Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against same sex marriage essay
Arguments against same sex marriage essay
Debates over gay marriage issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments against same sex marriage essay
In “An Argument against Same-Sex Marriage: An Interview with Rick Santorum” the interviewer, David Masci, presents a transcript of an interview with Rick Santorum, ex-senator and devout Christian, in which Santorum presents his stance against same-sex marriage. The interviewer begins by introducing the argument gay rights activists make for same-sex marriage that they want get married for the same reasons a heterosexual couple does (Santorum). Masci uses their argument to question Santorum on why he believes they should not be able to marry. Santorum responds that the reason is due to the effects it would have on society and children. His references to society and children continue and become repeating themes in his answers.
He pushes his belief that legalizing same-sex marriage will negatively affect children. He states that the best thing for a child, is to have a mother and a father, who are a married and able to raise them in a stable family (Santorum). He states that “mothers and fathers bring something unique.”(Santorum). Santorum is certain of this because two females would not be able to give his children the things a mother and
…show more content…
He speaks of “moral ecology” and reveals his discontent with same-sex marriage when he compares it to “people [building] the equivalent of a strip mall.”(Santorum). Santorum is then asked about a “go-slow” approach but he disapproves of such a thing due to it just being “there to make [the people] feel better” but isn’t a probable approach (Santorum). His conclusion is that if same-sex marriage is legalized, marriage will become meaningless, the number of marriages would decline and the rate of divorce would increase (Santorum). He uses the Netherlands as an example as he states that after they legalized same-sex marriage, the number of marriages decreased
Using multiple examples from his background provides us with a sense of understanding of the complications of both religious and government involvement in the decision to allow same-sex marriage. He demonstrates a solid awareness of who his target audience is and conveys his thoughts in a manner that is easily comprehended. The structure of his article flows nicely and the examples used prove to invite further thoughts on the subject. The highlight of Moody’s piece for me was this, “When our beloved Constitution was written, blacks, Native Americans and… women were quasi-human beings with no rights or privileges, but today they are recognized… with full citizenship rights. The definition of marriage has been changing over the centuries… it will change yet again as homosexuals are seen as ordinary human beings.”
Gay marriage further damages the connection between marriage and parenthood by causing people to not consider marriagement just to be a parent. He later on argues that marriage has been a tradition since the beginning of time and everything supports it. “The family, led by a married mother and father, is the best available structure for both child rearing and cultural health. This is why, although some people will always pair off in unorthodox ways, society as a whole must never legitimize any form of marriage other than that of one man and one woman, united with the intention of permanency and the nurturing of children” (Colson
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,...
His view on abortion states that abortion should not be permitted or allowed because it is morally...
William Bennett is a well-respected man in the political world. He served as Secretary of Education and Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities under President Ronald Reagan and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush. His essay entitled “Leave Marriage Alone,” which was published in Newsweek, June 3, 1996, is a response to an article written by Andrew Sullivan advocating same-sex marriage. Using rhetorical analysis I will determine whether or not this essay is effective and why.
Is marriage strictly between male and female, or should it also be open for homosexuals? William Bennett, a well known politician believes in the traditional marriage, being between a male and female. His thesis reads “We are engaged in a debate which, in a less confused time, would be considered pointless and even oxymoronic: the question of the same-sex marriage” (409). Not only is this statement bias, but other elements of his work held problems. The way his case was defended was ineffective to his case. The debate held good statements; it just failed to support the statements. His writing also holds other unacceptable elements, giving his work more reasons to be ineffective. William Bennett’s debate “Against
While the gay rights movement has been around for some time, the things that they fight for is forever changing. Currently it is fighting for the right to marry, and receive all the rights straight people get when they marry. Married privilege is like white privilege; married people have more rights then non-married people, no matter what sex a person is married to. These benefits include insurance coverage’s under a spouse policy, social security benefit inheritance, receiving pension and personal assets without taxation, visitation rights at the hospital without question and making health care decisions (LaSala, 2007). In addition to all that, there is a social benefit to being married; it represents a healthy, developed and normal relationship (LaSala, 2007). Before reading this article, I never thought about why married people are given all of these rights. I never thought about where they came from, who made them up, or why they were even made. Why are we fighting for legalizing same-sex marriage a...
In an article titled, “I've Been Divorced Four Times, But Homosexuals Are the Ones Destroying Marriage,” published in February of 2014, blogger Matt Walsh intends to move anyone who advocates for “traditional marriage” to focus their attention on preventing divorce instead of opposing gay marriage. The title is mocking the hypocrisy of some “traditional marriage” advocates who are serial divorcee supposedly doing everything they can to preserve the sanctity of marriage. The author believes in what is commonly called “traditional marriage,” though the term is considered a historically misleading term by some. Steve Chapman declares in the Chicago Tribune,“What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It's radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago.” Opponents of “traditional marriage” are not concerned with threats to the institution like Walsh is. In the Huffington Post, Carina Kolodny says that equality for gay marriage will, “fundamentally destroy 'traditional marriage,' and I, for one, will dance on its grave.” Other advocates for “traditional marriage” might also argue that the greatest threat to marriage is no-fault divorce laws or pre-marital cohabitation, and yes, gay marriage. Walsh's target audience is limited to conservative Christians; his appeals to God, the holiness of marriage, and church practices are only effective supporting material for this intended audience.
One of the first questions that was asked during his interview was gay marriage and his views on this topic. When he first became a priest one of the things he began to study was marriage and its purposes. The purpose of marriage through the eyes of church and Hernan is procreation, education of children, and allowing people to get rid of their sex urge. The Church has always considered the homosexual act as evil. A same sex marriage allows two people to come together in a sinful condition. His responsibility as a priest is to educate people as to what they see as the values of marriage. When Kerry was running for president he covered many topics in his campaign including gay marriage. President Kerry would allow for long term gay relationships to have rights such as those of married couples. The church saw this as a threat because of its morals and values. If the leader of a country allows for gay marriage to be legalized then eventually the belief of same sex marriage would not be a sin.
Ted Cruz is a Republican politician. Cruz is a very conservative politician who went to Harvard University to become a lawyer before going into politics. In the year 2000, Cruz “served as an advisor on the 2000 presidential campaign of George W. Bush” (Mead). In 2013, Cruz became the senator of Texas and is currently running for president. “Cruz has become better known for his speeches and tactics than for creating legislation.” Cruz delivered a 21 hour long speech of his opposition on Obamas healthcare to cut funding and which encouraged the government shutdown of 2013. Cruz is also very religious and has clearly stated his beliefs. One of those beliefs is that “marriage should be between a man and a woman” (Mead). Clearly Cruz goes against
Paul, Ron. “The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea.” Ron Paul Archives, 2004
...constant with his view on these other topics, and personally I believe he wants to discourage others from being gay.
The recognition of same-sex marriage is a political, social, and religious issue. Because of this same-sex marriage is a very controversial topic. Legal acknowledgement of same sex marriage is commonly referred to as marriage equality. Many advocates of marriage equality argue that laws restricting marriage to only heterosexuals discriminate against homosexuals. On the other hand advocates against same-sex marriage argue that it would undo long-standing traditions and change the meaning of marriage in a damaging manor. In this essay I will be arguing for same-sex marriage. The arguments mentioned as well as others will be discusses throughout this paper.
Over the last years the topic of same-sex marriage has been of great importance to our society. The idea of the same gender being lawfully married is disturbing to a group of people but in the recent years the number of supporters has increased. The cases that argue for the legalization of same-sex marriage are focusing on the relationship of the individuals and do not see anything in same-sex marriage that could harm our society as a whole. The article “How the President go to ‘I Do’ on Same-Sex Marriage,” published by Joe Becker in April 2014, explains how Barack Obama started saying that he was undecided about the subject matter but is now leaning toward the legalization of same-sex marriage. The subject matter takes a lot of analyzing of what pros and cons are to come from the legalization of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a global argument that deals with unifying two individuals of the same gender under the law. The main reason that supporters give for justifying same-sex marriage is that it is for the same reason as straight people, to show love and commitment to each other. Furthermore, the argument of same-sex marriage is difficult to generalize because of the multiple factors that need to be taken in consideration when making any decision regarding this topic. Although Becker does have true premises, he lacks clarity in his terms which make his argument be false and invalid.
In recent years, same-sex marriage has become a more controversial topic on whether it’s right or wrong. People should not feel coerced to agree with something they believe is wrong; clearly, same-sex marriage is immoral and unnatural. Many complications come with same-sex marriages including financial pressures, social pressures, moral pressures, and health risks.