Legalizing Gay Marriage

Legalizing Gay Marriage: The Pros

Legalization of same-sex marriage continues to be a source of controversy globally. Traditionally, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance, however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a "civil union", which essentially is marriage without using the word "marriage". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but think it should be left up to the states to decide. However, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Being lost in all the legal battles and political manoeuvring, what matters most is the basic question; "Should we allow gay couples to legally marry and what are the pros to allowing it?" The definition of marriage revolves around affection and commitment, including the homosexuals. According to the wedding pledge, the most underlying concept spoken are this love- commitment kind of bond that are being shared mutually thus becoming the most essential basis of any wedlock. Since these concepts are shared between gays, marriage should be legitimate for them. Gay marriage would be no worse for the "institution of marriage" than a number of other existing harmful legal unions (Belge, 2005). There are many pests society that are authorized to wed which they regularly are becoming awful and negligent parents. Still, it is not reasonable enough to prohibit these people from getting married.

According to Tara McGraw in her article, permitting homosexual matrimony would diminish strain and hassle on gays to wed straight, which frequently leads to separation and the deterioration of the marriage institution. Gays who tied the knot with straight persons can cause impacts that affect them emotionally and socially. When gay marriage is not permitted, bigger pressure will be encountered by the gays if they were to marry straight just to fulfil the social norms. Thus, legalizing gay marriage would reduce the social strains on gays to wed straight which can cause the shatter of marriage, broken family institution, and succeeding suicide cases. Added to this fact, Joe Messerli emphasizes his view that homosexual and heterosexual parenting makes no obvious difference. Several studies denote that homosexual parenting has verified that they are evenly qualified as heterosexual parenting. Kids do not need dissimilar male and female parental example when what necessary are affection, concern, and supervision from their parents. On top of that, kids are susceptible when it comes to social surrounding as much as their parents, causing it irrational to rely on the high significance on the characteristics portrayed by their parents. Besides that, most health care institutions, uphold the capability of homosexual parenting is equally competent as the heterosexual one. The potential of homosexuals performing their responsibility as the parents are verified by these organizations. Kids are benefited from having both parents regardless of their orientation. "Single-parent mom" is an all too frequent term (Cartwright, 1999). This really matters for the child from the viewpoint of getting support required by the kid. It is nice to have found that married gay couples are capable of looking after the kids compared to the single ones. Heterosexual couples often "recklessly procreate"; gay adoption is deliberate (Cartwright, 1999). The tendency of married gay couples to become fortuitous parents is smaller in comparison with the heterosexual couples who seem to become negligent parents. Everlasting and steady commitments among gay couples can be established by legalizing gay marriage. It

is, to some extent, true that the homosexual culture suffers from a lack of “commitmentmaking” between partners (Cartwright, 1999). Marriage could certainly help strengthen “commitment-making” between homosexual partners, which would have many socially positive effects (Cartwright, 1999) Plus, isn’t this the foundation of the ordinary couples’ are holding on to? Since gay couples are unable to procreate, it is a merit for the overgrowth world. The inability for them to reproduce is an unreasonable factor in letting them to wed their partners. In a nutshell, if you are determining the validity of your marriage based on the marriage values of others around you, you have missed its greatest significance which is marriage is the ultimate personal commitment one human being makes to another one in order to love, cherish and protect each other. You have the rights to determine. The government simply grants you rights via a marriage license, it doesn't define its personal significance and as obvious as it seems, justice should be applied to all. How then should conservatism, as a political movement and a way of life, come to grips with the reality of gay marriage? In precisely the same way that it has come to grips with its errors with regards to racial segregation: own up to its mistake, and simply expand its moral boundaries to include gays and gay marriage. Just as most older conservatives now acknowledge that they once erred in "keeping blacks in their place," they should make the same acknowledgement for gays and their right to marry, and live happy, open and contented lives in each other's arms, without fear or discrimination - that gays are just as entitled to the equal protection of the law as anyone else.