English2011. 10. 14. 21:33
A case aginst same-sex-marriage:  
Does same-sex-marriagealso mean a right to raise children?

Earlier this summer, in New York same-sex-marriage became legal under the
Marriage Equality Act.
Since 2001, around ten countries have begun allowing
same-sex couples to marry nationwide:
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden
And now several states in the
U.S. allow gay and lesbian couples to
Given its historically strong influence on our culture, the trends in the U.S.
have a strong impact on our society.

I have always embraced societal changes as a public good, when necessary. 
But I also know that not every change is good and that the decision of majority
is not always right.

I would respect homosexuality as a sexual-orientation. 
In spite of prejudicial views about homosexuality that try to portray it as something
outside of "normal" or "healthy" behaviour, science has shown that homosexuality
is a normal human sexual orientation. It is a natural phenomenon and as old as
civilization itself.


The difficulty of embracing the homosexuality in our society arises when the
legalization of the same-sex-marriage leads to other difficult topics such as
the adoption by same-sex-couples.


I also respect same-sex couples decision to maintain their relationship as a
marriage like union.
We, as a society, should equalize their rights in the matter
of financial (e.g. the right of inheritance to the surviving partner and etc.)
and other matters, except for the right to adopt children.
I believe it should not
be called a marriage, if it means that it would be easier for same-sex couples
to adopt children.


I am concerned that we do not know the potential impact on the children who
grow up in the care of the same-sex couples.
I repeat. 
We do not know the potential impact on the children who grow up
in the care of the same-sex couples.


In my "traditional" thinking, children exist as a kernel of marriage. 
This is not so different from animals nurturing their young from birth.
Marriage represents a public declaration of this natural desire to have offspring
and the legal protection of children.
This external recognition confers many legal
benefits so most people take advantage of this legal status of marriage.


In this context, adoptions by same-sex couples seem upside-down. 
By allowing it through marriage, we, as a society, may be confusing the natural
order of things.
To me, having children comes first under some type of a natural
  The desire to have children is a biological drive, like hunger and thirst.
In my mind, the concept of marriage is secondary and supportive of this act of
To use a broadened concept of marriage as a way to side-step this
basic primal method of propagation may not be the best choice to raise our
next generation.


In my view, the same-sex couples who desire to raise children through adoption
are not considering the potential impact of the domestic environment that their
marriage creates for the children.
Even with the best of intentions and caring,
they won
t be able to control what their adopted children go through in their own
social environments (at school and other circles) with two moms (or two dads).


There are numerous reasons to be concerned about the children. 
The stigma of having same-sex parents is unlikely to disappear very quickly.
To these children, the idea of parenting may be quite different from those who
grow up in a more "traditional" environment.


If, and when, this debate arises in our society, in real life, I believe the perspectives
of children should take priority in this debate.  If we need to choose between
allowing other marriage-like status to same-sex couples and preventing the adoption
by same-sex couples, I believe we should take a conservative stance and
make sure the children
s views are heard and debated. 

Children are the only hope for mankind.


Suh Yong-Jwa, Oct. 12.2011.

Posted by 서용좌