Critical Analysis of Schulmans Article Gay Marriage and...

Marriage, for years has been argued that the rights to it or strictly only between a man and a women. Both sexes are assumed to marry someone of the opposite sex. What if, however, an individual wanted to marry someone of the same sex? Why is this debate so heavily heated amongst individuals? Is it that religion is a large structure base that those in society are guided by? Or is it that individuals do not understand that marriage is a union between two individuals who are in love? Whatever the case may be, there is always someone who has to argue that homosexual marriage is â€Å"wrong.† Sam Schulman argues that homosexual marriage is about the duties or roles that these couples perform that would be different from that of heterosexual†¦show more content†¦According to this logic, simply granting the right to homosexual couples to participate in a marriage will lead the legalization of other unconventional marriages. However, a knowledgeable person can see how ignorant this argument is. This argument is similar to the previously mentioned statement regarding homosexual marriage leading to incestuous relationships or marriages. Just because rights are granted to one group, does not mean something extreme such as the legalization of polygamy and others will then occur. The institution of homosexual marriage does not fight for the rights of one person to marry multiple people. Polygamy, polyandry, and polyamorism argue over the number of people allowed in a marriage. Legalizing and allowing homosexuals the right to marriage enables every American citizen access to equal rights as established by the Constitution. Polygamy and the like simply grant a different number of people allowed in the same committed circumstance. Schulman states marriage is an institution that is built around female sexuality and female procreativity and Thanks to contraception, the decision to marry no longer precedes sexual intercourse as commonly as it did 50 years ago, when, for most people, a fully