Citations of a Religious Matter

=

Hey, its Amena again....
So its time for some citations. Im going off of Alex's recent post about gay marriage in the religious context. I found a couple interesting things on the subject including a scholarly article, a blog and a cartoon. So for the first...

The article's title is "Gay Marriage as a Religious Right: Reframing the Legal Debate over Gay Marriage in the United States". the article was written by Debra L. DeLaet and Rachel Paine Caufield, both professors at Drake university.

The article discusses the implications of framing the argument for gay rights around the idea of "religious rights" as opposed to "civil rights". The article talks about the definition of marriage in terms of religion, and discusses the advent of religious freedom in the united states and what that means for gay rights. The article also discusses the limitations of uaing the religious rights framework.

i think that this article is very useful. It thoroughly discusses the idea of religious rights in order to apply it to the arguments for gay marriage. Although looking at the agument for gay marriage with the religious rights framework has some limitations, it provides another evidence in support of the argument. Therefore this article is very useful because it provides plenty of credible sources to back up its argument.

The secound citation I found was a blog titled, "The Persuit of happiness: an inalienable right for the straight" written by Naomi Camilleri.

The blog discusses the definition of marriage in relation to religion. It discusses the definition of marriage as stated in scripture and other doctrines. The blog argues that the idea of marriage in religion has changed, and therefore could be still further changed to allow same sex marriage. It also argues that despite religious reasoning, freedom and rights of the constitution holds that everyone has the right to happiness despite any particular religious beleifs. furthermore, one's own religious beliefs should not be forced on others.

I think this blog is useful to the overall argument for gay marriage because it provides several good arguments, and provides evidence from scripture for the arguments given. This blog focuses on the right to happiness, which is a very strong point for the argument for gay marriage.

The third citation is actually a cartoon image. Although the cartoon doesnt comprise of much I think it says alot and makes a very good point. The cartoon was uploaded to toonpool.com and doesnt have a specified author.
The cartoon is making a point that religion and religious leaders, particularly catholics, do not have any right to make an argument against gay marriage stating that it is unnatural when they themselves practice an unnatural act. This cartoon discredits the religious argument against gay marriage.

This is very useful because it is putting things into perspective, and putting light on the double standards that comes with alot of arguments that are stated against gay marriage. I thought this cartoon was actually quite amusing.

Why Refute What Feels Right?

Hey there interweb readers!! Alex here. I have noticed that some of you don’t seem to like the way that I am writing. First off, let me say this out right. I am doing this for an assignment, not because I choose to freely. I am not a blogger, so this whole thing is brand new to me. Secondly, I am entitled to my own opinion, and if you feel otherwise, I am glad, it shows that you have free will. That is what the internet is for; everybody should be able to express themselves in what ever way that may be. If you want to use poor grammar, great; if you feel like cursing, awesome. Let me just say what I have to say and get this over with.

Ok, so for my second refutation of gay marriage, I found a blog called nosamesexmarriage.com. This site seems to be the most right wing, conservative site on the Internet about anti same sex marriage. I know that I have previously stated that I really have no opinion about the matter, but this site has gone overboard and are citing bible versus and personal opinions as reasons why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry the same sex.

Pros and Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Contact us and share your published or unpublished letters to editors. What are the pros and cons of same sex marriage.

Logical reasons for opposing same sex marriage:

1) thousands of years of traditional, male-female marriage, across numerous cultures and religions.

2) The public health catastrophe among homosexual men.

3) Numerous studies showing the importance to children of a father and a mother.

** But today let's look at biblical reasons for opposing gay marriages.

* These Scriptures may be meaningless to unbelievers.

* But these are the biblical reasons that should drive us who hold to the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(1) God defines homosexual offenders as among "the WICKED."

* Ephesians 5:11, KJV And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

* The Christian's duty is to reprove, not to ignore, that which God calls wicked.

(Arguments Against Gay Marriage)

I have to admit that this blog has their opinions about why they don’t feel gay marriage should be allowed. But it goes against everything that our group is standing for on this blog. The use of biblical references makes me feel uncomfortable, because I am not too religious; I have to take what the blogger has written with a grain of salt.

I guess that’s all I have to say. I may have flip flopped a bit during this assignment, but I think in the end, I have reached a better understanding of why people thing same sex marriage should be ok.

Peace Out,

Alex

A Storm is Coming (Informative Citations)

Source 1: NOM - Gathering Storm Ad [Video]. (2009). Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

The National Organization for Marriage is a conservative, faith-based non-profit organization that seeks to prevent the legal recognition and acceptance of same-sex marriage. NOM's stated mission is "to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it." NOM worked to overturn gay marriage in California and in 2009 it came out with a controversial ad that suggests opponents of same-sex marriage are now being victimized for their beliefs. NOM spent 1.5 million dollars to air the spot to turn back the tide of gay marriage and the group does not back away from the ad's argument that same-sex marriage has a direct, negative impact on non-gay people.


I chose to feature this ad in our blog because I think it epitomizes the irrational argument that so many opponents of gay marriage (particularly conservatives) subscribe to; that allowing homosexuals to marry will adversely affect the rest of the population and is threat to us all. "There's a storm gathering," one woman says as the spot opens. Says another woman: "I am afraid." Later in the spot, a man says same-sex marriage advocates "want to bring the issue into my life." He is followed by a woman who says "my freedom will be taken away." Another woman says same-sex marriage advocates "want to change the way I live." A teenage girl intones, "I will have no choice." The commercial is full of these quotes from "citizens" afraid of what will happen to them if gay marriage is allowed... when in reality it likely won't affect them at all. Check out a CBS news story on the ad here.

Source 2: Colbert Report - The Colbert Coalition's Ant-Gay Marriage Ad [Video]. (2009). Retrieved April 18, 2010, from http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriag-ad

Following the release of the NOM ad featured above, Stephen Colbert came out with his own anti-gay commercial on the Colbert Report, of course making fun of the original while pretending he is a hard line conservative that actually believes its message. Colbert said of the original NOM ad, "It is like watching the 700 Club and the Weather Channel at the same time."Colbert claims he got riled up as a result of the recent wins for gay marriage in Vermont and Iowa, and when Governor David Paterson introduced gay marriage legislation in Stephen's home state of New York he took action. He made his own gay marriage storm ad because as Stephen says, "New York can't handle a flood of gay marriage. As it is it's impossible to get a wedding announcement in the 'Times.' I had to release Carbon Monoxide into an apartment building then work the wedding into the police interview."

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

Interestingly enough, the National Organization for Marriage actually sent Stephen Colbert a letter of thanks for producing the commercial parody that depicts the NOM membership as closeted, dim nitwits. Apparently, they believe that Colbert has helped their cause, somehow. This is, as they say, ADORBS:

"I've always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I'm sure," said Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

"Thank you Stephen for playing our ad in full on national television--for free. HRC eat your heart out. Plus we all had a great chuckle, too!" said Brian Brown, NOM's Executive Director. "Where can I make a donation to the National Organization for Colbert?"

Yes. NOM appears to believe that pretending to not understand the central satiric conceit of the show constitutes a witty comeback. They are also under the impression that their opponents at the Human Rights Campaign were saddened, watching Stephen Colbert rip NOM a new one.
See the Huffington Post story about the NOM letter to Colbert here


Source 3: Cognition & Emotion. June 2009, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p. 714 - 725. Conservatives are More Easily Disgusted than Liberals by Yoel Inbar, David A. Pizarro, and Paul Bloom

According to the authors of this journal article, the uniquely human emotion of disgust is intimately connected to morality in many, perhaps all, cultures (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999b). They report two studies suggesting that a predisposition to feel disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with more conservative political attitudes, especially for issues related to the moral dimension of purity. In the first study, they document a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism in a broad sample of US adults. In Study 2 they show that while disgust sensitivity is associated with more conservative attitudes on a range of political issues, this relationship is strongest for purity-related issues—specifically, abortion and gay marriage. I reference this article because I believe it can shed some light on the conservative stance against gay marriage seen, among other places, in the National Organization for Marriage commercial. Perhaps it is disgust and/or a perceived sense of having no moral purity tied to religious and political values that conservatives see in homosexuals that allows them to put up such a fight and the most unfounded, ridiculous arguments against gay marriage. I've had enough of this slippery slope argument that if we let gays marry then what is next... incest, polygamy, loss of freedom, the end of the institution of marriage, lifestyle changes for all, or as Stephen Colbert said arma-GAY-don. It just doesn't work like that and conservative Americans want to pretend it does perhaps because they are driven by disgust.
-Adam

Critical Refutation: Huckabee Compares Same-sex Marriage to Incest, Polygamy

Our blog and its contributors have argued for the legalization of gay marriage, among others, on the grounds of equal social rights for all. Recently however, in an interview with college journalists in New Jersey, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee utterly advocated against equal social rights for homosexuals by reportedly comparing the push for same-sex marriage to an effort to accommodate drug abuse, polygamy and incest, and dismissing adoption by gay couples by saying, "Children are not puppies." The Perspective, a student publication at The College of New Jersey in Ewing, N.J., published an article from the interview and in response to claims from the Huckabee camp that his words were distorted and sensationalized, Michael Tracey, the student who wrote the story on the interview, posted audio of portions of the interview online (see below).

Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

Huckabee's claims rely on faulty reasoning, unwarranted comparisons and reveal his negative view of homosexuals that underscore the values of the traditional family unit and what is in childrens' best interests that his argument is based on.

Huckabee displays his faulty reasoning and unwarranted comparisons when in discussing same-sex marriage in the interview he says, "You don't go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal. That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let's go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them." Huckabee's reasoning here is that supporting same-sex marriage is akin to supporting drug users, as they are both behaviors that go against the ideal. Not only does this show a belief inherent in Huckabee that homosexuality is against the ideal, but to compare a behavior that one is born with (homosexuality) to a behavior one chooses to engage in (drug use) just doesn't make any sense or hold any weight. Furthermore, Huckabee compares supporting same-sex marriage to supporting other behaviors like incest and polygamy. However, homosexuality is a widely accepted behavior in America whereas incest and polygamy, which are both illegal, are not, and even if Huckabee puts these behaviors in the same "against the ideal" category, most Americans wouldn't. Also, even the most conservative estimates suggest that 1 - 5% percent of America's population is homosexual, equating to 2.7 million to 13.5 million people, which is undoubtedly a greater number of people than the number that engage in fringe behaviors like incest and polygamy. Therefore it is just asinine and ridiculous to compare pushing for same-sex marriage to accomodating behaviors like drug use, incest and polygamy.

In the interview, Perspective reported that Huckabee said he backs the Arkansas law barring same-sex couples from adopting or becoming foster parents. "This is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family," Huckabee said. "And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults." "Children are not puppies," he said. "This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?". When asked if it was preferable for children to stay in foster care rather than be adopted by a same-sex couple, Huckabee said, "No, its preferable to have men and women who actually give consideration to their sexual activities... when people use another person as their sexual object of pleasure without any regards to the ultimate consequences that may result from it. That's not mature sexuality, that's immature, selfish lifestyle." In these statements, Huckabee shows that he believes allowing homosexuals to adopt foster children would be a risky experiment and foster children should always go to a man and a woman. Furthermore, he hints at stereotypes, such as homosexuals being sexually promiscuous and immature which reveal his underlying negative view of homosexuals. Huckabee uses faulty reasoning and unwarranted comparisons to make his point on same-sex marriage. He also espouses the values of the traditional family unit and childrens' best interests as a guise for the negative view of homosexuals that actually drives his sentiments. All of these factors combines make his argument against same-sex marriage hold little, if any, weight.
-Adam

Blog Refutation: It’s more than just rights.

Hey all. Well as I was browsing the net for some nonsense written by people who are against gay marriage, I came upon a blog called “Killing the Gay Marriage Movement Obama-style”. The blog pretty much said that the move by Obama to grant gays and lesbians a bunch of rights, particularly medical rights, completely destroyed “the fundamental argument for gay marriage”.

I followed up on the info, and the blog was referring to an article in the Washington Post. Obama “mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them.” Although it’s a step in the right direction, it is only that, a step. The blog stated that now that gays have gained a couple more rights they can leave the whole idea of marriage alone. It said that now that gays have gotten these rights the issue that the whole argument for gay marriage stands on is no longer viable and we no longer have any argument.

Anyways, the blog incorrectly summed up the whole of the arguments for gay marriage to be about getting the equal rights that only comes with marriage. This is totally incorrect. Gay marriage is not only about getting access to the rights that come with marriage. It’s about more than that. It’s about the principle of the thing. Giving gays rights but still refusing them marriage is not equality. We do not just want pieces, we want the whole package. Marriage. The fight for gay marriage goes beyond just attaining rights, which this blog completely misunderstood. This is a failure on their part; you can’t make an argument against an argument if you don’t understand their whole argument. Since medical rights aren’t the fundamental arguments behind the fight for gay marriage this blog is far from a valid point.

Gay Marriage: Can Gay be the Way?

Hey there readers!!! Alex is signing in once again. I know that I have previously made it clear that I am weary of this subject, but do to scholastic reasons, I am going to try my best to fulfill the requirements of this assignment.

So here it goes.



Gay marriage is still a young item in regards to religion and what not. The idea that two people of the same sex are able to come together and have the same tax breaks and social status as other heterosexual couples sounds like a good idea, in theory.
As I was surfing the web, I came across a blog that was bashing the idea of gay marriage. The post that I looked at was just 10 statements, all of them bashing the idea of same sex marriage. Some of the statements include:
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
(Bligbi Blog)
The entire post bashes same sex marriage in this way. I personally could care less about same sex marriage, but because this assignment is supposed to go for a cause, I will go along with the rest of my group. If two people of the same sex want to get together and have the same last name or something, I say that we should let them do it, just don’t let me know what you are doing behind closed doors.

Deliberative Democracy Part 2: Family, Love, and Commitment

Hello! So, I'm using deliberative democracy again here for this post. But this time, it's not all about equal rights for homosexuals. I want to show you how deliberative democracy can be a useful way to argue about same-sex couples with the ideas of family, commitment, and love.

Katrina


More reasons that we should legalize homosexual marriage is that the number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create. Like any heterosexual couple relationship, a same-sex marriage may fuel the desire for a family. Since gay couples cannot have kids naturally, this will likely increase the desire to adopt. This can be a wonderful thing for those children who are born into families and households where they aren’t wanted, or just aren’t able to have them. Homosexual couples can litterally save lives of those unwanted children. Since there are so many kids around the country in need of adoption, this is a good thing. However, others believe a child reared in a same-sex marriage do not develop ideally. Evidence at this point is inconclusive since same-sex adoptions have yet to become widespread. Being able to adopt and have a family definitely encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles, especially if they are legally committed to one partner. One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. According to www.loveandpride.com, “In considering the pros and cons of same sex marriage, the cultural pressures on gay couples are rarely mentioned. Gay couples face a wealth of prejudice, including the assumption that gay men and lesbians are promiscuous and incapable of sustaining a committed relationship.” The problems related to sexuality in our society such as sexually transmitted diseases that stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we as public group of people want to encourage? Deliberative democracy can be the voice to show the world that the United States cares about everyone who lives here, and it doesn’t matter what lifestyle they live. This would help set our country even further ahead to show the rest of the world how much we are advancing. These are two more reasons why we should bother to legalize homosexual marriages throughout the entire country.

Most importantly, the only thing that should matter in marriage is love. I feel that the whole debate should be based on this one emotion. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. No, they marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says that it is a bond between two people that can conquer anything. It shouldn’t matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to or think is normal. Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, then why shouldn’t all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of getting married? Just maybe there's something more to it than legal matters and benefits. It is completely unfair to deny these privileges to homosexual people because their relationship doesn't fit the state's definition of a relationship, or marriage.

In conclusion, deliberative democracy recognizes a conflict of interest between the citizen participating, those affected or victimized by the process being undertaken, and the group-entity that organizes the decision. Therefore, it usually involves an extensive outreach effort to include marginalized, isolated, ignored groups in decisions, and future predictions of consequences of actions. On the other hand, many practitioners of deliberative democracy attempt to be as neutral and open-ended as possible, inviting people who represent a wide range of views and providing them with balanced materials to guide their discussions. I feel that deliberative democracy can be a very effective form of voting, passing, or denying laws. It should be how we vote overall because the Electoral College is so outdated and doesn’t really give us what we vote for. I think a lot more of bills and laws would pass, because people would get results of what they really want to happen and to be legal in our country.

Deliberative Democracy: Should All States Legalize Gay Marriage, or Individually?

So here I'm arguing that we should use deliberative democracy when considering whether each state should legalize gay marriage, or if the whole country should. (For those who don't know what deliberative democracy is, in basic terms: popular vote.) Comment, if you will!

Katrina


Some people don’t know what they should believe in or agree with in this country. A pletora of people in the United States have no opinions what so ever on most political topics. However, somehow people always have opinions of gay marriage. Marriage is the most extreme and fullest way that you can show your love to somebody. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in this country; however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. This is shown in deliberative democracy, because it is a system of political decision-making that relies on popular consultation to make policy, rules, or laws. It’s not like the electoral college in this sense. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a "civil union", which essentially is marriage without using the word "marriage". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but I believe it should be left up to each personal state to decide. However, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country. Many politicians are calling for amendments to their state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. The thing about the whole each state getting to vote whether they want to legalize gay marriage in their state is what the Defense of Marriage act prevents. Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question "Should gay couples be allowed to legally get married?"

Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence proving biological causation. According to www.balancedpolitics.org, “for too long homosexuality has been considered a form of "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have existed.” I learned in my rhetoric of communication class last year that during the time of ancient Greece, younger men would have sex with the older men to gain “wisdom” through the homosexual sex. We know that gay sex doesn’t mean that one will become wiser. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation. It is not a genetic one, but a biological one. People don’t choose to just become a homosexual, considering all the struggle they’ve had to overcome in many past years. Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a lifetime. It just doesn’t work like that. You can’t choose or teach someone how to be a homosexual, just as much as you can’t choose or teach someone how to be a heterosexual as well. They are born like that; they don’t choose it.

Denying homosexuals is a violation of religious freedom since civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions. The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin. However, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity, and the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. Homosexual marriages doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. A marriage is a relationship between two people. How does it hurt society or people not involved in the marriage? It’s this easy: it can’t. It is a personal commitment that really is no one else's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what two people can or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's their right, but it isn't their right to stop it. The church doesn’t have to be the one to marry the homosexuals; they can do it somewhere else if it is really that big of a deal. I think us as the American public should all walk in their shoes, and we should consider how the homosexuals feel about this subject. This is one way that deliberative democracy can really show to be useful and it is a productive means of communication. I say this because with the idea that deliberative democracy also as a means of popular vote, I think many more states, or the entire country, would have gay marriage legalized.

The Biology of Gay Marriage....(citations)

Salaam and Guten Tag!

During a recent class discussion, an article (source 1) was brought up as an article against gay marriage.   To be fair I missed most of the discussion, because I came to class late (fittingly I was on a fieldtrip to one of birthplaces of religious evangelical argument), so I was not exactly sure what was discussed.  Being so I wanted to learn more about this article, and particularly this frame that biology is an argument against gay marriage because marriage is biology.   You think I am kidding, sadly I am not.   

-Sean

Source 1-

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/01/opinion/oe-gallagher1

Debating Proposition 8 – Should California eliminate marriage for same-sex couple? ‘Biology, not bigotry’ is the foundation for the traditional form of marriage.

By: Maggie Gallagher

In this article Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, attempts to make the argument that it’s not a religious argument to oppose gay marriage, but a biological one.   She explains that marriage existed before any government and all religions, and that in order for a child to succeed in the world, they must be raised by a father and mother because each have separate responsibilities.   Her claim is that children need a mother and father; they deserve one.  

Maggie is right that marriage is older than we can comprehend.  It is older than government or religion, it is part of the human experience.   The main flaw in this argument is that marriage is biology. It is NOT biology; it is anthropology.  Marriage is a cultural mechanism to help advance society, it is not a requirement of sexual reproduction or child rearing (two things which are biology).   Nothing about marriage is biological.  It’s not about how we are made to live, it’s all about how we choose to live.  

While this article doesn’t really mention any additional sources besides poorly quoted anthropology or biology, Google searches for this article does note that this article is a series of articles “Debating Proposition 8” through different frames.  If this particular frame does not interest you, consider searching for this series and looking at other article.  

Source 2-

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-gould7-2008nov07,0,5469431.story

Misusing biology to oppose same-sex marriage

A recent Op-Ed article in support of Proposition 8 shows a poor understanding about the biological roots of human behavior.

By Katherine Gould

This article serves to refute the false information presented by Maggie in the previous article.  It clarifies what is actually biology and how biology does not mandate marriage.   Biology mandates children to be properly cared for by loving parents, that’s the only thing that studies have shown across the spectrum.  Children from one type of couple do no better then children of an alternative type.   She even cites specific examples in the animal kingdom of species where partners of one sex raise the young while the other sex goes to spread his/her DNA further. 

This article is much more credible in my opinion as an argument than the previous one it was in response to.  Katherine uses specific examples from the real world, from the animal kingdom and from basic biology to support gay marriage.  She even attempts null individually all of Maggie’s arguments.  She admits that some of Maggie’s points hold truth, but they were used incorrectly and out of context.

I chose this article quite arbitrarily.  There are quite a few articles refuting Maggie’s original point.  This was one of the first articles I found.  If you want more information just do a Google search of ‘biology’ and ‘gay marriage’ and you are guaranteed to find quite a few opinions all relating to Maggie’s original point.  

Source 3-

Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health; Jan-Mar2010, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p56-69, 14p

The Neurobiology of Sex/Gender-Based Attraction 

By Laura Erickson-Schroth

This article poses a theory for why same-sex attraction occurs in a biological sense.  While it doesn’t suggest one specific cause of homosexuality, it outlines different neurobiological differences in homosexuals and heterosexuals both in hormone levels, stimulations, and physical anatomy.   Many of the findings suggest the neurobiologies of homosexual males are similar to that of heterosexual females and the neurobiologies of homosexual females are similar to that of heterosexual males.   Interesting.  

I chose this article because in order to understand the biological argument of same-sex marriage, one must understand a little bit about homosexual biology.  The issue I have with this article is that it doesn’t really suggest any cause, it makes inferences based on studies, which is a valid point but it is non-committal.  It doesn’t take a necessary stand.   The whole article read as an extended introduction to a real study/article that should have been done.   

One particular source they mentioned was the 1977 article in American Psychologist that largely invalidated biological causes of homosexuality by saying most studies are inconclusive and hormonal or physiological studies have shown nothing.   It shows the ‘progress’ or changes of thought that has dramatically occurred in the past three –ish decades.   

The Economy Demands Gay Marriage

Good morning all, er, I guess it's more of a good day by the time I get this posted! First off, let me just say I am in a fantastic mood because the weather has been so amazing!!! It's quite perfect outside, and while I am not trying to give away my particular location, I didn't expect this weather for another month atleast. It should still be freezing here (because it usually is)!

Anyway today's topic is less social and more economic. I am not going to give you a lesson on supply and demand or the global market price of the US dollar, because I really don't know too much about it, but what I do that is that gay marriage is good for our country, our economy, and transitively, everyone else.

The most important note I need to make is that while I personally believe that gay marriage should be a unquestionable basic human right that is available to everyone, some do not. It is seen as an abomination to many religious zealots and those random other people who aren't sure why they are so opposed to it, however adultery, divorce, cradle-robbing/gold-digging, among many other things are so called abominations and they are perfectly legal (not highly recommended though). Why can't people just look the other way when they see two men or women in a relationship like they do for adulterers? Would they if they knew there was an economic benefit if they did?

I am not saying 'the constitution secures equal rights for all citizens' or 'it is a basic right to be able to get married.' I am saying our economy is struggling, and needs all the help we can possibly give it. Legalizing gay marriage is an untapped economic power boost. The US Census Bureau in 2000 estimated that there are over 600,000 unmarried same-sex couples living in the United States (several private surveys estimate the number is much higher), most wanting to get married and celebrate their relationship like any heterosexual couple. Bride's Magazine estimates that the average wedding costs most that $19,000 dollars. A Congressional Budget Office study found that if same-sex marriages rights were extended across the US, the wedding industry would gain at least $1 billion. Some argue that that number is far too low, and the industry has the potential for a total of $16 billion annually in revenues from gay marriages. Is all this time and effort to protect the sanctity of marriage, something that was destroyed centuries ago, in exchange for a $16 billion dollar boost to the economy?

The benefit to the economy is not only in the wedding industry or to manufacturers of 'gay products,' but everyone! Who works in tourism here? You know the money that a wedding can bring into the industry. All the guests need hotels and rental cars and flights and of course they will want to see the sights! Tourism and tourism-related industries and activities spiked in many cities and states that recognized same-sex marriages. Couples in states and countries that had not begun recognizing these marriages flooded these area as well as wedding ceremony guests. What else do guests do when they come to a wedding? They bring expensive gifts bought at home. The good manufacturing industry stands to gain a lot from gay marriage. It doesn’t matter if you don’t sell wedding gear or gay-products. If your product has ever been bought for a wedding, you stand to make big bucks here!

I do not know how many times I have to reference the fact that marriage is no longer sacred. It is plagued with more problems and diseases than 16th century Europe. They estimate that 50% of couples get divorced now!! 50%!!!! Divorce is a constantly increasing aspect of marriage. Divorce is already a multi-billion dollar industry. Adding several hundred thousand married couples to the list of potential divorcees will open up hundreds of jobs for future divorce lawyers.

You don’t work in private industry? You work in the public sector? Well the government NEEDS to legalize gay marriage. The US government has no money. What is our national debt? What is the yearly budget deficit? In the article «Wedding Bell Blues: The Income Tax Consequences of Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages,» the authors showed precisely how the government stands to gain from recognizing gay marriage. As marriage taxes work, couples can qualify for a marriage subsidy if their combined income is low enough, or a marriage penalty if their combined income is high enough. This would work the same for gay couples. Taxes are paid based on the income bracket the individual or couple finds themselves. If both partners are earning a similar salary, it will likely push them together into a high-income bracket. Supporters of this framework argue the government stands to gain $0.3-$1.3 billion annually from married same-sex couples who file together. The government not fully supporting gay marriage is counterintuitive. They are wasting money on the Defense of Marriage Act when there is a potential to gain $1 billion dollars annually.

Animals are naturally selfish, they want to do what is best for their own. Humans are no exception. While some of us may recognize the need to help those who have been marginalized or discriminated against, we ultimately will do what is best for ourselves or our own. It’s fine if you don’t agree that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else, but look at the benefit that the government, the economy, and ultimately you will gain from legalizing gay marriage.

Have a Great Week Ya'll

Sean

Introductions

Hi my name is Amena. Its taken me awhile to put together my thoughts for this introduction as well as this blog. Although I'm all for gay rights, it hasn't been an issue that I've thought about significantly. The question to answer was to explain why this issue is important to me, and I can truthfully say I didn't know how to describe my thoughts on the issue. But then this past weekend I attended two of my cousins' weddings in Florida. And it all came to me. I looked at my cousins, with their new husbands, and I could see so much happiness and love emanating from the couples. They had both found their soul mates. And then I thought, who are we to stop any person from experiencing the same feelings my cousins had on the day of their wedding? How can we stop two people from getting married just because of their gender? That is why the issue of Gay Marriage is important to me. Marriage is about love, and love has no boundaries.

In this blog, I, along with my fellow classmates, am going to discuss and argue that gay and lesbian couples, like any other couple, should have the right to marry.

Intro

Hey guys, Alex here. Im just letting everybody know that I exist. I guess our topic is gay marriage. This isnt my favorite topic in the world, but I'm going to stick it out and do my best at the job that I have to do.

This blog, for me at least, is all about expression of opinion via argument. My personal opinion is that gay marriage should not be allowed, and that is the argument that I will be making during this project. I believe that there are others out in the world that feel the same way that I do, and my job is to understand and rationalize their thoughts and patterns into a cohesive blog project that I and the others of my group can use and argue about.

"I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about." President Obama. (abcnews.com blog)

I know it is not my place to say who can or cannot be married, but I think if the president has the same opinion that I do, then I hold a valid point in this argument.

Thanks,
Alex Keiler

Introduction

Hi, my name is Adam and I am excited for the opportunity to address the arguments and debates surrounding the issue of gay marriage. Personally I believe homosexuals should be afforded all the rights that heterosexual citizens enjoy, including the right to enter into a legal, recognized marriage with the one they love and want to spend their life with. This quote from Martin Luther King Jr. in a letter from Birmingham jail defines my position on the issue:

"An unjust law is (one that a) majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. ... "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up there privileges voluntarily."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.


The fact that the members of the homosexual minority group in the United States are not allowed to legally marry is, in my opinion, an unjust provision in United States law and a privilege that some Americans within the majority are too stubborn to allow others to experience. To me, this is a matter that should be examined through public opinion and the concept of equal social rights, not in terms of religious values or the traditional/institutional nature of marriage. However all of these angles must be covered to get a true picture of the debate surrounding same sex marriage and I am excited to get started...


"There’s no reason that the government should prevent homosexuals from entering civil marriages because some religions object to the concept, any more than the government should ban atheism because some religions object to it." -Lisa Pampuch Newspaper Columnist

Check back for updates and I am welcome to arguments and opinions on all sides of the issue.
-Adam