Shah 1

Jacob Shah Mrs. Molly Gibson ENG Writing 101 11/24/2012

As times goes on, things change. Some things change for the better, other things maybe for the worse. I mean, just look at the past 100 years for example. Transportation, communication, printing, medicine and so much more has drastically improved for better efficiency and convenience of humanity. Not only do communication and transportation change, but morals, values, and standards can change as well. But as time goes on, whats acceptable change and whats not? Some changes simply create new problems or solve old ones. If we look at social issues of recent that have received attention, we see abortion, poverty, healthcare, the economy, and one of the most debated issues, same-sex marriage. Why is so much attention given to this topic? Is it relevant? Is it really marriage? How did these even come to be questioned? If two people love each other, why shouldnt they be allowed to be recognized as a married couple? Is that what marriage just two people in a romantic relationship anyway? Why should they be denied the federal benefits offered to those how are recognized as married couples? Same-sex unions are not marriage because the concept of same-sex unions goes against the very definition of marriage, it is unable to fulfill the true purposes of marriage, and weakens respect for the very institution of marriage and other traditional values which are crucial to the sustainment of our society. But even when looking at this issue disconnected from the typical JudeoChristian/religious value system and with a completely un-biased view, same-sex unions have no

Shah 2

grounds or right to be considered as marriage. Marriage is also for the purpose of creating families, but with same-sex unions that very obviously will not happen by natural means. With the growing rate of gay couples which adopt children this has become less of an issue, but it must then be considered the possibility of the rapid decline of the earths population that could occur because of the acceptance of homosexuals. Over the next few paragraphs I will explain each claim in more detail. Before we dive into writing off what marriage is not, lets define what marriage is. The first instinct would be to grab the nearest dictionary or search online for the definition. With a quick Google search, one of the first links is probably Merriam-Websters online dictionary. Well reference to the definition there: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. (Merriam-Webster). Things seem to be pretty clearly defined there. One man and one women being the specified pair. Not two men or two women, but one man and women. Not only will you only find that definition in Merriam-Websters dictionary, but also in just about any other dictionary you can get your hands on. Why? Because marriage has been an unquestioned institution of life that is as old as time itself. Humans and animals alike were intelligently created and centered on that institution. Its only natural to them. It has comprised the traditional form a family for years. The word marriage has always meant a formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. That is marriage. So what exactly is the purpose of the marriage? Marriage, being a social union of two people of the opposite sex, is entering into wedlock with another person with the intentions of remaining with that person for better or for worse. Both persons are promising each other to stay unseparated through sickness and health. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. When you plan on spending a

Shah 3

lifetime with someone, wont you also be raising a family with that other person? Of course you will. But the way that we humans function, reproduction is only possible between one man and one woman. One of the most fundamental tasks of any society is to reproduce itself. That is why virtually every human society up until the present day has given a privileged social status to malefemale sexual relationshipsthe only type capable of resulting in natural procreation. This privileged social status is called what? Yes, you guessed it. Its called "marriage." If we were to extend the benefits that came with being labeled as married to couples who are intrinsically incapable of natural procreation, we would be drastically changing the social meaning of the word. Marriage would no longer be about the formation of life-long, procreation relationships. This would eventually result in fewer relationships forming, fewer such couples would choose to procreate, thus fewer babies would be born as Peter Sprigg in his article The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage predicts (Sprigg). Not only would the recognition of same-sex marriage aid in population decline, but would greatly weaken the principles on which this country was founded. As time has went on, weve slowly seen the moral values of America change just in the past hundred years. In many ways, America has bettered herself for the age that were living in, but in some ways weve let the values that this country was created with slip through our hands. Marriage is no longer sacred. The population of unmarried couples living together has sky-rocketed in just the past few decades. On the US Census website, you can find some very helpful information concerning these figures. In 1960, nearly 70 percent of all coupled households were married and only 22 percent of the population never married (United States Census Bureau, 1993). In that 22% category is every adult over 15 that has either, of course, never married or any couples that were unmarried, yet lived under the same roof. So whats changed? Six years ago (2006) journalist Maxim Kniazkov reported on USAToday.com that unmarried households reign in the U.S. with married couples making 49.8% of the population

Shah 4

and unmarried couples accounting for 50.2 % of the population (Kniazkov). The number of married couples has been dropped 20%, while the rate of unmarried couples nearly tripled! Why is this important? Why should we worry about the form of marriage being recreated? The building blocks of our society and the thing which makes this nation strong is the traditional family of a man, a women, and children. It is what has sustained the citizens of America through two world wars, a Great Depression, terrorists attack, and numerous other challenges over the years. While friends and lovers may come and go, your family will always be there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another revised form of family which corrupts the proper order of our households have and will only continue to make matters worse. Many opposing points of view are to be considered with this argument. One of the most popular perhaps would be: If two people really love each other, why should they be denied marriage and the rights that come with marriage? Good question. Think of it this way: Love is an emotion or a form of affection. For a valid marriage to take place, the union must be free, total, faithful, and designed to give life. All these characteristics are necessary. For instance, imagine a couple who agree to marry and have children but refuse to be faithful to one another. This is not a marriage. As it would be if a couple was willing to have an exclusive and lifelong relationship but were incapable of having the sexual relations designed to give life. They are incapable of marriage. Also as discussed earlier, their bodies cannot express the vows of a married couple. Same-sex couples cannot pro-create, which is a required characteristic of marriage. But gay marriage cant hurt society. So, why not just accept it? While many believe that the same-sex debate affects the gay and lesbian adults more than children, this is very untrue. For the first time in history, society would be placing its highest stamp of official government approval

Shah 5

on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless households for children. There simply cannot be any serious debate, based on the massive amount of scholarly literature and research available to us, about the ideal family form for children. It consists of a mother and father who are committed to one another in marriage. In his article The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex Marriage, Peter Sprigg insists that children raised by their married mother and father experience lower rates of many social pathologies, including: premarital childbearing; illicit drug use, arrest, health, emotional, or behavioral problems, poverty, or school failure or expulsion (Sprigg). Homosexual activists say that having both a mother and a father simply does not matter it is having two loving parents that counts. But social science research simply does not support this claim. Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School claims in his book Fatherneed that fathers contribute to parenting in ways that mothers do not. Pruett declares, "From deep within their biological and psychological being, children need to connect to fathers ... to live life whole" (Pruett). Simply calling a union between two men or women of the same-sex marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex marriage condone something entirely different than marriage. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarily in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing. Traditional marriage has values that have sustained this nation for over 200 years. Its the way that we were created to be. Same-sex unions promote everything that true marriage is not, and is therefore NOT marriage.

Shah 6

Annotated Bibliography
Kniazkov, Maxim. For first time, unmarried households reign in U.S. USA Today.com. 15 Oct. 2006. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. In Kniazkov's article in USA Today, he points that for the first time in the history of this country unmarried couples has taken the majority from married couples. He points out that it could majorly change the family values held in ever faucet of American life - "from family law to national politics." This aids my argument by showing the decline of respect and honor for traditional marriage by claiming that couples living together unmarried has become the norm, though it was formerly greatly despised. "Marriage." Merriam-Webster.com, 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. In this Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, thousands of words can be looked up for a definition, antonyms, synonyms, etc. This specific page defines the meaning of the word "marriage" several different ways and also includes some antonyms and synonyms. I chose this web page because the purpose of this essay was to define marriage, which was also practically the purpose of this page. It also helps the reader see that the specified definition of marriage in not only by my sole opinion, but also the definition used by a well-renowned online dictionary. Pruett, Kyle D. Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. New York: Broadway, 2001. Print. In Fatherneed, pioneer in the field of fatherhood research and Yale child psychiatrist, Pruett, draws on his own groundbreaking longitudinal study of men as primary caregivers, as well as the findings of others, in this exploration of how fathering affects both children and men. Dr. Pruett shows mothers and fathers why that difference is so important to a child's physical, cognitive, and emotional development. I chose this reference because Dr. Pruett urges that a home with a father and a mother is detrimental to our youth, as opposed to a same-sex household.

Sprigg, Peter. "Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal." Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. GALE Cengage Learning, 4 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. In this article, Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, lists the top ten harms of same-sex marriage. He does admit the many of the harms would not be visible at first, but in the long run, these harms could change the very foundation of this society. Since this argument is about defining marriage, and why same-sex unions do not meet

Shah 7

qualifications for it, this article greatly aids my argument by pointing out the harmful results in accepting same-sex unions as marriage. United States. Census Bureau. Census Questionnaire Content, 1990 CQC-6. Nov. 1993. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. < http://www.census.gov//apsd/cqc/cqc6.pdf>. The United Census Bureau reports that married couples have been rapidly declining over the last few decades. Simultaneously, the population of unmarried couples has greatly increased. The figures presented by the Census Bureau on this page help me formulate my point of marriage and other traditional values being on the decline and digressing. It also helps by bringing more logical information into the argument by showing statistics from the United States Census Bureau, which is a very reliable, trusted source of information.

Shah 8

Works Cited
Kniazkov, Maxim. For first time, unmarried households reign in U.S. USA Today.com. 15 Oct. 2006. Web. 24 Nov. 2012. "Marriage." Merriam-Webster.com, 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. Pruett, Kyle D. Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. New York: Broadway, 2001. Print. Sprigg, Peter. "Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal." Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. GALE Cengage Learning, 4 Dec. 2012. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. United States. Census Bureau. Census Questionnaire Content, 1990 CQC-6. Nov. 1993. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. < http://www.census.gov//apsd/cqc/cqc6.pdf>.