The Issue of Marriage - Essay Example

? Marriages in Our Society and number submitted Marriages in Our Society The issue of marriage is itself a hotly debated topic between religious and secular mindsets and now the institution of marriage has given birth to a bone of contention among those who do believe in the principle of marriage: same-sex marriage. Not to mention that there is a plethora of other matters of social and material human interactions that are affected, arguably, positively or negatively by the institution of marriage. Not to take any sides in the argument but while it is arguable that the definition of marriage depends on the majority’s perception of the institution; the origins of marriage are undoubtedly religious. This article takes a look at the various ways in which marriage is affected by contemporary social norms and also at how critical thinkers view the impact on society of the legislation regarding marriage. The issue of same-sex marriage and in fact the issues related to marriage that have been settled before it, like interracial marriage, find the basis of their existence in the jurisprudence regarding marriage. This article aims to investigate the arguments against all politically-discussed bonds of sexual relationships. Also the similarities between different societal norms and types of marriages are explored at length in light of notable sociological thought. Gender and Social Class/Race While there are many similarities between the dogmatic perceptions of class-based, gender-based, racial and sexuality-based distinctions among humans, there are a few differences as well. For one thing, the earth’s history tells us that social classes and sex are remarkably incomparable concepts; one of these concepts only has a history of a few hundred years while the other can be found in countless forms of living beings and in organisms present on the earth purportedly millions of years ago. And while one is a consequence of human intelligence, the other is defined by biological evolutionary concepts as a mechanism for continuation of life. And just like in these two types of classification systems, there is drastic asymmetry in the determination of public opinion about the phenomenon of societal gender classification and sexuality-based classification. Males and females are also social categories, having vastly different connotations based on geographic location, but the main opposition to homosexuality is almost ubiquitous: the 'yuck' factor and religious norms. Still, if listed in full numbers, the similarities between the different classification systems would heavily outweigh the contrasts. The reality of the two or more sexes might be scientific, but in a human context it is not exempt from social implications, just like sexuality, race and class are not. In this regard, Judith Butler states that talk of sex ultimately reduces to talk of gender; any discussion about biological sex is an inseparable reference to social gender. This assertion is supported by all relevant empirical knowledge there is; ethnographic data show consistently that biological sex difference somehow translates into masculine social domination. While there might be differences in the cognitive ability of men and women, there also seems to be an attempt by the collective conscious to glorify, explore and fantasize those human attributes that are associated with the male brain. By general scientific understanding, it is now believed that men fare better in spatial reasoning than women while in the nineteenth century, it was verbal capabilities that were accepted to be a masculine cup of tea: this notion has vanished now. This phenomenon is similar to the way upper social classes seem to manipulate social machinery, which has universal reputation, to mainstream skills, potential, emotions, work and achievements that in truth depend far more on availability of resources than human ability. Similarly males and females are designated differing roles in society and indeed in the institution of marriage, just like workers of various social classes usually have specialized, predictable roles in almost all settings. And just as it is now an established fact that races are physically different, which is in fact an old understanding: the Sami Scandinavians were more considered more squat, swarthy, and brutish than people from the rest of Europe, women are, on average, 30% smaller than men, live noticeably longer than men, and suffer illnesses and have vulnerabilities that have been proved to be sex-specific. In one context, the relationship between race and ethnicity seems to quite resemble that between sex and sexuality. It is clear that society would accept or even ignore the differences among ethnicities if that served to further its perceptions of people as stereotypes that it is familiar with. Take the story of President Obama who has close ancestry from Kenya. None of the African slaves in America came from Kenya. Hence labelling of Obama as an African-American is actually ill-informed. And the way Obama has been able to assume the racial/ethnic identity of the descendants of the former slaves proves a point about the malleability of ethnic identity. By this formula, adoption of ethnic affiliations is principally possible like the ability of changing sexual orientations. Furthermore, race is a reality that runs deeper than ethnic identity and has a biological (genetic) footprint in every individual, just as gender runs deep and is determined by biological differences; yet both ethnicities among a race and sexuality are manoeuvrable and have no tangible physical representation in an individual. This view is furthered by the famous sociologist Fausto-Sterling who says that the founding argument for same-sex marriage is flawed: "It is bad science and bad politics”. She herself transformed from a straight person to a lesbian and says that people of different sexual preferences are genetically indistinguishable so sexual orientation is voluntary in essence. Miscegenation and Same-Sex Marriage Same-sex marriage proponents would be spurred by the fact that their struggle has significant vibes of the push for abolishment of miscegenation laws. People on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate address statutes of marriage law exclusion that were actually also instituted during the ban on interracial marriage. Supporters of same-sex marriage base their arguments on the Fourteenth Amendment stipulations that were also used by the Supreme Court to declare the ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. The opponents of interracial marriage considered interracial sexual relationships purely materialistic and illicit in the same tone that is employed by conservative and religious groups with regards to homosexual relationships. The white supremacists insisted that God regarded interracial sex as a violation of divine laws the same way that religious conservatives view intercourse as bigotry. During the 1930s, a general belief had developed, because of the opposition to interracial sex, that the practice was ‘unnatural’. This is a contention that a large section of the society holds with regard to gay and lesbian sex. Yet when the campaign for repealing miscegenation laws gained momentum, scientists started to declare that differences between races were neither "natural" nor significant. Then the belief started to grow that interracial sex was totally natural and rather tempting. Perhaps the most relevant example of the contrast in the situation of homosexuals today and that of interracial sex partners in the era of miscegenation laws is manifested in the double-consciousness view of Du Bois (1945). Perhaps homosexuals might be able to relate to Du Bois’ “peculiar sensation of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of the others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity”. Another notion expressed by Du Bois about the circumstances faced by African-Americans that homosexual marriage activists would refer to, is not the concern that African-Americans had no previous history of equal rights, to use in advocating their cause; nor were there any bygone court rulings they could refer to. Also Du Bois wanted a political approach to the issue similar to the one gay-rights activists have taken these days. The Convention of Marriage There is not only opposition to same-sex marriage but there also is now some resentment towards conventional marriage among certain sections of society. The two main views that oppose the institution of marriage are Liberalism and some forms of Feminism. The feminists argue that marrying is akin to condoning of the hierarchical roles of men and women and serves to enhance the silent divide that exists in the authority of the two sexes. Then there is the view that gender is more a performance than a condition. This view states that the real implications of gender are physical and easily discernable. Hence marriage and gender-based social structures are found out of the fulfilment of societal roles. This is similar to Goffman’s claim that "interactions are constructed based on the use of mutually understood symbols, objects, and language" implying that a person’s experience with marriage forms his opinions about its value and hence constitutes acceptance of whatever societal or religious customs and norms are associated with it. Goffman’s theory would imply that the majority would really never acknowledge same-sex marriage unless the majority turned homosexual. The most important perspective in this regard is that of Michel Foucault (1982) who maintained that the institution of marriage is oppressive of the female by its nature and defined by the pervasive force of the ‘norm’. He claimed that sexuality was a social construct rather than anything natural; that doctors, through the profusion of perversions unwittingly created the models that gave rise to non-conventional sexualities. While he accepted the nature-imposed superiority of the male, he argued that wedding not only augmented the power disparity, but also acknowledged and accepted the hierarchy inevitably by assigning roles to partners. References Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical inquiry, 8(4), 777-795. Kardiner, A., Linton, R., Du Bois, C., & West, J. (1945). The psychological frontiers of society. Read More