Wrong To Discriminate On The Basis Of Homosexuality By Jeff Jordan

Recently, people have been arguing with respect to the definition of marriage. To get married is a very important event for almost everyone. Particularly for women, marriage and giving a birth could be the two major events of their lives. Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett are authors who are arguing about homosexual marriage. Sullivan believes in same-sex marriage because he thinks everyone has a right to marry. On the other hand, Bennett speaks out against Sullivan’s opinion. Bennett makes a claim that marriage is between a man and a woman structuring their entire life together. Both authors’ opinions differ on same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, their ideas are well recognized.

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Many conservative groups do NOT agree with this decision. The gay marriage debate has been simmering for as long as I can remember. The four articles I have selected give information from four different perspectives including that of liberals, conservatives, homosexuals, and orthodox Jews. With so many differing opinions, one can understand why it's been so hard for the nation to come to agree on this issue.

In his essay titled “Gay Marriage: Societal Suicide,” Charles Colson talks about his reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. The essays’ main argument is built around Colson’s belief that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to the decoupling of marriage, and ultimately result in what he describes as: “an explosive increase in family collapse, out of wedlock births - and crime.” Colson shares his personal experiences as a prison minister, various studies, statistics, and real world examples to elucidate the reasons behind his controversial stance on marital rights.

For the past 3 decades the views surrounding marriage has undergone a great deal of change (Lennox, 2015, p. 1101). This shift is due to the continual discussion of gay marriage. The interplay of religion and politics has led for much controversy. In the United States, the use of Christian and Jewish biblical texts are the main sources drawn upon for opposition, but have also been used as a supportive means of equality. Beyond the religious there are also psychological and physical health arguments, as well as civil rights arguments. Same sex marriage is examined through different paradigms, thus giving rise to religious, political/legal, and religious arguments surrounding the legalization of this institution for gay and lesbian couples.

Same-sex couples are becoming increasingly popular in our society and advocates have been pushing for social justice to abolish sexual discrimination. America has been misled by opponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts who claim a business' right to religious freedom to turn away gay customers is discrimination and bigotry, and we need to return to the biblical view of homosexuality as what it really is: sin. This paper will cover religious freedom and the advancement of gay rights in society today as it pertains to the opposing arguments of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed recently in Indiana.

The article “Gay Marriage and Religious Rights: Say Nada to FADA” was written by Walter Olson in 2015. Olson is known for his writings about the American legal system and his liberitarian thinking. The passage presents the controversy between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court announced the legalization of homosexual marriage. In September 2015, a bill that presented the conflict declared the importance of preventing any gouvernmental interference which emphasizses the convictions related to marriage and religious beliefs.

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.

Elizabeth Schroeder’s book, Taking Sides, looks at opposing views on controversial issues, one of which is legalizing same-sex marriage. In their article, “Talking About the Freedom to Marry: Why Same-Sex Couples Should Have Equality in Marriage,” the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund supports same-sex marriage. An opposing view, is given by Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor. In his article, “The 28th Amendment: It Is Time to Protect Marriage, and Democracy, in America,” he explains why he is against same-sex marriage.

In Attributions and the Regulation of Marriage: Considering the Parallels between Race and Homosexuality, Mark Joslyn and Donald Haider-Markel (2005) writes that for

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

The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all

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

By deconstructing the common comparison of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, she intends to defend her view that interracial marriage is not a slippery slope decision that will roll down hill in an out of control manner and head for the worst like, she claims, same-sex marriage will. Opposing Barber’s views, Quindlen wrote an essay in 2008 entitled: “The Loving Decision” where she sets forth her support for same-sex marriage by constructing a comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. She uses this comparison to suggest that same-sex marriage will, too, be validated by the courts because “the world only spins forward” (258). Even though Barber and Quindlen stand on opposite sides of the debate with views clashing on fundamental concepts like the meaning of marriage, the nature of homosexuality, and the applicability of the Loving v. Virginia court case to the issue, in various areas the two authors have common ground.

As we know, same-sex marriage has been a prominent issue that has so many arguments not just in the United States, but around the world over many years now. There is absolutely nothing more controversial than same-sex marriage in gay rights topic. Everyone has different opinions about same-sex marriage whether it should be legal or not. We now have to consider two aspects that are moral and religious. These two form a fundamental belief that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are different. Based on the definition of marriage, the view of religion, bad effects to children, and the lifestyle that should not be encouraged; therefore, the government should not legalize the same-sex marriage.