Gay Marriage in Many Countries,

¶ … Gay Marriage

In many countries, marriage is a sacred entity. Opposite sex marriages and divorce is acceptable in the society with same sex marriages exceptionally condemned because they would reduce the sacred touch aspect of marriages. My interest in the issue of gay marriages is that, I find it intriguing that most countries gang up against same sex marriages but support opposite sex marriages, even in the instance of multiple divorces (Galli 30). It makes me to have questions regarding the authenticity of human rights, if they leave out certain groups of people. The other question that I would need answered if the right of bisexuals and gays with regard to voting for same sex marriages. Whenever people raise issues of gay marriages, the focus is always on homosexuality with bisexuality given explicit sexual orientation. Religious positions regarding the aspect of gay marriages affiliate opinions on scriptures and works of nature. It makes marriage to be an exclusive effort for child bearing locking out the possibility of conformity of gay marriages with nature. I find this view ignorant and distorted because I believe that gay marriage opposition is bigotry towards gay marriages shielding itself behind religion.

I find it very unfair that the government and religion judge people for leaving each other. Love for each other is supposed to be open to those having feelings for each other, as long as they can gain happiness. I believe that both gay and opposite sex couples deserve the right of registering their marriages legally. I do not agree with the fact that legalizing of gay marriages would invalidate marriages of opposite sexes. The countries, which have so far, gone steps ahead and legalized gay marriages, have never faced negativity on opposite sex marriages (MacIntosh, Elke & Heather 79-90). This means that as I propose that gay marriages are just as congruent as same sex marriages, there is evidence in relation to efforts placed by other countries. I would be glad staying in a legally recognized gay marriage than just settling for a civil opposite sex marriage. It is this interest in getting closure for gay marriages sparking the interest I have in this research. I would love to highlight some of the reasons as to why religion and government under looks gay marriages (Jones 10). I am supportive of gay marriages because they provide a chance for people to be as liberal as possible regarding those they get into relationships with without any discrimination. I, therefore, intend to consider reasons for illegalizing or legalizing gay marriages regardless, of its widespread existence, because gay marriages are not a sing, erosion of family values or defiant to normal lifestyles.

Part B: The Body

Gay marriage is a sin

Religiously, gay marriages are unacceptable, in almost all religious in the world. This makes the issue of gay marriages difficult to accommodate in religious institutions, as it would deter the freedom of knowledge regarding holy marriages. Since religious people consider gay marriages sinful, advocating for their legalization or acceptability is sinful (Edwards 247-261). Altering laws into accepting gay marriages is very offensive because, the very laws, which govern nations, are described using religious backgrounds. Incorporating aspects, which are unacceptable to religion protectively within the laws, would not be defending the foundation of religion; instead, it would be like an insult to the same religion formulating its presence (Judith 285-291). Gay marriages weaken the respect and definition of the marriage institution. There is so much negative influence, which divorce inflicts on marriages. Divorce is almost rendering the marriage institution impossible with people getting out of marriage without any consideration of the implications to religious standards of marriage. Settling for gay marriages is just like pulling a joke on the marriage institutions. It may be resultant from the economic struggles people are facing, and maybe some same sex friends look for means of cutting down on tax costs. In most countries, in the world, marriage is a very holy institution, left for the joining of a woman and a man. In fact, taking a natural course in union with religion, the only logical explanation of marriage is the procreation purpose. This takes this research to its next point of reasons as to why it could be unacceptable to allow gay marriages into the society.

Gay marriages are unnatural and an insult to family values

Marriages have for a long time, been known to present a platform for procreation. It is the foundation of family values, which strengthened the traditional family in place. Traditionally, a marriage was the building block for family formation, and it required transition to childbearing. That means that a family consisted of a man, a woman and children (Edwards 247-261). This is not possible in gay marriages because of the impossibility of giving birth. Gay marriage defies biological sense and cannot be allowed to destroy the beauty of family life, through the incorporation of a marriage without enhancement of continuity. This has in fact, led to the rising levels of child trafficking because the gay couples try as much as they can to make their families look normal. If they really need to be together, even after knowing that same sex child bearing is impossible, why would there be the feeling of a gap to be closed (Hilton 16-26). Why would the gay partners need children to make their families complete is if procreation never mattered to them? It just shows how much gay marriages are unacceptable, in turn, justifying the completeness of opposite sex marriages.

Furthermore, gay marriages confuse children as regards gender roles. The roles of different sexes are what uphold the position of the society. This makes it very hard defining the role of men and women to children included in gay marriages. The children grow up without knowing how they came into existence, in the absence of the other sex parent, which could have facilitated their procreation. The confusion on children is great, and it is the cause of so many psychological problems faced by children. It is the cause of disagreements and confusion faces by the society. This is because, when a child grows without any development of standard family values, it just becomes hard for the child to overgrow the society's expectations when faced with certain situations (Karpel 18). Gay marriages, therefore, are confusion to the traditionally valued principles, which have seen the upcoming of many generations.

Gay marriages defy acceptable lifestyles in the society

Gay marriages defy normal sexual behavior acceptable in the society and must be prevented from infiltrating traditional norms of marriage (Edwards 247-261). They are a source of confusion to the younger generation, still struggling with social identification and affiliation into the marriage institution. Sex is a defiant corrosion of normal lifestyles, and they should be controlled. The denial of these marriages by the church and community is evident of the unacceptability they present. There is no way through which the society can sit back and look at immoral deeds in the society without voicing its concerns (Hilton 16-26). This is because the nature of creation is obviously express in its formation, and it cannot be overlooked regardless of selfish ideas from a group of people who feel rightfully entitled to changing the opinions of the society. Changing the opinion of society is not so reasonable, especially, if it is on a matter holding social implications like gay marriages (Karpel 18).

Opposition

It is very hard to understand how the laws accept the destruction of marriages through divorce (Karpel 18). If marriage was so religious and affiliated to the opposite sex couples exclusively, there is no understandable reason as to why the rate of divorce escalates. This is indeed a sign that there exists a loophole in the legality and religiousness of the opposite sex marriages (Hilton 16-26). It means that even in the religiously defined marriage institutions something is missing, and that destroys the essence of religiousness in the marriages. It is, therefore, possible that the lacking happiness in marriage requires freedom in the choosing of marriage partners. The achievement of such freedom is only possible, with the liberalization of marriage partner choices, and a lack of prejudice to gay partners (Jones 10). It is, furthermore, better to have legally married gays happily living together than the opposite sex marriages, painfully inflicted with pain.

People talk of family values and traditions of marriage. This is so amazing because they forget that the same families values they protect are the same, which they that over pass. There is nothing like male or female roles in society (MacIntosh, Elke & Heather 79-90). These are just aspects that the society uses to limit the activity of a particular gender to an unfair positioning. Children may be the result of biological setup, and that is very much agreeable. Nevertheless, the problem comes in place when those children so treasured by the society, do not receive the protection they deserve bringing about the need for adopters (Hannum 12). Many are occasions when children are born and disowned by their parents. It cannot be so untraditional for a gay couple to take that child into custody, and ensure that children receive the best care deserved. In fact, it is relevant to note that children raised by gay couples receive parental care and love just like those raised by the opposite sex families..

There is nothing defiant about gay marriages (Hannum 12). In fact, people should look at the causes of gay affiliations before making any accusations on the gays. Historical and psychological researches support the existence of gays. The history of gay couple's dates several years back like in the ancient Greece where evidence of homosexual existence rests. Lesbos was an island in Greece where lesbians lived, and that is evident of the long-lived lifestyle. Researchers evidence the existence of gay behavior to biological, other than, genetic misplacement. In most gays, there exists secondary resemblance of opposite sex characteristics like soft voices, on males and cheekbones on females. These are effects of hormonal switches, which make gay marriages inevitable and less deserving of discrimination (Shulman, Gabrielle & Robert 158-181).

Rebuttals

Marriage is supposed to be a happy institution and not a source of pain. For that matter, it only remains possible that religion is a support of pain if it allows people to unite in holy matrimony, then inflict pain on each other without consideration of the hurt they cause to their families and, furthermore, to themselves as they preserver the pains of sticking to marriages that hold no joy. Furthermore, there should be freedom of religious choices and no religion should influence the legality or illegality of gay marriages because it is not a criminal activity (Hannum 12). For a gay couple, children is not some natural doing of biology, gay couples respect the need of children, which they face and incorporate the search for children into the fulfillment of their joy within the marriage (Case & Briana 172-177).

This makes it realistic to say that gay parents are more reasonable in getting children than other couples because many are occasions when people conceive without planning, and the result of the conception leads to unwanted, mistreated and stressed up children. Streets are full of runaway children from families that do not value them. When a gay couple settles on having a child, it is a decision made soundly and readiness for the provision and protection of the child. The church may condemn gay marriages while gay bashers may beat gay couples, and ridicule may come from co-workers, family and friends, but that is not limiting enough to deter biological expressions of gay characters in people. Denial of the marriages, therefore, is an exemplification of minority discrimination, similar to infringement of the bill of rights of personal choices. The society needs to form a clear understanding of the position of gay marriages in the society, before it can discount it, instead of making decisions out of prejudice.