Same-sex Marriage Should be Legalized

To show why we should legalize same-sex marriage, I will describe two ways in which same-sex marriage is beneficial, along with rebuttals to two common arguments against same-sex marriage. Benefits 1. ) If same-sex marriage is legalized, it can allow same-sex couples to adopt children One of the main benefits of marriage is that it entails certain legal benefits towards married couples. These benefits include: being able to file a joint tax return, social security and medicaid, hospital visitation rights for spouses, receiving military and veteran benefits for spouses, having the ability to file for joint adoption, etc. [1] However, when marriage isn't an option for same-sex couples, they can't receive these benefits, and as a result, many of them have a hard time trying to adopt a child. A question could be posed asking if same-sex couples should have the right to adopt or if they're good parents, and according to current scientific literature, the answer is "Yes. " The American Academy of Pediatrics conducted a review on three decades worth of scientific literature on the behavioral and mental well being of children raised in same-sex households just last year, and the study found that "children"s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents" sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. " [2] Of course, the review also notes that some of the studies that were conducted showed less-positive outcomes for children raised by same-sex households. For example, one small study from Australia found that " children with gay or lesbian parents were rated as performing less well in language and math but better in social studies and as having a better attitude toward learning, compared with the children being raised by cohabiting or married heterosexual parents. " However, any learning deficits that were observed were due to factors such as a lack of acceptance for gay and lesbian parents as well as any divorces that might resulted from a parent's previous marriage. In essence, these deficits had nothing to do with the parent's gender or sexual orientation, and the study's author actually notes in the end that ""married couples seem to offer the best environmentfor a child"s social and educational development. " [2] If same-sex couples have been shown to be just as good parents as heterosexual couples, and that marriage both allows them to adopt children and reduces the amount of behavioral or learning deficits within children raised by same-sex couples, it looks like legalizing same-sex marriage would be the best option for ensuring the healthy development of children. 2. ) Same-sex couples have been shown to have less stress when they're in a legally recognized relationship One recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health has found that "Same-sex married lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons were significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship; married heterosexuals were significantly less distressed than non-married heterosexuals. " [3]The study also notes that "In adjusted pairwise comparisons, married heterosexuals had the lowest psychological distress, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons who were not in legalized relationships had the highest psychological distress. " [3] If legalizing same-sex marriage can prove beneficial for same-sex couples in reducing stress, then it looks like same-sex marriage can prove beneficial towards ensuring healthy relationships. Against same-sex marriage (with rebuttals) 1. ) Homosexuality is considered immoral by almost every major religion, thus same-sex marriage shouldn't be legalized For the purpose of this argument, and due to the relatively large population of Christians within the U. S. , I will try to address what Christianity states about homosexuality in my argument. It's true that almost every major religion has an unfavorable view towards homosexuality, but morality is, for the most part, subjective. In this sense, to state that a person can't get married to a person of the same sex, because of another person's beliefs about morality, would almost be the same as saying "I can't have a cookie because you are on a diet. " Moving this argument aside, the Bible certainly has an unfavorable view towards homosexuality. For example, Leviticus 18:22 states " "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. " [4] Even though the bible does consider homosexuality to be immoral, and assuming that we should strive to make our laws based off of the bible's morality, there are many things today that have been legalized which would be considered immoral by the bible. For example, the bible states in Leviticus 11:10 states that eating shellfish is "detestable" ("But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. " [5]) and Leviticus 19:19 even claims that we shouldn't wear clothing made of two different fabrics ("nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material. " [6]). If we're to ban things such as same-sex marriage based off of the bible's moral standards alone we can't simply ignore these, otherwise that would be cherry-picking. To be fair, there are some clear cut cases of immorality such as murder and stealing, but even those can be defended from a secular viewpoint since they both involve harming someone, but to say that homosexual acts between two consenting adults is immoral requires more justification. 2. ) Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, thus we can't redefine marriage Actually, our concept of monogamy is quite new. Harvard historian Nancy Cott has stated that until two centuries ago, "'monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion' of the world population, found in 'just Western Europe and little settlements in North America. '"[7] In fact, throughout most of human history, polygamy has been practiced by men from China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. " [7] The original concept of marriage was also much different today and it was mostly used as " as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. " [7] or as a means of transferring property between families. The concept of marrying for love didn"t even enter the picture until the 17th and 18th century during the time of Enlightenment, when "when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. " [7] This only improved during the women"s rights movements when "wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands' equals, rather than their property. " [7] In fact, thanks to gender-neutral roles, and a redefinition of the purpose of marriage "Marriage [has] become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. " [7] What all of this suggests is that marriage has been redefined before and for the better, thus we can't simply state that same-sex marriage is bad if it redefines marriage. Sources: [1] . http://www.nolo.com... [2] . http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [3] . http://ajph.aphapublications.org... [4] . http://www.openbible.info... [5] . http://www.openbible.info... [6] . https://www.biblegateway.com... [7] . http://theweek.com...