Sociology

The question on gay marriage is a thorny social, political and religious issue across the globe. The main conflict here is whether or not gays should marry legally and enjoy universal human rights just like other members of the society. Proponents of gay marriage claim it to be a realization of both their universal human rights and that all must be equal before the law (Bidstrup). They also argue that this should be addressed as a psychological and physical concern in the society. Still claimed is that the government should have no right to dictate personal relationships.

However, opponents of gay marriage claim that approving gay marriage could contradict our legal and social understanding of marriage (Pierceson 112). Also stated is the concern of gay marriage over parenting and respect for traditions in the society. Whether or not to give gays a constitutional right to marry and enjoy exclusively all human rights, however, such will show our nations respect of the universal human rights and that all are equal before the law. This paper is written in support of this thesis (Bidstrup). A critical discussion on the cons and pros of gay marriage is given but first is a brief discussion on the history and existing laws on gay marriage.

The practice of same sex marriage has been a common practice across the globe since time immemorial. This was mostly evident in the ancient Chinese nation. Although lesbian partnership was witnessed during the Ming Dynasty, gay partnership was first evident during the Zhou Dynasty (Rauch). However, historical information clearly shows that the first mention of same sex marriage was in ancient Rome, an act which received much objection from the Christian emperors of the time.
In the modern society, the year 1989 marked the beginning of the heated debate on whether gay marriage should be legalized after Denmark recognized it in its constitution. Many other nations have since then followed suit including Netherlands, Sweden and South Africa among other (MacKinnon). Nevertheless, though many some states in America have legalized gay marriage, it is not in the federal constitution due to the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.

Given the much opposition that legalization of gay marriage has received across the globe, it is logical to make a discussion on the cons and pros of gay marriage in the society. First are the cons of legalizing gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage have evidently claimed that it negates the underling principles of religion. Most of the religions accept heterosexual marriages terming same sex marriages as a sin (Rauch). Although state and religion are separate entities according to the constitution, many members of our community are oriented to a certain religious belief. This makes legalization of gay marriage a big blow to our stronghold religious beliefs.

According to our constitution, marriage is defined as a union between two members of the opposite sex. It is based on this argument that opponents see legalization of gay marriage as going to weaken the definition of marriage (Rauch). True to our traditional values in the society, the act of marriage is meant for procreation. Gay marriage legalization could thus be a great blow to this core value in the human society.

Still, it is cited that legalizing gay marriage will negate our cultural values, norms and ethic of code. The sustainable andor reliable bringing up of kids is the act of two parents of opposite sex. Although gay couples claim that they can adopt kids for their families, such could only lead to the nurturing of gays in the society (Mohr 41). This is because the development of character and behavior by a kid is mainly by copying the behavior of the immediate individual.

Last is the claim by opponents of gay marriage that legalizing it will open a loophole for more unacceptable demands in the society.  It has been claimed that if members of the society cannot respect and adhere to the traditional provisions of marriage, then if given the chance, they can compromise every bit of human dignity and respect for procreation. Such could even lead to demands by some members of the society to marry irrational animals.

Second are the pros of legalizing gay marriage. Proponents of gay marriage claim that, failing to legalize gay marriage negates the meaning of religious freedom (Fulco and David 27). This is true to the fact that according to the constitution state and religion are separate. They therefore claim that failing to recognize their marriage in the constitution will be violating the constitutional clause of separating state from religion.

Another pro is that the law should be applied equitably to all in the society. Based on this reasoning, it is claim a negation of equality to deny homosexual their human rights to lead a life just like other couples. Still cited by proponents of legalizing gay marriages is the scientific evident on the cause of gay behavior. Numerous research finding have shown that most homosexual behaviors in the society have a biological cause (Fulco and David). Due to this, failure to legalize gay marriage denies the individuals their natural freedom to enjoy their gift of life.

The question of discrimination to the minorities in our community has also been cited by proponents of gay marriage. Minorities are not to be taken as the social-economically challenged members of the community but rather to be any individual whose human rights are being undermined (Pierceson 119). Existing statistical evidence has it that homosexuals in the community are a minority (Mohr 42). It should therefore be in defense of the minorities against victimization that gay marriages be legalized. Still, every individual is to be treated equal according to our nations constitution. This makes it a basic requirement that even the minorities in the community must get their fair and just treatment.

Legalizing gay marriage does not affect the community in any way. Marriage is usually a union between two individuals who are in love. It is the wish of each member in the community to see others have happy marriages (Mancoske 31)). Now, gay relationships are found the comfort and source of happiness for homosexuals. This thus means that legalizing such will only ensure sustainable happiness as people will marry based on love rather than on societal expectations. Also, it has been established that marriage is a source of strong family bond and that family is not to be inclusive of kids. With strong family bonds peace and harmony will prevail in the society.

Now the author gives an argument in support of the claim that gay marriage should be legalized. It has been argued that gay marriage negates religious beliefs. However, this is a contradicting of the constitution of our land which clearly separates religion from state. Therefore, failing to legalize gay marriage on this ground is compromising the sovereignty of the constitution as the guiding rule of the land (MacKinnon).

Opponents of gay marriage claim its negative effects on our culture. Just to be stated here is the fact that not all marriages are blessed with children. Therefore, the question of engaging in marriage for procreation should not arise in the debate. The underlying subject should here should be the question of choice and realization of sustainable happiness in a marriage as this is what makes a good family.
Still, if married couples can adopt and bring up kids, why not married gay partners It is to be stated here that even heterosexual marriage families have been found to be a real disaster to the reliable upbringing of kids (Mancoske 24). Marked with constant family conflicts and divorce, many marriages just serve to ruin the character and behavior of their kids. This means that adoption and upbringing of kids by gay families will be a risk taking act like it is in other families.

On the question of gay marriage and weakening of the definition of marriage, it is evidently clear that marriage is meant for love but not for the society. The sole purpose of the society to its members should be to nurture happiness and acceptability to each other. This cannot be realized through imposing limitations to the individuals unless they are committing a crime.

In conclusion, gay marriage should be legalized in our nation. This is first because it is a realization of both their universal human rights and that all must be equal before the law. This will also address psychological and physical concern homosexuals in the society. Still, the government should have no right to dictate personal relationships and religion should be separate from the state just as stated in the constitution.