preview

Do Gays and Lesbians Threaten the System of Male Dominance?

analytical Essay
2249 words
2249 words
bookmark

Do Gays and Lesbians Threaten the System of Male Dominance? "In short, by not complying with their assigned gender roles, gays and lesbians threaten the system of male dominance (Calhoun 157)" A debate is raging in America about who people have a right to marry. In response to lesbians and gays asking for the right to marry, many legislators are writing laws to ban same-sex marriage in their respective states. Even President Bush supports a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage (prez.bush.marriage/). Opponents of such legislation do not want discrimination passed into law and are protesting at every opportunity. One must understand the reasons that people want to ban same-sex marriage before he or she can effectively argue about the subject. Many advocates of same-sex marriage bans say that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would degrade the institution of marriage because marriage is only supposed to exist between a man and woman. In addition, allowing same-sex marriage would cause problems for society (Issues and Controversies on File). One theory why opponents may fight against same-sex marriages is that heterosexual marriages have long reinforced traditional gender roles within marriage and that allowing same-sex marriages would cause males to lose their authority to subordinate females as heterosexual couples begin to model same-sex marriage gender equality (Calhoun 157). The traditional argument against same-sex marriage states that marriage is defined as the emotional and spiritual union of a man and a woman. According to that definition, a pair of men or women cannot marry. Opponents of same-sex marriage bans, however, argue that marriage is a basic personal and social right and a social contract that is devoid of gender consideration. Cheshire Calhoun states, "the dominant goal of marriage is and should be unitive, the spiritual and personal union of the committed couple" (151). The sexual orientation or gender of the partners does not lessen the importance placed upon entering such a union and need not be used to restrict who can enter into such a union. Heterosexuals have enjoyed the right to marry throughout recorded history, though there have been restrictions placed over who could marry that have been overc... ... middle of paper ... ...at sodomy is immoral or that same-sex unions are immoral, but nevertheless think the state should adopt a neutral position, refraining from criminalizing sodomy and offering legal protection for same-sex unions under domestic partnership laws" (Calhoun 168). Bibliography LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document? _m=5fc1bb0239c8912aa97d779528e9d62b& _docnum=2&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVb&_md5=60c85af0cd3ade6c85561f31ba41bdc7 http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/ Calhoun, Cheshire. Feminism, the Family, and the Politics of the Closet: Lesbian and Gay Displacement. Oxford University Press: New York, 2000. Corvino, John. Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality. Rowman & Littlefield: New York, 1997. Issues and Controversies on File. Same-Sex Marriage. Facts on File News Services: New York, 1996. Levin, Michael E. Sexual Orientation and Human rights. Rowman & Littlefield: New York, 1999. B.A. Robinson. “CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGES”. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_c.htm. Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal. Alfred A. Knopf Inc: New York, 1995.

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that gays and lesbians threaten the system of male dominance by not complying with their assigned gender roles.
  • Argues that the traditional argument against same-sex marriage bans states that marriage is defined as the emotional and spiritual union of a man or woman.
  • Argues that homosexuals have enjoyed the right to marry throughout recorded history, though there have been restrictions placed over who could marry.
  • Argues that the concept of the natural family is a roadblock in the path to homosexual rights.
  • Argues that the positive repercussions of same-sex marriage add momentum to gay and lesbian activists' arguments.
  • Explains that gender differences are irrelevant in same-sex marriages, so there are no gender roles that can seem discriminatory and thus the relationships are more egalitarian.
  • Argues that homosexuality is linked to sexist ideas of proper male and female behavior.
  • Analyzes the arguments against same-sex marriage bans in hawaii. they argue that the best environment to raise children is in a heterosexual marriage.
  • Argues that homosexuality is harmful, but society's treatment of gays and lesbians leads to depression and suicide, not the actual homosexual acts.
  • Opines that promiscuity makes heterosexuals and homosexuals have a higher risk of getting disease. they argue that if society was worried about gay and lesbians not having monogamous relationships, they could allow them to marry and there would be incentives not to divorce
  • Argues that the defense of marriage act's proponents did not compare heterosexuals and homosexuals. they argued that any efforts to redefine marriage would destroy the institution.
  • Explains that people confuse a church's right to marry with the government’s responsibility to issue marriage licenses to all citizens without discrimination.
  • Argues that the slippery slope argument against anti-miscegenation laws is still ineffective today. they argue that homosexual marriages hurt the sanctity of marriage because they do not fight television shows that trivialize marriage.
  • Opines that for equality to exist for gays and lesbians, their way of life must be more than tolerated. culture needs to give up the view that homosexuals are unfit for marriage, parenting, and family.
  • Cites the bibliography on et ux. v. virginia: feminism, the family, and the politics of the closet.
  • Cites corvino, john, levin, michael e. sexual orientation and human rights. rowman & littlefield: new york, 1999.
Get Access