The union of two individuals under God, and under the recognition of the church, the state, and the rest of society has, for the longest time, been reserved and afforded to people of the opposite sex; to the pairing of men and women, or heterosexual couples. But in recent years, this traditional concept of the sacrament or civil right that is marriage has ceased to be confined to the aforementioned ideology. The reality of homosexuality, of men and women being attracted to the same sex, and correspondingly wanting their respective unions recognized and legitimized by their governments is becoming increasingly apparent.The issue unsurprisingly provokes much debate and argument on the part of individuals and organizations who feel that extending marriage outside the bounds of what it is traditionally confined to will either threaten the values of society, or mark its development. As to whether the concept of same-sex statutory unions or gay marriage should be considered a necessary social right, or sacred rite, which everyone, regardless of gender and sexual orientation should be afforded, the conclusion remains relative and varies from one individual to the next.
As far as opinions are concerned, however, I have reason to believe that people have every right to happiness and the pursuit of their respective freedoms; and if pursuing that freedom and happiness equates being joined in matrimony with someone who happens to be of the same sex, let alone possess the same biological body parts and functions, if it doesn't overstep on the freedoms of other individuals who are in pursuit of their own liberties, I see no reason why people should be deprived of it.To the same degree, the relationship and formal union that is marriage shouldn't be limited to strictures such as gender and sexual orientation when people are committed enough to undertake it. But since the church and the state has no way of knowing for certain whether people come into these unions with the purest of intentions, and with perhaps a noble guarantee of non-separation, of actually sticking together “for better or worse” - marriage, for opposite and same sex couples alike, should be regarded as both a social civil right, and a religious or sacred rite, which every person should be necessarily entitled to.The seeming endless and unabating debate on same-sex couples' right to be wed, and for society to recognize their unions as something as genuine and legitimate as the marriage of heterosexual couples, has been largely dominated by the opinions and persuasions of two groups: the conservative Christian or Catholic Church, and the the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transexuals) community.While it is understandable that the LGBT community would be naturally involved and on the front line where voicing out an issue which directly affects them, and ensuring that they are afforded their necessary rights are concerned; the premise by which the church appears to have taken up arms and stood up against the queer community against an inherent need for acceptance appears particularly intrusive and limiting on the rights of others to pursue their freedoms.
Of course, the church and most every religion has always condemned homosexuality; and the mere concept of same-sex civil unions is no less capable of generating particular sentiments of pleasantry on Catholicism's camp, even if some states across the country, as well as nations in Europe, and other parts of the world are recognizing and allowing it.The basis by which the church views marriage as a sacred rite and sacrament which should be exclusive to the union of man and woman, male and female, and in essence, husband and wife, takes inevitable root in Christianity's proverbial blueprint, the Bible – but perhaps more importantly, on the interpretation of popes, bishops, and clergy regarding what God, through the holy scriptures, has to say on the subject matter. But Christianity, or perhaps specifically, Catholicism's stand on the subject of gay marriage does not encompass the opinions and views of every Christian and Catholic on the subject matter.Pope Benedict XVI or the once Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for instance, in a Vatican article on “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homsexual Persons” takes a less religious and Christian indoctrinated approach to marriage, and approaches it instead on an alleged moral ground which should necessarily concern Christians and non-Christians alike, in an apparent moral quest to promote and defend 'the common good of society.The article begins by proclaiming, – no doubt to the disconcertion and dismay of persons being referred to in the following browbeating – “Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues.
” (Ratzinger, 2003). Ratzinger and his co-authors' argument on 'considerations' regarding gay marriage starts with the widely accepted premise and certainty that marriage exists, first and foremost, as a union between man and woman.That marriage is not just a relationship which relates to any and every couple, but one which exists solely between the opposite sex, who complement each other, and contribute to a mutual wholeness and perfection of one another. The union of male and female also corresponds, and is consistent to the reproduction and procreation of human lives, which society and God are in accordance with.
The argument inevitably returns to religious and biblical references in such passages which appeals, “Be fruitful, and multiply. ” (Gen. 1:28). A significant, if not central aspect of marriage, which refuses to be consummated in the sphere of same-sex unions or the marriage of homosexual couples.
The aforementioned sentiment and ideology excludes the reality that not every heterosexual couple are capable of reproducing children, and are sometimes even unable to consummate their marriage.Not being able to perform this alleged significant aspect of marriage should not necessarily discount them from engaging in the said union, or declare the marriage in which they are incapable of consummating or procreating in, invalid. Other aspects of marriage relate as much significance, and should be afforded the same, if not greater amount of consideration, such as the value of commitment, understanding, longevity, and of course, essentially, love.Naive and seemingly rudimentary these notions and concepts may be, they are nonetheless overlooked and fail to be considered as a fundamental aspect which should be given mention and much consideration where marriage is considered. Instead, people turn to biology and the apparent incompatibility and inability of same-sex couples to procreate, which shouldn't be the greatest of concerns since adoption is also an option; and the concept of family exists in a variety of defintions not solely confined to biological and blood relations.
Marriage is a social right which should be afforded to every couple who are willing to commit to a lasting union and relationship with each other, despite gender and sexual orientation, and despite the crude premise of one's ability or inability to procreate. But the greater question which perhaps needs to be posed and addressed is why same-sex couples would want to engage or concern themselves in a traditional ceremony which excludes their right to participate in it.Why ask for the validation of government, the church and society, or find solace and comfort in a piece of paper which pronounces your union legitimate and legal when you already know that it is? Because much as people tend to categorize things too much: heterosexual, homosexual, gay, straight, bisexual, transexual, lesbian, these labels ultimately and fundamentally refer to people and persons, however varying in characteristic aand orientation they may be.And as human beings, we all share an inherent proclivity and need for recognition and validity, be it in terms of our sexuality, our race, culture, opinions, religion, and the relationships we commit to which greatly matter us, and which more than anything deserves the proverbial stamp of validity made available to certain individuals, which in turn, should be equally afforded to every person as well.
Affording same-sex couples the legitimate recognition of marriage does not threaten or violate the sacredness of the ceremony.On the contrary, it affirms our humanity by showing that we possess differences, but also that we are invariably and ultimately the same in that we share, celebrate each other, and our relationships with individuals who deeply matter to us, in the sacredness of the civil union that is marriage. As an article by Eugene Rogers regarding the sanctification of gay marriage and homosexual unions aptly articulates it, “Our differences are meant to make us yearn for and love one another..
.Theologically understood, marriage is not primarily for the control of lust or for procreation. It is a discipline whereby we give ourselves to another for the sake of growing in holiness-- for, more precisely, the sake of God. ” (Rogers, 2004). The statement may not particularly encompass Rogers' standpoint and ideology as far as same-sex unions and gay marriage is concerned, but it provides a different view than that of Ratzinger's, effectively encapsulating, in its sacred and essential form, what marriage is fundamentally about.
To recognize same-sex union or gay marriage as a ceremony which exists no different from the marriage of opposite-sex couples would mark not only tolerance and acceptance on the majority's part, but essentially, preserve and affirm humanity as well. Ultimately, when two people arrive at an understanding and commitment which allows them to be together, to be joined in union and to feel the need to have that union deemed valid and accepted by government, the church and society; I see no reason why they should be deprived of it.Homosexuality isn't a crime, and it should go without saying that people should be afforded the necessary right to pursue their freedoms and happiness, regardless of their ability to procreate, much less the question of their sexuality and gender. Marriage is both a social right and sacred rite which reflects humanity's celebration of relationships, and human beings' shared inherent need for a connection with another individual, whatever that other individual's biological make-up may happen to be. So let it be recognized as such, for our sake, and for the benefit of humanity.
