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.
“Only a man and a woman, together, can conceive a child.” This is the opposing argument. For a gay couple, conceiving a child with each other is impossible. This is true, but not the ONLY option. Adoption is a great way for gay couples to possess children. An opposing
Since procreation can only occur between a man and a woman then same-sex marriage would not be able to achieve this purpose. There is a huge disconnection between homosexuality, and procreation and therefore, marriage. Lastly, homosexual relationships are abnormal and unnatural. Even though in today’s society, gay couples might be tolerated socially that does not mean gay marriage should be validated by the government. Using the same argument same-sex couples should not receive federal benefits.
Sullivan says that minors and close family members should not be given the right to marry because minors are unable to understand such a commitment. The marriage of close family members creates incest, which threatens the trust and responsibility the family needs to survive. Sullivan asks if homosexuals fall in the same categories. Sullivan says that “domestic partnership,” a conservative concept, is one of the strongest arguments for gay marriage. Domestic partnerships qualify for benefits previously reserved for heterosexual married couples.
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.
And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the developed world’s ideal of human rights. Marriage is not just an institution, but also a symbol representing our culture’s ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships. Symbols are important; they are a common cultural currency which we each use to help create our sense of self.
We heard from political people that really feel that children should be in a traditional family. That family should consist with a man and woman. These people believe a child should stay in foster care, rather than go to a family with homosexual parents. There was a debate that gay parents will raise gay kids. Heterosexuals have gay kids, so homosexuals have just as much chance as heterosexuals of having a gay child.
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.
The marriage is also about the rights of homosexual to choose the type of family and home life they desire, to have their family status validates. While common-law status confers the same-sex marriage partners and opposite sex marriage partner, it doesn’t provide all the financial and legal benefits, protection and obligations of opposite-sex marriage. Common-law marriage would have only established a separate but equal status for homosexual and the alternative family forms do not have the symbolic status of marriage. Symbolic status is important because social discrimination can translate into economic discrimination, which is part of the economic structural processes that shape a movement’s struggle and eventually lead to a social change, legalization of same-sex
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.