Same-sex couples can adopt children to raise as their own, and specify them as their heir to land, property and wealth. We live in a country where we pride ourselves on freedom and equality, and to live up to that pride, we must destroy the arbitrary lines drawn in our moral, ethical and legal views on same-sex marriages. If we give no thought to the marriage of the elderly, infertile, or child-less-by choice, why should procreation be a factor on the legalities of recognizing same-sex marriages? The simple answer is, it
They should have equal rights just like straight people. I think its okay for them to even get married. We as people shouldn’t judge a person for the sexuality preference or who they chose to be with. Same sex marriages are legal in Massachusetts, California, etc. which represents the significant social issue dividing people in the United States (Feldman, 2009).
Review of Chet Meeks’ and Arlene Stein’s Article “Refiguring the Family: Towards a Post-Queer Politics of Gay and Lesbian Marriage” While same-sex relationships have been recognized in countries like Europe, South Africa, Australia, and North America, America banned same-sex marriage one year after a Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples were entitled to equal rights. In Refiguring the Family: Towards a Post-Queer Politics of Gay and Lesbian Marriage, the authors Chet Meeks and Arlene Stein focus not on the resistance to lesbian and gay marriage by the American mainstream, but on the opinions within the lesbian and gay community, since the lesbian and gay communities have been divided in the United States about the issue. Meeks and
He discredits the argument that, ”marriage is fundamentally a procreative unit” (Stoddard 738). The government tries to rectify not allowing same sex marriage to be legal because marriage is supposed to be a procreative unit. People should be entitled to love and marry whomever it is that they choose. The government tries to justify their standing on gay marriage by acknowledging the fact that same sex couples would not be able to birth a child together. If this is in fact a valuable reason to prevent someone from marrying, then why doesn’t the government create a law banning all women and men who cannot or will not have children from being able to legally marry.
(2) Marriage creates families and promotes social stability. But there is a weakness in his argument such as: (1) Decision to marry belongs to the individual not the government and if tradition were the only measure, most states would still limit matrimony to partners of the same race (para. 6). Stoddard is making an argument, offering a thesis: Reasons gay marriage should be legalized. He begins his successful argument using the appeal to emotion
Couples must register for marriage licenses at City Hall, and many individuals meet with lawyers and financial planners to hammer out the technical aspects of the union. While most states offer civil unions to same-sex couples, this practice does not provide the same legal protections and affords couples at least a thousand fewer privileges. If the government is going to be involved in marriages (tax-breaks anyone? ), it must be held to the same standard of equality that every other aspect of government is put under and be readily available to everyone. After all, don’t we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
He talks a bit about how same sex marriage will affect children, which I completely respect. He discusses marriage being associated with civil right incorrectly for things like tax breaks, property ownership, etc. The majority of his article is based upon what he believes is the “definition” of marriage. He talks about marriage including or being based upon a number of things such as; romance, passion, the female body, spiritualism, etc. All things he obviously doesn’t think the gay community is capable of.
Business Law Definitions Karen Shrader LS311-03RP1 Business Law October 22, 2013 Common law is defined in our text as body of general rules that applied throughout the entire English realm (Miller/Jentz). I would define it as laws that aren’t written into statutes but the law does recognize them. A great example of this would be common law marriages. Common law marriages are when couples lives together as man and wife for many years but are not legally married. Even though not all states recognize common law marriages but in some states it is recognized as a marriage without the ceremony.
One such factor is society's views of their union (O'Neal, Brown, & Abadie, 1997). This is an important aspect, as Merton (2001) has noted, "In no society is the selection of a marriage partner unregulated and indiscriminate" (p. 474). Hibbler & Shinew (2002) found that interracial couples felt socially isolated in several areas of their life including work, family, and leisure. Close friends and first-degree relatives may substantiate society's norm of homogamy and discourage the interracial couple to get married. These and other factors
Arranged marriages are marriages negotiated by the parents of the couples. In this kind of marriage, people sometimes are forced to marry the one that they do not love. For centuries, the only way to get married in most of cultures has been arranged marriage because it has been believed this kind of marriage makes the economic, political, social alliances stronger and firmer. Although in most Western countries people oppose arranged marriage because they think that this kind of marriage limits their personal freedom, it still occurs in parts of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Vietnam. In Afghanistan, people usually practice arranged marriage in some ways, approximately sixty and eighty percent.