Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Ethical?
While currently, in the United States, the issue of same-sex marriage is holding attention of the public and the United States Supreme Court, it is a settled matter in a number of other countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa an Sweden)
An excellent description of same-sex marriage and its views around the world with links to further detailing of the subject can be found in Wikipedia.
In a writing by Peter Sprigg sponsored by the Family Research Council titled "The Top Ten Harms of
Same-Sex 'Marriage'" the following alleged "harms" are outlined.
1.Taxpayers, consumers, and
businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.
2,Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.
3.Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.
4.Fewer people would marry.
5. Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.
6. Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
7.Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.
8. More children would grow up fatherless.
9. Birth rates would fall.
10.Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.
The question for my blog is whether my visitors consider that same-sex marriage is an ethical act. Does it do good and is it fair and just? To help in making the decision, read the brief summary of how to make an ethical decision by the Markulla Center of Santa Clara University. Remember ethical decisions sometimes may have one principle trump others having lesser ethical significance for that particular issue. Take a few minutes and read at the above links and return here and express your analysis or if you already have considered your response write it now. ..Maurice.
Graphic: From Google Images and Christian Medical Comment, modified by me with Picasa3.
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 10:53:00 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I would like to start off discussion on this thread with the ethical principle of autonomy, the ethical right for an individual to have self-directing freedom and to be able to make decisions for themselves. The question is whether the state of marriage is a religious one and the definition is set by religion. I would say that marriage is set by civil law and one does not have to have or follow a religion to become married. And then the question follows, should civil law define marriage such that the autonomy of an individual to be able to select the gender of a mate to marry be denied? One would have to prove definite harm from the outcome of the right to select to ethically discard individual autonomy in this regard. ..Maurice.
Marriage is both a religious and civil union or a civil union alone as one can get married at Justice of the Peace.
A religious union alone has no legal validity in the United States.
This issue is one I have struggled with because as most of you know who read my posts, autonomy is a number one position. That being said, I have come to terms that everyone should have the right to live their lives, defined by how they see fit and benefit from the legal advantages that different status' provide.
The word marriage to some applying to same gender relationships is offensive to others not.
Same gender marriages should not be considered Civil Unions as they are as ensconced in religion as any other union, nor would some argue that they be considered marriage because they are of same gender relationships.
Whatever you call it, whatever the case, we have come to a time when people will do what they must and should be entitled to the same benefits that any other relationship of the same type would enjoy.
belinda
Belinda, from what you wrote, I get the impression that you find that if a state or country sets the definition of marriage and not religious belief, then the ethical principle of autonomy, applied to the couple, should trump other moral or religious limits to why or who can get married. It is the couple who themselves are primarily responsible to define whether their "getting together" becomes a "friendship", "union" or "marriage" based on law but not tradition, others beliefs or religion. Right? ..Maurice.
What constitutes a marriage? Whether homo or hetero, one would define marriage in it's current constructs as follows:
"A union between two consenting adults that promotes monogomy, intimacy (both emotional & physical) and a loving relationship where two people look out for each other, support each other, raise a family together if they so decide and to commit to spending their life together in their new family".
Adding a new definition other than what's "been on the books" leads to absolutely no foundation of what a marriage is supposed to be. What would the law do with that regarding equal protection under the law with regard to benefits?
belinda
As the world grows older, as humans produce more, consume more and are allowed to moved around more freely laws and legislation will define education.
We have come along way from slavery that was legalized but now we live in a world where slavery is ripe. We are now slaves to our own desires and are bringing in laws to justify our right to what we believe is good for us.
This all comes back to truth. What is truth. What is right. And what is right for me and is it right for you?
Many people are beating around the bush...
This is a spiritual war before any other war...We live in an age now where every body wants to be happy, where votes count, where people can do what they want by tweaking legislation.
If there are no Gods or God, then we are laws to our selves. Even the nicest people who are loving and kind and pay their taxes will find out like us all if God is real and his Son and Church had any ground to base biblical truths on.
Sure there are things in the bible from another age and time and things that the modern church doesnt practice that was taught back in the days of the early apostles.
You see there will always be a case that can be justified in nearly just about anything for what ever reason led to it and grounded it in the beginning.
It may not mean that it was Gods will...you see people get to choose, life sometimes chooses for you, circumstances may choose for you, mistakes may roll out decades of events and generations.
The truth is this,what we fill our minds up with is truth for us. Who we lean on will help guide our way. These steps determine our life's direction.
Jesus claimed he was the truth and if we abide in him the Holy Spirit will lead and guide us into all truth. You see as we move into the future the biblical ways fall behind..no longer do we practice legalized human slavery, or no education for women..and the list goes on. Back in the day God was something humans heavily believed in , but now we move into a Godless age.....when the planets resources start to run out, the earth starts to crumble, wars, droughts, floods and other evil thing in comprehensibly then we as a world may call upon God again.
If you call upon God and his Son for a relationship that is genuine then God helps you to repent slowly over time in to a person you were called to be representing his image..he is a Holy God..we cannot twist his will into our own..he has given us a guide but shows mercy beyond the guide but wants us to stick to the guide for our own safety.
For the Christian a Home, Church, Job, Friends and family represent what Jesus had access to before he started his ministry to the community then laid down his life for anyone that would believe in him and his message of repentance and salvation.
If we walk away from that model then what do we walk towards other than himself...?
But setting the definition of the love between two humans, shouldn't it be up to them, themselves and not a third party, even if that party is God? ..Maurice.
I suppose a church has a right to refuse to marry whoever they want. But our government, imo, should not deny equal rights to any consenting adults.
I suppose, since we have a democracy, majority should rule over whether it's called "marriage" between homosexual partners. I personally would say yes, and it sounds as if that is a majority belief. But at a bare minimum, I believe they should have all the equal rights as heterosexual marriages, even if it had a different name such as civil union.
Those supposed harms are just ridiculous, I am sad that people take them seriously.
TAM
I agree completely with Family Research Council. It is so sad that morals in America have gone downhill so much. Same gender marriage is unethical. It should have never even been considered. Homosexuality is wrong like stealing, murdering, and sex outside marriage.
I am so tired of hearing people saying that if you do not support same gender marriage that you hate homosexuals. This is totally untrue. Jesus ministered to many sinners in the Bible, but he never supported their sins. Jesus told the adulterous woman to not sin anymore (John 8:11)
One of my childhood friends was a lesbian for a number of years. She said that she was born that way and we honestly did not think she would ever change. One of her Christian co-workers who was very kind to her prayed for her and invited her to church. This friend got saved and left the homosexual lifestyle. She has a truly amazing testimony. There is certainly hope for homosexuals to change if they are willing to let God help them. I have some homosexual people I know personally that I often pray for.
I recommend that you all read this wonderful article: Marriage Is What It Is.
- Christian Woman
To each his/her own. Everyone in this country has the right to live their life the way they see fit. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. We're all entitled to our own religious and moral views and while I may disagree with those of others, no one has the right to impose their beliefs on others. If a particular religion doesn't want to recognize a marriage, so be it. But a government that claims to represent all the people should not selectively choose who you can marry.
Ed
Post a Comment
<< Home