Same sex marriages are marriages between people of the same sex. These marriages are currently replacing the traditional marriages, which are purely heterosexual. Same sex marriages have raised concerns to many organization and individuals, on whether they should be accepted or not. Religion, on the other hand, are beliefs on existences of supernatural being that influences things to happen. This essay expounds on why a liberal democratic states have no right to prohibit a moral vision of sexuality on free consenting adults, any more than they have the right to enforce or prohibit a particular religious doctrine on their citizens.
The whole of our society has been encountered by a lot of dynamism; modernization has brought with it a lot of changes in terms of how we look at the same-sex relationships. Technical rationality spread, which is the meaning of modernization, leads to people abandoning patterns, which have been used for ages in our society to guide people on how they make their paths in marriages. Individuals tend to use methods, which are satisfying in the short run, and also according to what they have learnt from the formal education, influence from their peers, and their individual interests (Browning and Marquardt 50).
There has been a disconnection in the complexity of the marriage structure, what used to be a strong social structure is being taken lightly. What marriage as an institution has been trying to hold together is being compromised. The spheres of sex, marriage, and the family have been separated. Developments in the modern world have contributed to this separation. For instance, reproductive technology in the use of contraceptives, legal abortions, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, gamete inter fallopian transfer, and capability of cloning, all create disconnections in this institution, which is frame worked in a historically marital togetherness of sexuality, love, child bearing and mutual understanding. People are also less governed by the law. They are liberal, claiming that they have a right to decide from whether to bear children or not to whether an individual gets married or remains single. The government is not allowed to intrude into the private life of people, something, which in the past was considered to be public (Browning and Marquardt 48).
The question of children arises, when you mention gay marriages, because the relationship may be a lot uniting, but on the other hand, there is no procreation, because it is not possible for children to be born in such a marriage unit. Parents, who may adopt children in such a setting, lack the inclination to these children, as they have not labored in the giving of birth; the children, on the other hand, lack that attachment, which would otherwise be there to someone who has given life. Children are brought up without much affection and are less nurtured (Browning and Marquardt 34).Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Religion takes the whole idea about marriage to another understanding, which is strongly affirmed with principles. Marriage is a religious institution, which is an agreement or sacrament that is witnessed and sanctioned by a higher being. Although there are many differences in the cultural practices, most religions highly regard those, who bear children, as the ones, who should bring them up, since there is a worldwide assumption that those, who conceive, understand the nature of their closeness with the child; therefore, bring up a child with much love and care. However, in one language most religions understand the divinity of creation and God’s command in creation.
Thomas Aquinas, a catholic theologian, preferred to view the marriage as a sacrament, where a male was joined to the primordial mother-infant family through a four-phased natural season (Ellison 45). Firstly, the mother could not raise the child alone due to the long period an infant depends on the mother. Secondly, infant’s attachment to the father improves, if the father knows that the child he is fathering is actually his. Thirdly, fathers also get attached more to their children, because of the attention and assistance they receive mutually from the baby’s mother.
Sexual exchange was seen to bring the father closer to the family. These are the claims, which are not found in religious settings, but contribute to the marriage. Till 1960s and the 1970s, divorces were difficult to obtain, sex outside marriages was penalized, and certain legal privileges were enjoyed by only those in marriage. However, since that time marriages have been decentered, and non-marital sex is less followed, legal privileges are enjoyed by even those, who are not in marriages. The journalist, Jonathan Rauch, agrees that marriages should be allowed for everyone because the modern society’s direction is highly problematic. He wants a new marriage culture developed to resist the isolation and individualization brought about by modernization. To Rauch, marriage is mainly for mutual dependence, commitment, and sexual exchange. He, however, disagrees with those, who believe that marriage is primarily to have children, explaining further that same-sex is like sterility and that those, in gay marriages, do not necessarily have to be one’s own offspring. Rauch explains that since those, who are sterile, are not prevented from marrying, those, who are in their old age, why should anyone prevent same-sex marriages. Rauch’s idea about marriages is that that marriage should be commitment, should be intimate, and should be about two adults committing to take care of one another, no matter the current situation.
There are current debates on the ways the issue of same-sex marriages should be handled considering the rapid modernization of our society, and considering that a lot has been done over the years to maintain consistency in marriages and avoiding such ‘anomalies’ like gay marriages. Moral debate should cover sexuality in a comprehensive manner and avoid fixating on same-sex relationships and heterosexism. There needs not to be support for heterosexuality, whereas the case is that bisexuals and heterosexuals are misjudged. These insights are important in analyzing debates where those, of the contrary opinion, who hold strong notions, that are bound to be proved wrong. Their presumption being that for a marriage to exist, there must be two different genders involved. The Jewish and Christian scriptures provide a different view that for the integration to be possible, there is a proper joining of the two sexually different individuals, one possessing masculine characteristics and the other the feminine ones, each to accept their different gender role, and must be showing appropriate sexual desires for their opposite. Gangdon and other traditionalists accept that heterosexuality is God’s own creation (Ellison 54).
Traditionalists’ view that differences in sexuality creates the core of marriages in that the difference between a male and a female creates the institution called marriage. They have a bipolar gender paradigm, which takes males and females as more dissimilar than similar; therefore, a sexual desire is ignited, when opposites attract. Marriage is regarded as a natural, pre-political institution, reflecting a divine order of creation. A social constructionist approach regards sexuality as to change anytime according to the current conditions, for at some point a man used to possess his wife and all her property and was not questioned, even if he raped his wife, because that was his property; such actions receive discredit in this day and age due to feminists, who have turned the tables (Ellison 65). Some Protestants try to focus on what the Bible says against homosexuality, instead of viewing it as a problem, and they end up attacking people with such anti-gay campaigns, devaluing them, mistreating them, which is biblically incorrect.
As a conclusion, there should be no limits in the manner, which an individual wants to use their freedom in, as long as they are not interfering with the rights of other individuals. This is because everyone is liberal in the manner they would want to conduct themselves and those not allowed to enjoy their. Rights only get humiliated and they suffer from a lowered self-esteem. It is, indeed, a liberal world, but most things are bound to change in the near future.