Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Religion and LGBT issues
Same sex marriage and religious liberties
Religion and LGBT issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Religion and LGBT issues
James Dobson, a famous evangelist, talks about the prior supreme court decision to legalize gay marriage. Before the announcement that that the supreme court did legalize gay marriage -- there was an uproar from evangelicals like James Dobson who said “gay marriage will undermine the family,” and that “it will further divide our country up.” In this video, Dobson asks the question “ how are parents supposed to teach their children about what the bible says in this issue [ marriage and the definition of it ] and then go on to a school bus and be taught something different by their elders?” Dobson describes gay marriage as “ the death knell of religious liberty in the United States.” Throughout this video, Dobson uses his opinion based on his religion to make the assertions he is …show more content…
After showing this hypocrisy, Weigant asks the question, “Why won't someone ask Carson why a public official -- who had to swear an oath to the Constitution when she got the job -- should be able to ignore parts of that Constitution because she puts her own faith above it (even answering that her authority to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples came from "God's law"). If Carson thinks a Muslim should not be able to put Sharia above loyalty to the Constitution, how can he support a Christian doing exactly the same thing for the tenets of her faith?” Weigant points out many interesting facts that discredit Carson’s evangelical and political view. By pointing out this hypocrisy I am able to see the discrimination that Carson’s views possess. In a video from the Late Show, Stephen Colbert creates a sarcastic piece on certain presidential candidates and their belief on the refugee policy here in America. Colbert goes on to talk about how Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush -- current presidential candidates -- proposed that we only let in Christian
Thomas B. Stoddard’s “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal” is a successfully written argument with some minor flaws in technique. Stoddard uses this article to present his major claim, or central thesis, on the reasons gay marriage should be legalized. He presents his argument using minor claims. In a lecture on February 2, 2005, James McFadden stated a minor claim is the secondary claim in an argument. Stoddard uses minor claims in his discussion of homosexual people being denied their rights by the government and by others who discriminate against them. He also discusses how love and the desire for commitment play a big part in the argument for and against gay marriage.
Beginning with the topic on gay marriage and the controversial battle between authors, Andrew Sullivan and William Bennett, Sullivan is the gay supporter. In Sullivan’s piece, “Let Gays Marry,” he opens with a statement by the Supreme Court, “A state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” He feels that this simple sentence has so much meaning, saying that whatever type of person, male or female, black or white, everyone deserves the same legal protection and equal rights. Therefore, gay marriage should not be excluded from the legal system. He tells that some churches practice different beliefs and may oppose gay marriage but religion has nothing to do with the state appeals. Sullivan explains how the definition of marriage has changed in the past and that it can be done again. Sullivan ends his piece by saying that changing the law would not affect straight couples, so why are they against gay marriage? He believes the change would allow gay couples to experience what straight couples already have.
Lisa Miller uses the Bible as a basis for her argument for gay marriage in her essay "Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case for Gay Marriage". She first begins her argument by saying that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament show model examples for marriage. Therefore, neither a homosexual or heterosexual couple would want to look to the Bible for marriage advice. Instead, the Bible should be read for its universal truths. Miller goes onto say that there is no real definition of marriage in the Bible, and the laws and guidelines in the Bible were put in place for a culture that no longer exists. If Christians no longer subscribe to animal sacrifice, then why would they condemn homosexuality? She ends by discussing the fact that Jesus ' message was one of inclusion. So, all those who claim to follow the Bible 's teachings should love others regardless of their sexual orientation.
Have you ever thought something was unjust, but every one around you believed otherwise? For many years marriage was seen as a religious and legal contract between a man and a woman. However, in recent years the American population has accepted in increasing numbers the idea that homosexuality exists and is equal. Although the majority of states do not allow same-sex marriage, today there are fifteen states that allow homosexual couples the right to get married, and they also receive all the rights that a heterogeneous couple have. Even if states don’t have marriages, many states may have domestic partnerships or civil unions as alternatives. To those combating the injustice to homosexuals and those in favor of homosexual activities these civil unions and domestic partnerships aren’t enough. On the other hand, we see the stance that the Westboro Church has taken in their hatred of homosexuals. Although the majority of people are in support of gay marriage, including myself, I think it is important to understand the opposition. Therefore, I decided to write my final report on the Westboro Baptist Church and their ideologies against homosexuals, Jews, Catholics, and the military. The main focus will obviously be the church’s feelings against homosexuality because many of their rallies focus on that issue.
"Let Gays Marry" is an article written by Andrew Sullivan arguing that homosexuals should be given the right to be legally married in the United States. In this essay, Sullivan argues that homosexuals have just as much right to marry as heterosexual couples. Sullivan argues that throughout US history that the definition of marriage has been altered several times to accommodate changing times, and that it is time to recognize gay's right to marry. Throughout the article, Sullivan uses several sources to back up his argument, but also makes several comments to weaken his argument.
During the fight against slavery and segregation, America realized that public opinion can be wrong. The movement for women’s rights brought about the knowledge that the government has had more control over civil rights than previously believed. Both historical movements arose from a common belief: despite public opinion, the government should protect the freedoms outlined in the constitution. Current societal issues related to marriage reflect this principle; however, authors Cherlin and Bennett would disagree on the connection being made. Cherlin acknowledges that momentum in the fight for homosexual equality has been attained by the degradation of the marital structure. As family structure among heterosexual couples is more often dysfunctional and more commonly broken down, a question arises of whether or not homosexual marriages radically affect society any more than this. Cherlin makes the implication that, if no compelling state interest can be found against gay marriage legalization, keeping it illegal would be a civil inequity. Bennett would contend that with this momentum, society may be blindly crossing a line. Divorce rates and out of wedlock births have skyrocketed due to legal changes in the availability of marriage and divorce documents. He points out that these negative effects will only increase with further law changes. “Indeed,
The American debate on homosexuality reveals an unquestionable, though awfully uninvited, fusion between religion and politics, revealing a dangerous lack of separation between the church and state. The concern is not about the presence of spirituality in American politics, but the implications institutionalized religion has on the lives and rights of human beings. Nothing hinders the political and social progress of lesbian women and gay men quite like the complexities of religion. Dating back to the beginning of literature itself, homosexuality is far from modern. Nonetheless, homosexuality is currently the most divisive and fiercely debated topic in recent religious discourse. While most Christians maintain allegiance in labeling same-sex relationships as morally wrong, the church is dramatically divided on the proper place for gays and lesbians in American society and of course, American politics.
The main points of the Symbolic Interactionism perspective is that symbols are what shape how we communicate and how we view the world. Our changing ideas affect how we understand and view different things around us. Without symbols society would be not be very coordinated, people wouldn’t be able to specify a specific time for school or where to meet for lunch. The main points of the Functional Analysis perspective, is that society is made up of several individual parts that work together for society to function properly. Each of these smaller parts has functions that are beneficial consequences of people actions and dysfunctions that are harmful and threaten the equilibrium. In this perspective the smaller parts are look at to see how they
In an article titled, “I've Been Divorced Four Times, But Homosexuals Are the Ones Destroying Marriage,” published in February of 2014, blogger Matt Walsh intends to move anyone who advocates for “traditional marriage” to focus their attention on preventing divorce instead of opposing gay marriage. The title is mocking the hypocrisy of some “traditional marriage” advocates who are serial divorcee supposedly doing everything they can to preserve the sanctity of marriage. The author believes in what is commonly called “traditional marriage,” though the term is considered a historically misleading term by some. Steve Chapman declares in the Chicago Tribune,“What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It's radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago.” Opponents of “traditional marriage” are not concerned with threats to the institution like Walsh is. In the Huffington Post, Carina Kolodny says that equality for gay marriage will, “fundamentally destroy 'traditional marriage,' and I, for one, will dance on its grave.” Other advocates for “traditional marriage” might also argue that the greatest threat to marriage is no-fault divorce laws or pre-marital cohabitation, and yes, gay marriage. Walsh's target audience is limited to conservative Christians; his appeals to God, the holiness of marriage, and church practices are only effective supporting material for this intended audience.
By using the story of Kim Davis the clerk that refused to issue marriage certificates to gay couples in Kentucky County, Rensin shows the brutal side of the disdainful liberals. He cites that the smug liberals enjoyed “mocking her appearance, openly celebrating the incarceration of an ideological opponent.” With phrases such as “hateful bigot,” “dumb hicks,” “rubes” are thrown in the article to highlight the condescending tones adopted by the liberals in the recent years against those that they deem conservative or less open to the liberal agenda (Rensin). He even incorporates George Bush’s encounter with the smug liberals that underestimated his Presidential ambitions and tenure as the President. With reference to the Daily Show’s rants, the article continues to show how the liberals have continued to make fun of the “dumb hicks” as “private entertainment of elites blowing off some steam”
In “An Argument against Same-Sex Marriage: An Interview with Rick Santorum” the interviewer, David Masci, presents a transcript of an interview with Rick Santorum, ex-senator and devout Christian, in which Santorum presents his stance against same-sex marriage. The interviewer begins by introducing the argument gay rights activists make for same-sex marriage that they want get married for the same reasons a heterosexual couple does (Santorum). Masci uses their argument to question Santorum on why he believes they should not be able to marry. Santorum responds that the reason is due to the effects it would have on society and children. His references to society and children continue and become repeating themes in his answers.
Marriage as generally define is the union between one man and one woman. However a recent debate over same-sex marriage has stirred a nationwide debate reverberating in the halls of Congress, at the White House, in dozens of state courtrooms and legislatures, and is also becoming a speech-making topic for election campaigns at both the national and state levels. As the debate for this controversial topic rages on, the American religious community view on the topic remains deeply divided over the matter and over the morality of homosexuality in general. Granting legal marriage right to gays and lesbians would primarily alter the idea of marriage, ignore a child’s right to a mother and father, and expands government control of marriage.
Same-sex marriage is a topic often discussed in the Christian church. Christians will argue that it is immoral and it is corrupting the sanctity of marriage, while many politicians advocating for it will say that a ban against it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, granting all citizens "equal protection of the laws." The decision is being left to each state as to whether or not to allow same-sex marriages, and there have been numerous rallies and protests both for and against legalizing it. Shortly before a decision was made in Illinois, there was a rally in the capital by people who were pro-marriage. The very next day, there was another rally by an estimated group of 2,500 people who packed the Capitol rotunda and grounds and challenged lawmakers to uphold Christian teachings and ban same-sex marriage. Bishop Larry Trotter of Sweet Holy Spirit Church in Chicago called on Christians to "report for duty" to keep our country "moral" and prevent same-sex marriage from becoming a reality in Illinois (Garcia). The Christian church may believe homosexuality to be a sin, but the lack of tact that it is displaying in defending their views is driving homosexual people away from the church.
He should have specified on that, Islam is a religion, The Sharia Law is a tenant. If we were to put the bible’s teachings into politics and our democratic system. People were once stoned for committing “lewd” behaviors such as adultery in the Bible. Those principles are not used in today’s democratic system because we have evolved into a more civilized society than our ancestors at least that what is being said. In Ben Carson’s interview, he listed eight Islamic countries that still till this day practice the Sharia Law. On the other hand, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Mali, Mozambique are just 10 out of the many Islamic prominent countries that do not practice the Sharia Law. Because of the age-old practice of the law of the Sharia Law Ben Carson does not advocate putting a Muslim in charge of this nation. Because the Islamic faith interferes with the leadership of this country and would impair the judgment of a Muslim leader. Therefore making this country a theocracy instead of the democratic nation that has been upheld for several of years. The democratic system is more solid than any other system out there because of its constitutional tenants. The Sharia law is unjust and is still practiced because those third-world countries are not up to par and not yet educated. There are a lot of dirty politics and payoffs going on
Same sex marriage is a very controversial topic in today’s society. We live in a society filled with ignorance. The ignorance that poisons the minds of people that oppose same sex marriage blinds them from the reality of the “problem”. People argue that same sex marriage should be illegal for reasons that will have no negative impact on their lives. The reality of this topic is that legalizing same sex marriage promotes the increase of adoption, human rights and equality, as well as the separation of the church and state.