Beginning the year 2001, some nations among them being the U.S.A., Argentina, Canada, and Netherlands among others began to authenticate gay marriages. Following this legalization, proponents of same-sex marriages like Sullivan have since then advocated for legislative changes to the existing marriage laws. He says that the bottom line of marriage is love regardless of the lovers’ gender (Sullivan Para. 4).
His argument is that permitting gay marriages is one of the mechanisms of enhancing practical applicability of constitutional provisions of equality and respect for individual’s rights of choices.
Some are for while others strongly disagree with it. However, whether one is for or against gay marriages, the paper argues that, depending on the angle from which one would look at same sex marriages, he/she needs to do a careful scrutiny of the implication of gay marriages before concluding to legalize them.
Debates are continuing to rise on the need to accord same sex marriages equal civil union rights in comparisons to heterosexual marriages. While social and religious scholars oppose gay marriages, advocates for civil rights act as supporters for gay marriages.
The supporters incredibly believe that illegalization of gay marriages amounts to breach of individual’s rights. On the other hand, politicians seem to be mixed up on the direction they should take in matters of gay rights.
Political debate on gay marriages has been one of incredible concerns since 1990s. However, president Obama cleared air on the political position of the gay rights. In an interview with ABC news on May 9, 2012, president Obama informed that, upon struggling for years with the question of legality of gay marriages, it was time to declare same sex marriages legal.
However, this statement does not reflect the position of America on gay marriages since Obama further claimed that individual states needed a chance to give their views concerning the subject.
The position of gay marriages adopted by president Obama in 2012 contrasts with an earlier statement that he had made in 2008 where he claimed that marriage entailed a union between a woman and a man. For Christian, God is always in the mix in that sacred union. Nevertheless, this does not imply that president Obama opposed the rights for gays and lesbians.
Mixed reactions by politician in the matters of honoring gay right are akin to the need to balance conventional moral believes on what constitutes a marriage and the constitutional rights of choice accorded to people by it (Herald Para.3). Whether legalization or illegalization of same sex marriage is done or not, Behrens and Rosen are concerned on the signal that any of this would send especially to young people (410).
In this end, it is plausible to argue that with political and legal jurisdictions inputs on the issues of gay marriages, it is likely that human sexuality would be shaped in valid ways. For instance, Behrens and Rosen quote E.L Pattullo’s (a professor at Harvard University) position on gay marriages in which the professor claims that some people are either born to live gay or straight lives (410).
Opponents of gay marriages like Bennett base their arguments on the grounds of parenting and religious concerns. Bennett declares the inclusion of gay marriage in the already existing definition of marriage as bad idea (Para.3). According to him, this step will “stretch the definition beyond recognition” (Bennett Para.4).
In the same perspective, Behrens and Rosen argue that the normative idea of uniting a man and a woman lies on the foundation of fidelity (410). Even though this is not largely honored in practice, it is the normative idea to which every person aspires to achieve since, in humanity, there exits moral forces that identify some things as vices and or virtues.
In the context of heterosexual marriage, faithfulness is considered as morally appropriate and right while adultery is wrong. Therefore, according to Behrens and Rosen, conventional marriage opposes the homosexual practices.
On the other hand, Southern Baptist Convention argues that religious faithfuls in the United States maintain that granting marital rights to gay marriages would undermine the traditional purpose of marriage, which includes child bearing.
Even though these opponents of gay marriage recognize the attainment of parenthood as not only possible through direct siring of children but also through other ways such as adoption, they cling to the idea that children are well brought up in an environment dominated by father and mother figures. Consequently, legalization of same sex marriages would amount to doing contrary to the interests of children.
Another concern is that legalizing gay marriages would also result to legalization of group marriages and polygamy on the same ground sited for legalization of gay marriage such as the respect of individual choices and rights.
Therefore, it is arguable that legalization of gay marriages amounts to challenging religious liberty and charities based on Christianity faith across the nations that have recognized the needs to honor gay marriages.
Conventional marriage norms rest on the platforms of commitment, taking responsibilities, and making sacrifices. Opponents of gay marriages view these as the main things from which homosexuals attempt to refrain. However, it is critical to point out that the whole concept of legalization of gay marriages is to create recognition of gay life in the inflexible understanding of traditional family (Behrens and Rosen 406).
Legalizing it implies that gays would get a green light to openly practice what they obviously practice in the hideouts. Legalizing or failing to legalize the gay practice does not necessarily mean that this way of life would end.
Conclusively, my opinion is that marriage encompasses a public and social recognition as opposed to a simple and private contract. This means that it represents the highest order of individual public integrity recognition.
Therefore, denying gays the right to marry would constitute the most conspicuous negation of their public equality. Therefore, if gay marriages do not pose threat to the life of any person or a way of life of any person, there is no basis for their illegalization.
Works Cited
Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard Rosen. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum. Boston: Longman, 2011. Print.
Bennett, William. “Gay Marriage: Not a very Good Idea.” Writing and Reading across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. 11th ed. Boston: Longman-Pearson, 2011. 424-29. Print.
Herald, Miami. “Leave Gay Marriage to Debate to Gov’t.” Writing and Reading across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. 11th ed. Boston: Longman-Pearson, 2011. 424-29. Print.
Sullivan, Andrew. “Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America.” Writing and Reading across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. 11th ed. Boston: Longman-Pearson, 2011. 424-29. Print.