The Issue of Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example

?The issue of same sex marriage is a very controversial social issue that transcends across all religions and political divide. In Islamic and Christian faith, same sex marriage is forbidden, on the grounds that God intention of creating man and woman was a direct endorsement of heterosexual marriage so that they can procreate and fill the word (Andrew, 1995). According to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1613), sex and marriage are gifts from God created specifically for our own good. The Holy Bible discourages people from spending lonely lives and this is the reason why God created Eve for Adam when He saw that Adam was very lonely in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, in regards to marriage, the Biblical teaching holds that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife, forming one flesh (Genesis. 2:24). From the Christian teachings, it is apparent that God created man and woman to enjoy heterosexual sexual relationship, in the institution of marriage. This paper discusses reasons why same sex marriages should not be legalized. Christian teachings are replete with many incidents of deviant sexual behaviors including sodomy, incest, bestiality, rape, pedophile among others. The Bible documents God’s objection to same sex through Lot in Genesis 19: 3-14. According to Genesis 19, Lot a resident Sodom was one day approached by two men who wanted to have same sex with the Lot’s visitors. The man wanted to sodomize guests in Lot’s house so that they could save Sodom and Lot’s household from an imminent destruction. However, Lot rejected their demand and instead, he offered his two virgin daughters to the men. God came to the rescue of Lot and his family before the men could break his house and have sex with Lot’s daughters. That very night, God guided Lot and his family escaped to safer place. Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed the following day, by falling fire and burning sulfur (Genesis, 19, 27). It is worth noting that God abhorred same sex and other deviant sexual behaviors in Sodom that He ordered Lot and his wife not to look back to the city as they fled to a safe place that God ordered them to flee to. However, Lot’s wife did not heed God’s command and when she turned back to face Sodom, she became a salt pillar (Genesis 19: 28). From the religious point of view, it is apparent that same sex marriage and sex is forbidden. In Christianity, the catholic denomination is particularly intolerant of the union between same sex couples in a marriage. According to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1613), homosexual actions are regarded as “intrinsically disordered” because they contradict with the natural law, inhabiting the gift of life through sexual intercourse. In addition, homosexual actions do not arise from genuine affection and sexual compatibility. In this case, the church recommends that under no circumstances should homosexuality be permitted in the society. Therefore, the church argues that legalizing same sex marriage would be harmful to the society (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1613). In context to family system and same sex marriage, many studies on marriages have established that families made of heterosexual couples are happier, healthier and have better economic standing (Linda and Maggie, 2001). Moreover, empirical studies have established that unmarried women are more likely to die than married women are, while the probability of unmarried man dying is five times to that of their married counterparts of the same age (Howard and Gary 1995). In this respect, marriage is a key public health issue, which results to adverse health effects if it is not established on the right foundation. In the family system, Yuanreng and Noreen (1990) argue that heterosexual marriage results into complementarities, that is absent in same sexual marriages. There are many differences between men and women and these diversities are complementary. These differences have a profound spiritual and physical importance and without complementarity between man and women, meaningful marital union is impossible. In same sex marriage, the union is anatomically and spiritually unbalanced and hence unsatisfying in the long term. Presence of sexual complementarity in heterosexual marriages results to procreation, the process of giving and perpetuating life on earth (Yuanreng and Noreen 1990). Although not all heterosexual marriages, results to children Catherine, et al (1990) argue that marriage was intended by nature to create life. Sexual complementarity is very important in marriage and Catherine et al (1990) noted that loneliness in human beings occurs because men and women realize that they are not biologically complete as separate human being. One sex is devoid of abilities and perfections of the opposite, resulting to incompleteness that eventually leads to loneliness (Catherine, et al 1990). Some studies on same sex marriages have been undertaken to establish the level of health and happiness in such unions. According to Yuanreng and Noreen (1990), homosexuals are about fifteen times more likely than heterosexuals to make suicidal attempts. Moreover, homosexuals have trouble during social adjustment, and are more prone to mental sickness than heterosexual people (Yuanreng and Noreen, 1990). Furthermore, homosexual men have higher prevalence rates of sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS compared with their heterosexual counterparts (Howard and Gary, 1995). The higher incidents of sexually transmitted infections among the homosexual men affirm the fact that they are more promiscuous, and this result to poor health, which subsequently lowers their life expectancy. These facts put into question the level of satisfaction in same sex marriages, because if the couples are sexually satisfied, why then do they have so many multiple partners? Proponents of same sex marriage argue that the people in same sex relationships deserve dignity and respect that comes with marriage. In society, married people are highly respected because of making vows to commit to each other throughout their lives on earth (Andrew, 1995). Failure to legalize same sex marriages denies the couples the due respect and dignity accorded to their heterosexual couples. Civil rights activists argue that disallowing same sexual marriages amounts to the violation of human rights that allow people to marry any person they are in love with and committed to (Andrew, 1995). In this case, same sex proponents argue that same sex couples are discriminated against enjoying this fundamental right in favor of heterosexual couples. As result of this legal impediment, people in same sex unions are denied the right of accessing financial and social security that is provided to heterosexual couples (Andrew, 1995). Some of the fundamental rights that same sex couples lack include access to social security, medical leave, inheritance of property among other important financial, health and social provisions (Linda and Maggie, 2001). The notion that heterosexual marriage produces happier children is an issue contested by same sex proponents. They argue that if this were the case, incidents of destitute children would be nonexistent in the society. Moreover, proponents of same sex marriage argue that the world is suffering from the consequences of overpopulation, and heterosexual couple contributes to the problem by getting children that the society is incapable of providing for (Andrew, 1995). References Andrew, S. (1995). Virtually normal: an argument about homosexuality. New York: Alfred Knopf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1613. Catherine, E., et al. (1990). The impact of the family on health: Decade in the review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52: pp106-129. Genesis 2:24 Genesis 19 Howard, S. & Gary, R. (1995). The impact of marital status on hospital outcomes. Evidence from Academic Medical Centre. Archives of Internal Medicine, 155, pp2463-76. Linda, W., & Maggie, C. (2001). The case of marriage. New York: Doubleday Publications. Yuanreng, H., & Noreen, G. (1990).Mortality differentials by marital status: An international comparison. Demography, 27(2): pp 233-250. Read More