Opposing Same Sex Marriage
This paper explores published articles that report on results from research conducted online considering the same sex marriage. The articles, however, vary in their definitions and represent different views on the issue. The paper represents the research in the legalized marriage, gay couples, the right to marry, sexual relationships and issues on raising children.
Keywords: same sex marriage, relationships, kids, gays and lesbians rights to marry
Opposing Same Sex Marriage
Will there be more gay people, if there were allowed same-sex marriages? For many opponents of the legalization of gay marriage, the prospect that it will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals is a compelling (though not always called out loud), the reason to oppose legalization. And they have nothing to fear: the resolution of same-sex marriage will not lead to a similar effect, although it might seem that there were more homosexuals. But even if gay marriage actually increased the number of gays and lesbians, then by itself, this fact cannot be a reason to oppose. There are many arguments considering the same sex marriage, and society is definitely not ready to accept this fact.
Most likely, the legalization of same-sex marriage will affect public opinion about homosexuality. Gay people want the society to see that gay people love each other and that they are in stable, long-term relationships. And they also want this relationship to be recognized, because the law gives them this recognition: the same protection as the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. These relationships will be called marriage - and the language of the law and the language of culture. There will be a "language of the ritual, in which same-sex relationships will say exactly the same as a heterosexual. Same-sex spouses will no longer be "partners"; they will become spouses - husbands and wives. They will have engagements, weddings, and honeymoons. These words will be spoken for the first time without nods and winks, without any exaggeration. Although, these decisions will depend on the fact whether the certain law will be implemented in the future, as described in Thousands rally against same-sex marriage in Sacramento.
And we can expect, sometime later same-sex marriage will in general reduce the rejection of homosexuality. Homosexuals want to soften the stigma that homosexuality imposes on people. All this is not the only - or even the first - the reason to support gay marriage. On one hand, in opinion of gays, it is needed to be supported in order to:
- To encourage long-term relationships between homosexuals;
- Reduce the social and personal problems that are considered to have people who are not married;
- To protect the existing same-sex couples from the legal and social injustice, and to support the children growing up in gay families.
Everything that we learned in the past half-century of sexual orientation, denies this simple logical conclusion. As it turned out, a person cannot choose or change his sexual orientation. Biologically if it is determined whether genetically or simply laid in the very young age, sexual orientation does not depend on social influence, which tends to send gays and lesbians in another way. All attempts to "cure" and "remake" of homosexuals have a long history of defeats, and no one has managed to achieve success in this field, as stated in Against Same Sex Marriage - The Six Point Case.
Moreover, there is no evidence of the existence of the "swing", people whose sexual orientation lies exactly on the border between homosexual and heterosexual, and that moves in one direction or another, depending on personal or public preferences. Homosexuals cannot be created through seduction, recruitment or promotion.
According to the lawyer, federal judge Richard Posner, homosexuality is often manifested in a tolerant, rather than in a repressive society. "However, there is no evidence that the relative acceptance of homosexuality in the Netherlands and Belgium (both of these countries were allowed same-sex marriage) caused an increase in the number of homosexuals, as stated in Thousands rally against same-sex marriage in Sacramento. Thus, the legalization of same-sex marriage does not increase the number of homosexuals, homosexuals can become just happier. But, these days the society cannot accept it as a rule or normal action.
Same-sex marriage will not only reduce the stigma of homosexuality, as there are the increases of the number of those homosexuals who can honestly and openly say about their own sexual orientation. And those would be "cheaper" than it could cost them - such things as job loss, a break with family and friends, and the risk of moral and physical violence will be less threatened. Therefore, after the recognition of same-sex marriage may seem that homosexuals were more. But maybe, if legalizing gay marriage would not increase the number of homosexuals, would it increase sexual activity? Again, this will cause many to oppose. Is it after the legalization of sexual activity of gays and lesbians that it will grow? It is hard to say, as stated in False Equation: Opposing Same-Sex Marriage and Opposing Interracial Marriage.
On the other hand, the legalization of gay marriage may reduce homosexual activity. As was said earlier, same-sex marriage does not become a subsidy for homosexuality, because sexual orientation is not susceptible to a system of rewards and punishments. But same-sex marriage can be a subsidy on gay monogamy. And everyone knows that if you subsidize something, it increases the amount of subsidized. Therefore, the global effect of same-sex marriages is not expressed either in the total growth or decline in the total sexually active homosexuals, as described in Against Same Sex Marriage - The Six Point Case.
This whole discussion is based on the assumption that homosexuality is bad. Otherwise it would not be worth to be afraid of what will increase the number of homosexuals and their sexual activity. The only thing is the based view that homosexuality is evil, considering the religious considerations. Many views considering this issue are based on the religious principles, as described in Against Gay Marriage.
A common argument against same-sex marriage is that marriage is for procreation, and gay and lesbian couples cannot have kids. Let's call it "argument about procreation." Is it convincing? "The argument about procreation," begins with an undisputed position that procreation is necessary for human survival. It is further alleged that marriage exists to ensure that this important event - childbirth - took place during long-term alliance. Advocates of this argument may recognize this kind of marriage and pursue other goals - such as ensuring a spouse a person who would take care of him, as well as the direction of sexual activity in a monogamous track. However, he argues that all of these other goals only serve to facilitate the implementation of the main goals of marriage: promoting procreation and ensuring the stability of the family so that their children were born.
Separately taken a gay or lesbian can have children through artificial insemination or contract with a surrogate mother. But same-sex couples, supporters say "procreation argument", cannot have children just as a couple. This distinction is important, they say, because the parents of their own biological child care are better than adoption. In addition, there is nothing that prolongs the relationship as a shared biological child. According to the argument about procreation, it is this unique ability of a pair of man-woman justifies the unique status of marriage itself, as described in False Equation: Opposing Same-Sex Marriage and Opposing Interracial Marriage. This is the most important attribute of a marriage that meets its historical definition as a union between a man and a woman. So what? Supporters of the "procreation argument" claim that same-sex marriage will break the link between the concepts of "marriage" and "reproduction". What are the practical consequences of this gap?
As a fact, there are two possible concerns. One - is that childbearing will slow to fall, possibly below the "replacement rate" - the point at which people need to multiply to the level of birth rate exceeding death rate. This slowdown could threaten the survival of the species. Another concern is that if the relationship between marriage and childbirth will weaken, there may increase childbearing outside of marriage. Both fears can be confirmed at the same time, both will be bad. If same-sex marriage threatens human life and / or leads to an increase in the number of illegitimate children, then it must be confronted, no matter how in need same-sex couples are, as stated in Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?
But, fortunately, we cannot ponder the possibility of catastrophic consequences, because we already have a great experience in a disconnection between the concepts of "marriage" and "reproduction". For pairs it is not necessarily to have children to marry. Pair did not even have to be able to give birth to marriage. People, who cannot have children by age or health status, can join in a marriage. In a marriage can join those who do not want to have children, although physically able to do it.
Many heterosexual couples fall under these categories. And they form a much larger percentage of the population than ever could make same-sex couples. However, despite the fact that some cannot or refuse to perform marriage obligation to have children, people continue to proliferate, and the marriage continues to be a statutory "place attachment" for childbearing, as described in The difficulty of opposing gay marriage.
When we talk about the rights of gays and lesbians, the first thing that usually comes to mind is their official recognition of same-sex marriages. No question meets such a strong resistance, and such emotional arguments of the opponents. It is the same-sex marriages that are now concentrating their efforts of gay / lesbian activists in the West. However, even within the gay people there are no full agreements: the radical liberals, for example, believe that, rather than to fight for the expansion of the definition of marriage, it would be better to destroy the institution that has traditionally been a heterosexual. But, somehow, the marriage is still in the center of the debate. This is not surprising, as described in Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives.
If sexual attraction – is the main (after survival) a biological instinct, having a family - the main pressing social need of a person, an integral part of his life. Love combines these two basic requirements for the level of feelings and emotions. Therefore, the debate about marriage affects too much in people's lives to be free from emotions. This is a question of politics, culture, faith and moral convictions. Discussion of marriage applies to all spheres of human life. Nowadays, same sex marriages are not perceived as something normal and natural in the majority of countries, as stated in Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?
Same-sex marriages – are not an easy question for those, who are not homosexuals. There is a collision of two deeply-rooted moral judgments. First, attitudes toward marriage and family, who always encouraged by society and the state had greater social status than bachelorhood, and have been extremely positive from the standpoint of morality. Second, attitudes toward homosexuality, which was considered immoral, was subjected to ridicule and humiliation, harassed, or, at best, stigmatized. Marriage symbolizes loyalty and responsibility, homosexuality is often associated with the concept of free-love and indulgence baser desires. Therefore, gay marriage, for most people – is a combination of opposites: moral and immoral, fidelity, and free love. This is one of the main causes of such fierce resistance, as described in The difficulty of opposing gay marriage.
The same stereotypes about the immorality of homosexuality and the propensity of gays and lesbians to free love are the basis of the argument that marriage and family are a tradition rooted in the past, and the spread of marriage on gay couples, as a violation of a centuries-old traditions and discredited the very notion of family influence on public attitudes towards marriage, and eventually lead to a decrease in the stability of families and society. Marriage has indeed appeared many centuries ago and it is a major public institution, as described in 9 states file brief opposing gay marriage. However, the "traditional" still raises serious doubts. Very few rules of modern marriage have anything like a long history. The definition of "traditional" marriage is constantly changing. For example, in biblical times, Jews have had several wives and concubines, and some Muslim countries permit polygamy and now. "Sacred" marriage is also controversial: for example, Christian religious ceremony blessing a marriage appeared much later from the emergence of Christianity itself. It should not be forgotten that that marriage is often negotiable instrument and the redistribution of property. Talking about long-term marriage, it should be also remembered that until recently there was considered a marriage alliance for life, because divorce has long been banned (by the way, in some Catholic countries, they have allowed just recently), as described in Opposing same-sex 'marriage' is not a rejection of homosexual people. And now in post-industrial countries falls every second marriage. In some countries, however, for a divorce may file only the husband but not his wife. Less than half a century ago, interracial marriages were banned in the U.S., although now it seems to savagery. But only 30 years ago it would have seemed absurd a law allowing a woman to sue her husband for rape. Marriage has long secured the dominance of men over women, and in some Arab countries a woman - is still a certain kind of property. All this - are the traditions that had existed for decades, as described in Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. To which of them appeal the opponents of gay marriage? The reality is that in every age married institutionalized sexual and family relations in accordance with the present social structure, economy and culture.
Marriage as an institution has undergone so many changes in its history that disagree with them, and at the same time insisting on the "traditions" as soon as it comes to gays and lesbians, is illogical and unfair. What prevents other than stereotypes, to change it again to include the definition of homosexual couples, especially if the society is willing to give them all the same rights and privileges? Maybe the fact that the issue of gay marriage being seriously discussed in all developed countries, and just shows that the existing institution of marriage is already lagging behind the needs of society? To answer the question, it is important to understand what a person wants from marriage at all, and what modern marriage is. The institution of marriage is no accident there since time immemorial, and not accidentally power structures, such as church and state has always tried to control it. Marriage certainly has a positive and stabilizing value to society, whatever the appearances radical liberals are. As a fact, it is still difficult to predict the possible economic downfall the government and companies will take, as in reality the social sphere is more connected with business as many people, think. Considerable changes in the social sphere and in the rights of the homosexuals can lead to considerable changes in the companies, in the relationships between countries and other issues. As a fact, the situation cannot be predictable as there are many institutions involved in the process, including the church.
Of course, one of the main objectives of the marriage – is raising children, or, more broadly, education and training of the younger generation and ensuring continuity. But this is not the only reason for the existence of the marriage. Marriage regulates sexual relationships, but, more importantly, getting married, a person gets the kin, the satellite for the rest of his life. Society is interested in this not only because of the fact that the presence of companion stabilizes a person, but also because it is a spouse, who has an emotional and financial support in case of sickness or life's problems. The company, as a rule, does not assume a large part of caring for each person, and shifts it to the family, as stated in 9 states file brief opposing gay marriage. And in this case, an official marriage is important for society, because it does not allow people to easily escape from these obligations. Marriage - is not a contract between two people, marriage - is a contract between the couple and society.
That makes a couple of legal marriage and recognizes the closest person to those in the eyes of the law, enshrines one of the first family rights - the right to live together. Family law can be very different in different countries, but its essence is one - protecting children, promoting family and sustainability of marriage, the causes leading to the disintegration of families, creating obstacles to divorce. Not all of the nuances may be prescribed in the legislation, but the principle remains the same: a desire to couples to be together, make joint decisions, take responsibility for one another is respected and encouraged by law.
When gays and lesbians insist on their right to marry, everything they are trying to achieve - it is simply recognition by society of their right to be together. The problem is that formal marriages monopolize the right to family life. Homosexual couples in the eyes of the law represent the two strangers. Non-family person can be much easier transferred to work in another city or even in another country and would be more likely to be sent on missions. Gays and lesbians are often facing a choice between work and their favorite loved one, and love that occurred between people of different nationalities, confronted with almost insurmountable obstacles. Serious problem – is having kids, for a partner, in fact - the other parent is not considered as such - with all its consequences, and in case of death, for example, his mother will get custody of more relatives, rather than an outsider, even if he and raised this child, as described in Opposing same-sex 'marriage' is not a rejection of homosexual people. Divorce – is also one of the benefits of marriage, for orders, and resolves property claims, and parent of former spouses who are no longer able to negotiate with each other, and to avoid situations where one spouse is left without means of livelihood, just because all property was belonged to the other.
It would seem that many of the aforementioned problems can be avoided through contracts, agreements, wills and common property registration, etc. Society, by denying gay marriage, not only does not approve of their relationship, but also contributes to the destruction of their long-term alliances, not taking over any additional obligations, which actually means much greater exposure and vulnerability of modern life. The excuse that gays and lesbians are free to enter into a regular marriage with a person of the opposite sex can not serious.
The majority of people have not yet adopted the fact of gays and lesbians for recognition of homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual, to a relaxed attitude to sexual orientation of their children. Distribution of the institution of marriage to same-sex couples would mean both legal and social acceptance of homosexuals, an official endorsement of their relationship, which nowadays, cannot be accepted by the society because of the certain principles.
In general, the emergence of gay marriage, like any other social changes will have several consequences, all of which seem to the public rather progressive and positive than negative. Extending marriage to same-sex couples, for example, should gradually change attitudes towards traditional gender roles, which no longer correspond to the realities of life, as described in Same Sex Marriage? Issues such as divorce and child custody will be settled soon on the basis of equality between spouses than from conventional stereotypes about the roles of husband and wife. Democratic state can finally get rid of formalized discrimination against minorities, which is based solely on stereotypes. And finally, increasing distribution of tolerance would have extremely positive impact on society.
All in all, there are many differences between the marriage of a man and a woman and the same sex marriage. The upbringing of the children also differs and can be determined and restricted only by law. There are many different opinions and arguments considering this issue and the part of society wants to have a determined solution for these issues. The fact remains and states, that a marriage of a man and a woman is a natural way of living and having children, and this fact cannot be substituted by any, as it has been created by the nature itself.