OPPOSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE

OPPOSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE

OPPOSING SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Thesis

There are compelling scientific and biological benefits of heterosexual relationships. Such implications are critical when assessing the value of same sex marriage. Although a highly contested issue the value of an intact heterosexual marriage provides the greatest level of support for children.

Summary

Often the topic of same sex marriage is argued based on opinions as opposed to substantive facts. According to the Family Research Council the social or opinion based arguments opposing homosexual marriage neglect the core issues. One critical factor of consideration is the biological connection that two heterosexual parents have with children (Family Research Council, 2014). This is an example of using scientific reasoning to encourage continued social support for the traditional family model.

Research suggests that upholding this traditional family model benefits every member of the household. One primary beneficiary of a traditional household is the certainly the child. The love and support a child receives from heterosexual parents is immeasurable. Kyle Pruett a psychiatrist communicated effects of (IVF) in vitro fertilization for children (Family Research Council, 2014).

There are often feelings of longing that children express for the absent birth parent. Implicit within this argument is the detrimental impact this emotional void has on decisions children make. It often leads to destructive and unhealthy behaviors as children seek to fill a void. This destructive and unhealthy pattern of children seeking to fill voids left by absent parents can be seen in traditional divorce (Family Research Council, 2014).

Also, social growth becomes diminutive when children are raised in homosexual families. For example studies reveal that fathers are effective in mitigating belligerent and aberrant behavior in boys. Fathers have also proven to be persuasive in reducing promiscuity of their daughters. Subsequently early puberty and teen pregnancy amongst girls has been attributed in part to absentee fathers. Mothers are critical in instilling emotional security, as they readily assess emotional cues of their babies. Also throughout childhood they provide guidance for the physical and social challenges youth face (Family Research Council, 2014).

Personal Evaluation

First of all I feel that supporters of homosexual marriage focus primarily on the personal benefits they attribute to this legal union. Numerous articles and news reports argue that denying them the legal recognition as a married couple hinders their wellbeing. The proposed solution is that they receive the same acknowledgement as heterosexual couples when it comes to marital union. Such stated benefits include favorable tax and health benefits. Additionally, there are opportunities for burial in close proximity to one another in veterans’ cemeteries (Desilver, 2013).

I disagree with groups stating there is no significant distinction between households where children are raised by heterosexual versus homosexual parents. Societal evidence has shown clear and compelling examples of distorted norms when it comes to gender behaviors. These distorted gender behaviors are most likely associated with contradictory examples of appropriate gender and sexual behaviors (Family Research Council, 2014).

I believe that homosexual unions create gender disorientation among youth. This belief is further purported by supporters of same-sex unions. One example is Judith Stacey, a sociologist and supporter of same-sex unions, who admitted to the adverse impact. She concluded that lesbian parenting does in fact create grey areas when it comes to traditional gender roles. Boys typically display more feminine characteristics when raised by a lesbian couple. In contrast girls have a tendency to behave in more masculine ways when raised by lesbian couples (Family Research Council, 2014).

I feel that loyalty in homosexual relationships is much lower than in heterosexual unions. This is not just an opinion but is supported by statistical data, which evaluates fidelity among various groups. One such study in Vermont gives cause for trepidation, especially concerning gay men. It should be noted that data is preliminary and needs further exploration. However, the study reveals that two groups with the highest value for sexual faithfulness are heterosexual couples and lesbians. In both groups the percentage of participants that believe in sexual fidelity is seventy nine percent. In contrast only fifty-percent of gay men in civil partnerships value sexual fidelity (Family Research Council, 2014).

I personally know a gay man in a same-sex civil union, who was recently approached and prospected. He informed the much younger man that he was happily married and therefore could not sleep with him. The younger man replied that he was still interested in “hooking up”, despite the relationship status of the older male. In fact the younger man was even willing to overlook the destructive consequences.

Although the older gay man shared with me that he was not interested, he did acknowledge the good feeling. In other words he felt it was nice to know that he was still desirable to good looking, younger men. He would therefore constitute part of the 50 percent of gay men who value fidelity in marriage. However, the number of gay men who would have succumbed to the temptation and cheated on their partner is staggering.

I think it is also important to acknowledge the psychological damage of homosexual unions relative to procreation. In the traditional heterosexual relationship children naturally associate procreation with the marriage union. However, in a same-sex marriage there is an antinatalist view regarding procreation. In other words, there is negative philosophical view regarding the value of childbirth (Family Research Council, 2014). This is naturally a result of the fact that they cannot give birth without the involvement of outside parties.

I also overheard a conversation between the same older gay man and his partner. In the conversation they were talking about the possibility of children. The older gay man shared how he naturally is drawn to children and has thought about what it would be like to have children. His partner then retorted, “I would be happy just to have a dog one day.” This dismissive attitude is something that is inevitably repeated amongst gay couples, especially gay men. Naturally lesbians can procreate by locating a sperm bank or a sperm donor.

In my opinion, this growing disconnect on natural procreation is unhealthy from a societal standpoint. One example is the appellate court case Goodridge versus the Department of Public Health. This monumental case affirmed the marital union of homosexual couples. Subsequently as a result of Goodridge and similar cases same-sex unions have seen the lowest fertility rates globally. Countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada statistically show per female birthrates of approximately 1.6. This is significantly less than where it should be, which approximately 2.1, per woman (Family Research Council, 2014).

Also, I think that it is important to understand the value of gender based roles. For example, there was a study conducted by University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington. According to the study gender typical roles strengthen the marriage bond. Women are greatly fulfilled when they are able to focus on more on parenting. As the husband assumes a greater role as the breadwinner this becomes a greater possibility (Family Research Council, 2014).

In conclusion it is important to understand that the distinction between opposing same sex marriage and seeking to control people’s lives. People will ultimately do what they please however there should be acknowledgement of the societal impact. I believe that same sex marriage erodes the societal challenge of procreation and childrearing. Children already have enough difficulty trying to determine appropriate roles and social behaviors. It is important that there is at least a foundation provided that allows them to engage society as healthy individuals.

Equally important is the establishment of clear and distinct gender roles. Seeing young women with butch haircuts and tattoos, seeking to emulate men is unnatural. It reveals much deeper emotional and psychological issues that must be addressed. It is equally disturbing to see men who should be strong, masculine, breadwinners, operating with very feminine traits. With gay men the physical transformation is often more drastic.

Today, it is not uncommon to see men dress as women and walk with a feminine posture. In the cases of men and women who are living a LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) lifestyle there are often even more drastic measures taken. Some have gone so far as to pursue sex changes and operations. None of these actions however eliminate the truth which is that same sex marriage is simply unhealthy for both individuals and society at large.

References

Desilver, D. (2013, June 26). How many same-sex marriages in the U.S.? At least 71,165, probably more. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/26/how-many-same-sex-marriages-in-the-u-s-at-least-71165-probably-more/

Family Research Council. (2014). Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if04g01

Clean CSS files are essential for an optimized website. Try the free online tool by HTML Cleaner.