Permissibility of Same-sex marriage (Essay Sample)

Permissibility of Same-Sex Marriage Introduction Nothing beats love in the world. Humanity has strived to understand virtually every complex facet of our existence and the world’s modus operandi. One thing that even the most sophisticated scientific equipment cannot understand is love. This essay starts on a ‘love’ note because it is the only way to understand our essay topic, the permissibility of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a contentious issue in modern society, gathering supporters and critiques alike. The West has led the park in legalizing same-sex marriages, offering a legal framework and safety against discrimination and prejudice against the men and women who chose a different path to explore their sexuality rather than the ‘norm’ heterosexual marriages. However, even in the West, it would be incorrect to state that people in same-sex relationships enjoy the ride like their counterparts in heterosexual marriages. There are still discrimination cases and prejudice from the heterosexual society towards homosexuality. Some other countries have allowed it to happen in a ‘do but don’t tell’ kind of model. In contrast, others have come out to outrightly condemn same-sex marriages, hiding under the veil of culture, religion, and belief systems while at the same time blaming Westernization. But how will society finally address the issue? I will argue that same-sex marriages should be embraced. Embracing same-sex marriages is more straightforward than defending the claims against it. If society will allow every individual to love who they want because love comes naturally and one cannot be forced to love someone against their wish, then it is high time to allow same-sex marriages. Society has for a long time leaned on morality, inherited from traditional societies to provide the operating system for human life (Nietzsche, 2003). However, over the years, the credibility of the morality in which society’s foundation was laid has been put into question. For instance, since ancient times, society has generally been patriarchal, and the role of women has been obscured, with their position being producing babies and taking care of the household. Yet, some decades ago, society saw that such morality was questionable since it overlooked the concept of equality. All men and women have equal rights, handed to them by nature. The result was the birth of the gender equality movement. Slavery was another concept developed to justify discriminating, oppressing, and humiliating those considered ‘the other race’ since another race considered them inferior. Society saw the wrong in slavery, and it was abolished. Religion laid the foundations for society’s morality. Today, that morality is questionable. Yet, despite the foundations of morality being questioned, a bias has always emerged when trying to understand the issue of sexuality. If religion condemned homosexuality, religion would be falsified and be done with, but that section speaking about the immorality of queerness would be copy-pasted into the new doctrine that society would decide to base its morality. Every religion, culture, and belief system glorifies love as integral to the formation of a healthy society. Thus, love reigns supreme in human society. It is the foundation of a family from which a community, then society is formed. In the words of Socrates, “love (Eros) is the most ancient of Gods, the most honoured and whose power can be used to help boys blossom into men by watching their beloved in battle” (Waller). Eros was an ancient Greek god of love and whose domain included physical and passionate desire. Socrates associates the power of love to transform boys into men. In ancient societies, including Greece, the men graced war. However, war is brutal, and probably, boys would be too young to understand the sacrifice that the men made by going to war. Nonetheless, with love (eros), the boys could transform into young men by understanding the sacrifice that the older men made, by leaving everything behind, their families, children, and property, and heading to war. In the same thought, Socrates (Waller) adds that “it is Aphrodite, not Eros, and as such it is the love of young men, not boys, that is its pure manifestation.” Here, Socrates introduces another Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite. It is Aphrodite who graced the love of the young men watching their beloved in battle. Thus, according to Socrates, the ancient Greek gods and goddesses ignited the purest of love in the hearts of young men towards older men who went to battle. So far, Socrates does not associate love with sexual contact. However, he insinuates that the best form of relationship involving the purest form of love was between young men. Nonetheless, Socrates provides a different perspective to examine love and sexuality, different from the dominant Western view. Love transcends gender boundaries. It is a blessing from the gods, and the gods in their wisdom did not make love blossom with limitations. Thus, accepting the narrative that love can only blossom between a man and a woman is falsifiable. Therefore, outlawing same-sex marriage is having a narrow understanding of the power of love. If we can deviate from the love concept, then we can examine same-sex relationships as something that exists. Whether legalized or outlawed, same-sex relationships are as old as the world’s history. The only problem is, society is not willing to sit down and reason about it. Same conversations have taken place in other areas. However, when it comes to homosexuality, society is lenient on having genuine conversations about it. Yet, it cannot be ignored. The answers cannot be found in religion, for Christian morality and values have continuously being ignored and are no longer credible. And philosophy gives us a clue that we cannot accept or reject anything by looking at the surface meaning. Plato provides a better example in the allegory of the cave (Waller). In the cave, there are prisoners, chained and condemned to the cave since childhood. The chains limit their movements such that they can only see what is in front of them. There is a high wall between them, and a fire is lit behind them. Beyond the wall are people carrying objects whose shadows are cast on the wall. The prisoners base their reality on the images. Plato posits that when one prisoner is set free, he sees the reality and realizes that the shadows cast by the fire are illusions. Thus, outside of the cave presents the freed slave with a new world of reality. Armed with the information that the outside world is real, the prisoner would want to go back to the cave and save the other prisoners. However, the shift from the light outside to the darkness in the cave would temporarily blind his eyesight. Upon seeing the blindness, the chained prisoners would be wary of venturing beyond the cave to avoid the similar fate of blindness. Eventually, the freed prisoner will regain their sight and convince the other prisoners that their whole life was based on illusions and that a real-world exists outside the cave. Those still in the cave would doubt the credibility of the freed prisoner for challenging their beliefs, even though they are in reality illusions. Such is the fate of human society. People do not want to question anything. They accept their reality prima facie, yet it might be built on illusions, morals, and virtues developed without their consent and thus biased. Society accepts morals and values without questioning their authenticity and credibility. Such is the way same-sex marriages are condemned, without understanding their dynamics and accepting heterosexuality without questions. That is a flawed way of inquiry, and it subjects society to live in illusions or under someone’s rules without consent. If society were to free itself from the shackles of imprisonment and walk outside the cave, humanity would realize that whatever they based their reality on was illusions, rules set by rulers and other dominant groups that do not represent reality whatsoever. It would give them an understanding that whatever rules or systems set in place to turn the majority against same-sex marriages are domination tactics and corrupted doctrines written by men without the entire humanity’s consent. Otherwise, if there were consent, there would be no norm relationships based on gender differences. Instead, every party could have contributed their opinions leading to equity and justice. However, society reacts in the same way as the prisoners in the cave when forced to see the reality; with violence. That is why society does not want to end gender inequality, racism and legalize same-sex marriages; it has been used to illusions, and reality is threatening. Violence for gender inequality, racism, and same-sex marriages comes in discrimination, prejudice, stereotypes, and actual violence on the target groups. The majority have refused to dig deeper for reality and instead accepted illusions fed by the political class, media, and elites. Still, the majority of people accept such beliefs without questioning. In his article, Nietzsche (2003) stated that “I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and to live accordingly, without first having given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward .”Nietzsche (2003) points out that such a life of accepting anything without questioning its authenticity is the life led by even the noblest and gifted men and women. Rejecting same-sex marriages follows a similar precedent. Society wants to accept something forced on them by the political class and the elites, without even questioning. Society overlooks the question of why we prevent those who want to be in same-sex relationships from being themselves. What are the ...