As of May 10, 2012 – 8 states in the US legalised same sex marriage, Massachusetts to be the first and it is also permissible in 10 other countries including The Netherlands, South Africa, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Portugal.
Looking at Barack Obama’s recent public announcement in
favour of same sex marriage nearing pre election, this decision can be
debateable even though times are changing and equal rights are evolving in many
different social aspects. I cannot see this as a political move as there are
many US citizens that are against same sex marriages all together, that already
don’t back Obama’s Democratic political party. There are currently conservative
groups that follow Obama but oppose same sex marriages, so now where does that
leave their view on Obama and his decision to move forward with legalising same
sex marriages in The United States? This defined in quote from the Washington
(AFP) “He has always had trouble with white, blue collar, socially conservative
swing voters and Wednesday’s move will hardly help.’’
But in politics who can you really believe is being sincere
and honest in any situation?
I can definitely see this happening closer to election time
in Australia as there are certain leaders pushing for it and others against it.
We also tend to follow trends from The US politically, as there is a strong
relationship between the two countries. Same sex marriage has been a debate in
Australia and all over the world, it is only inevitable that the issue is faced
again in parliament and during election squabbles between Labour and Liberal
parties.
My views on the legalisation of same sex marriage are not
entirely clear but can be expressed through two very important key words: ‘marriage’
and ‘union’.
Marriage: the formal
union of man and woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become
husband and wife.Union: the action of joining together or the fact of being joined together, especially in a political context.
I believe the word marriage originates from religion and as
they believe the word homosexuality is a sin, looking at the above definition,
it is then weakened and the institution of marriage is lost if same sexes are
to unite. Same sex marriages could then confuse and develop issues with the
legality of marriage and family values tipped upside down. Not that everybody
does get married under a religious ceremony but do the history and definition
of marriage then need to be reassessed and changed for a minority of people
wanting to unite in same sex marriages? Gender roles will also be changed and
the subject of pro creating (naturally) is not possible in any way.
There are also reasons why allowing the union between the
same sexes is beneficial and positive, such as that you cannot deny anyone of
their religious freedom and homosexuality is highly recognised and accepted in
society today. Research has also shown
that there are an increased number of adoptions available for same sex couples
and it is a form of individual discrimination to not allow gay marriage.
Personally I think there should be such a thing as same sex
union between two people recognised by law and the word marriage be left out as
marriage is defined by the union of a man and woman initiated from religion and
legalised this way thousands of years ago. I could be named a fence sitter on
this situation and will need to do further research on the positive and
negative reasons towards same sex marriages but it doesn’t affect me personally
for the same sexes to be together and make it accepted legally and to the
world. But I do believe that the word
marriage is the bonding of woman and man and same sex marriages should be
legalised under a union in some way possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment