Homosexual marriage rights
Adrain D Sharp
Ashford University
PHI103: Informal logic
Theresa Ramsey
January 30, 2012
Homosexual marriage rights
Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage. In recent news there was an argument asking, Should homosexuals be able to marry? Various people with different thoughts, and opinions on the topic listened in and spoke. Some people have a strong religious belief, and think that homosexuals should not be able to marry, others have a moral view on the topic stating that homosexuals should not be able to marry due to what some think is an inappropriate lifestyle for the youth to witness. My thoughts on the topic at hand are, that homosexuals should” be able to marry. They are people just like me, although they have an eccentric romantic interest, they are still people that have emotions and choose to love another of the same gender.
Homosexuals are no different from a heterosexual couple they walk embracing each other, displaying public affection just as any man would with a woman. Homosexuals are now considered outsiders, aliens, all because of they love the same gender. I believe that if a couple either same sex or opposite, they should have equal rights, because by the government giving more freedom to one group of individuals compared to the next that is segregation all over again just not between African Americans’ and Caucasians’ in America. The introduction of same-sex marriage has varied by jurisdiction, resulting from legislative changes to marriage laws, court challenges based on constitutional guarantees of equality, or a combination of the two. In some countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry replaced a previous system of civil unions or registered partnerships.
The Essay on Joint Taxation Marriage Homosexual Family
Allowing homosexuals to marry would further de-moralize our nation. Our society as a whole is headed in the wrong direction, that needs to be changed, and accepting a union between a homosexual couple would only perpetuate our society's problems. Proof of this can be seen in the attached Gallup Poll, which surveyed Americans to find out what Americans really think-a marriage is between a man and a ...
The recognition of such marriages is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. Conflicts arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status (such as a civil union, which either grant equal rights as marriage or limited rights in comparison to marriage), or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term marriage should be applied.
One argument in support of same-sex marriage is that denying same-sex couples legal access to marriage and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation; several American scientific bodies agree with this assertion. Another argument in support of same-sex marriage is the assertion that financial, psychological and physical well-being are enhanced by marriage, and that children of same-sex couples benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union supported by society’s institutions. Court documents filed by American scientific associations also state that singling out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage both stigmatizes and invites public discrimination against them The American Anthropological Association avers that social science research does not support the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon not recognizing same-sex marriage. Other arguments for same-sex marriage are based upon what is regarded as a universal human rights issue, mental and physical health concerns, equality before the law and the goal of normalizing LGBT relationships. Al Sharpton and several other authors attribute opposition to same-sex marriage as coming from homophobia or heterosexism and liken prohibitions on same-sex marriage to past prohibitions on interracial marriage.
The Term Paper on Gay Marriage Sex People Society
... debating about gay marriage is children. Some believe that although gay couples cannot produce children, they can have adopted children and fulfill a social need. That ... the arguments are against reforming gay marriage because they believe that the same sex marriage to be anti-family. Marriage creates families and promotes social stability, ...
One argument against same-sex marriage arises from a rejection of the use of the word “marriage” as applied to same-sex couples, as well as objections about the legal and social status of marriage itself being applied to same-sex partners under any terminology. Other stated arguments include direct and indirect social consequences of same-sex marriages, parenting concerns religious grounds economically expensive, and tradition. Some of the public’s arguments against homosexual marriages are, 1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that’s the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn’t that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn’t be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They’re really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.
2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that’s the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought.
3. Same-sex couples aren’t the optimum environment in which to raise children. That’s an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? Why are the advocates of this argument not working to prohibit the above categories of people from raising children?
The Research paper on Gay Marriage argument 2
Two editorials were posted in the “New York Daily News” and “Times of Trenton” pertaining to the subject of legalizing gay marriage. Both articles argue the position against gay marriage and use the same focal point in their articles: the negative effects that legalizing gay marriages will have on children being raised by same sex parents. Also, both articles contain logical fallicies in their ...
The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.
4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law (and none other than the father of the American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, very proudly took credit for that fact), and because it doesn’t, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they perceive to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.
5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of such an argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out through lack of procreation. If the ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be better off. One of the world’s most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into an already overburdened world. So why encourage them? The vacuity of this argument is seen in the fact that those who raise this objection never object to infertile couples marrying; indeed, when their retired single parent, long past reproductive age, seeks to marry, the usual reaction is how cute and sweet that is. That fact alone shows how false this argument really is. Let’s face it – marriage is about love and commitment, and support for that commitment, not about procreation.
The Term Paper on Gay-Marriages
... For the sake of argument, lets assume that tomorrow Hawaii passes a law that makes homosexual marriage legal. Many homosexual couples ... together though they are not married. Marriage goes beyond the benefits, however. The institution of marriage is a very respected one, ... is okay. They believe that gay people are sacrilegious, and to allow them to marry would condone this behavior(Christianity Today, ...
6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. That one’s contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn’t sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate sexually, and thereby reduce the number of supposed heterosexual marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. So you would have freedom of choice, of choosing what kind of marriage to participate in — something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce — to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for tightening divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.
7. We shouldn’t alter heterosexual marriage, which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and abolished its legal status. So what happened to tradition?
The Essay on Gay Marriage Separation Of Church And State
Gay Marriage and Constitutional Rights... and separation of church and state'I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another,' President Bush said (Hinojosa). From 2003 until present, gay marriage has been a hot issue nation wide. Debates rage on the sanctity of marriage and constitutional equal rights. Though many states have already decided ...
In the first place, no one is proposing the alteration of heterosexual marriage at all. Heterosexuals may still marry (and divorce) at will – entirely unaffected by the institution of gay marriage. No change there – not even one whit.
Then there is the issue of divorce. If we are supposed to worship the traditional status and nature of marriage, why do we freely allow divorce, which has only been legal in most states for just a few decades? To suggest to most of the ardent supporters of this argument that they should not only be married, but will get only one shot at getting it right, and a mistake will and must permanently ruin their life, will sound onerous. But how less onerous is the notion that one will have to marry someone one cannot love and to whom one cannot relate, if one is to enjoy the benefits of marriage? Clearly, this hypocrisy – on the one hand, asserting the importance of the traditional nature of marriage, while allowing its destruction through the thoroughly modern concept of divorce with hardly a second thought – demonstrates very clearly that this really isn’t about traditional definitions at all, it’s about using this argument as a cover for another, less acceptable motivation. Why not recognize the hypocrisy – that there is no sound moral ground on which to support the notion of worshipfully traditional heterosexual marriage while freely allowing its destruction through divorce? Wouldn’t it just be better to recognize that the concept of marriage is not as rigidly traditional and fixed as claimed?
8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word “marriage” to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running “experiment” to examine for its results — which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States).
The Term Paper on Marriage And Courtship Common Law
During the 18 th century, marriage and courtship was changing and new laws and regulations were being formed. Many of the traditions and ceremonies of the 18 th century are still being used in the 21 st century. Traditions such as wedding vows, marriage in churches, and the wedding ring all began in the 1700 s and are still prevalent today. The laws of the 1700 s laid the foundation for future ...
A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic — a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the “destruction of Western civilization” as some critics (including the Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the “experiment” has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the “experiment” and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.
9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reduction ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn’t that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn’t they have ‘slid’ towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It’s a classic scare tactic – making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the “slippery slope” were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so every day. Where’s the outrage? Of course there isn’t any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue.
10. Granting gays the right to marry is a “special” right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the rest constitute a “special” right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado’s infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don’t need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.
1. 11. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will. This one has absolutely no basis in law whatever, existing or proposed. There are many marriages to which many churches object, such as interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, the marriage of divorcees, etc., and yet no state law of which I am aware requires any church to marry any couple when that church objects to performance of that particular marriage. The right granted by the state to a church to perform marriages is a right, not a requirement, and to pretend that it would be a requirement in the case of gays, but not in the above examples, is disingenuous on the face of it. Genesis
2. “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.”
What did Ham do? Did he just look at his naked father or was there something more to it than that? Some commentators have suggested that Ham committed homosexual rape on his drunken father, and that this was why Ham’s descendants were eternally punished with slavery. 9:24
3. This verse doesn’t say what the Sodomites did to make them such exceedingly great sinners, though most bible believers equate “Sodomite” with homosexual. (But see Ezekiel 16:49, which claims the sins of Sodom were pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, and failure to help the poor.) 13:13
4. The two angels that visit Lot wash their feet, eat, and are sexually irresistible to Sodomites. 19:1-5
5. God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. 19:4-5, 24-25
1. Leviticus
2. If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13
Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
We are gods children and for the masses to judge a few because they are different with any religious or moral beliefs is not right at all. We are all created equally and if a black man can marry a white woman after all the racial turmoil in America then a man shall be able to marry a man and a woman should be able to marry another of the same gender.
Reference
Bidstrup, Scott (2009, June 3).
Gay Marriage, The Arguments And The Motives. Retrieved [today’s date here], from http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
^ “UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people”. United Nations. 15 December 2011. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40743.
1. ^ “gay marriage”. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989.
2. King James Bible