The Best Argument against Gay Marriage: Glen Lavy's

Gay marriage is fine it between two people who are interested in each other I don’t see why it would be rejected it whatever the person prefers. All other marriages I don’t think should be allowed as far as polygamy I don’t think that should be legal .my point of view is that a marriage should between two no matter the gender not multiple

After reading "Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" by Lisa Miller and "Why Gay Marriage Is Good for Straight America" by Andrew Sullivan, it is important to know that same-sex relationships are NOT marriage. The original definition of the word itself tells you so. However, homosexuals should not be shamed by society for their love but instead create a new word for their love; if we allow the change of the definition it may lead to discrepancies between polygamy and bestiality.

Same-sex marriage should be marriage because everyone is equal, love is always right, and people have a right to choose their own soulmates. First, equality is a basic right, which means everyone should get the same treatment. The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays, because it limits the range of relationship options open to them (Mello). The limit of same-sex marriage is against homosexuals to enjoy the same right as heterosexuals. It is not fair for homosexual to get the different treatment. There is a law to declare that legalizing homosexual marriage is to achieve the basis of equality come true. (Albertson).

Some people may argue that marriage is a human right and not a heterosexual privilege. People believe that the illegalization of gay marriage has gone on far too long. They feel as if the legalization can transmute the way the world optically views them. “In order to attain equal rights, same sex couples must be able to have their relationship legally recognized, no matter where they live in the country "The Best Arguments for Gay Rights." Weblog post. N.P., n.d. Web.”

In “A Gay Man’s Case Against Gay Marriage” by Michael Bronski – a gay rights activist and professor of gay and lesbian studies at Dartmouth - Bronski argues that homosexuals are too focused on the legalization of gay marriage. He begins this article with his involvement and knowledge of gay rights and history. Then, he discusses the fact that marriage itself is problematic regardless of sexual orientation and that the gay community has developed healthier relationships without the need for marriage. Although, he is in complete support of the gay community to get this right and get the benefits that come along with it; He disagrees that it’s a necessity and the biggest problem facing lesbians and gays. In this article Bronski does fail to mention the 50% of marriages that prosper, abuse and adultery that occurs outside of marriage. He also doesn’t mention how the civil benefits affect marriages negatively or positively. Ensuring tax breaks, loans and inheritance arrangements for unwedded people can be very problematic. Although, he makes valid point on how the civil benefits should be available to all. He doesn’t go into depth about how problematic this could be. Bronski doesn’t go into how the same things can happen outside of marriage.

Proponents of gay marriage contends that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex marriages should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different sex couples.

The political issue of same-sex marriage has recently become one of the biggest debates of the 21st century. Its rise in popularity soared within the United States in 2000, when Vermont became the first state in the country to recognize these types of unions between same-sex couples. I believe that same-sex couples should not be denied of their right to marry, but there are several believable arguments, which contradict my opinion on the topic. These arguments include the beliefs that; allowing same-sex couples to wed will cause the institution of marriage to crumble, citizens of the United States should not have to pay taxes to support something which they believe to be wrong, and that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to

Those that are oppose same sex marriage focus their reasoning on religious beliefs. Same sex couples do not want to be treated as second class citizens, they do not focus on what religion states; they just want to be treated as equal as heterosexuals when it comes to their right. Same sex couples believe if one is to bar any class of people from marrying whomever they choose, it then deprives them of their social institution; that many feel defines the most meaningful part of life, to marry someone one loves. Same sex couples believe that their relationships are no different than that of a heterosexual marriage. Same sex couples can have maintain a home together, provide an environment that children can thrive in and care for each other the same as heterosexual married couples do (Goldberg-Hiller, 2002).

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

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

In addition, marriage is a religious rite. “Gay marriage is not compatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups” (ProCon.org, 2011, Con Gay Marriage, ¶4). In fact, we know that most of the religions are opposing same-sex marriage, because they are always guided by the Bible and God’s commandments and his teachings. “Marriage was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman” (ProCon.org, 2011, Con Gay Marriage, ¶12). If same-sex is legalized, churches and other religious institutions would be forced to change their rules in order to marry same-sex marriage couples.

First, it can clearly be seen that same-sex marriage is primarily about equality. Everyone has equal rights and liberties to chase happiness, as long as it does not cause harm to the society, so why should their freedoms be limits? Why can’t someone be able to marry a person they truly love? Discrimination and banning homosexual couples to get married violates human rights and freedoms. Laws which against gay marriage deny the First Amendment which states that everyone has freedom of speech, expression and religion. Sexual determination is an option, so it is how some people can express themselves.

For years and years, homosexuals have fought for the right to marry their loved one. It has been looked down upon, called immoral, sinful, and deeds of the devil, but that is not the way it is seen by those who support or engage in it. Supporters view marriage as the union of two individuals who love each other. They no longer see it as the concept of "traditional marriage". They believe traditional marriage has changed over time, and that the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate (should

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

The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says "I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part." Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to? What matters is that they love each other. Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, why don't all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of marriage? Just maybe there's something more to it. This whole act denies them their right to show affection and denies them religious freedom.