The society’s view of same-sex relationships has become very accommodative in the past few decades, and same-sex relations are no longer shunned upon as they were in historical times. Due to this positive view of same-sex relationships, there have been arguments that the constitution should be amended to allow gays and lesbians to marry legally.
Those who support this motion argue that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry amounts to discrimination. This paper will argue that the constitution should not be amended to give same-sex couples the right to marry since such a move would compromise the marriage institution.
If the constitution were amended to accommodate same-sex unions, it would lead to a breakdown of marriage since it would necessitate a redefinition of the institute. Legalizing gay and lesbian unions would require the government to redefine what marriage is, therefore, removing the traditional meaning of marriage.
Without the solid definition of marriage as “a union solely between a man and a woman,” the specialness of marriage would disappear therefore leading to a breakdown of the institute. Marriage serves a very important role in society since it regulates relationships and acts as a goal that young people aspire to end up in. If same-sex unions are made legal, this specialness will be removed therefore reducing the significance of marriage in society.
Legalizing same-sex marriages will adversely affect children since the best environment within which children can be brought up is one where they have a father and a mother — most people who enter into marriage end up getting children and raising them within the union. If same-sex unions are legalized, the concept of fatherless or motherless homes will become commonplace.
Research indicates that children brought up by gay or lesbian couples have inferior mental health, social adjustment, and academic outcomes than those who are brought up within heterosexual marriages. This suggests that heterosexual marriage is the most beneficial environment for raising children. Because children are the future of our society, their well-being should not be compromised by legalizing gay and lesbian marriages.
A constitutional amendment to allow same-sex marriages is unnecessary since gay and lesbian couples can live together with their partners through other institutes such as civil unions. The argument that denying gay and lesbians the right to marry is a violation of their civil rights is misleading since marriage is an institute specially structured for heterosexual couples.
Being gay or lesbian is a matter of personal preference and as such, same-sex couples are not being discriminated against when they are stopped from entering into the marriage institute. Gay and lesbian couples can still be able to enjoy a fulfilling life with their partners outside the marriage institute. It is therefore not necessary to reorder society’s view about family by amending the constitution to accommodate same-sex marriages.
This paper has argued that there should not be a constitutional amendment that allows gays and lesbians to marry legally. The paper has noted that while same-sex couples enjoy great acceptability in today’s society, this goodwill should not extend to marriage.
Changing the constitution to accommodate same-sex couples will cause a breakdown of the traditional marriage institute and deny children of the best context within which to grow in. As such, while tolerance and respect for gays and lesbians should be encouraged, these groups should not be allowed to marry legally.