Relationships & Family >
Gay & Lesbian
RSS FeedMarriage should be a sacred institution between only a woman and a man
Results so far:
| Agree | 50% | 2192 votes | Total: 4352 votes | |
| Disagree | 50% | 2160 votes |
Agree
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesTo understand the sacred institution of marriage, one has to take a historical perspective and also use statistical data in support of keeping the institution between a man and a woman.
There is no question that marriage has changed over the centuries. In early centuries, marriage was used as a tool to preserve family wealth or status. In many societies, woman had no choice in the man they married or the number of children she was to bear. Married woman were subject to persecution if they violated any laws of the marriage, while the men suffered no consequences. Men in these marriages had the final word on all household matters. All possessions that initially belonged to the woman was given over to the man. The world was exclusively paternalistic. Such an institution of this type of marriage was a reflection of the suppression of other groups. The psychological effects of children (both boys and girls) in these marriages were not considered.
Some women in modern society, particularly in the western culture, felt marriage was a prison, and wanted careers of their own. The growth of women in the workforce skyrocketed after World War II. Just as more women entered the workforce, the rate of marriage began to decline and/or the rate of divorce increased. At the time of this drastic social shift that occurred mainly between 1946-1980's, many women dismissed the psychological effects of children when a divorced occurred just as they had done in previous generations. Also during this time, high-profile academic women had access to mass media to persuade the public on a particular agenda. If one were to go back to the political commentaries of the 60's and 70's, it is quite clear that the "woman's" view took a relatively liberal slant. This view became the de facto view of all women in society, largely through the proliferation of its message through mass media. Some of the implicit messages of the view were that marriage was indeed a prison, children limits the career goals of women, most men are physically abusive, insensitive, and given priority, and that if a father was absent, it would have no effect on children. Strangely, many women in society had the "superwoman" syndrome: take care of work and children all by themselves. Women also pushed certain legislation that insidiously favored them and put men at a disadvantage: i.e. child support payments, custody rights, visitation rights, etc...
So what has all this "war between the sexes" actually done? In the early eighties, after about 40 years of the "war between the sexes", society started to see its effects on children of divorced parents and absent fathers in the form of teen pregnancy rates in girls and juvenile delinquency rates in both girls and boys triggered by less supervision from single mothers, the spread of drugs (cocaine, crack), the glorification of Hollywood celebrities, the decline in quality public education and a "hands-off" approach within the community.
Members of Generation X (1965-1977) were the first generation to witness the drastic shift between "marriage being the norm" to "single-parent households being the norm". Later generations (those born around and after 1985) were born into a society where "single-parent households or divorced parents were the norm." This generation unfortunately does not have a frame of reference to actually analyze or develop a world view of the benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. This later generation are more inclined to publicly say "it doesn't make a difference." But even though they say this publicly so as not to appear politically incorrect, their desires run contrary.
Recently, since the turn of the 21st century, we are quietly seeing some of the children of this generation speak out about how growing up in a "single-parent/divor ced household/no-father being the norm" society is egregiously affecting their abilities to develop stable relationships with the opposite sex. Girls who do not grow up with a father or at least multiple brothers statistically have the most divorce rates, the most number of children born out of wedlock, and are more sexually promiscuous. Boys who do not grow up with fathers are more aggressive, have less than average school performance, and are more likely to get involved with crime. Research has shown this to be true time and time again.
Simultaneously, there is no doubt from social research that children who are raised by both a mother and a father outperform their peers in school, are less likely to commit crimes, are less likely to use drugs, are more likely to have a spiritual belief, and are more likely to have higher incomes. This is not to say that every man-woman marriage will produce such outcomes, but the percentage is too high to dismiss its effect. Conversely, other forms of households: either single-parent, divorced, no-father, or even gay/lesbian has such dismal percentages in the success rates of their children that it would be irresponsible for the society to dismiss such statistics.
It is the mantra in America to "do what one feels" and this is okay, but periodically a society has to go back to an old saying "no man is an island." Every action has a reaction and everyone is affected whether directly or indirectly by the choices of others around them. To say that the concept of a traditional marriage needs to change with the society, or in other words "get with the program", we need to ask ourselves, is the society getting better or worse? If our behavior is such that, on average, causes more negative outcomes than positive ones, then maybe modern society needs to "get a new program" or a "back-to-basics" one.
Learn more about this author, Mark Dawson.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Disagree
The issues that are currently part of a new civil rights campaign: gay marriage and civil unions. To avoid getting into the history of marriage and the strict definitions placed by religion and government on marriage itself, let us deal only with the history of marriage in America. For as long as America has been a country, marriage has been available, and it was always deemed to be between a man and a woman. While it was not always written that way, it was common knowledge that this is what a marriage entailed. Over the course of American legal history, the rights and privileges of marriage have changed, but the parties to a marriage have always remained the same: one man, one woman.
With a new age of acceptance and tolerance making it much more socially acceptable for gays to live without as much fear of ridicule and persecution, America has found an increasing number of men and women who are living their lives openly homosexual, seeking partners to share their lives. This group of individuals now finds that, even though they are willing to bear the responsibilities, they are not allowed the basic rights afforded to their heterosexual counterparts marriage. With marriage being denied to same gender couples, many other basic protections both personal and legal are not afforded to couples who just happen to be the same gender.
With an increasing desire from the gay community, and equally increasing support from certain members of heterosexual community, and with television, music, and media showing gay couples and gay persons in a light not before seen, the gay civil rights campaign is swinging into full-force. Anti-gay discrimination laws are popping up all over the place, in every state and even at the federal level. With its momentum, change is being effected. However, the resulting change, while a step in the right direction, is leaving much to be desired from a legal standpoint, and to a gay couple, from a very personal standpoint as well.
While marriage is attempting to be "defined" in a manner that it has never had to be defined before, we find ourselves facing things such as the "Defense of Marriage Act" as well as several state rulings on the definition of marriage. While one side of the struggle rushes to put into place legislation to keep the status quo, the other side is pushing to challenge preconceived notions and bring about change for the equal rights of all Americans, heterosexual and homosexual.
Amid cries of "judicial tyranny" and moans of "legislators, not judges, should make law" we find the right-wing conservatives losing ground in their battle to define marriage and keep the status quo. The changes are already coming, and the momentum is building. Already we are seeing a repeat of our own checkered history, when courthouses, which, through judicial opinions, have opened their doors to allow gays to apply for marriage licenses, are being picketed and judges condemned for those decisions. While it is unlikely that the National Guard will be called in to squelch the uprising like the one seen in Little Rock so many years ago, the protests are not dissimilar: a human and civil rights campaign of enormous proportion.
One group is fighting to keep another group from sharing in something that they have long held, and another group is fighting to be treated equally under the law and in the eyes of the government. In turn, many states, wanting to "do the right thing" under civil rights, have come up with a knee-jerk reaction: civil unions.
Vermont has passed a Civil Union Bill, which states in the text of the bill that in order to qualify for a civil union, the parties must "be of the same sex and therefore excluded from the marriage laws of this state". Connecticut has done something similar, making the requirements for applying for a civil union specifically between two individuals of the same gender. By allowing these civil unions, the states that have chosen to do so have taken a great step forward in the fight against discrimination and denial of civil rights to gays. However, the one thing that was not taken into consideration is that, by doing so, they have now created a situation of "separate but equal".
A new means of discrimination has been created, in that only same sex couples are allowed to enter into civil unions. While this would seem fair, since opposite sex couples have marriage, the civil unions are indeed discriminatory in excluding heterosexual couples from choosing to enter into a civil union if, for whatever reasons, they do not wish to become married. This exclusion of heterosexual couples in the civil unions is well-intentioned, but is the very reason why civil unions are creating a "separate but equal" situation.
Specifically reading the text of the Vermont bill, find the following excerpt:
"The purpose of this act is to respond to the constitutional violation found by the Vermont Supreme Court in Baker v. State, and to provide eligible same-sex couples the opportunity to "obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Vermont law to married opposite-sex couples" as required by Chapter I, Article 7th of the Vermont Constitution."
In reading this, one can only ascertain that the state of Vermont is attempting to provide same sex couples with something that is equal to marriage, but separate from it. Our American history should have shown us that whenever we provide essentially the same benefits, but make those benefits separate from the majority, there is no way for those benefits to be equal.
The battle rages on as, state by state, the issue of gay marriage and civil unions is being addressed. Hanging over all of these state decisions is the proposed United States Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as 'one man, one woman' for the entire country, while also prohibiting same sex couples from marrying. Again, our own American history has shown us that our Constitution works best when it protects the rights of American citizens and not prohibits them. The amendments that were once in place to prohibit actions of the American people have been dissolved, and we are left with only the amendments that protect human rights. An amendment prohibiting same sex marriage would only be repeating our past, resulting in inequity for all American's, not just gay Americans. Clearly, the law and our constitution support the equal rights of all Americans to share in the same benefits and responsibilities as every other law abiding American citizen. Eventually, the due process of our legislative and judicial systems will surely come to the intelligent and historically-based, appropriate decision that allowing gay marriage is the only 'American' thing to do.
Until then, we find homosexuals pitted against heterosexuals, and heterosexuals against heterosexuals, and in some cases, even homosexuals against homosexuals in this fight for equal treatment under the law, just as we found blacks and whites fighting against and with each other so many years ago. Once again, our nation is divided in the fight for equal rights for all citizens. Hopefully, this time around, Americans will not have to wait 58 years to witness the equal opportunity and treatment for all its citizens in sharing the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that marriage, as an American institution, will bring.
Sources:
Vermont State Constitution
Connecticut State Constitution
United States Constitution
Plessy Vs. Ferguson, judicial opinions
Brown Vs. Board of Education, judicial opinions
Vermont Civil Union Bill, text
Connecticut Civil Union Bill, text
Learn more about this author, Michelle L Devon.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Gay & Lesbian
- Do gay relationships place too much importance on sex?
- Can insulting words like "fag" ever be used in a way that is not negative?
- Should the right to create laws on gay marriage reside at the state level or the federal level?
- Should homosexuals receive all the rights and benefits of marriage?
- Should gays and lesbians be allowed civil unions but not marriage?
