Traditional Marriage vs Nontraditional Marriage

Marriage equality has been a topic of hot discussion for a few years now. With more and more people coming out as homosexual or bisexual, the topic of whether or not these individuals should be allowed to get married has become a hot-button issue. Marriage goes back a very long ways in history, and has only been known to be a sacred union between a man and a woman. The idea for marriage equality is to give homosexual individuals the same rights that have been given in marriage to heterosexual individuals. Ryan Anderson, in his article ‘In Defense of Traditional Marriage’, explains that marriage between a man and a woman is best for procreative love, childbearing, and childrearing (Anderson, 2013). He settles behind the idea that giving into gay marriage will cause a break-down in traditional marriage.

There is the idea that if we weaken the structure and integrity of what marriage truly means, we are more likely to abandon what marriage is altogether and be able to take on multiple partnerships of either gender. He does not bring religion into the conversation or call homosexuality a blasphemous institution. Marriage equality does not make sense to Anderson as he claims that “ample social science has shown [that] children tend to do best when reared by their mother and father” (Anderson, 2013). Anderson’s argument starts out as making a fair bit of sense. There is not illegality to gay marriage; there are allowed to be ordained ministers who can perform a religious ceremony to give the individuals a union, gay individuals are allowed to live together and have relationships.

However, the government does not recognize this as a traditional marriage (i.e. sacred union between a man and a woman). Anderson’s deductive argument begins as a sound argument, but quickly devolves into a relentless argument about how gay marriage will affect the sanctity of marriage as it is now, and that if we begin to allow homosexual marriage to be recognized by the government, then we might as well allow for polygamy and open marriages. His argument becomes weak by using a slippery slope to quickly create an argument about the extremes of things that he believes will happen if marriage equality is allowed. I present a counterargument that marriage equality should be allowed to give more peoples a right to a happy institution, but that it could potentially cause a flourish in childrearing. I present the argument that it is not the fact that the children did well in a home with a mother and a father, but rather that it is a two-parent home that causes a child to do well. Changing the laws of marriage could be deemed unnecessary for the fact that there are other ways to gain joint benefits, to find a community that accepts the couple’s love is not as hard as it once was, and these individuals can easily still live together and live a happy life.

However, the principle of the matter is that these individuals feel as though they are not getting all they could be from a civil union, community life, and certain work-places that offer joint benefits. Gay marriage could be led off by giving gays the right to adopt children. Giving gay individuals the right to adoption is one way to help give children a decent childhood. It isn’t about having a mother and a father; it’s more about having a two-parent household. “In an era when many children are raised by single parents – with proven disadvantages such as lower educational achievements and poor behaviour – gay couples offer adopted children two full-time parents (The Week, 2008). Plus the fact that there is a shortage of adoptive parents makes for a good case towards gay couples being able to adopt and give these children a loving home. However, if gays are given a right to marriage as well, this may make the home feel even more stable for the children. Marriage, despite what Anderson has penned, is not a human necessity. According to Peter Wood, human societies can do without marriage and can “bend, stretch, redefine, and repurpose marriage in a bewildering variety of ways” (Wood, 2011). Wood is correct that marriage is not a necessity.

Marriage was originally a contract to bind two families for money or other dowry. The past of marriages consisted of arranged marriages and they were considered a duty to the family as well as to the church. This is not deemed a necessity as now marriage is hardly ever a business contract anymore, and the church does not force a woman to marry at a certain age. “The right to marry, and to marry the person of one’s choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness” (Goetting, 2013). The Bible states that marriage is a sanctimonious union between a man and a woman; however the Bible is not a law, but rather it is a set of religious rules one should live by if they partake in that particular religion. The rights of the people are set up by the government of the people. The rights simply state that the people have a right to marry whomever they choose to love. This is a take on how marriages were arranged at the behest of the parents, in order to gain something of importance, be it stature, money, or other dowry (i.e. livestock, crops, etc.).

Marriage equality is about giving the people a belief in love existing anywhere, anytime, for anyone. Although there has not been any law against gay marriage, there has not been a present law that is for it. The actions that have been taking place are to show the world that marriage equality is about showing that there is no difference in marriage between a man and a man, a woman and a man, or a woman and a woman. It is to show that any couple can raise a child right, as well as any couple can royally mess a child up on their way to adulthood. Marriage equality is the strength between two people who love each other, and not letting anything or anyone stand in the way. Homosexual people want to be able to stand in front of their friends and family and be able to say their vows like any heterosexual couple would, without people telling them that what they are doing is wrong, sinful, and an abomination. Marriage equality is more about helping out by allowing, rather than abolishing a law that is not in place. I believe that there should not have to be a thing as marriage equality and that people should be allowed to love whomever they want and marry whomever they want. Life and love should be about the choices we make as adult individuals.

Resources
Anderson, R. (2013). In defense of traditional marriage. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/3/in-defense-of-traditional-marriage Goetting, N. (2013). Gay marriage is a fundamental right. National Lawyers Guild Review, 70(3), 137-144 Stritof, S. & Stritof, B. (Retrieved on June 16, 2014). History of marriage: How marriage has evolved. About.com. Retrieved from http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm The Week. (2008). Pros and cons of gay adoption. The Week with The First Post. Retrieved from http://www.theweek.co.uk/welfare/35575/pros-and-cons-gay-adoption Wood, P.
(Mar 23, 2011). Debating same-sex marriage. National Association of Scholars. Retrieved from http://www.nas.org/articles/Debating_Same-Sex_Marriage