"Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies."
-Aristotle

Homosexuality represents one of the most debated issues in human history. People from all cultures, creeds, religious affiliations, and societies at some point in their life learned that same-sex liaisons are taboo. Generally, society defines morality and norms that govern the daily lifestyle of the people who live in the communities. Despite this, a higher morality must exist: greater morals that protect the freedoms of each individual. The condemning of homosexuality stems from several root points. Namely, they stretch across religion, science, logic, and personal opinions that get their influences from one of the three areas listed.

John Locke, British philosopher, in his book called Second Treatise of Government; addressed several issues concerning government limitations and the rights of the people. Locke stated that people should live in a “state of nature.” This is a state where society has no governing authority. He looks at the idea of the social contract (giving up of some freedoms to obtain protection) between the government and the governed. In essence, the piece argued that the sole purpose of the government is to protect the basic rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke stated that all men have certain inalienable rights and the government has no place infringing on these rights. American culture and system of government later incorporated these philosophical principles and ideas.

The Declaration of Independence is the first instance of Locke’s philosophical influence in the American government system. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author, used these British ideas to build several premises to overthrow British influence and control of the American colonies. As a nation built on the ideas of freedom, infringing on freedom is a gross action and is the cause of a lot of civil unrest and lengthy court cases. Historically and currently, people enjoy and have a strong preference for little government intrusions into their personal affairs.

The influence of the government in the lives of the citizens increased over the years. The transition from a decentralized government under the Articles of Confederation (1777) to a stronger, more central national government under the United States Constitution (1787) gave way to more government involvement in the way that people live their lives. As the institution leadership and legislative principles change and progress, the dynamics of the social contract changes. The politicians that make decisions in congress represent the people who elected them to the office they hold. People now more than ever in American history citizens and other inhabitants of the United States have to give up more of their freedom to secure or obtain government protection. Despite the several constitutional protects offered to secure limited intrusion of privacy by both the state and federal institutions of government.

Society has two forms of social control, formal and informal. Informal social control is societal based and is subject to change as the views of people do. Formal social control refers to laws that govern and protect the citizens. This historical lesson shows that laws made usual represent the views and wants of the people want. This is so if the politician would like to in his or her office and this is the goal of every politician. State laws are more susceptible to population control. Hence, there are several anti-sodomy laws on books in various states. The general human rights question refers to whether or not society (formally or informally) has the right to determine the boundaries of love and marriage.

Personally, growing up in Jamaica and having a strong religious background influenced my views on homosexuality from an earlier age. In this society, homosexuality is not accepted and is a major taboo. People found in this predicament immediately took on a death sentence or grave physical assault. Despite my immediate culture, I always saw the double standard. The hypocrisy of the people who select what parts of the bible they want to follow because of their personal opinions. Despite my personal opinion and religious beliefs, I tend to play the devil’s advocate when it comes to homosexuality.

The main argument was religious based. People often quoted the Bible, specifically the Leviticus book and the verses that they interpreted as a divine condemnation of homosexuality. The double standard for me is this same bible condemns several other things (fornication, women in positions of power, adultery, etc.). However, these infractions do not get the same condemnation. I often questioned this as a child and still do. The very bible that condemns judging others is one on the main tools to critic and restricts the happiness and the lifestyle of homosexuals.

Moving to the United States was a culture shock. Homosexuality did not have complete freedom and acceptance, but people were able to live their lives as they deem fit. Instead of holding on to the homophobic roots that governed my home country, I embraced the idea of individual freedoms that people enjoy. On the surface, everything seemed pristine. I later came to the realization that it is not that different. Despite this people’s happiness still had restrictions. Homosexuals could not get legally recognized marriages a fact that heterosexuals enjoyed. Growing up most children want to get married and live happily ever after: the precious American Dream. People from all cultures and creeds leave their homelands in pursuit of this happiness the land of the free. This is similar to every other misleading commercial. It sells the idea of freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all, yet restricts a happy couple from fulfilling the childhood dream of marriage. Each human being has their undeniable rights. If a man finds happiness with another, they should be free to commit themselves one to the other; likewise for a woman.

There are two sides to every coin; and like the coin, there are two sides to this issue. The United States in its constitution, Bill of rights protects certain freedoms. It protects the freedom of religion, speech, and expression (press or assembly). Homosexuals are entitled to express their love for the same-sex; others have the option of expressing their distaste of such a lifestyle. The constitution protects these freedoms. Therefore legalizing gay marriages should not force anti-homosexual churches to conduct the ceremonies. This is ideal a libertarian standpoint. Libertarians encourage freedom. They believe that people should have freedom to do as they wish as long as it does not impose or infringe the rights of others. In essence, allow gay marriage but nongovernmental entities have no obligation to marry homosexuals.

Happiness is the goal of all human beings. What makes an individual happy is subjective. Legislators cannot make laws that will make everyone happy. That is the conformity cost of living in the United States. We all have to try to coexist. It is a tedious process but everyone is entitled his or hers happiness. The gay couple in puzzle fourteen was together for several years and was happy. Is there love any different from another heterosexual couple? Who made society Cupid and gave them the power to define the limits of love and marriage? Freedom to express sexuality is an innate right others might not approve also has the freedom to express themselves. Society’s acceptance of homophobia in the legal sphere changed, allowing these couples to be legally happy in matrimony.