Arguments opposing same-sex marriage are often made on religious grounds. In Studies 1 and 2, we discovered that the relationship between religiosity and opposition to same-sex marriage was mediated by explicit sexual prejudice. In Study 3, we saw that the mediating effect of sexual prejudice was linked to political conservatism.
A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting.
The main argument put forward in favour of altering the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman is that this discriminates against relationships between individuals of the same sex and hence constitutes a violation of their right to have their relationship recognised as having equal value. The question now becomes one of determining whether the argument is sound, since it appears to be a valid argument - that is, assuming the premises from which it begins are true, the conclusion is true. On the other hand, if any of the premises are false, then the conclusion is false, though the argument is still valid since the form of the argument is valid.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence. The time has come for Australia to provide for same-sex marriages. This would reflect the countries with which we compare ourselves, including the US and the UK, and it would acknowledge the contemporary meaning of marriage in Western liberal democracies. As I write, however, progress has stalled.
The trend line is clear. And the choice before the justices is whether to be handmaidens of history, or whether to sit it out. Bruni may well be right, given the trajectory and the trend-line he has described.
Both in the U. Accordingly, more and more people are starting to acknowledge the flawed nature of all arguments which oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. This article discusses 10 of the most common positions presented by opponents of marriage equality and outlines why each deserves a failing grade.
The American Family Association published a list of 10 arguments against same-sex marriage in Ostensibly a summary of James Dobson's Marriage Under Firethe arguments made a very loose case against same-sex marriage based almost entirely on slippery slopes and out-of-context quotations from the Bible. If you've never seen this list before, your first reaction may be anger.
In the debate over gay marriage, opponents have many arguments that profess their belief that it should not be legal. These include many moral and religious reasons that point to a threat to the sacred institution of marriage. This debate brings up many questions. In an attempt to understand the issue, let's examine common arguments against same-sex marriage and why they may not stand up in modern America.
Many views are held or have been expressed by religious organisations in relation to same-sex marriage. Although the majority of world religions oppose to same-sex marriage, the number of religious denominations that are conducting same-sex marriages have been increasing in recent times. Religious views on same-sex marriage are closely related to religious views on homosexuality.
Updated September 06, Today, the High Court is hearing arguments about the same-sex marriage plebisurveythingummy, which, in the opinion of constitutional guru George Williams, is likely to be struck down. But while the silks slug it out, what better time to look at the arguments that have been playing out in the public space?