Same Sex Marriages Should Be Legally Sanctioned
Some of the most pervasive problems that exist within American society today are the problems of prejudice, stemming from fear of what is different and seems to be alien. Only by making what is alien seem to wear a more familiar, human face, can such deep-seated hatred be uprooted and destroyed. Prejudice, and the violence that is the result of such hatred, is particularly virulent against those individuals whom identify as homosexual, even if they wish to form stable and legitimate marital unions until death do them part. One of the reasons for this is because homosexuality is still seen as a vice, rather than as a legitimate bond between two loving people. The solution to this problem is to legally sanction same-sex marriages, giving same-sex unions equal legal and moral legitimacy as heterosexual unions.
Conservative opponents of same-sex marriages are quick to cry that such legal sanctions cheapen the institution of marriage. Marriage, conservatives are, have been traditionally formed between a male and a female partner. However, to argue that expanding the definition of marriage threatens existing unions is no more logically coherent than to argue that merely because an individual disapproves of a particular union between two opposite-gendered individuals...
Heterosexuals wed for what could be viewed even less legitimate reasons than homosexuals, at times -- because the heterosexual couple is emotionally incompatible, but sexually enamored of one other or a pre-existing arrangement between the two spouse's parents. A man and a woman can marry more for financial matters rather than for reasons of the heart. But none of these worst-case heterosexual examples means that, by extension, that other loving heterosexual unions between opposite-gendered spouses are cheapened. Marriage is not a cohesive institution, but a societal union that must be flexible with changing societal and personal needs. Also, imperfect unions will be formed because marriage is an emotional as well as a legal bond, but the mere existence of different reasons for entering into, staying in, or severing a marriage does not threaten this sublimely fluid yet strong institution.
Some have also argued that marriage is primarily for procreative purposes. But what of marriages between couples who are sterile, or who chose to adopt children, as many homosexual couples do? This argument seems particularly absurd, given that homosexual couples can have children from pre-existing heterosexual unions, while healthy heterosexual couples capable of having children may deign not to give birth. Robert P. George has criticized the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, because of its ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, legitimizing same-sex unions. George argued that the court has "radically redefined marriage to remove the requirement of sexual complementarities that…
771). His arguments center on the public responsibilities of marriage. He writes, "This is true because legal marriage is a public institution, created by law to promote public policy and to further social interests" (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). He goes on to state that traditional marriages foster "childrearing, economic stability, and channel sexual behavior" (Wardle, 2001, p. 771). Unfortunately, these arguments seem outmoded and irrational. If this is the
The wrong are dammed to hell and the argument shuts down. These clear lines in the sand ignore the nuanced nature of human sexuality and the freedom of choice given to all persons. Additionally, despite of the many attempts to cure persons of their homosexual orientation there has been little proven success. The question concerning sexual orientation is one that requires attention because it is the basis of many ill
Same-Sex Marriage Argument The Debate Same-sex or gay marriage is marriage between two men or two women (Editors 2014). It consists of exchanging rings during a civil ceremony. It has recently been regulated through law in certain jurisdictions. In others, sectors have adopted constitutional measures to bar it. Different groups, however, continue to evaluate its validity and importance (Editors). Unprecedented changes have occurred in legislatures and the electorate in the last two
" In other words, being gay was an "illness" but the gay person wasn't necessarily to be "blamed" because the origins of homosexuality were unknown at the time, Nugent continues. By claiming that gay people had illnesses, that gave some organized religions the opportunity to "…supply limited spiritual remedies" as a kind of "cure" for the condition (Nugent, 12). Whereas in much earlier days "ecclesiastical exorcisms" had been carried out to
But those sections can no longer be used, as they were by the California Supreme Court, to provide gay couples with the liberty and privacy rights of equal access to civil marriage," as the Court did previously (Feldblum 2009). Despite the presence of Bishop Robinson at the inaugural, President Obama himself has been admittedly less stalwart in his support of gay marriage: in response to a "1996 Outlines newspaper question
Some in the gay community itself offer arguments against same-sex marriage. Paula L. Ettelbrick offers a different view from within the gay community as she sees no reason for gays to pursue an institution that denies liberation rather than conferring it: Steeped in a patriarchal system that looks to ownership, property, and dominance of men over women as its basis, the institutions of marriage has long been the focus of radical-feminist