English

Why I Am Against Same-sex Marriage

The debate on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized is ongoing. In the United States, some states have legalized them while others are yet to do so. In every society, there are certain moral norms that are designed to protect posterity and ensure continuity of the human race. The need to protect these norms supersedes any efforts to protect individual liberties however justified these may be. Legal and biological argument have never stood in the way of efforts by humankind to protect all institutions that guarantee reproduction such as heterosexual marriage. This explains why legalizing civil unions between people of the same sex should be out of question for opponents of same-sex marriage.

ORDER NOW

At the outset, it is self-evident that same-sex marriage contravenes the traditional view of the institution of marriage (Wilson, 2014). As much as everyone’s civil liberties must be protected at all cost, legalizing same-sex marriages may have many unintended consequences, including disrespect for the traditional family culture. For example, two people of the same-sex who want to run away from familial duties of rearing children may decide to hide behind a same-sex marriage of convenience.

Moreover, there are many religious objections to same-sex marriage. Legalizing it may antagonize relations between state and religion, thereby impacting negatively on society (Wilson, 2014). Traditionally, religious dissenters have enjoyed substantial protections from the law, but this protection is now waning, thereby considerably weakening their dissenting arguments. Consequently, this debate has led to a highly polarized political environment. Legalization of these marriages is merely a preemptive measure by the contemporary political class that is founded by the misguided notion that doing so will suddenly resolve the problem of sexual discrimination. A mere legal amendment cannot change pervasive social perceptions about homosexuality.

Furthermore, same-sex marriage goes against traditional sexual ethic (Anderson, 2013). Homosexual acts are widely associated with immorality, and thus same-sex marriage can only perpetuate this notion. Although it is important to protect civil liberties such as the right for an individual to marry a partner of his choice, priority should be on maintaining an exclusively heterosexual institution that is suited to procreation. The latter stance gives humanity a better chance of survival and continuity than the latter. Some people argue that allowing sterile individuals to get married in a heterosexual marriage while at the same time preventing same-sex couples from entering into a marriage constitutes a contradiction. This is not true because the latter phenomenon constitutes a medical problem for society while the latter is a social one. Moreover, sterile heterosexual couples provide an appropriate model for other members of society to adhere to as far as procreation is concerned by projecting an image of moral uprightness.

            Lastly, the ideal image of marriage is one where openness to new life through reproduction is considered a major contributor to stability and continuity at both familial and societal levels (Anderson, 2013). It is wrong to draw parallels between a marriage between homosexual individuals and one where the individuals are sterile. In the natural world as understood by humankind, being sterile is an exception rather than a rule. No controversy tends to arise whenever sterile individuals enter into a marriage. On the contrary, homosexual marriages have traditionally been controversial. Additionally, most people who enter into heterosexual marriages do so with the expectation that they will be able to reproduce. There is a definite line between fertile and sterile people. In contrast, such a line does not exist as far as differences in sexual preferences. For example, some people who consider themselves homosexuals may occasionally engage in heterosexual sexual relations and vice-versa.

References

Anderson, E. (2013). A defense of the ‘sterility objection’ to the new natural lawyers’ argument against same-sex marriage. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16(4), 759-775.

Wilson, R. (2014). Marriage of necessity: Same-sex marriage and religious liberty protections. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 64(3), 1161-1170.