Homosexuality and family relations - Research Paper Example

? Ethics: Gay Marriage Beverly A. Powell SOC 120 Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Sherri Boyd December 11, Ethics: Gay Marriage According to Rodriguez (2011), “heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn’t changed at all.” Is that a fact? Women are no longer considered to be property, racial segregation is against the law, and divorce is now lawful. Thus, how could it be that “heterosexual marriage […] hasn’t changed at all” (Rodriguez, 2011)? Much controversy surrounds what the true definition of marriage should be. One could argue the protection of the definition stating marriage is a union only between a man and a woman was the only accepted formation based on historic legislation—prior to societal evolution. “The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” (“Federal defense of, 2008”). This quotation is used in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various bureaus and agencies within the United States (“Federal defense of, 2008”). First and foremost, there is the issue of religion. Religion is obviously a root cause of controversy on the subject of gay marriage. Defenders of “traditional marriage” bring The Holy Bible into their arguments. However, the values of one religion are not imposed upon the entire country; otherwise, we would have only a single ruling religion in the United States. Often times when religious persons use their religion to support their arguments, they are “cherry picking” items to follow. If this is allowable, religion is meaningless. It is believed that legalization and acknowledgement of same-sex marriages will open the door to other, similarly sinful behaviors. Some feel that the exposure and acceptance, or tolerance, will encourage others to be gay. That is equivalent to stating if you stand near someone tall, you will become taller. Delving further into an attempt to define marriage, one must determine what it is that marriage represents. Well, it represents commitment for one. “Until death do us part,” marriage revolves wholly around commitment (Moran, 2003). In the first two years that same-sex marriage was allowed in the state of Massachusetts, gay couples were surveyed regarding how being married affected their lives. “Many of them stated that it had made them monogamous” (Kuhr, 2006). Heterosexual couples have agreed, concurring that they enter into marriage with the intent to be faithful. Faithfulness is largely the way the union has been viewed culturally and historically as a positive state. A solid, working marriage is one that most people grow up hoping to be a part of; thus, once it is attained, it is then wished to be preserved (Moran, 2003). Next, along with marriage—more prominently in today’s society, when compared historically—often times comes divorce. Every year, more than one million American children experience destruction of their solidarity in family. It is divorce that is tearing up the fundamental threads of American society. “Children of divorced parents perform more poorly in reading, spelling, and math. They also are more likely to repeat a grade and to have higher drop-out rates and lower rates of college graduation” (Fagan & Rector, 2000). It is said that “family” is the building block of society and marriage is the foundation of these blocks (Fagan & Rector, 2000). Therefore, arguing that same-sex marriage will ruin society is unfounded. People and groups using this argument must not be taking into consideration the fact that divorce has already started crumbling the foundation of the sanctity of marriage for several years. Perhaps it is divorce laws that must change; rather than placing restrictions on who can enter into a union. For example, it should not be allowed for a married couple to enter into a “no-fault” divorce when children under the age of 18 are involved. The couple should be required to prove that, should the marriage continue, the children will be mentally or physically scarred or damaged in some way (Fagan & Rector, 2000). There is a great deal of resistance against same-sex couples who wish to marry so badly, while countless “traditional” marriages end up in divorce court within a two-year time period (Fagan & Rector, 2000). Finally, there are some who argue that gay parents will inevitably raise gay children. That argument has been proven to be unfounded as well. For example, not all straight parents raise straight children, so how could it be possible to state that all gay parents will raise gay children? On the same token, critics of same-sex marriage have suggested a child will not succeed in life without both a female and male role model in the home. If that is true, single parents would no longer be allowed to raise children, since both a male and female are not present. There is an organization called COLAGE, which stands for Children of Lesbian, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgender Everywhere. The organization’s vision is a “world in which all families are valued, protected, reflected, and embraced by society and all of its institutions; in which all children grow up loved and nurtured by kinship networks and communities that teach them about, connect them to, and honor their unique heritage; and in which every human being has the freedom to express sexual orientation, gender identity, and self” (Bozett & Sussman, 1990). The future is now, and gay rights have been changing rapidly in recent years. While presently, the unanimous, legal agreement is marriage between a man and a woman is a unique union ("The redefinition of, 2001"). Perhaps it will be necessary for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry or at the very least join in some form of recognized union in order to help in strengthening the statistics within America, based on marriages that fail. It will most definitely decrease the number of children and adults living in poverty. Same-sex couples are allowed to adopt in certain locations, although few agencies will allow a same-sex couple to adopt or take in a foster child. The American Psychological Association (APA) has stated that homosexuality is not a deviation or mental disorder, so marriage should be an appropriate and attainable goal for everyone, without exception (Moran, 2003). One of the most important aspects in the issue of gay marriage is that no one is looking at this situation from the point of view of gay people. Instead, they are looking at it from a purely biblical perspective. Everything that heterosexual families do has meaning in society. Heterosexual families work, they pay taxes, they provide for their families. They are bound by a legal document that has been created to insure that if something happens to the family, many will still be taken care of through wills and trusts. When a heterosexual family becomes ill, the other family members are able to be involved in their care. When a heterosexual family has a parent that dies, there is no question who will receive the estate of the remaining parent and how the children will be taken care of in the long run. Heterosexual families can abuse their children and their spouses, but because they are married they have certain protections. Heterosexual fathers can easily abandon their marriages and their children without too much problem. Gay families on the other hand do not have the protections for their families. They are paying taxes, working and providing for their families. When a gay family member goes to the hospital, it is still difficult if the individual is in the hospital dies. Often, unless the family member is an immediate family member, the visiting spouse may not be able to gain access to their partner’s records, unless they have gone through proper channels to secure power of attorney. Gay people must address their wills and trusts as air-tight legal documents if in order to make sure that their children are taken care off in a “divorce” settlement or in the case of one parent’s death. One family member must adopt the children in a family if they are going to share custody of the child. None of these issues make sense in the land of the free and home of the brave. In fact, the defense of marriage act actually allows one group of people to be discriminated against. Gay people understand the meaning of family, many times better than heterosexual families. They love their children and teach the to love other people regardless of their differences. Many children growing up in a gay home are more mature because they have been taught to look at the world very differently than straight children. When parents believe that gay marriage is wrong, they are unconsciously teaching their children that being gay is wrong, and some of these children will go to school and bully children they think are gay. This does not mean they are gay, but this means that other children find them an easy target for bullying. Those people who are against gay marriage state that marriage is supposed to be between “one man and one woman”. They say that he bible says this. However, the bible has been written and re-written by many sources so it is difficult to understand what the bible truly said, when it was first written, about marriage. Christians who believe this are willing to discriminate against same sex couples because in their opinion, they are not following God’s law. The challenge to this idea is that many gay families and gay couples see themselves as Christians and go to church regularly. History shows that gay people are being discriminated against in a similar fashion as blacks were when they were not allowed to marry whites. As an example, a case in Virginia, Loving vs. Virginia, prevented black people and white people from holding a marriage license, and therefore could not be married as one man and one woman to each other (Jackman, 2010). Fortunately for many, there are many states who have made the stand on this issue and have issued marriage licenses to gay people who came to the courthouses to be married. The challenge for many people who believe that gays should not be allowed to marriage is hat they are afraid. They are afraid of change. Allowing gays to marry creates a paradigm shift in the consciousness of people and it means that everyone is created equal. Although our constitution states this, many people still believe that some people are “better” than others and should be treated as such. This mindset does not allow an opportunity for change to take place because it stops people from thinking beyond what they already know. To stop gays from marrying is unethical. They are people and they are in many cases more loving to their children and families than heterosexual families. To continue to allow one aspect of society to decide what is right for the entire society is unethical in many ways. The defense of marriage act allows one group of people to bring their politics and their discrimination into the lives of people who have done nothing more than to help the economy. Another challenge is that there are a variety of morals in our country. There are many different ways for people to express their ethical viewpoints. The challenge is that only taking into consider one group’s idea of ethics can create problems for the entire society. By not acknowledging gay people and their right to marry, the society as a whole is sanctioning continued prejudice and discrimination against this group. Granted, they are not discriminated against in the same way as people of color or people with disabilities, but they are being denied a right that everyone else in the country accepts as their own. President Obama is still evolving his ideas of whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. He has talked intently to many gay rights organizations, he has hosted a gay pride celebration in the White House and he continues to think about this issue. Unfortunately, there may come a time when there will have to be legislation in place to allow gays to have a right that everyone else has in this country. References Bozett, F. W., & Sussman, M. B. (1990). Homosexuality and family relations. Harrington Park Press. Fagan, P., & Rector, R. (2000, June 05). The effects of divorce on america. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/06/the-effects-of-divorce-on-america Federal defense of marriage act (doma). (2008). Retrieved from http://www.domawatch.org/about/federaldoma.html Jackman, K. (2010, April 23). Civil rights, discrimination and gay marriage. Blog Post. Retrieved from http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/civil-rights- discrimination-and-gay-marriage/ Kuhr, F. (2006, May 23). The science of same-sex marriage: With the two-year anniversary of same-sex marriage in massachusetts comes a flood of studies, books, and research papers on the benefits of marriage for gay couples and the harm caused by denying it. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146390217.html Moran, W. (2003, March 30). Gay definition of marriage is not the equal of heterosexual marriage facts show sexual fidelity not a part of gay unions. Retrieved from http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/053003_mn_gay_definition_of_marriage_is_not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml Rodriguez, D. B. (2011, February 25). What’s next for same-sex marriage. Retrieved from http://blog.chron.com/bakerblog/2011/02/whats-next-for-same-sex-marriage/ The redefinition of marriage. (2001, November). Retrieved from http://turbulenceahead.ca/tfn/sexuality/articles/Redefinition_of_Marriage.html Read More