Same Sex Marriages

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a women, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (The Holy Bible, 1990), same-sex coupling, marriage, and activities have always been a hot topic and yes even murder was their punishment. Same sex marriages and LGBTQ2+ peoples have been criminalized, certifiable, and discriminated against since the beginning of time. This paper will demonstrate the peoples who have changed their mind to support them, as well as the minds who will never change. The three main components one must look at while ‘making up’ their mind is human rights, religion, and government. One would think that since it is a human right, you can not have an opinion on this, however some do not agree with that. Same sex marriages are a human right verified by governments that should not be interfered with by religion; LGBTQ2+ pride reflects the progressiveness of todays society.

Firstly, one must examine the history of LGBTQ2+ peoples. There are documented ‘cases’ of homosexuality in 2400 BC and forward. Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum were Egyptian royal confidants who were discovered in 1964, their tomb depicted through hieroglyphics the two men nose to nose or embracing like that of a married couple. Leading some historians to believe they were brothers or relatives, but “they are believed by some to be the first recorded same-sex couple in history” (Salvo, 2022). Yes, it can be argued that they may not have been, but it does not change the fact that homosexuality has been around since humans were. Another example that it is not a concept made up by progressive millennials or just came out of thin air one day is that “…prior to the European Colonization of Canada, the Indigenous peoples on Turtle Island recognized three to five genders, which included, but was not limited to, men, women, two-spirited men, two-spirited women, and trans people” (No Author, 2018). A thousand years ago, Indigenous peoples were more progressive and non-discriminatory than decades of people were. So how did society go from the Natives perspective to criminalization and homosexuality as an illness? Religion, and ignorance. Just as racism, misogyny, and patriarchy were born and thriving in the same circumstances. Looking back through the history it could make one quite upset with the blatant ignorance and baseline cruelty. However, one should raise their attitude because society is progressing day to day and has come so far in righting the wrongs LGBTQ2+ peoples were facing, however it is not perfect.

Progress started in 1969 when Bill C-150 decriminalized homosexuality in Canada! From the 1800s-1969 it was illegal to be gay and any homosexual acts were punishable by death but was later diminished to a lengthy jail sentence. No matter how despicable one thinks this is, society thought it was okay back then, due to their ignorance. The AIDS epidemic in 1981 also increased unfair attitudes and discriminatory actions towards homosexuality as it was known as GRID (gay related immune deficiency), “gay cancer”, or “gay plague” which increased aggressiveness towards homosexuals as well as people being afraid of them. This has proven untrue and unfair, and they are owed a major atonement for the behaviours. Then in 2005 Canada made same-sex marriage legal “on July 20, 2005, a law approved by the Canadian Parliament went into effect allowing same-sex couples to marry on an equal basis with different-sex couples in all 13 provinces and territories in Canada” (GLAD, 2013), which was a huge step in reconciling the horrors of the past and recognizing them as equals. Canada was not the first country to legalize equal marriage, however they also are not the last. Luckily in 2022 gay pride is experienced every day but in June they have a whole pride month “pride month started as a riot against police brutality at a small dive bar in New York City called the Stonewall Inn” (Housman, 20220). It commemorates the stand against police brutality against the LGBTQ2+ peoples and is a great notion of their pride for themselves and their allies.

The first of the three components when looking at same- sex marriage through the changed minds vs people who simply will not is; is it a human right, and why. Firstly, lets define a right; a moral directed entitlement for humans regardless of race, sex, and economical standing (etc.) that are protected by laws. However not every country has the same legally protected rights, a right is a right and people fight for them, such as equal marriage. Now to define marriage rights “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family” (United Nations, 1948), the United Nations (UN) have also explicitly stated that it includes same-sex couples. Not only has the United Nations recognized same sex marriage, but Oxford Languages also now defines marriage as “the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship” (2022), whereas in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, year 2000, it specifies man and woman. It is a big change for the LGBTQ2+ and is a step forward for society. Knowing it is a right, legally protected and claimed by the UN, how can anyone argue against a human right? Would they claim black people can not marry a white person because of their beliefs? Would they not allow an Islamic women marry a white man because of their beliefs? No because racism is known as wrong, and it is a right to not be discriminated against so why can people not apply the same logic to gay rights? The main reason is religion, which this paper will examine in the ensuing paragraphs.

Canada has had many same-sex marriages since the legalization of it in 2005, but the first one of Michael Leshner and Michael Stark “their post-nuptial kiss was flashed around the globe as this province raced into the vanguard of the international fight for gay and lesbian equality” (Hall, 2013) it was momentous for everyone and gave hope for the future. Seeing the displays of love and pride as anyone can enter in matrimony is beautiful for society.

Now that one knows it is a recognized human right, looking at the implements of such will also help realize why some people cannot change their ‘opinions’. Such as same-sex couples and homosexuals experience more violence than heterosexual couples and heterosexuals, “the prevalence of intimate partner violence is higher among sexual minority men and women- those from lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender, and queer community- than rates reported from heterosexuals…” (Jin and Franklin, 2016). Not only is interpersonal violence an issue, but violence from external groups is also an issue for the group as well “LGBT people (16+) are nearly 4 times more likely to experience violent victimization, compared to non- LGBT people” (Dowd, 2020), which is a disgustingly high rate. Their right to security, life, and liberty is also being infringed on and no one seems to bat an eye. If one does not believe that there are implications or hindrances, they can just look at the cases or legislation.

For example, the case of Scott Amedure. He went on to the Jenny Jones show on a secret admirer segment and they told Jonathon Schmitz that Scott was his secret admirer. Jonathon was told before that it could be a man or a woman and it turned out to be Scott. After the taping Jonathon felt weird about having Scott’s attention as well as his homophobic father, “he said he and his son were humiliated and ‘how would you feel if people thought you were a homosexual’” (Glaub, 2021). Jonathon found a suggestive note at his home which sent him into an aggressive spiral leading to the purchase of a firearm. He went on to show up to Scott’s house and shot him twice in the chest. After he called 911 and confessed to what he did, he was subsequently arrested and charged with the murder of Scott; leading to trial where the horror of discrimination comes in. His lawyers inclined to use the ‘gay/trans panic defense’ to excuse Jonathan’s homophobic actions toward Scott and minimize the murder, “the gay/trans panic legal defense legitimizes and excuses violent and lethal behaviour against members of the LGBTQ+ community” (Holden, 2019) which is disturbing to say the least. Minimizing any violence directed toward humans is an atrocity to equality.

Another circumstance argued within the right of equal marriage is if they do it for one, they must do it for all such as polyamorous or incestuous marriages. One should explore and understand both choices. Polyamorous partnerships are 3 or more people in an intimate relationship. It is non-traditional, and confuses most people in society, however it does not harm any one and does not impose on anyone else freedoms or rights just like same-sex marriage. Although some would argue it imposes on the right of freedom of religion; that is false “bigamy, the term being used interchangeably with polygamy, was thus viewed as having been criminalized because of the threat it posed to popular rectitude and social order” (Boyd, 2022). Unlike polyamorous couplings, incestuous partnerships are harmful to people, mostly the ones involved. Incest is when family members are romantically and sexually involved, “incest and the overlapping of genetic material elevates the chances of health and development problems” (Geisinger, 2017). Incest is also non-traditional and a crime, but it has legal stance because it is harmful.

A prime example of a harmful case of incest is the Whitaker Family “the Whitakers are rated as the most inbred family in the United States because every one of them is related…” (Olumide, 2022). They live in rural West Virginia and are secluded from society until recently when documentaries and videos were made of the family gaining them unwanted attention. They live in a rundown messy house and most of them did not go to school, they have health and development issues, such as Ray who speaks in grunts and barks as he learned from the family dogs. You can see through this family as to why it is harmful and why it will and should never be a right to marry family. Again, on the other hand Polyamorous marriages do not harm anyone, only their traditional views and judgements. TV shows such as sister wives have let society into the ideas and circumstances of a poly couple, “polyamorous relationships are becoming increasingly common” (Ferguson, 2021), TikTok has also allowed people to have a look into these kinds of couplings.

There are a variety of human rights, some of which people are unaware of but the right to marriage, and “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person” (United Nations, 1948) are the main ones in question when discussing homosexuality and their partnerships. If someone argues it should not be a right, marriage for anyone should be demolished. Also, anyone who tries or acts on violence towards homosexuals are taking and disregarding their right to liberty, life, and security. Even though there a plethora of examples of discrimination, crime, and violence against LGBTQ2+ peoples “public support for same-sex marriage in Canada[ian] increased from 41 per cent in 1997 to 7 per cent in 2017, according to the polling from CROP Inc.” (Eichler, 2016). Human rights should not be questioned if they are ‘actually’ a right but can be question on inclusivity.

Religion is also a human right, and some people believe that same-sex marriage, and their relationships infringe on their rights, however there is evidence that it is untrue. For example, they are not married in their churches and officers are allowed to deny performing the ceremony. One needs to take a deep look at religion to understand why they will not change their mind on this issue. Firstly, in the catholic church it is known that “marriage is for making children-that is procreation” (Piper, 2007), matrimony is to make more disciples of God. They can also do this through adoption, any chance to make more disciples of God is good in their eyes; “to adopt a child is a great work of love” (Saint John Paul II, 2000), however they do not agree with gay couples adopted or starting a family.

Gay couples can adopt children, “but gay couples trying to adopt children learn that both legal and cultural impediments still exist” (Johnson, 2013). There are many couples who also start families in a more scientific way with surrogacy, and artificial insemination but the church believes “artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood are immoral because they involve sex acts that are procreative, but not unitive” (Cook). So, the options for gay couples to start a family are all frowned upon by the catholic church, but so is their lifestyle in general. Since family/children are very important and traditional in the Catholic religion it adds the hesitation to support or change their loyalty.

One may wonder where their beliefs and values come from and that is the Bible. The bible defines everything and that is what they base their moral codes on, the Holy Bible defines marriage as “the union for life of one man and one women, as originally instituted by God and sanctioned by Jesus” (The Holy Bible, 1990). They have a variety of uncommon societal beliefs now but once upon a time they were aligned with the majority of society. Not that it is a huge deal, freedom of religion and all, but freedom of religion should not impede on any other human right or have a say that carries influence in decision-making in deal with rights. The bible should only have validity in an individual’s life and their church.

There are some instances where people have abused their power and involved religion when not provoked. In a recent murder case in Dallas, Texas, Judge Tammy Kemp gave defendant Amber Guyger a bible in what some call an emotional and faithful presentation, while the Freedom From Religion Foundation had a different opinion. “The Wisconsin-based group, known as FFRF, accused Kemp of abusing her power by giving Guyger her bible and urging her to study it and find God” (Krause, 2019), which yes, the bible should not hold any power in a sentencing for murder trial.

Lastly, when examining religion regarding same-sex marriage one should look at separation of church and state. First, looking at what that expression should mean “the principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion” (No Author, 2005) and today the meaning has lost most standing. The majority wants to believe that there is nothing wrong with a little mixture and different opinions, beliefs, and backgrounds helping to induce change and decisions in society, but if it is just one religion being represented or their beliefs go against human rights is when problems arise, so it is easier to have a full separation. Like this paper stated before the bible should have no validity outside of the practicing church and individual because “human rights legislation allowing religious institutions to discriminate on the basis of religion acknowledges that religions may have community-based norms that are not always human rights based norms” (Lafferty, 2007). Overall, it should always be a separation, and no one should feel their rights could be overlooked or discriminated against based on an individual’s practicing religion.

For example, in June of this year supreme court overturned Roe v. Wade which was a piece of legislation that made abortion in America a federal right and accessible to peoples all over. It was an offensive act toward all women, especially women in poverty as well as being overturned for all the wrong reasons “Dobbs decision is joining the growing number of recent Supreme Court decisions where conservative Christian doctrine dominates and which moves the U.S further away from being a non-sectarian nation having separation of church and state” (Gold, 2022). After this detested action not only were women feeling scared and despair, but LGBTQ2+ peoples felt they could be next “my concern in this leaked decision, and why I’m worried about marriage equality is the language in this decision, which says ‘unenumerated rights’” (Dorning, Kelly, and Levitt, 2022). Its not far fetched for the people to be worried, as religion keeps creeping into government and their views are valued in a spotlight.

In summary, religion is the main basis for impenetrable minds on the topic of same-sex marriage “The Roman Catholic Church cannot bless same-sex marriages, no matter how stable or positive the couples’ relationships are, the Vatican said on Monday” (Chappell, 2021). Everyone has the right to religion and their own beliefs, but they should not be allowed to use those beliefs against another human’s rights, as well as religion should not hold any power outside the participants.

The last circumstance one must look at for same-sex marriage in accordance with changed minds and set minds is government. Most governments (everyone in the United Nations) and more believe in marriage equality and LGBTQ2+ rights, “however, at least 67 countries have national laws criminalizing same-sex relations between consenting adults” (No Author) and some have decriminalized it but still not have written in rights for LGBTQ2+ people. The Americas and Europe have progressed in order to protect more of their communities which is monumental and one can hope it only goes up from here, however there are countries that still punish them whether through physical harm or simply not respecting them “this is a function not only of economic development of nations, but also religious and political attitudes” (Kent and Poushter, 2020) which again everyone is entitled to their own belief but interfering with the actual rights is the issue here. LGBTQ2+ should have rights everywhere in the world despite anyone’s personal thoughts.

Looking at Iran for example, they are one extreme example of views on LGBTQ2+ peoples “Iran’s security forces, including police and forces of the hard-line paramilitary basij, rely upon discriminatory laws, to harass, arrest, detain individuals whom they suspect of being gay, Human Rights Watch found” (HRW, 2010) which is despicable. That is just one example of how different some countries are when it comes to rights, some still use the death penalty or corporal punishment against homosexuals.

Secondly, some government officials believe that the court and legislation have no room for same-sex marriages and that rights should not be able to change just for particular groups of people, “Governor Mike Huckabee pointed out that for the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage is to overturn nature, which is impossible” (Burnett, 2015). Again, if that is a person belief, okay, but do not try to assert power through it.

This happened publicly in Britain, and the councillor was terminated. Britain legalized same-sex marriage and promptly after they were experiencing crazy weather leading to the councillor making wild accusations “a UKIP councillor has blamed the recent storms and heavy floods across Britain on the Government’s decision to legalize gay marriage” (No Author, 2014), which is nonsensical. The governments choice to terminate him was the right one as it was blatant discrimination.

Another confliction that comes up is the statement of ‘is there not more important issues to focus on’ which yes but multitasking is a real thing. Some LGBTQ2+ people agree, and some do not, “Findings revealed a range of reasons for not identifying same-sex marriage as a primary political concern, from a questioning of the institution of marriage to wanting to prioritize people’s more basic needs” (Chandler, 2011) which is a very fair sentiment. On the other hand, there are people who think that “rather, it is remedying a far bigger political concern, from an unconstitutional exclusion of some Americans from one of the most important institutions in American life” (Taub, 2015) which is also a fair point. Either way the LGBTQ2+ should have rights that everyone else does in society, and it is more of a way to let them know they are equal in the eyes of their government and have protection and security.

One should realize that same-sex marriage is an important issue that government should be discussing and should always make sure their voices are heard and continue the fight for rights and equality all around the world. Love is love and “people around the world face violence and inequality- and sometimes torture, even execution- because of who they love, how they look, or who they are” (No author, 2013), which needs to end in every society across the globe.

Pierre Trudeau really started the movement to what society has today. When he decriminalized the acts, he launched the movement forward and his statement “there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” (Trudeau, 1967), holds so much power to this day. The LGBTQ2+ have really stood their own and fought for their rights, recognition, and pride and they are remarkable and powerful.

In conclusion the changed minds are helping to stand for human rights and show great attitudes to those who have faced discrimination and are on the right side of history. Whereas the impenetrable minds have solely based it on their traditional values and beliefs but refuse to recognize it as a human right, which again one is entitled to it as long as they do not interfere with the growth and progress being made. “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts” (Moynihan, 1983) the validity of this statement should be discussed more in every argument, as society has a hard time knowing when an opinion is just ignorance and discriminatory. Same-sex marriage is a right and should always be a right.