Kim Davis Argumentative Essay

Kim Davis refusing to give the marriage license to the gay couple is unethical, because she based her reasons on her own religious belief, because not all people who share the same belief. I argue against the unethical behavior of Kim Davis. My opponent argues that Kim Davis has the right to religion; therefore she could act on her religious belief. Persons such as Kim Davis, who choose to use their authority to promote anti-gay views of people, cause harm to homosexuals, which is unethical. Kim Davis has an ethical obligation to obey the law; although, she has her own beliefs. The government of the United States has legalized gay marriage since June 26, 2015 (De Vogue and Diamond). Kim’s decision to refuse to give the marriage license to
the gay couple violates the due process and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution. Even though Kim Davis has the right to religion, her job is to give licenses to both homosexual and heterosexual marriages. When people express anti-gay sentiments this leads to suicide, depression and emotional disturbance. Homosexuals are five times more likely to attempt or commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts. It is shocking to know that some mothers kill their children for showing tendencies of homosexual. Because gay marriage was legalized suicide will be less common for homosexuals. People will accept homosexuals for who they are. In the past people who were homosexual were criticized and judged because of who they are or what they had become. If the bible says, “Love your neighbor as yourself” we should love someone else no matter the sexual orientation of the person.
Some people are attracted the opposite sex whiles some are attracted to the same sex. A homosexual person is no different from heterosexual persons. Thus, homosexuals are to be given the permit to choose who they want to spend their life. If marriage is legally acceptable to heterosexual couples, it should be legalized for homosexual couples, because they have equal rights and must have equal opportunities. My opponent may describe marriage as a union between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. My opponents may feel that gay marriage is an abomination in the sight of God and
man.
When it comes to law and work, religion should not influence how these things transpire. It is stated that gay marriage is legalized, which means no matter your belief, culture and social background, a person must accept it even though that person may disagree.
Kim Davis took utils of happiness away from the couples who tried to get a license, which made the coupes unhappy.
Others argue, “she is supposed to set her personal views aside, that she is obliged, as an officer in court and an elected official, to serve those she represents equally and fairly without exception or exemption.” (Peter Roff). Kim Davis did not promote “usefulness” to get pleasure. Kim thought she knew what was best for her, but did not consider the happiness everyone will get at the end of the day. Kim should follow the rules that bring about the most happiness in the day. The consequences of allowing gay marriages could be a good consequences depending on the end
product.
My opponent’s point of view could say Kim has the right to choose really the greatest happiness to make her happy. She has the right to perform what will bring about the greatest number or amount of pleasure for her. If Kim will not be happy about giving gay license to the gay couples she should not grant the license to the gay couples. The consequences of preventing or issuing gay marriages would be bad but what really matters is, at the end it brings about the greatest happiness for Kim Davis. Kim should still follow the rules the federal rules to bring about the greatest amount of happiness to the gay couples. She should also not deciding on what is better for her but what makes the greatest amount of pleasure to the gay couples.
The individual knows what is best for them, which mean Kim does not have the right to decide what is best for the to tell the gay couples what is best for them. Kim does not know what others (gay couples) need to be happy, and must not prevent from issuing license, but rather accept their decisions and issue the license to them no matter the circumstance. It is a decision made by the gay couples, so Kim does not have the right to change their decisions. It is easier to determine one’s, interest but not others, so it is not advisable for Kim to determine the interest of the gay couples. Kim Davis only knows what she needs to be happy, but does not mean she knows what the gay couples need to be happy.
My opponents could say, that everyone ought to behave or act in their self-interest. Which means Kim could behave in her own self-interest. Kim has the right to say that, so far has gay marriage is not good for her; it is also not good for anyone.
In the final analysis, it is believed that Kim does not have the right to refuse to grant the license to the gay couples because of her own self-interest. The gay persons know what is right for them. Both individuals (Kim and the gay couples) have their beliefs but if Kim tries to impose those beliefs on the gay couples, that is when there is a problem. Kim is free to make a decision to either quite to protect her option or keep her job, but issue the license to the gay couples.