Allowance of Gay Marriage - Essay Example

Number Going to the Chapel of Love Someone you know is gay. No matter which way you slice it, statistically speaking one out of every ten people in the world is gay or lesbian. That could be your brother, your sister, your aunt, your cousin, your best friend, or anyone else you know. It could even be you. At the same time, one out of every ten people will fall in love and be forbidden by law to marry. In fact there are some 777,000 same-sex couples in the United States, according to the Census Bureau (Williams Institute 2007). They do not choose to simply be in committed relationships; instead they are denied the opportunity to be married and recognized as a couple both by law and society. This is wrong for many reasons, not least of which is the infringement on basic human rights. For many years marriage was between a man and a woman, both of the same races, for the purpose of having children and raising a family. That definition has changed a great deal. For example, the law criminalizing the marriage of two people of opposite races has been abolished. Yet we still cling to the definition of marriage that includes “a man and a woman” as though it were the only thing in the world that mattered. Why is it so difficult for us to accept change in a fluid world? We do not require people in married relationships to be the same race, in fact that would be discriminatory on more than one level. Yet we find it impossible to step beyond what is considered the definition of marriage. It is generally accepted that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is both unnatural and a recent invention. This idea is wrong, however. In fact homosexual tendencies have been observed in over 1,500 animal species, including dolphins, lions, and the dwarf chimpanzee which is one of humanities closest relatives. These homosexual tendencies range from life long partnerships, as with some birds, to single sexual interactions. In fact humans have accepted homosexuality for thousands of years. The first recorded homosexual couple dates back to 2400 BCE in ancient Egypt. These men were Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, and are depicted in Egypt’s most intimate embrace on the walls of their tomb. There have been numerous other cases of the acceptance of homosexuality in Greek and Roman times as well. We can see from this that homosexual tendencies are neither unnatural nor a new invention. What other arguments are there, then, against same-sex marriages? Unfortunately, the arguments are numerous, if a bit unfounded and full of rhetoric. The most commonly used argument is one based on a logical fallacy. This is the argument that says if same-sex marriages are allowed, soon people will be allowed to marry their dogs, or to be in legal polygamous relationships. Not only is it rather insulting to compare two people in a loving relationship to a person marrying their dog, it is also completely unfounded. Marriage between two consenting adults is the same whether they are both the same gender or not. A non-human animal cannot consent to a marriage; therefore it is not at all the same thing. There is also no factual basis for polygamy to arise. Two people is two people, not three or more people, so it doesn’t follow that two people of the same gender marrying will lead to communal marriages being recognized by the state. In fact most of the arguments against same-sex marriage are arguments that say such a law would lead to the break down of the marriage institution (Tubbs and George 2006). This argument shows that we have become almost lax in our acceptance of what a marriage “should be” and that our acceptance of non-monogamous marriages and children born to an unmarried person is weakening the institution of marriage. This argument claims that same-sex marriage will be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, sending the sacred concept of marriage into a spiral from which it will not return. What this argument fails to realize is that times change, ideas change, and appealing to tradition does not mean that tradition is right. That’s not to say all children should be born without a mother and father and open marriages should be the norm, it is merely to say that tradition is not right because it is the way we have supposedly always done things. Two other commonly used arguments against same-sex marriages are religious in nature. Many people believe that same-sex marriages would encourage deviant homosexual behavior, and therefore go against Gods plan. This first argument is based on an idea contrary to the way the United States is set up. There is a separation of church and state in the U.S., and any religious institution attempting to argue their place has no legal standing on that basis. Even if we were to thing of the sin of homosexuality as a reason to prevent same-sex marriages, we would then have to look at all other sins. There are many other sins, such as murder and idol worship, that are just as terrible. There are no laws, however, that deny idol worshipers the right to marry, or even laws that deny convicted murders from marrying. In fact, many murders and other criminals are allowed to marry even while they are serving prison sentences. Another religious argument is the idea that same-sex marriage was legalized the state would force priests and other religiously affiliated persons to marry people despite the fact it goes against their religious beliefs. This argument is also incorrect because the state has no control over who churches decide to marry. They may turn away anyone, for any reason, regardless of who can legally marry in the U.S. There is not one state that requires a marriage before a god or deity. In most states it is possible for the married couple to receive a license and be married in their own home without the presence of anyone save for family and friends. One or two witnesses are required; that’s it. But what of the children? Despite the fact that same-sex couples often adopt children now, many people still use this as an argument against same-sex marriages. It is generally assumed that the only way a child can grow up properly is if they are raised by their biological mother and father, but there is little evidence of that, and there is no law against single parent homes. In fact many children grow up to be happy and healthy with only one parent to raise them, or as adopted children. Unfortunately, being raised in a home with two parents of the opposite gender in a committed married relationship does not lead to a happy, healthy environment. As many as one-third of all abused children were raised in such homes (Gannon 2008). Another argument is that marriage is primarily to have and raise children. This has been disproved time and time again, and there are many court cases that say there is no law that a married couple must have children or even prove that they can have children (Tubbs and George 2006). There is not now, nor has there ever been a law requiring a married couple to produce children. There are no states that require fertility tests before marriage. The ability to produce children is not the deciding factor in a marriage. Marriage is far more about commitment and companionship between two people. Another common argument is one concerning divorce. Some studies have shown that same-sex marriages are more fluid, and that they are more likely to result in divorce, and lead to divorce in otherwise happy heterosexual marriages. However one of the most comprehensive studies to date was done in Scandinavian countries. This study showed that when same-sex marriage was legalized heterosexual marriages increased and divorce rates decreased. Other studies have shown that homosexual relationships are virtually indistinguishable from heterosexual ones as far as commitment goes. One of the most ill-thought out arguments against same-sex marriage is the idea that any one in a same-sex union can simply get a civil union and receive the same legal benefits. This is wrong in nearly all cases. A civil union, be it between a man and a woman or two people of the same gender, almost never affords the same rights as a marriage. For example, a married couple receives a tax break in the United States. A partnered couple usually pays more taxes because they have two incomes in the same home. A married person is allowed to see his or her spouse if they are in the hospital. A non-married person can be denied this right for any reason, ranging from the doctor’s opinion to family wishes. This can mean a partner of forty years is kept from the room as her partner lies dying. But none of this even begins to address the fact that so long as same-sex marriage is illegal there are hundreds of thousands of people who cannot be recognized as being in love. In nearly all cases that is what marriage comes down to: love. There are some cases of marriage of convenience, or marriage for monetary gain, but most people marry the person they are in love with in the hopes of spending the rest of their lives with that person. Marriage is about a partnership between two people. This partnership is loving and supportive in nature. Those in a married relationship are expected to help one another through tough times and give support. This is what we think of when we think of marriage. This is possible the most important piece of the marriage puzzle. If and when same-sex marriage is legalized society will change accordingly. A married couple is looked upon by society far differently than a partnered couple is. The law may not change how the individual views the marriage, but society as a whole will be greatly affected. When society learns it is “okay” to support same-sex marriage because it is legal then same-sex couples will be looked at more kindly, and some of the same expectations listed above will be assigned to them. And these are good expectations to assign! We can see then that the arguments against same-sex marriage are not as well founded as most would like to believe. But this matter cannot be broken down by logic, and must be looked at through the eyes of someone who is in love and will never be able to marry the person they are in love with. Marriage is a social institution that also happens to afford some legal rights. Who are we to say that any person should be forbidden from marriage because they are in love with someone who is the same gender they are? We have no place in that matter, nor does the law. The fact of the matter is that people should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult they choose, regardless of race, gender, or social standing. Works Cited Gannon, H.A. (2008). “Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Allowed.” Opposing Viewpoints: Family. Karen Miller, ed. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved 22 Mar. 2009 from GALE database. Tubbs, D.L. and George, R.P. (2006). “Same-Sex Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage.” Opposing Viewpoints: Sex. Mary E. Williams, ed. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Retrieved 22 Mar. 2009 from GALE database. Williams Institute (2007 December). “Census Snapshot.” Retrieved 22 Mar. 2009 from http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USCensusSnapshot.pdf. Read More