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.
Jessica Rasdall Gay Marriage SHOULD be a legal The Declaration of Independence states that are man are created equal and are given certain unalienable rights. These rights include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. If this is so, why can’t people marry whoever they want to marry? Even though I’m not gay, I feel it is wrong to not allow gays to marry and if I was in congress I would pass a bill that made gay marriage legal in all states. If a person is deeply in love with a person of the same sex they shouldn’t have to worry about if the government will let them get married or not and I have many reason as to how the government is violating peoples right’s.
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
So if you are saying that gay marriage should not be allowed to marry based on moral issues, you are in essence saying that morally it is worse to be a homosexual than to be a rapist, murderer, or child molester. It is this kind of thinking that has held society back. Still others would argue that due to divorce and cohabitation the institution of marriage is already in a weakened state. They view allowing legal gay marriage as the potential straw that is going to break marriages back. I would acknowledge marriage does not have the same prevalence and level of commitment it held in past generations but the decline of marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals.
Therefore, between two male homosexuals, there can be a father and a mother. Bennett, fails to conviceus as to why we should not allow same sex marriages, because he does not state facts but only his own views. Furthermore, marriage is a bond between two people who love and cherish each other. Not only a man and a woman have the ablility to do that, but alsosame sex unions have the ability to accomplish the standards of a successful marriage. Both man and woman have equal rights and the rights of the other party cannot be limited because it defies the “traditional” meaning of 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
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. Changing marriage laws in states is a tedious process, because if done to quickly, it can have such negative
For example, the debate about gay marriage and if it is legal. As of now many states do not allow the marriage of gay people. Some states allow them to become a couple but call it something else such as the union of two people. The difference between the state and federal government is that each state has a different law about gay marriage. Not every state agrees that gay marriage is wrong and illegal, but if the federal government were to pass a amendment outlawing gay marriage then every state who allows gay marriage would have to declare it unconstitutional and against the law.
This reading was about the viewpoints of heterosexuals who feel and question if homosexuality should be eliminated. Many do not feel that this is a way of life, and this reading proved the viewpoints of many who see homosexuality as a disease, immoral, lecherous, or anti-social. Even though those who do not agree or approve with homosexuality, they stand it. Throughout this reading, it talks about how society deals with homosexuality, trying to cure it when, really, society is just making it worse. Society makes it clear their disapproval of homosexuality, but tries to punish it in a way that does not begin to “cure” it at all.
Bennett should replace the study with a wider range study that is cited. William J. Bennett’s article, “Against Gay Marriage,” is a moderate argument on why same sex couples should not be able to marry. His argument is well put together and brief, and the point he’s trying to rely makes the reader examine their thoughts on gay marriage. However, assuming and not citing sources take away from the strengths of the