Utilitarianism Theory on Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage

Ke'Mesha Hall

SOC 120

MARK COHEN

September 18, 2012

Utilitarianism Theory on Gay Marriage

According to Utilitarianism, the pleasure-pain principle not only proves that there can be no clash between individual and group interest, because if the conduct of both will be the same. "The rule utilitarian may, in some cases, disagree, contending that one should do things that, as a rule, generate the greatest good for the greatest number (Mosser, 2010, p2)" In other words, the Utilitarian claimed to have answered the most perplexing questions: What should be the guide for individual conduct? What should be the function of the government, the main organizational aspect of the community? And how can one's interest be reconciled with opposing interest of others and of the community as a whole? "Gay Marriage is one issue where some individuals' ethical principles have come into conflict with state law. Thus, gay man and woman may be prohibited from marrying if a law that defines marriage as a union of one man with one woman is passed (Mosser, 2010)." Marriage is a unique practice, in that it is both a religious sacrament and legal registration controlled by the state. Throughout human history, according to religious tradition and as a matter of natural law, marriage has been tied to potential procreative sexuality, which is a monopoly held by different-sex couples. The suggestion that the state has no real interest in marriage is a stunning repudiation of the unique contributions of heterosexual marriage to society, to the state, and to the individual--and particularly to children. The marriage of a man and woman has long been favored because it provides the most favorable setting in which to conceive and raise children.

What we as a society need to do is go back to when children had a loving mother and father; children were born after marriage, and raised in a happy and loving family. The dynamics of marriage have changed though; the definition of what marriage is coming into question. Is marriage only between a man and a woman? My personal opinion is that anyone should be able to marry, but the best design for a family is one of a man and woman. Many would object to this strict definition, but the impact of a child raised by a gay or lesbian couple must be taken into account. Bulling is a reality and children with different situations at home are easier to fall prey to it. Some might also have an issue with a gay or lesbian raising a child of the same sex. "No matter how people interpret dignity and equality; and no matter how they disagree with each other on their meanings, the debate over whether there is a right to same-sex marriage pertaining to equality and dignity will not go away. When arguing over who gets the interpretation right seems to get us nowhere, I ask whether deliberative democracy may provide hope for people to move forward in settling their disagreements (Yee, Man; Lee, Karen, 2010, p 168)." Denying the marriage of two people in love, by the ethical standards of our society, is wrong. It is denying one the right to the pursuit of happiness. It is denying them the stability of married life, the benefits of being able to oversee the illness of the partner, the benefits of simply loving someone that much, that you are willing to make a life-long commitment such as marriage. We would never think of denying this right to a couple made up of a man and a woman. The opponents of the single-sex marriage propagate that gay marriage is harmful socially and morally whereas its proponents are of the view that gay marriage is an individual right that brings no harm to the society.

As society moves to more 'normalize' and legalize what God considers a sin, more and more things that consider wrong or harmful are being normalized and legalized. I believe it will only take about 20 years before homosexual marriages will be legalized nationwide. It's already illegal to have separate gender public restrooms in Colorado. As society moves forward in headlong rush to not make people feel bad for doing bad things or being certain ways, society begins to rush headlong into decadence and crumbles much like other societies in the past. As society makes is easier to not be self-sacrificing and self-controlled, society moves toward implosion. Just as 'normalizing' (and making easier and legalizing) sex outside of marriage, cohabitation, abortion, and divorce have all detrimental effects on 'developed' nations so will homosexual marriage. This is an ethical issue that leaves much room for debate. There are many people who are opposed to this "type of relationship" today, however, there are also many people who are impartial and choose not to pass judgment upon others that would choose this lifestyle. Gay marriage, in my opinion, is not natural and I do not agree with this type of lifestyle. Ethically speaking, the theory of deontology could be used to explain why this act may be considered "morally wrong" to some and "acceptable" to others. These individuals view their inability to legally marry as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and violate their right to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They feel it also violates their right to be treated equally and fairly. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity.

To promote the legality of gay marriage isn't a neutral issue. It has widespread ramifications (adoption, child-custody laws, public and private school curricula, antidiscrimination laws based on marriage), and the government itself can't remain neutral. It will either continue with the assumed definition of marriage as the one-flesh union between husband and wife--or it will undo this, giving the message: "Marriage can be defined as we wish." In this case, marriage is based on nothing more than emotional and economic attachments. Even when a person claims he can do "whatever makes me happy" without governmental interference, but then qualifies that statement by saying "just as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" or "but it should be between two consenting adults" or "just as long as you tolerate other views," we see a moral standard being slipped in.

One criticism which can be argued against utilitarianism is that it undermines the value of individuals