Tags: Research Paper Topics WomenEssay Writing On SmugglingThesis Statement On Persuasive EssayTopics To Do A Research Paper OnCharles Drew EssayBusiness Plans For Apps
The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during 2010.Let us not forget matrimony existed long before Jehovah was even a word you weren’t allowed to say. “Marriage has always been a bond between one man and one woman.” This declaration ignores the legally married gay couples in Canada, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium, Netherlands, and South Africa.
The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage.
These include a 2004 Gallup poll, a 2008 ICM Research poll, a 2009 Populus poll, a 2010 Angus Reid poll, a 2010 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, a 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion survey, and a 2012 You Gov survey.
I am a gay man who, when arguing for gay marriage, has been called “lesser”, “unnatural”, “deviant” and “sinful”. I do not believe all opponents of gay marriage are hateful.
In these arguments the love I have for my fiancé has been belittled as just “sex” or only “friendship”. Some have just not been exposed to the right arguments, and so I will demonstrate here that each anti-gay marriage argument ultimately serves to oppress or imply the lesser status of the minority of which I am a part.
Furthermore, I have been told it is offensive to brand such remarks “bigoted”, and that I am the bully.
In rallying against the introduction of equal marriage, religious campaigners have frequently stressed that their objections are not driven by homophobia, and have deployed numerous arguments to demonstrate this.Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. ” To turn the argument on its head, one simply has to ask why society feels the need to segregate our rights from those of heterosexuals. One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights. “Gay people in the UK already have civil partnerships which provide all the same rights as marriage.” Civil partnerships were born out of politicians pandering to homophobia.We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such. It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality. A step in the right direction, perhaps, but they are a separate form of recognition that reaffirmed society’s wish to keep homosexuals at arm’s length should we somehow “diminish” true marriage.A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses (which were not verified).Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity. “Gay marriage will confuse the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, or ‘mother and ‘father’.” Another form of the previous argument. “Gay people cannot have children and so should not be allowed to marry.” The Archbishop of York John Sentamu used a barely disguised version of this argument in a piece for the when he referred to “the complementary nature of men and women”.It is not hard but I’ll say it slowly just in case … as “husbands”, and married women will refer to themselves … Male parents will be “fathers” and female parents will both be “mothers”. He is insinuating, of course, that homosexual relationships are not complementary by nature because they cannot produce offspring, and therefore they are unnatural and undeserving of the word “marriage”.Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority. “Why is it so important for gay people to have marriage?” For the same reason it is important to straight people. ” Should women have compromised their right to vote?No single straight person’s marriage will be affected by letting gay people marry.Another form of the above argument is “Why should we bother changing the law just to cater to 4% of the population?