Introduction The traditional view of marriage as a union between two consenting adults of different sexes has been challenged by calls to give gay couples marriage rights. While same sex relationships were stigmatized and criminalized for centuries, the past 4 decades have witnessed a significant change in the society’s view of the issue. Same sex relations are legal in all developed countries and discrimination because of sexual orientation is not allowed. Due to this positive view of homosexual relationships by the society, gay and lesbian groups have made calls for the legalization of gay marriages. These same-sex union activists argue that admittance of gays into the marriage institute will guarantee their equality with heterosexual couples. These calls have been met with opposition since not everyone agrees that gays should be allowed to enter into marriage. This paper will argue that gay marriages are detrimental to the society and as such, they should not be legitimized. Arguments against Gay Marriage Gay marriages will necessitate a change in the traditional definition of marriage in order to accommodate same-sex unions and this will lead to a breakdown in this revered institute that has served as the basic building block of society for centuries. In order to accommodate same sex unions, the definition of marriage will have to be changed from “union between a man and a woman” to “union between two consenting adults of same or different sexes. This redefinition will transform the institute with dire consequences for the society. The threat that gay marriage poses to the marriage institution was recognized by the former US President George W. Bush who acknowledged the importance of the traditional marriage institute for the welfare of the children and the stability of society (Baunach 346). President Bush asserted that allowing gay marriages would forever change the meaning of marriage and possibly destabilize the society. Allowing same gay marriage might lead to a demand for legitimization of polygamy, polyandry, and even incest. As it currently stands, there are strict laws dictating that only two unattached individuals of different sexes can enter into marriage. If same sex marriages are permitted, there is a danger that sexual preference will become a protected class. It is possible that the same arguments currently used by gay marriage proponents will be used by polygamists and incest advocates (Duncan 662). Proponents of gay marriages argue that this presumption is unfounded since their case is deferent from that offered by the other groups. While the particular arguments made in support of gay marriages are unique, the result of legalizing gay marriages is will be the creation of protected classes based on sexual preference. It is not implausible that advocates of polygamy, polygamists, and incest will seek similar protection since this unions are also based on sexual preferences. Allowing same sex marriages would be detrimental to the well being of children since a family containing a father and mother provides the best structure within which the child can grow and thrive. The family is the unit within which children are brought into the world and raised to be responsible citizens. Even though having children is not an obligation for married couples, majority of the people who enter into marriage end up having children. Proponents of gay marriages argue that same-sex couples are able to provide the love and safe environment for children just like their heterosexual counterparts. Bernheim argues that while gay cou