Gay marriage rebuttal
Gay marriage is not about giving gay people the same rights as heterosexuals, this is giving a human being the same rights as another human being. The author wrote that states also regulate marriage to couples with venereal diseases such as syphilis and couples that are closely related. To even illustrate examples that gay marriage is remotely similar to a venerably diseases is insulting and vulgar. The article also noted that marriage is heavily regulated because of costly benefits such as one half of a married heterosexual couple collecting a life insurance policy or a unrelated married heterosexual couple receiving a subsidy because they produce children. This serves as a poor excuse to not have a gay couple to marry. In fact if marriage were legal for homosexuals the revenue on weddings would sky rocket. Forbes magazine says about 17 billion dollars could be made nationally if gay marriage were legal. The wedding industry is a 70 billion dollar industry annually, and with gay marriage it can grow even larger. Another argument the article stated was that a child need both a mother and father for proper development. Five Presidents, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Clinton and Barack Obama all grew up without a father and all seem to have become a success. Joe Valentine a pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds was raised by two lesbians, actress Rene Russo was raised along with her sister by a single mother who is a lesbian. This notion a child needs both a male and female parent is without merit, what a child really needs is guidance and love. The suggestion that a gay couple can have the same rights by writhing a living will or signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly like roommates is equivalent to saying blacks can eat or go to a movie theater, but they must enter through the back door or eat near the kitchen. Divorce is an unfortunate reality in marriage but to say that gay marriage will do nothing...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document