Marriage is personal business, who is anyone to define what it is for others? Firstly, it is too personal thing. It is no one else's business if two men or two women want to get married.
Definition of Marriage I do not see how the current definition of marriage has any weight on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized.
This would be similar to saying "Gay marriage is illegal, therefore it should be illegal". This argument essentially dropping the whole purpose of the debate in favor of preserving the status quo.
Furthermore, you state that the purpose of marriage is to continue with the survival of humanity. However, this ignores the fact that homosexuals do not have any sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex.
If a homosexual is not going to marry a person of the opposite sex anyway since they are not attracted to them, then there is little harm in allowing them to marry a person of the same sex who they are actually attracted to.
Same-sex couples currently have no legal right to marry Stating that same-sex couples currently have no right to marry bears no weight, either - this is something that is able to be objectively proven, and I'm not trying to argue that they do have this right currently.
This also ignoring that the debate is about whether or not we should change this, i. Stating the current state of affairs does not support your side. No law should be passed that goes in direct conflict with the majority of the peoples voting opinion. More recent polls are even more in favor.
Due to the possibility of Washington Post being biased in favor of same-sex marriage, I'll include a Fox News poll, too: I love the difference in headlines: This means that support for same-sex marriage is going on an upward trend, future generations will only support it more, and older generations which do not support it as much will die off, therefore, nothing is going to stop this trend for generations.
With this, I feel that I have adequately turned this argument to my side. People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. People having their tax dollars spent to support gay marriage, even if they don't support it, is a very weak argument.
I don't support war, but my tax dollars are still being used for that. I don't support slashed taxes for the wealthy, but my tax dollars are being used to compensate for that. In addition, same-sex couples and people in support of gay marriage currently the majority as suggested by the polls I cited earlier would be paying taxes as well.
If we only spent on things everyone agreed with, nothing would get done - someone always disagrees with something! As I have argued, healthcare costs for gay couples can only go down when gay marriage is recognized by the government, as more people in committed, monogamous partnerships reduces the spread of STDs.
Change in social norms in favor of gay marriage would be a bad thing. Whether it is new scientific knowledge increasing our understanding of the universe around us or cultural fusion, social norms will change because of this.
I don't think that every change in social norms has been to make people reproduce more. If you're talking about cultural growth, same-sex marriage would provide that. Same-sex marriage is considered one of the most important parts of the LGBT rights movement. Many civil rights movements have ended in a cultural renaissance once those people are able to express themselves freely.
An example would be the Harlem Renaissance. Rome allowed it until Christianity spread and became the new religion of Rome, with the passage of Theodosian Code 9. Several Eastern cultures allowed or at least did not explicitly forbid same-sex relationships.
This will cause discomfort in parents and also children. I'd like to see an explanation of this.If the arguer should add that sterile heterosexual marriages somehow support the efforts of the procreative, we can reply that gay and lesbian couples who don’t have or raise children may support, similarly, the work of procreative couples.
Gay marriage critics also continue to rally behind the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law signed by President Bill Clinton that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Legal marriage is a secular institution that should not be limited by religious objections to same-sex marriage. Religious institutions can decline to marry gay and lesbian couples if they wish, but they should not dictate marriage laws for society at large. The arguments and motives pertaining to the question, should gay marriage be legal, have been discussed in detail in this OpinionFront article.
Regardless of whether you are pro same-sex marriage or against it, it's important that you consider the views of both sides. Same sex marriage should be legal because it provides equal benefits to all. Before legalization in the United States, homosexual couples had no hospital visitation rights.
This means that if an emergency occurred, a person was not allowed to visit their life partner because they were not legally married.
Legalizing gay marriage will have no negative impact on religion and/ or the religious view of others, just as religion should not have any impact on the issue of gay marriage. 7. It's an issue of equal rights.