A Critical Discussion on the Issue of Gay Marriage - Essay Example

?Gay Marriage The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical discussion on the issue of gay marriage. The format that this paper will utilize is to highlight some of the major points pertaining to the pros and cons of the issue. Although this paper will provide insight into some of the moral considerations regarding the situation, this paper in no way represents a personal opinion. There is little question that the issue of gay marriage is a highly controversial issue. With subjects such as this there is no single unifying factor that speaks entirely to the strengths or weaknesses rather there are a whole host of arguments that are presented. This paper will first highlight some of the main arguments against gay marriage followed by a critical discussion on the merits of gay marriage. For the purpose of arguments the term traditional marriage will represent a marriage between consenting adults of opposite genders, and the term gay marriage will relate to male/male , female/female as well as transgender marriage. One could argue that the majority of arguments against gay marriage are moralistic in nature. The first such example is that gay relationships and by extension gay marriage are forbidden by most religious texts. By contrast traditional marriages are held up as the preferred model using religious texts. According to Eckholm (2011) it was identified that homosexuality in regards to the Christian faith was not in accordance with God's law on sexual morality. Some people who oppose gay marriage would do so because they differentiate between religious and civil unions. As such, some people only recognize religious unions and in specific terms oppose the idea of the state overseeing and approving marriages. As gay relationships are forbidden in religious texts then a gay marriage would represent a sort of sacrilege and people who adhere to a religious lifestyle may oppose gay marriages for this reason. It is upon this foundation that some people who oppose gay marriage would do so because they simply view homosexuality as immoral and unnatural. The line of reasoning behind this usually is directed towards the animal kingdom where the procreation of various species depends on procreation between partners of the opposite gender. Homosexuality could then be viewed as unnatural insofar as it does not fit into this traditional model for procreating the species. From this perspective it could also argued that gay marriages represent a sort of slippery slope that will ultimately lead to the destruction of traditional marriages and by extension the collapse of 'traditional' society. The reasoning behind this argument is that in the eyes of some people who oppose gay marriage, the very institution of traditional marriage is for couples to raise children in a wholesome family oriented environment, and these children go on to live productive lives and raise children of their own (Presumably also in a wholesome family environment). As is is the case that gay couples cannot conceive children on their own, then a gay marriage will be built on a foundation that is not considered traditional. As such some people who oppose gay marriage would do so as a means of preserving traditional societal norms. Having provided all of the previous examples of why people would oppose gay marriage, this paper will now highlight a number of examples as to the positive reasoning behind allowing gay marriage. Many people oppose gay relationships and by extension gay marriage simply because they view it as contrary to religious tenants. However, it is the case that in our modern democracy we recognize a separation between church and state and we recognize a separation between religious law and civil law. As such it should not be any religious text that determines the fate of whether or not homosexual couples should be allowed to get married. From a civil perspective one could present the argument that gay couples want to get married for the same reasons that heterosexual couples marry, which is because the couples are in a loving stable relationship. By denying gay couples the right to marriage, one could make the argument that this represents discrimination in its purest form. If the government takes a side in saying that one group of people are entitled certain rights under the law and another group of people is to be denied these same rights by definition this represents discrimination. In the past it was the case that the government had denied several rights to women and minorities yet this was deemed to be unconstitutional, however many of these rights afforded to married couples has been denied to gays. As such gay couples should be allowed to marry on the foundation of preserving equality to all people. Many traditional couples do not prescribe to any religion and utilize marriages that are carried out in accordance with civil law. As it is the case that under civil law all citizens are afforded the same rights than by extension homosexual couples should be entitled to the same civil rights regarding marriage. The Economist (2011) highlighted some insight from Mark Grisanti the Republican Senator from Buffalo New York that he opposed gay marriage for religious reasons yet he could not see any reasoning behind restricting civil rights to gay American citizens. By extension the article highlighted that there are 1,324 special state benefits that are afforded to heterosexual couples that get married. The senator stated that he cannot moralistically or ethically deny these rights to homosexual couples that simply want to be considered equal to traditional couples. Building on this previous argument it can be argued that if gay couples were allowed to get married then the union could provide a better safety net for both partners. For example many gay couples have been in relationships that very closely mirror that of married heterosexual couples and in the event that one partner becomes ill then the burden of support may fall upon next of kin rather than the individual's life partner. Allowing for gay marriage in this context may simply allow for a more stable environment (emotionally, physically and financially) for all individuals. From this perspective the community and society as a whole may be better off insofar as if gay couples were to be allowed to get married the burden of support in untimely circumstances such as illness falls on the partner in such unions. Yet if the marriage is not recognized than the burden of support would fall upon the wider social system which could have serious financial liabilities for the tax system as a whole. A final example as to why gay marriage should be recognized is because it most supporters would identify that gay relationships are just as normal as heterosexual relationships. Allowing gays to marry does not hurt anyone in particular even children. As it is the case that many gay couple have children (either from adoption or from previous relationships) it can be that affording the rights for gays to marry will ensure a more wholesome stable environment for both the children and the partners. For example, if gay marriage were to be allowed than the children would be given access to the legal and financial resources of both of the parents rather than their sole legal guardian. Moreover, allowing for gay couples to get married may simply allow for a more stable environment for the children to grow up in. In conclusion there are a number of arguments for and against gay marriage. Even though it is the case that gay marriage represents a highly controversial issue many of the arguments against gay marriage seem to be moralistic and the arguments for allowing gay marriage tend to be built upon a foundation of civil equality. References The Economist (Jun 27th 2011) New York Says “I Do”. Economist [online] Available at http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/gay-marriage?page=1 Accessed on October 5th 2011. Eckholm, E (2011) Even on Religous Campuses, Students Fight for Gay Identity. New York Times. [online] Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/us/19gays.html Accessed on October 5th 2011. Read More