Since 2001, same sex marriages have been big issues in the US and other countries like (Argentina, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Mexico City, Spain, South Africa, and some regions within the United States).
It is always a debate in the US based on the fact if we don’t allow same sex marriage, it affect our right constitutional demand of equality established by our founding fathers. Same sex couples been trying to get married for decades now.
In 1971, two male students try to get married & got denied by the clerk. U. S. Constitution does not state that individuals must be in a heterosexual relationship in order to be legally married. The claim made it to the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed and no license was issued. There are different anti-gay rights organizations in existence that consistently fight for or against the homosexual lifestyle as a legal contract recognizable by the state and federal governments. Frank Turek is an anti-gay right from (American Family Association).
Turek wrote in an article” Celebrating behavior that leads to disease and an early death is closer to hate than love.
According to the latest data from the Center for Disease Control, homosexual men comprise more than 80 percent of sexually transmitted HIV cases despite comprising less than 2 percent of the population. The FDA says that men who have sex with men have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general population. Why should we be encouraging behavior that results in such tragic outcomes? John Stuart Mills defines utilitarianism as whatever action is right to promote happiness, In other ways go for what is the greater good.
The Term Paper on Priest Celibacy Married Man
... Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please ... celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never ... some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated-as ... Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early ...
Mills define happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. Mill believes that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never desire anything but happiness. The basic principle of Mill’s Utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle; an action is right as far as it maximizes general utility, which Mill identifies with happiness. Utilitarianism is not a form of egotism, it requires the pursuit of everyone happiness. It doesn’t mention that we should promote the greatest good for all numbers, although t’s the way to maximize the aggregate amount of happiness.
Kant’s categorical imperative takes a contrary view. In conformity with the first formulation of the categorical imperative (, one must always act in such a way that the principle in which one acts holds categorically or universally), is the second formulation of the categorical imperative, where Kant states that none should be treated simply as a means, but also as an end in themselves, where the principle of how one acts holds universally as well.
What Kant is saying is that not treating someone as a means refers to not denying the rights of another. In others words not treating someone as a means to an end, but rather respecting their autonomy. The third (Kingdom of Ends formulation) combines the two: All maxims as proceeding from our own [hypothetical] making of law ought to harmonies with a possible end.
I would say a Utilitarian would support what makes everyone happy. As of now they would disagree with same sex marriage. In the future it would be different in my opinion.
A utilitarian would legalize gay marriage over the year passing by. As society moves forward in its headlong rush to not make people feel bad for doing bad things or being certain ways, society begins to rush headlong into decadence and crumbles much like other societies in the past. As society makes it easier to not be self-sacrificing and self-controlled, society moves toward implosion.
The Essay on Kant’s Categorical Imperative
This paper tackles the categorical imperative theory of Immanuel Kant as well as its first and second formulations and how they apply to a particular case of infidelity. Introduction In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action or inaction to be necessary and practical (Kant, 1993, p. 413). The categorical imperative ...
Our constitution and laws are meant to justify morals in the sense that they protect us from harmful actions of others and government. As we have moved to make things like sex before marriage, cohabitation, divorce, and now homosexual sex, acceptable, we have degraded the morals of our society, our children, and the future. What is important is no longer what is right, but what feels good (utilitarian).
Kant view would actually allow gay marriage. Using a person for your personal enjoyment is something Kant is against. Joining a couple in marriage to restore ones personality (6:278) is something Kant would agree on. As long as there is consent and an agreement, Kant would be ok with it.
I do believe we should do what makes us happy. Facts, show that in the USA, are happier than heterosexual couples. In my opinion I disagree with same sex marriage, since it gratifies the purpose of marriage. Statistic shows that gay people produce the highest rate of HIV.
Utilitarianism and the categorical imperative are both debatable ethics. Utilitarian’s believe the consequences should create the greatest good for the largest number &, Kantian deontologists believe the consequences should validate their intended doing. The two positions clash since one’s dutiful behavior may produce the greatest happiness for the largest number. Both positions are imperfect, because their interpretation of doing and happiness are subjective and relative to one’s point of view. I don’t believe either view is an adequate formula for ethical behavior. Utilitarianism however, is more flexible than the categorical imperative.
