nullifying reason, and does so reliably - so all one has to do to nullify a logical argument is to instill fear. At the end of the day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne almost entirely out of religious prejudice. Americans from all backgrounds deserve to be treated equally and with the same respect their neighbors receive regardless of sexual orientation. It is high time that Americans finally all truly believed that and honored the last phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance; “With liberty and justice for all.” References Bawer, B. (1993). A Place At the Table: The Gay Individual In American Society (1 ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Bidstrup, S. (2009). Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives [Monograph]. PFLAG. Retrieved from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm Cosgrove-Mather, B. (2003, December 21). Opposition To Gay Marriage Grows. CBS News, New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml Eskridge, W. N. (1996). The Case For Same-Sex Marriage. Cambridge, MA: Austin Cline. Nava, M., & Dawidoff, R. (1995). Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. New York, NY: Author. Policy. (2010). Pro-and-Anti Gay Marriage Essays. Retrieved from http://www.policy.com