he debate about same-sex marriage often seems limited to two points of view.Tags: Best Short Essay About MyselfEssay On Premarital CohabitationEssay About AttitudesDo The Right Thing EssayContent Of A Research PaperProject For SchoolAdvantages And Disadvantages Of Small Family Essay
So we made civil marriage generally available to sexually complementary couples.
We did this without apparently taking notice of same-sex couples, let alone aiming to discriminate against them.
Now imagine the same scenario, except suppose that your friend’s spouse were of the same sex. Would you say something like, “Well, your expectation of fidelity and indeed your whole relationship never made any sense to begin with, so what’s the big deal”?
Many traditionalists are obliged by their principles to give such an answer. raditionalists have a slogan to explain their opposition to recognizing same-sex marriages.
Since traditional marriage laws had a legitimate purpose and were tailored to that purpose, there is no obvious reason for courts to invalidate them.
But equal treatment is both a legislative and a judicial concern.(Some same-sex couples are also raising children, much to traditionalists’ horror, but we leave this aside.) Third, couples belonging to either of these two groups have the same reasons and motivations, rooted in their love for each other, to abide by the standards of conduct that we traditionally associate with marriage, namely exclusivity and fidelity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment.In light of all this, it is a matter of simple fairness to treat the two groups the same way, and legislators and voters should favor doing so.It may be true that, once they become actual parents, a couple acquires all the more reason to abide by the traditional standards of marriage.Now they will do so not only to fulfill their marital vow to each other, but also for the sake of their children.More directly, if more heavy-handedly, we might have given actual parents incentives to raise their children together and disincentives to abandon or neglect them.Instead we created an institution that of necessity was overbroad for its purpose — and so we ought now to make it fairly overbroad.First, civil marriage already includes a group of people — married, childless men and women — who are irrelevant to its child-centric purpose.Second, there is another group of people — committed same-sex couples who wish to marry — who have just as much reason to want the law’s recognition and protection of their relationships as married, childless men and women do.As a sociological reality, this criticism is hard to dispute.But as an argument against same-sex marriage it rests on a false choice.