Homosexuals are not a recent plague, their fight for marriage not a new phenomenon. Gay couples have been seeking this right since the day straight couples were guaranteed it. But the times have changed, and the debate over the issue is no longer unequal; in its continuous strive to assert homosexual marriage as the end of the world, the institute of marriage itself has, in theory, asserted most marriages as evil. Marriage has never been a private matter. As a right sanctioned by the state, it is inseparable from politics. It is a tool applied toward the benefit of society. While the meaning behind a marriage may be important to the individuals, both the meaning and the individuals themselves are not in the eyes of society. What is important is the reason for that marriage, the reason determined by those on the outside of the union. Individual reasons like love and the consummation of that love fall at the feet of social reasons, reasons that change as often as religion and psychology. However, what never seems to change is the exclusion of homosexuals from this global plan. Homosexual marriage cannot fulfill the requirements that have appeared and faded through the centuries; to allow it is to allow marriage for the benefit of the individuals alone. And therein lies the sin; marriage for the sake of marriage itself, existing as nothing more than the greatest of proofs of the greatest of loves. Marriage has become a means to an end, a means that has grown more vitally important with each passing year, and the threat of homosexual marriage is the threat of marriage as an end in itself.
[...] The hardship of maintaining secret affairs and a public marriage were too much, and although amore praised the pursuit of love at the cost of society, it has become quite obvious that such a sacrifice is too much for the average person. With the steady decline of Christian influence, the necessity of marriage needed to found proof in something factual; indisputable knowledge that crossed the borders of religion and morality. The family turned to science to measure its own worth. [...]
[...] use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage,” and homosexuals, unable to contribute anything save “serious errors and widespread aberrant modes of behavior,” are required to seek a life or celibacy (Vatican 292). It is the social duty of homosexuals to live unhappily, to never feel the pleasure of sex, to realize their own inadequate contributions to the betterment of the world. The necessity of marriage as a means to founding God's power is evident in the Vatican's recent decision to declare only the lifestyle of homosexuality sinful. [...]
[...] Marriage has never been more of a political tool as it is now, on the verge of a breakthrough in the meaning of love. Gay marriage is a few weeks away from reality, and society is scared, because society has been taught to fear such a change. Society has been taught that selfishness, that a celebration of something shared by one person, by two, is not beneficial and therefore not permissible. As John Stuart Mill believes, society has no right to control liberty unless its citizens are in the direct path of harm (Mill 362). [...]
[...] marriage itself, existing as nothing more than the greatest of proofs of the greatest of loves. Marriage has become a means to an end, a means that has grown more vitally important with each passing year, and the threat of homosexual marriage is the threat of marriage as an end in itself. One of the first explorations of marriage as purposeful outside the realm of love is contained within Plato's Symposium. Although on the surface a fictionalized account of a discourse between Socrates and other prominent men of the time, it is an honest study of the reasoning behind Eros. [...]
[...] As far as society is concerned, homosexuals have no such reason to make that choice. But they still do, in honor of the meaning of marriage lost under decades of politics and science, philosophy and religion, in pursuit of a definition forgotten. There needs not be any love in the union of a man and woman, yet the union of a woman and a woman has no need but that. Homosexual marriage would be a testament to marriage forever entwined with love, and society is too afraid to teach its children that love alone is suffice. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
