Should Gay Marriage Be Legal - Essay Example

English Should Gay Marriage Be Legal? Western civilizations today regard marriage for couples living together as a matter of choice. Yet, society is not willing to grant this freedom to all types of relationships, more specifically to gay couples. The effect of this public denial is pronounced by gay advocates as an act of discrimination and social unfairness, thus trying to strike the delicate cords of civil rights and freedom of choice for everyone. After all the fuss and push by gay organizations to legalize same-sex marriage, one certainly asks the question – is it really about suppressing basic human rights in a society, where people have so many granted personal and sexual freedoms? I think not. Legalizing gay marriage is not simply about protecting the rights of homosexuals. It’s not about treating fairly the so addressed minority of the population, the mythic 3 percent figure of Americans (Cameron 12). Gay marriages will arouse deep structural changes by transforming beliefs, questioning values, and institutionally proclaiming something that has long been rejected by human nature as valid, accepted and official. In this essay I am not trying to be a moralist, saying what people should or should not believe in. I simply want to question a change that is so unnatural and intrusive to me, that the argument saying “it’s their inherent human right” is not strong enough to accept it. Today the world is changing so fast and many core values are simply swept away by fashion, carelessness and eccentricity. The civil rights activists once playing the important part for this society to overcome racial or female intolerance have now shifted their efforts into new directions, pleading for further liberation of sexist rights. Now, that the so widely proclaimed same-sex marriages are in the limelight, it pays to stop and think, will their legalization really create added value to society or, on the contrary, will it actually cause harm by undermining the institution of marriage. Marriage is an Institution Marriage represents a legal bondage, an institution that is recognized by church, and society. This is the couple’s official declaration for long-term commitment to one another. Marriage is a unique contract, different from simply sharing property or setting up a new business; it establishes a relationship that does not exist for people who are simply living together (Cline). When people get married, they become a social unit with strong kinship ties regarded by society as one unity. When gay couples want to contract a marriage, they actually ask for society’s official stamp of approval of their intimate relationship. Apart from a sense of legitimacy, such recognition would entail a series of legal privileges and economic subsidies that straight couples benefit today (Orland). Still, why should society grant such approval, i.e. why should society give further rights resulting from marriage to couples that have a much contradicted status due to their sexual inclination? The answer to that question can be found in exploring marriage as an institution, the role it plays in today’s society, and how same sex unions can fit into the concept of marriage. Marriage is about Social Approval In his book “Gay Marriage” Jonathan Rauch (qtd. in Cline Austin) argues: To understand how to preserve the health of marriage as a social institution, and also to understand why there is no substitute for same-sex marriage, it is necessary to understand where marriage gets its special power: how it works. And this depends crucially on understanding that marriage is not merely a contract between two people. It is a contract between two people and their community. Further on Jonathan Rauch explores on the meaning of marriage within society: When two people approach the altar or the bench to marry, they approach not only the presiding official but all of society. They enter into a compact not just with each other but with the world, and that compact says: “[…] In exchange for the care-giving commitment we are making, you, our community, will recognize us not only as individuals but as a bonded pair, a family, granting us a special autonomy and a special status which only marriage conveys […] You, society, will support us. You expect us to be there for each other and will help us meet those expectations.” And when community is not willing to accept it, then gay marriage is not a rightful and legal bond within society. In general people are tolerant towards homosexual couples, when it comes to housing, jobs, public accommodations and other public benefits that gay people may have. In his essay on gay marriage motives Scott Bidstrup (Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives) argues that three fourths of all people in the United States are supportive of gay rights. Still, when the question is on marriage, opinions turn vice versa. A survey among Americans published in the end of 2003 (Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality) shows increasing opposition to gay marriages and highly critical attitude towards homosexuals. The majority of respondents condemn homosexual behavior, whereas this negative view is much more prevalent among religious people – 76% (2). Overall 59% percent of Americans oppose gay marriage (2). And while the survey also ascertains that, despite negative attitudes, discrimination against homosexuals is now widely opposed, the issue of marriage still provokes more negative feedback. Public mood in America has shifted from people to politicians. The election campaign by Bush administration in 2004 was significantly influenced by general attitudes towards homosexual marriages (Bush Defends Call for Gay Marriage Ban). As per today gay marriage in the USA is only allowed between a man and a woman, except for Massachusetts and this only for the residents in the state (The Status of Same-sex Marriage in the U.S.). Most of the other states have laws that either define marriage as an act between a man and a woman, or explicitly ban same-sex legal unions. If that doesn’t prove what the public thinks about gay marriages, then nothing will. Still, the question remains. Why does society stand so rigorously against gay marriages? It’s because allowing gay marriages is not simply an act against discrimination. It has wider social implications on morality and tradition. Marriage Strikes Moral Cords Saying simply that gay relationships are immoral would be too flat as an argument to refute gay activists. Freedom of choice in a civil society makes homosexual relationships easier acceptable, or at least softens general negative attitudes. Where tolerability is a valued virtue, people will not openly condemn such relations. Still, marriage is a sacred act between two people. The values of official state religions like Protestantism and Catholicism condemn same-sex relationships as unnatural. Marriage is defined as involving a man and a woman, and is regarded as a religious sacrament (Religion and Ethics. Analyzing the Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.) The church is vexed about how gay relationships that contradict the one man – one woman stereotype will affect moral. Whereas same-sex marriage supporters argue that in today’s society religion has little to do with marriage as an institution, the church has a point here as a firm custodian of core Christian beliefs. Endorsement of gay relationships will raise questions of more religious liberations, such as legalizing abortion or approving divorces. This will further affect already high abortion and divorce rates among the increasingly nonreligious youth in America, and Europe and will change the intrinsic meaning marriage still has on religious people. Recent research data published in (Kantrowitz) shows that religious marriages as opposed to civil marriages form stronger bonds between partners. Although the Christian churches have to adapt to be closer to people today in the dogmas they proclaim, the Church’s position on gay relationships is not simply an old-fashioned statement, but a meaningful appeal in defense of intrinsic values that still appeal to both believers, and non-religious people. Marriage is about Tradition When discussing the act of marriage, it pays to observe the actual marriage rates today. Barbara Kantrowitz argues that Americans can look to Europe, where “marriage rates are plummering and illegitimate births are the norm.” According to her research approximately 50 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds are living together, the so called “cohabiting” without getting married. Obviously social norms have changed tremendously in terms of individual rights; a century ago the “opt not to” alternative to marriage was next to impossible for couples wishing to get together. Still, the perception of marriage as a symbol and a romantic ideal persists. According to sociologist Andrew Cherlin of John Hopkins University (qtd. in Kantrowitz) the idea of marriage is bound to the grasping of good personal life, and emotional health. This leads us to the conclusion, that while norms have changed, the perception of marriage has not. Marriage is an act of romance and tradition; it is conceived as a strong bond precisely because it is old-fashioned. Changing that image by legalizing gay marriages will shake the mainstays of the institution. If it’s true that history, culture and values are what keep a nation together, provided so few of the old grasps have remained unchanged, it surely is worthy the effort considering whether another tradition should be so light-handedly altered. So far we have viewed marriage from its societal perspective; still this is one side of the story. Marriage is, after all, as much a public institution, as it is a private contract between two people. It therefore represents an intimate act effecting devotion and family obligations towards partner and children. Marriage is about Children Britannica encyclopedia states that marriage performs “basic social and personal functions such as procreation, regulation of sexual behavior, care for children and their education and socialization, […] and satisfaction of personal needs for social status, affection, and companionship”. Today intimate relationships do not necessarily lead to marriage. People get to live together, buy property together and spend long years of their lives without getting married. But when they do, children are a natural outcome, making relationships both demanding and involving for parents. Therefore marriage should not simply be viewed as a next-step level in a personal relationship, but also as an act, resulting in further responsibilities with regard to offspring and partner. Then the assessment of gay marriage takes a different perspective for several reasons. The first child-related argument against gay marriages is that they cannot lead to the creation of children. Many same-sex proponents argue, that there are fertile straight couples as well, so, if this argument holds true, then neither fertile couples should be granted a marriage status. Still, there’s a subtle difference between desire and ability, and gay marriage defenders apparently avoid discussing the issue. Whereas many straight marriages end up childless, such situations are regarded as sad outcomes from the inability of one or both parents to recreate. The fact is that the desire for further recreation is inevitable from a psychological perspective. That is why people never regard childless couples indifferently; on the contrary, they pity them, and feel compassion for them. It would be farfetched to say, that by allowing gay couples to marry, human species are in real danger of dying out just because gay people cannot procreate. Still, marriage is about living together, and it is about having children. According to all laws of nature gay couples cannot have their own offspring, then why should society compromise to legalize this phenomenon? It’s true that many gay couples actually make special arrangements or adopt children. Then there comes the second argument regarding children bringing up and education. Children need a proper environment to grow and become complete personalities. Regardless of parent’s race, social status, occupation or income, they need to be taught intrinsic values such as the ability to judge between visibly rightful and wrongful actions, sense of religion, sense of self-consciousness, respect for others, condemnation of atrocious actions, and why not even believing in Santa Claus. All these are values that bear the spirit of tradition and are cherished by majority of people today. Marriages between a man and a woman have the benefit of balance between the two sexes, meaning the intrinsic roles men and women play in a relationship. In gay relationships children will be deprived of either male or female role models at home and this will affect their psychological formation at a very early age when family role models are crucial for children growth. Same-sex marriage supporters claim, that many gay couples actually do raise children, that these children are just as good as others, and that it is love and commitment by parents that count, not their gender or other characteristics. Even so, there are also cases of murderers and even child molesters having children (Bidstrup) and bringing them up. And this by no means makes common sense to proclaim such cases universally valid, does it? And this is so, because children also need proper environment that cannot be restricted to love and affection. Gay marriage supporters do not usually consider what children will think, living in an environment where all parents are straight, and their own are gay and this is not a question of unfortunate disease or ailment, but a question of their parents’ choice to bring them up. They seem to neglect the emotional impact of such a surrounding because children do not grow up in a vacuum created by their own loving parents, but in society. In general society says “no” to such marriages and this makes proper background for gay couples’ children an illusion. Marriage is about Dedication Gay people are less committed in their relationships than are straight people. This presumption cannot be statistically proved by research on gay marriages; still gay relationships in general are more promiscuous in their nature than are straight relationships (Religion and Ethics. Analyzing the Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.) Thus relations between gay people seem more of the “open-type” relationship, meaning there’s weaker partner’s commitment to one another. While the act of marriage expresses two persons’ declaration for a healthy long-term relationship, legalizing gay marriage with presumably lower levels of commitment between the two partners underrates marriage as an institution. Faithful vows are spoken by those who get married, and when loyalty is not part of a marriage, then it’s no longer stable relationship, and no longer successful marriage. To sum up, allowing gay marriages will have in general a destructive role on our society. Banning gay marriages will by no means stop same-sex relationships, however unnatural they seem to straight people. Civil rights and discriminatory issues are a stale argument of gay proponents, because homosexual and lesbian couples are actually granted many social freedoms in terms of approved civil unions, public rights and increasing acceptance by society. Still, allowing gay partners to marry is a step too far away from what is a healthy social balance. Eventually the negative impact of such freedoms will outweigh the possible positive benefits of extended rights to less than 5 per cent of Americans. Gay marriage is bad for society, because it underrates marriage as in institution. In a world that is extremely superficial, few traditions have remained unaltered, and the act of marriage is one of them. Marriage is a social union and is regarded as idealistic and romantic despite high divorce rates and regardless of widespread “cohabiting”. Marriage is proclaimed by the church as a sacred union by one man, and one woman, and this is the norm that forms the foundation of marriage as an institution in today’s civil society. Legal gay marriages will shake the foundations of this social unit, which is as much a public phenomenon, as it is a personal act. Gay marriages are unnatural, because gay couples cannot have babies and cannot secure proper environment for raising children that will have equal adaptability opportunities as children brought up by straight parents. Same-sex marriages, respectively adoption by gay parents, questions the foundations of family as a healthy social unit and should therefore be denied by the public and banned by authorities. In the delicate world of equal opportunities for people of different sexes, religions and ethnic communities societal well-being calls for key judgmental decisions. Minority rights should be defended to a limit that protects society, therefore common sense pleads for a vote against legal gay marriages. Works Cited 1. Bidstrup, Scott. “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives.” Essays 30 Nov. 2005 2. “Bush Defends Call for Gay Marriage Ban, Union Between Men and Women is “the Ideal”.” Feb 27, 2004 MSNBC. 2 Dec 2005 3. Cameron, Kirk, Dr. “The Numbers Game: What Percentage of the Population is Gay?”. Family Research Institute. May 1993. Virginia. 2 Dec 2005 4. Cline, Austin. “What is Marriage: Gay or Straight?” About Religion and Spirituality 30 Nov 2005 5. Kantrowitz, Barbara, “Couples: State of Our Unions” Newsweek Society 2005 Newsweek Inc., 1 Dec 2005, 6. “Marriage.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2005 Encyclopaedia Britannica Premium Service. 5 Dec. 2005, 7. Orland, David. “The Deceit of Gay Marriage.” 2000 Boundless Webzine 2 Dec 2005 8. “Religion and Ethics. Analyzing the Arguments against Same-Sex Marriage.” BBC. 2 Dec 2005. 9. “Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality.” November 2003 The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The Pew Research Center. 3 Dec 2005 10. “The Status of Same-sex Marriage in the U.S.” Religious Tolerance 1 Dec. 2005 Read More