A current hot topic is the same sex marriage debate

Name
Professor
Course
Date
Analysis of the Debate on Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
There has been a public debate on whether marriage between people of the same sex should be allowed in the United States of America or not. Several people have different opinions on the matter with some in support of it while some are viewing it as an abomination. Among the many scholars who have greatly contributed to the debate on the matter are John Finnis and John Corvino. These two scholars have totally contradicting opinions on the matter. Finnis on one side is totally against the ideas and cannot imagine a society in which same-sex marriage is legal. Corvino, on the other hand, has been in full support of the matter and finds nothing wrong with homosexuality. This paper, therefore, provides analysis of the contribution of the two scholars on the matter.
Analysis of John Finnis Criticism of legalizing Same Sex Marriage
John Finnis totally opposes the motion that aims to legalize same-sex marriage in the United States of America. Finnis bases his argument on the several reasons. The first reason is that the same-sex marriage stands to replace the actual traditional understanding of marriage (Wardle 735). According to Finnis, homosexual marriage may not benefit the society in any way. It is possible for somebody to argue that the traditional understanding of marriage was compromised by divorce. However, in the case of divorce, somebody is allowed to remarry and still achieve the main purpose of marriage.

This, therefore, makes it impossible to compare these two scenarios. Secondly, he argues that this kind of marriage totally undermines the intended function of marriage, which is a reproduction which is in tandem with the natural law. Although marriage also serves other purposes like companionship, its main agenda is to ensure generation continuity.
Having gone through the reasons that Finnis have for opposing the same-sex marriage, I tend to think that some of the reasons are valid while others do not hold waters. According to the New Natural Law Argument, homosexual marriage is not possible simply because it violates the rule of basic human good. The law holds that the marital good can only be obtained through interactions involving people of different sex (Finnis 1.). There is a clear connection between Finnis’ argument of lack of benefits in same-sex marriage and the natural law. Finnis in his argument states that the major difference between the moral and the immoral people are guiding principles which they utilize to determine their acts. According to the human rights, the right of choice, people are allowed to engage in various activities that best interest them as long as such activities do not interfere with the rights of other people and the parties involved have the legal capacities to make decisions. People who engage in marriage partnership, be it heterosexual or homosexual, are believed to have attained the age of majority and therefore have the ability to make the right decisions. The question as to whether the decisions are moral or immoral may depend on whether they compromise the moral standards of the given society. In this regard, I, therefore, tend to disagree with Finnis’ argument based on the morality of the homosexual marriage. This is because moral standards vary from one society to another and therefore the same-sex marriage cannot be forbidden by the law just by the mere fact it is condemned by the moral standards of one particular society.
Analysis John Corvino’s Criticism of Natural Law.
John Corvino is one person who has come out clearly to support the debate on the same-sex marriage (Corvino 501). The view of Corvino in his entitled “what’s wrong with gay Marriage?” are quite opposed to the natural law (Corvino and Maggie 1). According to Corvino, the two high profile countries- Britain and Scotland are in the final stages of legalizing the same-sex marriage. He also went ahead to cite several states within the United States of America which have extended marriage rights to couples of the same sex. According to the natural laws, the marriage should involve union between the couples, and this is only possible through coitus. Based on the natural law, the same-sex marriage cannot allow for the penile-vaginal coitus to take place and therefore cannot achieve the marriage good thus same-sex marriage is unacceptable. Corvino in his argument tries to compare the gay couples to completely infertile couple as he challenges this law. He questions why the infertile couples should be allowed to marry, yet they cannot achieve the purpose of marriage of reproduction. From simple common sense, these are two separate and different scenarios that cannot form the basis of the criticism. An infertile couple can achieve coitus while the homosexual couples literally cannot. The fact that they cannot reproduce does not change their sex at all. That should be treated as a disability though they achieve the penile-vaginal coitus as opposed to same-sex couples.
Cons and Pros unexplained by the Scholars
My stand in the Debate.
The natural law somehow fails to give the various issues a holistic approach. For instance the case of the functions of marriage. Based on the natural law, marriage has only one single role which is a reproduction. On the other hand, marriage in the real sense serves several purposes such achieving companionship and helping one another in various ways. This forms the basis of the reason as to why Finnis’ argument, which is majorly based on the natural law, can be rejected. It is the very loophole in the natural law that Corvino gets the point to support his stand on the debate. Other than, the reproduction and the penile-vaginal coitus, that are not possible with homosexual marriage, the couple can still achieve the other functions of marriage.
My Stand on the Debate
Personally, I am against legalization of the same-sex marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage would encourage more people to practice. Just as the natural states, this kind of marriage will kill reproduction and hence the future generation. In as much as there are other functions of marriage, think the other functions only benefit the couple and not the society as a whole.

Works Cited
Wardle, Lynn D. “Legal claims for same-sex marriage: Efforts to legitimate a retreat from
marriage by redefining marriage.” S. Tex. L. Rev. 39 (1997): 735.
Corvino, John. “Homosexuality and the PIB Argument.” Ethics 115.3 (2005): 501-534.
Ball, Carlos. “Moral foundations for a discourse on same-sex marriage: Looking beyond political
liberalism.” Geo. LJ 85 (1996): 1871.
Finnis, John. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Corvino, John, and Maggie Gallagher. Debating same-sex marriage. OUP USA, 2012.