Introduction
Nowadays we live in the world, which is developing under the conditions of globalization and integration. Unarguably, these processes make a significant influence not only on the world politics and economy but also on the social stability, speeding up the dissemination of ideas and opinions, promoting discussions and debates as well as encouraging people to take active position in the social problems solving. Sexuality, marriage, and gay rights are actual social issues, the views of people on which are significantly divided. In this diversity of opinions with their own arguments it is difficult to give a precise answer what will be right doing and what will be wrong doing regarding these problems.
It should be mentioned that the issues above mentioned did not appear in the modern time, quite the contrary; they have the long roots in the mankind history. Briefly stating, the attitude to the same-sex marriages was different in various parts of the ancient world including moral and ethical aversion of these marriages by the religious confessions and Christianity, in particular, along with Samurais tradition of homosexual relationships in ancient Japan, and the existence of the same-sex marriages in ancient India and China.
Modern Pro and Cons Arguments
The dissemination of democratic and liberal views in the world has led to the process of legalization of the same-sex marriages. The pro arguments essentially boil down to the promotion and protection of the freedom of personality, which is considered the key value of democratic society. The supremacy of law and protection of people right lie in the heart of the protection of the freedom of personality.
“Part of the basis of democratic government in the United States is a system of checks and balances, based on the liberal democratic assumption that the rights of the minority are to be protected from the tyranny of the majority” (Riggle and Barry 2).
Mohr states that there is a distinct possibility that “it will be through America’s engagement with lesbian and gay issues that the nation will decide whether it is fundamentally committed to the general values of liberty and equality,…. or whether the nation is committed to some specific vision of what constitutes proper living—be it Leftist or Rightist, populist or elitist, secular or religious, but which in any case the nation is willing to impose upon everyone” (Mohr 2) Mohr explanation of the problem provides the background for the debates around it.
Michael Mello cites the opinion of Margaret Marshall, the Chief Justice, who touches upon the problem of children adoption and upbringing by same sex-unions (Mello 8). “Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples prevents the children of same-sex unions “from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized” (Mello 8).
Marshall’s idea is unarguably based on the democratic principles; those which all of us are strive for. After all, the society should always care for children well-being and secure their happy childhood. Margaret continues her idea stating that “it cannot be “rational under our laws to penalize children by depriving them of state benefits because of their parents’ sexual orientation” (Mello 8).
However, having analyzed the issue from the other side, certain questions arise. Do same-sex marriages can provide stable family structure? Will the children be adequately socialized in such kind of family?
Gays should have the right to adopt children because what does matter in this case is that the children should obtain good education, healthcare, and other social benefits. The Children’s Homes do not always have the opportunity to provide such care to their inmates.
Mark Strasser supports this view stating that “even if lesbians and gays were producing no children and were “merely” providing homes in which the children might thrive, the state’s interest in the next generation would still be promoted by allowing same sex partners to marry and to provide homes in which the children might be raised to grow up to be happy and productive members of society” (Strasser 2).
Gallaher claims that a lot of advocates of same-sex marriages underestimate the meaning of the marriage itself as it is “as the union between a husband and wife, is the fundamental cross-cultural institution for ensuring that children have mothers and fathers” (Corvino & Gallaher 3).
Corvino, her opponent, says that “marriage is an evolving and multifaceted institution” (Corvino & Gallaher 3).
There is also religious point of view on the issue. Almost all confessions in the world, if not all, prohibit the same sex unions explaining that they are unnatural and that the God created male and female as two parts of the one whole giving them the opportunity to born children and to continue the human race.
Obviously, the religious and legal interpretation of the term ‘marriage’ is the same. Perhaps, the ethical side of the question is often omitted in the debates on the same-sex marriages.
It is also rather important to note that the state and the Church should be separate from one another, though both of them support the social stability. That is why the Church representatives of the various confessions should promote the ethical and moral values in their communities, whereas the State should maintain the supremacy of law and the fair functioning of courts to which the social issues should be addressed.
There is also one more legal point of view, which Mark Strasser gives in his work The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage: Federalist Principles and Constitutional Protections.
“Domiciles that wish to prevent their domiciliaries from marrying a same-sex partner can manifest that intention quite clearly by making such marriages void. That way, their domiciliaries will know that marrying a same-sex partner in a state in which such marriages are valid will not guarantee that their domicile will recognize the validity of their marriage” (Strasser 125).
Strasser means that the debate can be solved by the acceptance of the same sex marriages at the level of federal law with the provision of the right to void them at the level of states. In this case, the government will give the states and their communities the opportunity to decide by themselves whether such marriages are legal. It is the right of voting, which should not be forgotten.
Having considered different arguments for and against the same-sex marriages, the statement about the importance of giving the children from the dysfunctional families a chance to enjoy such vital social benefits as good education, healthcare and the opportunity to enjoy the same pleasures of life as all other children have is the most reasonable one in favor of same-sex marriages.
However, the opinion regarding the misinterpretation of the term of marriage in the debates on the gay rights is obvious. Saying about equality of constitutional rights, it would be obviously incorrect to state that the right to get married is merely the formal registration with the purpose to gain certain benefits, because the law itself is aimed at supporting the fundamentals of the human society among which the marriage as the union of male and female is the vital one.
To my mind, in this diversity of views and opinions the compromise should be achieved. The society cannot reject the same sex unions because personal freedom and the freedom of personal choice are the fundamentals of the civilized society. Unarguably, tolerance is the highest value in such issues. The efforts should be made from the side of the government, social and religious institutions to promote tolerance as the ethical value all of us should adhere to.
When analyzing, comparing, and judging something, we are encouraged to make our personal opinions. It is in essence the quality of the thinking person to have your own point of view on the problem and it is the most important feature of the democracy to provide the freedom of opinions. So, when expressing my personal attitude on the issue of whether the same sex marriages should be legalized, I can say that, personally, I am indifferent, and I firmly believe that it is also the right position in this debate. If you ask that it is socially inactive to be indifferent to the social issues, I will say that there is no concrete problem in essence but rather speculations around it and what is more important supported by certain political parties to gain electorate.
“Achieving agreement is important where possible, but in a pluralistic society, achieving disagreement can be even more crucial” (Corvino & Gallaher 95)
On the one hand, I support the idea that the prohibition on the legalization of the same sex marriages does not deprive the representatives of the untraditional sex orientation from their constitutional right to get married, because the marriage is the union of the male and female to continue human race. On the other hand, it is claimed very frequently that it is only the question of legislation and the problem of giving the definition to legal terms. In addition, the opponents to this view will say that the traditional definition of marriage is far from the principles of the secular society. In reply I would say that the law should be based on the ethical norms and values as well as natural laws of the society existence and development.
However, I consider the argument of the importance to give a chance to the children from dysfunctional families to be adopted by same sex unions as a very strong one in favor of the same sex marriages. Probably, the controversy around the problem can be solved by giving the right to unmarried to adopt children if the union is socially reliable and can prove its ability to provide all social benefits to the child.
The legal aspects of the same sex marriages and the children adoption should be taken under careful consideration. It is unfair to the individual and to the society as a whole to deprive anyone from the opportunity to take care for other members of society who need help.
Conclusion
To sum up all above mentioned, it should be said that the issues of sexuality, marriage, and gay rights provokes a lot of debates. The special attention should be paid to the children adoption legislation and giving the rights to the reliable pairs regardless their sexual orientation to adopt children. In spite of the decision, which the society will make, all of us should show respect and tolerance to other members of society regardless their race, sex, religion, political views or sexual orientation.
Works Cited
Corvino, J., and M. Gallaher. Debating Same-Sex Marriage, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Mello, Michael. Legalizing Gay Marriage, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004. Print.
Mohr, Richard D. The Long Arc of Justice: Lesbian and Gay Marriage, Equality, and Rights, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Print.
Riggle, Ellen D.B., and Barry L. Tadlock. Gays and Lesbians in the Democratic Process: Public Policy, Public Opinion, and Political Representation, New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. Print.
Strasser, Mark. The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage: Federalist Principles and Constitutional Protections, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1999. Print.