philosophy essay (Revision)

Same sex marriage

Same sex marriage, which is as well referred to as gay marriage entails the union of two persons of the same gender in spousal affiliation, with the full lawful rights and responsibilities apportioned to this bond in a given jurisdiction. Ever since the start of time, most cultures have accredited marriage an accord between men and women and same sex marriage was viewed with contempt, and marriages between same-sex couples were prohibited. Consequently, this theory of traditional marriages has been defied in some countries to consent same sex marriage as well. In reaction to this undertaking, several States have approved marriage laws to outlaw this kind of marriage. Nevertheless, same sex affiliations are gradually attained reception, with its enthusiasts becoming verbal in fighting their right to marry, especially in early 1990s. With amplified tolerance for this subject in the society, the debate over the ratification of gay marriage has been uncertain among people in many countries. While the mainstream of the population considers legalization of gay marriage would have adverse consequences on the humanity, gay advocates assert that it is in contradiction of basic civil rights to bar them from espousing. The issue of legality of same sex marriage has therefore grown extremely contentious in today’s society. For that case, I seeks to explore this issue in depth and against same sex marriage legalization.

My main argument against this issues revolve about the social impact and especially on the generations to come. In my view, though the number of kids’ adoption may rise as a result of the certification of this kind of marriage, I strongly believe that it is not inevitably a good thing to the society generally. I hold my stand that a conventional household is the peak setting to raise children. Same sex marriage would bring along high risks of lifestyle such as absenteeism or poor performance at school, dropping out of school, taking on drugs and alcohol and a lot more. In addition to this, the lack of father or mother in a gay family would frequently causes social and monetary problems. My opinion in this matter is that, taking care and being considerate in our currents acts and dealings would sane the humanity. An issue like advocating and legalization of same sex marriage may destroy the future civilization in grounds that, even the very children raised and repetitively exposed to it, by the gay parents are at risk of taking the same behaviors as well, and therefore end up being affected  by this vast developing environment (Andryszewski). The members of this marriage cannot procreate, which to me, this issue becomes even more and more grave as it would trigger a very fundamental question, with no kids to ensure continuous existence of humankind, doesn’t it mean humanity is on its verge to extinction?

Practically, numerous religions consider same sex marriage intolerable and wicked. In its support, I hold that it is in contrast to religious sovereignty to have them establish an intimate rapport that is considered is ethically erroneous. With accommodating same-sex to marry, it would extensively corrode the respect for marriage (Nagle). I believe traditional norms still hold our current dealings and relationships and therefore, it would be suicidal to just drop and forget about our cultures. Ratification of this type of marriage would hence challenge and demoralize the foundation and the tradition of marriage. The social hypothesis of marriage has always been among man and a woman this should thus be upheld and conserved in order to preserve cultural customs (Stanton and Maier).  The tradition common thought marriage should therefore be valued and kept on that domain.  This issue of sex marriage and its supposed legalization to me would be the first stride to change and extinguish the assembly of a traditional household as it would empower its supporters to indulge in it which in turn would pose a menace to the heterosexual marriage.

In my view, the issues of legalization or indulgence in same sex marriage infringes the natural law. I believe marriage is not just any other kind of liaison for human beings but rather, it is entrenched in human nature and therefore overseen by natural law. The most fundamental edict about the natural law is that what is ethical should be done and trailed and the immoral and the wicked should be dodged and evaded. For this reason, I tend to suggest that man can therefore distinguish what is honorably good or corrupt for him. Thus, he can know the conclusion or drive of each of his actions and how it is decently erroneous to alter the means that aid him undertake an act into the action’s aim. I therefore perceive any condition which institutionalizes the avoidance of the goal of the sexual doing as a violation of natural law and the impartial standards of morality. I therefore believe that natural law is collective and unchallengeable and therefore embedded in human settings meaning that it recounts, command and prohibits steadily to the intact human race harmoniously.

The main argument that is commonly raised in favor of legalization of this issue is that its followers are denied civil rights (Wintemute and Andenæs). The actually compare it with the difficulties that were attributed with the skirmishes for racial fairness. To me, this is not true. Firstly, sexual comportment and race are principally different veracities. A male and a female wishing to marry may be differ in their individualities: one may be dark and the other white; or one successful in life and the other deprived. None of these variances are undefeatable impediments to marriage. The two persons are still man and woman, and therefore the necessities of nature are appreciated. Same gender intimate relationships contradicts with nature (Andryszewski). Two beings of the same sex, irrespective of their contests, affluence, knowledge or reputation, will never be able to marry for an insurmountable biological impracticality. Secondly, congenital and inflexible ethnic qualities cannot be associated with non-genetic and variable comportment. I therefore disagree with any correlation between the multiethnic marriage of partners of opposite sex and that of the same sex.

          In conclusion, Marriage is the commencement of family and the fundamental footing of human society. By design, one man and woman come together and craft new lives of immeasurable value. The same biological authenticity that crafts life is reflected in the anthropological realism that kids need a mother and father. Marriage is the social establishment that binds woman and man in the kind of enduring, special bond that cultivates children into maturity. Marriage is also a sacred liberty that permits mothers and fathers to command their lives with respect to their profoundly held ideals and principles. My stand for same sex marriage is that it is harmful to those involved and to the society in general.

   References

Andryszewski, Tricia. USA Today's Debate: Voices And Perspectives. Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2012. Print.

Nagle, Jeanne. Same-Sex Marriage. New York, NY: Rosen Pub., 2010. Print.

Stanton, Glenn T, and Bill Maier. Marriage On Trial. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Print.

Wintemute, Robert, and Mads Tønnesson Andenæs. Legal Recognition Of Same-Sex Partnerships. Oxford: Hart Pub., 2001. Print.