Peter Sprigg's Opinion on Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriage is an emotional and controversial topic for many, however putting emotions aside, it is only logically to endorse natural marriage and not gay marriage. Many people who support gay marriages have claimed that these marriages would not hurt anyone but the truth is there will be a lot of damaged caused by legalizing same sex marriage. Therefore natural marriage should be encouraged by the law and no option should be provided for gay marriages. The central aspects of relationship, love and understanding should not override all other issues that come as a result of same sex marriage. The disadvantages of same sex marriage starting from family to government funds are overwhelming and therefore gay marriages should not be legalized.

If this sample essay on"Peter Sprigg's Opinion on Same Sex Marriage" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research studies strongly opposes same sex marriages. He argues that legalizing same sex marriages will have an immediate and a long term effect, even though, a number of same sex marriage advocates oppose the fact that it cause any harm. Sprigg goes ahead to list the effects and among the short term effects are, teaching of homosexuality in schools, claiming taxpayers subsidies, posing threats to religious freedom when religious institutions and churches are challenged not to look down upon gays CITATION Spr12 \l 1033 (Sprigg, 2012). The long term impacts would be fewer marriage, fewer sexually faithful relationships, increased divorces, fewer children raised in a proper family setting where there is a mother and father, declining birth rate and demands for acknowledgement of polygamy as an appropriate form of marriage CITATION Spr12 \l 1033 (Sprigg, 2012).

Peter Sprigg argues that one of the major aims of homosexual advocates is to claim government benefits including social security benefits CITATION Spr12 \l 1033 (Sprigg, 2012). Homosexuals want to be entitled to that which does not belong to them. They are demanding for Social Security Survivors benefits and that their partners (for those working with the government) be named as their dependents to get the taxpayers to pay for their health insurance. A lot of taxpayers money would be spent on gays bearing in mind that most of these gay couples include two wage earners who are capable of getting their own insurance and they are the ones who get sick more often than the others. There is a bit of fallacy in Spriggs argument that gays are prone to illness. Anyone can get sick so the claim that have high mental illness, physical disease and substance abuse is debatable.

Introducing homosexuality into public school curriculum might pose a challenge. Teachers have to adjust and teach a gay friendly curriculum teaching that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are identical which is not acceptable. Religious liberty is also threatened since believers are forced to accept homosexuality and not to discriminate against them. Sprigg gives an example of a Catholic Charities in Boston which was banned from doing adoptions after refusing to place children for adoption with gay couples CITATION Spr12 \l 1033 (Sprigg, 2012). Homosexuality compromises and contaminates believes and faith of the believers.

Even by availing the benefits of marital rights and legal recognition, homosexuals are likely to reject the marriage institution. Between May 2008 when California legalized same sex marriage and November of the very year, 80% of the same sex couples rejected marriage which was already offered CITATION Spr12 \l 1033 (Sprigg, 2012). This kind of relationship where people just cohabit is killing the institution of marriage and encouraging having multiple sexual partners, birthrates will fall, and more children will be raised in families without a proper structure

Reference

BIBLIOGRAPHY Sprigg, P. (2012). Gay Marriages Should not be Legal. Gay Marriages.