The Society for Human Rights in Chicago - Essay Example

? DRAFT COPY FINAL PAPER Same Sex-Marriage Robert George’s and Angela Bolte’s Same-sex marriages have been a hot public issue in America for the pastfew decades. The earliest known gay rights organization is the Society for Human Rights in Chicago that was established in 1924 and launched the first gay rights movement. After that, the Mattachine Society was established in 1950. History reveals that a number of organizations and movements have been launched at state level which support gay rights which include ceremonial marriages, child adoption, domestic partnership registration on public record, domestic partnership affidavit given by employers to gay employees that defines the couple’s economic relationship, health care, insurance, lawsuits, and property. Researchers like Robert George and Angela Bolte have been arguing about the actual definition of marriage and whether the word ‘spouse’ is to be used only for a member of opposite sex or same sex partners can also be called spouses legally. This paper intends to discuss Robert George’s criticisms and Angela Bolte’s defense about the legalization of same-sex marriages and my input in the debate. First, I will analyze Robert George’s criticisms. He writes that same-sex marriages should not be legalized because these will tend to destroy the moral concept of marriage. According to him, it is only one man and one woman who can unite into a marriage. There is no other form of marriage that is acceptable. He states, that “marriage is inexorably linked to our natures as men and women” (647). He asserts that it is the sexual activity that results in the reproduction of the child and that defines the concept of marriage. This cannot be achieved through a same sex marriage despite sexual activity. When couples of same sex marry, their physical makeup does not enable them to reproduce and their marriage is more like fun than a serious lifetime commitment. George also makes this clear that even if a heterosexual couple is not able to reproduce due to conditions like infertility, still they carry on their marriage in a fashion which is very successful as compared to same-sex marriage. Well, I do not agree with George here because the bond between husband and wife strengthens because of children as they are a shared responsibility and without children husband and wife do not share any big responsibilities, which weakens their bond instead of strengthening it. George makes another argument that to ground marriage laws on the moral judgment of heterosexual and monogamous marriages is correct. He argues that since law is considered as a teacher, if it remains silent or neutral regarding marriages, then people would misunderstand the true meaning and essence of marriage. “It may harm people who need the reinforcement of the broader culture so that they are not distracted and lose their ability to “see the true meaning of marriage”, argues George (647). I agree with George’s criticism about same-sex marriages when he states that it is a union of man and women instead of two men or two women. I believe that heterosexual spouses unite in marital sexual activity for the goal of reproducing children but this unity brings longevity to their spiritual happiness and strengthens their bonding for the rest of their lives. The goal of having children is not instrumental. This goal unites the two parents into such a bond that they find peace in being with each other, which is necessary to motivate them to make efforts for their children’s well-being. These children are not treated as ends in themselves because they are a source of spiritual and emotional strengthening of the bond between their heterosexual parents. This is not true in case of same-sex marriages because there is no emotional bond that needs to be strengthened- the bond that forms as a result of sexual intercourse, pregnancy and offspring. I also agree that if law does not restrict same-sex marriages or remains quiet, then such marriages will become very common resulting in destroying the true meaning of marriage. Such marriages would become common in a way that they will not remain a taboo anymore and people will start taking it as a normal thing. Nature does not put limits on how many marriages will be heterosexual and how many will be homosexual; instead, it all depends on the morality of the society that decides what kind of marriage is to be considered as normal. George states that in homosexual activity, the purpose of sexual parts is actually violated if we consider natural law, and this weakens the moral fabric of the society, but there should also be a description of diseases and physical illnesses that result from homosexual activity. I agree with George’s both conjugal and revisionist views about the definition of marriage. To me as well, marriage is a communion of both the sexes with the objective to rear children and extend the family along with the strengthening of emotional bond between parents and children (conjugal view) which is not possible in same-sex marriage even if the partners adopt a child or conceive in case of females because the bond among parents and between parents and children does not see longevity in spiritual sense that results from sexual relations between husband and wife; and also, marriage is the bond between the husband and wife that makes them committed to each other through all thick and thin that they see together in the joint life (revisionist view). It is the love and caring that keeps the two spouses remain in the marriage contract and that leads to sexual acts bearing children. This happiness and longevity of spiritual beings cannot be attained through same-sex marriages because in them, most often the ultimate goal is just to spend some fun time rather than planning for children and staying committed to bear those children and share their responsibilities. There are a lot of pros in George’s arguments that are in the benefit of the society and that tend to define marriage better than the proponents of same-sex marriages. I find myself strongly supporting George’s arguments. Angela Bolte’s side of her arguments is the defense of societal legal recognition of same-sex marriage. She has discussed same-sex marriages and their legality in law with regard to protection of human rights. “Same-sex marriages will offer voluntary support to the institution by allowing freedom in selecting one’s partner”, states Bolte. She has focused upon the reinforcement of human rights regarding selection partner through utilitarian arguments. Her definition of marriage conflicts with that given by George George. She states that the concept of marriage must be redefined so that one gets to know what actually makes up a bond. She criticizes dictionary’s definition of marriages which always define it in terms of husband and wife. Dictionaries “spend little time explaining anything about the actual nature of Marriage” (Bolte). She is correct because dictionaries tend to maintain a traditional view rather than opening up new horizons for thought and practice. She states that since courts have eliminated fertility clauses in marriage contracts, thus it is no longer necessary that marriage should be between opposite sexes. This elimination of fertility clause leads to the legalization of marriages between same sexes who are not able to bear children. She supports this by saying that if marriage is defined in law as a bond that only aims to reproduce children, then all elderly and infertile couples should also be robbed of their marriage licenses. Same-sex marriages should be considered as legal under the revised laws. It is also unacceptable to Bolte why it should be necessary for a couple to reproduce children in order to make their marriage legal. She argues that more and more gays and lesbians are adopting children today, a practice that eliminates the requirement that couples should make children and bear their responsibilities in order to legalize their marriage. Gays and lesbians also carry out all responsibilities regarding their adopted children and this strengthens their bonds throughout life. Robert George, on the contrary, had also discussed this issue when he said that same sex couples cannot find that eternal love because they are not able to engage in heterosexual activity and reproduce offspring. By eternal love, he meant the carrying forward of care and kindness through real children born to the couple out of homosexual wedlock. Bolte’s argument contradicts this. She also argues that more children will get affected if same-sex marriages are banned because there will remain no institutions like same-sex marriages that adopt millions of children every year and raise them morally and financially. Bolte also argues that if same-sex marriages are legalized, then this would result in all citizens being accepted by the society on an equal basis. This will stabilize the society more than if only opposite-sex marriages are allowed. Same-sex marriages will enable all individuals to live on a fair basis no matter they are heterosexuals or homosexuals. I agree with Bolte’s statement when she says that the legalization of same-sex marriages would result in enabling gays and lesbians enjoy their basic rights. They will be able to have health facilities, life insurance, residences, employment, and adopted children. However, this equality is not accepted because “the idea of human dignity sits side by side to bolster its strength and appeal” (Lee 56). This rightly means that same-sex marriages deprives people of human dignity because, as George states, when sexual organs are used for immoral activities, it leads to weakening of overall morality and eventually, human dignity. I do not agree with Bolte that legalization of same-sex marriages would result in the elimination of negativity from the society. I believe that doing so would increase the negativity as this would encourage more and more individuals to get engaged in same-sex marriages since it will no more remain a taboo. Bolte states that legalization of same-sex marriages would have no effect upon the number of homosexuals living in the society, and then admits that the number can change but without any negative effect. This shows that she is doubtful herself whether the legalization would or would not result in an increase in the number of gays and lesbians. An analysis of George’s criticisms reveals many facts that are agreeable to someone who wants the true definition of marriage to sustain. George claims that marriage is a bond between man and woman with the purpose of reproducing offspring and also of sharing responsibilities that tends to enhance mutual love and caring through sexual act and spiritual bond. He argues that legalization of same-sex marriages would deteriorate the society morally. Bolte, contrarily, argues that if marriage means bearing children, then the marriages of opposite-sex couples not bearing children are also not legal. She states many advantages of same-sex marriages, one of which is that this enables gays and lesbians to be accepted as normal individuals of the society. I strongly support George’s arguments and believe in true love between husband and wife that does not result in violation of natural law regarding the purpose of sexual parts. Works Cited Bolte, Angela. George, George. The Debate Over Same-sex Marriage. Lee, Man Yee Karen. Equality, Dignity, and Same-sex Marriage: A Rights Disagreement in Democratic Societies. USA: BRILL, 2010. Read More