can you guys help me write a paper about same sex marriages?

Question

it needs to be 3-5 pages long and it has to be controversial argumantative persuasive and convincing. I just need some pointers since i dont know how to start the paper. I just need important details to get me going.

Answer 1

I'm not sure it's a good idea to leave your grade up to yahoo answers

Answer 2

The same people in this country who don't want same-sex marriage are the people who still don't want interracial marriages. Look up Bob Jones University. The president of the university, Bob Jones III, finally lifted the ban on interracial marriages in the year 2000, and that's only because they were denied tax exempt status for so long. BJU is where many of this country's pastors and youth ministers are trained. I went there for about a week's time and it was like a prison in there. Unless you were a senior student you couldn't leave campus without a work pass or with another senior student escorting you for a limited time to go to the store to get supplies. Girls/Guys were not even allowed to so much as hold hands, even if they were married, except in a designated supervised area. You have a church service 3 times every day you are there. They are completely brainwashing these kids right out of high school to be religious nutcases.

About same-sex marriages, it is working just fine in other countries. We are supposed to be moving forward, instead, we keep moving backward.

Answer 3

I don't know about starting it, but I have something for you to consider in including in it.

We have some recognized same-sex marriages today. Consider a hypothetical Patrick and Polly that married. Over the course of time, Patrick confides in Polly that he really thinks he should have been born a woman. Polly confides that she really likes women better than men. Patrick gets a sex change, changing her name to Patricia, getting what he secretly has long felt right. Polly gets to be married to a woman, filling what she secretly has long felt was right. While transgender has caused many divorces, it doesn't always result in divorce. So what then of that marriage? Marriages are good until either a divorce or death happens and since neither has happened, the marriage is still good. In some places, if the marriage takes place after the change, then it would not be accepted, but in other places it might. Suppose Patrick had the physical change but not the legal change to his identity? Patrick could then marry Polly, although dressed as Patrick, then change his name to Patricia. Even though he is not equipped to be a Patrick, some states consider the XY chromosome pair to be the defining issue. In other states, it is the more obvious fittings. Patrick can change his name to Patricia and marry Polly, as long as his physical attributes still say Patrick, then change them. In some states (Missouri is one) a properly married couple, married in another state, was recognized throughout the marriage, but at death the surviving wife was denied property from her husband, because she had male chromosomes, as the children pointed out from their knowledge of the step-mom. In that case, the children's inheritance was protected, as there was no provision for a same-sex spouse to inherit. The rest of the life together was accepted and acceptible, but in this case, blood was thicker than water.

Answer 4

Ok serious answer here:
One thing to know is it is not a choice. You are born being attracted to who you are attracted to. Heterosexuals dont choose to be straight so we also dont choose to be gay.
Gays are capable of loving eachother and there is alot more to the gay community than what is shown on tv at Pride Parade events or the sleezy stories you hear about George Michale and the like. There are couples that have been together for YEars upon years.
The only thiong holding homosexuals back ar conservative bible thumpers who still have a strong influence in the USA. for some reason people are actualy afraid if we start getting married that people will turn gay. We would influence the rest os the straigghts in th world to tuen gay. (pish posh)

Answer 5

Sure, I'll send ya some info I came up with and some advice on writing a paper. You'll need to do some research to make a paper, but it'll give ya a start. The HRC has some good info. I used their site a LOT to do a persuasive speech a while back on this very subject.

http://www.hrc.org/

Answer 6

Hey kid,

In the answer I gave to your other posting on this topic there is enough material to give you the argumentative and controversial part -- with a good dose of persuasive.

If I were you I would start with a thesis statement -- that's normal in these type o fthings. You might consider saying something like --

"Having talked to a number of gay people via the internet I believe that the issue of gay marriage is a two-fold issue.

Firstly, it is a religious issue -- with religious groups on both side of the issue

Secondly, it is a secular issue -- with important rights being denied to one group of people because another group does not want to allow those rights to them.

I have decided that I support our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom from the establishment of religion, and therefore I believe the second group of religious faiths, for these purposes, to be as legitimate as the first group -- which when taken in consideration with the secular rights denied a group of people through no fault of their own leads me to support the idea of gay marriage.

And then go from there.

Now obviously you can't use my wording, it can be googled, so reword that if you decide to use it -- but it gives you a start.

And if y ou want me to read over your paper and comment before you submit it, email me and send it to me, I'll check in the morning after our opening meeting. I'm glad to help you if I can.

email me at [e-mail]

My name is Reyn

Peace,

Reyn
[e-mail]

Answer 7

Here's an excerpt from what Bearable posted a while ago:

Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

Answer 8

Well, I will give you a down side...I do not want marriage legalized for gays because I do not want to be pressured into getting married and thereby surrendering 1/2 my property to another in the event of a divorce. I like things just the way they are...We have domestic partner laws here that give much of what marriage does, but not all. To rectify the problems, I have a n ironclad will that cannot be broken by anyone. All in all, except for a slight tax advantage, I am just fine with the way things are. Good luck

Answer 9

Sure,I wrote one did you know that 42 states have constitutional laws or amendments banning same sex marriages and that 4 countries perform same sex marraiges.Also that many states still do not recognize domestic patnerships when it is between people who are gay as a legal thing.

Answer 10

Note: I'm assuming that your paper is not against same sex marriages. If it is, you can stop reading right now.

You could start by saying that health insurance is a major concern for people in same sex relationships. Recently, many health insurance companies are allowing people in same sex relationships to be added to insurance polices.

Marriage is a human right, not one that should be given just to certain people. In today's world, with terrorism, etc. shouldn't we be aiming at trying to unify ourselves? How are we to expect other people/countries to be tolerant of us if we can't accept each other for who we are?