The Pros And Cons Of Same Sex Marriage

If you cannot beat them join them, this commonly used phrase is overlook and ignored by many. The power and value of this simple phrase holds in todays society is quite astonishing. Individuals ban together for a cause, influencing society and then enacting legislature to allow authoritive figures to enforce the common cause. Louisiana is a perfect example of this. The state lost government funding when they did not raise the drinking age. By pressuring, or as some say punishing, the federal government was able to use their authority to force Louisiana to coincide with the rest of the nation. More recently states are slowly but surely legalizing Gay Marriage. This is also an example of how slowly individual states are acknowledging the

“Marco Rubio is running for President, pledging a constitutional amendments to define marriage between a man and a women, that scares me,” Pruter said. “Constitutional amendments are incredible hard to overturn so if that get passed that’s another fifty –sixty years that the LGBT community has been taken back.”

Most people believe that they deserve the rights they are granted by the government. An upstanding citizen who pays their taxes, serves their community and abides by the law should be afforded the rights of an American. However, not all citizens are afforded equal rights. Gay and lesbians are consistently denied rights that are typically taken for granted by the average American. Specifically, gay and lesbians couples are denied the right to marry even if they are upstanding citizens. They are held at an unfair disadvantage solely because of their sexual orientation. This discrimination must stop because gay and lesbian couples are law-abiding citizens too, who should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples.

While seventeen states have already granted couples the right to marry whom they love regardless of gender, the rest of the country continues to forbid same-sex couples to marry (Ahuja) and in doing so, infringe upon one of the most basic freedoms we are allowed. Arguments for same-sex marriage, despite being backed up with hard legal evidence and Supreme Court rulings, continue to face opposition on the grounds of religious beliefs and personal values. Often cited by Catholics is an interpretation of marriage as “a promise made to God” and “a holy sacrament” that is only to be shared between one man and one woman. Other biblical interpretations suggest that a capital sin is committed by those in homosexual relationships and therefore must

The morality of same-sex marriage is a major controversial issue in the United States today. While Liberals believe that marriage should be the union of two people who love each other and that it should be legal for gay and lesbian individuals in order to ensure equal rights for all citizens, Conservatives believe that marriage is the union of one woman and one man only and that requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs. Taking opposing viewpoints of this issue are both philosophers David Boonin and Jeff Jordan who discuss the public dilemma of same-sex marriage within their articles.

Same-sex marriage, same-sex cohabitation, and same-sex families around the world: why “same” is so different.

Contemporary moral disputes are constantly ongoing around the world and in the United States. For hundreds of years marriage has been defined as the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a relationship. Up until relatively recently the debate on gay marriage has not been a popular topic. Gay marriage has been illegal in the US and most countries around the world up until the early 2000s.[1] The debate on gay marriage has grown with more and more people publicly speaking and giving their opinions on it, especially in the Unites States.

This is a very controversial question and can cause a lot of debate due to many reasons such as religion, moral beliefs and just people different definitions of marriage. Some say the definition of marriage is between a man and a women, while others say its about two people no matter the sex that commit their lives together because they love each other. There are many different definitions of marriage and it all depends on simply whom you are talking to about it. In past generations many people thought the definition of marriage was just so that they can reproduce children.

Research has suggested that teenagers or young adults that are openly and not ashamed of being gay or lesbian have a better relationship with their parents, family and friends. When a person has support behind them it is always good for their self-esteem and mental health. Researchers believe that gays & lesbians always have a better chance at a happier well balanced life if they don’t have to hide their sexuality/ gender identity. When you are hiding the real you then suicidal feelings, substance abuse, and dangerous unprotected sex may occur. When teenagers/ young adults have a sense of comfort it definitely will help strengthen their character as a lesbian women or gay man. However if you have really religious strict parents who are reluctant to change then I don’t know if you should rush to tell your parents. It may bring more stress on than joy as crazy as that may sound. Everybody can’t handle the truth even when it’s right in their face. I believe that people are more understanding of gay and lesbian people in 2017 however some parents still disapprove of their children when they come out. Some parents kick their children out of the house, stop helping them out financially, turn cold towards them or even become violent. Teenagers & young adults who contemplating out may have a hard time handling others reaction.

“What does love mean to you?” Edie Windsor asked. It meant the world to her, so much that she stood up to the United States to recognize her marriage like others, and not differently because her and her partner are the same sex. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave her assets, for example family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.

Is homosexuality a form or cause of disability? This is the central issue posed by Spitzer in his now widely accepted definition of mental disorder. Spitzer (1984) argues that it is not. If we assume that homosexuality is an impairment simply because it is not heterosexuality, then we have created a privileged position for heterosexuality; we are making a value judgment, not a factual judgment. Homosexual activists would argue that heterosexuality is not a defining criterion of sexual function; homosexuals are able to, and regularly do, engage in relationships that are as equally loving and sexually satisfying as heterosexuals. Spitzer further acknowledges that although homosexuals are decidedly disadvantaged in contemporary culture, this is due largely to the reactions that society offers to homosexuality. The point, then, is that the disability associated with homosexuality is the fault of society and not an issue created by the individual homosexual. A useful comparison, perhaps, is handedness; although left-handedness has been associated with earlier mortality (Aggleton, Kentridge, and Neave, 1993) and increased risk of mental disorders (Johnston, Nicholls, Shah, and Shields, 2009), one would be hard-pressed to find someone willing to argue that left-handed people are mentally ill. Left-handedness represents a deviation from the norm that is both non-distressing and non-disabling, much like homosexuality, but is not considered a form of stigmatized deviance.

In 2012, gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado to purchase a cake for their wedding. Their request was denied by the owner, Jack Phillips, because he is Christian and does not support gay marriage. He sent them away because he believes that since making a cake for a gay wedding goes against his religious beliefs, he doesn’t have to make it. The couple felt discriminated because of who they are, and filed civil rights charges against Phillips. David and Charlie say that Phillips shouldn’t be able to deny them goods from a public shop just because of their sexual orientation. To this Phillips explains that he would be happy to serve the couple or any LGBT person regular baked goods, such as a birthday cake or cookies, but he refuses to use his talents to create a cake for a religious celebration in which he doesn’t support. But is he allowed to do this? According to Phillips he should be protected by the first amendment, freedom of speech. Baking and decorating cakes is his art and a way of expressing himself, and he doesn’t in any way want to express an acceptance for something he doesn’t agree with. The couple, along with various gay rights groups, don’t see this as any kind of excuse for turning down and discriminating customers in a shop open to the public, which should include anyone and everyone. It’s a matter of equality, and Charlie and David aren’t being treated the same way as others customers, which is unfair. The couple

In today’s world, controversies are everywhere, and impossible to avoid in regular day-to-day interactions. When you educate yourself on a controversial subject, you often discover how uneducated and occasionally bigoted other people can be. One such subject is sexuality. As time goes on, sexuality gains more visibility as a growing number of people come out as gay, transgender, and other sexual gender orientations. The LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans* plus) community is a supposed safe place for those who identify as queer or trans* (umbrella terms referring to those who don’t identify with heterosexuality and those whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth, respectively). However, as with any rule, people will make exceptions. Though many offenders deny, obvious discrimination is seen against minority sexualities, such as asexuality and bisexuality, in forms of jokes and mockeries, invisibility, mislabelling, prejudice, and in some cases, innocent lack of knowledge, from both inside and outside the LGBT+ community.

For years on end, same-sex marriage has been a topic of controversy. It has always been an on-going argument; there is the for-side and there is the against-side. There are many arguments for each side but which side has the most convincing argument? Maybe some of these arguments can be debunked. There needs to be a discussion about the holes in arguments and which side is the most convincing.

-Lately the congress of the United States has considered, but failed to approve the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment. This would amend the US Constitution to legally define marriage as the union of a man and a woman only. Utah has passed a similar amendment that was ratified by Utah voters in the general election of 2004. I believe that couples of the same sex should be able to marry, and receive the same rights as man and women couples, but I 'm going to argue both points. The pros and the cons of same sex marriage.