Introduction
In the United States, between 200,000 and 3.7 million children under the age of 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and around 200,000 are raised by same-sex couples. The bulk of legal and political discussions over the past decade over recognizing same-sex marriage have centered on these couples’ parental competence, forcing social scientists to weigh in. In a common law marriage regime, the law imposes the same restrictions as those governing legal marriage on the two parties upon proof that they pretended to be spouses during the relationship. It is neither an alternative to marriage nor a substitute for marriage; rather, it is a type of marriage.
Brief summary of the two articles
Civil marriage differs from religious marriage in that it is a service offered by the government to its inhabitants. Additionally, one of our society’s fundamental concepts is that the government must provide equal opportunity for all persons unless there is a compelling cause to do so. For instance, if the government distributes driver’s licenses, it is expected to make them available to everyone unless a compelling basis exists to deny them. Naturally, there are compelling justifications for doing things differently. Due to the dangers associated with young drivers, the government may cancel young teens’ driver’s licenses. Without such justifications, the argument says, opportunities should be available to everyone. Now, in some circumstances involving government decision-making, the proper rationale for action may be as straightforward as the people or legislature want. This is how elections are conducted (very roughly). If a majority votes for a specific presidential candidate, that candidate should be elected—end of story.
On the other hand, a majority vote is insufficient when it comes to limiting choices. For example, even if the majority supported it, refusing to provide driver’s licenses to African-Americans would be immoral. Rather than that, certain justifications for rejection of an opportunity qualify as “reasonable grounds,” while others do not. The distinction will be examined in greater depth later, but for now, here are some preliminary thoughts on which justifications we accept and which we reject. We are passionately opposed to denying individuals of chances just on the basis of their (legal) behavior being evil. Even if the majority believes extramarital sex is evil — and even if they are correct – withholding driver’s licenses from people who engage in pre- or extramarital sex would be immoral. Similarly, even if the majority feels Hinduism is evil – and even if this is true – Hindus are eligible to receive a driver’s license.
If same-sex marriage is allowed, this essay argues that it should be lawful as well. The research makes no attempt to address arguments that marriage, in whatever form, is intrinsically unjust, and, more particularly, that marriage would remain unjust even if it were available to couples of either sex. These are the justifications advanced. On the other hand, the fairness of legal marriage simpliciter is irrelevant to this enquiry and must thus be disregarded. By relegating the subject, the paper gains significance. Given the difficulty of removing the legal institution of opposite-sex marriage in the foreseeable future, the critical civil rights issue is marital equality for same-sex couples. Philosophers must address this topic if they wish to contribute to the current, critical discussion.
Jeff Jordan’s piece is the second article in this paper that delves into the morality of same-sex marriage. The paper’s central argument is whether same-sex marriage (homosexuality) has the same moral standing as heterosexuality. In other words, the author’s central question is whether there are instances when individuals are ethically justified in treating others unjustly on the basis of their sexual orientation. Unlike the bulk of arguments against same-sex marriage, however, these incorporate moral reasons based on the unquestionable act of homosexuality. In his article, “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?” Jordan discusses discrimination against homosexuals. Jeff makes arguments against same-sex marriage that are not based on moral assumptions, as are other authors on the subject.
While liberals support the issue of same-sex marriage arguing that people should be given equal rights to love whomever they want, Jeff Jordan takes an opposing viewpoints by tackling the issue of public dilemma within their articles in which he argues that same-sex marriage violates union of one woman one man that is religiously and historically permissible (Same-sex marriage debate: The arguments & rebuttals. Pride Legal 2021). Jeff Jordan provides a personal impasse and public dilemma, a difference thesis, in which he states that Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not morally equivalent, and there are some circumstances where it is not wrong to discriminate against a homosexual simply for being homosexual.
Jordan’s argument is based on the premise that discrimination on the basis of homosexuality is ethically justifiable. This is because discriminating against homosexuals safeguards a large number of people’s religious and moral integrity. Jordan argues for this position by citing the following arguments for why discrimination is a necessary means of resolving a public policy challenge. Jordan utilizes these instances to elucidate this concept further.
Jordan’s argument makes use of religion to demonstrate that gay activities are wicked. Jordan continues by stating that there is a public divide between those who accept and those who do not. He mentions same-sex marriage as an example of a situation in which the government must take a side; if same-sex weddings are permitted, the government will be opposed to religious-based morality. Jordan asserts that owing to conflicting claims and the no-exit argument, some discrimination is lawful and ethically justified.
In the debates over same-sex marriages and homosexuality, the two periodicals take a logical but diametrically opposed stance on both sides of the issue. According to the author, in the first article, “A Popular Argument for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage,” presents persuasive arguments for why same-sex marriage should be legal and permissible, according to the author. According to the author, civil marriages and religious marriages are two entirely different things. Moreover, the author asserts that in many aspects of society, including the topic of race, there are silent traditions that maintain “separate but equal” laws that divide whites and blacks in morally valid ways, and that homosexuality should be treated in a similar manner. Aside from that, the second author’s argument against homosexuality is a legitimate one that should be taken into consideration. It is his religious convictions that he holds in higher regard than his political beliefs, which include the belief that while heterosexuality is acceptable in public and people naturally connect with it, homosexuality between two adults should remain private and not be displayed publicly in what he refers to as the public problem.
In comparison to the other two papers and writers, Jeff Jordan’s piece appears to present a case with which I agree and am willing to defend it. For example, one aspect that immediately comes to mind is the assertion that homosexuality is a violation of religious principles and, as a result, is not permitted by the Bible. It is abundantly clear from the author’s underlying logic that it is ethically permissible to treat gays with contempt or discriminate against them, despite the fact that he does not go into detail about why homosexuality in public should be frowned upon.
Arguments to support
The term “marriage” refers to the union of a man and a woman. A well constituted marriage guarantees a long-term partnership between the wedded man and female. Additionally, marriage fosters a healthy environment for sexual activity, reproduction, and child raising, all of which contribute to the formation of a stable society via the family unit, which he refers to as “basic” (Jordan, 2004). As a consequence, society holds the moral obligation of ensuring that marriages are monogamous rather than polygamous.
The Communion Model Marriage, A well constituted marriage guarantees a long-term partnership between the wedded man and female. Marriage, similarly, provides an atmosphere favorable to sexual engagement, reproduction, and child raising (Basket.com & Jensenismo, 2021). The biological teleology and shared flesh of male and female characters bind them together. Additionally, the paradigm posits that without the existence of a man and a woman who converse via flesh, persons are physiologically incomplete. This paradigm is empty of God, and hence is incompatible with theological truths (Basket.com & Jensenismo, 2021). This hypothesis is reinforced by the inherent predisposition of people to reproduce via procreation, and any effort to divert from this is detrimental. Reproduction is a natural process for biological organisms, and refraining from reproduction is not equally evil for humans.
Legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States is a divisive topic, and passing it in all fifty states would be damaging to the nation. Same-sex marriage should not have been authorized in the United States. To begin, legalization may have negative consequences on society. Second, same-sex marriage precludes a kid from having a father or mother. Thirdly, legal authority establishment it is considered insulting by several faiths and customs (LeBlanc, Frost & Bowen, 2018). Additionally, it emphasizes that all people should be informed of the consequences of their acts before committing to them. The likelihood of societal damage is one downside of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is already legal in all fifty states of the United States (Basket.com & Jensenismo, 2021). It is harmful because, under the guise of “family,” same-sex “marriage” legitimizes not just such partnerships but also the completely gay lifestyle in all of its bisexual and transgender incarnations.
Legalizing same-sex “marriage” would erode core moral principles, reduce the value of traditional marriage, and jeopardize public morals. The state assumes an official and active role in promoting same-sex marriage by demanding that public authorities officiate at the new civil event, commanding public schools to teach students on its acceptability, and penalizing any state employee who voices dissent (Gerstmann, 2017). Additionally, allowing same-sex marriage always deprives a kid of a father or mother. It is in the child’s best interests to be nurtured according to
Counter argument
The true argument against same-sex marriage is that homosexuality is not inherently evil and that gay people should never be treated differently than others. Regrettably, such arguments do not now hold water (Boertien & Vignoli, 2019). The good news is that, like those for minority and women’s rights, these arguments will become self-evident with time.
Gay and lesbian couples, proponents of same-sex marriage argue, should be treated similarly to heterosexual couples and have the same right to marry as anybody else (Paterson & Coffey-Glover, 2018). Apart from upholding the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment, proponents assert that the campaign for marital justice is motivated by practical reasons (Ofosu, Chambers, Chen & Hehman, 2019). They underline, for example, that homosexual couples who have been together for years may sometimes be denied fundamental rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples who marry legally – anything from health and pension benefits sharing to hospital visiting privileges.
In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned the body’s first investigation on the subject [PDF], expressing grave concern over violence and discrimination against people who identify as homosexual or transgender. In 2014, the council unanimously passed a resolution condemning anti-LGBTQ+ violence. According to the United Nations, criminalizing same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Conclusion
Same-sex marriage is a ground-breaking family structure that seems to be gaining acceptability in both the legal and public realms. Apart from advancing family legislation, same-sex marriage and alternatives to marriage will continue to reflect underlying developments in gender norms and social behaviors throughout the society. In both law and culture, these domestic forms are mostly unfinished constructs, or “incomplete institutions.” However, since the law covering same-sex relationships is still in its infancy, it is possible that it will have an unforeseeable impact on the laws controlling all family arrangements.
References
A populist argument for legalizing same-sex marriage – JSTOR. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2021, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/27904095.
Basket.com, M. I., & Jensenismo. (2021, March 14). Same sex marriage debate: Reasons for and against. MyInfoBasket.com. Retrieved December 11, 2021, from https://myinfobasket.com/same-sex-marriage-debate-reasons-for-and-against/.
Boertien, D., & Vignoli, D. (2019). Legalizing same-sex marriage matters for the subjective well-being of individuals in same-sex unions. Demography, 56(6), 2109-2121.
Di Battista, S., Paolini, D., & Pivetti, M. (2020). Attitudes toward same-sex parents: Examining the antecedents of parenting ability evaluation. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 17(3), 273-291.
Gahan, L. (2018). Separated same-sex parents: Troubling the same-sex parented family. Sociological Research Online, 23(1), 245-261.
Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution. Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, J. (n.d.). It is wrong to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality. Tyrel’s ePortfolio. Retrieved December 11, 2021, from https://tyrelcolt.weebly.com/it-is-wrong-to-discriminate-on-the-basis-of-homosexuality.html.
LeBlanc, A. J., Frost, D. M., & Bowen, K. (2018). Legal marriage, unequal recognition, and mental health among same‐sex couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(2), 397-408.
Ofosu, E. K., Chambers, M. K., Chen, J. M., & Hehman, E. (2019). Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(18), 8846-8851.
Pace, R., Pace, R., & Rachael PaceExpert Blogger Rachael Pace is a noted relationship writer associated with Marriage.com. She provides inspiration. (2021, February 1). LGBT love: Why same sex marriage should be legal. Marriage Advice – Expert Marriage Tips & Advice. Retrieved December 11, 2021, from https://www.marriage.com/advice/same-sex-marriage/lgbt-love-why-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal/.
Paterson, L. L., & Coffey-Glover, L. (2018). Discourses of marriage in same-sex marriage debates in the UK press 2011–2014. Journal of Language and Sexuality, 7(2), 175-204.
Same-sex marriage debate: The arguments & rebuttals. Pride Legal. (2021, January 22). Retrieved December 11, 2021, from https://pridelegal.com/same-sex-marriage-debate/.
Same-sex marriage debate: The arguments & rebuttals. Pride Legal. (2021, January 22). Retrieved December 11, 2021, from https://pridelegal.com/same-sex-marriage-debate/.
Sansone, D. (2019). Pink work: Same-sex marriage, employment and discrimination. Journal of Public Economics, 180, 104086.
write