We're discussing gay marriage in my American Dream Rhetoric class, and once again, I'm the only male who seems to be a hippie liberal. Anyways, here's part of the paper i'm currently writing if you care at all...
Throughout the 18th century, the land that would become known as the United States of America faced fierce oppression from the ruling British government, which had introduced legislation limiting the freedoms of those people residing in the American territory. The unfair practices of the British government eventually lead to the declaration of independence of the Americans from the British, on the grounds that “all men are created equal,” and thus deserve fair and equal treatment (Wikipedia). By basing their own freedom on the principle of equality for all, I believe that hypocrisy lies in the fact that Americans would deny the freedom of matrimony to “men” according to their sexual orientation. The rights provided to any average American should be extended to include all Americans considered “men,” regardless of race, religion, and more specifically, sexual preference. Like the average heterosexual American is capable of love with a woman, homosexuals too can experience love, even if that love happens to reside with a member of the same sex. Because of this, it seems unjust that homosexual couples are forbid the same opportunities to celebrate this love through marriage or civil unions, and enjoy the benefits provided to married same-sex couples as well.
Throughout the 18th century, the land that would become known as the United States of America faced fierce oppression from the ruling British government, which had introduced legislation limiting the freedoms of those people residing in the American territory. The unfair practices of the British government eventually lead to the declaration of independence of the Americans from the British, on the grounds that “all men are created equal,” and thus deserve fair and equal treatment (Wikipedia). By basing their own freedom on the principle of equality for all, I believe that hypocrisy lies in the fact that Americans would deny the freedom of matrimony to “men” according to their sexual orientation. The rights provided to any average American should be extended to include all Americans considered “men,” regardless of race, religion, and more specifically, sexual preference. Like the average heterosexual American is capable of love with a woman, homosexuals too can experience love, even if that love happens to reside with a member of the same sex. Because of this, it seems unjust that homosexual couples are forbid the same opportunities to celebrate this love through marriage or civil unions, and enjoy the benefits provided to married same-sex couples as well.
posted by Chris at 2:37 AM
4 Comments:
Who says the British gov't was being unfair??? They only started taxing the colonists what Britons in the homeland had been paying all along, and then a few people over here threw a fit over it and started a movement for independence that was only supported by a minority of the colonists anyway.
I always thought British Americans came off as a bunch of whining brats w/o any legit grievances against the motherland. But I guess w/o them we wouldn't have fireworks on 4th of July.
All I know is that this whole gay marriage thing is a slippery slope. Fifty years ago people could not even marry outside of their race, let alone someone of the same sex. While I am not against interracial marriage I am still a bit hesitant to give gay people the right to marry. If we say gay marriage is ok then down the road it is going to be hard to say that other forms of “marriage” aren’t ok. Take polygamy for example, right now it is a no-no, but so was gay marriage, and after giving it the stamp of approval I think it will be difficult to justify why polygamy isn’t right.
This all remind me of the children’s book, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. Once you give one fringe group the right to whatever they want then others start asking for it. The hard part is where do you draw the line? Do we stop after gay marriage, and don’t allow polygamy. Or do we give polygamy the ok and stop with Michel Jackson style man-boy love? Given the sad state of morals in our society today I don’t think people will be able to draw an “appropriate” line. While all of this makes it sound like I am against gay marriage, I am really not. I guess I am for it because I am sick and tired hearing them bitch and moan; there are more pressing issues that we face right now then whether or not two guys can tie the knot.
hey sexy!
I agree with what you said in your paper, but for totally different reasons. Psychological research conducted in the 1960s showed that homosexual men were physically aroused by pictures of men and only men, whereas heterosexual men were aroused by women and only women. Because physiological arousal is an uncontrolled response to one's environment, the study concluded that people cannot help to whom they are attracted; indeed, the term "sexual preference" is very much a misnomer. It confirmed the belief, long held by the homosexual community, that nobody would choose a lifetime of discrimination and hatred purely for the sake of having a good time.
In response to ts' comments about a "slippery slope," it's called a slippery slope because it's a logical fallacy to claim that something even further along the same line will happen if the issue at question occurs. Polygamy is different from gay marriage; they're separate issues. It is not inconsistent to allow gay marriage but to forbid polygamy. It's ridiculous to imply that gay marriage is in any way related to "fringe" behaviors such as polygamy (or, for that matter, incest, beastiality, or pedophilia) simply because they are all sexual in nature. In any case, laws change according to the social mores of the time. As you pointed out, at one point cross racial marriages were forbidden, but the will of the people mandated a change in policy. Until the US public at large accepts gay marriage, it will unfortunately remain illegal.
Post a Comment
<< Home