Memije, Raymund Angelo C. ENG10/A2 Homework Prof.

Alfaro Aida Documents about the Debate Topic DEBATE TOPIC: GAY MARRIAGE http://www.loveandpride.com/GayMarriageDebate Gay Marriage Debate Know the pros and cons of same sex marriage that are being cited in the gay marriage debate. Learn the rights of gay couples in California, New York, and Hawaii. 1. Gay Divorce Negates Marriage Need The argument that gay marriage raises divorce rates is not panning out, according to an article on Findlaw by a Boston divorce attorney. A paper by Jonathan Eggleston of the University of Virginia also shows the same findings. In fact, research from the newest census, along with studies from the Center for Disease Controls National Vital Statistics System, shows that states allowing gay marriage have lower divorce rates. Of the eight states that allow same-sex marriage, five of those have the lowest divorce rates in the United States. Data taken from 2009 showed the average divorce rate at 41.2 percent, while states that did not allow same-sex marriage had an average divorce rate of 53.2 percent, not counting Nevada. Nevada skews the statistics because it performs so many out-of-state marriages in Las Vegas. Two other states were not used in the data gathering because they allowed same-sex marriage after 2009; and those two states were Iowa and Vermont. It is possible that the divorce rate is lower in these states because eight of 10 states where males marry later in life also allow gay marriage. These states also show that males have a higher education level. Eggleston found that research by Silver (2010) showed that states that allowed gay marriage had lower divorce rates. He also found that those states that found gay marriage unconstitutional had higher divorce rates. A 2009 study by Langbein and Yost found that the legalization of gay marriage did not have an effect on divorce rates. This could be possible because there were not as many states that legalized same-sex marriage in 2009 as there were in 2010. 2. Cultural Pressures

In considering the pros and cons of same sex marriage, the cultural pressures on gay couples are rarely mentioned. Gay couples face a wealth of prejudice, including the assumption that gay men and lesbians are promiscuous and incapable of sustaining a committed relationship. One reason to end the gay marriage ban is that gay marriage would further integrate gay culture into open society. In addition to legal obligations to care for spouses, there are also social expectations that make marriage a stabilizing element in a relationship. Society expects people to care for their spouses and stick with them through difficulties. Friends and acquaintances, family and work mates regularly check in on the health of a spouse and how the relationship is going. Divorce, although no longer socially crippling, is seen as a blow to confidence. 3. Gay Marriage the US Benefits Obtaining gay marriage benefits is among the most legally advocated-for reasons to constitute gay marriage. Spousal benefits are where civil union and gay marriage begin to separate. A civil union has minimal legal implications behind it, which usually translates to a lack of the many benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted, such as medical, dental, tax, child support and life insurance. While civil unions may grant certain state level benefits, no federal protections exist for them. This is, perhaps, the most predominant legally implicated rationale behind the need for gay marriage. Below are a few marriage-related benefits that gay couples miss out on in civil unions: Medical Benefits Partners cannot make medical decisions out of their home state. Life Insurance In the case of death, the deceased's partner gets no pension or life insurance, which would legally be granted to the spouse in a marriage. Child Support If the civil union is dissolved, no child support or spousal benefits are guaranteed out of state, which would otherwise be legally mandated in a marriage. Tax Benefits Those in a civil union can only file a joint tax return on the state level; no such joint tax return can be filed on the federal level.

Marriage features more than 1,000 federal and state level benefits. Civil unions feature only around 300 state level benefits with no federal implications. 4. The San Francisco and California Gay Marriage Debate San Francisco tested California's gay marriage laws in 2004 when the city began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Although the licenses were revoked, the San Francisco gay marriage action heated up the California gay marriage debate. Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco's Superior Court ruled that California's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional and likened the ban to racial segregation in schools. Every couple deserves the right to the dignity and benefits that come with marriage, but most states in the United States deny same-sex couples equal rights, such as financial stability and the ability to make critical medical decisions for each other. Gay marriages occurred in California from May to November of 2008, but they are currently on hold as California continues the debate that has already lasted more than a decade. California, a traditionally tolerant and liberal state, currently allows gay couples to enter domestic partnerships, according to Human Rights Campaign. You have the state-granted legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, but other states may not recognize your status. The arguments heated in 2000, when California allowed same-sex partners to receive health insurance coverage and hospital visitation rights, according to the Los Angeles Times. In the same year, 61 percent of voters approved a statement that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. A series of steps forward and setbacks occurred over the next several years. In 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed legalization of gay marriage, but gay marriage began in 2008 when the California Supreme Court ruled that the veto denied equal protection under the law. Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, is the most recent driving force behind the debate. Voters approved the measure in 2008, but a series of legal battles ensued to oppose and support the law. In 2010, San Francisco Chief Judge Vaughn Walker rejected Proposition 8, but proponents argued that Judge Walker had a stake in the case because he was gay. In 2011, Chief U.S. District Court Judge James Ware agreed with the decision to reject Proposition 8. Currently, legal stays are preventing gay marriages to move forward. Gay marriage is not officially illegal in California, but same-sex couples are not currently able to obtain marriage licenses because of the legal debate over Proposition 8. Gay couples can obtain domestic partnership status as you wait to see how the court battles unravel. 5. Gay Marriage in New York

The debate over same-sex marriage in New York State has a long, eventful history. Within the last 10 years, the biggest spark to the push for gay marriage came in 2004, when the mayor of New Paltz, New York performed 25 same-sex wedding ceremonies in the town, according to the Liberty Counsel. That action prompted one mayor of another small town to declare that his town would recognize the validity of same-sex marriages that were performed elsewhere. A judge later barred these ceremonies from being performed and while charges were initially raised against the mayor of New Paltz, they were eventually dropped. The gay marriage debate picked up even more steam four years later, when in March 2008, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer resigned from his post. He was succeeded by David Patterson, who committed himself to making same-sex marriage legal throughout all of New York State, according to The New York Times. According to a May 2008, article published in the Times, Patterson issued a mandate requiring all New York state jurisdictions to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Although this was met with initial opposition, a judge upheld the mandate. The heat turned up on the gay marriage debate when Patterson entered into office, causing both sides to discuss the merits of such a policy change as the potential to allow same-sex marriage became more realistic. Ultimately, the New York State Assembly had to pass a samesex marriage bill four times between 2009 and 2011 before the New York Senate finally approved the bill in 2011. In July of 2011, the Marriage Equality Act was enacted, making gay marriage legal in New York State.

Today, gay marriage continues to be legal in New York, although many opponents to the institution remain. While debate over the merits of gay marriage may continue, it is likely that gay marriage will continue to be upheld in New York. 6. Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom Anti gay marriage groups often argue that allowing gay marriage, which is against the teachings of many churches, is an impediment of religious freedom. This argument comes from a misunderstanding of marriage and, indeed, the law. In order to guarantee freedom of belief and religion, governments separate the state from religion. Laws are designed to allow people to act according to their beliefs. The benefits that a government bestows on married couples are a part of law. Marriage, for social purposes, is a civil and religious event. In some ceremonies, the two are celebrated at once, but couples must always undergo a civil marriage in order for the marriage

to be considered legal. Religious wedding ceremonies unite the couple in the eyes of that religion's deity. In legalizing gay marriage states and countries are establishing laws that allow gay civil marriages. It is up to each church to decide whether or not gay unions are acceptable within their doctrine, and establish rites. 7. Hawaii Gay Marriage The national gay-marriage debate started in Hawaii. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike ruled that the law against same-sex marriage might be unconstitutional sex discrimination. While this decision did not make same-sex marriage legal, it did unleash a backlash. In 1998, a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to ban same-sex marriages passed with almost 70 percent of the vote. Over the next decade, the tide of public opinion started to turn. In 2010, a bill creating civil unions for both same- and different-sex couples passed the state legislature, but then-Governor Linda Lingle vetoed it. The next year, the legislature again passed a similar bill, and this time there was a new governor Neil Abercrombie who was eager to sign it. During the signing ceremony in February 2011, he said, to the cheers of the crowd, "This bill represents equal rights for everyone in Hawaii, everyone who comes here. This is to me the essence of the aloha spirit." An October 2011 survey by Public Policy Polling found that 40 percent of Hawaiians thought that gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, 37 percent thought gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry and only 22 percent thought there should be no legal representation of a gay couple's relationship. That civil-unions bill went into effect on January 1, 2012. Meanwhile, the fight has returned to the courts, where a lawsuit challenging the state's no-same-sex-marriage law is pending. http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ Did You Know? 1. As of Nov. 7, 2012, gay marriage has been legalized in the following nine states: Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Iowa (Apr. 24. 2009), Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (June 24, 2011), Maryland (Nov. 6, 2012), Maine (Nov. 6, 2012), and Washington (Nov. 6, 2012).31 states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Six states have laws banning same-sex marriage. The District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage on Mar. 3, 2010.

2. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage on May 17, 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. 3. The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Dec. 17, 2009 that extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would cost the federal government $596 million (29 KB) in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. 4. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimated the positive economic impact of legalizing gay marriage in New Jersey to be $248 million over three years, creating 800 new jobs (414 KB) and bringing in an additional $19 million in government revenues. 5. As of Sep. 12, 2012, 11 out of 194 countries allow same-sex couples to marry: the Netherlands (2000), Belgium (2003), Canada (2005), Spain (2005), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Argentina (2010), Iceland (2010), and Portugal (2010).

Pro & Con Arguments: "Should gay marriage be legal?" PRO Gay Marriage 1. It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment (357 KB) and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. [40] 2. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural in evolutionary terms. [3] 3. Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the CON Gay Marriage 1. The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson (186 KB) , the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. [49] 2. Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) (851 KB) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothers (312 KB) in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution. [50] [51] 3. Gay marriage could potentially lead down a "slippery slope ending with giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry. [10] Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the

Due Process Clause. US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses (343 KB) . [41] 4. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families (117 KB) as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." [42] 5. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [4] The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the Citys economy and $184 million to the States economy (127 KB) over three years. [43] 6. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted (319 KB) . A longitudinal study published inPediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and hadfewer social problems (293 KB) . A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents (144 KB) .[44] [45] [46] 7. Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples

Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [11] 4. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may lead to churches being forced to marry couples and children being taught in school that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage. [12] 5. People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouses health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019. [37] 6. Gay marriage will lead to more children being raised in same-sex households which are not an optimum environment for raising children because children need both a mother and father. Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity (827 KB) and teenage pregnancy.

to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. [5] The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support (277 KB) that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support. [47] 8. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [6] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by theNew York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [7] 9. The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon samesex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." [8] 10. Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its

Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Reviewsuggesed that children with lesbian or gay parents aremore likely to engage in homosexual behavior (3.9 MB) . In the 1997 book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers. [13] [52] [53] 7. Gay marriage will accelerate the "assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture. The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the gap of opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist. As M.V. Lee Badgett summarizes, "marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture." [14] 8. The institution of marriage is sexist and oppressive; it should not be expanded but weakened. Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in 1989, "Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships." [15] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression. [16] 9. Same-sex marriage has lead to increased acceptance of single parenthood and has undermined the institution of marriage in Scandinavia. Sweden began offering same-sex

introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage (343 KB) and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority. [41] 11. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values. A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage (109 KB) , divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock..." [48] 12. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage. [2] 13. If marriage is about reproduction, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country, did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents.[9] 14. Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National

couples benefits in 1987, followed by Denmark in 1989 and Norway in 1993. According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, 60% of firstborn children in Denmark and a majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. [17] 10. Marriage is not a right. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples. [18] 11. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [19] 12. Marriage is a religious rite. According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman (67 KB) [54] 13. Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and conflating the issue with interracial marriage is misleading. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories." [62]

Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time." [61]

Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legaliz YES 1. Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). 2. Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. 3. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. 4. Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. 5. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. 6. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. 7. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages). 8. It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles. 9. The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages. NO 1. 2. 3. 4. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). 5. It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create. 6. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.

Overview/Background

Traditionally in this country, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in this country; however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a "civil union", which essentially is marriage without using the word "marriage". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but think it should be left up to the states to decide. However, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows a gay marriage and that couple moves to another state, the other state must recognize that marriage. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country. Many politicians are calling for amendments to their state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Many areas of the country such as San Francisco have performed marriage ceremonies in defiance of the law. Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question "Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?" Yes 1. 2. Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. What's next, should we make taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal activity because Christians consider it a breaking of a commandment? 3. Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.Marriage is more than a legal status. It affects many things in society such as tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, and agency law. It affects critical medical decisions. For example, if one member of a gay couple that has been together for 20 years gets critically ill, visitation may not even be allowed since the other isn't considered a "spouse or immediate family member". Also, critical medical decisions must often be made when one person is incapacitated; e.g. should a certain surgery be done or not? It is completely unfair to deny these privileges to people because their relationship doesn't fit the state's definition of one. 4. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation.For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have existed. The term "lesbian"

comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not a genetic one, but a biological one. The easiest way to think of it is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and lesbians you've seen. Not always, but most times, some secondary sexual characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual males often have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a lifetime. 5. Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. America was founded on the concept that the majority should rule, but the rights of minorities should be protected. It is the main reason we have a Bill of Rights as well as anti-slavery and equal protection amendments. Denying marriage to a homosexual couple is no different than denying marriage to Hispanic or black couples. 6. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.A marriage is a relationship between two people. How does it hurt society or people not involved in the marriage? It is a personal commitment that really is no one else's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what two people can or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's their right, but it isn't their right to stop it. 7. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says "I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part." Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to? Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, why don't all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of marriage? Just maybe there's something more to it. 8. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against samesex marriages).Like any heterosexual couple relationship, a same-sex marriage may fuel the desire for a family. Since gay couples cannot have kids naturally, this will likely increase the desire to adopt. Since there are so many kids around the country in need of adoption, this is a good thing. However, others believe a child reared in a same-sex

marriage do not develop ideally. Evidence at this point is inconclusive since same-sex adoptions have yet to become widespread. 9. It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problemsrelated to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior wewant to encourage? 10. The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages.In today's economic environment, it often takes two incomes to live. A married couple shares rent, utilities, and other bills, which are often difficult for one person to take on alone. This is especially truly if a dependent person is involved such as a child. In addition, a married couple can often financially support each other when times get tough, such as when one of the two is out of work. The other can continue to pay the bills until the unemployed person gets back on his/her feet. Owning a house is often impossible without another person to share the financial burden, and owning a home is not only part of the American dream, it promotes stability and community pride. No 1. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws. 2. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage.The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create. 3. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our

culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse. 4. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next).Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision. 5. It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create.Children learn about expectations and gender roles from society. It's difficult to teach the importance and traditions of the family when such confusion is thrust upon them. Only a man and woman can bear children, and for thousands of years, a man & woman headed household has carried generations of people through life. 6. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

PaulGoodman67, http://paulgoodman67.hubpages.com/hub/Pros-and-Cons-for-Gay-MarriageLegalization Pros and Cons for Gay Marriage Legalization Gay marriage, or same sex unions, are the subject of debate across the world at the moment. The debate is especially heated in the USA where the matter is being decided on a state by state basis.

There are people who feel very strongly about the issues involved on both sides of the argument. I thought it would be useful to list the pros and cons for gay marriage legalization for those who wish to understand the main arguments for and against that are used by people.

Pros for Gay Marriage Legalization Gay people should have the same rights as anyone else and that includes the right to get married. Homosexuality is not an aberration but a normal part of nature and may well occur through biological factors, rather than any sort of lifestyle choice. Allowing gay marriage would not cause harm to either individuals, or society generally. Gay people should be allowed to access the same financial and legal benefits that heterosexual couples get. Denying the right to gay marriage has no rational or ethical basis and is based purely on historical prejudice against gays as a minority group. If two people love each other, they should be allowed to marry, whatever their genders. Gay marriage encourages commitment to long term relationships and family values. Cons for Gay Marriage Legalization Gay marriage undermines family values because it undermines the whole concept of marriage, which should be between a man and a woman. Most religions see homosexuality as morally wrong. Opposition to gay marriage based on religious conviction is entirely justified. Gay marriages confuse gender roles for children. Children who are adopted need a mother and a father, not two parents of the same gender, even if married. One of the main historical principles behind marriage is that a man and a woman commit to each other so that they can have children together, but a gay couple cannot procreate. Legalizing gay marriage further undermines the family values which hold society together and it encourages a gay lifestyle, which has been shown to be detrimental to people, with gay people having higher incidents of mental illness, suicide rates, problems with addiction etc.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_pros_and_cons_on_same-sex_marriage Opinions from contributors:

Arguments For (Pros) 1. Denying same sex couples the right to marry is a violation of civil rights because marriage is a legal civil status. It provides homosexual couples with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. 2. It standardizes the rules of inheritance in the event that a deceased spouse does not leave a will. 3. It creates the same responsibilities to spouse and children as does heterosexual marriage. 4. Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) would be available to all couples. 5. Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence proving biological causation. 6. Denying these marriages is a form of discrimination. 7. It commits the community which grants the marriage license to honoring that relationship. 8. It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. 9. The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. 10. The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages). 11. It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles. 12. The same financial benefits that apply to opposite sex marriages would apply to same-sex marriages. 13. More children would find themselves in a family with married parents since many gay and lesbian couples have children of their own with either gay friends or through in vitro. Many children look forward to when their parents can be married. 14. Contributes to family stability. 15. Allows for assignment of distinct household roles, such as breadwinner and caretaker, if desired. 16. Reduces economic burden of income tax, inheritance tax, real estate transfer tax, etc. 17. Creates a new family, which takes precedence over both partners' prior families and thereby prevents them from remaining as "children" well into adulthood. 18. Provides security of knowing that spouses will be acknowledged and treated as one family unit in times of crisis and that their relationship will not need to be proven or explained to others. 19. It has no effect whatsoever on the institution of marriage since marriage is a civil legal institution.

20. It strengthens family values by including and welcoming same sex spouses and their children into the community. This has been indicated to lead to less bullying of homosexuals and their children. 21. There are lower STD rates among married homosexuals than among non-married or cohabiting homosexual couples. 22. Married homosexual couples on average have more children then non-married homosexual couples. If homosexuals are married, they are more likely to be raising children, thus contributing to the future. 23. As with heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage tends to "stabilize" people. Keeping the marriage intact requires forethought, personal responsibility, personal and financial selfdiscipline, etc. 24. The spouse of a sick, injured or disabled person is the "first responder" and care-giver, and has the legal authority to deal with doctors, hospitals, care residences, etc. The spouse also becomes eligible for inclusion in the other spouse's medical insurance. The spouse thus provides services that might otherwise be the responsibility of the state. 25. It automatically grants a spouse the right to make medical decisions in the event that the partner cannot, which saves time and -- potentially -- a life. 26. The married couple forms an economic unit with joint responsibility for debts. This not only helps to protect the bank or business that holds the debt, it can also help the couple to exercise financial responsibility. And if one partner is not working (or is working as a homemaker and child-raiser) the other person's income can support the household. 27. In times of emotional stress, partners support and guide each other through difficult decisions. Spouses have the legal authority to assume full responsibility if their partners are disabled or otherwise incapacitated. 28. Married couples have more resources for raising children, and there is no ambiguity about parental legal authority nor question of gender based parental superiority. 29. It will boost the economy because of the number of people who will commit. 30. Allowing it will reaffirm the separation between religion and the state. 31. Married gay couples have higher average incomes than non-married or cohabiting gay couples. Arguments Against (Cons) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. Many people believe the gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged. Both cannot be biological parents of their own children.

6. Minor reduction in revenues due to additional tax break to homosexual couples in marriages. 7. Many tax breaks for couples were designed with the idea of relieving burden from a family in mind. However, homosexual couples are less likely to have children then heterosexual couples. 8. The possibility of same-sex marriage requires social reconsideration of the meaning of "marriage". This is an inherently stressful situation for some people. 9. Standards for marriage in the United States are generally set by individual states. Currently, opposite-sex marriages in one state are generally honored in all the other states, and by the Federal government. If some states allow and recognize same-sex marriages while other states do not, the legal landscape becomes very confusing. Further, there are now same-sex couples whose marriages have subsequently been threatened by revocation of the laws which permitted them through legislative or judicial action. 10. Many of the legal rights can be bestowed with civil-unions or designated beneficiaries. 11. Transmission rates of STDs through homosexual intercourse are higher than heterosexual intercourse. nadya.mingo, August 19, 2011, http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/familysummer2011/2011/08/19/pros-vs-cons-of-gaymarriage/ Pros vs Cons of Gay Marriage

The issue of whether gay and lesbian people should be allowed to be legally marry has been debated frequently in recent times as noted in the movie we watched in class on 08/17/2011. One part of the society, the right-wingers who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and on the other side are gay advocates who argue that their sexual preferences shouldnt determine whether or not they can marry. To the latter group, gay and lesbian couples should have the same civil rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to legally marry. Advocates for same-sex marriage purport that to deny a couple, no matter what their sexes, the right to marriage is to deny them a basic civil right. If a couple is unable to marry, they cannot access state and federal benefits that married couples can, such as health care, visitation rights when one partner is in the hospital, joint tax benefits and social security. But the fight for equal rights to marry isnt just about access to benefits. Gay and lesbian couples are also looking for a way to legally proclaim their love for and commitment to each other in the same public way heterosexual couples have always enjoyed.

On the other side are those who state that, by their very nature, homosexual relationships are promiscuous, and so allowing same-sex marriages would increase the divorce rate. Further, opponents of gay marriage say that it would taint the long-standing tradition of the institution of marriage that is, marriage between one man and one woman. Supporters of gay marriage counter with the argument that allowing same-sex marriages to occur the government is simply strengthening the relationship between two people and providing them with some legal and economic security. Another argument that is usually brought against the issue stems from the belief that the primary, if not only, purpose of marriage is procreation. Since procreation is obviously not possible between a same-sex couple, they argue, these couples should not be allowed to marry. They even take the argument further and say that a homosexual couples home is no place to raise children, even if the couple were to adopt. On the flipside, proponents cite studies that have shown that there are no fundamental differences between children who are raised by homo- or heterosexual parents. (Note that many states allow homosexual couples to adopt children, but not to legally marry).

Pascuale Romano, February 23, 2011, http://www.salemstatelog.com/opinion/gay-marriagepros-and-cons-debated-by-state-legislators-1.2012860#.URzLX6VEGSo Gay Marriage Pros and Cons Debated by State Legislators

Civil unions are good, according to both Cheryl Jacques and John Rogers. Jacques is the first openly lesbian state senator in Massachusetts and a leader in gay and lesbian civil rights movements. State Representative John Rogers is an opponent of gay marriage. Representative Rogers was first elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in November 1992 and is currently serving his ninth term as a legislator. Rogers served as House Majority Leader from January 2005 through January 2009. At 11 a.m. on January 31, before an audience of 30 student and faculty members, Rogers was selected to speak first, taking the opportunity to say that he is very aware of the social injustices that has been taking place for years against gays and lesbians.

Rogers agreed with Jacques that the Constitution should be amended to approve civil unions so that the couples who marry can enjoy all the rights and benefits of the law such as medical insurance, social security benefits when her or his partner dies, and others legal matters that can be received now only through the legal institution of marriage. "There is no federal protection for discrimination for gay couples," Jacques said. When Jacques spoke she asked people to raise their hands if they were in favor of gay marriages and almost everybody did that. She said that this reaction was because we are living in Massachusetts and this is a liberal state. Massachusetts differs from some others states, such as Texas and many more, where there are still misconceptions about the rights of gay couples. "I am sure that someday there will be protection for the gays and their partners," Jacques said. People need to be educated; people need to talk about the issues and realize the impact of the gay community in American society." This philosophy of society has made many gays and lesbians come out of the closet and join together to create a movement that will fight against discrimination and censorship. Society through history has shown us with other sociopolitical movements, such as civil rights movements, women's rights movements, and antiwar movements, that society needs to evolve and create awareness about complex issues. "Society needs to acquire a superior state of consciousness that will allow it to comprehend better the fact that we are all equal regardless of race, gender, sex, religion, background or sexual orientation," said Jacques. This debate on gay marriage was not what was expected since both speakers were receptive to each other's point of view and they had many ideas in common and no contradictions from either of them in their arguments. The debate on gay marriages took place at Veteran's Hall in the Ellison Campus Center. This event was sponsored by the Center for Diversity and Cultural Enrichment, Multicultural Affairs, Student Life, Counseling and Health Services, Alumni Affairs, Career Services, Student Academic Support Services, School of Graduate Studies, Residence Life, the Alliance, Residence Hall Association, Program Council, and the Campus Center. Ava McKinnon, October 5, 2007, http://voices.yahoo.com/the-pros-cons-gay-marriage583218.html

The Pros and Cons of Gay Marriage The issue of gay marriage has been a hotly contended debate in the last few years and has had a significant impact on this past election. The right-wing Christian conservatives insist that homosexuality is morally wrong while gay advocates argue that they deserve the same civil rights that heterosexual couples enjoy. I will discuss the issue of gay marriage from a conservative as well as liberal viewpoint but first we must look at the history of homosexuality in order to be able to understand the controversy behind this debate. The practice of homosexuality is not one that has recently developed, but rather, it has been around since the ancient cultures of Greece and Rome. Although the term homosexuality did not exist until 1869, the practice of it in ancient cultures was considered be to a normal part of life. Many famous Greek philosophers of the time had male partners as well as their wives. Such men were Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. It was common practice for a male to take on a young boy as his lover until he reached maturity where he would, in turn, take on another young boy as his lover. In Roman society, the emperor himself married his male lover. Likewise, some Native-Americans in North America chose the "Berdache" lifestyle where men dressed as women and dated other men and women dressed as men and dated other women. This practice was less stigmatized because these couples had the appearance of heterosexuality. In many cultures in New Guinea and Africa, it was common practice for men to inseminate young boys at puberty so they could become men in their sexuality. (Mondimore, 1996) As you can see, the practice of homosexuality has not always been stigmatized but rather, has been widely accepted in many cultures as a normal part of life. So when did it become so stigmatized? Many other countries in the world such as the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, and Denmark have already legalized same-sex marriages. One of the most prominent reasons for the stigmatizing of gay and lesbian relationships is fear. The heterosexual world does not understand this practice and so are afraid of the effects the change might have. Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to be winning the battle, at least for now. Preliminary rulings in the '90s in Hawaii and Alaska, seemed to illegalize a ban on same-sex marriage, however, ratification of state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage ended the short-term victory. (http://www.aclusandiego.org/samesex.htm) In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which declared that states did not have to recognize any same-sex marriages that may be legalized in other states and defined marriage as between one man and one woman, effectively eliminating any federal benefits for homosexual couples. (Issues, 2004) The final blow came during the hard fought election 2004. 13 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and nine out of these 13 also banned

other forms of partner recognition. (www.thetaskforce.org) It seems as though gay rights groups are losing the battle. While the gay liberation movement has lost some hard battles they have also had their share of victories. With Vermont allowing civil unions in 1999 and the temporary issuance of marriage licenses in cities in California, New Mexico, and New York in 2004, the move toward gay marriage seems to be picking up. The first major victory was the decision in Massachusetts in February of 2004 to legalize same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage, giving hope to gay rights advocates all over the U.S. In a March 14th court decision in California, a San Francisco County Superior Court Judge ruled that ""while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify." (The Muskegon Chronicle, 3/15/05) This is another important decision in the fight for gay marriage equality. Advocates of same-sex marriage say that denying them the right to marry is to deny them their basic civil rights. By denying them legal status, they are denied access to state as well as federal benefits such as healthcare, hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and joint taxes. Gay and lesbian couples do not just want the benefits of marriage; they also want the recognition of their love that only a marriage can give. Opponents state that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable due to promiscuity so allowing them to marry would not only increase the divorce rate, but also, ruin the long tradition and honor of the institution of marriage. Advocates counter that argument by stating that allowing them to marry would strengthen their relationships and provide them with legal and economic security. (Issues, 2004) Opponents also argue that the purpose of marriage is procreation. Since homosexuals are unable to procreate they should not be allowed to marry. Similarly, opponents argue that homosexuals are not fit to be parents even if they adopt and that a traditional heterosexual household is the best in which to raise children. They believe that because homosexual relationships are so unstable they cannot provide children with the security they need. Supporters say that studies have shown that there are no differences between children raised by homosexual couples or heterosexual couples. Furthermore, supporters note that adoption by homosexuals is not only allowed but often encouraged. The states are saying that it is permissible for homosexual couples to adopt children but that they just cannot let them marry. Seems like a contradiction on the state's part. (Issues, 2004) Opponents of same-sex marriage seem to be concerned about the long tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Many opponents of same-sex marriage say that they are

not against benefits for same-sex couples but believe the institution of marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. Otherwise, they argue, it could lead to all sorts of other undesirable marriages such as polygamy, incest, and bestiality. (Seidman, 2003) Proponents argue that legalizing homosexual marriage will have no effect on heterosexual marriage. Married homosexual couples will buy a house, raise their children, and argue over who does the dishes just like heterosexual couples do. Likewise, many religious organizations fear that the legalization will lead to rampant immoral behavior. They say the bible condemns homosexuality and sites Leviticus, 18:22 as its evidence: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Issues, 2004) Advocates say that Jesus himself has never said anything against homosexuality. Similar to the fear of changing the institution of marriage, opponents of same-sex marriage fear the changing of gender roles and a confusion of the biological need for two different sexes. In a homosexual relationship, at times, gender roles either do not exist or are unclear. Each partner takes on a share of the duties, paying no attention to what society deems "woman's work" or masculine tasks. This confusion of traditional gender roles and the biological differences that go with gender, gives the impression that the sexes do not need each other thus threatening the institution of marriage altogether. (Mondimore, 1996) The institution of marriage has not been unchanged since it was created. Prior to the American Civil War, African-Americans were not allowed to marry at all but gained that right after the war was over. Interracial couples only gained the right to marry in 1967. With the recent court decision in Massachusetts, same-sex couples were allowed to marry. (www.religioustolerance.org) As you can see, the institution of marriage has been steadily changing for over a century and a half so why can't it change a little more to allow all same-sex couples to marry and be recognized all over the United States? When looking into history you can see that every oppressed group, poor white men, blacks, and women, have all eventually achieved their civil rights. It is only a matter of time before homosexual couples gain the right to marry. Until then, this will remain a heated and controversial debate that will rage for years to come. Until then, this will be an issue that will be debated in American public policy, decide the outcome of elections, and be discussed in classrooms all over the United States. In my opinion, the question to be debated is not whether or not homosexual couples should be able to marry but when. This country is founded upon equality of human beings and should not discriminate on the basis of who you have in your bed at night. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is a natural part of these people and to be able to pursue happiness, as the Declaration of Independence states is a right, you cannot deny who you are. You cannot and should not have to hide who you are in America. It is supposed to be the land of the free, well at least for

anyone who sleeps with the opposite sex. The idea that homosexuals are bad parents is ridiculous. From birth I was raised by a homosexual man. While he was living the heterosexual lifestyle until I was 12, he was still, inherently, a homosexual. At age 16 I moved in with him and have been living with him ever since. I am not messed up in any way, I attend school, to go work, and hang out with friends just as any child raised by heterosexuals does. The idea that homosexual couples only raise homosexual children is stupid too, I'm straight, and I know for a fact that heterosexual couples don't only raise heterosexual children! I understand the reasons why some people don't want gays to marry but it is no justification for denying them the same civil rights that heterosexuals enjoy. In America, all men are supposed to be created equal. When that happens, when gays are allowed to marry, when blacks are no longer discriminated against, and when women make the same amount of money that men do, then America will truly be the land of the free. Based on the fact that every oppressed group has eventually achieved their civil rights, I believe that eventually homosexual couples will be allowed to marry. Until then, it will be a furious debate between the conservative right and the gay rights advocates.