Gay Marriage: Our Own Merchant of Venice

Gay Marriage: Our Own Merchant of Venice Within America, the concept of same-sex marriage has recently been under heavy debate. The growing interest in such has created issues concerning politics, society, morality, religion and civil rights. The conflict itself arises due to an abundance of peoples’ own views on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to enter marriage. The 47% of American people opposed” (Alper, Gideon I.,P.L.) fail to acknowledge that we as human beings have the inalienable right to be granted the gift of marriage. Human rights, obviously, apply to every human, including gays. That is, unless, homosexuals are believed to not be humans and rather creatures of lower importance and intellect. In such a situation as this, people are blinded by the light of the moment. Fact and fiction camouflage one another and form their own shadows in such illumination. Incautious individuals will find themselves swallowed in an unforgiving umbra of lies, fabricated by those scared of difference and change. The social disease of “homophobia” developing within the minds of the American people guides them in their quest to conserve the society they see now. The unknown is considered too chilling and dark to be explored, as though it is outer space. The opposition’s belief that they have already traveled into the unknown clouds their judgment. The possible approval of gay marriage has caused much unrest amongst religious groups. Although their believed creators blatantly state the immorality of homosexuality, the followers fail to acknowledge America’s separation of church and state. “As a basis for the First Amendment’s establishment clause” (Gay Marriage ProCon.org.), interlinking church and religion into state policy is unconstitutional. The concept of sanctity is often used to deter the opinions of those siding with homosexuals. This term, however, is not applicable to such a situation. As American citizens, we are given a birthright to live life the way we choose to do so. If holiness is to be applied in society, should it not be implicated fully rather than partially? Sanctity does not solely include the concept of homosexuality; it contains an abundance of other factors as well. Unfaithfulness to one’s significant other would be blasphemous, would it not? Yet no laws forbid such a thing. The sacrilegiousness of premarital sex, which plagues America, is left unheard, too. Further included in sanctity is the species you commit sexual intercourse with. In America, it is currently legal in twenty-six states to have sexual intercourse with a horse. However, gay marriage is only legal in six states and the District of Columbia (Alper, Gideon I., P.L. “Gay Marriage Facts and Statistics.”). Procreational principals have also been brought into question. Same-sex marriages have nothing to do with procreation and the approval of gay marriage “would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification” (“Gay Marriage ProCon.org.). Attempting to apply this argument is rather redundant once certain factors are introduced. Would such a principle apply to a straight, infertile couple? They are, after all, a straight couple so their marriage is already “appropriate” in society’s eyes, yet their marriage has nothing to do with procreation. With that said, marriage does not directly apply to the need for procreation to occur. The way society views such cases is metamorphic due to the fickleness of the American people. Although it takes time, public opinions and beliefs are capable of being altered, as shown within America’s own history. In the beginning decades of the country, blacks were not profiled as American citizens according to the constitution. It was not until 1865, nearly one hundred years after America’s establishment, that slavery was finally abolished. For centuries, women were considered inferior to men and were incapable of attaining suffrage until the Nineteenth Amendment was approved in 1920. As shown within both cases, the American viewpoint often changes based upon how the government itself supports such situations. We are in the vicinity of changing public opinions yet again, as though our concept of right and wrong is the mighty Caesar, mauled and mutilated while we just be the Romanian people, listening to our own Marc Antony and Brutus. We hear one speak and side with them for the moment, but then change our views once another option is presented. Governmental approval causes the American people to jump on a bandwagon to avoid overly complicated situations with the government. Sexual preferences express who a person is and such a concept of freedom of expression is protected by our very constitution. We are free to be who we are as human beings. That is, of course, unless gays believed to contain less humanoid qualities and more animalistic characteristics, therefore not being applicable to such things as marriage. Our America has become but a setting for a modern tragic comedy. In a situation such as this, America has been reduced to the rubble of ancient Venice, and homosexuals to the Shylocks of this once great country. Such Shylocks informally ask the aforementioned Shakespearean questions concerning humanistic quality: “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” Unless proven otherwise, homosexuals are just as human as us and should be capable of being given the same privileges and rights that we have. The sole justification that something is different does not necessarily mean such a thing is wrong.

Work Cited
Alper, Gideon I., P.L. “Gay Marriage Facts and Statistics.” Gay Marriage ProCon.org. Florida Domestic Partnership, 1 Aug. 2012. Web. 02 Nov. 2012 http://www.domesticpartnershipflorida.com/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/.
“Gay Marriage Facts Without Prejudice.” Gay Marriage ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2012. http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
“Gay Marriage ProCon.org.” Gay Marriage ProCon.org. N.p., 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 02 Nov. 2012. http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Stark, Caitlin. “By the Numbers: Same-sex Marriage.” CNN Politics. CNN, 12 May 2012. Web. 02 Nov. 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage/index.html.

Cited: Alper, Gideon I., P.L. “Gay Marriage Facts and Statistics.” Gay Marriage ProCon.org. Florida Domestic Partnership, 1 Aug. 2012. Web. 02 Nov. 2012 http://www.domesticpartnershipflorida.com/gay-marriage-facts-statistics/. “Gay Marriage Facts Without Prejudice.” Gay Marriage ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2012. http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ “Gay Marriage ProCon.org.” Gay Marriage ProCon.org. N.p., 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 02 Nov. 2012. http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ Stark, Caitlin. “By the Numbers: Same-sex Marriage.” CNN Politics. CNN, 12 May 2012. Web. 02 Nov. 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage/index.html.