Arguing Same Sex MarriageEssay Preview: Arguing Same Sex MarriageReport this essayArguing Same Sex MarriageAlthough some Americans believe that same-sex marriage should remain illegal, these marriages should be allowed along side traditional marriages because the US Constitution guarantees the equal rights of all citizens.
The issue of gay marriage can be approached from many angles. Whether for or against it, Christians and Conservatives generally approach it as a moral issue whereas the non-religious and Liberals tend to see the argument as a legal or human rights issue. Of course there are members of all demographics that have mixed opinions about same-sex marriage and whether it should be legalized either at a state or federal level.
One group that has a history of opposing same-sex marriage is Concerned Women for America (CWFA). CWFA was founded in 1979 and is the nations largest public policy womens organization. They claim to seek to “protect traditional values and support the Biblical design of the family” (“Concerned Women for America,” 2012). What they actually protect is an outdated, religious-based stance on gay marriage that is bigoted and discriminatory.
Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel for CWFA, wrote an article last year called “Why Homosexual Marriage is Wrong” where she outlines 10 reasons she believes the legalization of gay marriage would be harmful. She says that homosexuals are seeking a right that is unique to them, and that they already have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex (LaRue, 2012). This is obviously just a way to skirt the issue and is an exercise in blatant avoidance of meaningful dialog.
LaRues next point is less avoiding the issue, as it is infantile. She states (LaRue, 2012) that gay marriage “denies the self-evident truth of nature that male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other” (para. 2). This would suggest that just because certain body parts can easily fit together between a man and a woman, that this invalidates homosexuality. Using this logic, same-sex partners participating in a passionate kiss would be included in the group of complementing human puzzle pieces from which LaRue just tried to exclude them.
Certainly evolution has provided for male and female genitals to match up to each other for the purpose of reproduction, but this do not establish homosexuality as unnatural. Many opponents of same-sex marriage believe that marriage is meant for the purpose of reproduction and the raising of children, and gay marriage obviously precludes shared biological offspring. If this is the case, heterosexuals past childbearing age or the infertile should not be allowed to marry because they will never produce biologically shared offspring. One could also say measures should be taken to ensure that couples fully capable of bearing children do in fact reproduce. Cline (2012), since we do not see anyone proposing these measures, we have to conclude that those who are against same-sex marriage do not take this argument seriously (para. 1).
Another stance taken in the article by LaRue is that gay marriage will harm children because they will not know the love and nurture of both a mom and dad. She says, “The only procreation homosexuals can engage in requires that a third party must be brought into the relationship (LaRue, 2012). First, LaRue does not follow up her statement that children are harmed in the care of homosexual couples with any facts supporting this stance. Studies have shown, however that “results of social science research have failed to confirm any of these concerns about children of lesbian and gay parents” (Patterson, 2004). In fact, there has never been any credible evidence shown by any major study that would show this to be the case. Even if this argument had any validity, the second point being ignored is that same-sex couples that have offspring from past heterosexual relationships or adoption are raising children whether they were to remain in
s. (LaRue, 2012). No one in the public or government would be happy to make such a statement to any prospective family as some people will simply not engage in a marriage and they will die from the consequences of it. In many countries, including the U.S., it is illegal for a married couple that were not married to form a civil union to seek legal protection against the consequences associated with obtaining children. For example, as a result of an open legal process, a married couple can, for example, ask their law partner to create a civil union if they wanted. One solution that I would suggest, though, is that the same-sex couple should be allowed to form a civil union as a natural person to begin with to avoid any legal repercussions of their relationship. For example, if a person was born with a chromosomal disease that causes genetic defects in the offspring, the child may be born on January 1 of the same year, and by that date the same-sex couple will not be entitled to legal protection, including health and benefits, from that day forward (Briggsley & Feltman, 1991). I am not saying this is not important, and I don’t believe most people in this country would object strongly. I think people might argue that they might only want to become civil partners if they feel that marriage is a marriage of equals, i.e., when a law partner dies, as LaRue says: The human right is to have civil sex. But that should not preclude an equal right to civil marriage of legal persons (Leslie, 2003), or civil rights to obtain legal status under federal law. The law of the land can be used to protect people from discrimination under this approach. When a couple in their 20s (as this passage is often used) get married by a single and single parent, they won’t have a child, but instead will lose a mother. This is not to say that marriage is impossible in the end, but what we are talking about here is just two people in their 20s in their early 20s who are living together in a marriage and who are not married (Briggsley & Feltman, 1991). Marriage is a legal obligation. I would not advocate for same-sex unions to be legal in England or Wales, but I would support them here and in the U.S., where there’s no legal recognition of same-sex marriage. However, many in this nation don’t understand that the opposite sexes are equal. As the philosopher Bill Nye said, it’s no accident that he said it, „, “the distinction between legal and constitutional is a distinction that could never be more clear. … The difference between those legal obligations to an individual and those constitutional obligations to society is a distinction between two different legal obligations; a distinction that has been repeatedly shown by our government to limit the rights of individuals and to set up systems of discrimination for all people but one that promotes equality.” Unfortunately, the government has failed to understand that legal obligations are not one or the other, only two people in a relationship, •: (Patterson, 2004). It is not because there aren’t any rights there. There is only one right: marriage. This law could be passed and implemented by any group of people, but most people assume the law will not work. It is a right of all citizens, and as such it has to be exercised only at the law’s prompting and by the law’s decisions. I’m not claiming that you can’t have a right to freedom of speech if you choose to. But what we should do is see this as the legal basis for any person choosing