The issue of same-sex marriages provides a heated debate due to lack of neutrality and diversity of opinion among writers and everyone else in the society. There is huge religious opposition of extending the laws on marriage to cater for gay marriages. Based on these grounds, homosexuality face secularly based moral objection, rejection or only partial acceptance and this paper will base the argument on this indications. The dispute against same sex-marriages is also depends on various worldly arguments in relation to the moral principles, ethical and religious values.
The debate is either a double-sided sword that supports or opposes discrimination against bisexuals and homosexuals. This paper supports that people are generally entitled to right of protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. There must be equal benefits over protection by civil laws. Both the opposite and same-sex couples require legal recognition but this does not mean the argument herein is a one sided support for need to change the meaning of marriage to incorporate gay marriages.
In line with Somerville (p 3), the nature of marriage is a presentation of a societal institution that symbolically protects human nature of reproduction through advocacy of opposite sex marriages in terms as inherent relationships. The development of the society depends on the institutions such as religious societies that guide on various matters such as marriages and major argument against gay marriages have foundation on these religious institutions.
Since time in history, the religious definition of marriage is an institution of putting together and upholding social and cultural values that govern the transformation of human life such as the procreation matters. To date, marriage in the religious setting presents an institutionalized situation that transforms human life from a generation to another by nurturing and protecting life. The inherent capacity to transmit new life makes the relationship between man and woman viable as opposed to the same sex relationships. The outline of marriage therefore takes the natural course and alteration of this definition to integrate same-sex relationships would jeopardise the functionality as outlined religiously (Somerville, p 4). The situation would no longer support the inherent proactive relationship that represents opposite-sex relationships. Homosexuality would definitely change the fundamental nature particularly the norm governing procreation or reproduction.
On the other hand, culture makes human to be similar and distinctive from the other animals and technological-intelligent systems. There are various difficulties connected to the issue of forming consensus in the secular society unless one is in a position of creating a society that supports the cultural paradigm that comprises of the social values, myths or believes and attitudes. The main aim of such a belonging is to emphasize on the true meaning of life for individual and society in general. Marriage is part of culture in support of cultural attitudes, believes and values that are concern with reproduction (Somerville, p 4). The importance of legal recognition of marriages is to establish secular means of supporting a culture that relates to support of life like the religious setting. There is need to limit marriages to the opposite-sex relationship, considering the current technological advancement where it is possible to support existence of human life by use of asexual replication also known as cloning. Without a proper safeguard of marriage, there are possibilities of sabotaging the social-cultural ecology concerns with such procreations of human beings.
People often consider decisions concern with reproduction as individual matters and therefore decisions concerning reproduction are private or confidential (Somerville, p 7).
This is a wrong impression because the state has a right to interfere with relationship matters through the law. Marriage involves the state as a third party as well as God if it is a religious vow. It is not a private decision, but a concern of the society because a divorce certainly requires decisions through a family court. The society therefore has to involve in marriage decisions through the law.
Marriage commitment is for the reason that eventually it should promote the well-being of the society or family through procreation and support of human life. Culturally, marriage is therefore not an affiliation for its own benefits and interests, or that of the partners but for family and societal gains (Man Yee Karen, p 62). Would this notion be attainable if the institution extended to involve the same-sex relationships? Marriage is therefore primarily an important concept in the society due to dependence on the expectations of human existence. This is a great fact that people often miss and the current individualistic society looks at the importance of marriage as a formation close or intimate to relationships among couples.
This is truly a strong basis for the formation but a weak link in support of future prospects of life. The same sex couples advocate for recognition on the same grounds of public recognition and intimacy. The fight for heterosexual or homosexual relationships therefore depends on the definition of the term ‘marriage’.
Is the main purpose of marriage to protect intimate relationship or protection of inherent procreative affiliation? If marriages were for the purpose of procreative relationship, then other definition of the term would not be necessary. This means that we are trying to re-define marriage in fight of incorporating same-sex relationships. According to Man Yee Karen (p 62), marriage is what defends the procreative form of relationships.
There is need to emphasize that exclusion same-sex marriages is for the reason that these forms of relationships lacks the inherent procreative ability. By recognizing the existence of homosexual and heterosexual marriages, there is compromise or change of this major function of marriage. There are possibilities that today’s gay couples are in a position to reproduce through techno-science and therefore advocate for recognition as institutions that procreates and protects life, based on religious definition of marriage.
In line with Man Yee Karen (p 64), there are various social functions gay marriages would seriously harm, if they are lawfully permitted. Marriage combines various values and societal norms relating to reproduction as well as support of generation growth.
There is evident recognition of equal rights in support of every human being in a straight or of gay relationship. The issue of equality ends when one starts to argue for gay marriages.
The reason why there are sharp critics against gay marriages falls upon the fact that people have a huge misunderstanding of homosexuality and meaning of marriage. To most people homosexuality means lack of serious commitment and promiscuity. In argument over un-lasting relationships, like the straight counterparts, gay people lack seriousness during the young age but the old are often devoted, monogamous and royal to their partners. People only point out to the weak side of the story. People in gay relationships have value for family, societal safety, law and are good contributors to social growth as good citizens, but all over again, people fail to recognize that gay people take full commitment to relationships to make lives better in the community.
Like most straight marriages, gays’ shows commitment to one partner and discourage promiscuity thus assisting in preventing the increase of sexually transmitted diseases.
Various countries such as Denmark, has weighed the benefits and thus the sudden change of attitude over issues regarding legality of the gay relationships (Bidstrup, p 3). However, there are still great assumptions over gay people being heterosexuals. In line with Bidstrup (p 3), homosexuality is closely related to the straight marriages because it is about commitment to love or affection and not about sexual perversions. There exist mutual appeals, friendliness and feel of affection that critics fail to notice. Like in opposite-sex marriages, sex is only one form of expressing affection to each other. There is an argument that being gay is more profound compared to simple sexual affiliation Bidstrup (p 5).
The gay relationship presents individuals’ core identity and a close comparison to being of a different race among majority. The heterosexuals fail to understand and appreciate gay relations mainly because it is a situation where the victimized are the minority.
In some instances, the same sex marriages are able to support life through other measures in place of procreation. Today there is public recognition of same-sex spouse relationships and commitment to one another.
There is also the technological or scientific means of supporting transmission of life. There are various cultural changes in favour of same-sex relationships. This is a form of cultural dynamism over the years, which posses a possibility of a change in support of same-sex marriages. Traditional status of a woman shows great improvement/progress and today marriage is a commitment concerning union of equivalent partners, thus the need to consider this as a further improvement (Bidstrup, p 2).
The definition of marriage as an institution between people of the opposite sex rarely produces supportive arguments to deny gay people right to marry. Similar definition of marriage as meant for procreation lacks well-built argument. These are clear indication that major concern relates to the definition of marriage. From the religious point of view, marriage is a term supporting procreation but contrary, what would happen to barren individuals or a couple who cannot or opt not to procreate? Does the getting together of such couples compromise the real meaning or symbolism of marriage in the religious setting? Marriage as a potential to support reproduction is a generalized term that lacks clear clarification at the individual levels.
Many marriages cannot meet the religious stipulation of reproductive symbolism for instance a marriage between couple who are past the childbearing age. Do such marriages damage the symbolism like the same sex marriages would? If the definition of marriage is coexistence in support for transmission of human life, then procreation is presently not important because of the techno science in supports of life. There is also lack of law governing child-centred procedure of deciding, where children have the right to biological parental nurturing (Bidstrup, p 6). The hearted debate also argues that same sex relationships are not the optimal situations for raising children. If children were a top priority in considering these types of relationships, then the law should not allow child molesters into relationships right to have children.
Various studies indicate that gay couples are able to raise children in a good manner like those in straight relationships, if not better (Bidstrup, p 6). If marriage was as stipulated by the religious believes as the ability to ensure continuity of life, then the gay relationships are able to support the notion and uplift the human race. The gay relationships are therefore not for violating the sacredness that forms a connection to marriage institutions, but require protection by the rules of a country as opposed to religious regulations.
Bidstrup, Scott. Gay Marriage, The Arguments And The Motives. 3 June 2009.
Web. 6 December 2010. Man Yee Karen, Lee. Equality, Dignity, and Same-Sex Marriage: A Rights Disagreement in Democratic Societies.
Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2010. Print. Somerville, Margaret. The Case Against “Same-Sex Marriage.” McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.
29 April 2003. Web. 6 December 2010.