Over the last few decades the question about gay rights and gay marriage has been widely discussed not only in the USA, but in most Western European countries. It has affected many people, who opted either for or against the question, if gays should have rights. It was not only discussed about the rights as a single person, but also about the rights of being a same sex-couple. People that are in these types of relationships started all forms of protests and initiatives to gain their rights to be married. There is a strict line of division between the groups of people agreeing that gays should have the right to be married and those, who strongly oppose this option and consider gay activities as abnormal and sickening.
The major conflict occurs between the gay community and people, who stand for their religious beliefs and values. Christianity demonstrates many aspects on how gay rights are wrong and should never be defended. But religion isn’t the only one that disagrees with gay rights. Scientific researches show how detriment to society gay marriage and opting for gay rights might be – it will affect the political, social and financial system of the country. It will challenge people’s ideas and thinking as to what “normal” and acceptable is. It will be damaging for the new generations to come and will deceive even more young people that gay life is acceptable and good for them. Psychological researches prove that same sex couples cannot provide the same security for a child as heterosexual couples do. While there are reasons why gays should have rights, there are more reasons and facts proving evidence, that gay rights should not be legal in anyway.
Active as the pro-gay rights defenders might seem, they admit that from the very beginning they fear “a national back-flash against gay marriage and gay people” (Rauch, 1). Those pro-gay activists certainly hope to exhibit a positive picture of same-sex unions. However, a predominantly straight-couples community reacted to the pro-gay campaigns with a number of legislative laws that prohibited gay couples to form a lawful unity. They even made it difficult to sustain similar partnership programs. The gay community blames this conservative movement on religious prejudices within the majority of governmental institutions and society in large. The pro-activities are supported by a small percentage of the population in total. Gay activists want to impose on our society the so called “marriage equality” and to affect the laws (Rauch, 2).
We, who are against gay rights and against gay people exposing their existence, cannot help but notice that in the meantime a new generation emerged that is used to following the debate about gay rights. The pro-gay activists have managed to take some ground in the battle for social attention, which eventually leads to change of opinions and change of laws by shifting stereotypes of lifestyles. Ultimately, the gay community expects those who are opting against them to lose the battle (Rauch, 4). Nevertheless, we have to differentiate exactly who is fighting for what and who is losing in what area. Clearly, the debate is expanding and involves gradually more social issues.
When it comes to the issue of Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), the pro-gay activities attract “broader public support than gay marriage” (Rauch, 5). American gay people see their existence threatened by government legislations and religious prejudices (Rauch, 5). They claim that they are entitled to equal citizens’ rights as everybody else in the USA and in order to function normally in everyday life, they, like any regular tax payer, need to know that the state protects them (Rauch, 5). In the 1990es the government’s stand on the possibility gay marriage to be legalized was pretty clear – it was out of the question. The same was the outcome for the question should gay people be allowed to serve in the military (Rauch, 7). Bill Clinton’s administration proposed an agreement in 1997 on military policy of No-Asking and No-Outing, which meant that if a gay person wanted to join the army, they would have to keep their homosexuality private. This, however, proved a very difficult task and resulted in 12000 gay people losing their jobs in the army from 1997 till 2008. Leading military figures claim that outing as a gay, while employed by the army, would undermine the morale of the institution and make general work dynamics impossible to sustain. A traditional marriage is constituted by one woman and one man, who are allowed to have as many children together as they decide. Nowadays, the pro-gay rights activists challenge the smooth run of the country, because they question the relevance of institutions and legislative system that clearly and openly have been against them for centuries.
Yes, undeniably homosexuals are part of us. They are citizens, whose human existence needs to be protected. Their identity in early age needs to be spared the mock and humiliation of the general stereotypical thinking. But we also have to observe the other side of the debate – why parents and institutions (administrations, religious entities, government, private businesses and the army) are concerned that giving gay people too many rights would undermine security for the majority of citizens and would predominantly put pressure on little children growing up in society with strange double values. After so many debates, it is time for gay people to sit down and try to understand how straight people think. Thus both sides of the debate might benefit and contribute to our society as a whole.
Is homosexuality a sign of a psychological disorder? We have come a long way from the times when it was considered a mental problem. During different periods of our social history gay people have been accepted, tolerated, prohibited or completely ostracized – depending on the timeframe, the historical settings and the general politics of the country they have lived in. Religion, and predominantly the Christian religion, refers to sources like the Bible, which say that the same-sex unions are sinful and will provoke the wrath of God. In the 20th century science stepped in and decided to research the root causes of homosexuality. Freud and his contemporaries suspected the trigger for the same sex attractions to be the psychological aspect of missing one parent, while growing up or the self-identification with a certain gender role.
Later on, in the 1970-es, when science and statistics insisted on working together to back up suppositions, a research showed that there is no evidence for genetic mutations in homosexual people. Although a later renounced research found the existence of a regular mutation pattern in the X-chromosomes of male homosexuals, today we still don’t know for sure, if biology is to blame. The question of whether homosexuality is being predetermined by genetic, psychological or other social factors cannot be backed-up 100% through scientific researches. Fact is that predominantly it is a question of personal decision in some cases and a complete lack of control over one’s homosexual urges - in others.
Let us discuss parental distress with the rise of pro-homosexual movements and their political provocations. In the USA protesting groups, including the Save Our Children (SOC) organization, consist mainly of conservative Evangelical and Catholic Christians, who are concerned that the gay community, due to their inability to naturally reproduce, will at some point reach out to recruit the youth of America (Frank, 5).
According to massive protests initiated by Evangelical Christians, if God says No to homosexuality, we should not take the freedom to redefine our God-given identity in terms of sexuality. They see giving legislative rights to homosexual people as an act of legislating immorality, claiming that homosexuality “is a peril to the nation.” Christian mothers say they are using their God-given rights to protect their children by controlling “the moral atmosphere,” in which their children have to grow (Frank, 2). Parents are not so much afraid of the integration of gay people, but rather of the influence a homosexual culture could have on their children’s mental development. They don’t want their children to be uncontrollably exposed to the values of a dubious social group that has no ability to participate in their common purpose and activities (Frank, 2).
Some Christian activists go even further as to urge homosexuals to stop keeping everyone occupied with their rights and to limit their sexual preferences to their private sphere (Frank, 2). Christians derive their moral values and views from the Bible. According to a mega-church pastor Brian Houston, the writings of Paul are clear on this subject referring to a passage from the New Testament in “Romans” (Menzie, “Hillsong's Brian Houston,” 6). There Paul describes the same-sex relationships as something unnatural and a consequence of rejecting God’s wisdom and God’s righteousness. Paul says that homosexuality is a sexual perversion and is a result of hard-heartedness towards God, who created us and gave us laws to sustain human existence. He describes homosexuals, both men and women, as wicked people, who have first abandoned God and as a result God has left them to fulfill the desires of their flesh, which ultimately leads to their own destruction (King James Version, Romans 1:26-30).
For most Christians, however, this passage also gives some reasons to be concerned for the souls of the homosexuals, who might perish in their sins without knowing eternal salvation by receiving forgiveness. That is why most Christians think it is essential to offer a way out of the trap of homosexuality. They try to include gay people in their churches without making a political issue out of the problem, but rather to see it as a private failure that can be corrected when exposed to God’s love and forgiveness.
It is true that nowadays Christian denominations are more than ever involved in the debate about gay rights. There are those, who take a more conservative stand, like the Catholic Church, refusing to ordain ministers, in whose identity there are deeply rooted homosexual issues. Others try to be more relevant and to accept gay people as part of their denomination, referring to the example of Jesus in the Bible, who has never been heard or recorded addressing homosexuality as an issue, although in the times when Jesus lived homosexuality existed and was popular. According to evangelical pastors, who want to be relevant to the youth today as Jesus was relevant to the people in His time, God does not judge external actions, but is after the heart of the person. That is why churches should focus on the individual with his/her challenges, rather than on the phenomenon of homosexuality (Menzie, “Pastor Carl Lentz,” 3). We see that churches and denominations nowadays are forced to confront one way or the other the issue of homosexuality and to resolve the consequent problems on many possible levels.
I personally believe that there are a number of arguments explaining why gay marriage is detriment to our society. It causes decay of families. The example of some Scandinavian countries, that have legislated gay unions, shows clearly how traditional family values are destroyed when encouraging homosexual parents to raise children. The so called “fractured families” leave kids confused as to who their role models are. The kids end-up having a few dads or a few moms, or in the cases of homosexual pairs – only dads or moms. This trend creates a very unstable environment with society members focused on their selfish survival mode (“Gay Marriage: Why,” 3).
Another result of gay marriage legalization is the opening door for additional non-traditional diverse marriage unions, such as polygamy. If the definition of “married couple” allows to be redefined by homosexual couples, then this re-definition might have no ending. It will leave everybody perplexed as to what the norm is. It will be a matter of constant interpretation, which will burden society as a whole. If we no longer have a holy image of marriage as it was given by God in the Bible, then there will be no marriage institution to be supported by the government. Rapidly values will decay and in this atmosphere children will be deceived into practicing perversion. Once gay marriage becomes the legalized norm, public schools will be obliged to educate about this union in textbooks and de-form the minds of our youth. Further, gay-couples will be allowed to adopt children and those children will be deprived of either dads or moms. On the other hand, traditional parents will have to accept homosexuality in their children and consider it a “natural inclination” (“Gay Marriage: Why,” 14).
It is proved scientifically that children need their biological parents. They need both mothers and fathers. Mothers’ psychological model helps children to feel emotionally secure, because mothers are able to read the “physical and emotional cues of infants” (“Ten Arguments,” 7). Fathers, on the other hand, play the role of “reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activities in girls” (“Ten Arguments,” 5). There are scientific observations proving that children, who were raised by same-sex couples, are liable to face problems in terms of gender self-identifications. They naturally develop more homoerotic tendencies (“Ten Arguments,” 10). Also, researches show that women can influence men in a positive way when they form a heterosexual couple, because the male testosterone levels are reduced, which causes men to settle, to become more committed and to take care of their family. Studies show that a man-man relationship could not have such effect on a male (“Ten Arguments,” 13).
I am against legalizing gay-marriage, because it will pressurize the government’s benefits system by claiming funding that rightfully belong to the traditional marriage; it will divert finances to justify the same-sex unions and will drain the system financially (“Gay Marriage: Why,” 16). After all, USA is the norm for many other countries and once we legalize gay marriage, it will affect other countries as well, who will take our example. USA will no longer be seen as a predominantly Christian nation and this will prevent spreading Evangelism around the world. Not only that, but gay-marriage legalization will create a culture of anti-Christians and chaos will break out in our community.
I personally have met and worked with a lot of homosexual people, both female and male. Their existence seems to me over-shadowed by a cloud of unknowingness what follows next in life. There is some sort of confusion and feeling of being restless and unsettled, no matter how many rights have been given to their gay community. They seem easily offended and controlling over everyone’s reactions towards their gay identity. I think gay people are pretty scared of their homosexuality and need some validation from the outside that they are fine.
In summary, our society today could change dramatically with the legalization on gay rights. The issue on gay rights will never end. They will always be around. Religion, history, and parenting abilities prove that gay rights could change our society in a big way. Defending gay rights is morally and physically wrong and could cause problems later on not only in America, but also around the world. We have to stand for our norms and defend traditional marriage by showing that “gay marriage” cannot be defined as a legitimate form of a marriage union.
Works cited:
Dzmura, Noach. "A Progressive Religious Agenda Toward Gay Rights." Tikkun 25.5 (2010):
72-74. Literary Reference Center. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
Encarnación, Omar G. "International Influence, Domestic Activism, And Gay Rights In
Argentina." Political Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 128.4 (2013): 687-716.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
Frank, Gillian. "The Civil Rights Of Parents": Race And Conservative Politics In Anita Bryant's
Campaign Against Gay Rights In 1970S Florida." (From Journal Of The History Of
Sexuality 22.1 (2013): 126-160.) Muse JHU: Project Muse. (2014). Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
"Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage." No
Same Sex Marriage. Anti-gay marriage arguments. Synopsis Marriage Under by Dr.
James Dobson. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.
"Gay-Rights Movement." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6Th Edition (2013): 1-2. Literary
Reference Center. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
Hall, Simon. "The American Gay Rights Movement And Patriotic Protest." Journal Of The
History Of Sexuality 19.3 (2010): 536-562. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov.
2014.
Jang, S. Mo, and Hoon Lee. "When Pop Music Meets A Political Issue: Examining How “Born
This Way” Influences Attitudes Toward Gays And Gay Rights Policies." Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 58.1 (2014): 114-130. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
King James Version. Biblegateway. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.
Lewis, Gregory B. "The Friends And Family Plan: Contact With Gays And Support For Gay
Rights." Policy Studies Journal 39.2 (2011): 217-238. Business Source Elite. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
Menzie, Nicola. "Hillsong's Brian Houston on Gay Marriage: 'I Believe the Writings of Paul Are
Clear on This Subject.'” Christian Post. News. Church and Ministry. (2014). Web. 25
Nov. 2014.
Menzie, Nicola. "Pastor Carl Lentz Will Not Preach on Sexuality From Pulpit; Refuses to
'Ostracize People' Hillsong NYC Lead Pastor on Homosexuality: Not His Job to Be
People's 'Judge and Jury.'" Christian Post. News. Church and Ministry (2013). Web. 25
Nov. 2014
Morrison, Todd G., and Daragh T. McDermott. "Psychometric Properties Of The Support For
Lesbian And Gay Human Rights Scale." Journal Of Social Psychology 149.2 (2009): 263-266. Business Source Elite. Web. 5 Nov. 2014
Rauch, Jonathan. "The End Of Gay Victimhood." Time.Com (2013): 1. Business Source Elite.
Web. 5 Nov. 2014.
"Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage." Family Research Council.
(FRC). (2014). Web 25 Nov. 2014.
"10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed." TFP Student
Action. Defending Moral Values On Campus. (2014). Web. 25 Nov. 2014.
