5/23/2010

On the Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

By Corbett Lamm

The Family Research Council (from this point forward to be referred to as FRC) begins its
argument against same-sex marriage by identifying what it offers as the two key
reasons.

1.) The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do
not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a
man and a woman.

2.) The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not
provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences
are far more negative than positive.

I will not only prove that FRC's arguments and their underlining logic are just plain
wrong, I will demonstrate just the opposite. I will show how homosexual relationships
do fit in the frame work of marriage, how FRC's definition of marriage is wrong, and how
legalizing same-sex marriage only stands to benefit society, not destroy it.

So in attempting to define marriage, the FRC's begins with stating that marriage is NOT
whatever the law says. This is interesting as just two short paragraphs after stating this
they turn to court precedence set in Texas as supporting their arguments. Well either
the law is necessary to define marriage or it isn't, FRC. But I digress. FRC goes further
to say,"Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the
Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one.
Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already
exists."

I don't disagree at all. So what then is the definition that FRC likes to define marriage?
It goes as follows:

"Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called
marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual
intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says
that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations
and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may
produce.""

They try to defend this definition from the obvious question that comes to one's mind.
What about married folks who don't want children, infertile couples, and old people?
Their attempts to reconcile this hypocrisy are just laughable! If you don't want kids,
that's fine, you could change your mind. For you infertile folks, there could always be a
miracle. "Even a very elderly couple ... could theoretically produce children." Although
now a days, scientists can impregnate a menopausal woman. Said woman can bring the
child to term with the supervision and care of her doctor. This was not the case a
hundred years ago, let alone at the dawn of human society to which FRC traces the
origin of their unchanging, static social contract. Back then menopause was nature's of
saying no more kids and that's exactly how everyone understood it. So FRC's rationale
here is definitely one of convenience only.

Let's take a moment to analyze what is known about marriage, its different forms, and
the purposes it has and continues to serve in society.
How many types of marriage exist? Isn't marriage the same everywhere?

-Several different forms of marriage exist around the world today. It is not a monolithic
institution that FRC would have you believe. The de-facto form of marriage that FRC
argues is the only true form of marriage is monogamy. However, monogamy is just the
form of marriage most commonly practiced. Other forms include polygamy, polyandry,
and group marriage.

Monogamy though practiced most widely, is not practiced the same everywhere. One
such example is the "walking marriages" practiced by certain minority groups in China
and Bangladesh. In these marriages the husband does not live with the wife and
children. He instead lives with his mother and other relatives. He plays a minor role in
the bringing up of his own children, but plays a much greater role in raising the children
of his sisters. His primary obligation is to his maternal family.

Another form of monogamy that is very common in India is the practice of arranged
marriages. Here the parents of the bride and groom bargain monetary exchanges, and
property deals, and domestic contracts outlining the brides obligations to the grooms
family in some cases.

In group marriage, several males and females are all married and share communally the
responsibilities of all the children born to the group.

Polygamy is well known to most folks. It is where a man has more than one wife. The
wives are all responsible for the domestic work and raising of the children in this
arrangement.

Polyandry is not well known to most. This is when one woman has more than one
husband. This is usually found as "fraternal polyandry" where a woman is married to two
or more brothers.

So what can we gleam from all this about the nature of marriage? That it is primarily a
social contract or agreement concerning sexual partners is most obvious. What else?
That matters of property, finance, social status, familial relations(making alliances with
families through marriage), and inheritance are also managed, at least in part, by the
contract of marriage. The raising of children is important, but as seen in the cases of
group and walking marriages, family structure is not homogeneous in all societies.

Sexual Contract
Property
Finance
Familial Relations
Inheritance
Children
Social Contract

What about the history of marriage? How has it changed? One really big change to
marriage, in western society, is the way in which partners are selected. Up until
recently, marriages where still being arranged and bargained over by the parents of the
bride and groom. This is also starting to take place now in India. Brides and grooms are
choosing their partners for romance. In the west, it is expected for children to grow up
one day, fall in love, and get married. Then the question is asked, "Do you want to have
kids when you get married?" This is drastically different from polygamy. Where
polygamy is practiced it is not about falling in love and getting married. Young men want
to find as many hardworking women as they can afford to bear them as many sons as is
possible. And in societies where polyandry is practiced is even more different. In
fraternal polyandry in Tibet, brothers arranged to marriage to the same woman from
similar social class. This is done in order to keep a family's estate from being partitioned.
One could only imagine the thoughts of those young men with two or more brothers. It
would probably sound something like, "Gee, I hope mother and father choose a woman
who will "treat" us all equally."
What I'm getting at here is that the role and form of marriage has changed over time to
serve the needs of the society. So we should not see same-sex marriage as anything
different from other forms and applications of marriage around the world.

How might legalized same-sex marriage affect US society? Well contrary to the claims of
FRC and other conservative special interests groups, same-sex marriage will benefit and
strengthen our society in the following ways:

Generate stability in the LGBT community

Reduce number of children in foster homes
Reduce the spread of STDs
Stimulate the economy
Aid in integrating the LGBT community into mainstream society

Generate Stability in the LGBT community/Reducing the spread of STDs:

Legalizing same-sex marriage will promote and increase the importance of establishing
and maintaining long-term monogamous relationships. Not that members of the LGBT
community at present avoid such relationships, but in its absence, unchecked
promiscuity has become prevalent in gay culture. Thankfully the spread of STDs among
LGBT has reduced in recent decades, but is still a very serious threat.
By encouraging LGBT to marry we are encouraging a healthier LGBT community at large.
Stable, long term, healthy relationships makes for stable healthy individuals.
The more LGBT choose to marry, the more will choose to start families. Individuals
responsible for families are less likely to engage in high risk activity like excessive illicit
drug and alcohol abuse. Drug and alcohol abuse in the LGBT community is another
plague afflicting it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage, and supporting it, demonstrates society's efforts to
include the LGBT community. Being ostracized by you society hurts individuals on so
many levels. There is psychological and physical harm done to individuals who are made
outcasts by society and this is well documented. I don't suggest that legalized same-sex
marriage is the cure-all for issues challenging the LGBT community, but over time its
effects will be quite apparent.

Reduce the number of children in foster care:

The more gays are expected by the rest of society to participate in the social contract
known as marriage, the more will begin to participate in the responsibilities of parenting
via adoption. Gays and Lesbians are parents already, and quite capable ones at that.
Studies have shown that having homosexual parents doesn't not affect the sexuality of
the child, the care provided by the parent, or the development of the child. I will not
waste any time here debating the topic of Gay Adoption. If you would like to read more
about this subject, click here. It has been suggested that a way of combating
stigmatization and discrimination of the LGBT community is to develop new social norms
that support acceptance of gay people. Providing the stable home and family
environment America's orphaned so desperately need, I think would a be perfect way to
kill two birds with one stone.
Same-Sex relationships could very well contribute to alleviating the tragic problem of our
societies forgotten and unwanted children. There is no reason for LGBT couples to be
discouraged from raising children. Ensuring the future prosperity of our societies
abandoned children ensures the prosperity of our society as well.

Another benefit from same-sex marriage equality is that it is another step towards full
integration of the LGBT community into mainstream society. Eliminating groups from the
exile of social stigma is important not just for the group itself, but also for the society at
large. When we look at the effects that social stigma has on individuals it becomes
painfully clear how such stigma posses a threat to both the stigmatized and the society
stigmatizing. Some of the effects stigma has on individuals ranges from depression,
anxiety, increased drug and alcohol abuse, promiscuity, violence, low self-esteem, and
increased occurrence of suicide. Though at face value these effects seem to be more of
the gay person's problem. Think about this though. How difficult do these consequences
make it to be an effectively functioning as a member of society? What are the cost
incurred by society having to address these issues. Think about the social disturbances
that result from the stigma forced on to the LGBT community. E Pluribus Unum is the
motto of our great nation. It means out of many, one. That's what makes this nation
strong. What weakens this country is the discontinuity created when we as a society
institutionally ostracize a group of people from the rest. This argument is true for all
minority groups of people stigmatized by the greater society.

So let's go back to the two reasons FRC says are the primary arguments against same-
sex marriage.

1.) The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do
not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist--namely, the union of a
man and a woman.

While Same-Sex Marriages by definition are not between a man and a woman, they
exhibit all other characteristics attributed to marriage by society today. That would be
the intent of living together in a sexual/romantic relationship considered one entity, with
the possibility of raising children should they please.

But as we have seen, there exists many different forms of marriage practiced the world
over. Each one uniquely serving the society in which it evolved.

2.) The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not
provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences
are far more negative than positive.

This is just hateful and ignorant. The benefits of legalized same-sex marriage will be
immeasurable to society. Promoting healthy stable LGBT relationships you are in effect
promoting a healthy stable United States of America. Stigmatizing and socially
ostracizing LGBT people or any minority group is in direct conflict with positive public
policy.