Advocating Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example

Same Sex Marriage There are a number of global issues that could be classified as controversial. One of these issues is advocating same sex marriage. Some cultures are still very conservative and expect conformity to traditional values that the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is the only one acknowledged to be preserved. Western cultures, on the other hand, have increasingly supported movements that encourage legalization of same sex unions either through marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnership. Statistics from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2011) has disclosed that only eight states, from among 50 states in the United States, approved civil unions; whereas eight states allowed domestic partnership [Nat111]. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was enacted by Congress in 1996 “bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to do the same” [Nat111]. The same sex information overview in the United States still reveal that majority of the states remain steadfast in arguing against same sex marriage. In this regard, the essay aims to support the contention that same sex marriage should not be allowed for reasons that preserving traditional heterosexual marriage would be more advantageous for the greater number of people in the long run. In a brief submitted to The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights written by Somerville, the primary reason for arguing against same sex marriage is violating the ultimate purpose of marriage: to procreate. As averred, “through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life. By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life” [Som03]. Marriage is an institution that solemnizes the union between man and woman for the purpose of procreation. By arguing that same sex marriage should be approved, the ultimate reason for its solemnity which is to propagate the human race is violated. Another reason why same sex marriage should not be approved is that there are inherent risks in decisions involving raising children in the future. The basic framework and ideal familial environment is that children need biological parents. As validated by Staver, “children who are raised outside of intact marriages, where there is a mother and a father, are at greater risk for a large number of serious personal and social problems, even after controlling for race, income, and family background” (10). This was likewise validated from the interview of Rick Santorum, former U.S. Senator and Senior Fellow of Ethics and Public Policy Center, as he responded to David Masci’s (Senior Research Fellow of Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life) question that: “Isn't it better that they be legally married to each other, if for no other reason than for the benefit and the welfare of the children?” To which Santorum’s response was: “The answer is no - because of the consequences to society as a whole. And again, those are consequences that they choose to ignore. What society should be about is encouraging what's best for children. What's best for children, we know, is a mother and a father who are the parents of that child, raising that child in a stable, married relationship, and we should have laws that encourage that, that support that” [Ric04]. Proponents of same sex marriages argue that by not legalizing same sex marriages, the government is promulgating legislations that oppose the basic principles of democracy on equality which states that “all individuals are valued equally, have equal opportunities, and may not be discriminated against because of their race, religion, ethnic group, gender or sexual orientation” [TheND3]. Somerville responds to this by expounding that “people advocating same-sex marriage argue that we should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. They are correct if the primary purpose of marriage is to protect an intimate pair-bond. But they are not correct if its primary purpose is to protect the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding or to protect an intimate relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential” [Som03]. These arguments rationalize that government’s enactment and laws on evaluating the need to allow same sex couples to marry does not undermine the principles of equality; since the law acknowledges that same sex couples could opt to choose civil unions or domestic partnership but most states still believe that marriage is only for a man and a woman. Further, there have been research studies that indicate that same sex unions do not last very long and by encouraging same sex marriage, the dissolution would eventually cost higher divorce rates and damaging consequences to partners and adopted children, if any. As stated by Staver “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners” (11). As validated by Somerville, “marriage is not just a matter of private decision-making, it is also of concern to society. That becomes most apparent when a marriage breaks down and ends up in the divorce courts” [Som03]. As present divorce rates in the U.S are the highest among Western cultures, legitimatizing same sex marriage would exacerbate the situation and cause a serious erosion of the sanctity of matrimony (Jost 723). Finally, the importance of linking marriage to culture has been validly cited by Jost as he noted: “recognizing gay marriage ‘breaks down thousands of years of culture’, add the Family Research Council’s Mackey” (Jost 728). Somerville added that “marriage carries important norms and values, “memes” (long standing units of deep cultural information passed on from generation to generation) related to reproduction. Marriage makes present in the present, the deep collective human memory concerning the norms and values surrounding reproduction. Extending marriage to include same-sex couples (or de-legislating marriage) would seriously harm all of these societal level functions of the institution of marriage” (5). The deep traditions and values transferred from generation to generation include marriage as a social institution that needs to be preserved in its basic function of procreation, among others. Therefore, same sex marriage, where reproduction of children could not be promulgated through natural means, violates the very existence of the cultural significance of this matrimonial process. Conclusion Same sex marriage should not be allowed for reasons that it violates the ultimate purpose of traditional heterosexual marriage to procreate. There have been studies that support the fact that there are more risks for children raised by homosexual relationship increasing the validity for children to need their natural biological parents as the most holistic and nurturing support for personal growth. Further, the supposed contradiction argued by supporters of same sex marriages to the basic principles of democracy is not appropriately supported. Studies have likewise indicated that same sex unions potentially increase divorce rates; further exacerbating the current status of matrimony in the United States. Finally, approval of same sex marriage undermines the bond created in culture through the years. It is apt to conclude by citing what Somerville noted: “as Samuel Johnson said, marriage involves a third party beyond the man and the woman — “Society [and] if it be considered as a vow — God” (6). Marriage should therefore be preserved in the original form it was intended to be: between a man and a woman. Works Cited Nat111: , (National Conference of State Legislatures 1), Som03: , (Somerville 3), Ric04: , (Santorum 1), TheND3: , (The Amazing Race), Som03: , (Somerville 4), Som03: , (Somerville 6), Read More