Gay Rights the Contemporaneous Society

Gay Rights

The contemporaneous society strives to be modern in all senses of the word. We develop and use the latest technologies to improve the quality of life; we expand our horizons beyond territorial and spatial boundaries and we strive to explain all forces of life through scientific models. However, the question that arises refers to whether or not we are coming to cross some boundaries that should remain uncrossed. The question applies to various issues, such as the rights of the gay communities, abortion or cloning endeavourers, and generally raises religious and ethical questions. Are we going too far in this attempt to be a modern and open minded society or should we strive to preserve some moral values as they were initially intended?

This paper aims to demonstrate that, in terms of gay communities and their rights, the thin ethical line has been long crossed and that we need to go back and respect more traditional values.

The traditional legislations clearly and unequivocally stipulated that the marriage is between a man and a woman -- always has been and always should be. The argument is generally a definition one, based on the concept of marriage, but it also has moral and religious connotations. In 1973, Jones and Knight filed for a judiciary trial in the state of Kentucky requiring that they be allowed to get married. The judges ruled against this desire not based on the arguments of the opposing parties or the legislations in Kentucky, but based on the simple definition of the term marriage, which was always between a man and a woman. Since the two were unable to prove that one was male and the other female, they were considered unable to enter marriage.

Other similar situations and rulings were common throughout the entire territory of the United States and judges often argued that a marriage between same sex parties was impossible and that such unions could never be called marriages (Eskridge and Spendale, 2006).

The next argument is that the institution of marriage (or the sexual relations outside marriage, as they are accepted by more liberal approaches) is required to procreate children in order to ensure the continuation of the human species. Then, the parents are required to provide a stable environment in which to bring their children up to be responsible members of the society (Bidstrup, 2004). Same-sex alliances are unable to set these simple bases that make for a family.

Additionally, the expectation is that violence will be increased in same-sex families. In a traditional family, the rights of the women have developed and the number of molested women decreases every year. In the case of same-sex unions however, the legislation to regulate the actual behavior of the 'family' is rather blurry to even inexistent. Therefore, domestic violence is more likely to occur within these households (Conservapedia, 2009).

Probably the strongest argument against gay rights is based on religious matters. Gay rights are often perceived by the Church as Sodom's solemn warning. The two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, were burnt down by the Divinity as a punishment of their morally decaying behaviors. Incidentally or not, the word sodomy is based on the name of the Biblical city. Sodomy means in fact unnatural sex, and clearly suggests that those who engage in such actions will be punished just like the two towns. Before the destruction of the city, two angels, in the form of men came to stay with Lot. The men in the town surrounded his house and demanded to see the two men that were visiting him in order to get to know them better (sexual intentions). Lot pleaded the town men to reconsider and even offered his two virgin daughters instead. His request was denied and the men insisted that they be offered the disguised angels. The angles then took Lot to safety and advised him to take his family out of the town. Immediately afterwards, God smacked down Sodom.

"With such a Biblical event casting its shadow over the theological landscape, how could "gay" advocates sidestep the obvious implication that God considered homosexuality a despicable sin?" (Vitagliano, 2003)

In the eyes of the Church then, homosexuality is an unnatural and sinful behavior simply because it disobeys the heterosexual human relations, as they were initially intended by the Divinity. "It is a sin grievous to God and repulsive to Christians because it rejects God's design for mankind as heterosexual beings" (Wildmon, 2007). And its currently increasing acceptance in the contemporaneous community is only based on the desire to be perceived as modern and open-minded, when we should in fact be focusing on how to convince the gays to renounce their habits.

The risks of accepting and allowing gay rights revolve around the emergence of future negative effects. It is like opening Pandora's Box, from which numerous problems will come out, the most stringent issue being the perception as normal of deviant sexual behaviors (including even incest). Then, gay communities undermine the authority and moral power of traditional values, values onto which our very society was built (Wildmon, 2007).

Homosexual rights also pose a threat for future stability as they put intense pressure on the sanctity of marriage and normal sexual relations. Various religious organizations have even concluded that gay rights will lead to more situations of incest. This is entirely believable in a context in which, amongst other things, gays also militate to "repeal laws controlling the age of sexual consent" (LaHaye, 1991). Then, the gay communities are most commonly perceived with reticence (to say the least; it is even pure hatred at times). This means that their community is outcast and by using stereotypes, it can be concluded that the marginalized homosexual individual is more likely to commit sexual crimes. In such, the number of sexual abuses on children would easily increase due to a liberalization of gay rights (Herek, 2009).

The next anti-gay rights argument comes from the actual propaganda used by the homosexual and lesbian communities. An analysis of their agenda will quickly reveal that they do not seek the God given rights of life, liberty and property that each state grants to all its members, regardless of age, race, sexual orientation and so on. They in fact seek to gain social welfare advantages.

The American constitution promoted general social welfare rights for all individuals, but the gay communities want more than the rights established by the constitution -- they desire special advantages that the average American (single or married) does not have. The most relevant example is the special exception that has been made for homosexual unions to pay lower costs for housing, to fill in joint tax statements or to inherit properties. Straight individuals living together, such as room mates or unmarried couples do not benefit from these privileges (Doherty, 1993).