Same-Sex Marriages

The Debate on Same-Sex Marriages

The legalization of same-sex marriages is a political and emotional debate that has recently become a big issue in today's society. Once considered to be a mental illness, homosexuality is gradually being seen as a natural condition that people are born with. Until recently gay's and lesbian's behavior was illegal and they were often arrested, persecuted, or imprisoned for their expression of love. Most governments have been forced to drop antisodomy laws considering the unfairness and violation of privacy the laws support. Even though homosexuals have been given some rights, the right to marriage is still far out of reach. Many states have passed legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Also, a number of states and the federal government passed Defense of Marriage Acts to stop the possibility of having to recognize same-sex marriages. Despite the setback, gay activists are still fighting for their right to marriage. Fighting just as hard are the anti-gay activists who are putting up their argument based on religion, tradition, family values, procreation, and the simple fact that it is an untried social experiment. The issue of recognizing same-sex marriages has accumulated many problems and will inevitably continue in the future unless a consensus is reached.

Throughout human history marriage has been a relationship between a man and a woman. It is the social norm that has always worked in holding society together. Because the United States has built itself on tradition, the fight for legalizing same-sex marriage has been a struggle. Hicks does not believe that life can function without traditional marriage and backs it up by saying, "...marriage transcends religion, politics, culture, and law. Indeed, it appears that human nature requires marriage" (2). He also believes that, in general, taking society out of its state of norm could have negative effects. On the other hand, Bidstrup says wanting to keep marriage traditional is the weakest argument because, "Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it" (4). He backs his point up by saying, "But that is why constitutional government was established--to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected by the tyranny of the majority" (6). Is it possible though for people uncomfortable with gay marriage to eventually not think twice about it like they had to do with segregation? With society arguing strongly in favor of keeping to tradition, same-sex marriages may never be legalized.

In "The Cultural Argument Against Gay Marriage", Hicks talks about how same-sex marriage is just another social experiment like the "no fault divorce" law that has the chance of failing. He uses Scandinavian countries as an example of what the outcome could be by legalizing same-sex marriages. Since they legalized it, the rate of single mothers and divorce has risen sharply among the countries. Hicks states the fact, "In Sweden, divorce rate among gay men is fifty percent higher than the heterosexual divorce rate. For lesbian women, the divorce rate is 170 percent higher" (3). In the United States there is also a good example of this. Since the "no fault divorce" law was issued, major studies have been conducted on the effects of it. Hicks says the outcome, "... beyond any doubt, is that children from single-gender homes are much more likely to commit crimes, go to jail, have children out of wedlock, drop out of school, abuse drugs, experience emotional trouble, commit suicide, and live in poverty" (3). His point is that if the United States redefines marriage without considering the consequences of the future, the outcome could be unimaginable. Bidstrup disagrees with Hicks on this issue. He uses the example of the Danish Parliament where a form of gay marriage has been legal since 1989. He says at first most of the Danish clergy were opposed to the law but, "a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays" (4). He believes that the "experiment" has actually helped civilize and strengthen society as a whole. Therefore, the question remains whether allowing gay marriage would be a successful social experiment.

People are always emphasizing the fact that children are the future of today's society. Numerous studies have shown that children raised in homes with a loving mother and father have a better chance of succeeding. With that said, it can easily be assumed how a one-gender family could impact a child. Hicks backs up the assumption by saying, "children without fathers are half as likely to do well in and graduate from school; they are more likely to require professional attention for physical or emotional problems; they are at an elevated risk for physical abuse or death; they are less likely to develop empathy for other; they are less confident; and they are more likely to spend time in jail and have children out of wedlock" (3). With studies to back this up, people find it hard to allow same-sex couples to marry and raise kids.

Many gay activists will question the point of who can actually judge what is best for a child? Bidstrup brings up the position that murderers, child molesters, and convicted felons can raise children, so society saying gays and lesbians are not capable is perverse. He also states, "Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender" (3). Homosexuals are people who are capable of loving children to the same extent as anyone else. Stewart points out, "The research on children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers reveals that there are no significant differences between these children and children raised in heterosexual households" (40). Through researching he has also discovered "Intellectual development, gender identity, sexual orientation, peer group relations, and self-esteem are the same regardless of whether the child is raised in a homosexual or heterosexual family" (40). Stewart believes it is just stereotyping with people believing homosexuals are unfit parents, would molest their children, and have the capability of turning them gay. With these points it is hard to agree that the children are really the issue in legalizing same-sex marriages.

Not only is the safety of children an issue, but procreation of children is also brought into question

...