Category: Gay Marriage

Marriage gives the ideal condition for raising kids, the eventual fate of society. Kids raised by their natural wedded guardians get various social, states of being, and financial advantages, and these blessings advantage the entire of society. Then again, it is through the breakdown of a marriage that kids and society are hurt. Marriage additionally benefits grown-ups by enabling them to beat sentiments of depression and deficiency by shaping a reciprocal association. Additionally, it enables them to vow to give each other common consideration, regard, and assurance and to raise a family together. Yet, the essential explanation of marriage is an indispensable establishment is that it fills open needs, in particular, reproduction and the advantage of youngsters and society. Through marriage, individuals can appreciate the wellbeing, social, and financial advantages of marriage. Marriage enables people to shape an association and raise a family, as most grown-ups want to wed and have kids.

Married individuals have preferred enthusiastic and physical wellbeing over unmarried individuals. Married individuals are more joyful and more advantageous than bereft, separated, isolated, living together or never-wedded individuals, paying little respect to race, age, sex, training, nationality, or salary (Cohen, 2015). Contrasted with individuals of other conjugal statuses, the examination expresses that wedded individuals have minimal constraints in a typical day by day exercises, including work, getting dressed, recollecting, and strolling. They likewise experience the most reduced measure of genuine mental trouble.

According to Cohen (2015), Married individuals live more and are less inclined to end it all than the individuals who are not married. Married individuals appreciate more noteworthy riches than unmarried individuals, and the more they remain wedded, the more their riches amass. Marriage especially benefits men’s procuring limits. The book “The Family” by Cohen states that wedded men acquire about to achieve more than men who have never lived together and never wedded. Marriage itself is the thing that prompts men’s higher salaries; the likelihood that men with higher acquiring potential are bound to wed has little effect on the ‘marriage premium. Marriage is the most secure relationship for ladies. The social, wellbeing and monetary blessings of marriage lead to more grounded networks and society.

Marriage ensures human life, as wedded women are more reluctant to end up giving birth than unmarried ladies prematurely. With less premature births, human life is bound to be regarded at all phases, from minor, unprotected developing lives to slight, handicapped old people (Cohen, 2015). Marriage helps make homes more secure spots to live, because it controls social issues, for example, aggressive behavior at home and youngster misuse. Networks with progressively wedded parent families will be more secure and better places to live because they are less inclined to be tormented by substance misuse and wrongdoings submitted by youngsters. Marriage additionally forestalls pre-marriage sex, illegitimate births, and explicitly transmitted ailments; since youngsters raised by wedded guardians are more reluctant to have intercourse before marriage. The financial advantages of marriage for society incorporate less destitution and welfare reliance since wedded parent families are less inclined to live in neediness than single-parent families. With fewer individuals on welfare, governments would have a more extensive expense base (Cohen, 2015). Alongside lessening neediness and welfare reliance, marriage creates more income in the economy since wedded individuals have higher livelihoods and more prominent riches.

The key health advantage of marriage is a more beneficial society. This is because wedded individuals have preferable wellbeing over unmarried individuals, and youngsters with wedded guardians are more beneficial than those with single, living together, or step guardians. If individuals are more advantageous, human services costs will be lower (Cohen, 2015). Married parent homes are bound to create youthful grown-ups who see marriage decidedly and keep up long-lasting relationships. Separation, then again, is probably going to breed more separation and frequently drives youngsters to have negative demeanours toward marriage and to live together before marriage. With increasingly solid relationships, fewer projects, for example, kid bolster requirements, childcare, and welfare, would be expected to reduce the impacts of broken homes, diminishing citizens’ weights.

Gay marriages have become the centre of talks in the current generation. As it is with the case of same-sex marriage on page 295 of the book “The Family,” Cohen has highlighted several cases, for instance, Perry vs Schwarzenegger where there is an attempt to make the issue of same-sex marriages legal (Cohen, 2015). The argument behind the case is that same-sex marriages deserve to be treated equally as the normal marriages to avoid homophobic discrimination. Generally, it could be argued based on research that people who are involved in same-sex marriages tend to show or portray perfect compatibility as compared to normal marriages. The reason lies with the fact that same-sex marriage partners are open-minded to each other. They hold a high sense of strong family advantages as compared to normal marriages. Therefore, irrespective of whether it is straight or same-sex marriages, the union is meant to bring happiness and companionship among the involved couples.

References

1. Cohen, P. N. (2015). The family: Diversity, inequality, and social change. New York [etc.: W. W. Norton.

Abstract

To find differences among various type of families’ gender stereotype implication to their children, the correlational research design will be used. Findings will be represented on a Turkey study composing of 20 gay, 20 lesbian, and 20 heterosexual parents with a child aged 5-9 years. Interviews and questionnaires will measure gender stereotype behaviour on children in three different categories: girl, boy, and cross-gender typicality. Individuals will be answering questions indicating gender stereotype child behaviour. Furthermore, interviews will take place before the questionnaires. The results will be averaged with each family type.

How parental sexual orientation affects a child’s gender stereotype behaviour?

In Turkey, parents regardless of their sex or sexual orientation, are treating their children with intense gender stereotyped behaviour. With the help of this study, we’ll try to find if there’s any difference is caused by parents’ sexual orientation and the outcome of children differ. Gender stereotypes are behaviour expectations burdened by society to an individual which is determined by his/her/theirs gender. In social interactions, every-day life situations, manners etc. are affected by gender stereotypes (Farr, Brunn, Doss, & Patterson, 2018). This type of stereotype pushes children to act what society (in this case, parents) expect of him/her. For a basic instance, blue coloured stuff is pre-given to boys before even they imply that they want a specific colour. Therefore, as time passes boys start to want their stuff blue (Paoletti, 2012). In children, gender stereotype behaviour may be affected by culture, social pressure, education, style of living, religion and parents’ sexual orientation. Religion affects culture, culture affects social pressure and all can be exchanged in particular. Moreover, all combined, these topics affect all types of family structures but there may be an impact on parents’ sexual orientation in stereotyped behaviour (Gato & Fontaine, 2015). One can understand sexual orientation as a compass between affinity, attraction towards and imagination towards the one’s gender identity; behaviours and activities regarding sexuality (eg. Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual) (Salomaa & Matsick, 2018). According to Bos and Sandfort (2010) in lesbian families, child’s gender identity expression is more undisturbed than heterosexual families because lesbian mothers tend to be more liberal to their children’ gender identity expression. In heterosexual families, mother and father have similar impacts on their children (Lamb, 2010). However, women are believed to be more evolutionary suitable parents rather than men (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). Furthermore, because they are gay and male, gay fathers are faced prejudice and discrimination more than lesbian mothers and may be this situation have an effect on child’s gender development because they feel under pressure of the fright of accepting a negative prejudice and discrimination as a self-trait which disrupts personal performance (Golombok & Tasker, 2010). Male children in lesbian families may show less gender stereotype behaviour because of the absence of patriarchy (Golombok et al, 2013).

As can be seen in previous researches, there is no negative effect of homosexual parenting on child’s gender-typed behaviour, so it can be said that there is a no-difference consensus. There are no negative outcomes in literature about the children who grow up with a homosexual family even they have same experiences with the children who grow up with heterosexual family about family life and also grow up with a homosexual family doesn’t mean that their children are more likely to become a gay or a lesbian (Schumm, 2008). Our aim is to show differences between children’s gender stereotype behaviour intensity in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual families. Gay fathers are subjected to more societal pressure than lesbian mothers in terms of raising children because of the existing traditional gender-role concepts of society. They are treated more harshly and receive less tolerance for their behaviour. This situation may put gay fathers in a position that they need to prove their parenting skills by raising a culturally accepted “normal” child. Whereas, lesbian mothers may have fewer difficulties and somehow are freer while raising their kids without proving something to the society. Furthermore, heterosexual parents may show more gender stereotyped attitude to their children because of their concepts of heteronormative society. Homosexual couples tend to be more liberal to their child’s gender expression than heterosexual couples (Carniero, Tasker, Salinas-Quiroz, Leal & Costa, 2017). There has never been research on this area in Turkey yet there is no research possibility because of the legal issues. However, by looking just on researches that published in foreign countries, we can try to hypothesize from our findings. We hypothesize that gender stereotype behaviour of children in lesbian families will show the least intensity. However, children in gay families will show more gender stereotype behaviour than lesbian families. At last, children in heterosexual families will show the highest rates of gender stereotype behaviour.

Methods

Participants

Parents will be selected regarding their age, sexual orientation, level of education, socioeconomic status, and cities they live in. There will be 40 gay fathers, 40 lesbian mothers, 20 straight mothers, and 20 straight fathers. Moreover, their age will be in the 27-50 range. all will be in middle-class economic status and live in metropolitan cities. Families will be recruited in a number of 20 from each concerning sexual orientations (straight, lesbian, gay). Moreover, 60 children will be in the 5-9 age range. For each type of families, half of the children will be identified as male at birth and the other half will be identified as female at birth. We will reach our parents among volunteers of Kaos GL Association in the metropolitan cities. Hence, we will be using convenience sampling to reach the parents.

Measures

The questionnaire task will be adopted from Yu, Winter, and Xie (2010). The questions will be prepared by the tasks in concerning article. There will be 29 different types of items about girl stereotype behaviour, 25 different types of items about boy stereotype behaviour and 10 different types of items about cross-gender behaviour. There twelve separate types of internal consistency reliability in the research; nevertheless, we’ll be using three of these reliabilities. The Cronbach’s alphas for girl, boy, and cross-gender typicality scales are 0.93, 0.92 and 0.84 respectively. For each item, parents will rate the frequency of occurrence on a 7- point Likert scale (“Never”= 1, “Seldom”=2, “Rarely”=3, “Sometimes”=4, “Often”=5, “Usually”=6, “Always”=7).

Gender stereotype behaviour of girls can be generalised to acts that generally expected from girls like playing with dolls, giving fake tea-parties, playing house etc. (i.e. How often does your child play with dolls?). Furthermore, gender stereotype behaviour of boys can be generalised to acts generally expected from boys like playing football, playing with toy cars etc. (i.e. How often does your child play football?). Cross-gender behaviour can be generalised to imitating parent of his/her own gender (if any), prefer of companionship with his/her own gender etc. (i.e. How often does your child prefer companionship with his/her own gender?). The total score will be averaged with each family type. The questionnaire will be translated into Turkish and will be given to parents.

Prior to the questionnaire, a brief interview will be made with parents. The interview will include 10 questions generally about how parents feel about their child’s gender non-conforming behaviour (i.e. How do you feel if your child wants to wear clothes not socially attached as his/her gender). The interview questions will be prepared in Turkish by us. Interview will also be scored with Likert 5 point scale (“I take it very normal.”=5, “I take it normal.’=4, ‘I take it neither normal or abnormal.’=3, ‘I take it abnormal.’=2, ‘I take it very abnormal.’=1). The aim of the measurement is to observe how the results can be evaluated to see if there’s a connection between family types.

Procedures

The ethical approval will be taken from Human Subjects Ethical Committée of Middle East Technical University. Families will be reached from Kaos GL Association by phone or e-mail. Interviews and questionnaires will be handed over and conducted after informed consent forms are signed. Interviews will be audio-recorded. Participants will be informed about the concept of the study and why the study is conducted. The procedures will be assessed at the interview offices of the university. All individuals of a family will be interviewed and take the questionnaire separately from their partner and also other families. The procedure will be anonymous and all participants’ information will be kept confidentially. All participation will be assured that it’s voluntarily.

References

1. Biblarz, T., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 3-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x
2. Bos, H., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2010). Children’s gender identity in lesbian and heterosexual two-parent families. Sex Roles, 62, 114-126. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9704-7
3. Carniero, F. A., Tasker, F., Salinas-Quiroz, F., Leal, I., & Costa, P. A. (2017). Are the fathers alright? A systematic and critical review of studies on gay and bisexual fatherhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1636. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01636
4. Farr, R. H., Brunn, S. T., Doss, K. M., & Patterson, C. J. (2018). Children’s gender-typed behaviour from early to middle childhood in adoptive families with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles, 78, 528-541. doi: 10.1007/s11199-017-0812-5
5. Gato, J., & Fontaine, A. M. (2015). Attitudes toward adoption by same-sex couples: Effects of gender of the participant, sexual orientation of the couple, and gender of the child. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 12, 46-67. doi: 10.1080/1550428X.2015.1049771
6. Golombok, S., Mellish, L., Jennings, S., Casey, P., Tasker, F., & Lamb, M. E. (2013). Adoptive gay father families: Parent-child relationships and children’s psychological adjusment. Child Development, 85, 456-468. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12155
7. Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (2010). Gay fathers. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 319–340). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
8. Lamb, M. E. (2010) How do fathers influence children’s development? Let me count the ways. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 1–26). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
9. Paoletti, J.B., (2012). Pink and blue: Telling the boys from girls in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
10. Salomaa, A. C., & Matsick, J. L. (2018). Carving sexuality at its joints: Defining sexual orientation in research and clinical practice. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/pas0000656
11. Schumm, W. R. (2008). Re-evaluation of the “no differences” hypothesis concerning gay and lesbian parenting as assessed in eight early (1979-1986) and four later (1997-1998) dissertations. Psychological Reposts, 103, 275-304. doi: 10.2466/pr0.103.1.275-304
12. Yu, L., Winter, S., & Xie, D. (2010). The child play behaviour and activity questionnaire: a parent-report measure of childhood gender-related behaviour in China. Archive of Sexual Behaviour, 39, 807-815. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9403-4

1.1 Introduction

This essay is titled “Same-Sex Marriage Weakens the Institution of Marriage. It is written by an American author, Ryan T. Anderson. This article is published on the date of 1 Jan 2015. The author is one of the members of William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. It is a conservative group based in Washington, DC. The author has been writing and researching about marriage and religious liberty for his religious group. This article mainly debates and argues about the reasons why same-sex marriage should not be legalize on the aspect of its bad influence on family and children, existing marriage norm and system, religious liberty issues and so on.

1.2 Summary

Marriage is how men and women are connected together to become husbands and wives and eligible to become parents for their children. Redefine marriage would ruin the current family system and cut off the relationship between marriage and childbearing. As it would change the formation of one family which is one mother and one father. Besides that, it would decrease the husband’s desire to stay with their family and the desire of men and women to get married before having a baby because the social pressure and incentives has decreased. Marriage norms is weakened by the same-sex marriage. It would stimulate the number of irresponsible marriage because it is redefined as simply romantic companionship, weakening the norm of permanency. The norm of monogamy is rejected because this denies the combination of men and women is a fundamental of the marriage. Not only that, norm of exclusivity is not a common practise in same-sex marriage as according to The New York Times, as seek sex outside of marriage do not have negative connotations for gay couples. Redefining marriage leads to the erosion of religious liberty. The religion believers that have their belief in traditional marriage will be seen by others as “infidels”. Other than that, people that do not recognize the same-sex marriage are likely to trigger anti-discrimination provision as there are over 350 provisions is about the recognition of same-sex marriage. Laws that established to redefine marriage meanwhile protecting religious liberty are proved useless. According to the Catholic bishop of Springfield, Illinois, laws does not helps at all, as it not stop gay people form entering into Catholic institutions. Moreover, religionists are deemed as bigotry and extreme by society judgement and the laws are marginalizing them. It is not possible to those who still believe traditional marriage to avoid lawsuits and penalties while being treated discriminatingly. No one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else. Hence, gay marriage bill should not be approved.

1.3 Critical Review

Weakness

1.3.1 Strawman

Strawman fallacies is deliberately misinterpret someone else’s argument, making its argumentation easier to confront by making own opinions appear to be more reasonable (Your logical fallacy is 2020).

The first fallacy is ‘Redefining marriage would further disconnect childbearing from marriage. That would hurt children, especially the most vulnerable. It would deny as a matter of policy the ideal that children need a mother and a father. ’ (Anderson 2015). This is saying that including same-sex marriage will affect other people to have the thoughts of less tendancy of having a baby. But, by simply redefining marriage does not damage the ability of any family to raise children nor the willingness of them to have children. It also does not deny the formation of traditional marriage. Author should not be exaggerated as redefining marriage does not necessarily relevant to disconnection of childbearing.

The second fallacy is ‘Increasing number of citizens think that marriage is simply an intense emotional union. This will cause the the adult into thinking marriage is whatever sort of interpersonal relationship consenting adults, whether two or 10 in number, want it to be—sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent. This leaves marriage with no essential features, no fixed core as a social reality. ’ (Anderson 2015). This paragraph implies that same-sex marriage or other minority marriage will influece the value of marriage. Yet, everyone can define marriage as they like, but the ‘term’ marriage will not be altered by people’s will. Marriage is the legalizing of a relationship and couple’s mutually agreement of commitment to each other and no one can deny its legal effect. Author should avoid this fallacy by stop making conclusions by personal perspectives and stop being emotional and extreme.

1.3.2 The Texas sharpshooter

Texas sharpshooter is picking suitable data to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption. The data which was picked does not always fit the reality situation (Your logical fallacy is 2020).

The first fallacy is, ‘ the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely. A federal judge in Utah allowed a legal challenge to anti-bigamy laws. A bill that would allow a child to have three legal parents passed both houses of the California state legislature in 2012. The impetus for the bill was a lesbian same-sex relationship in which one partner was impregnated by a man. The child possessed a biological mother and father, but the law recognized the biological mother and her same-sex spouse, a ‘presumed mother,’ as the child’s parents. ’(Anderson 2015). It says that gays and lesbians have the capability to change one’s concept towards a family. However, gays or lesbians should not be presumed having bad influence to the formation of traditional families as the case mentioned in this paragraph is only one extreme case out of many same-sex couples. To avoid this fallacy, author should look at the overall statistics before placing judgements.

The second fallacy is ‘ Nondiscrimination law may make even private actors with no legal or financial ties to the government—including businesses and religious organizations—liable to civil suits for refusing to treat same-sex relationships as marriages.The New Mexico Human Rights Commission prosecuted a photographer for declining to photograph a same-sex ‘commitment ceremony.’ Doctors in California were successfully sued for declining to perform an artificial insemination on a woman in a same-sex relationship. Owners of a bed and breakfast in Illinois who declined to rent their facility for a same-sex civil union ceremony and reception were sued for violating the state nondiscrimination law. ’ (Anderson 2015). What the paragraph is trying to say is people that express their negative feelings and disagreements towards homosexuals is apt to being sued. In fact, not everyone that refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriage is liable to civil suits. Those who are being sued are very small proportions of people. Author should try to avoid the fallacy by comparing the number of mentioned cases with actual populations of gays and lesbians.

1.3.3 Appeal to authority

Appeal to authority is defined as always assuming whatever an authority said is always right, regardless of whether it is correct or not (Your logical fallacy is 2020).

The first fallacy is ‘ ‘‘[American Prospect contributing editor] E. J. Graff celebrates the fact that redefining marriage would change the ‘institution’s message’ so that it would ‘ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers.’ Enacting same-sex marriage, she argues, ‘does more than just fit; it announces that marriage has changed shape.’ ’ (Anderson 2015). The author has quoted sentences from an editor to support this article, saying that redefining marriage would change the institution of marriage, which it is not true at all. Without linking childbering to marriage, it is still a marriage. To avoid this fallacy, the author should have his or her own perspective rather than blindly believing an authority as no one could be correct all the time.

The second fallacy is ‘ A radio talk host, Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex couples to ‘demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.’ Same-sex couples should ‘fight for same sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.’ ’ (Anderson 2015). Again, author quoted words from a radio talk-show host, claiming that gay and lesbian has the probability of transforming people’s perspective of ‘family’. This is not correct as there are countries that allows same-sex marriage, but none of these countries reported to have raising in numbers of homosexuals and also does not affect their heterosexual families to build a family. Author should first collect actual data to prove that it is a fact before believing the authorities.

1.3.4 Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion is the attempting of control rival’s and audience’s emotion and create emotional resonance in order to conceal arguments that is not logical. (Your logical fallacy is 2020).

The first fallacy is ‘Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and biological children and for men and women to marry before having children. Yet the resulting arrangements—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. Redefining marriage would destabilize marriage in ways that are known to hurt children.’(Anderson 2015). The author stated that redefining of marriage will cause damage to children because it will separate the parents from the obligation to raise children. Author was trying to justify his stand by describing a children is hurt by the situation so that the audience would think redefining marriage would cause this. In fact, the damage does not logically connected with redefining of marriage. Author should prove that redefining of marriage is actually hurting children rather than just describe the consequences.

The second fallacy is ‘If marriage is redefined to include same-sex relationships, then those who continue to believe the truth about marriage—that it is by nature a union of a man and a woman—would face threats to their religious liberty. ’ (Anderson 2015). The author is stating that redefining marriage would threaten those who believes in their religion losing their religious liberty. The author implies that the approval of the gay marriage may persecute Christians so the readers will think it is not right to support this. This is not correct because there are homosexuals with Christian parents and this does not affect the parents to continue believing in Christ and Catholic. There are homosexuals who are Christians too. The author should

1.3.5 Slippery Slope

The slippery slope is defined as asserting that if we allow A to happen, then Z will consequently happened too, therefore A should not happen (Your logical fallacy is 2020).

The first fallacy is ‘ There is no possible way for those who believe that marriage is exclusively the union of husband and wife to avoid legal penalties and harsh discriminatory treatment if the bill becomes law. Why should we expect it be otherwise? After all, we would be people who, according to the thinking behind the bill, hold onto an ‘unfair’ view of marriage. The state would have equated our view with bigotry—which it uses the law to marginalize in every way short of criminal punishment.’ (Anderson 2015). What the author is trying to say is if the country allows same-sex marriage, the traditional marriage believer is going to be discriminated by the society. Therefore country should not allow gays and lesbians couple to marry. What the establishment of same-sex marriage law really does is this allows same-sex couples to be legally bound to each other by marriage, just like heterosexual couples and thats it. Author should avoid this fallacy by stop imagining the future that is not happening and look at what is the current situation, which gay and lesbian is still minority and still treated biasly eventhough in country that allows gay arriage.

The second fallacy is ‘Redefining marriage will make complementary of both sexual becomes optional, which also make other essential characteristic of marriage such as monogamy, exclusivity and permanency optional.’ (Anderson 2015). The author is assuming that allowing same-sex marriage is denying the marriage is the matter between women and men, also it brings in other issues as well and destroy the norm of marriage. The premise does not stand the author’s conclusion because all of the situation that the author mention can be happening in common hetero-marriage as well. The author should also taking notes to the heterosexual couples as well to avoid biased conclusions.

1.4 Disagreement with author on various points

First of all, the author mentioned that , ‘marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.’ marriage is certainly not limited to bring a man and a woman together. The core value of marriage is the willingness of the couples to be bound by the law and accept the commitment into looking after the family members and this core value is not affected by the gender of the couples.

Secondly, I do not agree with the author’s view of marriage is one of the means to protect children. I do agree that parents have an obligation to their children, but marriage is not the only solution. Sometimes, enforcing marriage is not the best way as toxic marriage could be more harmful to a child’s growth, for example, a rapist and its victim. If the parents are unwilling to take the obligations of looking after their children, marriage are not going to help the children anyway.

Thirdly, marriage does not always connects with procreation and childbearing. This may be applied over a few decades ago but things have changed. Nowadays, there are many couples choose to get married but not bearing any children for the rest of their lives. Having children or not should be based on personal choices and not by norms or values of society.

Last but not least, the author mentioned that nobody should redefine marriage for anyone else. The sentences itself is true and I do agree on that sentence. But doesn’t the author define marriage for everyone else as well? There is no evidence showing that allowing same-sex couples married is the ‘redefining’ of marriage. The idea of marriage is define by humans and we can always decide what marriage means to us. Nobody should redefine marriage for everyone else, but everyone should have the right to get married with anyone, and define their own marriage freely.

1.5 Conclusion

In overall, this article that is written regarding to the effect of approving homosexual wedding in many aspects. The author stated clearly that he is not support of approving homosexual marriage due to many reasons, including how the same-sex marriage wekened marriage norm, what is the effect to the religious and so on . I totally not agree with the author’s view because the article itself has many mistakes and seemingly attempt to mislead readers. People should be clearly-minded when dealing with this kind of content with so many fallacies and traps to avoid being misled by the author.

In this article, we can notice that the author often quoted from authority figures but only very little statistic report can be found in the article. His stands is basically based on authority quotes and random news, and sometimes, is just his own perception, which is not really persuasive and logical for me. In order for the author to strengthen his article, he needs more statistics to support his stands as authority could be misleading sometimes.

Meanwhile, this article is quite exaggerated. Most of the situations that the author describe about is extreme cases or situations that rarely occurred in reality but the author seems to be quite sure that it is going to happen soon if we do not take advice from him. With exaggerated words, this could sometimes incite reader’s emotions, even though the content itself is not abundant or hs a lot of mistakes. As a reader, I find it very unrealistic because the situation that the author is talking about is very unlikely to occur in real life. He should describe situation that people think it would be closer to reality and has a higher chance to occur.

Last but not least, this article is misleading. It seems to distort facts quite often. The author elaborate terms and situations wrongly quite a few times. What the author write seems to be to justify his own thoughts and not for the reality because the author already has his own prejudice when he was writing this article. The author should not have prejudice when writing this article and try to be impartial as possible in order to convey correct message to the audince. The author should at least done research thoroughly before started to compositing an article, especially when article is publised to the public as it would cause public’s misunderstanding.

1.6 Appendix

• P1: It would change the formation of a family which is one mother and one father.
• P2: It would decrease the husband’s desire to stay with their spouse and children, also the desire of men and women to get married before having a baby because the social pressure and incentives has decreased.
• IC1: If the marriage was redefined, it would ruin the current marriage system and cut off the relationship between marriage and childbearing.
• P3:It would stimulate the number of irresponsible marriage because it is redefined as simply romantic companionship, weakening the norm of permanency.
• P4: The norm of monogamy is rejected because this denies the combination of men and women is a fundamental of the marriage.Not only that,
• P5: Norm of exclusivity is not a common practise in same-sex marriage as according to The New York Times, as seek sex outside of marriage do not have negative connotations for gay couples.
• IC2: Marriage norms is weakened by same-sex marriage.
• P6: The religious believers that have their belief in traditional marriage will be seen by others as “infidels”.
• P7: People that do not recognize the same-sex marriage are likely to trigger anti-discrimination provision as there are over 350 provisions is about the recognition of same-sex marriage.
• IC3: Redefining marriage leads to the erosion of religious liberty.
• P8: According to the Catholic bishop of Springfield, Illinois, laws does not helps at all, as it not stop gay people form entering into Catholic institutions.
• P9: Religionists are deemed as bigotry and extreme by society judgement and the laws are actually marginalizing them.
• P10: It is not possible to those who still believe in traditional marriage to avoid lawsuits and penalties while being treated discriminatingly.
• IC4: Laws that were established to redefine marriage meanwhile protecting religious liberty are proved useless.
• P11: No one should redefine marriage for everyone else.
• MC: Hence, gay marriage bill should not be approved.

1.7 References

1. Anderson, R 2015, Defending Same-Sex Marriage | Download [Pdf]/[ePub] eBook, in , Freebooksget.com, viewed 29 January 2020, Your logical fallacy is 2020, viewed 29 January 2020, .

Introduction

As someone who grew up in a conservative state but attended a very diverse school, I have made wonderful friends; some who happen to identify as a bisexual, a gay person, or as someone who identified as an LGBTQ member. Listening to their experiences and obstacles regarding their sexuality intrigued me as I realized that this is a group of people that needs support. Despite being in America and in the 21st century, bigotry continues make its mark and slither into nearly every aspect of the LGBTQ community. Since high school, I have been a proud ally and wanted to research more into what this community has to go through and how we can handle those issues. According to the selected articles, many of these issues are related to several aspects of psychology which include learning, personality, therapies, motivation and emotions, human development, and social psychology. They also include thinking, intelligence, language, health psychology, human development, states of consciousness, and sensation and perception. The eight articles I have looked into highlight the battle for this community to strive towards acceptance and equality.

According to “We Must Be Better: A Young Black Student Takes His Own Life”, Nigel Shelby was a 15-year old black high school student in Alabama who committed suicide. His family claims that the homophobic bullying in high school may have contributed to him ending his life. Pierre-Antoine Louis, the author of this article, is also a gay black man who can empathize with Nigel’s experience in high school. According to the Center of Social Equity, 74 percent of LGBTQ youths do not feel safe within the school they attend. They also don’t feel comfortable turning to the teachers for help. Not feeling safe or comfortable enough to reach out for help can cause many members to struggle.

In the article, “Hallmark Channel Pulls Zola Ads Featuring Brides Kissing”, Hallmark pulled four ads which showed two brides kissing after a conservative group called One Million Moms created a petition that urged Hallmark to remove the ads for “decency” reasons. Hallmark claimed to have removed these ads since they did not follow with the no-PDA guidelines despite having ads showing exactly the same behavior only with heterosexual couples. After the pulling of these ads, Hallmark received backlash from Twitter as people boycotted the company through the hashtag, #BoycottHallmarkChannel. People believed that the pulling of the ads were homophobic and offensive. Hallmark, in response to the backlash on Twitter, apologized for the pulling of the ads.

Unfortunately, not only is the LGBTQ community fighting for acceptance, some are fighting to keep their jobs. According to “Can Someone Be Fired for Being Gay? The Supreme Court Will Decide”, in more than half of the states, an individual can be fired over their homosexuality. As of October 8th 2019, the Supreme Court will determine whether or not Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 includes LGBTQ people. If so, this would provide protection for gay and transgender people across the nation. Some argue that the title did not intend to include sexual orientation while others argue that sexual orientation is a sex-based classification because it cannot be defined without sex in the first place. There have been cases where people have been fired for being gay. Gerald Bostock, for example, lost his job as county government employee in Georgia after he became more open about his sexuality.

Who holds office can impact a great deal to the LGBTQ community as shown in the article, “New York City Is Ending a Ban on Gay Conversion Therapy. Here’s Why”. Corey Johnson, a member of the New York City Council, claims that the New York City Council will lift the ban on gay conversion therapy. The ban on conversion therapy consisted of violators being charged if they offered services to change a person’s sexuality or gender identity. Despite Corey Johnson being an openly gay man and the fact that gay conversion therapy has been discredited, this repeal was done to avoid a lawsuit from a conservative Christian legal organization that could have taken the city to the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court is conservative after Trump won office, New York has become more conservative, so it is likely that the state would lose the case.

Thankfully, with every step back, there can be another step forward. In “Utah Is Latest State to Ban Conversion Therapy for Children”, Utah, despite being one of the most conservative states in the nation, banned therapists from practicing conversion therapy on minors. The already discredited practice has been considered unprofessional conduct for therapist with punishments including the revoking of a violator’s license. However, this ban does not apply to clergy members, religious counselors, and family members. Despite so, the LGBTQ community considers this a big step towards the right direction.

Who goes into office can have a huge impact on the LGBTQ community as shown in “Adoption Groups Could Turn Away L.G.B.T. Families Under Proposed Rule”. According to the article, under the new Trump administration, a proposed law could allow adoption agencies and foster care to deny their services to LGBTQ families due to religious reasons. This would undo what Obama’s equality regulation back in 2016. Some critics argue that it is problematic that some adoption agencies would put their religious beliefs above a child’s need. The White house claimed that it is not the federal government’s business of forcing adoption agencies from choosing to help children and their faith.

Unfortunately, many members will refuse to associate with the LGBTQ community out of fear of being judged while some would even go against the community. In “Aaron Schock, Former Illinois Congressman, Comes Out as Gay”, a former resigned Republican, Aaron Schock, came out as a gay man. In a post on his website, he describes his struggles with his sexuality and growing up in his religious household as a child. However, people did not take this well considering Schock has a history of anti-LGBTQ actions such as opposing gay marriage and the fact that he never apologized for any of his anti-LGBTQ antics in his lengthy post. People have also pointed out his other problematic past actions such as his alleged lavish spending and counts of wire fraud.

If people come together for a cause, such as fighting homophobia, it can bring about awareness and potential solutions. According to “Swiss Vote to Penalize Public Homophobia”, Swiss voters have agreed that public homophobia must be penalized, which has brough attention to an antidiscrimination law that has been worked on for years. This law would attempt to protect the LGBTQ community by penalizing public degradation of someone’s sexuality. Many opposers of this law argued that this is another form of censorship and that the Swiss citizens had the right to voice their opinions regardless of how much other people disapprove of it. Activists of LGBTQ rights believe that this law will significantly help protect the LGBTQ community.

Opinion

As homosexuality and the LGBTQ community becomes more mainstream and thankfully, more accepted, there are still obstacles that this community will have to overcome. It was only back in 2015 when gay marriage was finally legalized in all fifty states. While that is a big step towards the right direction, there is still so much that can be done to protect the LGBTQ community from injustice. There is far more to this community than just marriage rights. There are still social issues that need to be addressed and legal action that needs to happen to help secure the safety of the LGBTQ community.

Growing up in the south and in a conservative and religious family, homosexuality was something that I grew up thinking as something that should be avoided and unmentioned. Eventually, as I became older and more autonomous, I started forming my own opinion of the LGBTQ community. I’ve never viewed it as morally wrong but rather simply different. I saw absolutely no reason to mistreat those over a few differences since we are all different, but at the end of the day, we are all human. I’ve started realizing the abuse the LGBTQ community had to suffer. I saw headlines highlighting hate crimes against those who identified with the LGBTQ or even those who were simply allies. I started noticing bigotry against the LGBTQ community in real life. I witnessed my Sunday school assistant instructor target a transgender boy in front of the class, telling the boy that he was “going to hell” for his gender identity. As I walk in the hallways of my school, I heard the phrases and slurs such as “that’s so gay” when referring to something unpleasant. I saw online comments, videos, and images exhibit verbal violence and hatred towards the LGBTQ community. I’ve seen some of my friends struggle to be accepted in school and unfortunately, at home as well. After realizing how incredibly cruel the world is towards the LGBTQ community, I started to become more actively involved within the community. I eventually joined the GSA, the gay straight alliance, at my school and began looking for ways to help as an ally.

As I became an ally for the LGBTQ, I have heard countless methods on how to combat homophobia and help the community become more accepted by society. I believe we must tackle issues in the system and in our social environment. We must tackle these issues united as well. The more unity, the louder our voice is, then it is more likely we will be heard. I would strongly encourage for those to voice their opinions in support for the LGBTQ community and suggest their own solutions on how to help the community. I believe an impactful way to help this community is by just being there for them. Unfortunately, many members are subjected to verbal abuse, rejection, and even physical assaults; these perpetrators may very well be family members of the LGBTQ member. Additionally, if there are young people killing themselves over homophobic abuse, we need to start helping now. According to “We Must Be Better: A young Black Student Takes His Own Life”, Nigel Shelby, a gay high school student who committed suicide from, as his family claims, homophobic abuse from other students. Nigel’s death should be a sign that homophobia of all forms needs to be addressed as of now. I used to attend a private Catholic school back in Alabama, and the homophobia I witnessed was obvious among the students and the staff members as well.

After attending the private Catholic school, I started noticing hypocrisy within certain church members and those who support homophobia and the suppression of the LGBTQ community. While I understand that some people choose not to support the LGBTQ community because that support goes against their religion or their own personal values, what I don’t support are people who actively try to suppress the LGBTQ community and try to impose their own values. There is a difference between having a different opinion and practicing your own values versus trying to prevent a certain group of people to progress towards safety and acceptance. The two things I have particularly noticed among those who actively try to suppress the LGBTQ community are that they selectively pick reasons to justify their homophobia and impose their beliefs and values on to other people. Some of these opposers express their hatred towards the LGBTQ community and attempt to justify their actions by claiming that LGBTQ members are “sinners” according to the Bible. However, everyone, regardless of sexuality, would be considered a “sinner” according the Bible, so it’s very hypocritical. These opposers also seem to completely ignore their own “sins” and specifically target homosexuality. Some people are so adamant about making gay marriage illegal since it is a “sin” according to the Bible but have yet to address with the other “sins.” As for those who try to impose their values on to other people, there is a difference between expressing your own beliefs and values versus trying to force other people to follow those values and beliefs. The argument of “gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because it goes against the Bible” or any other concept similar to that is an example of people trying to impose their values. To put this in a hypothetical scenario, if I was on a vegan diet and saw someone eating pork chop in front of me, I would go up to that person and say, “Hey, you can’t eat that. It goes against my diet.” Here’s the problem: it’s my diet, just like how it is someone else’s religion. No one is obligated to follow another person’s religion or follow someone else’s’ values. People are free to do what they please whether it aligns with someone else’s values or not. To purposely prevent someone from doing something that does not affect anyone else is an act of imposition, such as the controversy surrounding the Hallmark ad featuring a lesbian couple. The opposers tried to pressure Hallmark to remove the ad to prevent other people from viewing it when they could have instead switched to a different channel or simply not watch Hallmark anymore.

Another huge obstacle the community face is systematic homophobia. A good example of this is the one in the New York Times article, “New York City Is Ending a Ban on Gay Conversion Therapy. Here’s Why.” The New York Council had to lift the ban since they knew the conservative nature of Trump’s administration would cost them the case even though conversion therapy has been discredited. If the administration was not anti-LGBTQ, the ban probably would have not been lifted in the first place. A more LGBTQ-friendly administration would provide the needed legal protection and opportunities for the community such as the Obama administration, which considered sexual orientation as a protected class in the discrimination regulations. Additionally, according to “Can Someone Be Fired for Being Gay? The Supreme Court Will Decide”, another legal injustice that occurs is that in nearly more than half of the states, people can get fired over their sexual orientation. A person’s sexual orientation does not deny or discredit a person’s capability to do their job. With so many legal obstacles the LGBTQ communities have to face, we must continue to challenge the questionable legalities that are still in effect. This is why it is so important as to who holds political positions.

While there are still many obstacles and conflicts to overcome, the community must continue to push through. If we stop now, the problems the community faces will continue to prevail. Although the backlash can be painful, we must continue to find ways to improve the community’s cause for the sake of members such as my friends.

Conclusion

Although acceptance has increased for the LGTBQ community, there are still more barriers to break down for this community to be protected and accepted. Marriage equality was only the first step out of thousands of steps that need to be taken. If gay teenagers are committing suicide, jobs are lost, and two men can’t fulfill their dreams of having a family, then action needs to be taken with the support of allies and members. Only when we are united together can we successfully go against bigotry and strive closer for a normal life for the LGBTQ community.

My LGBTQ friends deserve the protection and support that heterosexual people have. No one should lose their jobs, feel unsafe, or be prevented to have the same opportunities as everyone else over their sexual orientation. The community should continue to fight for their rights and acceptance for themselves, for the people they care about, and for the future generation. Everyone, gay or straight, is a human being. Everyone, straight or gay, is entitled to have the chance to lead a safe and happy life.

Since the 2016 election, social-political issues including race, abortion, and equality between men and women have moved to the forefront of the American voters’ minds. One of the most controversial social issues has been the legalization of LGBTQ+ rights in regards to marriage, equal opportunity and discrimination. Ultimately this issue divides Americans within the Democratic and Republican parties. The Republican Party has historically been opposed to same-sex marriage. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that rid same-sex marriage nationwide, the Republican Party now faces whether to accept the ruling or to fight it by measures such as a possible amendment to the Constitution. The history of homosexuality in America has been largely hidden due to social stigma. For decades, being gay meant to be forsaken by family, fired by employers, even risked arrest or forced hospitalization. Through all of the persecution, members of the gay community stayed strong and the LGBTQ+ is now being embraced by the public. Although the Republican Party has made some progress towards some parts of the LGBTQ+, they are still quite closed-minded to the transgender community specifically.

The Republican Party has historically believed in the traditional idea of marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. This opposition to gay marriage does not come from a hatred of gays, but rather the belief that our founding fathers had set the institution of marriage, and it has always been this way. Many Republicans believe that if this definition left by the founding fathers is changed, it will compromise the sanctity of marriage. Also, Republicans opposing gay rights stems from the idea when raising family, having a male and female role-model is a healthier and balanced way for a child to grow up. However, this does not mean Republicans oppose gay rights entirely (Views). The Republican Party believes that individual states should decide for or against the recognition of gay marriages. The party also believes in a smaller federal government, which places fewer restrictions on the people, and that states have the right to make their laws, based on the beliefs of their citizens. Concerning gay marriage, the Republican Party believes that state’s rights should extend not only to the right to legalize or not legalize gay marriages, but also to gay marriages from other jurisdictions, and decide on tax and adoption rights for gay couples (Views). Although the majority of the Party is still against same-sex marriage, the Party has been more accepting of this idea within the past 5 years. In 2014, only 26% of conservatives support same-sex marriage. Since then that number has jumped up to 36% (Pew Research). This shows that slowly, but surely the majority Republican Party will be in favor of same-sex marriage.

Although there are some Republicans in favor of same-sex marriage, many of the same Republicans are against transgenders. If someone is in support of the LGBTQ+, they most likely believe in the idea of gender fluidity. This is the idea that gender is not what sex you were born at but rather a social construct, and that one could switch their identity as they please. This also breaks the traditional mold of their only being two genders. Many Republicans are against trans people because they believe that there are only two genders, male and female. That the set of chromosomes that you are born with, either XX or XY is what dictates your gender. Some Republicans would go as far as to say that being transgender is a mental illness. They try to back their argument up by talking about Gender Dysphoria. According to the American Psychiatric Association, Gender Dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there’s a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity (Parekh). Another argument made by this group that being transgender is a mental illness is because of the transgender suicide rate. Over half the transgender male teens reports that they have attempted suicide at some point in their life, while around 30 percent of transgender female said they have attempted suicide. Non-binary teens, around 42 percent said that they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives(Hassanein). Though many transgender young people report family rejection, bullying, and harassment, or feel unsafe for simply being who they are, some Republicans will argue that harassment and rejection isn’t the reasoning but mental illness is. An example of a Republican who is against transgenders is our President, Donald Trump. In March of 2019 Trump, released a set of tweets banning transgender people from serving in the military. The Department of Justice sent a memo to the Supreme Court, Title VII, a civil right law protecting against discrimination based on sex does not extend to transgender workers. Another ruling could override anti-discrimination for LGBT people by allowing religious employers to hire only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with those of the company. New Trump Administration rules would roll back sex discrimination protections for transgender people in health services. The Trump Administration wants to legally define transgender out of existence by officially recognizing only a person’s gender at birth (Olorunnipa). In speeches and interviews, Trump seems to be persistent in that he is for LGBTQ+ rights when he is not. It appears that Trump and the Republican Party are playing a game of tug of war in which they are trying to gain new voters by trying to seem open-minded, but also trying not to lose their older core conservatives. This take from Republicans is a push to the far right of the political spectrum because Trump is stripping trans people of their rights, but this is not popular with the American people because around 62% of American thinks trans people should have equal rights.

This week the Supreme Court will listen to three cases that will decide whether it is legal to fire a person because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda both involve gay men who accuse their employers of firing them because of their orientation. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC case is about a trans woman fired by her boss because he claimed he would be “violating God’s commands” if he employed a trans person. All the cases have to do with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans employment discrimination “because of” an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Now the question for the Supreme Court is whether LGBTQ+ people are protected by this act. Conservative advocacy groups, including some that supported Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, both appointed by Trump, have lobbied against an LGBTQ+ inclusive interpretation of Title VII, and to have several congressional Republicans who endorsed both justices(Barnes). There is the possibility that the conservative justices on the bench today hold anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs that will cloud their analyses of the issue. A 5–4 decision by the Supreme Court excluding LGBTQ+ employees from Title VII seems disturbingly probable. The Republican Party is trying to push for a more reactionary stance by trying to allow employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This stance isn’t that popular with the American people because around 60% of Americans believe employers should not have the right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ citizens (Pew Research).

The Republican Party has become more open to same-sex marriage in recent years, but they still discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. They are currently trying to make sure LGBTQ+ citizens are not protected under Title VII, and with a Republican-dominated court, it will be interesting to see how things play out soon. It was around 60 years ago that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson to help fight another Civil RIghts issue in America – equal rights for African Americans. Exactly how LGBTQ+ citizens are trying to fight to not be discriminated against based on their orientation or identity in the workplace, African Americans were fighting for the same issues. It was yet again the Republican Party that was fighting against this act. Controversial conservative at the time, Barry Goldwater, a man that would shape the GOP to this day, was strongly against allowing this civil rights act to pass because he felt that it wasn’t the government’s place to legislate on this issue. It will be interesting to see if Donald Trump impacts the laws in American now that there is a majority conservative Supreme Court.

Heteronormative is the idea and belief that heterosexuality is the social norm as it’s widely accepted and is the preferred sexual orientation because, most of the sexual relationships in society are heterosexual. Law is generally based on the norms, values and moral principles of society. They all regulate behaviour of individuals and influence each other to a great extent as society is shaped by law and law being shaped by society. This statement can be argued for and against with theoretical concepts, references to today’s contemporary society and examples along with evidence, which will be demonstrated throughout this essay.

The statement of the law being criticised as heteronormative by queer theorists can be seen as valid, as law and society itself promotes heterosexuality as the normal and/or preferred sexual orientation. The idea of heterosexuality being viewed as a social norm is a result of social construction, which is the idea that society is socially constructed through both primary (family) and secondary socialisation (media, religion, peer, workplace and education) meaning society views heterosexuality as natural and normal. This can be seen reinforced in society and lawfully through institutions of marriage, taxes, employment, adoption rights, sex education and among many others . Lesbian, gay and bisexual relationships are strongly looked down upon in many societies both socially and legally as it challenges the heteronormative position that sexual relationship exist purely for reproductive purposes. A key word used by queer theorists is “heteroecism”, which is the theory or assumption, often innocent, that heterosexuality is the social norm, universally by which everyone’s experience can be understood .

Sociologically speaking, functionalists such as Talcott Parsons et al. (1955) stresses the importance of family as functionalists identify the family unit as the most integral component in society as they play an important role known as primary socialisation. Parsons (1955) argued that sexual activity is an important function of the family, so homosexuality cannot be promoted on a large scale as an acceptable substitute for heterosexuality therefore, it is seen as dysfunctional to society . This shows that the statement of the law being criticised as heteronormative is valid to a certain extent because, these sociological views are applied to the structure, norms and values of society instead of applied directly to the law. In today’s contemporary society, homosexuality is beginning to be accepted in many societies, for example it was legalised in the UK 2015 and the most recent society to legalise homosexuality is India 2018. In spite of this, there are still issues as homosexuality is still struggling to be accepted through certain institutions such as a curriculum within education and adoption centres today. With evidence gathered, according to research by sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust, 95% of young people have never been taught about LGBT sex and relationships . Only a minority of schools teach about LGBT sex. Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1988 explicitly forbidden the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities including schools and councils . This shows that the government and prime minister who come up with most ideas of new laws, are heteronormative as the government themselves have discriminated the teaching of homosexuality because. it’s not considered as a norm. This shows the premise of law being heteronormative to be valid as this example clearly demonstrates the heteronormative domination within law. Nevertheless, it is still being brought into the system of education very slowly.

Some adoption agencies refuse to allow same sex couples to adopt as both parents or adopt at all. Only one partner can apply as a parent and the other same-sex partner must apply as a legal guardian. This is evidently shown as in today’s contemporary society as democrats are fighting republican bill that would allow adoption agencies to refuse same-sex couples . This is due to religious beliefs and that a child must have both father and mother role figure in their lives as it is very important to the child’s upbringing and future. This is strongly expressed in the teachings of sociology where New Right theorist Murray (1990) argues that a large percentage of children who are brought up by single mothers due to absent fathers, result in boys lacking parental discipline and appropriate roles models. Young males would often turn to delinquent role models on the street to gain status through crime rather than supporting their families through a steady job. Or they could become absent fathers themselves as they didn’t have a father role figure in their upbringing, they wouldn’t know what to do. The same goes for young girls. Due to absent fathers, young females are most likely to go out and search for a “father figure” for themselves and are most likely to be young and pregnant . Again, this example shows the statement to be valid by a certain extent as it is yet again applied to a societal view instead of a legal view. In evaluation, legally the law however, brought the Adoption and Children Act 2002 which allowed unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, the right to adopt and this became law in December 2005 . This legal act shows that the idea of law being heteronormative is slightly invalid because, the law of adoption and children which was once heteronormative has now been changed and accessible for other sexualities to adopt such as homosexual, transgender and bisexual couples. So, along with the increasing numbers of society accepting homosexuality nowadays and laws changing and adapting to a non-heteronormative system, this shows that the statement argued by queer theorists of the law being heteronormative to be invalid.

Law could be criticised as being heteronormative as it could be argued that law descends from a divine being or power. From a philosophical point of view, St Thomas Aquinas’ Natural law theory states that there are 4 levels of law known as; eternal, divine, natural and human. The first level is Eternal Law, which is the view of principles by God which governs the universe, so God rules govern the universe. The second level is Divine Law, which means what’s moral and immoral comes from God’s rules within the Bible which guides us in reaching our goal of perfection. The third level is known as Natural Law, which is part of eternal law that applies to human choices in identifying primary precepts which can only be known by reason. Lastly, Human Law which is the rules that humans create . The purpose of human law is to keep order and indeed one of the primary precepts of natural law reflects this. Human law is based on the traditions of natural law such as society has been centred around the principles of the 10 commandments. For example, experience tells us not to steal which leads us to an “ordered society” which is a primary precept within the natural laws. However, there have been issues with natural law relating to the statement of law being heteronormative. It raises questions such as what does this mean for homosexuals? Most Abrahamic religions forbid the idea of homosexuality and only promote heterosexuality through the story of Adam and Eve. God made male and female for a reason, to reproduce, not male and male or female and female. Since law descends from God and human law reflects natural law, that would mean that law itself should be against homosexuality and promote and remain as a heteronormative system. This example proves that the statement of law being criticised as heteronormative is valid because, of the notion of law descending from God, displays that the system is based on religious traditions meaning just as religion law is also heteronormative.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the law isn’t heteronormative as many countries in today’s contemporary society are legalising gay marriage and that society is becoming more secular. The awareness of society becoming secular weakens and criticises the natural law theory made by St Thomas Aquinas. Natural law can be argued to be stuck in the past, enforcing traditional views that are out of touch with the 21st century society. With evidence gathered, research shows that 27 countries have legalised gay marriage plus two more countries which are yet to be added onto the list, Bermuda and India, making that a total of 29 countries legalising gay marriage. Many gay rights have been introduced into the system slowly. For example, in 1998 a law called section 28 was introduced which meant teachers were not allowed to teach about gay relationships in schools, but it wasn’t until 2003 this was overturned; In 2002 a law has changed to allow gay people and unmarried couples to adopt and in 2008 it became illegal to encourage homophobic hatred . These evidence and examples demonstrates that the statement made about law being criticised as heteronormative is invalid as many laws in a variety of countries are legalising gay marriage and other anti-gay rights making the system non-heteronormative and more homonormative.

In evaluation, this is still a small number and percentage of the world as the total number of countries in the world accounts to 195 and the fact that only 29 countries so far, have only legalised gay-marriage, shows that heteronormative law is still dominating more than 3 quarters of the world. This logical evidence validates that law was originally heteronormative and even with only 14% of the world legalising gay marriage, it still remains to be heteronormative in more than 3 quarters of the world.

In conclusion, the validity of law being criticised as heteronormative by queer theorists can be argued for to a certain extent. Most arguments within this essay apply to society rather than law. For example, the sociological explanations that justifies why adoption agencies refuse same-sex couples to adopt. A legal example is demonstrated though that applies to law which is the example of Margaret Thatcher explicitly forbidding the teaching of LGBT as a curriculum within schools. Also, the philosophical point that has been provided validates this statement further as it gave a persuasive idea of where law originally came from, which is God and defends why we have a heteronormative system. These points validate the validity of the argument of law being heteronormative.

In evaluation, even though, there are huge number of countries that still have not legalised gay marriage and the heteronormative system within the law still remains dominant due to sociological and philosophical concepts, each year countries are legalising, and societies are becoming more accepting and welcoming to the idea of homosexuality, it is increasing quite rapidly. This could be due to society becoming more secular which criticises the philosophical points as they are seen to be outdated and irrelevant to today’s contemporary society. This is proven with the increasing numbers of legalisation on gay marriages in many societies and countries. Also, the anti-gay acts that have been introduced within the 21st century displays that law isn’t heteronormative as it once was because, many laws have changed allowing queer people to have same human rights as straight people would have. For example; In 2002 a law has changed to allow gay people and unmarried couples to adopt. These evidence and examples invalidates the statement of law being heteronormative. The reason why this was concluded to be valid to an extent was because, the points which argue the statement to be valid are very true however, they were true as now within today’s contemporary society, these points are now irrelevant as things have now changed over time. In completion, the statement is valid to a certain extent as they were true however, these points are irrelevant today as things have changed therefore, making the statement invalid.

Question: How did the LGBT Movement Led To The Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriages In The United States Of America?

The contemporary LGBT movement started in 1969, however the struggle for their rights have been going on since centuries, only the way of protesting and displaying grievances has changed with time. The legalization of same-sex marriage is something that has only been achieved recently, the road to this has been a slow one. This essay will first discuss the history of the gay rights movement and the circumstances before 1969. Then it will move on to discuss the important events that took place after the start of the contemporary LGBT movement and how it led to the eventual legalization of same-sex marriages. Lastly, the factors that led to people protesting for the LGBT community will be conversed and how that specifically helped in the process of legalization.

“A gay rights movement, also called homosexual rights movement or gay liberation movement is a civil rights movement that advocates equal rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals; seeks to eliminate sodomy laws barring homosexual acts between consenting adults; and calls for an end to discrimination against gay men and lesbians in employment, credit lending, housing, public accommodations, and other areas of life.” (Levy) The people of the United States were aware of homosexual activity since centuries but it was frowned upon to the extent that any kind of homosexual activity was criminalized. People who were caught indulging in homosexual activities were executed, whipped and fined by the Court. Even wearing clothes of the opposite sex would lead to public humiliation in the 17th Century. The situation was so grave that sodomy committed by women or men became punishable by mutilation rather than death. But humans are creatures of rebellious nature, many letters and writings have been found from back then where people have openly admitted about their love for a person of the same-sex or men would secretly dress as women and vice versa. Also, ‘joya’ (a man living as a woman) was a common occurrence in local villages back in the 18th Century. Later on, in 1948 a study of sexuality was conducted by Kinsey in the US which revealed that 28% of American women and 50% of American men have ‘homosexual tendencies’ which shocked the American public. (“A Timeline of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History in the United States.”) Finally, after years of struggle the first organization in the United States, that advocated tolerance of homosexuality, was founded in Los Angeles by Harry Hay in 1950 and in 1962, Illinois became the first state to decriminalize sexual acts between people of the same sex.

Initially, women were left out to a large extent and the movement was dominated by males, focusing on just gay rights. However, influenced by the feminist movements of the 1970s, lesbians formed their own collectives, record labels, bookstores and newspapers. Eventually, the gay rights movement came to be known as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) movement. However, New York City’s ‘Stonewall Riots’ of June 1969 is considered to be the starting point of the modern LGBT rights movement. The police raided a bar, called Stonewall Inn, which served as a sanctuary for the city’s lesbian, gay and transgender groups. Such raids were common on the basis of operating without a proper liquor license. However, that night the public decided to fight back. As the employees of the bar and the cross-dressers were being loaded onto the police vans, onlookers standing outside started abusing the police and throwing pennies and even bottles at them. The people resisted arrest and started to attack the police. The gay activists took advantage of this moment and gathered at the Stonewall after the riots to increase awareness about the LGBT movement and in 1970, the first Gay Pride parade set off from Stonewall. (Pruitt) As time passed by, the movement gained more support and most people protested for LGBT rights. “In the last decade of the 20th century, millions of Americans watched as actress Ellen DeGeneres came out on national television in April 1997, heralding a new era of gay celebrity power and media visibility.” (Morris) Then came the 21st Century and there has been a keen emphasis on transgender activism and an increasing use of terms that question binary gender identification. Images of transwomen became more prevalent in film and television, as well as, same-sex couples raising children, for example in the show ‘Modern Family.’ The internet played a huge role in the popularity and in raising awareness about the movement. The LGBT movement is a perfect example of both, a movement for personal change and a movement that seeks institutional changes. Personal change because it wanted to change human’s value system, their way of thinking by highlighting the importance of giving the gays, trans and lesbians their rights and institutional change as they wanted to change the laws that criminalized homo-sexual acts and once, the basic rights were achieved they wanted to legalize same-sex marriages.

Regardless of the mass support for the LGBT movement, there were still many people present across the 50 states of America that were against same-sex marriages. Back in 1993, “the highest court in Hawaii ruled that a ban on gay marriage may go against the state’s constitution. State voters disagreed, however, and in 1998 passed a law banning same-sex marriage.” (History.com Editors) Even though marriage rights backtracked, gay rights advocates got other victories an example of this is that, permission was given to judges to impose harsher punishment on people who commit crimes on the basis of the victim’s sexual orientation and the abolition of the anti-sodomy law. It took a few years for the majority of people to be convinced to let the LGBT community have marriage equality rights as the activists and leaders of the movement created the scenario that the “movement represented an effort to make more real the nation’s democratic ideals and revolutionary promise. It was profoundly a patriotic struggle” (Hall) This was important as the citizens of the United States are mostly liberals and the state is known for its open-minded ideologies. Also, in a democracy all citizens are supposed to have equal rights, regardless of their ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, so phrasing the movement to be a patriotic struggle gained it a lot of support. Moreover, there were many cases arising in the Supreme Court regarding the issue of same-sex marriages. There were also many cases that the Supreme Court did not hear for example; United States Department of Health and Human Services V. Massachusetts, Office of Personnel Management v. PEDERSON and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. WINDSOR. Although there were four main cases that the Supreme Court heard which led to the legalization of same-sex marriages, the main one being ‘United States v. Windsor.’ This case questioned the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as the union of a man and woman and allowed states the permission to deny recognizing the union of same-sex couples. There were eight other cases that questioned the same legality of the Defense of Marriage Act but luckily, this one particular case went through the lower courts all the way to the Supreme Court. After hearing this case, Justice Kennedy announced his opinion on June 26, 2013. He concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act wrote inequality into the entire United States Code and demeans the people who are in lawful same-sex marriages. (Watkins) Hence, same-sex marriages were not legalized outright but it did prohibit state oversight in state matters involving same-sex marriages. It was finally on June 26, 2015, exactly 2 years later, that the US Supreme Court struck down all bans on same-sex marriages and legalized it in all 50 states in Obergefell v. Hodges. (“Guides: A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: A Timeline of the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.”)

Now, coming to the factors that led to the legalization of gay marriages, or in broader terms the legalization of same-sex marriages. Basically, what urged the people of the United States to protest and demand the legalization of gay marriages. First and foremost, marriage is a person’s individual choice and by restricting the right to get legally married, the government was violating a gay, transgender and lesbian’s basic right. Many states allowed gays to get married but it was not legally recognized. This meant that in case of a divorce, the assets would not be fairly divided between the two spouses or the laws of divorce would not apply on them, which led to greater grievances. In the 21st Century, there is wide-spread recognition about almost every aspect of life and the internet has made it easier for information to travel from one part of the world to another. People even protest for things that don’t directly affect them, only because they’re important human rights. A recent example would be the occupation of Kashmir by the Indian forces, who took over Kashmir and tortured the Kashmiri citizens, violating their basic human rights and the United Nation’s protocols. Due to the internet, almost everyone around the world knew about these violations and the tiny details about what was happening there. People all around the world protested against this occupation and forced the Indian government to lift the day curfew, even though they were not directly affected by the actions of the Indian government. Similarly, there were many people, who were not gay, lesbian or transgender in the US, who protested for the LGBT rights, even though it wouldn’t directly affect them because they realized that denying someone the right to marry was against their basic rights. Also, the American State “does not traditionally place many barriers or restrictions on marriage, aside from age and blood relation; this is one reason why the Defense of Marriage Act and other explicit limitations on marriage stand out so markedly in the American legal lexicon”. (Richman 51)

The above factor for why people protested for LGBT rights which led to the legalization of same-sex marriages can be linked to the study of the role of emotions in why people protest. Clearly, the gays, lesbians and transgender protested because this was something that directly affected them but they garnered support for the movement by using emotions as a tool to attract people. In this case, the emotions did not come biologically but rather were created by the social setting. However, there were different emotions at ply for various people; most were protesting because they felt sympathetic towards the LGBT community for they were being discriminated against. Also, as the leaders of the movement had phrased the movement to be a kind of a patriotic struggle, many were motivated by that and wanted to uphold the tradition of their country for never denying the basic rights to an individual. Others were angry with the government for the similar reason that they were discriminating against a particular community. Some might even be using the LGBT movement protests as a medium to vent out their anger and grievances, about something else, in these protests. Likewise, being a democratic country, the citizens of US can easily gather on the streets for protests or take out rallies and parades, as opposed to, people in authoritarian countries such as the Middle East, where same-sex marriages are still not legalized. So, due to the cultural setting and the ability of the people to gather and garner more support for the movement, collective action was easier. The LGBT movement is a great example of the success of collective action, the mass amounts of people protesting for one thing led to its success. One critique of the collective action theory is that people have trouble aligning their goals and cooperating with each other which is why the protests usually fail and “members are more prone not to act in the group’s common interest unless motivated by personal gains.” (Ioannou 151) This might be the reason why it took years of protesting to finally legalize gay marriages but such changes in law and human’s value systems do take years to break down and change.

Furthermore, another factor is that the exclusion of gay men was not just in terms of marriage but also in other aspects of life, such as, in the workplace. Individuals couldn’t openly announce their sexual orientation for the fear of getting dismissed from their job or a higher position. People who had dismissed their identity were mostly discriminated against compared to people who kept it disclosed. Waldo (1999) found out that “those who had been discriminated against exhibited higher levels of psychological distress and health related problems as well as lower levels of job satisfaction. He also discovered that those who had disclosed their sexuality were more likely to experience direct forms of discrimination and harassment.” (Roberts 22) There are also many instances where people who disclosed their sexual orientation were paid less as compared to the other employees. However, as more support was gathered for the movement, a lot of individuals did start ‘coming out’ in their work place, regardless of the consequences, as a means of accomplishing social change. Still passive sort of discrimination remained a problem by other employees and senior management staff. Also, “silence (by the gays) was used as a form of exclusion creating significant barriers in the ways gay men could make themselves visible and use their voice within organizations.” (Roberts 4) This definitely added to the grievances of the people, being unable to be yourself in your every day life is challenging and does affect the mental health of a person.

Lastly, the citizen’s initiative law is one obvious trend that has legalized same-sex marriages. “According to the Initiative and Referendum Institute Website, of the five states that condone same-sex marriages, four do not have any form of citizens’ initiative, with Massachusetts being the exception.” (Larsen 57) A citizen’s initiative grants the citizens of a country to give their opinions in government matters and be able to call a referendum. This could explain why, California, did not allow same-sex couples the right to marry, whereas, conservative Iowa allowed same-sex couples the tittle of marriage because there was no citizen’s initiative present there and at the time most people were against same-sex marriages. It was after a while that more than 50% of America’s population started protesting or were in favor of same-sex marriages. Previously in every instance that same-sex marriage was legalized, the law was removed by a popular initiative. But as most of the citizen’s started supporting this cause, it was much easier for the government to pass the legalization law. Hence, the presence or absence of the citizen’s initiative did have a direct correlation with the legalization of same-sex marriages.

In conclusion while it is true that society has achieved the legalization of same sex marriage, it still cannot be said that same sex couples are being treated fairly and equally amongst all societies. There is still a social stigma around this area in the more traditional parts of the world. However, the internet as mentioned has made a big difference in spreading awareness on a wide scale. As more people are willing to come out and fight for their rights. The LGBT movement as discussed was greatly helped by the demographics of the United States, as it is a free democratic country and allowed the people to come in collectively and protest with a similar voice that helped bring about a change in the legal system. Therefore, the LGBT has evidently come a long way but it can be said that while it has legally achieved its goals, it has to go above and beyond that to an extent where same sex couples are seen as equal and no different to heterosexual couples.

Works Cited:

1. “A Timeline of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History in the United States.” Https://Www.gsafewi.org, www.gsafewi.org/wp-content/uploads/US-LGBT-Timeline-UPDATED.pdf.
2. “Guides: A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States: A Timeline of the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.” A Timeline of the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. – A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States – Guides at Georgetown Law Library, guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php? g=592919& p=4182201.
3. HALL, SIMON. “The American Gay Rights Movement and Patriotic Protest.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 19, no. 3, 2010, pp. 536–562. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40986338.
4. History.com Editors. “Gay Rights.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 28 June 2017, www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/history-of-gay-rights.
5. Ioannou, Dr Christina. “The Problem of Collective Action: A Critical Examination of Olson’s Solution of ‘Selective Benefits.’” International Journal of Business and Social Research, vol. 2, no. 3, 2012, pp. 151–157., doi: https://www.academia.edu/4150398/The_Problem_of_Collective_Action_A_Critical_Examination_of_Olson_s_Solution_of_Selective_Benefits_.
6. Larsen, Benjamin. “Gay Marriage and the Citizens’ Initiative: A Comparative Analysis.” Boise State University, Scholar Works, 2011, core.ac.uk/reader/61727341.
7. Levy, Michael. “Gay Rights Movement.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1998, www.britannica.com/topic/gay-rights-movement.
8. Morris, Bonnie J. “History of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Social Movements.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/history.
9. Pruitt, Sarah. “What Happened at the Stonewall Riots? A Timeline of the 1969 Uprising.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 13 June 2019, www.history.com/news/stonewall-riots-timeline.
10. Richman, Kimberly D. License to Wed: What Legal Marriage Means to Same -Sex Couples. New York University Press, 2015.
11. Roberts, Simon Peter. “Exploring How Gay Men Manage Their Gay Identity in the Workplace.” Exploring How Gay Men Manage Their Gay Identity in the Workplace, Queen Mary, University of London, Queen Mary Research Online, 2013, core.ac.uk/reader/77038800.
12. Watkins, Olivia. “How the Case United States v. Windsor Paved the Way for Same-sex Marriage Legalization in the United States.” Http://Thesis.honors.olemiss.edu, The University of Mississippi, 2014, core.ac.uk/reader/148694965

“In a first for Asia, Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, punctuating a yearslong campaign by advocates for gay rights in one of the continent’s most liberal democracies” (Yeh, 2017). Until 1 January 2019, same-sex marriage has been legally performed and recognized in a total of 29 countries or regions (Baidu Baike, 2019). It seems that gay marriage is becoming a heated human right and civil right issue. Polls show continuously rising support for gay relationships in most of the developed democracies.

Gay relationship shares a few common features with straight relationships, such as self-identification and the couple lifestyle. However, there are some major differences between gay and straight relationships, which include social recognition, marriage legality, maturity problem and dating pool. Basically, the chief similarity between gay and straight relationships is that it’s just two people committed to each other. According to Li Yinhe (2002), compared with heterosexual emotional life, those true homosexual relationships are very similar in terms of forms, content and the level of sincerity, and the only difference is that homosexual’s lover is the same sex.

The truth is that gay people don’t consider themselves as some kind of weirdos or freaks, and there’s nothing wrong with their sexual orientation. They are ordinary people just like heterosexual. As for couple lifestyles between the two relationships, some are similar while others are not. In those 29 countries or regions I’ve just mentioned above, gay couples can get married, raise a kid and their relationships are under the protection of the law. So it doesn’t affect their life too much whether they are gay or straight. However, things could be way more complicated in the rest of the world. The social acceptance for homosexual and heterosexual is different. It is common sense to a lot of people that a couple should be a man and a woman. The majority of people in the world are heterosexual and because of this they usually don’t discriminate against straight relationship. But for gay people, it’s totally another story. Just envisage a picture of two men or women holding each other’s hand and walking on the street. It could be strange and annoying to some people. Why? Because from their perspective, it is not acceptable that there is love between two people of the same sex.

Gay couples are experiencing a great deal of discrimination, which can impact their relationships at any stage. Discrimination is everywhere. For example, rude people may use nasty words to insult homosexual, and gay people could be kicked out of the firm once they come out. Most importantly, their family are very likely to look down on them and may disown them so that they have no choice but to break up with their family. However, for heterosexual, it won’t cause them these troubles while having an intimate relationship. Homosexual and heterosexual relationships differ greatly in legalization. Straight relationships and marriages are legalized and respected all over the world. However, there are still a large number of countries that do not allow legalization of gay couples. The LGBT community has been fighting for their rights and trying to gain acceptance of the law for many decades. Now it’s 2010s, and although the environment is becoming more accepting toward gay marriages, many gay couples are still not allowed to form a legal union like straight couples can in those countries. Without the protection of law, gay couples’ rights are strictly restricted. They may get rejection to adopt kids. Even though one person can have a child by surrogacy, the other doesn’t have the custody of the child. Additionally, because their relationships aren’t recognized by legalization, gay people can’t visit his/her partner in hospital as a family member or make medical decisions for his/her love. Thus, gay marriages and straight marriages are usually unequal.

Homosexual tend to mature later than heterosexual. What I mean is that straight people can easily date each other and fall in love at puberty and all through their high school. But most gay people may don’t have access to a variety of other homosexuals or even simply are in the closet until their 20s. So for those people, their 20s are often called a period of experimentation, and some refer to it as “the slut phase” (Nenoff, 2015). Regardless, their 20s tend to be when they have a relationship with other men/women, start to date and sleep with others and finally learn to know what they love. Therefore, it often seems like their development is postponed by 5 to 10 years and it also explains why there are numerous gay guys are less mature than straight people.

Homosexual oftentimes have a smaller dating pool compared with heterosexual. More than 90 percent of the world population are heterosexual (Grant, 2013), and it has been seen that a few straights also have been in a same-sex relationship once, so it’s usually not a difficulty for straight people to date or have sex with someone. However, according to Diana Cage (2011), lesbians generally meet each other through other lesbians. Bunch of online dating apps customized for homosexuality have exploded these years, but the truth is that most gay people merely treat these apps as the way to hook up, not to mention short-term or even long-term relationships. And due to the fact that homosexual are high-risk group infected with AIDS, they are inclined to be extremely cautious when choosing their partners. Thus, for gay people, finding someone that they love is way harder than straight people. In essence, there aren’t supposed be too many differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationship. Because technically, either gay or straight, they are all just human beings, and humans are born equal. More and more countries have joined the league which insists on eliminating this inequality, and what we are supposed to do is to be tolerant of this diversified world, letting go of judgment and putting aside our prejudice.

What is the relationship between race and social change in the U.S.?

One of the many unfortunate realities of our society is that race has played a major role in how people are treated—that is, how they have been allocated power, given service (i.e., at restaurants, through government aid, etc.), and acknowledged on the street. Historically, at least in Western cultures, Black people have been targeted more than virtually any other racial group. Before the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, white people in the U.S. were able to enslave Blacks and essentially do what they wished with them without any consequences. Blacks were stripped of their natural freedoms, such as the ability to vote, take part in societal functions, and ultimately enjoy life without the fear of anyone taking that right away. In the white man’s world, Blacks were seen as subordinates—people who didn’t deserve to be recognized as human, those who didn’t deserve to live a normal life.

However, in the 1950s, Americans gradually started changing their minds about Black rights. One of the first domains where people saw a problem was in the school system In Brown v. Board (1954), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that schools would cease to be segregated. The educational arrangement was supposed to ensure that students were separate-but-equal; nonetheless, it grew apparent that those in Black schools were not given equal resources as those in white schools. Therefore, segregation in schools was deemed unconstitutional as it went against the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Schools and other public spaces didn’t desegregate immediately, though. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, law enforcement agencies in the South were hesitant to make changes. Protests ensued, such as the bus boycotts in Montgomery, Alabama, following Rosa Parks’ arrest for refusing to give up her seat. Eventually, more protests sparked across the country, creating public unrest that made the government pay closer attention to what was going on. This led to Lyndon B. Johnson’s ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which put an end to segregation in public spaces as well as prohibited hiring discrimination toward individuals of various races, religions, sexes, and national origins. Finally, Blacks were allowed to enjoy theaters, sports facilities, hotels, restaurants, and other areas where they were previously restricted from experiencing. Within the next couple of years, southern schools started integrating, signs saying “WHITES ONLY” or “COLORED ONLY” were taken down from bathrooms and waiting rooms, and discriminatory practices started receiving more legal scrutiny.

Blacks didn’t legitimately achieve the right to vote, nonetheless, until a year later when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came into effect. Before then, many southern states used literacy and other “IQ” tests at the polls to let African Americans vote. This disenfranchised much of the Black population—especially those who didn’t have the resources growing up (e.g., adequate education) to pass these tests which really didn’t indicate whether or not an individual had the intellect to vote. While it took some time before law enforcement agencies started implementing this ban, eventually the majority of colored citizens in the South successfully registered to vote and were able to do so without much of an issue.

Evidently, the Civil Rights Movement has fought many battles in the U.S.—most of them successfully. However, there is still a long road to go before people of different races are treated altogether equal. Next, we must manage our implicit biases, take race off employment application forms, and treat one another with full respect if we are to overcome the problem of race in our country.

What is the relationship among gender, rape reform, and social change?

Involved in America’s dark past, as well as much of the rest of the world, is the repression of women, transgender and nonbinary individuals. Minus a few specific cases, before the passing of the 19th Amendment, women in the United States were unable to vote. Before this ratification, only men had the right to take part in our nation’s politics. As mentioned previously, Black men were only allowed this privilege starting in 1870; thus, for nearly a hundred years, only white men could take part in elections. The 19th Amendment, nonetheless, was not signed until August 1920; women have only been able to vote for a hundred years! But to clarify, women did not start fighting for their rights around that time; the history extends at least back until the 1840s. Similar to how protests surged in pursuit of racial justice, women gathered at conventions (such as one of the first ones in Seneca Falls, New York) to express their right to equality. Eventually, larger organizations formed such as the American Woman Suffrage Association and the National Woman Suffrage Association.

Similar to other social movements, states gradually let women vote; Illinois and Montana were two of the first to do this. As public opinion grew in support of women’s rights, more women secured positions of power such as congressional seats. The first World War also had a major impact on the cause, since women were asked to step up and work outside of the home for a change. The evolution of women’s roles greatly strengthened the argument that women should be allowed to vote.

Allowing women to vote was a great step in America’s progress; however, this was a matter of sex and not gender. People who identified as genders that didn’t align with their biological sex (i.e., determined by their body parts and/or chromosomes), were still denied many rights in our country. Men who identified as women had to use male restrooms, register as men on government forms and identification cards, and were limited to what government programs they could participate in. Furthermore, people of certain sexes/genders were discriminated against in the workplace; specific jobs were reserved for certain genders and abusive behavior based on sex/gender was allowed—specifically toward women.

In the May of 2019 (just this past year), the House of Representatives finally approved an updated Equality Act, which amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ‘prohibit discrimination on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes’ (Schell-Olsen, 2019). Now, women, transgenders, anyone who falls on the LGBTQ spectrum, and even expectant mothers are further protected. Nonetheless, it’s up to the people to uphold and refrain from circumventing these new parameters.

When it comes to how different sexes/genders interact with one another in the U.S., rape is one of the last major issues that still needs work. Prior to the 1900s, ideas of consent differed from state to state; some states even permitted 14 years old as the acceptable age of consent. Additionally, rape shield laws weren’t put into effect until 1975, which “limit the Defendant’s ability to probe into the sexual behavior, history, or reputation of the alleged victim” (Bishop, 2018). Thus, juries were no longer able to be misled into thinking that a female victim was “asking for it” when the perpetrator assaulted her. Despite some of the protective legislation, men are still thrown a bone in many rape cases; Brock Turner is one example, a Stanford swimmer, who sexually assaulted a 22-year-old woman and only received a three-month jail sentence. Clearly, much more change needs to occur to seek justice for women who are sexually abused.

How has the law reflected the social construction of same-sex marriage over time?

One of the more recent social changes in the United States regards the ability of same-sex couples to get legally married. In 1970, two men—Richard Baker and James McConnell—sought a marriage license in Minneapolis, Minnesota. However, the Clerk of District Court, Gerald Nelson, rejected their appeal because they were the same sex. This grew into a case that made it all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court; nonetheless, Baker and McConnell were ultimately denied the right to marry each other and the Court didn’t find Nelson’s decision unconstitutional. This came not long after the Stonewall Riots in New York City in 1969, in which a raid at a known gay bar “sparked a riot among bar patrons and neighborhood residents as police roughly hauled employees and patrons out of the bar, leading to six days of protests and violent clashes” (History.com Editors, 2017). Despite the publicity the Riots received and a bolster in general appreciation of the gay community, legislators and judges were not yet pushed to fully accept the gay community.

By the late 80s/early 90s, however, gay couples were afforded the opportunity for legal partnership. San Francisco paved the way in 1989, being one of the first cities in the U.S. to allow same-sex couples “to register for domestic partnerships, which granted hospital visitation rights and other benefits” (History.com Editors, 2017). Here and there, more cities (and even whole states) started to gradually move toward marriage equality.

In 1993, however, Bill Clinton signed a law that seemed to dampen the progress of the gay community—the Defense of Marriage Act. This Act made it so that states that didn’t give marriage licenses/allow gay marriage (or domestic partnerships) in general didn’t have to recognize civil unions between those who were able to register for domestic partnerships in other states. Additionally, it clarified that the United States federal government did not have to acknowledge same-sex marriages and thus they did not have to provide federal aid to those couples like they would for those in heterosexual marriages. Some of these benefits that were withheld included things such as “social security benefits for widows and widowers” and “health insurance and pension protections for federal employees’ spouses” (Davidson, 2012). Consequently, the U.S. government and certain states treated same-sex couples essentially as strangers or simply friends; just like how friends can’t gain federal benefits if one were to pass away, or like how friends can’t visit each other in the hospital under certain circumstances, gay couples were denied these opportunities.

Following DOMA, the nation was fairly split on same-sex marriage legislation. Some states, like Vermont and Massachusetts, started permitting gay marriage and/or civil unions while others, like Oregon, Kansas, and Texas, either completely banned the practice or restricted it in other ways. However, homosexual couples finally earned a big win in 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional. Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer were two New Yorkers who were together for a very long time—eventually, they got married in Canada. When Thea died shortly after, though, the U.S. taxed the inheritance Edie received from Thea—they were treated like strangers in the eyes of the law. As a result, Edie took this case up with the courts and “[alleged] that DOMA violates the Equal Protection principles of the U.S. Constitution because it recognizes existing marriages of heterosexual couples, but not of same-sex couples, despite the fact that New York State treats all marriages the same” (“Windsor v. United States,” 2014). The case climbed up to the Supreme Court, and Windsor ultimately won.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court finally made gay marriage legal across the whole country following Obergefell v. Hodges—a case that was concerned with the recognition of a same-sex marriage for a couple who got married in another state. Thus, in a 45-year-long battle, the gay community achieved not only the right to marry, but the right to be accepted throughout the country. Now, the majority of Americans believe that gay marriage should be accepted in society and there are legal barriers that prohibit certain institutions (including the federal government) from denying those rights to same-sex couples.

References

1. Bishop, K. (2018, April 15). A Reflection on the History of Sexual Assault Laws in the United States. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from https://ualr.edu/socialchange/2018/04/15/reflection-history-sexual-assault-laws-united-states/
2. Davidson, J. (2012, November 27). What is DOMA and Why Is It Bad? Retrieved April 3, 2020, from https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/what-is-doma-and-why-is-it-bad
3. History.com Editors (2017, May 31). Stonewall Riots. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/the-stonewall-riots
4. History.com Editors (2017, June 9). Gay Marriage. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from https://www.history.com/topics/gay-rights/gay-marriage
5. Schell-Olsen, S. (2019, September 19). Opinion: The Equality Act deserves a vote. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from https://www.newsrecord.org/opinion/opinion-the-equality-act-deserves-a-vote/article_b9e17cd0-d9ac-11e9-b5eb-9775401efe6e.html
6. Windsor v. United States. (2014, April 25). Retrieved April 3, 2020 from https://www.aclu.org/cases/lesbian-and-gay-rights/windsor-v-united-states

The controversy of gay marriage is a hot-button issue that is currently being debated in our country. This issue is a pessimistic one, as the current generations are liberal in welcoming the LGBT community, even taking this issue to the government to allow such marriages. However, I believe that our government should forbid gay marriage because it is against natural law and religions, high risk for suffering health issues, and it changes the perception of marriages that are only meant to unite man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman.

Forbidding gay marriage should be legalized by the government as it is against natural law and most religions. According to Haswira and Anida (2008), homosexuality is immoral because it is contrary to ‘natural moral law’, that is to sexually embrace, love one another, or engage in sexual acts. After all, it is against nature. A person who has violated any of the commandments of God is immorally acting for God (Haswira & Anida, 2008). According to Krogt (2016), both the Bible and the Qur’an (Koran) have not mentioned homosexuality, and they argue that it is only indirectly related to recent debates on gay marriage and gay rights. Men are given the mind to think homosexuality is a bad thing, and it is common knowledge that men are created for women and vice versa. Krogt (2016) stated that the occasional negative reference to same-sex acts, both Muslim and Christian, is appropriate in all cases to prove their intrinsic sinfulness and “Indeed, you approach men with desire, you are a transgressing people”. God’s design for natural sexual intercourse is part of His plan, and homosexuality falsifies what God intended. Homosexuality is forbidden in any religion as it is highly regarded by God and will go to hell and receive punishment.

Secondly, gay marriage should be banned due to the high risk of suffering health issues. Men who have intercourse with other men are at high risk of getting specific health issues, such as HIV, AIDS, and sexually transmitted infections, as stated by Mayo Clinic Staff (2017). Many gay men and bisexual men get HIV from having anal sex without using condoms or taking HIV prevention. Anal sex is the riskiest type of sex for getting HIV or passing it on to others. Anal is the dirtiest part of our body that contains a lot of dangerous bacteria because we use that part to excrete toxins and undigested food. Mayo Clinic Staff (2017) stated that the possibility of getting depression and anxiety for gays is at higher risk. Homosexual people start becoming depressed and self-harming because they feel different from their heterosexual peers. Mental health problems are often complex and they may relate to bullying, discrimination, and worrying about reactions from family or friends. They will always have a question and think about their decision and society’s perception of them. Gays worry excessively about their body weight and have eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa other than their other counterparts. Some gay men grow up by concerning too much about their weight, and this led to slim and effeminate gay men or men with muscular bodies (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2017). They want to ensure their body does not become the symbol of failure in gay society. In society nowadays, we can easily detect whether a man is gay or not because they always wanted to look smart and good-looking and their behavior.

Lastly, gay marriage should be banned because it changes the perception of marriages that are only meant to unite man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman. Kiefer (2003) stated that a strong supporter view that society could be negatively affected by allowing gay marriage. An institution that promotes a certain lifestyle choice will no longer exist, it is going to undermine and weaken the meaning of marriages, and virtually all sexual manners and lifestyle choices will disappear when this happened (Kiefer, 2003). They become this way as they are curious about how it feels for being together with same-sex without thinking about the consequences in the future. As mentioned by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the genuine concept of getting marriage only involved man and woman, not man and man, also it is normal for a couple to adopt a child and form a family as it is meant to be called family, while it is odd for gay partners to adopt child because it supposed to only have one father or mother, not two (‘LGBT or Same-Sex’, 2018). As Islam is our official religion, we will take a stand on this matter, even though many countries legalize gay marriage. Yet, we still cannot consider legalizing gay marriage, although there are gay couples who still want to fight for their rights. For example, Brunei punishes gay couples under Islamic law.

On the whole, it is a great approach by the government that they should forbid gay marriage because it is against natural law and religions, has a high risk for suffering health issues, and changes the perception of marriages that are only meant to unite man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman. We need to take seriously this matter. Therefore, there is no excuse for our country not to forbid gay marriage.