Pro-Gay Marriage. It Establish a Tone Specific

¶ … 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 to be married cast gay men and lesbians in the most benign, conservative light imaginable, not as enemies of tradition but as aspirants to it. In the quest for integration and validation, saying 'I do' to 'I do' is much more effective -- not to mention more reflective of the way most gay people live" (Bruni 2012). The arguments against homosexuality -- that it is perverse and dangerous to the family -- are undercut by the very real impulse for gay couples who honor and respect one another to wed.

The first argument in favor of same-sex marriage is articulated by New York City Mayor Bloomberg in very candid terms: "Government should not tell you what to do unless there's a compelling public purpose" (Bruni 2012). No compelling public purpose has been advanced as to why same-sex unions should not be permitted, except for those who invoke faith-based arguments. However, according to the First Amendment, religious laws should not dictate the policies of the public sphere. Allowing same-sex marriage would not compel churches that have moral objections to perform the ceremonies. Same-sex couples would be able to get married at institutions which do not believe homosexuality is sinful, or in civil ceremonies of marriage. After all, some religious sects object to the union of members of their faith with non-believers, but these unions are not prohibited under American law.

The idea that a same-sex union somehow invalidates the union of a heterosexual couple seems particularly absurd in light of much-publicized divorces of heterosexual celebrity couples after only a few weeks of marriage. Does the perfectly legal wedding of only a few days or weeks between a man and a woman that did not take marriage seriously invalidate the years-long commitment of a husband and wife, who honor the institution? Few would answer 'yes,' but ill-conceived heterosexual unions are allowed. In contrast, gay couples that have been married for decades in their minds, but not in the eyes of the law, struggle for recognition. Also, "in countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized -- Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain -- the rate of heterosexual marriage stability has either gone up, remained stable, or declined consistent with other countries in the region that do not recognize same-sex marriage" (Head 2006: 2).

Opponents of same-sex marriage also counter that because gay people cannot procreate, such a union is 'unnatural.' Once again, this is absurd when confronted with the inescapable truth that many heterosexual couples cannot have children. Also, "according to the 2000 Census, 96% of U.S. counties -- no matter how remote, no matter how conservative -- have at least one same-sex couple with a child" (Head 2006: 3). Some gay couples adopt children, while others have children from previous unions. Given this reality, allowing same-sex marriage would enable the parents of children to have greater clarity regarding the law, in terms of their relationship. Marriage confirms a both partner's visitation rights regarding the children or dispersal of property if they separate; inheritance law if one member of the couple dies before his or her partner; health insurance coverage; tax status, and other legal aspects of being united that heterosexual couples take for granted.