Tweet
I'm writing a persuasive argument paper for my ethics class, would any of you be kind enough to read my rough draft below and give me any feedback you can think of on how to improve it?
This paper will discuss the efforts to overturn the controversial, many say discriminatory law, defense of marriage act (DOMA). This law defined marriage as between one man and one woman, allowed states to no longer recognize marriages performed in other states, and forbids the federal government to provide any marriage benefits to couples other than one man and one woman. I intend to use the theories of utilitarianism, and the Divine command theory to explain why this law should be overturned. Also, I will provide rebuttal to alternative interpretations of the Divine command theory and deontology.
A little background on this law, passed in January of 1996, the text of the act reads in section 2, "no State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe is taking a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." It goes on to say in section 3, "in determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative Bureau's and agencies of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the would spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." What these two sections in effect mean in layman's terms is that not only may states discriminate against couples who are legally married because of their gender, the federal government is obligated to do so.
It is already in pretty strong agreement among most people that discrimination against someone because of their race or ethnicity is wrong. There is also little disagreement over whether or not it is wrong to discriminate based on religion. And very few people would argue in favor of discrimination on the basis of gender when we are talking about an individual rather than a couple. So, why then are we still having this debate when it comes to two people of the same gender?
Let us first look at the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism moral theory states that whatever minimizes suffering and maximizes pleasure is what is considered morally right. There is little question that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage is causing them harm. There is over 1000 benefits that the federal government offers to couples who are legally married. Among other things, various tax benefits in regard to workplace benefits, Social Security benefits, survivor benefits, Medicare benefits, medical leave, and property inheritance, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, and to make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated.
Other than just the financial and security benefits, there is also the issue of societal benefits. Many social groups consider marriage to be the end all goal of seeking out relationships. To deny homosexuals that benefit will cause distress if they are among that one of those social groups. Also, everyone has the desire to be recognized and accepted. It is much more recognizable to say "we are married" than to have to explain "we are in a long term and dedicated relationship, but are unable to be married." Even small details, like being able to share a last name, are made many times harder when same-sex marriages are not permitted.
On the flipside of that, we must look at what harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry. Already there are Constitutional protections for expression of religious beliefs, so it is unrealistic to believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry will in any way affect the ability of those who believe homosexuality is wrong to continue to hold and preach those beliefs. As far as the argument of the sanctity of marriage being damaged by same-sex couples being married, there are two things that are being ignored. The first is the rampant problem of divorce. Divorce is easily causing much more suffering than any of actions that same-sex couples getting married could possibly cause. Second, on a strictly theological level, many religions (the LDS church in particular in this state) teach that we are each responsible only for our own actions and not that of others. The LDS church believes this so strongly that it is their second article of faith, "we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." If we will accept this premise that people will only be judged by their own actions, even if homosexuality is a sin, they will not be punished for the actions of other people receiving legal marriage.
Now, let us look at the pleasures that will be provided by legalizing the marriage between people of the same sex. Not only is there the before mentioned monetary, security, and social benefits that are currently being denied to same-sex couples, but also a new level of religious liberty will be enjoyed by those who belong to faiths that not only tolerate but embrace same-sex unions. The religious groups that oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriages will also gain a level of religious liberty. The pastor Billy Graham is famous for saying that Jesus had no political party and advocating that pastors should stand in the middle and preach to all people both right and left. Many religious groups in this debate forget the truth that some never forgot, the power for the church to influence government laws will also open up for the government to influence church truths.
But, in order to truly say that legalizing same-sex marriage will not be causing additional harm to religious groups, we must first examine the Divine commands that are given to the Christian groups that oppose same-sex marriage. There is an ideal in this country of the separation of the powers of church and state. This is something that was actually taught by Jesus, in the book of Mark, Jesus states, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God's." The LDS church codifies this into their articles of faith, with the 12th article stating, "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
So, while indeed there are several passages in the religious texts in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriages, which would support the idea that Divine command theory would require that we outlaw such relationships and refuse to recognize those marriages, there is also a Divine command that the law of Caesar, or put another way secular law, must be obeyed. In the case of the United States, there are several amendments to the Constitution already guaranteeing all citizens equal rights given to them by their government. In staying true to the idea of rendering unto Caesar that which is users, and with them or be a Divine command to ensure that all citizens do indeed receive the equal rights that they are guaranteed in the government's constitution.
Another Divine command comes from Jesus himself, and is often referred to as the Golden Rule. It says, that you should do to others what you would have them do to you. So, we have been given a Divine command to treat all with respect and dignity, even if we do not agree with them. It is not much of a stretch than, to say that this Divine command requires that we recognize and respect same-sex couples and their desire to have marriage rights. Even if you do not agree with this conclusion of what the Golden Rule is commanding, it can at least be agreed that it is requiring people to be respectful in discourse of matters such as these.
The main argument that is used against allowing same-sex marriages, other than the religious argument of homosexuality being inherently sinful, is a deontology argument about how marriage should be treated as a categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is one in which every person should do the same thing in every case regardless of the circumstances. It is argued that when it comes to marriage and should always be done for one purpose, for one man and one woman to begin the child raising process. It is further argued, that when considering whether or not same-sex marriages should be permitted, we need to consider what would happen if everyone were to have a same-sex marriage rather than a more traditional one man one woman marriage.
While there are many strengths to categorical imperatives and deontology in general, this argument is a very weak one at best. Judging the morality of actions on the idea of asking what would happen if everyone were to do that action does have its places, this is not one of them. This technique of determining morality would be very useful in a hypothetical situation where there is a moral dilemma such as the death penalty, where the question is if it is appropriate to kill a man for one crime should it be appropriate to kill a man for all crimes. A question like that is answering something that however unlikely it is possible. And, the likelihood of every person on the planet becoming homosexual, while not impossible, is so unlikely as to not be worth consideration. No one honestly believes that every person on the planet will suddenly and inexplicably become a homosexual. So, it is not appropriate to use that premise in discussing the morality of changing the legal code.
So, ultimately this debate comes down to who will suffer more and by which outcome. It is quite clear that homosexuals will suffer if the Defense of marriage act fails to be overturned, and marriage equality is not recognized in this country. It is a very difficult to find any concrete argument on how legalization of same-sex marriage will in any way harm the religious community beyond causing discomfort at the idea of two persons of the same gender being married. As that discomfort already exists at two persons of the same gender being in a long-term committed relationship, it is unreasonable to suggest that by offering legal marriages that level of discomfort will greatly increase. At the same time, allowing those marriages will increase the amount of benefit to same-sex couples. Even the Divine commands given by the same God that many in the religious community say demand that marriage equality not be recognize can also be used to justify legalization of same-sex marriages. In short, there is no moral argument that can truly be made to deny marriage equality, and this discriminatory law should be overturned.
This paper will discuss the efforts to overturn the controversial, many say discriminatory law, defense of marriage act (DOMA). This law defined marriage as between one man and one woman, allowed states to no longer recognize marriages performed in other states, and forbids the federal government to provide any marriage benefits to couples other than one man and one woman. I intend to use the theories of utilitarianism, and the Divine command theory to explain why this law should be overturned. Also, I will provide rebuttal to alternative interpretations of the Divine command theory and deontology.
A little background on this law, passed in January of 1996, the text of the act reads in section 2, "no State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe is taking a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." It goes on to say in section 3, "in determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative Bureau's and agencies of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the would spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." What these two sections in effect mean in layman's terms is that not only may states discriminate against couples who are legally married because of their gender, the federal government is obligated to do so.
It is already in pretty strong agreement among most people that discrimination against someone because of their race or ethnicity is wrong. There is also little disagreement over whether or not it is wrong to discriminate based on religion. And very few people would argue in favor of discrimination on the basis of gender when we are talking about an individual rather than a couple. So, why then are we still having this debate when it comes to two people of the same gender?
Let us first look at the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism moral theory states that whatever minimizes suffering and maximizes pleasure is what is considered morally right. There is little question that denying same-sex couples the right to marriage is causing them harm. There is over 1000 benefits that the federal government offers to couples who are legally married. Among other things, various tax benefits in regard to workplace benefits, Social Security benefits, survivor benefits, Medicare benefits, medical leave, and property inheritance, the right to visit their partner in the hospital, and to make medical decisions if their partner is incapacitated.
Other than just the financial and security benefits, there is also the issue of societal benefits. Many social groups consider marriage to be the end all goal of seeking out relationships. To deny homosexuals that benefit will cause distress if they are among that one of those social groups. Also, everyone has the desire to be recognized and accepted. It is much more recognizable to say "we are married" than to have to explain "we are in a long term and dedicated relationship, but are unable to be married." Even small details, like being able to share a last name, are made many times harder when same-sex marriages are not permitted.
On the flipside of that, we must look at what harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry. Already there are Constitutional protections for expression of religious beliefs, so it is unrealistic to believe that allowing same-sex couples to marry will in any way affect the ability of those who believe homosexuality is wrong to continue to hold and preach those beliefs. As far as the argument of the sanctity of marriage being damaged by same-sex couples being married, there are two things that are being ignored. The first is the rampant problem of divorce. Divorce is easily causing much more suffering than any of actions that same-sex couples getting married could possibly cause. Second, on a strictly theological level, many religions (the LDS church in particular in this state) teach that we are each responsible only for our own actions and not that of others. The LDS church believes this so strongly that it is their second article of faith, "we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." If we will accept this premise that people will only be judged by their own actions, even if homosexuality is a sin, they will not be punished for the actions of other people receiving legal marriage.
Now, let us look at the pleasures that will be provided by legalizing the marriage between people of the same sex. Not only is there the before mentioned monetary, security, and social benefits that are currently being denied to same-sex couples, but also a new level of religious liberty will be enjoyed by those who belong to faiths that not only tolerate but embrace same-sex unions. The religious groups that oppose homosexuality and same-sex marriages will also gain a level of religious liberty. The pastor Billy Graham is famous for saying that Jesus had no political party and advocating that pastors should stand in the middle and preach to all people both right and left. Many religious groups in this debate forget the truth that some never forgot, the power for the church to influence government laws will also open up for the government to influence church truths.
But, in order to truly say that legalizing same-sex marriage will not be causing additional harm to religious groups, we must first examine the Divine commands that are given to the Christian groups that oppose same-sex marriage. There is an ideal in this country of the separation of the powers of church and state. This is something that was actually taught by Jesus, in the book of Mark, Jesus states, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God's." The LDS church codifies this into their articles of faith, with the 12th article stating, "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
So, while indeed there are several passages in the religious texts in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriages, which would support the idea that Divine command theory would require that we outlaw such relationships and refuse to recognize those marriages, there is also a Divine command that the law of Caesar, or put another way secular law, must be obeyed. In the case of the United States, there are several amendments to the Constitution already guaranteeing all citizens equal rights given to them by their government. In staying true to the idea of rendering unto Caesar that which is users, and with them or be a Divine command to ensure that all citizens do indeed receive the equal rights that they are guaranteed in the government's constitution.
Another Divine command comes from Jesus himself, and is often referred to as the Golden Rule. It says, that you should do to others what you would have them do to you. So, we have been given a Divine command to treat all with respect and dignity, even if we do not agree with them. It is not much of a stretch than, to say that this Divine command requires that we recognize and respect same-sex couples and their desire to have marriage rights. Even if you do not agree with this conclusion of what the Golden Rule is commanding, it can at least be agreed that it is requiring people to be respectful in discourse of matters such as these.
The main argument that is used against allowing same-sex marriages, other than the religious argument of homosexuality being inherently sinful, is a deontology argument about how marriage should be treated as a categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is one in which every person should do the same thing in every case regardless of the circumstances. It is argued that when it comes to marriage and should always be done for one purpose, for one man and one woman to begin the child raising process. It is further argued, that when considering whether or not same-sex marriages should be permitted, we need to consider what would happen if everyone were to have a same-sex marriage rather than a more traditional one man one woman marriage.
While there are many strengths to categorical imperatives and deontology in general, this argument is a very weak one at best. Judging the morality of actions on the idea of asking what would happen if everyone were to do that action does have its places, this is not one of them. This technique of determining morality would be very useful in a hypothetical situation where there is a moral dilemma such as the death penalty, where the question is if it is appropriate to kill a man for one crime should it be appropriate to kill a man for all crimes. A question like that is answering something that however unlikely it is possible. And, the likelihood of every person on the planet becoming homosexual, while not impossible, is so unlikely as to not be worth consideration. No one honestly believes that every person on the planet will suddenly and inexplicably become a homosexual. So, it is not appropriate to use that premise in discussing the morality of changing the legal code.
So, ultimately this debate comes down to who will suffer more and by which outcome. It is quite clear that homosexuals will suffer if the Defense of marriage act fails to be overturned, and marriage equality is not recognized in this country. It is a very difficult to find any concrete argument on how legalization of same-sex marriage will in any way harm the religious community beyond causing discomfort at the idea of two persons of the same gender being married. As that discomfort already exists at two persons of the same gender being in a long-term committed relationship, it is unreasonable to suggest that by offering legal marriages that level of discomfort will greatly increase. At the same time, allowing those marriages will increase the amount of benefit to same-sex couples. Even the Divine commands given by the same God that many in the religious community say demand that marriage equality not be recognize can also be used to justify legalization of same-sex marriages. In short, there is no moral argument that can truly be made to deny marriage equality, and this discriminatory law should be overturned.
Comment