10 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED by Victor Melice

Contents:

• SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
• TEN REASONS TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE
• 8 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED 
• 3 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL NATNWI
• 8 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED

SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

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. 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.

TEN REASONS TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE

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.

Queer activist Anrs Zanichkowsky stated June 2013 that the then mpaign for gay marriage “tentnally and malicly eras and exclus so many queer people and cultur, particularly trans and genr non-nformg people, poor queer people, and queer people non-tradnal fai… marriage thks non-married people are viant and not tly servg of civil rights. As we already mentned above, the homosexual muny are big numbers when to populatn, so the untri where same-sex sexual activi or for that matter homosexual marriag and adoptn is not legalized yet, the lg party n give a thought to pass the bill their favor sce will not only let the end of stggle of homosexual people and protts but will also be favorable to the lers as many vot will be ste their favor the next electns.

The railroadg of same-sex “marriage” on the Amerin people mak creasgly clear what homosexual activist Pl Varnell wrote the Chigo Free Prs:"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberatn movement, but a moral revolutn aimed at changg people's view of homosexualy. Mory DiscrimatnImportance of GovernmentExpandg the Right to Marry Serv the StateMore than jt gay rightsInaquacy of Alternative CategoriLack of legal tegory rerc negative stereotypGovernments should not disurage people om their intyRebuttal: This is Not a Small DebateRebuttal: More than gay rightsRebuttal: What’s a Word… Everythg!! Outle of Opposn Clash: A fence of the stat quoForcg change liberal mocraci is self illiberalMoral and legal pluralism relatn to same-sex marriage is acceptableIt creat a social backlash that damag substantive equaly for homosexualsRebuttal 1: In fence of public opnRebuttal 2: Moral and legal pluralism’s rightful placeRebuttal 3: Homosexualy and moral agnosticismRebuttal 4: Why is ok for civil marriage to be excliveRebuttal 5: The danger of puttg the liberal rt before the homophobic horseAggrsive polici retard gradual social change: why the se for pluralism won [Opposn Summary].

8 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED 

As our posive se substantiat below, there exists reasonable disagreement as to whether or not homosexualy is morally, we challenge the proposn to show that a refal to grant homosexuals the right to marry is any way parable to Apartheid legislatn or the Jim Crow laws which both limed not only the ocsnal ‘social’ right, but a broad swathe of soc-enomic rights relatg to tn, associatn, public facili, employment, polil emancipatn, and so on. It is que unclear om proposn’s argument how they feel legislators might actually try to unrcut homosexuals’ rights, and cg one sndalo piece of legislatn (that n self be openly bated as eher homophobic or not) is simply not, we feel that homophobic legislators might be even more tempted to actively remove the rights of homosexuals marriag if they feel that they have been given no choice the matter.

The “you’re on your own” attu 1) mak gay unns seem like merely a sexual “choice”, unwtgly supportg anti-gay propaganda that claims that homosexualy is “only a choice”, 2) forc same-sex upl to nstantly expla their relatnship and mak difficult for them to even refer to their relatnship as a facto marriage, bee there is no cultural norm or reference for a same-sex marriage 3) mak same-sex upl feel disenanchised and ls willg to participate ernment displeas cizens whenever grants rights to a group that is seen as an “other, ” but the disfort of some cizens is not reason enough to ny people any of the rights of membership of a society. Siarly, we also try to make Governmental cisns that produce acceptable utilarian is the se that the cisn to legalize same-sex marriag is actually only margianally beneficial a small number of s but there are sts to the “homosexual equaly” project as well as harms to social, cultural and relig groups, we wonr about the legimacy of legalizg same sex marriage. Proposn’s argument about the ‘importance of ernment’ do not prent ANY evince for the harms they claim gay persons routely and wily suffer, like the claim that ‘same-sex upl feel disenanchised and ls willg to participate socially’ or the more hilar suggtn that existential angst nsume gay pons who do not know how to ‘expla their relatnship’ (try the monly ed hetero- and homo-sexual term ‘partner’?

) ntentn that “Marriag are a mechanism to clarify next of k, rponsibili toward children, the people who are impacted by a legal will upon the ath of a spoe, and many other teractns that dividuals have between themselv, ” Do a gay person a civil unn – or a one night stand, for that matter – really not know who his or her next-of-k is?!

3 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGAL NATNWI

While we do nce that there are many negative attus towards homosexuals, we believe, as is reflected our posive matter, that the attus relate far more to cultural, relig and social spher (ie, ‘gay people are simply wrong bee God says so’), and not to stereotyp about ‘how gays actually are’ proposn prents no evince for their first assumptn other than an article the guardian where two thirds of surveyed people believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. This is somewhat circular nsirg the proposn’s earlier claim that people thk “gays n’t marry bee they always fool around”, and we fd no pellg source for the opns (the vic cycle has to start somehow…) We ntend that the opns simply don’t exist, and even if they did, would relate far more to hundreds of years of *active* discrimatn (sendg Osr Wil to jail for homosexualy) and social, cultural and relig ‘norms’ than to same-sex marriag. Knowg you will be nied marriage, you have to choose to sacrifice all you dreamed about for your tradnal weddg, for your quat fay life, your children, and settle stead for ‘the gay liftyle’ of multiple sex partners, a bachelor’s pad, and disease that society wrongfully tells you is the evable fate for dichotomy is false, and no one should feel forced to choose between the is possibly why we see so many stori of married men and women fally g out at 50 and leavg their wake broken fai; or the champns of the anti-gay movement, the Ex-gays, who went through nversn therapy and turned straight so they uld have a fay; or even unsatisfied broken dividuals who even until their ath live an unfulfillg lie.

In many s homosexuals never even make a choice about beg part of the heterosexual muny or the homosexual muny (assumg that such black and whe social groups even exist – they really don’t), pruppos that homosexuals end up, wh a greater equency than heterosexuals, livg sexually bched liv, and that this greater equency is somehow the rult of their not beg able to legally of the pots are flat out wrong – homosexuals are jt as pable as heterosexuals of beg fahful or of beg promiscuo, and many married upl still experiment wh fily [[] very notn that the stat quo forc homosexuals to apparently awful ‘the gay liftyle’ not only beli proposn’s knowledge of the subject, but is, as we will now show, wrong. Much more important, we would argue, is the social ridicule they face, and this social ridicule is likely to worsen if homosexual marriage is prematurely sence, proposn’s argument – which is aga not backed up wh evince (show proof of ‘the gay liftyle’ of multiple sex partners, a bachelor’s pad, and disease that society wrongfully tells you is the evable fate for homosexual) – do two thgs for our opposn se: first, shows how ep homophobia n n, such that even a group advotg the legalisatn of same-sex marriage may persist wh homophobic attus way after same-sex marriage is legally allowed; and, send, related to this, the plex tissue of social harms that gay persons do suffer – such as the baselss stereotypg dulged by Team USA – nnot be alt a fatal blow wh legalisg same-sex marriage; li elsewhere, such as means that Team USA rightly intifi a problem: social stigma suffered by gay persons.

8 REASONS WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE LEGALIZED

Therefore, while same-sex marriage may sometim be sirable, is non-necsary and mostly falls to the challenge that was iated om the opposn which was to pot out how “soc-enomic rights relatg to tn, associatn, public facili, employment, polil emancipatn” are beg impaired wh the stat the stat quo, we see that gay persons do face discrimatn: In 29 stat of the US, cizens n and do get legally fired for beg gay or lbian [[] and other untri such as Turkey [[] which shows that LGBT cizens’ employment is limed. For example, raidg gay bars or limg gay persons’ employment rights, etc., are not relevant this bate, so a mass of evince about those discrimatory practis are impotent this challenged Team USA to eher show a) why all of the gas that gay persons seek mt be, and n only be, won as an irrcible * PACKAGE*, rather than won on an issue-by-issue basis; and/or b) why legalisg same-sex marriage is a NECESSARY CONDITION for the other ills to disappear.

Not only has this challenge been rpond to wh silence, but we opposn have given posive evince and argument to the ntrary (see, aga, for example, our entry on the backlash agast gay persons which evinc the non-obv lk between same-sex marriage and more substantive equaly ncerns that gay persons rightly have – like, ed, livg safe environments such as beg able to equent a pub whout risk of beg a hate crime victim)So, the nnectn between same-sex marriage legalistn and the alleged wir social benefs for gay persons remas unproven.