The Conflict of Gay Marriage in America PHI 103: Informal Logic The Conflict of Gay Marriage in America Part One – Thesis Because America is a country founded on equal rights for all, marriage is a right that must be afforded to homosexuals. Arguments against gay marriage are often supported by religious ideals. In America, where we have freedom of religion or freedom to even choose not to be religious, these arguments should not be considered when forming laws. To do so would not be just. Part Two – Argument “Not allowing gays to marry is discrimination because they do not receive the same legal benefits that married people do.
We need to remember that marriage is a religious rite. Therefore, legalizing gay marriage would represent a type of sacrilege against the institution of marriage. It is furthermore an intrusion of the government into a religious matter and that is not in the scope of power of our government. The union of marriage exists partly for the purpose of having children. Since procreation can only occur between a man and a woman then same-sex marriage would not be able to achieve this purpose.
The State should not be allowed to restrict someone of their rights based on a certain religion. It is unconstitutional. If someone creates laws that are unconstitional, restricting citizens of their natural and civil rights, the laws should NOT be allowed! People say that a married couple should have a family, a family that includes children. “Only a man and a woman, together, can conceive a child.” This is the opposing argument.
It is for this reason that states do not have to recognize out of state gay marriages unlike other legal measures protected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. A history of muddied political interpretation has led to measures which overreach principles of federal law, and other similar discriminatory measures like USC section 7’s “definition of marriage and spouse.” The Full Faith and Credit Clause should be upheld in support of gay marriage because constitutionally, not doing so would misconstrue numerous constitutional norms. The Full Faith and Credit Clause normally protect things such as freedom of mobility, the commerce clause, the right to marry, and the right to travel. By not applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause, these liberties are combined and disregarded for a minority group. If a gay marriage (a legal status not a national law) is not guarded by Full Faith and Credit, implications on national economy, family law, and children’s rights are at risk.
This brings up questions and arguments of why they oppose gay marriage. Religion plays a part in this argument; their definition of marriage is between a man and woman as stated in the bible, specifically the book of Genesis (“Should Gary Marriage” 2). In response to their accusation, while from a religious viewpoint marriage is defined between a man and women, marriage is ultimately a legal binding by law. People can be married in a church that may symbolize their marriage, but until they receive a legal documentation of their marriage license they are not considered married. Marriage is also not a religious right in the United States; it is a civil right as stated in the Constitution under the Federal Marriage Amendment (Longley 1).
Lauren Adams Melissa Helton English 102 2 February 2012 Summary of A. Sullivan’s “For Gay Marriage” & W. Bennett’s “Against Gay Marriage”. Andrew Sullivan and William J. Bennett have very different opinions about legalizing gay marriage. Sullivan suggests it should be legal, but Bennett argues that it would ruin everything marriage stands for in America. In his book Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality (1995), former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan argues that not having gay marriage is a violation of equality. He points out that he is not referring to religious traditions but suggests, in a public institution, marriage should be available to any two citizens.
So religion should be a private affair having nothing to do with the public affairs. However, there is no objection in principle to religious arguments in political debates. If religion stands for moral qualities like love of truth, love for human beings, it would moralise
It was said that the marriage didn’t guarantee “the fundamental right to marry a person of the same sex.” Also it was said that the marriage exclusion does not offend the liberty, freedom, equality, or due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution. From my knowledge, I know that you can only get married to the same sex in San Francisco, California and in Canada. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the Fourteenth Amendment was on their side by stating that marriage shouldn’t be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under the Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides with the individual and
Thomas mentions that gay and lesbian marriages should be the choice of the individuals not the government. He promotes gay and lesbian marriages by saying those who vote against gay and lesbian marriage are people of injustice. He states that we cannot solely base our decision on history alone, if so most states would still prohibit the marriage of different races. Thomas states that marriage should promote family and stability and people should not be denied this right. By depriving millions of gay American adults the rights that come from marriage, denies equal protection against the law.
It’s not like anyone is getting hurt by letting people be happy. This is the United States everyone is supposed to have the same rights. “Gay and lesbian rights are not ‘special rights’ in any way. It isn’t ‘special’ to be free from discrimination - it is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship.” (Bond) But clearly that isn’t how it is anymore. "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.