The Best Argument against Gay marriage: Glen Lavy’s
“Gay marriage and the ‘slippery slope’ ”
Proponents to the legalization of same sex marriage came up with a lot of reasons as why gay marriage should be legal. The major ones are that not allowing same sex people to get married prevents them from getting legal benefits like hospital visitation, health insurance, family leave and more. They also argued that they are fighting for their rights the same way African Americans were fighting back in the day, and that gay marriage will not threaten our society. For centuries, religious and political leaders had protected the sanctity of marriage as the union of a person with a member of the opposite sex for procreation in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Harvard law school graduate Glen Lavy, in his argument in the Los Angeles Times uses many great logical arguments showing that allowing gay marriage can put our society in a “slippery slope” situation. A situation where people involved in incestuous and polygamist relationship will want to be married.
As a senior counsel of a legal alliance of Christian attorneys the Alliance Defense Fund, Lavy could have argued his point in the religious way. He could have argued that the bible forbid same sex relationship also called sodomy, and that people who are involved or support it will burn in the eternal flames. Instead he appealed to the moral perspective of the society. In the beginning of his argument, Lavy strongly and logically asked, “With the California Supreme court’s eradication of the opposite-sex requirement for marriage, what is to prevent a future court from changing things like the binary nature of marriage or the prohibition on incestuous marriage...
... middle of paper ...
...stic partnership laws give the same legal rights as marriage but in a state level only. We might think that proponent to same sex marriage should try to change the civil unions and domestic partnership law from a law accepted in a state level to a law that is accepted in a national or international level. Is granting these so called rights worth risking leaving our descendent a world where sodomy, polygamy and incest are the norm? Can we even give them an escape as to modify the civil union law? These are the questions that Lavy wants us to ask ourselves. As he clearly explains, there is nothing to stop people in polygamist and incestuous relationship from using the legal blueprint of same sex marriage to advance their cause.
Works Cited
Lavy, Glen. "Gay Marriage and the 'Slippery Slope,' " Latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, 21 May 2008. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Wolf, Richard. “Timeline: Same-Sex marriage through the years.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 26 June 2015,
He continues to support the main claim by showing his knowledge of married couples’ legal rights. He explains that homosexual couples that are not allowed to marry are denied tax breaks, group insurance, and pension programs (Stoddard, 1988, p. 551). These are important grounds,...
A debate is raging in America about who people have a right to marry. In response to lesbians and gays asking for the right to marry, many legislators are writing laws to ban same-sex marriage in their respective states. Even President Bush supports a Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage (prez.bush.marriage/). Opponents of such legislation do not want discrimination passed into law and are protesting at every opportunity. One must understand the reasons that people want to ban same-sex marriage before he or she can effectively argue about the subject. Many advocates of same-sex marriage bans say that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would degrade the institution of marriage because marriage is only supposed to exist between a man and woman. In addition, allowing same-sex marriage would cause problems for society (Issues and Controversies on File). One theory why opponents may fight against same-sex marriages is that heterosexual marriages have long reinforced traditional gender roles within marriage and that allowing same-sex marriages would cause males to lose their authority to subordinate females as heterosexual couples begin to model same-sex marriage gender equality (Calhoun 157).
In Sullivan’s essay, he argues for accepting same-sex marriage. If the judge accepted homosexuals as citizens in the Supreme Court, homosexuals would feel liberated. People wonder why same-sex couples want to get married. The reasoning is the same as anyone who wants to get married to the person whom he or she loves. It is normal thought. It seems like it should be easy to accept these opinions. However, it is very difficult to accept because marriage traditionally has been between a man and a woman, and this has been the tradition for a long time. Therefore, some religions refuse to recognize homosexuality, but refuting it shouldn’t be seen as a problem because of the separation of the church and state. Same-sex couples want a social right to get married. Some people will argue as society has changed, the definition of marriage should evolve because human values are equal anyone in the world. Everyone should have access to the same rights. Is the purpose of marriage strictly to bring up children? No, there are many married couples who do not have chil...
... if? The legal consequences of marriage and the legal needs of lesbian and gay male couples. Michigan Law review. Nov.1996. Pg. 447-491. http://www.jstor.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/stable/1290119?seq=1&uid=3739664&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103079482127
Spedale, Darren. Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
Legal marriage should be for everyone not just heterosexuals. Denying homosexuals the right to marriage affects them greatly in more than one way. Many people do not approve of same-sex marriage because it is against their own religion. The only people that benefit from this are the people that do not accept same-sex marriages. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman according to some and could interfere if they adopt children. Currently there are four states that allow gay marriage. Civil unions and domestic marriage are both ways for others to argue against same-sex marriages but do not replace marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage in all of the states in the United States will not harm anything. Homosexuals are not hurting anyone if they get married.
Wilson, Q. James. “Against Homosexual Marriage.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Political Issues. Guilford, Connectitcut: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1997. Print.
It is apparent that Scott Bidstrup is trying to persuade his audience to agree with his ideas. He relates to the topic being a homosexual himself, and uses his own beliefs and concerns to argue why same-sex marriage should be legal, along with factual information. Using his own personal experiences and feelings on the issue, he debates why he believes people ...
Legalizing gay marriage has been a controversial topic in the past few years. In my opinion, gay people should be allowed to get married because it is a civil right. It shouldn 't matter what gender they prefer because they 're still regular people. Making gay marriage illegal, is the same as taking away someone 's freedom and civil rights. That is unethical and completely awful. There 's no harm being done by letting two people who are in love with each other get married. However, many religious fundamentalists are against this and believe gay marriage is wrong and needs to be stopped. Homosexual couples should have the right to get married because it 's a civil right and their sexual preference doesn 't make them any less human.
“A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law | Dissent Magazine.” Dissent Magazine. Martha Nussbaum, 8 June 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.
During the fight against slavery and segregation, America realized that public opinion can be wrong. The movement for women’s rights brought about the knowledge that the government has had more control over civil rights than previously believed. Both historical movements arose from a common belief: despite public opinion, the government should protect the freedoms outlined in the constitution. Current societal issues related to marriage reflect this principle; however, authors Cherlin and Bennett would disagree on the connection being made. Cherlin acknowledges that momentum in the fight for homosexual equality has been attained by the degradation of the marital structure. As family structure among heterosexual couples is more often dysfunctional and more commonly broken down, a question arises of whether or not homosexual marriages radically affect society any more than this. Cherlin makes the implication that, if no compelling state interest can be found against gay marriage legalization, keeping it illegal would be a civil inequity. Bennett would contend that with this momentum, society may be blindly crossing a line. Divorce rates and out of wedlock births have skyrocketed due to legal changes in the availability of marriage and divorce documents. He points out that these negative effects will only increase with further law changes. “Indeed,
There’s multiple ways the idea of having same sex marriage legalized should be considering the fact on the thousands of people can obtain benefits for themselves that they never had before. For example, in the article “ Social Security agency shows why Supreme Court must act on gay marriage,” it claims that “Social Security has published new instructions that allow the agency to process more claims in which entitlement or eligibility is affected by a same-sex relationship,” the federal retiree agency said. Unfortunately, “the Social Security Act requires the agency to follow state law in Social Security cases.” Although there’s a flow the Social security is doing all they can to give these people the same right as everyone else despite the implications that are in
Gay and lesbian unions have been for a long time a subject that no one liked to discuss. For the last few decades, gays and lesbians have come out and expressed their sexuality preferences. Many believe that same sex marriage should not be legalized because it's against the moral. It's against the definition of marriage, which is considered as the union of a man and a woman as a husband and wife. Same sex marriage should be legalized because the way society views the union of lesbian and gays can a change. Another reason why same sex marriage should be legalized is that children that are issued from a gay or lesbian couple will be loved and raised in a family that is legally recognized under the law. Lesbians and gays also deserve to have the same rights as heterosexuals.
The most natural thing for a human being to do is fall in love. So what do we do when we find that person who we can't live without for the rest of our lives? We ask them to marry us. But what happens when the love of your existence just happens to be of the same gender as you? The argument of whether gay marriage should be legalized or not is very controversial. According to an article from the Human Rights Campaign, there is nothing wrong with allowing homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else. Every individual person should be given the opportunity to have equal rights, no matter what their sexuality. Gay marriage should be legalized in all states and has been postponed for much too long.