Gay Marriage: Unfair Or Unnatural?

For centuries, law, religion, and society defined marriage as “the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife.” Over the years, the definition of marriage has evolved whereas to the point where it is legal to marry someone of the same sex, and that society, varying on the place, has acquired a new perspective and is more open to the idea of gay marriage. You may ask yourself, why is this an ethical dilemma? If it doesn’t affect anyone but the people who are getting married, why are so many people bothered by the fact that this movement is getting stronger by the minute? It is well known that nowadays there is an enormous amount of supporters to this cause, but that doesn’t subtract the number of people who are actually against it.

Dilemmas are problems we need to solve, but they are focused on individual preferences. On the other hand, ethical dilemmas are, of course, problems but with a distinct emphasis on solving what is right and what is wrong, by looking into how those actions affect others. In my opinion, gay marriage is a very relevant and current ethical dilemma, because it disputes the riot between denying gay people their rights just for being gay, and the argument of going against nature. The risk that is taken when undertaking this dilemma is that we could be depriving someone from their rights, but both positions are valid. Not only is it wrong to believe that we, as human beings, have the right to dictate whether someone is able to get married or not, but it is also wrong to believe that we should allow society to view marriage in an unnatural way. So when facing two strong and valid positions, which should we believe is the right one?

There have been many attempts to solve this problem, but this is a black and white issue. There is no middle point into considering whether if this should be allowed or not. So there are only two solutions to this problem: 1. Legalize gay marriage and let all people enjoy the same rights. 2. Not legalizing gay marriage, sticking to tradition, and repressing freedom of choice. Both of these possibilities raise an indefinite amount of questions, because they both may have a valid ethical approach.

The first possibility can be sustained by the values of justice and equality. First of all, one of the main arguments in favor of gay marriage is that no one possesses the right to deny someone of everyone else’s right, just because they are gay. Everyday more and more countries around the world legalize gay marriage. Some of their main, but very convincing, arguments are that gay people should be able to show their partnership in public just as heterosexual couples. On the United States Constitution it says we “all have the right to liberty and equality”. If the country should choose to honor their legal bound, they should allow same sex marriage since everyone deserves to be treated the same. The US Supreme Court confirmed that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of a man. For this reason, marriage has been stated to be a civil right and therefore is inherent to everyone.

While this topic continues to be controversial around the world, there are several ethical theories that may be able to help see what is the right decision when addressing this matter. First, we have the Kantian theory. In his theory, Kant states 2 categorical imperatives. The first says, “Act in a way that your action can become a Universal law”. According to Kant, we all must act in a way in which we expect others to do so. This can be taken in both perspectives, either for or against gay marriage, but should we believe that if straight people get married, they are allowing everyone else to do the same? Even if the circumstances vary? In the second imperative of Kant’s moral theory, “Act in a sense that you treat humanity always as an end, and never as a mean”, he particularly focuses on human dignity. During Roman times, Cicero included the term dignitas, that referred to the dignity of human beings, independently of any other particular status. Since then, human dignity has been valued and considered inherent to a person. Human dignity protects human rights and considers them to be more valuable than any other creature on earth. Kant said that the reason behind this was that humans are able to reason, a faculty that none other being on the planet possesses. If this is true and we must preserve human dignity, then it is unreasonable for some people to enjoy of certain rights that others do not just because they differ in sexual orientation. This goes against human dignity.

Moreover, the next moral theory this essay will take into account is the utalitarianism theory. This theory declares that people should primarily focus on what will bring the maximum level of happiness and satisfaction. This theory implies that happiness is not a momentary pleasure, and

...