Gay Marriage Right

Justification of the Refusal to Recognize Same Sex Marriage Homosexuality has always been around in both human society and animal kingdom. However, the issue of homosexuality is not really taken into debate until the last century or so. As society becomes looser with its judgement, people start to perform homosexual activities more openly, which eventually leads to the pursuit of legal marriage among homosexual couples. However, society is still well divided on this issue of recognizing same sex marriage, with the question of whether same sex marriage is immoral or not. As of today, the United States of America still refuses to recognize same sex marriage, and there are several ways to defend why it should stay that way. First of all, the traditional purpose of marriage, in principle, is procreation. And since homosexual couples are not able to fulfill this purpose, they can be denied the right to marry. Secondly, because homosexual activities can be proved to be unhealthy, the government should not celebrate the action through recognizing same sex marriage. Lastly, since the issue of same sex marriage is a controversial public dilemma, the officials should make a solution so that on one would lose totally. As society becomes more accepting to people with differences, many have argue that the denial of same sex marriage is immoral; however, given the opposition and the status and capability, or lack thereof, of same sex marriage, it is morally and logically permissible to not recognizing same sex marriage.
The objection of same sex marriage can be traced back to the act of homosexual itself. In
Nguyen 2 general, if sexual activities within a marriage are not healthy, then the marriage itself is probably not very healthy. With that said, homosexualality can prove to be unhealthy based on the complementary argument. According to John-Mark Miravalle, a theology professor, “sex is about give and take on personal, physical, and sexual levels.” He then argues that “ two men or two women can complement each other at the personal level. For example, in a homosexual relationship, a short temper guy can benefit from having a more easy going, chilling partner because it would make him less moody, which is good for him and the people around them. Two people with the same gender can also complement each other at the physical level. For instance, a small point guard and a big center. However, they cannot accomplish complementation at the sexual level because they cannot give what the other already have, and if they do, then the gift is not very meaningful. A man cannot give his gay partner the specialty of his masculinity, because he already has it, so the gift would not be profound.” (John Corvino - John-Mark Miravalle, Same Sex Marriage Debate) Since homosexual couples are not capable of complementarity sex, then homosexuality cannot be viewed as healthy because it prevents the human body to achieve the greatest level of desire from complementary sex. Therefore, homosexuality is unhealthy.
A counterargument for this could be sex is just simply pleasure, not having anything to do with complementary. Miravalle responses by saying that “ it is counter intuitive to claims that sex has nothing to do with sex, which is our objective status as men and women. Secondly, it is a degradation to the extraordinary phenomenon between two sexes completing each other, and it’s always degrading whenever one reduces human activity to simply pleasure.” (John Corvino - John-Mark Miravalle, Same Sex Marriage Debate) As Miravalle points out, it’s called sex in the first place because it involves the
Nguyen 3 masculinity and femininity that participants of different gender brings into play. So to referring to sex without taking the participants’ sex into account is unsound. It leads to the conclusion that sex is not just about the physically touching of two human beings in order to produce pleasure, but rather there is a much more profound meaning of two opposite sexes come together and complement one another.
Another flaw of this claim is that it reduces the intellectual and profoundness of human sex. Miravalle gives a great example of eating to explain the negative result of degrading human sex to pleasure. He says that “if we only eat food base on the amount of pleasure it provides, then pretty soon we will develop a unhealthy eating habit. That is why we have a group of food that’s devoted solely on pleasure; we call them junk foods.” (John Corvino - John-Mark Miravalle, Same Sex Marriage Debate) There are often deeper meanings to a human’s actions rather than just the pleasure seeking purpose. On the other the hand, actions that are done simply for pleasure often lead to something harmful to the oneself. In the food example, it’s obvious why people don’t call these solely pleasure-giving foods healthy foods. This can also be true of sexual activities that simply base on pleasure. Based on the food terminology, this type of shallow sex cannot be considered healthy sex, but rather junk sex. This proves that by degrading human sex to simply pleasure, one can eliminate the profoundness of the sex, which will lead to unhealthy sexual activities. Because homosexualities, as proven, are unhealthy, same sex marriage should not be recognized. In a relationship that heavily involves sexual activities such as the one that human possess, if sexual activities are unhealthy, then it’s very unlike for the relationship itself to be healthy. While society should not totally outlaw homosexualality because afterall, as long as they don’t harm other people, Nguyen 4 what they do to their bodies is their business, however, it should not make any law to celebrate an unhealthy marriage, which is one of the most important institution of human civilization..
The ban on same sex marriage can also be justified through the lack of ability to carry out the purpose of marriage. According to Alan Keyes, the former Diplomat under the Reagan administration, “the only reason that [marriage] existed in human societies and civilizations in the first place is to regulate from the social point of view the obligation and attendant upon procreation in principle.” (Obama Keyes 2004 Illinois Senate Debate) Keyes emphasizes the importance of procreation in marriage, which is something same sex couples cannot provide to society.
His opponents might argue that “if marriage is all about procreation, then why should an eighty years old woman, who has passed the child bearing age, be allow to marry. The same argument could be made in the case of infertile people. Because if they can’t produce life, then the whole purpose of marriage does not applied to them.” (Obama Keyes 2004 Illinois Senate Debate) Homosexual activists use this argument in attempt to eliminate the procreation barrier that is impossible for homosexual couples to overcome. Just like happy married heterosexual couples without children, they claim that homosexual couples can also function as a family without the presence of kids. Therefore, they think that since the procreational goal of marriage is not always fulfilled by heterosexual couples, then homosexual couples should also be given the privilege of not having to produce. If that happens, then the states cannot ban homosexual marriage based on the ground of procreation.
However, the key to this argument is the phrase, “in principle”. This phrase is defined as “used to indicate that although something is theoretically possible, in reality it may not actually
Nguyen 5 happen.” (Oxford Dictionary) Keyes argues that “heterosexual couples are allowed to married because in principle, a man and a woman can always create life. Since principle is not referring to any special circumstances, the marriage of a young heterosexual couple who will have children and an old, infertile, heterosexual couple is exactly the same. On the other hand, it is impossible for homosexual couples to produce in principle.” Keyes states that “when procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is irrelevant.” (Obama Keyes 2004 Illinois Senate Debate) Based on this argument, since homosexual couples don’t have the ability to reproduce, their marriage is not necessary, therefore, the states are not required, to recognize same sex marriage.
Beside the issue on the moral status of same sex marriage, recognizing homosexual marriage can violate civil liberties of many Americans. Jeff Jordan, a philosophy professor of University of Delaware, argues against the recognition of same sex marriage not concerning the moral status of homosexual marriage, but rather the appropriate solution for the moral impasse. First, he delivers two views for the issue, the Parity Thesis and the Difference Thesis. Jordan states that “ in the Parity Thesis, homosexual and heterosexual are morally equivalent, and it is wrong to discriminate a homosexual simply for being homosexual.” On the other hand, the Difference Thesis states that “ heterosexuality and homosexuality are not morally equivalent, and there are some circumstances where it is not wrong to discriminate against a homosexual simply for being homosexual.” (Satris, 91) He then provides a premise to explain why the parity thesis seems to be the better option.
1. Homosexual act between consenting adults harm no one. And,
2. respecting person’s privacy and choices in harmless sexual matters maximizes individual
Nguyen 6 freedom. And,
3. individual freedom should be maximized. But
4. discrimination against homosexulas, because of their homosexualality, diminishes individual freedom since it ignires oersonal choice and privacy. So,
5. the toleration of homosexuality rather than discriminating against homosexual is the preferable option since it would maximize individual freedom. Therefore,
6. the parity thesis is more plausible than the difference thesis. (Satris, 91) It seems like the government clearly should adopt the parity thesis; however, it must take further consideration because the issue is a deeply divided public dilemma. Jordan suggests that “when there is a public dilemma, the government should only take side and solve the conflict through declaration when there is an overriding reason.” (Satris, 92-93)To address a conflict through declaration is to declare a definite winner and a definite loser. Jordan continues with his premise to prove how the difference thesis can achieve accommodation.
7. There are conflicting claims regarding whether the state should sanction same sex marriage. And,
8. this controversy constitutes a public dilemma. And,
9. there is an accommodation possible if the state does not recognize same sex marriage. And,
10. there is no accommodation possible if the state does sanction same sex marriage. And,
11. there is no overriding reason for a resolution via declaration. Hence,
13. the state ought not to sanction same sex marriage. And
Nguyen 7
14. the state ought to sanction heterosexual marriages. So there is at least one morally relevant case in which discrimination against homosexuals, because of their homosexualality, is morally permissible. Therefore,
15. the difference thesis is true. (Satris, 95)
In this case, Jordan does not think there is an overriding reason for a resolution through declaration, thus it should be resolve through accommodation, where both side gain some but no side dominate.
Additionally, he constructs the “no-exit argument”, which states, “By recognizing same sex marriage, the states are violating the civil liberties of people who practice religions that prohibit homosexualality. Because now there are laws that require these people to go against their religious belief, and since there is no way to avoid it, the government is reducing individual freedom.” (Satris, 97) As stated in premise (2), individual freedom should be maximized. So by recognizing same sex marriage, the government is not not failed to maximize, individual freedom, it also encourage the reduction of freedom.
Critics of this argument might bring up the example of mixed race marriage to challenge the discrimination against same sex marriage. However, as Jordan points out, “Same sex marriage and mixed race marriage are totally different. Mixed race marriage concerns with racial identity, a status that people are born with. Meanwhile, same sex marriage concerns with the homosexuality, which is a behavior that one chooses to act on. While in certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to discriminate some behaviors, such as convicting crime, one cannot discriminate other people because of their status, such as the skin color.” (Satris, 96) Jordan establishes a fine line between behavior and
Nguyen 8 status. Since homosexuality is a behavior that many find to be immoral, they have the right to discriminate against it. On the other hand, because race is not something that people can decide for themselves, it is unfair to hold to it against them; in this case it results in the recognition of mixed race marriage.
A further claim to the first objection is that what if homosexual is bioligically based. Jordan makes a counter argument of which “ no one could plausibly hold that homosexuals act by some sort of biological compulsion. [And] if there is a biological component involved in sexual identity, it would incline but it would not compel.” (Satris, 97) Jordan claims that there is not enough evidence to prove that gays and lesbians are born that way. Furthermore, he also set up a safety net by saying that “even if one is born homosexual, he still gets the decision whether to act on his desire or not.” (Satris, 97) This refers back to his response to the first objection. While being homosexual might be a biological status, the behavior to act upon homosexuality is still an action that can be discriminated permissibly.
Society has became more tolerant to homosexuals. However, tolerant is far different from support. The state should take the position of not forcing anyone to accept anything, but also protecting individual acts that don’t cause any harms to other people. From a social standpoint, since homosexuality and same sex marriage can’t prove to be beneficial to human society, as heterosexuality and traditional marriage do in term of establishing healthy sexual complement and procreation, then society as a whole cannot be required to accept these practices, especially when forced acceptance will reduce individual freedom and liberties. In conclusion, it is permissible for state to not recognize same sex marriage given the moral and social issues of the aspect.