Gay Marriage Is Against the Heteronormative Culture - Essay Example

?Gay Marriage is against the Heteronormative Culture The heteronormative culture views marriage as a unification of two individuals (man and woman) who love each other and are in the boat of bearing children. In addition, the Catholic Church describes sex between people of same gender as fundamentally disordered and as such, commissioning of gay marriages does not conform to the norms of marriage. According to the Catechism (cited in Catholic Answers, 2004), “marriage between same sexes is contrary to the natural law as it closes the sexual act to the gift of life. It proceeds by saying that gay marriages “do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarities. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” The Catholic Church is a strong opponent of gay marriages as it regards these homosexual activities to be intrinsically disordered as well as an abuse to the human nature or rather the heteronormative culture (Catholic Answers 2004). Evidence has it that sexual complementarity is vital in a relationship. According to Berdyaev (1972), a Russian philosopher, loneliness is part of humans’ conditions and it is as a result of the realisation that a man or a woman is biologically incomplete, that each of them lacks capabilities and perfections possessed by the opposite sex and hence, each one of them is incomplete and lonely with the absence of the other. Men and women have differences in aggressiveness, levels of activity, sensory activity, sexual behaviour as well as the types of cognitive strength they possess (Warner, 1993). A lack of complementarity between men and women with respect to the above differences means the deepest forms of union, for instance, marriages, are not possible (Laumann et al., 1994). The union involving men or women will be both anatomically and spiritually asymmetrical and hence unsatisfying. Another possibility than can be seen only between sexually complimentarily men and women is the giving of life. When two people, man and woman love each other, it is destined to bringing a new human life into being thus making the shared life more gratifying (Catholic Answers, 2004). Heteronormative cultures permit for external factors of marriage such as the concern for a married couple’s kids to take charge during problematic relationships. Homosexual marriages can in no way result in the normal giving of life and as a result couples have less external factors to intervene during problematic times; hence, legalising of gay marriages will only but increase the rate of divorces. In 2004, the then US President George W. Bush addressed the nation seeking them to discuss what he termed as a matter of “national importance.” In his speech, he said: The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoured and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society (Fields, 2004). President Bush’s declaration is in line with the argument put forward by heteronormative culture. In order to protect a traditional marriage’s definition, he asked the Congress to amend the Constitution and restrict gay marriages. Fundamental institutions of civilisation should not promote same-sex marriages as this would alter the long known meaning of marriage and result in enormous consequences across the US and the world in general. This news of amendments was not received in silence by prominent opponents and proponents of the amendment. One opponent of the move was executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, who claimed that those in support of the amendment were divisive, partisans, anti-gay and un-American. However, this argument can be refuted by Gary Bauer’s remarks that: “every culture in the world, every civilisation in the world for over 3,000 years, has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The constitutional amendment merely states that again” (Wardle et al., 2003). The Battle for Gay Marriage Legalisation In the 1990s, the US headlines were captured by the news of three same sex-couples filing court cases for denial of marriage licences against the state of Hawaii. In 1996, the case, Baehr v. Milke won on appeal labelling the decision of banning of same-sex marriages unconstitutional (Gerstmann, 2003). In 1998, however, before effecting the decision, protests were held by the public which led to a successful amendment of the Hawaii constitution to restrict marriage only to heterosexual couples. Furthermore, the then President of US Bill Clinton put pen to paper declaring the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) a law (Gerstmann, 2003). In the Act, marriage is defined for all federal purposes as a legal unification of one man and one woman. In addition, Gerstmann (2003) reveals that the Act permits any state to reject the recognition of any same-sex marriages that other states have formalized. Recent past has seen further developments in the battle for the legalisation of same-sex marriages. A Canadian court declared that denying same-sex couples marriage certificates was a form of discrimination, legalising gay marriage in July of 2004. Another legalisation act of the same came in a Massachusetts court in May 2004 that allowed the issuance of marriage certificates to same-sex couples. Recently, many same-sex couples have forwarded their cases to law courts hoping that judges will find any practices of their exclusion to be unjust discrimination. However, many of the recent rulings have been condemned by many opponents of gay marriages, who argue that granting same-sex couples equal marriage rights to those of heterosexuals is a change of laws that already exist as well as an overstep by the judiciary with respect to its roles (Goldstein, 2002). Gay Marriage is Illegal The legalisation of gay marriages would be of great harm to the society and in several ways. First and foremost, legal gay marriages would mean immoral unions are legitimate. In addition, the legalisation of the process undermines marriage as the centre of a steady and or stable society. Gay unions are in no way supportive of children bearing via proper and natural procreation and as such, they are inhibitors to the survival of the human race. Besides, it is not morally upright to legitimise gay marriages as it is not in the best interests of the couple's adopted child who is denied the experiences of either fatherhood or motherhood. According to D’Emilio (2000), most cohabiting homosexuals are able to make good use of the available legal provisions to ensure their rights are protected, and hence it is unnecessary to legalise gay marriages since such change is a threat to the common good. It is my belief that legal recognition of gay marriages should be strongly opposed and in order to understand this necessity, a number of considerations are discussed below. One consideration is the order of the right reason. The civil law has a considerably more limited scope as compared to moral law but it cannot change the meaning of the right reason without losing the binding force it has on conscience (Warner, 1993). Every laws created by humans are legitimate provided they are acknowledged by the right reason, are unswerving with respect to the natural moral law, as well as they respect the absolute rights of every individual. Laws that legitimise same-sex couples to unite in marriage contradict with the right reason as it grants legal certifications, similar to those of marriage, to unions of same-sex couples. As a result, it is almost impossible for the state to grant legal certifications to these unions without failing in its role as a promoter and defender of marriage as an institution that is vital to the common good of the human race. Some may be asking themselves how the law can be in contradiction with the common good if all it does in this case is legally recognise a de facto reality causing no one person any harm along the way (Warner, 1993). A good understanding of this argument is via recognising the differences that exist between homosexuality as a private occurrence; and homosexuality as a societal relationship that has been approved by the law forming part of the legal structure. The second case is the most serious as it assumes a profound and extensive influence that can result in contradicting changes to the society’s common good. Civil laws structure the life of a man in a society in either a good or ill way. According to Pope John Paul II, civil laws “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour” (Catholic Answers, 2004). The underlying presumptions and lifestyles brought about by these activities not only alter and or shape the society’s life but they also play a part in the modification of the perceptions and evaluations of the young people with respect to behavioural forms. Legalisation of same-sex unions would obscure specific moral laws that are basic to the human race as well as cause a devaluation of marriage as an institution. Another consideration to make while trying to understand this argument is from the anthropological and biological order, where in same-sex marriages, such elements of family and marriage lack that would have legitimised the union. These unions are unable to contribute to the proper and normal procreation as well as preserve the human race. The use of other artificial methods in the hope of filling this inadequacy is disrespect to the human dignity. In homosexual relationships, the conjugal dimension representing humans and their ordered form of sex is absent. Sexual relationships can only be termed as human if they express as well as promote the common assistance of the marital couple and they are open to proper and normal procreation (Wardle, et al., 2003). Thirdly, understanding of this argument requires considerations of the social order which determines that the survival of the society is entirely dependent and underpinned by marriage. The most prevalent consequence of legalising same-sex marriage would redefine marriage and as a result change the meaning of heterosexuality as certain factors are absent, for instance, procreation and bringing up of children. The use of non-discrimination and respect principles with the aim of supporting legal recognition of gay marriages must be undermined. To refuse social recognition or differentiate between people or refuse certain benefits in contrary to justice is unacceptable. Citizens are free to engage in whatever activities and relationships of their choice (Cooper, 2002). However, it is immoral to uphold that activities that have no positive significance or contribution to the society be recognised legally by the State. This is because there is no sense that allows gay couples to fulfil the purposes for which the family and marriage in general deserve recognition for. Lastly, the legal order is to be considered in that it is only heterosexual couples that support successive generations and as such only they deserve institutional recognition. Unification of same-sex couples in marriages has no place in legal institutions since it serves no interest towards the common good. Same-Sex Marriage would Harm the Society Recent times have seen opponents of gay unions lose influence due to their weak arguments. The major goal of protecting heterosexual union is to prevent changing of the heteronormative culture that organises the human race. According to Badgett (2004), the essence of marrying is not faithfulness, love, getting financially secure etc., instead, marriage reveres as well as guides the union of men and women – a joining that is the only capable one of producing or rather creating another life. Many American citizens have developed a slightly revolted but tolerant way of living with the gay marriage idea in the society. Some opponents are losing words to justify their fervour (Curry, Clifford, and Hertz, 2004); but with me, a strong opponent of the gay marriage idea, there is still much to put forward. Here, children are at stake with respect to their happiness but the ability for the human race to maintain its basic humanity components is the main point of contention. Those citizens who try to change the laws and introduce new radical understandings of laws and institutions are against the heteronormative culture. Benokraitus (1999) opines that this is tampering with unwritten and unfailing laws that have always lived despite little or no knowledge of their origin. A heterosexual marriage ensures a stable family is created. According to columnist Maggie Gallagher (quoted in Waite & Gallagher, 2001): Most men and women are powerfully drawn to perform a sexual act that can and does generate life. Marriage is our attempt to reconcile and harmonize the erotic, social, sexual, and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and their children. Furthermore, that marriage in whose couples are unable to bear children, this purpose is protected by ensuring that neither of the couple will bear children outside of wedlock. From a different point of view, heterosexual unions can be defined as inherently normative, referring to the heteronormative culture that is to be preserved through marriages. According to Badgett (2004): The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage. . . . Without this shared, public aspect, perpetuated generation after generation, marriage becomes what its critics say it is: a mere contract, a vessel with no particular content, one of a menu of sexual lifestyles, of no fundamental importance to anyone outside a given relationship (p. 8). Human relationships are difficult by nature and as such societies must do all it takes to help strengthen and not weaken these institutions. Those advocating for same-sex marriages can be described as selfish and wholly destructive for its legalisation would mean the society reduces the central presuppositions of marriage regarding family to ashes only but to accommodate the desires of a limited number of adults (Balswick and Balswick, 1999). Allowing gay marriage stands to undo the true nature of marriage. Marriage has often been misunderstood or rather regularly associated with certain values, for instance, love characterised by monogamous sex, bearing of children, fidelity, establishment of a home, stability etc. In essence, good marriages have to exhibit all these but all are not the same as marriage. However, the quintessence of marriages dwells elsewhere and as such; those seeking to unite same-sex couples for those who naturally cannot marry seek for such things in wrong places. By definition, marriage is aimed at sanctioning as well as formalising a connection of two individuals of opposite sex which it alone creates new life (Bernstein, DeGeneres, and MacNeil, 2003). The reason why men and women marry is because they are of opposite sexes; sexual allegiances which they surrender in marriages to become one entity. This union is not to formalise their romantic love but instead, it stands for a certain idea/abstract thought/construction regarding the best way of formalising the human condition (Dupius, 2002). Embodying such an abstract thought into a contract or promise holds the married couple together in marriage. Same-sex marriages can harm children. The essence of marriage as earlier seen is preservation of a traditional structure of the family that guides in the relationship which results in childbearing i.e. the sexual relationship between opposites. For children to grow into stable adults capable of providing for their future families, they need to be brought up in a similar stable environment and or family. In cases of irresponsible family entities, the deterioration of the civilised society is inevitable. Legalisation of same-sex unions would mean children are denied the experience of either the motherhood or fatherhood, hence their poor development. Heterosexual marriage forms a basis of the society (Graham, 2004). It is the most fundamental and cross-cultural institution that bridges the female-male divide in order for the children to enjoy having loving and committed mothers and fathers. This argument totally contradicts with most of the gay marriage proponents. Furthermore, marriage between opposites can be termed as inherently normative where it holds a certain relationship as a social ideal and receives much significance in cases where children are present and or involved. The law of marriage should not be used to create marriage and instead, they should be used to aid in tracing the boundaries as well as sustenance of the public’s meaning of marriage or rather heteronormative culture. Individuals are free to enter into any social relationships of their choice without any restrictions from the society or the law (Graham, 2004). However, the role of the society is to uphold the option of marriage, formalize its definition as well as surround this definition with reinforcements and norms in order to raise young people with the desires to become adults capable of making successful marriages in future. The absence of such a public aspect that is shared and perpetuated across generations has turned marriage into what same-sex proponents feel as a mere contract, a menu of sexual lifestyles, a vessel without particular substance, with no fundamental significance of individuals outside a certain relationship. The ideal idea of marriage is that societies need children, and these children need their mothers and fathers. In addition, adults are obligated to refine their sexual desires and or behaviours in order to provide children with stable families for their growth and development (Badgett, 2004). In order for social institutions to operate successfully and effectively, the general public must not think much about how it works and or functions (Butler 2002). But when a social institution is challenged as marriage is in the contemporary world, its criticality shifts and instead requires more attention as well as publicly speaking of its natural meanings. Marriage, in different cultural backgrounds and lifestyles across ages and in different communal settings, has been seen as a system of sexual unity between women and men with well established responsibilities of fathers and mothers (Warner, 1999). Religion and Same-Sex Marriage The US courts have on previous occasions based their decisions on certain moral codes with specific reference to the traditional biblical morals (Mahan, 2004). The decision to legitimise same-sex marriages by the Massachusetts Supreme Court undermined this archaic convention hence putting individual rights beyond those of the majority and or the society’s moral stability. Destruction of the traditional marriage is a demolition of the Judeo-Christian foundation of American culture. A court ruling in a Massachusetts case stated that the Bible cannot be used as the source of laws. However, Mahan (2004) asserts that this has serious implications in that little needs to be questioned with respect to the fact that marriage institution between man and woman was designed from the Bible. According to Genesis 2:24 (New Revised Standard Version), “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This prescribes the joining of a man and woman and not woman and woman or man and man. Most criminal codes of many states and countries and or their federal systems, civil laws, tort law, property laws as well as contract laws have a traceable root to the traditional moral beliefs of the Bible. As a result, marriage in the form of opposite sex and not same-sex couples must be encouraged and defended as it has its origin in the Bible as well. Not only are contemporary secularists in our courts and culture as well overturning the First Amendment Establishment Clause which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” but they are also launching attacks on the Judeo-Christian foundation via the promotion of individualism to a point of excluding the Biblical truths (Mahan, 2004). Conclusion It is understandable that gay marriage advocates portray the act as an acknowledgment to normalcy which in the short run looks like that. However, in the long run, this option will be shaped into something that comfortably suits particular needs and or requirements of same-sex couples. Sooner than later leather weddings will be evident, boy-to-boy unions and other related matches defying the boundaries of gender. The endless exploration of desires and identity as well as traditional open relationships will not come to a certain halt. According to Butler (2002), marriage has no significant change on gay people but only affirms who they are which is no different from what the straight persons have turned into. Today, most young people enter into heterosexual marital relationships with different intentions and expectations as those of their parents. According to D’Emilio and Freedman (1997), some of them do so in order to affirm their love but not necessarily to represent a lifelong bond, as a statement of perpetual faithfulness, while others do it in order to lay a foundation for child bearing with some destined to fitting children from past relationships and or unions into new setups. This increased number of options within and without marriages has become a significant reality today thanks to the anxiety perpetuated by gay rights’ unions. As these patterns regarding intimacy keep changing all over the globe, it is my call that more and more conservatives step up their push in keeping or retaining the traditional form of marriage. References Badgett, L.M.V. (2004) Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Sexuality Research and Social Policy, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1-10. Balswick, O.J. & Balswick, K.J. (1999) The family: a Christian perspective on the contemporary home, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House. Benokraitus, N.J. (1999) Feuds about families: conservative, centrist, liberal, and feminist perspectives, New York, Prentice-Hall. Berdyaev, N. (1972) Freedom and the spirit, Freeport, New York, Libraries Press. Bernstein, R.A., DeGeneres, B. & MacNeil R. (2003) Straight parents, gay children: keeping families together, New York, Thunder’s Mouth. Butler J. (2002) ‘Is kinship always already heterosexual?’ Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 102-130. Catholic Answers. (2004) Gay marriage, viewed 23 Mar 2013 from . Cooper, D. (2002) ‘Imagining the place of the state: where governance and social power meet’, in D. Richardson and S. Seidman (eds) Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies, London, Sage. pp. 231–52. Curry, H., Clifford, D. & Hertz, F. (2004) A legal guide for lesbian and gay couples. Berkeley, CA, NOLO. D’Emilio, J. & Freedman, E.B. (1997) Intimate matters: a history of sexuality in America, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 31–53. D’Emilio, J. (2000) ‘Cycles of Change, questions of strategy, the gay and lesbian movement after fifty years’, in C. A. Rimmerman, Wald, K.D. & Wilcox C. (Eds.) The Politics of Gay Rights, London, University of Chicago Press. Dupius M. (2002) Same-sex marriage, legal mobilisation, and the politics of rights, New York, Peter Lang. Fields, J. (2004) ‘Same-sex marriage, sodomy laws, and the sexual lives of young people.’ Sexuality Research and Social Policy, Journal of NSRC vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 11-23. Gerstmann E. (2003) Same-sex marriage and the constitution, New York, Cambridge University Press. Goldstein R. (2002) The attack queers: liberal society and the gay right, New York, Verso. Graham, M (2004) ‘Gay Marriage: Whither Sex? Some Thoughts from Europe’ Sexuality Research and Social Policy, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 24-31. Jakobsen, J.R. & Pellegrini A. (2004) Love the sin: sexual regulation and the limits of tolerance, Boston, Beacon. Laumann E. O. et al., (1994) The social organisation of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Lewis, R. & Stu, W. (1999) Raising a modern-day knight: a father’s role in guiding his son to authentic manhood. Colorado Springs, CO, Focus on the Family. Macedo, S. & Iris M.Y. (2003) Child, family, and state, New York, New York University Press. Mahan, M.E. (2004) Same-sex marriage?: a Christian ethical analysis, Cleveland, OH, Pilgrim. Richardson, D. (2004) Locating sexualities: from here to normality, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 391-411. Waite, L. & Gallagher M. (2001) The case for marriage: why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially, Louisville, KY, Broadway. Walter, R.G. (1973) ‘Sex, marital status and mortality,’ American Journal of Sociology, vol. 79, pp. 45-67. Wardle, L.D. et al. (2003) Marriage and same-sex unions: a debate, New York, Praeger. Warner, M. (1993) Fear of a queer planet: queer politics and social theory, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 1-28. Warner, M. (1999) The trouble with normal: sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life, New York, The Free Press. Read More