“It is better to be black than gay because when you are black you don’t have to tell your mother” (Barbetta 6). This is the type of attitude that has defined homosexuality for years. There have been debates on whether homosexuality is natural or learnt. Since then, there have been several developments on the issue of gay relationships.
In most states, discrimination of people based on their sexual orientation has been outlawed. This paper intends to argue that legalization of homosexuality does not negatively affect the societal moral fabric or cause any imbalance in relationships. This is because homosexuality is inborn and hence cannot be reversed, it is just like any other expression of love and interest and finally, it cannot be discouraged by law.
Most religious organizations have based their arguments on religious writings and argued that legalization of homosexuality has contributed to moral decay within the American society. This ethical approach has played great roles even during political campaigns where family values have over ridden the desire to legalize homosexuality especially in school boards and religious organizations. In their arguments, religious bodies argue that marriage is holy union and sacred.
They therefore argue that God created man and commissioned him to fill the earth through his union with a woman and not people of the same gender (Ayers and Brown 15).
Secondly, anti homosexuality lobbies argue that marriage between two people of the same gender beats logic because it lacks purpose and objective. They argue that marriage between man and woman has a principle purpose of procreation. Marriage between people of the same gender does not have this objective. In addition to procreation, same marriage can be done for the major purpose of property sharing and companionship.
The anti-homosexuality groups argue that these can be achieved without having to get married. There are laws that would comfortably address the issues of property sharing and inheritance (Sherman 14). These arguments however, have not been able to convince pro-homosexuality groups. The latter have also their arguments for homosexuality.
First, they argue that homosexuality is natural and inborn. While anti homosexual lobbies argue that this is a behavior learnt from the environment. Science has proved that homosexuality is an inborn affair (Garber 16). Le Vay’s 1991 study pointed out that there are structural differences within the brain of homosexual men and their heterosexual counterparts. According to the study, it was identified that interstitial nuclei situated in the anterior hypothalamus of human brain showed structural differences in the two groups of men.
In homosexuals, the structure was smaller as compared to the heterosexuals. He concluded that the size of this structure had a role to play in determination of a person’s sexual orientation. This means that homosexuality is not a learnt behavior but a natural phenomenon. It is therefore necessary that such people are given freedom just like other people with genetic deformations that lead to physical disabilities.
For instance, should there be rights to protect autistic people, and then there should be rights to protect people with homosexual tendencies because the root cause of these two is similar. In other words, if policy makers come up with rules to discourage people from inclining towards homosexual tendencies, then there should be developed rules to discourage people from being born autistic. This would be a sure expression of inconsideration.
Just like heterosexual relationships can be immoral when abused, homosexual relationship become immoral if abused (Garber 53). When two grown ups come up with a mutual consent to honestly and sincerely set up a family, there is no tangible or visible form of immorality. Any relationship that is founded on love, understanding, consensus and monogamy is moral. Branding homosexuality immoral is immoral in itself.
What would be the verdict in a case where two families are brought before a judge where one family is made up of people of same gender while the other is made up of a man and woman. In the case of the family made up of man and woman, the man is accused of beating up the woman, drinking silly until he forgets to uphold his responsibilities, bedding any woman where opportunity avails itself and doing all sorts of ugly things.
On the other side, the homosexual couple is accused of engaging in an illicit and unholy union of people of the same gender. On questioning, it is discovered that the homosexual couple lives peacefully with each member performing his obligations without strain. They love each other completely and are faithful. If the judge has to imprison or tag one of the two families as immoral and a bad example to the young generation, which of the two will bear the tag?
Will the homosexual family bear the tag just because it is believed to be unholy while the family where the father commits all forms of crime is taken to be moral? The truth is that morality can only be defined by the ability of the action to be replicated elsewhere and lead to happiness. Every moral action must lead to general happiness. This leads to the issue of law and homosexuality.
Homosexuality is a natural and irreversible process that cannot be discouraged by restrictions. Criminalizing and discriminating against homosexuals is a counter productive venture. Criminal penalties are imposed on an act so as to discourage continual participation in this act (Kamiat 230; Borg 33). Therefore, imposing penalties and discriminative laws in relation to homosexuality is meant to discourage people from engaging in this act.
However, is it possible to reverse autism? Can a child born with autistic genes be reformed into a normal human being undertaking his roles normally? The truth is no. once a person is born with certain genetic deformations; he remains with the deformations forever. There is no way that these could be reengineered to become normal. Similarly, homosexual tendencies are inborn and cannot be reversed.
If an individual is born with relatively small interstitial nuclei, there is no way he can reengineer himself to enlarge this structure of the brain. That means that it is the society that should adjust towards accommodating this individual because once born a homosexual, one will remain a homosexual forever. Regardless of how many laws and regulations discriminating them, homosexuals cannot change.
Putting up laws against them is like discriminating people with other physical disabilities. Specifically, putting a notice at the gate of an organization reading “no vacancy for homosexuals” is similar to saying “No vacancy for the physically disabled.” This is discrimination and should be banned.
In conclusion, it has been argued by conservatives and religious organizations that homosexuality should not be legalized. Sadly, this article argues against this position. It has argued that legalization of homosexuality does not negatively affect the societal moral fabric or cause any imbalance in relationships. Instead of incriminating homosexuals, the society should look for ways to understand them and make use of this productive group of people in economic development of the country.
One Christian woman who sought to understand why his son turned to gay practices found out one thing that could be of great importance to the society (White 18). She said that the only way people can understand the gay people is not through looking for solutions from legal sources or spiritual books. Neither can their solution be found in science. One can only understand homosexuals by speaking to them. Giving them an ear and understanding their every sentiment.
Instead of running up and down arguing from a position that heterosexuals do not really understand, it would be more constructive if we all accepted that homosexuality is structural deformation or inclination with which an individual is born. This means that it is impossible to reverse what has already been made. Instead of trying to force them to desist from the activities, we should encourage them to construct moral families bound together by love, honesty and responsibility.
As a society, we should aim towards constructing a positive picture of homosexuals so just like we have constructed a positive picture of other physically disabled people. Policies and laws discriminating homosexuals should be considered retrogressive and be abolished so that these people fit in the society and contribute positively to the attainment of personal, family, society and nationwide goals and objectives.
Ayers, Tess, and Paul Brown, The Essential Guide to Gay and Lesbian Weddings. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1994. Print.
Barbetta, Francine. A Pebble in his Shoe – The Diary of Straight Spouse. New York: Xlibris, 2008. Print.
Borg, Marcus. Reading The Bible again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.
Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.
Kamiat, Arnold. “A Psychology of Asceticism,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23 (1928): 223-231.
Sherman, Suzanne. Lesbian and Gay Marriage : Private Committments, Public Ceremonies, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992. Print.
White, Mel. Stranger at the Gate – To be Gay and Christian in America. New York: Plume/Penguin Group, 1995. Print.