One of the most common arguments opposing same-sex marriage is that it would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. It seems that the understood definition of the word “marriage” explicitly uses the phrase “between a man and a woman.” But 50% of first marriages, 67% of second, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce (US-Divorce, n.d.). Doesn’t this harm the sanctity of marriage? Furthermore, the word “marriage” can also be defined as “a lifelong publicly accountable relationship.” This can be applied to any two people, no matter their gender, race, or anything else.

Another argument that is frequently used against gay marriage is the fact that gay couples can’t naturally pro-create, and marriage is for raising children. This claim is a stretch by itself; there are thousands of married heterosexual couples that either aren’t able or choose not to have children. Also, gay couples are able to adopt children, giving them a stable home and family environment to grow in.

One common concern of people against legalized gay marriage is also the educational aspect of it. If our children are taught from the beginning that there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, couldn’t that confuse them? Not according to Professor Michael King of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (2007): “It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice” (p. 2). Children would only become educated about the subject; they wouldn’t be “converted.”
In addition to the educational concern, some people are worried about children being raised by a gay or lesbian couple, believing that these influential figures in the child’s life might cause the child to become gay or lesbian. But “the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual” (Chaudhury, 2007). Again, sexual orientation is innate, not caused by early childhood environment, choice, or anything else.

Putting aside all the direct arguments for and against gay marriage, there are several ways that gay marriage would unequivocally benefit society. First, according to a study done at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, the suicide rate among homosexual females was 6% higher than heterosexual females, and the suicide rate among homosexual males was 24% higher than heterosexual males (Remafedi, French, Story, Resnick, and Blum, 1998). Why was this? Is it possible that, if homosexuals are given the recognition and respect that others are given by receiving the right to be married, these shocking numbers might go down? And wouldn’t this certainly serve to benefit American society?

Legalizing gay marriage would also be encouraging a healthier lifestyle for homosexuals. Some could even argue that denying them the right to settle down and begin a stable home and family with respect would be promoting a more promiscuous way of life. With recognized gay marriage, a homosexual couple is given the opportunity to create a home and start building for the future like any other couple. They would most likely begin supporting schools and the community in general, again only benefiting society. Dr. Laura Schlessinger (2009) notes, “That two people would have that sort of commitment to me is very healthy and very positive thing in their lives and society as a whole” (p.1).

Lastly, the legalization of gay marriage would be expanding true equal rights to include another minority. How can two institutions be exactly the same if they cannot be called the same thing (i.e. “marriage” versus “lifelong partnership”)? To refuse a gay couple to be married is literally denying a minority their rights as a United States citizen and as a human being. It’s denying them their right to “the pursuit of happiness”, their right to a home and family, and their right to respect, not to mention all the legal and social benefits (such as tax benefits) that a heterosexual husband and wife receive. The rejection is unfair and unjust.

There are countless reasons that the issue of gay marriage is one that brings up such frenzied controversy—tradition, religion, education, government power, ethics, bound conscience—and no matter how the topic is dealt with, there will be people who oppose it. But the evidence needs to be considered: equal rights, a recognized and respected committed relationship, a stable family, a home; these are all factors that create and reward a well rounded and working community. By no means would the legalization of gay marriage harm society; the effect of such a union would only by beneficial.

Works Cited
AboutDivorce.org. Google, n.d. Web. 12 February 2010
King, Michael. “Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.” Psychiatrics, p. 2. File last modified 31 October 2007. PDF file. 16 February 2008.
Choudhury, Anjan. “Application for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae in Support of Parties Challenging the Marriage Exclusion.” Supreme Court of the State of California, p. 28. File last modified 26 September 2007. PDF file. 14 February 2008.
Remafedi, G., French, S., Story, M., Resnick, M.D., and Blum, R. “The Relationship Between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 88, Issue 1 57-60 (1998). American Public Health Association, 2009. Web. 16 February 2009. <http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/57>
Schlessinger, Laura. “Dr. Laura: Gay Marriage A ‘Beautiful Thing And A Healthy Thing.” The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 10 April 2009. Web. 15 February 2009. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/1/57