An Argument For The Legalization Of Gay 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.

Greater social acceptance of homosexuality along with legalization of gay marriage might produce more happiness for homosexuals. Moreover, if gay marriage were legalized throughout the country, then the full benefits of marriage would be extended to homosexuals, including benefits for Married couples that are obtained through tax policy, insurance coverage, and inheritance law. One of the most common non-consequentialist arguments against homosexual sex is that it is Unnatural, which it goes against nature. Natural law arguments against homosexuality And same-sex marriage have often traditionally been grounded in religious viewpoints on sexuality and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. For example, many Christians and Jews who denounce homosexuality do so on the basis of Old Testament Bible verses such The Old Testament appears to permit polygamy. And the New Testament prohibits divorce. If we reject gay marriage on biblical grounds, should we also reject divorce and permit

Gay marriage is a topic that is so often discussed by those with highly diverse opinions. As some people agree with those of the same sex pursuing marriage, others do not seem to feel the same way. This fact can apply to individuals as well as entire countries. Several of these individuals and countries originally agreed with the subject of gay marriage as others were required to be forced due to the fact that their ban on gay marriage was decided as unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage is a controversial issue in today's world where some choose to agree with the decision of homosexual people and some choose to oppose it, all doing so usually for different reasons.

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights

Andrew Sullivan is the author of an article “Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight America.” He is an experienced publicist, and he is homosexual. Sullivan argues that every person has the right to get married disregarding his or her orientation. Richard Rodriguez who is also a famous publicist composed “Family Values.” Like Sullivan, he is homosexual and he discusses it in his work. Rodriguez and Sullivan share many viewpoints related to homosexuality, but they disagree about the appropriateness of homosexual marriage – Sullivan is for it, and Rodriguez views it as an imitation of heterosexuality.

Sheldon claims that ‘homosexual marriage is neither culturally nor physiologically possible’ (p. 1). He sustains that ‘without the cooperation of a third party, the homosexual marriage is a dead-end street - referring to the reproductive aspect of marriage (p. 1).

Robert George is a Princeton professor, an adamant dissenter of same-sex marriage, and was a strong supporter of Proposition 8. One of the most prevalent arguments used by Robert George to combat same-sex marriage was the “’common procreation’ rationale” which was the idea that marriage should strictly be heterosexual due to the ability to procreate (401). On December 13, 2010, Slate.com published an article called “The Best Argument Against Gay Marriage: And Why It Fails.” This article was a counterargument made by Kenji Yoshino, a New York University Law professor. In this article, Yoshino states that Robert George and his co-authors’ argument that gay marriage should be banned due to same-sex couples’ inability to procreate is invalid because it is statistically flawed and it makes unintentional attacks on certain groups of opposite-sex couples.

Strongly against gay marriage is the central theme of Louis P. Sheldon’s article Gay Marriage “Unnatural”. According to the author’s views, gay marriage is ‘unnatural’, and

Pollitt uses a series of analogies to convey that there is no substantial issue with permitting same-sex marriage. Furthermore, the comparisons she presents strengthen her argument and defend against possible counter-arguments. She attacks the notion of preventing homosexual marriage on the grounds of procreation and claims that the very idea is impractical. The law “allows married couples to use birth control, to get sterilized, to be celibate” (Pollitt 530). If marriages do not have to be based on ability to reproduce, then two individuals of the same gender

In his essay, “Let Gays Marry,” Andrew Sullivan advocates gay marriage. He argues that gay couples ought to be able to marry because as citizens, they deserve equal rights. He claims that disallowing gays to marry each other would make them strangers in their own country. However, his argument is invalid as it seeks to impose the broad definition of equality on the narrower, but unrelated issue of marriage. Just because gays have equal rights as citizens, doesn’t mean they have the right to marry each other, because homosexual marriage cannot fulfill the biological, sociological, or civil aims of marriage.

Marriage, by definition, is the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. In today’s society however, things are changing. People of all genders are forming bonds with one another, and homosexuals are vying for the right to have their love established as marriage as well. Should men and men, and women and women, be allowed the right of marriage just like heterosexual couples in America? Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett have opposing opinions on this subject, however are more alike in opinion than they know. Their articles tell different stories, with the same general underlying tone.

Same-sex marriage and straight marriage do not have the same rights. Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. If same-sex couples enter a civil union they are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided federal law to married couples. Being denied to all these rights they should have may harm people who also experienced discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, gender, and religion. The APA (American Psychological Association) believes it is unfair to discriminate and deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and all of the benefits, rights and privileges. (Wikipedia)

The fourth reason why the gay marriage should be legal is because it does not infer polygamy. Gay marriage makes sense because it meets an essential need for the individuals involved and it also benefits society. Poligamy, by contrast, does neither. Some people affirm that if they take the step of allowing gay marriages they will slide down a slippery slope to polygamy. But, there is no obvious principle supporting gay

Marriage has evolved over time. Once, far back in history, when states were run in close cooperation with religious leaders, a marriage was strictly the dominion of the church, and the only definition was much like the one above (though they were more lax in avoiding incest than I would suspect Schulman’s proposed structure would be). In the eyes, there had to be a system where sex would be legitimized, while women and children were protected from it and its consequences. This made sense when repeated sex acts would almost definitely cause pregnancy, and possibly spread disease. As religion and government split into different organizations, each retained a definition of marriage that was a bit different from the other. Since religion held sway over what was considered pure and good, it took it upon itself to retain the parts of the old structure that dealt with the morality and social responsibility of marriage, and this is generally considered to be a social structure of marriage. And now, the social form of marriage is migrating into being controlled by the couple who are being married instead of their church. The government, on the other hand, became able to define who would be able to marry and place official benefits and restrictions on a married couple, creating a legal structure of marriage that was not the same as the social one. While

The concept of marriage is in danger of being misunderstood due to same-sex couples wanting to be married and acquire the same benefits as heterosexual marriages. The fundamental purpose of marriage is uniting a man and a woman in a worthy cause to preserve human civilization. If everyone was homosexual, then how could our species be repeatedly produced? This problem could end human existence. Besides, even those who are not homosexual have restrictions on marriage so they can not assume they are being discriminated upon. Restrictions are created to keep the balance and concept of the idea from being muddled. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with why these rules were put into place. As a result, homosexual individuals have the right to marry along with everyone else as long as the restrictions are not crossed. All rights are equal among the people even when dealing with marriage. Just because somebody has different