An Argument on the Legality and Propriety of Providing Marriage Rights To Same Sex Couples
The issue surrounding same sex marriage is crucial because of the implications of legalizing it. The world has witnessed various demonstrations from those lobbying for legalization of same sex marriage. On the hand, some have opposed the legalization especially the conservatives and those inclined to various religions that only allow opposite sex marriage. The debate on whether same sex marriage should be legalized is picking in many countries. This brief discourse will attempt to shed more light on the issue by discussing the implications of providing equal marital rights to same sex couples as well as the impact that this may have on societal relations.
In arriving at the conclusion that providing marriage rights to same sex couples will be detrimental to society, it is important to first outline the importance of marriage as a social contract and the role that this plays in society. It is argued that while marriage is indeed advisable for couples who are very much in love, it must be argued that marriage can only be allowed for couples and should not be allowed for same-sex couples (Wallerstein 2005). There are several reasons why same-sex marriage should not be allowed and this brief discussion will try to highlight the various reasons why.
With the legalization of same sex marriages comes the grant of legal rights to couples. At present, most unions of the same sex are not recognized as unions and therefore the property relations between the parties are merely governed by the rules on co-ownership (McDonald 2000). There are no pre-nuptial agreements and tax incentives that are granted to same sex couples and neither are they allowed taking on jointly as a couple (McDonald 2000). Legalizing same sex marriages could allow for the same privileges that married couples have and arguably the same problems, such as divorce, which may erode the fundamental block of society.
In order to arrive at a better understanding of the issue, it is important to first outline the importance and goal of marriage and the efforts that have been done to preserve this social institution. Marriage is an important social institution that it is not something that is just allowed to anyone (Wallerstein 2005). Marriage is one of the few contracts that require that the parties to it are of legal age. No other contract, under law, requires that the parties are of the age of majority in order to enter into it. Not following this requirement is against the law and voids the marriage (Wallerstein 2005). As such, it is clear that as a social contract between members of society, marriage is very important and sacred and must be entered into willingly and knowingly (Giarrusso 1994). It is a privilege given to those who have reached a different type of relationship and understanding with another person that is worthy of being celebrated.
As Burgin discusses, the importance of marriage as a social construct is that it allows families to rear their children in controlled environments (35). The importance of marriage can perhaps be likened to a training pen where children are prepared and raised to become productive and contributing members of society. This is aside from the fact that children have a way of changing ones perspective in life (Giarrusso 1994). It is this aspect of getting married that makes the union so special. While children can definitely be raised in a non marital environment, there is no shortage of studies that show that children are best raised within a marital relationship and a complete family Susan (2010).
In fact, in response to this, even the church has mandated marriage counseling to preserve this social institution called marriage. Given that divorce rates all over the world have risen (UN 2010), there is a growing pressure from the more traditional and conservative sectors of society to impose mandatory marriage counseling (Wallerstein 2005). The church has argued that by providing for mandatory marriage counseling the sanctity of marriage is preserved and in the long run the emotional development of not only newlyweds but of their future children and families is also improved (Giarrusso 1994). To have and to hold, to love and to cherish, as the oath goes, is something that many of this generation may not have realized. It is unfortunate that some people enter into failed marriages and relationships. This should not, however, be taken as a blanket license to erode the confidence of others in the sanctity of marriage. The arguments that other make against marriage may attempt to discredit marriage as a social institution. While it properly shows their reasons for not marrying, it should be taken as a valid argument against marriage because marriage should be protected and encouraged.
On the discussion of the same sex marriage, some light has been shed by various studies carried out on numbers of issues surrounding the debate, should same sex marriage be legalized. The advocates of same sex marriage oppose the fact that same sex family may have detrimental effect on children.
Instead they argue that it is the failure of legal procedures to recognize same sex marriages lead to harm on children. The prohibition of same sex marriage by the law indirectly harm children by not giving them a chance of learning a lesson in a family set up (Kathleen 2006). However, comparison of same sex and married couples in terms of duration of relationships, commitment, health risks, rate of intimate partner violence and number of children being raised sheds some light why same sex marriage is not the best way to go by. Mathew and William (2001) asserts that a study carried out in U.S, reported that 66 of the opposite sex marriages usually last ten years and above. The report further stated that 15 of these marriages last for more than twenty years. Most of gays adult life time is spent in commitments which are not more than six months People in homosexual relationship have reported more domestic violence as compared to the rate reported among opposite sex married couples. Same sex married couples are also at greater risk of contracting diseases which are lethal to their lives. The unhealthy sexual acts (oral and anal) behaviors among homosexuals have been linked with a host of sexually transmitted diseases, with AIDS included. It is estimated that 92 of the same sex married couple in US do not live with their children Family Research Council (2010)
Given the importance of marriage as a social structure and the role that it plays in the development of children, it must be argued that marriages or marital rights should not be allowed to same sex couples. The first reason why same-sex marriage should not be allowed is because it brings problems to society. Research has shown that children who grow up in a same-sex environment encounter more problems than other children that were raised in heterosexual families (Giarrusso 1994). The reason for this is that it has been argued that children are not very well adapted to social situations and scenarios because of the environment that they grow up in (Wallerstein 2005). They are not able to see just how family functions and the roles that people are supposed to play in society.
The basic unit of every society is the family. Human beings, being recognizably social in nature, function as groups and the basic unit in all these groups is the family. It is then safe to argue that the weakening of the family can be the primary cause of some of the problems that society is currently facing (Wallerstein 2005). The reason for this is that at the most basic level the most important social and moral functions are presumably instilled upon each of the younger members in order to prepare them for their interaction which a much larger social group which is society. This basic task of preparing the children falls upon the parents of the family upon whom all impressions and predetermined notions devolve from (Giarrusso 1994). The problem, however, is that because of the weakening of the family due to the inability of the parents to fulfill their roles the younger individuals are sent into the world unprepared to face the challenges of social interaction at a larger scale (Giarrusso 1994).
Admittedly, society and gender roles have changed. This has nothing to do with homosexuality or lesbianism. It has to do with how one properly understands and deals with ones sexuality. The definition or basis for what a man or a woman is has been predetermined by society. The biblical passage of the creation of Adam and Eve may have been the source of all of this controversy regarding sexual boundaries and how a man and a women should act because after all a part of a whole can never be greater than the whole (Giarrusso 1994). Such a distinction however is already antiquated and no longer responsive to the understanding of sexuality that is present today.
While this may certainly be true, it still cannot be argued that same-sex marriage will be beneficial to the growth and development of children. According to studies done in countries and states that have accepted same-sex marriages, the incidence of divorce and occurrence of family disputes happens more in same-sex households than it does in others. This break-up can be detrimental to the emotional growth of children (Giarrusso 1994). Long-term conflict between parents is damaging to children, their sense of identity and understanding about relationships (Giarrusso 1994). It is not in their best interest for parents to remain together for the sake of their children if this means the children will live in an environment of hostility, regret or conflict. Relationship counselor and author Suzie Hayman agrees with this but stresses that children might not initially see it this way. Divorce and separation are very adult solutions to an adult problem. However, children will probably think and feel differently. They might want their parents to stay together, no matter what, and be obviously very hurt and upset by the idea of them splitting up. (14) However, despite this, it is very harmful for children to grow up in a hostile atmosphere, where parents are constantly fighting or, worse, being abusive.
While it has been shown that there are detrimental effects from forcing the issue on raising children in a stable and heterosexual family, as parent coach Debbie Lewis explains, I believe that it is in everyones best interests to have parents who are happy and fulfilled in their own lives, whether this is together or apart. What we do know very clearly from research is that long-term conflict between parents is damaging to children, their sense of identity and understanding about relationships. It is not in their best interest for parents to remain together for the sake of their children if this means the children will live in an environment of hostility, regret or conflict. Recent studies, however, have shown that children from broken homes were involved in more offenses and criminal activities than those children who grew up in solid families.
It cannot be argued that same-sex marriages should be allowed because they are unable to procreate and cannot have children. This would run contrary to the essence of marriage and family life. Without children, life would be dull, boring and utterly meaningless. The joy that a childs smile can bring to a parent even after a long and harrowing day is comparable to no other. No matter how difficult the day was, there is solace in knowing that one is able to come home and see her child (Wallerstein 2005). Children become the motivation that keeps parents going at it and enduring the daily grind. They soothe away all pain and replace it with a warmth and joy that is enough to feel more lucky and comfortable.
On a personal level, I think that both parents are responsible for parenting. Each one of them should take place in raising their children. If the dad is outside all day working then the mom is the one who is responsible for raising her children. And the opposite is applicable in that if the mom was all day outside the house working then the dad in the one who is responsible of his children. However, if both of them are available most of the days then both of them should take place in their children life. In my family, my both parents where working, my mom used to work from 700 am till 200 pm and my dad used to work almost the same time. At this time of the day we used to be at school and when we got back my mom whod be at home and my dad would be there almost at the same time. My mom used to help us with school home works and my dad used to help us with other stuff and as such both of them where available for us when ever we needed anything. Looking back, that model of a functional family that was attended to by both male and female influences was crucial to my personal development. It allowed me to adapt normally to gender roles in society and also to acceptance of others.
In sum, the reason why marriage rights should not be conferred upon same sex couples is because of the fact that it does not lend to a stable societal construct. As mentioned, the legalized union of same sex couples can be detrimental to the social and psychological adjustment of children, not only within the relationship but also those in proximity to such relationship. There is no question that same sex couples who exhibit the same feelings for each other should be allowed to be together but not as man and wife. Simply put, man and wife are terms that are gender sensitive a man being of male gender and a wife being of female gender. There is no reason why the marital privilege should be given to the same sex couples because it also erodes the social confidence and significance of marriage.
As divorces continue to erode at the fabric of society and continue to be cited as the cause for not only messy property relations and unstable child development, it is expected that more and more regulations will be passed making same-sex marriages illegal. It should be important to bear in mind however that while the goal of savings and preserving marriages is a noble one, the policies and regulations imposed should not be such as to erode the very essence of a marriage. Marriage is still a very solemn sacrament that must be preserved. The beauty and mystery of marriage is in how it unites two people together and allows them to not only exist as individuals but as a couple.
Conclusion
The debate about legalization of same sex marriage should be approached objectively. There is enough evidence that couples in same sex relationship are faced by more conflict, health risks, lack of long term commitment as well as more detrimental effects on children. The set up in same sex married family is not the best for bringing up children. They lack lessons to learn from as children brought up in heterosexual family will learn from the father and the mother. Imagining a world where 99 of people do not have a lesson from a father and a mother on how they should play their duties, the negative effects of this, gives the reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment