Introduction
According to US President George W. Bush, “it is important for the society to welcome each individual” but some of the lawmakers of his current administration are looking in someway to legally limit the marriage to heterosexuals. Because the president believes that marriage is a sacred thing and should be exercised by two different sexes. It is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman. The president’s comments actually drew a lot of praises from different conservative organizations and different religious sectors because they believe it is the right thing to do to in preventing same sex marriages because gay-lesbian relationship is spreading its immoral practices.
To the points of view of different conservatives and religious groups, same sex marriages is very immoral and a mortal sin because for the fact that have the same sex and is impossible to procreate and form an ordinary family. It is an insulting factor not only to the society but also an insult to God by committing such sin. Same sex marriages should not be practiced, for it will only result to a disgusting and immoral stand in the society. Values should be learned, nature should be followed and same sex marriages should be abolished or terminated.
A battle has been in progress for years over whether equal rights and equal protection against discrimination should be extended to homosexuals. Recently this has expanded into the area of marriage. The topic of homosexual marriages is a prevalent issue today. Even in the nation's capital, representatives are finding ways to make this alliance unlawful. This topic has been debated bringing up many valid points, but the fact of the matter is that homosexual marriages are wrong and we, as a country, should disapprove or criticize such acts.
The Argument
William Galston (1996) and Jean Bethke Elshtain (1991) argue that law and policy should be used to promote the intact two-parent married heterosexual family. Galston advocates divorce reform to discourage single-parent families and Elshtain opposes extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. In response, I defend a multipurpose definition of family, oppose making divorce more difficult, and support same-sex marriage.
Two-parent families with children (including stepfamilies) currently make up 25% of all households in the United States. This is in contrast to 1970, when 40% of all households were composed of two-parent families with children. The reasons for this decline include the postponement of marriage and childbirth and the rise in single-parent families formed through divorce or nonmarital birth. In 1970, 11% of families with children were single-parent families. Today that figure has risen to 28% (United States Department of Commerce, 1998). Some scholars view these figures with alarm and have urged policymakers to take a more active role in reversing these trends. Political theorists and social scientists such as William Galston (1991, 1995, 1996), Jean Bethke Elshtain (1990, 1991), Barbara Dafoe Whitehead (1993, 1996, 1997), Mary Ann Glendon (1995), David Popenoe (1995), and James Q. Wilson (1993) argue that law and policy should be used to promote the intact two-parent married (heterosexual) family with children.
Same-Sex Marriage
In her argument against legalizing same-sex marriage, Jean Bethke Elshtain asserts that some of the purposes that marriages serve are more important than others. Indeed, she claims that one purpose is definitive of marriage--procreation. Elshtain (1991, p. 686) writes, "But marriage is not, and never has been, primarily about two people--it is and always has been about the possibility of generativity." She explains that although not all heterosexuals can or choose to have children, the heterosexual couple symbolizes social regenesis and as a result should be elevated above other forms of intimate association. Like Galston, Elshtain believes that not all forms of intimate relationship and association are equal. Although homosexual couples should be given the option of registering as domestic partners, the intergenerational family with a married heterosexual couple at its center should remain the privileged model of intimacy. Elshtain suggests that this form of family embodies values that other kinds of famili es are not able to express. She explains (Elshtain, 1991, p. 686): "The intergenerational family, as symbolism of social regenesis, as tough and compelling reality, as defining moral norm, remains central and critical in nurturing recognition of human frailty, mortality, and finitude, and in inculcating moral limits and constraints." If we fail to uphold the nuclear family norm we run the risk of not being able to distinguish between the truly important and the utterly trivial aspects of life:
We should be cautious about going too far in the direction of a wholly untrammeled pluralism lest we become so vapid that we are no longer capable of distinguishing between the moral weightiness of, say, polishing one's Porsche and sitting up all night with a sick child (Elshtain, 1991, p. 686).
To protect the values and goods associated with nuclear family life, Elshtain argues against the legalization of same-sex marriage.
The inability to procreate has never posed a legal bar to marriage by heterosexuals in the United States (Hohengarten, 1994). While some heterosexual marriages are nonprocreative, many lesbian and gay male couples are raising children together. Estimates of how many children have a lesbian or gay parent range from 6 to 14 million (Laird, 1993). Many of these children are from one partner's previous heterosexual marriage, but during the 1980s many lesbians bore children with the help of progressive physicians and home-grown methods of artificial insemination. It is perhaps with such activities in mind that Elshtain opens her article on lesbian and gay marriage with an attack on what she views as intrusive interventions in human reproduction and the "technologizing of birth." According to Elshtain (1991, p. 686), "One finds more and more the demand that babies can and must be made whenever the want is there." This demand transforms human procreation into a technical operation. Elshtain (1991, p. 686) claims the technologizing of birth is antiregenerative because it is "linked to a refusal to accept natural limits." Although it is not clear why artificial insemination would qualify as the "technologizing of birth," it is apparently one of the practices Elshtain has in mind when she writes of the refusal to accept natural limits. The significance of Elshtain's argument is that without artificial insemination most lesbian couples would not be able to have children together.
The fact that lesbian and gay families with children exist and are increasing is unlikely to deter Elshtain from arguing against same-sex marriage. It does not appear that she would accept same-sex couples raising children from the former heterosexual union of one or both partners as properly symbolic of social regenesis. Elstain's critique of the "technologizing of birth" makes clear her preference for biological over social parents. Given Elshtain's assumption that married heterosexual couples with or without children symbolize social regenesis, a married heterosexual couple without children would more closely approximate the true meaning of marriage to Elshtain than a lesbian or gay couple with children. However, there is no evidence suggesting that heterosexuals make better parents than lesbians or gay men. Measuring variables such as school achievement, social adjustment, mental health, gender identity, and sexual orientation, social scientific studies report no significant differences between children raised in lesbian and gay families and those raised in heterosexual families (Allen & Burrell, 1996; Laird, 1993, pp. 314-318).
Elshtain's argument also ignores the fact that one of the reasons gay men and lesbians seek state-sanctioned marriage is that it would protect the rights and enforce the responsibilities of the nonbiological partner to her or his children. When a lesbian or gay partnership dissolves or the biological parent dies, the nonbiological parent has no secure legal standing in a court of law. This means she or he can lose custody of the child to grandparents or an aunt and that visitation rights can be denied to the noncustodial parent by an estranged partner. Legalizing same-sex marriage would be a big step toward protecting nonbiological parents and their children. It also would pave the way for gay and lesbian couples to adopt children jointly (Hohengarten, 1994).
Although they are addressing different issues--divorce reform and same-sex marriage--Elshtain and Galston employ the same argumentative strategy. Both authors define family in terms of a single purpose. They each claim that family structure determines the ability of families to fulfill this purpose. In addition, both Elshtain and Galston warn against the dangers of publicly recognizing diverse family forms. While Galston worries about an "easy relativism" that does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate family structures, Elshtain fears that the acceptance of plural possibilities will make us incapable of distinguishing between trivial and important goods. Each author implies that if we allow for greater diversity in family structure somehow we will sacrifice the goods and values conventionally associated with family life. I have argued in response that even if we accept as definitive of the family the purposes Galston and Elshtain identify, there is no reason to use law and policy to encourage one family structure. With a better publicly funded support system including health care, housing, and childcare, single-parent families are quite capable of raising productive and law-abiding citizens. Gay and lesbian families with children are as capable as heterosexual families with children of embodying the value of the intergenerational family. Public recognition of gay and lesbian families and public support for single-parent families will help parents raise good citizens.
New Freedoms, New Possibilities
Some of the most dramatic changes in contemporary family life are due to the more positive attitude toward sexual pleasure that emerged at the end of the 19th century. Evidence for sexual liberalization is based on an increase in rates of premarital sex as well as the evaluation of literature on sexual matters, such as articles in popular magazines and marriage manuals. During this time marriage manuals began to suggest that pleasure, and not just procreation, could be considered a legitimate reason for married couples to engage in sexual relations (Scott-Smith, 1978). By the 1940s and 1950s, experts claimed that mutual sexual satisfaction was integral to a healthy marriage. Adult intimacy, both sexual and emotional, came to be seen as one of the primary purposes of marriage (Seidman, 1991). Although Rousseau's portrayal of the sentimental family had included sensual pleasure and marital companionship, this new discourse on sexuality suggested that sexual union now provided the dominant paradigm for marital intimacy. Despite the development of a more positive attitude toward sexual pleasure within marriage, all forms of nonmarital sex were condemned strongly, especially for women. At the same time that heterosexual sexuality within marriage was being celebrated, homosexuality was considered an illness and was punished as a crime (D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988).
Synthesis
Marriage is the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. Although some same sex marriages may be capable of coping financially, the negative influence on children raised in their household has been statistically proven. Not only would same sex families deal with negative connotations in terms of their children, but most religions in North America frown upon the union of same sex relationships and restrict marriage to one man and one woman. Many critics hold opposing views, arguing that same sex marriages harm no one and that to deny them the right to marry is unconstitutional.
The sacrament of marriage should be respected. According to the Holy Bible, men are subjected to marry a woman. He is obligated to make a woman happy and a woman obligated to serve his husband well and responsibly. No texts in the Holy Bible that indicates a man must love a man or in the contrary, a woman must serve her wife. So it is a contradicting and obvious factor that same sex marriages should not be followed.
Different conservative organizations and religious groups often justify their opposition to the same sex marriage with reference to their religious beliefs. Because for them it only rejects the natural law that is created by God. They refer that same sex marriage and gay or lesbian parenting is a sin, and therefore should not be considered in the society. In addition, homosexual couples can not procreate and lesbianism and gayness is perceived as a threat to the children.
Another argument often used against homosexual marriage is that it breaks tradition. "This is a social weapon of mass destruction," said Rev. Lou Sheldon, director of the Traditional Values Coalition. "It will destroy civilization as we know it." These opponents say that same-sex marriage should not be recognized on the same plane as the centuries old institution of male/female marriage - it's traditional thing and it should be followed in a natural way and same sex marriages is an abnormal thing to be done.
If these lesbian and gay people love God, and to a certain degree have the sense of loyalty to the church, they should therefore accept the fact that they are men that should be loving their wife and woman serving her husband and obliged not to love their own kind. Yes we are living in the free world but it doesn’t mean that we can do a lot of things like this kind of disgusting issue, we must remember that we are also limited in doing things and understand the natural way, in order for us to live in happy state of life. Follow the natural law and not the opposing and different way of life.
References:
Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heteroxexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 19-35.
D'Emilio, J., & Freedman, E. B. (1988). Intimate matters: A history of sexuality in America. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Elshtain, J. B. (1990). The family and civic life. In Power trips and other journeys: Essays in civic discourse (pp. 45-60). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Elshtain, J. B. (1991). Accepting limits. Commonweal, 18(20), 685-686.
Galston, W. A. (1991). Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues and diversity in the liberal state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galston, W. A. (1995, December 29). Needed: A not-so-fast divorce law. The New York Times, p. A15.
Galston, W. A. (1996, summer). Divorce American style. The Public Interest, 124, 12-17.
Glendon, M. A., & Blankenhom, D. (Eds.). (1995). Seedbeds of virtue. Lanham, MD: Madison Books.
Hohengarten, W. M. (1994). Same-sex marriage and the right of privacy. The Yale Law Journal, 103(6), 1495-1531.
Laird, J. (1993). Lesbian and gay families. In F. Walsh (Ed)., Normal family processes (pp. 282-328). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Scott-Smith, D. S. (1978). The dating of the American sexual revolution: Evidence and interpretation. In M. Gordon (Ed.), The American family in social-historical perspective (pp. 426-438). New York, NY: St. Martin's.
United States Department of Commerce. (1998, April). Current population reports: Household and family characteristics: March 1997. P20-509. Washington, DC: United States Bureau of the Census.
Whitehead, B. D. (1993). Dan Quayle was right. The Atlantic, 271(4), 47-83.
Whitehead, B. D. (1996). The divorce culture. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Whitehead, B. D. (1997, January 13). The divorce trap. The New York Times, p. A17.
Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment