Utilitarianism Gay Marriage

Utilitarian’s believe that the law, policy, or action has to maximize happiness and satisfaction in order for it to be consider ok. They believe that the happiness and satisfaction has to outweigh the pain and frustration of those against the law, policy, or action. On page 84 of Wenz’s political philosophies in moral conflict textbook he explains Jeremy Bentham’s hedonistic calculus. The book explains how the units of happiness have to exceed the amount of units of pain. In the view of gay marriage Utilitarian’s would say that it is ok as long as the happiness and satisfaction outweighs the pain and frustration. On the other hand though if the pain and frustration outweighs the happiness and satisfaction than gay marriage wouldn’t be ok.

The topic of homosexual marriages, or the marrying of two people of the same sex, is rather disputed among the majority of people in today’s society. Only small amounts of the population have opinions that are strongly favoring one side of the debate. For most of society who are the middle-of-the-road citizens, it is a tough call to make one way or the other. The main topics that are disputed are raising children in a same-sex household, the capacity of churches to allow such a marriage, and the integrity of a marriage as a legal document. These arguments will be expressed through the viewpoints of Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett. Sullivan is the author of the essay “Let Gays Marry” which was printed by Newsweek in June of 1996.

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).

Gay marriage has been an issue for a very long time and since some states are legalizing it, many worry that it would soon be added as an amendment. The topic of gay marriage brings up religious, legal, and many other issues. In "What's wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt, the author supports gay marriage and wants it legalized. She states that there is no problem with gay marriage and it's all a matter of separating the church and state. But in “Gay ‘Marriage’: Societal Suicide,” by Charles Colson, the author opposes the idea of gay marriage and states that it will destroy society. Marriage is intended to unite a man and a woman together to bring children into the world, but due to the same-sex marriage,

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

There are many controversies surrounding today's world, such as abortion, animal testing, and social reform issues. It seems that no one can come to a common agreement on the legitimacy of these topics. Personal characteristics, such as upbringing, culture, religion and ethnicity, all play a role in determining one's feelings on a given controversial issue. However, one of the most protested and discussed issues in current political debate is same-sex marriage. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only hard pressed arguments expressing speculation regarding supposed outcomes, benefits and possible tribulations that would come along with the endorsement of gay marriage. Such ideas are shown

Opposers think that legalizing homosexual marriages will not be the end of the line; they perceive that homosexual marriages will ruin the sacred sanctuary of marriage. They question what social repercussions legalizing gay marriage will cause. Concerns are: Gay people adopting children and what kind of life would it be for the children, what will be the next social tradition will be demolished if homosexual marriages are legalized

Marriage: a legally recognized relationship, set up by common or religious function, between two individuals who expect to live respectively as sexual and residential accomplices. Regularly this is between a man and a woman, in incredibly, before their families, to vow to spend whatever remains of their lives together. As times keep on evolving far and wide so has the thought and laws concerning marriage. Marriage is no more pretty much a man and a woman committing themselves to each other forever, it now envelops, gay and lesbians also, as they promise to love, respect, and trust each other all the times of their lives. Same-sex marriage, likewise ordinarily alluded to as Gay marriage, is a fervently issue that partitions an awesome number of individuals all through the world. In this pugnacious exposition, the subject is investigated by three of its fundamental contentions. The principal investigation of this point will include the capacity of same-sex couples to parent as adequately as their heterosexual partners. Next, the legitimate issues encompassing same-sex marriage are investigated. Ultimately, the religious contentions are assessed. Both sides of the contention for and against same-sex marriage are talked about while the per user is given an admiration for the position of supporting marriage equality.

One of the most controversial issues around today is gay marriages. Many believe that the media is primly responsible for the idea of same-sex marriages, but when it all comes down to it there are really only two sides; those who support gay marriages, and those who oppose them. Two authors write their opinions on their opposite views on this issue. Sullivan (2002) supports same-sex marriages and believes marriage to be a universal right, not just restricted to heterosexuals. Contrary to Sullivan, Bennett (2002) believes that marriage is a sacred traditional family value that should be set aside for heterosexual couples. (2002)Throughout this essay, I will summarize both authors’ ideas and evaluate them through their evidence and

As we know, same-sex marriage has been a prominent issue that has so many arguments not just in the United States, but around the world over many years now. There is absolutely nothing more controversial than same-sex marriage in gay rights topic. Everyone has different opinions about same-sex marriage whether it should be legal or not. We now have to consider two aspects that are moral and religious. These two form a fundamental belief that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are different. Based on the definition of marriage, the view of religion, bad effects to children, and the lifestyle that should not be encouraged; therefore, the government should not legalize the same-sex marriage.

In USA, the number of same sex couples increased by 30% in the United States from 2000 to 20005. (Gates, 2006, P.2) And similar situation happened all over the world. Because of the increasing number of homosexuals, legalizing homogeneous marriage becomes a hot topic. There are five countries and one state now performing homogeneous marriage. And many countries are debating this issue. Traditionally, marriage is a union of a man and a woman. And the new concept of marriage, homogeneous marriage, is marriage between two women or two men. What are they pros and cons of legalizing homogeneous marriage? In this essay, we will discuss the points in negative side and affirmative side.

On June 26, 2015, it was ruled by the the US Supreme Court that the US Constitution will guarantee that same-sex couples have the right to marriage in all 50 states of the US (state by state, n.d.). By many, this was celebrated as a victory. A Victory in the sense of equality, rights, and love. By others, this was seen as an immoral setback. I come to wonder who is right. Is there a right side? I know that there is a side who is for same-sex marriage and there is a side of those who oppose it. However, I know that the Christian faith tends to side with the opponents. I am a Christian; does that mean I am to be an opponent?

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

Today’s culture is filled with romantic movies, novels, and songs telling us that “All You Need is Love.” Due to this popular sentiment, many people view marriage as merely a public expression of the eternal love between two people, and because of this it does not matter who that love is between. Whether it is a homosexual or heterosexual relationship, according to society, all that should be required for marriage is love. Unfortunately, however, marriage is not that simple or solely emotional. Marriage is a centuries old institution designed to legally unite two people (“Marriage”), and because of this, what a government allows marriage to be legally defined as has a significant impact on society. The definition of marriage can affect everything from population to the overall emotional health of society to finances. When the benefits of marriage are analyzed from such a logical standpoint, it begs the question: “What’s Love Got to Do With It?” There are multiple views on this controversial subject. The main differences in the views of gay marriage stem from how various philosophies view the institution of marriage itself, with utilitarians utilizing it as a tool to benefit society as a whole, Aristotle requiring marriage’s purpose to be identified before any decisions are made, and libertarians allowing anyone to get married, as someone else’s marriage does not truly affect the rest of the population.