Reasons gay marriage no matter where one lives, one should not be able to marry the same gender
(1)The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson , the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family.
Bruce Peterson, JD, Majority Opinion, Baker v. Nelson, www.marriagelawfoundation.org, Oct. 15, 1971
(2)Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothersin 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution.
Source for (2)
W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt, "The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America 2009," www.stateofourunions.org, Dec. 2009
Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, Joyce A. Martin, MPH, and Stephanie J. Ventura, MA, "Births: Preliminary Date for 2008," National Vital Statistics Reports, Apr. 6, 2010
Gay marriage undermines family values because it undermines the whole concept of marriage, which should be between a man and a woman. Most religions see homosexuality as morally wrong. Opposition to gay marriage based on religious conviction is entirely justified. Gay marriages confuse gender roles for children. Children who are adopted need a mother and a father, not two parents of the same gender, even if married. One of the main historical principles behind marriage is that a man and a woman commit to each other so that they can have children together, but a gay couple cannot procreate. Legalizing gay marriage further undermines the family values which hold society together and it encourages a gay lifestyle, which has been shown to be detrimental to people, with gay people having higher incidents of mental illness, suicide rates, problems with addiction etc.
It is certainly true that the contention over marriage is about civil law. Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter. In any case, the law has until now taken for granted that marriage is an institutional bond between a man and a woman. Moreover, marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion."
However, to insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not first of all a religious matter does not take us very far. After all, the argument is about what government ought to do about keeping or changing the legal definition of marriage. The debate is not between husbands and wives within the bond of traditional marriage—like a court case over divorce and child custody. No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.
Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex "marriage." To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship. An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.
The simple fact is that the civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration. Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment under the law depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.
Just because there is a high rate of divorce doesn't mean they should be stopped from forming a unity with their partner. Many gay couples adopt children to raise as their own. Many kids are put up for adoption and since gay couples can't reproduce they're own, they adopt children who don't have caregivers of their own. This is advantageous because these kids are put into homes with people who will love and care for them. I have heard many stories of kids who have same-sex parents. One wouldn't even be able to tell that they had parents of the same sex; they aren't raised any different.
If the couple lives together, maintain a household and raise children just as a heterosexual couple does, why can't they get married just like this couple. The only difference in this situation is solely that one person is not the opposite sex. Considering that there is not much to differentiate of the two couples, why treat them differently and give more rights and benefits to only one. The outcome of both marriages would have a minimal difference. They are both in it for the same reasons.
Being married is a significant desire for some. If a person wants to get married to another, they should not be denied for whatever reason. The government may not view marriage as a ceremony to join two people that are in love; however, that does not change the way people view it. Just because the government gets involved for certain reasons that doesn't prove anything about how the people view it. Many people view marriage as a beautiful ceremony that they will cherish for the rest of they're lives. They deserve the right to share this union just as much as others do.
First, legal and ecclesiastical embrace of homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions.
Second, and even more importantly, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among females). They are wrong because “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met.
The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one’s life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger—or, in Scripture’s understanding, re-merger—of essential maleness and femaleness.
The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam (“earthling”) is split down the “side” (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than “rib”) to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or “other halves,” man and woman.
This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements.
By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other. As one ancient text puts it, “seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them” (Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 20). The modern word “homosexual”—from the Greek homoios, “like” or “same”—underscores this self-evident desire for the essential sexual self shared in common with one’s partner.
I am not talking merely about what some prohomosex advocates derisively refer to as an “obsession with plumbing.” I am talking about a fundamental recognition of something holistic, an essential maleness and an essential femaleness. Why else would 99% of all persons in the United States (97% heterosexual, 2% homosexual) limit their selection of mates to persons of a particular sex? Why else do so many “gays” claim exclusive attraction for persons of the same sex rather than, say, gender nonconforming persons of the other sex? All this indicates a basic societal admission that there is an essential and holistic maleness and femaleness that transcend mere social constructs.
In this connection, too, it is interesting that homosexual men, even those who bear effeminate traits, usually desire very “masculine” men as their sex partners. Why? Undoubtedly many desire what they see as lacking in themselves: a strong masculine quality. Such a desire is really a form of self-delusion. They are already men, already masculine. They are masculine by virtue of their sex, not by virtue of possessing a social construct of masculinity that may or may not reflect true masculinity. They need not seek completion in a sexual same. Rather, they must come to terms with their essential masculinity.
In sum, why is “gay marriage” wrong? Most importantly, the idea of “gay marriage” is an oxymoron and a rejection of a core value in Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. Marriage requires the two sexes to reconstitute a sexual whole. By definition same-sex erotic attraction is predicated either on the narcissism of being attracted to what one is as a sexual being or on the delusion that one needs to merge with another of the same sex to complete one’s own sexual deficiencies. Arguing that we should grant marriage status to homosexually inclined persons to avert promiscuity is like insisting that we grant marriage status to adult incestuous or polygamous unions to promote relational longevity. It doesn’t address the main problem with this particular kind of sexual immorality.
But “gay marriage” is also wrong because it will more likely weaken the institution of marriage than moderate the typical excesses of homosexual behavior. The dominant rhetoric of “gay marriage” severs marriage from childbearing and, not surprisingly, leads to more out-of-wedlock births in the population as a whole. The fact that relatively few homosexual couples will get married precludes from the outset any major positive impact on homosexual behavior. Those that do get married will still experience extraordinarily high rates of outside sex partners and divorce, owing to the absence of complementary male-female dynamics. The result will be a further devaluation of monogamy and permanence for the institution of marriage.
Finally, “gay marriage” will bring about the ultimate demise of structural prerequisites for marriage (for example, as regards “plural unions” and adult incest) by making affection the ultimate trump card; increase the incidence of bisexuality and homosexuality in the population and thereby expose more young persons to their negative side-effects for health; and lead to the radical abridgement of the civil and religious liberties of our children, to the point of prosecuting any public expressions of misgivings regarding the active promotion of homosexual practice.
NPerez forfeited this round.
KILLUMINATI forfeited this round.