Sex and Marriage

Marriage has been one of the most fundamental principals of human society since the beginning of time. Traditionally understood marriage is restricted to two people, particularly a women and a man. Since the nature of marriage is changing with modern times and people are marrying for love not just social needs should the notion that is reviewed by society and this long- confirmed definition be reconfigured and opened in order to make same-sex marriage suitable in society or refuse same-sex marriage? More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue (Bidstrup). Many moral controversies revolve around gay marriage such as, marriage is an institution between one man and one woman and gay relationships are immoral. John Corvino rejects the view that homosexuality is immoral in his article, “Why Shouldn’t Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality.” He responds to two arguments against homosexual sex, that it is unnatural and harmful. Unnatural refers to that which deviates from the norm, from what most people do. Corvino distinguishes various senses of “unnatural” and his overall conclusion in this regard is that homosexual sex is not unnatural in any morally relevant sense. He defends the practice of homosexuality against the charge that is harmful. He takes issue both with the claim that the practice of homosexuality is harmful to those who engage in it and with the claim that others are threatened by it (Mappes). Many people believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that is the view installed throughout the Bible. One major notion commonly heard is, God made Adam and Even and that is what binds marriage and morality. Many believe same-sex marriage is immoral but who is permitted to determine the morality of marriage, the Bible? The Bill of Rights and the Constitution recognize the choice of religion, this would also mean the recognition of choice from religion. The first amendment clearly states this and the Bible viably plays no part in the law.

Politically states have taken action and tried to tend to the issue of same sex-marriage. For example, in the United States civil marriage is governed by state law and each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. A state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed (Federal Marriage Amendment). An amendment being reviewed is the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The FMA states marriage in the United States will consist only of the union of a man and a woman. The U.S Constitution and the constitution of any state, requires that marriage be legal only to the conceptual union of a man and a woman. This also binds the hands of judges attempting to force a radical, elitist definition of marriage on society. In other words, judges cannot redefine marriage or hand out benefits to people who do not fit the definition of marriage. In keeping with the principles of federalism, state legislatures have the flexibility to grant various benefits to unmarried couples should the people of that state agree to do so (Land).

The proposal of the official legal definition involving marriage should be marriage in the United States should not be confined to the requirement of just a man and a woman. Normality should not be limited to solely gender but to the value of unconditional love and commitment that is established between two people despite their sexual orientation. Maggie Gallagher states her opposition to same sex marriage in her article, “What Marriage is For: Children Need Mothers and Fathers.” She argues the study that marriage involves nothing more than public acknowledgment of a couple’s love and dedication. She contends that the underlying sense of marriage as a fundamental social institution is that it bridges “the male-female divide” so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers, it’s about holding out a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal (Mappes).” She also formally argues that society’s support of same-sex marriage would amount to no less than the abandonment of the essential meaning of marriage. She supports her argument by stating that her argument is compatible with the fact that the ability and willingness to have children is not a requirement for same-sex marriage, contends that allowing only same-sex marriage does not amount to discrimination against gays and lesbians and lastly, denies that the refusal to accept same-sex marriage is comparable to laws against interracial