According to Studies done concerning homosexuality in 1974 by some America psychologist, homosexuality was said to be an emotional confusion rather than a way of displaying sexual terms.
One person gets psychologically, physically and emotionally aroused by another person and this did not last for long, since it was suitable for same sex partners sharing the remaining part of their lives mutually for a short period. Therefore, the paper will seek to elaborate on the effects of same sex marriage to the society.
The number of children being raised in the available families has reduced leading to a declining population and society is consequently affected, as it needs constant population growth to operate normally. Homosexuality speeds us on the way towards more frequent out-of-wedlock birth (Sprigg and Dailey, 4).
The lesbians are likely to raise a fatherless family than male couples as they can get children from donated sperms. These would make children experience the negative effects of being fatherless like early pregnancy in females and youth incarceration. The male couples raise adopted children without a mother to care for them. They are poorly raised, and uncovered to possible sex groups to mockery from others.
Every taxpayer is forced to support financially homosexuality. Every employer and employee is required to present spousal benefits to homosexual couples through the tax they pay.
The spousal fee will be slightly higher as homosexuals need constant health check expenses. These couples spend a lot in health care and they are more exposed to sexually transmitted diseases due to their high number of sexual partners.
There are believes that any person disapproving homosexual relationship will risk being sued, or fired from work and this sacrifices their freedom of speech. The education administrators are teaching kids about homosexuality, and encourage them in both kinds of marriages.
Schools are teaching about homosexual as they do for heterosexual. At homes, it is hard for heterosexual parents to mould their children against it. That is why their freedom in religion will be violated.
Churches or non-profit making organization and religious psychologists, marriage counselors and social workers may be denied their exemption from taxing or licensing respectively in case they discriminate against homosexual.
Homosexual is disappointing people to marry legally and it is cheering sex between multiple partners, thus ruining the faithfulness in marriage. The number of the same sex partners that have legally declared married its very low. For the homosexual males, sex with multiple partners is tolerated and expected.
With study, showing there is an average of eight sexual partners per year of a homosexual man with steady partner (Sprigg, 3). This would even threaten the heterosexual relationships leading to a decline in fidelity and cause sky rocketing family dissolutions.
In conclusion, the paper has discussed the effects of same sex marriage in the society. Same sex has made people demand for polygamy rights, whereby people feel that if their choice of spouse cannot be limit based on sex of ones partner, then they see it being unfair on how their spouses should be limited on number.
Therefore, if anyone terms homosexuality as anything else than marriage, it would be right. Throughout history, marriage is meant to be a legal contract between man and woman in which there is emotions, sexual fidelity and child rearing. Nevertheless, homosexuality has changed this. It has redefined all the moral and social rules attached to it.
Works Cited
Sprigg, Peter. Outrage: how gay activists and liberal judges are trashing democracy to redefine marriage. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004. Print.
Sprigg, Peter and Dailey, Timothy. Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality. Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council, 2004. Print.
Contemporary society is at the core of progressive and liberalist views on relations, love, and sexual orientation. Therefore, the campaigns supporting same-sex marriage cannot be regarded as provocations and strikes against the existing morale in society. In political and social terms, gay and lesbian unions cannot be regarded as liberal movements, or as something that should be resolutely considered.
At the same time, there are still debates on the crisis marriage as itself which destroys conventional views on relations and attitude to officially registered relations. Because there is a stronger popularity of civil marriage, middle-class people were decisive in setting the tastes and norms of intimate relationships (Warner 2000). In such a manner, the institution of marriage is currently at high risk because of recent tendencies in promulgating freedom of individuals and their rights contributing to higher rates of divorce.
Individual preferences and tastes by the dominating social class influence the overall politics of conservative movements and, as a result, more and more people alter their views on marriage. In particular, the current concept of marriage can hardly be associated with procreation. Heterosexual marriages, therefore, have come out of fashion, because they do not have proved their rights for living together and building their relations independently.
Probably, such a tendency is historically predetermined. In particular, Shumway (2003) emphasizes, “the connection between romance and marriage forged in the nineteenth century was an expression of individualism, of the growing freedom of the individual from traditional social structures” (p. 27). In such way, the discourse of intimacy presents both the focus on the concept of marriage, as well as adverse reactions to it.
Marriage was often considered as a successful financial, political, and beneficial union of two people where love was of secondary importance. Nowadays, gay marriage faces a similar situation, but in a different context. Marriage serves not as a proof of strong feelings, but as an attempt to make heterosexual community recognize gay and lesbian relationships.
Regarding the above-presented deliberations, same-sex marriage has become the objects of active debates between two oppositions. One the one hand, people despise same-sex marriages because of their homophobic feelings and straight attitude to marriage as a conventional institution that take heterosexual relations and procreation for granted.
On the other hand, current shifts in views on marriage provides a solid ground for gay and lesbian movements to fight of their right to be officially recognized through marriage. The latter, however, does not stipulate the crisis of marriage but half-opens the curtain at the actual state of affairs.
In this respect, Warner (2000) argues, “there is something unfashionable… about discussion of marriage as a goal of gay politics” (p. 83). In this respect, the author attempts to emphasize that political and economic instability of society should not solely rely on traditional conception of family that had been cultivated in the time of the American Dream propagating.
By blaming sexual minorities movements and struggle for equal rights, heterosexual society fails to recognize the actual reasons of the crisis of the marriage institution. Specifically, Shumway (2003) focuses on the terms of intimacy and explains, “…society is increasingly accepting of a diversity of intimate relationships, yet the widespread influence of the discourse intimacy suggests that most Americans still value marriage very highly” (p. 26).
The problem is that these highly valued norms are deviated by existing false stereotypes and association with intimacy relations. In this respect, the debates concerns with the bias associated with marriage and its interpretation that marriage belongs to a class of relationships (Shumway 2003, p. 26). Shumway presents movie both as hugely influential and as a trigger of shifts in traditional societal views on marriage.
Specifically, the author’s thesis is confined to the thesis that most movies are not interested in depicting love in marriage, but romantic relationships leading to marriage, or love outside the marriage. The importance of conflict and emotional feeling is not possible to reveal through harmonic relations between a husband and wife.
However, people are more attracted while looking at the divorce process, adultery, or early stages of affection between two lovers. Within this context, American society must not blame homosexual relations as the reason for the destruction of marriage as a firmly established social institution.
Tastes and preferences, as it has been highlighted above, dictate new norms and rules for intimate relations. Therefore, the current campaigns for gay and lesbian marriages have become mostly conservative. To enlarge on this issue, Bordieu (1984) considers marriage “a way of expression of social and political proximity” dictated by preferences and tastes of middle classes of society (p. 557). The breakdown in the system of marital relations should not be directed at the increased popularization of gay marriages.
In fact, the transformation of the class preferences explains the changing views on the conditions of reproduction. Hence, it is unreasonable to establish dichotomy between married and unmarried individuals. Similarly, it is impossible to create oppositions between legalized relationships and illegalized relations, whether the essence of the latter cannot be changed. The official status, however, can only be represented as a means of structuring society and regulating social processes.
The relation between sexual orientation and social opposition had long been confused by mistake because gender differentiation of individuals has been put beyond the modern trends. To explain this, Bourdieu discovers, “…the properties acquired or possessed through marriage will be omitted from the system of properties with may determine practices” (109). The property issues should depend on the type of relations, should it be either homosexual or heterosexual.
At the same time, the existing division labor based on labor characterization prevents the prejudiced society from comprehending the essentials of new roles when it comes to same-sex marriages. Despite the necessity to separate social relations from the intimate, the emergence of same-sex marriage leaves a significant imprint on contemporary society.
Specifically, the emancipation processes, as well as the emergence of feminist movement can also be considered the underpinnings of fight for equality of individual freedom. Because the process of minority movement was, to an extent, gradual, the same-marriage campaigns can be regarded as conventional because they are supported and official recognized at a political and international level.
Such firmly established traditions as values, communitarianism, institutionalism and social good have been replaced by conservative commentaries on legalizing same-sex relations. The conventional view on sexual minorities’ marriages is not an urgent topic of today, but still, it is critically argued among existing political wings.
Specifically, the philosophy of political conservatism has a multi-folded view on either accepted or rejecting the proposition to legalize same-sex marriage. Despite the current debates, the question of legalizing gay and lesbian relations have become a legal realize, especially when it comes to cultural elites in western nations (Wardle 2008). Thus, the question comes whether the given discussion of marital status of sexual minorities conform to the conservative views on cultural and social development of the world community.
Currently, conservatism as a notion comprises a series of complex political and philosophical contexts. The concept covers such aspects as experience, morality, institutions, preservation, individualism and distrust. Because conservatism aims to preserve past values and experiences, its core belief centers on old tendencies in perceiving society. In addition, it also strives to protect time-proven social institutions that are based on order, tradition, and stability.
Finally, conservatism explores the basis of moral dimensions to support existing spiritual and ethical standards. Because all these notions can correspond with the history of fight for freedom among the sexual minorities, legalization of same-sex marriage can also be regarded as a conservative case. With regard to the above-presented features, gay and lesbian marriage can fit in the accepted notions of conservatism that is supported by the dominating preferences and tastes of middle class.
To prove the idea of conservatism dimension within which same-sex marriage has been praised, several conditions should be considered and analyzed. First, the primary purpose of conservatism is to preserve and stabilize society. In this respect, legalizing the relation of sexual minorities can also alleviate disturbances among the social groups (Wardle 2008).
What is more important is that “formalizing gay relationships with full, formal, registered marriage-equivalent legal status has virtually no impact on the high infidelity rates of gay men” (Wardle 2008, p. 456).
Despite the fact that some conservative dimensions reflect the initiatives of same-sex marriage, it still fails to meet the demand of the concept of marriage as a conjugal institution. Besides, no changes will occur to the institution in case of legalizing gay and lesbian relations because the risks and threats in terms of health care, social responsibility, and political stability.
From a political perspective, the Conservative stream has a solid ground for accepting the legalization of same-sex marriage because it is important to face the facts and address the real issues. People who are reluctance to acknowledge the existence of homosexuals view society as the one based on obsolete stereotypes and prejudiced biases (Lupia et al. 2010). Moreover, conventional functions of marriage also involve a concept of reproduction.
However, procreation as the primary function of married people cannot exhaust responsibilities and possibility of marriage because many people marry with not intent of having children. In this respect, Zerilli (2012) argues, “the marriage debate is entirely separate from the children’s rights debate: there are already gay men and women with fully acknowledged and legally protected parental roles in many of the societies” (p. 72).
In this respect, one should not consider children issues at the core of the problem of legalizing gay and lesbian marriages. As a proof, Bourdieu (1984) emphasizes that the existing prejudices have largely been shaped by middle class tastes producing “false coincidences between the two extreme positions in social space: fertility or celibacy”, which far from same-sex marriage debate (p. 178). In this respect, putting all traditional views aside allows to gain a wider picture of discrepancies between heterosexual and homosexual societies.
With regard to the above-presented deliberations, same-sex marriage issues should also be associated with moral arguments. Just like people can express liberal views on abortion and be conservative about marriage, sexual liberty is allowed to be considered both a conservative and liberal issue.
A spectrum of opinions should be equally accepted and, therefore, the right of sexual minorities on freedom of choices should be respected as well (Lee 2010; McCarthy 2012). Though the liberal and conservative oppositions exist, it is beneficial for highlighting and changing the existing moral norms and values in society. Shifts can contribute to understanding the problem and making the corresponding solutions.
In conclusion, it should be stated, campaigns for same-sex marriages should be regarded as conservative ones because all tastes, preferences, and attitudes are dictated by middle-class society. Despite the fact that conservative orientation has always been associated with viewing marriage as the one based on function of procreation, as well as a union between a man and a woman, there are still cases when all these provisions are not applicable to heterosexual relations.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, gay and lesbian marriages can also involve similar norms and values, despite their sexual orientation; they are also able to take responsibilities for children upbringing. What is more threatening is that traditional marriage is currently under the risk because of the increased popularity of adultery, civil marriages, and divorce.
Therefore, sexual minorities have the right to freedom of choices, which is specifically stipulated in the U.S. Constitution. Inconsistency between existing laws and the reality is explained by the society’s reluctance to accept the fact of gay and lesbians’ right to self-determination and self-expression. Overall, the conservative and liberal opposition should not focus on the acceptance of same-sex marriage, but on the problem of shifts and changes in society.
Reference List
Bordieue, P 1984, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Harvard University Press, US.
Lee, MYK 2010, Equality, Dignity, and Same-Sex Marriage: A Rights Disagreement in Democratic Societies, BRILL, US.
Lupia, A, Krupnikov, Y, Levine, A, Piston, S, & Von Hagen-Jamar, A 2010, Why State Constitutions Differ in their Treatment of Same-Sex Marriage, Journal Of Politics, vol. 72 no. 4, pp. 1222-1235
Shumway, DR 2003, Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy, and Marriage Crisis, New York University Press, New York.
Wardle, LD 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, 2, pp. 441-474.
Warner, M 2000, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life, Harvard University Press, US.
Zerilli, J 2012, ‘Why Conservatives Should Support Same-Sex Marriage’, Quadrant Magazine, vol. 56, no. 3, p. 71.
McCarthy, D 2012, ‘Right Marriage Fight’, American Conservative, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 26.
The topic regarding homosexuals and their right to marry has created widespread controversies. This has prompted scholars to identify and weigh the benefits and disadvantages regarding this practice. Being a sensitive issue, it requires thorough understanding before taking a stance. Based on the meticulous research conducted in this regard, homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
The term homosexual refers to people of the same sex engaged in a sexual relationship. Some countries such as the US, prohibit the use of the word as it depicts a lot of negativity. Consequently, the accepted words in such countries are Gay, for man-man relationships, and Lesbian, for woman-woman relationship.
Different cultures have different definitions of marriage. All these definitions converge on the idea that marriage is a legal or societal union between two people for the purpose of extending family lineage. In general, marriage is an establishment in which sexual intimacy is acknowledged (May, 1995). This union concerns interpersonal relationships that vary from one person to another. There are several reasons why people marry. These include emotional and legal security, religious and societal obligation, and economical purposes.
A significant number of people prefer the heterosexual marriages which are widely accepted. Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon. Its history dates back to the 19th century. In fact, most countries in East of Asia have documented same-sex marriage for the last 1000 years. Some scholars who have developed interest regarding this topic argue that homosexuality is a present social construct perpetuated by the West.
However, on the contrary, science has proved that being gay or lesbian is not a individual’s choice. Parents bring up their children in a way that none of them should develop sexual attraction towards individuals of his or her sex. Even in schools, teachers discourage students against homosexual acts.
Homosexuals develop attraction towards individuals of their sex just as a man develops attraction towards a woman and vice versa. Love has no limit or boundary. When two people fall in love and decide to get married, it should not matter whether they are of the same sex or not.
Marriages are built on the pillar of love. This pillar does not prevent people of the same sex loving each other. Thus, it should not limit such people in matters of marriage. In this regard, it would be denying them their right to enter into a union which should not only apply to the heterosexuals.
Allowing gay marriages will not in any way affect the lives of other person in the society. The allegations that encouraging gay marriages will corrupt the moral of the society are unfounded. Every human being has the power of free will. The power to choose what one wants to do with his or her life, and in this case one’s believes, should not be controlled by the society. The few individuals who turn out to be gay or lesbian grew up knowing from their parents that being a homosexual is morally wrong.
However, they cannot get the fulfillment that they derive from homosexual relationships in heterosexual ones. Stealing, drug abuse and killing, are some of the vices that every parent teaches his or her children to avoid at all costs. These vices harm the society in a considerable manner.
Treating homosexuals as villains whose acts pose a considerable threat to the society is unfair. Every day, activists hold demonstrations in lobbying for the acknowledgment of human rights and recognition of minority groups. Most countries have laws acknowledging the right to freedom of association (Williams, 2012). Denying a gay or lesbian couple the freedom to enter into a marriage contract clearly violates their freedom to associate.
Homosexual should enjoy the same rights as anybody else without any restrictions based on their sexuality (Paul, 2012). The recognition of their rights should also include the right to marry. Prohibiting a lesbian or gay couple to marry has no ethical or rational basis (Paul, 2012). This is because the prohibition is just centered on the history that gays are a minority group, and allowing them to marry would give them recognition as important members of the society.
This notion is morally wrong and it should not be tolerated in the modern world (OJALVO, 2009). The majority of the opponents of homosexual marriage have been the religious community. Most religions view same sex marriages as morally wrong (Williams, 2012). Although the Catholic church regards the sexual intimacy between homosexuals as an abomination, no marriage can be complete without the aspect of sex.
The religious conviction that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is totally misguided. The claim from the religious fraternity is that the institution of marriage should solely be between a man and a woman. In this regard, legalizing gay marriages will make the whole idea of marriage and procreation to nurture future generations baseless. From the religious perspective, marriage is the foundation of a family (May, 1995)
This unit is supposed to bear children and bring them up in the belief that they will adopt the same moral principles as their parents. They believe that a gay or lesbian couple cannot procreate. Since God commanded man to multiply and fill the earth, supporting gay marriages amounts to disobedience and the tendency to prove God wrong. Religious doctrines also oppose the idea of child adoption by gay couples.
Adopting a child instead of bearing one undermines the institution of marriage. This scenario is only allowed if there are medical reasons as to why the woman cannot conceive.
A child adopted by a gay couple will have problems differentiating between the role of a father and those of a mother in a family. Thus, the child will grow up confused concerning the role that individuals play in a couple. The religious opposition of the legalizing of gay marriage is facilitated by the fact this practice dents the whole concept of family values. These values are vital in cementing bonding in the society.
Encouraging gay lifestyle will put the society at a risk as gay people have high chances of substance addiction and mental illness all of which are detrimental to the proper growth of a child and the moral standards of the society. According to the religious populaces, there is nowhere in the Holy Books that gay marriage is supported.
However, the Holy Books do not refute gay marriages. Religious leaders teach us to love. In addition, they encourage us not to discriminate other people especially the minority groups. The number of gay couples who want to get married is insignificant compared to the heterosexual marriages. Homosexuals are the minority in the society and should not be discriminated against in matters of marriage because they did not choose their sexual orientation. Furthermore, no one chooses who to love.
The claim that a gay couple cannot raise a child properly is misinformed. Research has proven that children raised by same-sex couples develop at par with those raised heterosexual couples (Williams, 2012). What a child needs most from his or her family is parental love (May, 1995). There are many children in the children homes who yearn for this love. Thus, it would be cruel to deny it to them on the basis that they will be brought up by same-sex couples.
There are many children growing up in broken families. The effects in this regard adversely affect a child as compared to the religious claims attributed to the children brought up by gay couples. In opposing same-sex marriages, religious leaders fail to consider that there are many single parents raising children by their own. These single parents play both the role of a father and a mother.
There is no reason whatsoever warranting the denial of gay couples to get married. Marriage has numerous benefits for the individuals involved. A couple needs financial sustainability which can be achieved through marriage (Paul, 2012). The emotional connection between two people is not planned or chosen.
Therefore, gay people should be allowed to fully enjoy the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy without any restriction whatsoever. The legal and financial benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy should also be available to gay couples (Paul, 2012).
The basis for the opponents of same-sex marriage does not provide any reasonable justification to warrant the prohibition of such unions. Concerning the claims of promiscuity, such occurrences will decline because individuals will engage in relationships that cater for their sexual orientation (Williams, 2012).
Thus, cases of homosexuals engaging in heterosexual relationships in order to conform to the societal norms, but still engaging in homosexuality will decline. Consequently, there will be more stable homes supporting the appropriate growth of children. There will also be a reduction in the transmission sexual diseases due to double-dealing.
No parent brings up a child to become a gay or lesbian. Being gay is more of a biological matter than one’s own choice. Even if homosexuality was an individual’s choice of a lifestyle, it does pose a threat in any way to other members of the society who only embrace heterosexual relationships.
Every human being is entitled to all rights irrespective of his or her sexual preference (OJALVO, 2009). By denying homosexuals the right to marry, we become insensitive to their feelings and preferences. Forcing them to conform to the set norm of heterosexual relationships will cause them more harm than good.
Allowing homosexual marriage should not be a war between religion and the law. The law ensures equality for all, but one should choose what to believe when it comes to matters of religion. Therefore, denying a loving gay or lesbian couple the right to marry goes against all morals and the law.
It takes a lot of courage for the gay people to accept their sexual orientation as they are afraid of how the society will treat them. This sense of knowing your real self should never be taken away by anybody. It is only fair to allow gay marriages and treat gay couples with the respect and dignity that they deserve.
References
May, W. E. (1995). Marriage: the rock on which the family is built. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.
OJALVO, H. E. (2009, November 5). Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Marry? – NYTimes.com. The Learning Network – The Learning Network Blog – NYTimes.com. Web.
Paul, G. (2012, January 1). Pros and Cons for Gay Marriage Legalization. PaulGoodman67 on HubPages. Web.
Williams, r., MA., Oakland, P. o., CA., Group, c. f., 17, w. i., et al. (2012, March 27).
The same-sex marriage debate has over the past decade evoked diverse comment and political turmoil as people argue both for and against it. This uproar has emerged since making gay marriages legal would require constitutional amendments that would redefine marriage.
Marriage is traditionally understood to exclusively mean the union between two members of the opposite sex in a ceremony that is recognized by both the political and religious organs of our country. However, the past decades have witnessed a rise in calls for a definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples.
These calls have been propelled by the fact that gay relationships are experiencing a high level of acceptance today and the society no longer views homosexuality as inherently evil. In spite of this, there is still a lot of opposition to legalizing gay marriages and in many states, gay marriages are not recognized.
Before the twenty-first century, no nation had ever legalized same-sex marriage but this situation changed from 1989 when some European nations created civil unions and since 2001, same-sex marriages have become a reality in some countries. This paper will argue that it is unfair for gays and lesbians to be denied the right to marry and as such, there should be a constitutional amendment that allows them to legally marry.
Why Gays should be allowed to Marry
Advocates of same-sex marriage demonstrate that since the primary goal of marriage is to give social recognition to two people who have an intimate relationship, exclusion of same-sex couples is tantamount to discrimination. This discrimination makes it impossible for same-sex couples to enjoy a fulfilling life with their partners.
Peplau and Adam assert that the love and satisfaction that comes about from relationships is experienced by same-sex couples in the same manner that it is by heterosexual ones (405). The discriminatory laws that society once enacted against gays and lesbians were fueled by the belief that same-sex relationships were a threat to the moral fiber of the society.
Since these views are no longer held and people have come to appreciate the fact that same-sex couples can play significant positive roles in society, they should not be denied marriage. Volokh demonstrates that while the government is adamant in its policy against discrimination, same-sex couples continue to be discriminated against by being denied the right to enter into marriage (1157).
In addition to this, while the government insists that it does not take a stand against gay unions, it is reluctant to take proactive action to ensure that gay and lesbian couples live a life free from harassment by those who hold strong anti-gay sentiments.
Culhane asserts that giving same-sex couples a right to marry is a matter of simple fairness and equality (486). This country is built on the foundation of democracy and the rights of all marginalized people in the society are protected. Refusing to allow same-sex marriages is therefore discriminatory and this should not be allowed.
Legally recognizing same sex marriages will make it possible for gay and lesbian couples to enjoy the benefits that are inherent in marriage. In the present age, the primary driver for marriage is need for companionship and love by two consenting individuals. Marriage brings about some tangible benefits to the couple involved. This fact is true for both same-sex and different-sex couples.
Refusing to recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriages leads to such couples failing to enjoy the benefits that are inherent in the marriage institute. Peplau and Adam states that legalizing same-sex marriages would give homosexual couples a chance to enjoy benefits such as income and wealth accumulation (407).
Culhane elaborates that the income and prospects of accumulating wealth are better for married couples than for single or cohabitating couples (488). As it currently stands, this couples lack the facilities that are freely available to heterosexual partners.
The denial of marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples has adverse effects on their mental health and overall well being. The discrimination that gay and lesbian couples face leads to some harmful mental health effects. The uncertainty gay and lesbian couples face about their partner’s status also exacerbates the stress felt by same-sex couples.
If this couples were allowed to legally marry, the amount of stress and social exclusion that they currently would reduce significantly leading to better health prospects. This statement is corroborated by Culhane who notes that married couples suffer from not only fewer mental health problems but also fewer chronic physical problems than the unmarried or cohabiting couples (488).
As such, unmarried same-sex couples do not have a social support system, which can be used to protect them against discrimination. Research indicates that same-sex couples who have been granted legal recognition, for example civil partnership status, enjoy better health status than those who are denied this (Culhane 491).
A constitutional amendment that allows gays and lesbians to legally marry would therefore be the best for the mental and physical health status of same-sex couples.
Children being raised by same-sex couple suffer emotionally because of the lack of legalization of same-sex marriages. Lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships has led to stigma being attached to such relationships. Clarke demonstrates that this discrimination against parents has a negative impact on children and impacts their education (556).
Lack of same-sex marriage also means that children cannot enjoy the stable family structure that children of married heterosexual couples enjoy. Clarke notes that while there is increasing public support for increasing rights of gays and lesbians, few are willing to support same-sex families (555). Majority of the public continues to maintain the tradition that a family should be composed of a heterosexual couple and their children.
Making same-sex marriages legal would remove the stigma and therefore stop the suffering that the children of same-sex couples currently face. Marriage as an institution has been undergoing significant changes over the centuries.
For example, the status of the woman partner in the marriage has changed from one of being the inferior party in the union to being regarded as an equal to the man. These changes have not reduced the importance of marriage as a social institution.
Majority of people justify their opposition to same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs. In particular, the Christian perspective is used to make arguments against homosexuality. From such a perspective, homosexuality and lesbianism is deemed as sinful since it is against religious views. Religious rhetoric presents lesbian and gay parenting as sinful and a deviation from God’s plan for mankind.
Volokh reveals that denial of marriage to same-sex couples is mostly as a result of the religious views held by many public officials and religious leaders (1165).
Considering the fact that the constitution on which the nation is founded states that no faith should impose its standards on the citizens, same-sex marriages should not be denied on a religious basis. Volokh elaborates that religious beliefs should not be the basis on which the laws of our country is built on since there are many religions and some have conflicting views on many subjects (1166).
Arguments against Gay marriages
Opponents of gay marriages argue that legalizing same sex unions will inevitably pave way for the legalization of other outlawed practices such as polygamy and polyandry.
This argument is best articulated by Kurtz who states that amendments to the constitution to include same-sex marriages will change the marriage institute from its current distinctive definition as a contract “solely between a man and a woman” to a union of undefined form (1).
It will also make sexual preferences become a protected class and since gays and lesbians will be afforded some protection, other groups such as those who wish to engage in incest or polygamy will also demand for the same protection.
Kurtz goes on further to suggest that should gays and lesbians be given protection, the same protection would be demanded by other classes of people such as pedophiles (1). While it is true that same-sex marriages will led to gays and lesbian being afforded some protection, it is an exaggeration to claim that other groups such as pedophiles and polygamists will
A major argument presented against allowing same sex couples to marry is that this will result in a breakdown of the marriage institute. Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that this would be detrimental for the entire society. Duncan forcefully asserts that a redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples will remove the social meanings and connection to children from marriage (662).
Legalizing same-sex marriages will erode the current status that marriage has in the society. Somerville argues that marriage is and has been “the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation” (3). Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would inevitably destroy this important cultural and social role of marriage.
This will invariably erode the legitimacy that marriage currently holds as a valuable unit in the society. While it is true that an amendment of the constitution to allow gays and lesbians to marry will necessitate the redefinition of marriage, this will not have major impact on marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that such unions are detrimental to the development of children. This is based on the premise that children should ideally be brought up in a relationship where they have a mother and father.
While having children is not a prerequisite to being allowed to marry, advocates of heterosexual marriages assert that marriage is inextricably linked to the reality that men and women will become parents as a result of their union (Duncan 662). It is further argued that children fair better in an environment where they are raised by their birth parents in a marriage union.
Gay and lesbian couples who insist on bringing up children are therefore deemed as irresponsible and not putting the interests of the children first. Duncan who is an opponent of same-sex marriages quips that the sexual liberty interest of adults should not trump the interest of children who are the future of the society (663).
This argument is flawed since gay and lesbian couples are capable of providing good environments for children to grow in. As a matter of fact, same-sex couples who intend to have children invest more financially and emotionally to their children. Cahill explains that this is because such couples get children through artificial means or adoption; both of which are costly and time consuming (407).
Great foresight and planning is therefore mandatory for the same-sex couple which means that the future of the children is more guaranteed than for heterosexual couples where procreation often occurs naturally and with little foresight and planning.
Conclusion
Gay and lesbian relationships have gained significant acceptability in contemporary society. However, the issue of same-sex marriage continues to be divisive with many same-sex couples being denied the right to marry in many states. This paper set out to argue that there should be a constitutional amendment that allows gays and lesbians to legally marry.
The paper has argued that legalizing same-sex marriages would benefit gay and lesbian couples and also the society. This is because the current denial of the right to marry has had many negative impacts on same-sex couples. This paper has demonstrated that opposition to same-sex marriages is driven by religious believes and some unfounded fears of what these marriages would do to children and the marriage institute.
The paper has conclusively shown that same-sex marriages would not compromise the marriage institute or have an adverse impact on children. As such, all progress minded citizens should therefore endorse a constitutional amendment that allows gays and lesbians to legally marry.
Works Cited
Cahill, Megan. “The Genuine Article: A Subversive Economic Perspective on the Law’s Procreationist Vision of Marriage”. Wash. & Lee Law Review 64.2 (2007): 393-468. Web.
Clarke, Victoria. “What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting”. Women’s Studies International Forum 24.5 (2001): 555–570. Web.
Culhane, John. “Marriage equality? First, justify marriage (if you can)”. Drexel University Law Review 1.2 (2009): 485-511. Web.
Duncan, William. “The Litigation to Redefine Marriage: Equality and Social Meaning”. Journal of Public Law 18.1 (2005): 623-663. Print.
Kurtz, Stanley. “Beyond Gay Marriage”. The Weekly Standard 8.45 (2003): 1-2. Web.
Peplau, Letitia and Adam Fingerhut. “The Close Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men”. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58.1(2007): 405–24. Web.
Somerville, Margaret. The case against ‘same-sex marriage’. Montreal, Quebec: McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law, 2003. Print.
Volokh, Eugene. “Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes”. Hofstra Law Review 33.1 (2005): 1155–1201. Web.
The traditional vision of marriage in the USA is based on admitting the union of a man and a woman who love each other. Love and affection are discussed as the basic reasons for marriage. As a result, the purposes or functions of marriage are reproduction, protection, affection, and provision of social status. Same-sex marriages cannot guarantee reproduction and protection because of a lot of controversies associated with the issue and the public’s attitude to the problem.
Discussing the idea of same sex marriage, Diane Savino focuses on the quality of people’s relations in marriage. Savino states that the fact of marriage cannot guarantee love, affection, respect, and positive relations, and the level of divorces is too high to speak about the role of marriage as a social protector. This statement is correlated with the acknowledged idea that the public’s acceptance of divorce becomes higher. Thus, the idea of marriage is not connected with the idea of the quality of people’s relations.
According to Savino, those people who have the ‘privilege of marriage’ cannot teach society to preserve the values proclaimed by the social and religious institutions because of violating them regularly. On the contrary, the decision of same-sex couples is considered and based on love and commitment to each other. The traditional vision of marriage is still actively supported in society in spite of changes in attitudes to the role of marriage. Following Savino’s ideas, it is possible to state that same-sex marriages are fairer in comparison with traditional marriages, but this vision is too provocative to be supported in society.