the same sex marriage thesis statement

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

Introduction

The same-sex marriage has sparked both emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents for years. Although it has been regulated through law and religion in many countries around the world, legal and social responses often range from celebration to criminalisation of the pair.

Essay No - 1

Marriage equality – importance of same sex union.

Back in 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a watershed judgement that was ordained to go down the archives of the country’s history. In spite of the majoritarian prejudices prevalent in India directed towards the LGBT community, the apex court revoked the draconian and out-dated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 

This Section, in typically vague and diplomatic terms, belittled homosexuality and criminalised intercourse that goes against the “laws of nature”. It was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code under the British Raj in 1861, and it took the Indian judiciary system 70 years since independence, to abrogate the law and decriminalise homosexuality. 

Nonetheless, the landmark decision was met with euphoria from its proponents, especially the activists who fought for the cause for more than a decade, wrangling with society and courts to attain equality in the eyes of the law. Even though a marriage equality essay is far from sight in a time when it is legal to marry the person one loves irrespective of their gender identity or sex, the decision by Supreme Court portends its occurrence. 

Equality in Marriage

Equality in marriage is an idea, which propagates that all marriages notwithstanding whether it is a Sapphic marriage or gay marriage or heterogeneous matrimony are equal and should enjoy similar rights and status in society.

Unfortunately, our society’s construct is such that we grow up with the idea that only a man and woman can be bound in matrimony. And while doing so, we overlook the multitudes of individuals that associate with different sexual preferences and gender identities. 

While the western world marches toward inclusive societies, where individuals are treated as equals irrespective of their sexuality or gender, we still are in the embryonic stages towards such acceptance. 

If one searches for same-sex marriage essay or statistics, one will find that support for marriage equality in countries like the USA hovers above 60%, a data presented by Pew Research Center. And if one were to rummage through the same statistics for India, it is a dismal 18%, according to a poll by Mood of the Nation (MOTN) in 2019.

Importance of Same-Sex Marriage

Because no change is appreciated until it contributes to the betterment of society in one way or another, proponents of an inclusive society have long contested its importance in same-gender marriage essays and discourses.

We are an overpopulated country and encouragement of marriage equality and an increase in same-sex matrimonies would lead to lower population growth. At the same time, it might witness a growth in adoptions of orphans, which is a significant move towards a holistic society. 

And last but not the least it would be an encouraging shift towards adherence to the laws of human rights, which dictates that no human should live under discrimination, fear, or oppression. 

The seeds of prejudice prevalent in our society, however, will not change overnight. Our traditions and social construct are vastly different from those of western societies. A change in mindset is a process that might take decades and even centuries. 

Nonetheless, the change should begin somewhere. And awareness that every human is equal and their preferences and choices about who they love and marry should not be a ground for discrimination is quintessential to that change. 

Essay No - 2

Same-gender marriage: a threat or blessing for the reunion of two people.

Marriage or wedlock is the cultural union of two people for a lifetime. Considered an integral part of one’s life, it involves both legal and social formalities performed by the two families in concern. Besides, it also comprises regulations and obligations to be followed by the spouses and their children as well as their immediate family members.

However, there have been instances where marriage equality essays have been spoken of by many. These are instances where marriage between couples of the same gender is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, the global society is evolving and people are coming out of the closet more often than ever before.

How Does the World Perceive?

Most communities are becoming liberal in terms of being more accepting in nature. People by and large are taking a stand to abide by their sexuality. It is no more a matter of shame that has to be kept hidden or shut behind the doors.

Multiple same sex marriage essay has come up sighting the incidents where the couple were accepted by their respective families. In addition, the act of legalization of same-sex marriage has been going on since the past two decades with great vigour.

Countries like the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium had legalised it in the wake of the 2000s, while other countries such as Canada, South Africa, and Norway followed suit in the upcoming years.

The marriage equality essay has been in the limelight because more people are opening up about the benefits and importance of such marriages in today’s world. The reasons that have fuelled such a dramatic change can be listed below as -

People can be themselves and do not have to try hard to get accepted for who they are.

They are proud of both their individuality as well as sexuality and do not have to wear a mask.

They can plan for the future instead of having to succumb to societal pressure.

Same-sex couples now have the opportunity to live with their loved ones happily, without having to take cover. 

The spread of the same gender marriage essay has been a saviour for many who were not aware of the changes that are taking place all around the world. It has not only made the LGBTQ community aware but also encouraged them to evaluate themselves and take the plunge to raise their voices too. They can now take a stand for themselves and feel relieved that they are not discriminated against anymore.

What is the Scope in the Future?

Although a significant part of the world including countries like Taiwan, Germany, USA, etc. have been able to match the steps with the advancing surrounding; there is still a section who has not. Even now, marriage equality essays and other online content create backlash.

Therefore, it is essential that more people come forward and join hands to the cause of being united in terms of accepting the bond between people. 

Essay No – 3

Same-sex marriage - the changing attitude of modern society.

Most religions and cultures accept that marriage is not a trivial matter but is a key to the pursuit of happiness. However, they still openly criticise the practice of same-sex weddings. Fortunately, the stigma related to homophobia and LGBTQ community is slowly but surely lessening. Better education, introduction to different cultures, and an open mindset played a critical role in this development. 

Let’s discuss the changing attitude of today’s society and the benefits a culture might enjoy in this same-sex marriage essay.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage

During the mid-20 th century, historian Johann Jakob Bachofen and Lewis Henry Morgan made systematic analyses of the marriage and kinship habits in different cultures. They noted that most cultures expressed support towards a heteronormative form of marriage that revolves around union between opposite-sex partners. However, all these cultures practised some form of flexibility while following these ideals. 

Scholars like historian John Boswell often declared that same-sex unions were recognised in medieval Europe, but the most notable changes were introduced during the late 20 th century. 

An Accepting Society

A more stable society was created over the years, with a better understanding of each other and acceptance for the different. As the culture opened its arms to learn about others, it also learned about minority groups such as the LGBT community. Similar to racial equality, or the equality movement for women, growing acceptance of that community ultimately made the commune much more stable. 

Many consider that same-sex unity will only benefit the homosexual community. However, it leaves a much more profound impact on the overall society. To begin with, it will reduce homophobia by a significant margin. Acknowledging a homosexual relationship will also reduce hate crimes in countries like India. There are many research papers and marriage equality essays available that show how communities that allow an individual to choose their partner to enjoy a significantly less rate of crime. 

The Economic Boost

An unlikely benefit of same-sex marriage and a compassionate society towards homosexuals is the economic boost. For one, the wedding and marriage industry is the biggest beneficiary of same-sex marriage, as it increases their customer base by a significant margin. It also allows several business providers to service them, and helps the travel and tourism industry by boosting the number of honeymoon goers.

For example, businesses in New York enjoyed almost 260 million dollars boost within a year when same-sex marriage was legalised. Similar effects were also found in other countries.

Even though India still hasn’t shaken the stigma attached to a same-sex relationship, somewhat modern society is slowly learning to accept the diversity of human nature. With the help of the government, activists, and hundreds of individuals creating and posting blogs, same-gender marriage essays on the internet, society is gradually becoming an understanding and nurturing entity for everyone.

FAQs on Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

1. Which countries have legalized same-sex marriage and when?

With the advancement in the thought process of people, many countries have passed laws in favor of same-sex marriage, thereby legalizing it in their countries. The first countries to legalize same-sex marriage before 2010 were the Netherlands who legalized it in 2001, Belgium legalized it in 2003, Canada and Spain legalized it in 2005, South Africa in 2006, Sweden and Norway in 2009 and Iceland, Argentina, and Portugal legalized same-sex marriage in 2010. Later on, Denmark legalised it in 2012, and countries like Uruguay, New Zealand, France, and Brazil in 2013, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United States in 2015, Colombia in 2016,  Malta, Germany, and Finland in 2017, Australia in 2018 and Ecuador and Austria in 2019. The recent country to legalize same-sex marriage is the United Kingdom. Thus, now people have started accepting the idea of same-sex marriages across the world.

2. What is the importance of same-sex marriage and why should it be legalized?

As the world is progressing we all must understand that each one of us is a human being and before labelling us with our caste and love preference, we must learn to respect each other. In this progressing era as more people with same-sex preference are coming up it has become more important to accept and legalize same-sex marriage because of the following reasons:

It will give people a chance to be themselves and enjoy their own individuality.

It will make people understand that loving a person of the same sex is not wrong or abnormal.

It will teach people that it is better for people to spend their lives with someone they love and not with the person whom they don’t even like.

This will make this place a much happier space to be in.

It gives people with homosexuality a hope of a happy life.

3. What is the status of same-sex marriage in India?

Same-sex marriage in India is still not encouraged. In India, neither the laws are lenient nor the people are broad-minded to accept it happening around them. The legal and community barriers never give these people a chance to prove themselves. Indian society is not very welcoming to changes that are different from the customs and culture they have practised till now. Thus, any change in these cultural laws gives rise to an outburst of anger in the country which makes legalising these issues even more sensitive and challenging for the law. India still needs time to get accustomed to the concept of same-sex marriage. However, not knowing about the concept is a different thing, and completely opposing it is different, therefore, awareness about such issues is very necessary for the developing countries so that people can first understand the pros and cons of it and then either accept it or reject it. Not only in India, but in other countries also, the idea of same-sex marriage is not accepted because they think it is against their religion. People opposing the LGBTQ community to get the right to marry their lovers take away the very basic human right of such people. There has been a long-lasting war for the members of the LGBTQ community for their rights. Although there have been some positive results in recent years, for example, the end of Section 377, which criminalizes homosexuality. However, India still has a long way to go in terms of the LGBTQ community and their rights.

4. What approaches can be used to legalize same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage is currently not taken in kind words by the people but slowly and steadily the things are changing and people are able to change their perspective with respect to the LGBT community. Legalizing same-sex marriage in a country like India where a number of religions and customs are practiced is really difficult. Therefore, few approach switch can help legalize same-sex marriage without hurting any religion are that the existing laws are interpreted in such a way that they legalize same-sex marriage, LGBT can be regarded as a different community which has customs of its own that permits same-sex marriage, making amendments in the Act itself or all the religions can individually interpret their marriage laws in such a way that same-sex marriage becomes in accordance with their religion.

5. Briefly discuss your view on same-sex marriages?

Same-sex marriage refers to the marriage of the same sex which is similar to heterosexual marriages in terms of rituals and proceedings. Same-sex marriages should not be ashamed of and are justified because after all love knows no boundaries. The community must be made aware of this concept so that they can appreciate and celebrate the union of two loving souls without considering their gender. The community as a whole must attempt to legalize and accept same-sex marriage with respect to the laws, religion, and customs of the country. In the coming years, there is a ray of hope that same-sex marriages will also be celebrated just like normal marriages in India.

• < Previous

Home > College of Arts and Sciences > Anthropology > ANTHRO_THESES > 10

Anthropology Theses

Identity as politics, politics as identity: an anthropological examination of the political discourse on same-sex marriage.

Jeremy Jay Greenup Follow

Date of Award

Degree type, degree name.

Master of Arts (MA)

Anthropology

First Advisor

Emanuela Guano - Chair

Second Advisor

Kathryn A. Kozaitis

Third Advisor

Susan McCombie

Fourth Advisor

Cassandra White

Marriage has come to be center-stage in a semiotic and ideological “culture war.” The issue of same-sex marriage has emerged as a defining political argument shaping the manner by which the contemporary gay rights movement positions itself. In Georgia’s 2004 election, a constitutional amendment was proposed defining marriage as legal unions between only biological men and women. In response, campaigns were organized by both supporters and opponents to same-sex marriage. This thesis examines the politics of spectacle at play through which both sides of this argument positioned themselves. This thesis employs anthropological theory, queer theory and public sphere literature to illuminate the campaign against same-sex marriage as one of not only the denial of citizenship rights, but of identity recognition. The methods of theatricality employed by both sides of this debate are examined alongside the manners by which they represented themselves as legitimate voices in the fight over “marriage.”

https://doi.org/10.57709/1059161

Recommended Citation

Greenup, Jeremy Jay, "Identity as Politics, Politics as Identity: An Anthropological Examination of the Political Discourse on Same-Sex Marriage." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.57709/1059161

Since February 08, 2010

Included in

Anthropology Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Submit ETD (Thesis/Dissertation)
• Department of Anthropology

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Moral discourse, political culture, and the debate over same-sex marriage

Add to collection, downloadable content.

• March 21, 2019
• Affiliation: College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Sociology
• In the last decade, Americans across the nation have confronted the issue of same-sex marriage, creating a moral discourse that before did not exist. In this paper I analyze the frames used in debates over constitutional amendments defining marriage and other relationship recognition in newspapers in seven states. Contrary to previous research on public discussion of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) rights which argues that debates are polarized by values of equal rights vs. traditional morality, I find that, Americans also invoke tolerance, Constitutionality, family values, and separation of governmental powers when confronted with the issue of same-sex marriage. Additionally, I show that use of some of these frames varies by state, confirming my hypothesis of the role of political culture. This research has implications for the role of moral discourse in political culture and the ways political culture varies (and the ways it does not vary) nationally.
• December 2008
• https://doi.org/10.17615/tyj0-gh69
• Masters Thesis
• In Copyright
• Perrin, Andrew J.
• Open access
• October 11, 2010

This work has no parents.

Select type of work

Master's papers.

Deposit your masters paper, project or other capstone work. Theses will be sent to the CDR automatically via ProQuest and do not need to be deposited.

Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters

Deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter. If you would like to deposit a poster, presentation, conference paper or white paper, use the “Scholarly Works” deposit form.

Undergraduate Honors Theses

Deposit your senior honors thesis.

Scholarly Journal, Newsletter or Book

Deposit a complete issue of a scholarly journal, newsletter or book. If you would like to deposit an article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.

Deposit your dataset. Datasets may be associated with an article or deposited separately.

Deposit your 3D objects, audio, images or video.

Poster, Presentation, Protocol or Paper

Deposit scholarly works such as posters, presentations, research protocols, conference papers or white papers. If you would like to deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The introduction of same-sex marriage in germany—a question of conscience and/or faith a case study.

1. Introduction

2. focus: approaches of discourse analysis in the sociology of knowledge and religious studies, 3. discourse actors and data, 4. the discourse field: the historical discursive structure and conditions of the contemporary discourse about same-sex marriage in germany, 4.1. the decision of conscience among political actors: government parties (cdu/csu and spd) and opposition parties (alliance 90/the greens and the left party).

‘We see equality as a process. We are gradually making changes to the law—always where there is a need. (…) I believe that it is still appropriate to call different things different things. (…) The thesis is being put forward that only with the implementation of marriage for all can any discrimination be ruled out. (…) I have also repeatedly pointed out in recent times that this thesis can be rejected relatively quickly. (…) At the end of my speech, it is important for me to outline once again what the Federal Constitutional Court has said about this, because the impression is repeatedly created: The Federal Constitutional Court demands marriage for all.—The Federal Constitutional Court said quite literally on 7 May 2013: <Marriage is the institution reserved solely for the union between a man and a woman.>—If you read the decision, you will see that the Federal Constitutional Court differentiates very nicely by stating that civil partnerships can indeed form families and are therefore protected by Article 6 of the Basic Law, but that they do not fall under the concept of marriage. (…) Marriage is protected by constitutional law, and there is also a reason for this, namely the biological difference that marriage can in principle and purely potentially produce children. (…) Finally, I would like to support my parliamentary group, the CDU/CSU, once again. We are a people’s party. It is part of the character of a people’s party that it is a very broad-based representative of the population. It is quite natural that there are people who would like to liberalize marriage for everyone and others who, like me, have counter-arguments and see things differently. But I don’t want to be accused of this.’ ( Hofmann 2017, pp. 23.555C–23.556C, author’s translation )

‘Today we have a social majority that has gone so far that 68% of all Germans say: Yes, I support marriage equality. Even almost as many members of the Catholic Church say this. 67% of members of Protestant churches (…) That’s why I would like to call on the entire CDU/CSU and also the SPD: Take heart! (…) not only be proud of the old partnership law, but also take note of the fact that in the end you will have to say: Now I have the courage to raise my voice and vote accordingly. I have the courage to finally put an end to the unequal treatment of things that are the same.—Because love is equal to love. Responsibility is equal to responsibility. There is no second-class love.’ ( Künast 2016, p. 15.276C )

‘(This Day) is first of all historic for us, for our society and for its values, which we continue to strengthen today: for human dignity, for the free development of the personality, and especially for the equality of all people under the law. (…) It is historic for civil society and its political struggle for equal rights. After more than 25 years, countless CSDs, initiatives and campaigns, I am delighted that it will hopefully reach its well-deserved climax today, ladies and gentlemen. It’s about something very simple: it’s about marriage. But it is also about the way we live together in our country. Marriage is said to be conservative. That’s why I don’t quite understand why conservatives are so strongly opposed to it. No, nothing is being taken away from anyone. Trust, commitment, reliability: that’s what it’s all about, for everyone. Take your conscience in your hands and be happy.’ ( Göring-Eckhardt 2017, pp. 25.108B–25.109B, author’s translation )

4.2. The Decision of Conscience by the Social Actors: LSVD and HuK

‘Let me remind you once again of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, our pioneer from the 19th century. At the time, some doctors reviewed his writings and then and declared him insane via remote diagnosis. A Prussian textbook of forensic medicine wrote at the time: this Mr. Ulrichs could not be ‘in full possession of his mind’. His ‘utter madness’ was demonstrated by the fact that he had ‘already gone so far as to demand the marriage of two men’. […] Today, on the other hand, it is a litmus test of how civilized a society is that it recognizes that the <justification> of male and female love is based on elementary fundamental rights: human dignity, the free development of personality and equality.’ ( Dworek 2011, p. 12 )

‘Declaring the registry office a no-go area for lesbians and gays was really bad, petty harassment. It was a classic example of political shabbiness—the exact opposite of civic decency. But it was also a losing battle. […] Baden-Württemberg alone continued to proclaim this policy of disregard as the raison d’être of the state until March of this year [2011]. These Christian knights in sad shape apparently believed in all seriousness that this time they had to defend the West not in the Hindu Kush but in the Swabian Alb. Now they have been deselected. That is only right! The government in Stuttgart has already initiated the reopening of the registry offices’ ( Dworek 2011, author’s translation ). The LSVD likewise categorized the introduction of same-sex marriage in Ireland: ‘The LSVD congratulates Ireland on this great success for equal rights, diversity and respect. Even in a country that is as Catholic as Ireland, the majority of the population says: yes to equal rights, no to homophobia and discrimination against same-sex love.’ ( LSVD 2015, author’s translation )

4.3. The Decision of Conscience for Religious Actors: DBK and EKD

‘A fundamental characteristic of marriage, which is protected by Article 6 (1) of the Basic Law as an institutional guarantee, is that it is the union of a woman and a man. This was confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court in its decision on the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act in 2002, in which it considered the registered civil partnership to be an aliud to marriage and stated that the same-sex nature of the partners differentiated the institution of the registered civil partnership from marriage and constituted it at the same time. (…) Irrespective of the specific legislative proposal, I would like to advocate retaining the existing concept of marriage and thus the distinction between a registered civil partnership and marriage. Church, state and society share the experience that marriage combines the aspects of a reliable couple relationship and the transmission of the life of the biological parents to their children in a special way. As a union in which the partners take on mutual responsibility and which is open for joint offspring, it is of great importance both for the individual and for the community. For this reason, Article 6 (1) of the Basic Law is not only understood as an institutional guarantee, but also as a value decision for a special form of cohabitation. In this special form, it differs from other cohabiting relationships that lack certain characteristics that characterize marriage.’ ( DBK 2017a, Nr. 17/author’s translation )

‘(…) I regret that the legislator has abandoned key aspects of the concept of marriage in order to make it suitable for same-sex partnerships. At the same time, I regret that today’s decision has abandoned a differentiated view of various forms of partnership in order to emphasize the value of same-sex partnerships. However, differentiation is not discrimination. An appreciation of same-sex cohabitation can also be expressed through a different institutional structure. It does not have to be expressed by making the legal institution of marriage open to same-sex partnerships. (…) It is worth considering that many of those who for a long time fought against the institution of marriage as hostile to life and an outdated model have now become fervent advocates of ‘marriage for all’. It is thought-provoking to see how fundamental convictions in the understanding of marriage are being abandoned with reference to necessary flexibility, changing times and popular moods. It is sad that the legal institution of marriage has become caught up in the wheels of political tactics. Marriage does not deserve this. (…) At the same time, I would like to remind you that the sacramental character of our understanding of marriage remains unaffected by today’s decision in the German Bundestag. Especially in the current debate, it is important for me to emphasize that the German Bishops’ Conference has stressed in its statements on civil partnership law that it would be a misunderstanding to understand the emphasized legal status of marriage and its continued special protection as discrimination against homosexual men and women. As a church, we have respect for those same-sex partnerships in which mutual responsibility and care is assumed for many years.’ ( DBK 2017b, author’s translation )

5. Summary: The Aspects of Law, Emotion and Religion as Discursive Strategies in the Discourse Coalition between Supporters and Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Baumann, Martin, and Frank Neubert, eds. 2010. Einleitung: Zur Neuformierung von Religion in der Gegenwart. In Religionspolitik—Öffentlichkeit—Wissenschaft. Studien zur Neuformierung von Religion in der Gegenwart . Zürich: Pano Verlag, pp. 9–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bräunlein, Peter J. 2015. Die langen 1960er Jahre [Ungekürzte Manuskriptversion]. In Handbuch der Religionsgeschichte im deutschsprachigen Raum. Band 6/1: 20. Jahrhundert—Epochen und Themen . Edited by Peter Dinzelbacher. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, pp. 1–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brinkschröder, Michael. 2006. Sodom als Symptom: Gleichgeschlechtliche Sexualität im christlichen Imaginären—eine religionsgeschichtliche Anamnese . Berlin: De Gruyter. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunner. 2016. DB (10.11.2016): BT-PlPr. 18/199, 19.894A-19.900D. Deutscher Bundestag-Endgültige Plenarprotokolle. Available online: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/protokolle/plenarprotokolle (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• Brunner. 2017. DB (30.06.2017): BT-PlPr. 18/244, 25.115A-25.115B. Deutscher Bundestag-Endgültige Plenarprotokolle. Available online: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/protokolle/plenarprotokolle/plenarprotokolle) (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• DBK. 2017a. DBK (29.06.2017/Pressemeldung Nr. 017). Brief von Prälat Dr. Karl Jüsten an die Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestages zur. June 29. [ Google Scholar ]
• DBK. 2017b. DBK 30.06.2017 DBK (30.06.2017/Pressemitteilung Nr. 110). Erzbischof Koch zur Entscheidung im Deutschen Bundestag für die <Ehe für alle>. June 30. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dworek, Günther. 2011. LSVD. Die Zeit ist reif für die Ehe. Rede auf der LSVD-Konferenz zu Zehn Jahre Eingetragener Lebenspartnerschaft am 30. Juli 2011 in Berlin. pp. 1–12. Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/fileadmin/pics/Dokumente/Politik/Oeffnung_der_Ehe/Dworek_10_Jahre_LPartG_2011_Berlin.pdf (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• Ebner, Katharina. 2018. Religion im Parlament. Homosexualität als Gegenstand parlamentarischer Debatten im Vereinigten Königreich und in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–1990) . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eder, Franz X. 2014. Homo- und andere gleichgeschlechtliche Sexualitäten in Geschichte und Gegenwart“. In Was ist Homosexualität? Forschungsgeschichte, gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen und Perspektiven . Edited by Florian Mildenberger, Jennifer Evans, Rüdiger Lautmann and Jakob Pastötter. Hamburg: Männerschwarm Verlag, pp. 17–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• EKD. 2017. „Vertrauen, Verlässlichkeit und Verantwortung“ Stellungnahme des Rates der EKD zur Debatte über die „Ehe für alle“. June 28. [ Google Scholar ]
• epd. 2017. Vertreter der EKD begrüßen Bundestagsbeschluss zur <Ehe für alle>. June 30. Available online: https://www.ekd.de/EKD-Ehe-fuer-alle-Abstimmung-Bundestag-24425.htm (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• Exner-Krikorian, Sabine. 2021. Die Ehe ist ein ethisch‘ Ding?—Die Evangelische Kirche in den Aushandlungsprozessen um die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe in Deutschland. In Mitteilungen zur Kirchlichen Zeitgeschichte 15/2021 . Edited by Claudia Lepp and Harry Oelke. München: Uni-Druck, pp. 123–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Exner-Krikorian, Sabine. 2022. Recht auf Liebe. Eine Diskursanalyse über die gleichgeschlechtliche Ehe in Deutschland . Wiesbaden: Springer VS. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuhrmann, Inken. 1998. Die Diskussion über die Einführung der fakultativen Zivilehe in Deutschland und Österreich seit Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts . Frankfurt: Peter Lang. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerhard, Ute. 2005. Die Ehe als Geschlechter- und Gesellschaftsvertrag. Zum Bedeutungswandel der Ehe im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert“. In Liebe und Widerstand. Ambivalenzen historischer Geschlechterbeziehungen . Edited by Ingrid Bauer, Christa Hämmerle and Gabriele Hauch. Wien: Böhlau, pp. 449–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giddens, Anthony. 1997. Die Konstitution der Gesellschaft. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Strukturierung . Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. First published 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gladigow, Burkhard. 1995. Europäische Religionsgeschichte“. In Lokale Religionsgeschichte . Edited by Hans G. Kippenberg and Brigitte Luchesi. Marburg: Diagonal, pp. 21–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goertz, Stephan. 2015. “Wer bin ich, ihn zu verurteilen?” Homosexualität und katholische Kirche. Katholizismus im Umbruch, Bd. 3 . Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. [ Google Scholar ]
• Göring-Eckhardt. 2017. DB (30.06.2017): BT-PlPr. 18/244, 25.105C-B-25.1115C; 25.117A-25.120C. Deutscher Bundestag-Endgültige Plenarprotokolle. Available online: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/protokolle/plenarprotokolle (accessed on 15 September 2024).
• Großbölting, Thomas. 2013. Der verlorene Himmel. Glaube in Deutschland seit 1945 . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grosse-Brömer. 2017. DB (17.05.2017): BT-PlPr. 18/233, 23.549D-23.562A. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gutfleisch. 2013. HuK (30.08.2013): „Weder Glaubenskampf noch Wahlkampf. HuK und NkaL zur Debatte um die Homo-Ehe“. [ Google Scholar ]
• Habermas, Jürgen. 2016. Glauben und Wissen: Rede zum Friedenspreis des Deutschen Buchhandels 2001 . Frankfurt: suhrkamp. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heichel, Stephanie, Christoph Knill, Caroline Preidel, and Kerstin Nebel. 2015. Moralpolitik in Deutschland. Bestimmungsfaktoren und Rahmenbedingungen. In Moralpolitik in Deutschland . Edited by Christoph Knill, Stephan Heichel, Caroline Preidel and Kerstin Nebel. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 24–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hennig, Anja. 2012. Moralpolitik und Religion. Bedingungen politisch-religiöser Kooperation in Polen, Italien und Spanien . Würzburg: Ergon Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herzog, Dagmar. 2018. Lust und Verwundbarkeit. Zur Zeitgeschichte der Sexualität in Europa und den USA . Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofmann. 2017. DB (17.05.2017): BT-PlPr. 18/233, 23.549D-23.562A. 17 May. Deutscher Bundestag-Endgültige Plenarprotokolle. Available online: https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/protokolle/plenarprotokolle (accessed on 15 September 2024).
• Högl. 2017. DB (30.06.2017): BT-PlPr. 18/244, 25.109B-25.109–25.110A. [ Google Scholar ]
• HuK. 1994. Farbe bekennen . Köln: Prima Print. Available online: https://www.huk.org/aktivitaeten/publikationen/farbe-bekennen (accessed on 24 August 2024).
• HuK. 2017a. Ein wunderbarer Tag: Trauschein und Respekt für alle. Ökumenische Arbeitsgruppe Homosexuelle und Kirche zur Bundestagsentscheidung“. June 30. Available online: https://www.huk.org/presse/pressemitteilungen/130-ein-wunderbarer-tag-trauschein-und-respekt-fuer-alle (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• HuK. 2017b. Kanzlerin: Ehe für alle ist doch christlich—Kauder und katholische Bischöfe im Abseits Ökumenische Arbeitsgruppe Homosexuelle und Kirche zur Ehe für alle. June 27. Available online: https://www.huk.org/presse/pressemitteilungen/131-kanzlerin-ehe-fuer-alle-ist-doch-christlich-kauder-und-katholische-bischoefe-im-abseits (accessed on 15 September 2024).
• Jakobsen, Janet R., and Ann Pellegrini. 2004. Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance . Boston: Beacon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufmann. 2016. DB (18.02.2016): BT-PlPr. 18/155, 15273A-15282B. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufmann. 2017. DB (17.05.2017): BT-PlPr. 18/233, 23.549D-23.562A. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller, Reiner. 2011. Diskursforschung. Eine Einführung . Wiesbaden: vs. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koch, Anne. 2007. Zur Interdependenz von Religion und Wirtschaft—Religionsökonomische Perspektiven. In Ökonomie und Religion . Edited by Martin Heid, Gisela Kubon-Gilke and Richard Sturn. Marburg: Metropolis, pp. 39–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kramer, Franziska. 2017. Über die Wandlungsfähigkeit des Grundgesetzes am Beispiel gleichgeschlechtlich orientierter Personen und Paare. Reihe: Mannheimer Beiträge zum Öffentlichen Recht und Steuerrecht . Frankfur: Peter Lang. [ Google Scholar ]
• Künast. 2016. DB (18.02.2016): BT-PlPr. 18/155, 15273A-15282B. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lepp, Claudia. 2016. Die Kirchen als sexualmoralische Anstalt? Fremdwahrnehmung und Selbstverständnis zwischen Verbotsethik und Beratung. In Religion und Lebensführung im Umbruch der langen 1960er Jahre . Edited by Claudia Lepp, Harry Oelke and Detlef Pollack. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 287–313. [ Google Scholar ]
• LSVD. 1997. Hamburger Mustertexte (lsvd.de). Available online: https://archive.lsvd.de/bund/recht/hamburg/hamburg.html (accessed on 15 September 2024).
• LSVD. 2013. Stimmen Sie für gleiche Rechte! Appell an die Unterstützer in der schwarz-gelben Koalition. March 13. Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/de/home (accessed on 10 October 2016).
• LSVD. 2015. Irland wählt gleiche Rechte. In Deutschland blockiert UNION. May 23. Irland wählt gleiche Rechte (lsvd.de). Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/de/ct/342-Irland-waehlt-gleiche-Rechte (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• LSVD. 2016. Keine weitere Blockade der #EheFürAlle. Bundestag berät erneut die Öffnung der Ehe. Das Ergebnis ist abzusehen: Nichts. February 18. Keine weitere Blockade der #EheFürAlle (lsvd.de). Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/de/ct/304-Keine-weitere-Blockade-der-EheFuerAlle (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• LSVD. 2017a. Am Ende siegen Vernunft und der konsequente Kampf für die Öffnung der Ehe. June 28. Am Ende siegen Vernunft und der konsequente Kampf für die Öffnung der Ehe (lsvd.de). Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/de/ct/219-Am-Ende-siegen-Vernunft-und-der-konsequente-Kampf-fuer-die-Oeffnung-der-Ehe (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• LSVD. 2017b. Deutschland hat für die Liebe gestimmt. June 30. Deutschland hat für die Liebe gestimmt (lsvd.de). Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/de/ct/218-Deutschland-hat-fuer-die-Liebe-gestimmt (accessed on 15 September 2024).
• LSVD. 2017c. Gleiche Rechte sind Auftrag des Grundgesetzes. Angela Merkel rückt von ihrer Blockade bei der Eheöffnung ab und will gesichtswahrend auf Zeit spielen. June 27. 220 (lsvd.de). Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/lsvd/api/de/api/pm2pdf/220 (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• LSVD. 2019. Gemeinsam besser, gemeinsam stärker, gemeinsam erfolgreicher. Available online: https://www.lsvd.de/de/ct/1026-Gemeinsam-besser-gemeinsam-staerker-gemeinsam-erfolgreicher (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• Luczak. 2017. DB (30.06.2017): BT-PlPr. 18/244, 25.105C-B-25.1115C; 25.117A-25.120C. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maschwitz, Alexandra. 2014. Die Form der Eheschließung. Ehe im Zentrum des Interesses von Staat und Religion—eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung der obligatorischen und fakultativen Zivileheschließung am Beispiel Deutschlands und Schwedens. Bonner Rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen Neue Folge Bd. 12 . Göttingen: V& R unipress, Bonn University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mieszkowski, Sylvia. 2014. Was war und ist? In Was ist Homosexualität. Forschungsgeschichte, Gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen und Perspektiven . Edited by Florian Mildenberger, Jennifer Evans, Rüdiger Lautmann and Jakob Pastötter. Hamburg: Männerschwarm Verlag, pp. 41–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neumaier, Christopher. 2019. Familie im 20. Jahrhundert: Konflikte um Ideale, Politiken und Praktiken . Oldenbourg: De Gruyter.(phoenix 2017) phoenix. 2017, Angela Merkel zur Ehe für alle am 26.06.2017. Phoenix vor Ort. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUnzOA_Nlww (accessed on 15 September 2024).
• Preidel, Carolina. 2015. Das zögerliche Ja-Wort zur Homo-Ehe. In Moralpolitik in Deutschland. Staatliche Regulierung gesellschaftlicher Wertekonflikte im historischen und internationalen Vergleich . Edited by Christoph Knill, Stephan Heichel, Caroline Preidel and Kerstin Nebel. Wiesbaden: vs. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 147–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raab, Heike. 2011. Sexuelle Politiken. Die Diskurse zum Lebenspartnerschaftsgesetz . Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism . Columbia: Columbia University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmidt, Thomas M. 2014. Rationalisierung der Gesellschaft als Versprachlichung des Sakralen (Habermas). In Religion und Säkularisierung . Edited by Annette Pitschmann. Stuttgart and Weimar: Verlag J.B. Metzler, pp. 20–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwab, Dieter. 1999. Gleichberechtigung und Familienrecht im 20. Jahrhundert. In Frauen in der Geschichte des Rechts: Von der frühen Neuzeit bis zur Gegenwart . Edited by Ute Gerhard. München: Beck, pp. 790–827. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwab, Dieter. 2013. Entwicklungen im Familienrecht vor und nach 1945. In Die Rosenburg. Das Bundesministerium der Justiz und die NS-Vergangenheit—eine Bestandsaufnahme . Edited by Manfred Görtemaker and Christoph Safferling. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, pp. 296–326. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott, Joan W. 2009. Sexularism. Ursula Hirschmann Annual Lecture on Gender and Europe made at Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, 23 April 2009. RSCAS Distinguished Lecture 2009/01. Florence. Available online: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/11553/RSCAS_DL_2009_01.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• Seiwert, Hubert. 1995. Religion in der Geschichte der Moderne. Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft Nr. 1, pp. 91–101. (PDF) Religion in der Geschichte der Moderne (researchgate.net). Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274338457_Religion_in_der_Geschichte_der_Moderne (accessed on 22 August 2024).
• Ullrich. 2016. DB (18.02.2016): BT-PlPr. 18/155, 15273A-15282B. February 18. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Gennep, Arnold. 2019. The Rites of Passage , 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• von Stuckrad, Kocku. 2015. Discourse. In Vocabulary of the Study of Religion . Edited by Robert A. Segal. Leiden: Brill, pp. 429–38. [ Google Scholar ]

Share and Cite

Exner-Krikorian, S. The Introduction of Same-Sex Marriage in Germany—A Question of Conscience and/or Faith? A Case Study. Religions 2024 , 15 , 1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091142

Exner-Krikorian S. The Introduction of Same-Sex Marriage in Germany—A Question of Conscience and/or Faith? A Case Study. Religions . 2024; 15(9):1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091142

Exner-Krikorian, Sabine. 2024. "The Introduction of Same-Sex Marriage in Germany—A Question of Conscience and/or Faith? A Case Study" Religions 15, no. 9: 1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091142

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Erasmus School of Economics
• Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication
• Erasmus School of Law
• Erasmus School of Philosophy
• Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences
• Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management
• International Institute of Social Studies
• Rotterdam School of Management
• Tinbergen Institute
• Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies
• RSM Parttime Master Bedrijfskunde
• Erasmus University Library
• Thesis Repository.
• Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences /
• Public Administration /
• Master Thesis
• Search: Search

Hengeveld, Elisabeth

Same-sex marriage

Publication.

the power of politics or the power of discourse?

This thesis conducts a congruence analysis to test the strength of two dominant but competing theories within the public policy literature: the Advocacy Coalition Framework by Sabatier and the Discourse Coalition Framework by Hajer. There is a gap in the existing literature on the ability of the classical public policy theories to explain change in morality policies. The research aim of this thesis is therefore to discover whether it is the power of politics or the power of discourse that best explains variation in the degree of permissiveness across countries. As case studies, the policy processes that have led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage (SSM) in the Netherlands (2001) and Germany (2017) have therefore been examined comprehensively. Two hypotheses – formulated to assess the strength of the ACF and the DCF – have been tested on the Dutch and German case. The analysis of these hypotheses finds that whereas the ACF can explain the policy process in the Netherlands, the DCF can explain the policy process in Germany. The conclusion of this analysis is that neither the ACF nor the DCF accurately and consistently explains morality policy change with regards to SSM. The fact that both theories have been challenged by the opposite cases – even though these have been carefully selected in the theoretical framework and research design – tells us a great deal about the weakness of both of these classical theories to account for morality policies. The existing literature reveals that there is a wide variety of explanations that account for variation in the degree of permissiveness towards morality policies more generally and same-sex marriage specifically, the most dominant of which have been the role of religion, societal value conflicts, party cleavages, the role of the judiciary and international influences. Although the ACF and DCF address the party cleavages and societal value conflicts respectively, they – as well as the other classical public policy theories – fail to address other important factors that may lead to morality policy change. Therefore, the conclusion of this thesis is that morality policy change is significantly different from other fields of regulation, and should therefore be treated as such. Hence, there is a need in public policy research to either alter existing theories to account for a wider range of policy issues, or to create new theories or frameworks that explicitly account for morality policy change.

Add Content

• < Previous

Home > Honors Theses, 1990-2015 > 1746

HIM 1990-2015

Same-sex marriage: a fundamental right.

Stefen Smith , University of Central Florida

Same-sex marriage is a subject that has been heavily discussed and argued since the concept of marriage came into existence. Marriage is a relationship that most American citizens are entitled to although it is not yet a fundamental right. As of a very recent court decision, Strawser v. Strange, Civil Action No. 14-0424-CG-C1 finalized on February 9, 2015, Alabama has legalized same-sex marriage; furthermore, thirty-seven states now recognize the legality of same-sex marriage. Marriage, whether it is between a heterosexual or a homosexual couple, should be a fundamental right enjoyed by all. This thesis will explain why same-sex marriage should be a fundamental right. The research presented in this thesis will be scrutinized and thoroughly examined showing the obstacles that same-sex couples face when wanting to legally marry. The United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause will be analyzed and discussed to prove that all fifty states should allow same-sex couples to wed. Citizens view what constitutes a marriage differently depending on their upbringing and residence. This thesis will illustrate why same-sex marriage has been such a widely discussed topic, and it will investigate the influence of religion and the church. Historically, the tradition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. By examining how the tradition of marriage is changing and using case law decisions, an argument can be formed that marriage should be a fundamental right for all people.

If this is your Honors thesis, and want to learn how to access it or for more information about readership statistics, contact us at [email protected]

Thesis Completion

Naccarato-Fromang, Gina

Bachelor of Science (B.S.)

College of Health and Public Affairs

Legal Studies

Dissertations, Academic -- Health and Public Affairs; Health and Public Affairs -- Dissertations, Academic

Access Status

Open Access

Length of Campus-only Access

Document type.

Honors in the Major Thesis

Recommended Citation

Smith, Stefen, "Same-Sex Marriage: A Fundamental Right" (2015). HIM 1990-2015 . 1746. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/1746

Since October 01, 2015

Included in

Legal Studies Commons

Browse Advisors

• Browse recent Advisors

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Colleges & Departments
• Disciplines
• Expert Gallery
• My STARS Account
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Follow STARS
• About STARS

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias

Downloadable content.

• Ofosu, Eugene
• Eric Hehman (Supervisor)
• The current research tested whether the passing of government legislation, signaling the prevailing attitudes of the local majority, was associated with changes in citizens’ attitudes. Specifically, with ~1 million responses over a 11-year window, we test whether state-by-state same-sex marriage legislation was associated with decreases in anti-gay implicit and explicit bias. Results across five operationalizations consistently provide support for this possibility. Both implicit and explicit bias were decreasing prior to same-sex marriage legalization, but decreased at a sharper rate following legalization. Moderating this effect was whether states passed legislation locally. While states passing state-level legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed local legislation demonstrated increased anti-gay bias following federal legalization. Our work highlights how government legislation can inform individuals’ attitudes, even when these attitudes may be deeply entrenched, and socially and politically volatile
• La recherche présente a testé si l’adoption par le gouvernement de lois reflétant l’avis d’une majorité de citoyens, est associée avec des changements d’attitude de citoyen(ne)s. Grâce à 1 million d’observations sur plus de 11 ans, nous avons examiné si la légalisation du mariage gai pour chaque état américain a été associée avec la diminution des préjugés homophobes implicites et explicites. Cinq modèles statistiques appuient fortement notre hypothèse. Bien que les préjugés implicites et explicites étaient en diminution avant la légalisation du mariage homosexuel, les deux types de préjugés ont diminué plus rapidement après. Cet effet était modéré par le pallier de gouvernement ayant mis en œuvre la légalisation. Spécifiquement, les états ayant adopté la légalisation au niveau de l’état ont vu une diminution des deux types de préjugés après la légalisation, tandis que ceux n’ayant pas légalisé le mariage gai au niveau de l’état ont vu une augmentation des préjugés après la légalisation au niveau fédéral. Notre recherche souligne comment les lois gouvernementales peuvent influencer les attitudes individuelles, même quand ces attitudes sont fortement enracinées et sujettes aux débats sociaux
• McGill University
•  https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/xg94ht93x
• All items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
• Department of Psychology
• Master of Science
• Theses & Dissertations

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Table of Contents

Public opinion on same-sex marriage, attitudes on same-sex marriage by political party identification, attitudes on same-sex marriage by religious affiliation, attitudes on same-sex marriage among key demographic groups, attitudes on same-sex marriage.

In Pew Research Center polling in 2004, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 60% to 31%.

Support for same-sex marriage has steadily grown over the past 15 years. And today, support for same-sex marriage remains near its highest point since Pew Research Center began polling on this issue. Based on polling in 2019, a majority of Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose it.

Same-sex marriage overall

% of U.S. adults who favor/oppose same-sex marriage (2001-2019)

PEW RESEARCH CENTER

Three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (75%) and fewer than half of Republicans and Republican leaners (44%) favor same-sex marriage.

More independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (81%) favor gay marriage than Democrats (71%). Similarly, Republican leaners are more supportive (56%) than Republicans (37%).

Support for same-sex marriage now stands at 88% among self-described liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners and 64% among conservative and moderate Democrats. Fewer conservative Republicans and Republican leaners (36%) support same-sex marriage than moderate and liberal Republicans (59%).

• Leaned party
• Detailed party
• Party and ideology

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by political party identification (2001-2019)

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by political party (detailed, 2001-2019)

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by political party and ideology (2001-2019)

Among people who are religiously unaffiliated, a solid majority have supported same-sex marriage since 2004. Today, 79% of religious “nones” say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

About two-thirds of white mainline Protestants (66%) now support same-sex marriage, as do a similar share of Catholics (61%).

Support for same-sex marriage among white evangelical Protestants remains lower than it is among other religious groups. However, the share of white evangelical Protestants who support same-sex marriage has grown from 11% in 2004 to 29% today.

About four-in-ten of those who attend religious services at least once a week (39%) favor same-sex marriage, compared with 66% who attend once or twice a month or a few times a year, and three-quarters who say they seldom or never attend.

• Religious affiliation
• Religious attendance

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by religion (2001-2019)

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by religious service attendance (2001-2019)

Support for same-sex marriage has remained largely stable among both men and women since 2017. Today, 66% of women and 57% of men support same-sex marriage.

Support for same-sex marriage also has remained steady among whites, blacks and Hispanics over the past two years. Today, 62% of whites support same-sex marriage, as do 58% of Hispanics and 51% of blacks.

The increase in the share of adults who favor same-sex marriage over the past 15 years is due in part to generational change. Younger generations express higher levels of support for same-sex marriage.

• Race/Ethnicity

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by race/ethnicity (2001-2019)

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by generation (2001-2019)

% of U.S. adults who favor same-sex marriage, by gender (2001-2019)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Perceptions of Same-Sex Relationships and Marriage as Gender Role Violations: An Examination of Gendered Expectations (Sexism)

• Journal of Homosexuality 62(11)

• Lewis & Clark College
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• Sex Res Soc Pol

• Piera Brustia

• Konstantinos Savva
• J SOC PERS RELAT

• Brett A. Murphy

• Int J Environ Res Publ Health

• Hazyle Yuen

• Jami K. Taylor
• Melanie M. Henderson
• Kay A. Simon
• Jacob Henicheck

• Max Adam Scherer

• Gerald T. Montano

• Elizabeth Miller

• P. J. Henry
• Russell L. Steiger
• Alexander K. Davis
• Bethany P. Bryson
• Patricia G. Devine

• COUNS PSYCHOL

• Ritch C. Savin-Williams

• Kenneth M Cohen

• Robyn K. Mallett
• Yvonne Russo-Devosa

• Gregory M. Herek

• Scott W. Keiller

• Crystal Taylor

• Laurie L. Lewis
• Bernard E. Whitley Jr

• Katherine A. Adams

• J HOMOSEXUAL
• David A. Moskowitz

• ARCH SEX BEHAV
• Joan A. W. Linsenmeier
• Lorenz Gygax

• Roksana Korchynsky

• Mary E. Kite
• Jr. Bernard E. Whitley

• Erica Carranza
• Rory McVeigh
• D. Diaz Maria-Elena
• Adrienne Rich
• James E. B. Wilkie
• Amy M. Rees-Turyn PhD

• Abigail Holland MA
• Shea Root MA
• Sandra Lipsitz Bem
• PSYCHOL WOMEN QUART

• Melissa Powell-Williams
• Gregory Maddox

• J SOC ISSUES
• Dominic J. Parrott

• Bernard E. Whitley

• John H. Dunkle
• Patricia L. Francis

• Alisa H. Watt

• Gregory Berger
• Lawrence Simkins
• Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp
• J G HAMPSON
• J L HAMPSON
• John. Money

• Ana Flávia do Amaral Madureira
• C Wickersham
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Connection denied by Geolocation Setting.

Reason: Blocked country: Russia

The connection was denied because this country is blocked in the Geolocation settings.

Please contact your administrator for assistance.