Marriage is a concept that has taken a major turning point since the beginning of the century consequently sparking controversial debates among opposing groups. This mainly came as a result of the different belief systems to which a dynamic population seems to belong. As a result of this dynamism, various communal and personal points of views have emerged leading to the development of the legality or acceptability of gay marriage among other key forms of prenuptial agreements or accords (Lambert & Derrick 9). In as much as society may seem to be developing leading to the transgression and adoption of cultural dynamism, gay marriage as an institution deserves no place in the current setting of the human society.
Gay Marriage is fundamentally against the laws of nature as it delineates man from his basic and natural sexual needs. Since the inception of human beings in to the world, each living creature was fundamentally provided with ‘his or her’ sexual companion in a bid to promote the natural laws of co-existence (Lambert & Derrick 10). Considering the nature of gay marriage, there exists a great gap in the actualisation of the role of marriage as an institution. In as much as the argument appears to front for companionship among other key elements, gay marriage greatly eliminates other key benefits of marriage (Lambert & Derrick 12). Looking at the normal hierarchy of needs in regard to marital fulfilment, it only tends to fulfil the sexual component, which is in itself non sustainable in the long run. Gay marriage therefore serves to create another form of nature, which is purely ‘unnatural’ in its own setting and this explains the reason as to why for decades it was treated as a social ill.
The onset of modernity into the human culture has brought with it many aspects of development leading to a major change in perception on previously condoned habits. As the centuries go by human became predominantly concerned with liberalising the human mind in order to allow sufficient developmental elements to take root. For instance, the centreline has been more towards practices considered as morally acceptable like allowing the act of voluntary death in medically fit situations. The strategy has been more towards twisting aspects previously subjected to a moral dilemma by giving a more acceptable social labelling (Lambert & Derrick 17). It is therefore not a surprise when the aspect of legalising came to the fore numerous attempts were made to twist its locality by giving it a second nature. Gay marriage therefore appears to have merely been a beneficiary of the changing social climate leading to its current position in our modern society. It is therefore merely viewed as a matter of changing times, considering the importance ‘change’ as an act in itself leads to the shifting of modes of contemporary thinking towards revolutionary thoughts. Supporters of gay marriage may think there is an aspect of revolutionising the marriage institution but this may not be the case as it is only taking advantage of the foregoing social changes in society (Lambert & Derrick 18). Gay marriage therefore holds no legitimate association with regard to revolutionising the human mind with regard to social dynamism.
Taking due consideration of the functionality aspects of the male and female sexual systems, the biological makeup of anal system of humans is not functionally made for sexual purposes. By virtue of allowing gay marriage into the contemporary scene, this only serves to undermine the functional entities and aspects of the human system. Fundamentally speaking, the hands are made for holding, the feet for walking, and the eyes for seeing. The sexual experiences of gay marriage appear to promote unnatural acts which do not befit the functional entities of the human body (Lambert & Derrick 25). The fact that modification of several body functional components may serve a reason at certain times especially during times of distress, gay marriage does not befit one of those aspects of human life. We can consider the fact that majority of the gay acts began in the traditional male punishment systems or cells for that matter. This therefore serves to strengthen the fact that gay marriage only came to the fore of human society as a fashionable aspect of the ‘prison male mind’ primarily as a way of exposing ills associated with the existing punishment system (Lambert & Derrick 27). Through this it was able to enter the contemporary human society as a way of life and gradually gained acceptance in certain societies albeit with significant difficulty.
Although not all cases of gay marriage are entirely voluntary, there also exist certain involuntary instances of gay associations especially with regard to sexual dispositions. There are various cases in which males and even females are known to adopt certain unnatural liking for homosexual or lesbian practices due to inherent characteristics resulting from genetic variations (Lambert & Derrick 22). For instance, it has been documented in various magazines, journals, newspapers, and novels regarding such instances. Furthermore, there are documentaries, which have showcased the aspect of gay mentality setting in at young age in chosen case study examples. Psychologists have made crucial attempts at establishing the missing pieces of the jigsaw fit in a bid to solve this elementally difficult equation all with an aim of understanding the human mind. In a certain case study, it was established that there are indeed real cases of humans born with a predisposition towards gay mentality (Lambert & Derrick 37). Whether such associations result from previous genetic background and characteristics is a hard nut to crack. In this particular case study attempts were made to expose previous social and behavioural practices of the nuclear and extended relations of the affected victims but minimal points of connection were actually established (Lambert & Derrick 37). This led to the researcher formulating a theory that there could indeed be a possibility that some of the resultant gay characteristics are indeed involuntary. This therefore serves to show that there are indeed cases or situations, which could be isolated from the fundamental criticism against the validity of gay marriage in our contemporary society.
This brings us to the critical factor regarding emerging ethical and moral concerns of allowing gay marriage to continue. What are the future implications of such kind of actions? Is the society merely turning a blind to the developing trends of gay marriage? What do the young minds think when they watch recordings of gay wedding? These are some of the questions that human need to ask themselves as they appear to condone gay marriages. “The evolution of arguments against same-sex marriage gas been from definitional arguments appealing to linguistic or moral intuitions, toward the stamp of approval and defence of marriage arguments, which look to the consequences of marriage recognition” (Eskridge & Spedale 21). The topic is to only sentimental in itself, there are other key accompanying factors that need to be looked into before it becomes the norm. Humans therefore need to consider the overarching effects and far reaching consequences that cannot be easily perceived under normal circumstances. Gay marriage should not be condoned in our society as it seeks to sidetrack the current development trends of the human beings in all societies.