Who or what dictates that which is wrong or right? From an early dualistic perspective, some may be compelled to believe that truth, happiness, and care exist in an absolute form residing only in a sole creator or God; but more directly, determining morally justified or unjustified lies in the imperfection that is human society. Within civilization, the moral standard is dictated from the rational of all chosen and the emotions of all; the court system is maintained to provide a rational and objective party in deciding the proper or improper course of action or consequence to enforce based upon a select number of other’s feelings. The very idea of a court system is flawed in that which it tries to provide; to maintain its ability to enforce natural law, that is, the fundamental principles of God’s eternal law as it applies to earthly man’s morality as apprehended in our conscience and practical reasoning, the judicial system proclaims its position is to secure rights and liberty in accordance with proper moral conduct which is ultimately determined by human law, that is, the laws and statutes of society that are derived from man’s understanding of natural law; some of these understandings have brought consequence or shame that influenced the populations overall perception.
Historically, human law in the United States dictated that it is morally wrong to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex. It took decades after the television was invented to display or express media consisting of gay or lesbian content; therefore implying that this type of loving behavior was not normally accepted and contributed the shame felt by those with these types of “un-normal” desires. The strongest and most common argument used by political and religious leaders in opposition to gay and lesbian relationships is that the male and female body was designed to fit together for reproduction; therefore it is the sole purpose of humans to seek a mate and reproduce to develop a loving and caring family. Since the Earth’s ground is becoming increasingly crowded, reproduction as a human purpose need not be a primary focus for human existence which has apparently exhausted this striving, evident in the careless reproductive habits of this generation.
Thinking that reproduction is a requirement of a sexually intimate relationship leads some to make the hasty decision to have a child before a relationship has the time to grow safe and secure. Focusing strictly on love as the sole human purpose without reproduction would have removed the pressure to conform to the societal moral standard of the proper family. From a political perspective, more heterosexual families means more economic reproduction; the family life promotes children and children cannot work or afford for themselves, therefore parents dish out more money to support the child than before he or she was born; sometimes, this may require the parents to seek more employment opportunities which contributes to the economy also, just as the child will later as an adult; politically speaking, the ruling society has three advantages to advocating the family life: (1) families produce children, along with the sudden financial influx in the economy from providing for the children, (2) the cost of providing for a child may cause parents to seek out more jobs which contributes to the economy, and (3) more children means more workers for the future economy.