Does gay marriage threaten the family Essay Example for Free

Does gay marriage threaten the family Essay The question is clear does gay marriages threatens the family? To my belief yes it does with a capital Y. It is for a very simple reason that it nullifies the basic web of the society, the family. By the term alone, for instance if a two male person established among themselves what they so called â€Å"conjugal love or the so called domestic partnership â€Å"who would be called the mommy and the dad. If they have children by adoption or from the other partner would that child not be confused that his or her mom is physically and physiologically like his dad? In this aspect it also waters down the dignity of a man and that of a woman. For all we know yes we are created equal but were given recognition that each one has his and her role to play. And that part cannot be taken away by some whims of only few individuals. In fact, it is everyone’s concern to value his masculinity and for the woman her femininity. Those who can not recognize this fact is in no way no longer care for respect for the right reason. Ralph Wedgewoods justifications are like a mens rea. Justification does not eliminate one’s malicious act. He justifies gay marriages by attacking the evils in marriages. He could have forgotten that he is once a product of a basic family of a union between a man and a woman. Divorce, children born out of wedlock, abandonment, etc. are ills to our society but must not be taken into account that since we have this evil, marriage is doomed. In fact, a holy marriage is a sanctuary, a place where we could raise good citizens of the world. When love is lacking between a complete man and a complete woman, how can we be so sure that love between the same sexes is less chaotic? I do not deny the value of clean friendship here; same sexes could love each other in a platonic and respectful way. Giving into licentiousness already debases the human dignity, and that dignity is for everyone. Perfect union is only enjoyed by legitimate love. Anything outside of it is simply lust. And when lust diminishes convulsion of consciences regains unless that conscience has had hardened its heart not being able to conceive what is right and what is wrong. Maggie Gallagher’s discusses in her book â€Å"What is Marriage for? †. That gay marriage is nothing new. It could be accepted in Massachusetts and may infiltrate the 50 states of America. Marriage is defined as giving a legal ground for sexual desires of adult individual but it has more to offer. Well it is not simply institutionalizing a marriage and begetting children. It is beyond that. Moreover it is not only for the elite. But justice dictates that if a man and a woman can not properly raise a child it is better for him and her to live continence. Many have fallen into the ifs’ and buts’ of marriage, but if we could only look at one direction and try to research what it really mean to be. Finally, everyone could have a conclusion that marriage is never a license but more of a gift of faith and love. Matrimony is defined in the Humane Vitae (Human life) as Married love which is far from being the effect of the result of blind evolution of the natural forces in which husband and wife through mutual gift of themselves perfect themselves as one in cooperating with God for generating new lives. It is a love that is total. How many have come in to marriage without valuing this basic requirement? They are the ones on the event of sorrows of daily life ran away from their commitment. It is them who forget that married love is faithful and exclusive until death. They never thought that it is a real commitment and not just a sharing of domestic problems. â€Å"Marriage and conjugal love are ordained toward procreation and education of children which are the supreme gift of marriage. † (VI, 1968) This always includes responsible parenthood and the observance of the natural law. Marriage between same sex is not only a direct defiance to God’s will who have created the whole universe but a rendering injustice to ones self. A man with a common sense knew that anything unnatural is a hoax. Never would a man find complete ecstasy on any union that is filled with guilt and full of perversion. In Kerry Howley`s debate, she stresses more on the political side of the issue. The author could have forgotten one dimension of marriage. This social institution is not only bounded by a certain state but is treated more of a sacrament. The unions between spouses are not only by civil norms but out bounds the soul. Religion, the church, and God who created you and me have institutionalized marriage to be the seed of His elects. Here we are not negating the rights of lesbians and homosexuals, in fact our society of today are more civil with them and accepted them as creative and respectable individuals. But to carry on an error of licentiousness we are just debasing their human existence. There are always limitations where we can not be what we want but in the eye of a believer of truth he could see beyond even if his eyes are closed. Let consciences be heard and man will bend his knees, for all we know something out there is of greater value, more precious than gold. Our soul and its eternal end.