I have to write a paper for a college class about my opinions on any topic affecting society. I am doing gay marriage. I believe it should be legalized. I'm married (heterosexual) and I'm having trouble with reasons other than I just think it should be legal. Would you please give me a few solid reasons? Like insurance benefits .... I don't want anyone to write my paper....I just want to find some issues to focus on that will give me substance to work with. I feel strongly about this issue, but I can't really explain why. I just think it is fair, but I can't write 5 pages about fair. Thanks so much. Please, only serious answers.
2006-11-19 10:49:57 · 21 answers · asked by LitChick 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Maybe I wasn't clear... I am not looking for lectures on why it should not be legalized. I am working on a doctoral degree and am capable of making up my own mind. If you can't make the requested contribution, please don't answer my question.
2006-11-19 11:07:06 · update #1
Georgeewert, please learn to read.
Why do people who hate gays and lesbians post all over the Lesbian, Gay & Bi.... area of this?
2006-11-20 11:02:23 · update #2
yes. you cannot truely believe in equality of all people and be against gasy marriage.
2006-11-19 10:53:52 · answer #1 · answered by zack 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Part of the definition of marriage is "a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." That assumes that both parties can legally make a contract. Now, at least, children can't. Chairs can't. Animals can't. The law in this country does not recognize the ability of any child, chair or animal to make a contract. Neither is there any way to obtain consent from an animal or a chair, since consent involves the assumption that they understand what they are doing as well as the act of their consenting. Please inform us how that could be done. It could easily be argued that the fact that children have and still are sometimes forced into marriage in some countries totally invalidates any connection between homosexual marriage and child marriage, if there were any logical connection in the first place (there isn't.) Child marriage involves a heterosexual relationship, and heterosexuals are the ones who validate it. They don't do it by appealing to homosexual marriage. So what's the connection, exactly?
2016-03-19 11:35:21 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since you are heterosexual and married, it should be easier for you than someone who doesn't realize the benefits of marriage. It helps with insurance and benefits and it also helps when you don't have a will and something happens to the other partner. We need for the law to recognize the partnership and allow life partners to get married and have the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. Just imagine if all the rights of heterosexual couples are taken away from you. Say your husband is on life support and you dont' have any input on whether to pull the plug or to keep him alive. If he passes away, you didn't have any say on where he was buried. The family of him will make all the decisions whether or not you like them or like the choices. His estate would revert back to the family because the law didn't recognize your marriage. It's more about equality than anything else. I'm no legal expert so you may probably get several opinions on this topic.
2006-11-19 10:56:42 · answer #3 · answered by gc27858 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
1. Gay marriage does not affect others.
2. There should not be a law that mandates who you cannot love (given both are adults).
3. You already know about insurance/death benefits/hospital visitation rights/retirement benefits/etc.
4. There is no law regarding gay relationships, so why is there a law against gay marriage? The law is inconsistent and unfair.
5. Homosexuals are barred from marrying those they love. If a law were passed to bar blacks from marriage, it would be deemed a violation of civil rights, but barring gay marriage is not. That's incongruous and unfair.
6. Marriage is a state regulated contract. Barring certain pairings of individuals to enter that contract due to sexual orientation is discrimination.
7. There is no slippery slope. The slippery slope argument is erroneous and intellectually lazy because marriage is between 2 adult individuals... NOT 3 people, animals, family, or children. Allowing same sex people to marry does NOT change the definition of marriage. Permitting gay marriage simply releases the current discrimination.
2006-11-19 11:03:15 · answer #4 · answered by kickbutt 3 · 7⤊ 0⤋
gay marriage should be legalized because gay people are the same as straight people, just like blacks are the same as whites. We're all people and we all can experience the same feelings like love and devotion. If a straight person falls in love with another straight person and they want to profess their love together in marriage no one has a problem with it, so why should anyone care whether two women or two men want to do the same. For a society that is based on equality and with so many people striving for equal rights, and with a society that spends so much time bitching about the lack of support for minority groups it disgusts me to think that the basic notion of love and acceptance is still not tollerated. Whatever goes on inside someone's own bedroom is only their business. Whether gay, straight, black, white, tall or short just remember that when it comes down to it we're all just looking for love and acceptance.
2006-11-19 11:01:54 · answer #5 · answered by dana_kistemaker 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I also did a paper on this subject for school, but with the view from a Gay Man.....I used a book by Davina Kotulski, PH.D. entitled 'Why You Should give a Damn About Gay Marriage'.
Now, my point for your paper....equality is the reason for Gay Marriage.
2006-11-19 11:29:37 · answer #6 · answered by Michael R 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes it should be legalized.
there are app.1049 reasons why but as for the why nots....
Marriage contains no stipulations that require procreation in order to be or remain valid.
Religion is not a valid argument, by what right are religious beliefs forced on everyone?
Legal contracts cannot be refused to a person on the basis of their gender, it is considered discrimination. Refusing to sell a marriage license to a same-sex couple is discrimination on the basis of gender.
2006-11-19 12:14:52 · answer #7 · answered by IndyT- For Da Ben Dan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The biggest reason is to receive the same benefits, recognitions, and protections that heterosexual couples receive when they get married. For example, my employer defines a spouse as a person who is married to me and is of the opposite sex. Therefore, I am essentially banned from allowing my partner to be taken care of under my health insurance, yet heterosexual people at work are allowed to purchase insurance that covers their spouses as well. I also cannot take family friendly leave if he is sick and needs to be cared for. He will not be allowed to have any of my leftover pension if I should die before he does. I can name him as a beneficiary on my life insurance, but if my family were to decide to challenge my naming him a beneficiary, the court would be more likely to side with them because the relationship I have with my boyfriend does not carry any sort of legal status.
Technically hospitals can and will ban my boyfriend from being allowed to see me, unless I have an advance directive, and he will have to take one out to give me those rights as well. If we should ever want to have children and decide to adopt, we have to consult a layer and have special paperwork drawn up to allow us to be recognized as the parents of the child (Maryland does have a loophole that allows this) but there are other states that ban adoptions by same-sex couples. The simple fact that I have to consult a lawyer to give my partner the right to even be allowed into a hospital to see me, or to spend more hours with a lawyer before we are able to select an adoption agency is very frustrating when we are a same-sex couple.
The 1996 Federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) is one of the documents that allows the federal government to refuse to consider same-sex relationships to be equal on any grounds, including legalization of same-sex marriage, civil unions, or domestic partner benefits. It also says that a state does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage that is legal in another state. This is why many of the states are now able to pass laws banning same-sex marriage and why any couple who leave Massachusetts or Rhode Island are legally not married.
2006-11-19 15:09:17 · answer #8 · answered by Michael M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My opinion, (as a conservite Christian Republican/Libertarian)
Is that the Government should not impose anyone's morallity on another person, (if it causes no harm to other people) Since gay marriage does not personally effect anyone but the people being married it is wrong for gay marriage to "outlawed" because it is wrong for the government to decide what is "right" or "wrong"
Oh the other hand, just as government cannot outlaw "immoral" behavior. It also should not sanction what others believe is "wrong" The government should not decide matters of morality,
I believe the government should not marry anyone, let it just be a contract between two (or more) people, have the lawyers do it all. I don't care if someone wants to marry their computer, but people who are against "computer marriage" shouldn't have to sanction it.
Just my opinion.
Josh K.
2006-11-19 11:01:36 · answer #9 · answered by J 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The main reason is that homesexual couples have no legal recognition as being a couple. So you can spend your whole life with your partner but your pension treats you as single. There are tax incentives for married hetrosexuals in many places, to help account for them supporting a spouse, but not if your spouse is same sex as you. Not only the pension problems, but health insurance - if your helath insurance "covers immidiate family also" then you bet that means it only covers hetrosexual legal wife/husband.
then sadly if you die your gay partner has no legal rights to your funeral , your will, your resting place and they could be the only people who ever cared about you. if you don't have any other next of kin then you die as though you lived as a spinster and not a happy couple. even worse if you do have family and they hate you being gay then they will **** your partner out of your death as they tried to shut her out of your life, which is cruel.
i know if i am in a car crash they'll call my foster mum who i've not seen for 15 years over my most dear treasured friends as i am not allowed to put her down as a next of kin on my life insurace,
i could go on
2006-11-19 10:59:22 · answer #10 · answered by rchlbsxy2 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
If my lover gets sick & is in intense of care I want to have the right to visit. If my lover wants to leave me his house I want to be able to claim it with out an inheritance tax. If my lover gets social security or a retirement check, I want to be able to keep getting that money after they die. Who else would wipe their a*s*s when they get old with you. Quite simply I want to be considerd a first class citizen, not second rate. I want to be able to marry because I want to get married. Not because I need special right. But because I deserve the right. I don't want to get married but I feel I deserve the right if I want it. These kind of rights straight marriages already have. Why can't I? I'm a citizen... I pay taxes. If I adopt or raise a child with my partner I want that child to be raised by my partner if I die. Sometimes even that isn't possible unless their adopted by the partner as well as yourself. There are hundreds of reasons why gay marriages should happen. The main one should be that it's my right.
2006-11-19 11:09:53 · answer #11 · answered by Ida 3 · 6⤊ 0⤋