An Examination Of Arguments Against Gay Matrimony Philosophy Essay

Gay marriage has been one of the most controversial topics in the North american 21st Century. Different opinions about be it immoral, incorrect, and illogical by spiritual leaders and those who oppose it have cast a dark-colored shadow on homosexuals and their supporters. Arguments such as gay matrimony will undermine the establishment of marriage, relationship is perfect for having children, and gay couples are simply just unnatural are some of the most typical arguments contrary to the matrimony of gay couples. But is the hate towards the institution of gay relationship really because of God or concern with the untraditional? Or is it more of a deeper sitting means for folks to hate those who are different than themselves?

A common debate against legalizing same-sex marriages is that doing so would undermine the institution of marriage. For some reason, a marriage between associates of the same intimacy is a self-contradiction and, if their unions are legalized, then relationship itself across the country will be harmed. But upon what basis is this argument made? It really seems like an ridiculous lay claim - how are we to make any sense out of the idea that a legal marriage between Joe and Jim might well have any negative impact after a legal relationship between John and Mary, significantly less undermine the marriage between John and Mary? What we must remember is that competitors of same-sex relationship are generally considering less of legal matrimony in the secular sense and even more of holy wedloc" in the spiritual sense.

If marriage is a holy sacrament of a sacred religious organization, then it becomes much easier to understand how a union that is undoubtedly an immoral abomination would cause problems. It would, after all, represent a form of desecration and that might be seen as undermining a holy establishment. Although these spiritual reasons allow us to seem sensible from the claim, it doesn't imply that the discussion is valid - the religious quarrels against gay matrimony are unacceptable in a world "supposedly" based after secular laws.

Are there secular known reasons for thinking that gay marriages might undermine the establishment of marriage? If there are, they should be taken seriously. If society's goal is to aid and encourage marriage, then naturally it shouldn't do whatever would only provide to harm marriage overall. Alas for competitors of same-sex marriages, there don't look like valid secular known reasons for convinced that allowing gay couples to marry will have any damaging effects on relationship generally. Some claim that it'll undermine the idea that marriage is available for having and raising children. Others argue that gay people are less focused on monogamy than right people, if the administration validates them officially, then others in world will be sent the concept that gay unions are just like valid as you where the dedication is strong. This lay claim undermines marriage because it undermines a central and essential element of marriage: two people entering into a solid, committed marriage with one another. Society is therefore justified in not granting legal acceptance to a course of relationships that will predictably be less faithful, less dedicated, and more delicate. Gays don't constitute more than 10% of most people in culture. This doesn't look like a huge enough number to conclude that matrimony would be harmed. If it were, in case which were a good enough reason to ban gay marriages, then we have a far greater reason to ban divorce - some 50% of all marriages end in divorce, in the end, and it seems like an even better claim to say that allowing people to easily dissolve a relationship is ultimately harmful to matrimony as an organization. Funny, ironically enough, that the most vocal competitors of gay unions aren't campaigning in protection of relationship by trying to ban divorces.

Another common discussion is the idea that gay couples can't marry because of the disconnect between homosexuality and procreation. Gay relationship would be "unnatural" since it can't produce children, the natural end of relationship. Gay relationship would undermine relationship because it is a legal and moral institution made to promote and protect procreation and boosting of children. Gay marriage would desecrate God's mandate that heterosexual couples have to partner and procreate. Is some of this true, if so, should it subject? Consider the assumption that the "natural" end of matrimony (or sex in general) is procreation, and this therefore non-procreative gay couples cannot reasonably be permitted to marry. You will discover two ways this can be refuted: by demonstrating what its rational conclusions would be if positively employed, and by taking apart its philosophical basis.

Case and point, infertile couples. First, if we were to take this argument seriously, we'd have to radically change relationship regulations. No infertile couples would be allowed to marry - this would include both more radiant people who are infertile scheduled to health issues as well as older people who are infertile anticipated to age. Who agree to that?

It is curious that the opprobrium heaped upon gays who wish to marry is not also aimed upon elderly people who wish to marry, indicating that the problem cannot possibly stem from people's disapproval of any couple that won't be having children. Consider people's reactions when someone gets committed for reasons apart from love, like: citizenship, money, or communal status. This means that that society regards love as the foundation for marrying, not producing children.

If we were to enforce the idea that marriage prevails with regard to having and raising children, wouldn't we prohibit couples from staying childless voluntarily? Whether or not we didn't outlaw both contraception and abortion, we'd have to take steps to ensure that all married couples not be childless: if they won't produce their own kids, they will have to adopt a few of the countless orphaned and empty children presently without steady homes and households. Since we don't see anyone arguing for such outrageous options, we must conclude that opponents of same-sex matrimony don't take that theory as significantly as they seem to be; and because such steps are so outrageous, we have good reason never to take it really either.

A second flaw is the fact it creates a fetish out of biological functions. Since when do people tailor their activities established exclusively or even primarily upon what they visualize the biological ends to be? Who gets committed solely to have children rather than to go after a meaningful and intimate romance with someone they love? Who eats food entirely to be able to ingest nourishment and not to enjoy the sociable and psychological experience that accompany a good food?

One third discussion made against gay matrimony is the theory that gay matrimony is wrong because gay lovers are somehow unnatural. It isn't often mentioned openly, but it affects other quarrels and lies behind many people's negative opinions about homosexuality. For most people, heterosexual relationships are the norm, both in modern culture and in dynamics. Homosexual associations are thus excessive and unnatural; therefore, they must not be validated by their state nor named a form of marriage.

Such quarrels are superficially effective because they make an effort to harness the energy of apparently neutral and objective categories like "nature" and "natural" to get one's position. This way an individual can try to slough off accusations of bigotry and intolerance because, after all, it's just a subject of factual observation as to what is which is not a proper part of the natural order and/or what is mandated by natural regulation. It's no more bigoted or intolerant than observing that dropped things fall down somewhat than up, or that bears partner with other bears rather than with deer.

The truth is, however, promises about the natural order or natural law only end up being masks for spiritual, political, or public prejudices - including the ones that rise to degree of bigotry. The philosophical veneer might at times be impressive, but we should not neglect to look beneath the surface to be able to understand what the true ideas and quarrels are. One means for doing that is to ask the not-so-easy question of precisely what is meant by "natural" and "unnatural. "

A common and simplistic so this means is the fact heterosexual connections are "natural" because that is what we find in dynamics, whereas we don't find homosexual relationships. The latter are therefore unnatural and should not be validated by culture. There are plenty of possible objections to this. First, humans are obviously an integral part of characteristics, so if humans have homosexual associations, is that not therefore an integral part of nature? Second, we don't find pets or animals entering into legal marriage deals with each other - does which means that that legal matrimony as an establishment is "unnatural" and should be taken away?

Sometimes the discussion that homosexual human relationships and homosexuality are "unnatural" might be supposed in the sense that it generally does not really flow from "human being character" in its fresh status, untainted by civilization. Presumably this is meant to imply that if it weren't for the modern culture around us, no one would be gay - we'd only ever before want to mate with or have romantic relationships with participants of the opposite sex.

There is not a evidence offered to back this up - not false proof. Yet even if we accept that it is true, so what? The mere idea that humans wouldn't take action when in a "state of aspect" outside the confines of civilization is completely no reason to summarize that in addition they shouldn't take action when living within civilization. We wouldn't drive autos or use personal computers beyond the structures of civilizations, so should we stop doing them while a part of society?

Very usually the debate that homosexual associations are "unnatural" is meant to describe the actual fact that they don't and cannot business lead to the creation of children, which is supposed to be the "natural" consequence of such romantic relationships, especially relationship. This argument also isn't effective, but the relationship between relationship and bringing up children was attended to in greater detail before.

Ultimately, the "homosexuality is unnatural" discussion fails to support the truth against same-sex matrimony since there is no clear and convincing content to the concept of "unnatural" to begin with. Anything that is said to be "unnatural' is either arguably very natural, arguably irrelevant to what the laws and regulations should be, or is simply immaterial to what should be cared for as moral and immoral. It's no coincidence that what's "unnatural" also is actually condemned by audio speakers' spiritual or cultural customs. Because some characteristic or activity isn't typical among humans doesn't make it "unnatural" and therefore wrong.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)