Children are one of the most important factors of this issue; and same-sex marriage can literally destroy them. “Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often” (Benne npag). It’s not fair to these children, who have become statistics, to be faced with these consequences as a result of someone else’s decision that they took no part in. It cannot be guaranteed but it’s more than likely that these children would not have been like that had they not had gay ‘parents.’ Furthermore, “It’s going to be increasingly popular to produce, buy and sell children, because in addition to adoption, that [renting wombs] is the only way homosexual couples can ‘have’ children” (Moll npag). Just the chance of this happening is something that has already gone too far and been too harmful. Children are a privilege that we should love and treat with love; they are not objects that can be taken advantage of and traded around like basketball cards. Although this is wrong it can still happen. “Because gay couples cannot produce children on their own, Skillen predicts, hopeful parents may seek to ‘rent wombs’ and deny children the right to know their biological parents” (Moll npag). Children have rights that are often denied to them, and this is one of the ways ‘parents’ can easily deny them their rights. In the Doctrine of Faith, it states that, “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such (homosexual) unions would actually mean doing violence to these children…(Placing) them in an environment that is not conductive to their full human development” (Vatican npag). The Vatican is strongly against same-sex marriage, and the Doctrine of Faith clearly communicated that message. Children are not fully capable of getting themselves out of a wrong situation when it presents itself; they shouldn’t be put in it in the first place. This is because, “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low conflict marriage” (Benne npag). Undoubtedly, if a homosexual couple has a child they are not the biological parents. That can have rather negative effects on a child.
Currently, the average child is not living the ideal, safe lifestyle. They are presented with many problems in their everyday life. Gay marriage will be adding to the existing problems. “Fatherless children are already a problem and gay marriage will contribute to it because most gay couples raising children are women” (Moll npag). That fact could add to the possibility of these children, if males, to turn out gay because they have been raised by two women and have not had much ‘manliness’ in their life. “Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, and other pathogens” (Benne npag). Since this is also a common problem among teens same-sex marriages won’t be helping this either. Teens need as natural an environment as possible with parents that meet their needs. If children are affected, it affects the people around them. “Gay marriage may not just change the development of children, said the center for Public Justice’s Skillen; it may change society’s entire concept of parenthood” (Moll npag). Parenthood is also something special that can not be done in a homosexual couple.
Another major issue is the commitment to each other. Couples who can’t commit to each other should not be together; let alone get married. A study from the Netherlands shows that stable homosexual (men) average having eight partners a year; even though they are in a ‘monogamous’ relationship (Benne npag). This behavior has a negative impact on society, children, if they have any, and the relationship itself. Before gay couples make a life-time commitment to each other, they have to learn how to be with each other, exclusively, for a certain amount of time.
To many, gay marriage is just simply immoral and no other reason is needed; it should not be allowed. In the Doctrine of Faith in the Vatican, it states that, “To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral (Vatican).” Different people have different ideas of what the ‘common good’ is but in one way or another gay marriage does violate people’s sense of security and trust in marriage. The society would be confused and upset if a law were passed to allow gay marriage. It’s also a matter of legal immorality, if one could say so. Again the Doctrine of Faith also stated, “Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior…but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity (Vatican).” The real thing that most people are scared of, is just the idea of marriage becoming any less valuable of sacred and something else taking itself place or rather something else rising to its value and sacredness. This is why many people, including President Bush are backing a federal marriage amendment (Reichmann).” The Federal Marriage Amendment states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents there of be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman (Benne).” This amendment is exactly what is needed to settle this controversy. It won’t stop the desire of homosexuals to want marriage but it will be a finalized answer and solution to all of the chaos and confusion that is currently going on. Just knowing that this marriage amendment is there will give a sense of security to the society. The definition of marriage won’t be at stake any more and several other things will be ‘safer’ as well. There have been several protests against a federal marriage amendment but it’s safe to say that the majority of the United States supports it taking place.
With all this, people should keep in mind that whether same-sex marriage is legal or not, homosexuals cannot change their nature. They need to have something; which is why a civil union is the ideal alternate for marriage. Thirty-seven percent of people asked in the United States thought that same-sex marriage should be legal opposed to a fifty-seven percent that think it should be illegal” (Sussman npag). That shows the majority of the population is against same-sex marriage. “However, ten percent of those who oppose homosexual marriages do support allowing same-sex couples to for civil unions (Sussman).” That is almost fifty percent of the population that support civil unions, since this ten percent is among the people who are against same-sex marriage. Given that the United States is a democracy and this is such a controversial issue, the final decision should reflect what the people want. Gay couples should consider all aspects of marrying each other before they so strongly protest to do so.
There is, however, slight controversy over civil unions as well. Civil unions are very beneficial if people really understand them. “Even if civil unions provide the same benefits as marriage, there is still quite a difference between them” (Moll npag). On paper they may be similar, almost identical in fact but there is always something that a civil union will never have. There is the sacredness, purity and uniqueness of marriage that can never be compared or even come close to anything else. That will always be there and it can’t be taken away by any one. Civil unions will do a lot to settle this controversy and at the same time the majority of the people will not be settling for something they are against. Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen is also trying to clarify that civil unions can be used to unite couples that are not necessarily intimate with each other. “‘[Civil unions] could include things like single people looking after aging parents. It could include, as in my own family, two bachelor brothers and a sister who ran a farm their whole life.’ Defined this way, she says, civil unions would actually preserve the uniqueness of marriage” (Moll npag). This is extremely important to recognize that the uniqueness of marriage will still be preserved. Civil unions can be with any two people who just care for each other; marriage will only be about a heterosexual couple who share passion and great love with each other.
The legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. That’s how people know marriage and how it should always be known. The fact alone that many people are offended by the though of a gay marriage takes something special away from the marriage. No one’s asking to discriminate against gays or take away any of their rights but the only thing that they should learn to live with and accept is that same-sex marriage is wrong. Not because they’re gay but because it will be changing something so many people have taken for granted and grown to love; the idea of being married and how special it is. In the words of Bush, “the institution of marriage is sacred and shouldn’t be redefined” (Reichmann npag).
Works Cited
Benne, Robert & Gerald McDrmot. Speaking Out: Why Gay Marriage Would Be
Harmful. Christianity Today. February 21, 2004. Date Accesses: February 28, 2004.
Moll, Rob. Civil Unions: Would a Marriage By Any Other Name Be the Same?
Christianity Today. March 9, 2004. Date Accessed: March 13, 2004.
Reichmann, Deb. Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment. Yahoo News.
February 24, 2004. Date Accesses: February 24, 2004.
.
Sussman, Dalia. Gay Marriage Opposition. ABC News. Date Accessed: March 26, 2004
Vatican Fights Gay Marriage. CNN. Date Accessed: February 15, 2004.
