Myriad Marriage Arguments

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.

Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is a theory that basically relays the same message that most mothers teach their kids, and that is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative could be easily explained by the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. Kant dives a little deep with his theory, however, and breaks the categorical imperative into three formulations. The first formulation is about essentially removing yourself from a situation and doing what is best for everyone. Kant is basically saying that it is unethical to make decisions that affect everyone, but only benefits you. The second formulation is about making sure that

Same-sex marriage, a controversial social issue in the U.S. for several decades, is constantly evolving. When viewed historically, great change has happened in a short period of time, in the movement for same-sex marriage, given that until recently, no society in thousands of years has ever allowed it.

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.

“Americans do not seem to be interested in a reality check on the topics of love and marriage. After all, it seems to be more fun to believe in fairy tales” (Hornblow). There is a large number of Americans who would get married at least once in their lives, without thinking of the importance of a marriage and the possibilities that could happen based on quick decisions. The true meaning to what marriage is, issues involving marriage, which causes the divorce rate to rise in the United States, and the importance of marriage, to what is being done to increase the chance of a happy long-lasting marriage. Marriages in the United States can be seen by the explanation of the effects of not being able to tackle problems, or being able to learn how to work through complex issues of everyday life as a married couple.

Same sex or gay marriage is a topic that is always in the news these days. Well, a recent Supreme Court case's decision was to legalize this type of marriage here in the US. This essay will give a brief history of same sex marriages, summarize the legal reasoning of both the majority and dissent in the Supreme Court Decision and even evaluate how the media interpreted the decision.

In the past few decades, the question of allowing for same-sex marriage is a recurring topic of controversy. In the houses of same-sex couples, the need for equal rights is of great importance. Currently, many states ban the marriage of same-sex couples and do not view a marriage between same-sex couples as an official marriage. These states quote the Constitutional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, with this definition, the marriage of a man and a man or a woman and a woman is unconstitutional. As of the issue date of this article, the Supreme Court had not made a national decision on same-sex marriage and the benefits entitled to that marriage. This CQ Researcher journal focuses on the topic of

In the United States, legalization of same-sex marriage has a long-standing history of opposition from religious circles. Some argue against the legalization of same-sex marriage based on their interpretation of the Bible’s stance against homosexuality (Dobson, O’Brien). Other opponents argue against the practice based on universal tenets of moral behavior, fundamental beliefs that are said to underpin our country’s existing laws and should not be eroded (George, Finnis, Friedman).

Gay marriage has been a controversial topic that is highly debated all around the globe, containing many of its own varying viewpoints and beliefs on both sides of the argument. Those who oppose same-sex marriage believe that it is a sacred bond that can only be kept sacred between a man and a woman, and that same-sex marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Also, if gay marriage is allowed they believe that it will open the door to other non-traditional relationships to be accepted such as polygamy. Finally other key oppositions come from religious beliefs and standards. However the many that support gay marriage usually argue that everyone should have equal right to be in relationships with each other and receive the financial, emotional, and social benefits of marriage. I mean who really would be affected if same-sex marriage were to become legal? Nobody. If everyone feels that there is that special someone whom they are perfect for and will fall in love with, gay people would feel the same way. They deserve equal opportunity to not only find that perfect somebody but to be able to love them and get married. Leading to parenthood, and while gay couples are not able to have children on their own, that doesn’t mean they can’t adopt children off the street. However, several times have happened where a gay couple were put at the end of a waiting list or even denied completely just because of their sexual orientation. Other benefits to marriage are also tax breaks and

Kant firmly believed that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether or not our duty is fulfilled. Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative was “the supreme principal of morality, and determined what our moral duties are” (Kantian Ethics). The Categorical Imperative is expressed as, “acting only on a maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (“Internet”). A maxim is defined as a rule or principle on which you act. The command basically stated that you are not allowed to do anything that you wouldn’t allow everyone else to do. In other words, one is not able to make an exception of oneself. For example, if one expects others not to steal from one, one is not allowed to steal from anyone else. More precisely, it stated that every maxim one acts on must be one that one is willing to argue that everyone would act on if one was in a similar situation. For instance, if one wants to lie to get something one wants, one would have to be willing to argue that everyone lies to get what he or she wants. This makes the maxim universal.

Same-sex marriage has been an ongoing issue in the United States for decades. In many States, the issue has been stirring up tension between proponents and opponents regarding legalization of same-sex marriage. On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples are allowed to marry in all States. According to the statement of the holding, “the Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry” (Kerr). Although homosexual couple marriage is allowed, opponents still vehemently argue against the issue because of religious or moral conviction. To make a counterargument against them, I will discuss several philosophical points based on Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics in favor of supporting

The nature of this imperative is not absolute or universal because it applies to, and is dependant on, ones own inclination or desire, most easily described as, “if one wishes to achieve x, they must do y”. This 
results in it to not be moral because, according to Kant, morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the assumption that we wan’t to achieve a particular goal. Kant believes that morality does, however, establishes itself with categorical imperatives.


Kant’s philosophical idea of the ‘Categorical Imperative’ signifies an unconditional and absolute requirement that ought to be followed in all circumstances and is justified in the means of itself. According to Kant, every action has a maxim, which means that every action has a rule or principle. The most supreme categorical imperative is, “Act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will hat it should become a universal law”. The ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law, conceived so that it has the ability to universally guide everyone to the right action in all similar circumstances. This is to say that categorical imperatives are for good will, to act for the sake of moral duty, treating others as a mean, and not as an end. It is not for the sake of one seeking reward or recognition, but rather for good and duty, seeking that you

The topic of homosexual marriages, or the marrying of two people of the same sex, is rather disputed among the majority of people in today’s society. Only small amounts of the population have opinions that are strongly favoring one side of the debate. For most of society who are the middle-of-the-road citizens, it is a tough call to make one way or the other. The main topics that are disputed are raising children in a same-sex household, the capacity of churches to allow such a marriage, and the integrity of a marriage as a legal document. These arguments will be expressed through the viewpoints of Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett. Sullivan is the author of the essay “Let Gays Marry” which was printed by Newsweek in June of 1996.

The categorical imperative is Immanuel Kant’s improvement on the Golden rule and all rules associated with the Golden Rule. We are called by Kant to act as how we wish all others to act. According to an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Kant characterized the [categorical imperative] as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary” (Johnson and Cureton). The categorical imperative is defined using three statements. Each of the three statements represents a different process, through which a determination is made of whether or not an action has a moral contradiction. If there is a contradiction, the

In Kantian ethics, he believes that the supreme principle of morality is founded on the idea of the categorical imperative. In order to act with a good will, which is the highest good one can achieve, one must act in a way where the good is not a means to an end, but the good is an end in itself. In order for one to test whether or not the action is of good will, the maxim, or the personal rule according to which a person was acting, must be applied. Furthermore, these maxims are then tested by the categorical imperative; if the action can pass this categorical imperative, the rule can be made into universal law. By universalizing the law, Kant believes that this ascertains the rule as applicable to everyone at all times and in turn, is a perfect duty that