Arguments supporting Gay Marriages

There has been ongoing debate as to the acceptance of gay marriages in our society with conservatists holding religion based arguments while liberal view holders debate on the rights of every individual. The paper aims to prove that gay marriages should be permitted and that people have the right to choose their own life partner. Gay marriages should be made legal and there should not be any bias against them because of their choice to choose a same sex soul mate.

In recent years, there has been heated debate about the permission of gay marriages in numerous states. The argument as to whether gay marriages should be allowed or not is in my opinion a ruse to let the government distract the community from major pressing issues such as literacy problems and other similar civic problems. If the existence of the gay communities have finally been recognized and acknowledged by the government, then there should be no reason for them to prohibit them from the other rights given to citizens.

If gay marriages are permitted then they would help people embrace their orientation much more openly and allow them to lead normal lives like straight orientation people. The gay community has been targeted and there had been cases where people were violently assaulted yet had to stay quiet about it as the law had no capacity to help them and they were treated as outlaws (Eskridge  Spedale, 2006). Now that the government has stopped the persecution of gays after their national scale movement in the 90s, they should be granted a lifestyle similar to that of other citizens.

Up till recently the definition of marriage was that it was the union of a man and a woman in a legally recognized co-habitation setting. However, using the definition for basing your arguments regarding same-sex marriage being not allowed is incorrect. Defining words and statements are done by humans and they have the right to edit and re-evaluate these terms to the current setting. Marriages are now seen as a legal commitment where one party looks after the other and watches over each others needs and wants. Under such a definition, one can allow the notion of same-sex marriages as the two people entering this institution take care of each other just like a heterosexual couple would.

I hold this stance of allowing gay marriages because it is the fundamental right of people to choose who they wish to spend their life with. If they feel that they could best be happy with someone from a different sex or with the same sex then until and unless they are not harming the society or anyone else, the government has no right to forbid such a union. This raises another question as to the argument of gay marriages harming society. The most pressing issue these days is the birth of children outside of wedlock to single mothers. These children are exposed to a single parent relationship which makes their views skewed so that they see no harm to be living alone. Nearly everyone agrees that children should be raised by a couple legally tied in matrimony so that they can follow that sort of relationship themselves. However, anti-gay marriage advocates forbid couples from marrying. This is a contradiction in its own as some people are allowed to marry while others are forced to maintain relationships outside of legal boundaries.

Gay marriages do not threaten children as is the perceived notion, but building an atmosphere where you persecute someone for holding separate views and beliefs is. Rather than forbid someone from trying to live a life following legal regulations, by forbidding gay marriages, people have to hide their relationships and are forced to live in an unrecognized relationship.

Marriage was meant to be an institution so that asymmetric relationships could support each other (Lakoff, 2006). This means that the role of husband and wife were defined, as since the women were responsible for looking after the house and children and did not have time to work, and men were responsible for earning the wages and caring for his family. However, the notion of gay marriages crushes this balance as both parties have equal standing in society and the give and take of the relationship becomes distorted. Such a union does not uphold the moral and social benefit that heterosexual couples may have.

On religious grounds the concept of homosexuality has been forbidden by nearly all religions. The notion of same sex partners indulging in sexual activities which god made specifically for different genders to indulge in together is immoral. The arguments forwarded by the Magistarium are supportive of this belief as they state that Every person is called to live chastely-to integrate his or her sexuality into a virtuous personal life. Sexual activity must embody both sexual (male-female) complementarily and procreative fruitfulness and sexual practices that fail to do so are morally wrong (the same reason that all forms of artificial birth control are deemed intrinsically evil).

Besides the religious point of view which forbids the marriage of two same-sex couples, the legal technicalities also worry the government. In a heterosexual relationship it is easy for courts to decide the distribution of assets and children should a divorce happen to take place. However, in a gay marriage the distribution of the assets are hard to decide on the legal front as both the partners of the relationship have equal standing in the society and the court cannot determine the ratio with which to distribute the assets should they take the matter to court.

Gay marriages are also a threat to the moral fabric of society as they can erode the family structure of the country. Gay couples cannot accomplish a miracle which a regular family could do, which is the birth of a child, yet they do have an option to adopt. This atmosphere would make the child growing up in such a household believe that going into a relationship with someone of the same-sex is perfectly natural and may influence hisher tendencies towards experimentation and might lead to a gay relationship. For the safeguarding of children from such suggestions the option of gay marriages should be unavailable.

Governments of various states have tried to strike deals with the gay community to allow them the benefits of marriage without the actual legal acceptance of marriage. This compromise allows for the couples to have relationships and enjoy all the comforts of a marriage setting minus the legal acceptance of the relationship (Peoples, 2009). This compromise provides the community with the option of everything-but-marriage relationship yet the gay community still persists in enforcing their rights to gay marriage.

Many of the arguments given against the union of same-sex couples are weak. Each of the arguments given for the prohibition of gay marriages is based on opinions and beliefs rather than factual reasons.

The first argument given about the asymmetric roles of a heterosexual couple has long since become obsolete. Since the entrance of the women in the work setting and professional world, they have become equal contributors to the revenue coming to the house and help with the income generation (The changing family, 2010). Similarly, men have begun taking more responsibility at home and support their spouses to an equal degree with some households having women who are earning more than their husbands and the husbands staying home to look after their kids. The concept of a marriage with the man supporting his family has altered to a state that it is simply the living of a couple together who are supposed to support each other and look after the well being of their family. Gay couples also live lives similar to that of regular American couples with both members supporting each other and their family as well.

Another argument placed argues on the religious aspect of homosexuality. Religion is a matter of a persons own beliefs and opinions and based on religious grounds forbidding individuals are unjust. People may hold different beliefs and religion is a matter practiced on an individual level. Arguments relating to religious grounds should be evaluated on the basis that is the joining of a homosexual couples harming society in general, and since the answer is that gay couples do not harm others around them and live regular lives like everyone else, they are not breaking any societal laws. Religion is a matter which should not be used as the basis for establishing laws where the populace is of diverse backgrounds and people share differing views over a majority of the subjects.

Forbidding gay marriages on the ground of it risking children to becoming gays is unfounded. There is no proof of any such occurrence and also gays usually adopt children, which provide abandoned children with a loving environment to grow in and with ample opportunity to the better things in life. Gays do not enforce their beliefs on others and kids growing in such surroundings usually do not act any differently than kids who grow in normal settings. In fact if any assumptions are to be made, it could be said that kids who grow up with gay parents may be more respectful towards people of different beliefs and opinions compared to kids who are taught to be biased against different groups (Flawed arguments against gay marriage, 2010).

By allowing gay couples to enter matrimony, it would be an incentive for people to marry the people they like and would increase the number of couples which has been gradually declining as people prefer to live together in an unmarried setting. If the government wishes for the number of couples to increase and for a culture of people to live married to each other than they should permit gay marriages as it would benefit the society as a whole.

Finally, if the government has agreed for a package of everything-but-marriage then it makes no sense to forbid gay marriages. Since they have already acknowledged the existence of the couples and they are willing to permit all the amenities, then they should also legalize the institution as well. If the government has accepted that there are gay couples then they should allow their marriages for better documentation and transparency of relationships.


Post a Comment