Gay marriage or same sex marriage is marriage between to people who are of the same gender biologically. Same sex relationships in some countries these kind of relationships have recognition in civil rights, political, moral, social and religious issues. However, there is a great conflict and misunderstanding, as to whether relationships that involves persons of same social gender or biological sex should be accorded the same prestige and rights that couple that are in normal transsexual relationships enjoy. The debate whether the relationship between such couple should be accorded a marital status and referred to by the name “marriage” or be referred to by a different name such as a civil union that grants the parties involved fewer rights as compared to the real marriage. However ion the recent times same sex marriages are getting back up from various corners of the society based on the universal human rights, equality before the law, physical and mental health and normalization of relationships. In many instances, the rejection of same sex marriages is a product and the prohibition of the use of the word “marriage” when the parties involved are of the same gender socially or sex biologically. There are also legal and social statuses pertaining to these marriages that do not permit the use of this terminology. A host of other issues also contribute to the negative reception of gay marriages in the society. This include among other, tradition, parenting concerns, direct and indirect consequences and religious teaching and doctrines. Many of those who argue for same sex marriages believe that opposition to these marriages is rooted in heterosexism and homophobia. The following are the reason and insight as to why it would be better if same-sex marriages were given recognition and accorded same privileges as heterosexual marriages.
Theologically, some religions seem to shade light as to why it would be better if gay marriages were accorded recognition and respect equivalent to what heterosexual marriages are accorded. Although some facets or religion are totally against same sex marriages some religion have no qualms with what peopled decide to do with themselves when it comes to marriage or sexual preferences. The Quakers for instance, in 1999, adopted Affirmations and Reconciliation which states, “Love has many shapes and colors and is not finite. It can not be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation.” This statement could be translated to mean that the Quakers are more likely to be at home with gay marriage, since as the Affirmation and Reconciliation states it is none of their concern what “sexual orientation” a person is (Religious Tolerance Organisation). Buddhism is another good example of religion that gives support to the embracing of gay marriages (Lantura). Lantura further observes that, Buddhism not only embraces homosexuality and gay marriages but also accords them great respect. Buddhists believe that homosexuality needn’t be discriminated against but rather it should be accorded rights dignity which it rightfully deserves since it is a human race. Homosexuals are humans and their difference in sexual preferences and choice of spouse is not a warrant for discrimination. It is unfair to shun people for there choices and how they chose to live their lives. The final example of a church or a religion that has embraced homosexuality is the Anglican church of Canada. The parties interested in same-sex marriages can approach the pastor and ask for blessings. Such a couple will then seek the approval of the parish. As Lantura observes, these examples of religions being in good terms with homosexuality can certainly be emulated by the conservative churches and religions around the world.
The need to respect the rights of gay couples also calls for recognition and respect of this kind of union. Gay couples do not participate in the rights meant for heterosexual couples. For instance inn1997 the General Accounting Office of the Federal Government presented to the Chair of the Hose Judiciary Committee a 75 page brief that enumerated 1,049 laws stating the rights to be enjoyed by heterosexual couples. The brief excluded homosexual couples (Moore). Gay couples are excluded from marital benefits such as access tom their spouse’s life and disability insurance, medical insurance, decision making privileges and hospital visitation, worker’s compensation survivor benefits, retirement plans and other annuity benefits. Certainly this is discrimination that can only be ended be giving gay marriages the same recognition given to the heterosexual marriages. The declaration of independence and the constitution do not at all prohibit same-sex marriages. The government is charge with a responsibility of protecting the rights of individuals and the happi9ness of the citizens. As such it should grantee the gays an opportunity to pursue happiness through marriage. Otherwise, as Moore states, denying homosexual couples a right to marry one another is no different from the law that previously prohibited racial intermarriages
Same sex couples have same ability as heterosexual partners to raise families. Those who oppose gay marriages argue that if a child is brought up by homosexual parents he or she will be gay as well. However this is not the case. Children brought up by gay parents can develop and lead healthy heterosexual lives. So far no evidence has been gathered to illustrate that the children of gay couple be they adopted or biological are harmed by their environment (Lantura). The assumption that homosexual orientation is anathema to child upbringing is a sign of homophobia and idealization of a certain family structure believed to be superior (Sullivan & Baques, 70-72). Studies conducted on over 300 children of homosexual parents from twelve separate samples indicate that the parental sexual orientation does not affect the children’s development.
Would it really matter if children from gay families grew up to be gay as well? How would Christian family react if told that it is bad if their children grew up to be Christians as well? Certainly, the Christians would nave take this laying down, they will treat this as an insult. Gay couples however have to undergo this every day. It is widely states that the only way children from homosexual marriages can lead a normal life is by avoiding harm from their parents and remaining heterosexual. This is a kind of psychological torture that gay couples have to undergo. Despite all the prejudices they have to tolerate being told that they do not provide a sound environment for the growth of their children. It is totally unrealistic to believe that children can only be reared in families of heterosexual nature. An examination through a cross-section of American families reveals that on about 26% of the families have mother and fathers of heterosexual nature. A good number of children are born out of wedlock and are brought up by single mothers. Some states have decided to recognize both parties in same-sex relationships as legal parents of the child (Moore). This is meant to ensure that the interests of children in families made up of gay couples are well taken care of. The need to ensure that children have a normal healthy life necessitates the approval of same-sex marriages rather than reject them.
Weaknesses in biological thought s against homosexuality
Some pundits claim that homosexual relationships are not biologically natural. The union consisting of same sex partners can never be productive in terms of child bearing and hence lack a natural support (Moore). However, it is worth noting that marriage has no link with child bearing. If there existed any link between marriage and child bearing, then many strange occurrences would have been instituted. For instance, important and sterile people would have been restricted from getting married since they are not productive when it comes to child bearing. If the sole role of marriage was to bear children, would postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? If the impotent, aged, and sterile people were restricted from marrying it would be seen as denying citizens their right to find happiness through marriage and this is unacceptable. Although such a move would be rooted in the belief that marriages performs roles that are very significant or rather more significant than procreation and thus religious or moral expression, interpersonal commitment, sexual satisfaction and legal rights associated with spouse hoods. Is however, rational to deny gay partners the right to get married the elderly, sterile and impotent couples are permitted to marry.
Effects on heterosexual marriages
The argument postulated by many conservative that gay marriages will further strangle the currently struggling marriage institution is also baseless. Such conservatives tirelessly point out that marriage is the basic fundamental institution of the society. According to Sullivan & Baques (71) Such augments simply bar a category of people from having their marriage right which is an extra ordinary deprivation similar to the 1950s restriction of interracial marriages between the blacks and the whites. Ironically, it was illegal for the black people to intermarry with the whites; no one thought that this was a trifling disenfranchisement (Moore). Claiming that same-sex marriage would lead to bad occurrences is hilarious. First, the conservatives can not prove this claim. Also bad things have happened before, for instance the legalization of contraception lead to various an condonable occurrences yet no one raised alarm over this and the occurrences have not change peoples perception of contraception-no one thinks it is bad. It is highly unlikely that by allowing gays to mary one another they would affect the relation ship that heterosexual marriage partners have (McAvoy). For instance gay have nothing to do with the rate of divorce among the heterosexual partners. Therefore, is one find no fault in other issues such as contraception that evidently affects that society and marriages negatively the it is not right to levy unjustified and imagined consequence on gay marriages. The traditional understanding of marriage has already been harmed in several ways by what the society what people seem not to perceive threats to the marriage institution. For instance it hard to conceive the problems brought about by allowing married people town property separately or implication of allowing women to charge their husbands of rape. Those who conducted marriage reforms should have thought of gay marriages as well since gay marriages have no disregard for marriage institution as the other reforms do.
Support by conservatives
It is worth noting that inclusion of the gay in the marriage institution will certainly serve to reduce promiscuity in the gay community. Some conservatives support gay marriages on this basis. For instance a Professor of Law at the Capital University, Mark Strasser, in 1999, together with staunch conservatives stated that allowing the gay couple to marry could considerably increase the stability of gay relationships and consequently discourage promiscuity among the gay people. Such recognition, as the professor states, recognition of such marriages would reduce the disorganization and brake down of relationships thus facilitates the provision of a home for rearing children. Certainly, accusing gays of being promiscuous when there is no institution that requires them not to be promiscuous is ironical (Strasser, 175).
Certain the curtailing of same-sex marriages is biased. It is deeply rooted in traditions, biology and religion. However, with some religions have no problem with people’s sexual preferences it is only a mattered of time every religion embraces change. The constitution on the other hand does not reject this kind of marriages. Evidence the couple in gay marriage can rare children extremely well should be enough to show critics that this religion have no negative impact to the society as such. Homosexuality is just but a preference and people have a right to get happens through whatever pleases them including marriage. Homosexuals should be allowed to pursue happiness through marrying one another.
Related Sociology essays
- American Women's History
- The Impacts of the Community on People’s Ways of Life
- Encountering Gender and Sexuality in India
- Workplace Security Unit
Most popular orders
A World on the Edge
BUS330 Week 3 Discussions
Book Review: The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner’s Fierce Rebellion
Research Article Critique and Research Proposal in the Public Relations Issues
Morita Akio: Biography
The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy
IRON CURTAIN SPEECH
The 1787 To 1900 Period in the United States
Cultural and Conflict Perspective
Economic Growth and Poverty in West Africa: A Cross-Country Analysis