Proponents ntend that gay marriage bans are discrimatory and unnstutnal, opponents ague that marriage is primarily for procreatn.
Contents:
- CLARENCE THOMAS: COURT ‘SHOULD RENSIR’ GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH NTROL
- SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
- GAY MARRIAGE AND THE BIBLE
- ENDG THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATEWHY THE OPPOSN IS OUT OF AMMUNN AND NEEDS TO WALK AWAYBRIAN SANSOM·FOLLOWPUBLISHED THOUGHTS AND IAS·7 M READ·OCT 21, 2020--SHAREPHOTO: SANDY MILLAR/UNSPLASH/CC BY-SA 4.0THE OPPOSN TO GAY MARRIAGE IS A REMNANT OF OLD PREJUDIC THAT SHOULD HAVE DIED OUT S AGO. WE SHOULD BE PAST THE PERD OUR HISTORY WHERE SODOMY LAWS AND POLICE RAIDS WERE ED AS A PRETEXT TO ARRT AND BTALIZE THE LGBT MUNY. MOST ISSU POLICS N HAVE MULTIPLE VALID ARGUMENTS OM EACH RNER THAT MAY BE ROOTED ENOMIC THEORY, DATA-DRIVEN SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS, OR MORALY/ETHICS. EQUAL ACCS TO MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX UPL IS NOT ONE OF THOSE AMORPHO ISSU.IN THE 2015 LANDMARK LG OBERGEFELL V. HODG, THE SUPREME COURT STCK A ADLY BLOW TO MARRIAGE DISCRIMATN THIS UNTRY BY HOLDG THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT REQUIR ALL 50 STAT TO LICENSE AND REGNIZE THE MARRIAGE LICENS OF SAME-SEX UPL. HOWEVER, FIVE YEARS SCE THE CISN, OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ARE STILL FLAPPG THEIR GUMS PROTT AND CERTA STAT ARE STILL REFG TO REMOVE THE DISCRIMATORY LANGUAGE NTAED WH THEIR STATUT.IF WE REGNIZE THAT THERE IS AN HERENT BENEF TO SOCIETY PROMOTG STRONG FAY DYNAMICS, IS IRRATNAL TO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE. AFTER S OF LIGATN, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SGLE SCIENTIFIC, SOCIAL, OR LOGIL ARGUMENT THAT WOULD SUPPORT NTUED OPPOSN. WE, AS A UNTRY, SHOULD BE EXHSTED AND CREDIBLY ANNOYED AT HAVG TO ARGUE ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT HAS ZERO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOCIETY.PROCREATN IS NOT A PREREQUISE FOR MARRIAGE
- WHEN MORALY LEFT THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE
- IN QUOT: GAY MARRIAGE BATE
CLARENCE THOMAS: COURT ‘SHOULD RENSIR’ GAY MARRIAGE, BIRTH NTROL
* closing statement for gay marriage debate *
Supreme Court Jtice Clarence Thomas lled for his lleagu to re-exame and potentially overturn lgs that protect gay marriage and accs to birth ntrol an opn ncurrg wh Friday’s landmark cisn endg feral abortn rights. US public opn had shifted signifintly over the years, om 27% approval of gay marriage 1996 to 55% 2015, the year beme legal throughout the Uned Stat, to 61% 2019.
Proponents of legal gay marriage ntend that gay marriage bans are discrimatory and unnstutnal, and that same-sex upl should have accs to all the benefs enjoyed by different-sex upl. On July 25, 2014 Miami-Da County Circu Court Judge Sarah Zabel led Florida’s gay marriage ban unnstutnal and stated that the ban “serv only to hurt, to discrimate, to prive same-sex upl and their fai of equal digny, to label and treat them as send-class cizens, and to em them unworthy of participatn one of the fundamental stutns of our society.
SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
The ntroversy igned by the Massachetts High Court lg allowg gay and lbian upl to marry ntu to rage state urts and legislatur as well as church across the natn. * closing statement for gay marriage debate *
The Amerin Psychologil Associatn, Amerin Psychiatric Associatn, and others nclud that legal gay marriage giv upl “accs to the social support that already facilat and strengthens heterosexual marriag, wh all of the psychologil and physil health benefs associated wh that support.
GAY MARRIAGE AND THE BIBLE
The opposn to gay marriage is a remnant of old prejudic that should have died out s ago. We should be past the perd our history where sodomy laws and police raids were ed as a… * closing statement for gay marriage debate *
A study found that same-sex married upl were “signifintly ls distrsed than lbian, gay, and bisexual persons not a legally regnized relatnship.
ENDG THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATEWHY THE OPPOSN IS OUT OF AMMUNN AND NEEDS TO WALK AWAYBRIAN SANSOM·FOLLOWPUBLISHED THOUGHTS AND IAS·7 M READ·OCT 21, 2020--SHAREPHOTO: SANDY MILLAR/UNSPLASH/CC BY-SA 4.0THE OPPOSN TO GAY MARRIAGE IS A REMNANT OF OLD PREJUDIC THAT SHOULD HAVE DIED OUT S AGO. WE SHOULD BE PAST THE PERD OUR HISTORY WHERE SODOMY LAWS AND POLICE RAIDS WERE ED AS A PRETEXT TO ARRT AND BTALIZE THE LGBT MUNY. MOST ISSU POLICS N HAVE MULTIPLE VALID ARGUMENTS OM EACH RNER THAT MAY BE ROOTED ENOMIC THEORY, DATA-DRIVEN SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS, OR MORALY/ETHICS. EQUAL ACCS TO MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX UPL IS NOT ONE OF THOSE AMORPHO ISSU.IN THE 2015 LANDMARK LG OBERGEFELL V. HODG, THE SUPREME COURT STCK A ADLY BLOW TO MARRIAGE DISCRIMATN THIS UNTRY BY HOLDG THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT REQUIR ALL 50 STAT TO LICENSE AND REGNIZE THE MARRIAGE LICENS OF SAME-SEX UPL. HOWEVER, FIVE YEARS SCE THE CISN, OPPONENTS OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ARE STILL FLAPPG THEIR GUMS PROTT AND CERTA STAT ARE STILL REFG TO REMOVE THE DISCRIMATORY LANGUAGE NTAED WH THEIR STATUT.IF WE REGNIZE THAT THERE IS AN HERENT BENEF TO SOCIETY PROMOTG STRONG FAY DYNAMICS, IS IRRATNAL TO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE. AFTER S OF LIGATN, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SGLE SCIENTIFIC, SOCIAL, OR LOGIL ARGUMENT THAT WOULD SUPPORT NTUED OPPOSN. WE, AS A UNTRY, SHOULD BE EXHSTED AND CREDIBLY ANNOYED AT HAVG TO ARGUE ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT HAS ZERO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SOCIETY.PROCREATN IS NOT A PREREQUISE FOR MARRIAGE
This article claims that three mon arguments agast gay marriage - the fnal, procreatn, and slippery-slope arguments - are que bad, the worst of the lot. The fnal argument asserts that marriage jt is the unn of one man and one woman, and that the fn alone is a sufficient fense agast claims for gay marriage. The procreatn argument claims that marriage's central public purpose is to enurage procreatn, and so the excln of same-sex upl is jtified. The slippery-slope argument claims that the acceptance of same-sex marriage logilly entails the acceptance of other public policy chang - notably the acceptance of polygamy - that would themselv be bad, pennt of whether gay marriage is bad. While each argument has some appeal, and each has adherents both si and outsi the legal amy, each is badly flawed as a matter of logic, experience, polics, or some batn of the three. The article suggts that the tert of focg on the most important ncerns about gay marriage, mentators should move on to other arguments agast that seem stronger and th better tt the affirmative se for gay marriage. * closing statement for gay marriage debate *
A 2010 analysis found that after their stat had banned gay marriage, gay, lbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% crease mood disorrs, a 42% crease alhol-e disorrs, and a 248% crease generalized anxiety disorrs. In July 2012 New York Cy Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that gay marriage had ntributed $259 ln to the cy’s enomy jt a year sce the practice beme legal there July 2011.
WHEN MORALY LEFT THE GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE
In 2012, the Williams Instute at the Universy of California at Los Angel (UCLA) found that the first five years after Massachetts legalized gay marriage 2004, same-sex weddg expendur (such as venue rental, weddg k, etc. Gay marriage is a civil right protected by the US Constutn’s mments to liberty and equaly, and is an ternatnally regnized human right for all people. 2016 printial ndidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fra stated that civil unns are aquate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefs are beg btowed to gay upl [ civil unns]… I believe we need to rpect those who believe that the word marriage has a spirual foundatn… Why n’t we rpect and tolerate that while at the same time sayg ernment nnot btow benefs unequally.
IN QUOT: GAY MARRIAGE BATE
Court papers filed July 2014 by attorneys fendg Arizona’s gay marriage ban stated that “the State regulat marriage for the primary purpose of channelg potentially procreative sexual relatnships to endurg unns for the sake of jog children to both their mother and their father… Same-sex upl n never provi a child wh both her blogil mother and her blogil father. Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex upl nnot have children or don’t want them, even those s there is still the potential to produce children.