Gay marriage is a prevalent issue in today’s society. As the gay community grows, with more people gaining the confidence to come out and others completely accepting homosexuality, the rights of gay people are coming into center stage. In 2014, when two human beings do not have equal rights in the most so-called progressive country in the world, there is something completely wrong with society. All people should abide by the same exact laws and have equal opportunity do the same things. But this is simply not the case across the board in America. A total of 33 of the United States are living in an ethically backwards society, where all people aren't treated equally. These 33 states do not allow same-sex marriage. All people should be allowed the right to marry, regardless of anything, especially if the reason is not unlawful. Homosexuality is not illegal, so why would the gay community be denied the right to marry?
Eventually, same-sex marriage will be the rule of law in the US, because there is no viable reason why two people, regardless of sex, should not be allowed to marry. The main arguments are religion and procreation; however, these are not a condition for long-term love. This issue should not be prejudiced by religion since those views are not universal to everyone. Many marriages are not resulting in offspring and yet they are legal.
Love is love and gay marriage should be allowed! We are the land of the free and we have the freedom to love who we want. There are benefits to gay marriage as well. Gay couples can adopt children in foster homes so many children are waiting to be adopted. There are endless reasons gay marriage should be allowed.
America. The home of the free, the brave, the equal, denies same sex marriage. Only 15 states currently let same sex couples marry. Gay marriage does not hurt heterosexual marriage, it does not spread hate. They simply want to marry, they simply want the rights they thought they were born with in this country.
Gay marriages should be a civil rights Issue . As a citizens of the United States homosexuals 's should have the right to marry who they want without any trouble from others religious beliefs or the government , "Life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness ."
Being gay isn 't a choice , it 's something you are born with as English psychologist Havelock Ellis said in 1897 through research .
Marriage is a commitment between you and the person you choose to love and to stay with will death do you part . And so I don 't see the problem , it 's just a basic right of a citizen's equality .
I believe that if you love someone you should have the right to be with them! Same gender or not! Everyone deserves to be happy! Not just that, but we're in America, the land of the free! If you don't agree with it, then too bad. everyone has a right to love someone, just like a man and a women are allowed to love each other. It's love. All the same.
People are born gay, and it is not possible for them to change their ability to find happiness with someone of the other sex. They should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage, just the same as any other two people. Children can be raised successfully by two people of the same sex if they are raised intelligently. It should be a civil right.
Gay marriage should not even be a question of if it is ok or not, it just should be allowed. People will not always agree with all types of marriage, but that does not give anyone the right to strip someone of their natural freedom and natural born right to get married.
Everyone should be able to get married no matter their gender because getting married is a basic human right. In the United States of America everyone is equal and should be able to marry who ever they want. Just because you are gay doesn't mean that you are in a lower class the other people.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pay special attention to that last one. These are the inalienable rights discussed and protected by the constitution. Every American citizen is entitled to all three. Stopping LGBT individuals from taking the biggest step in their relationships denies them the pursuit of happiness, and therefore goes against the basic principles of the United States. If the simple matter of procreation should be a prerequisite for marriage, then what do you have to say to elderly or infertile couples, or couples that simply don't want to have children?
Civil rights protections function simply to assure every citizen equal treatment UNDER THE LAW depending on what the material dispute in law is all about. Law that is just must begin by properly recognizing and distinguishing identities and differences in reality in order to be able to give each its legal due.
If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must PROVE that marriage law (not civil rights law) has misidentified something that it should not have.
The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of LEGAL consideration.
The first question is about identity and difference.
This is the legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages from say, auto clubs, OR perhaps the difference between schools and banks, between friendships and corporations. It has nothing to do with LEGAL CIVIL RIGHTS.
The question behind marriage, in other words, is a structural one that precedes lawmaking.
Rather, it is about whether homosexual relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage UNDER THE LAWS AS THEY ARE DEFINED AT PRESENT. When the law are reinvented, only then will it be a civil rights issue. But here, you see, is the sleight of hand. It is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them. The anti discrimination principle is appealed to not in order to show that some married couples have previously been denied the recognition of their marriage. Rather the anti discrimination principle is being used to ask that no citizen be denied the right to call something what he or she wants to call it.
The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.
If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which then, would mean that if Jimmy John wants 18 wives it's legal and a then, a Civil Rights issue.
If J.J. Jingleheimer wants to call what he is doing with the five year old girl marriage , it would have to be deemed legal, and thus, a Civil Right.
And, therein lies the conundrum.
To recognize in law the distinct character of a marriage relationship, which entails sexual intercourse, involves no discrimination of a civil rights kind against those whose bonds do not include sexual intercourse. Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage. There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.
I understand the world's viewpoint that we should get to do whatever we want and be supported for those desires and choices. However, there is a reason why gay marriage hasn't been deemed a civil right already. In no way trying to offend gays, the choice of homosexuality reveals an injured psyche. Yes, we live in the land of the free, but this freedom does not mean we set aside our values, morals or brains. We became the land of the free by using our brains and analyzing the best thing to do based on history and education.
Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been accepted in society because the pieces fit together. Given a man and women as the last two people on earth, they can continue the race. Given two men or two women, there is no hope for a future.
Marriage is not about love. It is not about rights. It is a political/civil construct devised since history began to construct and preserve the family institution and procreation. If it is a right why does it...
1. Need a license
2. Need a blood test
3. Need to meet requirements such as relation between the bride and groom.
4. Need to be monogamous
5. Need to be between humans and not between inanimate objects and animals.
6. Have a minimum age.
Rights are endowed by simply being. No requirements needed.
If the gay marriage argument is that marriage is simply a civil construct to which all should have equal access in order to participate in our society, then no prerequisites for marriage should be required. If the purpose of the argument for gay marriage is to create a new civil construct, with defined requirements for participation, then that argument proves the validity of defining marriage in a specific way, as is presently done.
It perverts God's plan of one man and one women. It's wicked and nasty. Those engaged hate God and God's word. They are dying in large numbers. Why? Because it's a grevious sin and God's word will not be mocked. But there's hope. God loves them but hates the sin. He offers forgiveness and freedom through Jesus Christ our Lord.
When you are born a certain race you have no control over, that's a civil rights issue. Being gay is a choice. Plain and simple. In life you have a choice. Today's society has a new way if thinking that there is no right or wrong choices in a lifestyle. Everything should be accepted. They is only one thing in life that is guaranteed. You will die eventually and face your judgment day, so how we choose to live life is our choice, but there will come a day that we will be judged by our actions and choices.
Acts 5:9: But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. We were and forever will be born in sin. The devil tempts us to do many things against God's law. If I am tempted to steal, and continue to steal, I will called a thief. If I am tempted to be with others of my same sex, I will be called a homosexual. Should pedophilia be a civil right? Or beastiality? Or adultery? Or polygamy? Etc.? Where will it end? We cannot legalize all of these things that are just the lust of the flesh.
If I “come out as an adulterer” would you change your views on adultery? If not, then I could say "but hey, this is who I am", would it then be OK? What about people who: lie often, are pedophiles, love porn, are prostitutes, are involved in sex trafficking, steal, want to get married at 14, practice beastiality, or murder for that matter, can't they just be accepted and not 'judged' for their 'behavior'. Liberals have swallowed the “kool aid” and are intolerant of Christian’s beliefs. Since we are Christians , we have to believe the Bible … this is not rocket science!!
If marriage is a right, therefore there should be no exceptions because a specific right must be universal. Then why can't someone marry a family member or his/her pet or objects. It's because on the historical aspect, marriage is a privilege for an opposite couple to create a family naturally, that's it.
Legal rights are mutually agreed upon between the people and the government through the social contract. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is often pointed to. It has been historically used regarding racial minorities. However, homosexual access to marriage is not analogous. Homosexuals are not denied their basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution such as the right to fair trial. Nor are homosexuals being denied equal coverage by the law. Crimes committed against homosexuals are fully prosecuted. They are granted equal protection in any reasonable interpretation of the clause. The issuance of a marriage license is not such a guaranteed protection. The government has no obligation to grant a marriage license to anyone who wants one. For example, not everyone has access to a driver’s license. Does that mean that the rights of blind citizens are being violated? There is nothing unconstitutional about selectively issuing licenses. Gay marriage isn’t a legal right.