Informal Logic

Week 5 Final Paper: “Should homosexuals be able to marry?”
PHI 103: Informal Logic
Instructor:
January, 28, 2013

“Should homosexuals be able to marry?” In the United States marriage laws are not supposed to discriminate, yet many people believe that marriages are clear religious and official vows, between a man and woman, which include the ultimate expression of love. The traditional belief does not claim a specific sexual orientation for homosexuals in this country who are Americans, and have the right to marry. This essay identifies specifically to the question; “Should homosexuals be able to marry.” Some people say “yes” and some say “no. Therefore, an evaluation of the marriage laws for the United State that allows homosexuals marriages, and the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Constitution claim that homosexuals are equal, and have the same rights and limits as heterosexuals. This argument considers the rights of every person regardless of his or her sexual preference. Shell, (2004), writes “the issue of gay marriage can be reduced to the question of whether the desired union between homosexuals is more like a marriage between heterosexuals” (p. 1). Homosexual’s marriages seek the essence of marriage, in general as described above in a basic sense. A beginning step to define an approach to marriage is to discover methods that help individuals understand marriage. The similarity would be a human situation that simultaneously has a reasonable impartiality concerning respect to present-day conflicts such as homosexual’s marriages. Many people respect the concept of marriage, and acknowledge secure relationships; whether a man and a woman or same sex partners. The pros and cons are unbiased views that demonstrate the laws and civil rights for everyone. For example, disallowing marriage for gay couples or rejecting marriages for gay couples are mostly a religious belief. An example, homosexuality is an offense to GOD. United States, (2003), “The First Amendment bluntly states that a person's religious belief or lack thereof has to be look after” (p. 1). Marriage by the state is an action, and the government cannot create laws for reasons that conflict with religious beliefs. Religions consider homosexuality a sin; the belief is that it would deteriorate the meaning and value relating to the foundation of marriage; it would deteriorate the conventional family significance vital to the social order. For example, a slant in the legitimacy of marriage could create situations, such as marrying several wives or marrying an animal. This practice would confuse children in areas of gender roles and beliefs in society. For example, the belief may be, “only man and woman may pro-create,” therefore, the belief is that a homosexual lifestyle is something “not” supported. A counter-thesis for example, “homosexual should not be able to marry, and the counter-argument offers strong objections, which includes discrimination laws, and equal rights for homosexual people. Responses to rebut the counter-argument is based on evidence drawn upon, and shows that it would not be “just” to deprive homosexuals’ of their civil rights, Article One, Six of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Summary adopted by the United Nations on December 10th, 1048 “consist of 30 articles setting forth the civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights to which all persons are entitled, with discrimination. Article 1, all human beings are born free and equal; article 6, everyone has the right to be recognized everywhere as a person before the law” (p. 1). The states that recognize and allow same-sex-marriages are Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Same-sex marriage in Washington will go into affect December 6, 2012, in Maryland January 2013. Maine’s law for allowing same-sex marriage will go into effect, January 2013, see geographic map below. (NCSL, 2012) The colors in the map demonstrate the states that have granted gay marriages; this way gays and lesbians may enjoy his or her fundamental rights. The counter-thesis and counter-argument is that most states have implemented exclusions of same-sex marriage. These aforementioned states did this by adopting “defense of marriage” verbal communication (words) that characterizes marriage in their state’s Constitution or the state’s laws in a such a way that describes the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) —“meaning the word 'marriage'. In short “only authorized unions involving a man and a woman as husband and wife,” use this language. 29 states use this type of verbal communication (words) in their state’s constitutions, and 26 of these states also have constitutional provisions adopting the use of this language. The other states forbid same sex marriages or marriages involving people of the same sex or gender. Additionally, eight states have constitutional verbal communication (words) that adopts restrictive languages. Note: According to the NCSL, (2112), “This count does not include California; the federal courts have nullified a 2008 proposal changing additions to limit definitions of verbal communications (words) to unions concerning a man and a woman. The argument still continues in the United States “Should homosexuals be able to marry. State legislatures have continuously engaged in open discussions regarding the definition of marriage and alternatives of authorized acknowledgment of defining the word “marriage,” and if limited relationships involving a man and a woman or same-sex couples should also be entitled to “marry.” Decision makers have not been able to define the “word,” “marriage.” The debate has gone both ways, either enacting “defense of marriage” laws and constitutional prerequisites or considering different paths, such as the implementation of laws permitting same sex marriages. The opposition has some validity. According to David, and Wilson, (2011), “marriage is not a political or social invention, but a social reinforcement of biological reality: male, female, and offspring. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Lévi-Strauss, called marriage 'a social institution with a biological foundation'. All our social ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature - helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create” (p. 1). Meaning, society’s opinion has stunt the growth of what is and what should be, and does not consider the civil right of all, according to the laws of the Constitution. According to David, and Wilson, (2011), “The heart of opposition to same-sex marriage is about same-sex parenting; same-sex parenting may mean that a child must miss out on either a mother or a father. Marriage is a compound right, under Article One Six of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to not only have the right to an exclusive relationship, but the right to form a family. Therefore same-sex marriage carries the right to form a family by artificial reproduction- however, the children created within same-sex marriages would have no possibility of ever knowing both mother and father” (p. 2). If marriage did not have a meaningful significance such as the creation of children, the needs for secure care giving for overextended periods would not have urgency for a marriage contract or for adults entering a sexual relationship. Responding to counter-thesis, marriage is more than a legal status it affects numerous items with respect to society such as tax filing types, combined ownership of property, insurance benefits, and society laws, and it affects critical medical decisions. There are nine states, including the District of Columbia currently allowing same-sex marriages. States’ such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa are with the highest courts ruled that their state’s Constitution requisite that same-sex couples be given the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. The legislative bodies in Vermont, New Hampshire, the District of Columbia, and New York have passed legislative changes that permit same-sex marriages, and these are presently performed in these states. The Washington and Maryland legislatures, in 2012, approved laws that allowed same-sex marriage. In both states, challengers collected signatures and placed the issue on the November ballot; voters supported the approved laws in both states; the support also extended to the State of Maine. Ironically, this was the first time that the state’s voters were asked their opinion about legalizing same-sex marriage. According to NCSL, 2012, “California appeals court’s decision means that same-sex marriages will be allowed in California unless a higher court reverses that decision; the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to rehear the case and the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court” (p. 2). Established laws to-date for heterosexuals does not apply in the same way to homosexuals. Each should be able to marry in any state, according to the Constitution of the United States that stands for a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of comprise. If cooperation and comprise is practiced same or opposite sexes should be able to marry. Each should be able to attain benefits associated with above-board marriages, and heterosexuals, and homosexuals should be treated equally. Marriage by a state is an action, and the government cannot create laws for reasons that conflict with religious beliefs. Religions consider homosexuality a sin; the belief is that it would deteriorate the meaning and value relating to the foundation of marriage; it would deteriorate the conventional family significance vital to the social order. A slant in the legitimacy of marriage could create situations, such as marrying several wives or marrying an animal. This practice would confuse children in areas of gender roles and beliefs in society. For example, the belief may be, “only man and woman may pro-create,” therefore; the belief is that a homosexual lifestyle is “not” supported. The strongest support for this essay is interpretation and is a form of discrimination. “Should homosexuals be able to marry?” Festy, (2006), write “legal modernization has to be viewed in a broad context that encompasses the growing diversity in partnership behavior, the desire to increase access to the statutory safeguards and welfare provisions hitherto restricted to married (heterosexual) partners, and the demands of couples for non-discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation” (p. 2). A full faith and credit phrase in the Constitution states, “if one state enacts a law, additional states should identify it. As of April 2011, the five U.S. states that allow same-sex marriage are Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Beach (2011), write “various other states allow partnerships, civil unions or offer some form of protection to same-sex couples. Therefore, “no” legal limitations are for homosexuals that do not relate to heterosexuals. Neither can marry their sibling, both are forbidden from marrying someone already married, each cannot marry a minor, and each has the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. This essay explains traditional beliefs of society and specifics sexual orientations as it relates to homosexuals civil rights in this country acquiring the right to marry. The essay provides counter-thesis and counter-arguments specifically to the question; “Should homosexuals be able to marry.” Some people say “yes” and some say “no. The arguments and counter-arguments have been demonstrated with explanations and examples for marriage laws in the United States that allows homosexuals marriages, and the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Constitution claim that homosexuals are equal, and have the same rights and limits as heterosexuals.

Reference
Beach, J., (2011, States Where Gay Marriages are Legal retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/info_81881043_states-gay-marriages.html#ixzz2ErropPIc
David, v. G., & Wilson, T. (2011), the gay marriage debate. Review - Institute of Public Affairs, 3(3), 36-37. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020406430? Accounted=32521
Festy, P., (2006) Legal recognition of same-sex couples in Europe. Population, 61(4), 417-453. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196881372?accountid=32521
Messerli, J., (2012), Should Same-Sex Marriages be legalized? http://www.balanceddpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm
NCSL, 2012, retrieved image from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same- Sex-marriage-overview.aspx
Susan, M. S. (2004), the liberal case against gay marriage. Public Interest, (156), 3-16 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222059857?accountid=32521
United States: The meaning of marriage; homosexual unions, (2003, Aug 09), The Economist, 368, 37-37: Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224026706?accountid=32521
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Summary), (2013), retrieved from www.wscpedia.org