There exists harmful consequences if gay and lesbian couples are not recognized in the society. The main challenges same sex marriages face include inability to participate in medical decisions that involve their partner who are dying, lack of right to own common property and exclusion from employment benefits.
Opponents also fear that if gay marriages are recognized the society is more likely to accept same sex relationships as moral. The traditional definition of marriage is valuable and the society should define it as the only marriage and legitimize it.
Gay marriages are the eventual rejection of objective reality where an environment of going against the norm is created therefore; it is upon the government to decide whether to legalize this marriages or not Larocque In Canada same sex marriages is legal.
Advocates of gay marriages describe marriage between a man and a woman as a weakened institution that divides the society by sex. On the other hand, they sum up same sex marriages as private, intimate and emotional relationship where two people unite for their own personal reasons in order to enhance their personal well-up.
Socially many people think that gay marriages are not acceptable therefore the couples should not have the right to get married. In some countries such as Canada, there is dramatic progress to acknowledge the rights of gays and lesbians. Court battles have been filed and to some extent gays and lesbians have succeeded in obtaining some degree of social recognition Staver 5.
The gay movement argument for same sex marriage is basically founded on the norm of formal equality. They argue that the state needs to accord the gays the same legal options as other different sex couples enjoy.
This includes the right and duties required in civil marriage. Economic benefits that the proponents of gay marriages cite include increased revenue as a result of additional marriages through marriage taxes Stockland For a long time the culture of men and women marrying each other in the society has been established globally. Two men or women marrying therefore have resulted to a controversy where people have differing opinions. Same sex marriages cannot have children.
The debate for this issue of same sex marriage has existed for many years and a gay right movement was established in America during the s. Getting married is a decision which is personal and private. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers. If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc.
Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the rest constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent?
Evans , many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special.
That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will. This one has absolutely no basis in law whatever, existing or proposed. There are many marriages to which many churches object, such as interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, the marriage of divorcees, etc. The right granted by the state to a church to perform marriages is a right, not a requirement, and to pretend that it would be a requirement in the case of gays, but not in the above examples, is disingenuous on the face of it.
If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools. Gay marriage is already legal in several states and many foreign countries, including Canada, but can anyone point to an example of homosexuality being promoted in the public schools?
Because it hasn't happened in any significant way. What is being objected to is tolerance of gays, not genuine promotion of homosexuality. And if tolerance itself is not acceptable, what is the absence of tolerance? If we do not promote tolerance in the public schools, we are accepting that bigotry has a place there. Is this really what we want? Gay marriage and its associated promotion of homosexuality would undermine western civilization.
Homosexuality is as old as civilization itself, and has always been a part of civilization, including this one - indeed, cross-cultural studies indicate that the percentage of homosexuals in a population is independent of culture.
So even if promotion of homosexuality were to occur, it wouldn't change anything - people aren't gay because they were "recruited," they're gay because they were born that way, as the population statistics across cultures makes clear. As for gay marriage itself undermining western civilization, it is hard to see how the promotion of love, commitment, sharing and commonality of values and goals isn't going to strengthen civilization a lot sooner than it is going to undermine it.
Gay marriage has been legal, in various forms, in parts of Europe for more than twenty years, and in Canada and many states in the United States for some time now, but can anyone point to any credible evidence that gay marriage itself is leading to the crumbling of western civilization?
If they can, it certainly hasn't been presented to me. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. There are several problems with this argument, the first of which is that it presumes that sexual orientation is a choice. This lie is promoted so endlessly by bigoted religious leaders that it has become accepted as fact by society as a whole, and it was advanced, beginning in the 's, for the purpose of discrediting the gay rights movement.
But the reality is that a half century of social research on this subject, consisting of thousands of studies, beginning with the Kinsey and Minnesota Twin studies of the 's and continuing to the present, has shown conclusively - beyond any reasonable doubt - that among males, sexual orientation is only very slightly flexible, and among females, it is only modestly more so.
That homosexuality is congenital, inborn, and has a strong genetic component. In other words, if you're gay, you're gay and there is little that you do about it, regardless of the endless propaganda to the contrary.
This is a qualitative argument with whom many gay people - and many thinking straight people as well, both religious and secular - would take issue. A third problem is that this argument presumes that someone else has the right to veto your presumed choice sexual orientation on the basis that they are not comfortable with the choice you have made. It is difficult for me to see how any religionist or anti-gay bigot, however sincere and well-meaning, has the right to arrogate to himself that veto power.
Or, frankly, why a homosexual should be forced to go out of his way to make bigots comfortable with their bigotry. A fourth, legalistic problem with this argument is that it presumes that if the choice of sexual orientation can be made, the voluntary nature of that choice removes any and all right to the protection of the law for the choice which has been made.
But I would point out that the First Amendment to the United States constitution protects, by constitutional fiat itself, a purely voluntary choice - that of religion. So if it is acceptable to argue that unpopular sexual minorities have no right to equal protection of the law because they can avoid disadvantage or persecution by voluntarily changing the choice they have presumably made, then it is equally true that the First Amendment should not include protection for choice in religion, because no rational person could argue that religious belief is itself not a choice.
In other words, this is like arguing that you should not expect legal protection from being persecuted because you are a Mormon or a Catholic; the solution to such disadvantage or persecution is simple: I have never, ever seen a religious opponent of homosexuality who is asserting that homosexuality is a choice, advance that last point with regards to religion - a fact which very glaringly demonstrates the clearly bigoted character of this argument.
The real reasons people oppose gay marriage So far, we've examined the reasons everyone give for opposing gay marriage. Let's examine now the real reasons people oppose it, even fear it: Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above.
But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is neccessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority.
But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. It offends everything religion stands for. Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it.
When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii , the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them , and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry.
That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.
Marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that sanctity. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights.
Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well.
It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion anyway. Even if one accepts the presumption of the United States as a bible-believing, Christian nation as an acceptable legal doctrine, as many conservative Christians insist, and the bible should be the basis for the sacred institution of marriage, perhaps those Christians should get out their bibles and actually read them for a change.
Including all the inconvenient passages that not only permit but can even require polygamy, involuntary marriage and the like. How about Deuteronomy Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. Throughout Israel his family will be known as 'the house of him whose sandal was pulled off. If the Christian is going to say, well, that's old, quaint and should no longer be expected to apply, well, then, that's exactly the point!
The institution of marriage as it is practiced in the real world is a culturally defined institution, not biblically defined, as a reading of the above quotation should make quite clear, and it is high time we recognize and face up to the cold reality that cultural values have changed since the bible was written, and the institution of marriage has changed along with it.
Gay marriage is simply part of that evolutionary process of social progress. Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes, betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom.
The fact is that among the approximately animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners.
The reality is that it is so common that it begs for an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species. A man making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine.
Well, I've known and dated plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including champion bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you.
There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries exist, detailing their relationships. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay. Indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man.
Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so wrong? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based. Should any form of that love for one another be discouraged?
The base fear here is that of rape and a loss of control or loss of masculine status. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones.
When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food or the female and present his rump. This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate.
It has been suggested that homophobia is an instinctual fear of being raped by someone that the homophobe regards as lower than him in status. And the notion that a gay man might rape him is an instinctual fear. This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Prison rape is not an act of sex as much as it is an assertion of dominance and a means of control. Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to promiscuous heterosexual sex once they're on the outside.
So is this something straight men should fear from gay men? Well, relax, all you straight guys. You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting you do as a straight man with a woman - as a part of the expression of love, affection and commitment.
We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you do - the love and affection of a partner. Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us and it's a very small minority who enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored.
The thought of gay sex is repulsive. This is the so-called "ick factor. But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work the other way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway.
Prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that most virulent, even violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex.
The fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia is as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him. The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit.
We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed to any significant degree. The research has proved that a gay pair can raise and educate the child to be humane, tolerant and respectful to others.
Since gay marriages are validated, there will be less stereotyping and prejudgments. The society will see and understand that such couples can be successful parents and happy with their family life. There is an opinion that gay marriage is harmful for society as it reverses roles in family life.
Men start to act like women and vice versa. That will make the community weak and vulnerable. Of course, it may sound unfair, but there are certain masculine and feminine professions. Moreover, kids can get wrong education, and it will badly affect their future. Boys should be definitely taught that girls are weaker and it is inexcusably to hurt them.
As gay couples are not physically able to give a birth to children, increasing of such marriages can lead to the demographic crisis. Furthermore, for homosexuals it can be more complicated to adopt a child than for a traditional pair. For many people, same-sex marriages are immoral; they say it destructs the conception of marriage at all and leads to depravation of nation.
Homosexuality is often compared to various sexual deviations as well. Moreover, for most religions, it is inacceptable and may cause conflicts in society. Summing up, there are lots of arguments for and against; however, some of them are myths or inaccuracies. The point is that rights of all people should be respected and nobody can be singled out for their statements or sexual orientation. Let us assume that you may neither support nor oppose the idea of gay marriage.
How should you develop the topic in this case? We are going to consider a few handy suggestions and facts which can help you to state your neutral point of view and, at the same time, to provide quite a fulfilling review of such controversial issue.
Anti Gay Marriage essays Gay marriage should not be permitted. Many people often justify their opposition to gay marriage with reference to their religious beliefs. It rejects natural law created by God. The bible says that lesbian and gay parenting is a sin. Homosexual couples can not procreate.
This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. What are the reasons for and against gay marriage.
Gay Marriage Essay Examples. 63 total results. 1, words. 4 pages. An Argument Against Gay Marriage. 1, words. 2 pages. The Unexpected Argument of the Reverend Howard Moody in His Essay Gay Marriage Shows Why We Need to Separate Church and State. words. 2 pages. The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage LP 3: Argumentative Essay Patty Waters NAU Composition II Sue Cochran, Instructor Sunday, March 24, Abstract This essay covers the pros and cons concerning gay marriage. You will discover some new laws and amendments that are about to happen in our country, and some things that people are against.
An essay on why the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up in the light of reason. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup. Same Sex Marriage Essay; Same Sex Marriage Essay. Analyzing Same-Sex Marriage. Words | 6 Pages. Imagine if you had a child love someone who has same sex and wanted you to accept their love for each other by being at their wedding. Would you attend the wedding? Argument Against Homosexual Marriage; Gay Marriage: Refutation Researched.