Against Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages

One of the hottest conversations throughout the United States currently, is the topic of gay marriage. This is the subject of a great deal of controversy and sensitivity, bringing about protests, rallies and various political activity and legislation. In Lawrence A. Kurdek, “ What Do We Know About Gay and Lesbian Couples?” Andrew Sullivan, “For Gay Marriage”, and William Bennett “Against Gay Marriage”, various stances are discussed, Sullivan and Kurdek share a similar view point, claiming that denying marriage to homosexuals is an insult to their public equality. On the opposite side of the legalizing gay marriage debate is Bennet, who argues that legalizing same-sex marriage would cause significant social damage. I believe that everyone should be able to choose their lifestyles, including deciding if they want a same-sex or heterosexual relationship; however I agree with Bennet in keeping marriages between a man and a woman. After reading all three articles, I can see both sides of the argument and I believe that keeping the original institution of marriage would not affect Kurdek’s or Sullivan’s point in a negative way. I feel there are three main factors in deciding the outcome of this debate. The first to be considered is reviewing the constitution of marriage. Bennet defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, which is not an open contract, and its essential idea is fidelity (272). In order to legalize homosexual marriage it would be necessary to change the definition of marriage, Bennet insists this would create longterm social damage, as well as deconstruct societies most important institution, he adds that broadening the definition would be getting rid of ground principles (272). On the contrary, Sullivan states that the main point of the contract is ,“an emotional, financial, and psychological bond between two people; in this respect, heterosexuals and homosexuals are identical.” (272) For that reason Sullivan says the definition of marriage should be expanded. Kurdek, agrees that homosexuals are no different than heterosexual couples, he affirmed that not only are same-sex couples happy with their relationships, but on average they have the same satisfaction rate as a heterosexual couples (252). Another reason why gay and lesbian couples are happy is that they work better in some areas, such as household labor since they don’t divide them according to sex, and they also tend to have more positive discussions and resolve conflict in a better way than heterosexual couples, usually this is true because they share similar viewpoints with each other (252). My opinion on this topic is the same as Bennet’s, I feel that marriage should be kept as a sacred institution between a man and a woman. In my opinion having to change the meaning and definition of a word of such significance is already disrespecting the true meaning and honor of marriage, because when it was first installed it was meant for two people a man and a woman who are expressing their love towards each other and promising to one another to always be there no matter what. I also agree with Bennet’s point to not legalize because of the social damage it would create. Living in a world with little or no principles would cause chaos, and even though legalizing gay marriage to many seems harmless that is just the start of losing ethic codes. I feel that changing something based on principles is changing peoples stance on having or even knowing principles, morality and ethics. Humanity is a point worth mentioning in this debate that both Kurdek and Sullivan bring up. Sullivan starts out his arguments saying marriage is the highest public and personal recognition of integrity, “ Denying it to homosexuals is the most public affront possible to their public equality” (266). Sullivan explains that they are no different than heterosexual couples, they simply are demonstrating their love and