From the very foundation of our society, marriage has always been restricted to a union between persons of the opposite sex, who voluntarily choose to spend their lives together. It has become a belief that marriage is God-ordained unity. In other words, marriage is considered to be divine. The evolution of society has, however, seen the emergence of gay marriages. Gay marriages are simply the marriages between persons of the same sex. One peculiar distinction between the two marriages is that one focuses on an individual’s choice, and the other focuses on gender. A sharp debate has, therefore, taken shape culminating in the decision of Laurence v Texas by the supreme court of America, allowing gay marriages. The protagonists majorly rely on a moral ground in their arguments, while the opposition relies on law and protection of rights.
The protagonists of eradication of gay marriages argue that, just like any other artificial object, gay marriages are not natural. They argue that a woman was naturally made to be a man’s companion through marriage (Eskridge, 1993). Allowing gay relationships, therefore, goes against the order of nature, as created by God. One of the factors that the protagonists particularly rely on is the inability of gay couples to reproduce. All religions agree on one thing, the fact that marriage should lead to companionship and procreation. Gay marriages do not lead to the continuity of human race and should, thus, be discouraged. Christians indicate that gay marriages will lead to the extinction of human beings. Some may argue that a gay couple can still acquire children through adoption, but such reasoning is myopic and irrational. In fact, gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children, as it impacts vices, rather than virtues in the vulnerable young children (Eskridge, 1993).
The protagonists further argue that gay marriages are a way in which some people evade their social and family responsibilities and mutilate the cultural and religious values (Meezan, 2005). Being gay is a vice by itself, according to virtually all religions, accepting its practice, therefore, would mean polluting the sanctity of marriage and encouraging the young children to engage in such acts. Encouraging such behaviors can also be prone to opening a Pandora box. People will start engaging in all manners of sexual behaviors (Franke, 2006). Bestiality and incest will be on the increase, as those who practice these immoral acts will also start claiming for recognition. If two persons of the same sex can consent to enter into a sexual relationship then likewise, two relatives can consent to have a sexual relationship and, likewise, a person’s choice to engage in sex with animals and pets, such as dogs, will be deemed lawful. It, therefore, calls for an urgent need to abolish gay rights in the USA to create a moral society.
Limited time Offer
Another argument put forward by the protagonists is that encouraging gay marriages leaves children without role models. A child’s success in life majorly depends on with the environment he is raised up. There are high chances that a person raised in gay family will also become gay. Such behaviors lead to poor mentorship of children and, eventually, raising an irresponsible society. A morally wrong act can never assume justification through law. What counts as being ungodly, and is not the violation of the law, but the basic standards of morality within the society. The argument put forth by the proposers of gay marriages that being gay is a civil right is quite fallacious. The comparison of homosexual relationship to race is, in fact, laughable. The race is quite genetic (Franke, 2006). For the same-sex marriage behavior’s, however, these characteristics are not permanent and can, therefore, be changed. According to me, therefore, same-sex marriages do not contain immutable characteristics and, as such, are subject to change. Lastly, the proponents argue that engaging in a same-sex relationship offends God. According to Christianity, it is a sin for someone to sleep with another man or woman. From the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, it is evident that God intended for Eve to be a companion to Adam and for them to have children.
The proponents of same-sex marriages, however, reject the arguments put forth by the abolitionists on the ground that they lack a legal basis, but rather a moral one that has no weight in court. They argue that being gay is an individual’s choice, as opposed to a decision by the court or any other administrative body. They further say that encouraging this kind of marriages will discourage and reduce the number in divorce cases in marriages. If many people who, as a result, of heterosexual marriage wrangle break up, the divorcees can find recourse in a same-sex marriage (Meezan, 2005). The proponents of homosexual relationships further argue that the illegalization of their relationships is tantamount to the denial of rights through a moral perspective that is biased. They say that gay marriages will have no impact on opposite sex partners’ relationships and that there is no need to use morals as a blockage to the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms. Eradicating same-sex marriages on the grounds of religion is subject to accepting a state religion that is by itself a denial of the right to religion. They argue that a state should be found on secular views, rather than religious views.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
The proponents of gay marriage further argue that they are entitled to the right to non-discrimination. That means that every person is equal before the law. Denying the fact that two people who have consented and are willing to stay together for the rest of their lives, amounts to non-discrimination against homosexuals. As such, it results to curtailing the fundamental rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the constitution. The proponents further state that same-sex marriages are already a reality in the twenty-first century and whether abolished through, the law or not, they are still taking place in the private (Herek, 2006).