no to same sex marriage argumentative essay

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

An Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage: An Interview with Rick Santorum

The debate over same-sex marriage in the United States is a contentious one, and advocates on both sides continue to work hard to make their voices heard. To explore the case against gay marriage, the Pew Forum has turned to Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Sen. Santorum is also the author of the 2005 book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good , in which he makes the case for promoting families anchored by a married mother and father.

A counterargument explaining the case for same-sex marriage is made by Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer at The National Journal .

Featuring: Rick Santorum , Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center; Former U.S. Senator

Interviewer: David Masci , Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

In this Q&A: Why oppose gay marriage? The “go-slow” approach Child welfare Christian values

Question & Answer

Gay rights advocates and others say that gay and lesbian people want to get married for the same reasons that straight people do – they want to be in caring, stable relationships, they want to build a life and even start a family with someone else. Why shouldn’t they be able to do this?

See, I think that’s the foundational flaw with this whole debate. The law is as it has been for 200-plus years, and so the burden is on them to make the persuasive case as to why they should be married, not just for their benefit but for what the impact is on society and marriage as a whole, and on children.

I would argue that the gay community has not made the argument. They may have made the argument as to why they want it, but they have not made any arguments as to why this is beneficial for society. They have not made any argument – convincing or otherwise, that I’m aware of – as to what the impact would be on heterosexual marriages and what the impact would be on children.

They have no studies. They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children – nothing. They’ve made no case. Basically the case they’ve made is, “We want what you want, and therefore you should give it to us.”

So you’re saying that advocates of same-sex marriage are not seeing the big picture?

Yes. I have a book that was written a few years ago called It Takes a Family . In that book I have a chapter on moral ecology, and I explain that if you go to the National Archives, you will come to a section that has, as far as the eye can see, rows and rows and rows of environmental impact statements, because we have laws in this country that say before you go out and you put in a bridge across a creek, you have to go out and see whether what you’re doing is disturbing the landscape there.

Yet when it comes to something that I happen to believe is actually more important than a particular plot of land – the entire moral ecology of our country, who we are as a people, what we stand for, what we teach our children, what our values and ethics are – people argue that we can build the equivalent of a strip mall without even thinking about what those consequences are.

Some people in favor of gay marriage have argued for a “go-slow” approach, acknowledging that we’re in largely unknown territory and that a majority of Americans are not yet comfortable with same-sex marriage. Does that attitude allay any of your fears?

No. They want the convenient accelerator of the courts to put this in play, and then they want the judicious temperament of the American democratic system to govern it. I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too. Same-sex marriage advocates are not going to state legislatures, except in some cases for civil unions. They are using the courts.

If the courts are going to be your accelerator, then get ready for a ride. And if the courts ultimately say, “Marriage must be allowed between anybody and anybody,” the gay rights advocates are not going to say, “Well, you’ve gone too far.” No, I think the go-slow argument is there to make us feel better, but it doesn’t hold water.

Another argument made by gay rights advocates is that with or without marriage, gay families are already a widespread reality. They point out that we already have gay couples living together, some with children. And they ask: Isn’t it better that they be legally married to each other, if for no other reason than for the benefit and the welfare of the children?

The answer is no – because of the consequences to society as a whole. And again, those are consequences that they choose to ignore. What society should be about is encouraging what’s best for children. What’s best for children, we know, is a mother and a father who are the parents of that child, raising that child in a stable, married relationship, and we should have laws that encourage that, that support that.

What you’re talking about with same-sex marriage is completely deconstructing marriage and taking away a privilege that is given to two people, a man and a woman who are married, who have a child or adopt a child. We know it’s best for children and for society that men and women get married. We know it’s healthier. We know it’s better for men. We know it’s better for women. We know it’s better for communities.

What we don’t know is what happens with other options. And once you get away from the model of “what we know is best” and you get into the other options, from my perspective, there’s no stopping it. And also from my perspective, you devalue what you want to value, which is a man and woman in marriage with a child or children. And when you devalue that, you get less of it. When you get less of it, society as a whole suffers.

Do you feel confident that if same-sex marriage became the norm in our society that we would get less traditional marriage?

The answer is yes, because marriage then becomes, to some degree, meaningless. I mean, if anybody can get married for any reason, then it loses its special place. And, you know, it’s already lost its special place, in many respects, because of divorce. The institution of marriage is already under assault. So why should we do more to discredit it and harm it?

Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has written extensively about this, about what the impact is in countries that have adopted same-sex marriage. We have, in fact, seen a decline in the number of marriages, a delay in people getting married, more children being born out of wedlock and higher rates of divorce. None of those things are good for society. None of those things are good for children.

But can you lay these changes at the feet of same-sex marriage?

Yes, I think you can lay them at its feet. Kurtz notes that the marriage rate in the Netherlands was always actually one of the lowest in the EU. And once same-sex marriage was put in place, it broke below the line.

As a person who has positioned himself as a defender of Christian values, why is gay marriage particularly opposed to those values?

Well, the laws in this country are built upon a certain worldview, and it is the Judeo-Christian worldview. And that worldview has been expressed in our laws on marriage for 200-plus years. Up until 25 years ago, we would never have sat here and done this interview. It would have been beyond the pale. And so it is clearly a dramatic departure from the Judeo-Christian ethic that is reflected in our laws that say marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.

When you look ahead, do you feel optimistic that your side in this debate will ultimately prevail?

What I’ve noticed about this debate is that fewer and fewer people are stepping up and taking the position I’m taking because they see the consequences of doing so. I don’t think there is an issue that is a tougher issue for people to stand up against in American culture today than this one, both from the standpoint of the mainstream media and the popular culture condemning you for your – they can use all sorts of words to describe you – intolerant, bigot, homophobe, hater. The other side takes it personally. And so it makes it very difficult for folks to stand up and argue public policy when the other side views it as a personal, direct assault on them. So it’s very, very hard for me to be optimistic when we have a battle of ideas and one side is universally hammered for being intolerant bigots and the other side is enlightened and tolerant – which I think is false, but it is the pervasive attitude.

We know that the American public doesn’t approve of same-sex marriage, but they are uncomfortable about it because, again, the public perception is if you feel that way, you’re a bigot or a hater. And if the culture continues to send that message, if our educational system sends that message, which it does, you know, eventually the culture will change and people’s opinions will change.

The push back is what most people know: that mothers and fathers bring something unique. I mean, I have six children. I know that two mothers would not be able to give to my children what a mother and a father can give to my children. For instance, my daughter’s relationship with men is, in many respects, formed by her relationship with me. There are volumes of evidence showing that if little girls don’t have a father, it impacts their ability as adults to bond with men in healthy relationships.

What do we know, really, about children raised by same-sex couples? We’re into, in many respects, an unknown territory. There is already a difficult environment for children in America today, at least from the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective. So I think this is a fight worth fighting, even if it’s not a popular fight.

This transcript has been edited for clarity, spelling and grammar.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Religion & Social Values
• Same-Sex Marriage

Public Opinion on Abortion

8 in 10 americans say religion is losing influence in public life, how people around the world view same-sex marriage, the pope is concerned about climate change. how do u.s. catholics feel about it, across u.s. religious groups, more see decline of marriage as negative than positive, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• Home Planet
• 2024 election
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

The strongest argument against same-sex marriage: traditional marriage is in the public interest

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The strongest argument against same-sex marriage: traditional marriage is in the public interest

Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that individual states are acting in the public interest by encouraging heterosexual relationships through marriage policies, so voters and legislators in each state should be able to set their own laws.

Some groups, such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited the secular benefits of heterosexual marriages, particularly the ability of heterosexual couples to reproduce, as Daniel Silliman reported at the Washington Post .

”It is a mistake to characterize laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman as somehow embodying a purely religious viewpoint over against a purely secular one,” the bishops said in their amicus brief . “Rather, it is a common sense reflection of the fact that [homosexual] relationships do not result in the birth of children, or establish households where a child will be raised by its birth mother and father.”

Other groups, like the conservative Family Research Council, warned that allowing same-sex couples to marry would lead to the breakdown of traditional families. But keeping marriage to heterosexual couples, FRC argued in an amicus brief , allows states to “channel the potential procreative sexual activity of opposite-sex couples into stable relationships in which the children so procreated may be raised by their biological mothers and fathers.”

To defend same-sex marriage bans, opponents had to convince courts that there’s a compelling state interest in encouraging heterosexual relationships that isn’t really about discriminating against same-sex couples.

But a majority of Supreme Court justices and most of the lower courts widely rejected this argument, arguing that same-sex marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision, explained

Sign up for the newsletter Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction, same sex unions, history of same sex unions, debate on gay marriage.

Marriage has been regarded as one of the most important social institutions in the society. This is because it forms the basis of organization in any given society. “Marriage refers to an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found” (Dziengel, 2010).

Marriage is treated quite differently depending on the norms and values that exist in a given society. The current society is experiencing many social changes, which have influenced the nature of relationships among human beings. Marriage has also been affected by these social changes.

Marriage is today very dynamic and people treat it differently from what it used to be in the past. Same sex unions are becoming popular in many countries and they are quite prevalent in European countries as compared to other places. Same sex marriage is commonly known as gay marriage. “It refers to a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender” (Goldberg, 2010).

“Various types of same sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The early practice of this type of marriage was witnessed when Emperor Nero married a man who was serving as a servant in his Roman Empire.

Apart from Rome, this practice occurred in China during the Ming Dynasty and also in Spain. This type of marriage had very bad reputation and it was strongly rejected by many individuals and countries. “This attitude has been changing in the past few decades” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). The twenty first century has witnessed a drastic change in the way people perceive this type of relationship.

Netherlands in the year 2001 emerged to be the first country to allow gay relationships. In 2003 the government of Belgium accepted this type of union. In 2005 both Canada and Spain formally accepted gay marriages. In 2006 the people of South African were allowed to practice gay marriages.

Sweden allowed it in 2009. Last year, Argentina, Iceland and Portugal also accepted this kind of relationship. In Mexico it is legalized but with some restrictions in the sense that it can only be practiced within the city of Mexico. However, all Mexican states acknowledge it.

“Israel does not recognize same sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdiction” (Ronner, 2005). Apart form South Africa, other African countries still remain conservative and they are not willing to accept this relationship. “In the United States, although same sex marriages are not recognized federally, same sex couples can marry in five states and one district” (Smith, 2010).

Opposing Arguments

The subject of gay marriage has been seriously debated in many places. This issue has been discussed both in religious and political circles. The following arguments have been used to reject gay marriage.

The general question is that why should people practice this kind of relationship? This is what the majority of people opposed to it seem to be asking whenever this issue is raised in any discussion. This people contend that legal relationships are only those between men and women. Hence they do not see the sense of people engaging in any other type of intimate relationship (Ronner, 2005).

Marriage is often seen as a religious rite and in this case people look at it from the religious perspective. They therefore believe that if gay marriage is legitimized it would undermine the religious principles. This is because religion has always been used to sanctify marriages (Farrior, 2009).

The dignity of the church has been affected because of the different attitudes adopted by religious leaders on this matter. Some churches are likely to get split because they cannot come to an agreement on how to handle this issue. This has adversely affected their capacity to spread the gospel. Some members of the church have even lost their faith and trust in religion because they do not agree with the church leaders who support this kind of relationship.

For example, the Anglican Church members and their leaders have been arguing about gay marriages. Since some of them support it, they have now formed a separate church. The Catholic Church has also had the same problem. Some Catholic monks have also been accused of child molestation and this has really affected their reputation.

Marriage is naturally understood as an institution for raising children. Same sex marriages do not give children an opportunity to have a good development. “In this case some individuals strongly feel that same sex partners can not provide the moral and psychological support required for raising children” (Goldberg, 2010). This is because such children would find it quite unusual when they realize that their parents have the same sex. This can really affect them psychologically (Goldberg, 2010).

Gay marriages are understood as unnatural unions. “This premise influences other arguments and lies behind many negative opinions about homosexuality in general” (Acevado & Wada, 2011). Since gay relationships are not normal, they should be reduced to social unions instead of being authenticated by the national leaders in a given country. This is because if such abnormal behaviors are allowed, they are likely to become very prevalent in our society in the near future. This may cause very many social problems.

Marriage is also an important cultural symbol. “Apart from marriage being an institution, it is also a symbol representing our culture’s ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008). Symbols are very important because it is through them that we develop a sense of belonging to a given society or race. “Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people’s basic identities” (Haider & Joslyn, 2008).

It would also be difficult and expensive to integrate this people into the society. This is because people have to be taught to accept them. “Teaching people to become tolerant to gay individuals would be expensive” (Smith, 2010).

Supporting Arguments

Even though gay marriage is not supported by some people, I disagree with them because of the following arguments.

Marriage enables people to have access to social and economic needs. “Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically” (Ronner, 2005). Therefore if gay couples are guaranteed the right to marry they will probably have the chance to benefit from being married. This will also be helpful to the gay communities at large. For example the gay couples would remain committed in helping each other because of the marriage vows.

It would also be wrong for gay relationships to be treated as civil unions. This is because if the gay individuals can get married, they stand a better chance of enjoying several opportunities. This can not be the case if they are in civil unions. “Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for every one else and this type of marriage will be more of a threat than gay unions could possibly be” (Farrior, 2009).

The stability of our society can be enhanced if gay individuals can be given a chance to marry. Even the people who oppose this relationship believe that the family is the basis of our society. Therefore, if more families are formed through gay marriages, we can have a great society. The family also dictates the general trend in the society. Marriage would also facilitate the integration of gay people into their communities. Accepting gay relationships will therefore enhance the strength of our communities.

Many children are leading poor lifestyles and they cannot even access the common basic needs. Destitute children can have a chance to lead a good life if they can be adopted by married gay individuals. This is because they can provide emotional and financial support to such children. This can only be possible if they can be allowed to get married and adopt children.

Many people and groups are increasingly becoming conscious, and more concerned about the human rights. “Another argument that favors same sex marriages is that denying same sex couples legal access to marriage and all of its attendant benefits represents discrimination based on sexual orientation” (Dziengel, 2010). Many people and institutions promoting human rights concur with this assertion. People in same sex unions do not access the rights given to the married people.

Gay couples have faced myriad challenges. Most of them have experienced psychological problems associated with verbal and physical abuse. For example, some of them have been attacked and brutally killed. This is because many people are not wiling to be associated with them hence they always intimidate them. One way of eliminating this stigmatization is by simply making it legal for them to get married.

It has also been noted with a lot of concern that HIV/AIDS is spreading among the gay people because they operate illegally. Marriage would make this people more faithful to their partners. This can reduce the chances of them contracting HIV/AIDS because they will be more responsible.

From the above argument it is very clear that many countries and individuals are increasingly accepting the fact that gay relationships are equally good. It is therefore important for people to stop being conservative only when it comes to marriage, yet they accept other serious changes that take place in their society.

For example, if abortion can be legalized, why no not gay marriages? “Legalizing gay marriages will probably make the social economic and political institutions in our societies more effective” (Smith, 2010). This is because people will have similar goals, and they will not have differences based on sexual orientation. I am therefore optimistic that in the near future many people will support same sex relationships.

Acevado, G., & Wada, R. (2011). Religion and attitudes toward same sex marriages among U.S. Latinos. Wiley -Blackwell Social Science Quarterly , 92, 35-56.

Benard, S. (2009). Heterosexual previlage awareness, previlage and support of gay marriage among diversity course students. EBSCOhost Journal , 58, 3-7.

Dziengel, L. (2010). Advocacy coalitions and punctuated equilibriam in the same sex marriage debate: learning from pro-LGBT policy changes in Minneapolis and Minnesota. Journal of Gay and Lesbian services , 22, 165-182.

Farrior, S. (2009). Human rights advocacy on gender issues: challanges and opportunites. Oxford Journal of Human Rights Practice , 1, 83-100.

Goldberg, A. (2010). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: research on the family life cycle. Claiming a place at the family table: gay and lesbian families in the 21st century , 72, 230-233.

Haider, D., & Joslyn, M. (2008). Belives about the origin of homosexuality and support for gay rights. Oxford Journals public Opinion Quarterly , 72, 291-310.

Ronner, A. (2005). Homophobia and the law (law and public policy). New York: American Psychological Association.

Smith, M. (2010). Gender politics and same sex marriage debate in the United States. Oxford Jourrnals Social Politics , 17, 1-28.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, April 1). Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/

"Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." IvyPanda , 1 Apr. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage'. 1 April.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

1. IvyPanda . "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Marriage Equality: Same-Sex Marriage." April 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/same-sex-marriage-2/.

• Gay Marriage and Parenting
• Arguments for Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
• Factors Influencing Perception on Same-sex marriage in the American Society
• Why Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal
• Gay Marriage Legalization
• Balancing Studies, Work, and Family Life
• Emotions and reasoning
• Correlation Between Multiple Pregnancies and Postpartum Depression or Psychosis

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

The Landmark Case of Obergefell V. Hodges: a Legal Milestone in Marriage Equality

This essay about Obergefell v. Hodges, a pivotal Supreme Court case in 2015, which legalized same-sex marriage across all fifty states in the United States. It outlines the background of the case, its significance in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights, and the lasting impact it had on American society. The essay emphasizes how the ruling affirmed the fundamental rights and dignity of same-sex couples, set a precedent for future civil rights cases, and underscored the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ equality.

How it works

In the annals of American legal history, few cases have had the profound societal impact of Obergefell v. Hodges. Decided by the Supreme Court in 2015, this landmark ruling marked a pivotal moment in the fight for marriage equality in the United States.

At its core, Obergefell v. Hodges addressed the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage. The case originated from Ohio, where James Obergefell sought to have his marriage to John Arthur, who was terminally ill, legally recognized on his death certificate.

However, Ohio’s ban on same-sex marriage prevented this recognition, sparking a legal battle that would ultimately reach the highest court in the land.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the importance of marriage as a fundamental right, stating that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated their constitutional rights and perpetuated stigma and inequality.

The ramifications of Obergefell v. Hodges were profound and far-reaching. Overnight, same-sex couples across the nation gained the legal recognition and protections afforded to heterosexual couples. This decision not only legalized same-sex marriage in all fifty states but also affirmed the dignity and equality of LGBTQ+ individuals in the eyes of the law.

Moreover, Obergefell v. Hodges set a powerful precedent for future civil rights cases. By affirming the constitutional rights of same-sex couples, the Supreme Court sent a clear message that discrimination based on sexual orientation has no place in American society. The decision spurred further progress in the LGBTQ+ rights movement, inspiring activists to continue advocating for equality and inclusion.

However, despite the groundbreaking nature of Obergefell v. Hodges, the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over. Challenges remain, including ongoing efforts to undermine marriage equality and roll back LGBTQ+ protections. As such, it is imperative that advocates remain vigilant in defending the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In conclusion, Obergefell v. Hodges stands as a landmark moment in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ equality. By recognizing the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry, the Supreme Court affirmed the principles of dignity, equality, and justice for all. Though obstacles persist, the legacy of Obergefell v. Hodges serves as a beacon of hope and progress in the quest for a more inclusive and equitable society.

Cite this page

The Landmark Case of Obergefell v. Hodges: A Legal Milestone in Marriage Equality. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-case-of-obergefell-v-hodges-a-legal-milestone-in-marriage-equality/

"The Landmark Case of Obergefell v. Hodges: A Legal Milestone in Marriage Equality." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-case-of-obergefell-v-hodges-a-legal-milestone-in-marriage-equality/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Landmark Case of Obergefell v. Hodges: A Legal Milestone in Marriage Equality . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-case-of-obergefell-v-hodges-a-legal-milestone-in-marriage-equality/ [Accessed: 13 May. 2024]

"The Landmark Case of Obergefell v. Hodges: A Legal Milestone in Marriage Equality." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 13, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-case-of-obergefell-v-hodges-a-legal-milestone-in-marriage-equality/

"The Landmark Case of Obergefell v. Hodges: A Legal Milestone in Marriage Equality," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-case-of-obergefell-v-hodges-a-legal-milestone-in-marriage-equality/. [Accessed: 13-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Landmark Case of Obergefell v. Hodges: A Legal Milestone in Marriage Equality . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-landmark-case-of-obergefell-v-hodges-a-legal-milestone-in-marriage-equality/ [Accessed: 13-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Fundamental Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

1999, Journal of Political Philosophy

Related Papers

Rowman & Littlefield International

Louise Richardson-Self

http://www.rowmaninternational.com/books/justifying-same-sex-marriage There is massive public interest in same-sex marriage, a controversial topic that is rarely out of the media. This book investigates the extent to which legalizing same-sex marriage can contribute to ending the discrimination and social stigma faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender men and women (LGBT) in the Western world. This issue breaks down into several further questions: can marriage equality be defended without reinforcing the idea that marriage is the most/only valuable form of intimate relationship? Can marriage equality be defended without further marginalizing non-conforming LGBT people? What kind of equality should LGBT people strive for? What critical agency might they lose when this equality is achieved? What institutional legacies should we embrace? The book focuses on human rights arguments supporting same-sex marriage and questions whether they are likely to both justify legal change and encourage shifts in the sociopolitical reception of LGBT people. After critically analyzing various arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, the author puts forward a justification that allows for marriage equality and does not result in the assimilation of queer identities into heteronormative identity.

Nelson Tebbe

159 University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra 21 (2010)Professors Tebbe and Widiss revisit the arguments they made in "Equal Access and the Right to Marry" and emphasize their belief that distinguishing between different-sex marriage and same-sex marriage is inappropriate. They lament the sustained emphasis on the equal-protection and substantive-due-process challenges in the Perry litigation and suggest that an equal-access approach is more likely to be successful on appeal.Professor Shannon Gilreath questions some of the fundamental premises for same-sex marriage. He challenges proponents to truly reflect on "what there is to commend marriage to Gay people," and points to his own reversal on the question as evidence. Though he stands fully in opposition to critics of same-sex marriage who use the stance to veil attacks on equality generally, Gilreath argues that marriage can be seen as a further institutionalization of gays and lesbians that risks "a...

Journal of Social Philosophy

Richard McDonough

The present paper takes its point of departure from “McDonough’s Logical Argument” (hereafter MLA) that “gays” have traditionally had the same marital rights as “straights”, namely to marry one eligible person of the opposite gender. The present paper argues that, although it might not seem so at first glance, MLA is consistent with full legal rights being accorded to “Same Sex Marriage” (SSM). That is, MLA takes no stand on the substantive issue whether SSM should be legalized, but is merely an attempt to make a purely logical point about the “individuation” (the precise specification) of the right to marry. An illuminating social science fiction example is provided to show that MLA is neutral on the legalization of SSM. The paper argues that philosophical argument per se is largely impotent on these kinds of issues, and that the justification for legalizing SSM is to be found, rather, in the democratic process.

Andrzej Waleszczyński

This article defends the thesis that, in light of the postulates of liberal ethics, it is not possible to put forward universal arguments in support of any form of marriage. The existing forms of marriage should be either deemed unjust or founded on specific arguments recognized within a particular political community and determining the understanding of justice in a particular society. It defends the thesis that the requirement of universality, and consequently of impartiality, is not met, since behind every form of marriage there is a certain " minimum " anthropological approach. Marriage is discussed as a privilege granted to particular groups by the political community. The comments are made with reference to the discussion between Krzysztof Saja and Tomasz Sieczkowski concerning the problem of discrimination against same-sex couples in Polish legislation.

same Sex marriages

cholwe mwanakaba

Politics & Gender

Lorna Bracewell

Revista Direito Gv

Awwal Magashi

As an avenue to guarantee and ensure the enjoyment of right to freedom of private and family life, spouses have been permitted and encouraged by various laws to get married to one another. The concept of marriage has been generally understood and confined within the following meaning: “a legal union between a male and a female with a view to becoming husband and wife. ” Such definition precludes any unionism that may occur between same-sex couples in a manner contrary to the law and public policy. In the recent past, the Government of Nigeria has signed into law a bill known as “Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Bill, 2011”. The Bill prohibits a marriage between two same couples and all sort of matters connected therewith such as forming a union that has to do with same-sex marriage. The prohibition has been supported by the religious declarations, people’s culture, public policy and morals in the country. The passage of the Bill into law has attracted series of condemnations by some ...

RELATED PAPERS

Materials Science - MATER SCI-ENGL TR

Marina Manzano

Andie D Vanture

Cartography and Geographic Information Science

Diansheng Guo

Journal of Energy Resources Technology

max platzer

murtaza hajoori

IGOR ŽUPANČIĆ

Ricardo Nascimento Fabbrini

Psicologia em Estudo

Leonardo Gomes de Almeida

Mineralogy and Petrology

Zsolt Benkó

Resistances Nr. 4

Pablo Pulgar Moya

Histology and histopathology

Masae Tatematsu

Manju Boipai

Judith Armitage

Dzieje Najnowsze

Zbigniew Hojka

Abraham Hernández

Jurnal Integrasi dan Harmoni Inovatif Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial (JIHI3S)

Nugroho Bayu Wijanarko

Saúde Coletiva (Barueri)

Isabelle Lorena de Oliveira Gomes Teixeira

Carolina Remorini

Dental Materials

Rafael Mondelli

Aquaculture Nutrition

Frederic Barrows

Wijang Iswara Mukti

Biophysical Journal

Jerry Ebalunode

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Good Disagreement: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate Shows We Still Have a Long Way to Go

Joel Harrison

• X (formerly Twitter)

Joel Harrison is Senior Lecturer in the Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Sydney.

Australia has now completed its postal survey "vote" on whether marriage should be redefined at law to include the union of two persons of the same sex. 61.6% are in favour of the change.

In the wake of the result, we should spend time reflecting on the nature of the debate and what lessons it may hold for civic - and civil - engagement. In particular, what did this debate reveal about our capacity for respectful conversation ?

Advocates on both sides of the question repeatedly used this term as an aspiration, also indicating that there was a conversation to be had. However, both No and Yes groups claimed offence, vilification and bullying .

This is not surprising. I want to suggest at least two structural and conceptual reasons why the postal survey was ill-suited to engendering respectful conversation. Both reasons transcend the current issue of same-sex marriage, relating more generally to how we engage in moral debates.

First, the debate was characterised by an emphasis on "getting out the vote" or marshalling one's own side; and second, claims of offence and bigotry are how we often stake a political argument in an age focused on rights (or, more specifically, rights-talk of a certain brand).

In contrast, I want to consider an alternative. A truly respectful conversation will be one that sees the task before us as a collective endeavour. In this case: a quest, however contested, to understand the relationship between the good of marriage, the ends of the person, and the goal of politics or formation of a community. In such a conversation, we are responsible to each other in at least two ways: first, rather than simply asserting a subjective right, we are all seeking to understand an objective, shared good, one central to our political community or common life; second, as such, we may see the other person not as an enemy (the "religious bigot" or the "radical gay propagandist"), but as an interlocutor refining our own argument or offering something for contemplation.

But such a conversation arguably also requires shared space for deliberation. We not only need a shared language or goal, but sites for encountering one another in order to cultivate the sense that the other person is someone whose flourishing I have an interest in or care for.

This kind of conversation was arguably not evident recently in Australia, but it is possible.

"Get out the vote"

The very use of a plebiscite - or, in this case, a postal survey - was contentious . In our parliamentary democracy, persons are elected to take part in deliberation orientated towards passing laws for the common good. This entails exercising wisdom - leading popular opinion as much as reflecting on it - in order to discern what that good requires. Indeed, such an exercise requires being attentive to different communities and their claims.

Instead, before reaching this form of deliberation, we have had a postal survey. Here, deliberation is largely replaced with attempting to marshal one's side or "get out the vote." Campaigners have been explicit , stating they were targeting those likely to have sympathy for their position.

This follows from reducing moral and political deliberation down to, ultimately, a yes-no binary. Of course, there may be attempts to engage with and persuade those who disagree, but such attempts are surely rarer when the task is simply one of securing votes.

Doing so can largely take the form of galvanising the base with (sometimes ambiguous) horror stories, explosive wording, "right side of history" claims, or blatant attempts to engage in civic alienation - determining who are the friends and who are the enemies. Such galvanising tactics have typified the Coalition for Marriage , campaigning for a No vote. Its repeated exhortations against "radical gay sex" during the postal survey can only be understood as attempts to rally the troops against a spectre of ambiguous import.

Indeed, the act of persuasion becomes almost entirely an appeal to caution, if not fear. Of course, changing the definition of marriage does raise important questions concerning education and religious liberty. But the Coalition for Marriage's campaign, judging by its publicly available resources, explicitly targeted these concerns alone and did so more in the vein of political slogans - flyers and videos to stir those already committed or those amenable to the messaging. Perhaps ironically, given it is the Coalition for Marriage, material on what marriage is and why this is a good - indeed, something attractive - did not feature heavily in its campaign. Such attempts were instead made by individuals .

Within this context, appeals to respectful conversation appear to have a distinct meaning. They largely seem to concern the liberty to state a view, arguably in order to marshal the base, with the proviso that this must not amount to vilification. Here, the postal survey, with its crystallising of our current debate into a push for Yes and No votes, highlighted how for some the political task has become simply the goal of winning through securing numbers.

Rights-talk

But there is, I think, a second reason why respectful conversation has become difficult: the reigning concepts employed arguably hinder it. In our current debate, rights-talk is particularly prominent. In one banal sense, this is inevitable. Amending the Marriage Act 1961 would create a new rights-claim, entailing a duty on the part of the state to recognise a union between any two persons under the Act as a valid legal marriage.

But the appeal to rights ordinarily says much more than this; typically rights-talk is appealed to as the justification for changing the Marriage Act . For example, in her Monthly essay , Senator Penny Wong principally refers to the "equal treatment of people" which requires "granting the same rights."

What, then, does equality of rights mean? Of course, rights discourse is complicated by different strands or traditions of argument that shape the purpose and content of rights-claims; there is no settled meaning. For example, some have argued that a right to marry is a right to participate in a conditioned role or responsibility that entails certain duties to the spouse and children. On this (typically more Catholic) view, the duty is primary. The purpose of marriage is inferred from the natural relations between men and women, and the building of a community; marriage exists to sustain children and a tradition. But appeals to rights in the current debate typically draw from a different tradition of argument - call it liberal egalitarian .

Senator Wong goes on to appeal to Obergefell , the United States Supreme Court's decision holding that states must extend the status of marriage to same-sex couples. For the majority in that decision, Justice Kennedy stated, "the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." This was not the Court's sole proposition; however, it was the guiding light or principle. A right is linked to the "liberty ... to define and express ... identity." Marriage is cast as one form of intimate decision central to this. It thus serves the underlying goal of what others have referred to as self-actualisation, self-fashioning, or facilitating different lifestyles. Equality consequently means equal regard or respect for a person's (at least intimate) choices.

Rights-talk is often characterised as a neutral language, transcending different religious and non-religious views. It appears well-suited to the reality of no single view achieving universal acceptance. But I suggest that rights-talk of the kind just described, arguably a dominant strand, can engender conflict and inhibit dialogue.

A person may argue that a choice is not conducive to human flourishing, personally and socially. However, if rights are directed towards equal respect for an individual's freedom to cultivate his or her understanding of the good life, then this moral claim may be characterised as imposing an "external preference" (to borrow from the late Ronald Dworkin) upon the ethical preferences of another individual. Such claims then register in public discourse, and legal decisions, as statements that the other is of less worth because an ethical choice is not being respected.

Framed in this way, rights-talk can contribute to what Steven Smith has called a "discourse of denigration." The strongest available argument is to cast one's opponent as engaging in hate. Thus the prevalence of "bigot" in public discourse. Of course, such bigotry and denigration does exist - homophobia is real, as is animus against religious persons. But the label is frequently extended to an opposing view as such. The person arguing marriage is a union between persons of the opposite sex is not simply raising a definitional or ontological argument, but is rights-limiting, imposing a preference on the freedom of another, and thus denigrating another's identity. In return, this precipitates a counter-claim of bigotry, sourced both in the original claim - labelling one's opponent a bigot is itself a form of bigotry - and any attendant denial of the right to religious liberty.

Unsurprisingly, then, much of our current political argument registers as claims of offence and protest. By this I do not mean protest necessarily linked to a shared good - for example, care of the planet or a cessation of war. Rather, what we now increasingly see in a debate like this is the potential for an almost wholly "negative" phenomenon of protesting against offence occasioned by the rejection of one's own ethical choices. Solidarity is found - and votes marshalled - in mutual offence at, for example, someone believing that children are ideally raised by a biological father and mother or questioning the influence of a person's religious beliefs.

This is deeply ironic. Rights-talk of the kind I am discussing is grounded in equal regard for another's identity. And yet what we actually have much of the time is mutual disrespect . Indeed, if rights-talk refers to respecting an individual's self-actualisation or ethical freedom, then we arguably do not need to engage the substance of the person's actual argument. Rather, each claim is simply a matter of respecting, as far as possible, self-defining.

This presents questions of law: how do we "balance" what are arguably structurally similar claims, if our concern is ethical freedom, namely same-sex marriage and religious liberty? But we are arguably beyond respecting - by, in fact, engaging - the other person's substantive view.

Good disagreement

The alternative is to understand our conversation as a shared endeavour. I have argued that our current debate has two features: politics as simply an interest in securing one's base to win, and a focus on a rights discourse that reflects arguments of personal autonomy and private choice. In contrast, focusing together on the substantive moral question (what is marriage? how does it relate to our common life?) allows, I suggest, for a kind of displaced agreement. Participants may not agree on a particular conclusion - here, whether marriage can extend to a same-sex couple. Nevertheless, they may agree in part, agree on the moral vocabulary, or agree that the differing party is conscientiously pursuing a real human good. This would contribute to what the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, calls "good disagreement."

A conversation of this kind can be fruitful. Here, I am drawing from the structuring of debates within parts of the Anglican Communion. Some churches have grappled with what it means to disagree, while nevertheless seeking and affirming a "right" position. While these debates are not perfect, I think they offer potential insights for our political communities.

Consider, first, how the argument of "traditionalists" argument clearly points to two matters that may make a "revisionist" pause: the status of objective goods in our common life, and the importance of marriage to a civil society independent of the sway of government and market.

Traditionalists argue marriage points to a fundamental unity-in-differentiation. Marriage draws together the two halves of the human race (as the typical cases) in a union that gives positive meaning to gender difference: we need each other, which is then most centrally expressed in the common endeavour of procreation and child-rearing. On this account, marriage is fundamentally "traditional." As John Milbank has argued, it entails forming kinship structures, transmitting virtue and a tradition, and the continuity of humanity itself from one generation to the next.

Framed in this way, the traditionalist argument clearly points to genuine, desirable human goods. Indeed, importantly, it typically contends that marriage is an objective good purposed towards particular ends. This raises a fundamental question in our debates: are there goods whose nature or shaping is not simply a matter of individual will?

Liberal-egalitarian rights-talk in this field can be construed as respecting the choice to enter into a status (marriage). However, there is also more than a hint that this respect extends to the individual's own understanding of what that status is. Such a determination is part of a person's capacity to "define one's own concept of existence." Some commentators then echo this by grounding marriage in contract, which casts marriage as an agreement entailing the allocation of rights and duties as determined by individual willing.

For the traditionalist, this is rank individualism. It adopts a mistaken view of freedom as the absence of restraint, rather than the pursuit of what is truly good. And this view, at one with a neo-liberal focus on choice, then clearly relates to changing practices of child-bearing, which in turn affects the political meaning of the family.

On the traditionalist account, marriage as an objective good entails the potential for a child who is uniquely of these two people. Marriage is political because it is the basis for forming and extending communities; it is our first society. But uncoupling marriage from gender-differentiation (for example, rendering it a matter of contract) potentially transforms parenthood from a matter of natural affinity, with a relative independence and authority, into a subject under the sway of commercial enterprise, contractual design, and state regulation and recognition.

Revisionists can and have responded to these claims.

For example, I have noted previously a consistent thread of argument that characterises marriage as a school of virtue. Marriage on this account is a humanising act - it teaches us, through intimacy with a spouse, what it means to be a person, rightly formed. It orientates us towards our right end of human flourishing - a life characterised by fidelity, patience and charity, for example. It teaches us the disciplines necessary to achieve this. It awakens "knowing yourself to be seen in a certain way: as significant, as wanted." And, in turn, it entails learning to accord and recognise the worth of the other. Thus the Book of Common Prayer states, "With my body, I thee worship."

Grounded in such mutual love and support, the marriage partners can then be a gift to the community. On this, the biopolitical concern of state and market sway over parenthood can be accepted as real, but not inevitable. As a gift to our common life, the marriage may not entail child-rearing at all, or, if it does, it may focus on adoption as a vocation. (Indeed, this would be consistent with biblical images of marriage, which typically do not depend on child-bearing, but point to faithfulness and a place for erotic desire.)

Importantly, here traditionalist claims are not "overcome" by an appeal to rights discourse. Rather, the traditionalist claims are taken seriously, as a partner seeking common meaning. This means the revisionist argument, focused in this way, also discusses marriage as an objective good fundamental to our common life. As Sarah Coakley has noted, it remains "traditional."

I am suggesting, then, that a more respectful conversation - if that is our goal - is furthered by attending to and cultivating a shared language. Here our disagreements may not amount to simply claims of rights-limited, but rather contested conclusions in a shared project: understanding marriage and its importance. Indeed, each side may then be pointing to something right, something of a shared concern or even desire. This does not mean agreement, but it does point to the possibility of some shared norms. And if there can be mutual recognition of the other's argument this should make us more open to the possibility of conscientious difference and disagreement, even as we continue to seek to persuade.

But a respectful conversation arguably requires more than attentiveness to the contours of a debate; it requires a context for this. It requires, in other words, time, space and encounter - all things that arguably were lacking in the compressed context of a postal survey.

For those who see same-sex marriage as a pressing matter of justice, the wait has been too long. This is understandable, but if we are to take conscientious difference seriously and engender a respectful conversation, then time is needed. One unfortunate characteristic of the current debate is the absence of the rhetorical virtue of decorum . Speaking generally, John Perry describes "the arrogant assumption by some that they have been there from the beginning and therefore control the terms of discussion, as well as the foolishness of the newcomer who doesn't wait and listen for long enough to hear what the argument is about." Simply understanding the moral claims, lines of argument and implications from argument found in this debate takes time. But the need for time extends also to building relationships across an "opposing" side.

Reflecting on the parallel debates in the Anglican Communion, Justin Welby refers to "an honest reinforcement of the bonds of relationship." Our moral debates, while fraught, are also an exercise in virtue . Respecting the other person in conversation means cultivating the capacity to care for the other person. This is consistent with understanding our conversation as shared . We share a common life, and so should be concerned with sustaining bonds of trust and even affection. We may come to understand our interlocutors as not simply the holder of a competing view, but as someone who as a member of my community may be a gift to me. They may illuminate a question in surprising ways. Moreover, they may contribute to what Iris Murdoch called "moral perfection." Through active attending to the other person, I may come to see them "justly and lovingly" - virtues that, as she argued, are fundamental to being a person.

That would typically mean cultivating shared spaces for encounter. We may think of this tangibly. Rather than the echo chamber of social media, let alone the world of robocalls and pamphleteering, actively attending to those who share with us the project of discerning and debating right is more likely done in the act of sitting at a table (or in a pew), at which the other person is immediately before us and concrete.

This is not to say that conversation will lead to some kind of middle-of-the-road agreement. Such conversations are not divorced from pursuing the truth. Indeed, from a perspective of Christian political ethics, if not more widely, we are concerned with articulating right - that is, asking what justice requires, understood as discerning right relations within a created order. This requires engaging in criticism where justice goes awry and then arguing for what is right.

However, Christian thought emphasises within this the cultivation of virtues. We are in right relationship not simply when we have reinforced a position with those in agreement, but when we have acted out of an attentive love or else care for mutual flourishing. Respectful conversation consequently means understanding that what is cultivated - the character of the person and of the polity - is an end in itself.

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

The best argument against same-sex marriage

FILIPINOS, SPORTING #LoveWins hashtags and slapping rainbows onto their Facebook profile pictures, have been swept up in the euphoria over the US Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental human right. Law professors are heartened to see Justice Anthony Kennedy’s poetic Obergefell decision shared in social media. However, we must also read the powerful dissents and ask why we might prefer that our unelected justices decide this sensitive issue instead of our elected legislators.

Inquirer 2bu quoted teenagers opining that anyone with the capacity to love deserves to have his/her chosen relationship validated. Obergefell’s logic is equally simple. Forget “substantive due process,” “decisional privacy” and “equal protection.” It takes the simple premise that human liberty necessarily goes beyond physical liberty, and includes an unwritten right to make fundamental life choices. Choosing a life partner is one such fundamental choice and the decision of two people to formalize their relationship must be accorded utmost dignity.

The typical arguments against this simple idea are so intellectually discredited that Obergefell no longer discussed them. (My Philippine Law Journal article “Marriage through another lens,” 81 PHIL. L.J. 789 [2006], tried applying them to bisexual and transgender Filipinos.)

One cannot solely invoke religious doctrine, even if thinly veiled as secular “morality.” Religious groups may confront this issue but not impose their choices on others. Their often vindictive tone contrasts sharply with Kennedy’s, and increasingly alienates millennials who revel in individuality. Those criticized as religious zealots should at least strive to be up-to-date, more sophisticated religious zealots.

The most common argument, procreation, is also the easiest to refute. Philippine Family Code author Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy wrote: “The [Code] Committee believes that marriage … may also be only for companionship, as when parties past the age of procreation still get married.”

Another argument reduces marriage to a series of economic benefits and suggests a “domestic partnership” system to govern same-sex couples’ property and other rights. This parallels having separate schools for white and black children and claiming they are equal because both have schools. It implies that some relationships so lack dignity that they must be called something else.

Protecting the “traditional” definition of marriage is too subjective. Obergefell reminds that traditional definitions evolve and once prohibited interracial and accepted arranged marriages, and “it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex couples may do so.”

Recent last-ditch arguments alleged harm to children. No party to Obergefell contested that same-sex couples may build nurturing families after adopting or tapping medical advances to produce babies with related DNA. Prohibiting same-sex marriage harms children by making such families unstable, as only one parent may legally adopt and have rights in relation to a child.

With all these discredited, the Obergefell dissents simply raised that marriage is so central a social institution that it is better redefined by democratic process than unelected judges. Proponents may consider opponents homophobic, bigoted, narrow-minded religious zealots, but none of these disqualifies one from being a citizen. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that proponents should have relied on how popular opinion was rapidly shifting in their favor than ending all debate by court order.

Justice Antonin Scalia decried how the US Constitution was turned into a “fortune cookie” in a “judicial Putsch” that declared a radical unwritten right. Roberts cautioned that the first cases to use similar doctrine upheld slavery and struck down labor regulations in the name of laissez faire economics. Although invoking human rights is not subject to an election, it is wise to consult society in defining these, and Obergefell stressed the lengthy public debates the United States experienced at every level.

One thus asks why an instant judicial solution is more appealing than backing Akbayan Rep. Barry Gutierrez’s proposed same-sex marriage bill. The Philippines has not had serious public debate given how we recently focused on reproductive health, and our high court has not even explicitly recognized “decisional privacy.” Further, the petition to legalize same-sex marriage recently filed at our high court is blatantly deficient.

The petition (like the anti-RH petitions) does not even identify a client. There is no actual Filipino same-sex couple, unlike the real Mr. Obergefell who sought to be named the spouse on his partner’s death certificate after their deathbed wedding. This violates the most basic rule that judicial power may only be used in an “actual case” and the high court should have instantly thrown out the no-case petition (like the anti-RH petitions). The petition also has glaring errors (like the anti-RH petitions). It invoked the Philippine privacy decision Ople vs Torres, which involved information in government databases and has nothing to do with the “decisional privacy” of US same-sex marriage debates. Even liberals should be hard-pressed to support this lest they be intellectually inconsistent and validate the anti-RH petitions’ worst features.

Any citizen lacking the patience to back Gutierrez’s bill has every right to short-circuit democracy by seeking an order from unelected judges. One hopes our high court insists that it be sought properly.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

React: [email protected] , Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.

Fearless views on the news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

Persuasive Essay on The Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage

The topic of same-sex marriage and its legalization is definitely a controversial one. The very idea of homosexuality is very heavily demonized within many cultures around the world, and even now upwards of 69 countries around the world criminalize not only same-sex marriage but homosexuality as a whole. Thankfully enough, Canada is not amongst these countries and as of July 20th, 2005 same-sex marriage has been federally legalized and given the same equality as opposite-sex couples visa the Civil Marriage Act. And while the legalization of same-sex marriage was a tremendous victory for the LGBTQ+  community, it wasn’t achieved through dormancy. The battle for same-sex marriage equality in Canada spanned for decades before the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled in its favour, and today the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is regarded as one of the most significant charter cases in Canadian history, but the question is why was it so significant?

In 2003 both British Columbia and Ontario became the first Canadian provinces to legalize same-sex marriage. Quebec, Yukon, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador followed suit in 2004, and then same-sex marriage was federally legalized on the 20th of July, 2005 under the Civil Marriage Act. The Constitutionality of this case came into question of whether or not the legalization of same-sex marriage violated the Charter and infringed upon religious freedoms, though it was later ruled that the proposed amendments to the federal definition of marriage did not violate the Charter and in fact, the amendment would uphold Charter rights, and it did not require religious officials to perform obligatory same-sex marriage ceremonies should they feel it was against their religion. 

The fight for legal recognition of same-sex marriage was not simply to declare one’s love for their partner in a legal manner, but for the legal benefits that 

accompanied. For instance, married couples in Canada are able to claim a spousal credit, have the ability to split pension income, transfer dividends, but among these benefits, the most important is the ability to visit your spouse whilst they are hospitalized. During the 1980s HIV/AIDS epidemic (formerly Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, or GRID) the homosexual population was hit particularly hard due to a lack of comprehensive sex education, little knowledge on the disease, and the heavy stigma that surrounded the homosexual “lifestyle”. This meant that many people afflicted with the disease were often ostracized by their loved ones for being gay,  and for this reason, many afflicted individuals died a lonely death surrounded by unfamiliar faces because non-family members were not permitted hospital visitation.

Amongst the legal benefits of same-sex marriage legalization comes improved health outcomes. It is no surprise that many LGBTQ individuals expirience a rift between themselves and the people around them due to the continued isolation brought onto the community by opposing institutions, the Christian Church comes to mind, but for decades researchers have observed the health disparities between those who identify as LGBTQ versus those who do not. Research shows that LGBTQ youths are twice as likely as their peers to attempt suicide, those who identify as lesbians are less likely to access preventitive services for cancer, and, among other things, LGBTQ people battle with higher rates of addiction. Though when same-sex marriage is legalized we see many improvements to these statistics. 

But why is all of this significant? As of 2018 well over 1 milion Canadians over the age of 15 identify as apart of the LGBTQ+ community, and this population is only growing. As the number of those who openly identify as LGBTQ+ increases so does the prevalence of same-sex marriage in our society. Canada is a country where diversity is welcomed; variety is what makes up our culture. But in all of the aforementioned information, one fact remains; those who identify as LGBTQ are just as human and just as deserving of the same rights as those who don’t. The legalization of same-sex marriage was the catalyste for the continued fight for equality rights for those who identify as LGBTQ+ and without fear of legal reparations for speaking out about ones identity, the legalization of same-sex marriage allows LGBTQ+ individuals to call out justice and to fight for equality where there is non. Our society is fashioned to benefit those who are heterosexual, and legalizing same-sex marriage helps to even out the playing field and allow for the beginning of true equality.

Related Samples

• Essay Sample on Violent Media
• The Freedom of Speech in Social Media Essay Example
• Persuasive Essay Sample: Guns Should Be Banned
• The Impact of Slavery in Toni Morrison's Beloved
• Changing Role of Women in The 1920s Essay Example
• Reflection on How 9/11 Changed Us (Essay Example)
• Comparative Essay On Gender Roles
• Racial Discrimination In Today's Society Essay Sample
• Essay Sample about Family of 16 - Overcoming Adversity Profile
• Attitudes Toward Tattoos In My Family

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

Introduction

The same-sex marriage has sparked both emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents for years. Although it has been regulated through law and religion in many countries around the world, legal and social responses often range from celebration to criminalisation of the pair.

Essay No - 1

Marriage equality – importance of same sex union.

Back in 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a watershed judgement that was ordained to go down the archives of the country’s history. In spite of the majoritarian prejudices prevalent in India directed towards the LGBT community, the apex court revoked the draconian and out-dated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 

This Section, in typically vague and diplomatic terms, belittled homosexuality and criminalised intercourse that goes against the “laws of nature”. It was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code under the British Raj in 1861, and it took the Indian judiciary system 70 years since independence, to abrogate the law and decriminalise homosexuality. 

Nonetheless, the landmark decision was met with euphoria from its proponents, especially the activists who fought for the cause for more than a decade, wrangling with society and courts to attain equality in the eyes of the law. Even though a marriage equality essay is far from sight in a time when it is legal to marry the person one loves irrespective of their gender identity or sex, the decision by Supreme Court portends its occurrence. 

Equality in Marriage

Equality in marriage is an idea, which propagates that all marriages notwithstanding whether it is a Sapphic marriage or gay marriage or heterogeneous matrimony are equal and should enjoy similar rights and status in society.

Unfortunately, our society’s construct is such that we grow up with the idea that only a man and woman can be bound in matrimony. And while doing so, we overlook the multitudes of individuals that associate with different sexual preferences and gender identities. 

While the western world marches toward inclusive societies, where individuals are treated as equals irrespective of their sexuality or gender, we still are in the embryonic stages towards such acceptance. 

If one searches for same-sex marriage essay or statistics, one will find that support for marriage equality in countries like the USA hovers above 60%, a data presented by Pew Research Center. And if one were to rummage through the same statistics for India, it is a dismal 18%, according to a poll by Mood of the Nation (MOTN) in 2019.

Importance of Same-Sex Marriage

Because no change is appreciated until it contributes to the betterment of society in one way or another, proponents of an inclusive society have long contested its importance in same-gender marriage essays and discourses.

We are an overpopulated country and encouragement of marriage equality and an increase in same-sex matrimonies would lead to lower population growth. At the same time, it might witness a growth in adoptions of orphans, which is a significant move towards a holistic society. 

And last but not the least it would be an encouraging shift towards adherence to the laws of human rights, which dictates that no human should live under discrimination, fear, or oppression. 

The seeds of prejudice prevalent in our society, however, will not change overnight. Our traditions and social construct are vastly different from those of western societies. A change in mindset is a process that might take decades and even centuries. 

Nonetheless, the change should begin somewhere. And awareness that every human is equal and their preferences and choices about who they love and marry should not be a ground for discrimination is quintessential to that change. 

Essay No - 2

Same-gender marriage: a threat or blessing for the reunion of two people.

Marriage or wedlock is the cultural union of two people for a lifetime. Considered an integral part of one’s life, it involves both legal and social formalities performed by the two families in concern. Besides, it also comprises regulations and obligations to be followed by the spouses and their children as well as their immediate family members.

However, there have been instances where marriage equality essays have been spoken of by many. These are instances where marriage between couples of the same gender is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, the global society is evolving and people are coming out of the closet more often than ever before.

How Does the World Perceive?

Most communities are becoming liberal in terms of being more accepting in nature. People by and large are taking a stand to abide by their sexuality. It is no more a matter of shame that has to be kept hidden or shut behind the doors.

Multiple same sex marriage essay has come up sighting the incidents where the couple were accepted by their respective families. In addition, the act of legalization of same-sex marriage has been going on since the past two decades with great vigour.

Countries like the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium had legalised it in the wake of the 2000s, while other countries such as Canada, South Africa, and Norway followed suit in the upcoming years.

The marriage equality essay has been in the limelight because more people are opening up about the benefits and importance of such marriages in today’s world. The reasons that have fuelled such a dramatic change can be listed below as -

People can be themselves and do not have to try hard to get accepted for who they are.

They are proud of both their individuality as well as sexuality and do not have to wear a mask.

They can plan for the future instead of having to succumb to societal pressure.

Same-sex couples now have the opportunity to live with their loved ones happily, without having to take cover. 

The spread of the same gender marriage essay has been a saviour for many who were not aware of the changes that are taking place all around the world. It has not only made the LGBTQ community aware but also encouraged them to evaluate themselves and take the plunge to raise their voices too. They can now take a stand for themselves and feel relieved that they are not discriminated against anymore.

What is the Scope in the Future?

Although a significant part of the world including countries like Taiwan, Germany, USA, etc. have been able to match the steps with the advancing surrounding; there is still a section who has not. Even now, marriage equality essays and other online content create backlash.

Therefore, it is essential that more people come forward and join hands to the cause of being united in terms of accepting the bond between people. 

Essay No – 3

Same-sex marriage - the changing attitude of modern society.

Most religions and cultures accept that marriage is not a trivial matter but is a key to the pursuit of happiness. However, they still openly criticise the practice of same-sex weddings. Fortunately, the stigma related to homophobia and LGBTQ community is slowly but surely lessening. Better education, introduction to different cultures, and an open mindset played a critical role in this development. 

Let’s discuss the changing attitude of today’s society and the benefits a culture might enjoy in this same-sex marriage essay.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage

During the mid-20 th century, historian Johann Jakob Bachofen and Lewis Henry Morgan made systematic analyses of the marriage and kinship habits in different cultures. They noted that most cultures expressed support towards a heteronormative form of marriage that revolves around union between opposite-sex partners. However, all these cultures practised some form of flexibility while following these ideals. 

Scholars like historian John Boswell often declared that same-sex unions were recognised in medieval Europe, but the most notable changes were introduced during the late 20 th century. 

An Accepting Society

A more stable society was created over the years, with a better understanding of each other and acceptance for the different. As the culture opened its arms to learn about others, it also learned about minority groups such as the LGBT community. Similar to racial equality, or the equality movement for women, growing acceptance of that community ultimately made the commune much more stable. 

Many consider that same-sex unity will only benefit the homosexual community. However, it leaves a much more profound impact on the overall society. To begin with, it will reduce homophobia by a significant margin. Acknowledging a homosexual relationship will also reduce hate crimes in countries like India. There are many research papers and marriage equality essays available that show how communities that allow an individual to choose their partner to enjoy a significantly less rate of crime. 

The Economic Boost

An unlikely benefit of same-sex marriage and a compassionate society towards homosexuals is the economic boost. For one, the wedding and marriage industry is the biggest beneficiary of same-sex marriage, as it increases their customer base by a significant margin. It also allows several business providers to service them, and helps the travel and tourism industry by boosting the number of honeymoon goers.

For example, businesses in New York enjoyed almost 260 million dollars boost within a year when same-sex marriage was legalised. Similar effects were also found in other countries.

Even though India still hasn’t shaken the stigma attached to a same-sex relationship, somewhat modern society is slowly learning to accept the diversity of human nature. With the help of the government, activists, and hundreds of individuals creating and posting blogs, same-gender marriage essays on the internet, society is gradually becoming an understanding and nurturing entity for everyone.

FAQs on Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

1. Which countries have legalized same-sex marriage and when?

With the advancement in the thought process of people, many countries have passed laws in favor of same-sex marriage, thereby legalizing it in their countries. The first countries to legalize same-sex marriage before 2010 were the Netherlands who legalized it in 2001, Belgium legalized it in 2003, Canada and Spain legalized it in 2005, South Africa in 2006, Sweden and Norway in 2009 and Iceland, Argentina, and Portugal legalized same-sex marriage in 2010. Later on, Denmark legalised it in 2012, and countries like Uruguay, New Zealand, France, and Brazil in 2013, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United States in 2015, Colombia in 2016,  Malta, Germany, and Finland in 2017, Australia in 2018 and Ecuador and Austria in 2019. The recent country to legalize same-sex marriage is the United Kingdom. Thus, now people have started accepting the idea of same-sex marriages across the world.

2. What is the importance of same-sex marriage and why should it be legalized?

As the world is progressing we all must understand that each one of us is a human being and before labelling us with our caste and love preference, we must learn to respect each other. In this progressing era as more people with same-sex preference are coming up it has become more important to accept and legalize same-sex marriage because of the following reasons:

It will give people a chance to be themselves and enjoy their own individuality.

It will make people understand that loving a person of the same sex is not wrong or abnormal.

It will teach people that it is better for people to spend their lives with someone they love and not with the person whom they don’t even like.

This will make this place a much happier space to be in.

It gives people with homosexuality a hope of a happy life.

3. What is the status of same-sex marriage in India?

Same-sex marriage in India is still not encouraged. In India, neither the laws are lenient nor the people are broad-minded to accept it happening around them. The legal and community barriers never give these people a chance to prove themselves. Indian society is not very welcoming to changes that are different from the customs and culture they have practised till now. Thus, any change in these cultural laws gives rise to an outburst of anger in the country which makes legalising these issues even more sensitive and challenging for the law. India still needs time to get accustomed to the concept of same-sex marriage. However, not knowing about the concept is a different thing, and completely opposing it is different, therefore, awareness about such issues is very necessary for the developing countries so that people can first understand the pros and cons of it and then either accept it or reject it. Not only in India, but in other countries also, the idea of same-sex marriage is not accepted because they think it is against their religion. People opposing the LGBTQ community to get the right to marry their lovers take away the very basic human right of such people. There has been a long-lasting war for the members of the LGBTQ community for their rights. Although there have been some positive results in recent years, for example, the end of Section 377, which criminalizes homosexuality. However, India still has a long way to go in terms of the LGBTQ community and their rights.

4. What approaches can be used to legalize same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage is currently not taken in kind words by the people but slowly and steadily the things are changing and people are able to change their perspective with respect to the LGBT community. Legalizing same-sex marriage in a country like India where a number of religions and customs are practiced is really difficult. Therefore, few approach switch can help legalize same-sex marriage without hurting any religion are that the existing laws are interpreted in such a way that they legalize same-sex marriage, LGBT can be regarded as a different community which has customs of its own that permits same-sex marriage, making amendments in the Act itself or all the religions can individually interpret their marriage laws in such a way that same-sex marriage becomes in accordance with their religion.

5. Briefly discuss your view on same-sex marriages?

Same-sex marriage refers to the marriage of the same sex which is similar to heterosexual marriages in terms of rituals and proceedings. Same-sex marriages should not be ashamed of and are justified because after all love knows no boundaries. The community must be made aware of this concept so that they can appreciate and celebrate the union of two loving souls without considering their gender. The community as a whole must attempt to legalize and accept same-sex marriage with respect to the laws, religion, and customs of the country. In the coming years, there is a ray of hope that same-sex marriages will also be celebrated just like normal marriages in India.

• Writing services
• Proofreading
• Math/Science
• Copywriting
• Dissertation services
• Admission services
• Our Writers

Same Sex Marriage Persuasive Essay Writing

Table of contents:

• Introduction
• Body paragraphs

When you’re writing a persuasive essay about a controversial topic such as same-sex marriage, which has recently been legalized in Australia, it’s important that your thesis takes a strong stand either for or against. Your introduction should emphatically state what your essay is going to be about.

Introduction examples

Pro: The recent legalization of same-sex marriage is a great step forward not only for gay people but for human rights in Australia.

Con: Same-sex marriage redefines what marriage means and legitimizes homosexuality, which is immoral.

Whether you are talking up the pros or the cons, you should start by making an outline of your reasons, which will then form the body of your essay. Make sure you back up your reasons with plausible evidence, anecdotes, or appeals to emotion. If necessary, you can concede a point or two to the other side; this helps your argument as you then look fair and reasonable.

Body paragraph examples

Pro: Every person has the innate human right to have a legalized relationship with the person they mutually love, gay, bisexual, or straight. Australia recognizing this right is a positive thing for all people, as it means everyone, no matter their sexual orientation, is treated equally in the eyes of the law.

The redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is actually a good thing. It means there aren’t specific, designated roles that couples have to play. Men can keep houses, women can be the main breadwinner. This is not to say that everyone will be, or that it wasn’t happening already, but it means it’s just more open as a possibility. And it means that same sex couples who need such rights as next-of-kin rights, the right to visit their loved one in the hospital, or the right to have their loved one make decisions on their behalf, are now treated fairly.

Con: Homosexuals wanting to have their immoral relationships sanctified by the government has meant that the word “marriage” basically means nothing now, because it’s been watered down so much.

The Bible says that there are specific roles for men to play in a marriage and specific roles for women to play. Throwing those roles out the window is equivalent to the moral breakdown of society. To be against same sex marriage is to be against the depredation of Australian society in general.

Your conclusion should be a summary of what you’ve covered in the body of your essay, just to remind your audience of the points you made, and should end with a call to action, even if just to think about the topic you’ve covered from a different point of view.

Conclusion examples

Pro: In conclusion, Australia’s government is to be commended for passing same-sex marriage. The future is bright for gay people and all those who love them. After all, if a member of your family was gay, you would want to be able to attend their wedding, wouldn’t you?

Con: Australia passing same-sex marriage into law was a blow for all decent people. But it’s not too late to have this misguided decision repealed. Contact your senator or representative today!

• Essay samples
• Infographics
• Essay writing
• Crafting a Powerful Essay on Political Polarization
• Oral Health Overview Essay: Preventing Tooth Decay in Australia
• How to Write a Good Expository Essay About Macbeth
• How to Write An Expository Essay About Love
• How to Write a Great Expository Essay About Life

Price per page

Total price:

Limitless Amendments

Bibliography

Plagiarism Report

Get all these features for A$93.12 FREE

If you don't know exactly what type of paper you need or can't find the necessary one on the website - don't worry! Contact us and we'll help you out!

• Terms of Use
• Money Back Guarantee
• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay
• Essay Writer
• Do My Essay
• Type My Essay
• Pay For Essay
• Cheap Essay
• Write My Paper
• Write My Assignment
• Assignment Writer
• Buy Assignment
• Assignment Help
• Do My Assignment
• Nursing Essay Writing Service
• Management Essay
• Business Essay
• Law Essay Writing Service
• Education Essay Service
• Marketing Essay
• Accounting Essay
• Sociology Essay

Before continuing to use our service please make sure you got acquainted with our Cookie Policy and accepted it by clicking OK