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.
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.
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.
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).
Symbols are important; they are a common cultural currency which we each use to help create our sense of self. Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people’s basic identities. By asking legislatures to pass “Defence of Marriage” acts, voters are using the law to create the cultural equivalent of a copyright or trademark on the institution of marriage to prevent it from be challenged too much. In 2003, when a bare majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state to recognize gay marriages, the three dissenting judges based their opposition largely on children. "It is difficult to imagine a State purpose more important and legitimate than ensuring, promoting, and supporting an
Therefore there is not justifiable reason to extend that right to gay couples and in so doing change the very definition of marriage. On the other hand, more liberal citizens, backed by the President as well as many democrats, believe that marriage is right that should be extended to all, no matter of their sexual orientation, and that procreation is not the only reason for marriage, but instead it is the joining of two people that love each other. This controversial issue is being fought in numerous states; however California is undoubtedly the epicentre. Proposition 8 was a referendum passed by the people that banned same-sex marriage. As soon as it was passed into law a multitude of appeals were lodged against it claiming it was unconstitutional, although to begin with proposition 8 was upheld by the courts as constitutional, for example Strauss v. Horton, eventually the Californian 9th circuit Court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional.
He uses a bisexual who wants to marry two people as a possible example. He does not view upholding marriage to only include a man and a woman as a put down to others. Instead see it as an acknowledgement and celebration of marriage. Bennett feels it is not intolerant to view heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage as different, because “..making distinctions in the law is necessary to relationships that are distinct.” Bennett then moves to social concerns that allowing same sex marriage could cause confusion in children, promote promiscuity, and force the law to allow adoptions that could be detrimental. Bennett closes his article citing the sexual revolution and out of wedlock births as some examples of negative effects on marriage.
So basically what the gay community are suggesting is not ‘equal rights’ but ‘extra rights’, which leads me smoothly onto my next point. If the government hit their head and in the state of concussion decide to make same sex marriage legal, it would only be fair to make acceptances for other forms of banned marriages, marriages of which are considered incest, bigamy, and under aged. There’s reason we have restrictions placed upon marriage, those mainly being to keep up traditions and to protect the well being of our society. For instance, I’m pretty sure allowing 13 year old love birds to get married wouldn’t contribute to lowering the divorce rate, or condoning brothers and sisters to be wed and fill our country with their disabled offspring is such a good idea. I have come across no compelling reasons that would suggest homosexual marriages are to the well-being of
For example, many Americans oppose the idea of same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Also, due to conservative beliefs many citizens have called for constitutional amendments considering marital union only between a man and a woman as appropriate (Fausset and Blinder, The NewYork Times.com). Just as Brian S. Brown, the president of the National Organization of Marriage stated the following in a New York Times Article “The millions of people who voted that marriage is a union of a man and a woman are not simply going to throw their beliefs away. This fight will continue on regardless of which way the Supreme Court rules” (Fausset and Blinder, The NewYork Times.com). Brown implies the notion of strong beliefs and values serving as chains holding back the proposal of an amendment to the