Gay Marriage: To Legalize or Not To Legalize

Gay Marriage: To Legalize or Not to Legalize

That is the Question

Marriage is defined as a legal union of a man and women as husband and wife. Gay marriage is the union of two same-sex partners. The difference between the two is the simple fact of legalization. As of now, President George W. Bush J.R. has done everything in his power to ban gay marriage all together. His reason, stated in The Economist, "Is that this [Gay Marriage] would damage an important social institution" (2). Here is where the debate ensues; how exactly would gay marriage ruin society's organization? If anything, it would bring the nation closer. Bidstrupt states that, "If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice; of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in..." ( 3) .Gay marriage is positive in the U.S. because it decreases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, adoption rates would skyrocket, and lastly the union of same-sex marriage would bring equality to a higher stance then ever before.

Approximately "78% of homosexuals are affected by STDS," says Rueda. Young gay and bisexual men are at high risk for such sexually transmitted diseases as gonorrhea, Chlamydia and syphilis. One misunderstanding of homosexual behavior is a homosexual's promiscuous lifestyle. It is true that in a 1978 study that 75% of gay males admitted to having sex with more than 100 other men. This may be a prime example on why certain sexually transmitted diseases are increasing among gays to bisexuals and ultimately to heterosexuals. One way to decrease the transition of sexually transmitted diseases, besides condom use, is simply gay marriage. The legalization will lead to healthy monogamous relationships that will diminish the spread of fatal sexual transmitted diseases (Rueda 53). Same sex marriage would have more of an effect on male gays than on lesbians, because the rate of sexually transmitted disease infection among lesbians is already low, even lower than for heterosexuals. (Sullivan 183)

A second reason for gay marriage is adoption. It is obvious that if two males or two females were to date and/or have sexual intercourse, there is no way of procreation. If gay marriage was legalized, and gay couples were able to marry and keep long loving relationships, the outcome of adoption, sooner or later, is inevitable. This is said and done when any family is willing to adopt after wanting to raise a strong family structure. Some problems that people feel are that homosexuals will raise adopted children to be homosexual themselves, pedophilia will be acted upon or even the simple fact that gay parents will be bad parents in general; all of these are false. All of the research to date has reached the same clear conclusion about gay parenting: the children of homosexual parents mature as effectively as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of gay parents to be deprived because of their parents' sexual orientation. Good parenting has nothing to do with the fact of sexual orientation but rather the way they love and raise the child.

Pedophilia, which is the act of sexual attraction from adult to child, is more common in a relative's heterosexual partner than in homosexuals. As for the fear of turning adopted children into homosexuals themselves is a complete understatement. There is no study showing that gay parents have more chances of changing heterosexual children into homosexuals (Huggins 135).

Lastly the third argument on pro gay marriage is simply the fact that gay marriage would bring equality in our society to a higher stance. Bidstrup states in his essay that "More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights; this means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue" (1). This seems so irrational considering the fact that Americans are trying to be supportive but stop dead cold in the simplicity of gay marriage. Who has the right to enforce marriage laws?

Separation of church and state should of course be abided, but if in a political stand, politicians oppose it as well as church [religion] itself, where can gay marriage be justified? It is an assumption that the state has the duty to approve marriages, a primarily religious proposal. Separation of church and state will of course then diminish which denies the Bill of Rights. ( The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress if grievance." Then the 14th amendment, which is technically out of the Bill of Rights, states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.") The opposition to gay marriage stems from a deep rooted homophobia in the United States' society, born out of religious bigotry.

There are several reasons why gay marriage may seem wrong in humanity: the thought that marriage is only for procreation, that sodomy should be illegal, and that being for gay marriage will only force churches do something they naturally oppose. The thought that the human race is dying out die to lack of reproduction seems highly absurd. Bidstrupt states that "One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy and human misery..." With homosexuals able to marry and the decrease of procreation will help to reduce the amount of mouths to feed.

As for sodomy, the Merriam-Webster's Medical