Devyn Strickland
Beracy
APLC: Argumentative Essay #3
12 November 2014
“Marriage or Bust” Analysis
While conservative Christians have led historic crusades against a number of "evils" in America — witchcraft, alcohol, communism, feminism and abortion, among others — homosexuality was never more than a minor concern until 1969, when protests in New York City launched the contemporary gay rights movement. Gay marriage is one of the most controversial issues in the modern world. For the past thousand years, marriage has been recognized as the social union between a man and a woman. In most cultures across the globe, homosexuality was viewed with disdain, and marriages between same-sex couples were forbidden. However, homosexual relationships are slowly gaining acceptance, as homosexuals have become vocal in fighting their right to marry in the early 90s. With an increased intolerance for homosexuality in the society, the controversy over the legalization of gay marriage has been disputed among people in many nations. While the majority of the population believes that the legalization of gay marriage will have negative impact on the society, gay activists claim that it is against basic civil rights to prohibit them from marrying. Although I, personally, am “sympathetic to the difficulties gay couples face,” according to Andrew Sullivan in “Marriage or Bust,” but disagree with his claims and disprove of gay marriage due to its effect on children, as well as the sexual revolution its promoting.
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage, from the very words of Sullivan is, “an institution fundamentally designed to provide a stable environment for the rearing of children – and only a man and a woman, as a biological fact, can have their own children within such a marriage.” Though Sullivan acknowledges this fact, other 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. Virtually, many religions consider homosexuality unacceptable and sinful. It is against religious freedom to have them recognize a relationship that they consider is morally wrong. Moreover, legalizing same-sex marriage would undermine the institution and the tradition of marriage. The social construct of marriage has been between male and a female, and this should be maintained in order to preserve cultural traditions. Traditionally, the general thought of marriage has been between a man and a woman, and we should respect and keep this thought. On top of that, allowing gay couples to marry will pose a threat to the heterosexual marriage. Many people are feared that the legalizing of gay marriage is the first step to change and destroy the structure of a traditional household. It is in the child’s best interests that he/she 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 their natural mother or father and will not necessarily be raised by one party who has a blood relationship with them. They will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests. 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,