Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example

Same Sex Marriage Should Not be Legalized Introduction The issue of same-sex marriage has remained a greatly debated subject in the modern world. The world seems to be increasingly warming up to the idea of people of the same gender getting married. As noted by Corvino and Gallagher (1), in 1996, an opinion poll in the US indicated a 27% against 68% for and against the union respectively. However, as of 2011, this had risen to 53% and 45% respectively, indicating a majority support for same-sex marriage. This observation is supported by the statistics by Mears which indicate that the US has about 12,000 legally married same-sex couples. Even so, Pope (530) warns against embracing such social change without understanding what is at stake. Despite the results of the opinion poll, only a handful of the American states allow the marriage between couples of the same sex with others reversing their earlier stand supporting the union. This could be an indication of the fact that this form of union goes against certain expected standard social norms. Therefore, same-sex marriage is socially deviant and should not be legalized. Civil marriage refers to a legal contract or social unions between two persons with the government, through its officials, performing, recording and recognizing it (Corvino and Gallagher 11). Marriage accords the couples exclusive rights and benefits. However, same-sex marriage brings forth a myriad of symbolic, religious and constitutional questions that has caused a continuous intense debate on the legalization of same-sex marriage (Pope 530). Gertsmann cites the Marriage Act 1961 which was amended in 2004 that defines marriage as the union between a man and woman and excludes all the others (15). This excludes same-sex marriage from being considered as marriage, a fact that has caused same-sex activists to push for change for their recognition in law. The case against same-sex marriage revolves around religious, moral and health concerns. By prohibiting homosexuality, a majority of religions, by extension, prohibit same-sex marriage. A majority of Christians argue that same-sex marriage is immoral and goes against the will of God and the reason of procreation that saw Him put man and woman together (Pope 533). In fact, Christians quote God talking of such a union as detestable in the Old Testament. Islam also prohibits same-sex marriage noting that the reason why Sodom was destroyed was because of such sins. Similarly, Hindus oppose same-sex marriage noting that for every soul, there exists another soul mate of the opposite sex. Since sex may change, soul does not, and therefore, one must look for whoever gives companionship to the soul. Other religions that oppose same-sex marriage include Buddhism and Judaism. Even though there have been break-away factions from these religions that support same-sex marriage, a greater majority remain rooted in the belief against same-sex marriage. Therefore, its legalization could cause a conflict with a majority of religious groupings. Secondly, same-sex marriage raises questions on moral and social principles. It is considered to be distant from nature, history and even logic itself. This argument considers same-sex marriage as an act of will as opposed to reasoned judgment. When judges make their ruling for same-sex marriages, Gertsmann (77) observes that the major argument is that gender no longer forms a critical determinant of marriage. Such an argument is logically misplaced because gender not only determines marriage but remains an important factor in marriage. It is gender that drives marriage into achievement of its objective of procreation. Procreation has always been the fundamental reason for the existence of marriage and any argument against this has been termed by Pope (537) as insensitive to the history of man. Same-sex marriage cannot achieve this objective and further draws participants away from the historical human stand and the moral principles guiding humanity. No wonder such people constantly face discrimination and public harassment, most of the times being segregated from the society. Significant health risks face couples in same sex marriage as opposed to couples in heterosexual marriages. Research studies document a higher rate of non-communicable diseases such as cancer among couples in same-sex marriage (Spilsbury 78). Anal cancer, a rare form of cancer, has been particularly recorded among homosexual men. In women in same-sex marriages, sexually transmitted diseases have been greatly prevalent, including bacterial vaginosis, BV and hepatitis C. This has been attributed to the more carefree lifestyle exhibited by such couples, including having unprotected sex with multiple partners and drug and substance abuse. Furthermore, such couples have exhibited higher tendencies of stress and depression and even suicide. Thus, legalizing same-sex marriage would be tantamount to increasing health risks in an already strained health system. Proponents of the legalization of same-sex marriage focus on issues related to civil rights. They argue that the constitution grants them the right to voluntary association just like other citizens (Gerstmann 110). Nonetheless, it would be right to consider such treatment as erroneous since marriage recognition by the state does not pass as a universal right. States have been noted to deny marriages between close relatives. Some prohibit marriage of more than one spouse while others prohibit marriage of people found to suffer from venereal diseases (Corvino and Gallagher 121). Therefore, marriage between people of the same sex would not be the only kind of marriage to be prohibited by law. This does not mean that the given examples equal same-sex couples, but just provides an illustration of the heavy regulation in marriage meant for the good of the society. It has also been argued that the couple in same-sex marriage could adopt a child or undergo artificial insemination and have a child of their own (Corvino and Gallagher 73). It would be important to appreciate that such a child would have no biological parent or only one parent in either of the couple. Nonetheless, Kolasinski articulates the importance of a child growing under the parenthood of both parents for proper development. The variation between a woman and a man crosses the anatomical boundary and therefore the need for children to be nurtured by both parents so as to learn how to function in a society comprising of both sexes. Same-sex marriages does not necessarily mean that the involved couples are gay, but just that such an arrangement denies children the set of both male and female parents. Lastly, arguments abound on the purpose of marriage not being procreation as it was before. It is correct that time has eroded the perception of procreation as the primary reason for engagement in marriage. However, Corvino and Gallagher (101) observe that this has led to detrimental effect in the society. Instead of the good of children or social order being the ultimate purpose of modern couples, their happiness has overshadowed this, leading to disastrous consequences. Making similar observations, Kolasinski notes that when couples care about themselves much more than they care about the society and children, they tend to abandon their responsibilities, which leads to broken homes and a sharp drop in birthrate. Same-sex marriage could not be the cause for such pathologies, but this kind of union exacerbates them. Conclusion The debate on same-sex marriage gives no indication of ending soon. However, it has been noted that same-sex marriage negates religious and moral principles and further exposes the involved couples to a myriad of diseases. Even though civil rights activists still push for its legalization, not all rights are granted by law. Same-sex marriage denies children the developmental benefits accrued from growing with both parents. With no evidence that any same-sex relationship serves any state interest that would develop the society, no state should accord such unions the benefits of marriage. Works Cited Corvino, J., and M. Gallagher. Debating Same-Sex Marriage. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print. Gerstmann, E. Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge, CB: Cambridge UP, 2004. Print. Kolasinski, A. The Secular Case against Gay Marriage. The Tech Online Edition. 2013. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. http://tech.mit.edu/ Mears, B. Gay Couple Fights for Right to Marry in Epic High Court Fight. Cnn.com. CNN. 25 Mar. 2013. Web. 26 Nov. 2013. Pope, S. J. The Magisterium’s Arguments against “Same-Sex Marriage”: An Ethical Analysis and Critique. Theological Studies, 65 (2004): 530 - 565. Spilsbury, L., Same-Sex Marriage. New York, NY: Rosen, 2012. Print. Read More