Gay Marriage Debate Controversy: Reasons It should be Frowned Upon

by on May 30, 2017 - 12 min read
In category

History and Debate of Gay Marriage
Same-sex marriage is defined as a union between two people who are of the same gender or biological sex. Since 2001, ten nations and other jurisdictions have made this type of union legal. Whether or not to recognize such marriages remains a source of debate as far as civil rights, political and social issues go.

Definition of Marriage
The definition of the word marriage is a topic that often comes up when discussing same-sex marriages. The word "marriage" is not defined uniformly across cultures. In 1922, the word was taken to refer to a relationship of one or more men with one or more women that is recognized by law and involves certain legal and social rights and duties. Individuals who are married also carry a legal responsibility for children that they produce together. Modern definitions of the word have much more variation. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, has acknowledged same-sex marriage in its definition since 2000; however, many conservative publications have not yet changed their definitions. For example, Accuracy in Media argues for the use of quotation marks when referring to a marriage between two people of the same gender. Associated Press uses the term "gay marriage" and warns that this can refer to marriage of both
gay men and lesbian couples.

It is obvious from the varying definitions of marriage that this topic carries with it a large amount of controversy. Those who support same-sex marriage often argue that love is grounds enough for marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. Those who are opposed often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the rearing of children as the main reasons for their opposition. The conflict over same-sex marriage is not a simple one. It involves many legislative, cultural, religious and family issues.
From a legal standpoint, those on the opposing side of the gay marriage debate often believe that the rights of marriage should be restricted to couples who are of the opposite sex. Those who are for it believe that marriage is a civil right and should not have restrictions to those of a particular sexual orientation.

Gay Marriage and Religion
Arguments for and against the gay marriage debate often involve religious factors. Some religious associations refuse to employ or offer services to same-sex couples. Christian groups who argue for same-sex marriage tend to believe that lesbian and gay people were created as such by God and should have the same rights as others. Those who are against it argue that same-sex relationships are immoral, against God’s will and subvert the goal of human sexuality, which is to produce children. The Jewish church also varies in its approach to same-sex marriage. The Islamic faith openly rejects homosexuality, citing the story of Lot in Sodom as a condemnation of homosexuality.
Many of those who take a particular position on same-sex marriage do so because of their beliefs about family. Many argue that a child has a right to grow up with a father and a mother, and to raise him or her in a homosexual household is to deny him that right. On the other hand, scientific studies have found that children raised by homosexual parents are every bit as capable of providing heterosexual parenting to their own children later in life.
The conflict over same-sex marriage is a big one because of the many social and legal factors involved. Though there is no cut-and-dry definition of marriage, political and social groups everywhere are working hard to form their own opinions and arguments.

1. It Is Not Marriage
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.
The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

A mother (a woman able to love and care who of course have mammary glands) can act as a father but a father cannot fill in the void of a mother Favour Uche. It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced
by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle
In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a
very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right
Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the
upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.” If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such
aberrations. The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

    "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God
This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it. Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in
Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis:

    “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ:

    “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality:

    “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

I would never be a supporter of gay marriage because it stands against everything I believe in -my religion, my belief and the way I perceive people. I would never ever fall in love with my fellow girl. I can’t even imagine penis against penis or vagina against vagina. Gay marriage should be frowned against because it’s a taboo and a sin. It is repugnant in the sight of the Most High who has created us male and female and commanded us to multiply.

Imagine if gay marriages were legalized all over the world, then there would be disaster. How many babies would be left for adoption by caring, aspiring male-female parents? How would the economy increase in terms of population and labour? How many transgender operations would need to be carried out? The mere thought of it drives me to insanity. I stand against gay marriages and I’m sure Nigeria, my country would never legalize it because it stands against what is ethically and traditionally right.

If you have the same view please click the to recommend. Thank you for your time.

0 Responses

Please sign in to comment.




When you heart a story it encourages the writer and helps more people discover the story.