Non-Consequentialist Arguments For The Legalization Of Gay Marriage

Homosexual marriage is one of the old but controversial issues around the world. Compared to the past, it seems to become a more open debate among people. At the same time, people seem to be more swayable than before, but towards the gay marriage, different voices have still been hovering in the air. Gay people and their supporters have been striving for their rights to get married legally, while others who against gay marriage have never stopped deterring it.

For the past 3 decades the views surrounding marriage has undergone a great deal of change (Lennox, 2015, p. 1101). This shift is due to the continual discussion of gay marriage. The interplay of religion and politics has led for much controversy. In the United States, the use of Christian and Jewish biblical texts are the main sources drawn upon for opposition, but have also been used as a supportive means of equality. Beyond the religious there are also psychological and physical health arguments, as well as civil rights arguments. Same sex marriage is examined through different paradigms, thus giving rise to religious, political/legal, and religious arguments surrounding the legalization of this institution for gay and lesbian couples.

In the United States, legalization of same-sex marriage has a long-standing history of opposition from religious circles. Some argue against the legalization of same-sex marriage based on their interpretation of the Bible’s stance against homosexuality (Dobson, O’Brien). Other opponents argue against the practice based on universal tenets of moral behavior, fundamental beliefs that are said to underpin our country’s existing laws and should not be eroded (George, Finnis, Friedman).

Using the biblical marriage chart, you can see that there are several forms of marriage in the bible. For example, a man can take on multiple wives. Solomon for example had 700 different wives. In addition to that, Jacob had 2 wives himself. The father of the 12 tribes had more than one wife and that was fine because it counted as biblical marriage. Another example is that man can have a wife, plus other concubines. Solomon was documented having 300 concubines. In Deuteronomy 22, if a virgin is raped, she must marry her rapist. This constitutes as a biblical marriage. As Robert Cargill writes, if you’re against same-sex couples getting married, be ready to defend all forms of marriage that are sanctioned in the bible

America was founded on the ideals of freedom. Written into the first amendment of the constitution is the basic right to freedom of speech, press, protest, and religion. However, where does one draw the line to how far these freedoms can go? Are they limitless, or should they be regulated? In reality, the regulation of these freedoms is necessary, otherwise they could be interpreted and used in many different ways that are potentially detrimental. The main complication is how far to let these rights stretch, and when they must be cut off.

Utilitarians surmise that the right decision is what achieves the future situation with the best net advantage and/or the slightest net damage. Putting aside the understood and right up 'til today endless troubles utilitarians face in recognizing and characterizing (and afterward adjusting) dubious "advantages" and "damages," Miller declares that utilitarians would support same-sex marriage in light of the fact that the "immediate advantages" to same-sex couples of being qualified to wed clearly exceed the main "backhanded damages" that "a few individuals" may encounter from having their origination of marriage "hurt." Despite the acknowledgment (without explanation) that there are "numerous components to consider," just these

The political issue of same-sex marriage has recently become one of the biggest debates of the 21st century. Its rise in popularity soared within the United States in 2000, when Vermont became the first state in the country to recognize these types of unions between same-sex couples. I believe that same-sex couples should not be denied of their right to marry, but there are several believable arguments, which contradict my opinion on the topic. These arguments include the beliefs that; allowing same-sex couples to wed will cause the institution of marriage to crumble, citizens of the United States should not have to pay taxes to support something which they believe to be wrong, and that the legalization of same-sex marriage could lead to

conflicting ethical theories regarding homosexuality exist. We do however, reject the idea that government should also be conflicted between these ethics. Religious arguments against homosexuality have no place in government legislation, just like the bible's support for slavery or it's subjection of women no longer do. Similarly, while marriage may be religiously derived, it does not stand as a singularly religious institution today, and therefore it need not conform to religious principles. Civil marriages are perfectly legal, and popular, and have the exact same status and terminology as ones done in a religious setting. In fact, civil registration is necessary for marriage, the presence of a religious figure is not. Therefore a secular

Just because someone doesn’t love the same way as you do does not make them wrong or make them crazy, it makes them unique. Majority of people around the world feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that gays should not have that right because they believe being gay is morally wrong. If being gay is morally wrong then why are their gay people? That is like saying being white is morally wrong. People honestly who believe this don’t really stop and think outside the box and think that what is in the bible is right. If you look at the ethical reason behind why people believe that gay marriage is wrong, it is purely due to discrimination. There are no real reasons why gay

While some states have began to embrace the civil rights of all American people and allowing both hetero- and homo-sexual couples to marry, some states have done quite the opposite and banned same sex marriages and unions. Not all Americans feel so strongly about legalizing same sex marriage. Those against same sex marriage believe marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman. However, that has not always been true, as explained in the beginning of this paper, the ancient people commonly wed the same gender and them and also had same sex sexual relations (ProCon.org). In fact in the first century Nero the Emperor of Rome married at least two of his lovers who were men (Chastain 19.) It was not until Christianity became a wide spread religion that sodomy and homosexuality became immoral. Those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage also believe that same sex marriage will threaten the institution of marriage. Marriages since 2011 have been at a new low, with only 52 percent of adults being married (Yen). However gays are fighting for the right to marry who they love, while heterosexual couples take that for granted. Divorce rates are currently lingering around 40-50% that is without gays being able to be married in many states. By allow homosexuals to marry their significant others, it will allow for a stronger bond and maybe bring back life into the deteriorating world of marriage. In states that do allow for same sex marriages, their divorce rates are

Although many conservatives were and are still opposed to same-sex marriages, the struggle for marriage equality in America focuses on the right to marry. The United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry by the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriages would be good for America as it would spur equality, promote family stability and validate LGBT family units as well as increase the number of children successfully adopted.

Since 1971 when the first same sex couple Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell applied for a marriage license and were denied in the Baker vs. Nelson ruling, America has been forced to debate whether homosexuals should be allowed to be married even though they are not the classical definition of a couple. There are many opinions about this subject from government officials, religious leaders and even the president of the United States. Homosexuals should be allowed to be married because they need to be treated fairly and equally.

Opposing same sex marriage and my solution of reinforcing the same sex marriage law would be people who have homophobia and some religions or religious people. Although people who have homophobia and some religious people are against gay marriage with the idea of out ruling gay marriage,my solution of reinforcing the same sex marriage law is superior to all other solutions out there.

Gay marriage is also referred to as same sex marriage. Same sex relationships occur when men and women are attracted to someone of the same gender as themselves. According to many opponents, gay marriages can be described as more of the abandonment of gender distinctions; because one cannot have same sex marriage while still believing that gender is relevant. For that reason, same genders getting married denies the obvious purpose of marriage between a man and woman, which is procreation. This research will analyze the arguments for and against gay marriages and the religious view of same sex marriages.

As we know, same-sex marriage has been discussed and argued for a long time. Within the controversial topic of gay rights, there’s no area more controversial than same-sex marriage. And all of us ask ourselves if same-sex marriage should be legal or not. But the fact is that we have to start thinking about it as a moral and religious topic. The government shouldn’t legalize the same-sex marriage because the