Change is inevitable, and people should learn to adapt with changes especially in the lifestyle where change is not only inevitable but happens in a short span of time. Whether the change occurred in a person, to the culture one practices, or to the society that one belongs in, it is a necessity to learn to cope and adjust. Through this, the change become new norms and with it follows new legislations.
One of the changes that took place in society is the men and women’s sexual preference. From the usual ad conventional partnership between a man and a woman, nowadays there are couples involving either two males or two females in a relationship. Although homosexuality has long been in history especially during the Victorian times (Dellamora 1), liberal ideas that emerged in the modern society has influenced it to be more blatant. This blatancy has lead to demands on their civil rights and even the right to marry individuals of the same sex.
Despite the need to adapt to changes, this is one norm that the society still has not yet completely adapted to. Marriage of the same sex remains illegal in many states, as well as in many parts of the world. This may be considered unjust especially when a huge part of the population is constituted by homosexuals. As such, rather than argue against it same sex marriage should be legalized not only in one state but in all states in order for the union to be recognized as in the case of Hawaii (Goldberg-Hiller 1).
It is only one of the states that antagonized the legalization of same sex marriage. In 1998, the Hawaii constitution was amended. Marriage was made exclusive to couples of the opposite sex (Goldberg-Hiller 1).
It has been a controversial amendment since it was prompted years before two lesbian couples and one gay couple applied for marriage licenses. Their applications were denied and they filed a suit claiming that the denial was a violation of their civil rights. The court ruled that the couples being of the same sex do not enjoy the privilege to be married. The couples appealed for the decision and the Supreme Court in Baehr, and ruled that the prohibition of the said marriages was unconstitutional and discriminatory. This Supreme Court decision became a point of concern for the citizens. Thus the amendment was pushed and eight years was later realized (Goldberg-Hiller 1-2).
This controversy and many other events have led to more gay and lesbian activism that pushes for their civil rights and right to marry. Their claims rest on them still being humans and active members of society. On the other hand, religious conservatives consider their existence as perversions that should not be protected by special rights (Goldberg-Hiller 45). It seems that antagonists of same sex marriage fail to notice that many of the traditions of the past have already been shaken and family values have been remolded into one that better fits the generation.
This points that many seem to have failed to recognize the now existing “families of choice” or families whose parents are of the same sex. It sometimes include children either adopted or from a surrogate parent (Donovan et al 9). These families are said to likely produce another generation of homosexuals although it has been discovered that having parents of the same sex do not really affect the gender preference of the children reared in this kind of environment. Children of same sex parents are actually not different from children of heterosexual families (Gottman). Homosexual parents are actually effective parents, and despite the abnormality in gender preference their function in society remains normal. They are employed individuals who continue to contribute in the economic aspect of society and sometimes even more efficiently than heterosexual couples (“Here Comes the Groom,” 122). They can support and raise a family without having financial problems. Some of them are actually very much well off (Donovan et 1). As such, the fear of conservatives may be considered as having no basis and irrelevant to the argument.
Another point being pushed by the opposition is that homosexual marriage destroys the institution of marriage. With the number of people divorcing and living in without marriage rising continuously, this may be considered as another irrelevant matter. The institution of marriage is already degrading even before the legalization of homosexual marriage was pushed (“Here Comes the Groom,” 122). Current legislation with provisions on divorce and civil union pioneered the rip in marriage as an institution, thus another amendment that constitutes the privilege for homosexual marriage may no longer make any difference.
Relative to marriage as an institution, since homosexual couples are very unlikely to conceive a child, legalization of their marriage is said to destroy the procreative purpose of matrimonial union. However it may be noted that there are also heterosexual couple who are not gifted with an offspring. Some choose to remain childless while others, despite current medical technology still are not able to conceive a child. If the current constitution allows the proliferation of this kind of union despite its defiance of the procreative purpose of marriage, then childless homosexual union should also be considered since it is of the same predicament (“Here Comes the Groom,” 122). It may even be said that homosexual unions would be more likely to fulfill this aspect of marriage since they are sometimes more well off than heterosexual couples. They may afford to have as many children as they please through legal and medical processes. There may be no point of argument here as in a previous mention, homosexual couples are effective parents (Gottman)
Another point that should be taken into consideration with regard to the legalization of homosexual marriage is that marriage does not only concern child bearing and rearing but it also involves providing care for each of the couple. This is something that not only heterosexual couples are capable of doing, but also of homosexuals (“Here Comes the Groom,” 122). Homosexual couples are also compassionate individuals. This may suggest that out of love, care and concern for the other half follows fulfilling marriage’s other purpose.
Marriage also involves starting a family and this is a prime concern when it comes to conservatives as homosexual marriages may redefine the views on family. This may be considered as again having no basis as the basic values of traditional families may also be found in homosexual unions. It can last like any other heterosexual marriages, it can also provide emotional and material support, and commitment and engagement between homosexuals can not be questioned (Donovan et al 10). As such, the only difference that remains is that the parents in a homosexual family may be composed of both male and both female.
With the given arguments, it may be concluded that same sex marriage or homosexual union should be legalized as it does not destroy the institution of marriage. It also does not destroy the procreative purpose of marriage as modern medical breakthroughs and legal means may make it possible to conceive children in this kind of families. It was even found out that children reared in these families are very effective individuals in society. Most of all, it does not change the views on family as these kinds of families are still rooted from the traditional family values. As such, it des not affect society in any way expected by the conservatives who oppose it.
Society is already shaped and fear of changes may leave it stagnant and any form of stagnation is not healthy both economically and socially (“Here Comes the Groom,” 122). It may also lead to a constant debate of the soundness and fairness of justice and the promotion of civil rights. Similar to the declaration of the Supreme Court in Hawaii, prohibition of this kind of marriages is discriminatory and against the civil rights of the individuals involved. If people who have committed crime and has put society in danger have the privilege to marry the people they prefer, why not the gays and the lesbians whose only fault is to have a sexual preference different from the usual. As such, the society should learn to adapt with this change, like how they would adapt in any other changes in the aspect of modern life.
Works Cited
Dellamora, Richard. Victorian Sexual Dissidence. IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999
Donovan, Catherine, Heaphy, Brian, Weeks, Jeffrey. Same Sex Intimacies: Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. NY: Routledge, 2001.
Goldberg-Hiller, Jonathan. The Limits to Union. USA: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
Gottman, Julie Schwartz. 1989. “Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents.” Marriage & Family Review. 4 December 2008 <http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=TVPVFCR2GPM39PQCH7VF4QAEXHB619AE&ID=82833>.
“Here Comes the Groom.” 1996. The Wilson Quarterly. 5 December 2008 <http://pdfserve.galegroup.com/pdfserve/get_item/1/Sd672ffw16_4/SB143_04.pdf>.
