Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage: It’s all in the Wording In the United States, gay marriage has been a subject that most politicians in the limelight try to avoid due to its controversial stigma. Many Americans would argue that every individual has the freedom and right to marry; that same-sex marriages would be beneficial to the economic growth and development of our nation. Going beyond the religious argument, same-sex marriage is not a civil right, nor should the privileges be denied to a specific group of individuals. In Evan Wolfson’s essay, “What is Marriage?” he takes a civil right standpoint on the same-sex marriage debate and states that the union between two partners is a essential part of life and shouldn’t be denied to any individual whether he/she be homosexual or heterosexual. Stripping rights away from an individual based on their sexual orientation doesn’t seem American. The United States takes pride in its freedom it offers its citizens and is a melting pot of hundreds of different cultures, beliefs, and ethnicities. All of which has the same rights and privileges as anyone else. In heated debates, the religious perspective on the subject has clouded the argument whether homosexuals should obtain the right to marry or not. Most religions see marriage as a foundation to their beliefs and take offence at the thought of degrading its sanctity by allowing same-sex couple’s access to it. “Second, the justices said, marriage has for many people an important spiritual or religious dimension” (Wolfson 103). In the United States, Christianity seems to be the overwhelming religion that’s against same-sex marriages. “Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened” bigotry” (Forman). Persevering the meaning and definition is the primary reason anti-gay marriage advocates argue on the subject. As long as the religious standpoint on gay marriage is brought up, no progress could ever be sought out on the matter. Religion should not be trumped on by a group of individuals just so that they could achieve a certain level of self-satisfaction and sense of social achievement. If gay marriage were to be accepted in all 50 states, it would cause resentment in many Americans hearts and would put hatred in such a loving and endearing word such as marriage. The only way to achieve progress is to create a separate word to mean the union between two individuals. Some would argue that using a separate word would advocate segregation among society. Different verbiage is the lesser of two evils and would cause less harm than to allow same-sex partners obtain the right to have the label of marriage. By changing tradition, tensions rise among individuals. “But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much” (Forman). There’s the argument where the term “wife” and “husband” are words of endearment and there are so such words that could take their place. Although the term “marriage” would be changed, same-sex partners could still use “my wife” or “my husband” to describe their partner. The word marriage seems to be only referred to in the legal sense. No one asks another person how his or her “married partner” is doing. They ask, “how’s your wife doing?” or “how’s your husband doing?” Claiming that using a separate word to describe a same-sex marriage would develop a negative stigma on the word would be to assume a majority of Americans negatively think of same-sex unionization. Many same-sex marriage advocates fight for the right to marry based solely on the economic and social uplifting it gives them and their partner. “Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts or to the legal and financial guidelines in times of breakup, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony or to protect the weaker party and the kids” (Wolfson). Although marriage between a man and a woman offers many benefits in many different aspects in life, it is reserved for only man and woman marriages. The United States is supposed to offer the utmost economic mobility to its citizens and by not allowing a particular individual this advantage in life based solely on their orientation is unpatriotic. Same-sex unionization should still offer as many benefits that marriage offers. By doing this, the argument for same-sex marriage dwindles down to an egotistical debate over obtaining a sense of entitlement and reassurance that an individual is not different. Whether a homosexual wants to believe it or not, her or she is different than most individuals in this society. When homosexuals accept this, and stop demanding and forcing society to accept their ways, the tension and hatred involved in many subjects would be suppressed. Although they are different, they should still obtain every privilege anyone else can obtain. If marriage were looked at more like a bond in which two individuals aim to reproduce, society would be more accepting of same-sex unionization. “Marriage is a reflection of the biological necessity of a one-to-one heterosexual union for procreation, true enough, and it provides a legal framework that strengthens that union for the benefit of all” (Zorn). Only a man and a woman could produce children and be their biological parents, therefore only a man and woman can be married. “More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn 't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion” (Forman). Marriage’s primary purpose it to create a stable family setting in which children can be born into and could be raised by two biological parents; one female, and one male. Although a same-sex partnership are capable and qualified to adopt and raise a child, they cannot reproduce, which is the purpose of marriage. Even though an infertile heterosexual couple cannot bear children, they’d still be allowed to marry based on the assumption that they could reproduce whilst they were still physically capable. This can best be described using sports and an example. An excerpt from an article “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson called "A baseball team has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to winning games; it involves developing and sharing one 's athletic skills in the way best suited for honorably winning. … But such development and sharing are possible and inherently valuable for teammates even when they lose their games" (256). The long drawn out debate over the word marriage could best be solved by creating a different word, for a different type of bond between individuals. Society will never accept the term gay marriage nor should they be forced to accept it. Polygamy is based off love and commitment but isn’t allowed under the term marriage. Relative to relative marriages are not allowed based off of blood ties. Same-sex partners fall into the same category and should not be labeled underneath the term marriage. Civil unionization of same-sex partners is essential and should be granted to homosexuals across the nation as well with full entitlement to benefits received by married couples to ensure economic mobility.

Works Cited
Wolfson, Evan. “What is Marriage?” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. 7th ed. Eds. Gary Columbo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 98-110. Print.
Girgis, Sherif. George, Robert. Anderson, Ryan. “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 34 (2010): 248-275. Web. 7 Sept. 2012.
Zorn, Eric. “The Tope Six Arguments Against Gay Marriage (and why they all fail).” Chicago Tribune. Mag., 19 May 2012. Web. 7 Sept. 2012.
Forman, Seth. “Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change.” New York Daily News. Mag., 23 June 2011. Web. 7 Sept. 2012

Cited: Wolfson, Evan. “What is Marriage?” Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. 7th ed. Eds. Gary Columbo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 98-110. Print. Girgis, Sherif. George, Robert. Anderson, Ryan. “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Vol. 34 (2010): 248-275. Web. 7 Sept. 2012. Zorn, Eric. “The Tope Six Arguments Against Gay Marriage (and why they all fail).” Chicago Tribune. Mag., 19 May 2012. Web. 7 Sept. 2012. Forman, Seth. “Five arguments against gay marriage: Society must brace for corrosive change.” New York Daily News. Mag., 23 June 2011. Web. 7 Sept. 2012