Most people I know do not consider same-sex marriage to be a big issue. They think of it as just another civil rights matter. Given enough time and pressure, society will change to accept gay marriage.
Further, they would probably argue that it would not harm anyone. If one says otherwise, that person must be homophobic or prejudiced.
For the most part, these people would be right. Most people who oppose homosexuality do it from the basis of religious belief, tradition and nothing else.
This is a major blunder on the part of all who argue against institutionalizing homosexual marriage. One can make an argument against it by relying on simple facts. So, for anyone who is willing to listen, here is that argument.
Many people first assume that homosexuals are as emotionally satisfied as heterosexuals.
If this were true though, homosexuals would not be 14 times more likely to attempt suicide and three-and-a-half times more likely to succeed at it than heterosexuals.
Some people would think that these studies were done in the 1970s, when homosexuality was less accepted. However, the statistics have not dropped even in the 1990s.
Furthermore, homosexuals have higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse, domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety and dependency on psychiatric care.
There is a higher rate of promiscuity, which has leads to a higher rate of contracting STDs for homosexual males. In all, the life expectancy of a homosexual male is half that of a heterosexual male.
If just about any other activity had this level of risk and just about everyone who was involved with it claimed that they had no control over their desire for this activity, then probably most would agree it is an unhealthy activity or a disorder.
Yet, most would never dare think of this of homosexuality.
Many people also assume that if homosexual marriages were allowed then it would have absolutely no affect on heterosexual marriages.
I would argue against this notion by saying that if we allow same-sex marriages, then we are changing the definition of marriage itself and this has several implications.
Because homosexuals are much more likely to have more partners throughout a lifetime, they would be more likely to divorce and would, as a result, weaken the definition of marriage. This weakening would then make it psychologically easier for heterosexual couples to divorce.
Further, if one can change the definition of marriage to include people of the same gender, then there is no reason at all to not change it to include incest, minors, polygamy or animals.
One just needs to do a quick search on the Internet to see that there are organizations in America right now in support of these agendas and that they are just about the same size as groups supporting gay rights in their earlier days.
So, by allowing gay marriage, we are allowing the potential to change marriage into just about anything. One may even make the argument that some of these activities are far less harmful to individuals than homosexual activity.
I hope that no one reading this article will believe that I am condemning anyone.
In the past some have done horrible things to homosexuals. There has been unjust discrimination against homosexuals and all sorts of propaganda. These activities deny the basic human dignity that all human beings deserve, even those with harmful habits.
In truth, some people have no control over whether they have same-sex attraction and they should not be blamed for having this tendency.
The only reason I am writing this article is because I really do believe people are harming themselves by giving into these habits when it would be better for them to be chaste.
By allowing same-sex marriage, the government would be publicly condoning a practice that I have already shown is harmful to the people involved and to society as a whole.
Allowing it would not be helping anyone involved.