“All Men Are Created Equal”
We live in a very hypocritical country. That being said I think it also needs to be noted that we live one of the best countries on this planet. One that offers freedoms and opportunities that are unmatched. But in the American “melting pot” where diversity is said to be what makes this nation so unique and fascinating, there is a discrimination plight that has become so large it is said to be our day’s civil rights movement. Across the United States homosexuals, and heterosexuals for that matter, are fighting for gay rights, primarily the right to marriage.
A common argument surrounding gay marriage and why it should not be legalized is that fact homosexuals cannot reproduce. But this argument assumes that the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate. I then am forced to pose the question: What about couples who are infertile? Or those who choose not to have children? Or women who are married and postmenopausal? If this argument were valid then all marriages between heterosexual couples that fall under these categories should be nullified, because the couples can’t or won’t have children. And if that were to occur it would surely cause an uproar among the population because of the discrimination of these certain couples. Then why is there not an uproar over the fact that this is occurring to homosexual couples? This goes to show that marriage serves more than just the purpose of procreation but interpersonal commitment, religious reasons, morality and sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements of having a spouse, or so says the author of The Case For Same-Sex Marriage, William Eskridge Jr. Since it’s understood that the reasons listed for marriage other than procreation are valid, we cannot in turn deny the right of marriage to homosexuals because they cannot reproduce.Within the union of marriage there are approximately 1,049 rights allotted to heterosexual couples and of course denied to homosexuals. In an Editorial from March of 2000, the New Jersey Law Journal gives some examples of rights denied to committed same-sex couples. “Same sex couples who are prohibited from marrying are excluded from a panoply of legal benefits specifically tied to legally recognized marriage: for example, access to a spouse's medical, life and disability insurance; hospital visitation and medical decision-making privileges… workers' compensation survivor benefits; spousal benefits under annuity and retirement plans…the right to refuse to testify against one's spouse…” These rights granted to only legally married couples can affect those who are not married, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. But heterosexual couples have the right to change this and become married, homosexuals however do not.
Based on gender homosexuals are discriminated against each day by denying them the right to marriage and all other rights that ensue from this union. Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States, it’s as simple as that. The injustice that homosexuals face every day is appalling and needs to come to an end by granting these rights.
Your paper has a good voice and the main point of your op-ed is very clear. Your opening line was an attention grabber but it almost made me feel defensive. You presentation of the opposing side to gay marriage was good and you examined and explained how that single argument is invalid (the argument that gays can’t procreate so they shouldn’t get married) but I think you paper might be more effective if you explained why a other arguments against gay marriage are invalid. It seemed like you ignored many of the arguments that people have against homosexuality. You did report a lot of very good facts about the insurance benefits that a person cannot receive if they are not married. I felt like you had a good voice overall and your paper was clear.
ReplyDeleteI don't see a lack of information. You have studied this in great detail. Good approach to information given and you state your stance on the subject clearly. You could put a little more in on the arguments against your stance and explain why you find them invalid. Very good organization in the paper. Fantastic introduction of your source information. Excellent paper.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your paper it was very interesting to read. I thought your attention grabber was awesome! It really caught my attention and made me want to know what your stance on gay marriage was. You gave really interesting information about what you were arguing about but I felt like you could of added a little more on why gay marriage should be legalized, somewhat like what carson had said in his comment. But overall a really good paper. It was clear, concise, and had a voice.
ReplyDeleteAWESOME PAPER!