An Argument Against Same Sex Marriage

In recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown into a nationwide controversy, reverberating into the halls of congress, at the white house, in dozens of state and legislature and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate rages on, the American religious community remains deeply divided over the issue, and over the morality of homosexuality. The debate has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a national and even worldwide controversy.

Gay marriage has been an issue for a very long time and since some states are legalizing it, many worry that it would soon be added as an amendment. The topic of gay marriage brings up religious, legal, and many other issues. In "What's wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt, the author supports gay marriage and wants it legalized. She states that there is no problem with gay marriage and it's all a matter of separating the church and state. But in “Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide,” by Charles Colson, the author opposes the idea of gay marriage and states that it will destroy society. Marriage is intended to unite a man and a woman together to bring children into the world, but due to the same-sex marriage,

Debates about gay marriage continue to simmer within American public discourse, though much of the more heated rhetoric has calmed since the earliest efforts to legalize same-sex marriage succeeded in numerous states. These debates have spanned many topics, ranging from religion to politics and beyond. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay and self-described conservative political commentator, addressed one angle of the issue in his July 19, 2011 Newsweek Magazine article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for America.” Through a mixture of personal reflection, social commentary, and political argumentation, Sullivan’s article is less a defense of gay marriage than it is a defense of the idea that gay marriage is compatible with conservative political values. Although Sullivan makes a good case for his position in the article, his argument is ultimately under-developed; the lengthy personal reflections serve to reinforce a relatively minor point in the context of the larger argument, shifting focus away from the more relevant portions of the argument.

Recently, there has been a great deal of debate over the issue of same-sex marriage in the media. Conservatives have championed the point-of-view that somehow extending the same rights to gays and lesbians as heterosexuals will cheapen the institution of marriage. However, conceding this point temporarily to the side of opponents...one might ask...why not make ALL types of marriage illegal that could potentially foster a lack of respect for marriage?

He states his contempt for these views and states a detailed reason why gay marriage makes sense. He makes it known that he feels that gay marriage should be viewed as normal and gay marriage should be held to a similar standard. He feels that this union would help in domesticating men and make them reliable caregivers. In his article, he concludes by articulating that he is gay and would be ashamed if other homosexual individuals would not push for their right to marry (Rauch, p. 23).

It thus prevents people from thinking that same-sex marriage makes homosexuals sinners. Marriage is a right that should be afforded to every individual whether they are gay or straight. Same-sex marriage thus helps solidify the appropriate social norm of sexual restraint and care-giving within the family. Legalizing same-sex marriages would be good for America as it would spur equality, promote family stability and validate LGBT family units as well as increase the number of children successfully adopted. Allowing gay marriage would be important in providing financial boon for both the private sector and state governments. Gay couples inject a considerable amount of money in the economy while spending on marriage

The United States is currently embroiled in a battle over issues regarding civil rights of its citizens and what rights are constituted by that term. In the past, civil rights issues have been fought over women's rights and those of African Americans among others all in the name of seeking equality. Perhaps the most vocal group discussing civil rights in the United States at present are gay marriage activists who are fighting for same-sex couples to be able to marry. These individuals feel that marriage is a civil right and that there is no legal reason why people of the same gender cannot be legally married in the United States, a perspective which is shared by many people who are themselves not homosexual. Homosexuality and what rights should be afforded to same-sex couples have been in the forefront of politics for the last few years and rightly so. Before this period, gay people had to fight to get recognized and for their relationships to even be legal. For most of American history, homosexuals have had to hide their sexual orientation or fear ostracism and marginalization by the moral and social majority. This oppression is still seen in the legislation of the United States. Those who do not agree almost always use their religious beliefs as a reason for denying homosexuals this right despite the fact that the United States Constitution bans legislation being based upon religious perspectives. There simply is no reasonable argument against same-sex

never voted for same-sex marriage, that their rights should not be granted. They also argued that the LGBT community should not be allowed to redefine marriage. As a result, the backer of Prop. 8 urged the gay community to take the issue to a ballot. Instead of allegedly conspiring with the judges to rule in their favor, which goes against the will of the people.

There are many controversies surrounding today's world, such as abortion, animal testing, and social reform issues. It seems that no one can come to a common agreement on the legitimacy of these topics. Personal characteristics, such as upbringing, culture, religion and ethnicity, all play a role in determining one's feelings on a given controversial issue. However, one of the most protested and discussed issues in current political debate is same-sex marriage. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only hard pressed arguments expressing speculation regarding supposed outcomes, benefits and possible tribulations that would come along with the endorsement of gay marriage. Such ideas are shown

Gays and lesbians can also be granted the rights to legal marriage in order to ensure that all citizens enjoy full human rights. Therefore, if gay marriage is legalized they can have the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of adoption and medical right. On the other hand, the religions would be offended since marriage is an institution supposed to be holy and ordained by God if gays and lesbians are legalized. Therefore, by allowing same sex marriage sanctity of marriage would be violated. If gay marriages are not legally recognized the harmful consequences the couples would face include inability to participate in medical decisions that involve their partner who are dying, lack of right to own common property and exclusion from employment benefits. Opponents also fear that if gay marriages are recognized the society is more likely to accept same sex relationships as moral. The traditional definition of marriage is valuable and the society should define it as the only marriage and legitimize it. As a result, gay marriages are the eventual rejection of objective reality where an environment of going against the norm is

Though there are differences in the views of different faiths, conservative Protestants, the Catholic Church, Mormons, traditional Jews, and Muslims share two fundamental antigay arguments. The first is that homosexuality is wrong because it involves sex that doesn 't create life. In the case of Judaism, a key Bible passage is the story of Onan (Links to an external site.), who sleeps with his dead brother 's wife but, to avoid giving his brother offspring, doesn 't ejaculate inside her. Instead, he "spilt the seed on the ground." God slew him, which some might view as a sign of disapproval (Links to an external site.).The Catholic catechism decries (Links to an external site.) homosexual acts because "they close the sexual act to the gift of life." Early American antisodomy laws discouraged all forms of non-procreative sex (including, incidentally, heterosexual oral and anal sex). Islam shares a similar view. One Islamic hadith explains that Allah "will not look at the man who commits sodomy with a man or a woman." But if non-procreative sex is the issue, society started down the slippery slope not with the recent Supreme Court ruling but with production of the pill—or, really, even earlier, when birth control became common. We 've been into the non-procreative sex thing for some time now. Even most religious conservatives don 't have the heart to go after this. If sex without the possibility of creating life is wrong, then religious

As we know, same-sex marriage has been discussed and argued for a long time. Within the controversial topic of gay rights, there’s no area more controversial than same-sex marriage. And all of us ask ourselves if same-sex marriage should be legal or not. But the fact is that we have to start thinking about it as a moral and religious topic. The government shouldn’t legalize the same-sex marriage because the

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and

On June 26, 2015, it was ruled by the the US Supreme Court that the US Constitution will guarantee that same-sex couples have the right to marriage in all 50 states of the US (state by state, n.d.). By many, this was celebrated as a victory. A Victory in the sense of equality, rights, and love. By others, this was seen as an immoral setback. I come to wonder who is right. Is there a right side? I know that there is a side who is for same-sex marriage and there is a side of those who oppose it. However, I know that the Christian faith tends to side with the opponents. I am a Christian; does that mean I am to be an opponent?

People are born homosexual. If you are homosexual you cannot get married. That idea is ridiculous. On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Marriage is defined as a sacred bond of love between two people. Gay people also feel love therefore, they should be allowed the same rights as everyone else in this country. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love and denying them this is a violation of religious freedom.