Should Homosexuals Be Able to Marry?

Religious teachings say that God created man for woman - Should Homosexuals Be Able to Marry? introduction. The union formed between man and woman has been called by the society as marriage. The construct of the union may have changed over time, but the traditional term marriage that has evolved has been passed through from generation to generation. Among the changes in the construct of marriage includes the homosexual marriage that refers to union of same sex. Homosexual marriage initially received fierce societal rejection. The union has been perceived as immoral, natural and cultural taboo, and illegal but such concept gradually eroded since mid 20th century (McCarthy, 2012).

The battle over the discourse on recognition of the rights of homosexuals led on gradual acceptance and legalization of the marriage. Though some countries have legalized homosexual marriage, conflicting social and religious views continue to clash. Should homosexual marriage be allowed? This paper will argue on the thesis stating homosexual marriage is a right homosexuals should be entitled to. Argument History could not provide any evidence on the existence of first marriage but the Biblical-based teachings traces the beginning of heterosexual relation representing marriage through the bond between Adam and Eve.

We will write a custom essay sample on
Should Homosexuals Be Able to Marry?
or any similar topic specifically for you
Do Not Waste
Your Time

By clicking "SEND", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

More Essay Examples on Homosexuality Rubric

The heterosexual relations known as marriage evolved as social construct formed by two individuals. Since ancient time, the marriage recognized by the society has defined a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals (MacCarthy, 2012). The union brought the traditional definition of marriage as the legal bond between opposite sexes. The traditional definition of marriage tells that the man becomes the husband while the woman becomes the wife. Throughout the years, the definition of marriage has been gaining broader meaning.

From the heterosexual union formed by two individuals, the definition of marriage included the legal obligations encompassed in the homosexual union of two individuals of the same sex (Marriage, 2000). The society has been broadening the definition of marriage as differences of gender orientation become more pronounced. Such differences of gender orientation include the conditions that are beyond the norms where gender is no longer limited to being male or female. The out-of- the- norms conditions cover the situations that homosexuals have to go through.

Some structurally male or female individuals follow gender orientation against the natural rule and societal norms. The breaching of the gender orientation has been justified by psychological and scientific explanations as uncontrollable forces that may be beyond the will of specific individuals. For instance, science explains the roles of genetic factors on the making of the gay and lesbian orientation. The condition is beyond the control of the individuals who should never be blamed for their twisted orientation (Beeman, 1996).

With the given explanations, should gays with feminine feelings or the lesbians with masculine feelings be stoned because of their affection to people’s ales that happened to be of same sex? Should they be forced to unite in marriage with opposite gender so as to maintain conformity to the natural law? Individuals with gender orientation that breached the norms have biological behavior that has to be satisfied and that is a right every individual is entitled to. The satisfaction of such right could never be less than the importance of the roles of the natural law.

Forcing the homosexuals to marry opposite sex against their will sound like an obvious violation of rights and at the same time would turn Natural Law to appear like an authoritarian command that should not be breached. Counter-thesis and Counter-argument Homosexual relations have been accounted since the early years of the history. Stories chronicled in the Book of Genesis in the Bible described malicious activity of Shams to his father drunk father Noah (Genesis 9:24). Shams had been punished and that led scholarly interpretation of the activity as an incestuous homosexual activity (Robinson, 2011).

The punishment for doing such activity clearly implies traditional intolerance of homosexual relations because it is against the Divine teachings. Marriage within the context of the norms acceptable to the society refers to the unity formed by two persons with opposite sex. The definition of marriage covers the roles and responsibilities of the man and woman in union. The heterosexually-formed mutual relationship includes the supportive roles to meet the partner’s need that include sexual, psychological, emotional, and financial needs.

The union usually becomes the foundation in developing family which is known as the basic unit of the society. Within the realms of religious views, the teachings tell marriage as a heterosexual union designed for procreation as ordered by the Natural Law. The religious teachings may have been providing various interpretations of marriage but share common implications that the union has been according to the Divine plans that will preserve the existence of the human race (Robinson, 2011). Biblical texts cites homosexual relations a sin. The natural law highlights procreation as the main purpose that should be accomplished by marital union.

Within the context of the natural law, homosexual marriage would be a huge violation since procreation will never be involved. Homosexual marriage in that sense clearly breaches the societal norms and the Natural Laws. According to the societal norms and Natural Law, marriage should preserve the fundamental roles of family that strengthen the family system. The roles include preservation of the human race through procreation. With the breaching of the norm and law, homosexual marriage in its self is not right that should not bestow any right for any homosexuals to enjoy.

Homosexual marriage cannot become a legitimate marriage with the fact that God did not create Adam and Steve but Adam and Eve (Miller, 2012). Response to the Counter-thesis The liberalization and modernization of the society brought many changes in the human culture. While changes in concepts on life changes, it would be hard to understand to keep the traditional concept on marriage as untouchable. Homosexuality and homosexual relationships per se can be said as one of the causes and effects of the impacts of the changes in the concept of marriage that occurred along with cultural evolution (McCarthy, 2012).

As the social view of marriage considerably changed, the clashing of the religious and social views particularly with the non-conformity of the conservative and liberal minds undeniably flared a debate on the morality over the legality of the marriage (Kalafut, 2008). The changes in the societal conditions can however not put total control on gender orientation of individuals. Despite stiff resistance of many organizations, homosexuals have defined their rights and fought that law should grant them such rights. The voice of the homosexuals has been gradually heard.

The increasing societal tolerance of the homosexual genders gradually brought a path to acceptance and legalization of the homosexual bond that became popular as same-sex marriage. The concept of marriage traditionally recognized and accepted by society grants an avenue for individuals bound by union of marriage to meet their needs. The intimate relationship of marital partners helps achieve their sexual, emotional, psychological, and social satisfaction. More than satisfaction of the needs, marriage relationship has defined goals to achieve with procreation on top of the list.

Males elicit attraction from opposite sex that can develop into heterosexual relations. Males become the father while females become the mother to the kids. The male-female relation attains its goals through heterosexual bond. The homosexuals however may face limitation on achieving similar goal because of their twisted gender orientation. With twisted orientation, that should not mean that their rights to marry should be also twisted against their wishes. Marriage is a societal construct cultivated by society.

The marital union is an institution that should not be regarded absolutely religious-based knowing it has gradually increased its significance as a social institution over time. The traditional gender limitation to masculine and feminine as legitimate genders has been lifted gradually as expanding gender orientation receives societal recognition. The gender orientation gained gradual success in assimilating off- the- norms genders to the society that include homosexuals known as gays and lesbians. The changes in social construct brought the gradual transparency of homosexual relations to the society.

The expansion of the scope of gender definition brought changes on the societal views on marriage. Homosexual relations have been gradually received by some parts of the society lifting the concept of the relation as a taboo and immoral. The homosexuals triumphantly gained legal recognition when Denmark pioneered the legalization of same-sex partnership in 1989 (Kalafut, 2008). The move strengthened the spirit of homosexuals in other countries to fight for their rights that opened the doors to acceptance of homosexual marriage.

The essence of the view on marriage as a social construct would need extensive review. Marriage has been traditionally known as a social institution serving as the backbone of the families and the society. Homosexual marriage has been suggested being a societal change that can potentially drag the structure of the families and the society at stake. Why at stake? The answer is simple. Homosexual marriage does not have any capabilities to procreate thus breaching the law of nature that can contribute a dead end for human development. Why dead end?

With the legal recognition and acceptance of homosexual marriage, that never implies that all members of the society will opt for homosexual marriage. Homosexuals definitely have that gender orientation and forcing them to change would imply violation of their rights. While changing the orientation or homosexuals would be difficult, heterosexuals could not be easily changed as well and that would imply continuation of procreation. The coming out of the homosexuals may marginally increase but it would be very impossible to think that they will dominate over heterosexuals and conquer the world.

On the immorality notes, the arguments against homosexual marriage may be strong yet could not fully defend to justify the universal human rights, the physical and mental health concerns on human biological nature, and the equality or rights before the human laws. While homosexual marriage cannot be detached from its immoral position, the world cannot deny that heterosexual marriage is also surrounded by lots of immoralities. Adultery, concubinage, rape, incest, and abortion are just among the popular immoralities that infiltrated legal heterosexual relationships. The logic in that issue is easy to understand.

While homosexual marriage receives negative impression for its immorality, heterosexual marriage is as well surrounded by immoralities. What then is the difference in there that could justify the denial of the rights of the homosexual to choose their marriage partners? On homosexual marriage breaching of the Natural Law due to the absence of procreation, heterosexual marriage on the current time has been partially breaching the Natural Law as well. The changes in the modernizing society have developed technologies that allow or support intentional prohibition of procreation.

Sterilization and the use of various methods of contraception have been popularly accepted by large part of the society. When reproduction between heterosexual couple is inhibited, procreation as one of the main purposes of marital union no longer exists. The explanations simply imply that either homosexual or heterosexual marriage can commit similar violation against the Natural Law. Conclusion The homosexual marriage became an issue that caused a huge clash between the conservative and liberal minds.

The conservatives logically insist denial to legally recognize same sex marriage on the grounds of morality and conformity to the Natural Law. While conservatives believe that homosexual marriage can delegitimize the marriage institution, the liberals with broader scope on marriage views defend that homosexuals who are also tax-paying citizens should also be granted full benefits of marriage as one of their lawful rights (Sanders, 2012). Speaking about the rights, the rights of the homosexuals to marry their desired partners may be raised as not legitimate.

However, forcing or obliging them to form union with undesired partner could also qualify as a breach to their rights. On immorality grounds, marriage relationship whether homosexual or heterosexual can be involved with immoralities. On the note of breaching the Natural Law primarily due to absence of procreation, heterosexual marriage nowadays can also have the potentials to breach the procreation purposes with the use of the available technologies particularly sterilization and contraception. The changes in the society have clearly caused changes on the concept of marriage.

From satisfaction of morality and conformity to the Natural Law, the society has increased attention on the significance of satisfaction of the human biological behavior through the union of two individuals. The right to marry the preferred or desired partner is a right that should be entitled not only to heterosexual partners, but also homosexual partners.


Beeman, W. (1996). What are you: male, merm, herm, ferm or female?. Retrieved from http://www. buddybuddy. com/beeman-1. html Kalafut, M. (2008). Same-sax marriage history. Retrieved from http://molly. kalafut. org/marriage/world-laws. tml McCarthy, D. (2012). Right marriage fight. The American Conservative. Retrieved from Ebscohost database. Miller, M. (2012). Gay marriage is not marriage, here’s why. Retrieved 1st November from Ebscohost database. Robinson, B. (2011). Passages in the Genesis that mat relate to homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www. religioustolerance. org/hom_bibg1. htm Sanders, S. (2012). The constitutional right to keep your same-sex marriage. Retrieved 1 November 2012 from Ebscohost database. (2000). Marriage. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company

Haven’t Found A Paper?

Let us create the best one for you! What is your topic?

By clicking "SEND", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get your custom essay sample

For Only $13/page

Eric from Graduateway Hi there, would you like to get an essay? What is your topic? Let me help you