The American dream assures freedom and parity and is cherished by all the residents of the US. With the dream in mind, most people will be inclined towards the support of equal rights for all, encompassing members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) groups. Asking some members of society whether they support same-sex marriages, nevertheless, unveils the underlying contention. This research paper discusses supporting and opposing views regarding same-sex marriages in the United States. It provides evidence from existing studies on both heterosexual marriages and same-sex matrimonies. It also affirms that the LGBTQ movement should be supported to ensure that the rights of people from different sexual orientations are safeguarded. After discussing both sides of the argument, the paper will uphold the opinion that adults should be allowed to marry or date whomever they choose based on their mutual agreement with enforced laws protecting them from prejudice or discrimination. Although critics do not endorse same-sex marriages, there should be increased awareness and enlightenment to ensure enhanced support, in addition to the approval of both heterosexual and same-sex marriages.
A considerable misunderstanding among the people who call for the illegalization of same-sex marriages is that lesbians, gays, or bisexuals have a choice when it comes to whom they are attracted. Similar to heterosexuals who do not select the people they are drawn to, neither do homosexuals. The feeling of attraction to a partner or spouse of whichever sex comes naturally, and one does not have control over it. Akin to the manner in which a heterosexual male does not feel attracted to a fellow man, homosexual men do not feel attracted to women (Beer & Cruz-Aceves, 2018). Therefore, the belief that homosexuality is either avoidable or treatable is mistaken. Same-sex marriages should be allowed just as heterosexual matrimonies have been legalized. Nobody should interfere with the sexual agreement of two adults as long as there is mutual consent between them. A member of the straight community cannot claim to have a professional view on whether homosexuality can be prevented or if homosexuals are unhappy in their engagements. If homosexuality were indeed preventable, which is not the case, nobody would have chosen to lead such a life that is riddled with bigotry and discrimination.
Some members of the straight community assume that same-sex marriages are all about intercourse, and they, at times, refer to it as sexual perversion. The fact is that, similar to heterosexual arrangements, same-sex marriage is multifarious. It entails more concerning love and companionship than it does sex. In all committed marriage affiliations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, sex only occurs as just a way of articulating the entailed love. The voice of the LGBTQ movement should be reinforced as an approach to protecting the rights of members of different communities. Being either lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or heterosexual signifies who a given person is and contributes to their identity, which is noteworthy to each individual (Bernstein, 2018). Nonetheless, only a few members of the heterosexual group comprehend this. In its place, most of them use their lives as a foundation for what normally indicates.
Possibly the most considerable and much-repeated viewpoint in opposition to same-sex marriages is the notion that it is immoral anchored solely on religious convictions. Nevertheless, it is evident in the American constitution that Congress should not make regulations that affect everyone with respect to an established religion, or prohibit the freedom of some law-abiding people irrespective of their not violating the rights of others. Although the constitution safeguards the expression of religious liberty, it affirms that sacred writings such as the Bible or Quran do not influence the United States law. Religion should not form the foundation of the laws in a country since this could be oppressive to citizens who are not its followers. On the contrary, most of the people who oppose same-sex marriages are attempting to impose their religious convictions onto others while promoting the formulation of their opinions into laws. This is a mistaken notion because people are not all religiously leaning toward similar morals (Martos et al., 2017). Contrary to critics, affirmations by supporters of same-sex marriages are neither a stipulation for the change of their opponents’ religious convictions nor a requirement for reception into any religion. In its place, they are only advocating their protection from prejudice and discrimination.
Critics of same-sex marriages assert that any matrimony should occur between an adult male and a female. Their standpoint is that marriages are institutions for members of the opposite sex; otherwise, same-sex arrangements are untraditional (Stone, 2016). Opponents are also convinced that same-sex marriages threaten the disrespect or collapse of the marriage institution. Nonetheless, such arguments lack a factual basis to back the claims since permitting people to marry partners of their choice cannot be tantamount to holding the marriage institution in contempt. Allowing only heterosexual marriages is synonymous with oppressing people who did not choose to become gays or lesbians but found themselves naturally so. Recently many countries and courts across the globe assert that there is inadequate evidence behind the illegalization of same-sex marriages. Such nations and courts have realized the United States’ principle of human rights. Laws barring same-sex relationships or marriages should be considered unjust and unenforceable. This is because such regulations and convictions appear more like legalized prejudice instead of a reasonable ground necessitating denial of some people’s civil rights.
Opponents of same-sex marriages affirm that allowing it would result in an augment in divorce cases for people in heterosexual matrimonies, in addition to increased transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. They also state that same-sex marriages would cause a decline in the level of monogamous relationships (Stone, 2016). However, facts from nations that have already legalized gay marriages show that such arguments are wrong. Studies show that in all countries that have allowed same-sex marriages, there has not been an increase in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases or remarkable augment in cases of divorce. Regardless of evidence in contrast to opponents’ claims, prejudice still exists in many countries around the world. In the United States, however, the legalization of same-sex marriages has risen from only one state in 2004 to all the 50 states in 2015 through different state decrees, national legislation, direct popular ballots, and federal court declarations.
Some of the people opposing the legalization of same-sex marriages say that such arrangements do not offer a suitable environment in which a child may be raised. These opponents assert that relationship instability in same-sex marriages could result in the inability to provide a proper setting for nurturing children. They also claim that the possibilities of children of same-sex couples having good behavior and morals are low attributable to methodological defects (Rosky, 2016). However, rising instances of domestic violence among heterosexual couples show that such marriages are continually creating poor environments for raising children. Additionally, some of the parents in heterosexual marriages are murderers, convicted criminals, thieves, or child molesters who have the legal right to marry and have children. Such parents’ behaviors lead to dreadful models of conduct for their children. All citizens in the United States and countries across the globe should depart from illogical reasoning, whether anchored in unawareness, discrimination, or prejudice and support LGBTQ movements, as well as same-sex marriages. Every person should be given the civil right to start a relationship or marry an adult of his or her choice based on their mutual agreement. Society should endeavor to abide by the American dream by upholding justice and freedom for all.
Opponents of same-sex marriages affirm that they are immoral and could also lead to increased cases of sexually transmitted diseases. However, research has shown that in nations where same-sex marriages have been allowed, there has not been an augmenting in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases or a noteworthy rise in cases of divorce. Ironically, everybody, even opponents of same-sex marriages, is persuaded that equal rights and freedom of all, including the gay community, should be protected. There is a need for increased awareness and explanation to make sure that same-sex marriages achieve enhanced support to allow everybody to marry or date the partner of their choice. Society ought to attempt to follow the American dream by supporting fairness and freedom for all.
References
Beer, C., & Cruz-Aceves, V. D. (2018). Extending rights to marginalized minorities: Same-sex relationship recognition in Mexico and the United States. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 18(1), 3-26.
Bernstein, M. (2018). Same-sex marriage and the assimilationist dilemma: A research agenda on marriage equality and the future of LGBTQ activism, politics, communities, and identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(14), 1941-1956.
Martos, A. J., Wilson, P. A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health services in the United States: Origins, evolution, and contemporary landscape. PloS One, 12(7), 1-12.
Rosky, C. (2016). Same-sex marriage litigation and children’s right to be queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 22(4), 541-568.
Stone, A. L. (2016). The impact of anti‐gay politics on the LGBTQ movement. Sociology Compass, 10(6), 459-467.