The institution of family and the issues of marriage play a crucial role in society today. Marriage status determines relations between spouses and their relations with the state. Whatever the reason for it, a union between two people usually involves mutual dependence, the beginning and raising of a family and, fidelity, the desire to stay together for life. The cases of gay marriage and poverty marriage inspire heated discussions based on social problems and legal arguments for and against such types of marriage (Hays 65). The marriage, finally, must be qualified by a religious or public official. Each community has its own needs or prohibitions, but in the last analysis, citizens are morally and legally free to marry if they wish.
Critics admit that the family and education of a person have a great and profound impact on marriage relations and interpretation of marriage. Researchers and educators admit that schools are responsible for the negative attitude towards marriage between gay people and the legal status of these couples. Getting married in the USA is fairly easy to do despite the huge responsibilities and emotional involvement it entails. In recent years, more attention is paid to immigrants and automobile drivers than to those who want to be married (Hays 66). The problem is that neither parents nor school educate children and teenagers bout marriage and responsibilities input on a person. Thus, the school creates a negative image of gay marriages as a socially undesirable act (ProtectMarriage 2009). The problem of family education is that children suppose the legal age of consent, generally eighteen for males and sixteen for females is enough to start a family. In contrast, these people oppose well-thought and carefully planned gay marriages interpreted them as socially wrong actions (Conely 237).
The most controversial issues are raised by religious leaders who oppose gay marriage but approve of poverty marriage. The Church does not take into account the fact that gay people do choose to marry, and they share their lives with others, and they swear to remain sexually faithful. It is, definitely, a difficult way of life even under perfect circumstances. It is least of all always the mode of life it is depicted in the advertisements of smiling family members who play football, gather at outdoor barbecues, or gather before the fireplace talking together (ProtectMarriage 2009). Using sociological imagination, it is possible to say that the Church, school, and parents provide children with the picture of an ideal marriage. In reality, poverty marriage differs greatly from this ideal. Marriage cannot be said strongly enough that marriage is an interactive arrangement in which the behavior of one partner affects and is affected by the behavior of the other partner. It is two people giving of themselves, psychologically and physically, to one another. Marriage should mean much more than socially accepted rules but must mean accepting and adjusting to the weaknesses and habits of the other spouse (Hays 68).
Gender and sexuality determine the main priorities of people and their internal desires and wishes. For gay couples, there are advantages and disadvantages in living together without legal marital status. If the couple is mature enough to recognize that there is more to it all than being able to have sexual relations, that they may learn more about one another, and whether or not they want to spend a life together, then the agreement may be worthwhile. In this case, it may well be that living together is another step in the courtship progression, which begins when partners meet each other. There is also a benefit in being able to date others without being hung up by traditional legal obligations, which forbids such behavior. Many people accept gay marriage as a natural process and do not separate it from traditional marriage laws and rules. For many poor people, marriage is an undesirable union as it increases poverty and the dependence of spouses upon each other. In this case, gender and sexuality are unified factors that help people to live together but avoid legal duties and responsibilities (Hays 140).
Another dimension of marriage is reflected in politics, authority, and poverty. Partners in gay marriage are more successful than many partners in poverty marriage. The gay partners in a marriage are those who have learned how to function after romance and its heart-tripping passion. It is known that love can not last forever, and this is partially true because people do not live forever. But even if love lasts a lifetime, its nature can change over the years. The uniqueness of gay marriage is that it is more stable and happy than poverty marriage because of true loving relations and sympathy (Hays 182). Sociological imagination allows us to say that there is a wide variety of possible experiences gay people might have in love relationships, and in turn reflected such components as emotional security, referring to feelings of hope, caring, concern and warmness; respect, which means being able to be tolerant, sympathetic and patient; the ability to spend time together, working as well as playing; close interaction, being able, to be honest, and self-revealing, and being a good listener; devotion, or a sense of investment and commitment; sexual intimacy). In contrast to gay marriages based on love and material success, many poverty marriages are unsuccessful based on economic necessity and authorities’ demands (Hays 142).
Such dimensions as capitalism and the economy require new social order and a new interpretation of a family. It is a known fact that many poor married couples suffer in silence, never talking over their hopes or their feelings. Anger and annoyance build-up, and one day it all explodes, touched off, oftentimes, by an unimportant event or stamen. Unkind expressions are exchanged, the situation gets out of hand, and someone walks out, from time to time for good, maybe without even knowing why. The partner who is left behind also may not be able to recognize the real problem. Sometimes, too, as the pent-up feelings become heavier, instead of bursting out in a rage, they swamp the husband or wife in deep despair from which he or she finds it complicated, if not impossible, to emerge without treatments or psychotherapy. On the other hand, a number of studies show no important difference in any area of gay personality development between children from broken and unbroken homes. Capitalism and the new economic relations support gay marriages and create new opportunities for these unions. For though some communities still permit “wife-lending” as a form of hospitality to visitors, sexual intercourse between two persons who are married but not to each other is widely frowned upon, prohibited by secular and religious law (Conely 241).
The main controversies of a marriage status are created by such issues as collective action, social movements, and social change. These social processes influence the modern understanding of marriage and the interpretation of family life. All critics agree that family life and marital status have to depend on the nature of the relationship, on the ground rules that the union has laid down (Hays 187). In conclusion, either one of the partners can walk out at any time without any legal responsibilities. It is important to note that since 1976 all couples living together have had legal status. The California Supreme Court agreed that two unmarried persons who share property have the same rights as a marriage union. In this case, gay people who live together and share property acquired by them while they live together are as valid as if they were married (ProtectMarriage 2009). Despite these laws, society rejects the idea of gay marriages as socially undesirable unions. In contrast, social movements support the idea of poverty marriage between people who do not share any property and do not have material possessions or money (Conely 251).
In sum, gay marriage and poverty marriage have both advantages and disadvantages. The main problem is that modern society imposes its values and beliefs on children and creates negative images of socially undesirable processes (such as gay marriage). In reality, many gay couples are more stable and happy than poverty couples supported and promoted by the state. The truth of the matter is that there are countless people who could make their spouses happy. For poor people, the family ought not to be viewed as an escape, as a means of easing pain. False social ideals and wrong moral values promoted since childhood distort ideas of marriage and family life in adults. Both types of marriages have their own special problems and struggles, not the least of which is that it is not.
Gay people do change psychologically in marriage as they begin to play the parts of husband and wife, father and mother. In contrast, in poverty marriage, this legal status does give personalities a chance to develop. Accepting and sharing does not mean that gay spouses lose their personal identity, the tag that makes it special. These things can strengthen the identity of gay partners, give them more character. In gay marriage and poverty marriage, family life is biological nature, but poor personal relations caused by state control or inadequate laws, reduce interest when certain needs are satisfied. It has been said that many poverty romances are wrecked by marriage. In contrast, many relations between gay people lead to happy family life and mutual trust.
Conely, D. You May ask Yourself. W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition, 2008.
Hays. Sh. Flat Broke With Children. Oxford University Press, USA, 2003.
ProtectMarriage 2009. Web.