Argumentation-persuasion on same sex marrage/gay marriage - Essay Example

First Last Dr. TeacherFirst TeacherLast 23 November 2008 Same Sex Marriages The issue of same sex marriages is one of the most hotly debated topics in modern religious, political, social and legal discourse. Extreme as well as middle of the road views are taken. The definition and need for the institution of marriage comes into focus and at times the debate extends to the domain of castigating homosexuality which is identified as the root cause of a perceived problem. However, on all counts, if a balanced and impartial view is taken, there is no plausible reason to prevent the legalization and acceptance of same marriages and give the same social, economic and legal benefits of marriage to same sex couples.

Central to this debate is the question of equality in the society. Opponents of same sex marriage claim that there is nothing unequal in prohibiting same sex marriage and mention court decisions which say that no fundamental rights are violated (Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al). A middle ground of civil union in place of marriage is also sometimes offered. Recently, however, the Massachusetts Supreme Court rightfully observed that not giving an equal status would amount to relegating same sex couples to “second class status” and that, historically, separation is “seldom, if ever, equal” (Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003)). Opponents of equality for same sex couples have been quick to classify members of judiciary favoring equality as “activist judges” (Bush) overstepping their boundary by delving in the domain of legislature.

This smear campaign based on over-simplification of judicial review is reminiscent of the earlier time when the judiciary used its power to correct institutionalized racial discrimination and allowed interracial marriages.Social criticism of same sex marriage is rooted in a claim that such marriages would destabilize the long held values of married family based on heterosexual union. They also equate homosexuality with licentious behavior and that this would creep into the institution of marriage if allowed to solemnize.

The argument smacks of moral authoritarianism where emotional beliefs rather than facts are allowed to govern opinions. Nowhere is it evident that success or failure of marriages depends on the gender roles of the spouses. These critics gloss over the fact that marriage is based on understanding, affection and companionship and homosexuals cannot be precluded from feeling these emotions. They also fail to provide proof that disallowing same sex marriages would help bring stability to heterosexual marriages.

The second line of defense offered by these critics is their belief that homosexuality is licentious behavior. Again, they fail to point out that this is not an exclusive behavior or how stopping homosexuals to marry will reduce the existence of licentious behavior in heterosexuals. One is reminded of the 80’s where similar societal and moral authoritarianism equated homosexuality with the AIDS epidemic.Religion plays a key role in the debate on same sex marriage. Religious groups have long argued that any law allowing same sex marriages would amount to forced religious persecution of those who do not agree with it.

The argument is unfounded as, firstly, the US constitution draws a clear line separating the Church and the State through Article VI. Secondly, denying the social, economic and free will of individuals under the name of religion also begs impartial research in the domain of religion itself where some of the de facto beliefs can be challenged. In the scriptures, it is stated several times that all humanity is created in God’s image and that there is no discrimination in oneness with God on the basis of gender roles or social status (Romans 8:39, Gal 3:28).

Also, opponents of same-sex marriages often cite Romans chapters 1 to 3 and place out-of-context focus on passages relating to sexuality. In Romans, Paul referred to Gentiles and the way Christian-Jews responded and warns against being judgmental. What the text describes is the self-righteous and judgmental posture taken at the time by Christian-Jews and not an indictment of the Gentiles. The current theologians who use Romans to deny right of same sex marriage lose sight of the context in which it was written and selectively use few passages to support their claim.

It is argued by opponents of same sex marriage that children must be brought up by a heterosexual couple to ensure their psychological health, development of their cognitive skills and personality. In addition, Catholics contend that these should be biological parents. It is further argued that marriage is a formalized institution to bear children. Studies cited for these argument place a central role to presence of a father figure in the family structure (Sarkadi 153-158). However, they fail to acknowledge the fact that extensive studies have also shown that child upbringing by single heterosexual mothers and lesbian mothers have little or no difference on the child’s upbringing (Golombok 551-72).

Finally, there is no answer to the question why heterosexual young or old couples who cannot biologically have children can be given preferential acceptance over same sex couples. So the argument that a heterosexual relationship alone ensures a full development of a child and family does not hold.It is not inconceivable that the question of same sex marriages does and will continue to receive resistance from legal, religious or political quarters. Marriages and social structures have and will continue to succeed and fail.

The respected American Anthropological Association cites a research of more than a century and concludes that “families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies” and it is not an exclusive domain of heterosexual relationship (“Statement on Marriage and the Family”). It will not be long before it is universally realized that the institution of marriage is more about the substance of the relationship than the emphasis on form or dogma as we see today.

Works CitedBush, George W. President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage. February 24, 2004. White House. November 22, 2008 Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane, et al. No. 44. Court Of Appeals of Maryland.September 18, 2006. November 21, 2008 Golombok S, A. Spencer, and M. Rutter. Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households:Psychosexual and Psychiatric Appraisal. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 24.4 (1983).Sarkadi et al. Fathers’ Involvement and Children’s Developmental Outcomes.

Acta Paediatrica. 97.2 (2008).“Statement on Marriage and the Family”. 24 February 2004. American Anthropological Association. 22 November 2008