Gay Marriage Around the World
Free gay marriage papers, essays, and research papers. Why same-sex marriage is an American value. Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal. Nov. 21, - Non-Church Sanctioned Gay Wedding Makes News "Back on Nov. 21, , in Northwest Washington, [Wayne] Schwandt and [John] Fortunato walked down the.
Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint" -Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U. 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. One of the reasons that LGBT people fight for the right to marry because married couples receive more protections and advantages in the law and insurance polices Although Muslim and conservative Christian groups continue to oppose the law, same-sex marriage is widely accepted by the Dutch public. Make Gay Marriage Legal - Marriage is a natural right that everyone deserves and for the gay community that right is a constant struggle. Lately, homosexuals carry out most of the fight for the right to be married.
To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability on those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint" -Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority of the U.
Supreme Court in the decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2 referendum. Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera. Then you get to gay marriage. And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold.
About half of people in the U. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue. Why all the passion? It's because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what homosexuality really is, as well as the erroneous assumption that gay people enjoy the same civil rights protections as everyone else.
There are also a lot of stereotypes about gay relationships, and even a great deal of misunderstanding of what marriage itself is all about. The purpose of this essay is to clear up a few of these misunderstandings and discuss some of facts surrounding gay relationships and marriage, gay and straight. First, lets discuss what gay relationships are really all about. The long-standing, but increasingly obsolete stereotype has it that gays are promiscuous, unable to form lasting relationships, and the relationships that do form are shallow and uncommitted.
And gays do have such relationships! But the important fact to note is that just like in straight society, where such relationships also exist, they are a small minority, and exist primarily among the very young.
Indeed, one of the most frequent complaints of older gay men is that it is almost impossible to find quality single men to get into a relationship with, because they're already all 'taken!
As gays age and mature, just like their straight cohorts, they begin to appreciate and find their way into long-term committed relationships. The values that such gay couples exhibit in their daily lives are often indistinguishable from those of their straight neighbors. They're loyal to their mates, are monogamous, devoted partners.
They value and participate in family life, are committed to making their neighborhoods and communities safer and better places to live, and honor and abide by the law.
Many make valuable contributions to their communities, serving on school boards, volunteering in community charities, and trying to be good citizens. In doing so, they take full advantage of their relationship to make not only their own lives better, but those of their neighbors as well. A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.
These benefits of gay marriage have changed the attitudes of the majority of people in Denmark and other countries where various forms of gay marriage have been legal for years. Indeed, in , when the proposal to legalize marriage between gays first was proposed in Denmark, the majority of the clergy were opposed. Now, after having seen the benefits to the partners and to society, they are overwhelmingly in favor, according to the surveys done then and now.
So, having established the value of gay marriage, why are people so opposed to it? Many of the reasons offered for opposing gay marriage are based on the assumption that gays have a choice in who they can feel attracted to, and the reality is quite different.
Many people actually believe that gays could simply choose to be heterosexual if they wished. But the reality is that very few do have a choice -- any more than very few heterosexuals could choose which sex to find themselves attracted to. Additionally, many people continue to believe that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex.
And this is what gay relationships are based on -- mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex is a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals. Being gay is much more profound than simply a sexual relationship; being gay is part of that person's core indentity, and goes right the very center of his being. It's like being black in a society of whites, or a blonde European in a nation of black-haired Asians.
Yes, being gay is just that profound to the person who is. This is something that few heterosexuals can understand unless they are a minority themselves. Science itself has finally weighed in on the reasons why conservatives in particular are so opposed to gay marriage. It has a lot to do with the conservative mindset, of placing high values on a sacred, valued in-group - the married - and the intrusion into that sacred group of a largely despised out-group - gays.
So now we know why conservatives as a group is in opposition to gay marriage, but there are additional, subtle reasons which will be delineated below, which address individual concerns, not necessarily related to a general conservative worldview.
The Arguments Against Gay Marriage Well, of course there are a lot of reasons being offered these days for opposing gay marriage, and they are usually variations on a few well-established themes. Interestingly, the Supreme Court in Hawaii has heard them all. And it found, after due deliberation, that they didn't hold water.
Here's a summary of the common reasons given: Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U. Yet it is easily the weakest.
Who says who marriage is to be defined by? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument.
The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings!
That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage.
So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? Why are the advocates of this argument not working to prohibit the above categories of people from raising children? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples.
The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender.
The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage.
Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law and none other than the father of the American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, very proudly took credit for that fact , and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible.
Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages.
In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of such an argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out through lack of procreation.
If the ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into an already overburdened world. So why encourage them?
The vacuity of this argument is seen in the fact that those who raise this objection never object to infertile couples marrying; indeed, when their retired single parent, long past reproductive age, seeks to marry, the usual reaction is how cute and sweet that is. That fact alone shows how false this argument really is. Let's face it - marriage is about love and commitment, and support for that commitment, not about procreation.
Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. That one's contradictory right on the face of it. By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate sexually, and thereby reduce the number of supposed heterosexual marriages that end up in the divorce courts.
If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. So you would have freedom of choice, of choosing what kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now.
And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for tightening divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.
We shouldn't alter heterosexual marriage, which is a traditional institution that goes back to the dawn of time. This is morally the weakest argument.