The controversy surrounding the subject of same-sex marriage attracts the intention of the global community. It is indisputable that people need to change their attitude, especially in relation to the question of how acceptable the same-sex marriages can extend in the society. As much as the law accepts same sex marriages in some of the states in the United States, most people challenges the practice under moral grounds considering it as unacceptable norm (Greenwald 13). Same-sex marriage prevails in several states in America including Maryland, Minnesota, Delaware, and Washington. I assume a different perspective from other scholars regarding the subject of the same sex marriage; however, I do not despise the arguments raised by them. According to Berall (27), the claims presented on the subject of the same sex marriage are insufficient to validate the practice. The Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) permits the existence of the same sex marriages, but several moral reasons invalidate the same. The paper undertakes an argument into whether or not the sex marriages are good in the society with the view of uncovering the pros and cons of the marriages.
The number of states that have adopted the same-sex marriages in the United States rose to twelve after the state of Minnesota became the latest to adopt it. According to Crawford (32), the question that most people ask is, “what good do people seek in the same-sex marriages?” Initially, the pro-same-sex marriage activists claim that the marriages give the couples equal benefits in terms of inheritance and that the rules of inheritance become standard in the same-sex marriage. Unlike in the heterosexual marriages, same-sex couples can inherit property in equal measures without the legal provisions straining them into extreme limits. In these marriages, every couple has the equal right to control the property, which means no couple possesses any privilege over the property in inheritance.
The activists further claim that the same-sex marriages grant the couple their civil rights and that the marriages give the same roles to the couple as the heterosexual marriages. In the same sex marriages, one of the couples plays the role of the husband while the other one is the wife. The roles played by each of the partner may vary depending with the type of couple. However, one wonders how the couples allocate their roles and the standard for distributing these roles. Berall (26) responds to these concerns by noting that perhaps the couple may not how this happens, but what matters is the fact that each partner feels satisfied by his or her position. Activists claim that the roles of the children in all the marriages do not change. However, most of the children possess adoptive status or they are born outside wedlock. This prompts a concern that questions whether such marriages uphold morality.
Activists further claim that the one-sex marriages do not hurt the society or any person in particular. It is indisputable that these marriages may hurt, but the difference is that the people who get hurt are not mainly at the centre of the matter. Activists feel that only the same-sex couples feel the benefits of the marriages, but the society mainly witnesses its demerits. In this respect, one questions whether an institution should hurt the other for it to be regarded unsuitable. Activists fail to provide a convincing answer to this challenge. Their concern lies on the immediate effect of the marriages, which they fail to see in the negative way. The supporters of the marriages claim that children who find themselves in these marriages are likely to develop strong moral values because they are not exposure to bad sexual habits. The statement implies that the sexual habits in the same-sex marriages are the best for people to adopt.
The same-sex marriages reduce the economic burdens on the couples. Couples face many obligations that the society expects them to live up to like the income tax, inheritance tax, and real estate transfer tax. In America, when the couples unite, they have the choice to reduce the expenses by registering as one under the DOMA (Berall 26). The activists consider this aspect as the best economic relief for the people; thus, more people are encouraged to join the marriages. The savings on health also increase according to the favourers of the marriages. According to the activists, the rate of spread of the STDs reduces among the same-sex couples. However, activists fail to articulate why some cases among the couples still have the infections. Concisely, activists claim that the same-sex couples have higher average incomes than heterosexual couples. According to the activists, the economic benefits are enough to persuade the people into the adoption of the same-sex marriages.
Kersch (121) argues that the same-sex marriages promote more social responsibility and continuity in society than the heterosexual marriages. Empirical data shows that the same-sex couples in the United States of America have more children on average than the heterosexual couples. Most of the children in the same-sex families are adopted children, whose mothers abandon them or trade them due to several reasons. However, the adopted children do not only exist among the same-sex couples, but also among the heterosexual couples. As with heterosexual marriage, the same-sex marriages tend to "stabilize" the people. Keeping the marriage intact and avoiding the regular break-ups requires forethought, personal responsibility, personal and financial self-discipline. The same-sex marriages offer the best institutions for people to exercise such virtues, maturing them to indisputable heights.
Mutual care and responsibility among the couples fosters strength in the same-sex marriages. In the United States of America, the spouse of a sick, injured and/ or disabled person automatically becomes the "first responder" and caregiver and possesses the legal power and authority to deal with the hospitals, doctors, emergency respondents, and the care residences. The same sex marriages grant the partner automatic right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other in case of such events. For the heterosexual marriages, the responsibilities of the spouse end when the spouse attends to the partner. However, the same-sex marriages advocate for complete responsibility of the spouse in case the partner gets such a problem. At the end of the whole system, the couples in the same-sex marriages enjoy more love and friendship than in the heterosexual marriages.
Many people raise reasons to make people believe that the same-sex marriages are right. I am among the people who disagree with the voices raised. Same-sex marriages are not right whether it is a question of morality or benefits. Firstly, the same-sex marriages are undesirable because they violate the natural law. Natural law deals with the common perceptions of nature. Marriage is not just a relationship between human beings. It is naturally a relationship rooted in the natural law as subsistent between a male and a female. The natural law requires that people of the opposite genders should come together in marriage and not same gender. Same-sex marriages imply that the rule set in the moral nature seize. Natural law dictates the morality of the society (Madore 11). Allowing the same-sex marriages to thrive in the United States of America equals stamping upon the moral values of the society. In marriage, according to the natural law, the sexual act is prevalent. Any institution circumventing the act in the form of marriage goes against the natural law. In this regard, moral standards do not stand by the same-sex marriages thus the marriages are undesirable. The natural law is also universal and immutable to the entire human race thus no people fall above the law.
Same-sex marriages deny the children the love and care from either of the parents. In the best interest of a child, he/ she should grow under the influence of a mother and a father. In the United States of America, this rule of parenthood emanates through the difficulties among the orphaned children, children raised by single parents, and children raised by relatives (Morrison 8). The unfortunate scenario in the same-sex marriages is that the children will definitely lack one of the parents in their lives. As much as theoretically they have both parents, practically, one of the gender-parents misses. Who will teach the girl-child female issues in a gay marriage? What of the boy-child in a lesbian marriage? The juxtaposition in the institution renders the morals of the children vulnerable thus; people should avoid such marriages.
The homosexual lifestyle presents a life that turns a moral wrong into a civil right. The same-sex marriages promote the homosexual lifestyle that constantly makes the people live morally wrong in the name of exercising their civil rights. The principle position of the man in the society diminishes whenever the state of the same-sex marriages comes into play. According to the rules of natural justice, marriage should lead to procreation. How do people procreate yet they are of the same gender? Can the same-sex couples bring up children? Unlike the heterosexual marriages, the same-sex marriages do not form families but naturally sterile unions. Quimby (12) notes that the homosexuals argue that marriage is a civil right. On the face of it, the legalisation of marriage stands because according to the American laws, all people have the right to marriage. However, the moral definition of marriage brings the whole confusion. Some of the homosexuals argue that the same-sex marriages resemble the fight against racism. However, the reality is that the same-sex marriages equal racism. Are we not moving towards sexism now? With the same-sex marriages, will the world not segregate the women and men alike?
The American laws highlight clearly the ground under which the government supports marriages. The government supports marriages for the marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, normal, affectionate, and uprightly moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of all the children-all fruit of the mutual affection and love of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation, proper upbringing of children, and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Such conditions only exist in the bisexual marriages. The same-sex marriages do not provide the conditions for which the government supports the families. Briefly, the same-sex marriages should not benefit from the help given to families by the government because they do not meet the basics for the same. The same-sex marriages impose their acceptance upon the society (Stout 26). The state orders the schools to teach about the same-sex marriages, punishes the public officers who stand against the marriages, compels the officiating of the marriage ceremonies for the same sex marriages, and sets up services in support of the same-sex labour unions. The indication of the compilations stands out that same-sex marriages are bad hence; the people must be compelled to accept it.
Legally, in the United States, the landscape of the same-sex marriages confuses the people. According to the American laws, the rules that are set in one state bind to all the other states as well as the federal governments. In the United States, most states only recognize the heterosexual marriages, whereas a few of the states recognize the same-sex marriages. The citizens in the counter find the situation hard; they cannot establish the right option. The fact that the marriages do not prevail in all the states means that the people must establish whether to accept the laws. However, according to Terrell (6), the people must ask themselves, what are the harmful effects of the heterosexual marriages? People who argue that the same-sex marriages protect the give children a sense of family fails to explore the definition of a family critically. Many of the legal rights of the children can bestow upon the civil unions or the legal beneficiaries. The adopted children form no reason for people to go for the same-sex marriages.
The government loses a lot of tax benefits and income due to the existence of the same-sex marriages. Instead of the existence of the same-sex marriages among the American people, the government can use the extra benefits from the same-sex couples and solve some economic problems in the country (Wilson 26). The tax benefits provided to the families by the American government mainly cover for families in the upbringing of the children. The essence of the provision gives the couples a chance to raise their children without many difficulties bearing in mind that the economic problems may hamper the upbringing of the children.
Many people in the United States have assumed a neutral ground in the war between the heterosexual marriages and the same-sex marriages. However, the case between the two marriages is simple and easy to resolve. The pro-same-sex marriage activists argue that the marriages live up to the expectations of the society, protecting the rights of the people. They further argue that the same-sex marriages help the people uphold their civil rights. However, they do not consider the moral questions about the marriages. The same-sex marriages are harmful to the society in a number of ways. Firstly, it violates the natural laws, meaning it is against the spiritual provisions. The purpose of marriage diminishes when the society promotes the same-sex marriages. the American government suffers from the tax evasions as the couples do not pay taxes as required yet they are not married morally. Concisely, the same-sex marriages cannot be the solutions to marriage problems.
Berall, Frank S. "Update on Evolving Legal Status of Same-Sex Marriages." Estate Planning 37.12 (2010): 21-30. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013.
Crawford, Gregory. "New Marriages, New Issues." Pensions & Investments 32.5 (2004): 2,2,38. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013.
Greenwald, Judy. "Calif. Ruling Sanctions Same-Sex Marriages." Business insurance 42.20 (2008): 4,4,6. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013.
Kersch, Ken I. "Full Faith and Credit for Same-Sex Marriages?" Political Science Quarterly 112.1 (1997): 117-36. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013.
Madore, James T. "Suit to Stop NY Recognizing Gay Marriages is Dismissed." McClatchy - Tribune Business NewsSep 03 2008. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013 .
Morrison, Scott. "California Supreme Court Annuls Gay Marriages." Financial Times: 8. Aug 13 2004. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013 .
Quimby, Beth. "BRIEF: South Portland City Hall Welcomes Same-Sex Marriages." McClatchy - Tribune Business NewsDec 29 2012. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013 .
Smith, Marquita. "Same-Sex Marriages Attacked Legislators Seek to Deny Vows Outside Maryland." The Daily Record: 3. Mar 09 1998. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013 .
Stout, Hilary. "White House Says Clinton is Prepared to Sign Bill Blocking Gay Marriages." Wall Street Journal: 0. May 23 1996. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013 .
Terrell, Steve. "AG: Other States' Same-Sex Marriages Valid in N.M." McClatchy - Tribune Business NewsJan 05 2011. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013 .
Wilson, Ben, and Steve Smallwood. "The Proportion of Marriages Ending in Divorce." Population trends.131 (2008): 28-36. ProQuest. Web. 6 June 2013.