Homosexual Marriage
ÒMarriage has changed to suit society throughout timeÓ (Economist 161). From interracial marriages to procreation views, society has allowed itÕs favourite institution, marriage, the flexibility to change and grow with the times. Then why can society not accept the addition of homosexual marriage today? The arguments against homosexual marriage are close-minded and transparent, and have little place in modern society. Arguments on such topics as religion, procreation, and child rearing can be easily and logically discounted with a minimum of thought. Yet still legislation, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, continues to undermine the Constitution. Because of the act, which was signed into law in September of 1996 by Bill Clinton, the full faith-and-credit clause from Article 4 of the constitution is made worthless (Sullivan 167). Similar actions have been taken into society to prevent homosexual marriage, though many people do not give any actual thought to the matter, accepting what is considered to be a societal norm. In actuality, homosexual marriage would have a positive influence upon todayÕs society, which is consistently proven by the arguments between homosexual marriage advocates and opposition.
All of these items are taken for granted by the heterosexual couples of today. Any child raised by a lesbian or gay set of parents would be at a serious social disadvantage than a child raised by two parents of opposite genders. When they went to court to rectify their situation, the couple was faced with the fact that they were going to be thrown in jail because of their illegal marriage. According to Bob BarrÕs legal research, the actual definition of marriage is Òthe civil status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law whose association is founded upon the distinction of sexÓ (Barr 145). Places of worship refuse to host the marriages of same-sex couples, as they oppose the very foundations of many religious sects. These couples do not realize the peril that homosexual couples are put into with such bigoted laws as The Defense of Marriage Act. This constant uncertainty in the lives of so much of the American population cannot be allowed to continue. Homosexual marriage would be a great benefit to society, despite the beliefs of certain groups of people. As for the debate about the quality of parenting that homosexual couples give to their children, many studies have shown adequately raised children. Yet in history, the right to marry has been denied on the basis that the couples wanting to marry were of different races, different religions, different ethnicities. The intolerance preached by religions of the world cannot be allowed in the government; it would destroy the essence of the Bill of Rights. Marital failure can now be grounds for a divorce, rather than just the fault of one participant. In addition, if the biological parent of a child from a homosexual marriage dies, the other parent, despite the childÕs opinions and the years of parenting put forth, can loose all rights to custody and visitation to what is perceived to be their child (Martin 174). Because of that change, many unhappy couples that could end extremely negatively are saved (Economist 161). Marriage is meant not to encourage fidelity, but rather to reward it with acceptance, and help to push along the old adage that ÒBoy + Girl = BabiesÓ (Graff 164).
Common topics in this essay:
Bill Clinton,
United Homosexual,
Marriage Act,
Virginia Francoeur,
Bob BarrÕs,
Supreme Court,
Donald DeMarco,
,
Conservative Catholic,
African American,
homosexual marriage,
homosexual couples,
heterosexual couples,
todayÕs society,
definition marriage,
arguments homosexual marriage,
arguments homosexual,
defense marriage act,
modern society,
defense marriage,
legal definition,
homosexual couple,
legalization homosexual marriage,
homosexual marriage religious,
legal definition marriage,
|
Acceptance Essays
