Gay Marriage Paper - Finished

[LonelyArtist]

Hopefully it comes out. I'm having trouble with my "save as" function, so if the conclusion doesn't come out, I'm sorry!

Anyway, here is my finished paper on same-sex marriage. Be warned, it is a half-assed paper that I really did not want to write, so I apologize for my lack of enthusiasm in it.

Regardless, enjoy.

[Edit] Doesn't work for me. The next post is a copy-and-paste version. Harder to read, but that's how it is.

Attachments:

[LonelyArtist]

Marriage and Equality
“Chains do not hold a marriage together. It is threads, hundreds of tiny threads which sew people together through the years” (Signoret). Marriage is the start of a family, and families are the start of a community. Marriage is the legal bonding between two people, and it is also the greatest show of dedication and loyalty that can be made from one person to the other.
The unity of marriage is so important to the culture of west, and it should be allowed to everyone. Yet, many fears about the legality of marriages have hindered the availability of this union to certain couples. There have been different fears about different marriages throughout the history of the United States. For example, interracial marriage was not legal nationwide until 1967, but almost everyone today agrees that two people who love each other should be allowed to marry, even if they are of two different races. But today there is another kind of love that many people think shouldn’t be validated with marriage.
Same-sex marriage is legal in five states, plus the District of Columbia. This leaves forty-five states where two people who happen to be the same gender can not be married, nor is same-sex marriage recognized by the federal government.
Federal recognition of same-sex marriage is absolutely vital, and there is no valid reason against it. Science is beginning to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, so a gay person does not have the same rights as a straight person because he can not marry the person he loves. Denying this marriage is just as much minority discrimination as the ban of interracial marriages made illegal in 1967. This also denies homosexual couples their freedom of religion controlling government granted by the First Amendment, and granting federal recognition does not take away the freedom of religion from others. The argument that allowing gay marriage would begin to allow other forms of marriage is unsupported, and so is the argument that marriage is not about love but about support of a man and a woman. Homosexual couples deserve the same legal and financial support as heterosexual couples. Same-sex marriage would not weaken the institution of marriage; in fact it would encourage family values such as fidelity and adoption of children. The old definition of what is a family is not used today, anyway. Last but not least, same-sex marriage does not hurt society. All of these reasons clearly explain why same-sex marriage must be legal not only in every state, but on a national level as well.
An argument against same-sex marriage is that homosexuality is a choice, and so same-sex marriage should not be legal because a person could just as easily fall and love with and marry the opposite sex as that of the same sex. However, modern research suggests that homosexuality is a biological trait obtained before birth or an environmental trigger obtained in early childhood, not a conscious choice made later in life. Anthony F. Bogaert, of Brock University, believes that homosexuality is a “prenatal effect” and there is a “biological basis” for homosexuality (“Men”). In males, the number of biological older brothers on the mother’s side increases the chance that he will be a homosexual. This is because a pregnant woman’s body sees a male fetus as more foreign than a female fetus, and the more male babies a woman has, the more the antibodies in her body remove the male traits from her male children. In a study of 944 Canadian men, it was shown that being raised with brothers made no significant contribution to the man being a homosexual. Wrote Bogaert, “Only biological older brothers, and not any other sibling characteristic, included no biological older brothers, predicted men’s sexual orientation, regardless of the amount of time reared with these siblings” (Hitti, qt. Bogaert). The nurture vs. nature studies have been scarce in regards to women, but at least in males, homosexuality has shown to be a biological trait, and not a choice. So, that argument against same-sex marriage is void because a homosexual--at least a homosexual man--could not choose to fall in love with a woman.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says that every citizen is allowed the “equal protection of the laws.” Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that homosexuals are still protected by this amendment, because any person, hetero- or homosexual, has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. However, denying same-sex marriage is violating this amendment, because while a man has the right to marry a woman, a woman is not given this same right, nor can a man marry a man while a woman can.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states that there should be “no law respecting an establishment of religion,” so denying same-sex marriage because of religion violates this amendment. The Constitution was written to control the government, and denying same-sex marriage denies the First Amendment.
Opponents of same-sex marriage will use this same amendment to argue that allowing same-sex marriage is a violation of this amendment, because many religions regard homosexuality as a sin and allowing this marriage would be restricting the free exercise of their religion. However, this argument is not valid because there is a difference between a legal and a religious marriage. A legal marriage can be performed by a judge, and is the most direct way to be recognized as married by the government and receive the benefits that go with it. A religious marriage involves an exchange of vows before a religious official such as a priest or rabbi, and is a sacred union recognized by the church. Most religious marriages in the United States of America are also legal marriages recognized by the government, but heterosexual couples and homosexual couples in states where same-sex marriage is legal can be legally married without the involvement of a church. Legalizing same-sex marriage would only apply to the legal marriage, and it would be up to the churches to decide if they would recognize the union between two people of the same gender.
Opponents of same-sex marriage also use the slippery-slope argument; that is, they say that legalizing same-sex marriage could or would lead to legalization of marriages to minors or animals. 7 FAM 1741 from the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 states that forced marriages are a violation of human rights, and are illegal. This would mean that same-sex marriage could only be consensual. This also means that marriage to a child or animal could not be legal unless this law was revoked, because a young child or an animal can not give consent to be married.
As for reasons why a homosexual couple should be allowed to be married, the most obvious reason is that of love. It is mostly uncontested that homosexuals love their partner, even those that claim that homosexuality is a choice. It is also told in every romantic comedy that when two people get married, it is the ultimate showing of one’s love. Homosexual couples should be allowed to experience this just as a heterosexual couple can.
Homosexual couples also need the legal and financial benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy. Married couples can: file joint income tax returns, inherit a share of spouse’s estate, receive social security, disability insurance, and veterans’ benefits from spouse, obtain insurance from spouse’s employer, take family leave if spouse gets sick or dies, visit spouse in a hospital, make medical decisions for spouse, make funeral arrangements for spouse, be granted joint adoption rights, receive child custody and visitation rights in case of divorce, and receive consumer family discounts. Love is only the beginning of marriage; if it was the only factor, legal marriages wouldn’t exist. A couple’s financial burden is lessened by marriage from tax benefits and discounts, and their family rights are protected from being legally married. A homosexual couple deserves this as much as a heterosexual couple.
Opponents of same-sex marriage claim that same-sex marriage would lessen the institute of marriage, making it less sacred. The explanation of the difference between legal and religious marriage has already been explained, but besides that, there are several secular reasons why same-sex marriage would not threaten the union of marriage. The most important is that same-sex marriage could not weaken marriage anymore than the high rate of divorce in the United States of America already does. The divorce rate for first marriages is 41%, the divorce rate for second marriages is 60%, and the divorce rate for third marriages is 73%. One of the shortest marriages was between Scott McKie and Victoria Anderson, who were married for 90 minutes. They divorced because of a physical fight after McKie made a toast to the bridesmaids at the wedding. Other famously short marriages include Jennifer Lopez’s and Cris Judd’s eight month marriage, Elizabeth Taylor’s and Nicky Hilton’s eight month marriage, Courtney Thorne-Smith and Andrew Conrad’s seven month marriage, Shannen Doherty and Ashley Hamilton’s five month marriage, Carmen Electra’s and Dennis Rodman’s five month marriage, Charlie Sheen’s and Donna Peele’s four month and 24 day marriage, Lisa Marie Presley’s and Nicolas Cage’s three month and 15 day marriage, Ernest Borgnine’s and Ethel Merman’s 32 day marriage, Drew Barrymore’s and Jeremy Thomas’s 30 day marriage, Cher and Greg Allman’s nine day marriage, Dennis Hopper’s and Michelle Phillips’ eight day marriage, and Rudolph Valentino’s and Jean Acker’s six hour marriage. One of the traditional lines in a wedding is “until death do you part.” The high divorce rate in the United States of America overshadows the hypothetical threat that same-sex marriage could have.
Another reason that same-sex marriage should be legal is that it would actually strengthen the “family values” that are so well regarded in our country. Marriage encourages fidelity (if it didn’t, divorce wouldn’t happen because of infidelity), so if same-sex marriage were legal, the American value of commitment would be preserved in homosexual couples. The only thing that would have to be changed to protect this value is the genders involved.
Besides encouraging fidelity, same-sex marriage would also encourage adoption because it is legally and financially easier to care for a child as a married couple than an unmarried couple. Howtoadopt.org states that approximately five hundred thousand children are living under foster care in the United States, and that “they need permanent ‘forever’ families of their own” (“The”). Legalizing same-sex marriage would create many new families who could adopt some of these children and give them the “forever” families that they need.
(Opponents of same-sex adoption say that a child should not live with two fathers or two mothers, because a child needs the influence of two genders of parents, and that gay parents are a bad influence on children. One popular example, made public by researchers from the University of Southern California, is that “lesbian mothers reported that their children, especially daughters, more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed culture norms” (Xenakis and ElHage, 2). Opponents spin this finding as negative, claiming that not growing up without a father has made girls less likely to “conform to sex-typed culture norms.” But if the past hundred years have taught women anything, it is that they can do so much more than “conform to sex-typed culture norms.” Women could not even vote until 1919, and until the “women’s lib” movement of the mid-1900s, women’s opportunities in her career and independence of her family were still greatly limited. Whatever a “culture norm” is today is probably not the most advantageous thing for a girl to have, and so there is no basis in that argument. Perhaps the diminished “sex-typed culture norms” is a positive thing for children. Opponents’ argument about the lack of two genders for parents also does not address single parents, and surely we would not take the children from a divorced or widowed parent who could still care for the offspring.)
Surely, opponents of same-sex marriage argue, legalizing same-sex marriage would completely redefine the definition of a family. What is a traditional family? The family of the baby boom was the nuclear family; the family was one man, his wife, a few kids, and maybe a dog or cat. But go back a couple centuries and the traditional family is a tribe or clan; there is no small family, the village is the family. This is not saying that we should go back to tribal families, it is only saying that the definition of a family changes, and not always for the bad. A man is no longer the primary care-giver of today’s family, a woman is not the homemaker, a son does not have to go into his father’s business, and a daughter does not have to marry the son of her father’s business partner. The family today is a group of people that take of things together, it is not restricted to traditional gender roles. Surely two men or two women can bring in an income and take care of a house just the same as a man and woman.
The most general argument that opponents of same-sex marriage have is that legalizing it will destroy society. This can mean any of the above arguments: it could condone the “choice” of homosexuality, it could violate religious rights, it could lead to more deviant marriages, it would make the already weakening marriage less sacred, and that the whole institution of family could be ruined. These arguments have already been disproved in the above paragraphs, but the most convincing counter to this end-of-society fear is that countries like the Netherlands that allow same-sex marriage are still standing.
So it is clear why same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States. Homosexuality is not a choice, and so a gay person can not fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. Denying same-sex marriage is minority discrimination. Denying same-sex marriage on the basis of religion is a violation of the freedom of religion, and allowing same-sex marriage does not hinder the religious freedom of others. Same-sex marriage will not lead to marriages to children or animals. Homosexuals deserve to marry the person they love, and everyone deserves to make financial and medical decisions for their loved one. Same-sex marriage will not weaken the institution of marriage, it will actually strengthen family values such as fidelity and child raising. The old definitions of marriage are no longer needed in our society. Last but not least, nations that have already legalized same-sex marriage prove that a society can indeed exist while still allowing any two people who love each other to wed.
Same-sex marriage could help so many people, and it will hurt no one. Legalizing same-sex marriage is the next step Americans need to take in our continuous civil rights movement, and it is another chapter in fulfilling the right our forefathers gave us in the declaration, so everyone can be in “pursuit of happiness.”
“We only regard those unions as real examples of love and real marriages in which a fixed and unalterable decision has been taken. If men or women contemplate an escape, they do not all their powers for the task. In none of the serious and important tasks of life do we arrange such a ‘getaway.’ We cannot love and be limited.” (Adler)

[burnthegays]

Tl;dr.

I hope your paper gets denied and you fall in a sewage tunnel.