My argument here is that the churches and Australian families were very right to carry out an event last month concerning support on natural marriage and to deny gay the right to marry. This is because according to the Bible and other religions rules, it is very wrong for people of the same sex to get married.
Although the number of people supporting same sex marriage is increasing, the practice is very wrong as it violates the virtues of Christians. This means that in the coming years, this practice will have to be legalized in Australia no matter what since the percentage of the supporters will be.
This also shows that although marriage of the same sex has a minority population in comparison to natural marriage, the population will hike in the near future (Thomas 99). The best thing is that politics and politicians of Australia are also against gay practice, and the urge of gay marriage is less inducing than the advantages of doing so. This makes it hard for even a conscience vote on gay marriage to go through both chambers.
Although there is the pressure to standardize the situation, I honestly feel that same-sex marriage should not be legalized, and I am happy that the parliament contains more mature people who do not support the marriage because statistics shows that less than 50 percent, actually 46 percent support same-sex marriage while the rest are against (Chase & Aggleton 2004).
My only worry is that the number of individuals supporting this kind of marriage is rising gradually and besides, leadership is now coming to the youths who majorly support this practice meaning that they will eventually legalize the marriage (Miller 102).
How will the churches, Christian leaders and decent families feel when such marriage is legalized? The virtue and the notion that marriage should always be between a man and a woman will fade away, and a new subject will take over. There are several reasons as to why natural marriage should be enhanced and gay marriage remains illegal.
First, natural marriage was a command from God who ordered people to multiply and feel the world meaning that this kind of marriage ensures there is the survival of species. Gay marriage is only for pleasure, no any kind of multiplication proving that the gay couples are only a threat to procreation but it is still hard to expect them to refute their personal trends and to marry heterosexually (Chase & Aggleton 98).
This argument is significantly supported by John Howard who also opposed gay marriage. Besides, Howardâs government amended the 1961 Marriage Act in 2004, New York to make sure legally married same-sex couples overseas do not acquire legal recognition in Australia or anywhere else.
This Act has been on the stand for many years down the line, and it is but one of several adjustments to the institution of marriage. However, the Bible and traditions are used as the background for the argument opposed same sex marriage. Therefore, the reader should appreciate this concept and support it.
Moreover, it is clearly indicated in the Bible, the Old Testament that Abraham, Jacob and David married multiple wives, as did many others in those days but there is nowhere written that people married people of the same sex, that is breaking the principles of the Bible and the virtues of Christians. Note that these men mentioned in the Bible had multiple wives for the procreation of children and that was the common practice in those days (Miller 459).
This is because they followed the word of God that commanded them to multiply and fill the world. Therefore, marriage is not for sensual gratification but for siring children. It is clear that it is indeed right to deny gay people the right to marriage because other than sensual pleasure, there is no other benefit of such behaviors rather lots of demerits.
There have been lots of stories and histories concerning marriage in the US where blacks were not allowed to marry whites and in Australia, it was vice-versa where Aboriginal women in Northern Territory were permitted to marry non-Aboriginal men although with permission from the Chief Protector (Chase & Aggleton 111).
Divorce was not allowed especially in the Western communities with women having little formal rights in marriage, as they were obliged to obey their husbands. However, the most notable thing to note is that long time ago; marriage was only a religious institution where marriage took place in churches only (Thomas 213).
This is exceedingly opposed to what we see today where marriage is conducted outside the church with most marriages being âcome we stayâ that are not legal while other groups like the gay societies claiming to be given the right to marriage. This is actually abusing the rights of the church. If specific churches want to decline to marry same-sex couples because they believe doing that is going against their religious teachings, that should remain their right and nobody should interfere with that.
In as much as the same-sex groups claim that they are being denied their rights, they should understand that it is not their right and that indeed they are attempting to violate the rights of churches and other religious institutions. Therefore, it is extremely correct for the gay couples to be denied the right to marriage because it is illegal and violation of religious rights (Miller 470).
The reader need to understand the fact that same sex marriage is illegal according to religious values and it should not be practiced at all. After going through it, the reader should share this information with a friend or two in order to eliminate this evil practice from our nations.
Works Cited
Thomas Caramagno, C. Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate. Westport, CT: Praeger. 2002. Web.
Miller E. Gorge. Prentice, Hall Reader, 10th Edition. Prentice Hall Publishers. 2010. Web.
Chase WarWick I, E & Aggleton P. Homophobia, Sexual Orientation and Schools: a review and implications for action. London; University of London, 2004.