I Do or Please Dont Hawaiis Same Sex Marriages Essay Example For Students

I Do or Please Dont: Hawaiis Same Sex Marriages Essay I Do or Please Dont: Hawaiis Same Sex Marriages I Do or Please Dont: Hawaiis Same Sex Marriages With the recent decision by the Hawaii courts regarding the legalization of marriage between same-sex couples, a political debate across the United States has begun. Many people believe that this is a monstrous step to legalizing same-sex unions country wide, especially since legal tradition recognizes marriages performed in other states as binding within every other state, but also because Hawaii is known for its liberal, ground-breaking first steps that the other states often follow the model of. If the states have any will, however, they will not fold to the pressure put on them by this state and the gay rights groups, they will continue to not recognize a man and man or a woman and woman as a man and wife. What is marriage anyway? Isnt it the union of two people who love each other to prove their commitments to one another for the future? Yes, but there is more. Websters Dictionary defines marriage as: a) the state of being joined together as husband and wife, b) the state of joining a man to a woman as her husband or a woman to a man as his wife. Legally, however, marriage is more than just a statement of love. Marriage comes with economic and legal benefits that one cannot receive alone. For example, joint parental custody, insurance and health benefits, the ability to file joint tax returns, alimony and child support, and inheritance of property and visitation of a partner or a child in the hospital. In fact, the Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation itself concluded that denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples deprived applicants of these legal and economic benefits. So, are homosexuals fighting for the right of marriage to state their love as the gay rights groups suggest or are they pushing for the right of marriage because of the many benefits that come with it? The answer is obvious they are fighting for the benefits that come along with marriage. If they were fighting for love, then where would we stop these feelings? If homosexuals were allowed to marry because they love each other and they consent, then couldnt a pedophile marry a younger child as long as both parties fully consented? If homosexuals were allowed to marry because they love each other, then couldnt one man marry many wives because he loved each one and they each loved him? If homosexuals were allowed to marry because they love each other, then couldnt a son and his mother, or even a brother and a brother, marry because they love each other? As one member of the Episcopal Laity Group said, a line must be drawn and it must never be crossed. Marriage is for a man and a woman, and thats the way marriage will always be. The gay rights activists claim that this denial of love, in the form of marriage, is a form of discrimination. These gay rights activists claim that this denial of love is similar to when slavery was being defended, womens voting rights were being denied, or even more specifically and more related, the anti-miscegenation laws of a few decades back. This is clearly an attempt at tugging at the nations heart chords by comparing the struggle for same-sex unions to several notable, if not the most notable, equality struggles in the history of the United States. The comparison to the defense of slavery or the denial of womens voting rights by gay rights groups is simply unfounded. Homosexuality has never been considered morally good, and it is a tremendous jump from saying that black-skinned people should work for white-skinned people just because of skin color or women cant vote just because of sex to saying that homosexuals cant marry just because of their sexual habits. Catcher in the rye and for esm EssayIf anything, homosexuality is comparable to smokers, compulsive gamblers,pornography fanatics, sex addicts, and pedophiles because these are all peoplewhose traits (whether inborn or not) directly effect society. This alsodirectly relates to interracial marriages because a persons skin color does notproduce a certain effect on conduct or character. If polled at the time of therespective movement (anti-slavery, womens rights, or interracial marriages), amajority of the United States population would have supported the movements(population includes those who are directly involved), but in the United Statestoday, over 2/3rds of the population are against same-sex marriage (according tonational polls run by Newsweek and CNN). On top of that, along with marriagegoes the assumption of sexual activity. The sexual activity of one homosexualwith another (sodomy) is illegal in many states and allowing gays to marry wouldbe turning a head to this illegal ac t. Whether sodomy is illegal or not, it is still practiced, claim the gayrights activists. While this is concedable, they also say that monogamousrelationships are safer in the homosexual community than polygamousrelationships. This is one of those statements that sounds good, because it istrue in the heterosexual community, but the facts prove otherwise, because thehomosexual community is not the heterosexual community. The general feelingamong gay rights activists is that with the threat of AIDS and other diseasesamong promiscuous, homosexual men, it is a societal good to encouragehomosexual monogamy. However, in cities where homosexual monogamy is alreadybeing encouraged, AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases are actuallysoaring! (Survey from the Centers of Disease Control report by Associated Press,HIV Found in 7 Percent Gay Young Men: Education Fails to halt Spread, TheWashington Times, February 11, 1996, p A-3; Michael Warner, Why Gay Men AreHaving Risky Sex, Village Voice, New York, January 31, 1995, Vol. XL., No. 5)AIDS is most likely transmitted in unsafe sex acts, and an English studyrecently published that the most unsafe sex acts occur in homosexual steadyrelationships. Men in steady relationships practiced more anal intercourse andoral-anal intercourse than those without a steady partner. Said one formerhomosexual, William Aaron, in the gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. . . the gay man must be constantly on the lookout for new partners . . . the mosthomophile marriages are those where there is an arrangement between the two tohave affairs on the side . . . (OUT Magazine) So, the myth that homosexualmarriage will decrease the number of gay AIDS patients because of lesspromiscuity is completely unfounded. The myth by these gay rights activistsshow how common sense in the heterosexual community must not be applied ascommon sense in the homosexual community, and vice versa, because they are twodifferent communities. In fact, the gay rights activists use of this mythsimply shows how they want to play on the heterosexual communitys fear of AIDSin order to gain something advantageous for themselves. The fear of AIDS, discrimination, and denial of love are all tacticsused by those in support of same-sex unions, but clearly all of them areineffective arguments when examined. In it painfully obvious that the onlyadvantage to same-sex unions for homosexuals is the legal and economic benefits,but it is at this point that the homosexuals are receiving favoritism ratherthan equality. When two people are allowed to marry just because of legal andeconomic reasons, regardless of whether or not they are marrying in thetraditional sense, it is clearing being discriminatory against those in theheterosexual community who are marrying for love. It is giving gays anadvantage rather than equality. Homosexual unions should not be allowed in theUnited States, and as a representative of St. Athanasius Roman Catholic Churchsaid, marriage is a privilege not a right.INTERVIEWEESEpiscopal Laity Group, 1-800-307-7609 St. Anthanasius Roman Catholic Church,703-759-4555