- Discover essay samples

Marrying Homosexuals

4.9 of 5.0 (136 reviews)

1043 words

Marrying Homosexuals Page 1
Marrying Homosexuals Page 2
Marrying Homosexuals Page 3
The above thumbnails are of reduced quality. To view the work in full quality, click download.

Marrying Homosexuals

By: Anonymous

This paper received an "A" Marrying Homosexuals Homosexuals should be allowed to marry because the disallowance of it violates their constitutional rights. Marriage is an institution long recognized by our government under the right to pursue happiness, and denying that right to any couple, regardless of gender, is unconstitutional. This argument, though, is not disputed. In fact, none of the arguments raised in opposition to the allowance of homosexual marriages takes into account the constitutional rights afforded to all humans. The arguments are only in relation to the possible repercussions (real or imagined) of granting these rights. Our nation was built and has always been based on the fundamental principles of freedom expressed in the Declaration of Independence and through our Constitution. The opponents of homosexual marriage need to remember what freedom means to America, and understand the significance of setting a precedent that denies that freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the institution of marriage is one of the rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution. On the Internet, you can find the full text of the following Supreme Court cases. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court said, 'The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.' In the case of Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, the Supreme Court said, 'This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.' At this time, however, marriage is only granted to heterosexual couples. Although homosexuals live under the same constitution, they are not afforded the same rights as heterosexuals. The reasons presented against the allowance of homosexual marriage are flimsy, and have nothing to do with the constitutional rights that are supposed to be afforded every American. All of the arguments against homosexual marriages have to do with the repercussions of granting the constitutional right of marriage to homosexuals, but not with the constitutional rights of homosexuals. The arguments offered are remarkably similar to the arguments offered 30 years ago against interracial marriages. An internet article, Homosexual Marriages: Religious Aspects, says, '...all (arguments) seem to echo the debates heard in the late 1960's when the morality of racially mixed marriages was being debated. One only needs to change a few words in the 1996 arguments against gays and lesbian marriage in order to produce replicas of those earlier racist statements.' The arguments against homosexual marriage can be grouped into four categories: religious, the potential influence that the allowance of homosexual marriages will have on children, the psychological effects on children of homosexual parents, and the overall damage that will be done to society with the acceptance of homosexual marriages. The religious argument, in short, is that God doesn't condone homosexuality. In Leviticus 20:13 of the Bible, the words are cited, 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood upon them.' According to Gail Stewart, the punishment for homosexual behavior during the 18th century - usually death - was handled by the Church (9). Since marriage is considered by the Church to be a covenant with God, the popular view in the Church is that homosexual marriages can not be allowed. There are a couple of problems with this. First, constitutional law can not be determined by religious grounds. The 1st amendment states, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' Second, the Church will not be forced to acknowledge homosexual marriages even if they are condoned by the State. The same amendment that keeps religious grounds from determining law is the amendment that will allow the Church to continue denying homosexual marriages once they are allowed by the state. Third, homosexuals will be allowed in many churches to be married. Part of the Homosexual Marriages: Religious Aspects page on the Internet says that the following churches support marriage for all adults, including homosexual couples: the Central Conference of American Rabbi's, the California Council of Churches, the Church of Religious Science, the Pacific Congress of Quakers, the Reconstructionist Rabbinial Association, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. The argument of the potential influence that the allowance of homosexual marriages will have on children is just plain ridiculous. In a nutshell, the argument says that if we allow homosexuals to marry, then children will get the message that homosexuality is okay. If children get the message that homosexuality is okay, then they may decide to explore homosexuality. The problem with this argument is that it's advocates do not see the contradiction in the argument. The whole argument only works on the basis that there is something wrong with homosexuality. Richard Mohr cites that the American Psychiatric Institute dropped homosexuality from their registry of mental illnesses in 1972 after concluding that homosexuality was not a mental illness (3). Under this, the nation has accepted that homosexuality is just a deviation from the sexual norm. Since it is okay to be homosexual, what is wrong with children getting the message that homosexuality is okay? It is not the nation, but the church that continues to teach that homosexuality is bad. As with the fight of interracial marriages, this fight stems from old values -- incorrect values -- that die hard. The argument does not change the fact that homosexual couples are being denied their constitutional rights. The argument against homosexual parenting is that children of same-sex marriages will suffer psychological problems, as evidenced by the children now who are suffering psychological effects because of family breakups and single-sex parenting. The argument contends that it would be wrong to send the message that both a mother and a father are not important by condoning homosexual marriages. The problem with this argument is that it tries to pin the psychological problems of children involved in family breakups on single-sex parenting. The problem is not with single-sex parenting, but ...

You are currently seeing 50% of this paper.

You're seeing 1043 words of 2086.

Similar essays

Abortion Debate - Pro-Life Stance

In Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the United Nations promising every human being th...

77 reviews
Homosexual Adoptions

Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children? The question concerning gay couples adopting children has become major problem in our society. This has become more of a political issue than a moral issue. If the question is looked at morally instead of politically then there would be no question at all. Gay couples should be in no w...

159 reviews
Bulimia Nervosa

June Engel (1993), found that today's society's idealization of thinness is producing an alarming increase in eating disorders especially among young women. The never-ending efforts to lose weight and conform to the media image of an 'ideal' shape are leading more and more young people to diet at the cost of health. Weight ' preoccupat...

192 reviews
Brief Look at Euthanasia

Euthanasia is one of the most acute and uncomfortable contemporary problems in medical ethics. Is Euthanasia Ethical? The case for euthanasia rests on one main fundamental moral principle: mercy. It is not a new issue; euthanasia has been discussed-and practised-in both Eastern and Western cultures fro...

148 reviews
Conflict Resolution

By: Jason E-mail: Today, I would like to talk to you about the Process. I believe this process begins by determining whether there is an actual probem, once determined that there is an actual problem all parties must analize the problem, clarifing all their preceptions, brainstorm for possible solutions, and create or cos...

56 reviews
Atsisiųsti šį darbą