Even with the increasing liberal attitude towards sociality and in particular gay marriages, there is a need to consider the current and future consequences of supporting gay marriages. In order to set the pace of the discussion, marriage as defined by the international law can be perceived to describe any matrimonial union between a woman and a man of legal age who want to create a stable union the cardinal result of which is to give life to children (Fiorini 1038). On the other hand, a gay marriage seems to bring about a different concept from the one of a "traditional marriage" and thus, by definition, the two are not equal. Gay marriage hinders the growth of a balanced society and hence should not be legalized.
However, according to research findings done on the public expectation for marriage, there is a strong general feeling that every partner within a marriage institution needs to be protected by law and assured of security both financially and socially. This applies within the marriage as well as after the marital union is dissolved. Of more essence is that the children resulting from that union, whether natural or adopted, have to be assured of provision and all rounded care in the best interest of those children.
In many ways, gay marriage defies the "natural order". In order to determine the suitability of gay marriages in the society, it is vital to explore whether same-sex marriage can be paralleled with a normal marriage or it is indeed of a different nature. From the stated definition of marriage, it can be inferred that same sex marriage forsakes even the most obvious physiological, biological, and psychological variations between the male and male gender. In addition, gay marriage challenges the function for which marriage exists , i.e. the continuation of the human race. An increase in gay marriages is a sure way of hindering the natural survival of the humankind, however small the effect would be currently. The larger effect will be felt as the years progress.
Gay marriage is not in the best interest of children. As supported by Fiorini (1040), Belgium, the second country in the world to permit same-sex marriages, has a law that does not consider marriage as void if the spouses cannot have children or decide not to. This brings a new definition of marriage being referred to as a formal status between two persons aiming at the creation of a long-term community and acting as an arena for the two spouses to declare the affection they possess for each other publicly (Barth, Overby, and Huffman 350).
This shows that gay marriage is just about two individuals coming together for the mere purpose of gratifying each other"s needs, thus making it a barren union by design. In case of adopted children or children born in previous marriages, a gay marriage denies the child either a mother or a father, which is unfair and morally wrong. It also has been shown that even in those countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the law still does not give full rights, as is the case in heterosexual marriages. This means that gay marriages have a less personal effect on the spouses in terms of finances and protection. Therefore, in case of dissolution there are no mutual obligations extended between the two parties. Consequently, this will lead to no effects as regards the children, leaving them vulnerable to suffer if they happen to go with the financially weaker spouse.
It dictates its recognition on people. Support of gay marriage promotes inequality in the society even with the show of fighting for minority rights. The global effect of witnessing gay persons along with discussing gay marriages, has culminated in significant changes in terms of attitude. This change of attitude towards gay relationships has seen a wave of law amendment in several jurisdictions, in order to accommodate the gay society. To match the evolution, the change has been met with enormous opposition from several quarters like religion, education, socialist groups, and the general population itself among others. The question the society should seek to answer is whether gay marriage is truly acceptable. Secondly, it should be answered why there are so many outcries from the public, and even from the very trusted quarters that a nation runs to seek advice from on critical issues.
Research shows that those who support this idea do acknowledge the rights of gay persons just as the rights of any other individual as stipulated by the rule of law and thus do not support harassment or discrimination of people on the basis of their sexual orientation (Reath, Piercy, Hovestadt, and Oliver, 250). However, accepting gay marriage will infringe on the rights of those who do not support the idea. Moreover, it will appear as though the state is forcing the concept on the society. Such a move also portrays technically the state as the official campaigner for the same-sex marriages. For example, the state will appoint officers to officiate gay marriages who might not necessarily share the ideology.
It beats the sense on why the government should extend help to gay marriages. In support of this argument, some pose that since these unions do not purpose to reproduce, there should be no reason why the state should give them numerous benefits designed for the traditional family. These perks come in the form of insurance, health care, and education scholarships among others. This is because the usual marriage is meant to bring up children in the mutual attachment of both parents in a safe, stable, and moral atmosphere. This ensures the continuity of an economically and morally prosperous society. In contrast, gay marriages do not seem ready for such a responsibility.
Some opposers say that many children, especially in the US, are born out of wedlock while others are later separated from their parents on the basis of divorce. This shows a basic misconception of the basic function of marriage. Statistics show that very few, in fact, less than 2% of the current population, have been brought up within a gay union. Therefore, there is no reason why an individual should allow a child to grow in such a union, whereas they have never gone through a similar experience, knowing the disadvantages that come with it. Others opposing this argument insist that since the attitude towards gay persons is changing, soon the world will adopt the concept fully and legalize gay marriages in all countries. A study carried out in South Carolina portrayed an interesting dimension of the human personality. The researcher did a survey on social categorization through contact with gay persons and its effect towards the support for anti-gay rights referendum.
The research findings show that contact with gay persons on different levels like work, family, acquaintance, etc. improves tolerance towards gay people, but it does not necessarily make them change the attitude to an extent of accepting gay marriage as a norm (Barth, Overby, and Huffman 359). This is a reason enough for South Carolina residents to have voted to ban the same-sex marriage in the referendum. There is every reasonable ground for a nation that seeks to protect its children and to uphold the moral pillar of the marriage institution to be against gay marriages as a union of the norm.