Ethics of Same Sex Marriage Essay Essays

Ethics of Same Sex Marriage Essay Essays Ethics of Same Sex Marriage Essay Paper Ethics of Same Sex Marriage Essay Paper Society has many positions on same sex relationships and matrimonies. people are either for it or against it. In this paper. we will first expression at same sex matrimony in America and how homophiles and straight persons feel about the issue. We will look into the ethical issue that same sex matrimony nowadayss. We will look at how the classical theory of how deontology would decide the issue of same sex matrimony. Following. we will contrast deontology with the position of relativism. Finally. we will see which of these positions on same sex matrimony is closest to my ain personal positions. The ethical ground behind why people in society believe that same sex matrimony is incorrect is merely due to favoritism. Society does non hold a valid ground why same sex matrimony should non be allowed ; it is merely merely based on one’s ain biased concluding for non leting it. Same sex matrimony is something that people have been contending for rights for many decennaries. Andrew Koppelman ( 2004 ) . celebrated journalist and writer. provinces that â€Å"Most Americans agree with the first sentence of the proposed amendment: â€Å"Marriage in the United States shall dwell merely of the brotherhood of a adult male and a adult female. The chief inquiry this raises is whether this regulation is of import plenty to enshrine in the Constitution† ( p. 4 ) . Many Americans can hold that the first sentence of the amendment is wide and that it invalidates domestic partnership Torahs that allow same sex couples the rights of matrimony without the name ( Koppelman. 2004 ) . Marriage is non merely a word but instead an establishment. which the amendment makes impossible for same sex matrimony to hold the rights to that establishment. In 1996. the defence of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) prevented the federal authorities from acknowledging same sex matrimonies and allows single provinces to hold the power to specify their ain household Torahs. This allows each single province to take whether to disregard the first sentence of the amendment or hold with the first sentence of the amendment when make up ones minding whether or non do same sex matrimony legal in one’s ain province. With this being said. a governor can take to let same sex matrimony in the province they govern ; nevertheless. when that governor’s clip has lapsed and another individual takes over. that individual can make up ones mind to take same sex matrimony. All of same sex twosomes that were married in that province are now no longer considered married in the eyes of the jurisprudence any longer. Besides if a same sex twosome gets married in their current province that they reside in where same sex matrimony is considered legal ; so the twosome decide to travel to another province that does non let same sex matrimony. they are so non considered married in the eyes of the jurisprudence in the current province that they are now populating in ( Koppelman. 2004 ) . In The Limits to Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Politicss of Civil Rights. Jonathan Goldberg-Hiller ( 2002 ) writes that homosexual rights militants have been contending for same sex matrimony rights since 1970. In 1990. one homosexual twosome and two sapphic twosomes applied for a matrimony licenses in Hawaii at the section of wellness. several people in the provinces made attempts to dispute the matrimony Torahs and were denied. In 1991. the three twosomes hired a local civil rights lawyer proceeded to action the province circuit tribunal for misdemeanors of their rights of privateness and equal protection. The justice ruled that the same sex twosomes did non bask the right to get married. which followed with the twosomes registering for an entreaty in 1993 with the province supreme tribunal. The province supreme tribunal made the first national opinion that rejecting same sex matrimony applications was unconstitutional gender favoritism. but didn’t show a province involvement. The province at the clip felt that non leting same sex matrimonies did non uphold moral values and protect kids and filed for a gesture to reconsider ; nevertheless. it was rejected in the Supreme Court ( Goldberg-Hiller. 2002 ) . Like Hawaii. many same sex twosomes have fought their province circuit tribunal all the manner up to their supreme tribunal and have been contending for many old ages to legalise matrimony in their province and have been unsuccessful. In 2004. Connecticut. Iowa. New Hampshire. Vermont. Massachusetts. New York. the District of Columbia and two Native American tribal legal powers have legalized same sex matrimonies. As the old ages go on. more and more same sex twosomes will go on to contend for their right to get married who they choose and more provinces will finally let same sex twosomes their rights to get married whomever they choose ( Koppelman. 2004 ) . Those that are oppose same sex matrimony concentrate their logical thinking on spiritual beliefs. Same sex twosomes do non desire to be treated as 2nd category citizens. they do non concentrate on what faith provinces ; they merely want to be treated every bit equal as straight persons when it comes to their right. Same sex twosomes believe if one is to exclude any category of people from get marrieding whomever they choose. it so deprives them of their societal establishment ; that many experience defines the most meaningful portion of life. to get married person one loves. Same sex twosomes believe that their relationships are no different than that of a heterosexual matrimony. Same sex twosomes can hold keep a place together. supply an environment that kids can boom in and care for each other the same as heterosexual married twosomes do ( Goldberg-Hiller. 2002 ) . In Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Sing the Parallels between Race and Homosexuality. Mark Joslyn and Donald Haider-Markel ( 2005 ) writes that for many people. these yearss. the issue of same sex matrimony is an ethical contention. Same sex relationships have been considered tabu and an ethical issue in many topographic points throughout the United States. Many people oppose same sex matrimony and the rights of homophiles. The hereafter for same sex matrimony and civil brotherhoods appears to be really bright for legal acknowledgment. Lesbians and homosexuals had major reverses in 2004 election. nevertheless. many feel that was merely a velocity bump. In Ethical motives and Social Responsibility. Kurt Mosser ( 2010 ) explains that moralss are the concern of what is morally right or incorrect to an person. Ethical motives is the survey of what I ought to make or what should other people do. The doctrine known as moralss forces persons to see whether the things we do are right or incorrect. good or bad. immoral or moral. Ethical issues have relationships even with spiritual traditions and legal political philosophies ( p. 2 ) . In Marriage. Autonomy. and the Feminine Protest. Debra Bergoffen ( 1999 ) explains that the ethical issues and the ethical jobs same sex matrimony nowadayss is that society feels that if they make same sex matrimony legal. the same sex twosome would so destruct the significance of matrimony. To society. that significance of matrimony is reproduction and the instruction of kids. Reproduction is non possible with the same sex. for it takes a adult male and a adult female to do a kid. Marriage is considered the ethical site of a twosome and a determination people make to keep a peculiar manner of being. So. society feels that since same sex spouses can non reproduce and hold kids that they should non be able to get married. Some work forces and adult females can non gestate a kid and procreate due to medical jobs from either the adult male or adult female. Many heterosexual spouses. with the aid of engineering these yearss. use ways of birthrate such as unreal insemination. egg contributions. alternate female parents and acceptances. So reproduction is non ever executable with straight persons. So the statement of that matrimony should be merely among adult male and adult female for the interest of reproduction is really unfair. A sapphic twosome can so hold a kid with the aid of sperm contribution and a cheery twosome can hold a kid with the aid of surrogacy or acceptances ( Joslyn A ; Haider-Markel. 2005 ) . If straight persons have the same issue as homophiles. in respects to reproduction. so one can state ethically it is just to let same sex spouses to so get married To society. these yearss it is non uncommon to walk down the street and see a adult male and adult male. or adult female and adult female keeping custodies and it is considered normal to many Americans. However. to the older coevalss. they feel that a adult male and adult male. or adult female and adult female should non be together. even though it is a portion of society these yearss ; they have a difficult clip holding and understanding same sex relationships. The ethical values of person from the 1960ss are traveling to be different from person who was brought up in this twenty-four hours and age ( Bergoffen. 1999 ) . Ethical motives allows one to find what is right and incorrect. nevertheless. what we consider right or incorrect is based on our upbringing and encompassing civilization with other theories like deontology. we can see how these ways of life can be incorporated into society. The classical theories of deontology would decide the job of same sex matrimony. Deontology looks at the ground and regulation for why an act was done. alternatively of the effects from the act. Deontology focuses on what we are obliged to make as moral human existences. Deontology realizes that all actions have effects ; nevertheless. those effects whether or non actions are ethical should non be determined by the actions effects. Deontologists feel that people have an duty or responsibility to handle other human existences with regard. self-respect and take their self-respect into consideration when 1 has to cover with another individual. as we expect them to make when person has to cover with us. One can non utilize another individual nor can another individual utilize them to acquire what one wants ( Mosser. 2010 ) . Deontological theory of how one should be treated allows same sex twosomes to be treated as merely and just as straight persons are treated. With deontology. people have the right to be who they are and is non just to outcast others for any ground ( Mosser. 2010 ) . With this manner of thought. society should legalise same sex matrimonies and so all will be treated reasonably and rightly. When one says that a individual can non get married person because they are get marrieding person of the same sex. as oppose to opposite sex. is non handling person with regard and self-respect. Treating a individual this manner is alternatively out projecting them as different and who are we to do that judgement in society? Deontology would repair this manner of thought in society. for people would handle same sex couples the same as heterosexual twosomes. therefore leting people to love and get married who they choose. non who society says they should get married. When one contrasts the theory of deontology with the position of relativism. one looks at two positions that sort of work together. Where deontology focuses on what we are obliged to make as moral human existences. where relativism focuses on an individual’s moral claims that are either right in a civilization or incorrect for society. Relativism is where an individual’s values and beliefs are merely understood in one’s ain civilization. society or one’s ain personal values. With relativism. one may happen oneself debating with another individual over what athletics is considered the best athletics. One individual may believe that their point of view is more superior than the others view point of the issue. It is merely merely that one individual was raised with different positions than the other. Deontology would so come in and would reprobate some actions. if those actions violate the cardinal regulation of handling others reasonably and rightly ; therefore leting persons to hold their ain beliefs or positions ( Mosser. 2010 ) . To look at relativism and deontology together in respects to same sex matrimonies would assist societies with covering with same sex matrimony. If society looked at the issue through the position of deontology. they would look at the state of affairs in a moral manner that every homo being deserves to be treated reasonably no affair the state of affairs. Society with the position of relativism would hold one’s ain positions on the affair of same sex relationships and matrimony based on 1s upbringing and civilization and would accept what the civilization says is ethical. So. a society that outlaws same-sex matrimony would be acceptable to a relativist. However. with deontology in head. society would handle same sex spouses the same as straight persons. Even though each person has one’s ain positions and beliefs on same sex matrimony ; with deontology one is non allowed to see the effects of same sex matrimony. alternatively to merely handle others as human existences with the same regard and self-respect that one would desire done unto them ( Mosser. 2010 ) . My positions on same sex matrimony travel along with deontology and relativism. I was raised in a household where we were taught certain ways of life but non to judge others for the manner of life another may take to populate. With relativism. one would look at every state of affairs based on how 1s civilization and ociety around them brought them up. For me. same sex matrimony is something I feel should be allowed. I grew up holding many homosexuals and sapphic friends and to me it is normal for person to day of the month person of the same sex. I do besides experience that merely because it is something that another individual feels is right does non intend I have to hold with it to do it go on. When another individual marries the same sex. it is them that are in that relationship non anyone else. so why does it pique or ache others to see person happy? Even if it is something a individual is non comfy with. who are they to judge? Would society be alright with person stating them who they can or can non get married? Some civilizations matrimony is pre-arranged ; nevertheless. for many people in the United States straight persons are free to get married whomever they choose excessively. With deontology and relativism in head. society can hold their positions on same sex matrimony. but non allow one’s ain positions cause them to handle others different than one would desire to be treated. In my first-year twelvemonth in high school. I moved from California to Virginia where I was introduced to a whole new manner 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 topographic point to populate in. It was in high school that I encountered my first homosexual individual. At first. the whole manner of thought to me was incorrect. immoral and non how the Bible said relationships should be. I now see that turning up. my female parent thought in ways of deontology and would ever explicate to me. whenever I was confused. about ethical values and how whether we feel something is morally right or incorrect it does non do others ways of life morally incorrect. As the old ages past. I was one of the bridesmaid’s in a nuptials of my two beloved sapphic friends. held in Las Vegas. Even though their manner of life was non the manner I choose to populate. it did non give me the right to judge them for who they loved and who they wanted to get married. At their nuptials. I could see that the two were happy and in love and a twelvemonth subsequently. with the sperm contributions of our friend. the two had a beautiful babe miss. With relativism and ethical upbringing. 1s positions on who they marry is their ain positions ; with deontology. one accepts everyone for their ain positions and upbringing even if they do non understand it but one does non judge it. In decision. we have seen now that the ethical ground behind why people in society believe that same sex matrimony is incorrect is merely due to favoritism. We have. besides. seen that society does establish their belief of ame sex matrimony on one’s ain biased concluding. non because it is harmful to society or anything that can be justified. It is merely a position of relativism. one’s ain beliefs based on their society and upbringing. We have besides seen that if society looked at same sex matrimonies with the positions of deontology. society would be able to see things as they are and non know apart and justice others for their beliefs and positions. Society would handle everyone as they would desire to be treated and same sex twosomes would be allowed to take who they want to get married. merely as heterosexual twosomes choose who they want to get married.