Gay Marriage in the US

Introduction

Homosexuals are people with unusual sexual preferences. They are socially unacceptable due to their deviant practices. Nowadays, homosexuals are demanding for an equal treatment with the heterosexuals. With the occurrence of gay marriages, there is a debate over the precise definition of a normal and acceptable human sexual orientation. Furthermore, the politicians have taken the debate as a tool for winning voters (Ergun 6).

Politicians take side of the argument that makes them gain favor from the voters. It is difficult to establish the true stance of politicians, but it is evident that politicians say whatever gets them more votes. The two dominant political parties in America, Democrats and Republicans, have antagonistic views over most political issues. It is logical that a politician belonging to one party will support the beliefs of his or her companion in the party.

In the political scene, one’s own beliefs are not important for survival (Bruce 10). In some states, the law allows the same sex marriages. In this regard, same-sex marriage is technically possible. With the modern evaluation of the American society showing that gay marriage is popular among a significant number of Americans, no politician would wish to go against the whims of the voters (Barret 15).

President Obama’s opinion

The United States president has publicly supported gay marriages as demonstrated in a statement, explaining the considerations he made to arrive to that particular decision. From an account of the president’s opinion since the commencement of the presidential campaign prior to the November 2008 elections, he is not clear on his stand. All along, Obama did not take any side regarding the issue, presumably due to uncertainty concerning the popularity of gay marriages.

The president had to wait until a significant number of the population expressed support for this practice before he clearly stated his stance. The latest polls suggest that a significant percentage of Americans support same-sex marriages (Killough 5).

Moreover, the endorsement of same-sex marriages by the president is in conformity to the liberal beliefs of the democrats. In addition, the president cannot claim to have changed from being undecided on the issue to complete persuasion that same-sex marriages are a natural right within such a short period. In the particular endorsement, the president cited pressure put on people by war and occupation as the major factors that influenced his decision to support same-sex marriages. In this essence, the president seems to argue that a busy person cannot make a commitment to a heterosexual marriage. This enhances the intensity of the debate on homosexuality since sexuality appears to be like a choice rather than a natural phenomenon (Douthat 9).

Paul Biden’s opinion

Paul Biden declared his support for the same-sex marriages before Obama acknowledged his position. This sparked a debate as to whether it was appropriate for Biden to issue such remarks ahead of his senior in the party and government. The criticism politicizes the dilemma of same-sex marriages. An opinion by a senior politician is expected to conform to party protocol rather than personal belief. This view undermines the virtue of honesty while issuing political statements. It demonstrates the common practice by politicians to tell the voters what they want to hear rather than persuade them in advocating for important issues (Dorning 9).

Biden later acknowledged the breach of protocol by issuing his remarks before Obama declared his position. In addition, the criticism leveled against Biden illustrates the tradition that one’s superior must sanction such a statement before its release to the public. Thus, the issue of personal belief is once again discarded (Reporter 4). It also seems that the president had issued his remarks after studying the effects of Biden’s statements.

Obama remained cautious all along until the probable reaction of the public was established. The president had taken an undefined stance prior to Biden’s remarks. He said he was yet to give a well-informed opinion on the matter (Dorning 2). It is awkward to claim that the remarks by the two politicians occurred by coincidence. Both opinions came at a time when most American support same-sex marriages according to independent polls.

Mitt Romney’s opinion

Mitt Romney, the republican presidential candidate, opposes the president’s opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage. Romney has held his position against the homosexual marriages throughout his political life. In addition, he expressed his opinion that president Obama compromised numerous votes by supporting same-sex marriage. The president stressed on the importance of taking care of the welfare of homosexuals by allowing them to get married.

In Romney’s opinion, the president should have opposed same-sex marriages in order to retain political favor. The political value of opinions is evident in all the three politicians’ arguments. Romney’s consistent opinion is due to the unpopularity of same-sex unions prior to the current political campaigns. He considered it safer to stay conservative and capitalize on his consistency rather than share the same views with his direct rivals (Schultheis 1).

Discrepancies of a political approach

Among some other social issues, the debate same-sex marriages became prominent in the 20th century. It is unsettling that the issue is getting popular in the politics of the 21st century after a significant gain of popularity among voters. Although the debate was originally scientific, the uncertainty and disagreements among the experts in human neurology and sociology directed the debate towards politics. This was because of the nature of the debate in which the two opposing sides failed to agree due to the disparity of their opinions.

Politicians take certain stances in opposition to their close rivals. Consequently, they change their opinion depending on the voters’ preference. While the president took a definite stand due to pressure from the public demanding for a statement regarding the issue, the republican candidate capitalized on the small margin between the number of the proponents and opponents of gay marriage (Yellin 3).

Politicians, in forging their opinion on the matter, ignore several critical aspects of the debate. The effect of their advocacy of the matter on the society is not important in their perspective. According to the conventional belief in the contemporary society and the scientific world, the human being psychological system is designed to attract the opposite sex. However, some individuals show natural biological characteristics that run contrary to this assumption. Some people support same-sex marriages and claim that the disparities that these people exhibited are not an abnormality, but a normal natural orientation.

One law expert, Ted Olsen, advocates for same-sex marriages claiming that the practice is as normal as an interracial marriage. Ted Olsen is a popular conservative lawyer in the American political world. This change of events initiates debate considering that Olsen was a conservative lawyer, but has suddenly turned liberal and started to advocate for a practice traditionally reserved for extreme liberals. It seems that the current wave of support for same-sex marriages is a political issue rather than an important social issue to the antagonists (Cooper & Rosemary18).

This is supported by the facts that the issue of gay marriage is raised when elections are near. If the issue of gay marriage is important to the politicians, it should be one of their main agendas immediately after election.

A paradigm of logical reasoning

In my understanding of science, I believe that science supports the fact that the primary reason behind natural companionship between opposite sexes is the need for reproduction to maintain the survival of the species. Same-sex marriages threaten the continued existence of human beings as it obstructs reproduction. This is important enough to justify marriages between opposite sexes. Same-sex marriages do not have any benefit to the human survival, and are to some extent, manifestations of abnormal psychological orientation.

No scientific theory can justify same-sex marriages. It is also ridiculous to compare interracial marriages to same-sex marriages. The main difference between races is color, while the difference between sexes is enormous and it opposes the essence of same-sex marriages (Mello 36).

It is my view that politicians do not consider the effect of their arguments and position concerning the issue of marriage in their quest for votes. The institution of marriage has been a fundamental component to human life. This institution gives rise to generation after generation of humans. In addition, the institution alone plays a significant role in developing a significant percentage of productive individuals in such a way that they are able to support their offspring.

However, these important aspects of marriage are mostly supported in heterosexual unions. Homosexual unions are not capable of providing a balanced orientation for the proper development of an individual. A consideration of the best action for the survival of a self-sustaining society is crucial before making decisions such as supporting gay marriages. Same-sex marriage is a terrible example for the young generation, who will take over the responsibility of nurturing another ultra-modern society.

The society may steer itself into self-destruction by advocating for such practices. Although the conservative opinions are politically motivated, they seek to preserve the society’s viability and avoid disrupting the existing social order than has taken centuries to establish.

Conclusion

In my own opinion, here is need for a radical change in the way politicians addresses their political agenda in the modern United States of America. The immediate urgency of the elections is not supposed to pressure the politicians to making irresponsible statements. Political statements addressing serious issues should depend on the actual cause and effect of the matter in question. On the other hand, there is the need for change in the way citizens interpret and react to political statements. Voters should consider the implications of the political statements made for the sake of popularity rather than for the sake of the country.

An amicable settlement of the issue of same-sex marriages is achievable using scientific facts, economic and social effects and the expected outcome of legalizing the gay marriages. The present social effects on the society due to the practice are unpopular with most people. Moreover, the support for same-sex marriages has no basis of the benefits that this form of union will bring. Its basis is derived from a modified definition of freedom. In other words, the politician opinions are much in support of liberalism rather than a true belief in the freedom of an individual.

Works Cited

Barret, Wes. “Obama, touting gay marriage stance, calls for repeal of Defense of Marriage Act | Fox News.” Fox News – Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos. Version 1. Fox News. 2012. Web.

Bruce May. “Obama Talks Gay Marriage, Politics and Pop Culture on ‘The View’ – ABC News.ABCNews.com – Breaking News, Latest News & Top Video News – ABC News. Version 1. Nightline. 2012. Web.

Cooper, Sheila, and Rosemary Patton. Writing logically, thinking critically. 4th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004. Print.

Dorning, Mike. “Biden Said to Apologize to Obama for Gay Marriage Remarks.” Bloomberg 1.May (2012): 2-6. Print.

Douthat, Ross. “Obama Marriage Maneuvers.” New York Times 8 May 2012, English ed., sec. 4060: 9. Print.

Ergun, Damla. “Obama and Gay Marriage: Opinions Divide, and Sharply – ABC News.” ABCNews.com – Breaking News, Latest News & Top Video News – ABC News. Version 1. Good Morning america, 2012. Web.

Killough, Ashley. “Obama calls for marriage equality, says ‘I want everyone treated fairly’ – CNN.com.” CNN.com International – Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment and Video News. Version 1. Election center. 2012. Web.

Mello, Michael. Legalizing gay marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004. Print.

Reporter, Daily Mail. “Gay marriage debate: Bristol Palin blasts Obama as Joe Biden apologizes to President | Mail Online.” Home | Mail Online. Version 1. Mail Online. 2012. Web.

Schultheis, Emily. “Mitt Romneys Opposition to Gay Marriage.” Politico (2012): 1-5. Print.

Yellin, Jessica. “Biden apologizes to Obama for marriage controversy – CNN.com.” CNN.com International – Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment and Video News. Version 1. CNN. 2012. Web.