Gay marriage persuasive essay free essay sample

The debate between whether gay marriage should be legalized or not has been a controversial topic recently. In the past twelve years, equal marriage rights have been legalized in 6 states of the U. S.. Eighteen states do not allow gay marriage and do not recognize civil unions. The other twenty six states allow civil unions, and some are debating legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage should be legal across the United States. Not allowing gay marriage in any state is unconstitutional. If one state is to allow gay marriage, then the people that get married in that state are supposed to be legally married in all other states of the United States (Hertz). The constitution states, in article 5, that anything that a person performs in one state legally cannot be prosecuted if that person were to move to another state where it is not legal. Meaning that all of the gay marriages that take place in states where it is legal, are supposed to be legal everywhere else in the United States. Many of the arguments against gay marriage are religious, and religion and state are supposed to be separated in the United States (Waldman). The United States is supposed to be run based off of human rights and what works for the government. Many government officials try to run the government based on their religious beliefs, when the officials religious belief should not be taken into consideration on the judgement of gay marriage. The federal Defence of Marriage law was even deemed unconstitutional by one of the judges of the supreme court, Joseph L. Tauro (Michael). The government should be able to follow the rules that had been set hundreds of years ago. It is not acceptable for the government to go against its own words, not allow people to marry due to their religious beliefs when the constitution clearly states that religion and state are supposed to be separated. Not allowing gay marriage is also discrimination against all of the gay people in the United States. Not allowing gay marriage prevents gay people from gaining government protections that married people gain. It is denying them to file joint income taxes, which makes life much easier for couples that are living together. They are also not allowed to make medical decisions for their spouses if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to make wishes for treatment (Wolfson). This is not fair to gay couples because they cannot do many of the things that a straight couple can do. For example, government protections provided by marriage apply to straight couples, but do not for gay couples. This story proves that even gay people that are married still do not have the same rights as straight people that are married, â€Å"Bradford Wells is being forced to make such a decision. His husband, Australian citizen Anthony John Makk, has only three days to legally live in the United States. If Bradford and Anthony were in a â€Å"traditional† marriage, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would bend over backward to keep the couple together. Unfortunately for them, and 26,000 other same-gender, bi-national couples in the US, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) bars federal recognition of same-gender marriages† (Basjil). Gay marriages in the United States should be treated the same as straight marriages. If a straight person marries someone that is not a United States citizen, that person becomes a citizen just by the marriage. It should work the same for a gay marriage, this is discriminating against gay people by not giving them the same rights that straight people receive when married. Arguments against gay marriage are often contradicting or incorrect. The most commonly used argument against gay marriage is that â€Å"Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and that allowing gay marriage would taint the idea of marriage. † Christians typically argue that gays are an â€Å"abomination to God† and that they are condemned to hell, therefore should not be able to get married at all. When the truth is, there are only a few instances in the bible that state homosexuality as wrong, while there are many more that state women are of lesser value than men. (Frye). Using the bible as a resource for an argument against gay marriage is not the best because of its contradictions. Some people may even say that legalizing gay marriage would eventually lead to legalizing incest, bestial, and polygamous marriages. This argument is possibly one of the worst because there is nothing that can prove it. There is more evidence against gay marriage causing the legalization of these other types of marriage. Out of all of the countries that have legalized gay marriage, none of them have come anywhere close to legalizing incest, beastial, or polygamous marriages. (Scott Bidstrup) â€Å"Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, thats the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U. S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isnt that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldnt be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. Theyre really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if thats the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought. Same-sex couples arent the optimum environment in which to raise children. Thats an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? Why are the advocates of this argument not working to prohibit the above categories of people from raising children? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law (and none other than the father of the American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, very proudly took credit for that fact), and because it doesnt, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument† (Scott Bidstrup). There are plenty more of arguments just like these, and a majority of them do not have a proper backup. Many of these arguments also have to do with religion, which are not supposed to have anything to do with the government anyway. What these incorrect arguments have to prove is that there is no real reason that gay marriage should not be legal. Why people do not want gay marriage to be legal in the United States is a mystery, because these arguments do not have enough support to be logical or even make sense. Gay marriage should be legalized all across the United States, because there is no good reason to deny people rights just because of their sexual orientation.  My call to action is for people to just be more open minded and to realize gay people are people too, and that they should be granted all of the same rights that straight people are given.