The topic of gay marriage has overwhelmed the headlines of local papers and lays heavily on the social conciseness of every American for the past few weeks. The president, House of Representatives, and senate have confronted this issue head on. The president states, "Eight years ago congress passed and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as a union between one man and one woman". The act passed the house of representative by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. As this issued is discussed, the president and most of the senate feel the same way, that gay marriage is morally and spiritually wrong.
In recent months some judges and local officials have made an attempt to redefine marriage. Alan Cooperman, a writer for the Washington Post reports, "Four massachutes judges have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year".
The ruling by the court on the Massachusetts Constitution could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts\' governor immediately denounced decisions and said he would work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. But an openly gay U.S. congressman from the state said the amendment couldn\'t come before the voters before 2006, and by that time same-sex marriages will be law. President Bush waded into the debate with a statement criticizing the ruling. \"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,\" he said. \"Today\'s decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.\"
A broad array of religious groups and conservative political...
Homosexual Marriage
First of all, when your country was founded, your political system was founded on the principle that there should be a SEPERATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE STATE within the political system.
Homosexual marriage is not a right that is to be granted by the church. It is a right, or an issue, that falls to the powers of the state to decide. This is because, should homosexual marriage be allowed in America, it would be a marriage in the eyes of the law (and thus granted by the STATE), and NOT in the eyes of the church.
So, please explain why the basis for this argument is the bible, and not rational human thought? There are many different religions and belief's in America, and that is why the state SHOULD be (I say SHOULD, because the seperation of church and state appears to slip George Bush's mind frequently as well) independant of the church. This is because the government is elected to represent its people, and that includes taking into consideration the diverse belief's of all its people. Thus, the government cannot reasonably be allied to one religion (even though, oddly, yours is).
I think the reason that so many people argue against homosexual marriage using the bible as their argument, is because they cannot actually think of any rational, logical reason why there should not be same-sex marriage. And if there is not a rational, logical reason against it, then there is no reason for it to be illegal.
You say:
"Furthermore, marriage is the sole purpose for procreation, to repopulate the world and ensure the continuation of the species".
This statement is so completely bizarre! What about all the couples (married or otherwise - because remember lots of couples choose just to live together and NOT marry, because Christianity is NOT the only religion/belief in this world, many people do not WANT to, or believe in marriage) who are together and choose not to have children? What about all the couples that perhaps know that they can't have children before they get married but decide to do it anyway. Why is this? Surely people get married because they LOVE each other? Aren't many people together because they want to be together as a couple?
The last paragraph in this essay seems to make a last ditch attempt at providing an argument for the other side. It touches briefly on the argument that being able to marry is a human right. Yet this is completely undeveloped. You make no attempt at trying to explain it. In my opinion an essay should ALWAYS explain both sides of the argument clearly, even if you are then going on to refute the argument you just explained.
1 out of 1 people found this comment useful.