Gay Marriages Debates - Research Paper Example

Gay Marriage Abstract The attitudes that people have towards gay marriage could transform over time as the debate on morality and ethicality of this relationship continues. Despite there being ethical guidelines and moral standards that guide a society’s behavioral approach, there continues to be a debate on whether gay marriage should be legalized on not. This paper reviews various secondary sources both from Ashford Online Library and external sources to determine the arguments being put forth for and against gay marriage. From the scholarly sources, the paper seeks to analyze various theories on ethics and social responsibility that would guide in understanding the debate. As such, despite the arguments against and the counterarguments holding, gay marriage should not be legalized as this legalization would go against the ethical considerations of the majority in the global society. Introduction The definition of the term marriage has always been the core of debate on gay marriage. Even though marriage would have varied meanings across varied cultures, a universal definition recognizes it as a relationship between humans, either one with another or one with multiple others, recognized by the prevailing law (Edwards, 2007). But in the modern society, definitions have incorporated the aspect of same sex marriage known as gay marriage. According to Halkitis (2012), gay marriage describes the union involving people of the same gender or biological sex. The varied definition of marriage has elicited major controversy with regard to the legal and ethical aspects in gay marriage. Therefore, whereas Halkitis (2012) cites countries such as Iceland, Canada, Belgium, Argentina, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands and South Africa having legally recognized gay marriages, others like the US maintain their opposition to the legality of this form of marriage. The arguments for and against gay marriage in each of these countries revolve around ethical considerations with regard to religious, legislative and socio-cultural contexts. This paper evaluates the arguments from both perspectives from various secondary sources that would guide in validating its thesis. Arguments against Gay Marriage The major argument for the legalization of gay marriage has been on the need to observe the right of equality. Gays have likened their battles for equality to the civil rights battles by Blacks due to the comparable harm suffered. But Richard McDonough holds a contrary opinion arguing against same-sex marriage as an equal rights issue since both homosexuals and heterosexuals have same rights to marry (Williams, 2011). In other words, irrespective of an adult’s sexual orientation, such a person has the right to marry another from the opposite sex. The right to equality does not just encompass the right to marry any person of choice but also incorporates observing the accepted knowledge, authority and order defining ethics. Ethical considerations in most societies discourage gay marriage. According to Mosser (2010), ethical considerations describe what is to be considered as right or wrong. Debates would thus arise in situations where the correct answer does not pass as obvious. This complexity makes ethical questions the most difficult to deal with in spite of their importance. Socio-cultural considerations significantly determine the perception of gay marriage within a society. Mosser (2010) appreciates that individuals within a society characterize themselves as daughters, fathers, brothers or grandparents, meaning that such individuals should think of themselves as being part of families which greatly influence how one thinks of oneself. The decisions made by individuals thus affect the entire society. In the same way, one needs to consider these relationships when describing oneself in light of gay marriage. In fact, act utilitarianism theory explains this observation noting that humans should undertake actions that serve the good of the majority, considering all the available options. Various reasons have been suggested by different societies that argue against gay marriages. Among the major arguments against gay marriages has been fronted by Edwards (2007) who postulates that children experiencing the presence of legally married heterosexual parents tend to develop better relationships with the society as opposed to those brought up in a contrary environment. Such parents have been noted to exhibit lower rates of drugs and substance abuse making them enjoy better emotional and physical health. The role of fatherhood in marriage has been noted to be crucial for the well-being of the family. Children that do not experience fatherhood tend to develop mental problems, indulge in drug and substance abuse and even drop out of school. Gay marriage indeed denies children this provision making them exposed to such negative consequences. Religious teachings to a large extent argue against gay marriages as an act against the order of nature as intended by God (Edwards, 2007). Majority of religions argue against the postulate of being gay as a factor of one’s sexual orientation with Price (2013) proving through DNA testing that there exists no genetic relationship with regard to one’s sexual orientation. In a monthly journal on religion and public life, Bernheim appreciates that “the complementarity between man and woman is a fundamental principle” in a majority of religions (2013, p.48). The researcher argues on the duality of sexes as a fundamental constitution of humanity. In the creation story, sexual orientation has not been mentioned with regard to animals. But when it comes to humans, Genesis 1:21 (King James Version) gives an account of the union between man and woman becoming one flesh so as to fulfill the proper end of taking after God’s image. Therefore, “if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:13). The Quran gives the story of Lut who due to committing homosexuality among other sins had Allah send punishment from above. Rule utilitarianism documented by Mosser (2010) postulates that individuals should seek to do that which gives better outcome to the majority because it is a rule. Therefore, participants in gay marriage going against these religious principles and rules could be considered as being ethically wrong. In fact, whereas God used rainbow as a symbol for a covenant with the earth (Genesis 9:13), the gay community use independent rainbow flags for representation of their union, totally disregarding God. Arguments for Gay Marriage The proponents for gay marriage perceive being gay as a sexual orientation with which one gets born with hence the need for such people not to be discriminated based on their genetic construction. The theory of virtue ethics explains this as it views action from the character of the actor (Mosser, 2010). Therefore, if one has a sexual orientation that favors gay marriage, it would be logical to allow gay marriage. The issue of legal rights of couples in gay marriage still lingers with Williams (2011) seeking to oppose the argument by McDonough that illegalizing gay marriage does not amount to violation of equal rights. In his review of literature, the scholar argues against considering marriage as an individual right as would be the case with voting rights and free speech but as a collective right belonging to a social unit and would therefore not be exercised by an individual. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies such persons the rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts. Therefore, the argument by McDonough does not hold as it assumes marriage as an individual right. There are practical benefits that could be realized from gay marriages that are available to those in legal marriages as enshrined in the family law, income tax, pension benefits, immigration law and health benefits. With married gay partners facing the same responsibilities as their heterosexual counterparts including making appropriate decisions in legal or medical emergencies, child support, division of property and spousal support, it would be beneficial to legalize such a relationship. It is this consideration that made US’ President Obama, though short of endorsing gay marriage, consider approaching the Supreme Court to reverse an earlier ban on gay marriage in the state of California so as to ensure “marriage equality” and “advance civil rights of gay men” that would see an improvement in public health (Halkitis, 2012, p.1628). The General Accounting Office of the Federal Government gave legally married heterosexual couples rights to enjoy medical insurance, survivor benefits from workers’ compensation and retirement spousal benefits in 1997, hence locking out gay partners just because they do not have a right to legalize their marriage amounts to discrimination. Citing a research by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, MacIntosh, Reissing and Andruff (2010) observe that 85% of partners in gay marriages in Massachusetts consider legal recognition as among the major reasons for the need to legalize their marriages. The participants indicated the need to have a right to take care of their partners in case of injury or sickness, have the right to adopt children and acting on other legal issues as their driving force into such a relationship. Another important reason that the researchers document in their research as relates to gay marriage is satisfaction in relationship, noting from their review of various literature that same-sex marriage partners were more satisfied in their relationships than their heterosexual counterparts. While the quality of relationship for heterosexual couples declined over time that for couples in gay marriages increased. As documented by Mosser (2010), the theory of deontology focuses on the reason for undertaking a particular action as opposed to other options, regardless of the consequences. With the validity of these reasons, the ethical argument against gay marriage fails to hold. It is thus clear that such partners in gay marriage do not come together for procreation. Against religious argument for marriage as a course to having children, the proponents of gay marriage argue on marriage for companionship, the reason that God in Genesis 2:18 referred to Eve as Adam’s helper. There are heterosexual marriages that exist without children say due to bareness, use of contraceptives or menopause and the relationship remains normal. But even if gay couples would need to have children, various approaches could be used including adoption and making use of sperm banks. In fact, adoption makes such couples obey God’s command of helping the needy. Halkitis (2012) cites a research study conducted by the Child Welfare League of America that identified gay partners as having the same capacity of bringing up a child in the required manner just as heterosexual parents, which the researcher appreciates as the foundation of marriage as opposed to procreation. Williams (2011) appreciates the complexity of handling debates that cut across socio-cultural aspects due to the difficulty in describing the involved moral questions. The theory of utilitarianism postulates that in such ethical dilemmas, there should obviously be a fair solution in line with common sense. The theory postulates that people should seek to undertake that which serves to produce better outcome for the majority. But Mosser (2010) appreciates ethical theories and practice as “a two way street” whereby the ethical theory applied to solve a particular ethical problem could ignore important details that need to be considered and adjusted for in applying the theory. Therefore, making a choice in case of an ethical debate could be a complex task. Nonetheless, considering the theory of ethical relativism which postulates the absence of right or wrong, one would make a choice of action based on what appears more ethically and morally right. As such, the debate on gay marriage would persist as different persons in different contexts perceive it differently depending on one’s association of the raised arguments with ethical stand. Conclusion The debate on gay marriage seems to favor both divides equally as the arguments raised against this form of arrangement meet equal but opposing counterarguments. This therefore implies that the decision on whether gay marriage passes ethicality would depend on the context of reference. In reference to this paper, in spite of the meta-ethical perspective undertaken by theories such as ethical relativism, gay marriage remains largely unethical and socially unacceptable. Despite the valid arguments put forward to counter the arguments against gay marriage, a majority of authorities, be they legal, cultural, religious or social still perceive this as a socio-cultural evil. Therefore, with respect to the positions taken by these authorities, gay marriage should not be legalized. References Bernheim, G. (2013). Homosexual marriage, parenting and adoption. First Things, 41 – 50. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu Edwards, J. (2007). ‘Marriage is sacred’: The religious right’s arguments against ‘gay marriage’ in Australia. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 9(3), 247 – 261. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu Halkitis, Perry N. (2012). Obama, marriage equality and health of gay men. American Journal of Public Health, 102(9), 1627 – 1629. MacIntosh, H., Reissing, E. D. & Andruff, H. (2010). Same-sex marriage in Canada: The impact of legal marriage on the first cohort of gay and lesbian Canadians to wed. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 19(3), 79 – 90. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics and social responsibility. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from https://content.ashford.edu/books Price, C. H. (2013). Are people really ‘born gay’? Pure Intimacy. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from http://www.pureintimacy.org/piArticles/A000000416.cfm Williams, R. (2011). Same-sex marriage and equality. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 14, 589 – 595. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu Read More