Search Helium

Home > Relationships & Family > LGBT > Gay & Lesbian Issues

Should homosexuals receive all the rights and benefits of marriage?

Results so far:

Yes
64% 2165 votes Total: 3370 votes
No
36% 1205 votes

Yes

by Amy Dunne

Created on: October 12, 2009


Should homosexuals receive all the rights and benefits of marriage?

I would ask that you please read the following statement;


Couple C have been in a stable, faithful and happy relationship for the last six years. They have lived together for five of those six years, sharing all financial out goings equally. Both persons work hard in their chosen careers, as a police officer and as a social worker. They are both upstanding members of society. They pay their taxes and neither have ever had any problems with debts or the law. They both have a clean bill of health, both physically and mentally. It is fair to say Couple C love one another very much and plan to spend the rest of their lives together. They feel that the time is right for them to make their union official in the eyes of both the law and God. They wish to show their commitment and express their love before their friends and families.


If I was to say that Couple C were a heterosexual couple, there would be no problems. They sound like the ideal couple and potential husband and wife material. Their love is obvious and their commitment to one another is to be commended. Many would agree that it is only natural that Couple C should wish to get married. Their union would be recognised by both the law and God.


By being married Couple C would be protected by the law. Such things as joint income tax returns, family and bereavement leave, inheritance, family insurance rates, hospital visits and burial arrangements for spouses are just a few benefits that couple C would get from being married. They would also show through the sanctity of marriage just how strong their love for one another is, before God, their families and friends. Their love and commitment would be accepted and praised alongside their faith.


If I were to say that Couple C were a homosexual couple, (I do not feel it matters whether they are male or female in this example) would it change the outcome? Would everything in the example that contributed in favour for the heterosexual couple to get married be dismissed because of this couple's sexuality? In some cases, yes.


Just one part of what makes up Couple C's relationship, their sexuality to be precise, seems to render them as second rate people. Second rate people who have second rate rights. Unfortunately it is possible that all the positive and good attributes in the relationship previously described count for nothing because of this one attribute. A very private and personal attribute, that has nothing to do with anyone else.


Love is a powerful thing. People have fought wars and ended theirs and others lives for it. Love, is something that we can not control. It can be the most beautiful and happiest thing or the most horrific and painful thing that we experience. I am not here to argue whether homosexuality is right or wrong, natural or sinful, an innate part of people or a choice they make. I am also not here to discuss in depth whether God accepts homosexuality or believes it to be a sin. I am here to ask whether gay marriage should be given the same legal rights and status in the eyes of the Church as heterosexual marriage.


I personally believe it should. I have found that there is little evidence that I have read that supports otherwise. The example of Couple C shows that there is only one factor stopping gay marriage, and that is sexuality.


I wish to explore the two separate arguments against gay marriage, from the point of view of religion and society.


Many religions believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful. They base these beliefs on historic manuscripts such as the Bible. There is little evidence in the Bible that suggests God thinks homosexuality is wrong. I have written a different article about this, and therefore do not wish to go in to this now.


What I will say however, is that Holy Texts are believed to be the word of God recoded through man. Man has the same faults now that he has always had, such as ignorance and pride etc. If you do not approve of homosexuality, what is there to stop you thinking that God has made you think this way? That the opinion you have is actually the opinion of God. Think of the damage that this self convincing delusion could create. What is to say that the few small mentions of homosexuality being wrong in the Bible were written because of mans own personal opinions and prejudices? Not because of God.


The only commandment that is reinforced repeatedly throughout the New Testament is, "love thy neighbour." Homosexuaity being wrong is not in the Ten Commandments! Surely if it was such a heinous sin it would be. If God is all powerful and loving, why would 'He' make such a huge mistake in creating homosexuals if he didn't love and accept them?


Some people claim that the same argument can be said for paedophiles, rapist and murders. They are born that way. So it is either not their fault that they do what they do as God created them or they should know what is wrong and right. I do not wish to go into the argument of evilness here.


What these people do, goes against the commandments and state law. Nothing good comes from what they do. They do not have the consent of, or see their victims as an equal person. They are driven by purely selfish motives and needs.


I find peoples ignorance frustrating in such matters. There is NO comparison between gay people and the people that commit such atrocious acts. Their acts are evil and universally morally wrong.


To love someone who happens to be of the same sex, who happens to feels the same is consensual love. There is no desire to do harm or evil there. If both people can live a happy life together, where is the sin in that? Is it possible to live a life following all the commandments and be gay? To live a good life, do no harm onto others and love your God whilst being gay? If it is, then why should marriage between two gay people not be allowed?


To believe sex is just to procreate makes us no better than the animals. Animals rarely have sex for pleasure, they simply do it to procreate. It is through higher consciousness and knowledge, that we understand the importance of love, passion and pleasure all being incorporated in to sex and relationships. If gay people are committing a sin and are not allowed to get married, then the same could be said for people who use contraception, masturbation, IVF and heterosexuals that choose to have anal sex.



I now wish to address the main reasons that I have come across in regards to society claiming gay marriage is wrong. Some people believe that if gay people were given the right to marry and have the same legal rights of straight couples, the delicate society that we live in will be destroyed.


It is a common belief that homosexuals lead dangerous and damaging lives. Drugs, HIV, suicide, depression, multiple sexual partners and alcoholism are just a few negative attributes that are forced upon the stereotype of homosexuals. In the example of Couple C, none of these are relevant or found to be true. I do realise however that my example is not proof. So I will look further into the validity of the negative attributes.


Depression, suicide, alcoholism and drug use, can all be related. It has been noted in the past that a high potential of homosexuals have become depressed. Whether, gay, straight, bi or celibate, all of the negative attributes can affect us. Why? Because we are all human, and although our sexuality may differ the weaknesses of humanity do not. People who become depressed often find themselves acting in ways that lead to self destruction. All of he negative attributes could apply to anyone.


Many homosexuals throughout history have suffered from depression and this is not surprising. Especially if you were told that the person you are and the person you loved was because of a sickness and evil inside of you. Knowing that there was no way you could live your life the way other people do, without fear of being caught and punishments as severe as even death being forced upon you. The simple fact that you could not change the way you were and even if you chose not to act, the life of solitude and desperate loneliness would become an existence and not a life at all.


Then of course the horrific realisation, that it is not only this existence that you are damned. If religions are to be right, then an eternity of hell would be waiting in the next life. No freedom, no release and no peace.


Many of these men and women suffered because of the laws and lifestyles that were forced upon them. Is it therefore not surprising that depression became a fact of life, and alcohol, drugs, multiple sexual partners (as one relationship would be too obvious and could lead to punishment), suicide, were the only coping mechanisms they found.


Homosexuals were not allowed to be open about their sexuality or relationships. Being gay was a crime and a sin and the punishments were harsh. In these circumstances, how could gay people lead a life where they could be with just one person? They simply couldn't. Many heterosexual relationships had never had this kind of pressure and still fall apart so what hope did homosexuals have?


As for HIV, it is an awful disease. A disease that gay, straight and bi people can all catch. It is true that gay men have in the past suffered more than straight couples. But lesbian couples have suffered less than both. So being straight does not offer the safest solution.


Some people believe that allowing gay marriage it will corrupt the young. It will tell them being gay is ok and may even turn them. This is ridiculous! Being gay is ok. If you are gay, you wouldn't just randomly wake up and decide to try being straight. The same applies for straight people. If it was a matter of picking and choosing your sexuality and who you love, who would chose to live a life that is so difficult?


In conclusion I wish to note that in the United Kingdom on 5th December 2005, 'The Civil Partnership Act 2004' came into operation. It enables same-sex couples to register and have the new legal status as civil partners of each other. Civil partners now have equal treatment as that of married couples in a wide range of legal matters, such as; tax, employment benefits, (most) state and occupational pension benefits, income related benefits, protection from domestic violence and the ability to apply for parental responsibility of their civil partner's child are amongst others.


Society has not fallen apart or been destroyed. In fact it really has not had an impact on those that do not know or socialise with gay people.


Gay people are finally given the opportunity to lead 'normal' lives and have 'normal' rights' in the legal sense. The term 'marriage' is still only reserved for heterosexuals. Roman Catholic and other religious denominations still choose to not accept homosexuality. It is not surprising, considering they still also choose to ignore issues that have been around for a long time and actually affect them. Contraception, female priests and married priests are just a few examples. Religion is based on the teachings of the past, but in order to be applied for the present and future generations, some things need to drastically change, Until this happens, I believe the number of church goers will continue to decrease.


Learn more about this author, Amy Dunne.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

by Derotha Ann Reynolds

Created on: April 09, 2011   Last Updated: April 15, 2011

Homosexuals are victims, as they often tell you.  They can be products of a nightmare childhood, or, as often in the case of lesbians, the products of a nightmare marriage.  They turn to members of their own sex in search of normalcy, a sensuous life without condemnation that they can seek without the fear of intimacy that was imposed upon them by members of the opposite sex.  In these modern times, it takes less fear to turn to the same sex for intimacy because of the widespread acceptance of finding sensual pleasure from the same sex.  Many young people are urged to find their "sexual orientation" as soon as puberty hits, as though the presence of a penis or a vagina were not sufficient evidence.  (While it is true that it is sometimes not obvious which sex is prevalent in a child, usually the physical sex is easily determined.)

Any psychologist who encourages an unhappy homosexual to seek counseling to "cure" his longing for male gratification is condemned.  Any claim that homosexual orientation is a choice, rather than physical pre-destination is discounted as ignorant and out-dated.  The modern consensus, as Hollywood would have you believe, is that physical sexual gratification is the most important aspect of adulthood, and that all of us have a right to it, and that without it happiness is not possible.  We should seek this as our goal from the very dawn of physical maturity, and any other endeavor will not have meaning if we do not achieve our right to seek orgasms without censure.  Homosexuality fits right in with the theory that the population is too large.  It is indeed attractive to those who don't want to face the responsibility for birth control, and for those who don't want to be burdened with children.

But having said that, homosexuals should not be categorized as all one hyper-erotic type. Homosexuals can be good parents, and good step-parents.  Homosexual love, like all love, is based on concern for their partner, over and above the erotic overtones.  Homosexuality is a product of our culture, and it is the nature of our culture to ignore the basic fabric of human survival in these modern times.

Human beings are the product of heterosexual union.  Whether this union is achieved by sexual intercourse or a test-tube doesn't change the nature of reproduction.  A society that is fit to survive will cultivate the nurturing of healthy unions so that children will grow up confident of their own identity, and confident of their ability to ensure the prosperity of future generations.  This estrangement from our own identity as a culture is not the fault of homosexuals, it is the fault of shared belief in various forms of fantasy involving what the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to the pursuit of physical pleasure) actually involves.  As our culture and our economy and our educational institutions sink to ever-lower levels, we are all victims of our denial of human worth.

Any person lucky enough to be raised in a happy marriage between their parents will tell you that they rely upon that union for their own identity.  While a homosexual union can be based on mutual respect, it faces obvious challenges when participating in the perpetuation of the race, and its sustaining culture.  These challenges are born by the creativity of youth.  The institution of marriage is a vehicle for the perpetuation of human achievement.  It's role as the summation of individual commitment outside of that framework is secondary.  Acceptable homosexual unions are unions between consenting adults, who have made their choices with full knowledge of the circumstances.  Homosexual union cannot have the same status as heterosexual union, and children must not be misled to think that it can.  It is heterosexual union that can confront the nature of the human race in a way that sustains and dignifies the struggle between men and women and guarantees our physical presence on earth.  Heterosexual marriage often doesn't achieve this potential, but homosexual union cannot achieve it.  Homosexual union specifically avoids it. 

All of the archetypes of maleness and femaleness, in all of their goodness and badness, remain in any manifestation of sexuality.  It is this juxtaposition of human origin that challenges humanity.  The battle of the sexes continues to be fought within all aspects of eroticism regardless of whether it is between men, or between women, or between men and women.  The essence of humanity, however, lies on a higher plane.  While society will not, and should not, and cannot, rise above eroticism, the human experience has purely physical aspects that must rise above it.  Marriage is a social as well as an individual commitment. 

Homosexuals should receive, as adults, the respect of other human beings based on their achievements as individuals, and their lifestyle should be respected to the extent that it doesn't challenge the basis for society's ability to survive and raise children who are confident of their identity.  Any homosexual union must recognize that it has limitations that human laws can't remove.  Homosexual union is removed from the true fruit of marriage, which is children.  The strong protections of marriage that are for the benefit of children do not apply to homosexual unions.  Homosexual union is a different category, and should be dealt with as the situation dictates, depending on the requirements.  The commitment to each other is between the individuals.  Society has little stake in it.

Learn more about this author, Derotha Ann Reynolds.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.


CONNECT WITH US

Read
our blog
Helum for writers

Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills

Join our active writing community
Helium Content Source for Publishers

Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all

Get custom content today!

INFORMATION


Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA