Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption, an Issue Only Amongst the Unreasonable - Assignment Example

Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption, an Issue Only Amongst the Unreasonable Most of Western Europe, England, Canada and the bulk of the civilized world has concluded homosexuals should be allowed to get married and adopt children. The Equality Act of 2007 assured gay couples could marry and since the beginning of this year, even Catholic adoption agencies must now not discriminate against gay adoptions. Most British and Canadian citizens, 60 per cent, support same-sex marriages while 30 per cent in each country opposes the concept. Americans are not as enlightened. About half support the idea of civil unions; fewer support gay marriage and half do not think gay persons should be afforded equal rights at all. (Mazzuca, 2004) Those opposed to gay marriage or civil unions generally believe that homosexuality is morally reprehensible and a lifestyle choice rather than a natural condition that has existed throughout time and occurs in several animal species. This discussion will briefly examine the rather convoluted, tortured logic of those opposed to allowing gay couple to marry or adopt children. It will focus on evidence demonstrating homosexuality is biological, not a choice, explain the benefits of gay marriage thus loss of liberty for those who are not afforded this privilege and show gay adoption is not harmful to children as opponents pronounce. Michelle Bachmann, a U.S. Congress member, is a strong voice opposing gay marriage. Almost stereotypically she employs the religion argument to further her cause. She has stated that if gay marriage were legalized, churches or other religious institutions that don’t approve of same-sex marriages will be compelled by the government to change their opinion or not express it. The government likely would take away their tax-exempt status if they did not consent to perform and condone same-sex marriages. “Same-sex marriage is a serious threat to our civil and religious liberties and could lead to widespread discrimination against people who disagree.” (Bachmann, 2009) Many believe that because churches are businesses they should be taxed anyway. In 1997, the General Accounting Office reported that heterosexual married couples enjoyed more than 1000 benefits and protections. These marriage incentives range from survivor benefits through Social Security, the ability to take sick leave from work to care for a sick partner, federal and state tax breaks and veteran and insurance benefits. They also include things like “family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to” (Belge, 2006). Following the enactment of the Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), an amendment added to many states’ constitutional definition of marriage, many lawsuits have been filed all over the country against local and state governments whether or not they offer health insurance and other benefits to their employees’ unmarried domestic partners. DOMA prohibits the state governments from providing benefits to a dependent in a relationship that does not comply with the state’s constitutional definition of marriage. Both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Gay-rights groups disagree with these amendments. Shortly after Alaska adopted a similar marriage amendment in 1998, the Alaska ACLU took the State to court on behalf of several gay couples who had a partner employed by the state. The suit claimed that the government practiced institutional discrimination by disallowing benefits to employees’ partners because those same benefits were offered to the heterosexual partners of state employees. The ACLU lost in trial court but in 2005, but the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision. The court ruled that “the benefit system is discriminatory because benefits are extended to employees’ married partners and because same-sex couples are constitutionally barred in the state from marrying” (Gentile, 2006). Hundreds of state workers and their partners lost their health benefit coverage when the Michigan legislature passed a marriage amendment in 2004. A September 2005 court trial decided that healthcare benefits for spouses are benefits of employment, not marriage, but a court of appeals issued an injunction on the ruling. “Hopefully the court of appeals will affirm that decision, but in the meantime, people who lost their health insurance still can’t have it back,” said Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign based in Washington D.C. (Gentile, 2006). In the United States, married couples receive many legal benefits that couples who live together but are unmarried do not. More and more, gay couples are insisting that they receive the same legal rights that the traditional, heterosexual married couples receive. Married couples also pay less in taxes and receive many other social and financial benefits in addition to the ability to adopt children. But because gay couples are legally prevented from marrying, they are excluded from receiving the same considerations that married heterosexual couples enjoy. Heterosexual married couples enjoyed more than 1000 benefits and protections. These marriage incentives range from survivor benefits through Social Security, the ability to take sick leave from work to care for a sick partner, federal and state tax breaks and veteran and insurance benefits. They also include things like “family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to” (Belge, 2006). Those opposed to gay marriage believe that these relationships do not serve the best interest of the state. Since they cannot bear children that would ultimately add to the tax base of a community, there is no incentive for the state to recognize their union and provide them the benefits of marriage, an expensive burden to the state. Advocates of gay marriage have not been able to show what financial benefit their marriage would be to the state. “If sexual love alone becomes the primary purpose of marriage rather than procreation, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos” (Kolasinksi, 2004). The marriage laws, established by the state, ensure that the couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who benefit the state by having children. Those that oppose gay marriage have yet to provide evidence those children of gay couples whether biological or adopted are harmed by this living arrangement. Some have expressed fears that these children will be more likely to become homosexuals suggesting that it would be appalling if that were the situation (Sullivan & Baques, 1999). In today’s world, the fact is that most children do not live in ‘Leave it to Beaver’ type households with a housewife and a father who works at the office from nine to five. 25 percent of children are born out of wedlock to single women who are predominately young and impoverished according to Bureau of Census statistics. Half of all marriages end in divorce and ‘traditional’ married couples with children comprise just 26 percent of U.S. families. “It is unrealistic to pretend that children can only be successfully reared in an idealized concept of family, the product of nostalgia for a time long past.” (“Social Norms”, 1999). Whether homosexuality is by chance or by choice is a public, scientific and governmental debate that will not soon be settled. Homosexuals make a choice to identify with and participate in the gay subculture. But is homosexuality itself a choice? Are they born gay or was this particular lifestyle a choice and is this decision making process possibly altered due to psychological abnormalities caused by childhood events? Is it possible that being gay is a combination of both nature and nurture? Does homosexuality cross cultural boundaries with any consistencies? A study of 375 homosexual men in Brazil, Guatemala, Peru, the Philippines, Thailand and the United States consistently found that 25 percent of homosexual men display highly gender atypical behavior, while 50 percent showed marked gender atypical behavior as young children (Whitam, Mathy, 1986). Choice, convoluted or not, or chance, nature or nurture, the controversial topic will be discussed using persuasive arguments from both sides of the issue. There is a great deal of controversy as to whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental in origin. Homosexuals are very much looking for any scientific confirmation that would verify that they were born as homosexuals. And why shouldn’t they for if God made them that way then it is not their fault they are homosexual and therefore it is permissible to act out their sorted desires. Research of any kind whether credible or not that might suggest a genetic origin is quickly offered as an explanation. But the vested interest that homosexuals have often prevent them from seeing the obvious. Many environmental factors can occur early in the development of a child that can easily lead one to believe that once a predisposition towards homosexuality has developed they feel they must have been born that way. But even if one has a predisposition towards homosexuality, they are not necessarily homosexual. However, a predisposition must be added to other factors to produce a homosexual. “This formula can be illustrated in this way; a predisposition toward homosexuality plus that first homosexual experience multiplied by pleasurable and positive homosexual thoughts to which is added more homosexual experiences multiplied by more pleasurable thoughts equals a homosexual” (Copeland, 2001). When one has a previous predisposition towards homosexuality, is then exposed to homosexual experiences and can pleasurably reflect upon them, a powerful attraction a created that is hard to conquer. So powerful can these experiences and reflections be that one not need to have developed a predisposition to be drawn into this sort of behavior (Copeland, 2001). There seems to have been a restoration of homosexuality as a psychosis over the past several years within psychiatry and psychology circles. Maybe a reaction to the political correctness era of the 1990s, it seems as if many professionals were intimidated into silence for a time. With the recent conservative swing of society these professionals now seem to feel anger regarding the issue and want to vent their inflexible views on homosexuality. “Charles Socarides, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine has written many books and articles over the past 25 years reiterating his belief that homosexuality is a disorder. In August 1997, The Washington Post quoted him as saying, ‘Homosexuality is a psychological and psychiatric disorder. It is a purple menace that is threatening the proper design of gender distinctions in society” (Eidenberg, 1998). In a letter to The Wall Street Journal, members of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a coalition of therapists who argue that they can cure homosexuality, stated that “many of the young men who have died of AIDS have sought treatment for their homosexuality and were denied knowledge and hope. Many of them would be alive today if they had only been told where to find the help they sought” (Eidenberg, 1998). What they are saying, in effect, is that gay activists are killing their friends and lovers. Yet these sentiments are not shared by everyone. “Human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight” (Answers, 2003). Sexual orientation materializes for most people in early teenage years without any previous sexual experience. People may choose whether or not to act on their feelings but psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a mindful option that can be voluntarily chosen. “Originally thought by the American Psychological Association to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders” (Answers, 2003). Many theories abound regarding the origins of a persons sexual orientation. Most scientists today concur that sexual orientation is probably the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. “In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a persons sexuality” (Answers, 2003). It is important to note that there are almost certainly many rationales for a persons sexual orientation and the reasons may vary for different people (Answers, 2003).   Arguments claiming homosexuality is not a choice are based on a myriad of examples of people who are gay despite adverse circumstances like harassment and familial estrangement. Homosexuality is a biological behavior. As evidence, being gay is not exclusive to homo-sapiens. It has been found that many mammalian species have been observed exhibiting homosexual conduct. “In some primate species, males who are denied mating opportunities by stronger, more dominant males or males who are sexually immature will often be seen performing sexual acts to each other. Some may even continue this behavior long into adulthood” (Critser, 2004). Long-lasting homosexual relationships subsist beyond humanity. “Homosexual acts occur in countless animal societies, but more male and female homosexual pairs form in numerous primates, mainly chimpanzees and orangutans and these pairs will remain faithful to each other for many years. Male dolphins will also form long lasting unions in which the couple, even though they are part of a larger group, will only perform mating-like, or stimulatory behavior on each other” (Critser, 2004). Is it possible that being gay is a combination of both nature and nurture elements? The available research seems to suggest a combination of the two in varying degrees in most cases while no evidence seems to exist that answers the question definitively one way or the other. Either way, researchers will continue to hunt for the origin of homosexuality while people argue the moral and philosophical implications. Many paths have been explored, from isolating DNA to observing gay animals, but as of yet, no one concrete explanation of homosexuality has been found. And even if it were, would society accept it? Gay couples exhibit similar family and societal values as those the traditional couple do while engaged in the activities of their daily lives. Other than the fact that one couple is of the same sex and the other is not, the neighbors would notice no difference. They cherish and are involved in family life, abide by the law and are committed to making their communities a better place for all to live. The legalization of gay marriage benefits society because the very obligations of a marriage itself discourage promiscuous sex which carries the advantage of decelerating the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Marriage also encourages a family-type atmosphere in the house, neighborhood and community. Homosexuality is multi-faceted involving true love and affection, indicating it is not just about sex, much the same as the traditional relationship. It’s past time that being gay means being considered a second-class citizen by society and by the laws of the land. All citizens should expect to be treated with respect and equality. Works Cited “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” (April 11, 2003). American Psychological Association. February 19, 2009 Bachmann, Michele. “How same-sex marriage threatens liberty” WorldNetDaily.com (2009) February 19, 2009 Belge, Kathy. “The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions.” About Lesbian Life. (2006). February 19, 2009 Copeland, Mark A. “Homosexuality: A Christian Perspective.” Executable Outlines. (2001). February 19, 2009 Critser, Bart. “Homosexuality is Natural.” The Daily Free Press. (April 7, 2004). February 19, 2009 Eidenberg, David. “It’s All in Your Head – Psychoanalyst Richard Isay Discusses Homosexuality as Pathology.” (May 26, 1998). The Advocate. Gentile, Annie. “Employee Fringe Benefits.” City and County. Vol. 121, I. 5, p14-16. (May 2006) Kolasinksi, Adam. “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage.” The Tech. Vol. 124, N. 5, (February 17, 2004) February 19, 2009 Mazzuca, Josephine, PhD. “Gay Rights: U.S. More Conservative” Toronto Bureau (2009) February 19, 2009 “Social Norms and Judicial Decision-making: Examining the Role of Narratives in Same-Sex Adoption Cases.” Columbia Law Review. Lexis-Nexis. (April 1999). February 19, 2009 Sullivan, T. Richard & Baques, Albert. “Familism and the Adoption Option for Gay and Lesbian Parents.” Queer Families, Common Agendas. New York: Haworth Press, pp. 80-82. (1999) Whitam, Frederick & Mathy, Robin. “Male Homsexuality in Four Societies: Brazil, Guatemala, the Philippines and the United States.” New York: Praeger. (1986). Read More