Gay marriages Essay

Legalization of gay pairings 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 entry of gay marriage practice worldwide. The coupled States Constitution, as one knows, guarantees religious freedom, so that field of study religion and the related obligations could not be adopted at the legislative level.Neverthe slight, 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 respective(a) 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 neutralize to the legal prescriptions.Thus, the legal foundation should be flexible enough, that only to thos e 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 vast 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 some other 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 rise 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 ce nt of Americans are adherent to a particular doctrine, it is possible to sham that the legalization of gay marriages abuses the interests of the majority. It is often stated that due to the fact that a offspring 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 additive rights.On the other hand, same-sex marriages are belike to profit government expenditures 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 reading about the most influential and represented religious g roups, one can assume public dissatisfaction, which might appear as a result of the depute of this social experiment. Furthermore, marriage of convenience might become more everyday (Chauncey, 2004 Dobson, 2004). This practice is quite popular among those individuals, who wish to receive marriage benefits without the actual craving 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 thought 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. A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that l eads 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 center of a male and a female for proliferation it needs to be noted that a number of 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 harmoni ously combines male and female roles in the household, this tendency is equally apparent in both marry 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 real 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 Sha ping Todays Debate over intrepid Equality. New York Basic Books, 2004. Dobson, J. Marriage Under Fire. Sisters, Or. Multnomah, 2004. Wolfson, E. Why Marriage Matters America, Equality, and Gay Peoples Right to Marry. New York Simon & Schuster, 2004.