First, that gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage in some way, and secondly that marriage is purely for the sake of procreation --which is impossible in a gay marriage, and that moreover children are likely to be disadvantaged by such unions. These last two arguments are rather contradictory, as the one argument generally suggests that gay marriages should not be allowed because they might result in children who had no opposite sex parents, and the other that gays cannot participate fully in marriage as it is a procreative union. Either gays will, or will not, have children! The truth is that: Children will be raised in these homes, so they will serve a procreative/nurturing role, and though one parent won't be biologically related, they will still be a parent. Marriage has never been defined purely by procreation because --with the exception of Nazi Germany-- infertile couples and those unlikely to have healthy offspring are allowed to wed, as out couples past the age of childbearing. When a ninety-year-old woman can marry a ninety-year-old man, when it is certain no children will result, how can it be less moral for two thirty-year-old women to marry when both might legitimately choose to be artificially inseminated? The answer then is generally that gay marriages are unhealthy for children. "Research [shows]... family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Children in single-parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes... There is thus value... In promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents," (Gallaher) writes one intelligent social scientist. However, just as the fact that children with step-families, divorced families, and single families have higher risk childhood does not decrease the rights of heterosexuals to conceive outside of marriage, divorce, and remarry. One might as well deny the ability of heterosexuals to divorce and remarry as disallow gay marriages, for the latter is more destructive. Research has consistently shown that children in gay families do as well as children in other families with similar backgrounds (e.g. taking into account the presence of divorce, poverty, etc.). In fact, "Boys from lesbian homes show less aggression as well as slightly fewer sexual partners than those in heterosexual homes," (Stanton&Keeton, 4) which is precisely the opposite of trends in single-mother homes where boys are more likely to get involved in violence. The last argument frequently fielded is one for the sanctity of marriage itself. Those who are most rabidly outspoken against gay marriage say such things as: "Marriage is a critical social institution.... Up to now, with all the changes in marriage,...
Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory..." (Kurtz, 2)
Freewriting allows the writer to crystallize thoughts in preparation for a final paper or oral debate. Another strategy is engaging in dialogue with others. As Goshgarian et al. point out, the dialogue does not have to be limited to conversation. It can include brainstorming together, soliciting of responses to one's freewriting, and interviews. The dialogue can be face-to-face or via electronic resources such as chat rooms, e-mail or listservs (Goshgarian
Marriage and Government In today's world, it is necessary to understand some of the complex and troubling aspects of the law, especially dealing with family and child development issues. Legal definitions are always changing to reflect the needs and desires of the populace that they are supposed to protect and serve. Marriage is one legal issue that has stirred controversy and presented many questions about the role of government and an
Gay Marriage Many same-sex couples want to be granted the right to legally marry. The reason is simple: They are in love with each other. They want to honor their relationship in the greatest way society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good times and bad life brings. While they receive some state-level protections, they do not receive most of the federal emotional and economic
George's argument preserves the fundamental truths that democracy in its most theocratic incarnation promotes, with regards to basing moral law on arbitrary grounds. My position is precisely the same as George's: that same sex marriage is wrong and immoral. Same sex marriage affirms the value of sex for pleasure only, and is therefore an affront to moral law. Moral law, moreover, proclaims marriage as a union between one man and
There are many reasons for accepting the rights and legitimacy of gay couples to marry. The most important of these is the right to personal freedom. The misunderstanding that homosexual stereotypes project are an element that prevents the understanding of gay marriage. Appendix: Source: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39 Bibliography Bidstrup. K. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives. 2004. Accessed February 9, 2005. http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm Card. O.S. Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization. Accessed February 12, 2005. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html DEBUNKING STEREOTYPES: ABOUT
Seo, who teaches at Yonsei University of Korea, created a homosexual student organization in 1995 called "Come Together." He states that "it would not be an overstatement to say that this was the first social movement through which homosesxuals could effect changes in their lives. The movement went beyond the ghettoized and marginalized locales, such as bars, theaters and saunas, where homosexual cultural and sexual activities were performed." After the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now