Gay Marriage (Pro) Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage (Pro)

Gay marriage is a very controversial subject today. Canada and many European nations have already legalized gay marriages. Massachusetts has also legalized gay marriages, though there the weddings do not have the full force of law as they are not recognized on a Federal level. Our society is in an on-going debate as to whether the unions of same-gendered couples will be recognized as equal to the unions of heterosexual couples. It is the stance of this author that marriage, or marriage like unions, must be allowed for same-gendered couples because it is necessary for the protection of both the individuals involved and their children, because it is both natural and with some historical precedence, and because there are no logical reasons to disallow it.

For the sake of defending the stronger position, no time will be wasted here in arguing that unions which are labeled "marriage" are entirely better than unions which provide identical rights are labeled by any other name. The point, through-out, will be focused on the creation of unions which are identical in every salient point, in terms of rights and obligations, with marriage. However, it should be remarked that there currently do not exist in America any legalized civil unions which do have the same rights as marriage, and that legalized marriages among same-gendered couple are also marginalized legally.

The first and most compelling argument for legalizing homogamy (same-gendered marriage) is that if these unions are not given equally status with traditional marriages, the entire family formed by such marriages (both partners and children) will be severely disadvantaged compared to those who may get married. It is approximated that 3.1 million people are living in dedicated same-sex relationships in the United States, and many others are homosexuals who have not yet found their mates. "One out of three lesbian couples is raising children, one of out of five gay male couples is raising children. Between 1 million and 9 million children are being raised by gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents in the United States today." (HRC, 3) Additionally, it appears that more than a quarter of same-sex couples includes a partner 55 years old or older, so retirement is a serious issue. Many more uncoupled gay people are reaching retirement age and might not be seeking out a companion because of the lack of control at that age. Likely more than a million senior citizens are homosexual and either themselves facing retirement and old age, or watching a lover do the same. As these numbers indicate, many same-gender couples are facing significant issues in regards to caring for children or aged loved ones, and yet they have to do so without any of the safeguards of marriage. "Same sex couple in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied the basic protections..." (HRC) which are afforded to heterosexuals, protections which include their physical, economic, social and spiritual health.

Marriage determines who is allowed hospital visitation and who may make medical decisions for an individual and their children. A partners or non-biological adult child of a homosexual individual would not be allowed to visit them in the hospital or make decisions which would then be left up to biological family members -- who, in many cases, are no longer on good terms due to their relatives orientation. Children may not be able to recieve visitation or medical input from both caretakers, as well. Health insurance and family leave are also potent issues -- partners and their children are generally not covered in employee benefits, which means that the children in a gay union may not have medical insurance in only one parent works and the other stays home. Additionally, as couples age they will find that most nursing homes do not allow same-gendered couples to stay together, though married couples are allowed this privilege.

Other economic and social rights are also at issue. Social security survivor benefits and pension benefits are both inaccessible to same-gender couples, and freedom from estate and IRA taxes in unknown to them. Inheritance laws are also difficult to enforce, and prone to challenge from biological family members who oppose the couple. The death of a life-partner or parent is always traumatic, but this trauma is made many times worse if it means a very significant loss of income or --even worse-- the loss of one's house or remaining family. (HRC) This can have especially disastrous results for children. In Florida, for example, gays and lesbians are categorically disallowed from adopting. Two women, of course, could still raise a child together from the infant's birth, if one used a surrogate or found a natural sperm donor. If when that child was seven or eight years old, her biological mother died, the second mother would have absolutely no legal claim to keep the child in the home, and would be legally disallowed from adopting. This sort of arrangement means that children with parents who cannot be legally married are at a very heightened risk of being orphaned and ripped away from their families. This danger is made worse by the social isolation of many homosexuals from their birth families, which means that the child cannot expect a loving reception from their extended family.

So homogamy must be legalized to provide for the rights of people who are already in homogamous relationships which cannot be recognized legally. It is the only fully legal way to assure the rights of same-gendered couples to determine who will inherit from them and care for them and their children in illness or death. Some anti-homosexual activists claim that gay marriage should not be allowed, despite its benefits for human rights, because it is unnatural and has no historical background. It is considered an absurd and in-human experiment. However, this is merely American sentiment, and not historically or biologically accurate.

A scientist named Bruce Bagernihl recently wrote a book entitled, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. In it, he describes the way that more than 450 animal species display homosexual and bisexual behavior. Though some of these behaviors are merely casual same-sex encounters such as the same-sex humping and licking with which most dog owners are familiar, many of them have more in common with homogamy. For example, female terns have been known to mate for life and even cultivate eggs together, which are fertilized by males who are there-after driven away from the next. Many primates participate in the full range of homosexual behaviors from fellatio to anal sex, and have been known to form romantic pair-bonds with traditional courtship roles used. (Bagemihl)

Historically, too, it is false to say that marriage has always been between men and women. Certainly, this has been an overwhelming tendency. However, it is inaccurate to say that same-gender marriages have never existed. The very definition of the word does not specify gender in all its meanings. The American Heritage dictionary, for example, describes it as eithe ra union between man and woman as husband and wife, or as "a close union" such as that found in Shakespeare's "marriage of true minds." Additionally, primary sources display the existence of same-sex marriages practiced (albeit rarely) in Greece, Rome, and during the early church history.

For example, in the first century one texts describes the marriage of two men: "Bearded Callistratus married rugged Afer like a virgin marries a man; the torches shone, the wedding veil covered his face... even a dowry." (Williams, 245-252) the infamous Nero married both a man and a woman, and called them each a husband and wife, respectively. In another case, Juvenal describes a marriage in which one man "gave a dowry of 400,000 sesterces to a [male] horn player; marriage documents were signed, greetings exchanged, a banquet." (in: Williams, 245-252) James Boswell has popularized knowledge of ancient Christian rites from the pre-schism and orthodox churches by which same-gendered couples were wedded in eternal brothership with texts which were nearly identical to marriages, and which established a relationship in which neither could otherwise marry, but must live together in the same home, and inherit from one another.

Those who disagree with homosexual marriages often proclaim what seem like good reasons. The most common of these are that homosexuality is objectively wrong because it is contrary to good religion. It is referred to as an "abomination" in the Old Testament, though many other things which are today legal are also considered abominable, such as eating shrimp or failing to impregnate one's brother's widow. In the New Testament it is called unnatural on one occasion, though many supporters argue that this refers only to historical pederasty or that if one reads the subsequent chapter one sees that Paul is actually asking his audience not to judge others lest they be judged, and listing homosexuality as an example of an action which could be judged but ought not be. In either case, those who support gay marriages argue that the words of a 2,000-year-old book ought not dictate modern legislation, and that faith cannot be dictated by law.

Three other significant arguments are worth mentioning. First, that gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage in some way, and secondly that marriage is purely for the sake of procreation --which is impossible in a gay marriage, and that moreover children are likely to be disadvantaged by such unions. These last two arguments are rather contradictory, as the one argument generally suggests that gay marriages should not be allowed because they might result in children who had no opposite sex parents, and the other that gays cannot participate fully in marriage as it is a procreative union. Either gays will, or will not, have children! The truth is that: Children will be raised in these homes, so they will serve a procreative/nurturing role, and though one parent won't be biologically related, they will still be a parent. Marriage has never been defined purely by procreation because --with the exception of Nazi Germany-- infertile couples and those unlikely to have healthy offspring are allowed to wed, as out couples past the age of childbearing. When a ninety-year-old woman can marry a ninety-year-old man, when it is certain no children will result, how can it be less moral for two thirty-year-old women to marry when both might legitimately choose to be artificially inseminated? The answer then is generally that gay marriages are unhealthy for children. "Research [shows]... family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes... There is thus value... In promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents," (Gallaher) writes one intelligent social scientist. However, just as the fact that children with step-families, divorced families, and single families have higher risk childhood does not decrease the rights of heterosexuals to conceive outside of marriage, divorce, and remarry. One might as well deny the ability of heterosexuals to divorce and remarry as disallow gay marriages, for the latter is more destructive. Research has consistently shown that children in gay families do as well as children in other families with similar backgrounds (e.g. taking into account the presence of divorce, poverty, etc.). In fact, "Boys from lesbian homes show less aggression as well as slightly fewer sexual partners than those in heterosexual homes," (Stanton&Keeton, 4) which is precisely the opposite of trends in single-mother homes where boys are more likely to get involved in violence.