Do Gays and Lesbians Threaten the System of Male Dominance? Essay

Do Gays and Lesbians Threaten the System of Male ascendency? "In short, by not complying with their assigned sexuality roles, gays and lesbians threaten the system of rules of male dominance (Calhoun 157)"     A debate is raging in the States about who people have a right to conjoin. In chemical reaction to lesbians and gays asking for the right to marry, many legislators are writing laws to ban same-sex wedding ceremony in their respective states. Even President Bush supports a innate amendment that would ban same-sex join (prez.bush. spousals/). Opponents of such legislation do not deprivation discrimination passed into law and are protesting at every opportunity. One must understand the reasons that people want to ban same-sex marriage before he or she net effectively argue about the subject. Many advocates of same-sex marriage bans say that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would degrade the institution of marriage because marriage is onl y when supposed to exist between a man and woman. In addition, allowing same-sex marriage would cause problems for society (Issues and Controversies on File). One theory why opponents whitethorn fight against same-sex marriages is that heterosexual marriages have long reinforced traditional sexual urge roles within marriage and that allowing same-sex marriages would cause males to lose their authority to subordinate females as heterosexual couples begin to model same-sex marriage gender equality (Calhoun 157).      The traditional argument against same-sex marriage states that marriage is defined as the emotional and weird union of a man and a woman. According to that definition, a duet of men or women cannot marry. Opponents of same-sex marriage bans, however, argue that marriage is a canonical ain and social right and a social contract that is innocent of gender consideration. Cheshire Calhoun states, "the dominant goal of marriage is and should be un itive, the spiritual and personal union of the committed couple" (151). The sexual orientation or gender of the partners does not lessen the importance placed upon entering such a union and need not be used to restrict who can enter into such a union.      Heterosexuals have enjoyed the right to marry throughout recorded history, though there have been restrictions placed over who could marry that have been overc... ...at sodomy is immoral or that same-sex unions are immoral, but nevertheless think the state should adopt a neutral position, refraining from criminalizing sodomy and crack legal protection for same-sex unions under domestic partnership laws" (Calhoun 168). BibliographyLOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA. http//web.lexis-nexis.com/ instauration/document? _m=5fc1bb0239c8912aa97d779528e9d62b& _docnum=2&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVb&_md5=60c85af0cd3ade6c85561f31ba41bdc7http//www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/Calhoun, Cheshire. Feminism, the Family, and the politics of the Closet Lesbian and Gay Displacement. Oxford University Press brisk York, 2000. Corvino, John. Why Shouldnt Tommy and Jim admit Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality. Rowman & Littlefield New York, 1997. Issues and Controversies on File. Same-Sex Marriage. Facts on File News Services New York, 1996.Levin, Michael E. Sexual Orientation and gentleman rights. Rowman & Littlefield New York, 1999. B.A. Robinson. CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. http//www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj_c.htm.Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal. Alfred A. Knopf Inc New York, 1995.