Gay Marriage

The idea of gay marriage is what I would call a recent phenomenon. I say recent because it has only been in the past few years that activists in the country have become extremely vocal about legalizing gay marriage. What got the ball rolling was the first legally gay marriage in the United States which was performed in San Francisco in 2004 between Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who are gay rights activists. After this first marriage the idea of homosexuals marrying became a trend that swept across the country. Many gay rights activists argue that it is the will and desire of the people in this country to legalize gay marriage. Ironically pro gay marriage legislation has failed to pass in all of the states where it has gone to a vote by the people and by a landslide margin at that. Why is it that so far the overwhelming majority of our country does not approve of having gay marriage legalized? Is it because our country is full of bigoted, gay bashing, homophobes? I would not say that this is the case at all. The reason the people of the United States are against legalizing gay marriage is because of the effect it would have on our morals.

One of the primary reasons that the United States has become the most successful country in the world is because of how strong the family situation is and has been since the onset of our founding fathers. What people over look about the idea of gay marriage is the actual purpose and definition of marriage itself. The entire purpose of marriage is to procreate. Men and women are supposed to have children, raise a family while instilling moral values, and at the same time contribute to society and further their own wellbeing. Marriage as an institution was created to help make it possible for men and women to juggle all of the tasks demanded by society and the human race as a whole. If one of the primary points for married couples is to procreate, then how can we give the right of marriage to homosexuals who cannot reproduce? The fact is we should not give homosexuals this sacred right because it cheapens the entire idea of marriage. It is morally wrong to cheapen the institution of marriage for all of the people who are in fact carrying out the tasks that go along with marriage. People will argue that homosexuals while not able to procreate, could still raise a family if they were able to adopt children. This would not be morally right to allow this to happen to a child. There is no doubt that homosexuals can give the same amount of love to a child as heterosexual parents, but it is not fair to put a child in that kind of abnormal situation. Homosexuals would argue that they can raise a family and teach moral values just as well as heterosexual parents. This is simply not the case because of what raising a family entails. Children learn from their parents not only through their teachings, but also through their actions. When a boy is being raised he gets much of his sense of manhood from watching his father’s examples. A boy also learns much about life through his mother’s actions. Similarly young girls learn much of their femininity from their mother and they also learn a lot about other things from their father’s actions. Therefore it is not morally correct to place a child in the home of homosexual parents because no matter how great they are as parents, something will always be missing from that child’s development.

Marriage also entails people being faithful to one another. Homosexuals dating back to the ancient Romans were known for being promiscuous. Homosexual males in particular are known for being promiscuous. Proof of this in today’s society is the widespread problem of AIDS in the homosexual community. AIDS is not as widespread in the heterosexual community because they tend to marry and remain faithful to their partner. People would argue that if you were to give homosexuals marriage rights, then they too would settle down and the problem of AIDS in their community would significantly decline. I would argue that marriage would have no effect on homosexuals being promiscuous because of the simple fact that they cannot get pregnant. One thing that deters many heterosexuals from engaging in promiscuous sex is the possibility of getting pregnant which in turn could lead to starting and raising a family. Homosexuals that previously engaged in promiscuous sex would not stop engaging in promiscuous sex because there is no possibility of getting someone pregnant. Getting pregnant through promiscuous sex between partners where at least one of the two is married would threaten the existing marriages. There would also be a new child that would not be able to live in a married family. Since there is no reason to deter promiscuous homosexuals from being unfaithful it is morally wrong to allow them to be married. Allowing promiscuous homosexuals to marry and for them to continue their promiscuous acts would be morally wrong because it would cheapen marriage for all faithful people.

The author of the “Let them Wed” article from The Economist argues that marriage has changed a lot since the 1960’s. All of the things they mention that have changed are not even applicable to the argument of allowing