Some Academic Thoughts on

Same Sex Marriage.

 

My Original Paper.

In the contradicting juxtaposition of civil liberties and free-press, America exists as a mixture of majority-rule democracy and loyalty toward media-driven wealth. In this world of hypocritical fairness, two players with influence in our country, the media and the government, live side by side. As such, the contradiction created by the disparity between these two sources of power leads to hypocrisy in other areas of our society. I live in this world of contradiction and doubt, as an insider privy to media-driven comments on patriotism showered by the government onto citizens with sponge-like minds. These comments, motivated by our image-infatuated culture, attempt to show that America is a united nation dedicated to the pursuit of freedom and equality for all mankind. These statements lead citizens of the entire world to believe that America is an equality-based haven of acceptance. Even the name of the country itself- the United States of America- serves to project an image of equality and acceptance of diversity. In actuality, majority-rule democracy, with majority-rule votes winning in the executive, legislative, and the judicial areas of government, aims to protect the majority opinion- not opinions of minorities. However, through the projection of this “American image”, citizens of other nations perceive America as a more accepting nation than it actually is. In spite of this, America keeps projecting self-serving patriotic ideals in order to elevate its status in the world.

The contradiction that exists in America has evolved into societal disagreement in areas such as abortion, the death penalty, and same-sex marriage. The disagreement exists in America because a minority group is denied a basic civil right and wants to receive this civil right: in the case of same-sex marriage, the right to get married. Some people believe that homosexuals shouldn’t be granted the right to any kind of union whatsoever. Others vouch for the right to a civil union, but will not go so far as to support the homosexuals’ right to marriage. Another group of people supports same-sex marriage to the utmost degree. The first group, not necessarily a discriminatory one, stands against any kind of union between homosexuals. Some of these people believe in the ‘slippery-slope argument’, concerning the fear of the possibility that same-sex unions could turn into any kind of union – between one man and twenty women, or between a man and his dog. Others believe that same-sex unions will destroy the traditional definition of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. These people tend to use religion as a support for their argument, and oppose civil unions in fear that they will eventually lead to marriage. On the other hand, one group of supporters of same-sex marriage believes that every American citizen should be granted basic civil rights. Their basic argument involves the concept of equality in America, dating back to the signing of the Constitution and the American principle that “all men are created equal”. Many homosexuals and other supporters of homosexual marriage compare the homosexual position as a minority in America to the situation African Americans and women have historically experienced. The group that supports civil unions lies in the middle of the argument. The religious argument can be used here: these people employ a religious perspective in believing that while traditional marriage is spiritual, civil unions are not as much so and therefore not as offensive. Some people believe civil unions to be a “happy medium”, granting some, but not all, of the federal advantages bestowed upon married heterosexual couples.

Using religious arguments to defend a law contradicts the Constitution’s principles of separation of church and state. Because of this, some people against same-sex marriage tend to have an additional argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy or bestial relationships. The faulty causality behind this argument is that this is only an assumption. There is no valid proof that this could ever happen. On the other hand, those that support same- sex marriage in all regards neglect to see that they are in fact guaranteed the rights to get married to members of the opposite sex. They only are prevented from marrying members of the same sex, as are all members of society, including heterosexuals. Another group that opposes same-sex marriage supports civil unions by believing in the happy medium. By supporting the middle compromise, they don’t feel like they are betraying either side. This argument doesn’t succeed because compromise doesn’t work. By only granting civil unions to homosexual couples, the couples are granted a limited number of rights. Federal rights, which outnumber state rights granted by civil unions by more than 1000, are only guaranteed to married couples. However, this does not only irritate those who support homosexual marriage, but also those who oppose it. Believers of the slippery-slope argument think that civil unions will lead to marriage at some point. These basic differences between the two groups mean that compromise wouldn’t resolve the issue.

However different these two binary groups and their respective arguments seem to be, they still maintain the same opinion on one basic issue- they both believe in the rights of the individual to his own privacy. The anti- gay marriage group supports the right of individual privacy in respect to living his/her life traditionally. Essentially, they don’t want their lives- their world of the traditional family unit- invaded by the world of gay couples and untraditional way of life. The pro-gay marriage group believes in the individual’s right to privacy as a right to marry whomever they want. They want their right to live a private married life and to be undisturbed by the law and society attacking them as minorities in society.

The past solution of civil unions has not succeeded in satisfying groups on both sides of the issue because they don’t guarantee the same rights granted to heterosexual married couples. They also don’t promise fighters of same sex marriage that civil unions won’t lead to marriage.

Instead of arguing about which side is more correct, and if gay marriage should be banned or not, there are other more important underlying questions to be answered. Why are minorities so often judged and discriminated against in our legal system? Even as one minority after another slowly gains their civil rights, equality for them has not yet been realized. Does our American version of democracy contradict our motto: “all men are created equal”? Does this motto project a false image of acceptance to other countries? While law-makers and the rest of society ponder these questions, law-abiding homosexual Americans wait for the day when they finally secure the basic civil rights that are guaranteed to all heterosexuals.

 

Bibliography

 

 

 

A rewrite of the first paragraph of this paper.

 

In the magazines that I read every week, in the newspaper that I read each Saturday, on the television I watch for hours per day, commercials and advertisements, from the media, force their way into my thoughts. I realize that the world in which I live is very much defined by these mediums of communication. The media in America is therefore a major influence in our society because of its consistent exposure to American members of society. This influence is juxtaposed with the official authority in American society, the government. The government expresses its goal is the spread of "civil liberties" and "equality for all mankind". However, in this juxtaposition, the media spreads its opinions and these opinions become popular stereotypes in society, often racist, unequal, or xenophobic ideas. Eventually, these ideas, spawned by the media, become ideas set forth by the government. The government creates laws that are contradictory to its original idea of "all men are created equal". This is a contradicting combination in the society of today. In this contradicting juxtaposition of civil liberties and free press, America exists as a mixture of majority-rule democracy and loyalty toward media driven wealth. In this hypocrisy around fairness, two players with major influence in our country, the media and the government, live side by side. As such, this contradiction created by the disparity between the two sources of power leads to hypocrisy in popular society. I live in this world of doubt, a passive participant and recipient of showers of media-driven opinionated statements from the government. These comments, motivated by our image-infatuated culture, attempt to show that America is an equality-based haven of acceptance. Even the name of the country itself- the United States of America- serves to project an image of equality and acceptance of diversity. In actuality, majority-rule democracy, with majority-rule votes winning in the executive, legislative, and the judicial areas of government, aims to protect the majority opinion- not opinions of minorities. However, through the projection of this "American image," citizens of other nations percieve America as a more accepting nation than it actually is. In spite of this, America keeps projecting self-serving patriotic ideals in order to elevate its status in the world.

What I have learned in my endeavors through writing this paper (my growth as a WRITER):

 

While writing this paper about same-sex marriage, and rewriting the first paragraph using comments from my professor, Dr. Hammer, I tried to eliminate faulty causality from my writing. This was the main object. Faulty causality is jump in logic from one point to another. I tried to avoid this in order for the reader to understand my "flow" of writing so that they could become convinced of the scene I was setting at the beginning of my paper. If they could see the ethos of my paper, they could understand the implications of my writing, and be convinced of seeing the "dark side" of me, and my opinions. If I avoid using faulty causality, or jumps in logic, I can begin to convince people to see the ethos I am presenting to them by making a logical progression from one point to the next. Also, in the first sentence I attempted to define the word contradicting by presenting a clear world as I see it in America. I see a world filled with media influenced juxtaposed against a government background that stresses democracy. By showing how media opinion influences the government and vice versa, I tried to show a logical progression to this contradicting juxtaposition.