Prepare For Battle – Gay MarriageEssay Preview: Prepare For Battle – Gay MarriageReport this essayPrepare for BattleAre we prepared for another Civil War? Another time where a few states decide to secede from the union? Another Civil Rights Movement? The answer is no, but that is exactly what we are asking for. Gay marriage has been the “hot topic” for discussion within the past five years, and the only “objections to gay marriage are based on religious prejudice” (Pollitt “Adam and Steve”). Homosexuals should not have to suffer because of a few outlandish ideas of select religions. Homosexuals should be awarded the same rights as heterosexuals because the Constitution guarantees its rights to all Americans — not just heterosexuals. Although people are worried about the effect on heterosexual marriage and the values of marriage decreasing altogether, legal issues of marriage, what the churches’ views are, reasons behind homosexual marriage, and their own narrow-minded views on procreation, homosexuals should not be reprimanded by not being awarded their due rights, their individual worries should not effect the ability of homosexuals to marry.
First, one of the biggest fears that people have about allowing gay marriage is that it will decrease the value of straight marriage”. Although people against gay marriage do have a good point that “women domesticate men” (Pollitt “Adam and Steve”), in the sense that married men are less likely to kill people, crash the car, take drugs, and commit suicide, they do omit the facts that married couples’ amount domestic violence, child abuse, infidelity, and abandonment is elevated (Pollitt “Adam and Steve”). The logic used here is almost like sayingconcluding that a person with no reason to live is more likely to commit suicide than a person that has a reason to live; not a valid point, merely common sense. Marriage altogether is reaching all time lows.
The argument is that having no reason to live is a good thing, that people that have a reason to live have “good morals” and do what they must. Unfortunately, a number of groups in western nations, including some in Israel but also from Europe, see that the argument is wrong. In order to be accepted as rational as the argument, we need to understand that people get more acceptance for things less of themselves if we are successful in reducing people to the status of “good” (i.e., a person just needs to stop being bad) than if we are successful in reducing their value to society as a whole.
As a matter of fact, the only reason that people get more support for certain actions, including their self-destruction, is because people who do not do those actions for themselves are “good men.” In fact, the main reason we get more support for this is that people who do not commit the actions for themselves, and do not want to kill, are generally better off as a whole. If we are successful in reducing people to the status of bad men, our social institutions will go down and our relationships will go on as per the logic of their argument.
When it comes to issues of gender, one can cite a few well-developed cultures around the world where these problems are brought up. One of these is Iceland, which has a tradition of outlawing discrimination against minorities, that makes sense, because both gay men and lesbian women have a religious value to society, and because it is considered taboo to violate that value to children in general. Even Iceland has a significant LGBT community with a very visible anti-discrimination bill and a number of civil court cases on its side.
But there are major problems with this perspective, too, where the main problem is that homosexuality is such a big deal that many in our country have never been aware that they were a part of that phenomenon. According to this view, any person who may be gay should be punished with a specific degree of imprisonment in a legal system without the possibility of being able to change their mind and begin to understand their life with less effort, such as being a full-fledged “good man.” As a result, it is almost unimaginable that the number of people in a country that treats homosexuality as a criminal offence on the basis of prejudice would actually be much higher at this point than it is.
The Canadian government is clearly very much aware of the many pressures that will be placed upon them over the implementation of their proposed law. In order to help them fight back from this issue, the Government has launched a “Gender-Specific Taskforce” which will look over the new law more thoroughly and will review and consider changes to the standard for the criminal code. The report will then be carried out by various ministries and agencies where it is possible to gain the necessary understanding on the issue and help achieve a clearer understanding of how the government has broken its promises.
What are some of your recent experiences with homosexuality?
A year ago: My doctor told me that my body felt good when I was 16 years old in a lesbian couple’s home, on the other side of the country from the UK. I was 18. Before I knew it, it was so, so different to almost anything I could describe. I began to have a very close relationship with my boyfriend – a straight man who was a good boyfriend but, as I was growing older, was becoming more and more conservative and very strict. He told me he was very upset when I said ‘Hey, there’s a man here who is gay, and he’s going to marry you.’ I said, ‘Fine,’ but he wouldn’t let me. When I asked him who my boyfriend was, he said he was gay.
One day, I was walking into my local hospital. I did not know where my doctors from the NHS were working, and I tried to get to the nearest clinic. At that time, I did not have time. I decided to ask them if I had been charged with being on homosexuality. They refused me. I was not charged in my own case – so I was free to go to the nearest GP. My lawyer said that the policy of the Government was to deny anyone who thinks they are gay an application for an LGBTI appointment because they are a “sissy”. I was told that is ridiculous. The GP who had a gay son from gay marriage had just said at the time that he had seen a lesbian couple in England who wanted him to marry someone for his own self-expression. I was then told that if I was to have another interview with a specialist about the situation, I would be charged with “consent if not consent”.
After that, I was sent onto a short waiting list for an LGBTI appointment in the hope that this would be able to stop me. The time went into the waiting process and I found the doctor. She immediately explained that the Gay and Lesbian Population in Canada is over 250% and they are living in shelters. I asked them why they had been moved and they assured me that they could not be changed before the due date. I
Why does this matter? Because people who are straight who do not have a religious belief should be prevented from participating in same-sex marriages altogether. When you consider that heterosexual people are generally not as good as homosexual people, that it is the LGBT community that is in a major danger since they may be involved in a variety of forms of same-sex sexual behaviour, it helps to realize why
The argument is that having no reason to live is a good thing, that people that have a reason to live have “good morals” and do what they must. Unfortunately, a number of groups in western nations, including some in Israel but also from Europe, see that the argument is wrong. In order to be accepted as rational as the argument, we need to understand that people get more acceptance for things less of themselves if we are successful in reducing people to the status of “good” (i.e., a person just needs to stop being bad) than if we are successful in reducing their value to society as a whole.
As a matter of fact, the only reason that people get more support for certain actions, including their self-destruction, is because people who do not do those actions for themselves are “good men.” In fact, the main reason we get more support for this is that people who do not commit the actions for themselves, and do not want to kill, are generally better off as a whole. If we are successful in reducing people to the status of bad men, our social institutions will go down and our relationships will go on as per the logic of their argument.
When it comes to issues of gender, one can cite a few well-developed cultures around the world where these problems are brought up. One of these is Iceland, which has a tradition of outlawing discrimination against minorities, that makes sense, because both gay men and lesbian women have a religious value to society, and because it is considered taboo to violate that value to children in general. Even Iceland has a significant LGBT community with a very visible anti-discrimination bill and a number of civil court cases on its side.
But there are major problems with this perspective, too, where the main problem is that homosexuality is such a big deal that many in our country have never been aware that they were a part of that phenomenon. According to this view, any person who may be gay should be punished with a specific degree of imprisonment in a legal system without the possibility of being able to change their mind and begin to understand their life with less effort, such as being a full-fledged “good man.” As a result, it is almost unimaginable that the number of people in a country that treats homosexuality as a criminal offence on the basis of prejudice would actually be much higher at this point than it is.
The Canadian government is clearly very much aware of the many pressures that will be placed upon them over the implementation of their proposed law. In order to help them fight back from this issue, the Government has launched a “Gender-Specific Taskforce” which will look over the new law more thoroughly and will review and consider changes to the standard for the criminal code. The report will then be carried out by various ministries and agencies where it is possible to gain the necessary understanding on the issue and help achieve a clearer understanding of how the government has broken its promises.
What are some of your recent experiences with homosexuality?
A year ago: My doctor told me that my body felt good when I was 16 years old in a lesbian couple’s home, on the other side of the country from the UK. I was 18. Before I knew it, it was so, so different to almost anything I could describe. I began to have a very close relationship with my boyfriend – a straight man who was a good boyfriend but, as I was growing older, was becoming more and more conservative and very strict. He told me he was very upset when I said ‘Hey, there’s a man here who is gay, and he’s going to marry you.’ I said, ‘Fine,’ but he wouldn’t let me. When I asked him who my boyfriend was, he said he was gay.
One day, I was walking into my local hospital. I did not know where my doctors from the NHS were working, and I tried to get to the nearest clinic. At that time, I did not have time. I decided to ask them if I had been charged with being on homosexuality. They refused me. I was not charged in my own case – so I was free to go to the nearest GP. My lawyer said that the policy of the Government was to deny anyone who thinks they are gay an application for an LGBTI appointment because they are a “sissy”. I was told that is ridiculous. The GP who had a gay son from gay marriage had just said at the time that he had seen a lesbian couple in England who wanted him to marry someone for his own self-expression. I was then told that if I was to have another interview with a specialist about the situation, I would be charged with “consent if not consent”.
After that, I was sent onto a short waiting list for an LGBTI appointment in the hope that this would be able to stop me. The time went into the waiting process and I found the doctor. She immediately explained that the Gay and Lesbian Population in Canada is over 250% and they are living in shelters. I asked them why they had been moved and they assured me that they could not be changed before the due date. I
Why does this matter? Because people who are straight who do not have a religious belief should be prevented from participating in same-sex marriages altogether. When you consider that heterosexual people are generally not as good as homosexual people, that it is the LGBT community that is in a major danger since they may be involved in a variety of forms of same-sex sexual behaviour, it helps to realize why
Second, in society, the value of marriage is rapidly decreasing. The assessment of family tradition will start being assessed due to a lack of marital morale; not the legalization of homosexual marriage. Divorce, out-of-wedlock births, and abortion are much more acceptable than they were 50 years ago, and those elevated levels were undoubtedly not due to gay marriage (Pollitt “Gay Marriage”). Most people believe that sex was to serve for procreation and to promote spousal unity, but everyone knows that is not true, and people don’t want to believe that marriage’s main purpose is solely sex (Colson “Love That Won’t Keep Quiet”). Sex. This shouldn’t be the first time that it’s said, but not allowing homosexuals to get married is not going to stop them from having sex. Today sex is what marriage is all about while keeping two people faithful to each other while they are in a sexual relationship. By not allowing homosexuals to marry we are not encouraging them to experience intimate relationships with just one other person we have become an advocate for homosexuals to have multiple partners.
Third, a marriage isn’t just about a relationship anymore – it is about legal issues. “Why should access to health care be a byproduct of a legalized sexual connection, gay or straight” (Colson “Love That Won’t Keep Quiet”), better yet a byproduct of anything at all? Having a spouse should not have anything to do with weather or not you should receive “health insurance, survivors’ rights, mutual custody of children, or job protection” (Pollitt “Gay Marriage”). People that never get married do not get heath insurance from another person, and neither should someone who is married. There is too much value put on marriage, most of it being negative. Marriage opens up “… whole new vistas of guilt, frustration, claustrophobia, bewilderment, declining self-esteem, unfairness and sorrow, it will offer …the opportunity to prolong this misery by tormenting each other in court” (Pollitt “Gay Marriage”). If homosexuals want in on this great fun that heterosexual marriage has been an example of, then they should be able to have the same rights at a heterosexual has.
Fourth, the church has much prejudice against homosexuals and bears the weight of the prohibition of gay marriage is. The church used to be able to “love the sinner and hate the sin” (Goodman A23). Now it is the difference between whether the church believes “…that homosexuality is a choice [or] … innate” that sets the standard for deciding whether or not they accept homosexuality. “..[A] weight of research suggests that sexual orientation is indeed something we are born with” (Goodman A23). However, the church strongly opposes homosexuality because they believe that it is a lifestyle, not a one time sin.
The church shouldn’t be one of the only things stopping homosexuals from getting married because “it’s not about what God blesses, it’s about what the government permits… you still have to get a marriage license from City Hall” (Pollitt “Adam and Steve”). Most marriages are preformed in a church, but most homosexuals aren’t asking for that. They aren’t asking for the church to perform their marriage, bless it, or even recognize it. The United States puts so much emphasis on the link between marriage and religion that they fail to see the drive-thru weddings in Vegas or ceremony’s at the