Same sex marriage essay, help a dude out

[Alex Practice]

So, I'm doing a position paper on same sex marriage for English. I'm arguing in favor of the right to marry for all.

Has anyone ever written a paper like this? If so, what suggestions can you give me for what to focus on? I want to avoid saying things like "Oh it's okay to be gay" because that is an opinion (Rofl, no offense, you know what I mean) and I'd prefer to go with hard facts (Such as going into constitutional rights and such)

Thanks :D

 

[Electrode]

I haven't wrote a paper on gay rights, though my suggestion would be to outline certain studies into it. For instance, I do believe that there was a study that suggested that kids of homosexual couples were less likely to be homosexual, so that would counter the "If we let gays be married, then everyone will turn gay," stuff.

Read the constitution and it's amendments and pull the meaning from it that you see fit.

There have been court cases surrounding this, so look into those. Also look into the rights that homosexuals miss because of not being able to marry. There are some states in the union that allow same sex marriages, so look into that.

On a personal note, and to combat the "marriage is sacred" argument, I usually say that marriage hasn't "been sacred" since divorce was allowed. You could also bring up marriages of heterosexual couples that haven't lasted, such as celebrity marriages or any kind of study into divorce. If you find a study that links heterosexual marriage to higher divorce rates, then you pretty much beat the argument of marriage being sacred.

 

[Alex Practice]

Thanks, I hadn't thought of the "sanctity of marriage" part but that's a pretty huge argument that I should write about!

 

[Electrode]

Thanks, I hadn't thought of the "sanctity of marriage" part but that's a pretty huge argument that I should write about!

Of course, don't forget to look into the other side. You need to be able to counter their arguments, which involves reading opinions of those who oppose gay marriage and the like.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I did a report on this for english in highschool. I mostly based it on Loving v Virginia.

And this quote: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." - Earl Warren

Have a nice day.

 

[Alex Practice]

Awesome quote, I'm going to use it :)

 

[Ferrouswheel]

In addition to what Hipmonlee said, you might also want to mention the "Full faith and credit" clause in the US Constitution, which invalidates the DOMA, though that hasn't gone to the courts yet.

 

[Iconic]

I've actually written a paper in favor of same-sex marriage recently, so I'll throw out a few philosophical opinions you can explore in greater detail.

Alright so basically I wrote it for the Theory of Knowledge course I'm taking, and from what I can remember, arguing against or even mentioning the "sanctity of marriage" idea can actually be detrimental to your argument (this is an argumentative essay, right?). The religious debate regarding same-sex marriage is so subjective and opinion-driven that it's hard to win an argument with it. Whether or not it was "God's will" to allow homosexuals to marry is a really touchy subject, since then you're entering the religious debate. Alternatively, I think you should really focus on the ethical implications of allowing same-sex marriage. A profound, albeit controversial, comparison to same-sex marriage is segregated schools. Forcing homosexuals to unite under a civil union has certain parallels to the enforcement of blacks to attend specific schools. Not only are you creating a divide in the population, but these two institutions are not equal to either a marriage union or the schools that the white population attended. On an ethical level, this cannot be considered as morally acceptable, as one of the fundamental principles of ethics is to agree that all living individuals are equal. You can argue that this should not simply be racial or gender equality, but should also be extended to sexual orientation.

Being aware of certain counter arguments can also help you formulate opinions to support your thesis. One interesting opinion I came across was the notion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed due to the lack of biological connection between homosexual partners. According to this woman's opinion, this infringes on the biological rights of children, since there is an inherent biological connection between a man and a woman. You can acknowledge that this is true, but the premise of marriage is not to award people the right to procreate (which some people believe is the case), but rather to acknowledge the love and devotion between two individuals. As such, the feelings that homosexual couples feel cannot be disregarded as any less real or important than heterosexual couples, and thus marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. The religion debate is extremely touchy, but if you're a Christian/Muslim/whatever arguing this point, you can always mention that extending marriage to gay couples further strengthens the institution of marriage since it promotes the devotion between the two individuals.

Those are just a few of many ideas you can explore. Hopefully I won't attract anyone who is ready to refute the aforementioned opinions, as they're just that - opinions. Best of luck with your essay.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

You can acknowledge that this is true, but the premise of marriage is not to award people the right to procreate (which some people believe is the case), but rather to acknowledge the love and devotion between two individuals.

I don't disagree with you, but where is the textual evidence for the purpose of marriage, regardless of the definition?

Is it actually mentioned in state law?

 

[Deck Knight]

You should first define what a marriage is for the purposes of your argument. If you don't have a definition that matches the points you want to make your argument is weakened.

For example if you believe marriage is defined as a civil contract between any two individuals who engage in it solely for the civil benefits it provides, define it that way, and try to differentiate it from all other forms of contract law. Also try to explain why it should only be two individuals instead of multiple ones.

If your premise is "in favor of the right to marry for all." You should explain why you believe homosexuals do not currently have the right to marry. The reason I say this is because it becomes much trickier once you get lured into the trap of "they don't have the right to marry who they love." Then you are actually arguing that love should be the basis for the approval of this specific civil contract. If it is, you might want to go into what standard you'd have to meet to establish "love." Or, if that isn't your argument and therefore the contract isn't based on contracting with someone you love, explain whether you believe marriage is fundamentally indistinguishable from any another civil contract between two individuals, and if it is not, why it should be called marriage at all.

 

[b0b3rt]

DK:
As far as I know, no other contract between 2 individuals will influence:
1) Their ability to adopt a child
2) Their tax-filing status
etc..

I believe that if I was writing this paper, my main argument would be based on the premise that once the government creates a legal construct, it can't discriminate on who can participate in that construct based on factors that you can't show may cause immediate harm to others. I.e. it's ok for the government to deny driver's licenses to 10 year olds because they can't drive, but you can't arbitrarily deny a government service to people with black hair.

Though, to be fair, if I was actually writing this paper, I'd argue that the government has no business "marrying" anybody. That should be left to whatever religious institution you hold faith in.

 

[The 1 and Only Lady Gaga]

This is an argumentative essay. Make sure your points are convincing.

I have thought of some points that we should not be disgusted by same sex marriage.

• It is our own choice, not anyone else's.
• It's not a crime.
• If both of the partners are happy, why not?

 

[Objection]

I can't give any ideas for points, but I will give you one piece of advice: when you argue, nothing is obvious, so you need to have as few unstated points (aka, assumptions) as possible, ideally zero.

 

[Firestorm]

I just remembered I wrote around 2000 words on the rediculousness of the "Protect Marriage" campaign for a class around 1 - 1.5 years ago. One of the sources I used seems to be this one:

Hunt, A. (2002). Regulating Heterosocial Space: Sexual Politics in the Early Twentieth Century. Journal of Historical Sociology , 5, 13,14, 27.

Could be a place to start looking.

 

[CaptKirby]

I want to avoid saying things like "Oh it's okay to be gay" because that is an opinion (Rofl, no offense, you know what I mean) and I'd prefer to go with hard facts (Such as going into constitutional rights and such)

That is not an opinion. If you want to simplify it even to this point (it should never have to be), then being gay is a human rights issue, and you are treading on rights the second that you say it is not okay to be gay. There is nothing "roffle" worthy of you saying that it is an opinion that it is okay to be gay. It is a sexual right that any person has in a society that allows any sort of dignity for its commoners. That is without even getting into whether it is genetic or not: sexual freedom dictates that it is a right in any dignified society regardless of inherent genetic disposition, but if it is genetic, then it is an inviolable right that makes a lot of the gay hatred even more criminal than it already is. It is more than "okay to be gay," it is a wonderful, dignified right.

You then state that a factual source is something like the constitution. The constitution of the United States is an arbitrary document made by men hundreds of years ago. I would hope that it could help support something as simple as "hey, repressing homosexuals makes you a despicable human being," but it is not necessary other than in addressing the validity of gay marriage. Simple terms like what I mentioned already (dignified society) are as "factual" as you would need to be if you wanted to merely present a philosophical argument, as the only way it is subjective is implying that dignified human beings deserve dignified rights, or perhaps that making little kids suicidal, not want to come to school, be beaten up more, et cetera might be a good idea.

As to the constitutional part, it has already been pretty much definitively ruled on - gay marriage is federally legal per past Supreme Court rulings, but the Supreme Court needs never rule on it until more than 4 of 9 (or at least 4? I forget) want to rule on it.

 

[alex]

we've had a billion threads discussing homosexuality/gay marriage in more detail and with more substance. feel free to look at them - this forum isn't here to help you with your homework, though, i'm afraid. good luck!