One of the largest controversies facing society today is the debate over gay marriage. This argumentative essay will explore the multiple aspects and definitions of marriage in terms of legality, social constructs and religious based beliefs- and present arguments as to why gay couples deserve the institution of marriage in the same way that heterosexual couples do. This argument will approach the topics of court cases involved in the legalization of gay marriage, the role of childbearing and raising in a homosexual marriage, and the faults in Biblical defense against same-sex marriage. Likewise, the main idea presented in this text is that whatever institution an individual might believe is in defense against homosexual marriage, really has
…show more content…
This Old English rhyme has become time honored tradition in which brides wear these items on their wedding day hoping for the charms of longevity and fertility in their new marriage. However, what if “something new” in the marriage was a contemporary case decided on June 26, 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, p. 1)? This case stated that by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, refusing to legalize the union of a homosexual couple violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property- just as any heterosexual couple possesses (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, p. 2). Marriage is such an intricate topic because it encompasses terms of legal standpoint, romantic views, and religious aspects; however, as perplexing as it may be, one thing is certain. A nuptial between two people represents a legal union with official charges, a validation of love in regards to tradition and society’s constructs, and a sacred promise to love one another “until death do us part”- and I accept as true that homosexual and heterosexual couples alike deserve each one of these …show more content…
774). The basis of a marriage through the eyes of the law is primarily for the care of dependents (Gallagher, 2002, p. 776). However, the law also treats married couples differently in terms of inheritance, evidence, taxation, torts, health insurance, social security, social welfare, medical care, and many other social regulations (Gallagher, 2002, p. 776). To interpret these terms strictly, homosexual wedlock would pose no threat to the legal definition of marriage. In the words of Maggie Gallagher: “There is no rational reason, therefore, to withhold these benefits from any couple, cohabiting, same-sex, or other, who wishes to claim them on behalf of themselves or (especially) their dependents” (Gallagher, 2002, p. 776). A same-sex couple is perfectly capable (or incapable) of caring for children in the same way that an opposite-sex couple might, and the loving structure of a family is not dependent on the sexuality of the parents in any way. The problem of legality in a same-sex marriage originates from the opposition’s claims that allowing this type of marriage “will harm marriage as an institution” and that homosexuals’ beliefs are a “counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and parenthood” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, p.5). It is
This Old English rhyme has become time honored tradition in which brides wear these items on their wedding day hoping for the charms of longevity and fertility in their new marriage. However, what if “something new” in the marriage was a contemporary case decided on June 26, 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, p. 1)? This case stated that by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, refusing to legalize the union of a homosexual couple violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property- just as any heterosexual couple possesses (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, p. 2). Marriage is such an intricate topic because it encompasses terms of legal standpoint, romantic views, and religious aspects; however, as perplexing as it may be, one thing is certain. A nuptial between two people represents a legal union with official charges, a validation of love in regards to tradition and society’s constructs, and a sacred promise to love one another “until death do us part”- and I accept as true that homosexual and heterosexual couples alike deserve each one of these …show more content…
774). The basis of a marriage through the eyes of the law is primarily for the care of dependents (Gallagher, 2002, p. 776). However, the law also treats married couples differently in terms of inheritance, evidence, taxation, torts, health insurance, social security, social welfare, medical care, and many other social regulations (Gallagher, 2002, p. 776). To interpret these terms strictly, homosexual wedlock would pose no threat to the legal definition of marriage. In the words of Maggie Gallagher: “There is no rational reason, therefore, to withhold these benefits from any couple, cohabiting, same-sex, or other, who wishes to claim them on behalf of themselves or (especially) their dependents” (Gallagher, 2002, p. 776). A same-sex couple is perfectly capable (or incapable) of caring for children in the same way that an opposite-sex couple might, and the loving structure of a family is not dependent on the sexuality of the parents in any way. The problem of legality in a same-sex marriage originates from the opposition’s claims that allowing this type of marriage “will harm marriage as an institution” and that homosexuals’ beliefs are a “counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and parenthood” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, p.5). It is