Same-sex marriages

Introduction

Same sex marriages involves coming together of a two people of the same gender to form a family.  These marriages are not recognized in most countries in the world.  In the U.S, only the states of Iowa and Massachusetts allow gay marriages. The state Vermont recognizes civil unions, which are similar but lesser than marriages. Civil unions do not guarantee the couples full rights enjoyed in marriages. The Federal Government, under the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, does not recognize same sex marriages but leaves individual states the room to deliberate on acceptable forms gay unions. (Strasser, Mark, 1994:14)

Gay people have stepped up to campaigns for recognition of same sex marriages.  While gay people have been granted equal rights in many fields in life such as employment, they are denied the right to marriage. A complex argument has come up proponents of same sex marriages on one side and opponents on the other each presenting their points. (Vesterman, W, 1994:2)  The main controversy has been the definition of marriage.  Gay people want the right to marry, adopt and raise children.  Legalization of same-sex marriages would have an impact on all human perspectives.  Businesses would accord employees from gay marriages same treatment.  There would be social realignment and allocation of role in society. Religious bodies, more so Christians and Muslims lead the anti-gay marriages campaign.

Thesis statement

Same-sex marriages should not be legalized.

Arguments for
Same-sex marriages go against nature.  Marriage is meant to be a union of one man and one woman.  It is an abnormality to develop feelings to a person of the same gender. People are born male and female to compliment each other in marriage. It is only by choice and exposure to gay tendencies that they become gay.  Gay tendencies are not exhibited by any other form of life so as to suggest its is a natural phenomenon.  Animals, even the closest primates, do not display gay behavior.  To legalize a marriage founded on an unnatural behavior would distort the notion of marriage, as we know it.

Same-sex unions are not fit to raise children in.  The parents’ relationship is not favourable to raising children in a proper way.  Children raised in these unions would be predisposed to gay behaviour.  They would not be given a chance to live normal lives.  Children grow up learning through copying parental actions, as they are not mature enough to make informed decision.  Legalizing such a marriage would be exposing adopted children to unnatural acts.(Patterson, Charlotte, 2001:346)

Legalizing same-sex marriages would lead to other anti-social behaviors.  Just as gay individual would have succeeded in legalizing their cause, others would also come out and demand their rights.  It may lead to a rise in incest and bestiality.  These individuals would always fall back on to the case of the same-sex marriage to argue out their point.  Polygamists would also demand recognition by law.  It would to lead to absurdities such as an individual entering into to a union with an animal and demanding legal recognition.  He or she would use the same arguments pushed by pro-gay marriages activists today.

The marriage institution has an all-important role of procreation.  This role is best performed in a marriage.  Same-sex marriages by design lack the capacity to procreate.  Without the ability to perform this role, the marriage would be incomplete.  Without procreation, humankind would not regenerate itself.  The fact that gay marriage proponents are mainly in nations with low birth rates is worrying.  Legalizing same-sex marriage would be putting perpetuity of man in jeopardy in the long run.

Legalizing gay marriages would be tantamount to giving gay people favored status. Gays want their issues to be treated in the same way as those of the disabled and the chronically ill.  They however do not want to be treated the same way as pedophiles, masochists or even cannibals.  These are people who choose to be the way they are and therefore do not merit special status.  In their pleas for favored states, they use words laden with emotions to gain sympathy such as discrimination, homophobia and tolerance.

Traditionally and morally, marriage is a man and woman affairs.  As a society we cannot neglect the traditions and morals that have always guided us and maintained order.  The society does not have to be immoral to advance.  Legalizing same-sex marriages will tear the fabric that holds society together.  It will create a sense of disorder and loss of direction for men.  This social order must be closely guarded.(www.cnn.com)

Legalizing same-sex marriage would be great experimentation with such as sensitive matter. The same sex marriage euphoria is the West might have dangerous results since it has no been tried before.  Since same-sex relationships have gained prominence in the last twenty years, their long-term effects cannot be projected.  This euphoria has been fueled by political correctedness that makes people approve even the most absurd ideas.

Arguments Against.

Failure to legalize same-sex marriages will be denial of individuals their fundamental right. It would be tantamount to government intrusion into ones private life.  The government should not stop consenting adults from marriage whether gay or heterosexual.  Equality should be seen to prevail. Just as the government keeps off from straight marriages, it should also keep off the same sex marriages.(Scott, Bidstrup, 2004)

Not legalizing same-sex marriages would be falling victim to stereotypes. Straight people see gay people as baseless and non-committal.  Straight people are homophobic not because, homosexuality is necessary bad, but because they are uncomfortable with it.  They are afraid of any changes in society regardless of their impact.

Continued incrimination of same-sex marriage is due to religious overstepping their mandates. The church oversteps its mandate by imposing its policies on the nation.  There is little difference between the church and the state.  Politicians join the church’s course to gain political support in form conservative churchgoers.

Majority in society have always oppressed the minority.  What is now being seen in the same sex marriage issue was experienced in slavery period.  Religious bodies and groups who supported and even engaged in slavery and subsequent segregation have no moral grounds to criticize same-sex marriages.

Proponents of same sex marriages argue that legalization would in fact strengthen the institution of marriage.  Divorce rate would go down because gay people would not be forced into unions with people of the opposite gender. Gay people may try to conform to societal norms and marry the opposite gender.  They end-up in unhappy unions that lead to divorce.  Legalization would also reduce stress related problems such as suicide and depression due to denial of right to be legally married.

Proponents of same-sex marriages also argued that gay marriages have capacity to bring up children in the normal way.  They point-out that what a child needs is not heterosexual parents but tender care and nurturing.  They argue that same-sex couples can provide that care just like straight parents.

Pro-gay marriage groups insist that gay people are born rather than choosing to be gay.  They claim that they are born with gay tendencies inherent.  They point out that nobody would choose to be ridiculed and victimized through out their life.  If it were something they would control they would just opt for the easier option of heterosexuality.  Criminalizing same-sex marriages would be failure to recognize the predicament facing gay people.(Pinello, Daniel, R, 2006: 76)

Conclusion.

Same-sex marriages should not be legalized under any circumstance.  It is a social evil that should not permeate into society.  The government should look into the interests or the society and criminalize same-sex marriages.  It should not fall for emotional talk about discrimination and homophobia. The usage of ‘homophobia’ tires the portray those opposed to gay marriages as suffering from a mental condition. (Patterson, Charlotte, 2001 )

The society should resist any attempts to portray same-sex marriage as normal and natural. It is not evident in other forms of life. The claim that gay people are born is also a fallacy. They are people who have reformed their gay tendencies showing that it is really a choice. Homosexuality cannot be determined by scientific inquiry of the DNA.  All forms of consented sex and unions are voluntary.

The marriages institutions cannot be strengthen by undermining its main foundations.  Same-sex marriages disrupt the main principle of marriage.  Same-sex couples are not able to offer proper care for kids. Such a marriage is unstable and do not provide the right environment for raising children.

We should not embrace change just for the sake of change.  Restructuring the age-old basic unit of society would be a historical mistake.  The US should set precedence in protecting this all-important institution.

References:

Pinello, Daniel R., America’s Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage. Cambridge University Press, 2006: 76.

Strasser, Mark, The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage: Federalist Principles and Constitutional Protections. Praeger, 1999: 14

Patterson, Charlotte J., “Same-Sex Marriage and the Interests of Children…,” Virginia Journal of Social Policy & Law, 9:346. 2001

Vesterman W. Reading and Writing Short Arguments. London: Mayfield, 1994:  p2, 4.

CNN News, Politics: Bush Calls For Ban on Same Sex Marriage, 05/02/2004. Retrieved on 10/10/07 from http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/

Scott Bidstrup. Gay Marriages: The Arguments and The Motives, 2004. Retrieved on 10/10/07 from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm