Besides, you may be not very aware of the issue or even not interested in it. Surely, you should not include statements like these in your essay. However, you can stay frank and just write that you personally are neither for nor against legalization and the very phenomenon of the gay marriage. In order to sound less careless of the subject you should muse over and yet more informed on it generally, you should take into account all the ideas that are put forward by those who do and do not support same-sex marriages.
So, you can search for several different opinions, describe and analyze them, and then explain why none of them is powerful enough to make you take one particular side. You should remember that there is actually nothing bad about you if you have not come up with your own clear and definite view on this matter. You can look through the Wikipedia article dedicated to this topic and see the real statistics.
Definitely, you are not the only one who has such neutral attitude to the issue discussed. However, even if your nearest and dearest, your friends and favorite teachers also stick to neutrality, you still should not refer to them.
Instead, you can take the trouble to search for the opinions of respected scientists in the Net and use them as quite a solid base for yours. Also, you can base on reliable and widely known online media sources, as they usually present either the statistical data, the results of real surveys or just quote the words of sociologists, psychologists, doctors and other specialists.
Still, you should forget about the two opposite sides of the argument, so even though you are neutral, you cannot but consider how these two sides protect their positions. Despite the fact that you do not consider yourself either an adherer or an opponent of the idea that two guys or two girls can live a happy family life and raise adopted children, still there should be some reasons for your neutrality. It is really worth expressing them in your essay, as they can provide really valid explanation of why your own position.
However, you should not forget about the main tendencies concerning the issue. Let us set a few examples:. It's swift and simple! Just select the option you need and tell us what you want us to do for you.
Guarantees Plagiarism Free Testimonials F. Court battles have been filed and to some extent gays and lesbians have succeeded in obtaining some degree of social recognition Staver 5.
The gay movement argument for same sex marriage is basically founded on the norm of formal equality. They argue that the state needs to accord the gays the same legal options as other different sex couples enjoy.
This includes the right and duties required in civil marriage. Economic benefits that the proponents of gay marriages cite include increased revenue as a result of additional marriages through marriage taxes Stockland For a long time the culture of men and women marrying each other in the society has been established globally. Two men or women marrying therefore have resulted to a controversy where people have differing opinions.
Same sex marriages cannot have children. The debate for this issue of same sex marriage has existed for many years and a gay right movement was established in America during the s.
Getting married is a decision which is personal and private. The controversy brought by gay marriages includes changing the norm of marriage and challenges in existing laws and religious traditions. Many religions in the world object to the issue of gay marriages on the grounds of morality. Churches base on their beliefs of what is wrong or right on scriptures which are holy writings.
The church believes that allowing the gay couples to adopt children would be an injustice as the children will lack the proper moral upbringing. Opponents of gay marriages cite the increased social costs such as healthcare thus affecting the economy.
Those against this kind of marriage think that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt children. The opponents are generally concerned about the harmful effect gay marriages would have on the society in case of legalization.
They believe that the family institution is protected through heterosexual marriage whose main aim is to procreate. They further believe that marriage would no longer have the same meaning if homosexual couples find alternative methods of having children Nagle First, every person has a right to exercise and acquire freedom and equality as a basic law. The institution of marriage as it is practiced in the real world is a culturally defined institution, not biblically defined, as a reading of the above quotation should make quite clear, and it is high time we recognize and face up to the cold reality that cultural values have changed since the bible was written, and the institution of marriage has changed along with it.
Gay marriage is simply part of that evolutionary process of social progress. Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes, betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least of those species.
It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners.
The reality is that it is so common that it begs for an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.
A man making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known and dated plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including champion bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you.
There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries exist, detailing their relationships. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay.
Indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so wrong?
A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based. Should any form of that love for one another be discouraged?
The base fear here is that of rape and a loss of control or loss of masculine status. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates.
If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food or the female and present his rump.
This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate. It has been suggested that homophobia is an instinctual fear of being raped by someone that the homophobe regards as lower than him in status. And the notion that a gay man might rape him is an instinctual fear. This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Prison rape is not an act of sex as much as it is an assertion of dominance and a means of control.
Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to promiscuous heterosexual sex once they're on the outside. So is this something straight men should fear from gay men?
Well, relax, all you straight guys. You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting you do as a straight man with a woman - as a part of the expression of love, affection and commitment.
We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you do - the love and affection of a partner.
Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us and it's a very small minority who enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored. The thought of gay sex is repulsive.
This is the so-called "ick factor. But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work the other way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway.
Prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that most virulent, even violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex.
The fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia is as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.
The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed to any significant degree. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these therapies have never shown any significant results, and usually create psychological damage in the process, which is why they are uniformly condemned by mental health professional associations.
So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is quite unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might be. Gay marriage would undermine sodomy laws. Because it would be hard to justify, before a court, allowing a couple to marry and then legally bar them from having sexual relations, many conservative religionists privately oppose gay marriage in part because it would undermine the legal basis for sodomy laws, which, even though they have been struck down as unconstitutional by the U.
Supreme Court Lawrence vs. Texas , they are still dreamed of by those who would seek to legalize discrimination against gays - and are occasionally still enforced in some states, in spite of the fact that the laws have been invalidated and doing so is quite illegal and opens the state to civil lawsuit. In several states, gays convicted under these invalidated laws are even still being required to register as sex offenders.
Gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality. This presumes that homosexuality is something other than simply a normal variation of human development. The reality is that every mental health association has recognized that homosexuality is a perfectly normal variation on how humans develop, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from science that there are sound reasons why it has evolved, and why it is not selected against in evolutionary pressure.
It is not perverted, it does not degrade human culture, it is not a threat to humankind in any way. All those stereotypes, long cultivated by homophobes and religious bigots, have been disproven both by experience and by scientific research, but that does not prevent the homophobe from holding to them dearly.
And allowing state sanction in the form of marriage, threatens the stereotype by undermining the justification for it. At the end of the day, the opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne almost entirely out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life.
It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general.
The Anti-Gay-Marriage Propaganda Effort The Players That the organized opposition to gay marriage is primarily from groups with an obvious homophobic agenda should be self evident if one looks at who they are and what they are doing outside of the arena of the gay marriage debate. That many of them call themselves "Christian" does not, in any way, relieve them of the responsibility for the fact that preaching hate is still preaching hate, even when the hate is dressed up in the form of religious doctrine.
Putting lipstick on a pig does not make it any less a pig. These are some of the most respected religious organizations in the United States. Other players were the usual suspects, the Catholic church, several of the more conservative Protestant denominations, the American Family Association, Focus On The Family, their various political subsidiary groups, and a whole host of smaller right-wing political and religious organizations, including a few out-right hate groups.
The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains a "hate group" watch on many of these groups. The Tactics What these groups do, persistently, is to try desperately to legitimize what is clearly a campaign of hatred, fear and disinformation.
The people of California saw that recently, when the campaign for Proposition 8 used just that tactic relentlessly, for months on end, spending millions of dollars in the process. Eventually the fear and disinformation campaign took its toll, emotion overtook reason, the majority in favor of gay marriage slowly eroded, and the proposition passed rather narrowly.
Hatred by itself, dressed up as religious dogma has been used for so long that it is beginning to lose its effectiveness eventually people begin to figure out that it is mostly a tactic for filling pews, collection plates and campaign coffers more than it is a way of reforming lost souls and improving society , so the more clever of these organizations have begun to move onto a slick propaganda effort based on that long-time favorite argument-winner - fear.
Of course, the all time favorite among those fearmongering tactics is that logical fallacy called the slippery-slope argument, described briefly above.
One sees the slippery-slope fallacy in almost every one of their arguments, because they have few logically sound arguments to which to resort. Take, for example, one of the most popular anti-gay-marriage web sites out there, one so frequently clicked-on that it frequently comes to the top of Google results, the "Ten Arguments" page at nogaymarriage. This web site is operated by the notorious American Family Association, run by Donald Wildmon, and one need only read that organization's Wikipedia entry in its entirety to understand just what kind of organization is behind this page.
Among those "ten arguments," the slippery-slope fallacy often more than one can be seen clearly in every one of the ten. But for every slippery slope argument that Wildmon's organization has identified here, there is not a shred of verifiable evidence given for even a single one.
That is a clear demonstration of just how logically fallacious those arguments are - no evidence, just disinformation, just fearmongering.
Gay marriage has been a reality for two decades in Denmark, nearly as long in one form or another in several other Scandinavian countries, and for several years now in Canada, and in the form of civil unions, and more recently, full-on gay marriage itself in several states in the United States.
Can anyone point to civilization collapsing as was alleged would happen in the recent Proposition 8 campaign in California or students being taught gay sex in the public schools another frequent allegation from that campaign? If twenty years of gay marriage in Denmark has not brought about the collapse of civilization in that country indeed, it remains higher on the United Nations Development Index than does the United States , I doubt that the collapse of civilization will be brought on in the United States by a couple of dudes saying "I do" - but that simple reality doesn't stop the argument from being made.
Fear has long been used to neuter reason, and, well applied, it does so reliably - so all one has to do to nullify a logical argument is to instill fear. As for any of the other arguments raised against gay marriage, an examination of what has happened during the last twenty years in that country and other Scandinavian countries that followed suit shortly thereafter, will show that the fears are misplaced and the slippery slope so often fearmongered, remains remarkably ungreased.
The easiest way to counter the slippery-slope fallacy is to simply point out that gay marriage has been tried in many places in the world for many years, including the United States itself, and none of the dire effects insistently predicted have yet to occur in any of those locations to any significant degree. The Strategy The anti-gay-marriage campaigners have recently been losing in the courts with increasing frequency.
It isn't difficult to understand why. It is hard to argue that gays, unable to access the dozens of rights of marriage available to straights as identified by the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii , have equal protection of the law, when they clearly do not under any reasonable standard of logic, and so the courts have been ruling that the 14th Amendment to the U.
As a result, the anti-crowd has been losing in the courts. Simply putting a measure on the ballot, or getting a law through the legislature to overturn such decisions has not worked, because they run afoul of state constitution requirement for equal treatment under the law, and are therefore promptly struck down again. So the response has been to place ballot constitutional amendment initiatives on the ballot in the states that allow for that.
To date, more than half of all states have passed such initiatives, and in every case, the initiative campaign was based on fear, disinformation and hatemongering. Hardly a surprise, when an appeal to logic is not available to them, so an appeal to emotion, especially fear, is their only alternative.
An additional advantage to the constitutional amendment approach is that it is court-proof. For all intents and purposes, an amendment to a state constitution is by definition, constitutional, and can't be overturned as unconstitutional by a state supreme court, at least under most ordinary circumstances.
Gay marriage is a hot-button issue. There is no doubt about that. And because it is, the strategy is often used to put a gay-marriage initiative on the ballot when interest in an election important to the right is otherwise flagging. It gets out the homophobe vote quite reliably, so when right-wing candidates are behind in the polls, a gay marriage ballot measure is often used as a way to also raise the participation and push a right-winger into office when he would otherwise have lost.
Conversely, when there is a hotly contested race between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, interest in the race is often used to get out conservative votes for a gay marriage ballot measure which may otherwise lose.
Once on the ballot, the disinformation used in the campaign consists of nearly always variations on the same arguments regardless of where the campaign is taking place, nearly all of them lies, generally easily refuted and can be easily seen to be without merit: It doesn't matter whether these claims are true or not for this disinformation campaign to succeed; as Adolf Hitler himself noted, all it takes for a lie to be believed is for it to be repeated often enough, especially if it is a big lie, and these campaigns repeat the same lies over and over and over again until they finally become conventional wisdom.
But there is a looming problem for the anti-gay-marriage crowd. That is the United States constitution, whose 14th Amendment states that all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law, and it makes no exceptions for gays, as the U.
Supreme Court itself noted in its ruling striking down state sodomy laws. So if straights are entitled to special treatment for being married, gays are, in theory at least, due those same treatments under the 14th Amendment. So to deal with this pesky issue of equal protection of the law that just won't seem to go away, the anti's have formulated a strategy. There is currently as of this writing a slim majority of one vote of conservative justices on the U.
It could easily tip back into a minority of conservatives, and so the forces of reaction have initiated a gay marriage lawsuit, ostensibly seeking the right to gay marriage, but deliberately calculated to fail before the Supreme Court, in a deliberate effort to take the issue to the U.
Supreme Court before a new justice is appointed who would shift the balance in favor of gay marriage. That would have the effect of nullifying any challenge to the heterosexual monopoly on marriage solely on the basis of a violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection of the law.
If the lawsuit succeeds in failing, as intended, it would prevent an equal-protection challenge to gay marriage prohibitions to the U. Supreme Court for at least a generation. Which is precisely what happened in Hardwick vs. Bowers, the notorious Supreme Court decision that upheld state sodomy laws until the court reversed itself in Lawrence vs.
Anti Gay Marriage essays Gay marriage should not be permitted. Many people often justify their opposition to gay marriage with reference to their religious beliefs. It rejects natural law created by God. The bible says that lesbian and gay parenting is a sin. Homosexual couples can not procreate.
This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. What are the reasons for and against gay marriage.
Gay Marriage Essay Examples. 63 total results. 1, words. 4 pages. An Argument Against Gay Marriage. 1, words. 2 pages. The Unexpected Argument of the Reverend Howard Moody in His Essay Gay Marriage Shows Why We Need to Separate Church and State. words. 2 pages. The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage LP 3: Argumentative Essay Patty Waters NAU Composition II Sue Cochran, Instructor Sunday, March 24, Abstract This essay covers the pros and cons concerning gay marriage. You will discover some new laws and amendments that are about to happen in our country, and some things that people are against.
An essay on why the arguments against gay marriage don't hold up in the light of reason. Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives A personal essay in hypertext by Scott Bidstrup. Same Sex Marriage Essay; Same Sex Marriage Essay. Analyzing Same-Sex Marriage. Words | 6 Pages. Imagine if you had a child love someone who has same sex and wanted you to accept their love for each other by being at their wedding. Would you attend the wedding? Argument Against Homosexual Marriage; Gay Marriage: Refutation Researched.