Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example

Same Sex marriage The debate over the acceptability of Same-sex marriage has once again come to the focus as electoral candidates try to regain support on the basi0s of equality of rights and privileges to all American citizens, indiscriminate of their sexual orientations. The rights to the homosexual class of society protected by the constitution were once limited to the provision of employments, housing and medical facilities, however with the social acceptance of homosexuality as a natural choice, the right for the marriage of such couples has come to the forefront. American society has gone through very radical changes in the postmodern era. These changes have fared in both extremes, breaking away from limiting traditional dogmas as well as the loosening of certain necessary morals that help maintain cohesion in a society. The deliverance of equal rights to all citizens, to men and women, to all races along with the discard of counterproductive philosophies has led the country towards progress. But somehow we have also seen the rise of divorces, single parent households, and psychological problems in children, which can all be directly or indirectly related to the weakening importance of the institution of marriage in a society, as a consequence of the liberalization of the sexual revolution. Gay couples want to be united, like their heterosexual counterparts into the binding relationship of marriage, to acquire a committed partnership that gives them all rights enjoyed by officially married spouses, with the person they love. This would ensure the social acceptability of their relationship and also entitle them to benefits like social security, inheritance, insurance and Medicare which married couples enjoy normally. Discriminating gay-couple for the qualification of this right would replicate the discrimination against interracial marriages in the past. (Moore 2003) This puts the lawmakers in a situation where the distinction between right and wrong isn’t very clear. It is apparently wrong to deny the right of marriage to two people who wish to have a committed legal relationship, on the basis of prejudice against their choice of sexuality. However it is also wrong to let the whole human race continue on a path that has so far led only to breaking down of families, unhappy households, psychological disorders, drug addiction and disease. To grant homosexuals the right to marry raises a lot of questions to our long held beliefs; the very definition of marriage and its natural purpose. Whether marriage is simply a personal relationship that has a role only in the intimacy of the two partners or “is marriage a normative social institution, having as its raison detre precisely to prefer, support, and encourage a certain kind of sexual union long lasting, child centred, faithful precisely because this kind of sexual union plays a unique role in the protection of children and the reproduction of society.” (Galagher 2003) The issue is sensitive because although same-sex relations have become widely acceptable it is the question of the sanctified act of marriage that creates concern for the lawmakers and the opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage. Inclusion of gay-couples to the definition of a term that has for centuries and throughout all cultures, been related to as the union of a man and a woman, is a fundamental change. Most American states define marriage in the words of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA): “the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” (NCSL) Also with the present flaws in American society originating from the postmodern lifestyles and choices, how will another radical step in the same direction i.e. using the privileges that marriage ensures and abandoning the obligations that come with it, affect the future? Redefining what marriage means, to include the different sexual lifestyles that have come-out in the recent past, is only beneficial to a certain percentage of society. For the rest it not only jeopardizes the symbolic importance of marriage but also renders all religious institutions condemning same-sex marriages intolerant with modern lifestyle. Still it is only constructive to analyse traditional values and norms for their validity in today’s world and abandon them when they are no longer useful. The concept of marriage between a man and a woman however holds true even in the twenty first century. Marriage is not simply a union between two people that love each other. Modern society itself has recognised that love does not need to be contained in a formal relationship. This union has a greater intent that ensures the continuity of the human race. Sooner or later all married couples capable of reproducing have children and it is these children that form the future generation. Reproduction is one of the fundamental laws of survival and it fulfils the desire of human beings to live on forever. For this purpose it is inacceptable that partners belong to the same sex, as nature itself is discriminate, only blessing a man and a woman with children. This leads to the role of marriage within a society. It is beneficial to the society that marriage provides it with productive individuals that further its achievements and accomplishes the goals it sets. This requires both a mother and father to take part in the child’s upbringing. Single-parent children have been providing sufficient case-studies to accept this fact as a reality. “The family as a system ground not in equality and autonomy but in dependence and obligation in the production, rearing and nurturing of the next generation.” (Galagher 2003) It is true to observe here, the fact that gay marriages would probably not effect individual decisions of married couples from planning whether to have kids or not . However individual decisions do not necessarily reflect the intentions behind many social ideologies and it is these ideologies which are important to retain. Letting the association between marriage and family go, will have a significant effect on these and the future of societies based on them. The limitations that marriage does or does not define may differ from one person to the other based on their personal experiences and perceptions of life. Nevertheless, what these social institutions originally stand for does not change by the perceptions of exceptional individuals. The lifestyles and aspirations of people today may be oriented towards careers and personal freedoms and they may choose to abandon the idea of a family for the sake of minimum liability, but there still are many who for whom families define contentment, who are guided by their deeper instinctual needs rather than the superfluous ideals of modernity. For them and many others who haven’t decided yet, it is essential that marriage and other similar ideologies represent officially what is expected of them at their full potential. The simplest statement that opponents of same-sex marriage often make to conclude that their intention is not discrimination, but the protection of an institution without which human society is no different from that of the apes and is something which has already proved to be crucial to not only the morality but the healthy well being of a society."Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us." (NOM 2011). Thus everyone has the right to love who they want and live as they please but they shall be only granted the permission to marry if they qualify for performing the basic function of marriage; the upbringing of a family. (Melinda 2012) The decision to support gay marriage will have a tremendous impact on society and its various founding institutions. The nature of these impacts cannot yet be accounted for, even though reason might be able to justify their harmlessness. After all the effects of a similar liberty that compromised the ideals of marriage, namely divorce, were only evidenced after a generation of children were made to suffer the consequences and were able describe their insecurities. “Great damage was done to both culture and law in the interim, damage that we are now beginning to address and painfully seeking ways to undo.” (Galagher 2003) Should a similar risk be taken in the favor of another social experiment? I think it is understandable that some sociologists prefer to focus on improving the flaws of the present system rather than taking the liberty to create new ones. The stakes are pretty high considering a compromise in the future of children who will shape tomorrow. (Kerwick 2010) The State provides married couples with certain social benefits and this subsequently promotes marriages. Gay couples living together having committed to each other for life are also in need of some of these benefits especially “...access to medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges workers compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plan the right to refuse to testify against ones spouse” (Moore 2001) An example of the inequality that comes out of not allowing gay- couples to marry was the compensations made to the families of the victims of September 11 attacks. However since homosexuals aren’t married they have no right to a family either. This hardly seems fair and certainly is discriminating the rights of loved ones. However changing what marriage means to the rest of us, coupled with the consequences that would follow such an act, for the sake of compensating a few does not seem justifiable either. Half of the benefits of marriage, which the gay couples demand an equal right to, can be acquired through the mutual will of the two partners by jointly owning property and accounts. Similarly hospital visitation rights as well as inheritance can also be managed without a marriage by writing a living will (Kolasinksi 2003). Furthermore the concept of ‘Civil Union” and Domestic Partnership rights that some states provide unmarried couples also grant almost all of the basic privileges a married couple are granted. (NCSL). It is in the interest of the State that married couples propagate society into the future and for this purpose alone is it willing to take up the responsibility to provide these expensive benefits, that would otherwise be wasted on couples not having the ability to procreate. (Kolasinksi). Other examples of couples that are unlikely to ever benefit the society in this respect or contain the risk of transmitting disease to the next generation are also prohibited from marrying thus eradicating all claims of discrimination against homosexuals in the policy. (Kolasinksi 2003) The simplest statement that opponents of same-sex marriage often make to conclude that their intention is not discrimination, but the protection of an institution without which human society is no different from that of the apes and is something which has already proved to be crucial to not only the morality but the healthy well being of a society."Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us." (NOM). Thus everyone has the right to love who they want and live as they please but they shall be only granted the permission to marry if they qualify for performing the basic function of marriage; the upbringing of a family. The ideal family structure comprises essentially of children brought up and cared for by their biological parents; a mother and father. Marriage not only celebrates and makes the birth of these children legitimate and socially acceptable but binds the family in stronger ties than otherwise. However this structure is only stable when the decisions the married couple makes are child-centered and not adult-centered (Somerville) 2003). When the pioneers of a household prioritize their individual interests over the interests of the combined unit, with the lives of the children at stake, the outcome is not simply the apparent division of the family into two, but encompasses the consequences that come with children having to live without either one of their biological parents. “The people who make the baby are supposed to care for the baby and each other too.”(Galagher 2003) The least the State can do is consider such arrangements unfortunate if not take measures to prevent them, let alone make official allowances for marriages that will not bear children giving a further blow to the already declining birthrates and make it even more probable and acceptable that children would grow up without proper families. Also it would be easier for couples to make the decision to marry but not bear children thus stripping the concept of marriage to the bare minimum of embodiment of sexual love. With this as the only condition for marriage, the concept of polygamy and open marriages will not be far behind, as it is far easier to prove that a human may love or be sexually attracted to more than one spouse at a time. (Kolasinksi 2003) “Reshaping family law to affirm the intimate choice of adults is precisely the opposite of the direction we need to move to effectively confront the really big crisis we are facing: the epidemic of fatherlessness and the ongoing depopulation of societies that adopt postmodern family systems.” (Galagher 2003) Since marriage is the social system designed for the rearing of children in an atmosphere of love and protection that would help the development of an individual who is not only a potential contributor to the advancement of the society but an upholder of morals that help maintain social cohesion, it is crucial to remember that marriage stands for not only sexual alliance but also parenting alliance. In the case of absence of any connection between the two it would be, which will unavoidable with the acceptance of same-sex marriages, fathers whose obligations towards their children are guided by cultural ethics alone, will not feel the need to take responsibility of the children they conceived. With 40% of American children already living without fathers there is a need to reinforce the former ideals rather than replace them with a system which declares the independence of parenthood from actual biological birth parents. (Gallagher 2003) “A vast body of social science evidence shows that children who are not raised by their own married mother and father are at increased risk for just about every negative outcome social scientists know how to measure: including physical illness, mental illness, school failure, child abuse, substance abuse, early unwed pregnancy, and criminal misconduct.” (Gallagher 2003) This argument may lead to another confrontation by the proponents of same-sex marriages on the basis of no evidence present that children growing up in gay households are in any way underprivileged compared to children of heterosexual households. It may be not have been proved in the same scenario but research has provided evidence of the fact that affinity for one’s biological parents cannot be replaced. Even adopted and artificially inseminated children who have never even known their parents, feel the need to search for their original identity.(Somerville 2001). Additionally gay parents can provide a child either two good mothers or two good fathers, but not both (NOM) and it would be considered irresponsible of the state to allow an upbringing that denies children the influence of both these sexes considered necessary by sociologists.(Kolasinksi 2003). Exceptions cannot be entirely prevented but taking a step in the opposite direction will make policies counterproductive to the interest of the nation. State policies safeguard the interest of the larger society; and taking away all that something as pivotal as the ideals of marriage represent for a society, to the advantage of a much smaller class of the society is more akin to inequality of rights than the contrary. The survival and prosperity of a society is based on two ideals namely; societies need babies and children need both mother and father (Galagher 2003). A marriage between one man and one woman is the only marriage which promises the birth and development of individuals that will further give life. Rendering marriage dysfunctional by robbing the symbolism it holds as the only legitimate means of the continuation of the human race, seems to be too much to give in return of the promotion of ideals that have so far only flawed the American society and will undoubtedly lead to greater social discrepancies. Work Cited Beckwith, Francis J. Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage: Why the analogy fails. 21 May 2010. 2 June 2012. E.Newton, David. Same-Sex Marriage: A Referance Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2010. Print. Galagher, Maggie. "A Reality Waiting to Happen: A Response to Evan Wolfson." D.Wardle, Lynn. Marriage and Same-sex Unions: a Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003. 10-12. Print. Gallagher, Maggie. "Normal Marriage: Two Views." Wardle, Lynn D. Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003. 13- 24. Print. Kerwick, Jack. The Failed Case for “Gay Marriage". 19 February 2010. 2 June 2012. Kolasinksi, Adam. "THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE." The Tech (M.I.T.) - Cambridge, Mass 124.5 (2004). 2 June 2012. . Melinda. Same-sex Marriage Arguments. 30 May 2012. 2 June 2012. Moore, Leah. "Points in Defence of Gay Marriage." 21 April 2001. Angelfire. 2 June 2012. NCSL. Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Acts and Same-Sex Marriage Laws. May 2012. 3 June 2012. NOM. "Marriage Talking Points." 2011. National Organization for Marriage. 2 June 2012. Shell, Susan. The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage: . Summer 2004. 2 June 2012. Somerville, Margaret A. THE CASE AGAINST “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE”. Brief for The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights . Montréal, Québec: McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, 2003. Read More