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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
La Shawn Barber, a freelance writer, thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman and allowing gay marriage will just open more doors to legalizing increasingly deviant unions. On the other side of the fence is Anna Quindlen, a prolific and nationally acclaimed writer. She believes if two people love each other they should be able to get married. Quindlen said “it’s about one of the most powerful forces of good on earth, the termination of two human beings to tether their lives forever.” Homosexuals have cited Loving v. Virginia and the modern civil rights movement to argue for marriage between two men. Barber is not happy that homosexuals use that case for there movement because she does not think they are comparable at all.
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
He tries to give reasons as to how letting gays marry will already further annul regular marriage’s “fragile” state and the community (168). Also, he discusses how it could affect children, especially education. () However, the points that need to be made clear is that there is simply
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.