Until recently, if the definition of a
family were to be questioned, one would most likely respond that a family is a
man and a woman living together with their children, or something to that
effect. However, this definition does
not hold much weight in our modern society.
Due completely to the rise in same sex marriages, the definition of a
family has come to take on many different forms. The term “family” used to be accompanied by a
rigid set of standards and customs, but now, the very notion of same sex
marriages are threatening to wipe out the foundational lines of marriage. This argument is one that
has been heavily disputed, and like every argument, there are two sides; the
one that believes same sex marriage is an abomination to the constitution of
marriage, and the other that holds fast to the belief that we can only benefit
from extending marital rights to gay citizens.
However, before I continue, I want to state that while I do not
acquiesce to the constitution of same sex marriages, I absolutely don’t believe
gays should be ostracized or ridiculed for their standpoint on this subject; I
only disagree with the notion of same sex marriages. Furthermore, I believe that marriage is a
sacred institution between a man and a woman, and I have several reasons to
explain the foundation of my belief.
Though it is a very common argument when
debating this subject, the belief that gay marriages greatly weakens the
definition and respect for the institution of marriage is a principle that
should not be taken lightly. Marriage
has always been—and should always be—a ceremony that joins together one man and
one woman. When a same sex marriage
takes place, it greatly abates the integrity and morality of a ritual that is
not only a sacred ceremony but is also critical to the prosperity of our
traditional family values that are essential to our society. For example, men and woman have extremely
different personalities, traits, and roles they play in a marriage and a
family, and when this delicate balance is disrupted, it can have a tremendous affects
on the children involved.
It is true that some couples will never
have children, whether by choice or other complications, but nonetheless, there
is an understood expectation of procreation closely linked to marriage, and
that is one reason why different gender roles are so vital in a marriage. If our country continued to condone same sex
marriages, it would succeed in further weakening tradition family values by
greatly affecting the children that are directly and indirectly involved in
these relationships. Children that are
brought into the circle of gay couples would certainly grow confused about
gender roles and expectations that are constantly being confronted and
challenged. For example, men and women
play entirely different roles in marriage that are essential to the prosperity
and health of their children, and without this distinction, the children could
be negatively affected. Without a doubt,
a certain custom and tradition has been deeply rooted into our society, and if
we further question these values, we could quite possibly loose sight of
marriage in the traditional sense, and in the process, we could hurt and
inflict serious consequences upon the innocent children involved.
Lastly, if we were to completely allow the
legalization of gay marriage, would we then be satisfied? Possibly, but possibly not. If we continue to encourage this kind of
lifestyle, we could very well fall into a trend of altering and morphing the
legality of marriage. In addition, we
must ask ourselves what type of effects this would have on our sense of
marriage. Suppose people were to get
married to someone who they planned to live with for a while, simply to enjoy
the legal benefits. Once this has been
done, why not allow polygamy and polyandry?
Should we then discriminate these groups, if living together and a
mutual fondness of each other are the only requirements? I strongly believe that is we continue to
morph and alter the legality of marriage, we will not be wholly satisfied. Polygamy and polyandry could follow, and
soon, monogamy could be a thing of the past.
In summary, I do
not acquiesce to the notion of same sex marriage. Moreover, I believe if we
wholly condone gay marriage, it will certainly not be the end, and in the
process, we will manage to misinform and mislead the children involved in these
relationships, but most importantly, we will heavily damage the very
constitution of marriage.
Part I
ReplyDeleteThis entry was written on the repercussions of legalizing same-sex marriage. The author states that legalizing same-sex marriage would negatively impact the sanctity of marriage, the nuclear family, gender roles, and the children that may be raised by homosexual couples.
While I can appreciate her personal disapproval of same-sex marriages, I do not believe that legislation should be based on religious teachings. As I wrote in a previous entry, religious legislation places limitations on the rights of society as a whole. I would expect such biased legislation from a theocratic nation, not a democratic republic like the United States.
Marriage discrimination is not limited to same-sex marriage, but extends to interracial, interfaith, and interdenominational marriage. In the United States, interfaith and interdenominational marriages are neither prohibited nor regulated by the government, but may be subject to religious authority. For instance, Islamic Law allows for men to marry non-Muslim women while prohibiting women from marrying non-Muslim men.
Same-sex marriage seems to be following the path laid out by Loving v. Virginia, a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1967. The Supreme Court found anti-miscegenation legislation to be unconstitutional and the case eliminated discriminatory marriage restrictions based on race. Race and gender are both pre-determined characteristics and it is generally accepted that neither trait should restrict one's rights. I personally believe that sexual orientation is an innate trait and that those with "alternative orientations" should be allotted the same rights as the rest of the population. Even if I believed that homosexuality was a conscious decision, I cannot see why the government should treat such a marriage differently.
The Sanctity of Marriage
The author explains that while she is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, she does not believe that homosexuals should be ridiculed or ostracized for their views on same-sex marriage. One issue I have with her statement is that it implies that only homosexuals support the elimination of marriage discrimination. In reality, 48 percent of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage while fewer than 4 percent of Americans identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.
As far as I can tell, legalizing same-sex marriage would only have a tangible impact on homosexuals. I doubt that a majority of the 52 percent of Americans that oppose same-sex marriage have actually met a homosexual, let alone a homosexual couple. Legislation disallowing same-sex marriage is intended to prevent approximately 10 million people from offending the delicate sensibilities of 163 million people they may never knowingly meet or interact with. I would like to note that the Constitution does not guarantee citizens the right to live a life free from religiously dictated moral discomfort.
The author suggests that same-sex marriage "greatly weakens the definition and respect for the institution of marriage" and that it should not be taken lightly. I fail to see how same-sex marriage would weaken the definition of marriage as the United States did not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman until 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law. Also, it seems a bit naive to me for the author to insinuate that there is widespread respect for the institution of marriage. We live in a country that allows you to be joined in holy matrimony from the comfort of your vehicle at a drive through chapel. It is also completely legal for a man to buy a wife from an "international marriage agency." I could see how these two acts could be viewed as reverence for the act of marriage because, you know, because nothing says love like the sound of an idling car and because buying women off the Internet sounds totally legit.
Part II
ReplyDeleteThe author affirms that "marriage has always been--and should always be--a ceremony that joins together one man and one woman." While I was not raised in a Christian household, nor am I a Christian now, I know that statement to be false. I mention that I am not Christian because I am certain the author is basing the statement on what she believes the Bible says about marriage. There are a number of Biblically defined forms of marriage, most of which have been rejected by modern society.
She also claims that homosexual couples are threatening to "wipe out the foundation lines of marriage," presumably because having a matching set of genitalia limits a couple's ability to shoulder the responsibilities of marriage and therefore ineligible to enjoy the rights or benefits of marriage.
The Nuclear Family
The author defines "family" as a household consisting of one man, one woman, and their biological children. She focuses completely on the idea that same-sex couples are altering how "family" is defined, but I have to assume that she also disapproves of single-parent households. These single-parent households, even those including households headed by widows, are considered non-traditional. Obviously, her opposition would also have to be extended to families with foster children or adopted children as they are not true members of the family unit as defined above.
The author considers procreation to be an "understood expectation" of married couples. Perhaps the Defense of Marriage Act should be amended to disallow infertile members of the population from marrying as well. We must, after all, preserve the human race by only allowing fertile individuals to marry. Procreation is as necessary today as it was a few thousand years ago and the 104 thousand adoptable children in the United States should be ignored because adopted children are somehow inferior to biological children.
Gender Roles
The author explains that the "children...brought into the circle of gay couples would certainly grow confused about gender roles and expectations..." Perhaps I am mistaken, but the gender roles and expectations referred to have been rejected by the general population for a number of years. Marriage is about the commitment and partnership between two people, not about who is expected to maintain the home and who is expected to earn a salary.
I suppose I should forget about raising a family because my husband is in the military. It would only confuse our hypothetical children because I would, for the majority of the time, be the only parent present. Although, I suppose that we should never have been permitted to marry in the first place because infertility negates the purpose of our marriage. We could always adopt children, but that would be too non-traditional and obviously ruin their lives.
Children
The author writes about how we should think about the children when considering the legalization of same-sex marriage. She attempts to prove that children would be negatively impacted if raised by homosexual parents, but only provides a weak sentiment about the importance of gender roles in a child's development and the severity of its effects. The American Psychological Association determined that the effectiveness of parenting is unrelated to a parent's sexual orientation. The study found that children raised by homosexual parents were just as likely to flourish as children raised by heterosexual parents. This either indicates that the author's claim that children are negatively impacted is false or that heterosexual couples should not be allowed to raise children either.
Part III
ReplyDeleteAs stated previously, there are over 100 thousand children in the United States waiting to be adopted. Refusing to allow homosexual couples to adopt children based on what feels true is inadequate, especially when doing so requires that you ignore consistent research. Perhaps the individuals that abhor the idea of same-sex couples raising children should seriously consider whether or not being raised by the government is truly in the best interest of these children.
The Future of Marriage
The author concludes her entry by implying that the legalization of same-sex marriages would allow for future alterations to marriage. She naively asserts that it will degrade the act of marriage and could potentially lead to marriages based on mutual legal benefits. Heterosexual couples have been degrading the "sanctity of marriage" for years and already marry for a number of legal and monetary benefits.
She continues by explaining that nothing could prevent the legalization of polygamy and polyandry if same-sex marriage were legalized. Polygamy is a Biblical form of marriage, so I can only assume that repealing the laws that banned it would actually be taking a step toward restoring the "original" Biblical definition of marriage.
P.S. I would like to note that "The Other Colbert Report" is a misleading title for the author's blog. Its entries are neither witty nor informative and certainly not what one would consider to be a parody of the liberal viewpoint. The only semblance to The Colbert Report that I found was a shared surname and use of "truthiness." While Stephen Colbert uses it as a tool to help inform people, the author uses it because she actually believes that what she is saying is true.
P.P.S. After completing this entry I noticed that "The Threat of Same Sex Marriage" is a slightly altered version of the author's previous entry. Neither entry really tells the audience anything and any claims made are merely conjecture. I'm not entirely sure why the author chose to reuse the previous assignment, especially without actually adding anything to her stance on the topic.
The threat of same sex marriage
ReplyDeleteI felt that the reasoning behind this post was all completely personal. The fact that the author gives reasoning to a marriage sticking to rituals of it being "a man and a woman" doesnt say much. Why though? Because this is what we are used to seeing in society that when something all of a sudden becomes out of norm we all freak out? Why cant same sex marriage be considered a "sacred ceremony?" They would only bind in matramony because they are in love just like everyone else who gets married. This author also believes that a child needs a mother and a father to be raised correctly. What about single parents or children who have no father or have no mother? Its all about HOW you raise your child not WHO raises the child. And about procreating, how do we think adopted kids feel when they get to go to a good home and be provided with love, and shelter, and material items instead of being in a shelter? Just because same sex marriages cannot have children on their own, they can open up their homes to a child in need which could possibly save them! What is really the harm in same sex marriage? Its all an opinion but everyone in the world deserves to be happy, get married, and have children if they shall desire those things. No one should be denied to make vows together just because its not normal.
I must politely disagree with you. From the very first sentence, this post is completely devoid of empirical evidence and relies solely on personal opinion and personal experience to make its point. How, precisely, has the “rise of same-sex marriages” caused the definition of “family” to morph and take on so many different forms? And why is the notion that a family can be something other than the stereotypical definition of “mother+father=2.5 children” so bad? Honestly, it is these narrow-minded, rigid beliefs that are limiting us and causing irreparable damage to our society. I posit that it is not same-sex marriages threatening the notion of family, but rather the unwillingness or inability to think in a progressive fashion and evaluate situations different than one’s own.
ReplyDeleteShould marriage always be limited to a man and woman simply because it “always has been”? Furthermore, if we are to exclude the evolution of marriage and reduce it to what it once was, are we to treat women as property and marry them to men to make political and economic deals rather than base it upon love? An evaluation of the full history of marriage blows apart the “always has been” theory because marriage has not always been what it is now. Also, one must consider marriage across different cultures. Arranged marriages between child brides are still very commonplace in certain parts of the world. In certain villages in India, female children are promised to male children in order to increase the wealth and prosperity of the families. To most Westerners, this practice is backwards and not “morally correct”, but to the members of those villages, this is just how life “has always been”.
How does assigning gender-roles help children? Are we to tell little girls they can’t race cars or fly an F14 because “it’s too dangerous” and “only boys can do that”? I was told that as a young girl and it infuriated me. Are we to tell little boys that they can’t sing and dance and show emotion because it “isn't manly”? How is that going to help develop our children into fully formed people? Answer: it doesn't. While I admit that men and women do have different psychological and physiological needs and modes of expression, enforcing gender-roles diminishes our abilities as both men and women to explore and fully understand what it means to be HUMAN. It is this gender-biased mode of thinking that prevented women from voting until the 1920s and in the 60s prevented women from being on juries because white male America felt it would “distract them from their domestic duties”. As history has taught us time and again, separate but equal is never equal.
Continued...
ReplyDeleteMy father raised my sister and me largely alone and we did not have a female influence in the house for a large portion of our lives. Do I feel as though I missed out? Absolutely not. I feel I am a very strong person who is able to think critically and overcome any adversity thrown my way. I am married, have a job, and am going to school. I donate to charities and volunteer when I can. I create art. I live, I love, I laugh. My family life in my formative years was not a stereotypical family, but I am no less of a person because of that.
If our children are being harmed by anything, it is the lack of compassion, acceptance, and progressive thinking. It is being shamed for having a heart’s desire outside of their assigned gender role. It is being stuck in frigid, loveless nuclear families that focus on “what has always been” and “what is morally right” instead of focusing on love. I posit that instead of limiting the love in this world, we expand it. No matter the situation, a child surrounded by love and acceptance will prevail and will truly understand the beauty of the human experience. Marriage should be based upon love, plain and simple. Out of everything in this universe, love is the most holy and sacred. So why not join those who love each other in holy matrimony, regardless of gender or sex? Limiting love based upon fear and prejudice is the highest of blasphemies, and I have never understood those who limit love with one breath and speak of holiness with the next.