Excerpt via Term Conventional paper:
Married people have statutory rights to symbolize one another’s financial and other confidential interests and they include mutual decision-making rights in circumstances exactly where either person becomes not capable of making essential decisions. By comparison, non-married pair-bonded couples do not acquire individuals statutory rights and rights.
From the Discord Theory sociological perspective, the current controversy encircling same-sex relationship would highlight the difference between teams promoting same-sex marriage legal rights and organizations opposed to those rights whom promote the so-called “traditional” view of marriage in society. In sociological conditions corresponding to conflict rules, same-sex marriage advocates (consisting substantially of people who would end up being directly gained by their recognition) would be considered a subordinate group; those espousing the limit of marital rights to traditional partnerships would be considered as the dominant group. According to this macro-sociological construction, the resources at issue could consist of the valuable (economic and non-economic ) benefits associated with the formal status of marriage.
The relative inequality of the privileges and liberties enjoyed by simply pair-bonded couples eligible for relationship and pair-bonded couples ineligible for marital life would also fit typical framework with the conflict-based macro-social approach to understanding sociological problems and relationships. On one hand, the controversy over same-sex relationship did not have got its origins in conflict between dominant and subordinate organizations. On the other hand, it can demonstrate one more fundamental characteristic of conflict theory: specifically, it shows how social conflict could be a crucial element in the advancement of culture through sociable changes that correspond to the necessity to resolve the underlying facets of cultural conflict.
Symbolic interactionism may well provide the most applicable and accurate construction for comprehending the contemporary conflict over same-sex marriage. There is no doubt that same-sex pair-bonded major couples characteristic perfectly similar relationship factors to those that define traditional relationships. Typically, same-sex couples specify their human relationships and accomplish their common and particular responsibilities in a fashion that is indistinguishable from corresponding definitions and responsibilities in traditional relationships. In that respect, the principal social set ups pertaining to matrimony would be the state and federal laws comprise the legal rights of married people.
Currently, there is also a growing general opinion in American society that equates the differential treatment of pair-bonded opposite-sex couples and pair-bonded same-sex couples with the shameful good racism and differential remedying of uni-racial and interracial matrimony in the pre-civil rights period of American contemporary society. In my personal experience, same-sex couples will be no different from customarily married couples and they deserve the same treatment underneath the law, just as did interracial couples. Apparently, younger Us citizens of my personal generation are less at risk of perpetuating traditional stereotypes and prejudices (Bennett, 1996) that militate resistant to the conceptual development of the institution of relationship to include really pair-bonded same-sex couples. Apparently the growing awareness of the moral and ethical inappropriateness of differentiating marital status on the basis of lovemaking orientation can eventually develop social modifications in our direction of equality just the same as that type of consciousness eventually overcame racial splendour in marital life a half century back.
References
Bennett, William L. “Gay Marriage: Not a Incredibly Good Idea. ” The Washington Post (May
21, 1996). Accessed 16 May 2012 from:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=1013
Henslin, Wayne M. (2008). Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Strategy. Boston:
Pearson.
Macionis, Steve J. (2007).
