Gay Marriage: Defending the Value of Traditional Marriage - Essay Example

Gay Marriage: Defending the Value of Traditional Marriage The legalization of marriage between same-sex partners would constitute a violation of the sanctity of marriage between men and women. The meaning of marriage in a social environment is defined by the purposes for which it is intended. One of those purposes is procreation, an event that cannot take place in a homosexual relationship. While adoption can take place, that is not the same intent as procreative drives. While there are few observable differences between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship in terms of the way in which they experience their intimacy, there are differences in the gender roles within homosexual marriages that diminish the meaning of marriage in society. Adam Isaiah Green, sociologist and theorist on gender issues, describes marriage as a stabilizing state in which legal impediments to separation provide a sense of security. As well, the state of marriage provides for a life structure in which the course of life is somewhat mapped out, despite ignoring the pitfalls that might come. As well, marriage binds sexual attraction to a stable social form, thus defining aspects of social interaction, creating frameworks for explaining behaviors, and providing for a sense of security. In studying the differences between the expectations of heterosexual men in comparison to those of homosexual men, heterosexual men had a far greater need to enter into marriage than did homosexual men. Heterosexual men found marriage to be a signifier of a reduction in sexual partner exchange, a controlling transition in the development of the libido, and transformation from the desire to retain bachelor hood to the desire to become engaged in a social connection in which procreation and monogamy were core elements of the attachment. However, Green did not find these transitions to be as important to homosexual men, thus suggesting that marriage did not provide the same social meaning as it did for heterosexual men. Andrew Cherlin, from the department of sociology at John Hopkins University discusses the idea that by the changes in beliefs and behaviors in the last century, American marriage has undergone a deinstitutionalization. He defined this concept as “the weakening of the social norms that define people’s behavior in a social institution” (848). Two aspects of social behaviors have affected the concept of marriage. The first aspect that has weakened marriage is that of co-habitation, which resulted in marriage within 3 years 60% of the time in the 1970s, but by the 1990s had decreased to 33%. However, the other social relationship that has contributed to the deinstitutionalization of marriage is that of same-sex marriage. The idea of same-sex partners becoming bonded in marriage changes the social identity of marriage. Cherlin states that “Lesbian and gay couples who choose to marry must actively construct a marital world with almost no institutional support” (851). In doing so, they are constructing what sociologists refer to as a “family of choice”, which is a way of defining something that does not hold the same value as a traditional family structure (Cherlin). Lifestyle choice, while not invalid, does not constitute the same nature as socially constructed interrelations that have specific parameters in which to function. Society constructs its roles through specific frameworks, and those roles of husband and wife are defined as they relate to the opposite sex. There is no doubt that the roles of men and women within marriage have changed. Where once there was a distinct division, as in the ideology of separate spheres where the woman’s domain was the domestic sphere with the man’s domain that of the public sphere, those roles within spheres have been dramatically altered. In the past century, women have burst the bubble that prevented them from having the legal status in which to function in the public sector. While it might be said that men and women do still stick to traditional roles in the domestic sphere to some extent, even those roles have begun to change. Marriage has become much more centered on the emotional satisfaction of the partners than in the exchange value of role fulfillment (Cherlin). Family psychology professor for Wright State University Lawrence A. Kurdek provides a study of gay and lesbian couples in comparison to heterosexual couples and concluded that there were no real differences in the way in which they formed their intimacy and the level to which they committed in their relationships. One supposition that was refuted was that homosexual relationships are more often comprised of people who are more willing to attempt, or are psychologically predisposed to risky behavior. However, the duration of commitment was different in that biological children were not relative to remaining committed, thus ending relationships was at a higher rate than heterosexual couples with children. One advantage to disallowing same-sex marriage, according to Kurdek, is that “gay and lesbian partners confront no formal institutional barriers and obstacles top leaving unhappy relationships” (896). Kurdek, however, sees no real reason from a sociological point of view in relationship to the way in which same-sex partners relate to one another in comparison to heterosexual partners, thus providing no foundation for denying them the right to marry. However, because of the imposition of roles that are gender specific which are then applied over the roles of same sex partners, the social institution of marriage does not have a framework from which committed homosexual partners can function. In allowing same-sex partners to marry, society tears apart the social roles that are in place that specifically refer to gender. Gender titles such as father, husband, mother, and wife have no real meaning when they are applied in a same sex marriage. When a lesbian couple marries, for instance, both of the partners are wives, the balance of the social framework not fulfilled, thus changing the nature of marriage within society. While homosexual couples may see this as a valid change, this leaves the social institution of marriage a convoluted construct that no longer holds the same meaning for heterosexual couples. In making same-sex partnerships valid forms of marriage, marriage loses its social position within the American culture. One of the perceived causes for anti-gay rights legislation is founded in the idea that heterosexual fears promote reactions that divide their culture from gay and lesbian cultures. According to political science professors Jay Barth, L. Marvin Overby, and Scott H. Hufmon, some studies have shown that when heterosexuals come into cultural contact with gay and lesbian communities, hostilities decrease, thus providing a bridge between the cultures. Where interracial contact in communities with both black and white residents often see a rise in hostilities, interactions between heterosexual and homosexual communities more often lead to less hostility, even though it rarely changes the position that a heterosexual person holds on the issue of marriage between same-sex partners. This indicates, in light of the threat that is present in diminishing the social meaning as it relates to gender roles, that same-sex marriage is not a viable option in relationship to the meaning that is applied to marriage by heterosexual couples. Not all heterosexual couples and individuals believe that marriage should be denied to homosexual couples. However, in light of the larger ramifications on the nature of marriage, it would be detrimental to traditional frameworks of social relationships for same-sex marriage to be made a legal. While homosexual relationships appear to have no significant differences from heterosexual relationships, the imperative to marry, according to Green, in relationship to gay men, is not as significant. Gender roles create wide differences, however, in the meaning of marriage. The shift in meaning is significant for same-sex couples. Only a portion of the meaning remains which would diminish the larger social meaning of this cultural institution. Works Cited Barth, Jay, Marvin Overby and Scott H. Hufmon. Community context, personal contact and support for an anti-gay rights. Political Research Quarterly. 62.2 (June 2009): 355-365. Cherlin, Andrew J. The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 66.4 (Nov. 2004): 848-861. Green, Adam I. Until death do us part? The impact of differential access to marriage on a sample of urban men. Sociological Perspectives. 49.2 (Summer 2006): 163-189. Kurdek, Lawrence A. Are gay and lesbian cohabitating couples really different from heterosexual couples? Journal of Marriage and Family. 66.4 (Nov. 2004): 880-990. Read More