NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Homosexual Marriages Marriage has changed to suit society throughout time (Economist 161). From interracial marriages to procreation views, society has allowed its favorite institution, marriage, the flexibility to change and grow with the times. Then why can society not accept the addition of homosexual marriage today? The arguments against homosexual marriage are close-minded and transparent, and have little place in modern society.
Arguments on such topics as religion, procreation, and child rearing can be easily and logically discounted with a minimum of thought. Yet still legislation, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, continues to undermine the Constitution. Because of the act, which was signed into law in September of 1996 by Bill Clinton, the full faith-and-credit clause from Article 4 of the constitution is made worthless (Sullivan 167). Similar actions have been taken into society to prevent homosexual marriage, though many people do not give any actual thought to the matter, accepting what is considered to be a societal norm. In actuality, homosexual marriage would have a positive influence upon todays society, which is consistently proven by the arguments between homosexual marriage advocates and opposition. The foremost argument about homosexual marriage is religious.
According to most religions, sexual love between two persons of the same gender is an abomination in the eyes of the church. The Christian right states that gay activists are in fact attempting to poison the youth of America with same-sex propaganda (Stengel 143). Many bibles state that their God does not love homosexual persons, and that they will be punished for their acts of love. Anti-sodomy laws reflect this assumption, implying that love for ones gender is all right, as long as it is not acted upon. Places of worship refuse to host the marriages of same-sex couples, as they oppose the very foundations of many religious sects. However, these same religious places insist on keeping a ban on homosexual marriage outside of their walls as well.
Dogmatic religious leaders think that their reasoning is perfect and fail-safe, yet it is easily countered in an advanced country such as the United States. However, this argument is based only upon religious beliefs, which are illogical and purely emotional. In the United States, every person is granted the right of freedom of religion, and church and state are meant to be separated. American legislation cannot rule against homosexual marriage on religious grounds, lest society must fear the re installation of mandatory prayer in school, and perhaps even another Crusade, to protect the rights of heterosexuals to live in a world where homosexuality is hidden, and to convert others to follow them. In short, a return of the government to religion would cause further conflict both internally and externally in the United States. The intolerance preached by religions of the world cannot be allowed in the government; it would destroy the essence of the Bill of Rights.
Religious interference in law making is not permitted today (Elkridge 56). Even if it was, the Catholic religion recognizes homosexuals as a portion of their group. Commonweal, a Conservative Catholic publication, declares... it [marriage] should tutor us in respect for the given nature of homosexuality and the dignity of homosexual persons (Commonweal 154). The argument of religion against homosexual marriage has no place with the morals and law of America. In addition to religion, the syntax of the legal definition of marriage is called into play to counter the notion of homosexual marriage.
According to Bob Barr's legal research, the actual definition of marriage is the civil status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law whose association is founded upon the distinction of sex (Barr 145). The definition clearly states that only one woman and one man may marry; this outlaws polygamy and homosexual marriage in one fell swoop. Anti gay marriage activists argue that if one portion of the law was removed, allowing two males or two females to marry, the institution of marriage would be under further assault from activists wishing to legalize polygamy and other types of multiple marriage. The strength of marital bonds has already been threatened by heightened divorce rates, and allowing homosexual marriage would cause the struggling institution to suffer from an identity crisis of sorts (Commonweal 152). While again the arguments against homosexual marriage are thought to be impenetrable, they are easily discounted. Whatever the legal definition of marriage may be, it must be acknowledged that it has changed throughout time.
As of right now, marriage is determined on the basis of sex. Yet in history, the right to marry has been denied on the basis that the couples wanting to marry were of different races, different religions, and different ethnicities. Society must remember the 1959 Virginia Court Case wherein Richard Loving, a white male, attempted to marry Mildred Jeter, an African American woman. A marriage license was automatically denied to the couple, who chose to marry much like many homosexuals in todays society choose to marry. When they went to court to rectify their situation, the couple was faced with the fact that they were going to be thrown in jail because of their illegal marriage.
The sentence was suspended only when Jeter and Loving agreed to leave their home state of Virginia (Fran Coeur 264). While such a ruling would be thought preposterous today, it must become only logical that if bans on interracial marriage can be declared unconstitutional, likewise must bans on homosexual marriage be overturned. Besides the interracial change, marriage has seen many other slight modifications. Western law guarantees that wives are equal partners in a marriage, unlike the subordinate creatures they were once dictated to be. Marital failure can now be grounds for a divorce, rather than just the fault of one participant. Because of that change, many unhappy couples that could end extremely negatively are saved (Economist 161).
If marriage were to remain rigid, society would be nothing like it is today. Modern society would then only grant acceptance to white, heterosexual couples that produce children, which is unfathomable in todays society. The polygamy argument as it is called, is not a valid point, as polygamy is an activity, whereas homosexuality has been determined to be a state that one has no control over in their mind. Polygamy and syntax are not an effective argument against the legalization of homosexual marriage. The underlying message of marriage, gay marriage protesters would like to believe, is procreation. Marriage is meant not to encourage fidelity, but rather to reward it with acceptance, and help to push along the old adage that Boy + Girl = Babies (Graff 164).
As homosexual couples cannot be biologically productive child-rearing units, they do not promote the greater good of the whole of society, and thus do not deserve recognition (Charnel 150). According to Donald Demark, homosexuals like heterosexual couples that do not reproduce, are not truly couples, as they do not procreate. However, sterile heterosexual couples are indeed real, as they are attracted to one another on the principle of their genitalia being complementary to one another, and their perceived want to bear children (DeMarco 159). In addition, homosexual pairings cannot, in the eyes of Christianity, raise children correctly. Any child raised by a lesbian or gay set of parents would be at a serious social disadvantage than a child raised by two parents of opposite genders.
However, these reasons are close-minded and unobservant. One can easily see that marriage for procreation has been ruled against, and that homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising children in an appropriate manner. In fact, since 1965, the purpose of marriage in the United States has not been procreation. A series of Supreme Court rulings in the year battled down the remaining laws banning the sale of contraceptives to married couples (Lehr 48). Legally, since that point in time, marriage has been for more than procreation. If the government was to use the argument that homosexuals could not marry because of their inability to reproduce, married heterosexual couples would not be able to have protected sexual intercourse legally.
Not only would that result in unhappy American couples, but likely a population boom like the world has never seen, judging from the moral standards of todays world. In addition, one portion of a homosexual couple can reproduce, with the gametes of another person. Commonweal says that the ties between sex and procreation have been severed by abortion, contraceptives, and technological advances (Commonweal 152). Who then, is to say, that a homosexual couple cannot rear children? They can, in fact, produce children in one way or another, and subsequently raise them. Four million homosexual couples are parent to eight million children in the United States.
Homosexual marriage would actually help them, rather than hinder them. Children would no longer live their lives in fear of loosing one or both of their parents because of custody laws that often rule against homosexual parents. Also, the legalization of homosexual marriage would reduce the amount of homophobia in the world, and children of homosexual parents would not meet as much ridicule from outside sources as they would without their same-sex parents being able to marry (Martin 176). As for the debate about the quality of parenting that homosexual couples give to their children, many studies have shown adequately raised children.
In actuality, some lesbian couples prove to be better parents than both single mothers and two parent families (Eskridge 64). Procreation and the welfare of children cannot be considered a reason to stand against homosexual marriage, as often the parents do exist, and are as good as a heterosexual set of parents. Finally, there is the argument that comes with legal rights for homosexual couples. Marriage, in addition to giving a couple society's seal of approval, ensures two persons certain legal rights and responsibilities for their spouse.
Without the rights given in marriage or a domestic partnership, lesbian and gay couples can be denied joint income tax, social security benefits, visitation and custody rights, jurisprudence, inheritance, tenancy, and conservatorship (Francoeur 263). All of these items are taken for granted by the heterosexual couples of today. These couples do not realize the peril that homosexual couples are put into with such bigoted laws as The Defense of Marriage Act. A homosexual person whose partner is hospitalized in serious condition can be denied the basic human right to see their loved one in their time of need, and to make life or death decisions for the person to whom they have devoted their lives (Thompson 343). In addition, if the biological parent of a child from a homosexual marriage dies, the other parent, despite the childs opinions and the years of parenting put forth, can loose all rights to custody and visitation to what is perceived to be their child (Martin 174). These provisions are unfair, and leave both the members of homosexual relationships unprotected, as well as any children they may have raised.
This constant uncertainty in the lives of so much of the American population cannot be allowed to continue. Either through marriage or equivalent, homosexual couplings need to be protected. Homosexual marriage would be a great benefit to society, despite the beliefs of certain groups of people. It would protect society's members and their children, curb homophobia and discrimination, and allow marriage to change and grow to fit the times. The longer that homosexual marriage is kept outlawed, the longer American society will suffer. Times have changed, and the laws of the country need to change to accept all types of persons.
Through information and protests, the country needs to be shown what a great future it is missing by allowing a white male heterosexual hierarchy to still rule after all of these years. Word Count: 1955 Bibliography: Barr, Bob. Government Should Not Recognize Same Sex Marriage. Marriage and Divorce (1997): 145 - 148.
Care, Mona. Marriage Is Not a Fundamental Right. Marriage and Divorce (1997): 149 - 150. Commonweal. The Purpose Of Marriage Is Procreation.
Marriage and Divorce (1997): 151 - 154. DeMarco, Donald. Homosexual Love Is Not True Love. Marriage and Divorce (1997): 158 - 160. Economist.
Homosexuals Should Be Allowed To Marry. Marriage and Divorce (1997): 158 - 160. Eskridge, William H. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment. New York: The Free Press, 1996. Francoeur, Robert T.
Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Human Sexuality. Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1996. Graff, E. J. What is Marriage For? New York: Beacon Press, 1999.
Lehr, Valerie. Queer Family Values: Debunking the Myth of the Nuclear Family. New York: Temple University Press, 1999. Martin, April. Gay Marriage Would Not Harm Children. Marriage and Divorce (1997): 176 - 178.
Stengel, Richard. Same-Sex Marriage: An Overview. Marriage and Divorce (1997): 141 - 144. Sullivan, Andrew.
Gay Marriage Will Not Degrade Marriage. Marriage and Divorce (1997): 167 - 170. Thompson, Mark. Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement.
New York: St. Martins Press, 1994.
Free research essays on topics related to: defense of marriage act, homosexual parents, heterosexual couples, homosexual marriage, homosexual couples
Research essay sample on Defense Of Marriage Act Homosexual Marriage
