Gay Marriage Should Be Upheld - Essay Example

Gay Marriage Argumentative Essay Marriage is a commitment between two people who promise to take care of oneanother and the children that they will bring forth so that the society does not have to do it for them. In exchange, the society sees them as a family and gives them obligations that they are supposed to perform in the community. They also enjoy some privileges; therefore, marriage fortifies relationship by enclosing them in very many societal expectations. That is why, whether there are children or not a marriage bond can grow stronger depending on the two individuals involved. There are several types of marriages, for example, gay marriage, which is a marriage between two people of the same gender. This marriage, mostly between a man and man has received criticism on the capability of raising children properly in such a marriage. This is possibly because gay marriage has not been fully accepted in the society with people believing that is immoral, unethical, and sinful. Some people believe that the gay marriage does not provide a favorable environment for raising children. This is one of the misconceptions individuals have of gay marriage. However, these arguments are unfounded as raising children requires more than the sexual orientation of the parents. Thus, gay marriage should be upheld since it is just like any other marriage, in fact, it is good both for straights and for gays in the American community. Gay marriage provides a stable environment to bring up children who would otherwise be left in foster care. There are many children in need of families, and gay marriage could be the solution to help solve this issue and provide a home for these destitute children. According to a 2010 study, there were 100,000 children awaiting adoption in the United Sates (Gartrell and Bos 112). Moreover, the study revealed that children adopted by lesbian mothers recorded high in social and academic competence with fewer social problems as compared to children adopted by heterosexual parents. This proves that a same-sex marriage is capable of creating a proper environment for development and growth of adopted children. Furthermore, many kids do not need more than just two loving parents. As a result, the government should uphold gay marriage and encourage them to adopt more children in order for these children to experience love that they so much long for. Similarly, Rauch argues that the American government should give the gay couple legal security just like other marriages that are recognized by law (56). If this happens then the children whose parents are gay will have an automatic access to benefits and resources, and they are entitled to both parents. In the case of death in one of the parents, the other partner has a right to inherit property. The children are also entitled to financial security, and they are eligible for entitlements such as inheritance rights and social security benefit rights (Rauch, 56). The marriage law gives these provisions so that in case of death of one of the gay parents the other one can take care of the children. Marriage is all about love and commitment, and this is the pillar of a successful marriage, and not whether the couple is of similar sex or not. Looking at the current trend, many heterosexual marriages are on the rocks, and thus, arguing that gay marriage is not healthy is a little misplaced. This is because if heterosexual marriage were better than gay marriage then we would not be having surging number of divorce cases. This reveals that what it takes for a good marriage is a commitment, understanding, and good partnership among the couple. Additionally, because many heterosexual marriages are on currently on a downward trend, couples in such marriages have no right to condemn same sex marriage. Moreover, statistics shows that Massachusetts, which was the first state to legalize gay marriage, recorded the lowest divorce rate in 2008 having legalized same-sex marriage in 2004. In contrast, Alaska saw a 17.2% increase in the divorce rate from 2003-2008, yet illegalized gay marriage in 1998 (Silver 1). Hence, the government needs to define marriage as a lifetime commitment to accommodate gay marriage because clearly gay marriage is even better that heterosexual marriage as there are limited chances that it will end up in divorce. The marriage between gay couples brings social acceptance and increased investments among their unions says. This serves to the benefit of their children as it provides them with a stress free environment to grow in. To support this, Rauch in his argument he says that as much as gay marriage has an effect, the impacts are positive for both the children and marriage itself (58). Thus, the idea of saying that same sex marriage is culturally unacceptable should not be used as a signal to indifference in the family structure but people should start comparing the married couples and the non-married, this is according to. Furthermore, gay marriage provides economic benefit to the state through high income tax due to the marriage penalty, and marriage licenses, as well as decrease in state benefit programs costs (Perry 3). Therefore, accepting gay marriage may earn the state up to $184 million as estimated by the Controller for New York City in 2007. Gays and lesbians are subject to rights, particularly, human rights in the society just like any other person, and thus, they should be given the right to express themselves and right to form a family. Take, for example, the 50’s, interracial marriage was illegal, but with time, the modern society identified this as an unjust law to deprived people of their right to marry whom they love regardless of race. Similarly, gays and lesbians are individuals who love themselves are should equally be accorded the right to marry regardless of their sexual orientation. Similarly, under the protection of the constitution with respect to liberty, one of the provisions is the freedom of choice regarding issues of family and marriage. As a result, illegalizing gay marriage is unconstitutional not only under Equal Protection Clause, but also under Due Process. In addition, gay marriage is a civil right, which the case of Loving v. Virginia confirmed by regarding marriage as “one of the basic civil rights of man” (US Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia). As a result, gay marriage should be treated as heterosexual marriage and given the same protection that heterosexual marriage enjoys. Finally, failure to uphold gay marriage labels the gay marriages, as well as lesbian marriages and families inferior, and thus discriminates against them. This stigmatizes this group of people and sends a message to the public that it is ok to discriminate on them. As the Massachusetts court commented, “...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.” (Christianlaw 5). Therefore, people should gay marriage as any normal marriage to avoid issues dealing with dicrimination and violation of civil and constitutional rights of individuales. Gay marriage does not distort that traditional ideology of marriage based on one man and one woman. If this is valid, then has already been distorted by several elements, which have arisen as a result of modernization. These elements include polygamy, heterosexual monogamy, child-rearing arrangement, prostitution, and use of mistress and concubines. Therefore, the definition of traditional marriage is not constant, but evolve with the emergence of new behaviours. As such, gay marriage should also be allowed to take the evolutionary road and fit into the concept of modernity regarding marriage. Moreover, as the attitudes of the society evolve so is the redefinition of marriage (Douthat 2). Therefore, the definition of marriage in the current society needs some adjustments to accommodate gay marriage, which is reality in the society and will not be faced out any time soon. In addition to this, research shows that a gay marriage poses no harm to family values or heterosexual marriages contrary to the usual perception. According toDollan, “laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock...” (4). As a result, the argument that gay marriage present negative impacts on family values should not be used to deny gay couples a chance to form their own families. Psychologists encourage people to get married terming it capable of providing both psychological and health benefits. Therefore banning gay marriage denies individuals a chance to get married, which increases the rates of psychological disorders. As American Psychology Association states, “..allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support” (3). When denied the chance to get married, gays and lesbians suffer from several psychological disorders including mood disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, and alcohol-use disorder. Critics argue that a gay marriage does not provide a conducive environment for bringing up children because children need a father and a mother. In addition, they suggest that the purpose 0of marriage is procreation, but gay marriages are incapable of achieving this. Nevertheless, Rauch argues that for children to be born it means they had a father and mother. Therefore, all that children need is married parents. If gay marriages are made formal then it means they can also raise children despite the fact that they are from the same gender (Rosenthal and Beth 98). Moreover, if marriage were exclusively for procreation, then where would this leave infertile couples? Evidently, the ability to procreate is not a qualification for marriage, marriage is an arrangement between two people who love each other and decides to stay together and build a family (Talbot 2). Finally, Rauch argues that America is at its turning point in setting the history of marriage (59). He feels that the country has an opportunity to include gay marriage as a form of marriage. Conservative may wish that this does not happen but, according to Rauch it seems they have no choice because, gay couples together with their children will continue to be whether they are formally accepted or not. The straights also have to accept that bitter truth and learn to live with the gay couples as the other people in the community. Indeed gay marriage is a sensitive issue because it touches on morality issues, as well as matters of human rights. As a result, there should be a critical evaluation of the issue before dismissing and condemning gay marriages. This is because such actions deny them their civil rights, as well as constitutional rights. In addition, contrary to the perception that gay marriages distort traditional families, and family values, and provide unhealthy environment for raising children, evident shows that gay marriage, in fact, does not have these effects, and is beneficial the society. They provide an opportunity to adopt the many children who lack families, and are also economically benefit to the city or state. Thus, the society and government should uphold the practice of gay marriage. Works cited Christianlaw. Richard J. PodelAmerican Bar Association Recommendation. 10 August 2010. 7 Web. March 2014. Dollan, Maura. Statement on Marriage and the Family," www.aaanet.org, Feb. 26, 2004. 26 February 2004. Web. March 2014. Douthat, Ross. "The Marriage Ideal." The New York times 8 August 2010. web. Gartrell, Nanette and Henny Bos. "US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents." Pediatrics (2010). Print. Perry, Kathryn. "The Cost of Gay Marraige - In Dollars and Cents." Christian Science Monitor 27 May 2009. Web. Rauch, Jonathan. Gay Marriage:Why It Is Good for Gays, Good For America. New York: Times Book, Henry Holt & Company, 2004. Print. Rosenthal, Beth. Gay Parenting. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Print. Silver, Nate. Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans. 12 January 2010. Web. 7 March 2014. Talbot, Margaret. "Marriage as a Dynamic Institution." The New Yorker 12 January 2010. Web. US Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia. 12 June 1967. Web. 7 March 2014. Read More