Pros and cons of gay marriage

Pros and cons of gay marriage

Abstract
Gay marriage is a form of same-sex marriage and a topic that has attracted attention world over. The purpose of this research paper is to present the positive side of the topic and the negative side together with the weight the society has placed on each side. One side of the topic at hand is that gay marriage is right and should be upheld and legalized in the society without criticism and discrimination of those involved. On the other hand, a negative attitude on the topic is that gay marriage is wrong,against morals and society welfare and should not be legalized but abolished with the proper law to eradicate it.

Research Content
Gay marriage is figured as an issue of equal rights by its advocates, especially in the United States.The advocates emphasize on provision of legal securities and fundamental rights associated with marriage for gay couples. Other than the equality claim, gay marriage proponents have an alternative strategy to present their claim in a religious perspective. Caufield and Debra highlight several religious actors who have taken sides with or performed unions of the same sex marriages. These include the Unitarian Universalist Association that has done such unions since 1970s. Others include the Religious Society of Friends, United Church of Christ, the Metropolitan community church and the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Debra & Caufield 2008).
There are various sociodemographic features that dictate the attitude of people towards gay marriage.

These include gender, where due to gender ideologies, heterosexual men are found to be more negative to gay men than women are to lesbians, research also shows that blacks have a more negative attitude on gay marriage than whites are. The blacks, however, support gay rights and liberties than whites. Other sociodemographic attributes include education, age and social-economic state.
Gay marriage fails to emphasize on the importance of childbearing and marriage. It instead emphasizes on the infinite flexibility and size of family. According to Stanley Kurtz, a researcher at Hoover Institution, breaking the tie between parenthood and marriage leads to fell away of marriage. Kurtz supports his argument by citing Norway, which recognizes and accepts gay marriage and allows same-sex couples to adopt children. On the contrary, Karla Mantilla uses Kurtz citing in favor of gay marriage. She argues that if gay marriage could allow women to be mothers without marrying men then it is fine. While Kurtz argues that children are better off in a heterosexual marriage, Mantilla differs in the fact that gay supporting states have lower infant mortality, child poverty and child related accidents e.g. Norway compared to non-supporting states. Mantilla indicates that marriage destruction by gays is to the advantage of children. Mantilla’s point is that the society should embrace what is best for children, providing adequate financial support care and emotional support.
An issue of women’s choice in relationship comes in that in same-sex marriage, a woman can choose to be in a relationship because it is good and not because her children will suffer financially if she is not in it. This would cultivate a sense of responsibility, respect and sensitivity in men. Mantillas support of gay marriage further extends to the extent of its provision of social benefits such as inheritance, health insurance and hospital visitation (Mantilla 2008).
There are however many drawbacks in the issue of gay marriage. Peter Sprigg explains ten of these most harmful socioeconomic effects of gay marriage.
Subsidizing gay marriages with consumer taxpayers and businesses would be a burden. The advocates of gay marriage all revolve around provision of government benefits including social security. This diverts the initial purpose of social security benefits that were intended to help housewives who had no retirement benefits. To worsen this, children brought up in gay families are expected to benefit from the same. All these costs are on the taxpayer, business and consumers.
Gay marriage would affect the education system where misleading curriculum would be adopted to show identicality of heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Though light sounding, introduction of such topics and demonstration is a threat to child morals and may raise differences especially when the parents are of different opinions.
Also, gay marriages are a threat to religious liberty. This is best explained when a religious sect chooses not to perform gay unions and the government withdraws some of the sect’s legal provisions. Other harmful effects are that fidelity would decrease and promiscuity hike. Also demands to legalize polygamy would rise and many children would have no attachment to their biological parents. On a more serious note, birth rates would decrease and thus affect a nation’s productive over time (Sprigg n.d).
Conclusion
These two authors have different opinions. While Mantilla is in favor of gay marriage, Sprigg strongly condemns it, each basing their argument on straight facts. However, Sprigg’s presentation appears more coherent and well explained. The research presented within to some extent agrees with my initial and final opinion that gay marriage should be eradicated with all means. I totally agree with Sprigg’s ideas and feel it’s high time we thought beyond the terms gay sex and think the way forward.
References
DeLaet D.L. &Caufield R.P. 2008.”Gay Marriage as a Religious Right: Reframing the legal debate over gay marriages”. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41554743.pdf
Mantilla K. 2004.“Gay Marriage: Destroying the Family To Save Children?” Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20838074.pdf?acceptTC=trueSprigg P. n.d “The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex “Marriage””. Retrieved from
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf