Same_Sex_Marriage

Same sex marriage \ BCOM 275 Same sex marriage In all but nine states in America two men or two women cannot be legally married. It should be of no one’s concern if two men or two women decide to get married and profess their love for one another in a public ceremony and therefore should receive the same benefits of marriage as couples of opposite sex. Currently the United States Supreme court is hearing arguments on Californians’ Prop 8; Prop 8 is also known as California Marriage Protection Act. The California Marriage Protection Act was passed November 2008 during the state elections. Prop 8 is a new provision added to the California Constitution, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights (http://www.qwhatis.com/what-is-prop-8/). The provision focuses on doing away with same sex marriage. It declares that only a man and a woman is a legally binding or acceptable form of marriage in California. Those in favor of same sex marriage say that gay marriages can provide financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and reduces costs for state benefit programs (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/). According to (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/) allowing same-sex couples to marry will permit them to have access to basic rights that allows hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection if the relationship ends. Those in favor also argue that legalizing same sex marriage will not threaten heterosexual marriages or "family values.” A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that laws allowing same-sex marriage or civil unions have no effect on traditional marriage (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/). Opponents of same sex marriage argue that the institution of marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman and any other form of marriage is unacceptable. The opposition also believes gay marriage could eventually lead down a "slippery slope” ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. The biggest reason for opposing same sex marriage is religion. Same sex marriage is not in alignment with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/). Opponents believe by expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may force churches to marry couples and may result in children being taught in school that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. All that oppose same sex marriage do so based religious ideology, ethically or morally there is no evidence that same sex couples are more likely to be more unethical or have less morality than heterosexual couples in fact traditional Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates between 40% and 50% according to (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/). Legally same sex marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court decided in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage were "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (http://gaymarriage.procon.org/). Another issue that came across us was denying same sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families. Honestly, a gay marriage will actually make it easier for same sex couples to adopt children. There are thousands and thousands of children in the United States just waiting to be adopted by a loving family to show them affection and be able to give them a stable home. The only thing that these children want is someone to love them for who they are and give them a home to go to. So it really should not matter if the couple is gay or lesbian. Just as long as they are able to show that child affection and a home there should not be a huge problem. There have been many stories of young children being adopted by couples of the same sex and have lived a wonderful life with a great education and no problems what so ever. This is the twenty first century not back when dinosaurs were still alive. As long as they are happy there should be no reason to not allow them to do so. They do not harm us in any way so should we harm them by not letting them get married if they truly love each other as well as adopting a child that needs loving parents and a home. That could be seen as denying a child a chance to actually have a family and a home. Additional information that can be seen in consideration to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry one another actually would help bring financial gain to state and local governments. The revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses. Higher income taxes also known as “marriage penalty”, actually decreases in costs for state benefit programs, so in reality this can be seen as a win situation for everyone. Not allowing them to do so can also be fallen under the category of racism. It can be seen that way do the fact that denying their rights just because of their sexuality is the same as saying because of their race. Some say that the fear for these children is that they will feel like they do not belong in the family because their parents are not married but just because they are not able to marry here in the united stated does not mean that they are not able to get married somewhere else so it would not affect the child at all (http://www.vivianholley.com/). And aside from facing more discrimination and less access to legal recognition and marriage in most of the country, lesbian and gay couples generally have the same relationship goals and face the same relationship challenges as people who are straight do. They also have the same rates of relationship success and failure. The benefits of lasting intimate relationships apply equally whether the couple is straight or same-sex, and the same good communication skills help make a relationship work (http://www.pbs.org/). Gay and lesbian couples are not only more honest with one another, they are also more likely to exhibit affection and humor in negotiating relationship stressors, according to John Guttmann, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Washington (http://www.pbs.org/).According to the 2000 census data, there are nearly 400,000 same-sex couples households in the United States—likely an underestimate. And surveys show that between 40% and 60% of gay men and between 45% and 80% of lesbians are currently involved in an intimate relationship. (http://www.pbs.org/). Within these committed relationships, couples report similar levels of satisfaction and commitment as their heterosexual counterparts, with the added benefit that same-sex couples tend to focus more on equality and resolve conflict more effectively than opposite-sex couples. (http://www.pbs.org/). The first argument in favor of homosexual marriage is with regards to the fact that a key element of society is being deprived of the same civil liberties that other members of society have been enjoying for centuries. As a function of the fact that the United States has prided itself on being a free and open society that does not deprive rights to any specific group, this argument is probably the strongest of all in favor of supporting gay marriage (Arroyo, 2011). Conversely, the con argument is predicated on the belief that the natural understanding of marriage and tradition necessarily bars gay marriage from being an option. Such a con does not rest on the understanding of law or even the merit of ethics; rather, it is based upon the belief that prior practice should be the determining factor with regards to how marriage is defined. With regards to this coupling of the pro-con argument, it can clearly be understood that the pro-homosexual marriage side of the argument comes across as the clear winner. This is due to the fact that those who promote such a view are in perfect line with the civil libertarians that have promoted equality and justice since the dawn of the republic. The second argument in favor of homosexual marriage stipulates that there is no such thing as a “traditional” marriage. Rather, marriage itself has continually been redefined by different cultures throughout history as encompassing polygamy, child brides, concubines, and a litany of other “non-traditional” aspects. As a function of this, those that argue in favor of homosexual marriage point to the fact that even though such a practice may fall outside of the norms of the current defining trends, it is not valid enough to assume that since gay marriage is “non-traditional” it must be shunned. Opponents of gay marriage on the other hand like to point to the fact that the divorce rates within straight couples are already providing alarming statistics with regards to the strength and resiliency of the family. As a function of this, detractors from homosexual marriage point out that divorce rates and splits among homosexuals are precipitously higher than within non-homosexual relationships (Rohy, 2012). Although it is difficult to come to a strong determination with regards to which side of this pro-con argument has the most logical weight behind their arguments, it is fair to say that seeking to base a decision of ultimate legal right on tradition is not a clear or rational decision making process. The third set of pro-con arguments that will be discussed herein is with regards to the level of legal protection that gay marriage relates to. As such, the pro homosexual marriage groups would advocate that Supreme Court rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education and a litany of others have guaranteed that all members of society should expect the same rights as others (Rowe, 2011). On the flip slide, those that do not promote homosexual relationships would point to the fact that a positive determination on gay marriage would lead to a slippery slope of legal battles in which a man or a woman could marry an animal or find some other way to pollute the institution of marriage (Bernheim, 2013). This coupling of pro-cons is logically in favor of the pro homosexual marriage side of the debate due to the fact that it emphasizes equal representation under the law, a fundamental constitutional right, as compared to a straw man slippery slope argument set up by those opposed to homosexual marriage. The fourth set of pro con arguments surrounding gay marriage is concentric upon the financial gain or hardship that is imposed on all individuals involved. With respect to the pro of homosexual marriage, it is understood that it is unfair to continue to place such a heavy burden on domestic partners whereas their married counterparts can write off many thousands of dollars in tax deductions as a mere function of their married status. Conversely, those that oppose gay marriage, state that a necessary con of state-sanctioned gay marriage is the reality that they will ultimately be paying of their own tax dollars into an institution that they judge to be morally wrong; thereby creating an ethical dilemma for these shareholders (Madrid, 2013). Naturally, this coupling weighs in favor of the pro homosexual marriage side due to the fact that to deprive an individual of a basic right that others within the system are experiencing with no issues whatsoever is both wrong and not representative of a civil society (Williams, 2011). From an analysis of the pro-con arguments which have been listed, the reader can come to the understanding that most of the pro homosexual marriage arguments are grounded in law and an ethical interpretation of what a civil society must represent for all shareholders. Conversely, on the con side of things, it is fairly evident to see that this relies on a great deal of arguments that are concentric upon the “natural order”, tradition, and personal interpretations of morality. As such, from each of these couplings of pro-cons, it has been the determination of this group of shareholders that the most compelling argument is necessarily that of the pro homosexual marriage side. This is due to the fact that from a legal and ethical standpoint, this particular group of shareholders has the definitive advantage in the conflict. Rather than relying on tradition and personal interpretations of morality, the pro homosexual marriage side of the debate is able to draw a clear linkage between the fundamental human and civil rights that the US government has traditionally upheld and the gay marriage debate. Reference Arroyo, C. (2011). Same-Sex Marriage, 'Homosexual Desire,' and the Capacity to Love. International Journal Of Applied Philosophy, 25(2), 171-186. Bernheim, G. (2013). HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, PARENTING, AND ADOPTION. First Things: A Monthly Journal Of Religion & Public Life, (231), 41-50. Madrid, J., & Rice, S. (2013). Examining Cynicism in Regards to Reasons for Gay Marriage. Review Of European Studies, 5(1), 45-51. doi:10.5539/res.v5n1p45 Rohy, V. (2012). On Homosexual Reproduction. Differences: A Journal Of Feminist Cultural Studies, 23(1), 101-130. Rowe, C. N. (2011). Love, Homosexual Marriage, and the Common Good. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 11(2), 267-275. Williams, R. (2011). Same-Sex Marriage and Equality. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, 14(5), 589-595. doi:10.1007/s10677-010-9261-8 Appendix With respect to India, the argument is much more nuanced due to several factors. The first of these has to do with the fact that the modern nation of India has not experienced a long legal tradition similar to the United States. As such, India has only been a nation since 1947. In this way, those in the pro homosexual marriage camp would have a hard time drawing upon a long tradition of legal cases that back up the civil rights that would add credence to this particular aspect of the interpretation of law. Similarly, another hardship presents itself with respect to tradition. Whereas several of the con arguments that are listed in opposition to gay marriage in the United States fall back upon a traditional interpretation of the institution of marriage, these draw heavily from Judeo-Christian interpretations of what a marriage ultimately is defined as. However, within India, a Judeo-Christian approach is of course not the most prevalent. Instead, India would integrate more wholly with the Islamic and Hindu interpretation of tradition. Unfortunately, both of these systems are even more opposed to homosexual unions that the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which much of the United States has been influenced. As a means of altering the approach that the preceding arguments in favor of homosexual marriage would need to engage should they ultimately be applied in the subcontinent of India, it is the belief and understanding of this author that the main ways in which this should be accomplished is by appealing to modernity and the fundamental human rights afforded to all individuals under India’s constitution. As a function of this, the shareholder, already deeply interested in seeking to enter into an age of further modernity and coalescence with the outside world, would most likely integrate some certain level of understanding and acceptance with regards to homosexual marriage. However, with respect to the lack of a legal precedent upon which the base the fundamental concept of civil rights and how it has been applied within the system in the past, this necessarily calls upon the ability of the advocates to organize and integrate an understanding with the citizens and shareholders that the issue is about a great deal more than a mere traditional versus modern interpretation of Indian culture; rather, it strikes at the very core of human rights.