Those who support marriage normal have the question why there shouldn’t be legalized gay marriage which is not a correct question since gay marriage has never been in existence. This is even in countries which accepted homosexual relationships but did not have the concept of gay marriage which is a modern concept. The correct question should therefore be why there should be legalized gay marriage. The burden of proof is wholly on the pro side which requires recognizing same-sex relationships officially because civilization of human has become well enough without gay marriage for thousands of years (The Baron, 2008). Gay marriage is a marriage between two individuals of the same sex as opposed to straight marriage whereby individuals of different sexes form a union. This kind of practice has attracted a lot of attention since many people wonder what the point of this marriage is. It is of question what gays are trying to achieve by getting a marriage certificate rather than just saying that they are couples.
A heated debate has been going on with many individuals opposing the idea of gay marriage whereas there are those that support it. The opponents of gay marriage claim that only the marriage between men and women is legitimate contrary to the proponents who believe in gay marriage. There are individuals who are neither male nor female; therefore defining marriage on the basis of sex who denies these individuals the chance to get married (Cline, 2010). Opponents are just uncomfortable with the gay idea because from time in memorial society has always supported and promoted the idea of marriage between two individuals of the same sex as ludicrous. For long the society has viewed the idea of allowing civil rights to particular groups as offensive. This was one of the major reasons why the constitution was established to protect the rights of all individuals (Bidstrup, 2009).
Marriage is taken to be an important religious rite; therefore making gay marriage legal would constitute a sacrilege type in addition to unjustified state intrusion into this religious matter. This is in accordance with those opposing gay marriage contrary to those proposing it, who view this as incorrect. Messerli (2009) claims that religious and civil marriages are two different institutions thus denying the gay their marriage right is a violation of their freedom to religion. This is contrary to most religions which view homosexuality as sin. According to The Baron (2008), gay marriage is an issue of equal rights; these individuals are denied the same rights as non-gay persons genuinely and the society is thus burdened with the obligation to remedy that. This is contrary to those opposed to the gay ideas who view it as completely wrong. Proponents argue that the exact same role is fulfilled by both the gay and non- gay couples in the society. Further the gays cannot reap equivalent benefits that non-gays get via opposite-sex relationships, thus the state should support the same-sex relationship (The Baron, 2008). Proponents argue that the gay should be allowed marriage benefits enjoyed by all couples such as capacity to make medical decisions. They continue to say that this marriage does not harm anyone therefore should be allowed. On the other hand, opponents claim that this would weaken the marriage institution in addition to weakening the traditional values held by our society (Messerli, 2009). This would also harm straight marriage.
The most important argument for opponents of gay marriage contrary to those supporting it is that marriage is a sacred and a sacrament thus should be respected. Marriage is an institution meant to procreate and raise children. Gay couples cannot give rise to offspring therefore they should not be accorded similar status as fertile straight couples according to opponents. This inability to naturally procreate leads to increased adoptions for individuals who would have raised their own children. Gay couples are regarded unnatural hence their unnatural unions cannot be viewed as marriage. Many negative opinions about homosexuality results from this premise which attract other arguments. Others argue that gay marriage should only be tolerated as a social fairness matter but the state should not validate them or regard them as a form of marriage. In the long run, the society would be damaged by normalizing such abnormal relationships and behaviors. The liberty of religion is not compatible with gay marriage according to opposers. There are many forms of opposition to equal civil rights for gay individuals. The arguments that there is something wrong with homosexuality is being lost by the religious conservatives who are claiming that the gay be treated like fully equivalent citizens and human beings. This is incompatible with the religious liberty of the conservatives.
Gay marriage will never be a real marriage since the definition of marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The nature of marriage has transformed in definition in addition to its make-up. The proponents are thus wondering what traditionists are trying to defend since the marriage today is unlike that of the past two millennia or two centuries ago. The future of the American civil law is being safeguarded hence the hot debate about gay marriage legalization is beyond the status of the gay couples. The gay marriage would be legalized if civil law is defined by the citizens’ needs and rights. On the other hand, placing the civil law under religious laws dominion would mean gay marriage will remain banned. Legal and social reasons have been given by the opponents of gay marriage but much argument goes back to religion. This has resulted into animosity based on religion towards the gay couples. Legalizing gay marriage would portray a defeat for the Christian Nationalists for their religion in the boundaries definition fight of American culture and law. Feeney (2004) explains the biblical view of homosexuality which the bible denies those who practice it the right to inherit the kingdom of God.
The establishment of norms of identity, authority, and power is threatened by gay marriage. These prospective changes would threaten those with authority and power and have created identity using them (Cline, 2010). The opponents of gay marriage discourage gay lifestyle as a lot of research has indicate that it results into various negative things such as lowering the life expectancy, psychological disorders, among other problems. Various studies approximate a life expectancy for homosexuals of twenty years less than the general population. Similarly to other lifestyles such as drinking, smoking, etc, lifestyles that are unhealthy should be discouraged. Proponents claim to benefit from strong family values and the giving up of high-risk sexual lifestyles which is encouraged by the society.
The proponents of gay marriage claim that the chances of acquiring complications related to sexuality for instance sexually transmitted diseases are low as they get married to one individual and stem from carefree lifestyles where individuals have unprotected sex with multiple partners. This is also due to the encouragement by marriage for people to settle down and abandon the risky type of lifestyle. Gay marriage is accorded similar consideration and encouragement since it is also marriage. Married couples even in gay cases commit to one partner and build a life together. This is the kind of lifestyle that the society encourages. This argument adds more heat to the already heated up debate about gay marriage as it is controversial. Proponents further claim that marriage should only be based on love and other factors given lesser concern (Messerli, 2009). The concept of gay marriage was not known in the past although homosexuality still existed, it has emerged in the modern world especially among the youths. In conclusion, gay marriage should not be legalized since it is an abnormal practice and does not seem to yield any positive result to the society. It’s a practice that seems unfit even by the mention of its name hence should not be made legal.