Is Same-Sex Marriage Ethical?
Generally there are two disciplines that tell us what we should do. This is as either individuals or groups (societies or the planet). One is religion and the other one is philosophy or more specifically moral philosophy or in other words, ethics.
From a religious (Judaism, Christianity, and Islamic) point of view I think that the discussion is closed. Both Christianity and Islam are based on the Torah, the religious book of the Jewish faith. According to most in these three religions same-sex marriage or sex is not ethical. Actually I feel that marriage is a religious construct. I do not know why the LGBT community is pressing same-sex marriage, as most religions frown upon homosexuality/lesbianism.
Those states that allow Common Law marriages seem to be between one man and one woman. These marriages are not religious in nature but also do not cover same-sex marriages.
From a philosophical point of view, it is debatable. This is what this essay is all about.
Libertarians generally feel that it is up to each individual to determine his or her good. This is Individual Relativism and it is just as bad as Cultural Relativism. Some might say worse. Both Individual Relativism and Cultural Relativism basically deny the existence of absolutes. They conclude there are no absolute rights or wrongs.
But the statement—There are no absolutes is a contradiction. That statement is in and of itself an absolute. You can say—There absolutely are no absolutes, without changing the meaning. In other words, the word ‘absolutely’ is implied. Therefore, there must be some absolutes.
A personal choice is one thing but for society it may indeed be something entirely different. For any one group to impose on another is wrong. Again, rights are NOT cumulative that is; they do not increase for any group more than for any individual, just because there are more than one.
So what happens when one group’s ‘rights’ go against another group’s right? In the case of same-sex marriage how does one resolve this issue?
Socrates says that wisdom begins with definition. We must first define the problem.
The LGBT community says that they cannot marry who they want, as they think heterosexuals can. This is strictly speaking not true.
Universally, or in other words, absolutely, nobody does, if you talk about marrying someone who does not want to or otherwise cannot marry you. Point is there are reasons why we cannot marry anyone we want. But even if the other one does want to marry you the only reason to get married is to start a family or at least to try to.
Same thing can be said for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals cannot marry who they want either. They can marry one person of the opposite sex, as can the LGBTs. This right has NOT been taken from them.
Using the logic that one should be allowed to marry anyone they want then marrying a horse would be acceptable. If you were into bestiality and wanted to marry your horse (that you loved and that loved you) then you should be allowed. Both LGBTs and those who practice bestiality don’t want to start a family of their own. They just want the physical sex and companionship. You do not need marriage for these.
Interracial marriage used to be taboo. So, yes things can change.
On the other hand, interfaith marriage still is taboo in some circumstances, although not illegal. So they can remain the same, too.
But their right to marry someone of the opposite sex has not been taken from them. They choose not to use this right.
Change is change for the worse. It in and of itself is neither good nor bad, except any change creates chaos, by its very nature. Chaos and the confusion it causes are bad and should be avoided. It must be proven to be better.
One characteristic of good ethical theory is the concept of ‘Universalizability’; that is, it should apply to everyone. We cannot have everyone be a homosexual/lesbian otherwise; we would cease to exist as a species in less than 150 years. So, if homosexuality/lesbianism is wrong then anything to do with them is wrong, that includes marriage.
They have opted out of the social contract by being deviants.
Not everything is a right. You do not have a right to be POTUS, rich, tall, or smart, etc.
Aristotle: Everything in nature has a purpose. Everything in nature has an essential nature—certain features that constitute its defining features. Everything in nature has its proper good. Something’s natural purpose, its essential nature, and its proper good are intimately related.
Homosexuality/Lesbianism are not natural. Yes two male giraffes will have sex with each other in the absence of a female giraffe, but they would not normally do this.
I would think that Aristotle would find homosexuality/lesbianism unnatural therefore unethical.
My personal philosophy is do not misuse any system. That is, do not use or modify any system in a manner that it was not designed for, as it will not work.
So, given what I just said same-sex marriage is NOT ethical.
Nobody is perfect. We all have a cross to bear. Meaning there are things that keep us from realizing our full potential. We all have our imperfections. Accept this fact. Your lifestyle prohibits certain things that ‘normal’ people take for granted. A retarded person will think that he has the right to be normal but he cannot. There are numerous examples of people not having what others have and can never have it.
You’ve made your bed (or rather it was made for you) now lie in it.
Outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Even the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that marriage is, among other things, to begin a family. A LGBT couple cannot a start a family with their own offspring. A family means two parents that generated offspring, their own children. While LGBTs can adopt children, the children will never be their own.