Gay Marriage Has Diversified by Judgments - Essay Example

Running Head: GAY MARRIAGES Gay marriages Insert name Insert Institution Introduction Gay marriage is the marriage between two individuals of the same biological gender identity or the same biological sex. Gay marriage has diversified by judgments made as a result of legislative changes to laws concerning marriage. Existence of gay marriage stands as an enormous issue among vast nations in their political, social, civil rights and their religious activities. In the past few years, Gay marriage has featured often on the political agenda of the Australian majorly discussed issues in the parliament. Gay marriage has substantially dominated the debates in the Australian government in a hope to try to resolve this issues that some people support while the others fight against its demolition. In the years 2008 and 2009, due to the expansion of the legal rights in Australia, the need to suite same sex marriage was considered as a way of coming up with provision for equal entitlements and responsibilities. Though the issue of legalizing gay marriage brought up enormous controversies, the Australian Greens and Australian Democrats supported gay marriage. Taking into consideration the many debates that have aroused because of gay marriage, a chance to take several individual’s reviews on these debates comes to demand. Dan Meagher, being one of the fellows who are involved in the discussion of the power of marriage and same sex unions, has a range of diverse consideration of gay marriage (Cere, 2004). In his own view, Meagher argues,” whether or not the law can recognize same-sex marriage is a political and constitutional question, but, whether or not the law ought to recognize same-sex marriage is, ultimately, a question of personal morality” (Dan Meagher). This is a clear indication that though the government may intervene in trying to resolve the issue of gay marriage, those interested in gay institutions will less be impacted to what they claim and believe to be their rights. In his opinion, Meagher would not by any chance support the gay marriage. However, this does not settle the challenging issue of how the gay marriage should be handled (Caramgno, 2003). The state legislation that provides for the legal recognition of sex unions has however come to a beneficial point where it provides equivalent functions for the gay marriage. This means that the gay marriages have been considered for negations and can hence feature in the list of the human rights in Australia. Federals of the Marriage institutions to an enormous extent think or rather argue that the only possibility for gay marriage to gain power in the country would only be through limitation of power to the heterosexual unions that would not consider gay marriage as being a right to those interested in it. This would trigger friction between the heterosexual unions and the unions that stand to represent the gay marriage (Moats, 2004). Yet another contributor to the subject at hand, gay marriage, is Guy Barnett. Guy Barnet bases his argument on gay marriage as a great mystery to children who grow up without the affection of both their mothers and fathers. It has been observed that most gay marriage opt or rather only have an option to adapt children since they cannot by any chance be in a position to conceive. This poses a great torture to such children who do not experience that motherly love as they grow up. They are not in a situation to understand how they came into existence. Children in gay institutions also go through great shame in the society because they are looked down upon and face mockery from the community. In his discussion, Guy Barnett quotes Margaret Somerville who states that, “Marriage provides the right to marry and found a family. Homosexual marriage unlinks marriage from biology and denies children the right to both a mother and a father (Margaret Somerville). In his debate, Guy Barnett takes into consideration the general view of the Australian gay lobby. The gay lobby often claims that its country, Australia, should come to a wakeup call like other nations and support the existence of gay marriages. However, this only found to be a way of trying to justifying the lobbies’ actions since only ten countries, following research, have legalized gay marriages. In her debate, Esther Yue L. Ng, argues towards gay marriage, on equality in the gay marriage is not only about sexual orientation alone, but rather also include the qualities of a relationship such as love and commitments. This openly suggests that most or rather all gay marriages are only believed to be for the purpose of a group of men who cannot be in a position to approach the feminine and hence come together to cater for their sexual needs. As a result, following research, it is evident that these gay institutions do not have any love shinning in them nor commitments. Many surveys show that gay marriages last for very short periods as compared to the heterosexual marriages that are witnessed to last for over a ten years period (Chauncey, 2004). Though the Australian government may stand to protect its citizens against any harm, it fails by allowing gay marriage. The fact that each individual should be given the right to their freedom, in this case the gay people, there should also be a consideration to the physical harm of the individuals. Allowing gay marriages on perspective of human body damage is like watching two races in a country fighting and not intervening. As result, the Australian government is in a position to handle the gay marriage since the vast majority of the gay lobby face a major disorder in their bodies in the name of finding satisfaction. This results to harm in their bodies and as such the government should restrict gay marriage just as it takes action to restrict smokers in the country to avoid harm. Conclusion It is irrational to allow for gay marriage in a country, as this would obviously lead to a great loss in the society’s well-known traits. Gay marriage is unbiblical and allowing these institutions is seen as way of criticizing the understanding of the Bible by the people. The Australian law allowing for gay marriages in its country acts as a start for great failure for the country. Bringing gay marriage to the eyes of the growing children in the country poses a great danger that would see the ending of the country should these children grow up to follow what was practiced in their presence (Boswell, 1994). Allowing for gay marriage would lead to great consequence to the female beings. A society that would be filled with gay individuals would lead to the females also wanting to find a way to handle their needs as humans. This would rather contribute to an outrageous reaction where the females too would want the right to engage in lesbianism. Picturing a community full of gay people men and lesbians creates an awful image that is rather confusing. It is hence not the right thing to do by giving the gay marriage a space to exist. The fact that research shows that gay marriages only last for a short time; it is unrealistic and confusing why most people want to be involved with it. This kind of relationship has or leads to harmful effects. It is hence not clear why an individual should risk their bodies for a short period of time just to be merely satisfied in an inefficient manner. The body does not only go through physical damages but also faces risks of acquiring diseases that would take a very short time to totally ruin the whole immune. Based on personal opinion, it is rather interesting how to some extent humans can be out of their raging thinking boundaries. It is quite sad that humans cannot borrow the idea of gender relationships from the creatures that live around them. One could wonder whether any animal or any creature has ever been reported to be involved in same-sex. In their making, God did not want such an outrageous thing to happen and hence His reason to involve the two genders in the creatures that H e created. To this context of gay marriage, there should stand stiff laws and punishments to people who get involved in gay relations. Gay relationships and even marriage institutions favoring gays should not be in existence legally (Boswell, 1995). As it is well known by the vast people that the term marriage stands for the institution that is legally bided and allowed by the church. Term marriage further outlines that the institution should involve a man and a woman. It is outrageous to know that the church plays a role in bringing together the gay lobbies in marriage institutions. This shows how the religion is gradually approaching the acceptance of gay marriages that is not Godly. Gay marriages should hence not be involved by the religion of any state by any means. Considering the outlined, the world would come to a state of eliminating gay marriage. References Boswell, J. (1994). Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe . New York: Villard Books. Boswell, J. (1995). The marriage of Likeness:Same sex Unions in Pre modern Europe. New York: Simon Harper and Collins. Caramgno, T. (2003). Irreconcilliable Differences?Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate. Westsport: Preager CT. Cere, D. (2004). Devorcing Marriage:Unveilling the dangers in Canadas New Social Experiment. ontreal: McGill-Queens University Press. Chauncey, G. (2004). Why marriage?The history shaping todays debate over gay equality. New York: Basic Books. Moats, D. (2004). Civil Wars:A Battle for Gay Marriage. New York: Harcourt Inc. Read More