Timothy Chaney Ms. Konner English 25 November 2013 Same Sex Couples Should Have the Right to Marry Why do I believe homosexuals should be able to marry? I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry because my friend dad is a homosexuals and for years he was being tortured and ridiculed because of his decision to be a homosexual. In the past the government did not allow gay marriages or allow homosexuals the same benefits as a one man and one woman marriage. Religion is one of the main reasons some people do not like the idea of homosexuals having the right to marry. One of the common arguments about the issue is God says” that same-sex interactions like marriage are an abomination”.
Christianity teaches that people should not work on the day of Sabbath as God himself didn’t and that it should be the day of rest. However, Jesus didn’t follow these rules and decided to do the most loving thing and heal a sick person on this day even though he wasn’t supposed to. Some could argue that situation ethics and its ideas about love fit into Christian theology perfectly because even Jesus broke rules to do the most loving thing possible. Johns part of the gospels state that “God is love” and from this we can interpret that Christians must live their lives by trying to be Omnibenevolent and doing the most loving thing in all situations no matter how extreme. Fletcher incorporated the quote from the gospels into his ethical theory and devised six propositions and four principles.
Both of these faiths do missionary work, spreading the word and teachings through their bibles. They both live with clean intentions as Mormons do not drink alcohol, caffeine, or use tobacco. In comparison one might say Jehovah Witnesses stick to their own clean lifestyle by refusing blood transfusions because in Jehovah Witnesses eyes by receiving blood it goes against what their bible approves of. This practice seems a bit far fetched but remembering the Jehovah Witnesses are considered “witnesses” they actually believe and look at death as a higher way of mortality than to receive medical assistance when needed. Most would agree that whatever is in ones bible they would adhere to because nobody wants to be considered a sinner.
Marriage is a covenant between you and God and as such cannot be broken. God instituted marriage. No one knows better than He how to make it excellent! Biblical Reference: "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. "- Mark 10:9 When you first enter into marriage, the last thing you are thinking about is divorce!
Many Christians express their views against Euthanasia because of their belief in the Sanctity of Life, which declares no killing is acceptable or justifiable. On the other hand, due to modern changes in society, many Christians are in line with the belief of the quality of a person’s life rather than the sanctity. Overall, we can see that Euthanasia is indeed compatible with the changes in our modern society but not with the traditional view of the sanctity of life which some Christians still hold. Even though I’m against Euthanasia, the outcome was morally right. I think it was morally right as it put a person out of their misery, and since the court, the doctors and the nurses, and the parents had agreed to the death of Anthony Bland, and then I would allow this case to proceed.
Viola De Lesseps compared to an Elizabethan woman. “Women in her greatest perfection were made to serve and obey man.” – written by the Scottish protestant leader John Knox A woman in this era was subservient to the male relatives in her life. Disobedience was seen as a crime against their religion. The adherence of this principle was emphasized on by the church and all men. A female during these times could not be heirs to her father’s title exceptions were made for female royals and therefor were raised to believe that they are worth nothing in the eyes of a man and that they are inferior to men because they know better.
Personally I have gone through arguments with many people about the proposition and what I stood for as a person. I do believe that it is a right for gays to be with their other partner, but at the same time I believe that marriage should be considered between a husband and wife, and marriage is not only done under the state, but under God. If homosexuals want to marry in a church or any type of religious place, they shouldn’t because as a fellow believer of God, I don’t see how they can get married under God’s name, where in the Bible marriage is seen between a man and a woman and not a woman and a woman or a man and man. And if they choose not to follow God’s view on marriage, then why should they get married in the house of the Lord? It just does not seem right.
Such ceremonies, however, only serve to provide a religious recognition of the marriage, since the state's recognition has already been given. It is important to mention that nowadays the majority of Russian couples tend to register their marriage at the registry office, not even taking into the account the possibility of getting married in the church. Besides that, the majority of modern Russian men and women don’t tend to legitimize their relationships at all. There is a tendency of cohabitation rather than a tendency of civil marriage. There is no need to say that such a tendency didn’t take place in the 19th century at all.
Though countries develop, does our morality and beliefs develop too? There are no laws to protect them, but the government has intensive works that there are no discriminations in terms of work, but how about in the private sectors? We were often told that gays are of the “lower class” and that the church prohibits it. But if you were in the one’s shoes, would you rather hide what you truly feel, or just let go and be happy? Some might find this modern time to be totally different.
A marriage, defined in the case of Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866), encompasses a ‘union between a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life, to the exclusion of all others.’ While this definition continues to subsist, its interpretation has undergone a drastic transformation. The increasing prevalence of divorce required the element ‘for life’ to refer to the intention of the marriage, rather than a binding agreement. Similarly ‘to the exclusion of all others’ is no longer a grounds for divorce, though polygamous marriages remain illegal. However, despite public recognition and acceptance of same-sex couples, the law refuses to acknowledge a marriage as anything other than a ‘union of a man and a woman’. In 2001, the case re Kevin  FAM CA 1074, held that gender reassignment was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of a bond ‘between a man and a woman’.