Same-Sex Marriage

While I had to read this article twice to really grasp the concept of what was going on in this article, it actually made me rethink the entire argument. I personally do not have an opinion one way or another. If a couple wants to marry, that is something that is between them and does not involve me or my family so I do not protest or advocate one side of the argument or the other. After reading this article, however it is clear that the author, Reginald Williams, is also not supporting either side.

The author is bringing attention not the concept of same-sex marriage, but if that is an individual right or a collective right. The author believes that it is not able to be considered an individual right, because the individual right it not being denied. A hetero or homosexual can marry a person of the opposite sex – the difference is that a homosexual chooses not to marry a person from the opposite sex. Therefore, their individual rights are not being violated because heterosexuals are not given any right that homosexuals are not. The difference is that homosexuals do not want to marry another adult of the opposite sex, but they are not denied that right.

Williams also addresses the fact that since an individual right has not been denied, then the argument may have a basis as a collective right being that it involves to individuals which no longer makes it an individual right but a group. As a collective right there would be a specific group that is denied a right that another group is given. In this case, it is the group (homosexuals) is denied the right to marry a person of the same sex. However, heterosexuals are also denied this right. A straight man cannot marry another man just as a gay man cannot marry another man. Straight people cannot marry people of the same sex nor can gay people, so the group is also not being denied anything that another group is given.

While the surface of the paper is not of one side or the other, the conclusion...