Same-sex marriage is a social problem because it affects a big part of society (according to the national survey around 4% of the US population are gays). Also, this problem is persistent due to interconnectivity with other social issues, and it has abundance of controversial proposed solutions. Actually, same-sex marriage issue is one of the hottest topics in American society for last two decades. Functionalists would say that gay families could adopt children from orphanages, bring them up providing necessary material and emotional support to them, and thus perform specific social function and contribute the stability of society. At the same time, functionalists would say that, if legalization of same-sex marriage triggers widespread of homosexuality, it would negatively affect nation reproduction and become dysfunctional for society. As for me, sexual orientation is everybody’s personal affair. If it is not harmful for the others, any person could manage their personal life in the way they prefer. I personally have traditional sexual orientation, but I do not think it is so because of my culture or values. I merely was born how I am. I deem that deprivation of gays of civil rights is simply one of ways the majority oppresses the minor group. I am also proponent to allow same-sex couple to adopt children. Research showed that sexual orientation of parents does not affect sexual orientation of their children. In fact, I have never seen a homosexual whose parents had also homosexual orientation. Society is dynamic, and it always confronts new challenges. Let’s thing about what is more beneficial for kids: to be brought up without any parents, in drug addicted or alcoholic family, or to be fostered in law-abiding, secure, and well-off same-sex family with positive attitude. According to report of Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, 115,000 children are eligible now for adoption in the USA, but nearly 40% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted. In regard to solutions of same-sex marriage problem, I have no doubt that the issue is not really questionable, and it is just a matter of time. I am sure that in the near future gay marriage will be legalized throughout this country and same-sex families will be completely equated in rights with traditional heterosexual families. At least, I hope.
The social problem is the same sex marriage having complications of their federal benefits to states that does not allow them to receive them. This is a social problem because the thirty-six states do not agree on same-sex marriage does not believe that it is normal. The Supreme Court ruling emphasized that marriage is between a man and a woman (NPR). Sadly, those who have the same-sex marriage have difficulties for receiving federal benefits. Since norms of the society believe that the marriage is between man and a woman, Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affair do not recognize same sex marriage. They believe that it is a dysfunction because the tradition means a man and a woman getting married and not two same sex getting married. Conflict theorist would examine the problem as the traditional marriage would have the federal benefits and keep the status quo intact and so those who have the same sex marriage are suffering from getting the federal benefits. The norms who agree that the marriage is between man and woman is keeping their law uninterrupted but those who are in same sex marriage would have the law be turned against them. Having those privilege for the opposite sex marriage are keeping the odds for them and leaving the same sex marriage be unprivileged for receiving federal benefits. I think that it is unfortunate how same sex marriage is still a constant battle to get benefits from the government. I commented on this because it is a new generation where gays and lesbians are accepted in the society and how the media shows that it is normal, but the Supreme Court still not support this. Those who are in the same sex marriage that decides to have a child or children, the child or children are suffering. Since the federal government is against gay marriage benefits, the child or children in this marriage are not supported well. The solution would be a constant support from the media, so that the norms of the society would be open minded about the idea that it is not just about the same sex marriage but the children who are involved in the same sex marriage. When it is being shown in television, the society gets influenced to how they think. This will have the movement to bring the whole country together to support same sex marriage and their benefits.
The social problem is same-sex marriage because it is one of the topics that are talked about the most. It’s also a social problem because, many states do not agree or accept the fact that many people are coming out to the world and say who they really are. Government does not want to agree or accept that same-sex marriage should be allowed, and it is not seen as the ideal family. This problem is seen as something not normal in the eyes of society. A conflict theorist would say that same-sex marriage is wrong and should not be allowed in any state. The conflict theorist would also say that a couple that is same-marriage should not have the same benefits as a traditional couple (man and women). The same-sex couple should not be allowed to adopt or have children and raise the children because there could be a chance that the child could also end up being gay or lesbian. This situation is seen as not normal for the government, parents that are really religious and just go by what the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I think that same-sex marriage has been a huge battle since the beginning of this situation and how same-sex couples have to struggle by not getting the same benefits as traditional couples by the government. The reason why I commented on this topic is because I have a lot of friends that are straight and friends that are gay and lesbian and have adopted children or have their children and raised them as there own kids. When I look at my friends, in my opinion is see something normal, but the government and society see this problem as something not functional and not normal. One solution to this problem would be that government should allow and give the same benefits to same-sex couples. Be able to accept who these people are. And should be allowed in other states of the country. By making this movement its will bring the country and even the whole world together and support these people that are trying to fit in with the rest of society.
For many same – sex couples it is the complication of receiving federal benefits from their own state because the state only recognizes marriage between two heterosexual people is a social problem. This is a social problem because although some states recognize homosexual couples as valid, it is not universally accepted in other states. This extends to the challenges brought in by Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration became they "don’t recognize those marriages." By using Herbert Blumer’s 4 stages that define a social problem, I can analyze the article. On a micro level, not receiving health benefits means they aren’t going to get health and life insurance coverage for their partner or get social security benefits too. However, on a macro level this is due to the fact that gay couples aren’t viewed as the same way as heterosexual couples are. Same sex couples don’t share the same privilege as heterosexual couples do. Next, many powerful groups believe that it would violate the traditional views of marriage between one man and one woman. Powerful groups such as the church, Republicans, and conservatives have this in mind. As long as many states perceive that marriage is not officiated between two men then the problems of receiving federal benefits will persist on. There are solutions such as the justice system redefining what marriage is.
From an interactionist’s perspective, it is how people define who gets federal benefits. This is based on gender and sexual orientation, which affects on who gets benefits because this determines marital status. Also, people have their perceptions, beliefs, and judgment on what those traditional gender norms are when defining them such as federal benefits. Sometimes this can be defined as heterosexual couples getting that privilege.
I feel that it is a shame that in the 21st century, that same – sex couples are still treated like second class citizens due to their sexual orientation on who they want to marry which includes federal benefits. They deserve it because as long as the couple is living, committed and love each other, I feel that it shouldn’t matter. I commented on this topic because same – sex couples are not pedophiles, deviant, or evil individuals who display bad behavior. I went to GSA and seen homosexuals and lesbians talk to heterosexual people at the meeting and are decent people. I believe that the solution should be educating people on same sex issues so people are informed about same sex issues. Also, on parents educating their children so they can perceive same – sex couples differently in a positive light. Hopefully, in the future they will be accepting of same sex couples and their rights such as federal benefits.
Same sex marriage and getting benifits for same sex couples is a social crises because, it is an issue with many complications and an abunance of solutions. In many states same sex marriage is not legal and there for same sex couples who probably have been living with each other for many many years don't get benifits. And only gives benifits to heterosexual couples. However there are states who have legalized same sex marriage and there for are able to recieve benifits because they're marriage is valid. A conflict theorist would say that only a marriage between a man and a women (heterosexual) should be able to recive federal benifits. That federal benifits should only be for heterosexual couples. Any issue when it comes to same sex marriage is a constant battle that everybody has a different opinion on. I feel that it is sad that same sex couple who have been in a committed relationship with one another dont get the benifits they need from the state they live in.That just because they chose to marry or be with someone of the same sex as them they are denied benifits fot the sole fact that they chose to be with someone that the government doesn't approve of. I beleive that there is no obvious solution when it comes to any issue when regarding same sex marriage it's a start that states such as New York and Maryland have legalized same sex marriage and those same sex couples who live in those states are able to get benifites. All in all people need to be more educated when it comes to same sex marriages that just because it's not the "norm" shouldn't be the sole reason why they are denied federal benefits. Macy M.
Same sex marriage has become a social problem because it affects society. Not only is this issue controversial but also degrading. Many states wont accept humans "coming out of the closet". Also, they get no help what so ever on recieving federal benefits for their spouse or if they adopt a child. The sahring benefits situations is still a little bit on the rocky side but they keep their promise on making that decision sates Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery whos part of the supreme court. This topic has been ongoing and very controversial for as long as i can remember. Functionalists would say that gays can adopt children and go along with the proper ways of a "normal" husband-wife-children family. They would mainly focus on if the parenters' relatioonship works and there are no dysfunctionts, then there would be no problem. As long as they encourage their kids and raise them as a "normal" family would then there should be no problem that way their children will be able to contirbute with the social stability. i believe sexual orientation is a choice one decides to make and build their future upon. i, myself like the oposite sex, but i have many gay and lesbian friends that are very happy with themselves. of course they get deprived for not being like everyone else, but who actually knows how everypne else is. there is no right way to act or be, thats just a myth. each person does what feels right to them. Also if you dig a little deeper in reaserch, it will clearly tell you that gay parents have no influence over their childs sexuality. its a rare ocasion when both parents are gay and their child becomes gay as well. Not everyone will accept gays, lesbians, homosexuals, and so on, but would we rather have a lousy society or a colorful one. i have no problem with same sex marriage and as for where i live, its a 50-50. theres no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will actually be legit and they will get what they deserve as in federal help and their happy ending with a family. everyone deserves a happy life, why not give it to them.
The problem in this article is that same sex couples were not allowed to marry before and now that the defense of marriage act is gone they are allowed to be seen as a couple and share spousal benefits that they were deprived of before. I believe that it is a social problem because it affects a greater group of society why should they be so prejudiced against just because its tradition for a man to marry a women. Like the article says that gay people are being treated as they treated African Americas in the past its immoral and unjust. They is a big population in the society of people that are not heterosexual, we are all humans and we should all have equal rights. The theoretical perspective that I chose to apply to this problem is interactionist. In a way I think that because a large group of society thinks the way an interactionist would see this. People all perceive this as a different problem. Some might not even think that gay people not having rights is a problem. Everyone has different views on this and everyone has different proposed solutions to solve this and this is why this is a social problem it persists. I am shocked that this is still a problem that we must see still in society today. I am heartbroken at the idea that people think of gay or lesbian or transgender people as morally wrong. I think that people need to get their morals checked because this should never have come to be a social problem this is who they are and there should have to be people sitting around a desk on the supreme court deciding if two men or two women should have the right no marry or not. On solution that I think has already taken place is getting rid of DOMA but I think that they need to make it so that gays have the same rights that straight couples do only then will it be fair. The solution is needed because people will always have opinion on what they think is “right” but that should never affect someone’s life and who they want to love and marry.
I chose to comment on this peers entry because I agree with Kristine D. Same-sex couples have had a struggle with the federal benefits for quite a while. It is just now in the year 2013, which they can file for taxes jointly. As Kristine said, this is a social problem because not all of the states are accepting same-sex marriage and so these people aren’t being treated equally with the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veteran affairs. So same-sex marriages are not termed as a valid marriage for them to receive these benefits. From an interactionist’s perspective, people are the ones to distinguish, which laws should be allowed and which laws should be changed. Gender and sexual orientation should have no say in government benefits because of marital status. This limits society and the freedom to have choices because it’s either you are a heterosexual couple and receive benefits or a homosexual couple who might get some of the benefits and are forced to travel long ways to receive them. I agree that social media should promote sexual orientation more but there is already so much focus on homosexuality and it still doesn’t affect the government in a way where laws are forced to change. It’s possible that media can help since the industry promotes homosexuality so vastly but then again media isn’t really taken seriously, it’s more of an entertainment system rather than a political debate. I think this topic is so overrated because with America developing so rapidly, the Supreme Court needs to change its law and instead of saying every one man to one woman it should include same-sex as well to equally distribute benefits to every kind of marriage. Also, more people need to get educated with same-sex issues because those 36 states that aren’t accepting same-sex marriage are more conservative and have less knowledge on these issues. Instead of stigmatizing gays and lesbians, people should be more open minded and accept these issues rather than shutting them out.
When it comes to same sex marriage I Chose to agree with Alfred, the times where living in should be accepting it by now and not discriminating these people based on how they want to live there lives its there choice not ours. What stood out in Alfred’s paper to me was when Alfred said that “ It’s a shame where living in the 21st century and homosexual’s are still being treated like second class citizen” The reason as to why that stood out to me is because its very much true. Homosexuality has been present in our society for many years now and its about time people stop listening to the negative stigma that other have to say about it, and just letting these men and women live there lives the way they want to, and not the way people think they should. I chose to comment on Alfred’s paper because he made some good points that I agree with him on. I think the topic is a very sensitive one based on the fact that some religions say its wrong, which makes it more complicated, however who’s to say that God wouldn’t change his mind about homosexuality. This is a problem due to the socialization of some people, some cultures hate the idea of being gay and they past that on to there kids which makes it an on going issue for the gay community. A conflict theorist would see this as a struggle between two groups the gay community and the negative stigma that half country has toward them. Also Due to the tension of change that the gays are creating in society, makes those who appose their life style dislike them even more. A conflict Theorist would also see this on a macro level due to the amount of homosexuals there are around the country all fighting for the same thing. I agree with Alfred’s solution we should educate society more about homosexuality because that would help people get a better understanding, I think that’s a very possible solution and that would be the same solution I would propose as well. All though another solution could be the gay community reaching out to those who appose them, sitting them down and discussing there difference’s face to face with hopes of giving them a better more positive view as to how they are and not what social norms make them out to b
In response to Macy's comment on the topic same sex marriages. Same sex marriage is a social problem because most states are against same sex marriage. I agree with what Macy is saying that same sex marriage is a individual decision for them to make and not the government because it does not fit their "ideal family". What stood out to me was how the government decides who is a ideal family and who is not. I chose to comment on this response because i felt Macy understands the social problem. I think that same sex marriage should be legal because if the United States is known around the world as the land of the free why is it that the so called land of the free is not free for the gay community to marry if they please. Also to receive benefits just like a ideal family would. An functionalist would look at this as a dysfunction in the government and between the gay community, that if they cant be seen as a regular family theirs no such thing. I believe the solution that was given is understandable to educate the youth on the topic to give them a better understanding. This is a realistic goal because it can be done. A more blunt solution would be to take this to congress and state if we live in the land of the free why is it that i am not free to marry a companion of mine or receive benefits that i deserve.
I chose to comment on Yessica's response because I agree with everything that she said. I agree with what she said because she is correct about the fact in society today, we still see so much hatred amongst these group of individuals. Also, what stood out to me most about what she wrote was that everyone is so used to the norm of a man and a woman getting married; and when same sex marriage occurs, that's when certain people become hostile towards this population. I chose to comment on this topic because this problem has caused so many hardships amongst people who are in the LGBT community, and it is against their civil rights. The LGBT community should be able to marry who ever they want, it's their lives it's their choice. The theoretical perspective that I chose for this social problem is a functionalist's perspective. A functionalist would look at this social problem and say that gay people have the ability to function perfectly fine in a community. They can adopt children, have jobs, and live their life as normal as any other ordinary couple would. They can have a normal life just like anyone else. A proposed solution to this problem would be to always to talk about this situation. Talking about it, leads to questions, and questions leads to understanding. I believe if the youth are understanding such issues like this, then the future might turn out to become a less hostile environment towards the LGBT community, and on same sex marriage. I think that this solution seems pretty reasonable to me. It's up to the older generations to start talking about this social problem to the younger generations.
I have chosen to comment on my peer Sergey's entry because I agree with him on the fact that same-sex marriage is persistent due to its connection to other social issues. This entry stood out to me because same-sex marriage is indeed one of the most talked about issues in America's society today. I completely agree with his outlook on gay marriage because in reality; sexual orientation is a personal affair. It does not harm anybody and we all need to start thinking the same way. If it is not hurting anybody, why should we discriminate against gays and forbid them from marrying one another, simply because it is different from our preference? Sergey chose a very interesting topic and what stood out to me the most was his brilliant comparison between a homosexual household and a household in which there are drugs or alcohol involved.
A conflict theorist would say that the "traditional" family of a mother, a father and two perfect children is simply an idea and a model for the male dominance to continue in modern day society, therefore same sex marriages are at a disadvantage because they do not quality for receiving federal benefits through their spouses because the societies norm is that marriage is between a woman and a man.
The solution is to legalize gay marriage, which I think Sergey was also trying to say. I come from the country that was the first on the planet to legalize gay marriage, and all I can say is that it truly creates peace and equal rights. Nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality and nobody should be deprived of marriage simply because it is out of the "norm." Love is love; it is universal.
12 comments:
Same-sex marriage is a social problem because it affects a big part of society (according to the national survey around 4% of the US population are gays). Also, this problem is persistent due to interconnectivity with other social issues, and it has abundance of controversial proposed solutions. Actually, same-sex marriage issue is one of the hottest topics in American society for last two decades.
Functionalists would say that gay families could adopt children from orphanages, bring them up providing necessary material and emotional support to them, and thus perform specific social function and contribute the stability of society. At the same time, functionalists would say that, if legalization of same-sex marriage triggers widespread of homosexuality, it would negatively affect nation reproduction and become dysfunctional for society.
As for me, sexual orientation is everybody’s personal affair. If it is not harmful for the others, any person could manage their personal life in the way they prefer. I personally have traditional sexual orientation, but I do not think it is so because of my culture or values. I merely was born how I am. I deem that deprivation of gays of civil rights is simply one of ways the majority oppresses the minor group. I am also proponent to allow same-sex couple to adopt children. Research showed that sexual orientation of parents does not affect sexual orientation of their children. In fact, I have never seen a homosexual whose parents had also homosexual orientation. Society is dynamic, and it always confronts new challenges. Let’s thing about what is more beneficial for kids: to be brought up without any parents, in drug addicted or alcoholic family, or to be fostered in law-abiding, secure, and well-off same-sex family with positive attitude. According to report of Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, 115,000 children are eligible now for adoption in the USA, but nearly 40% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.
In regard to solutions of same-sex marriage problem, I have no doubt that the issue is not really questionable, and it is just a matter of time. I am sure that in the near future gay marriage will be legalized throughout this country and same-sex families will be completely equated in rights with traditional heterosexual families. At least, I hope.
The social problem is the same sex marriage having complications of their federal benefits to states that does not allow them to receive them. This is a social problem because the thirty-six states do not agree on same-sex marriage does not believe that it is normal. The Supreme Court ruling emphasized that marriage is between a man and a woman (NPR). Sadly, those who have the same-sex marriage have difficulties for receiving federal benefits. Since norms of the society believe that the marriage is between man and a woman, Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affair do not recognize same sex marriage. They believe that it is a dysfunction because the tradition means a man and a woman getting married and not two same sex getting married.
Conflict theorist would examine the problem as the traditional marriage would have the federal benefits and keep the status quo intact and so those who have the same sex marriage are suffering from getting the federal benefits. The norms who agree that the marriage is between man and woman is keeping their law uninterrupted but those who are in same sex marriage would have the law be turned against them. Having those privilege for the opposite sex marriage are keeping the odds for them and leaving the same sex marriage be unprivileged for receiving federal benefits.
I think that it is unfortunate how same sex marriage is still a constant battle to get benefits from the government. I commented on this because it is a new generation where gays and lesbians are accepted in the society and how the media shows that it is normal, but the Supreme Court still not support this. Those who are in the same sex marriage that decides to have a child or children, the child or children are suffering. Since the federal government is against gay marriage benefits, the child or children in this marriage are not supported well. The solution would be a constant support from the media, so that the norms of the society would be open minded about the idea that it is not just about the same sex marriage but the children who are involved in the same sex marriage. When it is being shown in television, the society gets influenced to how they think. This will have the movement to bring the whole country together to support same sex marriage and their benefits.
The social problem is same-sex marriage because it is one of the topics that are talked about the most. It’s also a social problem because, many states do not agree or accept the fact that many people are coming out to the world and say who they really are. Government does not want to agree or accept that same-sex marriage should be allowed, and it is not seen as the ideal family. This problem is seen as something not normal in the eyes of society.
A conflict theorist would say that same-sex marriage is wrong and should not be allowed in any state. The conflict theorist would also say that a couple that is same-marriage should not have the same benefits as a traditional couple (man and women). The same-sex couple should not be allowed to adopt or have children and raise the children because there could be a chance that the child could also end up being gay or lesbian. This situation is seen as not normal for the government, parents that are really religious and just go by what the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
I think that same-sex marriage has been a huge battle since the beginning of this situation and how same-sex couples have to struggle by not getting the same benefits as traditional couples by the government. The reason why I commented on this topic is because I have a lot of friends that are straight and friends that are gay and lesbian and have adopted children or have their children and raised them as there own kids. When I look at my friends, in my opinion is see something normal, but the government and society see this problem as something not functional and not normal. One solution to this problem would be that government should allow and give the same benefits to same-sex couples. Be able to accept who these people are. And should be allowed in other states of the country. By making this movement its will bring the country and even the whole world together and support these people that are trying to fit in with the rest of society.
Ariadna Q
For many same – sex couples it is the complication of receiving federal benefits from their own state because the state only recognizes marriage between two heterosexual people is a social problem. This is a social problem because although some states recognize homosexual couples as valid, it is not universally accepted in other states. This extends to the challenges brought in by Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration became they "don’t recognize those marriages." By using Herbert Blumer’s 4 stages that define a social problem, I can analyze the article. On a micro level, not receiving health benefits means they aren’t going to get health and life insurance coverage for their partner or get social security benefits too. However, on a macro level this is due to the fact that gay couples aren’t viewed as the same way as heterosexual couples are. Same sex couples don’t share the same privilege as heterosexual couples do. Next, many powerful groups believe that it would violate the traditional views of marriage between one man and one woman. Powerful groups such as the church, Republicans, and conservatives have this in mind. As long as many states perceive that marriage is not officiated between two men then the problems of receiving federal benefits will persist on. There are solutions such as the justice system redefining what marriage is.
From an interactionist’s perspective, it is how people define who gets federal benefits. This is based on gender and sexual orientation, which affects on who gets benefits because this determines marital status. Also, people have their perceptions, beliefs, and judgment on what those traditional gender norms are when defining them such as federal benefits. Sometimes this can be defined as heterosexual couples getting that privilege.
I feel that it is a shame that in the 21st century, that same – sex couples are still treated like second class citizens due to their sexual orientation on who they want to marry which includes federal benefits. They deserve it because as long as the couple is living, committed and love each other, I feel that it shouldn’t matter. I commented on this topic because same – sex couples are not pedophiles, deviant, or evil individuals who display bad behavior. I went to GSA and seen homosexuals and lesbians talk to heterosexual people at the meeting and are decent people. I believe that the solution should be educating people on same sex issues so people are informed about same sex issues. Also, on parents educating their children so they can perceive same – sex couples differently in a positive light. Hopefully, in the future they will be accepting of same sex couples and their rights such as federal benefits.
Same sex marriage and getting benifits for same sex couples is a social crises because, it is an issue with many complications and an abunance of solutions. In many states same sex marriage is not legal and there for same sex couples who probably have been living with each other for many many years don't get benifits. And only gives benifits to heterosexual couples. However there are states who have legalized same sex marriage and there for are able to recieve benifits because they're marriage is valid. A conflict theorist would say that only a marriage between a man and a women (heterosexual) should be able to recive federal benifits. That federal benifits should only be for heterosexual couples.
Any issue when it comes to same sex marriage is a constant battle that everybody has a different opinion on. I feel that it is sad that same sex couple who have been in a committed relationship with one another dont get the benifits they need from the state they live in.That just because they chose to marry or be with someone of the same sex as them they are denied benifits fot the sole fact that they chose to be with someone that the government doesn't approve of. I beleive that there is no obvious solution when it comes to any issue when regarding same sex marriage it's a start that states such as New York and Maryland have legalized same sex marriage and those same sex couples who live in those states are able to get benifites. All in all people need to be more educated when it comes to same sex marriages that just because it's not the "norm" shouldn't be the sole reason why they are denied federal benefits.
Macy M.
Same sex marriage has become a social problem because it affects society. Not only is this issue controversial but also degrading. Many states wont accept humans "coming out of the closet". Also, they get no help what so ever on recieving federal benefits for their spouse or if they adopt a child. The sahring benefits situations is still a little bit on the rocky side but they keep their promise on making that decision sates Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery whos part of the supreme court. This topic has been ongoing and very controversial for as long as i can remember.
Functionalists would say that gays can adopt children and go along with the proper ways of a "normal" husband-wife-children family. They would mainly focus on if the parenters' relatioonship works and there are no dysfunctionts, then there would be no problem. As long as they encourage their kids and raise them as a "normal" family would then there should be no problem that way their children will be able to contirbute with the social stability.
i believe sexual orientation is a choice one decides to make and build their future upon. i, myself like the oposite sex, but i have many gay and lesbian friends that are very happy with themselves. of course they get deprived for not being like everyone else, but who actually knows how everypne else is. there is no right way to act or be, thats just a myth. each person does what feels right to them. Also if you dig a little deeper in reaserch, it will clearly tell you that gay parents have no influence over their childs sexuality. its a rare ocasion when both parents are gay and their child becomes gay as well. Not everyone will accept gays, lesbians, homosexuals, and so on, but would we rather have a lousy society or a colorful one. i have no problem with same sex marriage and as for where i live, its a 50-50. theres no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will actually be legit and they will get what they deserve as in federal help and their happy ending with a family. everyone deserves a happy life, why not give it to them.
The problem in this article is that same sex couples were not allowed to marry before and now that the defense of marriage act is gone they are allowed to be seen as a couple and share spousal benefits that they were deprived of before. I believe that it is a social problem because it affects a greater group of society why should they be so prejudiced against just because its tradition for a man to marry a women. Like the article says that gay people are being treated as they treated African Americas in the past its immoral and unjust. They is a big population in the society of people that are not heterosexual, we are all humans and we should all have equal rights.
The theoretical perspective that I chose to apply to this problem is interactionist. In a way I think that because a large group of society thinks the way an interactionist would see this. People all perceive this as a different problem. Some might not even think that gay people not having rights is a problem. Everyone has different views on this and everyone has different proposed solutions to solve this and this is why this is a social problem it persists.
I am shocked that this is still a problem that we must see still in society today. I am heartbroken at the idea that people think of gay or lesbian or transgender people as morally wrong. I think that people need to get their morals checked because this should never have come to be a social problem this is who they are and there should have to be people sitting around a desk on the supreme court deciding if two men or two women should have the right no marry or not. On solution that I think has already taken place is getting rid of DOMA but I think that they need to make it so that gays have the same rights that straight couples do only then will it be fair. The solution is needed because people will always have opinion on what they think is “right” but that should never affect someone’s life and who they want to love and marry.
I chose to comment on this peers entry because I agree with Kristine D. Same-sex couples have had a struggle with the federal benefits for quite a while. It is just now in the year 2013, which they can file for taxes jointly. As Kristine said, this is a social problem because not all of the states are accepting same-sex marriage and so these people aren’t being treated equally with the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veteran affairs. So same-sex marriages are not termed as a valid marriage for them to receive these benefits. From an interactionist’s perspective, people are the ones to distinguish, which laws should be allowed and which laws should be changed. Gender and sexual orientation should have no say in government benefits because of marital status. This limits society and the freedom to have choices because it’s either you are a heterosexual couple and receive benefits or a homosexual couple who might get some of the benefits and are forced to travel long ways to receive them. I agree that social media should promote sexual orientation more but there is already so much focus on homosexuality and it still doesn’t affect the government in a way where laws are forced to change. It’s possible that media can help since the industry promotes homosexuality so vastly but then again media isn’t really taken seriously, it’s more of an entertainment system rather than a political debate. I think this topic is so overrated because with America developing so rapidly, the Supreme Court needs to change its law and instead of saying every one man to one woman it should include same-sex as well to equally distribute benefits to every kind of marriage. Also, more people need to get educated with same-sex issues because those 36 states that aren’t accepting same-sex marriage are more conservative and have less knowledge on these issues. Instead of stigmatizing gays and lesbians, people should be more open minded and accept these issues rather than shutting them out.
When it comes to same sex marriage I Chose to agree with Alfred, the times where living in should be accepting it by now and not discriminating these people based on how they want to live there lives its there choice not ours. What stood out in Alfred’s paper to me was when Alfred said that “ It’s a shame where living in the 21st century and homosexual’s are still being treated like second class citizen” The reason as to why that stood out to me is because its very much true. Homosexuality has been present in our society for many years now and its about time people stop listening to the negative stigma that other have to say about it, and just letting these men and women live there lives the way they want to, and not the way people think they should. I chose to comment on Alfred’s paper because he made some good points that I agree with him on. I think the topic is a very sensitive one based on the fact that some religions say its wrong, which makes it more complicated, however who’s to say that God wouldn’t change his mind about homosexuality. This is a problem due to the socialization of some people, some cultures hate the idea of being gay and they past that on to there kids which makes it an on going issue for the gay community. A conflict theorist would see this as a struggle between two groups the gay community and the negative stigma that half country has toward them. Also Due to the tension of change that the gays are creating in society, makes those who appose their life style dislike them even more. A conflict Theorist would also see this on a macro level due to the amount of homosexuals there are around the country all fighting for the same thing. I agree with Alfred’s solution we should educate society more about homosexuality because that would help people get a better understanding, I think that’s a very possible solution and that would be the same solution I would propose as well. All though another solution could be the gay community reaching out to those who appose them, sitting them down and discussing there difference’s face to face with hopes of giving them a better more positive view as to how they are and not what social norms make them out to b
In response to Macy's comment on the topic same sex marriages. Same sex marriage is a social problem because most states are against same sex marriage. I agree with what Macy is saying that same sex marriage is a individual decision for them to make and not the government because it does not fit their "ideal family". What stood out to me was how the government decides who is a ideal family and who is not. I chose to comment on this response because i felt Macy understands the social problem. I think that same sex marriage should be legal because if the United States is known around the world as the land of the free why is it that the so called land of the free is not free for the gay community to marry if they please. Also to receive benefits just like a ideal family would. An functionalist would look at this as a dysfunction in the government and between the gay community, that if they cant be seen as a regular family theirs no such thing. I believe the solution that was given is understandable to educate the youth on the topic to give them a better understanding. This is a realistic goal because it can be done. A more blunt solution would be to take this to congress and state if we live in the land of the free why is it that i am not free to marry a companion of mine or receive benefits that i deserve.
by: Julian T.
I chose to comment on Yessica's response because I agree with everything that she said. I agree with what she said because she is correct about the fact in society today, we still see so much hatred amongst these group of individuals. Also, what stood out to me most about what she wrote was that everyone is so used to the norm of a man and a woman getting married; and when same sex marriage occurs, that's when certain people become hostile towards this population. I chose to comment on this topic because this problem has caused so many hardships amongst people who are in the LGBT community, and it is against their civil rights. The LGBT community should be able to marry who ever they want, it's their lives it's their choice.
The theoretical perspective that I chose for this social problem is a functionalist's perspective. A functionalist would look at this social problem and say that gay people have the ability to function perfectly fine in a community. They can adopt children, have jobs, and live their life as normal as any other ordinary couple would. They can have a normal life just like anyone else.
A proposed solution to this problem would be to always to talk about this situation. Talking about it, leads to questions, and questions leads to understanding. I believe if the youth are understanding such issues like this, then the future might turn out to become a less hostile environment towards the LGBT community, and on same sex marriage. I think that this solution seems pretty reasonable to me. It's up to the older generations to start talking about this social problem to the younger generations.
Natalia R
I have chosen to comment on my peer Sergey's entry because I agree with him on the fact that same-sex marriage is persistent due to its connection to other social issues. This entry stood out to me because same-sex marriage is indeed one of the most talked about issues in America's society today. I completely agree with his outlook on gay marriage because in reality; sexual orientation is a personal affair. It does not harm anybody and we all need to start thinking the same way. If it is not hurting anybody, why should we discriminate against gays and forbid them from marrying one another, simply because it is different from our preference? Sergey chose a very interesting topic and what stood out to me the most was his brilliant comparison between a homosexual household and a household in which there are drugs or alcohol involved.
A conflict theorist would say that the "traditional" family of a mother, a father and two perfect children is simply an idea and a model for the male dominance to continue in modern day society, therefore same sex marriages are at a disadvantage because they do not quality for receiving federal benefits through their spouses because the societies norm is that marriage is between a woman and a man.
The solution is to legalize gay marriage, which I think Sergey was also trying to say. I come from the country that was the first on the planet to legalize gay marriage, and all I can say is that it truly creates peace and equal rights. Nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexuality and nobody should be deprived of marriage simply because it is out of the "norm." Love is love; it is universal.
Post a Comment