When one thinks about the various social stigmas attached to the acceptance of same sex marriages, one would discover that the prevalent notions are based on stereotypes. It is quite common for people to say that gay individuals are frivolous and lack the dependability required in a marriage. This is partly true and so is the fact that a majority of the “straight” crowd also suffers from the maladies. However, it could be stated that the stereotype of marriage is largely formed by the biblical approach towards marriage.
Marriage is a socially accepted institution and the Bible approves it. That is a widely accepted notion. However, what is surprising is that people tend to believe that marriage between two individuals always implies marriage between two individuals of the opposite sex. This is a social norm and not one, which can be definitely affirmed to be borne out of a rational mind. The reason being, marriage implies the social announcement of two individuals regarding their love for each other and willingness to stay together for the rest of their lives. If that can be held to be true, it automatically implies that it can be any two individuals irrespective of their sexes. It can be stated the this mode of heterosexual marriage is linked to the bible and its teachings.
Genesis 2:21-24 talks about God’s original plan for marriage: “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:21-24) The first few chapters of Genesis show that God filled the earth with many different kinds of life. “He did not just put a few fish into the ocean; it abounds with them. But he created just one male and one female, and they were to become “one flesh”. Does this mean one woman for one man for an entire lifetime? When the Jewish leaders brought up the topic of divorce Jesus said, …Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mark 10:6-9).
Some of God’s purposes of marriage as stated in the Bible are: companionship (Genesis 2:18), representing the spiritual relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the raising of godly descendants (Malachi 2:13-16). When respected the bonds of marriage leads to the good not only of the couple and their children, but also to the good of society as a whole. In our society, marriage is the central institution of the family and plays a key role in developing the social, economic and emotional bonds between a husband and wife, parents and children, and the family and larger community.
Thus, marriage in bible is “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, creating a new entity… a new “whole” (one flesh). The union is brought about by a mutual commitment before God, to forsake all others, to keep themselves only unto their new partner, and to act in the best interest of the other, to keep themselves only unto their new partner, and to act in the best interest of the other, and to seek to fulfill God’s purpose for their lives as a new unit. This commitment is to last as long as they both shall live.” (Corinthians 7:39).
This is the most conflicting part of Bible in relation to gay or same sex marriage. Pro-same sex marriage lobbies have articulated that these need to be treated on par with conventional marriages. They believe that since most of the parameters that apply to heterosexual marriages, such as love, caring, commitment, fidelity, promiscuity and so on apply to these marriages as well. They see it as the exercise of natural choice, and refute the procreation aspect by claiming that they can have offspring, too. Testimony to this claim is the fact that no less than a quarter of the estimated 600,000 same sex couples in the US have adopted children. (D’Cruz, 387-8) They claim, with credibility, and backed up by facts, that when it comes to habitation, they go by the same set of conditions –they have the same commitment to their children as heterosexual people, live a life in which they cooperate with each other in all major aspects of life, pay taxes and contribute to society. Thus, according to this segment, there should not be nay moral exclusion by these people should be viewed as the main stream of the society. However, they ignore the moral and religious grounds. In a country where currency notes contain the words, “In God We believe”, it is a blasphemy to encourage this segment of thought process and legalize it. (D’Cruz, 384).
The total percentage of gay and lesbian population is about 10% (D’Cruz, 380) of the population and their ways of life significantly ramify the normal ways, livelihood, religion and beliefs of the rest 90%. (D’Cruz, 380). Thus, it is recommended that the authorities should restrain from legalizing these minority population in favor of the majority as it is expected of a democratic society. Measures should be taken to make the authorities understand the good of the greater mass. It should be noted that marriage should be defined in constitution to be between a man and a woman but gay couples or those who chose this life style should be awarded the same benefits as heterosexual couples and it should not be called marriage but may be civil union since that is what these same sex couples want. This is the only possible way to help solve this same sex marriage issue without hurting the social and religious sentiments.
In the simplest terms, same sex marriage, as the term indicates, is the marriage between individuals of the same sex. There is disagreement over whether this term is analogous to gay marriage, since some people can be homosexual, and could still be in a heterosexual marriage. Those who oppose the usage of the term ‘gay marriage’ do so because they would like the genealogy to include what are called ‘LGBT’, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships (D’Cruz, 385).
By whatever names they were called, unions between people of the same sex have existed since ancient times in almost all parts of the world; some prominent examples are those of Greece, in which an elderly man would cohabit with a younger male, in a manner strikingly similar to heterosexual practice. Acquiescing with an elderly man of considerable social standing was perhaps a way to climb the social or intellectual ladder. In ancient Rome, too, this practice is believed to have existed for centuries before the advent of Christianity. Once this religion was born, with its firm accent on marriage as a means for procreation, same sex relationships started to go underground, perhaps in view of the enormous influence the Church held over people’s daily lives. In the US, as late as the 19th century, two women would cohabit and make commitments to each other, in what was known as Boston Marriage in a system (D’Cruz, 382).
There is the argument that same sex marriages can never exist, since marriage is one that is a union between a male and female; hence, in this sense, the idea of same sex marriages is a kind of oxymoron, since same sex couples can never meet the most essential purpose of a marriage in the Judeo-Christian sense or Bible, procreation. Courts have traditionally held the view that marriage is untenable if it does not lead to procreation; seen in this sense, supporters of same sex marriages argue that even old people and sterile heterosexuals should be denied marriage. This argument, though, is defeated by the allusion to the point that with the advancement of science, it is possible for same sex couples also to have children. (Alderson, 1)
The argument that children of same sex parents suffer ostracism and become objects of ridicule in society is countered by the fact that once these couples of civil unions separate, due legal protection is offered to the children. This protection is far superior to and more solid than what is offered to children of heterosexual parents, who are not obliged to provide financial support for their children. (Bolte, 1) Because gays are a minority of society, their will to marry cannot interfere with the beliefs of the majority of Americans.
In accordance to Bible, same sex marriage is contrary to nature’s creation; they term homosexuality the height of deviant behavior comparable to some of the most heinous acts, and equate its very existence to promiscuity and sexual depravity. Another extremely important factor these opponents of same sex marriages put forward is that one of the prime functions of marriage is biological; when same sex marriages render this impossible, how can this be considered as any kind of marriage? (Wardle, Strasser, Duncan, and Coolidge, 97-100).
However, a different and opposite view can be seen in biblical context too. In the article “A Marriage in Full” by Gary A. Anderson, the authors puts his emphasis on the aspects of the institution of marriage. The author considers examples from the Old Testament to prove that marriage is just about individual application of love and has nothing to do with future development or God’s will. The narration of Book of Ruth and Ruth’s story indicates that there is more to love than a simple man-woman relationship beyond materialism and God or divinity graces this metaphysical element. However, the author is quick to remind us that it is the common love that makes a marriage successful and not the other way around or the intervention of divinity.
This visualization of love and marriage, as seen by the author is in alignment with the modern world, it is the materialistic feeling between a man, and a woman is what marriage is all about. The author indicates, as an advocacy of this thesis, that “What makes Ruth particularly virtuous is not simply her desire to marry and have children but a willingness to understand her marriage in a way that will favor her adopted mother-in-law.” (Anderson, 4) He also states that in the parameter of modern time, having children in marriage is optional and economical and that proves the unworthiness of biblical social system and pre-modern views on marriage and love. The results of this Bible induced view on marriage are truly difficult for the gay couples.
The two people in the relation feel that they are being threatened by the world and this affects their families too. In case of lesbian headed family the women slowly tend to deny themselves which in turn diminishes their interest in each other making the relationship difficult and sometimes even leads to its termination. The emotional intensity among the relationship of two people in a family can be sometimes misinterpreted as it is based on equality, interdependence, mutuality and on intimacy rather than on power, thus creating problems among the couples. With a decrease in the intensity of their intimacy, they often find themselves in a disadvantage, which further decreases their trust and safety in each other. Families headed by gay couples face issues of other kinds. They are haunted by social image, which portrays them to be immoral and flamboyant making their couple hood a complete anomaly (Anderson, 92).
There are certain other issues too, which gay and lesbian headed families have to face. Like for example even in our modern day society these families sometimes fail to meet the social and legal demands of a family. Today any document or form regarding a child requires the names of its mother and father, which most of these families are not able to fulfill, rendering the couples in the family unable to identify them. If they choose total openness then most of them have to face the neighbors, doctors and even their own family, who may not always support them (Anderson, 98).
Another issue, which these families have to face, is that since most of the times they do not receive the services and support of society and family around them, a genuine and authentic intimate relationship is not developed among them and they do not receive any mutual help either. The gay and lesbian headed families, and especially their children, also have to face homophobic insults from others, which may even result in their loss of housing and job and family support. These insults sometimes even turn violent for them. These gay and lesbian couples most of the times have to face legal issues, like loosing the custody of their child from previous heterosexual marriages. Just the notion that such a frightening prospect might happen in gay and lesbian parented families further creates a lot of tension and anxiety among the members, as it requires lot of complicated decisions (Anderson, 103).
Gay and lesbian parented families are exceptionally diverse in nature and most of their issues are due to the noxious homophobic and heterosexist environment around them. If their couple relationship is not satisfying then they will not be able to facilitate for the health, security and gender flexibility in their children. These gay and lesbian parented families are also faced with the issue of having to teach their child how to deal with homophobic reactions and not just deal with the issue by avoiding it or being silent. Also due to the lack of official credibility for a non-biological parent affects their family dynamics creating anxiety among a gay or lesbian parent who gives their full effort in raising the child along with the biological parent. However, if the later dies or the relation ends then they have no right in the well-being of that child. This issue creates a lot of stress in the gay and lesbian parented families. They are not called upon if the child is in trouble or in emergencies. They are usually under tremendous social pressure but manage to thrive even through these obstacles. They have to deal with custody issues and are quite aware that they will barely succeed in a court challenge. Sometimes in a gay or lesbian headed family is supported by only a single parent, who does not come out with his or her sexual orientation openly (Anderson, 117).
Nevertheless, in spite of its acknowledged problems and flaws, marriage remains a vital source of social good, individual benefits, care giving, emotional attachments and long-term commitments. People, who are married, though far from perfect, try to behave in ways that benefit themselves, their children and society as a whole. Thus, marriage is more about practicality and materialism rather than divinity accomplished. If such is the case then it should be stated that the interpretation of Biblical idea of marriage has been grossly misplaced as it easily allows gay marriage based on love and caring.
Works Cited:
- Anderson, Gary A; A Marriage in Full; London: First Things, 2008
- Bible. The Complete Bible. Auckland: Union Books, 2007
- Bolte, Angela. “Do Wedding Dresses Come in Lavender? the Prospects and Implications of Same-Sex Marriage.” Social Theory and Practice 24.1.1998: 111+.
- D’Cruz, Shani; Family and Sexuality the American Way; Gender & History; 13: 2; 380-388, 2001
- Wardle, Lynn D., Mark Strasser, William C. Duncan, and David Orgon Coolidge, eds. “Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate”. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.