Same Sex Marriage – Does It Threaten the Traditional Definition of a Amily?
Essay Preview: Same Sex Marriage – Does It Threaten the Traditional Definition of a Amily?
Report this essay
SAME SEX MARRAIGE – DOES IT THREATEN THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF A FAMILY Submitted by Rory Donaghy
Today, marriage is the most essential of all human relations, and stands as the most validating aspect of commitment that two individuals can undergo. The fusing together of two lives, marriage is seen as a sacred bond whos history is as old as mankind itself. In the past twenty centuries, the church and religion evolved from small cults to the most powerful empire in existence. Throughout the Middle Ages and surviving through the Renaissance and Baroque periods, the church experienced century after century of absolute ideological domination. This undeniable yet continuous presence of unmatched power brought about hundreds and hundreds of years of social structure which now many consider to be natural law. According to Christian beliefs, marriage is the holy union between a man and woman with the goal to reproduce offspring.
The institution of marriage crosses realms from religion to the justice system, as the vow itself brings with it 38 laws between the two adhering individuals. (EGALE 2001). This, along with its social interpretation as the unity needed for a successful family upbringing, marriage can quite easily be considered the center of society and a right that all humans should one day hope to attain.
Throughout modern evolution of democratic society, the ability for minorities to attain political recognition as individuals with rights similar to any other citizen has been an ongoing battle. Keep in mind that as recent as forty years ago the African American minority battled strenuously for the reformation of civil rights and its need to reach every American citizen. In the United States of America, up until 1967 interracial marriage was considered morally heinous as well as illegal, yet after four decades of political acceptance, a couple differing in race is hardly considered abnormal.
Similarly, in the past generation the gay and lesbian population, individuals whose sexual preference is towards that of their own gender, has been struggling for their civil rights, and in the dawn of a new millennium the constitutional confines of marriage have to be reconsidered. Due to its deep religious roots as well as its extremely dominant role in society, the road to political recognition is not an easy battle for supporters of same sex marriage. Acceptance of homosexual marriage varies quite strongly throughout the globe, and is currently permitted in Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden and several Canadian province as well as the state of Massachusetts. Other versions of legal marriage, (accepting the union judicially although the religious morality still lacks) exist throughout several parts of Europe including Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland Hungary and Spain (Galeano. 2004). However, in more places than not, marriage between two men or two women is considered decadent in nature and holds punishments including death and torture to those found culpable. In an attempt to strive for a concluding theory in this heated debate, both negative and positive spectrums will be taken into consideration as legitimacy of the following statement will be investigated; the institutional definition of marriage is not exempt from the process of evolution and modernization, yet must be recognized as something which must change in respect to the times.
The United States of America is currently considered the worlds economic powerhouse, often held responsible for globalization and modernization of global markets. One of Americas most defining characteristics is its democratic form of government, a style they disseminate throughout the global political sphere. In a sense, the U.S.A. could well be considered an extremely influential candidate for changing global outlook on any particular issue. Although democracy, in nature, defends equality and human rights within the country, there is a stronger, more heavily defining characteristic to the United States, that of religion.
Since its 18th century colonial conception, the U.S. has been a country developed on the principle of Christian morals, and after over two hundred years of economic, social and political development, Christian morals (especially Evangelical) are as influential as ever within the Whitehouse. Homosexuality, witnessed simply as sexual perversion among religious institutions, in turn experiences extreme difficulties in attaining any social respect among many politicians. In 1972, U.S. President Richard Nixon expressed his beliefs on homosexuality quite blatantly amongst close colleagues: “You know what happened to the Greeks? Homosexuality destroyed them! Aristotle was a homo, we all know that. So was Socrates. You know what happened to the Romans? The last six emperors were fags” (Galeano. 2004).
Identifying the key opposition to the same sex marriage movement is the first step in many towards achieving change, next is pinpointing the grounds for which hostility is based. The main argument amongst those who discredit the homosexual unity movement is the substantial breach of tradition which would occur if same sex marriage was to be legalized in the States (a country whose national history posed an up most respect for tradition). The proposition of gay marriage within the U.S. could substantially threaten religious, political and social traditions within the country causing negative outcry and possible destabilization (Clarke 2001).
Religiously there stands an extremely popular bias against same sex relations, as religious individuals judge the minority simply as a band of sexually deviant sinners who are going against the will of God and are destined for hell. A Baptist preacher from Kansas recently referred to Canada as a sperm bank for the Satan (Anderssen 1999) due to the nations decision to permit same sex marriage The idea of marriage between one man and another in itself totally opposes the Christian definition of marriage. By considering the quest for same sex marriage nothing more than a hypocritical attempt, they make the assumption that lesbians and gays, in admitting their sexual preference, are in nature adopting the idea that “the point of coming out is not to get married and have children” (Tepperman and Blain, 2006).
While the religious arguments surrounding marriage suffer strong biases, more relevant negativities can be imposed regarding the issue such as the possible social repercussions of such a change in constitution. Socially, the institution of marriage is the defining element in the creation of families and central in its sociological role. Thus, any extreme diversion from this role would create situations that seem atypical to many. If given the right to wed, gays and lesbians would realistically