Thearticle by Susan Shell discusses why liberals should dispute gaymarriage. Typically, with regard to gay marriage, liberals andconservative views differ significantly. Conservatives indicates thatauthority is beyond human choices and freedom. They assert that gaymarriage assaults the grounding authority, which governs the waypeople should live their lives. On the other hand, liberals believein freedom away from traditional and religious norms as its centralgood. This group views gay marriage as an individual’s choice tofind love and happiness in this hostile world. They have no problemwith what gay people do, and consider it none of their business.
Thearticle argues that liberals, even though they believe in humanfreedom, they should put some considerations in place. Freedom isimportant, but that does not mean that there should be norestrictions. Even heterosexual couples are restricted from certainacts based on reason and the related complexity of human experience.Liberals claim that failure to support gay marriage amounts to sexdiscrimination. However, the article clarifies that this is not thecase. Gay marriage is not acceptable in the traditional and religiousviews because it is unnatural and goes against the principles ofmarriage. Homosexuals cannot have their own biological childrenbecause they are biologically incompatible. Although they can adopt,it is in the best interests for a child to feel that they belong to afamily with both a mother and a father. Likewise, in most cases, itis only natural that children need their biological parents. Susangoes ahead to inform liberals that marriage invests a powerful sharedexperience just like the rites and practices common after death.
Susanconvinces liberals not to support gay marriages. Homosexual marriagecompromises the status of marriages as unique privileged domesticbond. People and different religious groups have varying ideas onmarriages. Therefore, marriage should not be defined by religiousgroups or other groups, but by what unites everyone. This helpsliberals to understand that it is not all about choice, but alsoabout acknowledging reasonable moral and political limits (Shell3).
Thearticle’s argument on why liberals should not support gay marriageis convincing. It gives clear information with relevant examples ofsome restrictions that are beyond human choice. Even though freedomis important, it is not always the case. There are some practicesthat require people to adhere to even if they are not a matter ofpersonal choice. People coexist to form a community that has a set ofrules and principles that needs to be obeyed to create order in thesociety. Same case applies to marriages in societies. Since timememorial, marriages have always been recognized as the union betweena man and a woman. This is a societal norm and principle that guidesthis institution. It offers the involved parties and their childrencertain privileges. This means that even though liberals believe infreedom of choice, it goes beyond choice to include moralexpectations and societal well being. Therefore, gay marriage shouldbe banned in the society to enhance society and moral expectations.
Marriageis not just any kind of relationship between human beings, but arelationship that is rooted in human nature and governed by naturallaws. Natural laws main principle is that good should be done, whileevil should be avoided. Human beings, by their natural reason, canperceive what is morally good or bad for them. This means that humanbeings can know the end or purpose of their acts. Thus, any act thatcircumvent natural sexual act violates the natural law and morality.Natural law is universal and absolute. It applies to all human beingsequally everywhere and always. Homosexuality is an unnatural act thatviolates the natural law. If it were normal, it would not be debatedabout. Liberals should realize that there are some natural laws thatevery individual is aware of without necessarily having to look forjustification as is the case today.
Samesex marriage denies children the rights to either a father or amother. Research shows that it is in the best interest for them to bebrought up by both biological parents. Most gay couples are lesbiansthus, no father figure. Children need a father figure to in reducingantisocial behavior and delinquency. On the other hand, if homosexualmales decide to have a child, it would definitely be denied itsmother. Such children are also at a great risk of experiencingdiscrimination from children born of normal heterosexual couples.Further, it is worth noting that same sex marriage isolates marriagesfrom their procreative purposes. Many people involved in gaymarriages are unlikely to father or mother a child because of thecircumstances surrounding their marriage. This may lead to decline ofthe values associated with children especially in marriage.
Samesex marriage tries to turn a moral wrong into civil rights. Liberalsclaims that same sex marriage is the same as racial equality. This isnot true. Racial equality requires people of all races to accept oneanother and not to discriminate. However, same sex marriage isdifferent because it involves people of the same sex getting married.Two individuals of the same sex should not be allowed to marrybecause of insuperable biological impossibility (Gill 43).
Liberalsshould know that choice have restrictions and limits. This means thatthey should adhere with some of the norms in the society despitetheir opinions. There are some things in the society that should beadhered to even if people have a freedom to act against them. Thereis order in the society because people continue to behave in amorally right way despite the modern views of westerners. Peoplecannot fully dispute the traditional views of the society especiallythat govern how people live. For instance, as shown in the article,when a person dies, people conduct funerals with certain practicesand rites. People cannot turn away from funerals because they have achoice not to. It would seem peculiar in all perspectives. The samecase should apply to gay marriages. It is true that it should be apersonal choice, but there are some societal considerations thatshould accompany such rites and practices. This should be taken as aprincipled stand, but not a personal stand. Sometimes people’sbehavior should conform to the societal needs even if it takes awaysome forms of freedom. In many instances, liberals find themselvesdoing what is expected of them even though they do not feel likedoing it. It should be noted that a good society has its ownrestrictions that go beyond choices. Thus, liberals advocate againstsame sex marriage to acknowledge reasonable moral rights.
Gill,Pierceson, . MoralArgument Religion and Samepb.Lexington Books, 2009. Print.
Shell,Susan. "The liberal case against gay marriage." PublicInterest(2004): 3-16.