Janine Micahella G.

Contreras
Gay Marriage: A Turn Against Tradition or A Step Towards Equality?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary redefines marriage as the state of
being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional
marriage as the publishing company just revised its definition of marriage last
2003. Additionally, it was also reported that a 1913 definition, which was observed
to not only exclude backgrounds on same-sex marriage, but had Bible references for
marriage as well, was previously posted, saying that marriage is the act of
marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life,
as husband and wife Marriage is honorable in all. Heb. xiii.4. According to
WorldNetDaily, the said redefinition received a lot of heated reactions from the
public, including one that believed it was just a part of the campaign by
homosexual activists to take control of the definition of the word and make it align
with their goals. Meanwhile, Merriam-Websters associate editor Kory Stamper
responded that their company is aware of its inability to consider particular social or
political agendas as they were choosing the words and definitions to include in the
dictionary, and that they didnt intend to offend anyone. However, she made it clear
that [they] cant allow such considerations to deflect [them] from [their] primary
job as lexicographers and that the inclusion of certain definitions was just a
simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the
words current uses.
As we all know, the term marriage has never had a uniform definition
across time and space brought by the cultural, social and political differences
among races, religion and even generations. Due to these differences, we have
created boundaries between ourselves and others who we think of as different.
Our own beliefs and individual philosophies play a huge part in the creation of these
divisions because as human as we are, it is natural for us to stand by and fight for
what we have ever known and believed in. As the modern connotation for
marriage has taken a wider spectrum of definitions as it constantly conforms to the
worlds context, such as the open use of same-sex or gay marriage, our world is
slowly being split into two: those who support and contend that marriage is a right
for every couple, regardless of sex and for the sake of equality; and those who claim
that marriage is exclusive to heterosexual couples, with procreation, tradition and

religion as the main reason. Gay marriage, as defined by Debate.org, is a union

between two people who are of the same gender or biological sex.
Does this mean that love isnt grounds enough for marriage? Is there
still a need to consider religious, legal, and biological qualifications before a couple
can actually tie the knot? Is it moral to marry against philosophies based on
tradition religion, and the law of nature between a man and a woman, as long as it
is for love?
Debates and related controversies on the concept of gay marriage
often involve arguments that revolve around religion, the law, and our responsibility
to procreate as a civilization. Most arguments coming from the two sides mostly
contradict with one another, but with the help of Kants moral ethics, stances from
both sides helped me create my own.
Looking at the issue in a proponent perspective, I side with the thought
that gay marriage should not only exist for the mere purpose of reproduction. As
stated by ProCon.org, couples do not marry and commit themselves for life just
because they are capable and/or willing to procreate, otherwise heterosexual
couples who are infertile or do not wish to have children would be banned from
marrying. Also, denying people of their right to marry just because of their sexual
preferences can be considered as discrimination and a violation of their religious
freedom. Based on a statement by Balanced Politics, the reason behind the
prohibition and/or contradiction of gay marriage is that most, if not all, major
religions

consider

homosexuality

sin.

However,

in

accordance

with

the

constitution, marriage by the state should be excluded from a religions verdict, and
the government must not create laws just because of a religious principle. I believe
as well that financial, social and political marriage benefits applied to heterosexual
couples, such as joint ownership of taxation, property and the familys medical
coverage, should also be available to homosexual relationships.
On the negative side of this issue, though, I think there are also points
to be considered, and one of these is that children need both a mother and a father.
We cant deny the fact that there are certain parenting obligations that only a father
or a mother can carry out. However, as stated by in this contemporary world that
we have, it is possible that gay couples have enough background and capacity to
raise their own family through adoption and their own personal exposure to the
traditional parenting culture. Trends in different fields in society are constantly

evolving, so who gets to say that heterosexual parenting methods are always going
to be better than that of homosexuals? People nowadays have become more
flexible when it comes to their gender roles and capabilities because of
opportunities brought by technological and other modern advancements.
Considering these arguments, I think that gay marriage should be
politically and socially welcomed as long as two people are willing and also capable
of accomplishing their own responsibilities as a couple, as a family and as parents to
their child.
Kant claimed that the freely chosen law is the Moral Law, and it
should apply to moral agents all the time and in all places. And in order to know
what morality is, and what is the right or moral thing to do in a situation such as
the acceptance of gay marriage in society, there are three formulations that should
be supported by the parameters of same-sex marriage.
Using Kants philosophy on Universalizability, which states that we are
all equal and that no one is ever privileged, marriage should not only be conformed
to a certain type of people, mainly heterosexuals, but rather be available to
everyone instead regardless of their sexual preferences. Gay marriage is a concern
that frequently discusses and revolves around equality, but it is also a manner of a
persons freedom of will.
A homosexual person, once he realizes his own sexual preferences,
would then abide to a law that he has given himself and that is to love and be
together with another individual of the similar sex. This is described by Kant also as
free action, or the state of being autonomous as you create and live by your own
principles. Even without acknowledging societys opinion, or the laws of nature, he
still believes that its his right to marry a person he loves. Marriage is not required
for everyone, and so he has the choice to get married or not. Even if our world
eventually opens up to the idea of same-sex marriage, he would marry the person,
not because it is accepted, but because it was based on his own choice and will.
Aside from this, it was also declared by Kant that there are two types of
beings: persons and things, and that there is a particular distinction between the
two. This is called the anti-coercion principle, also known as the Requirement of
Human Dignity. Stating that all parties must treat each other not merely as objects
of instrumental value alone, but as objects of intrinsic value as well, the right of a
person to make his own decisions in his own will should be acknowledged without

exceptions. This principle therefore contrasts with the anti-argument that marriage
should only be between man and woman for the purpose of reproduction.
Proponents for gay-marriage say that in a homosexual relationship, the partner is
not and should not be only a tool to be able procreate, but rather a procreation
himself. Two gay people should treat one another as a procreation of his own
parents, and an individual of his own who made his own choice to commit himself to
his partner.
Lastly, he identified the third formulation for morality as the
Requirement of Reciprocity, wherein an action must be rationally desirable from all
perspectives in society for it to be considered just. It also states that we should
only act in a way that it would still be acceptable if we were in someone elses
place. When it comes to marriage, no one would like to be deprived of their right to
be married and start a family with their desired partner. What applies to you,
applies to me, therefore, everyone should be able to choose his own gender
preferences and the person he would want to spend the rest of his life with, as long
as it is based on his will and that of his partner. Marriage should not also be
restricted by your biological gender, because regardless of sex, everyone is their
own person, who has their own control over their own decisions and will.
In summary, despite turning against certain church principles, as well
as some of our roles as biological males and females, same-sex marriage should be
acknowledged as moral and just, given that the both people involved decided to
have a commitment based on their own will and without the influence of society, or
anyone else aside from themselves. Supported by Kants requirement for
universalizability,

one should be privileged with the right to marry, but instead,

everyone should have the freedom to choose whoever they wish to marry,
regardless of their and their partners sexual orientation. Marriage is a custom that
involves creating your own family, however, it does not only focus on reproduction.
A lover should not only be considered as a means for procreation, but rather a
procreation himself. This is why two married people can already consider
themselves as a family. Reciprocity in our society nowadays plays a huge part as a
basis of what is moral and what is not, and as the idea of liberation and the freedom
of self-expression becomes a trend, marriage has been already thought of as an
internationally-recognized human right because no one wants to be deprived from

their right to be one with a person they love just because they are hindered from
something they have no control over such as their own sexual orientation and
preference.

Sources:
"History and Debate on Gay Marriage." N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
http://www.debate.org/gay-marriage/
"Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?" ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
<http://gaymarriage.procon.org/#Background>.
Misserli, Jo. "Should Same-Sex Marriages Be Legalized?" BalancedPolitics.org. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 29 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm>.
Unruh, Bob. "Webster's Dictionary Redefines 'Marriage'" WorldNetDaily. N.p., 17 Mar.
2009. Web. 29 Dec. 2015. <http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91995/>.
.