Gay couples should not to marry

Introduction

Gay relations are qualitatively dissimilar from straightforward affiliations. However, people understand sex differently since there are diverse models highlighting the aspects that sexual partners represent in life. It is worth affirming that heterosexual marriage centers on emotional fascination associated with differing facets of the male-female polarity.

This focuses on the complementary nature of the reproductive organ and passionate attachment of males and females, which fill missing portions and gives birth to fresh life. Heterosexual marriage supports bonding thus leading to reproduction and the creation of a household to nurture children (Newton 54). Family model is traditionally hierarchical and organized giving each partner a sexual role in a relationship but gay connections are not based on such aspects.

According to gay persons, sexual fascination fails to derive its appeal on the complementary nature of physical organs since they lack a defined gender role thus making them incomplete. As evident in a decently functional perception, the gay relationships have no purpose therefore; they should not marry.

Argumentative aspects of gay and straight affiliations

Traditional marriage was a foundation amid a male and woman in western nations and other associated cultures. In this argument, “the marriage between a man and woman” is appropriate and the only correct lawful relationship that exists in the human culture to (Wardle 39).

For example, Alan Sekulow of the paramount counsel for “American Centre for Regulation and justice” was against gay marriage. He testified before “U.S. House for Representatives Judiciary subcommittee” in 2004 supporting the custom of a man and woman marital association as the foundation of English and American bylaw.

He supported the lawful marriage of people but not those prohibited by God’s law or by the church. It is evident that persons complete with bodily understanding and capability to produce children shall be everlasting. Sekulow emphasizes that unions, which are mixtures of individuals, who are not man and woman will not conform to the ideologies of marriage.

People who practice gay marriage argue that in traditional marriages, there were alternatives to one man and one-woman marriage thus polygamy. Critics of this argument say that such a practice is inviolable and has been in existence for an extended period.

Secondly, opponents of gay marriage argue that the main objectives of gay activists are not to obtain rights for “same sex couples” but destroy the marriage and family institutions (Newton 55). This argument bases on the fact that the key aim for gay activists is to overthrow the American society.

While arguing on this reason, many authors derive their arguments on a book by two gay men who describe a media campaign convincing America to accept gay marriage as normal. The book defines the gay people as essentially the identical facet of other sexual orientations. According to Peter Winn, an associate editor of online magazines, gay partners are people fail to support marriage since they focus on destroying it and families.

Therefore, by permitting gay marriage, it is expected that such persons would destroy marriage and families. Benjamin Bull, a critic gives an example of France that allows marriage among gay to show evidence of the effects of gay marriage. He says that the results of gay marriages in France include destruction of marriages and families. Indeed, over 40% of children are being born outside marriage.

Gay marriage proponents have a problem of insufficient specificity in this argument. They disagree that granting gay people the consent to marry will have no influence on differing sex marriage. A critic of Benjamin Bull’s argument asks whether Bull believes that 40% of children in France born out of marriage are the result of allowing existence of gay marriage (Newton 55).

Thirdly, allowing gay the right to marriage will lead to legalization of other disgraceful practices. This argument centers on the notion that coming up with one policy reasonably obliges the associated parties to accept the second policy that relates to it.

In turn, this will lead to adoption of third, fourth and other interconnected policies. According to slippery slope, when one starts on a positive road, it is hard for him/her to leave it unless it results in various related pronouncements that he/she did not encounter at first. With respect to gay marriage, other evils will follow once it is legalized.

What will inhibit authorization of marriages amidst a woman and two men, 10 women and a man, brother and sister or woman and a dog? If gay partners view marriage as a civil right, then why should the same right be denied to people with different views on marriage? In line with the “Defense of Marriage Act 1996”, Professor Arkes Hadley discovered that every argument on gay marriage supports polygamy because people will be ready to raise the challenge in court (Cahill 23).

Activist of gay marriages holds general views that whom one chooses to marry is his/her business and they appreciate both polygamy and polyandry. It is evident from divergent sources that gay marriage supporters fail to agree with an argument because they believe in individual decisions.

Fourthly, the main aim of marriage is for procreation, which gay people cannot attain. These arguments discuss two weakness of gay marriage, the first is simply attributable to the supposition that gay may not reproduce and the tenacity of marriage is having children. Secondly, gay partners are naturally incompetent to have children.

According to gay opponents, normative matrimony involves consummation and procreation acts but a gay marriage will never consummate or procreate. Somerville disagrees with gay marriage by stating that, marriage under which the circumstances fail to culminate in a relationship intended to promote the satisfaction of two people is baseless. He insists on proliferation as the main rationale of matrimony (Newton 54).

Rebuttals to the above argument persist by indicating that it is possible for gay combinations to bear children. They characterize the above argument to mean that infertility has a relationship with homosexuality. They say that half-gay people are married to women and they procreate.

Fifthly, a family borne to one-man and one-woman is the perfect environment to nurture children. Allowing gay couples to raise children is wrong. According to Pastor Erwin Lutzer, allowing gay couples to care for children creates a sense of unease. This is because an environment with both man and woman to care for children offers the safest environment for appropriate upbringing.

Exposure of both sexes to children is vital in the developmental of needs because it puts them in a position to ascertain their sexual personality. Indeed, gay parenting can increase the violence incidences in children, leads to low life expectation, increases the gay relationships and such children are at a high risk of associating sexually with their parents.

This argument provides rebuttals of gay marriages with claims of validity from research insisting that these are just conclusions. They argue that gay couples perform the same responsibilities as the heterosexual couples.

According to Newton (55), other reasons behind disagreeing with gay marriage are that gay relationships are immoral thus making gay marriages legal will be tantamount to legalizing immorality. Gay marriages are societal experiments meaning that children and societies should not suffer the burdens brought by such experiments.

Allowing gay marriages will provide gay people with exceptional privileges as they have the permission to get married to persons of divergent sexual roles. As such, making gay marriages lawful will force churches, mosques and other worship places to conduct ceremonies that they shun; furthermore, gay marriages act as recruitment of children to gay lifestyle.

Several authors attribute primary importance to the spiritual realm that shuns gay marriage. Indeed, everything exists foremost as a physical realm before taking other conscious forms. Spiritual realm is at the center of morality amid individuals. Information on spiritual realm leads to contentment and perfection in life. It is the foundation of contentment and a fulfilled life lies in the principles of spiritual realms. The mind’s dominion over the body makes spiritual realm the most essential since it gives rise to intellectual and emotional realm.

Conclusion

Finally, many writers shun the subject of gay marriages. As Stanley Kurtz states, most of the gay activists have no interest in the matter, instead they only center on gaining societal support for homosexuality (Newton 55). He concludes that if the society decides not to guard the real concept of relations and marriage then marriage is likely to diminish thus leaving contracts in place.

When referring to gay, love and sex concentrates on viewing oneself in his/her own image and it manifests the feeling that one is just oneself. Yet, God is the only one with the right to exude consciousness on aspects in the World. In this case, the gay marriages are against the will of God. Certification of gay matrimony will culminate in the justification of polygamy and group marriage thus leading to legal abolition of marriage.

Works Cited

Cahill, Sean. Same-sex marriage in the United States: focus on the facts. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books, 2004. Print.

Newton, David. Same-sex marriage: a reference handbook. Westport, CT: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Print.

Wardle. Lynn. Marriage and same-sex unions: a debate. Illinois, IL: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Print.