Arguments for and against gay marriage

This article explores definitions of marriage, the controversy surrounding gay marriage, and various arguments from both sides of the debate. The answer is no — because of the consequences to society as a whole. It is the purpose of this Article to examine the lesser-described viewpoint in legal literature: the case against same-sex marriage.

And also from my perspective, you devalue what you want to value, which is a man and woman in marriage with a child or children. In addition to placing the psychological reasons for visceral controversy beyond the reach of its subject, this Article will avoid some other related issues. The debate of whether or not to legally recognize same-sex marriages is ongoing.

I support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The debate of whether or not to legally recognize same-sex marriages is ongoing. They have no studies. Same-sex marriage advocates are not going to state legislatures, except in some cases for civil unions. In addition to placing the psychological reasons for visceral controversy beyond the reach of its subject, this Article will avoid some other related issues.

Same-sex couples should have the same legal rights to get married as heterosexual couples. The law is as it has been for plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children. Over the next year, the ensuing battle over gay marriage could be heard in the halls of the U.S.

Congress, in dozens of state legislatures and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at the. On Aug. 11,CNN released the results of the first national poll to show a majority support for gay marriage, with 52% agreeing that “gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid.”.

It is the purpose of this Article to examine the lesser-described viewpoint in legal literature: the case against same-sex marriage. In addition to placing the psychological reasons for visceral controversy beyond the reach of its subject, this Article will avoid some other related issues.

Almost overnight, same-sex marriage became a major national issue, pitting religious and social conservatives against gay-rights advocates and their allies. And when you devalue that, you get less of it. And again, those are consequences that they choose to ignore. They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children — nothing.

Gay rights advocates and others say that gay and lesbian people want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do — they want to be in caring, stable relationships, they want to build a life and even start a family with someone else. A counterargument explaining the case for same-sex marriage is made by Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer at The National Journal.

This article explores definitions of marriage, the controversy surrounding gay marriage, and various arguments from both sides of the debate. Another argument made by gay rights advocates is that with or without marriage, gay families are already a widespread reality. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage undermines the meaning of the traditional family.

Does that attitude allay any of your fears? This essay aims to delve into the arguments for and against gay marriage, exploring how they are wielded in the pursuit of equality and human rights, as well as in the promotion of traditional values and beliefs. On Aug. 11,CNN released the results of the first national poll to show a majority support for gay marriage, with 52% agreeing that “gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid.”.

They want the convenient accelerator of the courts to put this in play, and then they want the judicious temperament of the American democratic system to govern it. I oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. The debate over same-sex marriage in the United States is a contentious one, and advocates on both sides continue to work hard to make their voices heard. I would argue that the gay community has not made the argument.

They point out that we already have gay couples living together, some with children. It is the purpose of this Article to examine the lesser-described viewpoint in legal literature: the case against same-sex marriage. They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society. Yet when it comes to something that I happen to believe is actually more important than a particular plot of land — the entire moral ecology of our country, who we are as a people, what we stand for, what we teach our children, what our values and ethics are — people argue that we can build the equivalent of a strip mall without even thinking about what those consequences are.

Santorum is also the author of the book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Goodin which he makes the case for promoting families anchored by a married mother and father. Opponents of same-sex marriage ground their arguments on parenting concerns, moral standards as dictated by religious ideologies, culture and tradition, and concerns over the evolving definition of marriage that might eventually pave the way for the normalization of polygamy and incest.

If the courts are going to be your accelerator, then get ready for a ride. I have a book that was written a few years ago called It Takes a Family. They are using the courts.