Ethics of Same Sex Marriage Essay

Society has m some(prenominal) views on akin kindle relationships and joins, mass argon both for it or against it. In this paper, we will low carry at similar invoke trade union in the States and how homo elicituals and hetero stiruals supposeing at round the replication. We will look into the honourable is litigate that afore say(prenominal) ride spousal relationship presents. We will look at how the virtuous theory of how deontology would resolve the termination of uniform fire matrimony. Next, we will transmission line deontology with the lieu of relativism. Fin entirelyy, we will perk up which of these views on analogous enkindle uniting is nighest to my decl atomic number 18 somebodyal views.The h nonpareilst causality behind wherefore volume in conjunction believe that resembling trip out espousals is revile is plain imputable to discrimination. Society does non lay d ingest a valid reason why said(prenominal) finish marriage sh ould non be take into accounted it is equitable evidently found on champions own nonreversible reasoning for non allowing it. said(prenominal) excite marriage is something that good deal have been scrap for flops for umpteen decades. Andrew Koppelman (2004), celebrated journalist and author, commonwealths that virtually Ameri crowd outs agree with the offset sentence of the proposed amendment matrimony in the linked States shall consist completely of the union of a man and a fair finish up.The main question this raises is whether this rule is grand enough to enshrine in the report (p. 4). Many Ameri do- nonhings preserve agree that the branch sentence of the amendment is broad and that it invalidates domestic confederacy laws that allow said(prenominal) trip play offs the justifiedlys of marriage without the name (Koppelman, 2004). unification is not effective a word but kinda an institution, which the amendment marks impossible for equivalent wi nd up marriage to have the rights to that institution.In 1996, the defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) pr take downted the federal government from recognizing said(prenominal) hinge upon marriages and allows soulfulness verbalizes to have the billet to define their own family laws. This allows each separate submit to claim whether to ignore the first sentence of the amendment or agree with the first sentence of the amendment when deciding whether or not make said(prenominal) wind marriage legal in hotshots own estate. With this being said, a governor can convey to allow aforementi whizzd(prenominal) waken marriage in the state they govern however, when that governors conviction has lapsed and another(prenominal) soulfulness takes over, that soulfulness can decide to remove alike perk up marriage.All of kindred shake up bracings that were espo utilise in that state argon alike(p) a shot no longer ascertained espouse in the eyes of the law any much. in any c ase if a kindred provoke couple gets married in their current state that they reside in where resembling elicit marriage is considered legal thusce the couple decide to move to another state that does not allow same sex marriage, they be then not considered married in the eyes of the law in the current state that they are now living in (Koppelman, 2004).In The Limits to joint Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Civil Rights, Jonathan Goldberg-Hiller (2002) writes that queer rights activists have been battle for same sex marriage rights since 1970. In 1990, star amusing couple and two sapphic couples use for a marriage licenses in how-do-you-do at the department of health, several state in the states made efforts to challenge the marriage laws and were denied. In 1991, the three couples hired a local civil rights attorney proceeded to sue the state tour mash for violations of their rights of cover and equal protection.The legal expert ruled that the same sex coup les did not enjoy the right to connect, which followed with the couples filing for an appeal in 1993 with the state supreme court. The state supreme court made the first national reigning that rejecting same sex marriage applications was unconstitutional gender discrimination, but didnt collection a state interest. The state at the time felt that not allowing same sex marriages did not uphold incorrupt values and protect fryren and filed for a deed to reconsider however, it was rejected in the tyrannical Court (Goldberg-Hiller, 2002).Like Hawaii, many same sex couples have fought their state circuit court all the charge up to their supreme court and have been fighting for many forms to legitimise marriage in their state and have been unsuccessful. In 2004, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, the District of capital of South Carolina and two Native American tribal jurisdictions have legalized same sex marriages. As the years go on, more and m ore same sex couples will go along to fight for their right to sweep up who they lead and more states will eventually allow same sex couples their rights to adopt whomever they take on (Koppelman, 2004).Those that are oppose same sex marriage focus their reasoning on spectral whimsys. Same sex couples do not fate to be kickshaw as second class citizens, they do not focus on what piety states they entirely want to be tempered as equal as straight separates when it causes to their right. Same sex couples believe if nonpareil is to omit any class of heap from marrying whomever they choose, it then deprives them of their social institution that many timber defines the most consequenceful part of brio, to marry psyche bingle loves. Same sex couples believe that their relationships are no assorted than that of a straighta itinerary marriage.Same sex couples can have follow a home together, provide an environment that children can thrive in and care for each other the same as heterosexual married couples do (Goldberg-Hiller, 2002). In Attributions and the legislation of Marriage Considering the Parallels between Race and Homosexuality, agree Joslyn and Donald Haider-Markel (2005) writes that for many people, these mean solar days, the issue of same sex marriage is an ethical controversy. Same sex relationships have been considered taboo and an ethical issue in many places throughout the United States.Many people oppose same sex marriage and the rights of homos. The future for same sex marriage and civil unions appears to be very bright for legal recognition. Lesbians and gays had major(ip) setbacks in 2004 election, however, many tonus that was just a speed bump. In ethical motive and Social Responsibility, Kurt Mosser (2010) explains that ethics are the doctor up of what is clean-livingly right or wrong to an individual. Ethics is the study of what I ought to do or what should other people do. The philosophical system known as ethi cs forces individuals to consider whether the things we do are right or wrong, good or bad, immoral or moral.Ethical issues have relationships even with religious traditions and legal political doctrines (p. 2). In Marriage, Autonomy, and the effeminate Protest, Debra Bergoffen (1999) explains that the ethical issues and the ethical problems same sex marriage presents is that ball club feels that if they make same sex marriage legal, the same sex couple would then destroy the meaning of marriage. To alliance, that meaning of marriage is bringing up and the genteelness of children. Procreation is not possible with the same sex, for it takes a man and a charr to make a child.Marriage is considered the ethical site of a couple and a decision people make to maintain a particular way of being. So, society feels that since same sex partners cannot procreate and have children that they should not be able to marry. just about men and women cannot conceive a child and procreate due to medical problems from either the man or woman. Many heterosexual partners, with the table service of technology these days, use slipway of fertility such as semisynthetic insemination, egg boons, surrogate mothers and adoptions. So replication is not alship canal feasible with heterosexuals.So the statement of that marriage should be tho among man and woman for the sake of procreation is actually unjust. A lesbian couple can then have a child with the help of sperm donation and a gay couple can have a child with the help of surrogacy or adoptions (Joslyn & Haider-Markel, 2005). If heterosexuals have the same issue as homosexuals, in regards to procreation, then unrivalled can say ethically it is fair to allow same sex partners to then marry To society, these days it is not uncommon to walk down the course and carry out a man and man, or woman and woman holding pass and it is considered normal to many Americans.However, to the older generations, they feel that a man and man, or woman and woman should not be together, even though it is a part of society these days they have a rocky time agreeing and imageing same sex relationships. The ethical values of someone from the mid-sixties are going to be antithetical from someone who was brought up in this day and age (Bergoffen, 1999). Ethics allows one to regard what is right and wrong, however, what we consider right or wrong is based on our rearing and surrounding burnish with other theories like deontology, we can see how these shipway of sustenance can be incorporated into society.The classical theories of deontology would resolve the problem of same sex marriage. Deontology looks at the reason and rule for why an act was done, instead of the consequences from the act. Deontology focuses on what we are obliged to do as moral mankind beings. Deontology realizes that all actions have consequences however, those consequences whether or not actions are ethical should not be determined by the ac tions consequences.Deontologists feel that people have an obligation or duty to treat other human being beings with respect, hauteur and take their dignity into precondition when one has to mussiness with another mortal, as we expect them to do when someone has to deal with us. iodin cannot use another person nor can another person use them to get what one wants (Mosser, 2010). Deontological theory of how one should be treated allows same sex couples to be treated as just and fair as heterosexuals are treated. With deontology, people have the right to be who they are and is not fair to outcast others for any reason (Mosser, 2010).With this way of intellection, society should legalize same sex marriages and then all will be treated jolly and aright. When one says that a person cannot marry someone because they are marrying someone of the same sex, as oppose to opposite sex, is not treating someone with respect and dignity. Treating a person this way is instead out cast them as different and who are we to make that judgment in society? Deontology would fix this way of thinking in society, for people would treat same sex couples the same as heterosexual couples, thus allowing people to love and marry who they choose, not who society says they should marry.When one contrasts the theory of deontology with the perspective of relativism, one looks at two views that kind of ply together. Where deontology focuses on what we are obliged to do as moral human beings, where relativism focuses on an individuals moral claims that are either right in a culture or wrong for society. Relativism is where an individuals values and beliefs are simply understood in ones own culture, society or ones own personal values. With relativism, one may find oneself debating with another person over what sport is considered the best sport.One person may believe that their stand head word is more superior than the others view point of the issue. It is simply just that one person wa s raised with different views than the other. Deontology would then come in and would condemn some actions, if those actions corrupt the fundamental rule of treating others plumb and justly thus allowing individuals to have their own beliefs or views (Mosser, 2010). To look at relativism and deontology together in regards to same sex marriages would help societies with dealing with same sex marriage.If society looked at the issue through the view of deontology, they would look at the situation in a moral way that either human being deserves to be treated fairly no matter the situation. Society with the perspective of relativism would have ones own views on the matter of same sex relationships and marriage based on ones raising and culture and would accept what the culture says is ethical. So, a society that outlaws same-sex marriage would be congenial to a relativist. However, with deontology in mind, society would treat same sex partners the same as heterosexuals.Even though e ach individual has ones own views and beliefs on same sex marriage with deontology one is not allowed to consider the consequences of same sex marriage, instead to simply treat others as human beings with the same respect and dignity that one would want done unto them (Mosser, 2010). My views on same sex marriage go along with deontology and relativism. I was raised in a family where we were taught certain ways of spirit but not to judge others for the way of life another may choose to live.With relativism, one would look at every situation based on how ones culture and ociety around them brought them up. For me, same sex marriage is something I feel should be allowed. I grew up having many gay and lesbian friends and to me it is normal for someone to date someone of the same sex. I do in like manner feel that just because it is something that another person feels is right does not mean I have to agree with it to make it happen. When another person marries the same sex, it is them that are in that relationship not anyone else, so why does it offend or hurt others to see someone joyous?Even if it is something a person is not comfortable with, who are they to judge? Would society be okay with someone telling them who they can or cannot marry? Some cultures marriage is pre-arranged however, for many people in the United States heterosexuals are free to marry whomever they choose too. With deontology and relativism in mind, society can have their views on same sex marriage, but not let ones own views cause them to treat others different than one would want to be treated.In my entrant year in last school, I moved from California to Virginia where I was introduced to a whole new way of life compared to ways of life I knew in California. With relativism, I was used to certain ways of being that to me made Virginia a unusual place to live in. It was in high school that I encountered my first homosexual person. At first, the whole way of thinking to me was wrong, immoral and not how the bible said relationships should be.I now see that ontogenesis up, my mother thought in ways of deontology and would always explain to me, whenever I was confused, about ethical values and how whether we feel something is virtuously right or wrong it does not make others ways of life morally wrong. As the years past, I was one of the bridesmaids in a wedding of my two dear lesbian friends, held in Las Vegas. Even though their way of life was not the way I choose to live, it did not give me the right to judge them for who they loved and who they wanted to marry.At their wedding, I could see that the two were happy and in love and a year later, with the sperm donations of our friend, the two had a glorious baby girl. With relativism and ethical facts of life, ones views on who they marry is their own views with deontology, one accepts everyone for their own views and upbringing even if they do not understand it but one does not judge it. In conclusion, we h ave seen now that the ethical reason behind why people in society believe that same sex marriage is wrong is simply due to discrimination.We have, withal, seen that society does base their belief of ame sex marriage on ones own biased reasoning, not because it is harmful to society or anything that can be justified. It is simply a view of relativism, ones own beliefs based on their society and upbringing. We have also seen that if society looked at same sex marriages with the views of deontology, society would be able to see things as they are and not class and judge others for their beliefs and views. Society would treat everyone as they would want to be treated and same sex couples would be allowed to choose who they want to marry, just as heterosexual couples choose who they want to marry.