Should gay marriages be legal? Clearly we as a nation are undecided on this issue. 36 states have passed legislation banning gay marriages, yet the state of Vermont recently passed a law that allows homosexual couples the right to participate in civil unions. Some other states are also debating whether or not to allow these couples to marry. Unfortunately, the dispute has left the United States homosexual community in an awkward position. There are some people who think that gay people have no rights and should never be allowed to marry. Other people believe that gay people are just like anyone else and should enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals do. I think that the United States should allow these couples to marry just like any other couple.
There are many opponents of gay people as it is, and they all have their reasons to dislike the idea of letting 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).
The Term Paper on Gay Marriage Sex People Society
... law. Hence, most people are against gay marriage. A survey records that nearly three people in four in The United States oppose gay marriage, most of them ... couples. There are several debates without outcomes we have had over the past several years to seek the right for gay people to marry ...
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.
There are also some very silly arguments that should be discarded immediately. One of these arguments is that marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. Making love to another man takes away everything that is masculine about you also is said to be a reason against homosexual people. Another argument that is not very valid is that same sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all other kinds of horrible consequences (Bidstrup 2-3).
These arguments are absurd to even consider as legitimate arguments from intelligent people. According to the United States Constitution, every individual has the right to the pursuit of happiness, and the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness (Stoddard 492).
The federal government’s statement clearly contradict that state laws that are now in effect.
You hear the saying, “America is the home of land, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Along with the pursuit of happiness being infringed on, the individual’s liberty is also somewhat taken away. Many people come to America because it’s the “Home of the Free.” This is a freedom that is being taken away from these couples. If America were a truly free country, these couples would be allowed to marry without any complications. It is obvious that homosexuals are not being treated fairly. By prohibiting gay marriages, homosexuals are put at economic, legal, and personal disadvantages. In fact, gay rights activists have cited over 300 benefits that gay couples are not permitted to enjoy (The Case 1).
The Essay on “Against Gay Marriage”
... people towards the approval of gay marriage. “Against Gay Marriage” expresses that the foundation of marriage and American culture would be destroyed by the allowance of homosexual marriage ... partners through marriage. Bennett thought that if one state succumbed to the approval of gay marriage then a ... better off being raised by a heterosexual couple. In the end, Bennett outlines many descriptive ...
This is a large amount of rights that are being taken away from these homosexual couples.
Consider these three examples of how the civil rights of homosexuals are violated. First, homosexuals and their spouses are denied the right to claim the estate of their spouses if there is no will present when one of the partners dies. In heterosexual marriages, spouses are entitled to at least a portion of the spouse’s estate unless the spouse’s will explicitly states otherwise. This is not necessarily the rule for people who are “together,” but not legally married. Since homosexual couples are not allowed to marry, the spouse is not guaranteed the benefit of access to the state. Second, gays are excluded from group insurance and pension plans offered through their spouse’s jobs.
Because gay marriages are not considered legal, they are not officially recognized by insurance companies. Despite the fact that a gay man may do exactly the same job as a heterosexual man, the heterosexual man and his wife would enjoy benefits not available to the homosexual couple. Third, gays do not enjoy the judicial spousal privilege concerning legal matters. In legal proceedings, a man cannot be compelled by the government to say anything that may incriminate his wife. Since homosexual couples are not officially married, the spousal privilege does not protect them. In a landmark case for gay marriages, three gay couples filed a suit against the state of Vermont in 1997.
They claimed that their Constitutional rights were being denied to them because the state refused to grant them marriage licenses. The state court ruled against the plaintiffs, citing the link between procreation and marriage. Furthermore, the state claimed that homosexuals did not qualify as a special class because homosexuality “is not a readily discernible race (Vermont 1).” This verdict did not sit well with the plaintiffs and the rest of the gay community. They felt that their rights were being infringed on and that the verdict was not fair. The plaintiffs appealed the case, and the Vermont Supreme Court heard it. On December 20, 1999, the state Supreme Court ruled that it wa ….
The Essay on Same Couple Marriage Married Couples
... to either widen the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, or to create a civil union state with new legislation. Many court challenges ... German government has passed a law, which would allow gay and lesbian couples to exchange vows at a local government office. They ... very nature, is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children." Only such ...
