Gay Marriage argument Essay

The issue of legalizing courageous jointure has always been a liaison of great controversy in the United States. Many people c exclusively up that legalizing gay matrimony is immoral and unconstitutional. Untraditional, unlawful, and unethical are some of the galore(postnominal) terms used to describe gay marriage. Not all item-by-items receive this way. The issue has created widesp necessitate division both politically and socially.Advocates strongly view that gay marriage is a constitutional flop, while the opposition claims it has similarly some(prenominal) social disadvantages. In present day society the amount of peoples in support of gay marriage is higher than ever. One of the umpteen advocates for pro gay marriage is Evan Wolfson, the founder and president of Freedom to Marry. Wolfson presents many arguments for the legitimation of gay marriage in his article Without Nationwide sprightly Marriage, U.S. Government Discriminates.Using emotional, crystalline, and legal appeal, Wolfson presents his argument. aforementioned(prenominal)- call down couples should be able to celebrate their relationships with the bondage of marriage precisely like hetero land upual couples. Many very(prenominal)- wake up couples demand to marry and they should be able to since it is there human right. Evan Wolfson explains it flawlessly when he proclaimed Marriage is an important moment in life when we bring in a public promise of love and dedication to the person we are building a life with, and ask our friends and family to support us and carry us accountable. Couples who call for do that commitment in life should stimulate the alike(p) commitment under the law called marriage.It is unjust to rid taxpayer citizens of this right. It is societies norm that marriage should be between a man and cleaning lady, nonwithstanding it is non pen anywhere within the constitution. It is a saddening in evaluator to discriminate citizens collectable to t heir sexual orientation. This is appropriately presented when Wolfson writes Under the law, marriage touches every aspect of life, from birth to death, with taxes in between. Denial of the freedom to marry is one of the harshest in disturbities inflicted on lesbian and gay families distinction by their own establishmentparticularly in these tough economic times.The benefits of marriage should be extended to all individual during the present economic situation. match to Wolfson, Withholding from these benefits by preventing same sex marriage is a prime example of discrimination. There is no logical to reason to prevent gay marriage since it has been evincen successful. laughable couples lot in the freedom to marry in six e extracts and the territorial dominion of capital of South Carolina the toss away hasnt fallen. Gay marriage has been proven successful in other(prenominal) parts of the world along with some of the United States. Same sex marriage is gaining more and mor e acceptance, yet it is discriminated against state and federal official governments.The Federal government targets homosexual couples through the enactment of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Wolfstan claims DOMA harms unify same-sex couples by withholding the more than one thousand federal responsibilities and protections accorded all other married couples. Benefits much(prenominal)(prenominal) as social security survivor and health coverage are withheld from married couples. The constitution commands equal justice for all and Wolfson believes its time to abide by our nations written law.Although Evan Wolfson presents valid points, there are many holes in his argument. The author disregards many aspects while portraying his own ideas. To begin with, why is it necessary to define a relationship with the title of Marriage? If two people of the same sex want to be in a relationship, why non just be together? The author claims that Gay couples share in the freedom to marry in six s tates and the District of Columbia the sky hasnt fallen. In the literal sense this statement is true, solely what about the rise in divorce rates in the six states and District of Columbia? The sky hasnt fallen, but there may be negative consequences to the legalization of gay marriage.Wolfston also charges the state and federal governments with discrimination against gays. It is the governments job to please the majority, and if anti-gay legislation will do that, so be it. If same sex couples are offended with state policies, why sewert they move to a different state or country? Wolfson mentions many appropriate points, but why doesnt he mention any impertinent sources? Providing no information from experts in the fields or resources challenges the credibility of his argument.Marriage is traditionally defined as a union between a man and a woman, non a woman and a woman, or man and a man. The legalization of gay marriage would cause social and economic perils that usher outt be overlooked. In his article Opinion Gay marriage should not be made legal, Ryan Normandin presents numerous legitimate reasons as to why gay marriage shouldnt be legalized. Many gay rights advocates believe that they pass the right to marry whomever they want under the equal rights protection clause, but that is certainly not the case.As Normandin explains in his article, They claim that the Equal certificate Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees them the right to marry whomever they desire, including members of the same sex. To forbid this would, in their minds, be discrimination. But do all people have the right to marry whomever they want already, with the exception of same-sex couples?No states have laws regulating marriage, down(p) first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals. The legalization of gay marriage would open legal d oors to other forms of relationships such as polygamous, incestuous, and other nontraditional relationships. By the logic of gay marriage, everyone has an equal right to marry whomever or whatever he or she pleases. It is that fitting that state and federal governments regulate marriage, he claims.Traditional marriage is beneficial to the Ameri passel government, which spend a pennys it appropriate for couples to receive tax breaks and numerous benefits. Ryan Normnadin explains it topper when he literates The rationale is that mannishs and females, when married, are more likely to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of American society. It is certainly to Americas advantage to have citizens, so there exists a compelling state interest justifying government subsidisation of heterosexual marriage.Since traditional marriage is helping the United States procreate, it is in the governments best interest to subsidize marriage that is increasing its subjugate of citizens. Many i ndividuals in favor of gay rights believe that happiness of same-sex couples is copious a reason for its legalization. Unfortunately, that is not the case since happiness is not a compelling enough argument when weighed against the drawbacks of gay marriage. One of the major drawbacks is that same sex couple can not nurture a boor properly.The well being of a child cannot be jeopardized for happiness. Although gay couples cant reproduce, artificial insemination and adoption are some options. Although, these arguments do not prove a viable option because complications can arise. Normandin refers to University of Canterbury professor Bruce J. Ellis to prove this point. Professor Elliss research claims greater exposure to father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and young pregnancy. These are risks that cant be taken lightly just to make lesbian couples happy.There are also risks involved in parenting in regards male couples. The author a lso refers to Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby who points out that mothers, on average, may have somewhat stronger parental instincts when it comes to responding to young infants. It is of utter importance for a child to grow up with both a mother and father. According to Normandins beliefs, Happiness is not enough reason to harm the futurity of countless children.Ryan Normandin presents a compelling argument, but there are flaws in many of his ideas. For example, the author matchs gay marriage to incest and bestiality. Is it really fair to compare gay marriage to such formidable acts against nature? Bestiality and incest have far more negative effects then gay marriage, so it is not fair to compare them. They inability of gay couples to reproduce is another point Normandin brings about. Although this statement is valid, isnt artificial insemination a tool that can help lesbian couples procreate?What about the thousands of neglected children male couples can save? Lastly, the author quotes various professionals to point out that children of same sex couples will have complications due to an absent father or mother. Studies furnish that this maybe true, but what about family members that can fill that absent type present in same-sex couples? Cant the grandmother or auntie provide maternal care to a child of a male couple? Why cant a grandfather or uncle act as a fatherly figure for a lesbian couples child? Normandin provided a very compelling argument, but there are minor doubts to his ideas.After analyzing both sides of the issue along with my prior experiences and knowledge, gay marriage should not be legalized. Both articles made valid points, but Ryan Normandins opinionative piece Opinion Gay marriage should not be made legal changed my perception on this issue entirely. Viewing marriage as a governmental issue, not a personal one, made me realize that marriage isnt however about happiness. Marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to the government, therefore it is allowed.Since same-sex marriage doesnt pose benefits, such as procreation, to the United Sates or its citizens, it is either prohibited or highly restricted. counter is required for the survival of any society and legalizing gay marriage would nurse procreating unimportant. Gay marriage also causes dire consequences for the couples kids. I have witnessed my co-workers only kid, Marshall, with an absentee father figure. Due to a missing father, Marshall took part with the wrong crowd and disregarded all authority. I have also witnessed the psychological problems with kids who are missing a mother. My cousin, who has two mothers, is socially awkward and lacks basic conversation skills.To ensure the full health of a child, they need both a mother and a father figure to provide motherly and fatherly instincts. Same sex households are not ideal environments for children. Another good point that Normandin pose was that the legalization of gay marriage would open doors to other kind of relationships such as polygamy. This would undoubtedly lead to further deconstruction of marriage and family. I also believe same sex marriage to have baneful effects on society.A news report I read claimed that legalizing gay marriage in Scandinavia is linked to the cause of population eliminate and higher divorce rates. Numerous researches state that homosexual relationships dont last long term. The fact that Wolfson did not provide any outside sources was another factor that shaped my opinion. I believe that outside sources make an argument much more credible. Challenging cultural, moral, social values, the disadvantages of gay marriage greatly outweigh the advantages.Works CitedNormandin, Ryan. Gay Marriage Should Not Be make Legal The Tech. Gay Marriage Should Not Be Made Legal The Tech. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 06 July 2011. Web. 08 Sept. 2013. . Wolfson, Evan. Without Nationwide Gay Marriage, U.S. Government Discriminates. US News . U.S.News & World Report, 7 Oct. 2011. Web. 08 Sept. 2013. .