Gay marriage - yes or not?

Over the last hundred years our society experienced plenty of

significant social and political changes which brought the ideals of
freedom and equality within the reach of various minorities. The
famous and successful in their outcomes struggles of suffragettes and
Afro Americans became the source of inspiration and hope for other
oppressed groups of people. Nonetheless the process of changes is still
in proceeding. The difficult situation of homosexuals seems the most
vivid example of how the equality of rights still does not apply to all
men. Although theoretically they are supplied with all rights of citizen,
gay people are still deprived of the possibility to get married. At least
in the vast majority of countries. Nevertheless, as their striving
towards equality continues the first decade of 21st century faced the
solemn dilemma whether to accept or deny their right to marriage.
Serious question has emerged: “Do heterosexuals really have a
monopoly for marriage?”. In my personal opinion the answer is “no” as
I strongly believe that all individuals no matter what their sex, race or
sexual orientation is shall be treated equal. In this case I do not think
that there is place for polemics and people should simply follow the
example of Voltaire who once said 'I may not agree with what you say
but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. For those to whom
this approach does not seem convincing, there are plenty of other
reasons to support same sex marriages.

One major argument strongly in favor of same-sex marriages is

that denying marriage to same-sex couples removes from one group a
fundamental human right - the right to marry the person that one loves
and to whom one has made a commitment. That is unfair and unjust in
a democracy. Lesbian, gay and bisexual people are and should be
regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights
and responsibilities as all other citizens. What is also significant, same-
sex couples who enter into a civil union instead of marriage are denied
equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by law
to married couples. The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with
domestic partnerships are not universally available and, what is even
more scandalous, are not equal to those associated with marriage.
Homosexuals are deprived of such benefits as property inheritance;
the right to visit their spouse in hospital, and make medical decisions if
they are incapacitated. .
Furthermore most people would agree that denying one group
the right to marry has many adverse health and emotional
consequences. Several psychological studies have shown that an
increase in exposure to negative conversations and media messages
about same-sex marriage creates a harmful environment for the LGBT
population that may affect their health and well-being. The
scientifically proved effects of institutional discrimination on the
psychiatric health of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals are increase
in psychiatric disorders, including a more than doubling of anxiety
disorders, among the LGB population living in states that instituted
bans on same-sex marriage Gay activist Jonathan Raunch has argued
that marriage is good for all men, whether homosexual or
heterosexual, because engaging in its social roles reduces men's
aggression and promiscuity. Definition of marriage in constitution as
between a man and a woman intentionally discriminates against
lesbians and gay men denying access to the protections, benefits, and
responsibilities extended automatically to married couples. Denial of
access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people
who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity,
disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic
status. It is simply unjust and harmful that official definition of
marriage is based on prejudice rather than empirical research.

In contrast, skeptics point out that marriage is a traditional

institution between one man and one woman that goes back to
the dawn of time. They claim that marriage is a social
institution of long-established rules (based on the natural
design of the human body) that provides society with the very
foundation of civilization—the procreating family unit. That is,
marriage is fundamentally about children and the civilization
of society both now and for the future. Undoubtedly that's the
most often heard argument and yet it is probably the weakest. Slavery
was also a traditional institution, based on customs that went back to
the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century,
humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and abolished its
legal status. Yet we also do not really know by whom the marriage
should be actually defined. The married? The marriable? It seems to
me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to
deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it should by no means
be denied. Such situation is really more like an expression of prejudice
than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people
their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the
very basis of the whole ideal of human rights.

All things considered, in my opinion the arguments in support of

same sex marriages significantly tip the balance. As I mentioned at the
beginning of my essay I will never come to terms with the state of
things when one group of people is deprived of their basic rights by the
majority. I am deeply ashamed that in 21st century people are still
following prejudices and superstitions in the process of making of the
law. I feel that it is responsibility of the young to express the support
for same sex marriages to avoid shame and humiliation in the eyes of
generations to come. I also notice an evident analogy between the
current situation of LGB population and that of Afro Americans in the
middle of 20th century. At that time no-one believed that the dream of
Martin Luther King could come true so soon. Now, a half of century
later, homosexuals can only look back with hope at achievements of
the Civil Rights Movement. But who can predict what will happen
during the next few decades? Oscar Wilde once said “Bigamy is having
one husband or wife too many. Monogamy is the same.” but maybe he
wouldn't have such critical view on this traditional institution if he was
allowed to marry the person he loved. We could never know that as we
have no influence on events that belong to the past. Nevertheless, the
future is in our hands and it is our choice whether we will make it
bright for everyone no matter their age, race or sexual orientation.