Most conservatives are not opposing the issue of same-sex marriages with genuine justifications. If they were opposing it genuinely, they would let the states that need to endorse them do so (Rauch 1). They are merely using the institution of marriage, as a way of fighting the same-sex marriages. The fact is that same-sex marriages are similar to the normal heterosexual marriages. All the hostility coupled by the immorality and wrongness towards same-sex couples and marriages is, therefore, ill-founded and unwarranted (Rauch 1).
In any marriage, love should be the only thing that matters. Marriage is a commitment between two people who are in love. Heterosexual marriages result from love and commitment between the male and the female counterpart. On the other hand, same-sex marriages are marriages between same sex individuals. Sex (whether male or female) is not a hindrance to love and, therefore, should not affect marriage. The extent of “westernization” and industrialization has overtime changed the basic functions and definition of families (Mancoske 6). This has now led to the change in the existing structures, laws, and customs in order to align the new world with issues pertaining family. One of these issues is the improved acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriages. It is indispensable to note that homosexuality has existed for extraordinary long, and it is time we accept it legally as the way of life. This will bring freedom and equality to those involved. From history, homosexual relationships have existed since the ancient Greek times. The term “lesbian” comes from the Greek island Lesbos, where homosexual couples lived (Messerli). There is criticism that it will destroy essential family values of society. Since traditional times, family contains a man, a woman, and children. The change in family functions and definition has come over time with modernization and industrialization. This has resulted in new ways of looking at the family, which includes the same-sex partners. These marriages also adopt kids and raise them with love they might not have got with their biological parents. Therefore, they require recognition.
Denying the legality of same-sex marriages is an infringement of personal and state religious rights and freedom. The debate on the legality of same-sex marriages has been going on among various social conservatives. The same people have lost numerous cultural battles in the past few decades. They have all lost the battles on divorce, pornography, abortion, gambling, and homosexuality, among other issues. Their argument will fail, as it infringes on personal rights. According to the first amendment, any person’s religious views must be respected and protected (Messerli). Marriages have over a long time been a religious activity. They have customs, norms, and values, all of which point at same-sex marriage as a sin, thus forbidding it. On the other hand, most traditional cultures forbid same-sex marriages and interracial marriages. During a court case involving a plaintiff born of a multiracial same-sex couple held in New York, the judge acknowledged that it is anyone’s right to marry anyone regardless of the longstanding and deeply held customs and traditional beliefs about who is an appropriate marital partner (Mancoske 1). In another case involving the legalization of marijuana for medical use, rights of the few came first by its legalization despite the related range of the documented effects. Its legalization has led to improved research on its medical applications. On the contrary, the same-sex marriages perception is that they are illegal, although they are in line with the rights of people involved. An individual, who does not believe in religion or culture backgrounds, should not be denied his or her right and, therefore, these same-sex marriages should be legalized. The criticism resulting is that most religions view it as a sin. This cannot be used to judge those who are non-believers.
In the modern world, homosexuality is an accepted way of life. There have been reports that highly link homosexuality to biological causation. Homosexuality is viewed as a deviant sexual behavior, but the long history and psychological research point it to biological causation. For example, most of gay and lesbian individuals manifest many of the opposite sex, secondary sexual characteristics. There have been cases with men having soft voices or even women having strong cheekbones and a more pronounced masculine body shape (Messerli). In addition, how could someone just make the decision of being a homosexual? Being a homosexual in the modern society comes with a lot of alienation from every part of the society starting from family, friends, co-workers, and church, among others. So the decision of either to be a homosexual, or not, is a more personal matter and needs recognition and respect it deserves (Rauch). There are claims that homosexuality will weaken and destroy the institution of marriage. Well, it might do so, but the elevated divorce rates in the heterosexual marriages have already affected its reputation and definition (Messerli). This problem might be solved by the legalization of the same-sex marriages, as it involves personal choice and not just sexual fantasies. The practice does not hurt the society or individual; therefore, it is not justifiable to deny a couple who love one another a chance to be together.
Denying the existence of these marriages translates to minority discrimination. In any democracy, the rights of many surpass the rights of the few. This is normally the case, but the rights of the few must also be respected. Every day the strategists ponder on how to deal with compromised civil rights and freedoms and how to keep their movement for change alive. Amongst these changes is the endorsement of the same-sex marriages as legal marriages in all States (Mancoske 1).
The merits and demerits of the same-sex marriages have not been clearly understood. The long term effects of legalizing same-sex marriages have not been studied or looked at any length. This can be attributed to failure of the law to give its legal backing of these marriages. This has in turn led to deteriorating of the community support and social expectations that may arise due to these marriages (Rauch). Just by the fact that homosexuality goes against what we believe in does not mean that it will be detrimental to the overall course. If same-sex marriages get legalized, the number of children adoptions will certainly rise. This will substantially reduce the number of street families in the future attributed to poor parenting of the children. On the other hand, it will lower crime rates brought by children who are not cared for. The criticism arising from this fact is that it confuses the children on their gender roles and expectations in the society. Gender is a societal construct and expectation, therefore, the same society needs to change on its understanding of marriage institution and matters involving same-sex parenting. This has arisen due to the recent advancement in technology and especially the field of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy. These same-sex couples can get their kids using donated sperms or ova, thereby eliminating the procreation part of the family.
In conclusion, the legalization of the same-sex marriages is a long overdue decision that needs to be looked at with the ultimate seriousness it deserves. It is within the constitutional laws and rights for any individual to choose their marriage partner regardless of sex, race, religion, or traditional beliefs about appropriate marital partners (Mancoske 1).