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. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these therapies have never shown any significant results, and usually create psychological damage in the process, which is why they are uniformly condemned by mental health professional associations.
So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is quite unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might be. Gay marriage would undermine sodomy laws. Because it would be hard to justify, before a court, allowing a couple to marry and then legally bar them from having sexual relations, many conservative religionists privately oppose gay marriage in part because it would undermine the legal basis for sodomy laws, which, even though they have been struck down as unconstitutional by the U.
Supreme Court Lawrence vs. Texas , they are still dreamed of by those who would seek to legalize discrimination against gays - and are occasionally still enforced in some states, in spite of the fact that the laws have been invalidated and doing so is quite illegal and opens the state to civil lawsuit. In several states, gays convicted under these invalidated laws are even still being required to register as sex offenders. Gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality. This presumes that homosexuality is something other than simply a normal variation of human development.
The reality is that every mental health association has recognized that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variation on how humans develop, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from science that there are sound reasons why it has evolved, and why it is not selected against in evolutionary pressure. It is not perverted, it does not degrade human culture, it is not a threat to humankind in any way.
All those stereotypes, long cultivated by homophobes and religious bigots, have been disproven both by experience and by scientific research, but that does not prevent the homophobe from holding to them dearly. And allowing state sanction in the form of marriage, threatens the stereotype by undermining the justification for it. At the end of the day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne almost entirely out of religious prejudice.
While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general.
The Anti-Gay-Marriage Propaganda Effort The Players That the organized opposition to gay marriage is primarily from groups with an obvious homophobic agenda should be self evident if one looks at who they are and what they are doing outside of the arena of the gay marriage debate. That many of them call themselves "Christian" does not, in any way, relieve them of the responsibility for the fact that preaching hate is still preaching hate, even when the hate is dressed up in the form of religious doctrine.
Putting lipstick on a pig does not make it any less a pig. These are some of the most respected religious organizations in the United States. Other players were the usual suspects, the Catholic church, several of the more conservative Protestant denominations, the American Family Association, Focus On The Family, their various political subsidiary groups, and a whole host of smaller right-wing political and religious organizations, including a few out-right hate groups.
The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains a "hate group" watch on many of these groups. The Tactics What these groups do, persistently, is to try desperately to legitimize what is clearly a campaign of hatred, fear and disinformation. The people of California saw that recently, when the campaign for Proposition 8 used just that tactic relentlessly, for months on end, spending millions of dollars in the process. 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. There is no doubt that the marriage between two people of the same sex is a risky question to answer it very definitely. People over 60 are allowed to wed, even if biologically incapable of having kids III.
On the other hand gay marriage is against the traditional marriage and it puts a stop on natural reproduction A. Only men and women can reproduce together B.
God and other religions studied in the world say marriage is love between men and women C. Makes marriage less meaningful. Ability and means to raise a kid as if from a normal family. Gay marriage should be allowed in the world today because the general meaning of marriage changes every day. The biggest part of marriage is two people who love each other unconditionally. In my opinion, each group presentation has strengths and limitations.
However, we tried to finish the presentation very well and that is something that should be rewarded. Firstly, the topics they choose are attractive to the listener. Each member go to class be on The theme of money in connection with marriage is highly prevalent in Pride and Prejudice, as it is in a number of Jane Austen's novels. To the modern reader, this could be misleading, as in today's society, love is generally far more important than wealth when choosing a marriage partner.
The modern reader could perhaps judge these references to money in relation to marriage as It prepares us for the reasons of some of the marriages within the novel.
We can see, from the very first sentence that one of the novel's main focus is marriage, Marriage is a main theme in Pride and Prejudice. This can be seen by the opening lines of the novel, said by the omniscient narrator, "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. Marriage in the early s seems to be very important from what we read in chapters one to twenty-four.
Argumentative Essay On Gay Marriage. King Grammar and Composition lesson 75 Argumentative Essay on Gay Marriage Marriage is the ceremonial binding of two people, male and female, into one couple. Historically, marriage has been the institution when a man and a woman join together with the promise of love, devotion, to always stay together, to be there for each other, to take care of one.
Argumentative essay on Same Sex marriage Marriage has been a part of life since before the medieval times. For two people who love each other and plan on spending the rest of their lives together, the natural instinct is to make it legal and get married.
Gay marriage is defined as a legal union between members of the same sex. Ten percent of Americans, the size of the gay community, are denied the right to marry. The individuals representing this group want what every heterosexual has, the right to legally marry their life partner. Essay on Gay Marriage Should NOT Be Legal - The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Is this a good thing.
Nov 09, · Article is a same-sex marriage argumentative essay. Positive and negative points of its legalization are showed. 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 /5(K). This argumentative essay on gay marriage will explore both sides on the debate of gay and lesbian marriages. Historically, marriage was seen as a religious and civil union that brought together a man and woman for the purpose of joining family and to live the rest of their lives together.