In recent years, same-sex marriage can be one of the most controversial issue all over the world.

It is no longer the taboo subject it used to be and it becomes a commonplace issue that society is concerned. The number of proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage are neck and neck, hence, it is difficult for government to decide whether discontinue to bar same-sex marriage. The debate over same-sex marriage comprises arguments over many different issues. This essay is going to focus on assessing arguments of dicrimination, defination of marriage and nature of family. " ow if there is a bu!! word in the same-sex marriage debate it is most definitely "discrimination#" $Toutounji %&'%(. ")roponents of gay marriage assume that denying homosexual couples the right to marry is self-evidently discriminatory" $*er+uist %&'%(. There is no surprise to convince that many cultures have negative views of homosexual relationships. This is primarily due to one of the purposes of marriage, named procreation. "The ultimate authority for legislation against homosexuality was the *ible, which prescribed capital punishment for homosexual intercourse between men" $)rimorat! ',,,, p.'',(. -ccording to .ohr claims the concepts of e+uality and dignity to against discrimination, moral e+uality is "at heart a principle that asserts individuals as having e+ual dignity or personhood.../it0 is the authoritative claim that a person will not be held in lesser regard - as having less worth - unless that lesser regard is warranted by something the person has $or has not( done" $.ohr %&&1, +uoted in 2alwani %&'&, p%,1(. In another word, "we should regard or treat people une+ually only on the basis of what they do, not on the basis of who they are" $2alwani %&'&, p.%,1-3(. Therefore, the possible response is that governments restrict same-sex marriage not because of who homosexuals are, but because of what they do, which is called sexual act. 4ne of the atural 5aw adherents, -+uinas holds that non-procreative sexual acts are wrong $2alwani %&'&, p.%66(. *ut what about the heterosexual couples who are physically unable to procreation or never intend to have children7 They still can get marriage licenses. 2ence, forbiddance to same-sex marriage is really discriminatory. .oreover, banning same sex marriage also is discrimination on the basis of lifestyle. The goverments cannot be discrimination based on lifestyle. just as there can8t be discrimination based on religion or ethnic origin, why not the lifestyle7 9hat people do in bed is nobody else8s business and how people behave at home is nobody else8s business. It is tolerated, if that is true, why would not tolerate the lifestyle of people who engage in such behavior7 The issue here is the defination of marriage. The vast majority of people recognising marriage traditionally as an institution between a man and a woman, homosexual marriage is unnatural. In order to evaluate this argument, a definition of marriage is desired. *ut, a difficulty is raising right now, which definition do we apply, dictinonary explanation or legal one7 If the first option is selected, homosexual marriage would be clearly precluded. "*ut this is not enough to settle the semantic +uestion, let alone the substantive one, once and for all" $)rimorat! ',,,,

p.'%,(. 5egal definitions also tend to define marriage in opposite-sex terms. *ut that could be changed. The issue here is whether it should be. :ome opponents of same-sex marriage hold that "same-sex marriage weakens the idea of 8traditional8 marriage" $2alwani %&'&, p.%,;(. 4ne of the possible conse+uences is same-sex marriage leading to other forms of marriage, such as people and animals, parents and children, and polygamy. This argument is flawed. :trictly speaking, both opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage could involve polygamy and incestuous relationship. If sex with animals, incest and polygamy are immoral, this will be immoral for both same-sex marriage and oppiste-sex marriage. -s a result, same-sex marriage has no necessary connections with such immoral relationships. <urthermore, marriage has itself undergone temendous change over the years. 9ithin the last century, governments could still forbid interracial marriage, restrict people to obtain a divorce, and subjugation of women8s right to their husbands. *ut now the picture is very different. )eople can marry a person from different culture, race and religion, marriage has ended the racial discrimination= no-fault divorce is created = and married women have the same rights to married men. 2owever, all these changes have nothing to do with homosexual marriage or homosexuals, but due to social, political and historical changes. 4ppostie-sex marriage ifself displays variety from different countries, different cultures and differet periods. Indeed, according to :tephanie >oont!, the demand for gay and lesbian marriage was an inevitable result of the previous revolution in heterosexual marriage. It was heterosexuals who had already created many alternative structures for organi!ing sexual realtionships or raising children and broken down the primacy of two-parent families based on a strict division of labor between men and women. $>oont! %&&1, %6?, +outed in 2alwani %&'&, p.%,?( Therefore, homosexual marriage is not the factor of changing heterosexual marriage. 2eterosexual marriage has not remained the same over the years until homosexual marriage occured. >hanging the gender roles in heterosexual marriage could be caused by historical, economic and political factors. )eople and society should tolerate and accept such change and depends on the nature of the change, not only on the change is unnatural or the fact that it is change. There is another difficulty in this issue of same-sex marriage is that it is linked to our thinking about the nature of a family. The core issue in this argument is refer to children. It is impossible to have two mommies or two daddies in a traditional family. *ut people can not deny that such a family is invalid or unable to provide the same benefits to children as one mom and one dad falimily does. 2owever, Tonti-<ilippini $%&''( claims that "a child8s relationship to both mother and father is inherent to marriage." -lthough there are children in homosexual families, but, these children either from previous

relationships or through the use of technology. The fact is that a homosexual relationship does not result in children, the children always come from outside relations. "- complex matrix of parental relationships is formed of genetic, gestational or birth mother and social or substitute parents" $Tonti-<ilippini, %&''(. @sually the word "family" includes children, relatives, and cousins, people who are interwoven into some kind of social unit. and it could even be hangers on. :ervants, in the old days at least, servants who were too old to work but they were still a part of the family and kept living with the others even though there was no blood relationship. Therefore, although the same-sex relationships are not the origin of the children, but we can not deny they are families. 2owever, if government deny homosexual couples the right to marry for the sake of children, as a result, being a member of such family would not legally sanctioned by society and experience ine+uity, indignity and insecurity. To refuse children8s same-sex parents to marry sends a signal to the society that the family is not legal e+ual and it is possible to treat them differently $Aerber, %&''(, especially the children. In conclusion, the central issue in the same-sex marriage debate is e+uality and rights. "5egalising same-sex marriage would be a very powerful statement against the horrible wrong of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" $:omerville %&''(. These statements are clearly needed.
In conclusion,*ut, in order to uphold the human rights of children, they should be made in other ways than legalising same-sex marriage.

In another word, can we conclude that discrimination of homosexuals would disappear if same-sex is permissible7 If legalised same-sex marriage plays a role in reducing the discrimination, why governments or even societies still have interest in securing heterosexual marriage7 9hose definition do we refer7 part of the difficulty in this issue of gay marriage is that it8s linked to our thinking about the nature of a family. -nd that8s why i referred to Aeorge 9.*ush8s speech was it about a year ago or so a year and a half in which he said that marriage exists between one man and one woman. all right. and he slipped into talking about the family. that this is the nature of a family. this is what government should be defining it into. i want to separate the concepts because it doesn8t follow that families and marriages depend on each other. you can have a family without having a legal marriage. or you can have a legal marriage without having a family, if you don8t have any children. but the word is loose, because a man and a woman who never have children that are married, they might refer to their family in terms of themselves alone. they are the family, the husband and wife without children. but usually the word family includes children, relatives, and cousins, people who are interwoven into some kind of social unit. and it could even be hangers on. servants, in the old days at least, servants who were too old to work but they were still a

part of the family and kept living with the others even though there was no blood relationship. the limits are vague, but that seems to me to be the proper use of the concept of family
So whether same-sex marriage should be legalized ought to be considered on its own merits.p292

This essay is going to focus on three main arguments that people usually involved . ow if there is a bu!! word in the same-sex marriage debate it is most definitely "discrimination#. httpBCCwww.ignitumtoday.comC%&'%C'&C;&Csame-sex-marriageendingdiscriminationC )roponents of gay marriage assume that denying homosexual couples the right to marry is self-evidently discriminatory. httpBCCwww.startribune.comCopinionCcommentariesC'63?D?%D'.html7referEy

Marriage Has Traditionally Been an Institution between One Man and One Woman in Western Culture and Most Other Human Societies
In summary, people who take this position are saying that one-man, one-woman marriage simply is the one and only correct legal relationship in human culture.

When marriage is primarily about adult companionship the gender of those in a relationship ceases to matter. That is what ustralians ha!e come to realise."#hurch$s fight to control marriage%dso The sociological fact is that the institution of marriage has changed to become one of companionship. This is recognised in ustralian law. &n this context the gender of partners ma'es no difference. That is why we should call it $$marriage$$ and extend it to all who see' to wor' together with family

and community support to achie!e the aims and realise the !alues of marriage - commitment to care( support( en)oy( lo!e and be there for each other."#hurch$s fight to control marriage%dso

*othing in any of my arguments would preclude the ability of same-sex couples to come together( li!e together and lo!e together as they ha!e been doing for time immemorial. +ut the institution of marriage should remain as it$s always been - the union of a single man and single woman who come together for the primary purpose of rearing the healthiest children possible."Too much to bear %dso

There are same-sex households in which there are children( either from pre!ious relationships or through the use of technology. *ationally( same-sex couple families represent one in a thousand couples with children. Surrogacy ma'es it possible for same-sex male households to parent children. The law copes with those e!entualities by defining and securing the child$s relationship to parents or substitute parents. ,owe!er( the reality is that a same-sex relationship does not generate children and the child always comes from outside the relationship. complex matrix of parental relationships is formed of genetic( gestational or birth mother and social or substitute parents. parliamentary in-uiry into people who were donor concei!ed has demonstrated )ust how important to the child all those relationships are( and the right of a person to 'now who he or she is and who his or her genetic family and half siblings may be. child$s relationship to both mother and father is inherent to marriage. #hildren concei!ed by other means may find themsel!es with people in parental roles who are in a same-sex relationship( but such relationships are not the origin of the child. &t is li'ely for children to be lo!ed and nurtured in such a household( but howe!er good that nurturing( it will not pro!ide the biological lin' and security of identity and relationship that marriage naturally demands and confirms.".arriage is about rights of the children %dso /enying same-sex couples the right to marry sub)ects the children of such couples to ine-uities( indignities and insecurities that can flow from being part of a family that is not legally sanctioned by society. refusal to allow a child$s same-sex parents to marry sends a signal to society that such families

are not e-ual in the eyes of the law( and that it is permissible to treat them differently. "denying gay marriage%dso

The debate over same-sexmarriage involves arguments over a number of different issues. 4pponents of same-sex marriage say that the practice legitimi!es sinful behavior, that it sends the wrong message to children about an immoral type of sexuality

The issue as to how a society views same-sex marriage is a very differentF and arguably much more fundamentalF+uestion than how it views samesex relationships in general. 4ne can imagine that a society tolerates, accepts, or even honors samesex relationships without its also acknowledging the right of same-sex couples to enter into a formal and legal relationship, such as marriage.
It may be that this disconnect in public opinion about same-sex relationships and marriage is an example of the view sometimes expressed that GI don#t care what they /gay men and lesbians0 do in the privacy of their own home, as long as they don#t parade their sexual acts in public /that is, seek legal recognition of their "lifestyle#(.HIn view of this attitude, what is actually known about the legal status of same-sex marriage in the history of 9estern culture7 traditional marriage: The argument over same-sex unions in the Ioman >atholic and 4rthodox churches notwithstanding, there can be little doubt that an institution now labeled as Gtraditional marriageH did develop among the laity in >hristian societies during the .iddle -ges. That institution consisted of one man and one woman whose primary purpose it was to bear and raise children. *ut that Gtraditional marriage,H which survived well into the twentieth century, was very different from what most people think of as a Gconventional marriageH today. In the first place, love was generally not considered to be a factor of any significance in the contracting of a Gtraditional marriage.H )erhaps more than anything else, a Gtraditional marriageH was an economic transaction in which a man ac+uired a woman to be his companion and the mother of his children. :uch transactions often involved the transfer of financial assets such as money and property in a contract arranged between a bridegroom and the prospective bride#s father, a so-called bride sale.
Procreation was a critical issue for families in the Middle Ages and Renaissance for a number of reasons. The birth of a boy child, for e ample, ensured that the father!s family line and name would be perpetuated. In addition, children were e pected to begin work at an early age, certainly before puberty, helping in the fields and in cottage industries operated by the family. "hildren were, thus, an essential economic asset. Parents also

depended on children for support and comfort during their own old age. A number of arguments ha#e been made, both for and against the legali$ation of same-se marriage.

Arguments in Opposition to Same-Se Marriage

Marriage Has Traditionally Been an Institution between One Man and One Woman in Western Culture and Most Other Human Societies
In summary, people who take this position are saying that one-man, one-woman marriage simply is the one and only correct legal relationship in human culture. Marriage between two people of different races is %ust simply wrong, &udge 'eon (a$ile wrote) Almighty *od created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mi . +as cited in "ohen ,--.

Same-Se Marriage !oses a Threat to the Traditional "amily

/ome critics of same-se marriage belie#e and argue that the goal of gay and lesbian acti#ists is not simply to obtain the right to marry for same-se couples0 it is to destroy the #ery institution of marriage and the family itself.

#ecogni$ing Same-Se Marriage Will %ead to the %egali$ation o& a Host o& Other 'isreputable !ractices
This argument is a classic approach used in debates o#er many topics. It is based on the assumption that adopting one policy logically re1uires one to adopt a second policy related to it, which in turn may lead to adopting yet a third, fourth, and other policies. The term used to describe this line of reasoning is the slippery-slope argument, suggesting that once one starts down a certain road, it is difficult to turn off that road until a number of related decisions ha#e been made, some +or many2 that one did not foresee or appro#e of at the beginning of the process.

The !rimary (oal o& Marriage Is !rocreation) and (ay Men and %esbians Cannot !rocreate
This argument clearly has two parts. The first is #ery common among opponents of same-se marriage. It states #ery simply that same-se couples should not be allowed to marry because the primary purpose of m arriage is to produce children. The second part of the argument is that same-se couples are biologically not capable of ha#ing children.3or opponents of same-se marriage, these two parts go together almost ine#itably. Typical of the kinds of comments in debates about same-se marriage is the following) 4A normati#e marriage of a man and a woman in#ol#es the consummation of the marriage and procreati#e act. A same se couple will ne#er be able to consummate a marriage and cannot procreate5 +46conomic Reasons for *ay Marriage5 ,-7-2. Rebuttals to this argument typically deal with each of its two separate aspects. In the first place, it is ob#iously incorrect to say that gay men and lesbians cannot reproduce. That statement suggests that infertility is somehow a biological correlate of homose uality. /uch a conclusion is clearly wrong. "onsiderably more contro#ersial is the claim by opponents of same-se marriage that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage. It is certainly true that many indi#iduals, organi$ations, legislati#e bodies, and courts hold to this position.

A "amily with One Man and One Woman Is the Best *n+ironment in Which to #aise Children
This argument has two aspects. In many cases in which it is presented, the opponent of same-se marriage simply makes the #alue %udgment that, in her or his opinion, allowing same-se couples to raise children is %ust plain wrong.

Other Arguments
A number of other arguments offered in opposition to samese marriage are as follows. These arguments co#er the range from carefully thought out, logical ob%ections to the practice to more personal and emotional complaints. 7. /ame-se relationships are immoral. Therefore, relationships between gay men or lesbians should not be #alidated by making them legal. ,. /ame-se marriage is still %ust a social e periment. /ociety

and children should not be asked to suffer the burdens of such an e periment. 8. *ranting lesbians and gay men the right to marry pro#ide them with a special pri#ilege, since they are already allowed to get married, e cept not to someone of the same gender. 9. If same-se marriage is legali$ed, churches, synagogues, mos1ues, and other places of worship may be re1uired to conduct marriage ceremonies of which they do not appro#e. :. The legali$ation of same-se marriage will lead to the promotion of same-se lifestyles in public schools. ;. /ame-se marriage is %ust another way of recruiting young children to the homose ual lifestyle. <. /ame-se marriage #iolates my own personal religious beliefs. =. Personally, I %ust do not like the idea of same-se relationship and do not think they should recei#e legal sanction.

ebook $TitleB :ame-sex .arriage B - Ieference 2andbook -uthorB ewton, Javid K. JateB %&'& (

the men and women hoo'ed up with people of the oppposite sex( so it was sort of routine. e!eryone 'new that the man would be married to one woman( but li!e in a marital relationship with another woman. an that was the way things were. i don$t 'now about homosexuality aboout how openly that was understood( but it isn$t )ust a -uestion of how people beha!e. it$s what you call the social acceptance that is important because that0s how the material goods are distributed. that gi!es a 'ind of structure to the morality and to the society that$s different from the alternati!e( which would be to fully legalize relationships regardless of gender. the reason against banning same sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of lifestyle. and isn$t that one of the things the Supreme #ourt ruled out1 The federal Supreme #ourt. that there cannot be discrimination based on lifestyle. )ust as there can$t be discrimination based on religion or ethnic origin( well why not the lifestyle. Since the lifestyle see that$s the paradox in this the lifestyle is now tolerated legally because in the federal laws and some of the states maybe most of the states now your beha!ior at home is

nobody$s business. what you do in bed is nobody else$s business. So it$s tolerated but if then if that$s true why wouldn$t you ha!e responsibility to tolerate the lifestyle of people who engage in such beha!ior. part of the difficulty in this issue of gay marriage is that it$s lin'ed to our thin'ing about the nature of a family. nd that$s why i referred to 2eorge W.+ush$s speech was it about a year ago or so a year and a half in which he said that marriage exists between one man and one woman. all right. and he slipped into tal'ing about the family. that this is the nature of a family. this is what go!ernment should be defining it into. i want to separate the concepts because it doesn$t follow that families and marriages depend on each other. you can ha!e a family without ha!ing a legal marriage. or you can ha!e a legal marriage without ha!ing a family( if you don$t ha!e any children. but the word is loose( because a man and a woman who ne!er ha!e children that are married( they might refer to their family in terms of themsel!es alone. they are the family( the husband and wife without children. but usually the word family includes children( relati!es( and cousins( people who are interwo!en into some 'ind of social unit. and it could e!en be hangers on. ser!ants( in the old days at least( ser!ants who were too old to wor' but they were still a part of the family and 'ept li!ing with the others e!en though there was no blood relationship. the limits are !ague( but that seems to me to be the proper use of the concept of family.

*efore the twentieth century, 9estern philosophy for the most part tended to ignore the subject of homosexual sex acts, except for an occasional remark in passing that they are immoral because unnatural, supported by some perfunctory argument. $homosexuality(

children: In conclusion, legalising same-sex marriage would be a very powerful statement against the horrible wrong of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. 9e clearly need such statements. *ut, in order to uphold the human rights of children, they should be made in other ways than legalising same-sex marriage. httpBCCwww.theaustralian.com.auCopinionCits-all-aboutthe-children-not-selfish-adultsCstory-e3frg3!o-'%%3&,,3';,'6

The -rgument from Jefinition

There are some from among religious believers who recogni!e that the arguments formed around scripture will not suffice, and look to something seemingly less indefinite. To this end, a definition of marriage is sought. *ut right here we incur our first difficulty, whose definition do we use7 9hich dictionary do we reference7 -ccording to the .erriam-9ebster 4nline Jictionary marriage is "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recogni!ed by law" and also less specifically "the mutual relation of married persons." Kven when we limit our definition to one source, we get slightly different meanings. The first option clearly precludes homosexual marriage while the second does not. Let for some, such as Iobert 2. Mnight, the definition of marriage is straightforward and means "what it has always meantB the social, legal, and spiritual union of a man and a woman" $Mnight ',,?, ''?(. -nd with this I take issue with two things= first, as previously discussed, there is no re+uirement for marriage to include a spiritual aspect and many people do not, and secondly the definition of marriage has not been stagnant but has in fact changed throughout the course of our nation8s history, to say nothing of western civili!ation at large.

In ',%?, the legislature of Nirginia passed the Iacial Integrity -ct, which mandated two thingsB all peoples be divided and recorded at birth into two categories, white or colored, and a prohibition on miscegenation, or the marriage of people of two different races $specifically white and non-white(. In ',1D .ildred Jolores Oeter and Aeorge 5oving were charged with violating this -ct, so the couple took their case to court. The lower trial court in the case stated that "-lmighty Aod created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents...The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix" $:trasser ',,6, ';(. 2ere we see an unacceptable sectarian preference for a religious view expressed in the court8s decision, a view that most religions today would agree is morally wrong. *ut, even if we disregard this incursion, the :upreme >ourt still did not agree with the trial court8s reasoning and overturned it with a unanimous decision. >hief Oustice Karl 9arren explained that it was in violation of the <ourteenth -mendment8s e+ual protection clause to prohibit a "fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes" $.cMinney %&&?, %D'(. -nd this argument can be extended to sexual orientation. 9e cannot prohibit a group of citi!ens from participating in such a basic right as marriage simply because of classifications of sexuality and semantics. *efore the decision for 5oving v. Nirginia was made in ',36, the definition of marriage did not allow for interracial marriage. The definition of marriage has changed before, so why can8t it change again to include homosexuals7 Ieligious groups answer this +uery with the assertion that if we were to change the definition, and we were

to allow same-sex marriage, there would be several conse+uences. They assert that the family and the institute of marriage would crumble, causing children to be raised poorly, and thus shortly thereafter society as a whole would meet its demise as a result.

.arriage, <amily, and )rocreation

Ieligious groups tend to put marriage on a pedestal, thus it is easy for them to claim that allowing same-sex marriage will end the perfection that is the institute of marriage. 2owever, marriage is already struggling as roughly half of all marriages today end in divorce, though the numbers vary slightly according to the source. -nd, simply the number of marriages occurring has been steadily dropping= in %&&? there were %,%6,,&&& marriages and the following year there were %,%;&,&&& despite an increase in population of %., million people, by %&&D the number had further decreased to %,'3%,&&& marriages. 5arry Ming, the infamous > interview show host, has just recently filed for his eighth divorce= actress Kli!abeth Taylor has been married eight times and is rumored to be approaching her ninth. *oth of these individuals are heterosexual, they as well as the many others like them, have caused great harm to the reputation and sanctity of marriage all on their own. Thus the argument that same-sex marriage will ruin the institute of marriage is slightly irrelevant, considering heterosexuals are not honoring it in the way most religions believe it should be honored.

.any argue that it is not the norm for homosexuals to practice monogamy, that it is in fact a rarity. In the issue of same-sex marriage, people tend to seek the errors in homosexual relationships and fail to see that the same problem almost always exists in heterosexual relationships as well. If anyone were to bother to look, heterosexual men and women are just as faulty in keeping a monogamous relationship. -ccording to the Infidelity <acts website, in ?'P of marriages either one or both spouses have admitted to an infidelity, and 16P of men and 1?P of women admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they have had. This goes to show that heterosexual partnerships in a marriage aren8t any better off than homosexual relationships in keeping faithful. Thus it seems hypocritical to condemn those in same-sex relationships for things that the majority of us, gay or straight, are guilty of. 4ften, the argument goes one step further to say that even if homosexuals are successfully monogamous, "the result is not healthier behavior. - study published in the journal -IJ: found that men in steady relationships practiced more anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse than those without a steady partner" $Mnight ',,?, ''3(. -gain, I feel it necessary to counter with the +uestion, what about the heterosexual relationships that involve that same "unhealthy" behavior of anal or oral-anal intercourse7 *ut it never occurs to them for this +uestion to be asked, just like it never occurs for people to ask why heterosexuals are heterosexual instead of why homosexuals are homosexual. It might be best not to get distracted by such irrelevant and disingenuous arguments.

The Traditional <amily

-nother argument religious groups put forth in their attempts to prohibit same-sex marriage is that such relationships go against the grain of the traditional family. -nd in a sense this is true, traditionally families have not been thought to include two mommies or two daddies. *ut this does not mean that such a family is ineffectual or incapable of providing the same benefits of living as a traditional family with one mom and one dad. Let just the opposite is claimed, that "the best chance for having a successful, strong marriage is to grow up in a family with a strong marriage as a family," which to most religious groups means via a family consisting of heterosexual parents $Mnight ',,?, '',(. Thus allowing same-sex marriage would suggest an e+uality in their ability to raise children, which they suggest is untrue. 2owever, studies and statistics show that there are no significant differences between children raised by heterosexual couples versus same-sex couples. :ean >ahill Ieports thatB

The vast majority of children8s advocacy organi!ations, including the -merican -cademy of )ediatrics, the ational -ssociation of :ocial 9orkers, and the -merican )sychological -ssociation $-)-(, recogni!e that gay and lesbian parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, and that children thrive in gay- and lesbian-headed families. 4ne -)- publication reports, "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents $>ahill %&&?, ?3(.

9ith no significant difference found, the concern over same-sex couples causing harm to children by raising them doesn8t signify. Thus, allowing same-sex couples to adopt should not be prohibited, especially when there are countless foster children and orphans who could be provided a stable home with two parents, something that no one of any religion ought oppose. 4nce the consideration of raising children insufficiently is eliminated, religious groups will then argue that the purpose of marriage revolves around procreation, and that same-sex couples cannot biologically have children.

The )urpose of .arriage

-gain looking to scripture, religious groups argue that one of the highest purposes of marriage is to procreate and bear children. This is physically impossible for same-sex couples and thus it follows that this would dis+ualify them from fulfilling the duties of marriage, as seen by the religious. *ut what about all of the heterosexual couples who never intend to have children or are

physically incapable of becoming pregnant7 -ccording to a report issued by the >ensus *ureau, 'D.%P of married women aged '1 to ?? are childless $*achu %&&%, ?(. -re we to tell these people that their marriages are not truly valid because they have no children, whether by choice or physical limitations7 :hould these marriages be legally nullified7 :hould we start +uestioning all who want to marry of their intent to bear children7 .ost would respond to these +uestions in the negative, because that would be an unacceptable intrusion by the state into their privacy as individuals. If no one has ever thought to ask heterosexual couples whether or not they plan to have children and carry out this specific "purpose" of marriage, it should not be a consideration that inhibits the ability of same-sex couples from entering into the institution of marriage.

Iabbi Loel 2. Mahn offers a religious viewpoint that affirms this argument. Mahn asserts that his Oewish faith does not exclude homosexuals from kiddushin, or marriage, because of the inability to procreate. 2e agrees that it is unfair to re+uire this of same-sex couples when we do not ask it of heterosexual couples. Mahn adds that, "halachah states that a woman who does not bear children after ten years can be divorced by her husband. *ut evidence that this law was reluctantly or negligibly enforced is precisely the type of historical example...often cited to support the explicit expansion of a value we find implicit in our historical tradition" $Mahn ',D,, 61(. In other words, although the Oewish faith has expressed a preference for procreation in marriage, it has not historically shown it to be a priority that has been strictly adhered to or enforced. It is for this reason that Mahn claims same-sex couples should not have to overcome such a frivolous burden on their path to attaining access to the institute of marriage.

.arriage -lternatives

.any proponents of same-sex marriage, especially those within the gay community, argue that they should be allowed access to the institution of marriage in order to have the rights and benefits of a married couple. 9ithout these rights, same-sex couples face many hardships that straight married couples do not have, or benefits they take for granted. <or example, a same-sex couple would have difficulties with visitation rights if one of them were to become hospitali!ed. 4r, if one person owned the house the couple lived in and that person died, the other would have no right to the house and would most likely have to pay an inheritance tax that a traditional spouse would not have to pay. -nd in order to remedy problems such as these, various alternatives to marriage have developed in the law such as civil unions, domestic partnerships, and life partnerships. >ivil unions and domestic partnerships are intended to give same-sex couples a number of rights, privileges, and benefits that traditional marriage affords opposite-sex couples, however the exact definition of each term varies by state or country.

Jomestic partnerships first developed in Jenmark in ',D, and "as in marriage, the registered

partnership creates mutual obligations of maintenance, rights regarding compensation, and insurance benefits. Iegistered partners have insurance rights, rights of survivorship, and responsibility for funeral arrangements on the same scale as spouses" $Jupuis %&&%, '%;(. >alifornia was the first state to legally recogni!e domestic partnerships and they were made available to both same-sex couples as well as opposite couples. -t first, the benefits of domestic partnership in >alifornia were very limited, but over the years the state legislature has greatly expanded those rights to the extent that it is now very similar to marriage. -nd this is a point promoted by many religious groups= domestic partnerships and civil unions provide almost the same privileges as marriage, so why do same-sex couples need to be allowed access to traditional marriage7 *ut the fact of the matter +uite simply is that domestic partnerships and civil unions are not e+ual to marriage. Kven the most developed forms of these marriage alternatives in the @nited :tates do not provide federal benefits or protections, "some of these are very important, like :ocial :ecurity survivor benefits, the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes in binational relationships, and .edicaid and .edicare programs" $)inello %&&3, '31(. In addition, because the definition of domestic partnerships and civil unions vary and not all states have these options available, if a domestic partnership couple from >alifornia, for example, were to cross the state line, they would cease to have any legal relationship with each other.

In addition to these two options, more and more couples both straight and gay are choosing simply to cohabitate andCor enter into registered partnerships. )eter :. 9en! describes the negative effects that cohabitation is having on the institute of marriageB

-ccording to the %&&& census, during the ',,&8s the number of unmarried-partner households in the @nited :tates increased by 6% percent.... ow the number /is0 more than 1 million cohabitating couples, the vast majority of them heterosexual.... .arriage, meanwhile, is headed in the other direction. The marriage rate $defined as the annual number of weddings per thousand single women age fifteen or older( fell by ?& percent from ',6& to %&&& $%&&,, ',6(.

:trictly speaking, all of these alternatives to marriage are undermining the traditional institution. Jomestic partnerships, civil unions, and cohabitations geared toward same-sex couples provide the practicalities of marriage without the social expectation of life-long commitment that is expected of a marriage.

I believe that encouraging cohabitation of same-sex couples should concern religious groups that promote these different marriage alternatives. In many states, cohabitation is the only option for gay couples because there are no civil unions. >ouples living together outside of marriage do not represent an ideal that most religions approve of. Let when more and more same-sex couples

cohabitate "because they can8t get married, cohabitation as an alternative to marriage for straight couples is reinforced" $9en! %&&,, ',6(. 2aving so many options that aren8t as binding as marriage only erodes the institution8s status. -llowing same-sex couples access to traditional marriage would actually strengthen marriage as an institution. If access to marriage were given to gay couples, it would help return it to the respected and coveted institution that it once was, and it would also reinforce the ideal that the religious groups hold so important, the idea that committed couples enter into marriage so as to solidify that relationship that exceeds the two persons individually. If same-sex marriage were allowed, there would no longer be a need for so many alternatives that not only deteriorate the value of marriage, but also are also une+ual to it.

9e have seen in our nation8s past that separate is not e+ual= this justification did not work for racial segregation, nor does it validate attempts to prevent same-sex couples from entering into traditional marriage. Juring the ',3&s, segregation lead to the creation of school systems and other public services for -frican--mericans that were supposed to be e+uivalent to those given to the rest of the citi!ens. 2owever, the rights of -frican--mericans were restricted to the point where they were being deprived of the e+ual citi!enship that the K+ual )rotection and Jue )rocess >lauses of the @nited :tates >onstitution provides. -nd the same thing is happening in the current situation in which same-sex couples are being denied the right to marry. httpBCCjournals.chapman.eduCojsCindex.phpCe-IesearchCarticleCviewCD6C;&6

http)>>www.deakin.edu.au>current-students>study-support>study-skills>handou ts>authordate-har#ard.php