Currently, same-sex marriage provokes a rancorous debate around the world. In modern times, this phenomenon existed in the 21st century as more and more countries began to allow same-sex couples to marry legally. (Chamie & Mirkin, 2011). Until now, same-sex marriage has been legalized in 22 countries (Same-sex Marriage, 2017) and Massachusetts is the first state that allows same-sex marriages full legal recognition. (Campion & Morrissey, 2015) For this issue, some people reckon that gay and lesbian have their rights to marry while some of them object to same-sex marriage because they think it is not moral. In my opinion, same-sex marriage should be legalized to protect the rights of homosexuality. For this essay, I am going to discuss three reasons to support my stance.
First, supporting same-sex marriage can keep the society be harmonious. Due to the society growing faster and faster, everyone is going to pursue their own expected community. Therefore, more and more gays and lesbians start to strive for their rights or even hold different protests to express their views. However, different people have different opinions, they may have conflicts between each other and some conflicts will become violent finally. One of the examples happened in Juiz de Fora in 2010. The protest turned into a violent incident and one teenager had been killed in a fight between rival gangs. (Teenager shot dead at gay parade, 2010) If the government objects to legalizing same-sex marriage,
In his essay titled Gay “Marriage”: Societal Suicide, Charles Colson discusses fervently his opposition of same-sex marriage. The essay’s main point is constructed around Colson’s belief that if same-sex marriage were to be legalized, it would decouple marriage and procreation and thus destroy the “traditional building block of human society.” He states that same-sex marriage would lead to “an explosive increase in family collapse, out-of-wedlock births - and crime.” Colson presents us with a diverse set of evidence including statistics, studies, and his firsthand experience as a prison minister.
Recently, gay marriage was legalized in all 50 states. Most Americans accept it; as America is becoming more open and tolerant of same-sex marriage. They believe that everyone should be able to love and be with whoever they want. On the other hand there are many who wholeheartedly disagree and believe that marriage is exclusively shared between a man and a woman. A county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky with this belief refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Why she decide to write about gay marriage as well as giving readers background to how the issue has affected the world and what people think about it. She challenges people to think more on why they are opposed to gay marriage stating, “Will someone please explain to me how permitting gays and lesbians to marry threatens the institution of marriage? Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, opponents really have to get their arguments in line” (Pollitt 560). It sets up her main idea of the essay and of each paragraph. Her questions help lead her thoughts into what people have been using as an excuse for opposing gay
In my brief I will explore the effect of the Loving V. Virginia (1967) on the case of Obergefell V. Hodges (2015) and how it led to legalization of same sex marriage. I will prove that the 9th amendment which addresses the right to marriage did not specify that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I will also prove that the precedents set by prior cases reflected on the decision of the supreme justice. I will first explain the prior cases and discuss their rulings and reflect on the reason judges chose this. I will then discuss the Obergefell v. Hodges case and its similarity to prior cases .
Susie O'Brien's article 'It's time to honour gay couples and allow them to marry' (The Advertiser, November 20, 2010, p. 27) is arguing the side of pro-gay marriage in the debate of marriage equality. This argument is made using ethos, logos, pathos and suggestive language as to guide you to her side of the argument. Susie begins by talking about herself and her experience on the subject of whether or not she had a choice when growing up straight or gay. She demonstrates her knowledge on the topic by referencing her personal history; however not truly showing why her opinion should be listening to rather than others. Her argument is very personally based and draws examples such as herself and her family or friends.
In 2015, the United States Supreme Court worked on Obergefell v. Hodges, a case regarding the legality of same sex marriage. Over 9 million people in the united states identify and associate themselves with the LGBTQ+ community. These members and others in the past have fought for their constitutional rights since before the 1950’s. The legalization of same-sex marriage under the United States Constitution is beneficial to the nation, as it has positively influenced members of the LGBTQ+ community and their families, the nation’s economy, and it’s reputation.
When debating the legalization of same sex marriage, religious reasoning and accusations of bigotry often provoke obstinance. Instead of reiterating those arguments, William J. Bennett, a prominent cultural conservative, former secretary of education, and author of The Book of Virtues, focuses on societal effects in his op-ed article, “Against Gay Marriage.” Though Bennett’s piece conveys partiality, it also attempts to discuss this issue scrupulously to ensure readers will consider his argument and perhaps accept his implications. While some of Bennett’s word choices convey tolerance of the gay community, his rhetoric incites readers to accept that preserving society requires marginalizing homosexuals.
Senior fellow for policy studies, Peter Sprigg in a Question and Answer article titled “What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?” addresses this matter of controversy by stating-in his opinion- the ‘vast negative consequences’ concerning gay marriage equality. In order to answer these questions, Sprigg uses a cataloging of biased satire, as opposed to factual information in backing up his opinions. Thus, considering his audience consists of those who are for gay rights or, at the least, do not understand such a negative connotation regarding what could be an incredibly life-changing milestone for many, I am very much against his close-minded responses. Furthermore, although it is technically lnews learning that Peter Sprigg in particular thinks allowing gay couples to marry is wrong I can’t say that I’m definitively taken aback when I discover that yet another individual carries this mindset that, “Homosexual relationships are not marriage”(Sprigg P.2), though disappointing nonetheless.
Matthew Feeler Political Science 101 M/W Byron 11/17/16 Midterm: Question 1 The 14th Amendment was created after the civil war in 1868 and the underlying premise of the amendment gives equal protection and rights to slaves. This main idea was obviously the cause of the civil war and gaining freedom from slaves. Although, another part of the Amendment was what is known as the “due process” in which citizens are granted rights to life, liberty, and property. A huge topic of controversy for years has been the idea of same-sex couples being able to marry, and recently in 2015 the supreme court ruled that same sex marriage is legal which to some was very surprising, although some believe that with the 14th amendment, this is a right that should
But one of the important issues discussed in hot debates is the Gay marriage that has recently been permitted in the States. This was a real change in the whole country; many people welcomed the idea because they believe in total freedom of the human being and citizens’ liberties. But other groups mostly coming from religious backgrounds stood against what has been restructured in the amendment concerning this point. The debate will never come to an end simply because proponents and opponents will see it from different angles and no one will decide who is right and who is
Adoption is typically an option that is thought about when the process of conceiving a biological child is out of the question. For some couples it may be infertility, potential hereditary health problems, or that carrying a child would be dangerous to the mother and unborn child. Those are just some issues that would cause a heterosexual couple to contemplate the idea of adopting a child, but what about couples of the same-sex? Same-sex couples do not have the means to reproduce together so many opt for adoption, which sounds easy, but typically is not. Adoption is a long and hard drawn out process for any couple, but for couples that are of the same-sex, they typically get the shorter end of the stick.
The debate around same-sex marriage was is a good idea to legalize it. I believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. I don’t think there is anything wrong with people of the same sex getting married. Now the concept of traditional marriage has changed and the power of love is more important than gender in my opinion.
The focus of this paper is to shed light to the fact that there are health disparities within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* (LGBT) population. When a couple is granted the right to marry, it becomes possible for health insurance companies to recognize that. As a result, all family members are covered by whoever’s employer offers the best plan. Married couples and families are then able to access health care when needed. Whereas heterosexual couples who are married and have families are able to be on one joint health insurance plan, LGBT couples do not have the same luxury.
People once used to enslaved people and abused people who simply had different skin tones; they were not conceived as human under the law. Now as history has shown us, that wasn’t justice. In every civil rights conflict we are only able to recognize the just point of view years after the fact and when the next conflict comes along we are blind once again. (Amanda) As I’m writing down this paper we are repeating history once in for all. LGBT communities are just HUMANS who are
Marriage brings legal rights that secure a couple that if not wedded, they should not have. Then again, some contend that gay person marriage may make issue bring up a youngster and upset the normal, natural reproduction of humanity (Burns, 2005). Thesis Statement Supporting gay marriage will bring peace and equality in the society and will promote better relationships and parenting. Changing Views on Traditional Marriage