Category: Same Sex Marriage

Abstract

The topic of the same-sex marriage has attracted heated debate over the years in the USA. The protagonists and antagonists of this marriage institution have always clashed over the tenet of the same-sex marriage against the moral standards of the society. This paper supports the argument that marriage of homosexual couples should be allowed holding this view as a dependent variable.

Through case study research, this paper explores the independent variables of gender, ethnicity and religious affiliation and their influence on homosexual marriage. The scope of the research is restricted to perceptions of the participants of the research case studies on homosexual marriage.

Introduction

In defining homosexual marriage, anthropologists formulate valid cross-cultural variations of modern and traditional forms. Same-sex marriage, just like any other form of marriage, is a union of two adults, though of the same sex, in a domestic arrangement with each member having defined roles to play. Over the years, homosexual couples have raised debates in the conservative American society (Baker, 2010).

Specifically, religious and conservative groups have been the most active in opposing homosexual couples getting married (Hunter, 2012). Despite these divergent opinions, homosexual couples have spread across several states of the USA and is now legal in the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts (Sherkat, Vries & Creek, 2009).

Several strategies have been embraced by the supporters, sympathizers and activists of gay marriage to get support of the public on the need to stop prejudicing gay and lesbian unions. For instance, the assimilation approach has positively resulted on gays in the USA (Baker, 2010). The members of this group have managed to convince society on the need to co-exist by employing civil rights movements, public protests, and race riots as actualized by the Sin Sity Sisters of Las Vegas (Sherkat, Vries & Creek, 2009).

The dependent variable in this research paper is that homosexuals should have the right to marry one another. Specifically, the research paper will examine the independent variables of gender, ethnicity and religious affiliation on the same-sex marriage. Through reviewing the relationship between the same-sex marriage and these independent variables, it is possible to determine the occurrence of the same-sex marriage and its current position in the United States of America.

Literature Review

Ethnicity

Ethnicity or race has direct influence on individual perception of homosexual couples and same-sex marriage. Through mixed research and social surveys carried in 2009, Sherkat, Vreis, and Creek (2009) established that racial divide has direct influence on perception of homosexual couples.

Through survey interviews involving 180 participants from the white and African American communities with equal representation, Sherkat, Vreis, and Creek (2009) resumed that 70% of the respondents of African American origin opposed homosexual marriage as compared with the 30% opposition by the white American ethnic groups.

Specifically, within the African American respondents, the main reason for this opposition was cited as conservative family norms and Protestantism faith which cannot accommodate same-sex marriage (Sherkat, Vries & Creek, 2009).

On the other hand, 30 percent of respondents of the white race that opposed same-sex marriage argued that homosexual couples’ behavior was against the social norms (Sherkat, Vries & Creek, 2009). Generally, it is important to note that gender variation within each ethnic group of study did not affect the response rate.

Ethnicity has a strong influence on the perception of an individual on same-sex marriage. The authors were in a position to explain the impact of ethnicity as influenced by conservative norms and personal beliefs. This article provides a preview of the independent variable of ethnicity on same-sex marriage research.

Religion

Nearly all the societies seem to have more opponents of same-sex marriage than its proponents on the basis of religion. Specifically, religiously based opposition has constantly and openly fought against this practice.

Through empirical research involving 320 respondents from mainstream churches and protestant churches with equal representation, Baker (2010) indicated that 80% of respondents from Protestant churches opposed same-sex marriage citing religious conflict and bad influence it has on society as compared to 63% of respondents sharing the same view from mainstream churches in a sample of 320 religious respondents (Baker, 2010).

The author noted that in the previous voting for and against the ‘Proposition 8’ which was seeking to illegalize same-sex marriage, the predominantly Christian voters carried the day by winning at 52% in support of the ‘Proposition 8’while 48% voted against the bill. Besides, several exit polls have reaffirmed that position among the Christians as compared to other religious groups.

In fact, in an informal exit poll carried in 2010 in California, the author noted that the self identified church leaders had a support percentage of 81% for the bill against legalization of same-sex marriage (Baker, 2010). At the same time, the author noted that 84% of the respondents who confessed of attending church services frequently voted to support the ‘Proposition 8’.

On the other hand, only 17% of non-Christian respondents supported ‘Proposition 8’. It is important to note that religion has direct influence on perception of same-sex marriage (Baker, 2010). Generally, Christians who frequently attend church services are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than non Christians or members of other religious groupings as it was observed in the Californian “Proposition 8’vote.

The Christian antagonists of same-sex marriage cited the breakdown of societal norms proving that it was leading to the emergence of destructive and traumatizing developments within the society which may have made young people seek comfort in same-sex relationships.

In response, the youth may resort to social tendencies of same-sex relationships as a protest leading to their categorization as same-sex couples in adulthood. The treatment of same-sex couples in the Christian society as outcasts and their exclusion from societal activities in the USA will not significantly change or come to the end in the near future. This article is critical in providing the current position of the independent variable of religion which is part of the scope of the research topic.

Gender

The male gender is more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than females when all the other factors are held constant. Through a case study research, Hunter (2012) found out that 67% of the male respondents opposed view of homosexual couples as compared 47% of female respondents in a sample space of 200 (Hunter 2012).

The author noted that the main reasons for strong opposition from the male gender was in the conflicts of gender roles since the traditional marriage define couple as a man and a woman who have specific roles to fulfill (Hunter 2012). A self-regulating society offers a facilitated explanation for the gender differences in support for same-sex marriage. The author is intrinsic to the above idea and is consistent in exploring possible reasons behind specific antagonist and protagonist inclination on same-sex marriage.

Hunter (2012) found out that the male members of the society expected gender conformity and based their argument on the roles to be played by each member of the marriage institution. However, the female population has more support for same-sex marriage than male gender due to changing role issues which the research could not explain (Hunter 2012).

Males are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than their female counterparts, irrespective of other dependent and independent factors. Male gender’s opposition is mainly influenced by belief that the gender roles in marriage will conflict. This article presents an overview of the gender variable which will be tested in the research.

Hypothesis

In order to capture a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives related to same-sex marriage, it is essential to reflect on the factors that influences same-sex marriage among the young adults in America.

The first hypothesis of this reflective study is that individuals raised in loose religious foundation are more likely to support same-sex marriage than individuals raised in the normal traditional religious family consisting of a father and a mother. The momentous variances in type of religious family upbringing and same-sex marriage are critical in reflecting on the underlying factors that promote same-sex marriage.

As was indicated by Baker (2010), individuals raised in loose religion with the parents being homosexuals are likely to support same-sex marriage and may end up as homosexuals in adulthood. Specifically, the authors indicated that 80% of respondents from Protestant churches opposed same-sex marriage citing religious conflict and bad influenced to the society as compared to 63% of respondents from mainstream churches in a sample of 320 self confessed religious respondents.

The second hypothesis of this study is that ethnicity influences the perception on homosexual couples becoming legally married couples. It is possible that ethnic traditional societal norms for marriage and relationship may modify an individual’s views on same-sex marriage. Such an individual may struggle to conform to such values and avoid same-sex marriage.

As indicated by Sherkat, Vreis, and Creek (2009), racial divide has direct influence on perception about homosexual couples. In a social survey research carried out in 2009, they found out that the African American and the Latino ethnic groups had more opposing views on homosexual couples than other ethnic groups in America.

Specifically, the authors noted that the African American ethnic group had reservations on homosexual couples due to influence by their conservative culture and Protestantism faith. Specifically, 70% of the respondents from African American ethnicity opposed homosexual marriage unlike the 30% opposition by the white American ethnic groups.

The last hypothesis is that the support and opposition of homosexual couples vary with gender in America. Specifically, the male members of the society are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than the female gender.

Through a case study research, Hunter (2012) found out that 67% of the male respondents opposed view of homosexual couples as compared 47% of female respondents in a sample space of 200. The author noted that the main reasons for strong opposition by the male gender was the conflicts of gender roles since the traditional marriage define couple as a man and a woman who have specific roles to fulfill. The female gender supported homosexual couples because of the changing roles in marriage.

Method

The design of this research was secondary data from the survey done by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC). Through social survey, the semi structured, interpretative, sample-based, and comparative in-depth interviews with key respondents was done over a period of two years from 1998 to 1999. Through qualitative data analysis, the study revealed explicit relationship between same sex marriage and the variables such as gender, religion and ethnicity.

Participants

The participants for the survey study carried by the National Opinion Research Center through General Social Survey (GSS) were of different ages. The survey targeted 25,000 participants from across the United States of America. The participants included the normal and special population groups. In the process of designing the survey and conducting the interviews, the researchers adopted the proportional sampling technique in selecting the households which qualify to participate in the research.

The result for each survey findings were draws without prejudgments from each participant. Since sampling was done across the entire continent, there was proper representation in expected findings. The participants of this survey study were English speaking adults of the legal age limit of 18 years and above. As prerequisite for participation, each participant was expected to be from a non-institutional household. The response rate in this survey was indicated as 71% (Davis and Smith, 2011).

Materials

The GSS used in this research had closed and open ended questions for the targeted participants on same sex marriage. The questions were designed to test the dependent variable which is ‘same sex marriage’ against the independent variables of ethnicity, religion and gender.

The questions on same sex marriage were directed to the participants who varied in terms of gender, religious inclination, and ethnicity. In addition, the GSS sheet had sections for personal demographic information of each participant such as age, gender, religion inclination and ethnicity. The predetermine responses for gender was female/male, religious inclination was Christian/Muslim/Atheist/Others, and ethnicity was White/Non White.

Procedures

Validity and reliability determines the accuracy of collected data in research. In order to achieve validity in questions presented in the questionnaire survey, the researchers carry out question pre-testing. The collected quantitative data was coded and passed through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version seventeen.

In the process, cross tabulation was used to compare and contrast perception on same sex marriage in the US. In order to quantify the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, Chi-square was essential besides figures, charts, and tabular representation of correlation analysis.

In the analysis, the researchers adopted the independent approach under which each independent variable was tested against the dependent variable. For each independent variable, a frequency table was generated to explain the relationship as a percentage of the population.

The same step was repeated for the other independent variables after which cross tabulation was generated to represent the contingencies of the study. This was followed by Chi-square analysis of the results in order to test the null hypothesis for the three independent variables of gender, religion, and ethnicity.

The analysis focused on the disintegrating the variation among and between groups of independent variables. Therefore, Chi-square analysis was meant to establish if there existed a statistical equality between the mean of the three groups of data. The first element of the Chi-square was that it measured the variations between groups.

This part entailed computing the difference between the mean for each of each independent variable and the mean for the population. To reject the null hypothesis for each of the independent variables, the value of F- calculated was to be greater than the value of F – critical.

Results

The frequency tables generated were reviewed to find out the perceptions on same sex marriage within the US. The frequency tables generated displayed the perceptions on same sex marriage as varying across different ethnicity, gender, and religion. A close examination of the results revealed interesting relationship between same sex marriage and the three independent variables.

Specifically, for the independent variable of religion, 29.9% of the Christians strongly opposed same sex marriage, 5.8% of the Christians opposed same sex marriage, and 26.9% were neutral. Only 21.2% of the Christians strongly supported same sex marriage with 19.2% supporting the same.

For the non-Christians, 25.1% strongly opposed same sex marriage, 15.7% opposed same sex marriage and 12.7% being neutral. Interestingly, the same percentage as Christians strongly supported same sex marriage with 25.3% opposing this union. It is apparent that the Christians strongly oppose same sex marriage as compared to non Christians. Also, non Christians are the strongest supporters of same sex marriage as compared to the Christians.

In the second independent variable of ethnicity, the results revealed that the whites are the strongest supporters and the supporters of same sex marriage. Specifically, 24.4% of those who strongly support same sex marriage are white against 11.7% among the non whites. In the elements of support (agree), 24.0% of the whites supports same sex marriage as compared to 28.5% among the non whites.

The natural responses also showed clear variances among the whites and non whites. The neutral responses to the research question indicated that 12.6% of the whites did not agree or disagree with the research question unlike 15.1% among the non whites. The 23.4% of the non whites strongly disagreed with the research question against 25.7% among the whites.

In the element of disagree, the findings indicated that 13.4% of the whites disagreed with same sex marriage as compared to 21.3% among the non white respondents. In the general findings, 21.4% of the total sample population strongly agreed with the research question as compared to 25.0% who agreed. In addition, 25.2% strongly disagreed as compared to 15.2% who disagreed. The 165 respondents who had a neutral response represented 13.1% of the sample population.

In testing the third independent variable of gender, the female gender supported the same sex union more than the male gender. On the other hand, the male gender strongly opposed same sex union. Specifically, the responses of the male gender indicated that 17.6% strongly agreed, 24.6% agreed, 12.4% neither agreed or disagreed, 18.1% disagreed, and 27.4% strongly disagreed with the research question that homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another.

On the other hand, the responses of the female gender indicated that 24.6% strongly agreed, 25.4% agreed, 14% neither agreed or disagreed, 12.6% disagreed, and 23.4% strongly disagreed with the research question that homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another. As a percentage of the total population, 21.4% strongly agreed, 25.0% agreed, 13.2% neither agreed or disagreed, 15.1% disagreed, and 25.2% strongly disagreed with the research question that homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another.

The first hypothesis of this reflective study was that individuals raised in loose religious foundation are more likely to support same-sex marriage than individuals raised in the normal traditional religious family consisting of a father and a mother.

The number of Christians observed as supporting strongly supporting sex marriage was 26.9% (14 respondents) as compared to 25.1% (297 respondents) of the non Christians who strongly opposed same sex marriage. Among the 2001respondents, 2900 were missing. This led to rejection of this hypothesis. This discrepancy could not be ignored since the number of Christian respondents was less than 5% of the non Christian respondents.

The second hypothesis of this study was that ethnicity influences the perception on homosexual couples becoming legally married couples. The number of whites observed as supporting strongly supporting sex marriage was 1539 respondents as compared to 493respondents of the non whites who strongly opposed same sex marriage. Among the 2032 respondents, 2869 were missing. This led to rejection of this hypothesis. This discrepancy could not be ignored since the Chi-square expected count of 38.26 since the results indicated 29.498 score.

In the last hypothesis which stated that the support and opposition of homosexual couples vary with gender in America, the findings indicated that the male members of the society are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage than the female gender.

The number of males observed as supporting strongly supporting sex marriage was 891 as compared to 1986 of the female gender who strongly opposed same sex marriage. Among the 2456 respondents, 2786 were missing. This led to rejection of this hypothesis. This discrepancy could not be ignored since the Chi-square expected count of 75.96 since the results indicated 10.965 score.

Discussion

Same sex marriage has elicited opposing and support in the American society. The findings indicated that the variables of gender, religion, and ethnicity determine the perceptions of an individual towards this union. Generally, the male gender showed stronger opposition to this union than the female gender.

Besides, the whites supported same sex marriage more than the non whites. In addition, Christians strongly opposed same sex marriage by a higher magnitude than the non Christians. Among the concerns raised by those who opposed this union included ethical concerns, changed family roles and bad influence to the society. However, the supporters of same sex marriage noted that it is union of consenting adults whose rights must be respected.

The first hypothesis of this reflective study was that individuals raised in loose religious foundation are more likely to support same-sex marriage than individuals raised in the normal traditional religious family. This research was founded upon the study by Baker (2010) which concluded that individuals raised in loose religion with the parents being homosexuals are likely to support same-sex marriage and may end up as homosexuals in adulthood.

Same as the findings of Baker (2010), the research by the National Opinion Research Center indicated that Christians opposed same sex marriage by higher magnitude than the non Christians. Apparently, the variable of religion is an indicator of an individual’s perception on same sex marriage.

The second hypothesis of this study was that ethnicity influences the perception on homosexual couples becoming legally married couples. This confirms the study by Sherkat, Vreis, and Creek (2009) which indicated that African American and the Latino ethnic groups had more opposing views on homosexual couples than other ethnic groups in America.

Same as the findings of Sherkat, Vreis, and Creek (2009) the research by the National Opinion Research Center indicated that non whites opposed same sex marriage by higher magnitude than the whites. Apparently, the variable of ethnicity is an indicator of an individual’s perception on same sex marriage.

The last hypothesis was that the support and opposition of homosexual couples vary with gender in America. This confirms the study by Hunter (2012) which found out that 67% of the male respondents opposed view of homosexual couples as compared 47% of female respondents.

Same as the findings of Hunter (2012) the research by the National Opinion Research Center indicated that males opposed same sex marriage by higher magnitude than the females. Apparently, the variable of gender is an indicator of an individual’s perception on same sex marriage.

References

Hunter, N. (2012). The future impact of same-sex marriage: More questions than answers. The George Town Law Journal, 100(1), 1855-1879.

Baker, B. (2010). Same-Sex Marriage and Religion: An Inappropriate Relationship. e-Research, 1(3). Web.

Davis, J.A., & Smith, T. W. (2011) General social surveys, 1972-2010[machine-readable data file] /Principal Investigator, James A. Davis; Director and Co-Principal Investigator, Tom W. Smith; Co-Principal Investigator, Peter V. Marsden; Sponsored by National Science Foundation. –NORC ed. — Chicago: National Opinion Research Center [producer];Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut [distributor].

Sherkat, D., Vries, K., & Creek, S. (2009). Race, religion, and opposition to same-sex marriage. OpenSIU Journal, 91(1), 80-98.

Introduction

The article ‘Against gay marriage’ was written by William J. Bennett. He has served in various leadership positions including a position as chairperson of the National Endowment for the humanities. He has produced various write-ups concerning cultural issues in America.

These include books and articles. His thesis is that gay marriage should not be legalized. The legalization of gay marriage in any society leads to social damage and the destruction of the normal structure of the family.

Summary

Bennett has (for a long time) been involved in the forefront in the fighting of same-sex marriages in the United States.

He argues that it is a social issue that may be detrimental to the values held in the society. He was disturbed because the Hawaii Supreme Court was considering legalizing same-sex marriage.

He argued that if Hawaii were to make gay marriages legal, many nations would embrace it too. Bennett terms the arguments made in favor of gay marriages as shrewd arguments (Bennett, 2005, p.409).

These arguments try to suggest that legalization may prove helpful to many in the society.

Bennett shows his concern about the value of marriage, given that gay marriages are legalized. He goes ahead to warn the audience not to take the step.

He argues that the marriage institution is fragile already and legalizing same-sex marriage would only make things worse. He continues to mention that all religions only support marriage between a man and a woman and he believes that this is not mere coincidence.

Bennett criticizes the work by Sullivan saying that his argument is baseless as he describes marriage (same-sex marriage) as an open contract where the single, moralistic model is not honored.

Bennett believes that the essence of marriage is faithfulness and some things such as adultery are not encouraged. This is unlike in gay marriages where they are encouraged to explore (Bennett, 2005, p. 410).

The author is against gay marriage due to the implications it may have on the younger generation (Bennett, 2005, p. 410). He argues that those born in such a society would be confused due to the existence of both homosexuality and heterosexuality.

To make things worse some believe that it is a cool thing to be gay and Bennett refers this as ‘sexual identity crisis’. Bennett argues that if gay marriage were to be legalized, several changes would occur including in the education system.

Students will need to be taught about gay marriage and made to understand that one could have two mothers or fathers.

In conclusion, Bennett argues that the marriage institution has suffered enough due to several issues and there is no need for making things worse by introducing same-sex marriage (Bennett, 2005, p. 411).

Evaluation

The information provided by Bennett accurate and logical. He argues that Sullivan supports gay marriage and yet the practices in such marriages do not follow the principles in marriage (faithfulness and fidelity).

He also argues that if all religions believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, then his argument is true.

He provides arguments in a clear and logical manner in such a way as to convince the reader of the ills associated with same-sex marriage. I agree with Bennett that gay marriages are unhealthy to the society.

Conclusion

Same-sex marriage is becoming a trend in the developed world and it is corrupting the norms and values in the society (Laycock, Picarello, & Wilson, 2008). On the other hand, Sullivan argues that same-sex marriage is good for Americans (Sullivan, 2011).

Bennett argues against gay marriages and advices the readers not to consider legalizing homosexuality. He believes that it would lead to social damage and further demean the marriage institution.

References

Bennett, W. (2005). Marriage and Family in America: Against gay marriage. New York: Sage.

Laycock, D., Picarello, A., & Wilson, R. (2008). Same-sex marriage and religious liberty: Emerging conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Sullivan, A. (2011, June 18). Why gay marriage is good for straight America. Newsweek Magazine, p. 3.

Introduction

Marriage has been regarded as one of the most important social institutions in the society. This is because it forms the basis of organization in any given society. “Marriage refers to an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found” (Dziengel, 2010).

Marriage is treated quite differently depending on the norms and values that exist in a given society. The current society is experiencing many social changes, which have influenced the nature of relationships among human beings. Marriage has also been affected by these social changes.

Same Sex Unions

Marriage is today very dynamic and people treat it differently from what it used to be in the past. Same sex unions are becoming popular in many countries and they are quite prevalent in European countries as compared to other places. Same sex marriage is commonly known as gay marriage. “It refers to a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender” (Goldberg, 2010).

History of Same Sex Unions

“Various types of same sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The early practice of this type of marriage was witnessed when Emperor Nero married a man who was serving as a servant in his Roman Empire.

Apart from Rome, this practice occurred in China during the Ming Dynasty and also in Spain. This type of marriage had very bad reputation and it was strongly rejected by many individuals and countries. “This attitude has been changing in the past few decades” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The twenty first century has witnessed a drastic change in the way people perceive this type of relationship.

Netherlands in the year 2001 emerged to be the first country to allow gay relationships. In 2003 the government of Belgium accepted this type of union. In 2005 both Canada and Spain formally accepted gay marriages. In 2006 the people of South African were allowed to practice gay marriages.

Sweden allowed it in 2009. Last year, Argentina, Iceland and Portugal also accepted this kind of relationship. In Mexico it is legalized but with some restrictions in the sense that it can only be practiced within the city of Mexico. However, all Mexican states acknowledge it.

“Israel does not recognize same sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdiction” (Ronner, 2005). Apart form South Africa, other African countries still remain conservative and they are not willing to accept this relationship. “In the United States, although same sex marriages are not recognized federally, same sex couples can marry in five states and one district” (Smith, 2010).

Debate on Gay Marriage

Opposing Arguments

The subject of gay marriage has been seriously debated in many places. This issue has been discussed both in religious and political circles. The following arguments have been used to reject gay marriage.

The general question is that why should people practice this kind of relationship? This is what the majority of people opposed to it seem to be asking whenever this issue is raised in any discussion. This people contend that legal relationships are only those between men and women. Hence they do not see the sense of people engaging in any other type of intimate relationship (Ronner, 2005).

Marriage is often seen as a religious rite and in this case people look at it from the religious perspective. They therefore believe that if gay marriage is legitimized it would undermine the religious principles. This is because religion has always been used to sanctify marriages (Farrior, 2009).

The dignity of the church has been affected because of the different attitudes adopted by religious leaders on this matter. Some churches are likely to get split because they cannot come to an agreement on how to handle this issue. This has adversely affected their capacity to spread the gospel. Some members of the church have even lost their faith and trust in religion because they do not agree with the church leaders who support this kind of relationship.

For example, the Anglican Church members and their leaders have been arguing about gay marriages. Since some of them support it, they have now formed a separate church. The Catholic Church has also had the same problem. Some Catholic monks have also been accused of child molestation and this has really affected their reputation.

Marriage is naturally understood as an institution for raising children. Same sex marriages do not give children an opportunity to have a good development. “In this case some individuals strongly feel that same sex partners can not provide the moral and psychological support required for raising children” (Goldberg, 2010). This is because such children would find it quite unusual when they realize that their parents have the same sex. This can really affect them psychologically (Goldberg, 2010).

Gay marriages are understood as unnatural unions. “This premise influences other arguments and lies behind many negative opinions about homosexuality in general” (Acevado & Wada, 2011). Since gay relationships are not normal, they should be reduced to social unions instead of being authenticated by the national leaders in a given country. This is because if such abnormal behaviors are allowed, they are likely to become very prevalent in our society in the near future. This may cause very many social problems.

Marriage is also an important cultural symbol. “Apart from marriage being an institution, it is also a symbol representing our culture’s ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). Symbols are very important because it is through them that we develop a sense of belonging to a given society or race. “Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people’s basic identities” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008).

It would also be difficult and expensive to integrate this people into the society. This is because people have to be taught to accept them. “Teaching people to become tolerant to gay individuals would be expensive” (Smith, 2010).

Supporting Arguments

Even though gay marriage is not supported by some people, I disagree with them because of the following arguments.

Marriage enables people to have access to social and economic needs. “Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically” (Ronner, 2005). Therefore if gay couples are guaranteed the right to marry they will probably have the chance to benefit from being married. This will also be helpful to the gay communities at large. For example the gay couples would remain committed in helping each other because of the marriage vows.

It would also be wrong for gay relationships to be treated as civil unions. This is because if the gay individuals can get married, they stand a better chance of enjoying several opportunities. This can not be the case if they are in civil unions. “Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for every one else and this type of marriage will be more of a threat than gay unions could possibly be” (Farrior, 2009).

The stability of our society can be enhanced if gay individuals can be given a chance to marry. Even the people who oppose this relationship believe that the family is the basis of our society. Therefore, if more families are formed through gay marriages, we can have a great society. The family also dictates the general trend in the society. Marriage would also facilitate the integration of gay people into their communities. Accepting gay relationships will therefore enhance the strength of our communities.

Many children are leading poor lifestyles and they cannot even access the common basic needs. Destitute children can have a chance to lead a good life if they can be adopted by married gay individuals. This is because they can provide emotional and financial support to such children. This can only be possible if they can be allowed to get married and adopt children.

Many people and groups are increasingly becoming conscious, and more concerned about the human rights. “Another argument that favors same sex marriages is that denying same sex couples legal access to marriage and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation” (Dziengel, 2010). Many people and institutions promoting human rights concur with this assertion. People in same sex unions do not access the rights given to the married people.

Gay couples have faced myriad challenges. Most of them have experienced psychological problems associated with verbal and physical abuse. For example, some of them have been attacked and brutally killed. This is because many people are not wiling to be associated with them hence they always intimidate them. One way of eliminating this stigmatization is by simply making it legal for them to get married.

It has also been noted with a lot of concern that HIV/AIDS is spreading among the gay people because they operate illegally. Marriage would make this people more faithful to their partners. This can reduce the chances of them contracting HIV/AIDS because they will be more responsible.

Conclusion

From the above argument it is very clear that many countries and individuals are increasingly accepting the fact that gay relationships are equally good. It is therefore important for people to stop being conservative only when it comes to marriage, yet they accept other serious changes that take place in their society.

For example, if abortion can be legalized, why no not gay marriages? “Legalizing gay marriages will probably make the social economic and political institutions in our societies more effective” (Smith, 2010). This is because people will have similar goals, and they will not have differences based on sexual orientation. I am therefore optimistic that in the near future many people will support same sex relationships.

References

Acevado, G., & Wada, R. (2011). Religion and attitudes toward same sex marriages among U.S. Latinos. Wiley -Blackwell Social Science Quarterly, 92, 35-56.

Benard, S. (2009). Heterosexual previlage awareness, previlage and support of gay marriage among diversity course students. EBSCOhost Journal, 58, 3-7.

Dziengel, L. (2010). Advocacy coalitions and punctuated equilibriam in the same sex marriage debate: learning from pro-LGBT policy changes in Minneapolis and Minnesota. Journal of Gay and Lesbian services, 22, 165-182.

Farrior, S. (2009). Human rights advocacy on gender issues: challanges and opportunites. Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice, 1, 83-100.

Goldberg, A. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: research on the family life cycle. Claiming a place at the family table: gay and lesbian families in the 21st century, 72, 230-233.

Haider, D., & Joslyn, M. (2008). Belives about the origin of homosexuality and support for gay rights. Oxford Journals public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 291-310.

Ronner, A. (2005). Homophobia and the law (law and public policy). New York: American Psychological Association.

Smith, M. (2010). Gender politics and same sex marriage debate in the United States. Oxford Jourrnals Social Politics, 17, 1-28.

Introduction

The term homosexuality appeared to have been used for the first time in the year 1869. In 1871, Germany government criminalized against such act. By 1947, an Institute for Sex Research was incorporated in Indiana. In the year 1961, a Vatican said that anyone involved with homosexuality was not eligible to take religious vows. Later in 1972, a church in Netherlands argued that gays and lesbians could also serve as pastors.

The United Methodist Church in U.S.A. voted against the issue of “compatibility between the church and homosexuality”. Ever since, there have been a number of advances on the subject of gay affairs. In a good number of States, prejudice of groups based on their sexual orientation has been forbidden. This document aim to argue that validation of homosexuality has a harmfully influence on the community ethical fabric or cause discrepancy in relations.

Concession

Majority of spiritual associations have based their opinions on holy scripts and argued that justification of homosexuality has led to erosion of ethical values within the American people. This moral approach has played enormous position throughout political movements where people values have superseded the aspiration to decriminalize homosexuality particularly in school boards and sacred unions.

In their point of view, spiritual groups argue that marriage is sanctified union and therefore holy. They as a result argue that God created man and bespoke him to fill up the world through his union with the female partner and not people of same sexual category (Ayers and Brown 15).

Secondly, opponents of homosexuality advice that marriage amid people of identical gender does not hold any logic as it lack rationale and purpose. They emphasize that marriage between man and woman has a primary objective of giving birth. Conversely, marriage between people of the same gender does not have this objective. On top of siring, marriage of similar sexual category can be done for the main intention of material goods allotment and companionship.

The anti-homosexuality bodies argue that these can be accomplished without marrying. There are regulations that would contentedly attend to the matters of material goods sharing and heritage (Sherman 14). These urgings nevertheless, have not been able to persuade pro-homosexuality bodies. It is based on this that I personally oppose legalization of marriages of the same sex.

Science and homosexuality

Initially, they dispute that homosexuality is normal and inherited. Whilst anti-homosexual lobbies dispute that this is a conduct acquired from the setting, science has confirmed that homosexuality is an innate issue (Garber 16).

Le Vay’s 1991 research showed that there are structural distinctions within the mind of homosexual men and their heterosexual complements. According to the research, it was acknowledged that interstitial nuclei located in the anterior hypothalamus of individuals’ brain demonstrated structural diversity in the two categories of men.

In homosexuals, the structure was minor in comparison to the heterosexual counterparts. He affirmed that the dimension of this structure had a responsibility to tackle in determining person’s sexual orientation. This implies that homosexuality is not a behavior acquired from the surrounding but an inborn occurrence. It is therefore crucial that such groups are given sovereignty as any other groups with hereditary deformations that lead to body disabilities.

This is according to science but still ethically, marriage of the same sex should not be allowed and instead, the concerned parties should be counseled and guided to avoid such immoral behavior. In brief, policy makers should structure a set of laws that will strongly discourage people engaged or those who have intentions getting involved in such disgusting inhuman behavior and the whole community in general from strongly leaning towards homosexual tendencies.

Reversibility of the trait

Most people say that homosexuality is an innate and irreversible progression that cannot be downcast by restrictions. This might not hold true considering the fact that in the beginning homosexuality was not there. Mostly, legal prices are imposed on these acts to depress persistent involvement in this act (Kamiat 230).

This serves the purpose of dispiriting people from appealing to this act. It is very true that an infant with homosexual genes can be transformed to a normal human being. A biological study suggests that once exposed to new environment old characteristics in human beings extinct with time. On the contrary, some scientists argue against this. Anyway, let us believe these genes do not even exist considering that these characteristics did not portray themselves in the beginning of the world, and so they have been learnt later.

Conclusion

In brief, it has been argued by conformists and spiritual bodies that homosexuality should not be endorsed. As far as discrimination neglects right to those who have already conformed to homosexuality, we should think of living in holy and sacred society. We should not join hands to support such dirty acts that soil the moral standards that God put in the beginning of this world. Indeed, we should recognize that God teachings weigh more than people’s own decisions and practices that emerged the other day (Borg 36).

This will enhance respect and dignity in today’s society. As a result, we shall live in a blessed world and escape wrath of the Lord our Father. Therefore, a man should marry a woman and sire children, and as a result fill the world as God said. Therefore marriage of the same sex should not be legalized.

Works Cited

Ayers, Tess, and Paul, Brown. The essential guide to gay and lesbian weddings. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1994. Print.

Borg, Marcus. Reading the Bible again for the first time: Taking the Bible seriously but not literally. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.

Garber, Marjorie. Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Kamiat, Arnold. “A Psychology of Asceticism,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23 (1928): 223-231.

Sherman, Suzanne. Lesbian and gay marriage: Private commitments, public ceremonies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992. Print

Introduction

The paper is a critical examination of the concept of same sex marriage and child adoption. A brief overview of same sex marriage is provided. Similarly, arguments supporting and opposing individuals in same sex marriage to adopt children are succinctly brought forth. “Adoption is a legal process whereby an individual or a couple presumes the parenting for another who is not kin and, in so doing, permanently transfers all rights and responsibilities from the original parent or parents” (Pertman, 2000).

Globally, it is only 14 countries that have legalized same-sex adoption. In most countries, the phenomenon is against the law despite the fierce debate to allow such a phenomenon to be practiced. The opposing main argument stems from the question of whether the adopting parents are in a position to be better parents.

In America, between 6 and 14 million children are living with at least one gay/lesbian parent. Most of the American States no longer hold back the consent of accepting peoples’ sexual orientation. It is worth noting that the courts as well as State agencies put in practice a principle of best interest of the child standard in order to arrive at a solution.

It is as a result of this approach that an individual sexual orientation can’t be used to limit them from adopting children least it is proven beyond doubt that the relationship will be harmful to the child. Close to 22 states permit gay men and lesbians to adopt children via state or private run agencies.

It is worth noting that since the 1977 Florida is the only State that had completely banned gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. The legislation of 1977 was passed in the wake of a campaign dubbed, “Save Our Children”. It is the following States Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California that allow same sex couples to adoption. Some States permit single people to adopt, others discourage it. According to Wardle, 2008, the American academy of paediatrics declared that gay, lesbian parents should be allowed to adopt children.

This provoked outcries from all quotas. Despite the fact that the proponents have strong arguments supporting the notion that gay parent should be allowed to adopt children, the paper will strongly argue why this is wrong by drawing and presenting ideas in a succinct manner. “Same-sex marriage also known as gay marriage is legally and/or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender” (Boswell, 1995: 43).

Argument against same sex adopting kids

In the reflection of same sex couples adopting children, there has been constant dispute on the issue of their custodies. It has widely been believed that the children who have been headed with heterosexual parents are better off by far than the one from single sex especially from the gay parents (Limpkin, 2005). There several aspect that have been cited to affect these children

Sexual identity is one of the major concern that the children who have been adopted by gay parent experiences difficulties in the development of sexual identity. It has established that children who have been brought up by gay/lesbian parents are constantly disturbed by gender identity where they are unable to personally identify themselves as male or female.

In addition, they are disturbed by gender roles where they cannot be able to distinguish the degree to which different culture are regarded as feminine or masculine. Moreover, they are reported to get a problem of sexual orientation where they get a lot of problem in choosing the sexual partners. They get confused on whether to have a bisexual, homosexual or heterosexual relationship.

According to religion and science, kids are brought to the world by both a man and a woman. For this reason, it is only natural for kids to be raised in a family that has both father and mother as this is the natural order and perverting it is wrong to say the least. For this reason same sex marriage should not be allowed to adopt children. It is no doubt that human are influenced by a number of factors among them those people they closely associate with such as parents

First of all, we are all influenced as we grow up by our parents which means they may take on the same sexual preferences as there parents. Homosexuality is common place in society but in the natural order of things it is not normal. We are born into this world by man and woman not by the same sex (Chartier, 2001). Secondly, children have a hard enough time trying to figure who they are and how they fit into society as they approach puberty and in to there teens.

They don’t need to deal with teasing and ridicule from peers and there parents. Some things should not be allowed. Our society has become a joke and I will definitely petition against this. If you grow up and decide that you want to be gay that’s your business but it is not fair to allow homosexuals to influence innocent children period (Chartier, 2001).

Majority but not all of couples in same sex marriage practice some social ills that will be definitely transferred to the adopted kids. Research has shown that most of such couples actively engage in activities such as drug abuse (sniffing cocaine), alcoholism, smoking marijuana to mention but a few.

When the children adopted by such parent grow up, they have higher chances of practicing what they see in their childhood. Although not proven yet, it is asserted that such children usually turn out to be violent as they seek to defend their ‘confused identity (Ball, 2004).

Arguments supporting same sex couples adopting children

It has been argued that providing such parents an opportunity to legally adopt children offer such children an opportunity of being ‘loved’ and feel the presence of parents. When compared to those children that do not have parents or the parents are there but are unwilling to provide for them due to economic difficulties, those adopted by parent in the same sex marriage (SSM) are better off.

Similarly it is no doubt that child home cares are past their carrying capacity and service delivery to a larger population of children is not upto standard (Wardle, 2008). When SSM adopt them they ease the pressure in such facilities thereby making the government spend less while at the same time those remaining in such facilities are provided with efficient services.

On the same note it has been brought forth that adopting children by couples in SSM is in line with the American constitution of equal rights. Apart from allowing them to marry which in their opinion is fair and just to their commitment to marry the person they are in love with, providing them the opportunity to have children makes them to be just like heterosexual couples. Those in support of this kind of an arrangement argue that children adopted have higher chances of performing better in academics (Ball, 2004).

Conclusion

From the review of the concept of same sex marriage adopting children there both pros and cons of such an initiative. For instance among the strong arguments against the idea of same sex married couples adopting children include distortion of natural order, children assuming ill behaviours such as drug abuse among others. On the other hand supporters argue that the arrangement ease pressure on children homes, provide them with an opportunity to have parent to mention but a few.

References

Ball, C. (2004). “The Positive in the Fundamental Right to Marry: Same-Sex Marriage in the Aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas, Minnesota Law Review, 88 (1): 1184-1232.

Boswell, J. (1995). The Marriage of Likeness: Same-sex Unions in Pre-modern Europe. New York: Simon Harper and Collins.

Chartier, G. (2001). “Natural Law, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Politics of Virtue,” UCLA Law Review , 48(2): 1593-1632

Limpkin, R. (2005). “The Harm of Same-Sex Marriage: Real or Imagined?” 11 Widener Law Review, 11(3):277-308.

Pertman, A. (2000). Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution Is Transforming America. New York: Basic Books

Wardle, D. (2008) “A Response to the Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marriage: Same-Sex Marriage and the Tragedy of the Commons,” BYU Journal of Public Law, 22(4): 441-474.

Introduction

One of the most heated debates of our time entails same sex marriage. While many people point out different reasons for opposing such a marriage, others have equally many reasons for supporting it. This paper seeks to support same sex marriage in the limelight of increasing liberalism and human rights across the world. In addition, the paper will utilize various articles and scholarly sources to find grounds for supporting the argument.

Arguments for Same-Sex Marriage

At the outset, it is important to notice that the proposed constitutional amendments that seek to proscribe same sex marriage defy the very basic principles of which the constitution exists. The rationale is that the aim of a constitution is to protect human beings from possible violations of their rights.

This implies that a constitution ought to empower its people as opposed to disempowering them. The document accords people the power to protect their intrinsic rights. As such, an effort to amend it with the aim of criminalizing people is not only unconstitutional but also discriminatory to a cross section of the society. It contradicts the very foundation of human rights and inherent rights of human beings who now seem as though they are the subjects of draconian rules yet the reverse should be true.

By legalizing same sex marriages, opponents argue that it would be harmful to heterosexual marriages. How is that? Considering such countries such as Belgium and Netherlands where the relationships are legal, research has shown that conventional marriages have suffered no harmful effects from homosexual and lesbian marriages.

As such, legalization of same sex marriage does not imply the end of heterosexual marriages but it offers different people who have different sexual orientation a choice. This is without feeling discriminated in countries, which they belong.

Third, the government should not involve itself with such issues as sanctity and sacredness of the marriage institution. This in consideration of the fact that the government is a secular political institution and should not concern itself in making judgments about sanctity of social and religious institutions.

The rationale is that the argument that numerous critics put forward revolves around the sanctity of marriage borrowed heavily from Christianity. In secular nations, nobody (even the government) should have the right to dictate individual righteousness and sanctity.

Over and above, marriage institution should not denote a religious institution. This is because the country appreciates diversity and it should realize that numerous people have different backgrounds. Criticizing same sex marriages is a way of showing intolerance to different cultures and orientations. The proposed amendment seeks to draw its major support some sub sections of religion, which should not be the case in the contemporary world.

Critics point out that marriage institution entails more than just emotions and feelings. Nonetheless, banning people from expressing their emotions to the people they love just complicates the matter even more since there will be two categories of people in the country. Some people will not enjoy their freedoms and rights because of a seemingly primitive amendment. To this end, it is important for the government to halt its plans and find a progressive way to deal with the issue rather than hiding in the contexts of religion.

Conclusion

In sum, same sex marriages should continue to be legal. By banning them, the government will use the constitution to deny some of its people some fundamental rights. Besides, marriage is not a subset of religion.

Same sex marriage is a moral issue that has raised controversies in many parts of the world. It is popularity referred to as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a condition in which an individual is sexually attracted to members of his or her gender. In a number of countries, same sex marriage has been legalized while some countries are still opposed to the issue.

Homosexuality is perceived as a sexual orientation characterized by romantic or sexual desire towards members of own sex. A gay is a male homosexual while a lesbian is a female homosexual. Scholars of sociology observe that a number of factors cause homosexuality (Gary 21). A study conducted in the US in 1940 concluded that individuals decide to engage in sexual behaviors with members of their own sex because of social and psychological factors.

For instance, the early experiences of homosexuality might predispose an individual to homosexual behaviors. Research shows that children who are abused sexuality have high chances of becoming homosexuals. Moreover, poor relationships with parents might force children to engage in homosexuality. Some homosexuals claim that they were born that way meaning that their sexual behavior is influenced by genetics.

Some individuals are influenced by friends to become homosexuals while others become homosexuals due to unusual sexual experiences in children, such as excessive masturbation, exposure to pornography, personalized sex, group sex, and bitter experiences in relationships. Cultural factors can as well influence an individual to become a homosexual. Presence of homosexuals in the family can influence young members to follow the same way. In most Asian countries that subscribe to Confucianism, homosexuality is tolerated.

Even though homosexuality is considered abnormal in most countries, some countries have legalized same sex marriage. Countries that condemn homosexuality do not crack down on homosexuals, but they have tough laws that prohibit same sex marriage.

In some countries such as Uganda and Zimbabwe, homosexuals are perceived as people with low self-esteem and are ranked lower than dogs and pets. Same sex marriage is prepared because heterosexuality is believed to be oppressive to women. Feminist scholars observe that men are always unfair to them in heterosexual relationships. From a human rights perspective, crusaders of homosexuality note that same sex marriage is an individual freedom.

Denying individuals to marry partners of their choice amount to discrimination and injustice. In this regard, human rights movements have been pressurizing states to allow homosexuality and same sex marriages (Layte 78). In fact, the UK and the US slapped economic sanctions to countries that will discriminate homosexuals. In the modern society, homosexuals are treated in the same way as other minorities.

Since an individual has the right to privacy, same sex marriage should be allowed because grownups should be allowed to practice things that satisfy them. As long as people agree to have consensual sex, the state or society should not interfere. However, the act should always be done in privacy. Some observe that same sex marriage and homosexuality is a human innovation that leads to happiness.

Homosexuality is human creativity that can increase happiness among individuals. Since homosexuality is genetic, some scholars note that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Various studies show that homosexuality is a condition that cannot be controlled. Therefore, allowing homosexuals to marry will be doing justice to them. Even though various groups have raised several claims, many states are reluctant to allow same sex marriage.

Works Cited

Gary, John. Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey. New York The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, 2010. Print.

Layte, Rubin. The Irish study of sexual health and relationships. Dublin: Crisis Pregnancy Agency, 2006. Print.

The article Gay Marriage, Same-sex Parenting, and America’s Children, was written in 2005 by Meeza & Rauch and is found in the Marriage and Child Wellbeing Journal, volume 15, issue 2. The key concept of this reflective treatise is an explicit analysis of same sex marriage and parenting in order to establish possible reasons for their increasing number in the modern society and how the same affect America’s children as asserted by Meeza and Rauch.

This article is a research on same-sex marriage parenting and how the same affect children in such marriages. Reflectively, the authors adopted quantitative research majoring in snow balling to randomly factor in responses from subjects of the study. In addition, qualitative data analysis method was used to draw inferences.

From the article, the authors assert that nearly all societies seem to have more opponent of same sex parenting than proponents. Specifically, religion based opposition have constantly and openly gang up against this practice but unfortunately, seem to be losing the battle.

Since ancient time, same sex union has always existed in the form of ritualized informal engagement with no parenting role attached to it. Although not federally recognized, gay/lesbian marriage can be done in the states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts. This article opine that same sex marriage parenting often affect children negatively as these children are subjected to prejudice and discrimination among peers (Meezan & Rauch, 2005).

This in turn interferes with their physical, psychological, and social development. However, the proponents of this type of union are drawn from civil unions, domestic right groups and registered informal societies who extends their hand in support for this highly criticized union.

In conclusion, the authors assert that marriage, irrespective of the gender of its party, is a social role which when freely accepted, is a mechanism for liberalizing parenting especially when the same is practiced within the limits of the law. The three principles of equal rights, respect, and need for complete acceptance as part of the society may make life bearable for children in this union.

However, on religious and social norms ground, the same paints moral decay, disrespect of religion, and threaten moral standards expected of their children (Meezan & Rauch, 2005).

From the gathered statistics on the level of acceptance or rejection in the United States, the findings reveal that children in same-sex marriages are often subjected to prejudice besides struggling to fit among the religious population comprising of the conservatives vehemently antagonizes acceptance of their parents and themselves. These findings were supported by results from those randomly interviewed comprising of a sample space of 1000.

Reflectively, this article covers the aspect of family acceptance as the building block of the society. The article reveals the essence of religion and norms on social, psychological, and physical development as part of general acceptance. This article same reflection family as a building block of the society as asserted by Macionis in his 13^th edition of the book SOC 100: Sociology.

This article is different from other non scholarly article in the essence of qualitative research. Besides, its conclusions are drawn from findings that are systematically collected and scientifically analyzed. Besides, it presents researched recommendations based on the factual findings. However, it shares the same reflective approach towards understanding specific phenomena just like in magazines and newspapers.

Reference

Meezan, W., & Rauch, J. (2005). Gay Marriage, Same-sex Parenting, and America’s Children. Marriage and Child Wellbeing, 15(2), p. 97-116.

Introduction

Unlike the previous generations, the modern world is faced with a host of issues ranging from economical to social, both of which have significant impact on people’s day-to-day lives. From financial crises to same sex marriages, world leaders have had to confront these issues through decisions and stances, which will forever affect our society.

It is true that several decades ago, the issue of same sex marriages seemed to be like a mirage to many, as no one imagined how such culture would become accepted and assimilated in the world.¹

However, things have changed; instead of wondering how gay marriages could be accepted, the world is tasked with protecting the rights of gays and lesbians, as the practice has become acceptable in most parts of America and the rest of the world. As the world is torn in between legalizing same sex marriages or not, many people have constantly sought to understand the point at which, human beings deviated to accept what was initially condemned as sin.

Does this mean that the definition and meaning of marriage has changed with time to recognize the union between people of the same gender? If this trend is being accepted by some religious leaders, does it mean that the God who deemed it important for a man to unite with a woman in marriage has changed? Is same sex marriage right or wrong?

Indeed there are manifold questions, which linger in the minds of people while discussing the issue of same sex, with some states taking the step of legalizing such unions and ensuring that the rights of homosexuals are protected.

On the other hand, same sex has been accorded hostile reception in various parts of the world, with strong laws criminalizing unions of this nature. This paper explores the issue of gay marriages, with reference to the meaning of marriage, its importance, the cons of same sex marriage, and why some people support gay marriages.

What is Marriage?

Definitions of marriage widely vary, depending on the context in which the issue is being discussed. For instance, religious people have a different view of marriage as compared to the civil society and legal practitioners. Importantly, the definition of marriage is essential in understanding the importance of marriage and why gay people are getting accepted in the world today.

By viewing marriage in the context of love, some people argue that marriage is a step of love aimed at publicizing a relationship and cementing it to become legally recognized and eternal. Even though marriage is supposed to last as long as the two parties are a live, the bond is commonly broken by other factors, with divorce being the leading terminator of marriage unions.² In fact, it has been argued that the rate at which marriages break is almost the same as that at which people wed.

During the stage of marriage, people change as they learn one another and accept who they are regardless of their shortcomings and abilities. The mysterious thing about marriage is that two people who were once strangers become the best friends ever and swear to stick together forever. Marriage as an institution is usually recognized by the state and federal governments, through legislations, which define the union.

Besides the legal understanding of marriage, religion equally defines the institution from God’s intention and position. According to Christians, marriage was instituted by God through the intention of establishing an everlasting relationship between a man and woman. In the book of Genesis Chapter one, the bible explains how God created everything, including human beings, who were created on the second last day of creation.

In the same book, it is recorded that God chose to create human beings in His own image and likeness, by creating them male and female. This depicts the fact that human beings are a special creation of God for they resemble Him and represent His presence on earth.³

This is one of the major differences between human beings and the rest of the creation. Unlike other animals, God breathed life into man after forming him from the ground, which He had previously formed. This exemplifies man as special and unique, as he was to perform various tasks on earth, including having dominion over the rest of the creation.

Another important aspect of Christians’ view on creation is the fact that God never intended man to be alone. God created the first man, Adam before creating Eve. In other words, He saw the need of creating Eve after realizing that life would be unbearable for Adam if he was to be left to stay alone.

This narrows down to the fact that God created the woman and the marriage institution as a way of completing humanity. It is worth noting that God had a clear intention of creating Eve and not by imposing her to Adam. It was evident that Adam needed companion; a suitable helper who could support him in fulfilling God’s task on earth.⁴

The creation story, which gives the foundation of marriage, is further recognized by Moses. The bible states that a man and woman get united in marriage by leaving their parents for the sake of becoming one body (Genesis 2:24).⁵ It therefore serves as a reference point in defining primary principles of marriage. This verse is equally important in understanding divorce cases and circumstances under which a person is allowed to remarry.

From the creation story, God created marriage in the same manner He created male and female. Thus marriage was not designed by individuals who found themselves to be male and female and chose to get united. Additionally, marriage is usually made in the presence of God, regardless of the parties involved, know the existence of God or not. Marriage between a man and a woman is also recognized by Jesus in the New Testament, based on the fact that it is God who joins a man and a woman in marriage. ⁶

From this foundation of the institution of marriage, the relationship of homosexuals has been excluded. God does not acknowledge the union of people of the same sex, but allows a man to get united to his wife to become one flesh and live to accomplish His purpose for them.

In other words, same sex marriages are considered as perversions of the covenant, which God ordained from the beginning.⁷ The formal commitment between a man and woman to live together is what separates couples who cohabit from those who have legally been joined together in accordance with the word of God.

Importance of Marriage

From a Christian point of view, the institution of marriage would not have been created if God saw it to be useless. After observing Adam, God noted that he was not going to perform his duties effectively on his own. He therefore needed a helper to stick by him. On this basis, marriage is meant to achieve human completeness.

When people get married, they become more responsible.⁸ Thus one is expected to be more organized after marriage because of the presence of another person who offers a hand in every circumstance. This organization gives a person emotional stability, which is necessary in performing day-to-day tasks, without giving up.

It has been argued that marriage plays a major role in civilizing men. In other words, the union between a man and a woman has the potential of detaching them from immoral behaviors and self-centered activities. This is to say that married people become more committed to the needs of the family as compared to single people who are driven by their personal needs and wants.

As a result, married men are less likely to be caught in criminal activities like fighting and drinking, which are common among their single counterparts. Most married men are involved in intimate relationships with their family members, say children and wife, better than those in illegal relationships like cohabitation. This aspect is important in making men and women to become more responsible even as they grow up into adults.

It is also important to note that marriage helps one to void forbidden sins like homosexuality and incest. In most religions, homosexuality is highly condemned and victims are expected to ask forgiveness from the maker or face the punishment established in the land.⁹

Many single people get involved in fornication and other related actions, thus exposing themselves to the risk of being infected with diseases like HIV/AIDs or unwanted pregnancies. Men who engage in homosexual activities are at a higher risk of contracting the disease through anal intercourse. This therefore puts gay people at a higher risk compared to heterosexuals.

Based on the religious foundation and understanding of marriage, many people have failed to comprehend the arguments for same sex marriage and why the world has given it more attention instead of outright condemnation as witnessed before. What is the theology of homosexuals? Is there a way that the world can be made to understand gay marriages? Does it mean that the foundation of marriage is outdated and does not apply in the 21^st century?

Same Sex Marriages

In recent years, the battle for gay rights has been reenergized even though gays were initially suppressed and remained unheard in the society. Many groups are pushing for equal rights with traditional heterosexual marriages.

In some cases, those who have declared same sex marriage as sin have faced immense criticism from the public since people who engage in these actions are normal and members of the wider society.¹⁰ There is no doubt that gay activists have continued to progress, as some states have ratified gay rights to eliminate rampant discrimination against homosexuals.

Liberals View on Same Sex Marriages

According to the liberals, there is need for the world and the church to reconsider its position on same sex marriages. On this basis, it has been argued that soon people will realize how they have been misled to believe that same sex marriages are evil.

In fact, a section of bishops concur that Christianity is not defined by our views towards issues of marriage but rather a common relationship in Christ, characterized by major elements like repentance, Holy Spirit, faith, and baptism.¹¹ Some liberals affirm that the Old Testament scriptures, which condemn homosexuals, have long been discarded by most Christians in order to accommodate the rights of gays and lesbians in the society.

Same Sex Blessings

Liberals have been on the frontline in supporting the blessing of same sex unions. From the very beginning, God is described in Trinity: God the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. By the fact that human beings have been created in the image of God, they have been created to be in love with God and other people in the world.

Importantly, these relationships take varying positions, including marriage, which was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden when man was still innocent and free from sin.¹² According to Christians, marriage symbolizes the union between Christ and His Church, whereas traditionalists support marriage on the basis of procreation, mutuality, and sexual satisfaction.

Pro same sex marriage theologians affirm that such unions fulfill the primary intentions and purpose of marriage. For instance, same sex couples uphold self-sacrifice, faithfulness, fidelity, and mutual support among other pillars of marriage. In essence, gay marriages are practiced through sanctification, and couples are able to witness to the entire community with regard to how such unions are fruitful and beneficial to the married couples.

While many supporters of heterosexual marriages favor it for the sake of bearing children, theologians argue that there are countless heterosexual couples who do not have children because of various reasons like impotency, advanced age, or disability.¹³ However, these shortcomings do not limit them from remaining married and fulfilling God’s purpose and intension for marriage.

Some couples undergo medical procedures to allow them to conceive or impregnate, yet they are blessed in the church without being undermined. Moreover, same sex marriages equally provide safe homes, which provide love and safety for raising children. This therefore does not make same sex marriages different from traditional marriages, where child-rearing is highly revered.

Supporters of same sex marriages argue that the position held by Christians who only recognize heterosexual unions is inadequate. By extending these boundaries to accommodate gays and lesbians, it would be easier to connect the church with the love of Christ for everyone. As much as the world has always known that marriage only takes place between people of the opposite sex, it is worth noting that this might not be always true.

For instance, a person may be of the opposite sex but appears different to his or her partner, a case which undermines marriage.¹⁴ When married people do not see one another as members of the opposite sex, the scenario is likely to lead to infidelity and divorce instead of maintaining high standards of faithfulness and truthfulness. In other words, same sex marriages present a better picture of the love of Christ.

Furthermore, there is more satisfaction in same sex marriages as compared to opposite sex unions. Under normal situations, gays and lesbians can enjoy satisfaction without necessarily being in marriage even though members of these unions practice high levels of sanctification.

In fact, people in heterosexual marriages need sanctification just like those who have covenants to marry a person of the same gender.¹⁵ Moreover, self-expression does not depend on marriage among gays and lesbians; they only require marriage for the purpose of self-donation, and experiencing daily challenges and rewards of appreciating one’s neighbors.

The question, which many people are confronted with, revolves around changing one’s sexual orientation to fit the demands of the state or society. Such attempts are considered to be unethical because it goes against one’s integrity and creates room for betrayal of relationships, in which we are recognized as witnesses.

On his part, God endeavors to heal, transform, covert, and change sinners to allow them to enter into a spiritual relationship. If the church is not interested in promoting these unions by destroying orientation, then it is misguided. This means that we do not need scientific theories and discoveries to explain the existence of varying sexual variations among members of the society.¹⁶

From a genetic point of view, the sexual orientation of a person starts in the womb during all the development stages. Importantly, it is God who knows people when they are still in their mothers’ wombs, just the way he knew Jeremiah.

The Church is therefore supposed to help people understand themselves better and know how these gifts are consecrated by God, before a person is born. In addition, churches should be concerned with nurturing relationships, to allow parties in these unions to offer themselves for God’s service. This can only be achieved if marriage is extended to recognize gays and lesbians, who were also known by God before they were born.¹⁷

Christian Stance

Even though there are Christian bishops and priests who support same sex marriages, these unions remain sin before God because He created male and female and joined them in marriage. God was pleased with everything He created, including human beings.¹⁸

Additionally, a godly marriage between a man and a woman is supposed to depict the ultimate relationship between Christ and the Church. This therefore excludes same sex unions from the holistic definition of marriage. Referring to such partnerships as marriage is illegal, and outright dishonest before God.

The bible also carries countless verses, which denounce homosexual behaviors. In fact, God only allows believers to engage in sexual activities within the confines of marriage. Gays and lesbians therefore undermine the true identity that was created in defining human sexuality.¹⁹

Conclusion

In general, the issue of same sex remains debatable, since there is no consensus on the true definition of marriage and God’s perspective towards homosexuals. While Christians hold that marriage was ordained by God for men and women, liberals argue that it is God who creates homosexuals with different sexual orientations.

Like the sons and daughters of God, homosexuals are known and named in their mothers’ wombs before being born. This means that the true love of Christ to the church can only be realized if marriage boundaries are extended to accommodate homosexuals.

Bibliography

Busenitz, Irvin. “Marriage and Homosexuality: Toward a Biblical understanding.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 19 (2008): 203-216.

Good, Deirdre. “The Liberal Response.” Anglican Theological Review 93 (2011): 101-110.

Haldane, John. “Against Erotic Entitlements.” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life 222 (2012): 19-20.

International Bible Society. NIV Bible. Colorado: Hodder, 2008.

Jost, Kenneth. “Gay Marriage.” Congressional Quarterly 13 (2003): 721-748.

Footnotes

¹ Irvin Busenitz, “Marriage and Homosexuality: Toward a Biblical understanding,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 19 (2008): 204.

² Ibid.

³ International Bible Society, NIV Bible (Colorado: Hodder, 2008).

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Kenneth Jost, “Gay Marriage,” Congressional Quarterly 13 (2003): 721.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² International Bible Society.

¹³ Deirdre Good, “The Liberal Response,” Anglican Theological Review 93 (2011): 105.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 106.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ International Bible Society.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ John Haldane, “Against Erotic Entitlements,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life 222 (2012): 19-20.

The debate concerning Same Sex Marriages (SSMs) has become a controversial issue in the contemporary US society. In the recent past, we have witnessed a lot of debate either in favor, or against the sanction of the same sex marriages by the federal government. This essay explores the underlying assumptions that individuals have against the proposal of legalizing SSMs.

Proponents supporting the legalization of gay unions argue that marriage is based on love, relationships, and tolerance which supersede any other issue. However, this essay argues that things are not easy as they seem. There are a lot of aspects that militate against the acknowledgement of same sex marriages.

This essay argues that same sex marriages have the capacity to cause detrimental problems. This is in relation to a variety of significant social and cultural factors that disqualify such kinds of unions (“Disadvantages of Gay and Lesbian Marriage (Same-sex Marriage)” par. 1).

Several surveys conducted in the 1990s have suggested that the biggest issue affecting conservative Christians and any other American citizen from the North is the possibility of awarding the same privileges to SSMs, which are enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

The issue which raises the highest contention is the legalization of SSMs. From the initial attempt which was instituted to legalize gay marriages in Hawaii, the issue has remained in the public focus. Tensions have escalated during 2003 when gay marriages were accepted in Ontario and British Columbia. However, the conservative Christian clergy have defined SSMs as a potential hazard to society.

They regard the derogative nature of this vice as self-explanatory, and hence they do not indulge in in-depth discussions of the factors that arouse their concerns (Disadvantages of Gay and Lesbian Marriage (Same-sex Marriage)” par. 2).

The government of Hawaii and the petitioners who filed the case on behalf of the Christian clergy argued that SSM couples cannot offer the same parenting quality as heterosexual parents. They emphasize that the only way to ensure that children are provided with quality care is to demand both parents to be of separate genders.

Additionally, it is argued that children raised by SSMs are confused in relation to the particular gender roles they are supposed to take in society. This is because scientifically, pro-creation is a preserve of a man and woman. These children are left to figure out their gender roles from the community.

It is difficult to educate these children on the significance of traditions amidst the confusion. All through the centuries male and female unions have raised children, guided, and taught them the traditions of society (Newton 215).

The move to legalize gay marriages will break traditional family norms which are significant to the society. The foundation pillar of the human society and the bond which holds it together is the conventional family comprised of two heterosexual parents and children. These conventional families have sustained the US society through the great depression, and many other adversities over the years.

Scholars argue that even if an individual is deserted by a friend or lover, the family will always remain supportive. The cause attributed to the erosion of culture and societal norms is the dysfunctional family structure. The introduction of a different kind of family would only exacerbate the situation (“Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?” par. 13).

The legalization of gay marriages could set a new precedence in legal issues. For example, it could pave the way for multiple marriages or unions which involve animals. Activists in favor of SSMs argue that these unions should be legalized because they do not cause any injury. However, this could initiate a chain reaction that can erode the values of the marriage institution.

For instance, if individuals wish to marry their pet dogs, why should they be obstructed? What if an individual wants to marry their siblings or parents, how will it be prevented? Unless a conclusive description of marriage is agreed upon, individuals will take advantage of the vague laws. It only takes a single wrong decision by the US Supreme Court to pave the way for this sort of anarchy in the marriage institution.

The legalization of SSMs would be an imposition of a retrogressive law to a majority of the population who are against gay marriages. For instance, judges in California ruled that the pledge of allegiance was against human freedoms. It should also be noted that 95% of Americans were against this ruling, but it did not stop the courts from upholding the decision (“Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?” par. 14).

Gay lifestyles are immoral and should not be promoted because evidence from research indicates that it is associated with reduced life expectancy, psychological illnesses, among other complications.

Recent surveys have revealed that individuals in SSMs, based on a multiplicity of reasons, are expected to live for only 20 years. Like other social vices such as smoking and alcoholism, same sex marriages should be vehemently opposed. Any attempt to legalize them would break the social fabric of society.

Works Cited

Disadvantages of Gay and Lesbian Marriage (Same-sex Marriage). 2011. Web.

Newton, David E. Same-sex Marriage: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Print.

Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?. n.d. Web.