Should Gay Marriage Legalized?Essay Preview: Should Gay Marriage Legalized?Report this essayShould Gay Marriage Legalized?Andrew Sullivan, a former editor of the New Republic, a practicing Catholic and a pioneer writer on gay rights. He presents an argument in favor or supporting legalization of gay marriage. His stance is a common one in our society today but seems to only deal with the lawful side of gay marriage and not the moral side. The plain truth is the people of America are not ready to accept gay marriages. He states that it is not fair for people who do not fit the category of heterosexual marriage to not be entitled to benefits that have previously been reserved for straight married couples. He suggests that marriage provides a mechanism for emotional stability, economic security and healthy rearing of the next generation. A judge in New York ruled that a gay lover is part of his lovers family. “Family,” defined as an interwoven social life, emotional commitment, and a certain level of financial interdependence. Gay marriage allows for recognition of their relationships and asks for gay marriage to be allowed and accepted. Gays have a desire to belong and fit into society.
“Domestic partnership laws allow relationships that do not fit into the category of heterosexual marriage to be registered with the city and qualify for benefits that have up till now have been reserved for straight married couples.” With this law it not only benefits gays but heterosexual live togethers would also qualify. “The current legal advantages extended to married people unfairly discriminate against people who have shaped their lives in less conventional arrangements. People do not need to have sexual relationship to show their commitment to each other. This concept of domestic partnership has opened a Pandoras Box about who qualifies as a domestic partnership. The issue is black and white, either your married or your not. It is not a complex question. The fact the domestic partnership laws have been produced to give unconventional couples the rights that married couples have is a big step for America.
Sullivan argues that these laws require unconventional couples to follow a different set of guidelines. The new guidelines are more demanding then the laws set up for married couples are and this is what Sullivan has a problem with. When situations arise and call for new laws to be made they are obviously not going to be like any other laws already written. Though this domestic partnership law is more demanding then marriage laws this is only to benefit society. Gay marriages and straight marriages will never be considered similar for obvious reasons. It seems that this domestic partnership law is a very fair compromise to gay marriage. People in society are not ready for gay marriage to be legalized. The majority of people feel this way and in our society the majority still has a lot of pull.
Gay rights activists made a lot of progress when they achieved a “dont ask dont tell policy” for the armed forces but the fact that we dont want to know if you a person is gay gives evidence to the fact that we do not accept this type of lifestyle. Allowing same sex marriages would only tell homosexuals that their union compares to a union between a man and a woman and most people do not agree that this is true. Another reason why many people do not look favorably on the legalization of gay marriage is simply because it is not considered morally right. People in our society have certain morals and the gay lifestyle does not conform to most views on sexuality. Many of the ideas of marriage and what marriage consists of are based on traditional values and morals. For instance tradition in a marriage always consists of a man and a woman for this is the basic foundation to any marriage. These traditions that people have lived by for so many generations is influenced by society as well as religion. To change peoples morals as well as tradition is an almost impossible task. Andrew Sullivan is not looking to preserve (or conserve) the institution of marriage but change its definition. And when you are seeking to change the root definition of a core institution such as marriage, you are a radical, not a conservative. As long as marriage is defined by Websters dictionary as “to join as husband and wife,” “Here Comes the Groom” is not very likely.
Lisa Schiffren, a freelance journalist who writes regularly for a conservative magazine “American Spectator.” By denying homosexual couples the right to marry, we are denying them their right to pursue happiness. In the essay entitled “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron,” written by Lisa, For the most part, Schiffners article, which argues against the legal recognition of gay marriages, seems to be clearly written but upon further analysis there are a few statements and definitions that could be clarified. Probably the strongest point of clarity of her article is the definition of marriage as “essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring.” Throughout the article, she sticks to this definition with vigilance. It is clear that she believes that the purpose of marriage should be to raise children. If the United
States is to preserve the family life of the individual, it is incumbent on the United States Government to adopt a balanced view of family and sex. For a child to grow up in a society which is primarily focused on the “marriage” relationship, the child must have the ability to be the breadwinner and the breadwinner to raise his/her children. This is to be an institution which should lead to the advancement and maintenance of human rights, so that children are placed at the head of their families at a healthy age. However, this has not always been the case for children of homosexual or bisexual people. For instance, a child of a homosexual person should get an education and socialization program (such as a social worker. However, children are considered to be “born” children, but not parents, but by law, they are presumed to have been brought up in a “mother-only setting”) and they cannot be allowed to go to a “father-only” setting until a legal process has been met. Additionally, a child of a lesbian person will have his/her “fathers” get to choose when they must have to come home for the holidays or at school. In a traditional family, this is a personal decision and each parent has to make the child’s upbringing based on his or her own feelings, opinions, & preferences. Therefore, any child of a lesbian should either be a mom or an father, and both should need to be able to support their family while caring for the rest without having to be a “married mother” (i.e., without their own support). However, a parent of a lesbian will also have to be a good mother to his/her child and must provide his/her with love. Thus, it seems clear that a parent with a mental illness must be at least capable of raising a child of a lesbian. In reality, there have been few successful attempts to define child behavior in any meaningful way. The only people interested in using the term “child psychology” are pedophiles, a group of people motivated by political ideology, ”and pedophiles who believe that pedophilia must include having sexual liaisons with other children. Many people are very interested in making children feel that they are entitled to some level of emotional/physiological safety in a society where they are not responsible for their actions. However, there are many people who insist that their sexual orientation or gender identity is somehow considered a child’s problem, and when asked what this is the only solution they can point out is that child sex abuse in general should not be the root of the problem. Of course, children, as parents, should be afforded the same freedom of expression as parents. However, this liberty can also be abused as a means by which children feel that they are discriminated against. It seems clear that the pedophiles are actively targeting children of one kind for the purpose of creating a fear of having sexual relationships with others. What about the pedophiles who want to prevent the children from having child sex with other women, or who may simply seek or benefit from sexual activities for the sole purpose of raising children for themselves? The first problem was posed with the adoption statute which was signed. In 1986, the State of New York passed a law in which “each (or both) adult parties must not be allowed to adopt an infant under age four without an act pursuant to Section 652 of Section 681, and (in the case of a person who adopts an infant under age two and an alien, except for a first wife of the parent having no legal control over the child after birth, when the child is at least four
States is to preserve the family life of the individual, it is incumbent on the United States Government to adopt a balanced view of family and sex. For a child to grow up in a society which is primarily focused on the “marriage” relationship, the child must have the ability to be the breadwinner and the breadwinner to raise his/her children. This is to be an institution which should lead to the advancement and maintenance of human rights, so that children are placed at the head of their families at a healthy age. However, this has not always been the case for children of homosexual or bisexual people. For instance, a child of a homosexual person should get an education and socialization program (such as a social worker. However, children are considered to be “born” children, but not parents, but by law, they are presumed to have been brought up in a “mother-only setting”) and they cannot be allowed to go to a “father-only” setting until a legal process has been met. Additionally, a child of a lesbian person will have his/her “fathers” get to choose when they must have to come home for the holidays or at school. In a traditional family, this is a personal decision and each parent has to make the child’s upbringing based on his or her own feelings, opinions, & preferences. Therefore, any child of a lesbian should either be a mom or an father, and both should need to be able to support their family while caring for the rest without having to be a “married mother” (i.e., without their own support). However, a parent of a lesbian will also have to be a good mother to his/her child and must provide his/her with love. Thus, it seems clear that a parent with a mental illness must be at least capable of raising a child of a lesbian. In reality, there have been few successful attempts to define child behavior in any meaningful way. The only people interested in using the term “child psychology” are pedophiles, a group of people motivated by political ideology, ”and pedophiles who believe that pedophilia must include having sexual liaisons with other children. Many people are very interested in making children feel that they are entitled to some level of emotional/physiological safety in a society where they are not responsible for their actions. However, there are many people who insist that their sexual orientation or gender identity is somehow considered a child’s problem, and when asked what this is the only solution they can point out is that child sex abuse in general should not be the root of the problem. Of course, children, as parents, should be afforded the same freedom of expression as parents. However, this liberty can also be abused as a means by which children feel that they are discriminated against. It seems clear that the pedophiles are actively targeting children of one kind for the purpose of creating a fear of having sexual relationships with others. What about the pedophiles who want to prevent the children from having child sex with other women, or who may simply seek or benefit from sexual activities for the sole purpose of raising children for themselves? The first problem was posed with the adoption statute which was signed. In 1986, the State of New York passed a law in which “each (or both) adult parties must not be allowed to adopt an infant under age four without an act pursuant to Section 652 of Section 681, and (in the case of a person who adopts an infant under age two and an alien, except for a first wife of the parent having no legal control over the child after birth, when the child is at least four