- End of Life
- Human Dignity
- Domestic Religious Freedom
- Freedom of Conscience
- International Religious Freedom
- Marriage and Family Formation
- Biblical Worldview
- Founding Ideals
- Health Care
- Legislation
- Broadcast Archives
- Email the Show
- Radio Stations
- The Washington Stand
- Press Releases
- Washington Update
- Men's Events
- Pastor Events
- Previous Events
- Speaker Series
- Upcoming Events
- Vision & Mission
- State Groups
- Internships
- Subscriptions
- Other FRC Sites The Washington Stand Planned Giving PrayVoteStand.org FRCAction.org StandCourageous.com CommunityImpact.frc.org WatchmenPastors.org Center for Biblical Worldview
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage
<body_text>
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion.
This statement from Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative:
If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.
Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1994) 38.
The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage":
1. Children hunger for their biological parents.
Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.
Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce . Forthcoming.
2. Children need fathers.
If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development , 74:801-821.
* David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).
3. Children need mothers.
Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes . See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously .
Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).
Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).
4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.
A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:
Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.
This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.
Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).
5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.
Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.
She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship ." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.
Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.
6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.
One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal , homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.
One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.
Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.
David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.
7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.
Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.
Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.
This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.
For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html
For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see: http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf
8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.
The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.
It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father.
This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.
James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem . (Perennial, 2003) 175-177.
George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.
9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.
But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.
E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse . (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.
10. Women and marriage domesticate men .
Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.
If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.
Steve Nock, Marriage in Men's Lives (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Hardwired to Connect: The New Scientific Case for Authoritative Communities (Institute for American Values, 2003) 17.
This paper is reprinted with permission of the Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, New Jersey, on whose website a version of it first appeared at www.winst.org/index2.html .
- Civil Society
- Life and Human Dignity
- Marriage, Family and Sexuality
- Religious Liberty and Conscience
©2023 Family Research Council
800-225-4008
801 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001
Privacy Policy
Grab a random treat from the archive. Play Dice
31 arguments against gay marriage (and why they’re all wrong)
In rallying in opposition to marriage reform, religious campaigners claim that their arguments are grounded in reason and common sense. But take a closer look and you'll spot the homophobia, says Jason Wakefield
– By Jason Wakefield – Friday , 16th November 2012
I am a gay man who, when arguing for gay marriage, has been called “lesser”, “unnatural”, “deviant” and “sinful”. In these arguments the love I have for my fiancé has been belittled as just “sex” or only “friendship”. I have been told my natural urges are a choice. I have been told I do not deserve equal rights. I have even been told I am going to hell. Furthermore, I have been told it is offensive to brand such remarks “bigoted”, and that I am the bully.
I do not believe all opponents of gay marriage are hateful. Some have just not been exposed to the right arguments, and so I will demonstrate here that each anti-gay marriage argument ultimately serves to oppress or imply the lesser status of the minority of which I am a part. In rallying against the introduction of equal marriage, religious campaigners have frequently stressed that their objections are not driven by homophobia, and have deployed numerous arguments to demonstrate this. To the untrained ear these arguments sound like they may have grounding in reason, but on closer inspection reveal themselves as homophobic.
What follows is a handy guide to spotting, and refuting, these arguments
Type A: The Insidiously Homophobic Arguments
1. “We need to protect marriage.”
The word “protect” implies that gay people are a threat to the institution of marriage. To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. However, it doesn’t exist.
2. “We must preserve traditional marriage.”
Given that marriage has always changed to suit the culture of the time and place, I would refrain from ever calling it “traditional”. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.
3. “Marriage is a sacred institution.”
The word “sacred” suggests marriage is a solely religious institution. The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010. Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say.
4. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.”
This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa. It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised. It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false.
5. “Gay marriage will confuse gender roles.”
This hinges on the idea that gender roles are or should be fixed, as dictated by scripture, most often cited for the sake of healthy child development. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality. I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity.
6. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.”
Another form of the previous argument. It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … married men will refer to themselves … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … as “wives”. Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. Not so confusing really.
7. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.”
The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the Guardian when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.
May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children? If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry?
8. “But studies have shown heterosexual parents are better for children.”
No, they have not. Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.
The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws – for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual. Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work.
Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings.
9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”
Tell that to Henry VIII. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.
10. “The minority should not have the right to dictate to the majority.”
Asking to be included within marriage laws is certainly not equivalent to imposing gay marriage on the majority. No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.
Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?” By this logic, what reason is there to provide any minority equal civil rights?
11. “Public opinion polls show most people are against gay marriage.”
A petition by the Coalition for Marriage claimed to have 600,000 signatures in opposition to gay marriage in the UK. It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified). Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.
The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. These include a 2004 Gallup poll , a 2008 ICM Research poll , a 2009 Populus poll , a 2010 Angus Reid poll , a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey , a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey , and a 2012 YouGov survey .
Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.
12. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?”
For the same reason it is important to straight people. Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.
13. “Why do gay people have to get society’s approval?”
To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality.
14. “There are two sides to the argument. Why can’t we compromise?”
Should women have compromised their right to vote? One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights.
15. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.”
Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.
Type B: The Arguments That Don’t Even Bother to Hide Their Homophobia
While we must look closely to spot the homophobia inherent in some arguments against gay marriage, with others the prejudice is barely disguised at all.
16. “I am concerned about the impact gay marriage will have on society/schools.”
There is no concern here, only prejudice. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet? Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people.
17. “Gay marriage is immoral.”
If there is something immoral about legally acknowledging the love between two consenting adults, it would help the argument to state precisely what that is. “God says so” is not an argument. And this article , Cardinal Keith O’Brien, is the real “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.
18. “Gay people should not be allowed to marry because they are more likely to be promiscuous.”
This claim is based on the degrading preconception that gay people do not feel true love and just have sex with as many people as possible. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?
19. “I love my best friend, my brother and my dog. That does not mean we should have the right to marry.”
Thank you for reducing the love I have for my long-term partner to friendship, incest or bestiality. May also take the form: “The state should not be blessing every sexual union.”Thank you, again, for reducing my long-term, loving relationship to just sex.
Type C: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments
20. “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
Clearly not a Biology graduate.
21. “If everybody was gay, mankind would cease to exist.”
Ignoring the fact not everyone is gay, and also ignoring the fact gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates, I actually quite enjoyed the apocalyptic images this argument conjured.
22. “Gay rights are fashionable right now.”
The Suffragettes famously marched together because they needed an excuse to compare clothing. Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them. Nooses around gay Iranian necks are totally “in” right now. We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga.
People actually use this argument.
23. “The only people who want gay marriage are the liberal elites.”
If this was really true, how come hundreds of everyday gay people protest outside anti-gay marriage rallies? How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.
24. “Gay people do not even want marriage.”
Yes, Ann Widdecombe , we do. We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry.
25. “Gay people can already get married – to people of the opposite gender.”
This is Michele Bachmann’s demented logic . Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love. This is not just bigotry, it’s also stupidity.
26. “There will be drastic consequences for society if we accept gay marriage.”
Person A: “Have you been to Canada lately? They have free health care, they play hockey, and they’re very peaceful and polite.”
Person B: “That sounds nice.”
Person A: “They have gay marriage too.”
Person B: “Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah.”
27. “Gay marriage will cause the disestablishment of the church.”
Or to put it another way: “If you don’t stop all this silly talk, we will be forced to go away and leave you in peace.” Scary!
28. “Gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/paedophilia/etc.”
The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage. Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy.
29. “Gay marriage caused the end of the Roman Empire/September 11th/etc.”
The Roman Empire disintegrated as barbarians from the north overwhelmed them, forcing the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus, to abdicate to the Germanic warlord Odoacer. This had nothing to do with homosexuality.
The attacks on the World Trade Center were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, an extremist Muslim group that detests America. The gay mafia was not involved.
30. “You are too emotionally involved to make a rational argument.”
Of course I’m angry. Wouldn’t you be if you had to listen to arguments like these? I’m passionate about achieving equality and combating prejudice. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.
31. “We are in an economic crisis, so we should not be wasting time on gay marriage.”
Is it too much to wish for politicians who can multi-task? And for leaders who don’t consider equality a luxury add on?
In an attempt to portray his campaign to “preserve traditional marriage” as reasoned and unprejudiced, the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has argued that supporters of gay marriage shouldn’t resort to name-calling and accusations of bigotry. But then he is a homophobe and a bigot. There is not a single one of his arguments that does not imply the lesser state of homosexuals, or serve to justify the discrimination.
In fact the recent government proposals are only for the legalisation of civil same-sex marriage, and do not allow for ceremonies to be conducted on religious sites. It is an entirely secular proposal, yet Carey and various churches and church-goers are keen to make the civil rights of homosexuals their business. Given centuries of religious persecution of gay people it is entirely justified to call Lord Carey, the Coalition for Marriage, Christian Concern, and all other proactive opponents of gay marriage “bigots” and their arguments homophobic.
You might also like:
Our fear-ridden culture
Free speech, libel, self-censorship, religious sensitivities – it’s a minefield. Sikh journalist Hardeep Singh, who’s been on both sides of the divide, tries to find a path through
Lessons unlearnt
With its cast of blood-thirsty mullahs, equivocating politicians, apologetic liberals and artists requiring police protection, Salman Rushdie’s memoir of the fatwa years couldn’t be more timely, says Kenan Malik
Sign up to our newsletter
Your email address is for our use only. We will never sell your details to anyone else.
Join: Albert Einstein & you
The Rationalist Association is independent, irreverent & non-profit. We are supported by our members.
We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.
- Essay Database >
- Essay Examples >
- Essays Topics >
- Essay on Social Issues
Gay Marriage Argumentative Essays Example
Type of paper: Argumentative Essay
Topic: Liberty
Words: 1000
Published: 02/28/2020
ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS
There are several arguments support promote and oppose the legalization of same sex marriage. The first argument which opposes same-sex marriage is that marriage has traditionally been instituted between one man and one woman. The tradition of one man and one woman marriage is the only correct legal relationship in human culture (Newton 49). This can be traced from the old English law where under God’s law where all marriages that are contracted by lawful persons in the face of the church, can consummate with bodily knowledge and fruit of children (Newton 49). However, the advocates of gay marriage argue that same-sex couples have the ability to maintain long and loving intimate relationships just like traditional couples and be allowed to get married. In fact, gay marriages do not pose any threat or harm to the community. Proponents of same sex marriage believe that every person, regardless of sex, race, gender or sexual orientation must be given the same freedom to marry. Same-sex marriages promote equality among same-sex couples. Hence, to disallow gay marriages constitutes a violation of the equal protection and due process clause of the Constitution. To restrict the benefits, protection and obligation of civil marriage to ordinary couples of one man and one woman violates the personal liberty and equality under the law. To allow the civil marriage to same sex couples will strengthen the importance of marriage to individuals and communities (Cahill 4). The present marriage laws which permitted the approval of same-sex marriages shows that Congress has taken a neutral stand on the sexual orientation of every individual. By allowing same sex couples to get married promotes equality of persons by treating everyone in a similar manner. The second argument is that opposes same sex marriages is that same-sex couples do not have the capacity to reproduce or bear children. It bears to stress that there are a number of infertile couples who are permitted by the law to marry despite their medical condition. Thus, the requirement to bear children must not be taken against same-sex couples for the reason that infertile couples are allowed by law to enter a valid marriage. The opposite-sex couples are not even compelled to go through fertility tests before they get married since it violates the right to privacy. Marriage must not be focused solely on the concept of procreation since not all traditional couples produce children. In fact, there are some infertile couples who get married and maintain loving relationship and live together perpetually. Same sex couples are capable to carry-on lasting relationships like ordinary couples. In fact, some of the infertile couples are allowed to adopt if they cannot bear children of their own. Hence, same-sex couples have the capacity to raise children in the event that they decide to adopt. Gay couples have the ability to provide the love, care and attention to adopted children the same way given by traditional couples. There is no fundamental difference between lesbians and gay men in comparison to people with other sexual orientations (Newton 52). The third argument is that the right to marry and to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness (Goetting 138). Allowing civil marriages to same sex couples shall strengthen the importance of marriage to the entire community. The freedom of choice and the right to privacy among individuals must be upheld and respected when it comes to personal decisions. In fact, marriage is considered as a civil right and civil unions that should be given to all members of society regardless of sex, age, gender and sexual preference. The fourth argument by the advocates of same-sex marriage is that to deny the gay couples to marry should result to the treatment of the gay couples as second class citizens. In the case of Goodridge v. Department of Health, it was well-settled by the court that the right to marry is a personal choice. Same-sex marriages must be recognized since prohibiting gay couples to marry will cause discriminatory treatment towards this particular class of people (Goetting 142). To disallow gay marriages will constitute to a discriminatory law that does not have a legitimate purpose should be considered merely as a bare desire to cause material and objective harm (Wolfe 95). The fifth argument is that advocates of same-sex marriage argue that marriage is an exclusive commitment of two people who vow to nurture, love and render mutual support to each other by bringing stability to society (Halkitis 1628). The given definition is also applicable to same-sex couples who have chosen to build a family of their own, adopt children, and by providing the same unconditional love, attention and affection that traditional couples can give to their children. The duty to raise and nurture children can be fulfilled by gay couples who can provide love and guidance to their adopted children in the best way they can. Finally, the support given by President Barrack Obama on gay marriages not only helps in advancing the civil rights of gay men. In fact, it will improve the health of the population. All gay men who choose to marry or not will reinforce the movement towards marriage equality. The enactment of this right will support the civil liberty and strengthen the social capital (Halkitis 1628).
Works Cited:
Cahill, Sean Robert.Same Sex Marriage in The United States: Focus On The Facts.Maryland: Lexington Books, 2004. Print. Goetting, Nathan. “Gay Marriage Is A Fundamental Right.” National Lawyers Guild Review 70.3 (2013): 137-144. Goodridge v. Department of Health 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003) Halkitis, Perry N. “Obama, Marriage Equality, and the Health of Gay Men.” American Journal of Public Health 102.9 (2012): 1628-1629. Newton, David E. (2010). Same-Sex Marriage: A Reference Handbook. California: ABC-CLIO. Wolfe, Zachary. “Gay Marriage: Accommodationist Demands Expand the Conception Of Human Dignity.” National Lawyers Guild Review 70.2 (2013): 88-99.
Cite this page
Share with friends using:
Removal Request
Finished papers: 609
This paper is created by writer with
ID 280438010
If you want your paper to be:
Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate
Original, fresh, based on current data
Eloquently written and immaculately formatted
275 words = 1 page double-spaced
Can't find a free sample that matches your requirements?
Subscribe to WowEssays Premium and get access to over 1 MILLION high-quality downloadable samples
GET ACCESS NOW
Related Essays
Gender socialization essay example, free reflections on past predictions, chapter response book review example, free qsen competencies essay sample, free rebuilding carnival plcs confidence using brand loyalty and market share research paper sample, free realism essay sample, free regards, essay sample, free recommendation essay sample, free recognizing marketing opportunity essay example, free reasrech essay example, free qualities of the hero essay example, free quantitative research critique research paper example, free reducing childhood obesity capstone project sample, free recruitment of “tax accountant” essay example, free reality and imagination in the adventures of baron munchausen and big fish essay sample, free purchasing options and consumer satisfaction essay example, free rationalism vs empiricism essay example, free rationale/ research strategy research paper sample, free relationship between interior and exterior world in siddhartha literature review example, free racism and soccer in france essay sample, free reaction book review example, free q3 answer essay example, free reading review critical thinking sample, related topics, genesis essay, genetic engineering essay, generosity essay, genetic code essay, generic drug essay, genetic screening essay, generation gap essay, genitor essay, genetic marker essay, genetic fingerprinting essay, genesys essay, genetic information essay, genetic and environmental essay, generation z essay, genesis flood narrative essay, genetic drift essay, generation of young essay, genetic susceptibility essay, generational differences essay, genetic variability essay, genghis essay, generis essay, gennaro essay, genevra essay.
- Drugs Reports
- Drunk Driving Reports
- Drug Abuse Reports
- Drivers Reports
- Earth Reports
- E-mail Reports
- Dressing Reports
- Ear Reports
- Dragon Reports
- Drinking Water Reports
- Discharge Theses
- Doubling Reports
- Eclipse Reports
- Earth's Crust Reports
- Downtime Reports
- Eastern Reports
- Economic And Social Reports
- Economic Recovery Reports
- Early Stage Reports
- Doubts Reports
- Dummies Reports
- Downloading Reports
- Duff Reports
- Drury Reports
- Economic Downturn Reports
Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]
Use your new password to log in
You are not register!
Short on a deadline?
Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED
No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline
The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett Essay
Introduction.
We will write a custom Essay on The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett specifically for you for only $11.00 $9.35/page
807 certified writers online
The article ‘Against gay marriage’ was written by William J. Bennett. He has served in various leadership positions including a position as chairperson of the National Endowment for the humanities. He has produced various write-ups concerning cultural issues in America. These include books and articles. His thesis is that gay marriage should not be legalized. The legalization of gay marriage in any society leads to social damage and the destruction of the normal structure of the family.
Bennett has (for a long time) been involved in the forefront in the fighting of same-sex marriages in the United States. He argues that it is a social issue that may be detrimental to the values held in the society. He was disturbed because the Hawaii Supreme Court was considering legalizing same-sex marriage. He argued that if Hawaii were to make gay marriages legal, many nations would embrace it too. Bennett terms the arguments made in favor of gay marriages as shrewd arguments (Bennett, 2005, p.409). These arguments try to suggest that legalization may prove helpful to many in the society. Bennett shows his concern about the value of marriage, given that gay marriages are legalized. He goes ahead to warn the audience not to take the step. He argues that the marriage institution is fragile already and legalizing same-sex marriage would only make things worse. He continues to mention that all religions only support marriage between a man and a woman and he believes that this is not mere coincidence. Bennett criticizes the work by Sullivan saying that his argument is baseless as he describes marriage (same-sex marriage) as an open contract where the single, moralistic model is not honored. Bennett believes that the essence of marriage is faithfulness and some things such as adultery are not encouraged. This is unlike in gay marriages where they are encouraged to explore (Bennett, 2005, p. 410). The author is against gay marriage due to the implications it may have on the younger generation (Bennett, 2005, p. 410). He argues that those born in such a society would be confused due to the existence of both homosexuality and heterosexuality. To make things worse some believe that it is a cool thing to be gay and Bennett refers this as ‘sexual identity crisis’. Bennett argues that if gay marriage were to be legalized, several changes would occur including in the education system. Students will need to be taught about gay marriage and made to understand that one could have two mothers or fathers. In conclusion, Bennett argues that the marriage institution has suffered enough due to several issues and there is no need for making things worse by introducing same-sex marriage (Bennett, 2005, p. 411).
The information provided by Bennett accurate and logical. He argues that Sullivan supports gay marriage and yet the practices in such marriages do not follow the principles in marriage (faithfulness and fidelity). He also argues that if all religions believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, then his argument is true. He provides arguments in a clear and logical manner in such a way as to convince the reader of the ills associated with same-sex marriage. I agree with Bennett that gay marriages are unhealthy to the society.
Same-sex marriage is becoming a trend in the developed world and it is corrupting the norms and values in the society (Laycock, Picarello, & Wilson, 2008). On the other hand, Sullivan argues that same-sex marriage is good for Americans (Sullivan, 2011). Bennett argues against gay marriages and advices the readers not to consider legalizing homosexuality. He believes that it would lead to social damage and further demean the marriage institution.
Bennett, W. (2005). Marriage and Family in Americ a : Against gay marriage . New York: Sage. Laycock, D., Picarello, A., & Wilson, R. (2008). Same-sex marriage and religious liberty: Emerging conflicts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Sullivan, A. (2011, June 18). Why gay marriage is good for straight America. Newsweek Magazine, p. 3.
Need a custom Essay sample written from scratch by professional specifically for you?
- Chicago (N-B)
- Chicago (A-D)
IvyPanda. (2019, December 8). The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-8/
IvyPanda. (2019, December 8). The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-8/
"The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett." IvyPanda , 8 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-8/.
1. IvyPanda . "The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett." December 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-8/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett." December 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-8/.
IvyPanda . 2019. "The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett." December 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-8/.
IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Article “Against Gay Marriage” by William J. Bennett'. 8 December.
- Bennett Group's Fraud Detection and Prevention
- Bennett News Model, Its Limitations and Challenges
- Gay Marriage's Social and Religious Debates
- Bob Bennett and His Career Motivation
- Senator Bob Bennett, His Life and Ideas
- Education in "The History Boys" by Alan Bennett
- Benjamin’s Concept of Democracy Against Bennett’s Propositions on News and Democracy
- Business Plan of “L.k Bennett”
- Literature Studies: "Alas, Poor Ghost" by G. Bennett
- Postcolonialism in the Works of Basquiat and Gordon Bennett
- Relation of Gay Marriage to the Definition of Marriage
- Gay Couples' Right to Marriage
- Defending Gay Marriage
- Critical Theories of Bodies, Genders, Sexualities and Identities
- Divorce and its Impacts on Family Members
Select Quality Service to Meet Your Deadline!
We'll save your time and efforts for much more important points in your to-do list
Same-Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay
Without any exaggeration, it is a highly-discussed topic today. People were divided into groups of supporters and opponents of such practice. Both have strong and persuasive arguments. If same-sex marriage is legalized, the world will be changed entirely; it can’t be argued. Here are several points for and against that legalizing.
Support Human’s Freedoms
All people should have a right to marry someone who he or she likes in spite of sexual identity. However, when one speaks about such kind of freedom, one rarely thinks about homosexuals. Why? As they are citizens of a certain country, they have own duties and surely they should have a right to choose whom to marry. So, it is fair to make gay marriages legal.
Respect Minority
To provide peace between different social groups in the country, minorities’ rights have to be respected. It doesn’t mean that they will dictate rules for the major community, but that way all citizens will be able to leave in equality and placidity. Moreover, lives of ordinary people will not be affected by legalizing of homosexual marriage in point of fact.
Family Structure
If parents are homosexual, it doesn’t mean that family is unnatural or defective. Spousal duties can be divided as well. What’s more, such couples can adopt kids and save them from the unpleasant orphanhood, giving them love and care as traditional families usually do. The research has proved that a gay pair can raise and educate the child to be humane, tolerant and respectful to others. The point that their parents are homosexuals doesn’t make kids maladaptive or unequal.
No Prejudgments
Since gay marriages are validated, there will be less stereotyping and prejudgments. The society will see and understand that such couples can be successful parents and happy with their family life. As a result, less homosexual people will suffer from somebody’s sayings or evil jokes, and community will become stronger and healthier.
However, there are several arguments that show legalizing in bad light.
Changing Roles
There is an opinion that gay marriage is harmful for society as it reverses roles in family life. Men start to act like women and vice versa. That will make the community weak and vulnerable. Of course, it may sound unfair, but there are certain masculine and feminine professions. For example, man will be better in welder’s or plumber’s profession anyway. Moreover, kids can get wrong education, and it will badly affect their future. Boys should be definitely taught that girls are weaker and it is inexcusably to hurt them.
Demographic Crisis
As gay couples are not physically able to give a birth to children, increasing of such marriages can lead to the demographic crisis. Furthermore, for homosexuals it can be more complicated to adopt a child than for a traditional pair.
For many people, same-sex marriages are immoral; they say it destructs the conception of marriage at all and leads to depravation of nation. Homosexuality is often compared to various sexual deviations as well. Moreover, for most religions, it is inacceptable and may cause conflicts in society.
Summing up, there are lots of arguments for and against; however, some of them are myths or inaccuracies. The point is that rights of all people should be respected and nobody can be singled out for their statements or sexual orientation.
But What If My Attitude Is Neutral
Let us assume that you may neither support nor oppose the idea of gay marriage. How should you develop the topic in this case? We are going to consider a few handy suggestions and facts which can help you to state your neutral point of view and, at the same time, to provide quite a fulfilling review of such controversial issue.
Suggestion #1: Just Write It Frankly
There is no doubt that the marriage between two people of the same sex is a risky question to answer it very definitely. Besides, you may be not very aware of the issue or even not interested in it. Surely, you should not include statements like these in your essay. However, you can stay frank and just write that you personally are neither for nor against legalization and the very phenomenon of the gay marriage.
In order to sound less careless of the subject you should muse over and yet more informed on it generally, you should take into account all the ideas that are put forward by those who do and do not support same-sex marriages. So, you can search for several different opinions, describe and analyze them, and then explain why none of them is powerful enough to make you take one particular side.
You should remember that there is actually nothing bad about you if you have not come up with your own clear and definite view on this matter. It just means that you can be ranked among those who “don’t know/are neutral/have no answer/other” (underline what applicable). No joking! You can look through the Wikipedia article dedicated to this topic and see the real statistics.
Suggestion #2: Base on the Similar Opinion Expressed by a Respected Person
Definitely, you are not the only one who has such neutral attitude to the issue discussed. However, even if your nearest and dearest, your friends and favorite teachers also stick to neutrality, you still should not refer to them. Instead, you can take the trouble to search for the opinions of respected scientists in the Net and use them as quite a solid base for yours.
Also, you can base on reliable and widely known online media sources, as they usually present either the statistical data, the results of real surveys or just quote the words of sociologists, psychologists, doctors and other specialists. Still, you should forget about the two opposite sides of the argument, so even though you are neutral, you cannot but consider how these two sides protect their positions.
Suggestion #3: Try to Explain What You Base Your Opinion On
Despite the fact that you do not consider yourself either an adherer or an opponent of the idea that two guys or two girls can live a happy family life and raise adopted children, still there should be some reasons for your neutrality. It is really worth expressing them in your essay, as they can provide really valid explanation of why your own position. However, you should not forget about the main tendencies concerning the issue. Let us set a few examples:
- you may take the gay marriage just as a fact without assessing it and evaluating its influence on the society;
- you may also consider that today we need to study the original reasons of such life choice more in order to come up with reasonable arguments and evidence regarding the dilemma of whether it is moral or immoral, good or bad;
- speaking more pathetically, you may set the range of examples of much more immoral deeds the mankind can be accused of, and consider the modern issue of gay marriages in contrast with them.
A Few Final General Recommendations
Whichever side you take, you should try to stick to the following:
- stay humane and polite: your opinion cannot offense any other side of this argument;
- provide as much reliable evidence as possible: on the Internet you will discover that the links to articles for gay marriages and against them just take turns;
- regardless of the opinion you personally support, consider that of your opponents: firstly, you will demonstrate your awareness of another point of view; secondly, you can use it as a basis for building your own ideas.
Leave a comment
Your email address will not be published.
Calculate price for your order
- Double spaced (single spaced order is available)
- 275 words per page!
- Only original work!
- All papers are completed from scratch!
- High quality only!
- Years of experience!
- 100% moneyback!
- Professional support!
- Satisfaction guarantee!
- Plagiarism free!
- 96.7% customers satisfied!
- 9.4 out of 10 quality score!
- 136766 pages written!
- 21443 writers in database!
- 7 new writers today!
Get Your A+ Paper Tailored Now!
It's swift and simple! Just select the option you need and tell us what you want us to do for you.
What's Hot
Twitter Hilariously Defends Dan Levy After He Got Dragged Into The Weeknd's Drama
Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Says He Has Terminal Cancer
Chaka Khan Disses Adele And Mariah Carey In Fiery Chat About A 'Greatest Singers' List
Wife Of Missing Radio Host Jeffrey Vandergrift Shares Painful Update
Sen. Dianne Feinstein Hospitalized With Shingles
Seth Meyers Runs Through Kellyanne Conway's Greatest Hits Of 'Alternative Facts'
‘Daily Show’ Guest Host Hasan Minhaj Shows How To Spot A 'Dips**t' Trying To Scam You
Lily-Rose Depp, The Weeknd Fire Back At Exposé On ‘Disturbing’ New HBO Show
Jimmy Fallon Spots Trump’s Enormous CPAC Self-Own
Gunmen Threaten Messi, Shoot Up Family-Owned Supermarket
Chuck Schumer Says Fox News Spread Worst Lie In 'History Of Our Democracy’
What We Can Learn From Brian Austin Green And Vanessa Marcil's Co-Parenting Drama
The top 10 arguments against gay marriage: all receive failing grades.
Social Justice Activist
1. Nature: "It's Not Natural" (FAIL)
The most basic argument presented by gay marriage opponents purports that marriage between two people of the same sex is "not natural" and is in violation of the "natural order." At this level of the debate there is very little exploration of the inherent validity (or otherwise) of same-sex marriage but rather a fixation on the notion that homosexuality is unnatural: "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," the opponents quip. In reality, marriage is a societal institution. The natural world didn't create marriage, humans did. Nature-themed arguments against gay marriage say little about the societal institution of marriage but reveal a lot about the homophobia and heterosexism of those who present such arguments. In this regard, the disapproval isn't about gay marriage per se -- it's more about discomfort with homosexuality, period.
2. Procreation: "Marriage is for Procreation" (FAIL)
With the procreation argument, opponents of equality argue that the institution of marriage is essentially in place to assist with procreation and the raising of children. They reason that because two people of the same sex cannot procreate that they should not be allowed to marry. While the production of children may indeed be a feature of many heterosexual marriages the capacity to procreate does not determine the legal validity of such marriages. There are many married straight couples who cannot biologically have children or who choose not to. The procreation argument ignores the fact that people marry for a wide range of reasons unrelated to procreation including love, friendship and companionship.
3. Religion: "It's Against My Religion" (FAIL) Christianity-based arguments lead the way in efforts to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in America. References to the Bible, the "sinful" nature of homosexuality, and "religious beliefs" are regularly made by those who seek to rationalize their support of discrimination via religion. Marriage is a religious institution, they argue, and not one for society to tamper with. Given that the U.S.A. is a secular nation, religion should play no role in any discussion about civil and societal laws. In order to legally marry there is absolutely no requirement for a religious ceremony to be held. In this sense, marriage is not a religious institution but a socio-legal one governed by the state. Religious beliefs about marriage should never be enshrined in laws in ways that restrict the freedom of others who do not share those beliefs.
4. Redefinition: "You're Trying to Redefine the Institution" (FAIL)
Opponents argue that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and that it should stay that way. They say that efforts to legalize same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter the institution for the worse. History reveals, however, that marriage laws in the U.S.A. and in countries across the globe have been modified repeatedly in response to evolving cultural norms. There was a time when women were the legal property of their husbands. There was a time when a man and a woman of different races couldn't marry each other. There was even a time when not one country in the world had legalized same-sex marriage! Removing discrimination from the institution of marriage does not redefine "marriage" -- it simply makes the institution more accessible and reflects the evolution of society.
5. Sanctity: "It's a Threat to the Sanctity of (Opposite-Sex) Marriage" (FAIL)
With roots in religion, the sanctity argument posits that marriage is a "sacred" institution that only heterosexual couples should have access to. Allowing same-sex couples to marry apparently poses a "threat" to "traditional marriage" as though somehow heterosexual married couples will all be at risk of divorcing when two people of the same sex marry each other. If those who use the "sanctity" argument were genuinely concerned about the institution of marriage they'd focus their efforts on helping those straight married couples who are at risk of divorcing. If marriage was so "sacred" they'd also be pursuing the outlawing of heterosexual divorce. They do neither of these things. The only married straight couples impacted by the legalization of gay marriage are those in which one of the parties is a closet-case gay person who dreams of coming out and marrying someone of the same sex!
6. Children: "It Will Harm the Children" (FAIL)
Opponents of equality frequently make use of flawed research studies to insinuate that allowing same-sex couples to marry will somehow harm children. They argue that children need a "mom and a dad" in order to flourish in life and that legalizing same-sex marriage denies children this opportunity of "normalcy." Multiple studies across the social sciences have repeatedly demonstrated that there is no difference in psychosocial outcomes between children raised by opposite-sex couples and those raised by same-sex couples. There is no evidence that children are psychologically harmed by having two dads or two moms. The American Psychological Association ( APA ), the American Sociological Association ( ASA ), and the American Academy of Pediatrics ( AAP ) has each endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage and its capacity to provide a stable familial framework for children.
7. Reverse Discrimination: "Religious People Will Be Discriminated Against" (FAIL)
Some opponents of marriage equality describe a future in which religious people become the new "victims" of oppression. They talk of charity-based religious organizations being "forced out of business" for "sticking to their beliefs" about marriage. In this reverse scenario, gay people are apparently "hateful" for wanting to be treated equally in society. How dare we demand equal rights and criticize those who discriminate against us! In no state of the U.S.A. in which gay marriage is legal is a church legally required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Religious groups and churches are still free to pick and choose who they will and won't marry. Organizations that receive public money, however, and which must adhere to anti-discrimination laws, should rightly be challenged if they engage in discrimination against a protected class of people.
8. Slippery Slope: "It Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, Children, or Groups of People!" (FAIL)
Slippery slopes arguments suggest that legalizing gay marriage will serve as a "gateway" for the legalization of marriage involving animals, siblings, children, or groups of people. People who present these scenarios portray a catastrophic future with society crumbling under the weight of rampant immorality and social discord. Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, however, simply aim to provide same-sex couples with equal access to marriage laws -- there is no intention to change the fundamental definition of marriage as the legal union between two adult human beings who have no direct biological connection with each other. Facts are useful in this regard: of the fifteen countries and 12 U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage, none of them has subsequently legalized marriage involving animals, children, siblings, or groups of people.
9. Civil Unions: "Civil Unions Are Good Enough" (FAIL)
Some opponents of same-sex marriage support the creation of a "separate but equal" platform in which straight couples and gay couples receive the same relationship rights and benefits, but from within different institutional frameworks. They argue that "marriage" should be left exclusively for opposite-sex couples and that same-sex couples should be granted "civil unions." History has demonstrated that this "separate but equal" approach doesn't work. Various countries and American states which initially permitted "civil unions" for same-sex couples have subsequently enacted marriage equality legislation. These jurisdictions have pursued such changes because civil union legislation, no matter how valiant the effort, is not able to provide the same rights and benefits as legal marriage. In essence, having a two-class system continues to maintain the erroneous notion that one group (straight people) is more superior to another group (LGBT people).
10. States' Rights: "States Have the Right to Oppose It" (FAIL)
This position stresses that states have a constitutional right to make their own decisions about the legalization of same-sex marriage which may include banning it. Ironically, most advocates of this argument also support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) , a law which allows the federal government to deny more than one thousand federal rights and benefits to same-sex couples legally married at the state level. The maintenance of a system which allows some states to recognize same-sex marriage and others not to, and which allows the federal government to ignore legal same-sex marriages performed at the state level, sets up a cumbersome and extremely complicated national map of unequal rights and legal nightmares. Those who support a "states' rights" approach to same-sex marriage should at least be consistent and drop their support of a federal government act (DOMA) which essentially tramples states' rights.
Conclusion: Marriage Equality is the Future -- Embrace it!
(A longer version of the above article is available at the GMUSA blog . Thank you to those at the GMUSA facebook page who have regularly shared their views on this topic and who have, in that regard, helped contribute to the ideas and arguments expressed in this article. Photos by Murray Lipp.)
Before You Go
Murray lipp, contributor, popular in the community, you may like.
Jimmy Kimmel Tells Trump What'll Happen When He Finally Gets Arrested
Trump's Weird J6 'Song' With Capitol Rioters Strikes A Sour Note
Stephen Colbert Spots Uncomfortably Awkward Fox News Moment For Ron DeSantis
Tennessee Becomes Latest GOP-Led State To Ban Gender-Affirming Care
More in queer voices.
The Sacramento Dildo Saleswoman Behind A Neo-Nazi Network Advocating For Mass Shootings
Another Republican Lawmaker Trying To Ban Drag Shows Apparently Once Dressed In Drag
Why Zaya Wade’s Legal Name Change Means So Much To Us
Opinion: Ron DeSantis Is On A Mission To Make Florida Dumb, And It's Spreading
Mississippi Bans Trans Youth From Seeking Gender-Affirming Care
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Falls Short In Bid For Second Term
From Outsider To Incumbent Under Siege: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s Rocky Road To Reelection
I Wrote About Not Shaving For A Month — And The Backlash Made One Thing Perfectly Clear
WATCH NOW: In Conversation With Author And Activist George M. Johnson
Australian Man Pleads Guilty To Manslaughter In Gay American's 1988 Death
Tom Daley To Receive Major PFLAG Honor For His LGBTQ Advocacy Work
Gavin Newsom Was Right 19 Years Ago — And Conservatives Just Keep Being Wrong
Marjorie Taylor Greene Shares Unhinged Details Of Her 'National Divorce' Idea
DeSantis About To Defuse $1.2 Billion Tax Bomb He Activated A Year Ago To Punish Disney
I Coined The Term 'Cisgender' 29 Years Ago. Here's What This Controversial Word Really Means.
This New Gay Romance Movie Is A Sexy, Messy Look At First Love
Here's Everything You've Ever Wanted To Know About Squirting
Club Q Plans To Reopen In The Fall With A Tribute To Victims
Czech Soccer Player Jakub Jankto Comes Out As Gay: 'I No Longer Want To Hide'
DC Comics Is Introducing A New Trans, Nonbinary Thirst Trap
Gus Kenworthy Says A Gay Kiss In '80 For Brady' Was Cut 'For Middle America'
New Film Explains 'How Not To Date While Trans' With Humor And Heart
Sam Morrison's 'Sugar Daddy' Is A Queer And Unconventional Valentine To A Lost Love
Sarah Michelle Gellar Recalls What You Didn't See During 'Cruel Intentions' Kiss
I Thought Uncovering My Father's Deepest Secrets Would Make Us Closer. I Was Wrong.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Roasted For 'Unholy' Gripe About Sam Smith And Kim Petras
Pope, Presbyterian, Anglican Leaders Slam Anti-Gay Laws In Plane News Conference
Sam Smith And Kim Petras Take Grammys To Hell With Fiery Performance Of 'Unholy'
Sam Smith And Kim Petras Make LGBTQ History With Major Grammy Win
Portia De Rossi Celebrated Turning 50 By Renewing Her Vows With Ellen DeGeneres
Texas Republicans See Attacking Trans Kids As Political Win
Will Beyoncé's 'Renaissance' Tour Be As Queer As Her Album?
'The Real Friends Of WeHo' Follows A Tired Formula
Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline
Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021
Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline
Introduction.
Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available
Are your assignments troubling you?
Get your troublesome papers finished by our competent writers now!
Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20
Paragraph 1:
Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.
- It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
- It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.
Paragraph 2:
Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.
- Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
- The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.
Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .
Paragraph 3:
Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.
- Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
- A family should ideally have parents and children.
- It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.
Paragraph 4:
Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.
- Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
- Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.
Paragraph 5:
Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.
- They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
- They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.
Paragraph 6:
Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.
- To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
- Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
- They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
- Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
- It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
- It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
- It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.
Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage
For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.
First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.
Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.
Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.
Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.
Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.
Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.
Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011). Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .
Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.
Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities. Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.
Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.
Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.
Same Sex Marriage Essay Example
The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.
Pros of Same Sex Marriage
It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal Pediatrics published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.
Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.
In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.
Cons of Same Sex Marriage
Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.
Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.
Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.
Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal
Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.
People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.
As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.
Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.
Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage. Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.
Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016). Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.
Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.
Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages
Thesis: Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.
Same sex couples are better at parenting.
- Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
- Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.
Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.
- The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
- Divorce is not good for family cohesion.
Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.
- Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
- After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.
Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.
- It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
- They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.
For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.
- Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
- A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.
Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.
- People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
- They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.
Paragraph 7:
Marriage is a fundamental human right.
- All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
- Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.
Paragraph 8:
Marriage is a concept based on love.
- It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
- Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.
Paragraph 9:
opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
- However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
- It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.
Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.
Sample Essay on Same Sex Marriage
Same sex marriage essay – Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.
Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage
In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.
According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.
The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.
Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.
The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.
Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.
The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.
Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.
Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.
Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”. CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html
Decoo, E. (2014). Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics. Gen , 10 , 1965-1980.
Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .
Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”. National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/
Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline
Introduction
Thesis: Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.
In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.
- They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
- Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.
Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.
- Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
- Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.
Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.
- Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
- The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.
The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.
- Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
- The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.
The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.
- In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
- There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.
The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.
- The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.
Paragraph 7:
Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.
- Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
- An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.
Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.
More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers
- American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
- Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
- Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
- Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
- Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
- Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay, With Outline
If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.
Related Posts
Free essays and research papers, synthesis essay example – with outline.
The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…
Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline
A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…
Ad Analysis Essay Example With Outline
An ad analysis essay is a type of academic essay whereby the writer is required to examine an advertisement. The aim of the essay is to find any hidden messages which may be deceptive or misleading Read more…
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The following are ten science-based arguments against same-sex "marriage": 1. Children hunger for their biological parents. Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father.
Arguments based on “traditional family” will always be insulting, not just to the healthy, well-adjusted children of gay couples, but to the children raised by single parents, step-parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, and siblings. 9. “No one has the right to redefine marriage.”. Tell that to Henry VIII.
In fact, gay marriages do not pose any threat or harm to the community. Proponents of same sex marriage believe that every person, regardless of sex, race, gender or sexual orientation must be given the same freedom to marry. Same-sex marriages promote equality among same-sex couples.
He argues that Sullivan supports gay marriage and yet the practices in such marriages do not follow the principles in marriage (faithfulness and fidelity). He also argues that if all religions believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, then his argument is true.
Same-Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay. 09 November 2016. by Writingpaper in Other. Without any exaggeration, it is a highly-discussed topic today. People were divided into groups of supporters and opponents of such practice. Both have strong and persuasive arguments. If same-sex marriage is legalized, the world will be changed entirely; it can ...
Nature-themed arguments against gay marriage say little about the societal institution of marriage but reveal a lot about the homophobia and heterosexism of those who present such arguments. In this regard, the disapproval isn't about gay marriage per se -- it's more about discomfort with homosexuality, period. 2.
It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.