Marriage as generally define is the union between one man and one woman. However a recent debate over same-sex marriage has stirred a nationwide debate reverberating in the halls of Congress, at the White House, in dozens of state courtrooms and legislatures, and is also becoming a speech-making topic for election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate for this controversial topic rages on, the American religious community view on the topic remains deeply divided over the matter and over the morality of homosexuality in general. Granting legal marriage right to gays and lesbians would primarily alter the idea of marriage, ignore a child’s right to a mother and father, and expands government control of marriage.
Although people in favor of same-sex marriage will make the argument that they want to be granted the legal right to same-sex marriage because they want to be in caring, stable relationships, and they want to start a family with someone. I think their argument can be considered to be a flaw for the simple reason that they are not able to come up with convincing reasons as how same-sex marriage will not just be for their benefit, but it impact on children and marriage in the society as a whole. If legal rights to same-sex marriage is granted to gays and lesbians it would weaken the traditional family values. Marriage is considered as the building blocks of our society and the traditional marriage of man, woman, and children is what make our society strong and keeps it going. For the fact that marriage is an institution that all the States inherited rather than created, the states should therefore not create new or different laws for an institution that predates even before the creation of Americ...
... middle of paper ...
...ows same sex couples to adopt a child, surely as long as the natural parents of the offspring are not willing or unable to raise the child, I do not oppose to the same sex couples adopting the child. Nevertheless, I still believe that heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt the abandoned child rather than same sex couples. This is because heterosexual couples are more likely to better simulate upon the heterosexual union that produced the child. My argument is not based on empirically, that heterosexual couples are necessarily better at raising children than same sex couples, but I am making the argument on the concept of what is right and in the best interest of the child.
Works Cited
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/06/259http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/An-Argument-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage-An-Interview-with-Rick-Santorum.aspx
In his article “Sacred Rite or Civil Right?” Howard Moody tackles the controversial issue of the definition of marriage and inclusion of same-sex marriage into that definition. The real issue that takes center stage is the not so clear separation between the church and the state. Moody, an ordained Baptist minister, shares his belief that it’s only a matter of time that civil law is once again redefined and homosexual marriage is recognized just as much as heterosexual marriage. The gay marriage debate he suggests isn’t focused on the relationship between such couples and is more about how to define such unions as a “marriage”. (353)
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
Being so advanced technologically, it is surprising how America is still so behind on the issue of same-sex marriage. The United States should push aside the religious argument in this debate, and truly separate its church and state as it claims to do so. From its slow beginning to the rapid increase of support in the 70’s, homosexual marriage has been a controversial debate that hopefully will end in the near future.
The United States is a country built on a number of ideals and institutions. The moral structure of many Americans today was developed by our ancestors and the founders of this nation through the institutions that were a part of their lives. Family, religion, marriage, equality, and justice are just a few examples of the important components that provide a moral basis for our country. If any of these elements were to become too mutated, the effects on society could be devastating. Right now in the United States, one of these building blocks of society is being threatened by the possibility of a negative transformation. The building block of marriage as the sacred joining of one man and one woman is under attack and is at risk of being destroyed. People in favor of gay marriage want to change marriage to the joining of two people of either sex, which goes against what the purpose of marriage has been and why it is important to society and religion. People who are in opposition to same-sex marriage are eagerly expressing their opinions with religious and cultural reasons that show how this change could impact our society forever.
Have you ever imagined how a person feels when he/she is told that they cannot spend the rest of their life with the person they love? One is completely in love and they want to get married because, the law does not allow them. One is denied the legal rights that come along with marriage because he/she is in love with a person of the same sex. Unfortunately, these are some of the challenges that lesbian and gay partners get in many nations. And the sad thing about this is that, most of the arguments offered to keep same sex marriages are flawed and reactionary, and based on nothing other than ignorance, fear, prejudice and bigotry. Same sex marriage is a marriage between people of the same sex. Same sex marriages are currently illegal in the US except for a few states. The illegalization of same sex marriages is wrong because, it is a prominent form of prejudice. Same sex couples are not only denied their civil rights, but also their legal and economic benefits. No state should prohibit a person to show their love to another person because of gender because; it does not uphold the fundamental principles of the constitution.
As a predominately conservative nation, it is ideal that we as a group do not redefine the term marriage under the Constitution of the United States. It is not a question of equality, simply because men and woman will never be equivalent—both parties have different complex qualities from their hormones, genitals, brain functioning, and to their overall genetic make-up. Homosexuality holds about 5% of the population, meaning that the majority would be forced to conform to the minority. It is imperative that we recognize the consequences of gay marriage which include: health risks, redefining sexual morality, reduction of the population, many being affected spiritually, and forcing the government to change laws to accommodate the minority.
One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and styles.
Marriage is both a religious and civil institution, with rich variations among different religions in this country. Civil marriage is state regulated and is independent of religious practice, a distinction that reflects the core American value of the separation of church and state. This distinction also is at the heart of this publication, which provides resources and inspiration for people from communities of faith who wish to support the nationwide struggle to help lesbians and gay men win the freedom to have civil marriages.
In the United States, legalization of same-sex marriage has a long-standing history of opposition from religious circles. Some argue against the legalization of same-sex marriage based on their interpretation of the Bible’s stance against homosexuality (Dobson, O’Brien). Other opponents argue against the practice based on universal tenets of moral behavior, fundamental beliefs that are said to underpin our country’s existing laws and should not be eroded (George, Finnis, Friedman).
There are many opponents of gay people as it is, and they all have their reasons to dislike the idea of permitting them get married. One of the main reasons is that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Because gay couples are unable to have children, they should not be allowed to marry (Schiffen 495). Another main argument is that the word marriage means the union of one man and one woman. This is a long-standing theme of most major Western religions. Under a proposed bill known as the Defense of Marriage act, marriage is defined as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Furthermore, it defines a spouse as “ a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife” (What 1). Under these guidelines, it is quite obvious that gay couples would not be eligible for marriage. People against homosexual marriage also say that it is a person’s choice to be gay. Since the individual chooses to be a homosexual, they should not be given special privileges. Another argument that you hear is that these couples should not get married simply because of the torment and ridicule they would be faced with in their everyday lives. There are news reports from across America telling about how a gay person was beaten or killed just because they were looked at as different. Some of these people would end up the target of verbal abuse and maybe even physical abuse, just because some heterosexual people see them as different.
Same sex marriage is a very controversial topic in today’s society. We live in a society filled with ignorance. The ignorance that poisons the minds of people that oppose same sex marriage blinds them from the reality of the “problem”. People argue that same sex marriage should be illegal for reasons that will have no negative impact on their lives. The reality of this topic is that legalizing same sex marriage promotes the increase of adoption, human rights and equality, as well as the separation of the church and state.
Same-sex marriage has been a topic of debate in the United States for decades, and on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not ban same-sex couples from getting married. However, there are still those who believe that marriage is for those of opposite sexes only. According to an article written by Tom Geoghegan, gay marriage is “not the same as heterosexual marriage – the religious and social significance of a gay wedding ceremony simply isn’t the same” (Geo). Although the author makes a reasonable argument, we believe that it is the choice of the individual, and that gays and lesbians are all part of our society, and that we shall allow them the same rights as everyone else. Not only is same-sex marriage protected by our civil rights, but it increases the number of adoptions, which is beneficial to our society.
Same-sex marriage is a broad and current controversy in the United States today. The movement to legalize same-sex marriage started in the 1970; however, it is still not legal in all fifty states yet (“Same-sex marriage in the United States”). Legalizing same-sex marriage should not be a debate. People should be able to marry who they love regardless of sexual orientation. Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a human right, religion should not interfere with state laws, it does not adversely affect the heterosexual community in any way, and same-sex marriage can actually benefit our society.
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.
The traditional definition of a marriage has always hinged on the view of a married couple as being composed of a man and a woman (Gerstmann 33). However, during the last three decades there has been a rise in the number of same sex marriages. This has led to heated debates that has made same sex marriages one of the most controversial topics facing the modern society. Despite the US supreme court ruling that the rights to same sex marriage is guaranteed by the constitution, a significant percentage of Americans still oppose its legalization. While some feel that it is morally and legally right, others are of a contrary opinion. Both sides of the divide, those against same sex marriage and those for same sex marriage, present cogent arguments on why their perspectives are valid. This paper argues that the arguments for same sex marriage are more persuasive that those against same sex marriages, and so same sex marriage should be legalized.