Paper Example on Same-Sex Love: Examining Different Perspectives

Introduction

There are different perspectives and viewpoints regarding the issue of homosexuality in society. Proponents of homosexual relationships and unions support their view by arguing that banning homosexuality would be a violation of the constitution and the rights of homosexuals. They also explain that the concept of traditional marriages has changed, and that the concept of marriage as between heterosexuals is flawed. Other arguments include the fact that humans have free will and that supporting homosexual relationships would build cohesion in society (Cherlin, 2017). Consequently, there are certain people and groups that are opposed to homosexuality. Some of their claims are that homosexuality is banned by most religions, it is unnatural since homosexuals cannot procreate naturally and that children need parents of both gender to grow and develop normally (Rosario et al., 2006). Both the proponents and opponents of homosexuality have valid arguments. However, this paper holds the view that homosexuality should be allowed by society since human beings should be allowed to exercise their own free will to choose relationship partners and by not allowing them to embrace homosexual unions, this would be a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in the constitution.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Arguments in Support for Homosexual Relationships and Unions

Violating the Constitution

The first reason in support of homosexual relationships and unions is that denying people of the same sex a chance to develop relationships would be violating the constitution. The constitution guarantees every person equal freedoms and rights, including the right to dignity and freedom of association. Banning same-sex relationships or even marriage would be a violation of the constitution which guarantees these freedoms to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation (Rosario et al., 2006). Such a ban would encourage society to marginalize homosexual people and alienate them from social interactions. Additionally, the same constitution also criminalizes discrimination of people based on among other criteria, their sexual orientation. Banning same-sex relationships or unions would be discriminatory to homosexual couples since they would be disenfranchised from the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. Society thrives on the rule of law since without legal provisions that are enforced through the criminal justice system, then society would degenerate into chaos. Therefore, the constitution should be implemented and homosexual people should enjoy the same rights and freedoms as those enjoyed by heterosexual people. Homosexual relationships and unions should be allowed by society so that it conforms to the constitution and the rule of law.

Concept of Marriage as Between Heterosexuals is Flawed

The second reason in support of homosexuality is that the concept of a relationship or marriage as traditionally between a woman and man is fundamentally flawed. Historically, homosexuality can be traced as far back as 2400BCE in Africa where an Egyptian homosexual couple, Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep were the first ever recorded same-sex union (Rousseau, 2010). Additionally, homosexuality also existed around 600BCE in Asia where it is mentioned in various Chinese literatures (Rousseau, 2010). During the classical period, homosexuality is mentioned by many famous philosophers including Plato and Aristotle. During the Renaissance period, homosexuality was popular in Venice and Florence (Rousseau, 2010). The prevalence of homosexuality across different cultures and geographical regions several years ago proves that homosexuality is not a foreign concept that should be shunned by modern society. The fact that same-sex couples existed as far back as 2400 BCE shows that the definition of a relationship as between a man and woman may be flawed, and the contemporary society needs to embrace homosexual relationships and unions, which were part of the customs and cultures in ancient society.

Traditional Concept of Family Has Changed

The third reason why homosexual couples should be allowed to develop relationships and unions that the traditional concept of the family has changed, and many people are opting not to have children and start families (Rosario et al., 2006). One of the key reasons why homosexuality is discouraged by many societies is that it appears unnatural since homosexual couples cannot bear children naturally. Many people assume that relationships and marriages should progress towards pregnancy and starting families, yet this is not the case in the modern society. There are many heterosexual couples who are financially independent who prefer not to have children. Homosexual couples should also be allowed to enter into relationships and unions since they may not be interested in adopting or raising children. Moreover, heterosexual couples that are barren or sterile are allowed by society to develop relationships or get married yet they cannot bear children naturally. Homosexuals should also enjoy the same rights and should not be castigated by society due to their inability to conceive children naturally.

Homosexual Relationships and Unions Build Social Cohesion and Harmony

The fourth reason why homosexuality should be allowed by society is that it encourages social cohesion and harmony in society. It is in the best interest of society to promote social cohesion between the different social segments that include people of diverse ethnicities, gender, sexual orientation, religious, and cultural backgrounds (Rosario et al., 2006). This is because peaceful co-existence between diverse members of society reduces conflict and strengthens bonds between members. Parents want their children to be happy, employers want workers to be productive, communities want their neighbors to be peaceful, and the government wants fewer population segments to rely on welfare. In recognizing and supporting same-sex couples, the society will promote co-existence and motivate all members to be productive. Moreover, many homosexuals have contributed immensely to the development of society and some of the most famous people in the world who have made significant contributions, are homosexuals (Cherlin, 2017). It is in the best interest of society to support homosexuals to actualize their potential since they will contribute immensely towards economic growth and development. Additionally, if a nation or society banns homosexual relationships and unions, then this move will breed conflict as the gay people will fight for their rights, thereby disturbing the social order.

Morality and Free Will

The concept of morality is dynamic as morals vary across countries, cultures and societies. An action that is deemed to be morally upright in one country may be viewed as immoral in another. For instance, homosexuality may be seen to be normal or moral in western countries yet in conservative cultures such as in Africa and the Middle East, it may be criminalized. In this respect, then society cannot claim that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexual relationships and unions should not be allowed. Moreover, human beings were created with free will (Cherlin, 2017). They possess a mind of their own and are free to make decisions that they are comfortable with, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, or do not commit outright criminal activities. Homosexual relationships and unions do not infringe on any person's rights, and they are based on free will. People who join such unions are usually not coerced and they do so voluntarily. Since human beings have free will to choose what they want to do, then homosexuals should be allowed to have relationships and marry if they so wish. It is therefore wrong to use morality as an argument against homosexual unions since it is a subjective concept (Rosario et al., 2006). It is impossible to legislate or control issues related to morality and it is not in the government's best interest to regulate personal relationship choices that people make out of their own free will. Doing so would be tantamount to regulating moral issues such as infidelity in marriage, lying to people, children disrespecting elders, and other social vices that the government cannot enforce authority over. It is therefore prudent for society to recognize that morality is subjective and that human beings have free will, which makes homosexuality a choice that any willing adult should be allowed to embrace.

Opposition against Homosexual Relationships and Unions, and Counterarguments

Children Need Both Parents of Both Gender to Grow and Develop Normally

One of the main arguments that oppose homosexual relationships and unions is that relationships are meant to facilitate the creation of families, and children need both mothers and fathers to grow and develop normally. Moreover, people against homosexuality argue that homosexual couples deny children the right to have either the mother or father, and this adversely affects their development. Proponents of this argument explain that both fathers and mothers play unique roles in shaping their children into responsible adults through socializing them and teaching them gender roles in society. However, when children do not have either parent, then they lose out on the parental contribution towards their socialization and development, thereby increasing their risk of delinquency. Even though this argument has some factual basis, it is fundamentally flawed, since heterosexual couples have very high divorce rates, and many children who are born to heterosexuals grow up in single-parent households. According to Cherlin (2017), approximately 40% of heterosexual marriages in the US end in divorce. This means that homosexuality in itself is not a determinant of a single-parent family, as heterosexuals suffer a similar fate. It is therefore illogical to disapprove homosexuality relationships and unions based on the argument that children will lack a parent of either gender.

Homosexuals Cannot Procreate Naturally

Another argument that opposes homosexuality is that relationships are meant to develop into marriages for the purpose of procreating children. Since homosexual parents cannot procreate naturally, then such relationships should not be allowed by society. There are several logical problems with this argument. The first is that some heterosexual couples may be barren or sterile, and they are not able to bear children on their own. This means that they are not different from homosexual couples in terms of bearing children. Another problem with this argument is that there are numerous ways, other than the natural biological reproduction, that homosexual couples can have children. Some may adopt children while others may use scientific methods such as IVF treatment (Cherlin, 2017). Additionally, surrogacy is another option that is available for homosexual couples. These options invalidate the argument that homosexuals should not have relationships and unions since they are incapable of having children naturally. The third problem with this argument is that not all couples opt to have children, and some heterosexual couples opt not to start families and they live happily together. In the same way, homosexual couples may also opt not to raise children.

Homosexual unions are against Christianity and other Religions

The third argument against homosexual relationships and unions is that homosexuality is not condoned by most major religions including Christianity (Starke, 2015). Many Christians hold the view that homosexuality is contrary to God's word and that he created a man and a woman for a reason. They also argue that God punished homosexual societies in various instances in the Bible.