â€œIt just canâ€™t be!â€ (Eskridge 87) This is one of the many reoccurring arguments Author William N. Eskridge, Jr., has found to homosexual marriage. The definition of marriage is debatable at this point in history. For arguments sake in this essay I will give it the definition found in Websterâ€™s dictionary. â€œThe legal union of two people in wedlock.â€ (Landoll 128) This leaves a very broad area open to interpretation. Using the common provisions that most people have placed on it can further narrow the definition. These provisions include: domestic cohabitation, communal recognition, and monogamy. Not once, in either the general definition of marriage or the provisions stated, was sex mentioned. This is a result, I believe, of society passing discriminatory judgment on people who have a different sexual orientation then the rest of us as a whole. Marriage is a lawfully accepted union between two people. I feel that marriage should be accepted in any situation wherein two people love each other. Love knows no boundaries or limits, neither should a form of expression, such as marriage.
A common argument found in many who oppose homosexual union is that of procreation. Some people feel that if a couple cannot procreate then they should not be allowed to marry. I believe that this argument holds no ground. â€œIf there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation, strange consequences would follow.â€ (Eskridge
96) Eskridge points out that it is socially and legally acceptable for sterile people to marry, as well as postmenopausal women, impotent men, and aged couples. By saying that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry for procreations sake, is such the same as saying that none of the above people should be allowed to enter into wedlock because they are not able to reproduce. I believe that society overlooks this point in the argument of procreation against homosexual...