The controversy that exists with regard to homosexuality is evident, considerable, and debatable. It is recommendable that religious perceptions on homosexuality should not interfere with the legal stipulations regarding this matter. While religious institutions condemn this act, the law should assume its own stand on the matter while considering the viewpoints of citizens. The law and religion are two antagonizing institutions in the realms of values, cultures, and operations (Siker, 2007).
Evidently, the constitution promotes observation of law and order while religion instills the aspects of spirituality and purity. It is important to agree that lesbianism, gaysm, and masturbation are antisocial acts condemned by Buddhists, Muslims, and some Christians. All religions are against filthy acts, which retards spiritual growth and other provisions; hence;, they strive to bar their followers from practicing them (Rafkin, 2012).
Conversely, it is recommendable that gays and lesbians (homosexuals) should enjoy their religious and legal rights just like any other person in society. These acts are personal choices despite their disapproval. If a person feels impressed and contented with the act, he or she should be allowed to practice it (Fox & Virtue, 2002). This should occur provided the involved parties are not infuriating or infringing the affairs of others. Evidently, the world is evolving in the realms of practices, technology, legal matters, and religious practices; hence, it is recommendable for the law and religion to avoid rigidity and embrace dynamism, which can accommodate every genre of people.
Additionally, religious issues should not dictate the operations of legal matters as indicated earlier. Each institution should operate autonomously and virtuously while considering the aspects of humanity and human rights. Precisely, it is recommendable that the law should not be affected by religion especially on contentious issues that affect masses (Jones & Yarhouse, 2004). Similarly, the law should be extremely objective in controversial issues like homosexuality. This indicates that it (the law) should extensively consider the aspects of human rights while religions (Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, and others) should pursue their own beliefs by either agreeing or disagreeing with homosexuality. This should occur at their own discretion minus interfering with others.
Another recommendation is that people should be virtuous in all their endeavors. Although virtues are relative and vary from one individual to the next, there are some conventional acts that amount to virtues. Homosexuality is tarnished and condemned by numerous individuals, groups, and organizations. This means that it is not a conventional issue with virtuous provisions (Rafkin, 2012). Religious institutions should continue with their fight against it; however, they should not interfere with the legal stands regarding the matter.
Laws are made by people while religious rules are divine in nature. These are two different factions when considered critically. Since different states have varying viewpoints on homosexuality, they should consider the entire opinions of their citizens regarding the matter. Most organizations have condemned unnatural sexual orientations, which includes the aspects of lesbianism and gayism indicated before.
Another recommendation is that the legal structures that govern the issue of homosexuality should be coherent and considerate. This should uphold the aspects of integrity and value within the state. Argentina (a catholic dominated state) should condemn the aspects of homosexuality despite its rooting and historical presence within the society. Since Catholics in the region are biblically condemning the act, the law should take its own separate stand depending on the interest of the nation (Pettit, 2011). Concurrently, Muslims in EAU should continue observing Sharia and the Federal Penal Codes used to uphold the virtues of the people. Nonetheless, people should be allowed to exercise their human and legal rights with respect to homosexuality despite the challenges and religious condemnations.
Conclusively, it is evident that legal and religious provisions differ remarkably on their stands regarding the matters of homosexuality. Nevertheless, religious perspectives regarding homosexuality should not interfere with the legal stands. Religions should operate independently and observe their values accordingly. Despite their influence in society, legal aspects of the state should be sovereign and determined by the people but not divine stipulations.
This relates to the aspects of autonomy and observation of legal rights. Concurrently, gays, and lesbians also require their legal and religious rights regarding the matter (Lewis, 2011). This means that both parties require a considerable space within the society. Homosexuality is regarded as a vice in numerous societies hence should not be a mistake with other virtues. Although there are differing opinions regarding the ratification of homosexuality, the issue still remains controversial in various aspects of society.
Various religions have varying guidelines regarding homosexuality. Most of them support their arguments from scriptures. The legal stipulations on homosexuality equally vary from one region to the next (GUY, 2006). Some countries have enacted laws that allow same-sex marriages. Nonetheless, some states have condemned the act through legal means. Religious provisions on this matter should not disregard the legal means of handling this controversial phenomenon. While observing the viewpoints of Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, and other religions on homosexuality, it is apparent that all of them do not support the aspects of this vice. Sources including government documents, news, books, and journals have indicated remarkable viewpoints on homosexuality.
References
Fox, F. & Virtue, D. (2002). Homosexuality: Good & right in the eyes of God? : the wedding of truth to compassion & reason to revelation. Vermont, VA: Emmaus Ministries.
Guy, L. (2006). Between a Hard Rock and Shifting Sands: Churches and the Issue of Homosexuality in New Zealand, 1960–86. Journal of Religious History. Vol. 30: 61–76.
Jones, S. & Yarhouse, M. (2004). Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate. Illinois, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.
Lewis, G. B. (2011), The Friends and Family Plan: Contact with Gays and Support for Gay Rights. Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 39: 217–238.
Pettit, M. (2011). The SPSSI Task Force on Sexual Orientation, the Nature of Sex, and the Contours of Activist Science. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 67: 92–105.
Rafkin, S. (2012). If ‘Forever’ Doesn’t Work Out: The Same-Sex Prenup. Web.
Siker, J. (2007). Homosexuality and religion: An encyclopedia. Connecticut, CT: Greenwood Press.