Marriage is defined by Dictionary.com as “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, and etcetera.” This definition excludes the possibility of two men or two women becoming “married.” The real question is whether or not this is right. Of course, everyone’s viewpoint and reasoning on this topic is a little bit different.
One common viewpoint is that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please. The main points behind this argument are as follows. Why should a man marrying a man be any different from a man marrying a woman? There is a common argument posing the question “why worry about it if it isn’t even going to affect you?” Another argument for this side is that it is unfair for gay couples, because they cannot get the same financial benefits of marriage that straight couples can get. This argument is centered on equal rights to all people and allowing people to express their love for each other however they please.
Both of the other two mainstream arguments are against gay marriage. The more moderate of the two is against gay “marriage” because marriage is commonly thought of as a religious bond, and every mainstream religion is staunchly against homosexuality. This view does, however, entertain the idea of homosexual “civil unions.” In this scenario the couple would not be officially “married” but instead they would be granted the financial and civil rights of a married couple, including tax breaks and other perks.
The final view is much more extreme and comes from mostly a “far right,” oftentimes religious standpoint. It says that homosexuality is wrong, and that that gays should not be allowed to be married or granted civil unions, simply because it is wrong. This idea also argues that if gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children through any type of artificial insemination, the children’s development will be severely affected by this, and it will be detrimental to their mental health and maturation process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A hard issue to discuss with intellectual honesty. Do you plan on citing studies of behavior or approach it from a logical/legal/moral argument? And is there a presupposed "correct" view in your mind that you are going to support?
Doug, in order to avoid slipping into a policy/proposal argument, you might want to narrow down the scope of this exploratory paper to identifying how specific agendas in each of the parties you've mentioned shape their argumentation on homosexual marriage: is it about the term only? is it about the rights? is it about the potential risks? is it about politics? You can also follow whether they overlap in the issues they discuss or if each group has a specific hobby horse to saddle.
Post a Comment