Marriage Policy Arguments - Essay Example

Marriage policy arguments usually invoke naturalness that relies on naturalistic fallacy that normally takes the form of what is considered morally good. The naturalness argument on marriage focuses on procreation as well as the wellbeing of the children. Arguments that are based on procreation and child welfare are prevalent in same-sex marriage and argue this as a meaningful distinction. Naturally, procreation invokes the necessity of two people who have different biological sexes in order to reproduce and are aligned to the idea of nature as established in material reality (Cole et al 48-50). The main argument against the same sex marriage is that to be complete in reproduction two bodies of opposite sex must engage sexual reproduction. Therefore, the arguments necessitate that committed sexual relations between biological male and female individuals be privileged as “real marriage” compared to same sex marriages. Arguments regarding procreation based in the assumption of biological difference are similar to those regarding interracial marriage that indicate Blacks to be biologically inferior to whites, which indicate that intermarriage would compromise on the characteristic of the offspring (Cole et al 51). In addition, arguments against same-sex marriage consider this form of marriage to be abnormal, deviant and even disgusting and comparing it other relations is presented as implicitly unacceptable. Based on biological differences between sexes needed for procreation, most arguments against same-sex marriage claim that the purpose for sexuality is to unite both male and female sexuality in procreation (Cole et al 58). Arguments on the welfare of the child consider certain marriage arrangements healthy in raising children because if marriage strays away from the notion that marriage is “child-centered” then it is bound to get into never ending contradictions like in the case of same-sex marriages (Cole et al 55). Foucault’s theory on power links power and knowledge to sex in many ways because sexuality is a way of channelling and transmitting power, which is a creative force for determining relations between people and concepts. As something that can pervade and influence the entire society, sexual pervasion are considered as considerable danger to the society (Foucault). Interracial marriages are considered to have rare social support because the marriages suffer from diminished parental support, which in return lowers the relationship quality between the intermarried couples. Moreover, some people express disapproval of interracial marriage and this is evidenced by the way intermarried couples are treated ranging from lukewarm acceptance to outright hostility from people even members of their families. This is in line with Du Bois’ double consciousness concept, which articulates that identity can be fractured by several identities within and individual and in some circumstances can be at odds with one another (Canpolat 4). Social psychologists argue that similarity promotes marital intimacy as opposed to the interracial marriages that have different values and cultural orientations that undermine marital satisfaction and stability. Moreover, the differences in the attitudes regarding fertility and domestic tasks increase dissatisfaction in interracial marriages; hence, people disapprove interracial marriage and advocate for marriages within a given race because similar personality traits together with values increase marital satisfaction (Fu and Nicholas 1098). Social construct scholars question biological determinism approach in gender and sexuality considering the classification to be simplistic and reductionist and point out that the approach serves patriarchal ideologies. Fausto-Sterling considers labelling someone as a man or a woman to be a social decision because actual bodies blur clear boundaries of sex in social construction (Eisenstein 3). Social constructivists consider socio-cultural and historical processes to gender individuals’ bodies as well as sexualize their behaviours in accordance with the prevailing hetero-normative model. The hetero-normative model does not fully address features of the society but rather emphasizes sexual differences. This follows Foucault’s assertion that gender differences and sexuality differences are cultural constructs used in enforcing patriarchy a system of power inequality that offers men power at women’s expense. Moreover, dramaturgical model by Goffman offers a perspective that considers society to be like a stage where social actors portray and project social roles to others. Goffman conceptualises society and its stability to be a result of people’s performance within social roles (Andersen and Howard 22). Marriage across forbidden social lines is considered intrinsically disruptive because such a marriage does not only challenge the validity of the prevailing categories but also the hierarchy of privilege, which in return serves as a disadvantage to the categories it presumably, legitimizes (Greene 701). The justification for banning same-sex marriage involves the admiration for the tradition because of the conventional description of marriage. The status of opposite sex marriage within the traditions have been used in beyond courts to justify laws against same-sex marriage and preclude recognition of same sex marriage on the ground that opposite-sex marriage indicate the tradition of ancient pedigree. Moreover, tradition-preserving arguments feature in processes that amend through well-known initiatives in banning same-sex marriage. This follows Fausto-Sterling notion that both gender is political and the more it is challenged the tighter sex get developed in terms of being male or even female (Eisenstein 3). As well, legal scholars as well as commentators weigh in with arguments that promote presumptive beliefs that influence the legality of opposite-sex marriage owing to its traditional character. Tradition is significant because traditions in opposite-sex marriage represent time-tested wisdom and changing them may produce inadvertent and irreversible consequences. The duration of the opposite-sex marriage advocates persistence and some prudence for society to familiarize itself in essential reform. Hence, the point remains that opposite-sex marriage is a tradition considered a sufficient basis for presuming that it should never be changed (Forde-Mazrui 286-8). Ideological opposition to interracial marriage is based on the nature and scientific truth because racial groups are considered to be fundamentally different and in the past their intimate relations were believed to be unnatural. Moreover, opposition to interracial marriage is justified on the proactive grounds because in the past it was feared that it would produce genetically inferior children. Behind what is considered natural lie social and cultural constructions that reflect as they reinforce dominant power relations. Interracial marriage is unnatural in many people find marriage within the same race to be worthy the name and consider the marriage more fortunate of individual romantic preference. Another ideology is the preference of purely physical interracial relations or even coercive nature over sexual relations that involve genuine affection or marital commitment (Forde-Mazrui 2187-2189). Works cited Andersen, Margaret L, and Howard F. Taylor. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2008. Print. Canpolat, Seda. Olaudah Equiano: a Rudimentary Double Consciousness. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2008. Internetresource. Cole, Elizabeth R., et al. "Against Nature: How Arguments About The Naturalness Of Marriage Privilege Heterosexuality." Journal Of Social Issues 68.1 (2012): 46-62. Forde-Mazrui, Kim. "Live And Let Love: Self-Determination In Matters Of Intimacy And Identity." Michigan Law Review 101.6 (2003): 2185-2208. Forde-Mazrui, Kim. "Tradition As Justification: The Case Of Opposite-Sex Marriage." University Of Chicago Law Review 78.1 (2011): 281-343. Foucault Michel. The History of sexuality: An Introduction, volume 1. Chapter 4. Web. Fu, Vincent Kang, and Nicholas H. Wolfinger. "Broken Boundaries Or Broken Marriages? Racial Intermarriage And Divorce In The United States." Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 92.4 (2011): 1096-1117. Greene, Beverly. "The Use And Abuse Of Religious Beliefs In Dividing And Conquering Between Socially Marginalized Groups: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate." American Psychologist 64.8 (2009): 698-709. Van den Berg, Maria Elizabeth Susanna (Elbie). "Bodies As Open Projects: Reflections On Gender And Sexuality." South African Journal Of Philosophy 30.3 (2011): 385-402. Read More