All papers are checked via
|← Monsters and American History||The Truth in Texts →|
The theological voluntarism theory states that every act is moral by the virtue that the act is a command by God but not by its nature or consequences. The approach taken by the theological voluntarists concerning same sex marriage is that God proclaimed that marriage should be between people of the opposite sex. Theological voluntarists hold that same sex marriage is immoral by the virtue that God commanded that it should not be so; it is against the teachings of the Holy books, e. g, The Bible, which teach that marriage should be natural and fruitful. The aspects of same sex marriage, being not natural and not fruitful, deny the nature of the marriage described in the religious texts. The theological voluntarists argue that God created two different sexes so that they can substitute each other. Same sex marriage denies the marriage – the substation attainable through opposite sex marriage, which God intended it to be. Theological voluntarists therefore render same sex marriage totally unacceptable. They maintain that marriage should be between people of opposite sex only (Bradley Gerard, 2000).
Non-objectivists in regards to same sex marriage argue that there should be laws put in place in regards to same sex marriage. There are those people who are against it and those that are for it. People against same sex marriage argue that homosexuality is a result of unfortunate premises, errors in the body, psychological flaws or corruption of the mind. They continue to state that same sex marriage is disgusting and consequently immoral. The people against same sex marriage therefore advocate for laws that ban same sex marriages as they take the stand that it is unnatural and immoral (Michael, 2004). The people for same sex marriage state that there should be laws protecting the same sex marriages from discrimination from the government, individuals and other private organizations. They take a stand that the same sex parties are also citizens and they should enjoy all the rights any other person enjoys.
Moral realism states that some acts are not about the tastes of individuals but rather the moral standing of the act. Moral realists approach same sex marriage as immoral and therefore argue that the same sex marriages should be illegal as the issue is not about what the individuals feel like doing but rather about it being immoral. The supporters of this theory argue that the immorality of same sex marriage overrides the fact that it is the taste of the parties involved in the marriage. They suggest that strict measures should be taken to those who attempt same sex marriage as it is evil; therefore, those who enter into same sex marriages are evil too. The strict measures, according to the moral realists, should be put in place to stop the evil deed of same sex marriages (Byrne, Stalnaker & Wedgwood, 2001).
Moral realism approach is the strongest in the sense that individuals cannot do whatever they wish to do just because it is their desire to do so. Strict measures should be taken to control vices like homosexuality as it is immoral in all senses. Theologians and psychologists agree that for same sex marriages there must be something that is wrong with the parties involved. When we look at the world, in most countries same sex marriage is illegal, which reflects the general view of people that same sex marriage is immoral and supported by only a few. Failing to put strict measures on same sex marriages just because few people feel sexually attracted to the people of the same sex would mean that people can get away with any other vice, e.g., murder because they just feel like killing.
From the different approaches that different groups take, each of them has its basis and arguments. Each of the approaches confers that same sex marriage is immoral but the argument of the reason why it is immoral differs from one approach to the other. Judging from the discussion, moral realism approach is the strongest of all.