Should same sex marriages be legalized? Essay

Same sex marriage has for a long time been condemned by the society and discarded as being unnatural and immoral. In the recent past however, there has been call by the gay persons demanding that they be recognized as normal human beings and their status be dignified by the society. Homosexual persons have been viewed as being immoral in the past but this is slowly changing as legalization of same sex marriages continues. However, same sex marriages have been criticized on the ground that it is detrimental to the health of the involved parties.

It is also argued that the traditional marriages are more a more favorable places to raise children. Scientist also argues that heterosexual marriages prolongs life and is characterized by less domestic chaos. People practicing traditional marriage are also found to be healthier than those in the same sex marriage. However, arguments have arisen on the advantages of same sex marriages to the individuals and also to the society hence their gradual acceptance. Should same sex marriages be legalized? The question of what constitutes a healthy relationship has been a major point of argument.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

People argue that same gender persons cannot nature a well rounded and satisfying relationship. However, these claims have been disputed by therapists who have concluded that the core part of love relationship is nurturing. This involves commitment and taking and receiving care from the other partner. Healthy families are made of nurturing partners and neither on gender nor religion. A person’s ability to nature is determined by his/her emotional maturity which may stem from his/her place of family origin and the capability to see things in others point of views.

Also a healthy and nurturing relationships develop with time in a spiral form as opposed to the liner form believe. Both parties in a growing relationship make mistakes which may make them stronger or weaker. These mistakes serve as stepping stones for growth and increases maturity of the partners. Healthy nurturing does not matter on whether it is between the same sexes or different sexes (Bidstrup, para 2, 3). This nullifies the belief that same sex partners cannot nature a healthy relationship. The notion of violence in gay marriages is also well covered in this explanation of maturity in a relationship.

It has been argued that most same sex marriages are characterized by violence but this study shows that resolving up of partners differences is the key issue to violence in marriages rather than their gender. This has also sought to unravel the mystery of child up bringing and their safety. The study reveals that even same sex marriage couple is capable of nurturing their children. Prohibiting same sex marriages will thus be injustice done to human kind by denying them a chance to love and be loved.

Also legalizing same sex marriages may lead to a decrease in polygamy and other divorce related to unfaithfulness (Bidstrup, para 5). Despite the calls to do away with same sex marriages, the increase of these marriages can not be ignored. It is raising concern and human rights activists are calling equality and protection of gays and lesbian persons. Denying them the chance to marry is considered to be discriminatory and undesirable. America has a principle of equal treatment for all individuals and as such prohibiting same sex marriage would nullify this principle and will thus add up to discrimination.

Every individual has a right to choose what he/she wants to do in life. Denying or prohibiting same sex partners from marrying questions the freedom of choice for them. All persons should be allowed to do what they consider good as long as they are not posing any threat to the society. Prohibiting gay marriages is not only discriminatory but also unethical in this sense (Wright, para 3). The arguments against same sex marriages are founded on subjective myths of what people have described to be wrong or right.

People have in the past come up with their own ideologies of how a marriage should be and have thus criticized same sex marriage as being immoral or even unnatural. People’s opinions are based on how they feel about different issues and therefore should not be basis of determining the legality of same sex marriages. The free will of individuals and their genetic composition is thus undermined in suggesting it is only the traditional marriages between different sexes should be allowed. Every individual has a right to enjoy life and be happy. Marriage is one institution that fulfils this desire.

Prohibiting gay marriages will thus be denying the involved parties a chance to be happy. America has sought to pursue happiness for all citizens and thus denying such unions will be going against its own duties as a state (Wright, para 5). The church has been at the fore front to fight against legalization of same sex marriage as this is seen as ungodly and is considered as sin. On the other hand, the country has a principle of separating the state from the church. Thus what the state should decide should not be based on the church’s perspective on same sex marriage.

The issue of same sex marriage should not be looked into at the perspective of the church as this will be going against the laws of the country and its duty to safeguard its citizen’s personal lives from the interference of the church. Also it is unethical for the state to meddle with personal lives of individual in such a manner. The state should not dictate who a person is to marry. It should concentrate on its mandate of providing services like security and protection instead of putting so much emphasis on personal relationships of the citizens (Bidstrup, para 6).

The proposition of passing laws for prosecuting those engaged in same sex marriages has detrimental effects to the whole country. America’s aim is to unite all its citizens and not to divide them. Prosecuting gay couples would only lead to division in the country and create social gaps in the society leading to instability in the country. Those against the same sex marriages argue that children brought up in this kind of family set up end up having low self esteem and lead a solitary life due to the ridicule they receive from other kids.

This however cannot be attributed to the lack of good parental care but rather to the attitude the society have created towards same sex marriages. Also some scientists argue that these children are more likely to suffer violence and to be exposed to sexual activities or even harassment. This however is not the case since as earlier mentioned, the integrity of the parents whether heterosexual or same sex is the determinant. Same sex married partners usually adopt children and bring them up as theirs. Illegalizing these marriages will deny those children a chance to be brought up in caring and a loving family.

Legalizing same sex marriages would also ensure that most people develop family values rather than engage in harmful sexual behaviors (Cline, para 2). The sexual orientation of an individual has also been a major area of discussion. Most people argue that being homosexual or heterosexual are a matter of choice and that the gay persons can choose to be heterosexual. The heterosexuals however asked whether they can become homosexuals by choice say that they have never been attracted to a person of their sex. The question of choice then arises.

Most homosexuals are born that way and thus cannot change their biological composition to become heterosexual. It would thus be unfair for them to be denied the chance to enjoy a close and sexually fulfilling relationship with their partners. Legalizing same sex marriages is seen as detrimental to the young people as they may find it hard trying to identify their sexuality. However, from the above outlook on the causes of homosexuality, this argument is vague as one cannot choose to be or not to be gay. This is more biological than hereditary or genetic (Dobson, para 2).

Married heterosexual couples are given a legal right by the law and enjoy certain benefits which come by the marriage. The couples for example are allowed to own joint property and can adopt children jointly. On the other hand however, though the laws have come up with such connotations as family and relationship for the gay couples, they are not comparable to those of the heterosexual couples. For example, though same sex marriages may be presided over by church officials, they are just ceremonial because the married couples are not termed to be legally married and as such cannot enjoy the marriage benefit.

Same sex married couple are termed as individual persons while dealing with matters like ownership of property. This creates both emotional and financial instability in the couple’s lives. This is also detrimental to the children who may be in the family. Same sex married couples are also denied a chance to adopt children jointly since only one partner is allowed at a particular time to adopt a child. This infringes on their rights as parents and as a couple. Same sex marriages would also lead to an increase in the number of adoption thus creating a better future for these kids.

For this reason, legalization of these marriages is necessary and vital (Pope, para 5). People have argued that allowing same sex marriages would hurt the society by weakening the traditional values of family. A family should consist of a man, a woman and children. People argue that, the main reason behind the crumbling of culture and values has been attributed to the weakening of the families. They argue that introduction of another form of family would further accelerate this problem.

This argument lacks basis in that allowing same sex marriage does not hurt anyone and thus would not lead to the weakening of neither the values nor the society. On the contrary, depriving homosexuals a chance to marry will lead to divisions in the societies attributed to discriminatory actions towards the homosexuals. It is also argued that formalizing same sex marriages would lead to weakening of marriage definition and respect. This is however not a legitimate reason to discard gay marriages since they is no proven truth about this issue (Dobson, para 4).

The issue of raising children has been revisited by different people using different approaches. Apart from the children suffering ridicule from other kids thus having a low self esteem, some people argue that a child raised in a same sex family will lack role models and thus may end up not living to his/her goals. This group of people argues that a child raised in a heterosexual family has better interrelation skill with both sexes even in the future. This however is more judgmental in that even single parents are allowed to raise kids and this is not considered detrimental to the child’s future relationship skills.

This should not make a base for illegalizing same sex marriages and if at anything they should be encouraged to ease the burden of raising the children (Dobson, para 6). Most of the people in America are religious people who believe in heterosexual marriages as a commandment from God. Same sex marriage is thus seen as sin and is immoral (Cline, para 3). The majority rule which operates in America thus necessitates the banning of gay marriages. However, the minority who constitute the homosexuals have a right to be heard and considered.

The state should thus protect their rights and not make decisions based on majority rule. The rights of individuals should be separated from the religious freedoms of individuals. Religion liberty of other people should not have a right to treat homosexuals as unequal to human being (Cline, para 5). Conservatives argue that the stand America is to take on same sex marriages would affect the rest of the world. This is because America is a powerful states and its stand affects the whole world. Legalizing gay marriages is thus seen as being detrimental not only to the state but to other parts of the world.

However, this is not the case since some states even within America have already legalized same sex marriages. California for example, the proposition 8 sought to amend its states constitution to end same sex marriage stopped the free marriage of same sex couples. However, the California Supreme Court allowed same sex marriage in May 2008 and almost 20000 gay couple were legally married. Proposition 8 did not take away the rights from anyone and therefore the gay could marry. However, the federal rights for same sex were taken away like the immigration rights.

The marriage of the gay couples did not influence other states to legalize it and thus should not be quoted as a reason to ban same sex marriages. Also other countries have already legalized gay marriages and thus America’s decision may not be a determining factor (Drasky, para 2, 3). Conclusion Biological composition has been identified as the major determinant whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual in nature. It is not something one chooses to be or not to be. It has also been proven to contain no actual harm to the society in general and in many instances it is found to be more beneficial to both the person and the society.

However, homosexual persons have continually received negative attitudes as well as abuses from the society. They have also suffered discrimination and alienation from the society and mostly from the religious groups. This should not be the case and a wake up call to the society is required so as to safeguard the rights of these individuals. The society also needs to reevaluate the values which it holds and to embrace diversity of human beings. Same sex marriages should not be prohibited but should be given equal treatment as heterosexual marriages.


I'm Larry!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out