Against Same Sex Marriage Essay
Against Same Sex Marriage
The legalization of the marriage between same sex couples will permanently change the rite of marriage in our society. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.
Marriage is the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbol related to procreation. That is, it establishes the values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. Through marriage our society works out the relationship of two people who will together create and nurture a new generation.
To change the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage couples would destroy its capacity to function in many ways. It could no longer represent procreative relationships of opposite sex marriages.Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which the future of life depends. It is the primary reason why marriage is so important to society. In same sex marriages procreation would be eliminated entirely.
First, when the state sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from spiritual prospective, the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is reduced to a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience. Cohabitation and short term relationships are the inevitable result.
Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead to polygamy and other alternatives to the one man, on woman unions. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once the line has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology, and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals it will be supported by nothing more substantiated than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices (Marriage under Fire).
After their decision, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of rights. Given that unstable legal judgment, it is certain some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. How about group marriage or marriage between cousins, or marriage between parent and child? How about marriage between a man and his animal? Anything allegedly linked to civil rights will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. These other couples restricted from marrying are not equivalent to homosexual couples, but are necessary to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason.
When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of its costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. A marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage, couples unlikely to produce children.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce (Single Parent: What Helps, What Hurts). However, there is ample evidence that children need both female and male parent for proper development. It is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes (Life without Father). With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach that this lifestyle is the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a woman and a man.
Textbooks, even in conservative states, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships and stories written for children as young as elementary or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space to homosexuals. Every public school will also be forced to teach that same sex marriage and homosexuality are perfectly normal. They will teach little boys and little girls that husband and wife and father and moother are merely optional for a family and therfore, meaningless (No Gay Marriage). Same sex families deny children either a mother or father. In certain cases, the same sex family is not driven by the needs of children, but rather by the radical wishes of a small group of adults. Thousands of published social science, psychological and medical studies show that children living in fatherless families, on average, suffer dramatically in every measure of well-being. These children suffer from higher levels of loneliness, physical or mental illness, behavior problems, educational failure or criminal troubles.
The third reason marriage between homosexuals will destroy traditional marriage is that this is the ultimate goal of activists, and they will not stop until they achieve it. Homosexual activists, with their inner power and exhilaration, feel the political climate is right to tell us what they have wanted all along. Gay marriages are likely to do for gay rights what the rallying cry of “abortion on demand” did for the Equal Rights Amendment and the women’s movement. It diverts the real debate on every level. It reduces the cause of gay rights to a single issue. But the real deal is most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. They do not want to entangle themselves in all sorts of legal constraints (Single Parent What Helps, What Hurts). In a perfect democratic world, gay marriage would be an option for those who want it. However, this world is not a perfect democracy, and the fight for gay marriage is the wrong fight at the wrong time (Focus on Family).
In conclusion, the reason for excluding same sex couples from marriage matters: If the reason for denying homosexual marriage is that we have no respect for same sex couples and their relationships and want to give the message that homosexuality is wrong, then that is discrimination and that is wrong. On the other hand, if the reason is to keep the very nature, essence and substance of marriage intact, and the essence is to protect the procreative relationship, then excluding same sex couples from marriage is ethically acceptable. This such refusal is not discrimination. Ethics requires us to take the least invasive, least restrictive alternative, reasonably available and likely to be effective in achieving a justified goal. Maintaining a traditional marriage and legally recognizing same sex partnerships fulfills that ethical requirement (Why Marriage Matters).
Gay and lesbian people have a right to form meaningful relationships. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. What will happen to society if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the state will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments associated with it.
These are a few reasons why I am against homosexual marriage. Legalizing it will change everything, especially the institution of the family. Every society needs natural marriage- as many men as possible each finding a woman, caring for and committing himself exclusively to her- working together to create and raise the next generation.