The Concept of Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example

Introduction The paper herein begins by seeking to establish why same sex marriage causes such great division and argument amongst the public in America. Secondly, it will look into the arguments of the proponents of same sex marriage. Thirdly, it will examine the arguments that are fronted by the opponents of same sex marriage and their main points for the opposition. Finally, it will combine the two sides of the arguments and reach a compromise that would have incorporated paradigms from both sides of the divide. Part b Same sex marriage has been a hot topic for quite some time now. Both its proponents and opponents are very vocal about their respective points of view. Some headway has been made as regards this issue within specific states in America. However, the jury is still out on certain contentious issues regarding this matter. These include matters such as; who has the right to define what a marriage is, should a judge decide on such matters, or should this decision be left to the public through a popular vote. Part c In the Newsweek article by Anna Quindlen, the author starts by recognizing the significance of the ruling in Loving v. Virginia which stated that interracial marriages were not illegal as had earlier been ruled. Before this, it was considered a crime to be party to interracial marriage and Mr. Richard Loving and his wife Mildred Jeter were accused of miscegenation (Quindlen, 1). The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man and cannot be denied on the basis of race. In this article the author who is a proponent of same sex marriage argues that in most cases the decision against same sex marriage are influenced by the financial factor and in most cases religion is only used as a scapegoat for the rejection of same sex rights(Quindlen, 2). The author argues that by continuing to refuse to legally recognize unions between individuals of the same sex, there are benefits that are being forgone such as the ability of these couples to adopt children and give them a better chance of advancing in life. The author also scoffs the notion that allowing homosexuals to adopt children will distort the image of marriage in the eyes of these children, arguing that heterosexuals have already done this on their own without much help from the gay community (Quindlen, 4). In the second article titled Interracial Marriage: Slippery Slope? By La Shawn Barber, the author argues that the decision in Loving v Virginia was totally justified and cannot be compared to gays demanding for the right to marriage (La Shawn, 1). This is because; it is a limitation of basic civil rights to deny an individual the right to marriage based on race. The whole objective of the particular law in Virginia was to treat African Americans as second class citizens. The writer is of the opinion that being gay is a lifestyle choice unlike choosing the race to which an individual belongs (La Shawn, 2). Therefore, the writer argues that defining marriage based on lifestyle choice would be a grave mistake as it would set a very dangerous precedent. The writer argues that if this is allowed to happen then nothing would stop marriages between different groups of people such as the marriage between 3 people, marriage between close relatives or even marriages between 10 people. In the article The Future of Marriage by The Editors the author is of the opinion that one of the greatest misconceptions that has been successfully floated around by the gay community is that same-sex marriage represents the future. The writer states that this is not true and same sex marriage is no more popular than it was in the nineties. The writer is of the opinion that same sex marriage will never take off in America unless it is forcefully imposed on all by the use of the legal system. The writer also scoffs at the idea that the legalization of same sex marriages will lead to commitment and a reduction in promiscuity among homosexuals (National Review, pg. 1).This is because the author does not consider these things to be important goals for the government In the article titled ‘The Right’s Contempt For Gay Lives’ by the Daily Dish, the argument centers on marriage’s purposes. The writer attacks the position held by the National Review that seemed to insinuate that the rights of gays were less important than the rights of heterosexual couples (The Daily Dish, 1). The writer argues that the concept that marriage is meant to facilitate procreation would mean that heterosexual couples who get married in order to be able to adopt children are misusing the institution of marriage. The same would apply to heterosexual couples that use family planning methods. Because they do not fulfill the requirement of marriage that is procreation, they are misusing the institution, and, therefore, have no business being in such arrangement. The writer tries to show the absurdity and the double standards that are applied in the interpretation of the meaning of marriage when it comes to heterosexuals and homosexuals. When heterosexuals are involved, less emphasis is placed on the procreation part whether the couple is barren and intends to adopt children or whether they have decided not to have children. However, when it involves homosexuals, undue emphasis is placed on the fact that marriage is an institution that facilitates procreation, and, therefore, if individuals in such an arrangement cannot do this, then they should not be allowed to be in such an arrangement (The Daily Dish, 2). Part d In the first article, the writer mainly argues that just like it was absurd for Mr. Loving to be arrested for marrying a black lady; it is similarly absurd to deny marriage to an individual based on their sexual orientation. According to the article, once again the writer argues that religion should not be used to justify decisions. This is because; the Judge that found Mr. Loving guilty of bigotry in the first place claimed that God created human beings of different races for a reason, and therefore, he was doing God’s bidding. In the second article the writer is of the opinion that marriage should not be allowed between same sex couples because this will bring about the need to redefine what marriage entails and this may open up a Pandora’s Box of some sorts. The writer argues that changing the meaning of marriage in order to accommodate homosexuals would lead to the most unlikely of unions and bring about widespread confusion. This is because; it would give a basis for everybody to go to court demanding their rights to marriage that would give rise to the most unholy of unions, even between close relatives. In the third article the author does not care much for gay rights. He is of the opinion that the gay rights movement has reached a point of stagnation. The writer believes the no good will come from the legalization of same sex marriage and that the reasons of increased commitment and reduced promiscuity among homosexuals should not even be considered as they are not important government goals. In the final article, the main bone of contention by the author is the double standards ascribed to same sex couples. In the definition of marriage in light of same sex marriages, a lot of emphasis is placed on the fact that there should be the ability to procreate, while this same emphasis is not placed on heterosexual couples that may have problems conceiving children. In the article, the writer also takes great exception that the rights and welfare of homosexuals are not given the same priority and importance as those of heterosexual couples. From the above articles, it is clear that common ground can only be obtained on light of granting the rights to marry to the gay community. While doing, this one has to weigh both the pros and cons of such an undertaking. From the first article, it emerges that one of the benefits is the fact that it would allow for the adoption of children by such couples. This would mean access to better life for these children who would otherwise have no places of domicile. In the third article, one of the benefits that emerge is the fact that the legalization of gay marriages would facilitate better sexual behavior in the community, reducing the prevalence of specific diseases. This is because; the facilitation of legal marriages would mean that these unions will be governed by specific rules, and, as such, would reduce promiscuity among the gay community. There are also cons associated with such a decision. According to the second article, if gay marriages are allowed by modifying the definition of what marriage entails, then this would result in a very dangerous precedent that would lead to all sorts of problems. Therefore, the common ground on this issue is enabling the gay community to have unions that will be recognized by law and give them certain rights and privileges without having to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate them. Conclusion The issue of sex marriage will continue to elicit sharp reactions from the public and will continue to divide communities along ideological and religious lines. The most reasonable solution to the problem lies in finding a compromise that will be satisfactory to both sides. This can only be done by addressing the fears that are expressed by both sides and then coming up with a solution that will satisfy their hopes and aspirations. Bibliography La Shawn, Barber. "Interracial Marriage:Slippery Slope." Columnists 1 (2014): 76-78. townhall.com. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. The Daily Dish. "The Rights Contempt For Gay Lives." The Daily Dish 1 (2009): n. pag. www.theatlantic.com. Web. 15 Apr. 2009. Quindlen, Anna. "The Loving Decision." Newsweek 1 (2010): n. pag. The Loving Decision. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. Editors, The. "The Future of Marriage." National Review 1 (2009): n. pag. nationalreview.com. Web. 8 Apr. 2009. Read More