Gay marriage is a very controversial issue all over the world, with strongly based contradicting perception at the same time. The question that remains is whether it should be considered as legitimate and morally upright one, given the society cultural beliefs among other norms. Some countries have gone to an extent of providing constitutional provision to support it, while others are not, at all, willing to support it (Westermarck, 2006).
According to Jonathan Rauch, there three reasons why marriages take place, which include: need for children, for settlement purposes for the young and, lastly, for stabilization purposes. Despite the varying reasons for gay marriage, the historical reasons for marriage: natural marriage is still favored. According to Edward Westermarck, anthropologist, he asserts that marriage has always been known between men and women. Ideally, it’s not for the sake of the couples that the marriage occurs, but rather, for the sake of the family. This is what history has since primitive times with regard to human society (Westermarck, 2006).
Marriage takes place for the sake of the future generations and, therefore, a couple should be able to reproduce for the sake of future population. This makes the marriage between a man and a woman be a social norm of any society. Also, it’s the nature of mankind to have natural marriage and transcends culture, law, politics, and religion. The psychology and medical enquiries within the real social science prove that natural marriage should have no alternative in both traditional and modern settings.
Using the empirical evidence from Scandinavian countries, the effect of legalizing same sex marriage is profound and devastating. For the ten years that the law has been operating, a sharp increase in divorce and out-of-wedlock children has been witnessed. Taking Sweden as an example, the gay men divorce exceeds that of heterosexual by 50%. Such divorces have the effect of lowering of the cultural esteem of marriages. Other implications include abandonment of parental role of the couples, and, hence, reduce well-being of children. It is rather naturally unjustified to be born and to refuse to give birth (Phy-Olsen, 2006).
Gay marriage is based on faulty assumptions that puts into considerations the needs of the adults and ignores the welfare of the children. The redefinition of marriage by America more than 30 years ago was ‘no-fault divorce’. This means that a marriage should remain intact, as long as it’s the will of both partners. The impact has been the myriads of social problems within the modern society, to both adults and children (Burns, 2005).
Despite the limitations, associated with gay marriage, it’s important to appreciate the possibility that is the best option, or it should not be rebuked, and be considered as any other change that the society should embrace. Out of the three reasons, provided for marriage, proponents of gay marriage argue that opponents only concentrate on bearing children. It’s important to consider marriage as a stabilizing occurrence, a role played well by gay marriage especially for young unstable men. Marriage provides a last resort place, where people seek solace for any misfortune, and where celebrations of success are done. It would be unfortunate to assume a conservative approach, and deny such rights of gay people (Rauch, 2004).
There also a lack of logical consistence, when we assume marriage to be for children bearing. We assume a different perception to infertile people, who are married and cannot give rise to children; we don’t rebuke them. Why is there a different standard to the gay marriage then? No fertility test is conducted for one to get a marriage test.
The biggest opposition to gay marriage comes from the religious institution. However, marriage is not religious but legally civil institution. Religious institution conducts ceremonies to bless and approve married couples, but with regard to law, such status is given by the state. We cannot force the church to support gay marriage but we cannot use the church opinion to disallow gay marriages (Sullivan, 1995).
As I conclude, it’s worthwhile to note that marriage is, by no means, a zero sum game. This is because it costs nothing for the heterosexual marriages to allow homosexual ones. It’s, however, dehumanizing, humiliating and insulting to deny their rights.