Relationships: Different Views on Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a topical issue caused by different perceptions and understanding of human nature and interpersonal relations. The approaches towards gay marriage are liberal and conservative. Liberals and progressives suppose that the State should accept and permits gay marriage because of equal rights and freedoms granted to all individuals.

Thus, conservatives suggest that too many people take advantage of this ease of entry before they look at the true implications of vowing to be together through sickness and health for many years. They appeal to morality and universal principles of social order and family.

Liberals and progressives suppose that it is biologic nature to enter marriage satisfy the main human needs and desires, be they for sex or shoes, car or companion. It has been said that many romances between homosexual people lead to marriage. That could be turned around to say that many potentially good marriages are based on mutual understanding and trust.

If a marriage has been based on a need for sexual love, the chances are good that it will work out. There might also be a problem if a gay partner believes that the other is heaven-sent, capable of satisfying every need.

Liberals and progressives suppose that the State has no moral right to judge gay people and make a decision related to their destiny and life. The truth of the matter is that there are countless people who could make happy. The difficulty, sometimes, is finding them (Conely 2008).

Conservatives underline that marriage is viewed by gay people as a protest to social morality and principles. Gay marriage has its own special problems and struggles, not the least of which is that it is not, when a critic examines it carefully, a truly natural state. In contrast to the conservative point of view, liberals, and progressives

In fact, while monogamy is common in nearly all species of birds, it is rare, in general, among mammals — the group of animals that includes humans. “Social conservatives have a tendency to speak about morality in the public sphere … as if they have a monopoly on questions related to values and the good” (Ball 2008).

But people do choose to marry, and they share their lives with others, and they promise to remain sexually faithful. It is, surely, a difficult way of life even under ideal circumstances. It is least of all always the way it is depicted in the media of smiling gay family members who play billiards, gather at outdoor barbecues, or sit before the fireplace reading together.

Such ads are certainly based on occasional events in gay lives. Following Ball: “From a gay rights perspective, then, the type of moral neutrality that would accompany a privatized model of relationship recognition comes at a significant cost because it would do little to address existing biases and prejudices” (Ball 2009).

Geographically, marriage is accepted and approved in democratic countries with strong political power but opposed greatly in non-democratic states with a stung impact of Muslim religious traditions and norms. The image of gay marriage should not be a bleak one.

Gay union can and does work. But it cannot be said strongly enough that gay marriage is, in the words of the psychologists, an interactive scheme in which the behavior of one gay member affects and is affected by the behavior of the other.

It is two gay people giving of themselves, emotionally and physically, to one another. It is not simply taking or using. Gay multiage may mean accepting and adjusting to the weaknesses and habits of the other. The gay people do change psychologically in marriage as they begin to play the parts of husband and wife. Gay marriage does give people personalities a chance to develop.

Works Cited

Ball, C. Ninth symposium issue of gender and sexuality law: essay:

Against neutrality in the legal recognition of intimate relationships. Copyright (c) 2008 The Georgetown University

The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 2009.

Conely, D. You May ask Yourself. W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition, 2008.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *