We need your funds

November 10, 2012

Same Sex Marriage: Inequality in America

Yêu Tiếng Anh - Tiếp theo Essay 3, xem tại đây, ad trình bày tiếp Essay 4. Cũng như bao quốc gia khác, hôn nhân đồng tính bị kì thị ở Mỹ, mặc dù có một số tiểu bang đã thông qua dự luật cho phép 2 người đồng giới cưới nhau nhưng đó không phải là con đường hạnh phúc mà họ được hưởng mãi mãi.
Obama trước và sau khi tái đắc cử nhiệm kỳ Tổng Thống thứ 2, ông lên tiếng ủng hộ hôn nhân đồng tính, chính điều này cũng mang lại số phiếu không nhỏ trong cuộc bỏ phiếu chạy đua vào nhà Trắng. Nhân đây, Admin có một bài viết nghiên cứu về vấn đề này, mời các bạn tham khảo. Download bài viết này tại đây. Thân.
It is not uncommon to hear stories of people who are homosexual that are powerless to make certain important life-altering decisions or have been deprived of crucial benefits that are given to heterosexuals. This is because they have no legal ties to their partner, and they do not meet the eligibility requirements for federal aid due to inadequate proof of relationship or financial ties. There are countless hardships that have been caused from same sex couples not being able to marry. According to gay life, "A lesbian resident of who loses her partner in a tragedy also faces losing the children they raised together because she could never legally adopt them." The federal government has the authority to take children away from their loving and caring parent who raised them when they have done nothing wrong. Homosexuals need and deserve the right to keep their children when a partner dies. There is something seriously wrong if heterosexuals get to keep their child when homosexuals get their child taken away in the same exact situation. Along with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transvestite rights, equality and equal protection for all citizens is severely lacking.
Gay advocates make it clear that they want more gay rights. People, who know about homosexuals petitioning, know that one of their arguments is over same sex marriage rights. Some of those who argue against same sex marriage make the argument that granting gays the right to marry is a “special” right. Some people think that gives them more privileges than heterosexuals. Others most likely think of it this way because the definition of marriage is “The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife", and changing society’s definition of marriage makes them “special”. According to FRC, “Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.” This is not true because gay advocates and almost every homosexual in America only wish to have the same rights as everyone else in this country. Gay rights advocates are confused as to why some people do not agree that two consenting adults who show love and companionship should not be able to marry.  Many gay and lesbian Americans are, denied civil rights protections that others either do not need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, which is that according to the civil rights laws in this country, everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special.  In reality, gays want an end to their special status as pariahs under the Constitution. The Constitutional status of homosexuals is bound up with the intense prejudice against them. If equal rights already existed and they wanted more, then maybe the case of "wanting special rights," would be a good argument. Until then, this is more of a struggle for equal protection.
It is important to notice that gays do not have the same rights and privileges when it comes to bereavement-leave policies, pension rules, hospital visitation rights and laws giving family members the authority to make medical decisions and funeral arrangements. A woman in Miami named Janice Langbehn was denied access to visit her dying partner “Lisa Pond who suffered a massive stroke onboard a Cruise ship before leaving port… and administrators refused to let Langbehn into the Pond’s hospital room. Pond, 39, was pronounced dead of a brain aneurysm about 18 hours after being admitted to Jackson’s Ryder Trauma Center.” The hospital disregarded a twenty year marriage in an instant because Langbehn was technically not an immediate family member. The pain and suffering she and her three children had to deal with could have been much less detrimental only if they had the rights to see their loved one in her last moments. It is time for the laws to be worded for today’s times and standards. Change that only occurs through the loss of a loved one is always the worst and best. Hearing real life stories just like this one might have a real impact on people’s opinion of gay marriage.
In general, the rewards of marriage for today's society are more than merely emotional. When people get married they become eligible for hundreds of benefits that allow them to live an easier life mentally and economically with their partner. “Only marriage provides a legal safety net protecting the couple's emotional bonds and their economic security.” (Bonauto) It is a legal gateway to a vast array of protections, responsibilities and benefits, and it bestows the government's permission in filing taxes jointly. There is something interesting about these marriage rights. All of these rights do not hinge on one's sex or gender. There is no reason why two men or two women might not be able to file taxes together. There is no reason why one man might consider another man as family instead of best friend and there should be no reason why the government should stop the two from doing so. The only reason they have is the fact that “marriage” is legally between a man and a woman. One question is, why not just come up with a new word for marriage between same sex couples? Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute says because “It's a risky business for courts or legislatures to get into the business of changing the definition of a word”.  “If done this way, a man and a woman could be married, and also two men or two women could be "civil unionized” (religious tolerance). Changing the definition of marriage would make way too much work for the government to create a parallel system of civil unions with all of the state's advantages and obligations of marriage, but called something different. Simply including homosexual couples to participate in marriage would be much easier, and most likely save a great deal of money. Homosexual advocates seek not to redefine what marriage is for religion. Instead, they seek to modify civil marriage to include them. There is resistance to this from many religious groups who see marriage as based on sacred practice, and for government to change its definition of marriage is to reduce the sacred value of marriage.
The Church's main reason for not allowing same sex marriages is that it is a sin. Some who argue against same sex marriage say it would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. According to Stanly Kurtz, “Same-sex marriage doesn’t reinforce marriage; instead, it upends marriage, and helps build acceptance for a host of other mutually reinforcing changes (like… multi-partner unions) that only serve to weaken marriage.” It is hard to see how building acceptance to same sex marriage could actually reinforce changes that most people know is not the right way of going about ones life. Though there are already straight couples who are unfaithful to one other, who abuse each other, who divorce, and who unravel the goodness of society. Assuming that bad behavior is a monopoly on any one sexual orientation is groundless stereotyping, and when we legislate it, we are discriminating. Additionally, the right to freedom of speech should allow everyone to have the right to express them freely, so why are our gay and lesbian Americans being punished if they want to have a job, get married, or have a military career? They should be able to express their feelings openly about the people they love just like heterosexual people express there feelings for their wives, husbands, boyfriends, or girlfriends.
 For a British sociologist, Anthony Giddens, “we are in an age when the increasingly empty institution of traditional marriage is destined to fall away; gay relationships and gay sexuality serve as the new positive models for heterosexuals.” A thriving homosexual couple could actually inspire some married heterosexual couples thinking of getting a divorce to reconsider and try to work things out. If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries some, then consider that no one would requires anyone to participate in a gay marriage. We have freedom of choice, to choose what kind of marriage to participate in. Two people love one another and wish to declare their love to the world and enter into a contract to live together as partners, and they wish both to share their joy with their friends and loved ones, and to have the world recognize both the contractual obligations of their promises to each other, and the rights and privileges that relate to that contract. What business is it of yours if these two people are a black marrying a white, a Christian marrying a Jew, a German-American marrying a Chinese-American, a left-handed person marrying a right-handed person, or a man marrying a man? Just one part of what makes up a same sex couples relationship, their sexuality to be precise, seems to render them as second rate people who have second rate rights.

Have a good one!

Tommy Bảo - Yêu Tiếng Anh

No comments:

Post a Comment

♥ You are highly recommended to use Google or Facebook accounts to jot a few comments down if you have any further questions or concerns. Don't forget to check on "Notify me" at the bottom-right corner of the comment box to keep tracking your comment replies.
♥ Share to be shared - if you want to share any of your own thoughts to this blog's readers, please don't hesitate to reach me here. Many Thanks!
Have a good one!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...