Tradition or Equality
Tradition is Demoralizing Today’s Equality
by Eric J. Specht
The United States of America is the land of the free, a great nation that awards its human populous with equal opportunities. However, before the nation respectively gained its great recognition of freedom it had to conclude that awarding equal opportunity among the diverse population of humans was just and unjust for anything indifferent of that. However, some of today’s Americans are pained and sickened by the nation’s continual failure to recognize unfamiliar and dissimilar persons as species of the human race that deserve equality. In reality, homosexuals are human, humans that inhabit the same lands of the United States of America as their heterosexual associates. Human individuals equally governed by laws and awarded the same equality as heterosexuals. Therefore, the nation needs to retract the unjust scatter of homosexual inequality by nationally redefining marriage.
Part I: Redefining Marriage for Fairness
The nation appears to be repeating its history with equality issues by eluding the same sex marriage controversy. The nation grants each state the responsibility to define marriage, or the permission to accept or deny same sex unions, but prohibits influencing other states (Who Decides What, 2010). As a result, if a state chooses to accept homosexual marriages than a revision of the traditional ceremony affects the opposition’s beliefs, but if a state denies redefining marriage than a great injustice of limiting equality bestows upon those gay Americans. Furthermore, a state that denies same sex unions will likely be free of homosexual residences, as they will presumably relocate their residency in a state that supports same sex unions. Similarly, a state that redefines marriage may discourage heterosexual residences to stay. As a result, the nation may be in jeopardy of division or worst, socialism and/or another Civil War. Therefore, it appears more rational for the nation to withdraw its states great independence to contradict the civil rights amendment and nationally award heterosexuals the fairness to marry their significant other.
However, conventional marriage appears to trump fairness. Universally, traditional marriages are a union between one man and one woman, which appears to be one of the longest pre-existing habitual custom humans practice; however, it is just that, a habit. A habit today that is anything but traditional. Maintaining the traditional marriage value of a man and a woman union appears unsubstantial when the other aspects of the picture are pronounced. Therefore, let us briefly be ignorant by exempting same sex unions as untraditional and reveal some of the other issues that dishonor marital customs: adultery, adulterated, nonreligious matrimonies, divorce, and parenthood before marriage. As the nation collectively tolerates those disgraceful acts, most states are bias to accept same sex marriages merely to preserve the broken belief. It is evident that preexisting marital assertions are no longer satisfactory, but are marital intolerances more sensible than preserving equality.
Bigotry is intolerable acts of inequality that relentlessly continues to tests the United States of America’s freedom. Prejudices, such as segregating Native Americans from Polynesians, blacks from whites, and males from females scared the nation. However, the nations populous are no longer feeling suppressed and the wrinkles of repression are starting to smooth over as the nation equally awarded its American’s civil rights. As a result, the population starts to reveal unfamiliar and dissimilar characteristics such as sexual identities, but not without prejudice. Homosexuals have been denied public and private employment, denied medical treatment, and targeted because gay sexual acts were considered lawbreaking. The nation ended the inhumane prejudices because it is the nation’s responsibility to stop unwarranted infringements of equal liberation. However, it is now time for the nation to reclaim its image of freedom by warranting a deserving document that nationally protects and allows heterosexual unions.
Part II: Defining Marital Tradition
Some states strongly discourage redefining marriage because man and woman unions are morally correct. Man and women marriages existed for millenniums making it one of the longest universally recognized religious moral traditions (A Letter From, 2006). For example, Christians believe that God created man and from man God created a woman for his companionship; therefore, marriages are strictly for opposite sexes to unite as one. Religious followers also aim to abide by god(s) commandments such as you shall not steal, shall not murder, shall not commit adultery, and the golden rule, treat others as you would want them to treat you (Ruggiero, 2008, pg. 67). Consequently, if one breaks his or her religious devotions then it is consider a sin or an immoral act against self, the victim, and worse, if you are religious, against god(s). Whatever the religious belief may be those commandments are ethics practiced by the United States populous, so why chance challenging a deity’s logic by nationally revising a tradition that has been an effective practice for millenniums.
The opposition also insists that bigotry is what homosexuals and gay rights activist are trying to portray. Roy Ashburn, a successful state legislator worst kept secret was concealing his homosexual identity with having a wife and four children. After the rumors of his homosexual identity leaked out into public, no one suggested that he resign, in fact, he won reelection with open arms. Ashburn lives two separate lives, which exemplifies that society, religion, and laws tolerate gays without prejudices. Furthermore, the United States Federal Government allows each state to adopt a nontraditional definition of marriage, but that state does not have the authority to impose their marital beliefs on the other states, which maintains homosexual equality and exonerates national gay marriage discrimination (Who Decides What, 2010). Anti-gay marriage personnel admit the past view of gay Americans being an inferior race and denying them their rights was and is unethical, but argues that it is not bias to use common biological sense that marriage is a union between a man and a woman; thus, should not be nationally redefined (Bailey, 2010).
Further supporting that homosexual bigotry does not exist are Minnesota Catholics. They deny discriminating against homosexuals and claim, [“…it is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions”] (Webster, 2010). In addition, Brian Brown a Catholic and the executive of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) also claims that opposing homosexual marriage is not discriminating, but rather an act to preserve the traditional man and women union because [“… ultimately, same-sex marriage is not true"] (Hesse, 2009). NOM, its supporters, and the Minnesota’s Catholic’s defense is that homosexual relationships are tolerated, but permitting homosexual marriages would be granting an immoral consent to perform human conduct that defies the logic of reproduction as well as permission to defy moral standards. The argument appears moral and unbiased because homosexuality and heterosexuality are essentially different realities that coexist pleasantly without having to revise traditional values.
Part III: Amending Old Beliefs
Although religious moral conducts appear virtuous, each culture interprets similar ideals differently to declare just from unjust, a relevant argument for the opposition. Relatively, religious ethics appear categorized according to cultural relativism with a dash of ethnocentrism savoring their beliefs. Cultural relativism is an ethical theory that recognizes one’s culture and religious principles are only relative to that culture and may not suffice in another’s (Waller, 2008, pg. 89 - 94) thus, believing one’s cultural beliefs are superior (Ruggiero, 2008, pg. 42-43). For example, Catholics like Brian Brown claims that allowing same sex marriages would affect everyone and consequently his own view of marriage along with the majority of Americans would be discriminated (Conant, 2010). BrianBrown also claims it is not discriminating to oppose same sex marriages, but I presume he thinks it is moral to argue he is discriminated. Equally, Jewish leader Rabbi MarcusBurstein who spoke against the state of Virginia favoring a traditional marriage amendment believes that it is bias to prevent same sex marriages and exclaims, ["discrimination of any kind is a Jewish issue"] (Fingerhut, 2006). Although religious groups are similar in spiritual devotion by abiding by the moral conducts laid forth by their god(s), a distinguished line separates the different intentions of one’s religious ethical beliefs from another’s to conclude what is a just and an acceptable marriage for the states in America.
The logical defense found in traditional marriages appears impenetrable to revise traditional ethic beliefs, but evolution is inevitable and that is reason enough to amend preexisting assertions that no longer are adequate for the current era. Although the majority of the United States populace is for sustaining man and woman marriages, denying homosexuals the right to wed does not appear as virtuous as redefining an out dated marriage ritual. Discovering that homosexuals have the same motives and integrity with marriage as heterosexuals may help uncover the righteousness of the debate at hand and the need to nationally redefine marriage (Waller, 2008, pg. 104 -105). Furthermore, judging the act of homosexuals and its supporters merely wanting to challenge logic is a fallacy; it is not the biological fact in question, but the virtue of equality among the diverse. BrianBrown and other opposing participants appear to exclude the virtue theory because habit merely manipulates virtuousness, but is it not true that the traditional marriage value has been habitual for millenniums.
Another ethical problem exist in voting, just because the majority of the populace projects what is right from wrong does not necessarily mean it is true. Martin Luther King was a leader of a minority populace that out justified the majority’s ethical perspective proving majority ruling is less than adequate to uphold traditional man and woman unions. In addition, majority ruling limits homosexual’s civil rights as well as heterosexual gay rights activists and advocates: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. JoePeterson, a twenty year old gay man was sickened when California banned gay marriage and responded, [“it really seemed like the violation of the American dream”] (Bartels, 2009). It appears that gays are a separate class or in a different reality, but is that so immoral that they do not deserve the right to nationally pursue happiness in a similar heterosexual fashion.
Personally, I am a nonreligious heterosexual American that expresses empathy towards the nation because I foresee the United States of America beginning to divide its nation into states of heterosexuals and homosexuals, or states of equality and limitation. We all have to live on this planet and in order to coexist in harmony we must understand and accept each other’s lifestyles no matter how uncanny it may appear. Defending a long-term existing marriage tradition may appear just, but is it moral to defend a custom that needs revision because members of society are no longer suppressing their sexuality? If our nation can overcome immoral behaviors that appeared just in past eras, then it is possible that we can survive redefining marriage. Homosexual stature, conduct, religion, ethnic background, essence and more, set them apart from heterosexuals, but their moral fiber to challenge traditional marriage is merely an act to establish equal liberation.
Bailey, R. (2010, March 12). RALPH BAILEY: Ashburn proves gays are no victims [Wire
Feed]. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from ProQuest database.
(ProQuest document ID: 1981732561) State Legislator Ashburn.
Bartels, L. (2009, April 5). Young voters push for same-sex marriage Their plan is one of
two related measures aiming at the 2010 ballot. [Newspaper]. Retrieved
November 18, 2010, from ProQuest database. (ProQuest document
ID: 1674421511) Peterson and the next generation.
Conant, E. (2010, November 22). 'I Do'? I Don't!; Brian Brown is leading the fight
against gay marriage. And succeeding. [Newsweek]. Retrieved November 17,
2010, from ProQuest database. (ProQuest document ID: 2188655861) Brian
Fingerhut, E. (2006, March 9). Rodef Shalom rabbi leads vigil for gay rights [Periodical].
Retrieved November 18, 2010, from ProQuest database. (ProQuest document ID:
1024381741) Rabbi favors same sex marriage.
Hesse, M. (2009, September 6). Gay-marriage opponent traditionalist, not basher
[Newspaper]. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from ProQuest database. (ProQuest
document ID: 1855383611) BrianBrown.
Ruggiero, V.R. (2008). The Role of the Majority View. In Thinking Critically About
Ethical Issues (Seventh ed., Chapter 6). New York, NY: McGraw-HillCompanies,
inc. The golden rule.
Waller, B.N. (2008). Consider Ethics Theory, redaings, And Contemporary Issues
(Second ed.). New York: Pearson/Longman. Ashford University textbook.
Webster, R. (2010, October 10). Standing for the truth on marriage [Newspaper].
Retrieved November 17, 2010, from ProQuest database. (ProQuest document
ID: 2158260841) Preserving traditional marriage.
A Letter from America's Religious Leaders in Defense of Marriage [Web page].
(2006, November 14). Retrieved November 10, 2010, from RELIGIOUS
COALITION FOR MARRIAGE website:
http://www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org/ Defending marriage.
Who decides what `marriage' means?;[Newspaper]. (2010, May 12).
Retrieved November 18, 2010, from ProQuest database. (ProQuest document
ID: 2031024771) States are free to define marriage.