Threat to the Institution of Marriage - Essay Example

Happily Ever After The of marriage is a physical, social and emotional binding of two people of the opposite gender in matrimony. It is a covenant which establishes rights and obligations between the husband and wife, their children and in-laws. It is a universally acknowledged contract between a man and a woman which has been in continuity from the cradle of civilization. According to all major religions, a marriage ceremony was conducted between Adam and Eve in heaven; this strengthens the establishment of the fact that marriage is an institution of binding only between a man and woman. In recent history, a new, rather a distorted definition of marriage has been brought to life that constitutes the inclusion and legalization of same-sex marriages. This wide-acceptance: socially, culturally and physically, has placed the institution of marriage, which has kept society in harmony with nature, in unprecedented danger, and with passing time, it continues to plunge into a void that shall, in near future, overshadow, or rather completely obliterate its existence and meaning. In light of the aforementioned stance, I fully concur with William J. Bennett’s position that gay-marriages are a threat to the institution of marriage and that this growing threat should be contained and eventually eliminated. Although there are numerous reasons that go against the notion of same-sex marriage, but the reason that is first thought of is religion. As mentioned earlier in the paper, when Adam was created by God, a female counterpart, Eve, of Adam was later created by God to give Adam a companion and thus God established balance. The Holy Bible recognizes marriage between man and woman as day and night, both complementing each other. Just as God has maintained equilibrium in every dimension of nature, the institution of marriage is no alien part of nature, hence it should be treated just as it has been ordained. In addition to this, it is God who has ordained marriage as He deemed appropriate, and it is not upon us to interfere with his laws. Consequently, all major religions of the world: Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc, concede and preach that marriage is only limited between man and woman, and precludes all other morphed forms of marriage. Pro-marriage activists quote examples of practice of gay marriages in the past, and that many practitioners were Christians and the marriage ceremonies were conducted in churches; this leads them to argue that even religions have shown room for same-sex marriages, but what the activists fail to realize is that religion itself is incorruptible, and it is its followers who disobey and deviate from the divine teachings. This establishes that the room created for same-sex marriages in the past was thus created by people themselves on their own account, and that religion itself has no part in it. Furthermore, owing to the sexual revolution that has strengthened its roots in the recent years; the institution of marriage has become potentially weak. The frequent show of themes which project ‘casual sex’ as a natural or normal encounter through movies, pornography, music and television shows has led to the widespread belief among people, primarily the young generation, that extra-marital and intimate relationships outside the bond of wedlock are a part of life. This has ingrained the element of infidelity in people, and the evil of having multiple partners in the impressionable minds of the people; as media has the potent power of manipulating with the psychology of a human mind, as a consequence of which societies and cultures have been fashioned into accepting it. Moreover, the beauty and most basic fundamental of marriage is fidelity, although this is not always practiced. One marries because it is deemed worth spending the whole life with the one person he/she loves. While gay marriages, as William J. Bennett argue, promote infidelity; this is destroying an already enfeebled institution. In summary, gay marriage has assailed the institution of marriage from all sides (Eskridge and Spedale 98). Thirdly, the prospect of accepting same-sex marriage, and making it a part of society and culture would foster a strong gender identity crisis. Tremendous confusion would arise from society’s indifference to having no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Since, there has been a surge in the number of people accepting homosexuality, people, especially, the young generation, have started to take it to be a route to social acceptance. It has gone so far that people who are not homosexual also proclaim themselves to be homosexual. Such prevalence of homosexuality would lead people to experiment and experience homosexuality; this would increase the number of homosexual people. This in the long run would pave the way for more bizarre propositions, further distorting the meaning of marriage. As homosexuality has acquired firm ground, who knows necrophilia and bestiality, in the future, might also gain both political and social ground and be legalized under law. Fourthly, the legalization of same-sex marriages would harshly impact numerous aspects of life that would reverberate across countless lives. Just as William J. Bennett argues that it would cause a change in the school curriculum of sex education, it is surely the truth that it would homogenize homosexuality and heterosexuality in the impressionable minds of the students from a very young age. This would naturally happen that some parents would not want their children to be taught that, and those who shall oppose this will be cornered and looked down upon by society; consequently, this will lead to societal conflict and clash because it will have produced two separate sets of minds: one, those who will accept homosexuality; second, those who will reject it. In addition, the legalization of same-sex marriage would also give homosexual couples the right to adopt children under law, or practice surrogacy. By nature and by the rights of a child, it is decidedly rational that every child deserves to have the love and parenthood of both mother and father. However, same-sex marriage would rob a child of that fundamental right; a child having two mothers or two fathers would greatly affect the upbringing of a child. Consequently, it is a child’s nature to seek virtues in both his parents and adopt them, but in a family of homosexuals, a child will not be able to have role models. In addition, it is very likely that a child having homosexual parents will grow up to be a homosexual himself. Moreover, validation of same-sex marriage has not favored marriages between homosexuals; as claimed by pr same-sex marriage activists. A social anthropologist from Harvard, Stanley Kurtz, wrote a series of articles documenting statistics about same-sex marriage against heterosexual marriage. He cites that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia has produced a sharp rise in births out of wedlock. Similarly, in Norway and Sweden, from 1990-2000, the period in which same-sex marriage was legalized, has led to a 10% increase in births out of wedlock. Further on, he states that in Denmark approximately 60% of firstborn children are born to parents who haven’t tied the wedlock. Same-sex marriages were made legal in Netherlands in 1997 and since then out-of-wedlock births have gone up by 2% annually; and the average annual has doubles in the last 15 years. As a consequence of which, efforts were made by activists and same-sex couples from 2001-2004 to decrease the chances of out-of-wedlock childbirths; but this has not helped decrease the aforementioned statistics, but have increased them instead. This establishes that same-sex couples, a very large proportion of them, are incapable of raising children with an intact marriage. In addition to this, a study conducted in 2004 explains that the divorce rates of same-sex couples settled in Sweden during 1995 and 2002 indicate that female homosexual couples are 3 times more likely to divorce and male gay couples are 1.5 times more likely to divorce, as compared to heterosexual couples. This is further made concrete when inquired of same-sex couples who have had their marriage from 1-7 years; as the difference of divorce rates between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples become larger (Polikoff 50). It, however, also needs to be noticed that a particular proportion of the homosexuals have taken undue advantage of this legal marriage under the law. According to the study conducted in 2004 cited above, of the 2-3% homosexual population of Sweden, only one-half of one percent of homosexual marriages were contracted, in the time span from 1995-2002. In Norway, the statistics are 7% for the aforementioned category. This suggests that the divorced same-sex couples still represent the best of the homosexual population; that they at least took advantage of the new law and that they got married at some time. Furthermore, the Netherlands has had a very strong voice for same-sex couples and the laws there for homosexuals are the most concrete since April 2001; out of the total homosexual population in the Netherlands, only 3 percent and only one out of ten homosexuals have chosen to get married. On the contrast, the number of people involved in a heterosexual bond account for 60% of the total adult population (it is 75% when the divorced and widowed are included). As a result, the institution of marriage is made to suffer for a tiny population of homosexuals. This validates the argument that legalization of gay marriages is just a way of validating homosexual lifestyle, and that it does not stabilize marriage and homosexual unions. Although male homosexual couples have a greater chance of longevity in comparison to female unions, they are also more likely to engage in ‘open’ relationships. A Dutch study conducted in 1994 showed that by the sixth year of the relationship, male homosexuals in a committed relationship had had 11 other sex partners. An Australian study conducted in 1997 showed that 14% of gay sexually active males of fifty years of age and above has as few as one to ten sexual partners. This further establishes that homosexuality is primarily based on open relationships and infidelity (Burns 13). Studies that have been conducted suggest that only a very small fraction (less than 5%) of homosexual unions will last a period of twenty years or more. When society continues to label homosexual marriages as legal unions that in 1-10 years end in divorce or transform into open relationships, the debilitating impact and its effects on the institution of marriage will be irrevocable and unavoidable. Consequently, homosexuals are at a greater risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases; they have higher chances of contracting AIDS and Hepatitis B, both of which are contagious. The UK, USA and European countries have prohibited homosexuals, those who have engaged in intercourse with other homosexuals, from donating blood, as this increases their chance of contracting the aforementioned diseases and other infections by transfusion of blood. In summary, homosexual marriage is wrong because the notion of gay marriage is ignorance and a rejection of core fundamental sexual ethics. Marriage is consummate with the communion of two opposite sexes that build a sexual whole. In effect, homosexual attraction is predicated on the absurdity of being sexually drawn to someone of the same kind or on the self-deception that one needs to conjoin with another of the same sex to fulfill one’s own sexual inadequacy. Hence, I concur with William J. Bennett’s position that gay marriages should be banned and not promoted to an extent that it may become impossible to revoke its effects on society and on human nature.  Works Cited Burns, Kate. Gay Marriage. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Print. Eskridge, William N, and Darren R. Spedale. Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? : What We've Learned from the Evidence. Oxford [England: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Polikoff, Nancy D. Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage: Valuing All Families Under the Law. Boston: Beacon Press, 2008. Print. Read More