I hope to change your prospective on homosexual’s marriage, and for you to re-look at your views. Biology, sex, reproduction, evolution: Over centuries ago the planet was made with one man and one woman. They were to reproduce to combine their DNA. This process would produce new individuals. This meaning, the new individual has traits form both parents.
Homosexuality "Marriage" is a bond recognized by various institutions, between a man and a woman. Not only a man and a woman define “marriage”, but pairs of the same sex fulfill the criteria of a successful marriage as well. William Bennett, the author of “Against Marriage”, dictates that allowing homosexuals to get married will change the meaning of marriage while Andrew Sullivan claims that "they make a deep commitment to one another and to society; in exchange, society extends the benefits to them”. Although, over the years, people have changed the essence of marriage to suit their personal needs, but many constitutions are biased towards equality of rights resulting in the condemnation of personal integrity.
Gender roles and the function they serve in our society have been known to be a complex system of statuses, viewpoints, and other elements that bring together a particular type of stratification within our culture today. Talcott Parsons developed a model for this system of stratification that analyzed the popular mid 20th century form of the nuclear family. In his article, “Sex Roles in the American Kinship System,” Parsons lays down his beliefs that the roles we play as male and female are essential to creating a functional and productive kinship. Through setting out a particular structure that will potentially ensure that competition and conflict will be avoided, Parsons asserts that these kinship groups act as functioning units of stratification within our society. This paper aims to clarify the strengths of Parsons’ arguments, such as the functionality and effectiveness of certain systems within our culture, while contrasting the outdated viewpoints which he presents that might not be as applicable in today’s modern times considering the amount of social changes and open opportunities that are now available to both sexes.
In her essay “The Radical idea of Marrying for Love,” Stephanie Coontz expresses her views on the evolution of marriage from its former survival and connection based purpose, to its now personal and emotional fulfillment motives. Coontz explains that in the past “it was inconceivable that people would choose their mates on the basis of something as fragile and irrational as love.” For most of history marriage was a mere tool for survival and political gain. Coontz provides several examples of such marriages motives but goes on to explain that in recent years, the focus has changed to a more personal motive. This shift of motives in marriage is primarily seen in Western societies and can be tied to the media driven idea of a “happily ever after” seen, heard, and advocated in a plethora of ways throughout Western societies. Today, marriage is based on the idea of love.
‘To put it at its most basic, women want resources and men want to spread their genes.’ Discuss the evolutionary approach to explaining parental investment in humans e.g. sex differences, parent-offspring conflict. Men and women both have different sexual preferences and behaviours which may have been shaped by evolution, the evolutionary theory of relationships believes that the reproductive behaviours of men and women today have their origins in the evolutionary past and exist because they provided survival or reproductive advantages to out ancestors. Men and women seek different qualities in a relationship and in partner selection, a women looks for resources and a male seeks to spread his genes. David Buss (1989) conducted a cross cultural study looking at partner preferences in both genders, data was collected from a total of 4,601 men and 5,446 women aged between 18 and 28.
“What Marriage is For,” by Maggie Gallagher is in essence the conservative view and Natural Law Theory of Gay Marriage. She states dozens of times that the fundamental purpose of marriage is for a man and woman to procreate, and that a child can only be happy if brought up by his/her biological parents. Otherwise, the child would grow up in an unstable household and develop mental instability. Divorce is on the rise and motherless children are being brought up in an unhealthy environments, so, why make matters worse by permitting gay marriage? “Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers.” She explains that this is absolutely necessary for a child to be happy, and grow up in a normal environment.
Stoddard quotes the Supreme Court ruling in 1967 stating that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” (Stoddard 737). This quote says enough for me to win the debate. If every man (which can also be translated into every woman) has the right to marry, then I believe that same philosophy should apply to whom that person wants to marry. The government gives us the right to marry in the search of happiness but takes that right away from us by telling us who we can and cannot marry. They are contradicting themselves because they are only giving some of us the right to marry in search of real happiness, the others are expected to shack up and pretend.
According to Messerli in the “Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?” he observes in support to Stoddard’s argument that: One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we want to encourage?
True; A man will leave father and his mother and unite with his wife, and the 2 will be one flesh. 2. For JP II, what is more fundamental to the structure of the human, personal subject: bodiliness or our somatic constitution as male or female? 157 b. The human body carries within itself the signs of sex and is by its nature male or female, but the fact that man is a "body" belongs more deeply to the structure of the personal subject and the fact that in his somatic constitution he is also male or female 3.
Additional differences between men and women are that they differentiate as they often inhabit different social roles as well as occupational. Finally, sexual reproduction is a biological constant that is ultimately related to men and women being different since a woman is defined as childbearing and child rearing (Eagly, 1987) and promotes intimacy between the men and women. Furthermore, men often employ their power over women as well as their sexual relationships, which at times women counter power through sexuality by using sexual attractiveness to control the man. Therefore, concerns about power and the differences regarding the sexuality are bound together. Modern context in where social movement and increasing gender and equality threaten the traditional male dominance may be directed on those woman who challenge the power of a man and the status (e.g.