Ethics

Same sex partners in a committed relationship do not have the same rights as heterosexual partners and allowing gay marriage is one possible solution to that problem. However, the consequences of allowing such unions demand that homosexuality be rejected. In a society where homosexuality is exceedingly ubiquitous, it is almost illogical not to acknowledge gay marriages. Nonetheless, there are many who still deny it. This subject is one that has been in controversy for many years. The federal government has not passed any laws to uphold the validation of gay marriages, and in fact, has vetoed many propositions brought before them.

There are diverse opinions on the matter, since some believe gay relationships are morally erroneous. Therefore, permitting them would not only be against moral beliefs but religiously wrong. On the other hand, there are some that view gay relationships as not only acceptable but even approving of such marriages.
Which side of this argument is morally correct  Before making that decision, we must look at some basic information from both sides of this argument from a teleology aspect looking at the end outcome.Teleological ethics speaks of morality coming from duties or moral obligations from what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved, in other words, if then outcome is good than the action must be good.

Is gay marriage morally acceptable

Concepts
HomosexualityGay  this is a concept that is used in reference to engagement of two people of the same sex as marriage or sex partners.

Morality - this term is used to refer to the accepted ways of life in a given society.

Society - this is used to capture a group of people that are related in a way.

Individualism - it is an aspect that focuses on a persons stance.

Teleological theory - it is a theory that posits the importance of looking at issues in relation to outcome.

Possible Solutions to the Problem
There are a variety of logical solutions to this issue. At first, the proposal is that individuals be allowed to do what they feel is right for them. This in a sense indicates that they should be allowed to engage in gay marriages. Secondly, these individuals should observe societal traditions and brush aside the idea of gay marriage. These two offer moral solutions. Borrowing from the legal front, it is anchored in the constitution that individual happiness is of paramount importance, hence the need to legalise the gay unions. This is how the side denying gay marriage explains their beliefs. Social and religious conservatives appear to be moved by two main motivations. The major motivations touch on equality in respect to protection and rights. This is in their view supposed to cut across the two sexes (Robinson, 2007). A good number of conservative groups are known to preach that homosexuality is supposed to a choice to be left for the individual to make. They also believe that prayer can help in the reformation. It is fixed in adulthood. That a part of a persons identity is to be discovered, not chosen.  Additionally, many conservative faith groups teach that males and females are to be restricted to very distinct roles in families, in the workforce, and in religious institutions (Robinson, 2007).

The other is how the side, accepting gay marriages, believes that they should be made legal or at least considered. Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue (Kohut, 2006).  Marriage is a form of commitment and sacred ceremony.  Marriage forms a strong construction block for communities and families. When people wed, there is always an opportunity for people to meet and offer their blessings to the marrying couple. This occasion is seen to play a huge role in cementing the family institution as it brings people together

Assumptions
Society has an accepted way of life
Individuals have the right to lead their lives
Children also enjoy similar rights as adults
For a positive coexistence, the societal values must be held by all individuals
A section of society may fail to adhere to agreed upon rules
Homosexuality is unhealthy for society

In a society where homosexuality is exceedingly ubiquitous, it is almost illogical not to acknowledge gay marriages nonetheless, there are many who still deny it.  This subject is one that has been in controversy for many years.  The federal government has not passed any laws to uphold the validation of gay marriages, and in fact, has vetoed many propositions brought before them.  There are diverse opinions on the matter, since some believe gay relationships are morally erroneous therefore, permitting them to marry would not only be against their moral beliefs but religiously wrong.  On the other hand there are some that view gay relationships as not only acceptable, but even approving of marriage.  Which side of this argument is morally correct  Before making that decision, we must look at some basic information from both sides of this argument.

Information
Marriage secures and enriches relationships. Marriage as an institution is supposed to be accompanied by benefits both to the adults and children. According to recent researches, married people have been found to perform better in their jobs as compared to the rest. Their health, both physical and emotional is also catered for in these unions. It is also revealed that married people are relatively safer from violence than the others (Rector, Pardue,  Noyes, 2003).

Marriage among gay couples is a widely and morally accepted option in todays society and should be allowed in other states.  Our system is supposed to be a world of fairness among people, but when gay marriages are denied, the fairness is no longer visible.  Steps must be taken to correct this moral injustice. However, the concerns of its effects must be considered.

Moral reasoning
Teleological theories are those theories that are concerned with consequences or outcomes concerning an issue.  These are theories that hold that there is a connection between moral obligation and moral value (Beauchamp, 1991). In respect to this, I seek to address how the engagement in gay marriages affects societal cohesion.

In respect to the above realization, it is necessary that the outcomes of gay marriage be looked into. The major reason as to why same sex marriage should be rejected rests on te misery it is bound to expose children from these unions to.

In almost all areas of life, there is an emotional, social, cognitive, and developmental disorder that are known to affect children that are exposed to such traumas of missing one or both parents (Broad, 1930). It has been argued that both parents are supposed to be available to facilitate the normal development process for children. It is thought to help the children develop their sexual identity.

There are also other concerns that relate to same sex unions, for instance, there could be health risks and instability in relationships (Flew, 1979). If the union breaks up as these gay marriages are prone to, a devastating effect would follow the children. Heterosexuality is known to be the basis upon which society rests. An attempt to destabilize it would spell doom for the social fabric.

The other problem posed by the same sex marriage is premised on the fact that it creates a second structure in society. The sticky point is that these two sets of existence are extremely antagonistic. The characteristics of these people are totally different from the other set of people. Tying the above two together, fatherlessness and motherlessness holds different consequences for children. Children from such unions will found difficulties in fitting to the society. On the basis of these adverse effects that homosexual relations raise, it is proposed that the gay marriages should be illegalized and objected to by the whole society.

Consequences
The proposed moral solution does not deviate from the current common view on gay marriage. In that regard the consequences would include homosexual engagements in secrecy, denial of individual rights to happiness, and commonality in the social structure (Kamm, 1996).

Gay marriage is not allowed legally in many countries. This does not however imply its absence. It is believed that those engagements are carried out in secrecy to deceive authorities. These secret affairs may portend adverse effects to the victims as it denies them the right to freely associated with the rest of society as these individuals tend to withdraw.

One of the basic tenets of human existence rests on the premise that every individual should be free in making choices that increase their happiness. If homosexuality helps to raise individual happiness, then it follows that those interested in homosexuality should be allowed to pursue whatever they want. However, this should be done if it does not infringe on the rights of the rest. However, a dilemma here is whether there is any logic to uphold societal good against individual good. At a personal level, the society should be secondary to individual needs. But as currently constituted, the world in this respect is seen to value societal cohesion ahead of individual preferences.

As it is currently, pressure is mounting on authorities to push for the allowance of gay marriage. This may be morally wrong but it appears to be the most likely alternative. On the basis of this proposal, it is realized that a moral solution is most appropriate to the question at hand because it is basically a moral question though changes in society point to a different direction.  However, it is worthy that such solutions should be adopted as legislations if they are to be effective.

On the basis of late developments and as this paper finds, it is necessary to target a legislative mechanism in addressing this problem. It would take like six months to lobby the congressman and get them to support such legislation. That is to say that in six months time, an ambitious lobbying campaign can manage to have a policy that allows for gay marriage.