Gay marriages Essay

Legalization of gay marriages is a comparatively new social experiment, undertaken in twelve American states and several European countries. To my view, it should be cancelled, and in the present paper I would like to substantiate my opposition to the introduction of gay marriage practice worldwide. The United States Constitution, as one knows, guarantees religious freedom, so that national religion and the related obligations could not be adopted at the legislative level. Nevertheless, the national law is to great extent based upon religious principles, given that they developed much earlier than the institute of law. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the American population is diverse in terms of cultural and religious backgrounds, the legislation should demonstrate a high degree of sensitivity to the needs of minority groups, whose beliefs might dramatically contradict to the legal prescriptions. Thus, the legal foundation should be flexible enough, but only to those religions, which have most supporters in the country, as responding to the religions, poorly represented in the United States, might result in the infringement of the interests of larger religious groups (Wolfson, 2004). As the statistics demonstrates, the most widespread religions in the country are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism (Wolfson, 2004). All of these doctrines have long histories and derive from approximately the same values which include family, human life, health and spirituality. It needs to be noted that the carriers of the doctrines are practically consistent with one another in terms of the principles of marriage, which should necessarily be heterosexual; therefore, all of them disapprove of gay families, as one of the basic goals of any ancient religion is the encouragement of natural reproduction (Wolfson, 2004; Dobson, 2004). As one can conclude, there is a strong religious argument against gay marriages, and given the fact that more than 80 per cent of Americans are adherent to a particular doctrine, it is possible to presume that the legalization of gay marriages abuses the interests of the majority. It is often stated that due to the fact that a number of same-sex couples have been cohabitating for years, it would be useful to legalize homosexual partnership, so that the receive the benefits, associated with the traditional marriage, which include social security insurance and a number of additional rights. On the other hand, same-sex marriages are likely to increase government expenditures: â€Å"Recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays for Social Security and for the Federal Employees Health Benefits program† (Chauncey, 2004, p. 243). In order to increase the relevant spending, it is necessary to raise taxes, so each American citizen, capable of working, will pay for the introduction of homosexual marriages from their own pocket. Given the aforementioned information about the most influential and represented religious groups, one can assume public dissatisfaction, which might appear as a result of the launch of this social experiment. Furthermore, marriage of convenience might become more common (Chauncey, 2004; Dobson, 2004). This practice is quite popular among those individuals, who wish to receive marriage benefits without the actual desire for the creation of family. In this sense, they misuse and abuse the concept of government trust for citizens and legally declared value of family, more precisely – undermine the legal understanding of family. This means, in order to avoid the increase of convenience marriage rates, it is highly recommended to not to endorse same-sex marriage. My final argument against gay marriages derives from the value of family as a source of reproduction not merely at the level of individual citizens, but also in terms of society in general. â€Å"A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation and that the same-sex partnership is inherently sterile† (Dobson, 2004, p. 89). I do not claim that individuals should create families taking into consideration the fact that they are obliged to have children, as the attitude towards procreation is a personal choice, but the direction, encouraging the reproduction of society, should be taken at the levels of both law and social policy; otherwise the society might not survive. Moreover, it is possible to presume that gay marriage is likely to abuse the value of traditional family even more than heterosexual cohabitation without registration. First of all, heterosexual cohabitation corresponds to the natural principles of family as a â€Å"union† of a male and a female for proliferation; it needs to be noted that a number of â€Å"unregistered† heterosexual families have children, whereas gay families have less opportunities and lower willingness to procreate (Dobson, 2004). In the social context, the scope of family duties harmoniously combines male and female roles in the household, this tendency is equally apparent in both married couples and cohabitants, whereas different gender roles are unlikely to unite within a same-sex family. As for the legal regulation of sexuality and moral issue, it is important to note that the existing legislation already restricts many aspects of sexuality and morality, such as incest or sexual contact with children,; from these examples one can conclude that the absence of such constraints is likely to negatively affect the common wellbeing. Similarly, the permission of same-sex marriages might have adverse consequences as well. To sum up, due to the facts that most religious groups oppose gay marriage, that the introduction of this practice is likely to affect everyone in economical meaning and that same-sex marriages undermine the traditional value of family, the initiative concerning their legalization should not be supported. Works cited Chauncey, G. Why Marriage? The History Shaping Today’s Debate over Gay Equality. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Dobson, J. Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or. : Multnomah, 2004. Wolfson, E. Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.