Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Three other significant arguments are worth mentioning. First, that gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage in some way, and secondly that marriage is purely for the sake of procreation --which is impossible in a gay marriage, and that moreover children are likely to be disadvantaged by such unions. These last two arguments are rather contradictory, as the one argument generally suggests that gay marriages should not be allowed because they might result in children who had no opposite sex parents, and the other that gays cannot participate fully in marriage as it is a procreative union. Either gays will, or will not, have children! The truth is that: Children will be raised in these homes, so they will serve a procreative/nurturing role, and though one parent won't be biologically related, they will still be a parent. Marriage has never been defined purely by procreation because --with the exception of Nazi Germany-- infertile couples and those unlikely to have healthy offspring are allowed to wed, as out couples past the age of childbearing. When a ninety-year-old woman can marry a ninety-year-old man, when it is certain no children will result, how can it be less moral for two thirty-year-old women to marry when both might legitimately choose to be artificially inseminated? The answer then is generally that gay marriages are unhealthy for children. "Research [shows]... family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes... There is thus value... In promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents," (Gallaher) writes one intelligent social scientist. However, just as the fact that children with step-families, divorced families, and single families have higher risk childhood does not decrease the rights of heterosexuals to conceive outside of marriage, divorce, and remarry. One might as well deny the ability of heterosexuals to divorce and remarry as disallow gay marriages, for the latter is more destructive. Research has consistently shown that children in gay families do as well as children in other families with similar backgrounds (e.g. taking into account the presence of divorce, poverty, etc.). In fact, "Boys from lesbian homes show less aggression as well as slightly fewer sexual partners than those in heterosexual homes," (Stanton&Keeton, 4) which is precisely the opposite of trends in single-mother homes where boys are more likely to get involved in violence.
The last argument frequently fielded is one for the sanctity of marriage itself. Those who are most rabidly outspoken against gay marriage say such things as: "Marriage is a critical social institution.... Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage means monogamy. Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory..." (Kurtz, 2)
These individuals suggest that in places like the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legalized, straight marriages have deteriorated. Actually, this is false. "Divorce rates have not risen since the passage of partnership laws, and marriage rates have remained stable or actually increased... The average Scandinavian child spends... with both parents-more time than the average American child. Non-marital birth rates have not risen faster in Scandinavia or the Netherlands since the passage of partnership laws.... Cohabitation rates were higher in the partner recognition countries before the passage of same-sex partner laws." (Badgett)
There is no rational reason to suggest that gay marriage will harm straight marriages. One can hardly think that straight individuals will convert to homosexuality if it were only open to them. Nor are straight youth likely to see their gay contemporaries marrying and think to themselves that they would never want to do likewise. No straight woman will leave her husband merely because a gay couple moves in next door and has a wedding reception. Even were gay marriage laws to lead to the legalization of polygamy and polyamory, the majority of women and men would not want to choose such relationships, and the majority of those who would will already do so regardless of legalities (as shown in the remaining polygamist Mormon communities) and even persecution. Monogamy and marriage will, if anything, be strengthened by opening it to all who truly love each other.
Badgett, Lee. "Will Providing Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples Undermine Heterosexual Marriage? Evidence from Scandinavia and the Netherlands" a discussion paper presented to the Council on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, July 2004.
Bagemihl, Bruce. "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.
Gallagher, Maggie. "What Marriage is for." Children Need Mothers and Fathers. The Weekly Standard. Vol. 008, Issue 45. August, 2003.
Human Rights Campaign (HRC). "Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality." [pamphlet] Washington DC: HRC's Family Net Publications, 2004.
Kurtz, Stanley. "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia." Weekly Standard, Vol. 9, Issue 20. February 2004.
Stanton, Glenn and Keeton, Geremy. "Staying 'True to the Research.' On Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting." Social Research Analysis Pamphlet. Focus on the Family.…[continue]
"Gay Marriage Pro Gay Marriage" (2005, April 23) Retrieved November 28, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/gay-marriage-pro-66050
"Gay Marriage Pro Gay Marriage" 23 April 2005. Web.28 November. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/gay-marriage-pro-66050>
"Gay Marriage Pro Gay Marriage", 23 April 2005, Accessed.28 November. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/gay-marriage-pro-66050
There are many reasons for accepting the rights and legitimacy of gay couples to marry. The most important of these is the right to personal freedom. The misunderstanding that homosexual stereotypes project are an element that prevents the understanding of gay marriage. Appendix: Source: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39 Bibliography Bidstrup. K. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. 2004. Accessed February 9, 2005. http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm Card. O.S. Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization. Accessed February 12, 2005. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html DEBUNKING STEREOTYPES: ABOUT
pro-gay marriage. It establish a tone specific audience. It convey logos, pathos, ethos, depending audience. The thesis statement sentence paragraph. In favor of same-sex marriage Marriage is an institution that is supposed to foster social stability as well as honor the respect and love the partners feel for one another. Gay marriage is increasingly supported by a majority of the American public. "One major reason is that the wish and push
Gay Marriage Many same-sex couples want to be granted the right to legally marry. The reason is simple: They are in love with each other. They want to honor their relationship in the greatest way society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad life brings. While they receive some state-level protections, they do not receive most of the federal emotional and economic
Even a Democrat, President Clinton signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage to be a "legal union between one man and one woman." (Nwazota, 2003) Currently many conservative political leaders from the Republican Party have aligned themselves President Bush's position on a formal amendment defining marriage in solely heterosexual terms. Several religious institutions, most recently the Catholic Church, have formally renounced the idea of same-sex marriage, referring
George's argument preserves the fundamental truths that democracy in its most theocratic incarnation promotes, with regards to basing moral law on arbitrary grounds. My position is precisely the same as George's: that same sex marriage is wrong and immoral. Same sex marriage affirms the value of sex for pleasure only, and is therefore an affront to moral law. Moral law, moreover, proclaims marriage as a union between one man and
American marriage would reflect American principles of liberty and self-government. Unlike the hordes of serfs, servants, and subjects in other parts of the world, American citizens were going to shape their own lives and determine their country's destiny. Just as citizens would be self-governing in the political realm, they would also choose their spouses freely." (Hymowitz, 2004) Hymowitz shares the fact that the development of the idea of romantic love
Seo, who teaches at Yonsei University of Korea, created a homosexual student organization in 1995 called "Come Together." He states that "it would not be an overstatement to say that this was the first social movement through which homosesxuals could effect changes in their lives. The movement went beyond the ghettoized and marginalized locales, such as bars, theaters and saunas, where homosexual cultural and sexual activities were performed." After the