The gay marriage debate is very controversial. Those against same-sex marriage often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about pro-creation. They argue that same-sex relationships are immoral and against God’s will. Those in favor of same-sex marriage often argue that mutual love is enough for people to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation. Christian groups who argue for same-sex marriage tend to believe that lesbian and gay people were created as such by God and should have the same right as others (History and Debate of Gay Marriage). In the United States, the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage dates all the way back to the early 1970s. On October 1972, the Supreme Court dismissed the Baker v. Nelson case.
…show more content…
Before it was legalized, the homosexual community was denied their equal civil rights. Additionally, only heterosexual marriages allowed you to have access to health benefits through your partner, get a tax break, and if you die, your partner becomes your next of kin. Enabling homosexual couples to have access to equal marriage licenses eliminates discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
For starters, Jeffrey Jordan believes there is a public dilemma about same-sex marriage. Jordan mentions that there is a moral impasse over the question of whether or not homosexual acts are morally permissible. He believes many people think that they are and many think that they are not. In his argument, he later distinguishes the difference between engaging in homosexual conduct as a private matter and marriage as public one (April Elliot). Because people who are married are eligible for various public benefits that unmarried couples do not receive, the debate over same-sex marriage represents a public …show more content…
If the government does this, then each side of the impasse is either an absolute victor or loser. Furthermore, he believes it is not possible to resolve the dilemma by accommodation if same-sex marriage is allowed. Finally, Jordan argues that there is no overriding reason for the state to resolve the dilemma by declaration. He thinks the issue of same-sex marriage is not as serious as the abolition of slavery was. In conclusion, Jordan wanted the state to restrict same-sex marriage but allow private homosexual acts between consenting adults (April Elliot).
David Boonin does not believe that Jeffrey Jordan’s argument is sound here. Boonin’s thoughts on same-sex marriages are that governments should sanction them and that people should have the right to marry whomever they want. Boonin adds that Jordan’s second claim is problematic because he does not do a good job of distinguishing the public disagreement. Jordan speaks of the public dilemma as two distinct subjects of disagreement (Rachels). He believes the public dilemma is the permissibility of homosexual behavior and the act of participating in same-sex
Before it was legalized, the homosexual community was denied their equal civil rights. Additionally, only heterosexual marriages allowed you to have access to health benefits through your partner, get a tax break, and if you die, your partner becomes your next of kin. Enabling homosexual couples to have access to equal marriage licenses eliminates discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
For starters, Jeffrey Jordan believes there is a public dilemma about same-sex marriage. Jordan mentions that there is a moral impasse over the question of whether or not homosexual acts are morally permissible. He believes many people think that they are and many think that they are not. In his argument, he later distinguishes the difference between engaging in homosexual conduct as a private matter and marriage as public one (April Elliot). Because people who are married are eligible for various public benefits that unmarried couples do not receive, the debate over same-sex marriage represents a public …show more content…
If the government does this, then each side of the impasse is either an absolute victor or loser. Furthermore, he believes it is not possible to resolve the dilemma by accommodation if same-sex marriage is allowed. Finally, Jordan argues that there is no overriding reason for the state to resolve the dilemma by declaration. He thinks the issue of same-sex marriage is not as serious as the abolition of slavery was. In conclusion, Jordan wanted the state to restrict same-sex marriage but allow private homosexual acts between consenting adults (April Elliot).
David Boonin does not believe that Jeffrey Jordan’s argument is sound here. Boonin’s thoughts on same-sex marriages are that governments should sanction them and that people should have the right to marry whomever they want. Boonin adds that Jordan’s second claim is problematic because he does not do a good job of distinguishing the public disagreement. Jordan speaks of the public dilemma as two distinct subjects of disagreement (Rachels). He believes the public dilemma is the permissibility of homosexual behavior and the act of participating in same-sex