The Pros And Cons Of Gay Marriage

1786 Words8 Pages
“[He] writ in his dotage that women kan nat kepe hir marriage” - Chaucer, 1395 The word ‘marriage’ means a legal union only between one man and one woman as husband and wife. It is noteworthy that this definition has stood the tests of time, Chaucer talked about it in the 14th century, even though equal rights for all has been a value human society has upheld so often because this traditional definition of marriage undercuts the axiom of equal rights by debarring homosexuals from being bonded by the institution of marriage. Gay marriage critics argue that a major reason for discouraging same-sex marriage is to protect the rights of children. They claim that homosexual couples cannot naturally have children and, therefore, they should not be allowed to legally marry. While on the other hand, supporters claim that homosexual couples can have and nurture children, even if they cannot have their own biological children. The critics of gay marriage are wrong and in what follows I will show how their arguments fail. The following is a common gay marriage critic’s argument: 1. Homosexual couples cannot naturally have children 2. Only couples that can naturally have children should be legally allowed to marry 3. Therefore, gay marriage should be illegal An argument is sound when it is valid and has all true premises. The legitimacy of the first premise depends on what context it is taken in. If taken in its individual sense, that gay people just by themselves cannot naturally have biological children, then the first premise stands some contradiction. However, gay people can have babies through natural processes like insemination or adoption. There are a large number of orphans who need the essentials of life, including but not limited ... ... middle of paper ... ...prerequisite for marriage. Additionally, such a law would be the true enactment of the principle of equality, about which the human society has been so vocal and rightly so. Moreover, religion is not an authority on what a person should do and who they should like and commit to and evoking the religion argument has usually cost the society more than it has profited it. Lastly, there is a socio-economic aspect of this notion from which the entire society and not just a subsection of it will benefit. Today countries are experimenting with laws on marijuana usage, freedom of speech and where do draw the line. It is high time, then, that a section of the society that has always been kept on the margins be given its due rights and that future generations do not rise from the ashes of hypocritical equality but stand on solid foundations of egalitarianism and impartiality.
Open Document