Home > Student Essays > The Real Meaning of Morality

The Real Meaning of Morality

In response to the federal Government no longer defending 'The Defense of Marriage Act', Jeffery T. Kuhner wrote the article, "Obama's Homosexual America," published in the Washington Times, on February 24, 2011. Kuhner argues the demise of our country and its mores begins with the homosexual rights movement. Kuhner states that equality for our fellow citizens, neighbors, and family members who simply have a different sexual preference than what some consider 'normal' is an "attack on traditional America". We should protect our country by allowing all citizens to exercise their freedoms rather than acting on fear for what may happen if we accept others who may seem different. Homosexuals are people, citizens of America, differing only in the gender of people they are attracted too. Kuhner's argument is flawed because it would be unconstitutional and immoral to discriminate against such citizens.

Kuhner first demonstrates his ignorance for morality with the tone he sets in this article. He uses a common 'violent' theme among his word choice throughout the article; it directs people to relate the idea of same-sex marriage to war. For example, Kuhner writes, "The most destructive aspect is this revolution against traditional morality" (Italics added). He uses negative word choice in order to subconsciously induce the reader to associate the current issue with a gruesome battle for freedom. His use of words such as: "attack", "surrender", "firewall", "revolution", and "assault" are all very graphic words to use in an issue opposing the union of two people who love each other. Although Kuhner tries to trick the reader into thinking he is fighting against the 'attack on traditional America,' he is doing the complete opposite. He is fighting to take away the rights of a portion of the citizens of America; as Americans we cannot allow this unconstitutional, immoral idea to go on any longer.

We cannot allow Kuhner's unconstitutional idea that homosexuals and heterosexuals are born unequal to go on any longer. He associates homosexuals with criminal behavior. First of all, homosexual is a term used to describe the feeling of love towards a person of your same gender. I have trouble connecting the definition of a relationship between two people as criminal or violent. Kuhner disagrees, "that all forms of sexual behavior are morally equal," He insists, "They are not. The homosexual lobby is trying to mainstream perversion and vice- to put homosexuality on an equal plane with heterosexuality." When hearing the word vice, I immediately think of criminal acts such as: involvement in a drug cartel, or a pimp in a prostitution ring, none of which I would ever associate with a relationship between two innocent people regardless of whom they happen to fall in love with. Apparently unaware of the Fourteenth amendment, Kuhner has taken the law into his own hands and calls it criminal to be different, and that those people are most certainly not born equal.

Fortunately, Kuhner is not the voice behind the law, and homosexuals are born equal here in America. Kuhner offends all citizens of the United States, regardless of their sexual orientation, by comparing homosexuals to society's deviants. Kuhner insists that if we grant homosexuals the right to be married, "…it would unleash the floodgates. Polygamy, 'transgender' unions, bestiality, pedophilia- all forms of deviant sexual behavior could claim discrimination." Kuhner's comparison of homosexuals to bestiality (relationship between a human and an animal) and pedophilia (an adult's relationship with a child) is pathetic. He is degrading the human who may seem different to many of us because we cannot relate to his sexual preference; however, it does not make this human wrong. Therefore, it most certainly cannot be compared to an adult taking advantage of a child, or an adult who wants to engage in sexual activity with an animal. These acts are illegal. Homosexuality is not illegal. To neglect acknowledgement of these civil rights by grouping homosexuals with social deviants is unconstitutional.

Considering homosexuality is legal in America, denying these civil rights is illegal and immoral. Kuhner defends his 'moral agenda' by claiming homosexuality and the choice to create a union is not a given 'civil right'. Kuhner 'warns' his readers, "marriage is not a 'civil right.'" First of all, our 'civil rights' are exactly why same-sex marriage should be legal. As cited from Cornell University Law School, "Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class" (Italics added). To break it down, homosexuals are a particular group in our society. Now, every human is born equal, and this particular group is being denied the right to join in matrimony. For instance, if our government denied a group of citizens who follow Islam the right to worship on private property two blocks from Ground Zero, or if our government were to forbid Christians to protest outside of planned parenthoods, Americans would be outraged. The homosexual population is no different; therefore, the members of this particular group should not be treated any differently. By limiting the meaning of marriage to strictly a heterosexual relationship is unlawful and morally wrong.

Kuhner ignorantly suggests that maintaining the meaning of marriage as some people see it (only for heterosexuals) is the most important issue of our times. Kuhner believes, "the purpose of DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] is to act as a firewall against the most revolutionary social-engineering experiment of our time: redefining marriage." Kuhner is quick to forget that marriage was not always an equal partnership between a man and a woman. If his true intentions are to preserve the original meaning of marriage, then he must believe the groom should work strictly with the woman's father in arranging the affair. This would only occur after working out the dowry owed to the father of the bride. Most of us may have forgotten marriage was originally a business arrangement between two men. The definition of marriage has evolved through the years, and in a positive way. Women are no longer considered property once married; instead, they are considered equal. Here we are faced once again with the option to cultivate the institution, and once again it will only improve the definition of marriage. While the meaning of marriage is a very important issue, it most certainly is not the most 'revolutionary' of our times. It would be immoral and un-American to not promote a chance at once again improving this society's valuable institution of marriage.

We are lucky to be Americans, and have the chance on enjoying equality. It is our responsibility as Americans to make sure everyone who lives here is able to enjoy it as well. Our constitution sets out a set of rules to live by, in order to maintain a functioning society. We are immorally breaking these rules by refusing to allow homosexuals the right to marry. Embracing an alternative view point is simple. Accept that the two men living next door to your house are just that, men. These two men do not harm your chances of living healthfully. They do not cause a threat to the education of your children. They do not steal what you have worked earnestly for, and claim it as their own. They do not interfere with the way your family lives their lives. Then the question must arise, why must we attack their chance at happiness in this one lifetime we are fortunate enough to have on this planet? If we could focus our energy on providing for those less fortunate(in their health, prosperity, and education) rather than trying to deprive the two men living next door of sharing the same beautiful union we have with our own families, would we not be better serving our time here on earth.

The Communitarian Opinion Policy: The opinions expressed on the editorial and the op-ed pages do not necessarily reflect those of The Communitarian staff or college. We welcome your comments on any matter relating to Delaware County Community College, and responsible rebuttal is encouraged. Write to communitarian@mail.dccc.edu. Please write “letter to editor” in the subject box.