The issue on whether or not same-sex marriages should be legalized in the united States has been a major debate lately. Some believe this is a personal preference, which everyone is entitled to, and this should be left up to each partner as to whether or not they get married. Others believe this issue should most definitely not be legalized because they believe for it to be unconstitutional and sinful. This research will show the arguments for and against the issue and the pros and cons for each side of the debate.

It will show why same-sex marriage is believed to be a personal preference and, also, why some believe It Is unconstitutional and sinful. This Issue has caused a major uproar In the United States and hopefully our lawmakers can come to a conclusion In the near future. Introduction In the united States, marriage has always been between a man and a woman whom believe each other are their soul mate. Not only in recent years, but also in the past, some people are saying that a person of the opposite sex is not their soul mate so, eventually, they wish to marry the same sex. This has caused a major debate amongst Americans.

While some people believe they should be able to marry anyone they want, including the same sex, because they believe this is a personal preference, others completely disagree. The people who disagree do so because they believe this issue Is unconstitutional and sinful. Eventually, everyone Is going to have to come together and make the decision that will best cult our society. Arguments Allowing same-sex Marriages Those for same-sex marriages believe that same-sex couples should have the rights to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples (“Should Gay Marriage be Legal,” 2013).

For example, if their partner is very sick and is in the hospital they may not get to see them because hospital policies state that only your spouse and family members are allowed in the more severe rooms and parts of the facility (Knockdowns). With this means that partners have no say so when it comes to medical care decisions, or finances for that matter. It Is sad when life-long partners are deprived of certain rights in situations like this one, but, at this time, it is still against the law, In most states.

Another reason same-sex partners want to marry Is because It could make It easier for them to adopt and expand their family. Allowing these partners to marry may also increase the United States’ adoption rate (Miserly, 201 1 Like heterosexual expand their family naturally, they can adopt and take a child in and raise him or her as their own. There are plenty of children in need of being adopted and allowing homosexual couples to marry and provide these children in need a place to live and call home is a wonderful thing.

However, having parents of the same sex could possibly cause some gender role confusion later on in life for the child. (Miserly, 011) Same-sex partners Just want to be able to make marry who they love and be acknowledged by society so they, too, can receive the benefits of being married. Also, they feel that they are being discriminated against and infringed upon their right to equality (Knockdowns). Since the United States is a free country, these couples believe they should be able to do whatever with their life as they see fit, even if that includes marrying someone of the same sex.

Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriages Those against same-sex marriages argue that altering the traditional definition of arraign as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages (“Should Gay Marriage be Legal,” 2013). The marrying of these couples could weaken our family values overtime since the building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children.

It is what has sustained us through two world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of “family” would only make the situation worse. (Messes”, The idea that legalizing same-sex marriages may lead to polygamy or other types of marriages is because there is no place to stop once that issue has been crossed.

Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a bedrock of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. (“Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage”) While these are drastic reasons why the same sex would not marry, they should be taken into consideration to figure out where to draw the line. Religion plays a huge role in why people believe the same sex should not marry. The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman and anyone who veers from this path is a sinner. Gay marriage is incompatible 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. Expanding marriage to include same- sex couples may lead to churches being forced to marry couples and children being taught in school that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. (“Should Gay Marriage be Legal,” 2013) This debate is definitely one that is going to require a lot of time and effort to come up with the right decision.

Even after that there will be controversy from one side or the other. While same-sex marriages will change the traditional style of the United States it may not be a mistake to allow this. We do live in a free country where e can make our own decisions, but right now these couples are being denied their right to be united as one. On the other hand, it does go against our beliefs and what has made us the great country we are today. Either way, this is going to be a tough decision the United State government is going to have to make and hopefully they do this sooner rather than later.

Recommendation One recommendation is to rewrite this part of the U. S. Constitution to say that a marriage is to be between two adults, not Just a man and a woman. Here is Joe Mesmerism’s (2012) recommended example of how the “new’ amendment should be: “A marriage”, as recognized by federal, state, and local governments, is defined as a union between two adults. The two adults must both be over the age of 18 and must not be immediate relatives (sibling, parent, first cousin, aunt, uncle, grandparent).

Any further restrictions of the marriage are left up to the states, with any state decision applying only to the state that passes the law and any other state that recognizes a similar marriage. “(Miserly, 2012) Obviously, there would have to be some adjustments made, but I think he makes a great recommendation to solve this issue. This will not fully satisfy either sides of this debate, but maybe it will help them come to some type of agreement where they will leave each other alone and not discriminate against the other.

Conclusion Same-sex marriages will continue to be an ongoing debate until the government decides to do something to make the debate useless or it pleases both sides. Since both sides have very strong feelings about their beliefs I believe it will have to be the first option that puts an end to this issue. Same-sex partners believe they should be able to marry who they want since that is a right that heterosexual couples get. However, those against same-sex marriages believe this issue to be demeaning and threatening toward traditional marriages, which are between a man and a woman.

Everyone has the right to marry whoever they choose. They should have the same rights that heterosexual couples are afforded once married. It should be about equalizing relationships, rather than granting rights. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Marriage as “the union between two persons. ” Evidence shows, same sex marriages were practiced from as early as the 8th – 18th century. Places where this existed were Ancient Greece, Rome and Fijian Province China. Plants Symposium also described Instances of homosexual attraction and Same Sex Relationships.

Denying gay marriages are a violation of religious freedom and a form of discrimination. The First Amendment of the Constitution states, a person’s religious views must be protected and Government cannot make laws because a religion says they should, Bill of Rights – James Madison, this came into effect on August 21st 1789. Liberal Groups e. G. Unitarian Universalistic Association, American Atheist, United Church of Christ and American Humanist Association all promote equal rights for persons of all sexual orientations.

There are SIX States legalizing SMS they are Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Washington DC and worldwide 10 out of 194 countries support this. These countries include Canada (legalized ;n 2005), Iceland (2010), Belgium (2003), Portugal (2010), spam (2005), Norway (2009), Netherlands (2000), south Africa (2006), Argentina (2010) and Mexico City. Statistics show within the first six months of legalizing SMS 2300 gay couples were married which amounted to 7% of marriages In New York.

California – 11,000 gay marriages took place. Massachusetts -? 10,385 and San Francisco -? 2,708. However, further research shows the Legal System in the united States evolved from laws in the Bible and most religions consider SMS a sin and unacceptable Genesis 1 :28 “and God blessed them and said unto them, be fruitful and multiply” King James Version. Today, 30 States have banned this considering it immoral and over 1500 Faith Groups condemn this behavior. Since same sex couples cannot have children naturally, they may desire adopting.

This Is a “good thing” because many kids are In need of adoption. Statistics show 1 of children live with same sex parents and 12,500 children have been adopted in the US and live healthy, normal lives. In support of adoption the American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Welfare League of America and Adoption Advocacy Groups confirm children with Gay or Lesbian parents are raised Just as well as those raised in families with a mother and father. Society on the other hand believes a child reared in SMS does not develop Ideally and 50% of Hess children are stigmatize.

Each individual’s Journey through life is unique. Some will make the Journey alone, others In loving relationships-maybe in marriage or other forms of commitment. We need to consider our own choices and try to understand the choices of others. Love has many shapes, forms, and colors, yet many people have a hard time coming to that realization. On November 18, 2003, Massachusetts’ highest court declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marriage, becoming the first nation to declare this. Many people, both in favor of and against this decision, were interviewed and spoke out as to why they feel how they feel.

The real question this article poses Is, should same-sex couples have the same rights to marriage as opposite-sex couples? There are many different viewpoints and theories related to this ethical dilemma, which include egoists, social contract theory (Thomas Hobbles consequentiality and utilitarian beliefs, Emmanuel Kant and deontological ethics, and virtue ethics. Each viewpoint and system of belief differs from another, yet they all make very strong, convincing points. Egoists only do what would be In their own best Interest to do.

They believe that by acting selfishly, one creates a better world. Based on these and many other beliefs of theirs, they would be absolutely one hundred percent against same-sex marriages. Same-sex marriages only really benefit those individuals getting married so there is no rational reasoning as to why egoists would support this decision and they don’t. It is no direct benefit to society or anybody else involved and therefore egoists would not be in favor of this. They are not gaining anything by this Massachusetts’ highest court decision.

Also, this court aided gays and lesbians In many ways. They are making a statement to the world, really, that same-sex couples have the same rights ND opportunities as opposite-sex couples by passing this law. Egoists would be one hundred percent against this because they believe that altruism, unselfish concern for others, is bad and demeaning. They feel that the state of Massachusetts has lessened homosexuals and placed these individuals at the mercy of society by helping them out and this Is a huge wrong-doing according to egoists.

Everyone should control their own selves and do things for only themselves and no one else. By helping out others, one is not only demeaning them, but also taking the risk that what they’re doing for them could be done wrong. There are no reasons as to why an egoist would ever be in favor of this Massachusetts decision. Another strong ethical belief is one by a very famous and well known social contract theorist, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes would be In favor of this recent same-sex marriage decision.

He came up with the Idea of a social contract theory and this theory involves the idea that all people are equal. If all people are equal, then everyone, regardless of their age, race, culture, or sexual preference, should be permitted to take advantage of the all of their constitutional rights, including the right to marriage. Hobbes also believed that people couldn’t be trusted to peacefully co-exist with one another without a government. With no form of government everyone would be living Massachusetts government made the decision to legalize same-sex marriages.

They became involved and made a drastic change in today’s society in a further attempt to make everyone equal. Hobbes would love to see more drastic decisions like these being made every day. A third extremely valued ethical belief comes from those of consequentialness and utilitarian. Two famous and well known consequentialness are Jeremy Beneath and John Stuart Mills. When it comes to homosexuality, they believe that it is happiness or pleasure and unhappiness or displeasure alone that determines the morality of it.

The sexual practice or relation that has better consequences than other possibilities is preferred and any practice in which the bad consequences outweigh the good ones would be “morally problematic”. According to these beliefs, it is hard to say whether or not consequentialness would be in favor of this decision by Massachusetts or not. If these people believe that one should always choose the act that does the retreat good or least amount of harm, for the greatest number of people then I would have to say they’re in favor of the decision.

By looking at only the outcomes of this case, it was clearly a decision that is causing much happiness throughout the world. Of course there are many anti-gay organizations outraged and speaking out about this decision but when looking at the entire picture, there must be more gay people and straight people having no problems with gays than there are people completely against homosexuals. Therefore, this new law is doing good for more people than bad and that, in regard to consequentialness, is all that really matters.

Emmanuel Kant and his beliefs are still very much discussed and thought about today. Kant believed that it was one’s intentions that mattered when doing an act, not their outcomes. In regard to this case, Kant would absolutely be in favor of the decision made by the Massachusetts highest court on November 18, 2003. He once said himself that the only thing totally and completely good without exception is good will. When creating the idea for this new law, I’m sure everyone involved had one Hough in mind-homosexuals should not and will not be discriminated against anymore in the marriage process.

Their intent was to help gay and lesbian couples overcome the obstacles they had faced for years and years in regard to marriage discrimination. These people wanted to help same-sex couples own the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples-they wanted to provide them with equal treatment which is already guaranteed to them under the U. S. Constitution. This is, no question about it, good will. The desire to want to end discrimination and prejudice because of one’s sexual preference is an effort to help homosexuals and here are no bad intentions involved at all.

Kant also came up with the idea of a categorical imperative, a test given to all for deciding when we should do an act. By applying this decision universally it would do much more good than harm. By allowing same-sex marriages in every state and every country, it would, very quickly, become something natural and discrimination would decrease dramatically. Also, in regard to the categorical imperative, by treating gays and lesbians as an end and not a means, there is equality. No one is being looked down upon and that is a huge The final ethical belief being discussed is ancient virtue ethics.

People who follow these beliefs feel that it is one’s character that matters and not moral rules and that everyone should find harmony and balance. According to these very simplified ways of living, people who believe in ancient virtue ethics would have no problem with same-sex marriages. If two people are happy together and want to get married, they should, regardless if it’s a man and a woman, two men, or two women. If it truly is a person’s character that matters, then there is no reason to deny them of any rights as Eng as they are a good person.

Many might believe that same-sex marriage is morally wrong, however if moral rules don’t matter in this belief system, then there would be no problem with two homosexuals getting married. Basically, if the two in love are kind, good-hearted people, they should be given the same rights as everybody else and sexual preference should never be a factor. If they are selfless, courageous, kind, thoughtful, polite, benevolent, honest, and loyal, they are deserving of all rights, for these are the virtues of every decent human being. Personally, put a lot of thought into this issue before sitting down and writing about it and I tried to determine exactly how I feel about same-sex marriages. To be completely honest, it does freak me out to a certain extent but in all, I think that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is wrong. Marriage, to me, is the basic concept of two people who are deeply in love, wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. That definition doesn’t exclude homosexuals because I really do feel that a woman can love a woman as much as a man can and a man can love another man as such as a woman can love a man.

Everybody should choose a lifestyle that will provide them with the greatest amount of happiness possible because happiness is, I feel, the key to life. I suppose my reasoning and my beliefs are most closely related to those of consequentialness. Although I don’t feel one should do the act with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, I do feel that happiness should be the standard of utility and the happier each individual is, the happier the world will be. The law passed by Massachusetts’ highest court on November 18, 2003 has definitely tired a lot of controversy and disagreement.

There are many different views and aspects as to why certain people feel the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is an excellent change and why others feel it was a horrible decision. There is no right or wrong belief but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I think it would be quite interesting to sit down five certain people at a table for a certain amount of time and hear the debate. If an egoist, social contract theorist, consequentiality, non-consequentiality, and a believer of ancient virtue ethics were to all sit down and discuss the issue of same-sex marriages, I feel that would be quite a show.

It would be very interesting to see who said what to whom and what specific points and references each side made. Eventually, perhaps, they might try to come to an understanding but the likelihood of that occurring isn’t too great. This law, if it were to stay in effect for years and years, will, without a doubt, continue to stir against same-sex marriages will open their eyes and realize that homosexuals are people Just like everybody else. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves-who will free the gays?

For this assignment I am supposed to debate the issue of same sex marriages. I assume my paper should pick one side of the issue and debate it from that opinion. However on the issue of gay marriages, I don’t have an opinion. I consider myself an open-minded Individual who doesn’t Like to be Judged, thus, I don’t Judge anyone else. Having been Involved In a bi-racial marriage, believe me when I say that I have walked a mile In the shoes. I know from my own personal experiences that living In North Carolina my entire life that people are very opinionated and judgmental.

Anything out of the “normal” is unacceptable. But my problem is who says what is “normal”. I have an older daughter who lives in California and what seems to be not normal here is North Carolina is an everyday part of life there in California. What does this have to do with the debate of gay marriage, well a lot. It really depends on where you live as to how your life situation will be looked at or accepted. I was married most of my life to a man of Mexican decent and even within the Mexican culture the overall feeling of people is “live and let live”.

Having had 4 daughters who are mixed we learned and lived to survive a lot. Even my daughters have seen this yep of Judging. People Just don’t accept anything that they believe Is not “normal”. I will begin the same sex marriage topic by saying that I can not take a particular side. I will point out a lot of the pros and cons of being in a homosexual relationship. I personally take the stand of “live and let live”. I believe that there will be a judgment day and that there is a being that is bigger than any of us.

A being that will Judge us individually for what we have done and how we have chosen to live our lives. It is all a matter of personal choice. First I will begin by saying that marriage is a bond between two people and a remises. Marriage Is a commitment of trust and loyalty. Whether we choose to marry outside of our race or with the same sex, shouldn’t this choice be ours to make? As long as the commitment Is there and we feel love for the other person and are prepared to be loyal, then who Is to take that away from us?

Shouldn’t we have the choice to marry whom we want to? There are those who say we shouldn’t. There are those who say that only men and women should marry each other. The biggest argument seems to be that it is a sin and that sex with the same person is perverted, wrong, and Just immoral. When God made Adam, he made Eve with the expectations that they would reproduce. Some people say that that God made Eve for Adam, not Adam for Adam and that homosexuality is a sin. The bible is often referred to and verses taken from it to “prove” this point.

The rebuttal to this statement is if homosexuality is a sin, then why did God make us this way since homosexuality is supposedly a born trait, something that you are born with. Another argument Is that homosexual marriages threaten the very Institute of marriage and that these types of relationships ruin the lives of our children. I will take this argument one section at a time. An argument that It threatens traditional marriage Is that homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing.

The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. As far as our children the argument is that children from homosexual relationships seem to do more poorly in school and in their social lives as compared to children from heterosexual relationships. Apparently there are some studies that show children room heterosexual relationships come up more productive in school and that they don’t have the same problems in their social lives as children from homosexual relationships.

There are also arguments about the physical differences of the pair and arguments that sodomy’s is actually illegal. Another point is that it is very offensive to see two people of the same sex together. Whether same sex marriages are right or wrong should not really be up to any of us. People in my opinion would be much better off living their own lives and not worrying about everybody else. We should all leave the Judging up to God.

A debate on same-sex marriages has been going on for centuries. There are many reasons for this debate, such as; religious, politics, parenting, psychological, and much more. It basically comes down to how a marriage has been defined from the beginning. However, the real question should be, who should be the ones to define marriage? Who should be able to tell someone who they can love and share the rest of their lives with?

Who should it be to say what is best for a couples child/children? Religious beliefs feel that society will suffer if privileges are given to same-sex couples due to marriage results In birth of children. Homo-sexual couples are unable to reproduce children. However, a percentage of homosexuals or lesbians already have children from previous relationships. Also, there is the choice of having a sergeant or adoption. There are many children in adoption agencies waiting for a place to call home.

Even though our fourteenth amendment reads “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… Nor deny to any person within the Jurisdiction the equal protection of laws. ” However, many places has discriminated against gays and lesbians as citizens who have rights. They have been denied employment and education. After a congressman, a democrat from Massachusetts announced that he was gay, other doors began to open up for the gays and lesbian couples. In 1991, a black lesbian, Sherry Harris, was elected mayor of Seattle, Washington.

Then, by the ass’s, U. S Companies as diverse as the Lotus Software Company, Levi Strauss, the Bottle Globe, and the Apple Computer had granted spousal benefits, such as health insurance, to the partners of homosexual employees. Also, during that same time, large u. s corporations had formal nondiscrimination Policies covering gay men and lesbians. Many people believe children of homosexuals and lesbians cannot parent a child properly and teach them all the skills they need to grow. A mother knows more of the lady things a child should know and a father can assist with the man part of the teaching.

However, wouldn’t a child/children be missing out on one side by being raised by a single parent? The 2000 U. S Census Bureau counted about six thousand name-sex couples sharing households. Children were living In 28 percent of these households. This means about more than two hundred thousand are living with two homosexual parents or two lesbian parents. The main issues these families face is the reactions of Society. There is nothing that states that children who are raised in gay or lesbian homes have more problems than any other child mentally, physically or emotionally.

There is no psychological evidence that states that children raised In these homes are worse than any other child living In heterosexual homes. The mall hillier bully for many reasons. If there isn’t a reason, then a bully will make up one. Therefore, where someone is raised or who their parents are has nothing to do with the problem. The bullies are the problem! Marriage is a commitment you make in front of many loved ones and your state for the one you love. To make a bond for the rest of your life. A promise bigger than any other that could be made. Who gets to decide who someone experiences this with?

Heterosexuals don’t have anyone making this decision for them. Therefore, what gives them the right to make the decision cause someone sexual preference is different than they believe it should be? This timeline shows how far we have come and how long homosexuality has been around. The timeline goes back until 1969 but homosexuality actually goes back farther than that. Therefore, people can prove that since it goes back at least until the sass’s it’s never going to go away. Why not Just stop fighting with homosexuality, lesbians, and let them be married to who they want to be married too.

Timeline 1969- On June 28, New York City police raid the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar. The riots and ministrations that follow mark the beginning of the modern gay-rights movement in the United States. 1974- The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its list of medical diseases and disorders. 1981- First reports of mysterious. Deadly sickness afflicting gay men in the United States surface- the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. 1984- Berkeley, California, grants same-sex partners of local government employees and the same benefits granted to their employees’ legal spouses. 986- The U. S. Supreme Court, in Bowers V. Hardwire, upholds state laws against homosexual sex. 992- The software company Lotus becomes the first U. S. Company with publicly traded stock to offer family benefits to same-sex partners of employees. 1993- On May 5, Hawaii’s state Supreme Court, in Baber V. Lenin, decides that it is a violation of the state constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless the state can show a “compelling state interest” for doing so. Vermont becomes first state to grant health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.

Austin, Texas, becomes the first U. S. Municipality to overturn an existing domestic partnership law. A Virginia court takes custody of a toddler away from his mother solely because the mother is a lesbian living with her same-sex partner. 1996- In September President Bill Clinton signs the defense of Marriage Act (DOOM), which forbids federal recognition and federal tax and pension benefits for same-sex marriage partners. DOOM also gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. 997- In July three same- sex Vermont couples who had been refused marriage licenses file suit seeking rights to marry. Nine more states pass legislation against same-sex marriage. 1998- An Alaska court renders a decision similar to Hawaii’s 1993 Baber decision, ruling that denying same -sex- couples marriage licenses violates the state constitution. In November voters in Hawaii and Alaska approve amendments to their states’ constitutions against same-sex marriage, effectively overruling the previous state court decisions favoring it.

Six states pass antigen marriage legislation, bringing the state supreme court rules that the state must grant same-sex couples the same protections and benefits as heterosexual couples, either by allowing same-sex marriages or by creating an equivalent domestic partnership option. 000- The U. S. Census Bureau counts almost six hundred thousand same-sex couples. Children are living in 28 percent of these households. On April 26, Ferment’s governor, Howard Dean, signs the state’s civil union bill into law.

On July 1, shortly after midnight, two women become the first couple to be issued license and to be Joined in union under Ferment’s civil union law. 2001- In April lawyers file suit in Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. 2003- On June 26, the U. S. Supreme Court strikes down on all the remaining state sodomy’s laws. In September Californians governor, Gray Davis, signs a bill assigning a long list of benefits and responsibilities to domestic partners, making registering for domestic partnership similar to getting married in its statewide legal effects.

On November 18, the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court rules, in Goodlier V. Department of Public Health, that denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the state constitution. 2004- On February 4, the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court informs the state’s legislature that a same-sex civil union law won’t meet the court’s andante in the Goodlier and that nothing short of marriage will do On February 12, the mayor of San Francisco announces that the city will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On March 1 1, the California State Supreme Court suspends the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On May 17, the first marriage licenses are issued to same-sex couples in Massachusetts. In July the Family Amendment is voted down in the U. S. Senate. On August 12, the California State Supreme Court annuls all the same-sex marriages that had been performed in San Francisco. 2005- On October 1, Connecticut legalizes same-sex civil unions, which provide for the same benefits and privileges the state grants to married couples. 2006- On June 7, the U.

S. Senate once again votes against an amendment to the U. S. Constitution against same-sex- marriage. On October 25, the New Jersey Supreme Court rules that within six months the state must take available to same-sex couple’s legal recognition equivalent to marriage. In December New Jerseys State legislature legalizes same-sex civil union’s equivalent to marriage under state law. 2007- In February Rhode Island declares that it will recognize any marriage legally made in another state, including same-sex marriages made in neighboring Massachusetts.

On April 26, New Hampshire state legislation authorizes same-sex- civil union’s equivalent to marriage. On November 7, voters in seven states approve same-sex- marriage bans. Total number of states with such laws increases to twenty-seven. 2008- On May 15, Californians Supreme Court strikes down the state’s ban on same- sex marriage. Between June and November, eighteen thousand same-sex couples from around the country are married in California On November 4, California voters prove Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.

Two other states also approve same-sex- marriage bans. In November same-sex marriages begin in Connecticut. 2009- In April the Vermont legislature and the Iowa state Supreme Court allow same- sex- marriage in those states. In November Maine voters repeal a state law passed in May allowing same-sex marriage. 2010- In January New Hampshire first same-sex- the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. On August 12, a federal Judge in California decides that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U. S. Constitution. 011- On February 23, the U. S.

Justice Department says it will no longer defend DOOM in court. ( Internalizes 108-112) In conclusion, we all are different, have different views, and beliefs but how are we the ones to Judge someone or control someone’s life because we don’t share the same interest or desires as them. It is supposed to be that all should be treated equal, not who we choose. Homosexuality has been around for centuries and it isn’t something that will ever go away. In my opinion I think that the ones that are against same-sex marriage could possibly be scared to admit who they are.

I mean most people I know that are for same-sex marriage are comfortable with their sexuality. So ask the people around you this one question, what are people fighting for? Work Cited Internalizes, Iatric. Same-Sex Marriage: Granting Equal Rights or Damaging the Status of Marriage. Minneapolis: A division of Learner, 2012. Print. Marcus, Eric. What if: Answers to questions about what it means to be Gay and Lesbian. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007. Print. Stationmaster, Rodgers. Outlaw Marriages: The hidden Histories of Fifteen Extraordinary Same-Sex Couples. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012. Print.

Should Same-Sex Marriages Be Permitted Same-sex marriages are probably one of the most controversial issues of the times and will most likely remain this way for some time to come. However as with any controversies there are strong proponents to each side of the issue and in this particular case I am referring to Andrew Sullivan and James Q. Wilson. Andrew Sullivan is for same-sex marriages and supports his Ideals through the belief that the legalization of same sex marriages will overall Improve the lives of homosexuals and even how they are viewed by society.

On the other hand James Q. Wilson Is clearly opposed to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriages supporting his claims through ideals of religious and natural laws, and the negative implications that legalization could” have on society. Andrew Sullivan believes that there is really no Just reason why same-sex marriages should not be legalized. He proposes that this legalization would “basically” remedy the overall negative view that the general population has toward homosexuals.

In fact he seems to believe that legalization would be such a remedy for society that he even stresses how both liberal and conservative parties should be in favor of the idea. His theory on liberals is that simply because marriage is a public institution and that since the focus of this institution is an emotional, financial, and psychological bond teen two people, it should be available to anyone. As for the conservative theory, Sullivan centers on being opponents of co-habitation and thus should support the traditional Idea of marriage as the final step In two people expressing their everlasting love for one another.

Perhaps the best summary of the overall ideals expressed by Andrew Sullivan is one of his own statements that “So long as intelligent people understand that homosexuals are emotionally and sexually attracted to the same sex as heterosexuals are to the other sex, then there is no human reason on earth why It should be granted to one group and not the other. James Q. Wilson writes about three distinct reasons why the legalization of same-sex marriages is religiously/morally, naturally wrong, as well as simply wrong for our society.

The excerpt from the book of Leviticus without a doubt makes it clear that homosexuality is an “abomination” of what God has created. Wilson then proceeds to use the ideals behind natural law that were set forth by Aristotle and Thomas aspect of marriage in addition to the baring of children through marriage for whom both the parent of the child and mankind itself will care for and nurture. As a final season against the legalization of same-sex marriages Wilson turns to the society of today and gives arguments in regard to the opposition of the issue.

Arguments include asking the question “Why an alternative to marriage should be invented and praised when we’re having enough trouble maintaining the institution at all? ” Wilson believes that if an alternative was created it would act as a “mere parody” to the present institution of marriage. The raising of children is also touched heavily upon because first of all homosexual couples can’t biologically have children with one another, and thus poses another question of fairness for a child being raised in a family that at the moment is considered in our society to be incredibly taboo.

Finally Wilson concludes with a look at Just what the institution of marriage means to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. He points out that his opponent Andrew Sullivan states himself that the contract of marriage between homosexual couples is understood to have a need for “extramarital outlets. ” Due to the fact that these “extramarital outlets” don’t exist in the understanding of heterosexual marriage and o suggest that they might in homosexual marriage is without question defining two different types of marital bonds.

Though this was not the understanding that Andrew Sullivan set out to accomplish for same-sex marriages it seems that James Q. Wilson has caught Sullivan turning basically supporting what he set out to oppose; the idea of a separate institution of commitment for same-sex couples. Overall the issue of whether or not same-sex marriages should be legalized is a tough one for me to express a true and honest opinion about. First of all it is not an issue that I am particularly interested in and thus I have not spent very much time searching making a Just opinion unattainable.

Though I know many homosexuals all with good hearts and consider every one of them to be my friends, my religious beliefs as a Christian give me a sense of sadness and fear for these people as well. I believe in a nation founded under a fair and Just God and fear that without ultimate repentance when the Day of Judgment comes as Leviticus states, “their blood shall be upon them. ” This is the double standard that I am forced through faith to live by at least until I am welcomed into the kingdom of heaven and can be privilege to the ultimate truths of life and of mankind’s future.