Appraising same sex marriage

Same-Sex Marriage Argument

The Debate

Same-sex or gay marriage is marriage between two men or two women (Editors 2014). It consists of exchanging rings during a civil ceremony. It has recently been regulated through law in certain jurisdictions. In others, sectors have adopted constitutional measures to bar it. Different groups, however, continue to evaluate its validity and importance (Editors). Unprecedented changes have occurred in legislatures and the electorate in the last two decades over the issue (NCSL 2014). One of these is the definition of marriage as limited to relationships between a man and a woman. Some courts decided that the state ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a ruling that still awaits appeal (NCSL).

It is a Fundamental Right

Pro -- the decision to enter a marriage with someone of the same gender is a basic human right guaranteed for all (Yukozimo 2010). Homosexual men and women are as human as heterosexual people. They enjoy equal rights before the law, and these rights include their choice of partner and the kind of relationship they freely choose (Yukozimo).

A consequence to this choice is that of raising their own children together (Yukozimo 2010). Advocates argue that to deny this right is a constitutional violation. Another argument in favor of gay marriage is that gay couples may opt to adopt children who need loving homes. Stable gay marriages can extend stability to these adopted children. They can guarantee these children a comfortable and enriching home and a bright future. All these are for their social benefit (Yukozimo).

Con -- The constitutional guarantee of every human being to live as he pleases does not extend to violations of the welfare of the majority and majority interests. Same-sex marriage is just recently gaining acceptance by individuals and jurisdictions. I has not gained such acceptance on a national scale. It is still in the interest of the majority to reject a civil union between two persons of the same sex.

Adoption of children by a couple of the same gender is another issue, which has not been adequately settled. Children are impressionistic and should not be exposed to confusing arrangements and relationships. What they witness at home will be projected to, and expected from, the outside world. They will wonder why other families have heterosexual parents and will be confused. Their being adopted is already an issue, which must be resolved, in addition to a gay setup.

Love Justifies the Choice of Union

Pro-Anyone can love anyone. Gender is not a barrier. And the very bond of love is marriage (Yukozimo 2010). Therefore, persons of the same gender who love each other should be allowed to bind themselves through a lawful commitment. Since love is the basis of their relationship, they also tend to be loyal to each other. Fidelity is also more common among same-sex couples than among heterosexual couples (Yukozimo).

It is those unions contracted for reasons other than love, which should be sanctioned. Most gay couples are bound to each other because of love only and love should be the only basis or reason for marriage. This is not always the case with heterosexuals.

Con -- Love is very loosely used in this argument. Attraction or attachment is not necessarily love. People observe different philosophies on love that the law cannot regulate.

Love as the desire for the well-being of the person loved does not necessarily have to be rewarded or culminate in a legal bond. While it is true that any person is capable of giving and receiving love, it is an abstraction that cannot be the basis of a concrete relationship or contract with very concrete responsibilities towards children and society as a whole.

The Desire for Serious Commitment

Pro-More and more homosexual partners are binding themselves to one another as couples, whether they obtain official recognition for it or not. What matters to them and holds them together is the shared desire for serious commitment. Because of this, they are more likely to raise a stable family than many heterosexual couples.

Divorce, broken families and domestic violence are much more common among heterosexual couples than gay couples. These are, in fact, chronic social issues recognized by all sectors of society. This proves that same-sex marriages are not only more stable but are also more peaceful and grounded in respect than opposite-sex marriages.

Con -- The number of partners entering a union that has not received popular acceptance does not necessarily justify it. Society has enough social ills for another one. Legislatures may eventually yield to the pressure of number but social sanction is likely to remain against same-sex marriage because of its inherent inconsistency to the very purpose of marriage, which is the natural procreation of offspring. Quantity is not quality. Quantity is not a solid ground to eliminate the ban on same-sex marriage in conservative jurisdictions.

The Desire to Raise Children

Pro-This intention to raise children well requires that the status of the couple should be legalized or legitimized (FindLaw 2013). A legal union confers important rights on the children who will be adopted by a gay couple. This is a basic social interest, which justifies the recognition and legalization of same-sex marriage. Gay couples are allowed to adopt children. But unless their union is completely recognized and legalized, there will be problems in case of divorce between the adopting parents or death of either of them.

If and when the gay partners acquire divorce, they can seek the very same rights and responsibilities sought and acquired by divorcing heterosexual couples in matters concerning children and properties (FindLaw 2013). On the other hand, a gay couple whose union is not legally recognized will encounter problems. Decisions concerning their adopted children's education and medical treatment can be made by only one of them. These rights do not automatically pass on to the other partner in case of the death of the one exercising the rights.

Con -- a gay couple cannot exercise the very same rights as natural, heterosexual parents can over natural or adopted children (Dogra 2011). Husbands, for example, are designed by nature to be the symbol of stability and protector of the family and home. The failure of some or many husbands in fulfilling their obligation as the protector and stabilizer of the home does not breach the solid basis of heterosexual marriage. Instead, the failure of more and more husbands to fulfill their obligation calls for remedies to the issue rather than their substitution or the legalization of a union that is contrary to nature and society (Dogra).

Analysis

The most basic argument made by advocates is the fundamental right of every person to live as he pleases. This right, they claim, includes the kind of union they choose to make. Their basic right to choice is not violated by the ban or sanction against same-sex marriage. Homosexuals can and already enter into common unions and thus do not need legalization of their unions. The clamor of the majority to preserve the natural order in marriages still outweighs the advocacy. It is the majority that makes the laws or indirectly legislates.