Marriage has traditionally been the bond between a man and also a woman. Together, they create a life together. For many, marriage equates to childbearing at some point. Recent political debates have questioned the conventional definition of marriage; questioning if individuals in the same sex ought to have the appropriate to enter into a sacred bond together. At one factor the ideology that 2 homosexuals could enter into a sacred bond was forbidden. In contrast homosexuality was viewed as being a psychiatric disorder (Silverstein 2008). Many varieties of treatment have been employed to attempt to stop men and women from acquiring homosexual relations. However, society has since evolved and the attitudes with the persons have changed. Despite the changing attitudes, marriage is a sacred tradition that involves a man along with a woman as they produce their future together.
Numerous studies had been done in attempt to understand how homosexual behaviors occur. Baumeister & Tice (2007) discuss that all people are born with certain temperaments. Although, I consider temperaments can affect the individuals we become; temperaments can transform as persons grow. Yet influencing an individual to the a particular behavior increases the likelihood that the individual will perceive the behavior as acceptable. I think that parents have the capacity to influence their child’s preferences. Parents can influence the ethical values instilled in their children. Furthermore, parents have the ability to teach their kids correct and wrong at a really young age (Human Sexuality Reader n.d.). This belief is supported by findings in Tygart’s search that confirms that religiosity always affects people’s views on ethics and what constitutes marriage. From a religious standpoint, many religions agree on the idea that marriage is among a man and also a woman.
Regardless of the exact religion an individual beliefs; many religions consider that sex is an act that ought to only come in between a man and also a woman. Furthermore, quite a few religions location a excellent emphasis on procreation. Yet the ideology that homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry eliminates the notion of procreation (Baumeister & Tice 2007). From one aspect; this popularizes the ideology of sex. Sex for procreation usually binds married couples together. However, I believe the idea of getting sex with multiple partners with out the possibility of getting kids or obtaining caught increases the likelihood that somebody will act upon these behaviors. Whilst the ideology that homosexual marriage reduces the concept that homosexuals will engage in random acts of sexuality with others; no scientific evidence supports the likelihood that homosexual marriage will decrease random instances of sex. Furthermore, I feel the promoting of homosexuality in the legalization of homosexual marriages would increase infectious diseases. Cochran, Ewlad & Cochran (2000) attribute the spread of HIV for the homosexual population. These findings are further consistent with bi-sexual people having relations with both men and women. Therefore, the advertising and legalization of homosexual marriage would have a detrimental effect over a population.
The ideology of legalizing homosexual marriages increases the concept that far more homosexual ‘married’ couples will seek to adopt children. From an evolutionary perspective; children are born via a man and a woman. I feel this is the only natural way as this is the only way it can arrive with out the program of science. The promotion of homosexuality through legalizing homosexual marriages would have crucial final results over a amount of young children born each year. I believe; that kids model the behaviors they see. For many, this equates to the ideology that 2 parents becomes the new norm for the child growing up. This provides the deductive argument how the child is additional probably to become homosexual. However, quite a few advocates of homosexual marriages do not assist this conclusion arguing that homosexuals are biological different. Taub (2001) notes in her study that there's little evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a learned behavior or to support that you'll find no long-term consequences for kids growing up in a homosexual family. However, I consider this can be a large gamble. Men and women that help this ideology are gambling their future without having knowing the potential detrimental benefits that could later be experienced. Baumeister & Tice (2007) discuss the ideology that if homosexuality was a recessive gene than it should had been eliminated and not bred this significantly throughout society. I think this logic compels powerful rationale that homosexual behaviors are thus influenced by societal norms. Thus, advertising homosexuality by allowing homosexuals to marry would enhance the likelihood that homosexual behavior would continue to occur. These notions have the ability to forever transform the world we know as traditions, morals, ethics and natural kinds of procreation are de-valuated and replaced with science and adoption with no identified basis of the future.
Marriage has often been and must usually remain a sacred bond among a man along with a woman. This sacred bond encourages tradition, ethical values, procreation of life and survival. Despite these positive attributes of marriage; the legalization of homosexual marriage has become a popularized debate throughout the both politics and the media. Changing the norms of society by allowing homosexuals to marry has the capacity to improve the presence of homosexual behavior, infectious diseases and the future by embracing a new culture that de-valuates ethics, religion and natural varieties of procreation.
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!
No comments:
Post a Comment