Mmctaggart.files.wordpress.com



NAME:Monique McTaggartSTUDENT ID:1370043PAPER:GEND208TUTOR:Rebecca StringerDUE DATE:15/10/2010WORD COUNT: 2681Same sex marriage refers to a union, either legally or socially acceptable, in which two people of the same gender are wed. Issues pertaining to same sex marriages are highly debated in today’s society. Many see it as a religious sin to be homosexual and therefore it is seen as blasphemous for one to even consider entering a legally binding union when in a same sex relationship. While religion seems to be a consistent factor in the opposing of same sex marriages, there is another factor that is as equally as debated and at times overlooked. This issue refers to the rights to raise children when one is in a homosexual relationship. This essay will therefore look at the debates surrounding homosexuality and parenthood while exploring the legalisation of same sex marriages from both a factual and personal opinion basis. In Judith Butler’s Is kinship always already heterosexual? A pertinent question is raised as to the debate surrounding same sex marriages. This question is; what forms of relationship ought to be legitimised be the state? It seems that this is an ideal that is relevant for those who are on both sides of the debate.Butler takes an extensive look at the theories against same sex marriages and issues of adoption from the viewpoint of Sylviane Agacinski. Agacinski is a French philosopher who follows the psychoanalytical teachings of what is known as Lacanian. Agacinski is opposed to same sex marriages for many reasons, one of which is that she believes that, “...gay parenting is both unnatural and a threat to culture in the sense that sexual difference...is...irrefutably biological [and] gains its significance in the cultural sphere as the foundation of life in procreation.” This notion of foundation refers to the idea that life can only begin and therefore should only be allowed when there are both masculine and feminine parties involved simultaneously. The overall premise of Agacinski’s concern with same sex couples raising children is based on an opinion that stems from what is deemed culturally acceptable. It is her opinion that same sex couples are going against the symbolic order when they are allowed to form families. Seeing as culture dictates that only a man and a woman can have children as it is biologically viable and culturally sound, Agacinski views any other form of child rearing as going against the symbolic order. Symbolic order is said to “consist of a set of rules that order and support our sense of reality and cultural intelligibility.” It seems that this is just another way of stating that children raised by same sex couples would be far more likely to suffer psychological issues that would skew their perception of reality disallowing them to be aware of what is natural in a cultural setting. She further goes on to suggest that homosexual parenting is an act of violence, something that is similar to what Patterson states the courts suggest. It is Agacinski’s assertion that children of homosexual parents will be thrust into a violent upbringing. She states that the practice of raising children in a same sex parental environment “not only departs from nature and from culture, but centres on the dangerous and artificial fabrication of the human.”In Andrew Sullivan’s edited works, Same-sex marriage: pro & con a reader, Sullivan showcases debates for and against same sex marriages on the basis of issues pertaining to religion and parenthood. It is stated that many people are opposed to the legalisation of marriages on the premise that with same sex marriages comes the ability to grant homosexual couples the ability to adopt children, a notion that is deemed by some harmful to the human rights of children. However, it is noted that there seems to be no exact differences between children raised in stable homosexual homes and those raised in stable heterosexual homes. Maggie Gallagher is against the legalisation of same sex marriages as she views it as a sacred bond between a woman and a man. This is shown in Gallagher’s piece entitled; What marriage is for. She is clear in stating that the legalisation of same sex marriages is somewhat of a selfish act in which it accommodates to the demands of a few yet “it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family.”Gallagher states, and what seems to be a premise for her argument, that,“the debate over same sex marriage...is not some sidelined discussion. It is the marriage debate...If we cannot explain why unisex marriage is...a disaster; we have lost the marriage ideal.”There are many questions raised by Gallagher that are pertinent to both her argument against same sex marriages and the issues pertaining to the rights of children. Some of these questions are; Do children need mothers and fathers, or will any sort of family do? When the sexual desires of adults clash with the interests of children, which carries more weight, socially and legally? It is in her opinion that by answering these questions, one would alter the marriage institution as a whole. This is a notion that is based off her assumption that marriage serves as an “institution for bridging the male-female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers.”Gallagher also states that legalising same sex marriages would be an injustice to the rights of children. Her stand against adoption by homosexual couples is clear when she shows obvious disgust in the prospect of adoption becoming legal for same sex couples when stating that “motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.” She also makes it widely known that by legalising same sex marriages and allowing for adoption to ensue, it would embed in the law that we as a society are more concerned with the desires of adults than with the wellbeing of children by not allowing them the ‘privilege’ of having both a mother and a father. It is asserted by Gallagher that children, who come from homosexual households, will not be able to uphold stable marriages of their own when they are older. This is because apparently as a society, we suggest that being raised by heterosexual parents allows for children to “aspire to [grow into] the kind of men and women who can [maintain] successful marriages.”A final note from Gallagher on this issue is relative to the notion of children in a societal context. She says that,“the marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an objection to shape their sexual behaviour so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up.”This is an idea that further accentuates her view against the legalisation of same sex marriages and the eventual legalisation of adoption. This is apparent as Gallagher is simply saying that same sex marriages contrast this opinion as children raised with homosexual parents will not be subjected to safe and stable living conditions. Charlotte Patterson on the other hand advocates for the legalisation of same sex marriages with the premise of parenthood as a basis for her discussion. Her section in the book is entitled; Children of lesbian and gay parents: Summary of research findings. Patterson discusses the concerns that the courts have with homosexual couples raising children and then presents her own findings that contrast and nullify those put forward by the courts. There is a common assertion put forth by the courts that when it comes to “both judicial decision-making in custody litigation and public policies governing foster care and adoption”, it is believed that homosexual couples are not fit to be parental figures. It is also assumed by the courts that homosexuals are mentally ill in which lesbian women are deemed less maternal than heterosexual mothers. It is also suggested that homosexual relationships are somewhat selfish in the sense that “lesbians and gay men’s relationships with sexual partners leave little time for ongoing parent-child interactions.” It is also asserted by Patterson that these beliefs are yet to be validated by any past or current research.Patterson breaks her discussion on the courts into three parts bringing forth the main concerns the courts have with homosexual couples raising children. The first concern stems from the idea of creating an identity for one’s self. It is stated that the “development of sexual identity will be impaired among children of lesbian or gay parents” An example given, is suggestive of the notion that being raised by homosexual parents increases your chances of having a somewhat warped view of your own gendered identity and an overall opinion of the stereotypical behaviour of genders. In short, it is asserted by the courts that being raised by homosexual parents would result in a child becoming homosexual themselves.The second concern put forth by the courts relates to psychological problems. It is stated that children of same sex marriages,“will be more vulnerable to mental breakdowns, will exhibit more adjustment difficulties and behaviour problems, and will be less psychologically healthy than children growing up in homes with heterosexual parents.”The third concern is split into two parts. The first is suggestive that children from same sex marriages will be more likely to have trouble when it comes to creating future social relationships. This notion means that “children living with lesbian mothers may be stigmatised, teased, or otherwise traumatized by peers.” The second part to this concern stems from issues pertaining to sexual assault. It is said that children living in households with homosexual parents are more likely to be sexually assaulted by “the parent or by the parent’s friends or acquaintances” as opposed to those in a heterosexual family setting. In Patterson’s own research exploring these issues, she breaks sexual identity into three parts: gender identity, which refers to one’s self-identification as a male or female; gender-role behaviour, refers to activities or occupations that are regarded by society as masculine, feminine or both; and sexual orientation which relates to a person’s choice in sexual partners.In relation to gender identity, children aged between 5 and 14 were interviewed and results showed that developments within households with lesbian mothers was normal to the point that they were no different to those from heterosexual families. It was concluded that there was no significant evidence that children raised by lesbian mothers have difficulty creating their own gendered identities, a notion that also translates to children raised by gay fathers.Gender-role behaviour studies found that children of homosexual parents were just the same as those of heterosexual parents. This was found to be the case in relation to toys they would play with, activities they enjoyed and occupations they wished to pursue. Children who had lesbian mothers were found to be more aware of their psychological femininity than those who had heterosexual mothers, a notion that counteracted the popular belief that homosexual women lack the ability to be feminine in both demeanour and eventual influence on their children. Children that stemmed from homosexual upbringings were also found to be less gender biased when it came to activities than those from heterosexual families. This therefore meant that both homosexual and heterosexual parents had children that fell within the normal limits of sex role behaviour.The final discovery in relation to sexual identity found that children of homosexual parents largely described themselves as heterosexual in nature. This is to say that children of homosexual parents were no more likely to be homosexual than those who are from heterosexual households. A notion that disproves the aforementioned court assumption that being raised by homosexual parents results in a child becoming homosexual themselves. Patterson’s research is useful in determining that the queries the courts have in relation to homosexual parenthood are in fact not valid. There is a large assumption that children who come from same sex households are more likely to have a diminished childhood in which depression and social alienation would surely ensue. This is a concept that Patterson disproves with her case study on children with same sex parents as results show that children from these upbringings are just as normal as those raised in heterosexual households. A concept that acts as an advocacy for allowing same sex couples the right to raise children and create their own families.In Michael Mello’s Legalising gay marriage, Mello briefly refers to issues of child raising in same sex relationships. There is a section that is pertinent to the argument of same sex marriages and in allot of ways, sums up the argument for same sex marriages and the rights of homosexual couples to raise children. While it is said that opposite sex households are better for raising children, there is an argument made by the Goodridge court (Vermont, USA) that acts as a rebuttal to this claim. The argument and summary of the case for same sex marriage in reference to parenthood is as follows:“[one must note that] the government, readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be ‘excellent’ parents. Gay and lesbian couples have children for the same reasons others do – to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task for same sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws...The marriage ban is what harms the children of same sex parents. Striking down the ban would help children.”There are so many concerns surrounding the raising of children and the impact that homosexual parents will have on their children’s identities as they grow. However in my opinion it is not the parents who are doing wrong by their children but society. If we are constantly telling children that the lifestyle they are living and the homes they are being brought up in is a moral sin, then we are doing them more harm than good as we are stunting their abilities to develop and be accepting of who their families are. How can we expect children to be accepting of their families when we as a society aren’t giving them the ability to do so? Maybe if homosexual relationships were recognised as a normal partnership, there would not be so many arguments against the well being of children. It is the quality of a person who makes a good parent, not the genitalia they may possess. It seems to also be a case of nature vs. nurture when it comes to raising children. There are plenty of heterosexual people who are unfit to be parents, yet there is no legal roadblock preventing them from conceiving. How is this anymore moral than the arguments against adoption by homosexual couples? People need to remove themselves from the 1950s style of thinking and realise that we are not a perfect society and the stereotypical ‘nuclear family’ that once existed is no longer a domestic reality. BIBLIOGRAPHYGallagher, Maggie. "What Marriage is For."?Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. A Reader. Ed. Andrew Sullivan. New York: Vintage Books, 2004. 264-69.Mello, Michael.?Legalizing Gay Marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004. 9.Patterson, Charlotte. "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Summary of Research Findings."?Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. A Reader. Ed. Andrew Sullivan. New York: Vintage Books, 2004. 237-43.?Butler, Judith. "Is kinship always already heterosexual?"?Differences: A journal of feminist cultural studies?13.1 (2002): 16-29.? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download