How does society think about itself? “Conceptual structures or schemas—internalized knowledge or information—are assumed to play a central role” (Britton, 1990). Previous experiences also provide a framework from which certain attitudes about society and those within that society are derived. Further, the naming or identification of the group in question can bring greater clarification to the thoughts about that group. In the past the group known as “blacks” were thought to be less than human. The derision and discrimination placed against that group was the result of “the certainty that white human beings were innately superior to human beings of black African descent” (Packard, 2002). Another group that recently has become the focus of marred Social Reasoning are those in the homosexual community. The use of religion, science and past history against gays, have caused the homosexual community to create its own sub-culture from which they can live in relative peace and openly live their lifestyle. Within the context of social cognition and social acceptance the most popular and controversial issue facing homosexuals today is in the matter of marriage.
There are many different definitions of marriage. Some see it as a religious rite garnered and advocated by the church. Others see the act of marriage as a social contract. In the view of religion, most would see the government’s involvement as unnecessary. Within the social contract view the government is needed to validate the contract and the church is just a place in which the ceremony or “signing” of that contract is fulfilled. Religion has defined homosexuality as “sinful” and against God’s law. Because of this belief, the ability for gay couples to get married in the eyes of religion is absolutely forbidden. The government has not deemed homosexuals as a protected social group; therefore the unification of gay couples is not protected or acknowledged under government law. This can be extremely confusing to homosexual couples that have been together for decades and desire to publicly commit themselves. “When people define marriage as only the religious rite or only the civil contract, they deny the validity of two of the most important components of the historical institution of marriage, the personal bond and the community recognized relationship” (Snyder, 2006).
Because marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, the natural social reasoning behind denying gay couples the same benefit is shrouded in moral and political reasoning. Ultimately it is fully expressed in the reasoned perception of others. Stereotypes and categorical assumptions create an atmosphere of distrust and misconceived perceptions. Morally, the code of ethics creates a principled dilemma marred within categorical assertions. If God states the sinfulness of homosexuality, then the religious act of marriage is forbidden to that social group. Politically, the authority structures and processes have never allowed for the government to accept homosexuals, much less gay marriage. These social constructs force the will of the majority upon the wants of the minority. Alexis de Tocqueville (1988) in his book Democracy in America, wrote “What therefore is a majority taken collectively, if not an individual who has opinions and most often interests contrary to another individual that one names the minority? Now, if you accept that one man vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why not accept the same thing for a majority? Have men changed in character by being united?”(p. 240). Naturally, people will disagree on the proper way to live and carry out their lives. Ultimately, they will look to authorities and powers from which to gauge civility and social norms. This creates a problem for those who choose to live outside the norms, but have full acceptance from society as a whole.
Thankfully, many in society have adjusted to the homosexual road to full marriage. Many states have enacted marriage and many churches have accepted homosexuals into their congregation and have expressed acceptance with such actions. This issue is far from a conclusion, but it is true that the overall social reasoning toward gay marriage has changed and will continue to evolve.
Britton, D. (1990). Homophobia and Homosociality. The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 31,
Number 3, 423-439.
Packard, J., (2002). American Nightmare. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, R., (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy. New York: Knopf Books
Tocqueville, A., Mayer, J., & Lawrence, G. (1988). Democracy in America. New York: Knopf
No comments:
Post a Comment