Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized: The Need for Same-sex Marriage

Introduction

In this essay, I argue that gay marriage should be legalized because it would prevent discrimination and allow same-sex couples to access benefits that are currently only available to heterosexual couples. Proponents of same-sex marriage contend that it is a fundamental human right that should not be denied, as recognized by Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, same-sex partnerships are intrinsically valuable and play a crucial role in forming stable household units that protect the vulnerable. Moreover, not legalizing same-sex marriage would be unequal, unfair, and discriminatory, as same-sex couples are also tax-contributing members of society who should be entitled to the same state-provided benefits and rights as opposite-sex couples.

Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

Same-sex marriage is a marriage between two persons of the identical sex, which may be a new social phenomenon, resulting in a brand-new kind of family formation. In the contemporary world, this failed to exist until the twenty-first century when an increasing number of countries began permitting same-sex couples to marry legally. Additionally, beginning within the late twentieth century there has been a growing global movement to treat marriage as a fundamental human right to be extended to same-sex couples. Even when a gay relationship is a fact of Indian social life, it's yet to be proposed one reason couples are bad for the country that's not supported religion. The standard Indian society has always taken a shabby, narrow and don’t tell about it to anybody kind of look at ‘sex.” But with the import of western lifestyle in metro cities and revolution in information technology (which includes access to satellite channels and electronic media) the outlook of individuals, especially that of younger generations and social activists, towards sex is positively changing.

It takes great courage to mention, I'm a homosexual. The complexity of homosexual behavior generates a visible question in my mind on why society looks down upon deviant sexual orientations like homosexuality. Is it because homosexuals behave in a very way that's not normal, or which is, 't practiced by the ‘bulk’? Or is it because the ‘bulk’ tries to ignore the tough truth which attacks his conscience generated out of his socialization that the ‘bulk’ of such bulk does have deviant sexual tendencies at some moment of your time, which even gets manifested? The society at large impute taboos and stigmatizes such deviant persons. Therefore, that’s why same-sex marriage should be legalized as it would lead to the integration of a sexual minority group and would let them access the benefits available to heterosexual couples preventing discrimination.

Claim 1

The contention is that same-sex marriage permits same-sex couples to enjoy the same state-provided benefits available to heterosexual married couples. Because same-sex couples are also tax-contributing members of society, they should not be denied the numerous benefits, advantages, and rights provided to opposite-sex couples. To do so, according to this perspective, it would be unequal, unfair, and discriminatory, with the result that lesbians and gays would be treated as second-class citizens. In addition to more favorable tax rates, the benefits, privileges, and assistance accorded to opposite-sex marriages include those related to employment, housing, inheritance, immigration, child adoption, social security, insurance, healthcare, retirement, pensions, and death, and survivorship benefits. These benefits and privileges may be substantial in both number and scope, affecting the financial, social, and emotional well-being of couples. In the United States, for example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a report to Congress in 2004 identified a total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified in the United States Code in which marital status is a factor—some favoring marriage and some not (Cherlin 2010)—in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges. 

Also, according to advocates of the legalization of same-sex marriage generally believed that committed partnerships involving sexual intimacy are valuable because they draw people together to a singular degree and in singular ways. In this view, such relationships are intrinsically worthy while also quite distinct from (though not incompatible with) activities associated with the bearing or raising of children. Sexual partnerships are one of several factors that bond adults together into stable household units. These households, in turn, form the foundation of a productive society—a society in which, albeit incidentally, children, elders, and others who may be relatively powerless are likely to be protected. From this perspective, the devaluation of same-sex intimacy is immoral because it constitutes arbitrary and irrational discrimination, thereby damaging the community. Most same-sex marriage advocates further held that international human rights legislation provided a universal franchise to equal treatment under the law. Thus, prohibiting a specific group from the full rights of marriage was illegally discriminatory. For advocates of the community-benefit perspective, all the legal perquisites associated with heterosexual marriage should be available to any committed couple. (Britannica 'Same sex marriage')

The central argument of same-sex marriage is that it permits individuals to exercise what is deemed their fundamental human right to marry the person of their choice, without regarding religion, nationality, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. Not permitting restrictions Same-sex marriage, in their view of proponents, represents a denial of a basic human right. In support of this position, some have drawn attention to Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: '(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.'

On July 25, 2014, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida's gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban 'serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society. 'Throughout our history, we have fought discrimination. We have joined to recognize equality for racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, immigrants, etc. Legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do and it is time.'

The legality of Same-sex Marriage in India

The current laws regarding same-sex marriage in India are framed in a manner that does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage. For example, when the Hindu Marriage Act defines the people who will be eligible to marry under the act,384 does not lay down any provision that states that only people of the opposite sex can get married to each other. The only problem arising in the conditions for marriage is the section that talks about the age requirements of the bridegroom and the bride.385 The same thing can be observed under the Special Marriage Act.386 Even if the law prima facie does not prohibit same-sex marriages, several obstacles still exist before same-sex marriages can be legally recognized

Claim 2

Furthermore, same-sex marriage would be beneficial, according to proponents, because it would lead to the integration of minority groups—that is, homosexuals—into mainstream society. Same-sex marriage would provide societal legitimacy to homosexual couples, which in turn, it is posited, would facilitate acceptance and tolerance of gays and lesbians and reduce exclusion, discrimination, and violence directed against them. Not only would this outcome be welcomed by same-sex couples themselves, their families, and other supporters of Same-sex marriage, but it is viewed as promoting the desirable social good of inclusion for society as a whole

Anti-claim

Concerning the arguments against same-sex marriage, one of the principal objections is that throughout most of human history, the fundamental purpose of marriage was to promote procreation to ensure the survival and demographic expansion of the group or community. Marriages were arranged to produce legitimate offspring, who would not only guarantee the group's continued existence but would increase the number of productive members within the community (Coontz 2005).

Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples because they cannot produce children together.

 Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification.  A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that 'the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.' Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that 'it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.' Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending Arizona's gay marriage ban stated that 'the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father... Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.' Contrary to the argument for same-sex marriage that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don't want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them and may change their minds.

A related objection to same-sex marriage is that it unduly expands the traditional, long-standing definition of what constitutes a marriage—seen as the bedrock of a healthy society—to other forms of marital union. Seeking to include unions between two men or two women would seem to logically allow further expansion of this definition in undesirable directions. For example, the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, the Netherlands, now also permits polygamous unions to be registered (Belin 2005). The cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam register the polygamous marriages of Muslim immigrants that have taken place in countries such as Morocco, where having more than one wife is permitted (Baklinski 2008).

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman.

 In upholding gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that 'marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.'  In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that 'the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.'  John F. Harvey, MA, STL, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that 'Throughout the history of humans the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman.

Conclusion

It is evident, from aforesaid discussions, that homosexuality is a complex phenomenon endemic to all societies from the early days of their formation. Although, the practice of homosexuality may have been in minority, nevertheless, it has been a part of society. It can be said without hesitation that there is a pattern of discrimination against homosexuals which pervades most dimensions of our cultural life, and that is rooted in a heterocentric system that shapes our legal, economic, political, social, interpersonal, familial, historical, educational, and ecclesiastical institutions. The root cause of this pattern of discrimination is perhaps a reasoned system of bias regarding sexual orientation that places heterosexuality as the normative form of human sexuality and thereby connotes prejudice against anyone who falls outside of that form. This biasness perhaps arises out of the assumption that heterosexuality is a normative species, but it might not be so for all. For some, heterosexuality may be only a ‘common practice’ and it is not necessary that a common practice must always be normative as well. At the end I would like to conclude by saying that same sex marriage should be legalized as it is a discrimination against same sex couples.

References

1. Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Population and Development Review, vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 529–551., doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00433. x.
2. “Same-Sex Marriage.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Sept. 2018.