The issue of gay marriages is a dominating topic in the twenty first century. The same sex marriages are not particularly conventional and thus have been rejected in most of the societies in the world. Religion forms a basis for the rejection. The basis for their argument is the fact that is God have wanted same sex to marry, he would have not created the opposite sex. However, there is support for this in numerous parts of the world as more people warm up to the idea of same sex marriage. This paper focuses on the effects of gay marriages on the institution of marriage and family. Issues that will be on focus in the paper include: religion, family and children, marriage and societal acceptance. The politics of rights and societal acceptance renders the gayism’s ability to offer basis for the institution of marriage and family ineffective.
Society, though rigid, has become comfortable with the idea of gay marriages. In several parts of the world, including several states in the U.S have accepted the gay marriages as a norm. As opposed to heterosexual marriages, these marriages are perceived to be more of an emotional commitment rather than procreation. Marriage as an institution holds considerably more demand for same-sex partners than heterosexual partners. The commitment to the gay couples is an important aspect of the relationship. Through marriage, the couples are able to establish that. This offers a significant explanation for the aggressive propagation off gay rights. According to Howe ("Court to consider same-sex marriage cases: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog."), a faction of gay and lesbian state employees went to a federal court to dispute the law, arguing that it discriminated against them because, under Arizona law, they cannot get wedded. By distinction, they contended, other state employees can keep the remuneration for their opposite-sex marital partners basically by getting wedded. in comparison to the heterosexual couples, same-sex couples are more likely to marry in the first year after marriage is open to them than they are to enter into other status categories in the first year after those become available (Hunter 1861).
The fight for gay rights is antagonistic for most couples. This is because of the homophobia in most people. Religious groups and other groups come forward to present their disapproval for the same sex marriages. According to Hunter (1856), advocates of same-sex marriage are counseled to stress that gay and lesbian couples want to use marriage to express their love and commitment and to downplay motivations related to access to material benefits. The result of this is the taking on of bisexual tendencies predominantly in men. According to Hunter (1856), only about 3.5% of Americans self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The finding is not likely to surprise bisexuals, who have long asserted that attraction often is not limited to one sex (Tuller “No Surprise for Bisexual men”). The legalization of the gay marriages is a beneficial process. According to Burns (37), legalizing gay marriage would offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and harder-to-extract-yourself-from commitment to another human being. This would pave way for the societal approval and happiness. Gay marriages could be the solution to counteract the problem of unequal gender numbers. Moreover, the stability offered in the marriage setting could help offer more homes of foster kids and orphans under the child services.
Bisexuality as a practice allows the men to have heterosexual unions while still pursue their homosexual tendencies. The new studies are relatively small in size, making it hard to draw generalities, especially since bisexual men may have varying levels of sexual, romantic and emotional attraction to partners of either sex (Tuller “No Surprise for Bisexual men” The effect of the bisexual activities is a poor marriage, an unsatisfied wife and children with pending ‘daddy issues’ or vice versa. According to Tuller ("No Surprise for Bisexual men”) it also noted that the kind of sexual arousal tested in the studies is only one element of sexual orientation and identity. And simply interpreting results about sexual arousal is complicated, because monitoring genital response to erotic images in a laboratory setting cannot replicate an actual human interaction, this has lead to the deterioration of the institution of marriage. According to Burns (35), the masking of gay tendencies is blamed on a more personal and utilitarian reason not to be discredited by the society. Emphasizing the dilapidation and despondency attendant upon the rejection of gay union and, equally, the human and social happiness that will flow from its legal establishment of the institution (Burns 35).The bisexuals in the heterosexual institution are affected mentally in that they develop inferiority complex. The psychological complexities associated with gay marriages include the inability to have open manifestation of feelings.
Gay marriages present a complicated marriage and family integration. According to Hunter (1856), the lack of a heterosexual pairing in a marriage or marriage-like relationship dramatizes the contingency of gendered norms in the domestic and sexual practices that comprise family life. Being of the same sexual affiliation, the traditional roles within the marriage are not well defined. The lines are flexible and easy to cross over each other. According to Burns (59), there are no sexual-orientation tests for marriage in the same sex union; many gays and lesbians do choose to marry members of the opposite sex, and some of these unions succeed. This is as opposed to the heterosexual marriage where sexual attractiveness and ability to propagate life is a dominant factor. The traditional aspects present in the heterosexual marriage are availed in the gay marriage. The need for love, protection and financial power is availed in the marriage. Like any other couple, there comes a time when the need for children will arise in the marriage. Being in the twenty first century, the ability to acquire children for same sex unions is availed. Children could be availed through adoption or technological methods such as surrogate mothers and artificial insemination. According to Burns (36), gay marriage fosters social structure, emotional sanctuary, and economic prudence available in a straight marriage. The roles are split between the partners. Each adopts the role of both mother and father thus the rate of decision making involves a dual output. The ability to place themselves in both roles cements the relationship that offers the marriage an edge off the straight marriage.
Children experience the societal problems. According to Burns (44), the children of gays, lesbians and bisexuals are concerned with the denial of legal recognition of the parental union to which they are born or adopted into. The society tends to perceive the children as troubled and more often than not they are labeled gay themselves. However, the religious leaders often use the stereotype and claim they are able to speak on behalf of the children. However, the children are ignored and most of them are coping with the idea of having two mothers or two father. The stereotype labels the children as social misfits which affects the psychologically. Given the strength of the assumption that marriage is the best path to stability, the enactment of the gay marriages offers expandable marriage and social duties to the gay couples who become parents. Such laws could automatically enhance the obligations of the adult partners after children are born or adopted, for example, whereas marriages without children (whether of same or different sex partners) would be subject to looser rules as to property division and other matters (Hunter 1877). Gay marriage during which a child was born or adopted, should be by law be expanded the responsibilities of former spouses to each other, connected to some extent to the dissection of guardianship and visitation but primarily premeditated to produce corresponding levels of resource for the children in spite of which partner they (Children) are living with (Hunter 1877). This could be a plausible solution. In this day and age, there are tens of thousands of foster children who lack stable homes. The societal concerns about the suitability of gay and lesbian adoptive parent’s limits the pool of potential parents. Studies indicates that gay and lesbian parents can provide nurturing homes for these children in a manner similar to that of heterosexual parents (Wilbert, "Foster kids do equally well when adopted by gay, lesbian or heterosexual parents / UCLA Newsroom.").
However, the children in the same sex marriages are exposed to risk factors in comparison to children in heterosexual marriages. The risk factors include early delivery, prenatal substance contact, ill-treatment or disregard, and numerous preceding placements. According to Wolpert ("Foster kids do equally well when adopted by gay, lesbian or heterosexual parents / UCLA Newsroom."), the children adopted by gay and lesbian families had more risk factors at the time of their placement; out of nine risk factors, they averaged one additional risk factor, compared with the children adopted by heterosexual parents. This is because the children have already been exposed to extremely difficult circumstances in their upbringing. However, when they are adopted by heterosexual couples the ability to recover from their poor upbringing is catered for. In the case of homosexual parents, the child is caught with the dilemma of the same sex union as well as the fitting into the family structure. The flexibility of the role playing within the marriage offers an authoritative power vacuum of either position. According to Burns (45), the legalizing same-sex marriage consents to the families to deprive children of the experience of either motherhood or fatherhood which vital for positive child growth. The parents are labored with the heavy task of fighting the stereotype of the society on the children. Such children are encountered with the problems of bullying because of the unconventional marriage.
The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up (Burns 46). The idea of gayism’s presents negative ideas that are condemned by the society. The idea that people of the same sex can relate and marry is condemned. The inability for societal propagation that exists within the gay marriage set up indicates the failure of the concept. Moreover, the fact that the society fails to recognize the union renders the relationship without meaning. According to Burns (49),all the rowdily rich and various cultures flung all the way through the ecosphere, in society after society, whether ethnic or multifaceted, and however out of the ordinary, human beings have created systems of publicly approved sexual union between men and women that entail well defined responsibilities of mothers and fathers. According to Burns (59), defining marriage so that it suits gays and lesbians would require fundamentally changing our legal, public, and social conception of what marriage is in ways that threaten its core public purposes. The public perception of marriage by the society is between opposite sex. However, the marriage between the same sexes is sending out information of the breakdown of societal values that once were used to keep the people in check.
The inability for the gay marriage to offer these acts presents the incapable survival of the institution. Moreover, even today, in our scientifically sophisticated contraceptive culture, half of all pregnancies are unintended: Sex between men and women still makes babies. This is as opposed to gay union which is mostly done for pleasurable purposes. Most men and women are mightily drawn to execute a sexual act that can and does breed life. Marriage is an endeavor to bring together and synchronize the erotic, social, sexual, and financial desires of men and women with the need of their partner and their children. This need is also presented in the same sex marriage. However, the endeavor is purely for partnership and companionship not for propagation of life. According to Burns (50), Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers.
In conclusion, the gay marriages are a societal black sheep institution. The capability of the institution to thrive over judgment by the society is a battle. The rights of the gay and the lesbians are recognized in very few states in the U.S and countries all over the world. However, the ability for the institution to support and propagate life is the source of its rejection. Inability for the institution to present positive sexual behavior is the impending failure of the institution. According to Hunter (1878), same-sex marriage is a new family form that seems destined to gain increasing legal and social acceptance. Same-sex marriage and marriage alternatives will both produce more change in family law and continue to reflect underlying shifts in gender norms and social practices across the population. However, the politics of individual gay rights and societal acceptance renders the gayism’s ability to offer basis for the institution of marriage and family unsuccessful. On the other hand, the institution is a plausible solution to the numerous children lacking foster care. The children will be offered a home and parental benefits that facilitate their health growth. Therefore, the society must present the possible solution to the debate. The acceptance of the gay marriage may resolve problems and present individual peace of sexually divergent individuals.
Burns, Kate. Gay Marriage. Detroit: Green haven Press, 2005. Print.
Howe, Amy. "Court to consider same-sex marriage cases: In Plain English:
SCOTUSblog." Scotusblog.com, 2012. Web. 14 Feb 2014.
Hunter, Nan D. "The Future Impact of Same-Sex Marriage: More Questions Than
Answers." Geo. LJ, 100. (2012): 1855--2291. Web. 14 Feb. 2014
Tuller, David. "No Surprise for Bisexual men” Nytimes.com, 2011. Web. 14 Feb
Wolpert, Stuart. "Foster kids do equally well when adopted by gay, lesbian or
Heterosexual parents / UCLA Newsroom." Newsroom.ucla.edu, 2012. Web.
14 Feb 2014. <http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/foster-children-adopted-