Have Americans strayed so far away from the laws of the Bible, they are accepting this union of same sex? Treating this as if it was a mortal marriage? Why would you want to stand before God and ask to outright be blessed to sin? Why would Americans allow this? Why attack God's appointed leaders when they rebel against such an act?
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.
Humphrey, they discuss facts and their beliefs on gay marriage. Dematteis goes more into depth about the issues in states, Politically, Presidential, Religion, and Demographics on same sex marriage, whereas Humphrey discusses more about the Religion view of same sex marriage. He strongly believes Religion depicts the view on same sex marriage, he believes we should believe what god believes, and what god believes is marriage is the love and commitment between two people of the opposite sex. Dematteis has views from all different perspectives, and he believes no one should judge anyone based on what gender he or she loves. He discusses more about what the people in America think in their States about same sex marriage.
(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
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
If people demand the extension of marriage to include same sex unions in a state arguing it is unconstitutional, but the court deems it as constitutional, then a statute is in place for future cases to be based on. Once a statute is in place, it becomes more difficult to upturn the initial ruling. Also, because of religious ties, there are a large number of people who are against same sex marriage. As a result, a vote to change marriage laws in a state must come at a time when the majority of votes will not be against it. If the majority of people vote against same sex marriage, then it shows that is not an important issue and future votes may not be called for due to the large number of people against it.
For Gay Marriage, By: Andrew Sullivan, Summary (Final Draft) Before the actual article, there is a little green paragraph that states that “the debate over gay marriage highlights a vast culture divide that typically hinges on core beliefs regarding the nature of marriage itself,” (Sullivan, page 404) with that being said, my only thought was that marriage is a full commitment to the person they want to be with the rest of their life, who it is with doesn’t matter and who are we to say who can and cannot marry their “other half.” While reading this article, I highly agreed with what was written by Sullivan, because I have multiple gay friends that I love to death and deserve all the same rights. I guess that’s why this article caught my
Almost all people think that getting married the one who he or she loves is natural. But there are some situations when someone cannot get married to him or her because it is socially unacceptable. The definition of marriage for different people means different things. Marriage has some forms, but nowadays the same sex marriage is the most discussed topic. So in this essay I’m going to compare the traditional marriage and the same sex marriage.
Issue: Is polygamy constitutional? Decision: The Supreme Court unanimously decided that polygamy was unconstitutional. It was ruled that anti-polygamy laws did not prohibit the free exercise of religion; a man did not have the religious freedom to marry multiple wives. Opinion: The constitutionality of Reynolds v. US (1878) deals with the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. Polygamy can be considered to be free exercise of religion, which should force it to be protected under the Free Exercise clause.
Jefferson explains that the government should only interfere with religious freedom when it inferences with someone else’s natural right; thusly making the separation of church and state not absolute. Kennedy misinterpretation is unethical because it causes citizens to falsely believe that their religious freedom cannot be taken away. Romney misuses his information when he argues “[w]e should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders –in ceremony and word. Romney is correct that a one of the Founders, such as Jefferson states [w]ell aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free...”. Jefferson does acknowledge that there is a God or Creator that gave human beings the freedom of thought.