In the
In the
Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal is an article written by Thomas B. Stoddard, an executive director of a gay rights organization called the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. In the aforementioned article, he painfully illustrates the injustices and imbalance of the typical “traditional marriage” and its impact on average, devoted homosexual couples. More than just state his opinion on marriage between homosexuals, he emphasizes the injustice by accentuating real world situations. Not only does Stoddard denote the negative effects on loving gay couples, he illuminates the idea of gay marriage as something beneficial not only to gay partners, but society as a whole (722).…
The topic of same sex marriage is one that causes great debate in today’s society. There are many views on weather it should or should not be allowed and the effects it could have on the United States if it were allowed. The debate has been an ongoing one and as more states begin contemplating legalization the debates have become more heated. In an article written by Katha Pollitt, entitled What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage? , she argues for the legalization of same sex marriage making a multitude of valuable points. In an opposing article entitled Gay “Marriage”: Societal Suicide by Charles Colson her argues in opposition against same sex marriage using statistics and history to make his valid points. Both writers argue their points exceptionally but Pollitt’s essay is the better one as it is incredibly fair and reasonable and argues the opposition’s points perfectly.…
Although the world has developed-and is still developing- controversial topics like gay marriage are still prominent is today’s society. William J. Bennett, an influential figure in America, strongly voiced out his standpoint on the topic of same-sex marriage through his article “Against Gay Marriage.” His concerns persistently argue that the rights for gay marriages are “pointless and even oxymoronic” (Bennett, 2011, p.409). One does not need to fully agree with his assertions to acknowledge the intensity and goodness of his mind. Although Bennett’s stance constructs serious opposition and serves as a valuable argument, committing numerous logical fallacies in his text weaken his argument and made his overall reasoning less credible.…
The marriage-rights movement headed by gay rights activists has been a relevant issue on the American socio-political docket since 1970 following the Stonewall riots in New York City, New York in June of 1969. The riots sparked an initiative for gay people to join the movement of other marginalized groups in a quest to counteract widespread alienation to obtain the equal treatment and recognition they deserved. Today those activists joined by a whole new generation of proud homosexuals are still fighting for the right to be able to walk down an isle and commit their minds, bodies, and souls to the one they love in front of the people they love and have it be more than an impotent symbol of affection; they want their union to be recognized both socially and legally as a different but equal lifestyle choice. They want to partake in marriage, not "marriage". The most familiar argument that we hear today in the war fought by traditionalists and activists is the argument for the purpose of marriage. Traditionalists like Rick Santorum would argue along the lines that the purpose for marriage is children. Most gay activist would argue that the purpose for marriage is finding love in a lifelong companion. In Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good For Gays, Good For Straights And Good For America, Jonathan Rauch, an openly gay male, explains how gay marriage would be a universal good. Marriage has evolved over the years “nearly beyond recognition”[1] from wealthy aristocratic polygamy used to impose socially structured dominance over women, to a business merger whose main goal was financial security for women and a pool of family ties, to an institution bent on maintaining social norms and gender specialization, to our present marriage where love, an unstable chemical reaction, is on the forefront of the reasons to marry.[2] He argues that the marriage portrait is not as distinctively black and white as some would…
Could you imagine if you had met the ideal person you wished to share your entire life with but the law would not allow you to? That is the position that many homosexual Australians have been in since the settlement of this country. Same sex marriage is currently not allowed in Australia but I and a proven 60% of other Australians strongly believe it should be. Gay people pay taxes, serve in the military, participate in the workforce, are our neighbors, friends and family. Logic and decency would suggest that they should have the right to marry, just as any heterosexual couple can. However, there are people who disagree with this belief, take for example the government, namely Australia’s prime minister, Julia Gillard, several religious groups who believe marriage should be kept between a man and a woman and those who simply wish to deny the happiness of two people in love because of their anatomy.…
In the past, people wouldn’t even consider the possibility of same-sex marriage or cohabitating, death penalty or prison life is the only choice for those people who break the rules. As attitudes changed and better-established social policies, the stigma of homosexuality has reduced, it is now more socially accepted, Netherlands was the first country to permit same-sex marriage in 2001, and then there are more and more countries starting to legalize same-sex marriage. However, Kath Weston (1992) point out that many gay couples are now deciding to cohabit as stable partners, they would reject monogamy and family life and in favor of causal relationships. Allan and Crow argue that, because of the legal framework which recently came up, same-sex partners have had to negotiate their commitment and responsibilities more than married couples, this may have made same-sex relationships both more flexible and less stable than heterosexual relationships. Also, supported by David Cheal (2002), while many gays and lesbians welcome the opportunity to have their partnerships legally recognized, but some fear that it may limit the flexibility and negotiability of relationships, therefore, rather than adopt what they see as heterosexual relationship norms, they wish to retain a status of ‘difference’. Nevertheless, Social policy is now beginning to treat all…
* the case-waiting for the big day-in six years, Michele and Lisa Saffery held onto their dream that one day they could legally marry in Australia. The women from Wagga Wagga and their two children, Gemme 6 and Jordae 5 carried a huge rainbow flag during 8000-strong gay marriage rights march the Labor party National conference in Sydney. Along with many others, the couple decided to have the same surname despite not being married, were disappointed with the conscience vote approved at the conference. ''I have to say to Julia Gillard, 'Damn you!''' Michele said. ''All Labor MPs should be voting 'yes' on this issue. The conscience vote is just a cop-out for Julia.'' An observant Jew, mr.whitmont-stein dismissed arguments that allowing same sex marriage was an attack on religion. “the whole point of marriage is equality, it’s not about religious institutions”, he said. Lisa Saffert and Michele are Australian but also hold British passports but they insist on marrying in Australia…
According to the Marriage Act 1961, marriage in Australia is defined as, “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” It is said that a “good law” is that which consists of five key features; one being that the law reflects the changing values of society (Sykes, 2002). The aspect of marriage being allowed only between a man and a woman has been widely contested among people as society has evolved and this provokes debate.…
One of the most controversial topics of today’s matter is whether gay marriage should be legalized or not. There are numerous reactions when this subject comes to discussion and can sometimes lead to a heated debate. Some individuals believe that homosexuality is unethical while people who agree with gay marriage believe to put in consideration that the sexual preference of another human being is necessary. With every conflict comes pros and cons and this topic is like pulling a tight-rope if ever brought up in a debate because you never know who will pull the rope tighter. Gay marriage has a vast influence on the society today, relevant to it becoming legalized, it is bound to impact future generations, and will affect the establishment of marriage later in life.…
There are many controversies surrounding today's world, such as abortion, animal testing, and social reform issues. It seems that no one can come to a common agreement on the legitimacy of these topics. Personal characteristics, such as upbringing, culture, religion and ethnicity, all play a role in determining one's feelings on a given controversial issue. However, one of the most protested and discussed issues in current political debate is same-sex marriage. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, only hard pressed arguments expressing speculation regarding supposed outcomes, benefits and possible tribulations that would come along with the endorsement of gay marriage. Such ideas are shown in pieces of writing by Manuel A. Lopez, in "The Case Against Gay Marriage" and by Scott Bidstrup in " Gay Marriage: The Arguments and Motives." These issues both discuss and contend common controversy surrounding the gay marriage debate. After reading and analyzing each essay, it is observed that Manuel A. Lopez' style of writing and literary tone give him the upper hand in establishing a more effective piece.…
Whether an individual is against gay marriage or for it, we all have an opinion on the issue. Andrew Sullivan’s describes how marriage as a basic need for individuals no matter their sexual orientation. However, William Bennett believes that “same- sex marriage would do significant, long term social damage” (1138). Whether we like it or not gay marriage influences marriage institution, culture, and their children.…
Gay marriages have been one of the hottest and controversial topics in our society. There are still problems concerning this issue of homosexuality and gay marriages. Same sex marriages are legal in Hawaii, but in all other states couples must be of the opposite sex to form a marriage. Hawaii’s decision to legalize same sex marriages is considered a milestone victory for gays and may cause a ripple affect for similar action in other states. Those who support gay marriages justify their position by the concept of love. These supporters of gay marriages feel as though gay people are being deprived of their right to love. Many people believe that gay people deserve the right to love and to take that love and form a marriage. These people believe that gays want to feel justified, meaning that as a couple they should be able to define their own marriage for themselves and make their own set of rules. Supports of same-sex marriages feel as though homosexuals are being deprived of their God given right to get married. They believe that arguments against same sex marriages are unconstitutional, and they simply do not justify a ban on same sex marriages. It is not the idea of two people of the same sex getting married that frightens people so much, but it is the thought of change and the fact that the federal government will redefine marriage to allow same sex unions. When people picture the results of same sex marriages, they see images of unstable homes. Everyone would probably agree that homosexuality has changed our society, and legalizing same sex marriages is not likely to be an exception. It would be an injustice to discriminate against a person if he or she were…
In its presentation to investors, Grolsch emphasized that it targeted a premium, and differentiated position in the markets in which it competed. It also highlighted adaptation around its core products as its key strategy for international growth. But why after years of being domestic, did Grolsch chose to globalize with SABMiller?…
On the outside looking in, it is rather apparent that there are two objectives in regards to gay marriage; those who say “green-light” and those who say “red-light”. In essence, when you consider the marriage battle between homosexuals and heterosexuals -- it’s like fire and ice; they both have the potential to overcome each other’s privileged power. “It’s this tug of war between whose gut feeling is better or morally correct that perpetuates the cycle of bitter feelings,” suggests David Myers , a spokesperson for gay rights (Myers & Scanzoni, 2005, p. 129). When we take into consideration the lenses model, you quickly notice that you have three parties – one that is for the institution of gay marriage, one that is against it, and one that is liaison between the both (the government). Those who say “green light” for gay marriage see themselves as being “ostracized by the other parties for wanting to belong” (Myers & Scanzoni, 2005, p. 13). Rather than being avoidant, this party finds it more promising to just promote “collaboration as they find an integrative solution that will satisfy both the other parties” (Hocker & Wilmot, 2007, p. 163). Meanwhile, those who say “red light” to gay marriage either see their counterparts (the “green lighters” and the government) as unmoral tradition breaking savages (Myers & Scanzoni, 2005, p. 113). They believe in that the perfect union in marriage as that of a heterosexual bases rather than a homosexual. The government on the other hand sees itself as the crowd pleaser. They are persuaded by the vote of the masses and see their part only as one who acts accordingly to the public interest.…
Living in a country known for its freedom, an individual wouldn't stop and consider that they would need a law to be passed to marry someone they love. In the most recent poll over whether or not gay marriage should be legalized has been taken you can see that the united states supports it more than oppose it:…