Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

The United States of America was founded as a secular sanctuary for ideals like freedom, equality, and tolerance – few will argue against that. Over its history American culture has radically evolved as it strived to meet the ideals its nation was based upon, making changes like ending slavery and providing legal equality for women and minorities, changes that at the time seemed absurd but today are unquestionable merits that define what an “American” is. The quest to reach the ultimate utopian society continues today as true Americans fight the evils of ignorance, stubborn bigotry and the fear to change that still manifest themselves in a large portion of U.S. citizens, preventing this nation from moving forward. One of the outstanding minorities still left to be granted the ideals of freedom, equality, and tolerance are homosexuals trying to obtain the right to marry the person they want to spend the rest of their life with, regardless of gender. Same-sex marriages should be recognized in the eyes of the U.S. government in accordance with its responsibility to provide all American citizens equal freedoms.

In a very real sense, it is reasonable to argue that the government should have no say at all in the processes of marriage, or decide which adults may or may not legally marry. State and federal governments play a role, of course, in that marriage is a civil union, and provides benefits and legal protections for the couple. Historically, marriage serves the interests of the society by promoting stability and future generations of citizens, and governments usually act in ways to promote this very vital element. At the same time, it is highly questionable whether this governmental authority should have any voice in who chooses to marry, provided those involved are adults and wish to do so. This is in fact, at the heart of the same-sex

While it is not a personal choice for me, I see it best to support it for those who make that choice. In the Constitution marriage is not defined as the unity between a man and women, but the unity of two persons. As long as those two persons are both legal citizens of the United States then they should have full protection under the Constitution. This would include their fundamental right to marriage. Same-sex should be seen equal to opposite-sex marriage because the standards are no different. Just like in the case of Loving v Virginia, once you take away the factor of race or sexuality, you are left with the same principal foundations as you are of a hetero-sexual couple. Therefore it would be an act of discrimination to deny legal marriage to same-sex partners. Some will argue that the Bible defines marriage as between a man and women, and while that is true, it is not recognized by the court. Because it is stated in a religious doctrine and the United States has freedom of religion, this point can not be made legal valid in any situation and therefore is irrelevant. Another argument also commonly made in opposition to same-sex marriage is that its legality is within the power of the states and not the national government. While the power to issue marriage licenses is given to the state, that's not all that the case argues. It argues that

Another week, and another tough debate that places our government in the crosshairs. There is a separation of church and state, and In my opinion, there should also be a separation of state and marriage. Head (2016) wrote, government regardless of its level should not have interests in the legislation of relationship between anybody...citing that unless the state is sacramental (which it is not), or interested in propagation of children (unless unlikely), it has no business in the marriage arena (N.p.). You would think it would have been that simple, but before Loving v. Virginia 1967, many states and local governments had a say in who could, and could not be married based on race-citing biblical scripture as the reason. According to (Robinson,

Marriage within the United States has always been focused on one man and one woman being together for the remainder of their lives. To have marriage be centered on the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is preposterous. Marriage is needed to keep our society prosperous with the production of children who will one day take over the roles of their parents when they pass on. Marriage between couples of the same sex will not produce children, thereby defeating the purpose of marriage altogether. It is argued that same-sex couples could increase the number of adoptions of needy children in the United States, this much is true, but belonging to a household where the heads of the house are of the same-sex could cause problems for the child in the long run. Bullying and teasing in school will undoubtedly surround these children daily, it is not worth the emotional pain that will inevitably befall these children to give them a home in a same-sex household, no matter how loving these parents are.

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

John and Massey have been a couple since college. As growing up into being a couple things got serious between them they was starting to fall for each other more to a higher expectation stage. John and Massey started going out on dates every weekend, buying each other things and started living together having their own space to become close as lovers and not friends. As days arriving by John decided to propose to Massey even though he felt weird about it because they was gay. John and Massey have been thinking about getting married but as living in America today they realize some can be against gay marriage. John and Massey is kinda down about this situation because they fell they should become committed to each other more. People in America

However, according to the first amendment, religion should have no validity in making decisions for our nation (About the First). This is the concept of separation of church and state, according to Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Danbury Baptists in 1802 (Separation of Church). The government has always clung to this idea of protecting the individuals in the country’s right to religious freedom, considering the nation was founded on this belief (Martin). Because of this, churches and other religious establishments can turn away gay marriages if they would like to, but their opinion of the unions have no voice in government (Should Gay Marriage). Legal marriage is a bond between two people that should not be interfered by religious objections, or opinions of people who follow a certain

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

I believe that gay marriage is a right that all Americans can choose to have. Even if you are not homosexual each and every american should have the right to express themselves freely. Most people are very discriminatory about this topic but in today's society we should change that view. Because people think this is a problem, other bigger issues are being ignored. After all of

Gay marriage was first applied for in 1970, but was rejected until 2003. This is the way it should have stayed… In 1970, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell applied to Hennepin County District Court clerk Gerald Nelson for a marriage license. He denied the application because both applicants were men. Baker and McConnell sued Nelson and the court sided with Nelson, as did the Minnesota and U.S. Supreme Courts because all ruled that marriage is between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage should not be legalized in any other states and should be reconsidered in the 37 states it’s currently legal in because children need a mother and father and legalizing these unions could lead to a slippery slope of approving

Gay marriage is one of the most controversial topics being discussed in America today. Today in America, Christians feel like that because the bible states that homosexuality is a sin and then it should be illegal. A few states have taken the first step and started to accept the marriage of same sex marriage. I Believe that the government has no right to tell people if they can or cannot get married. Their choices doesn’t have any thing to with security or credibility of the nation , and it does nothing to affect

conflicting ethical theories regarding homosexuality exist. We do however, reject the idea that government should also be conflicted between these ethics. Religious arguments against homosexuality have no place in government legislation, just like the bible's support for slavery or it's subjection of women no longer do. Similarly, while marriage may be religiously derived, it does not stand as a singularly religious institution today, and therefore it need not conform to religious principles. Civil marriages are perfectly legal, and popular, and have the exact same status and terminology as ones done in a religious setting. In fact, civil registration is necessary for marriage, the presence of a religious figure is not. Therefore a secular

Same sex marriage has been widely looked down upon for ages. People say, “It’s not the traditional constitutional marriage”, or “Children need a mother and a father”. It honestly doesn’t matter. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry. It’s just as simple as that. What other reason do you need? If two complete strangers of the same sex want to be together for the rest of their lives, we should let them.First, denying some people to marry is discriminatory. Judge Sarah Zabel of Miami-Dade Circuit Court ruled the gay marriage ban of Florida unconstitutional. She stated that it, “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as 2nd class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” In other words, you’re looking down upon same sex couples that want to get married as if they’re lower than you; that they don’t deserve the same rights as us. Same sex couples would be able to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples if they were able to be married.Furthermore, the General Accounting Office made an assessment in 2004 about the benefits that heterosexual married couples have that same sex couples could not. Some of these benefits include hospital visitation during an illness and the option of filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden. Imagine not being able to see your significant other in the hospital

First, gay marriage should not be allowed because of its religious immorality. Same-sex marriage is considered as unacceptable to almost every religion in the world. Marriage is established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. Our Savior Jesus Christ taught: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark). Also, Genesis wrote, “God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (“10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed”). Homosexuals