Sustained Argument : LGBTQ+ Youth
Supporting LGBT Youth
Same-sex marriages are unions between people of similar sex. The rise in the practice has elicited mixed reactions from various world parts. In the heated and relatively contentious discussion are two groups of humankind. Firstly, there are the supporters of the culture that believe that it is reasonably right to engage in the act. However, there is also the extended portion of critics who condemn the act vehemently for various reasons. Notably, the public opinion on the control of these same-sex unions has shifted rapidly. The discussion became hotly discussed in the United States and the entire world, and was mostly governed by marriage laws and every individual state where the regimens differed from those of the federal (Bilger and Kort 16). Notably, legalization of same-sex unions continues to elicit mixed reactions from various regions around the globe; hence, many critics and advocates of the discussion have usually engaged each other in the controversy and have typically taken different stands.
According to Jacob et al. (24), marriages involving people of similar gender should be regularly condemned in the strongest way possible. According to critics of the contentious debate, marriage is a union initially orchestrated for a woman and man. Therefore, altering such an ancient form of culture would seemingly be undermining both the role of the family in holding the society together and the marriage institution. The legalization of the vice denies the significant role of the marriage as a major step towards the process of procreation. There exist civil partnerships for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBTs), although marriage is a far away step. The change to the regimen in the French context is set to eliminate the terms “father and mother” from the civil code, thereby weakening the freedoms of the heterosexuals.
In 2015, the Supreme Court of the U.S. gave a verdict that alleged that individual states could not forbid unions between people of the same sex. The tribunal required all the states to provide couples in these unions with marriage certificates and usually cites about equality. The proponents asserted that equal rights should be tantamount to equal freedoms. Apparently, a sophisticated community does not discriminate people according to sexuality, race, religion, or sex and therefore the denial of marriage rights to these couples is a clear violation (Swan 14). Heterosexual and gay couples both should qualify for the constitutional freedoms related to matrimony, especially on taxes, inheritance, ownership of property, and adoption. Regardless of how the critics of the discussion may want to taint it, denying equal rights to lesbians and gays is homophobia.
However, gay marriages should not be allowed because they violate the natural law. Marriage should not be deemed as any other correlation between human beings, but a relationship based on human nature that is primarily governed by the natural law. The primary, elementary precept of the natural law is that the excellent should be pursued and done and evil should be completely avoided. Man, through his natural living, can deem what is morally wrong or right for him (Bilger and Kort 30). Therefore, human beings can know the purpose or end of every of their acts and how morally wrong they can be to change the means that enable them to fulfill a particular law into the purposes of rules. Every circumstance that institutionalizes the purpose’ circumvention of the original law contravenes the objective norm of morality and the natural law. Natural law is immutable and universal and should, therefore, apply to the whole of the humanity race. It forbids and commands consistently, always and everywhere.
On the other hand, unions between persons of a similar gender should typically be allowed because research has established married couples live longer than the individual who lives single their entire lives. Marriage has a deeper correlation with both the emotional and physical health and the longer a couple that stays together for long is set to reap more benefits. Apparently, public health experts and psychologists have for many years debated the actual reasons why couples in a marriage are said to live for many years. There are those that allege that the lifelong companionship found in marriage offers the physical and emotional security and the nurturing that humankind requires for thriving and the kind of commitment that can add more than ten years to someone’s life can be found only in marriage. According to a study by Danish researchers, men in same-sex relationships were considered to live longer like the heterosexual couples in matrimony (Jacob et al. 46). Additionally, the heterosexual individuals who engage in marriage severally in their lives demonstrated that males in gay marriages had a longer lifespan like heterosexual couples who were married. The data is enough proof that stability in a long-term correlation is a goes handily with emotional and mental health irrespective of an individual’s sexual orientation. Thus, marriages can only help in the cementing of an already existing, stable relationship.
Nonetheless, same-sex unions should be disbanded because marriage is primarily a religious rite. The union is conceived of almost entirely terms of religion. It means that gay marriages are tantamount to a kind of sacrilege as well as an intrusion of the country into a religious issue. Swan (27) establishes that religion has always played an essential role in the sanctification of marriages, although the belief appears incorrect in the end. The marriage contract can also be deemed as a compact between two parties where they promise to care for each other. Notably, marriage has never relied on a single religion and is instead an outcome of human desire which is wholly supported by the community.
Besides, gay marriages can never be true matrimony. Looking at the simplistic explanation of the meaning of the word “marriage” in a dictionary elaborates better the actual significance of the union. Many people can now marvel at the invention that there is only the mention of women and men marrying and can safely be concluded that gays cannot possibly get married to one another. The approach ignores that the character of marriage has transformed in its definition and make-up relatively often for many decades (Bilger and Kort 38). The current marriage institution is not the former union that used to exist over two centuries or millennia ago. Additionally, the union is for raising offspring. Therefore, gay marriages should be abolished only they cannot sire children.
Nevertheless, there is no need to condemn gay marriages because it has no underlying impact on heterosexual marriages. Apparently, in many countries where many same-sex marriages are legalized, such as Netherlands, Canada, Spain, and Belgium, the degree of heterosexual unions has declined, decreased, or remained stable. It has been consistent with that of other states in the region that hardly identify with same-sex marriages. However, individuals and groups that criticized same-sex marriages usually cite the literature by Stanley Kurtz. Stanley was a pundit at the prestigious right-wing Hoover Institution. The author asserts that same-sex unions in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway contributed to the decadence of the heterosexual marriage institution (Jacob et al. 61).
Conversely, there is an increased need to ban gay marriages. Many LGBT activists allege that marriages between individuals of the same gender are issues of civil rights which are tantamount to the racial equality struggles of the 1960s. However, the statement is false because race and sexual behavior are primarily distinct realities. A woman and man desiring to settle down in marriage may possess different features, such as being white or black, poor or wealthy, short or tall. These differences cannot be insurmountable obstacles to hinder people from getting married. The duo is woman and man which is the primary requirement that nature expects from humankind. However, lesbian and gay marriages usually oppose nature. They are typically two parties of similar sex irrespective of their stature, race, erudition, wealth, or fame, and can therefore not marry because of the eminent biological impossibilities (Swan 43). Secondly, the unchangeable and inherited racial characteristics cannot be compared with erratic and non-genetic behavior. Thus, there can never be any analogy between the “union” of two people of the same gender and the interracial marriage of a woman and man.
On the other hand, the advocates and supporters of same-sex marriages allege that banning of these institutions should be lifted simply because there are no ideal reasons to outlaw them. The majority of the arguments that oppose same-sex marriages are established on religious beliefs that usually lack a basis in logic and fact. Although all people have the choice to their faith system, the legislation should not be established by the faith of one segment of a community, especially in nations that take pride in the separation of pride and church. For instance, a primary reason for opposing same-sex unions is that of the violation of the natural law, and many advocates of the practice typically consider it as a completely unfounded reason (Bilger and Kort 69). Such an assertion is founded on the notion that intimacy’s major purpose is procreation, and that any sexual engagement besides the principle is considered as a sin. If the allegations mentioned above are true, then it would be relatively impossible for other mammals such as dolphins to engage in recreational lovemaking. Besides, homosexuality would not exist in more than 15,000 animal species.
Finally, there is an increased need to ban lesbian and gay marriages. In addition to the many reasons explained above against the practice, same-sex marriages offend God because there is the violation of the moral order established by God. Apparently, marriage was not a creation of any nation, but God’s establishment at the Eden Garden with Eve and Adam. As recorded in the initial chapter of the Bible, the man was made in God’s likeness and afterward made all the animals, plants, and everything else in the world. However, Mighty Maker deemed the loneliness in man because he was the only male creature being among the entire creation that lacked a mate (Jacob et al. 87). Hence, God sent him to slumber and excavated a rib from him whereby He used it to make the woman. The female was supposed to be his helper, companion, and procreator. These are features that the LGBT society cannot possess and demonstrate. Therefore, lesbian and LGBT marriages should not be legalized.
To sum up, same-sex unions are regarded as marriages between two individuals of the same gender. Homosexuality should be condemned because it was initially orchestrated as a union between a woman and man. The Supreme Court in America in 2015 ruled out that the special courts could not bar same-sex couples from getting married and supported them to be issued with certificates to cement their unions. However, gay marriages violate the natural law and thus, should be banned. Nonetheless, the advocates allege that there is a need for legalization because they do not affect the heterosexual marriages. However, these unions should be outlawed because they do not support procreation.
Bilger, Audrey, and Michele Kort. Here Come the Brides!: Reflections on Lesbian Love and Marriage. Seal P, 2012.
Jacob, Selwyn J, et al. Why Thee Wed? Films for the Humanities & Sciences, 2006.
Swan, Wallace. Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender Public Policy Issues: A Citizen’s and Administrator’s Guide to the New Cultural Struggle. Harrington Park P, 1997.