Analysis of Sheldon’s Gay Marriage Unnatural Essay Example

that behaviors, particularly those considered vulgar by much of society, are not constitutionally protected, citing sodomy as an example upheld by a court case in 1986 – Bowers v. Hardwick which noted that sodomy was not a constitutional right or protected under any governmental minority program. Lastly, Sheldon groups a range of arguments under the umbrella of social acceptability. Spouting the statistic that eight out of ten citizens do not support homosexual marriage, he argues that homosexual marriage is contradictory to basic American values, beliefs and standards. He offers that the majority of society does not support homosexual marriage and would oppose any policy legalizing it. Sheldon, and those who think as he does, fear that such a policy would mandate the inclusion of homosexual marriage policy in public school textbooks, thus teaching impressionable children this heinous lifestyle in school.

He further hypothesizes that churches that refuse to perform these marriages might be denied access to federal and state funds as Catholic churches were denied funds for homeless shelter expenses in New York. Sheldon ends with citing homosexual marriage as “unnatural.” Analysis Sheldon’s basic thesis that homosexuality contradicts American’s basic cultural values and violates the natural order of human physiology is flawed for several reasons. First, his opinions are mere assertions, not backed by much, if any, scientific or psychological study. In fact, current research certainly spreads doubt as to the accuracy of Sheldon’s claims. Second, Sheldon’s arguments that homosexuality is behavioral, whether true or not, do not create an obligation to deny Americans rights guaranteed by the forefathers of this country.

Finally, Sheldon seems to restrict himself to the religious community as he cites opinion polls

which claim 80% of Americans do not buy into homosexual marriage. If one were to attempt to find any direct citations or substantiated facts and statistics in Mr. Sheldon’s essay, he would become frustrated indeed. He notes that medical schools, journals and associations do not note a biological component to homosexuality, and this may be true. However, neither do these schools, publications and associations refer to homosexuality as a disease, as unnatural or as the result of “faulty wiring” as the reverend suggests.

Most researchers understand that without substantial scientific and medical proof, journals and associations do not blindly classify the complexities of human behavior. If one were to peruse these journals on the topic, he would undoubtedly find many studies which are inconclusive as to the genetic component of homosexuality which simply indicates that more research is needed before such assertions can be made. In addition, Sheldon notes that “every reputable public opinion poll” notes that 80% of Americans do not accept homosexual marriage. How odd that Mr. Sheldon has been able to access EVERY poll while not mentioning one of them to his readers. Who conducted the research for these polls?

What makes a poll reputable? What years were the polls taken and who was chosen as participants? Diversity and acceptance campaigns have increased in the past two decades, making the previous validity of some polls obsolete. Without acknowledging his sources, Reverend Sheldon does not give his readers any confidence that his assertions are or can ever be substantiated. In fact, some of his arguments are downright silly. His sapling analogy falls short, as more and more homosexual men and women are adopting children. It

seems the tree may grow after all. It is somehow perfectly fine for homosexuals to raise children, but not acceptable to marry? Faultily following from this notion that homosexuality is in no way genetic, Sheldon notes that, because it is a behavior that is chosen by a group of people, homosexuality does not qualify for rights protections.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of expression. This expression can be religious, political, or personal as long as it is not inciteful or cause harm to others. Homosexuality and homosexual marriage does no harm to others. As the author said, homosexuals are the wealthiest, most educated and well-traveled individuals in American. What harm are they doing to society?

They are not cheating the system, committing violent crimes, overcrowding jails, running drugs in or out of the country or doing any of the behaviors that seem to be plaguing the 90% of Americans who do not claim to be homosexual. Why deny them their share of rights? What legal precedent is there for NOT allowing homosexuals to be married when heterosexual drug dealers and other criminals are allowed to marry every day. Sheldon’s argument that a chosen behavior should thus be grounds for denying a person’s rights is simply not logical. If it were, the US would be denying the rights of prostitutes to marry and procreate to give just one example. Finally, Sheldon asserts that Americans do not want their children exposed to homosexual lifestyles and disagree with homosexual marriage.

The Religious Tolerance Organization notes that the country was about evenly divided on the issue in the early 2000s while a CBS poll in 2003 notes that 40

percent favor same sex marriages, and an ABC poll reports 37% favoring gay marriages. While the numbers differ, especially in election years, discounting 37 to 50% of the population is simply ludicrous. Certainly every American isn’t quaking in his shoes about the thought of two men or two women marrying. Worry that churches will be denied funding from state and local agencies isn’t really the concern of lawmakers.

Churches operate under private leadership while the laws which govern marriage operate within the public domain. Reverend Sheldon would do well to make this distinction for himself. Conclusion Sheldon’s unsubstantiated value judgments and morally high-handed criticism of the homosexual lifestyle and the irreparable damage that it will do to American society are simply comical. He cannot provide valid facts for his assertions and his reasoning is faulty.

Homosexual marriage will neither harm nor divide the country. Not one evidence of a dangerous circumstance arising from homosexual marriage is mentioned in the essay. Children read in history books about war and crime, but that does not mean they will rush off to became soldiers or criminals either. It seems that the author is limiting his research to his religious circle while ignoring more secular ideas. All in all, religious decisions and public decisions must stay separate in order for the American people, all of them, to get what they deserve from their country.