Download file to see previous pages...
This essay discusses in detail the debate on gay marriage.
Despite one’s opinion on the issue, gay marriage has appeared across the globe to endure. On the 9th of December 2004, Canada’s Supreme Court decided that gay marriage is compatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the constitutional paper that guarantees human rights for every Canadian (Nagle 103). The circumstances in the U.S. are more complex. The standing of gay marriage in the country will necessitate legal amendment to both national and state laws. As a result, the legalization of gay marriage all over the United States will take a much longer time and greater effort. Nevertheless, the country has become one of the very few to legalize gay marriage.
There are well-intentioned and reasonable individuals on either side of the gay marriage debate. Unluckily, though, it has been one of the most controversial problems in any country today. 17 out of 50 states allow same-sex marriage while 10 additional states are okay with unions and partnerships. (Ahuja, Barnes, et. al) Critics of gay marriage see the other party as part of a faction of policymakers, judges, and gay radicals, determined to insult traditional social values (Rauch 63). Advocates of gay marriage generally see the other party as religious fanatics or ‘homophobic’ hypocrites who aim to divest homosexual couples of the right to enjoy privileges granted to others (Rauch 63-64).The gay marriage debate has created a rift among people who have shared beliefs and ideals on numerous basic issues—economic stability, violence and nonviolence, democracy against the undemocratic and oppressive character of the American state.
The conflict-ridden debate weakens the capability of average American people to find a common ground. Numerous people who define themselves as radicals, leftists, or liberals sadly take advantage of the issue as a confirmation, and view anyone who opposes gay
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Overall, Shaw (2004) extols the favourable effects of sprawl, Terris (1999) argues for the negative effects, and Chen and Duany (2000) takes the pragmatic view in relation with the other dimensions of sprawl. Effects of urban sprawl: “Growing pains” The article by Chen and Duany (2000) takes a broad view of sprawl, discussing its other repercussions beside the matter of wildlife and their habitat.
Conservatives and modernists are often the people engaged in such debates because of the clash of what people have been used to and the growing changes of highly technological era. However, concerns about the impact of tolerating the matter in many aspects of life should be seriously considered because it is actually the people who are creating the world they are to live.
It has turned out to be the most socially divisive and ethically challengeable issue of the decade. The reason behind its controversial stature in society is that apart from upholding the right for freedom of choice and unconditional love, this issue paves the way for several alarming problems.
To achieve this, the article analyses the content of Canadian newspaper coverage on the issue of same-sex marriage during the debate between September 2003 and the federal election of June 2004. The article establishes the role of Canadian newspapers in addressing Canadian values and most specifically same-sex marriage.
The argument against gay marriage states that the act is unnatural, violates the traditional marriage perspective and is morally unacceptable. Those who support it assert that is should be legalized since according to the utilitarian view, it makes the affected parties happy and does no harm to others.
According to the report findings gay people stand up for their rights saying that they are humans and it is their basic right to live their lives as they want. Keeping in view all the arguments and developing on those arguments throughout the paper, the paper concludes by suggesting three options declared as road maps for allowing or not allowing gay marriages.