persuasive speech about same sex marriage

Same-sex marriage speech example with an outline – Download Free PDF!

Published by team sy on march 15, 2023 march 15, 2023.

Same-sex marriage speech: In recent years, the topic of homosexual marriage, or gay marriage, has become a highly debated and controversial issue. While some countries have legalized the practice, others remain firmly opposed to it. The legalization of same-sex marriage has been the subject of protests, political campaigns, and court cases around the world. In this article, we will delve deeper into the topic of same-sex marriage and explore the arguments for and against its legalization. We will examine the impact of legalizing same-sex marriage on society and analyze the reasons why some countries have yet to recognize it as a legal institution. Join us as we explore the complex issue of same-sex marriage and the ongoing struggle for its legalization.

Table of Contents

Same-sex marriage speech outline

Same-sex marriage is a topic that has been at the forefront of public discourse for many years. The debate over whether to legalize same-sex marriage has been a contentious issue, with strong opinions and emotions on both sides. While some believe that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love, regardless of gender, others argue that traditional marriage should only be between a man and a woman. In this article, we will provide an outline for a persuasive speech on same-sex marriage. We will explore the key arguments for and against legalizing same-sex marriage, as well as provide tips for delivering a compelling speech on this important and timely topic. Whether you are a student preparing for a debate or a professional looking to speak out on same-sex marriage, this outline will provide you with a solid foundation for creating a persuasive speech that can sway even the toughest audiences.

Here’s a possible outline for a speech about same-sex marriage:

• Introduction
• Attention-Getter: Start with a relevant and thought-provoking statement about the topic of same-sex marriage.
• Background Information: Briefly explain what same-sex marriage is and why it is a controversial issue.
• Thesis Statement: Clearly state your position on same-sex marriage and preview the main points you will cover in the speech.
• The Case for Same-Sex Marriage
• Equality: Argue that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex couples, including the right to marry.
• Love and Commitment: Explain that same-sex couples are just as capable of loving and committing to each other as opposite-sex couples.
• Social Benefits: Discuss how legalizing same-sex marriage can have positive effects on society, such as reducing discrimination and promoting stable families.

III. Common Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

• Religious Objections: Address the common argument that same-sex marriage goes against traditional religious beliefs and values.
• Procreation: Respond to the claim that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because they are the only ones capable of procreation.
• Slippery Slope: Refute the argument that legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to other forms of marriage, such as polygamy or incest.
• Rebuttals to Counterarguments
• Address counterarguments that might be raised against your position.
• Provide evidence and reasoning to refute these arguments.
• Summary: Recap your main points and arguments.
• Call to Action: Encourage your audience to support the legalization of same-sex marriage.
• Final Thoughts: End with a memorable statement or thought-provoking question that leaves a lasting impression on your audience.

Same sex marriage speech example

A persuasive speech on the legalization of homosexual marriage, also known as gay marriage, can be a powerful tool in advocating for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Such a speech can focus on the social, legal, and personal implications of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. By providing examples of the discrimination and hardships faced by same-sex couples, a speaker can illustrate the need for legal recognition of their relationships. By calling for the legalization of gay marriage, speakers can promote equal rights for all and help to create a more inclusive and just society.

I. Introduction

• Attention-Getter:  “Love is love” – a simple and powerful statement that captures the essence of the fight for same-sex marriage. But why is it still a controversial issue in many parts of the world, including some countries that claim to uphold equality and human rights? According to a recent survey, over 30% of people worldwide still oppose same-sex marriage. This shows that we still have a long way to go in terms of acceptance and inclusivity.
• Background Information:  Same-sex marriage is a legal union between two people of the same sex, granting them the same legal rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples. However, the legalization of same-sex marriage remains a contentious issue in many countries, with some arguing that it goes against traditional values or religious beliefs.
• Thesis Statement:  As a supporter of same-sex marriage, I firmly believe that every person should have the right to marry whomever they choose, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. In this speech, I will discuss the importance of legalizing same-sex marriage, address common arguments against it, and provide evidence to support my position.

II. The Case for Same-Sex Marriage

• Equality:  Same-sex couples deserve the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex couples. Denying them the right to marry is a form of discrimination that violates their human rights. Marriage is not just about love and commitment, but also about legal benefits and responsibilities, such as the right to inherit property, make medical decisions, and file joint taxes. Same-sex couples should not be denied these rights just because of their sexual orientation.
• Love and Commitment:  Same-sex couples are just as capable of loving and committing to each other as opposite-sex couples. Love is a universal human experience that transcends gender and sexual orientation. Same-sex couples form meaningful, long-lasting relationships that are based on mutual respect, trust, and support. They should have the same opportunity to publicly declare their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples do.
• Social Benefits:  Legalizing same-sex marriage can have positive effects on society. It can reduce discrimination and promote acceptance and inclusivity. It can also help to strengthen families by providing legal protections for same-sex couples and their children. Research has shown that children raised by same-sex couples are just as well-adjusted and happy as those raised by opposite-sex couples. By recognizing same-sex marriage, we can create a more just and equitable society for all.

In summary, legalizing same-sex marriage is a matter of equality, love, and social benefits. It is a step towards building a more inclusive and tolerant society where everyone is treated with respect and dignity.

• Religious Objections:  While it is true that some religions do not condone same-sex marriage, we must remember that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle in many democracies. The right to practice one’s religion freely is protected, but it should not be used to deny the basic human rights of others. Moreover, many religious institutions have recognized and embraced same-sex marriage, demonstrating that religious beliefs are not monolithic and can evolve over time.
• Procreation:  The argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because they are the only ones capable of procreation is flawed. Firstly, not all opposite-sex couples are capable or willing to have children, yet they are still allowed to marry. Secondly, many same-sex couples do have children through adoption or assisted reproductive technology, and they should have the same legal protections and benefits as opposite-sex couples. Lastly, the ability to procreate should not be a prerequisite for marriage, as marriage is about love, commitment, and legal rights, not just reproduction.
• Slippery Slope:  The argument that legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to other forms of marriage, such as polygamy or incest, is a slippery slope fallacy. There is no logical connection between legalizing same-sex marriage and legalizing other forms of marriage. Furthermore, polygamy and incest are typically considered unethical and harmful due to issues of power imbalance, exploitation, and genetic risks, which are not present in same-sex marriage. Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriage does not open the door to other forms of marriage.

In summary, the common arguments against same-sex marriage do not hold up to scrutiny. They are based on flawed assumptions, false equivalencies, and fear-mongering. By recognizing same-sex marriage, we are not undermining traditional values or threatening the fabric of society, but rather promoting equality, respect, and dignity for all.

IV. Rebuttals to Counterarguments

• It is important to anticipate and address potential counterarguments against same-sex marriage in order to strengthen our position. Some of the most common counterarguments include:
• Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
• Same-sex marriage will harm traditional marriage.
• Same-sex marriage will lead to negative social consequences, such as a decline in birth rates or the erosion of gender roles.
• Let’s examine each of these counterarguments and provide evidence and reasoning to refute them:

The fact that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman does not necessarily mean that it should always be that way. Many aspects of society have evolved over time to reflect changing social norms and values. In fact, the history of marriage is a history of change and adaptation to new circumstances. For example, in the past, marriage was often based on economic or political considerations, rather than love or personal choice. It is possible and desirable to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples who also seek love, commitment, and legal protections.

There is no evidence to support the claim that same-sex marriage will harm traditional marriage. In fact, research has shown that legalizing same-sex marriage has no negative effect on opposite-sex marriage rates, divorce rates, or family values. Moreover, allowing same-sex couples to marry can actually strengthen the institution of marriage by promoting stable, committed relationships and reducing discrimination and stigma against LGBTQ+ individuals and families.

There is no logical or empirical basis to support the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to negative social consequences. Birth rates, for example, are not affected by same-sex marriage, as they are determined by a complex set of economic, social, and cultural factors. Similarly, the idea that same-sex marriage will erode gender roles is based on stereotypes and assumptions about gender that do not hold up to scrutiny. Same-sex couples can form relationships based on a variety of gender expressions and identities, and their marriage does not affect the gender roles of other individuals or couples.

In summary, the counterarguments against same-sex marriage are unfounded and based on prejudice and fear. By examining these arguments critically and providing evidence and reasoning to refute them, we can build a stronger case for the recognition of same-sex marriage as a matter of justice and equality.

V. Conclusion

• In conclusion, we have seen that same-sex marriage is a matter of justice and equality, as it allows same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights and protections as opposite-sex couples, and promotes stable families and positive social benefits. We have also examined and rebutted common arguments against same-sex marriage, such as religious objections, procreation, and slippery slope concerns. By doing so, we have shown that these counterarguments are unfounded and do not hold up to critical scrutiny.
• Therefore, I urge you to support the legalization of same-sex marriage in your communities and countries and to advocate for equal rights and dignity for all individuals and families, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. By doing so, we can create a more just and inclusive society that values love, commitment, and diversity.
• As we conclude this speech, let us remember that the fight for same-sex marriage is not just a legal or political issue, but a human one. It is about recognizing and affirming the dignity and worth of every person, and about building a society that is based on respect and equality for all. Thank you for listening, and let us continue to work together towards a brighter future for all.

Persuasive speech about same-sex marriage 

Same-sex marriage is a unique and controversial topic that has been debated for many years. It is a complex issue that raises questions about social norms, religious beliefs, and legal rights. While some countries have legalized same-sex marriage, others remain firmly opposed to it. Despite the legal and social challenges, advocates for same-sex marriage continue to fight for the right of all individuals to marry the person they love, regardless of their gender. In this article, we will explore a unique and creative approach to delivering a persuasive speech about same-sex marriage. By focusing on storytelling and personal experiences, speakers can create a powerful emotional connection with their audience and help to change hearts and minds on this important issue.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today, I want to talk to you about a topic that has been a matter of much debate and controversy for many years – same-sex marriage.

First of all, I want to ask you a simple question: should two people who love each other be allowed to marry, regardless of their gender? I believe the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” Love is love, and it is not fair or just to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Some argue that same-sex marriage goes against traditional values or religious beliefs. However, our society has evolved and progressed over time, and it is time for our laws and policies to reflect this progress. We should not allow discrimination and prejudice to dictate who can and cannot marry. In fact, legalizing same-sex marriage would be a step towards true equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Furthermore, denying same-sex couples the right to marry has serious legal and societal consequences. Without marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to legal rights and benefits that heterosexual couples take for granted, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the ability to make medical decisions for their partner. This creates unnecessary hardships for same-sex couples and their families.

In addition, legalizing same-sex marriage would not harm heterosexual marriages in any way. In fact, it would strengthen the institution of marriage by allowing more people to participate in it and form strong, committed relationships. Love and commitment are the foundation of marriage, and these values are not limited to heterosexual couples.

Lastly, legalizing same-sex marriage is simply the right thing to do. It is a matter of basic human rights and equality under the law. We cannot allow discrimination and prejudice to continue to harm members of our society. We must stand up for what is right and just, and ensure that all individuals have the same rights and opportunities, including the right to marry the person they love.

In conclusion, legalizing same-sex marriage is not only a matter of fairness and equality, but it is also a matter of basic human rights. It is time for us to recognize that love is love, regardless of gender, and that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love. Let us take a stand against discrimination and prejudice and work towards a society that truly values and respects all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. 

Sample speech on same-sex marriage

Today, I would like to talk about same-sex marriage. This is a topic that has been widely debated in recent years and is still a controversial issue in many parts of the world.

In my opinion, love is love, and it should not matter who someone chooses to love or marry. Everyone should have the right to choose their partner freely, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. Denying someone the right to marry the person they love is a violation of their basic human rights.

Furthermore, same-sex marriage does not harm anyone. It does not impact heterosexual marriages, and it does not threaten traditional family values. In fact, legalizing same-sex marriage provides benefits to same-sex couples, such as legal recognition of their relationship, access to spousal benefits, and protections under the law.

The argument against same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs is also unfounded. Marriage is a civil institution, and while religious institutions may have their own definition of marriage, they should not impose it on others who do not share the same beliefs.

In conclusion, I believe that everyone should have the right to love and marry whoever they choose. Same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right, and it is time for society to recognize and accept it. Let us continue to advocate for equality and respect for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. 

FAQs on Same-Sex Marriage Speech

The most compelling argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is that it is a basic human right. Denying individuals the right to marry the person they love, solely on the basis of their gender, is a form of discrimination. Legalizing same-sex marriage also provides legal recognition and protections to same-sex couples, including access to healthcare, inheritance rights, and legal parentage of children.

Legalizing same-sex marriage can have a profound impact on society and culture. It promotes equality and inclusivity, and can help to reduce stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. It can also strengthen families and communities by providing legal recognition and support for same-sex couples and their children.

Speakers can effectively communicate the importance of legalizing same-sex marriage by focusing on shared values, such as equality, freedom, and love. They can also provide data and research that supports the benefits of legalizing same-sex marriage, as well as personal stories that illustrate the impact of discrimination on same-sex couples and their families.

Advocates for same-sex marriage have faced numerous legal challenges, including opposition from religious groups, political leaders, and conservative organizations. However, in countries where it is now legal, advocates have used a variety of strategies, including legal challenges, political activism, and public education campaigns, to overcome these obstacles and gain legal recognition for same-sex couples.

Personal stories and experiences can be powerful tools for shaping public opinion on same-sex marriage. By sharing their own experiences, or those of others, speakers can create an emotional connection with their audience and help them to better understand the impact of discrimination on same-sex couples and their families. Speakers can incorporate personal stories and experiences into their speeches by using anecdotes, quotations, and real-life examples that illustrate the need for legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Teachers Day Speech 2024 in English & Hindi for Students – Check Sample Speeches Now!

Teacher’s Day Speech in English 2024 for Students: The 5th of September is celebrated every year as Teacher’s Day in India to recognize and celebrate the contribution of teachers. On Teacher’s Day, we celebrate the Read more…

World Literacy Day Speech 2023 – Read in English & Hindi, Download PDF Now!

World Literacy Day Speech 2023: The festival of literacy is World Literacy Day or sometimes referred to as International Literacy Day. There are many ways to celebrate this amazing day, In your school, college or Read more…

Shikshak Divas Per Bhashan/ Shikshak Diwas Par Bhashan/ Teachers Day Speech in Hindi/ शिक्षक दिवस पर भाषण

Shikshak Divas Per Bhashan/Shikshak Diwas Par Bhashan/Teachers Day Speech in Hindi/शिक्षक दिवस पर भाषण: शिक्षक दिवस हर साल 5 सितंबर को मनाया जाता है और यह दिन शिक्षा के महत्व को समझाने और गुरु-शिष्य संबंध Read more…

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:

An Argument For Same-Sex Marriage: An Interview with Jonathan Rauch

The debate over same-sex marriage in the United States is a contentious one, and advocates on both sides continue to work hard to make their voices heard. To explore the case for gay marriage, the Pew Forum has turned to Jonathan Rauch, a columnist at The National Journal and guest scholar at The Brookings Institution. Rauch, who is openly gay, also authored the 2004 book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.

A counterargument explaining the case against same-sex marriage is made by Rick Santorum, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former U.S. senator.

Featuring: Jonathan Rauch, Senior Writer, TheNational Journal

Interviewer: David Masci , Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

In this Q&A: Why same-sex marriage?

Opposition from social conservatives

Is there a slippery slope?

Strategies for legalization

Why is marriage – I’m sorry, why is same-sex marriage good for America?

Well, you got the question right the first time. It’s “why is marriage good for America?” Same-sex marriage is good for all the same reasons. It’s good for gay people. I think if you asked straight people who have been married or hope to get married to imagine life without marriage, it’s very hard to imagine. It’s a much lonelier, much more vulnerable life.

Gay people need all the same safety. They need the same caregiving anybody else does. A society with successful marriages – and a lot of them – is a more stable, safer, more successful society. America’s problem is not too many marriages, it’s too few. Gay people are asking to be part of this social contract – to care for each other so society doesn’t have to.

What do you think drives the opposition to same-sex marriage? Does it ultimately boil down in many cases to discrimination? Is it that people are just unused to or uncomfortable with the idea of gay people marrying?

All of the above and much more. I’ve given a lot of talks on gay marriage in a lot of cities since writing a book about it in 2004 called Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America . I did a lot of traveling with it and talked to a lot of different kinds of audiences. And it runs the gamut. You get religious people who will say, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. You get very sympathetic people who say, I really want to do something for gay people, but changing the fundamental boundaries of our most ancient, important institution just goes too far, so let’s do civil unions or something else. And then, you get a lot of people in between.

So it’s a whole variety of reasons. And I’m the first to agree, gay marriage is a significant change; it’s a big change. It’s not something you necessarily expect people to jump into.

You mentioned religious people. They will say things like, look, both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible are very clear about this: God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman.

If you do biblical marriage, then you’re talking about polygamy. It’s there in black-and-white. Or, you’re talking about, for heaven’s sake, no divorce. Jesus himself had nothing to say about homosexuality, but he’s very clear on divorce. You can’t do it. And what I don’t understand is why gay people are the only people in America who have to follow biblical law. I don’t think that’s fair. We could also have other debates about what the Bible does and doesn’t mean, but I think what it boils down to is that gay people should deal with the same standards as straight people. And when straight people start upholding biblical law in civic culture, then maybe gay people should consider it, but not until then.

Opponents of same-sex marriage, particularly social conservatives, will argue that same-sex marriage could or would hurt traditional marriage because by broadening the definition of marriage, you make it less special – less sacred in a sense. And then, eventually, marriage will lose its special place in society – lose its meaning. Why do you think this logic is incorrect?

It depends on what exactly they’re saying. But I think society is at a turning point. We’ve got all these gay couples out there. They’re already acting married in many cases. We’ve got a generation growing up now, which takes for granted that they’ll be able to live a lifestyle that is very much like marriage, even if in most states it’s not called marriage. To have those people set up a married kind of lifestyle – often raising kids, by the way; many gay couples are raising kids – outside of marriage sends all the wrong cultural signals.

The signal we need to send now is that everybody should be getting married. The big cultural problem with the family in America is not that gay people want to get married – it’s that straight people are not getting married or not staying married. And to me, one of the important cultural effects of gay marriage will be to send a very strong signal that marriage is something that is available to and expected of everybody, not just a few.

Now, there are lots of arguments on the other side about people who think that gay marriage will hurt straight marriage. I’ve never really understood why admitting gay couples – fairly small in number – into the institution of marriage and having them uphold those ideals would make marriage less likely or successful for anyone else. I’m probably not the best person to ask for those arguments.

What about the argument that when you make marriage about rights and equal treatment you ultimately open up the field to other sorts of relationships – like polygamous or incestuous relationships – as well? Is that likely, first of all, and, if it is likely, is that a problem?

It would be a problem if it were likely. I think there are a lot of important and good social reasons to be against polygamy and incestuous marriage. We can talk about those if you’re interested. But, fundamentally, it’s not directly relevant. I guess there’s this political argument: Once you have one change, you’re going to get every change.

First of all, I don’t think the American public is that indiscriminating. Second of all, there is no logical connection between gay marriage and all of these other things. I often say, you know, when straight people get the right to marry two or three people or their mother or a toaster, then gay people should have the same right.

But all gay people are asking for now is the one thing that we lack but that all straight people already have – they don’t need to give themselves anything more. And that’s the opportunity to marry some person – one person – that we love. Right now, we can’t marry anybody. The set is the null set for us. That’s not true of straight people who want multiple husbands or multiple wives. That’s not true of people who want to marry their mother; they can have 4 billion marriage partners except their mother. So, ultimately, I think those arguments, although well intended, are primarily a red herring.

You said that you don’t think same-sex marriage would hurt traditional marriage. In fact, it sounds like you’re saying it might actually help marriage in general – the idea of marriage. But what if you were convinced otherwise?

I’ve often said, if I believed that gay marriage would wreck straight marriage then I’d be against it just as if I thought that giving women the vote would wreck democracy so that no one’s vote mattered, I’d be against that, too.

On the other hand, if gay marriage was to have a very small, sort of incremental bad effect on the divorce rate for straight people, I’d say that’s not enough to stop it because you’ve got 10, 12, 15 million Americans not only without marriage, but without even the prospect of marriage. You’ve got them growing up assuming that they’ll be legal strangers to the people that mean the most to them – that they’re committed to care about. And that’s just a scalding deprivation.

When Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , the 2003 Massachusetts decision legalizing same-sex marriage, was handed down, there was a prediction that there was going to be a domino effect and that within five or 10 years we were going to see a lot of other states follow suit. But, at least so far, that hasn’t happened. Are we in the lull before the storm, or do you think that widespread legalization of gay marriage is still a long way off, if it happens at all?

I think it’ll take a while, and I think it should take a while. I see the reaction as going through a few stages. The first was panic after the Supreme Court knocked down the Texas ban on sodomy. And then after Goodridge mandated same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, you had some of the gay marriage advocates saying, we need to get the court to impose this around the country as fast as possible. And then you had conservatives saying, we need to rush through a constitutional amendment at the federal level to ban gay marriage on every inch of American soil forever.

But to my great gratitude – and I think it’s almost inspirational how right the country has gotten this – the public has refused to be rushed. The public has come to understand that we can take our time with this. And the way to do this is let different states do different things. Let’s find out how gay marriage works in a few states. Let’s find out how civil unions work. In the meantime, let the other states hold back.

Marriage is not like voting, something the government just gives you at the stroke of a pen by fiat. Marriage must be a community institution to have its full power, which is to make couples actually closer. It actually fortifies and not just ratifies relationships. Your marriage has to be recognized by your community, your friends, your family, your kids’ teachers, your co-workers, all of the people around you as a marriage with all of the expectations and social support that goes with that. The law can’t give you that. That comes from community and that’s something gay couples are going to have to build by showing, as I think we are in Massachusetts, that we can be good marital citizens, that we’re not hurting anybody else’s marriage.

From your point of view, is it better to legalize same-sex marriage by passing a law in the legislature, or are courts a better venue for this?

I think now in 2008, clearly, the legislatures are a better way to do it. To everything its season. When this issue first came up in 1970 – the first gay couple tried to get married in 1970, filed a lawsuit and lost – the courts were the only place you could go. There was no chance that any legislature would ever even hear you out if you were gay and wanted to get married.

But I think the court strategy has basically exhausted its utility. In fact, it may have overreached. And what we’re seeing now is that, in any case, the number of court venues where you can even use a judicial strategy are very, very sharply diminished. They are almost all gone because of the state constitutional amendments and because a lot of courts have acted already. So that means we’re now turning to the next stage. And I think it’s the proper stage. That’s the democratic process. I think it is qualitatively different and better if you get married with the consent of your community, which, in America, means your state legislature, among other things. And that’s where we need to go.

Let’s assume that same-sex marriage eventually becomes the norm in America. Are there any downsides for gays and lesbians?

No. No, I see none at all. For gays and lesbians, I see only an upside. I see an opportunity to join in the most healthgiving, beneficial social institution that’s ever been invented by humanity. I see the prospect for young people to grow up assuming that they will have families and connections to their community that have been denied to gay people for thousands of years. I see no downside at all for gay people.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Religion & Social Values
• Same-Sex Marriage

Many Catholics in the U.S. and Latin America Want the Church to Allow Birth Control and to Let Women Become Priests

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, 8 in 10 americans say religion is losing influence in public life, how people around the world view same-sex marriage, most popular.

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

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review

Article Writing

• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Same Sex Marriage, Speech Example

Pages: 2

Words: 641

Hire a Writer for Custom Speech

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The issue of same sex marriage is important to approach.  Its significance can be seen against political, legal, religious, social, and other applicable contexts.  Currently this is a prominent subject in political aspects due to ongoing attempts to make it legal in certain areas, as it has been seen in some countries and locations already.

Same sex marriage has been present in some capacity throughout history.  Notably in ancient times, elaborate ceremonies allowed young females and males to bind themselves in such contracts.  Commonly seen in the Ming dynasty period, similar arrangements were also seen in ancient European history (Hinsch).  The first historical mention of same sex marriages can be found in the era of the early Roman Empire, in which, for instance, Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave, Hierocles (Scarre 151).  Other figures, such as Emperor Nero, may also be added to such a list.

In the modern era, same sex marriages have only been recently recognized.  In 2001 the Netherlands represented the first nation to grant same sex marriages (CBC).  Since then, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Nepal have followed, with Nepal not yet legislated as the only exception.  Throughout the world, however, many countries do not recognize such marriages, and in others, such as in Africa and the Middle East, such a partnership is illegal, where penalties exist, such as life in prison or the death penalty.

Critics of same sex marriage argue that marriage is between a man and a woman.  While this has certainly been the case for some time, recent years has seen the change in the definition to that which expresses what is between two people.  In my personal opinion, I believe that we are digressing from an important fundamental basis of marriage.  These values, in the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, are important for society upon many aspects.

Another point of discussion in same sex marriages is in that of parenting.  Advocates for such marriages argue that parenting would be good for the parents of the child.  Advocates also push for the rights of individuals to be able to be parents for a child in such a relationship.

This is one aspect that is undesirable, however.  It is not, in my opinion, in the best interest of the child to be raised by such parents.  Not only does it undermine the child’s rights to be raised by a biological mother and father, but it opens the child up to many dangers.  Certainly at the heart of these dangers is the hatred received by those who do not agree with gays and lesbians.

In these two key areas, there seem to be no legitimate arguments for the support of same sex marriages.  It is unreasonable to assume that children will not face a number of problems while being raised with two gay or lesbian parents.  Additionally, redefining marriage to incorporate same sex individuals undermines a number of values and standards in society, such as in religion, society, and law, among others.

Many arguments used for same sex marriages fail to realize such implications.  The well-being of children, the standards and values inherent upon many contexts, and other crucial implications must be carefully observed if same sex marriages are to be accepted.  Of course there are many more sides and issues to the story.  However, as complex as the issue is, there seem to be a number of items which go against the validity of such an accepted societal element.  In my opinion, same sex marriages are not an appropriate measure to implement within society.

CBC. “Same-sex Marriage Around the World.” CBC News. June 3, 2009. Web. Retrieved July 1, 2010.

Hinsch, Bret. Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China . Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992.

Scarre, Chris. Chronicles of the Roman Emperors . London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1995.

Stuck with your Speech?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Right to Reasonable Bail, Essay Example

Demise of the Written Media, Article Writing Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Speech Samples & Examples

The importance of history, speech example.

Pages: 1

Words: 409

Rubbish Problem in Hong Kong, Speech Example

Words: 393

Tomorrow’s Workforce, Speech Example

Words: 652

The History of Football, Speech Example

Pages: 4

Words: 981

Why Everyone Should Consider a Vegan Diet, Speech Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1372

Republican Stereotype, Speech Example

Pages: 3

Words: 778

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.

Social Media

• Facebook Facebook Circle Icon
• Twitter Twitter Circle Icon
• Flipboard Flipboard Circle Icon
• RSS RSS Circle Icon
• Culture & Media
• Economy & Labor
• Education & Youth
• Environment & Health
• Human Rights
• Immigration
• LGBTQ Rights
• Politics & Elections
• Prisons & Policing
• Racial Justice
• Reproductive Rights
• War & Peace
• Series & Podcasts
• 2024 Election

Turning Point USA Is Cultivating a Pipeline for Young, Right Wing Candidates

Longshoremen threaten strike as gop pushes biden to intervene in contract battle, indictment of nyc mayor eric adams details depths of illegal foreign influence, israeli bombs displace 140,000 children as lebanon braces for possible invasion, understanding the supreme court argument on same-sex marriage.

Of the nine justices, four are almost certainly in favor of marriage equality, four are philosophically and intellectually opposed, and one is likely for, but not certain.

Boston lawyer Mary Bonauto stood before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 28, 2015, hoping to make history. The civil rights project director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Bonauto has spearheaded the legal fight for recognition of the rights of same-sex couples to marry for 20 years. In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , she convinced the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to be the first state to recognize that right, doing so under its state constitution, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Same-sex couples have been getting married in Massachusetts for more than a decade. Now, she seeks a ruling that the US Constitution protects the right to choose your marital partner, which will legalize same-sex marriage in all US states.

I can’t pretend to know what was going through Bonauto’s mind at this moment. Having argued once in the Supreme Court, on a much less important case, I can tell you what I would have been thinking: Damn! All the dreaming, the research, the memos, the briefs, the meetings, the strategy debates, the fights in state courts and state legislatures, the referenda, the wins, the losses, the celebrations, the tears, the incredible weddings, the clients, the lawyers and law students and others who did the work, the interviews, the speeches, the nights lying awake thinking about it, the days and weeks and months when we did nothing else, and we’re finally here. Let’s get it done.

“[S]tates do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons.”

Of the nine justices on the Court, Bonauto knew that the votes of four were virtually certain to be in her favor (Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan), four justices were philosophically and intellectually hostile to her position (Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Chief Justice Roberts) and one justice was a likely vote for her, but not certain (Justice Kennedy). Bonauto began with a very brief introduction, and then the justices (except for Thomas, who almost never speaks at oral argument) began to pepper her with questions and she was able to engage them directly on the legal issues to which she had devoted her life.

The justices and lawyers sometimes spoke in a sort of legal shorthand, coded language in which one or two words or phrases encapsulate complex and nuanced constitutional law arguments, some of which have been raging for decades. Frequently, what they were talking about would not be obvious to non-lawyers. The oral argument was not merely about constitutional law, however. It was also about messaging. No one wants a repetition of the controversy engendered by Roe v. Wade , and so both sides here were at pains to paint a potential ruling in their favor in terms acceptable to as many people as possible. Indeed, as it turned out, there was more emphasis on messaging than there was on constitutional law.

Based on the published transcript of the hearing, we can unpack what happened during Bonauto’s argument. She was representing the petitioners challenging the decisions of the courts below that had rejected same-sex marriage, and she was the lawyer who made the first argument. I imagine that she began her presentation anxious about the hostile questioning she would get from the conservative justices. But the first question was a softball from an expected ally, Justice Ginsburg, and it allowed her to set the stage for one of the major issues in the case – federalism. Ginsburg asked what Bonauto made of the fact that the Court has stressed that the federal government historically deferred to the states in matters of domestic relations.

The question of what issues are for the federal government to decide and what issues are for the states has been one of the principal recurring problems of our form of government since the Constitutional Convention. In 1787, the crucial issue was slavery and the compromises that were struck to allow the states to determine whether to permit it were what enabled the union to form. The federal government was given specifically enumerated powers, and all the residual power of government was left to the states.

If the argument is about the definition of marriage, one must ask who gets to define it.

Subsequently, the relationship between the states and the federal government was substantially altered by the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War, which conferred national citizenship on any person born within the United States and constrained the states from depriving any person of the equal protection of the law, or depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The power of the states was further eroded by Supreme Court decisions during the New Deal, which expansively interpreted the clause in the constitution that gives the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. Conservatives, however, have continued to argue that small government is better than big government, and local government is better than national government. The states’ rights argument today centers around the idea that there are certain issues, such as domestic relations, that have traditionally belonged to the states and that things are better left that way.

Ginsburg could easily anticipate how Bonauto would answer her question and I assume she was giving the lawyer a chance to articulate her position on this issue before the argument really got started. Bonauto’s answer was simple and direct: “[S]tates do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons .” The italicized language was a verbatim quote from Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court in United States v. Windsor , the 2013 case in which the Court held that the definition in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutionally denied federal benefits to couples that had married in a state that recognized same-sex marriage. Undoubtedly this was no accident, as Bonauto knew that Kennedy’s vote was the crucial one she needed to win this case. She then went on, “[H]ere we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families.” So Bonauto came out of the gate immediately making two basic points: the legal argument that same-sex couples have been denied equal protection of the law, and the rhetorical assurance that her position is consistent with family values.

Chief Justice Roberts asked the next question and he quickly attempted to change the nature of the debate. He asked whether the plaintiffs were really seeking to “join” an institution or whether they wanted to redefine it, given that marriage had historically been defined as a unity between a man and woman. Roberts’ apparent strategy was to shift the discussion from one about rights, and whether a class of people had been denied their rights, to a discussion about definitions. To the extent a persuasive case could be made that this is all just about the definition of marriage, an argument can be made that no one’s rights have been violated.

If the argument is about the definition of marriage, however, one still must ask who gets to define it, a matter to which Kennedy immediately turned, in the process revealing one of his hesitations about voting for Bonauto’s position. He said, “This definition [marriage is between a man and a woman] has been with us for millennia. And it – it’s very difficult for the Court to say, oh, well, we – we know better.” With this Kennedy put a very big problem on the table: whether the Supreme Court abuses its power in our democracy. This has also been a question of historic magnitude.

“People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by the courts.”

From the beginning of the progressive era at the end of the 19th century, the Supreme Court had struck down as unconstitutional numerous legislative enactments regulating business, a practice it finally ceased in 1937 following the Great Depression and New Deal reforms. The received wisdom of most contemporary lawyers is that by invalidating those statutes based on its laissez faire economic philosophy, the Court usurped the role of the legislature in making policy decisions. Today, when the Court is called upon to recognize new rights, a question that inevitably arises is whether the justices are simply making law, ordinarily the job of the legislature, based on their own political or philosophical views. Major decisions that some citizens found liberating, such as Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade , were viewed as tyrannical exercises of power and deeply resented by others. Based on his decisions in earlier cases, including Lawrence v. Texas , where the Court struck down the state’s sodomy law, which only applied to homosexual sex, it is clear that Kennedy is respectful of the dignity of homosexuals and concerned about their rights. But he is worried about the Court’s institutional position.

Other justices also voiced their concern about this issue. Later in the argument, Scalia raised the issue forcefully, saying, “Well, the – the issue, of course, is – is – is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point … and you’re asking us to – to decide it for this society.” When Bonauto pointed out that some state courts had recognized same-sex marriage under their state constitutions, Scalia countered, “[T]hat’s not the people deciding it. It’s – it’s judges deciding it.”

Roberts noted how rapidly same-sex marriage has been accepted across broad elements of society. But he cautioned, “[T]hat sort of quick change has been a characteristic of this debate, but if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and – and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is – is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it’s imposed on them by – by the courts.” Here we can see the shadow that Roe v. Wade cast on the same-sex marriage argument – apprehension about how much controversy a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage would engender. Scalia and Roberts were articulating their deeply held ideological views about constitutional law – that the Court should play a limited role. But they were also making a rhetorical point: If we vote against Bonauto’s position, it’s not simply because we don’t like same-sex marriage; it’s because we want the people to decide.

Bonauto argued throughout her presentation that the definition of marriage must change because society itself has changed. Thinking about this in the days after the hearing, I wished the argument had been made even more pointedly. Bonauto might have said, “We’re not asking the Court to change the definition of marriage. We have already done that. All the millions of gay men and women who have come together in committed couples and raised children and made homes for themselves and participated as partners in their communities have done that. We just want the Court to recognize the reality of the society in which we live.”

As it developed, Ginsburg explained the decisive relevance of social change for same-sex marriage. Alito had repeatedly asked Bonauto how she accounted for the fact that until the end of the 20th century there had never been a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. She said, “times can blind,” and emphasized that it took over a hundred years after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment for the Court to recognize that classifications on the basis of sex violated the US Constitution. But Ginsburg, who came to the Court after a lifetime as a feminist academic and a litigator for equal rights for women, provided the underlying explanation. It’s worth quoting her entire statement:

But you wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him. There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t – wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

When one of the justices is helping you at oral argument, you want to run with it and Bonauto did so. She immediately agreed with Ginsburg, adding that under the European system of coverture a woman’s legal identity was absorbed into that of her husband. She argued, “And again, because of equality and changing social circumstances, all of those gender differences in the rights and responsibilities of the married pair have been eliminated. And that, of course, is a system in which committed, same-sex couples fit quite well.”

Alito hammered away in repeated questions about the millennia-old definition of marriage to dramatize what Bonauto was asking the Court to do, but to make a separate point as well. In recent cases in which the Court has protected the rights of homosexuals, it relied on the principle that a bare legislative “desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.” In 2013, the Court held the definition of marriage in DOMA unconstitutional because it found that the principal purpose of the law was to “impose inequality.” In 2003, it ruled the Texas law that made sodomy a crime unconstitutional because “moral disapproval of a group” is not a legitimate government interest that would justify a law challenged on equal protection grounds.

And in 1996, it had struck down an amendment to the Colorado Constitution that deprived homosexuals of protection under state anti-discrimination laws because the Court concluded it was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” Petitioners had argued in their brief that some state laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples were based on animosity toward the LGBTQ community. Alito was making the point that many states defined marriage as between a man and a woman not with the intent of disparaging homosexuals, but simply because for millennia that is what marriage has been. In this way, he was distinguishing this case from the three just described, presumably in order to argue there was no basis in the Court’s precedents for a ruling requiring states to allow same-sex marriage.

The laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are not neutral on their face; they explicitly exclude same-sex marriage.

Alito’s argument has no force beyond its rhetorical appeal. In essence he is saying, “Why should we have to change the laws? No one did anything wrong; no one intended to cause any harm.” It’s true that the Supreme Court has recently emphasized the need to find culpability on the part of public officials for plaintiffs to win money damages in civil rights cases, but this was not a suit for damages. There is a doctrine that requires proof of intent to discriminate when an equal protection challenge is made to a statute, regulation or practice that is neutral on its face, but operates in practice to disadvantage a minority group. But that doctrine was not in play here. The laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman are not neutral on their face; they explicitly exclude same-sex marriage. Bonauto did not have to prove there was any intent to harm homosexuals to invalidate these statutes.

What, then, did Bonauto have to establish in order to have these laws struck down as unconstitutional? Surprisingly, the justices never squarely addressed that question during her argument. The petitioners claimed that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples both violated the right of homosexuals to equal protection of the law, and denied them liberty without due process of law, both protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Constitutional law with respect to these claims is very complicated, but the justices did not ask Bonauto directly about the issues. The justices did not inquire about whether the laws could be sustained as long as there was any rational basis for them, or whether the states had to show there was a compelling government interest that the laws served, which would be a much higher standard for the states to meet. That standard would be required either if the Court concluded that homosexuals deserved protection similar to that afforded to people of color, or if it considered the right to choose a same-sex marital partner to be a “fundamental” liberty interest.

Forests have been felled to produce the paper on which these issues have been written about, and Bonauto was no doubt well prepared to talk about them. In their brief, the petitioners had argued that the higher standard applied, both because homosexuals deserved that level of protection from the law and because the right to marry had already been recognized as a fundamental liberty interest by the Court. They also claimed they were entitled to have the laws struck down under the lower standard because there was no rational or legitimate interest served by excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The issue of what the state’s interest in denying marriage to same-sex couples might be was explored at greater length in questions the moderate justices put to the lawyer defending the states’ laws, but not in questions to Bonauto.

There was just one point in the questioning that offered Bonauto an opportunity to articulate her position on the crucial Fourteenth Amendment issues. Justice Breyer took up Justice Alito’s point that the law everywhere for thousands of years has limited marriage to a man and a woman, even among societies where there was no discrimination against LGBTQ people, and asked pointedly why “nine people outside the ballot box” should require states that don’t want to do it to change their definition of marriage to include LGBTQ people. He asked why those states could not at least wait until they could see whether such a change was harmful to marriage in states that have made the change.

Alito asked whether recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry would lead to marriages between siblings.

Bonauto said this is a question of individual liberty, citing the case of Loving v. Virginia , where the Supreme Court struck down the law against interracial marriage. This could have led to several questions probing the finer points of the fundamental liberty interest analysis. Instead, two of the conservative justices wasted most of the remainder of Bonauto’s time for argument on marginal issues. Alito repeatedly asked whether recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry would lead to marriages between siblings, or between a group of two men and two women. But drawing those lines to protect the legitimate interests of society is not that difficult.

Scalia, a devout Catholic, stated that he was “concerned about the wisdom of this Court imposing through the Constitution a – a requirement of action which is unpalatable to many of our citizens for religious reasons.” He then asked several times whether a minister would be required to conduct a same-sex marriage even if he had religious objections to doing so. This was a frivolous argument, as Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer all demonstrated by pouncing on the issue, with Breyer pedantically citing the First Amendment’s proscription that “Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of religion.” As Bonauto pointed out, the minister would have a First Amendment right to decline to perform the ceremony. Scalia, of course, is smart enough to know that, yet he used up almost 20 percent of Bonauto’s total time on this. It would appear that he was either burning up her time on purpose, or simply pandering to an audience of the religious right.

One of the challenges of oral argument for the advocate is to be able to make her essential points while at the same time answering the questions of the justices, which may or may not be of general importance. Bonauto was able at one point to move from her response to Alito’s group marriage questions to return to the “wait and see” issue Breyer had raised. She argued that “wait and see” is not a justification for failing to act under the Fourteenth Amendment because in the meantime the petitioners would be denied an opportunity to marry and would be confined to second-class status under the US Constitution. “Waiting is not neutral,” she said.

We don’t rely on popular voting to decide whether fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution must be protected.

Roberts responded by conceding that the consequences of waiting are not neutral, but made the point referred to above that the pace of change has been rapid and made his pitch for the advantages of allowing the people to vote. The answer to Roberts is, as the Court has said in numerous cases, that we don’t rely on popular voting to decide whether fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution must be protected. The essence of a constitutional democracy is that certain liberties and freedoms are guaranteed protection despite the fact that a majority might at some point in time wish to deny them to an unpopular minority. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing on behalf of the US government, in support of the petitioners, later made this point as he closed his argument. He said, “But what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is laying claim to the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment now … it is simply untenable … to suggest that … they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.”

Bonauto closed her argument with a strong emphasis on the individual liberty issue, saying, “[I]n terms of the question of who decides, it’s not about the Court versus the states. It’s about the individual making the choice to marry and with whom to marry, or the government.”

We cannot, in this piece, conduct a similarly detailed analysis of the argument of Verrilli, who supported Bonauto’s position, or Attorney John J. Bursch, who represented the states and defended the laws that exclude same-sex couples from marrying. Although there was much that was interesting in those arguments, we must content ourselves with two points here. The first will summarize the essence of Bursch’s defense of the current marriage statutes, and the second will identify the issue that this writer believes will determine the outcome in this case.

Although Bursch may be a very good lawyer, the transcript of the argument demonstrates that he was in over his head in this case. Maybe it’s the hand that he was dealt. It’s not easy to argue against a result that appears to be historically inevitable. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts may end up voting for same-sex marriage because he doesn’t want to be remembered as someone who stood against the tide of history. The difficult challenge for Bursch was to come up with some legitimate state interest that justifies limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The one he chose was that allowing same-sex marriages will undercut the principal rationale for opposite-sex marriages, namely to encourage such marriages so that children will be born within families with married parents. If we delink marriage from procreation, in this view, fewer people will marry to have children. As Bursch put it, “But the reason why there’s – there’s harm if you change the definition because, in people’s minds, if marriage and creating children don’t have anything to do with each other, then what do you expect? You expect more children outside of marriage.”

To be fair, this isn’t just Bursch’s argument. This is the best that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage could come up with. To put it bluntly, it’s a stupid argument, with no logical or empirical support, and the moderate justices had a field day poking holes in it. The only way it has any traction, and then not much, is to make the argument one step removed, so to speak. In other words, Bursch argued that the Court itself did not have to buy the argument; all they had to do was agree that rational voters could reach this conclusion, and that such a rational decision by the voters would justify the law. But even that is a stretch. Moreover, if a majority of the Court continues to say that marriage is a fundamental liberty interest, the justification for laws restricting access to marriage has to be more than minimally rational.

The key issue in the same-sex marriage argument is most likely to be human dignity.

The key issue in the same-sex marriage argument is most likely to be human dignity. Bonauto began her argument by saying that as a result of putting marriage off limits to same-sex couples, “the stain of unworthiness that falls on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.” Verrilli began his argument by stating, “The opportunity to marry is integral to human dignity.” Now what is interesting is that “dignity” is not a value that is mentioned in the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, although dignity is a value that is explicitly protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, is found in many constitutions adopted more recently than that of the United States, and is highly important in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Justice Kennedy has shown a great deal of interest in these sources in his previous decisions, and in his practice of teaching at the Salzburg, Austria, summer program on international legal studies for 25 years.

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , in the decisive opinion in which Kennedy joined Justices O’Connor and Souter writing the opinion for the Court affirming the right to choose an abortion originally established by Roe v. Wade , they wrote that “choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” In Lawrence v. Texas , where Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court holding the sodomy law of Texas unconstitutional, he cited that language from the Casey opinion and added that adults are free to choose a homosexual relationship “in the confines of their homes and their private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.”

During Bursch’s argument, Kennedy engaged him in a discussion of dignity that runs over several pages of the transcript. Bursch was concerned enough about the issue to deny five separate times that the states had any desire to deny dignity to anyone. Kennedy’s emphasis on dignity was paramount. He stated near the beginning of Bursch’s argument, “Same-sex couples say, of course, we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can’t procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled.” Later he said, “I thought that was the whole purpose of marriage. It bestows dignity on both man and woman in a traditional marriage … It’s dignity bestowing, and these parties say they want to have that – that same ennoblement.”

It is risky to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases based on what the justices say at the oral argument. But Kennedy’s commitment to the principle of human dignity and his understanding of its role in protecting intimate relationships run deep. If Bonauto and her colleagues succeed in winning the right for same-sex couples to marry, we can expect strong language from Kennedy defending the decision as essential to support human dignity. And an opinion on that ground will move US constitutional law closer to modern world jurisprudence that recognizes dignity as a preeminent value requiring protection.

Fundraising Deadline: Missed

Unfortunately, Truthout fell short of our fundraising goal. We still need $9,000 to stay out of the red.

Still, there’s a little time left to make up this difference. Help safeguard our nonprofit journalism: Please make a tax-deductible gift today.

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…

European journal of American studies

Home Issues 11-3 Part Three: Queer times Same-Sex Marriage and Other Moral...

Same-Sex Marriage and Other Moral Taboos: Cultural Acceptances, Change in American Public Opinion and the Evidence from the Opinion Polls

This article analyzes the evolution of gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage in American public opinion. It describes how Obergefell v. Hodges, state-level decisions and the public opinion trends can be considered as the outcome of a grassroots coordinated campaign which began more than a decade ago and was able to conquer the majority of Americans. It also focuses on the American public opinion trends related to moral issues, examining if it is true that U.S. citizens are moving leftward. The research shows that the shift toward more liberal attitudes on a number of social values and issues has occurred across the age spectrum, not just among young people, and that when Americans are asked about moral values they are thinking of things other than just the norms surrounding sexual behavior and reproduction issues. Thus, when Americans are largely saying that the overall moral tone of their culture is in bad shape and getting worse, they are only marginally thinking of former taboos such as gay and lesbian marriage and sexual behaviors in general.

Index terms

Keywords: .

1 In June 2015, with a 5-4 decision in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states are required under the 14th Amendment to issue marriage licenses to people of the same sex and to recognize those marriages from other states. The Supreme Court, declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to get married, ruled on the practice which was already legal in the majority of states, and provided the most significant nationwide expansion of civil rights in the U.S. since the 19 60s.

2 Figure 1 shows the trend of the approval of gay marriage among Americans. It is clearly visible how in less than twenty years the proportions almost completely reversed and, at the beginning of the 2010s, the number of people who approve same-sex marriage became predominant. Commonly, these highs in support for gay and lesbian rights are considered proof of the shifting moral attitudes of Americans and it is widely believed that young people are more liberal than adults when it comes to social norms (Blow) .

Do you think that marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages? Source: Gallup (2015). Data in %.

3 While acknowledging that the largest shifts in cultural attitudes have been those relating to gay and lesbian issues, do all other trends point in the same direction? (Research Question 1). Is it true that the younger generations are more liberal than older ones and represent the major supporters of homosexual rights? (RQ2). What is the general perception on moral issues? (RQ3). Our hypothesis is that nowadays gay and lesbian issues are no longer considered moral taboos (H1) and when Americans are asked about moral values they are thinking of things other than just the norms surrounding sexual behavior and gay and lesbian issues (H2).

4 This article employs data coming from the most influential American polling organizations such as Gallup and the Pew Research Centre and it is divided into three sections. The first section analyzes the evolution of gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage in American public opinion and reflects on how Obergefell v. Hodges might not have been as epochal a Court decision as has been thought. The second section describes how the Supreme Court sentence, state-level decisions and the public opinion trends are just the outcome of a grassroots coordinated campaign which began more than a decade ago and that was able to conquer the majority of Americans. The third part concerns American public opinion trends related to moral issues, examining if it is true that U.S. citizens are moving leftward. It investigates if the positive attitudes towards same-sex marriage have the same trend across all generations and it deals with two apparently counter-intuitive findings: the majority of Americans who believe that the moral conditions of the country are getting worse and the same majority who think that most Americans are against same-sex marriage.

1. The Supreme Court decision, the opinion polls and the public perception on gay and lesbian rights in the U.S.

5 The Obergefell v. Hodges decision was defined as a big step forward for both social and civil rights. The Supreme Court sentence was described as “courageous” (Ball), “historic” (Liptak 1) and had a worldwide echo, becoming a virtuous example for those countries where LGBT relationships are not yet legally recognized. Several of the media made comparisons with some of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the ones that literally changed American society. From Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) on racial segregation, to Loving v. Virginia (1967) on interracial marriage, till Roe v. Wade (1973) on abortion. There have also been speculations about a possible renewed judicial activism of the Court (Kryzanek 171).

6 Actually, these comparisons with the past are partially misleading due to the simple fact that Obergefell v. Hodges was consistent with the American public's opinion on the issue. The support among Americans for gay marriage has increased over time, from 27 per cent in 1996, to 58 per cent in 2015, and a consistent majority has favoured it since 2011. For instance, the path to the legality of interracial marriage significantly differed from same-sex marriage, because at that time the Supreme Court led public opinion by legalizing something that Americans largely disapproved. Concerning the 1967 Supreme Court decision, the Gallup poll found that only one in five Americans (20 per cent) approved of such marriages. It took three more decades to reach a majority of support (Newport). Approval of same-sex marriage ascended significantly faster, and enjoyed majority support several years before the Court's decision.

7 In 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled Roe v. Wade on the issue of abortion, disallowing many state and federal restrictions, public opinion was divided on the topic (Smith and Son 2). Moreover, between 1975 and 2012, Gallup asked the same identical question on the legality of abortion more than fifty times. In 1975, 21 per cent said abortion should be legal under all circumstances, 54 per cent “legal only under certain circumstances,” and 22 percent “illegal in all circumstances” (Bowman and Sims 3). Interestingly, support for the legalization of abortion moved up notably between 1972 and 1973, following the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision in January 1973 (Smith and Son 2).

8 Immediately following the Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, Gallup asked Americans if they approved or disapproved of the Supreme Court ruling that racial segregation in all public schools is illegal—meaning that all children, no matter what their race, must be allowed to go to the same schools. The initial results from a poll held on 21-26 May 1954, found that 55 per cent of Americans approved of the decision, and 40 per cent disapproved. The results remained essentially unchanged in two additional polls conducted in 1954 (Gallup and Newport 200). Because there are no available opinion polls that were conducted before the Brown v. Board of Education sentence, it is arguable that the sentence itself had an effect on the first Gallup poll on the topic. Furthermore, that survey concerned the nationwide public opinion and it is probable that in the southern states, where racial segregation was still in force, citizens’ perception was different.

9 A long-term view of the trend on gay marriage illustrates how support for it was steady and incremental. In this sense, the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was less historic than has been portrayed by the media, being perfectly in line with the public opinion’s perceptions on the issue.

10 Probably, part of the media excitement around the decision came because of the recurring 5-4 division of the Court itself on the issue. In the four landmark decisions advancing gay rights in the last two decades: Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court has always been divided and in the last two sentences it was always Justice Anthony Kennedy who cast the crucial fifth vote, invalidating portions of the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor, and in Obergefell striking down state rules barring same sex marriage. The Court is inevitably influenced by the world around it. As social mores have evolved, so have the justices’ beliefs, on issues ranging from abortion to segregation: “What the Constitution is understood to encompass has changed over time in ways that are dramatic, sweeping, and often permanent. Although these changes are reflected in judicial decisions, they are rarely initiated there” (Friedman 367). What changed, in other words, was not the Constitution, it was the country. And what changed the country was a social movement . Obergefell v. Hodges was the product of the decades of activism that made the idea of gay marriage seem plausible and right (Ball). In just about a decade, public opinion on same-sex marriage has radically turned, now accepting something that was previously harshly ostracized. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may serve as an example: in Summer 2015, she celebrated the Obergefell v. Hodges decision on her social media accounts. But in 2004, when she was Senator of New York, in a passionate statement she defended the inviolability of marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Biddle). Earlier on, when she was the U.S. First Lady, she supported her husband’s decision to sign the “Defense of Marriage Act,” a set of rules that defined marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution. Hillary Clinton has obviously been accused of duplicity and deception, probably also because that was not the only case in which she apparently changed her mind (Schulman).

11 However, such a case cannot be compared with her vote in favor of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and her subsequent U-turn on the issue (Burgan 31). And it does not matter much whether this was a genuine change of mind or a political calculus. Hillary Clinton’s re-positioning on LGBT rights simply reflects the evolution of the political zeitgeist . In the United States of 2004, there were things that could not be said without moving out of the mainstream, of the socially acceptable. In the United States of 2016, the situation has completely reversed: if those same things are not said, people can even be barred from civil debate, at least from that of the Democratic Party.

12 According to Gallup, in 2004, half of Americans still believed that gay or lesbian relationships between consenting adults should not be legal. A proportion that was the same in the 1970s and that grew even larger in the 1980s. Nowadays, 68 percent of Americans agree that homosexuality should be legal, while 28 out of 100 claim it should not. Moreover, in 2003-2004, 44 percent of the people believed that being gay or lesbian was due to factors such as upbringing and environment, while only 38 percent thought that it was something that a person was born with. Since then, the trend has taken a clear development and in 2015, 51 percent of the people agreed on the fact that being gay or lesbian is something a person is born with, while 30 percent believe that is due to upbringing and environment. Also here, the break with the past is astonishing: in 1977, the ratio was 56-13 in favor of upbringing and environment. In 2015, gay and lesbian relations are considered morally acceptable by 63 percent of Americans. It was 48 percent in 2008 and 40 percent in 2001. Legal rights for homosexual couples to adopt a child are nowadays favoured 63-35, while as recently as 2007 the majority of Americans were against it (Gallup.com).

13 In the early 2000s, it was still con­sidered sui­cid­al for a Demo­crat­ic politi­cian to openly sup­port gay mar­riage. Now the de­bate seems largely over, and left-wing politicians are even push­ing for an­ti­discrim­in­a­tion laws that cov­er trans­gender people. The Wil­li­ams In­sti­tute at the UCLA School of Law found that between two-thirds and three-quar­ters of Amer­ic­ans now sup­port bar­ring dis­crim­in­a­tion against trans­gender people. It also found a dra­mat­ic rise in recent years in the per­cent­age of Amer­ic­ans who con­sider anti-trans­gender dis­crim­in­a­tion a “ma­jor prob­lem” (Beinart).

14 Public attitudes towards gay and lesbian rights represent one of the quickest evolutions in the history of American moral values. The politics of the issue have shifted very fast and gay marriage has widely become the status quo. Just two decades ago, only 27 per cent of Americans backed gay marriage, while 68 per cent opposed it. By 2005, the percentage in favour had increased by 10 points to 37 per cent, and by 2010 it had reached 44 per cent (Gallup.com). Though same-sex marriage continues to be politically divisive, Figure 2 shows that the support for its legal status has reached new highs among Americans of all political affiliations.

Support for Same-sex Marriage, by Party affiliation. % Should be valid. Source: Gallup (2015). Question asks: do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

15 Democratic Party voters (74 per cent) are most likely to support same-sex marriage, followed by independents (62 per cent). Republicans (30 per cent) remain least likely to support it, with a majority (67 per cent) still opposed. Young Americans (18-29) are the ones favouring gay marriage the most. Majorities of those aged 30 to 49 (62 per cent) and 50 to 64 (52 per cent) also believe same-sex marriages should be valid.

16 Analyzing Figure 2 from a long-range perspective, it comes clearly vi sible that the Democrats’ support towards gay marriage has increased more than in any other political group—by 43 points since 1996. And that was precisely the year in which Democratic President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of state-granted gay marriages. Since then, the Democratic Party has experienced a complete turn on the issue, and its members have become champions of marriage equality at the state level. Another crucial year was 2004: when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, the Democrats’ support was the first to reach majority level. Although Republicans have always been predominantly against the legalization of same-sex marriage, since 1996 their support has increased by 21 points. Between 1996 and 2009, no more than 20 per cent of Republicans believed same-sex marriages should be legally valid. Since then, support has ranged from 22 per cent to 31 per cent, leading up to the 2015 peak of 37 per cent.

17 Observers might argue that on this topic the party divide between Republicans and Democrats is a reflection of the basic electorate characteristics, depending mostly on the age groups that compose each party. Several surveys have indicated that Americans who are 18-29 are significantly more likely to vote for Democrats, whilst older Americans predominantly lean for the Republican Party (Newport, Party Identification ). And while in 2015 the majorities of each age group under 65 support marriage equality, those aged 65+ are still more likely to be against it. What is important for current politics is also that 26 per cent of Americans agree on the idea to vote for a candidate solely based on her/his stance on same-sex marriage; 43 per cent say it is just one of several important factors, and another 26 per cent believe it is not a major issue influencing how they vote. Notably, the around a quarter of voters who believe a political candidate must share her/his views on same-sex marriage is up from just 16 per cent in significant electoral years such as 2004 and 2008. 21 per cent of same-sex marriage supporters also say that a candidate’s opinion on the topic can make or break whether that politician receives their vote. On the other hand, for the Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, the percentage rockets to 37 per cent. Arguably, both supporters and opponents are more likely to say the issue is a defining factor than in the past (Newport Shift Left ).

2. A political campaign that transformed U. S. public opinion

18 The story of the gay movements and the long struggle of LGBT communities in the U.S. has been told many times. Boies and Olson wrote a fascinating account of the five-year battle to win the right for gays to marry, from Proposition 8 in California to its defeat before the highest court decision in 2015 (6). Hirshman provided one of the most comprehensive analyses of the fight for addressing gay and lesbian rights, and Faderman’s recent book updated the same topic by adding the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Several scientific articles have also extensively addressed the topic, repeating how astonishing the progress made on gay and lesbian rights has been. Therefore , despite its predictability, this section aims to state that the fight for gay marriage was, above all, a political campaign—a decades-long effort to win over the American public and, in turn, the Court.

19 The crucial shift in public opinion was possible thanks to a co-ordinated nationwide political campaign which was able to position gay and lesbian rights as a civil rights issue, making it more difficult for others to oppose the changes. The strategy also included high profile individuals who publicly disclosed that they are gay or lesbian. Additionally, the entertainment industry helped in making particular efforts to show gay and lesbian characters as more mainstream in their productions. What it achieved was remarkable: not just a Supreme Court decision but a revolution in the way America sees homosexuals.

20 In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a same-sex couple who sued the State of Minnesota, rejecting it with a single sentence: “‘The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.’ The idea that people of the same sex might have a constitutional right to get married, the sentence suggested, was  too absurd even to consider” (Moscowitz 102). In the 1970s, sodomy was a crime in nearly every state, LGBT people were often persecuted and barred from public and private employment, and homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. In 1975, the U.S. Civil Service Commission’s decision to no longer ban homosexuals from holding federal jobs was considered a significant victory. As recently as 1990, when three homosexual couples in Hawaii were refused marriage licenses, no national gay-rights group would help them file a lawsuit (Ball 1) .

21 In an LGBT world where the reference models were just a few, the first important “coming out” on TV came only in 1997. During an episode of the successful “Ellen” sitcom, played by Ellen DeGeneres, the protagonist announces that she is a lesbian. Exactly what the actress had done in real life, in Oprah Winfrey’s show a few weeks earlier. More than 42 million viewers watched Ellen’s coming out episode on TV and the debate that followed was enormous. However, the ABC network decided to insert the Parental Advisory logo in all the following episodes of the sitcom, although DeGeneres dissented. Amid opposing pressures, and in spite of its success and awards, Ellen’s series resisted just one more season. Then it got cancelled.

22 The first significant victories came in the early 2000s. Again, it was thanks to the Supreme Court that some of the first historic targets were achieved. In 1996, in Romer v. Evans, Justices ruled against a Colorado law which denied gay people the right to be protected against discriminations. It was the first Supreme Court case to address the rights of homosexuals since Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause. In 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

23 The gay marriage “season” opened at the beginning of the 2000s. After the Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003, in the U.S. it was Massachusetts to be the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage. On 17 May 2004, when Marcia Hams and Susan Shepherd, engaged for 27 years and with a son of 24, said “Yes” in Cambridge City Hall, their pictures became famous worldwide. The decision in Massachusetts held up, thanks to a powerful, years-long lobbying effort led by a group called MassEquality, which fought against the state legislature’s attempts to amend the local constitution. Soon after, Vermont too legalized civil unions but more losses followed in court—in New York, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, and Indiana.

24 In 2004, in a spectacular grassroots campaign to boost evangelical turnout for incumbent President George W. Bush, 11 states proposed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, and they all won. Top Democratic politicians blamed gay marriage for John Kerry’s loss in the presidential election, and some gay-rights leaders publicly wondered if the push for marriage should be abandoned (Cahill 98). More came in the 2006 and 2012 referendums: bans against gay-marriage were put up before voters in 30 states and won every single time. As Molly Ball puts it:

‘In June 2005, representatives of 10 advocacy groups met in New Jersey and drafted a document, ‘Winning Marriage: What We Need to Do,’ that proposed a timetable of 15 to 25  years. At the time, that seemed optimistic. One of the top goals set out in the document seemed achievable: winning a vote in California in 2008. But when Proposition 8, as the state’s referendum to ban gay marriage was known, went up for a vote, it passed, and shocked the advocates of gay marriage. If gay marriage couldn’t win a vote in liberal California—in the same election that powered Barack Obama to a historic victory—could it win anywhere? Part of the problem, movement leaders knew, was the lack of a well-organized political campaign. Multiple groups were trying multiple approaches with no centralized strategy, fundraising, or message. To figure out what needed to change, eight organizations, led by Freedom to Marry, formed a secret collaboration that they called the Marriage Research Consortium. They pooled their resources and held a monthly teleconference to share polling, insights, and ideas in real time. It was an unprecedented level of cooperation, by groups that were often rivals for money or credit. All of the polls and focus groups yielded a major revelation. The message gay-marriage campaigners had been using—an appeal to reason that enumerated the benefits of marriage that were being denied to gay people—wasn’t persuasive at all. Straight voters saw gay people as wanting something different than their idea of what marriage was about, which was love and commitment. ‘One of the questions in that first California poll was, ‘Do you think gay couples are trying to join marriage or change it?’’ recalled Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy for the centrist Democratic group Third Way, one of the leaders of the research consortium. ‘The correlation between people who said ‘change’ and people who voted against us was almost exact,’ she added. ‘We had to convince people that gay couples were trying to join this institution.’ Making others see and empathize with this fundamental normality, it turned out, was the key to convincing them that gays deserved to marry, too. Movement leaders started presenting their cause differently—in ads, in op-eds, in press releases, in conversation. An ad from one of 2004’s losing campaigns had featured a judge with law books talking about hospital visitation; the new ads featured straight people talking about their gay relatives: the mother or sister or grandfather of a gay person, talking about their loved one’s commitment to a partner. When gay people were featured, ‘it was old-lady lesbians who we found were the best messengers,’ Erickson Hatalsky said. ‘Nobody thought about sex when they saw them.’ ( The Marriage Plot )

25 Ball’s contribution has been added in full here because it clearly describes and shows the relevance and the characteristics of a national co-ordinated strategy, which it was able to state sub-topics, actions and targets. The campaign was keen to be “inclusive” and not “exclusive” and to portray gay and lesbian people as normal citizens wishing to join the “social community.” It was a campaign of “normalization,” which worked on people’s perceptions, not of transformation/liberalization of social mores.

26 The gay and lesbian rights cause entered the White House with President Barack Obama. On 22 December 2010, he signed the law which overturned the “don’t ask, don’t tell” that forbade openly gay people to serve in the Army, approved in 1993 under Bill Clinton’s presidency. And in his second presidential run, in 2012, Obama became the first U.S. President to openly support same-sex marriage. In 2012, after 31 straight losses for gay marriage in state referendums, the Freedom to Marry movement launched a centralized, message-tested  and coordinated campaign in four states—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. On Election Day, gay-marriage prevailed in all four states.

27 The ballot victories were a major turning point, because they defeated the above-mentioned powerful talking point of gay marriage opponents, that whenever it was put to a vote, the people were against same-sex marriage, even in the most liberal places. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled out portions of the Defense of Marriage Act in a case brought by Edie Windsor, who was taxed for her late same-sex partner’s estate because the federal government did not recognize their Canadian marriage (Ball). That decision brought a domino effect. State courts built on that sentence to strike down local gay-marriage bans, one after another. On Twitter, the hashtag #marriageEquality became viral and was used also by Obama, who tweeted “love is love.” Public support for gay marriage crossed the majority threshold in 2011 and has skyrocketed ever since. By the time the Supreme Court took up the final case, gays and lesbians could already marry in 36 states.

3. Age trends, gay marriage versus other moral issues, and the deterioration of morality in American public opinion

28 The great progress that has taken place on gay and lesbian issues made the media believe that Americans continue to move leftward on key moral issues, that people are now more accepting of a number of moral issues and that all changes have been in a more liberal direction (Waldman). This perception appears to be confirmed by the opinion polls. Table 1 seems clear: moral acceptability of many moral issues is now at a record-high level.

Moral acceptability: Changes over time.Source: Gallup (2015). % morally acceptable.

29 Table 1 acknowledges the fact that in the past 15 years there are only two issues that Americans have become less likely to consider as morally acceptable: medical testing on animals and the death penalty. But the decreased acceptance of these practices actually moves them in the same, more liberal direction. Polygamy and cloning humans have also seen significant increases in moral acceptability, again towards more liberal views. Besides the several liberal trends, it can be seen that only six issues remain considered morally unacceptable: abortion, cloning animals, suicide, polygamy, cloning humans and married men and women having an affair (Dugan).

30 The idea that the U.S. are moving leftward is partially confuted by other metrics. For instance, a solid majority (60 per cent) continue to support the death penalty. Thirty-seven percent oppose it, slightly higher than in recent years, in part because in 2015, only 3 per cent of Americans say they have no opinion on the topic. The low point for support in death penalty, 42 per cent, came in the 1960s, with support reaching its peak in the mid-1990s and generally declining since that point (Dugan, Solid Majority ). The long-dividing topic of abortion clearly shows how there is a difference between what Americans think should be legal and what they think is moral. When asked directly about the legality of abortion, 55 per cent of U.S. adults say it should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 40 per cent who say it should be illegal all or most of the time (Riffkin). In both cases, these figures have remained relatively stable for at least two decades. However, Table 1 shows that abortion is considered morally acceptable by only 45 per cent of Americans, and, according to Pew statistics, about half of Americans (49 per cent) say that having an abortion is morally wrong, while 15% think it is morally acceptable and 23 per cent say it is not a moral issue (Lipka).

31 Several op-eds and researches are saying that America is moving left, especially among millennials, often defined as ‘liberal millennials’ (Winograd and Hais 54). However, the shift toward more liberal attitudes on gay and lesbian relations has occurred across the age spectrum, not just among young people. 

Perceived moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations, by age. % morally acceptable. Source: Gallup (2015). Trend based on annual Gallup and Beliefs poll, conducted each May.

32 It is possible that the current landslide young majority which favours gay and lesbian relations has misled some commentators. In fact, while Figure 3 clearly confirms this trend, it also shows that the shift over the past 14 years in moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations among Americans aged 55 and older is 28 percentage points (27 per cent to 55 per cent), and the shift among 18- to 34-year-olds has been 27 points, almost exactly the same. As explained by Frank Newport in his commentary to the Gallup survey:

This could be age creep to some degree, as each year a segment of those in the younger age group moves into an older age group. But if this was totally age creep, we would have seen the 55+ group holding steady as the young group aged first into the 35- to 54-year-olds group. But we didn't see that. Older Americans have been changing their attitudes just as fast as younger Americans. ( Five Things )

33 So, at least as far as gay and lesbian relationships are concerned, the move leftward has been the same for all age groups.

34 Another point that should be addressed is that Americans have not shifted their views on all moral issues over time. As shown in Table 1, the notable exception is the American public's views on married men and women having an affair, which did not change much in the period 2000-2015. This particular behavior remains essentially a cultural taboo, in the sense that it is viewed as morally unacceptable to more than 90 per cent of the public, even though other behaviors related to sex and procreation have shifted. The case is interesting because one of the explanations for why the public's acceptance of other issues has been rising is the fact that “there is de facto evidence that the behaviors are occurring in the real world, and the public may come to the point where they feel it is appropriate to go ahead and accept the inevitable” ( Five Things ). But there is certainly evidence that extramarital affairs happen, both among public figures and “normal” people. However, the widespread existence of these behaviors has not changed the norms surrounding them. Married men and women having an affair are still sanctioned in a moral sense by the public.

35 Another metric that seems to point in another direction is the 72 per cent of Americans who say that the state of moral values is getting worse in the country rather than better. And almost as many rate the state of moral values in the U.S. as poor or only fair. These attitudes have remained very stable, despite the leftward shift in Americans' positions on specific moral issues and how they label themselves ( Five Things ). So, Americans are shifting leftward on moral issues, but not on their views of the state of moral values in the country. Why the change in one area and not in the other?

Americans’ outlook on state of moral values in the United States. Source: Gallup (2015). Wording: “Right now, do you think that the state of moral values in the country as a whole is getting better or is getting worse?.”

36 Figure 4 shows that Americans have remained very pessimistic for the last 15 years. American public opinion was slightly more optimistic about the direction of the country's morals in 2002, when 67 per cent of the interviewees said it was getting worse. However, there has always been a strong negative feeling: pessimism peaked between 2006 and 2008, when more than four in five Americans thought the state of moral values was declining.

37 Across most demographic groups, clear majorities of Americans have consistently said the country’s morals are deteriorating. Figure 5 is even clearer: 45 per cent of Americans think that the current state of moral values in the U.S. is “poor,” with 34 per cent saying it is “only fair” and 19 per cent rating the state of moral values as either “excellent” or “good.” The percentage who say the state of moral values is currently poor is up slightly from 42 per cent in 2014, and is at the same record-level high from 2009 and 2010 (McCarthy).

Americans’ outlook on state of moral values in the United States. Source: Our elaboration on Gallup (2015). Wording: “How would you rate the overall state of moral values in this country today – as excellent, good, fair or poor?.”

38 Americans’ views of the state of moral values haven't changed much over the past 13 years. Despite significant shifts in Americans’ views on same-sex marriage and other moral issues, Americans are about as likely as they were in 2002 to think that moral values in the U.S. are poor and to say they are evolving for the worse. The outcome could appear as paradoxical: many American citizens are thinking that the overall moral tone of their society is in bad shape and evolving worse, and, at the same time, they increasingly consider formerly taboo behaviors as morally acceptable ( Five Things ).

39 This remarkable phenomenon can be explained by the fact that Americans are not answering these questions in the way the opinion polls’ results would suggest. According to the 2010 and 2012 open-ended questions that Gallup asked about moral values, people’s views about the declining state of moral affairs largely reflect a belief that there is a deteriorating collective moral character. That is, their views have less to do with the greater acceptance of same-sex marriage or extra-marital affairs or other moral issues—as expressed in Table 1—and more to do with matters of basic civility and respect for each other.

40 In part, this can be explained by understanding that when Americans are asked about moral values (“How would you rate the overall state of moral values in this country today—as excellent, good, only fair or poor?” and “Right now, do you think the state of moral values in the country as a whole is getting better or getting worse?”) they are thinking about things other than just the norms surrounding sexual behavior and reproduction issues. Table 2 provides a clear overview of this ostensible contradiction. In 2012, when Gallup asked Americans to specify what was wrong with moral values in the country, 18 percent responded by mentioning the lack of consideration of others and compassion, 10 per cent talked of lack of respect and tolerance. Other significant portions of the population substantiate their concerns mentioning greed, dishonesty and selfishness, in addition to things such as the change in family structure, lack of religion. Notably, only a few mentioned abortion, sexual behaviors and gay and lesbian marriage (Brown).

In you view, what is the most important problem with the state of moral values in the country today? Source: Gallup (2015). Poll conducted on 3-6 May 2012. *less than 1%.

41 Does this mean that these moral taboos are not as such anymore? Is it another confirmation of Americans moving left on moral issues? There is no certain answer to that. It might also be a consistent misunderstanding between pollsters and citizens or a research bias. Surely, Table 1 does not reflect Figure 5. It is Table 2 that needs to be considered, and the moral issues which are usually considered by pollsters and discussed at a political level are clearly not those that form the people’s perception about the moral values of the country. When Americans are asked about moral values they mention issues and behaviors which have more to do with daily life and less with controversial issues that have a political and social impact.

42 There is also one last statistic that might apparently go against the general perception of “Americans becoming more liberal”: 53 per cent of Americans still believe that most Americans oppose same-sex marriage (Table 3).

Do you think most Americans are in favour of same-sex marriage or opposed to same-sex marriage? Source: Gallup (2015).

43 In other words, as shown in Table 3, perceptions differ from personal beliefs. Surely, the media environment plays a role in this and people also do not always respond honestly. It can also mean that interpersonal relations and discussions with friends generate different perceptions in people.

44 The point is crucial because people usually make up their minds before they define the facts. As Walter Lippmann writes in his seminal work on stereotypes and the distortions of the communication sphere: “We are told about the world before we see it. We imagine most things before we experience them. And those preconceptions, unless education has made us acutely aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception” (6).

Conclusions

45 In the early 2000s, under several points of view, the United States appeared as a puritan country that was a century behind Europe. The President was a conservative warmonger, the Congress authorized the controversial invasion of Iraq, and in January 2002 the Guantanamo Bay detention camp opened up. The death penalty was in force in the majority of states, racial divisions and discrimination against homosexuals were the norm. In terms of civil rights and moral taboos, the idea was that Europeans were modern and progressive while Americans were bigotted and stuck on their peculiar ideological traditions. In the early 2000s, Europe seems to be left-wing and the U.S. right-wing. It seemed bizarre, for instance, that gay and lesbian marriage was considered as an off-limits topic even for the Democrats, while it was already legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. Marijuana was illegal everywhere, racial tensions were high and publicly funded healthcare was perceived as something impossible to be established in the U.S.

46 In just a little over a decade, gay men and lesbians can marry in all 50 U.S. states, support for the legalization of marijuana has been increasing and 23 U.S. states have already legalized its recreational or medical use. An African-American President has been elected twice and he has been able to approve a healthcare reform that seemed implausible only ten years earlier. Public support for the death penalty is at its historical minimum and in the last ten years nine U.S. states have suspended or cancelled executions. In March 2016, Barack Obama was the first U.S. President to visit Cuba in 88 years.

47 These are not just social and political victories, they are signs of the evolution of the zeitgeist . Politics has reflected society and the mainstream has changed. We do not know if Paul Beinart is right when he wrote that the next Democratic president is going to be more liberal than Obama and the next Republican president will be more liberal than George W. Bush. Only time will tell. And it is true that racial relations are still a major issue and that the Obama’s healthcare reform is far from a ‘social-democratic’ model of welfare. However, less than fifteen years later, under several perspectives, America looks like a completely different country.

48 We demonstrated by means of statistics and analysis that Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues. The biggest leftward shift since 2000 has been in attitudes toward gay and lesbian relations, from only a minority of Americans finding it morally acceptable to a clear majority finding it acceptable. So, the answer to RQ1 is fully positive, with the only notable exception of extra-marital affairs.

49 As explained in section 1, the landmark Hobergefell v. Hodges decision simply integrated itself in a process of liberalization of attitudes towards gay marriage that in Summer 2015 was already underway, given that the opinion polls showed that a solid majority of Americans favoured same-sex marriage. Thus, the 2015 Supreme Court’s sentence partially differs from other landmark decisions of the past, which anticipated the trends of public opinion. The Court sentenced in favour of something that was already positively expressed by the citizens, by the social and political zeitgeist . It was a 5-4 decision, as in other historical cases, but perhaps less courageous than it could have appeared at first glance.

50 Section 2 showed how the rapid change in the public opinion perceptions was the outcome of a planned and coordinated strategy which led the gay and lesbian movement to achieve all the recent political victories that came after a long series of scorching losses. The third section focused on the fact that the forces pushing a higher acceptability of gay and lesbian relations are operating on the entire American culture and across the whole age spectrum, not just on young people. So, findings for RQ2 are that, in absolute terms, people aged 18-29 are the most supportive of gay marriage. But in relative terms, the 2002-2015 trend of acceptance of gay marriage was the same for all generations.

51 To sum up, the United States are living a generalized liberalization of attitudes toward moral issues. However, in such an apparently clear spectrum, there are a few trends that seem to point in the opposite direction and these require a more in-depth coverage. Why do the majority of Americans believe that the moral tone of the nation is worsening? Americans believe that moral issues include sentiments such as generosity, tolerance and respect. Thus, it is the perception of the country and of each individual’s daily life—and not the single provisions on social and civil rights—that determines the idea of morality and citizenry. Then, the last data shown is particularly significant: most Americans believe that the majority of U.S. citizens are against gay and lesbian marriage. This trend says a lot about people’s perception: from self-conviction to media influence, from interpersonal discussions to lying on questions of moral issues. In this sense the answer to RQ3 is an evident clash between people’s attitudes towards the vast majority of moral issues and their perception of the moral values of the country and of other people’s perception.

52 All in all, the opinion polls speak clearly: Americans are becoming more liberal on moral issues. H1 is thus confirmed: after an astonishingly rapid shift, gay and lesbian issues are no longer considered as moral taboos. On the other hand, U.S. citizens believe the country’s morality is getting worse. But, as demonstrated in section 3, that is precisely because when Americans are asked about moral values they are thinking of things other than just the norms surrounding sexual behavior, gay and lesbian issues, abortion, suicide, or gambling (H2 confirmed).

Bibliography

Ball, Molly. “How Gay Marriage Became a Constitutional Right.” The Atlantic Web. 1 Jul 2015.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/gay-marriage-supreme-court-politics-activism/397052/

---. “The Marriage Plot: Inside This Year’s Epic Campaign for Gay Equality.” The Atlantic . Web. 2 Dec 2012.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/the-marriage-plot-inside-this-years-epic-campaign-for-gay-equality/265865/

Beinart, Paul. “Why America is Moving Left.” The Atlantic . Web. 15 Jan 2016.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/

Biddle, Sam. “Remember When Hillary Clinton Was Against Gay Marriage?” Gawker . Web. 6 Sep 2015.

http://gawker.com/remember-when-hillary-clinton-was-against-gay-marriage-1714147439

Blow, Charles M. “The Rise of Social Liberalism and G.O.P Resistance.” New York Times . Web. 28 May 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/opinion/charles-blow-the-rise-of-social-liberalism-and-gop-resistance.html?_r=2

Boies David, and Theodore B. Olson. Redeeming the Dream: The Case for Marriage Equality . New York: Plume, 2014. Print.

Bowman, Karlyn, and Heather Sims, “Attitudes about Abortion.” American Enterprise Institute . Web. 7 Jan 2015.

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ABORTION.pdf.

Brown, Alyssa. “Americans’ Negativity About U.S. Moral Values Inches Back Up.” Gallup.com . 18 May 2012.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154715/Americans-Negativity-Moral-Values-Inches-Back.aspx.

Burgan, Michael. Hillary Clinton . London: Raintree, 2014. Print.

Cahill, Sean R. Same-sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts . Oxford: Lexington, 2004. Print.

Dugan, Andrew. “Once Taboo, Some Behaviors Now More Acceptable in U.S.” Gallup.com . 1 Jun 2015.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183455/once-taboo-behaviors-acceptable.aspx?utm_source=Social%20Issues&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles

---. “Solid Majority Continue to Support Death Penalty.” Gallup.com . Web. 15 Oct 2015.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186218/solid-majority-continue-support-death-penalty.aspx?g_source=MORAL_ISSUES&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

Faderman, Lillian. The Gay Revolution: The Story of the Struggle . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2015. Print.

Friedman, Barry. The Will of People. How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution . New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009. Print.

Gallup.com. “Gay and Lesbian Rights.” Web. 2015.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx.

Gallup, Alec, and Frank Newport, The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2004 . New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006. Print.

Hirshman, Linda. Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution . New York: Harper, 2013. Print.

Kryzanek, Michael. Debates, Differences and Divisions: The 25 Issues That Shape American Politics . New York-London: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Lipka, Michael. “Five Facts about Abortion.” Pew Research Center . 11 Jun 2015.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/11/5-facts-about-abortion/

Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide.” New York Times . Web. 26 Jun 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0.

Lippman, Walter. Public Opinion . New York: Free Press, 1997. Print.

McCarthy, Justin. “Majority in U.S. Still Say Moral Values Getting Worse.” Gallup.com . Web. 2 Jun 2015.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183467/majority-say-moral-values-getting-worse.aspx?g_source=MORAL_ISSUES&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles.

Moscowitz, Leigh. The Battle over Marriage: Gay Rights Activism through the Media . Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2013. Print.

Newport, Frank. “In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958.” Gallup.com . 25 Jul 2013.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx.

---. “Party Identification Varies Widely Across the Age Spectrum.” Gallup.com . Web. 10 Jul 2014.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/172439/party-identification-varies-widely-across-age-spectrum.aspx.

---. “Americans Continue to Shift Left on Key Moral Issues.” Gallup.com . Web. 26 May 2015.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183413/americans-continue-shift-left-key-moral-issues.aspx?utm_source=liberal&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles.

---. “Five Things We’ve learned about Americans and Moral Values.” Gallup.com . 8 Jun 2015.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/183518/five-things-learned-americans-moral-values.aspx.

Riffkin, Rebecca. “Abortion Edges Up as Important Voting Issue for Americans.” Gallup.com . Web. 29 May 2015.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183449/abortion-edges-important-voting-issue-americans.aspx?g_source=MORAL_ISSUES&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles.

Schulman, Sarah. Ties that Bind. Familial Homophobia and Its Consequences . New York and London: New Press, 2009. Print.

Smith, Tom W., and Jaesok Son. “Trends in Public Attitudes towards Abortion.” NORC . Web. 3 May 2013.

http://www.norc.org/pdfs/gss%20reports/trends%20in%20attitudes%20about%20abortion_final.pdf.

Waldman, Paul. “Why the Republicans start 2016 with a serious presidential problem.” Washington Post . Web. 30 Dec 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/12/30/why-the-republicans-start-2016-with-a-serious-presidential-problem/?postshare=3901451485980959&tid=ss_tw-bottom.

Winograd, Morley, and Michael D. Hais. Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America . New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press, 2011. Print.

List of illustrations

Electronic reference

Marco Morini , “Same-Sex Marriage and Other Moral Taboos: Cultural Acceptances, Change in American Public Opinion and the Evidence from the Opinion Polls” ,  European journal of American studies [Online], 11-3 | 2017, document 12, Online since 25 January 2017 , connection on 27 September 2024 . URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ejas/11824; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ejas.11824

About the author

Marco morini.

Università degli Studi di Padova

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC 4.0 . All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.

• Cited Names

Full text issues

• 19-3 | 2024 Special Issue: Funny Women: Perspectives on Women in/and the Comedy Scene
• 19-2 | 2024 Summer 2024
• 19-1 | 2024 Special Issue: Figurations of Interspecies Harmony in North American Literature and Culture
• 18-4 | 2023 Special Issue: Memory, Identity, Belonging: Narratives of Eastern and Central European Presence in North America
• 18-3 | 2023 Special Issue: Obsessions in Melville and Hawthorne
• 18-2 | 2023 Summer 2023
• 18-1 | 2023 Special Issue: Hamilton and the Poetics of America
• 17-4 | 2022 The Boredoms of Late Modernity
• 17-3 | 2022 Special Issue: Louisa May Alcott and Love: A European Seminar in Rome
• 17-2 | 2022 Summer 2022
• 17-1 | 2022 The Greek War of Independence and the United States: Narratives of Myth and Reality
• 16-4 | 2021 The American Neuronovel (2009-2021)
• 16-3 | 2021 Special Issue: Video Games and/in American Studies: Politics, Popular Culture, and Populism
• 16-2 | 2021 Summer 2021
• 16-1 | 2021 Spring 2021
• 15-4 | 2020 Special Issue: Contagion and Conviction: Rumor and Gossip in American Culture
• 15-3 | 2020 Special Issue: Media Agoras: Islamophobia and Inter/Multimedial Dissensus
• 15-2 | 2020 Summer 2020
• 15-1 | 2020 Special Issue: Truth or Post-Truth? Philosophy, American Studies, and Current Perspectives in Pragmatism and Hermeneutics
• 14-4 | 2019 Special Issue: Spectacle and Spectatorship in American Culture
• 14-3 | 2019 Special Issue: Harriet Prescott Spofford: The Home, the Nation, and the Wilderness
• 14-2 | 2019 Summer 2019
• 14-1 | 2019 Special Issue: Race Matters: 1968 as Living History in the Black Freedom Struggle
• 13-4 | 2018 Special Issue: Envisioning Justice: Mediating the Question of Rights in American Visual Culture
• 13-3 | 2018 Special Issue: America to Poland: Cultural Transfers and Adaptations
• 13-2 | 2018 Summer 2018
• 13-1 | 2018 Special Issue: Animals on American Television
• 12-4 | 2017 Special Issue: Sound and Vision: Intermediality and American Music
• 12-3 | 2017 Special Issue of the European Journal of American Studies: Cormac McCarthy Between Worlds
• 12-2 | 2017 Summer 2017, including Special Issue: Popularizing Politics: The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
• 12-1 | 2017 Spring 2017: Special Issue - Eleanor Roosevelt and Diplomacy in the Public Interest
• 11-3 | 2017 Special Issue: Re-Queering The Nation: America’s Queer Crisis
• 11-2 | 2016 Summer 2016
• 11-1 | 2016 Special Issue: Intimate Frictions: History and Literature in the United States from the 19th to the 21st Century
• 10-3 | 2015 Special Double Issue: The City
• 10-2 | 2015 Summer 2015, including Special Issue: (Re)visioning America in the Graphic Novel
• 10-1 | 2015 Special Issue: Women in the USA
• 9-3 | 2014 Special Issue: Transnational Approaches to North American Regionalism
• 9-2 | 2014 Summer 2014
• 9-1 | 2014 Spring 2014
• 8-1 | 2013 Spring 2013
• 7-2 | 2012 Special Issue: Wars and New Beginnings in American History
• 7-1 | 2012 Spring 2012
• 6-3 | 2011 Special Issue: Postfrontier Writing
• 6-2 | 2011 Special Issue: Oslo Conference
• 6-1 | 2011 Spring 2011
• 5-4 | 2010 Special Issue: Film
• 5-3 | 2010 Summer 2010
• 5-2 | 2010 Special Issue: The North-West Pacific in the 18th and 19th Centuries
• 5-1 | 2010 Spring 2010
• 4-3 | 2009 Special Issue: Immigration
• 4-2 | 2009 Autumn 2009
• 4-1 | 2009 Spring 2009
• 3-3 | 2008 Autumn 2008
• 3-2 | 2008 Special Issue: May 68
• 3-1 | 2008 Spring 2008
• 2-2 | 2007 Autumn 2007
• 2-1 | 2007 Spring 2007
• 1-1 | 2006 Spring 2006

Electronic supplements

• Book reviews

The Journal

• What is EJAS ?
• Editorial Committee
• Instructions for Contributors
• Book Reviews Information
• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Information

• Website credits
• Publishing policies

Newsletters

• OpenEdition Newsletter

In collaboration with

Electronic ISSN 1991-9336

Read detailed presentation  

Site map  – Contact us  – Website credits  – Syndication

Privacy Policy  – About Cookies  – Report a problem

OpenEdition Journals member  – Published with Lodel  – Administration only

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Justice Kennedy's Last Paragraph Sums Up Court's Decision On Same-Sex Marriage

NPR's Audie Cornish and Rachel Martin read the concluding paragraph in Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Friday's Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage.

Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Same Sex: Speech

National inquiry into discrimination against people in same-sex relationships: financial and work-related entitlements and benefits, jim woulfe, opening statement.

A "normal" couple

Thank you Commissioners for conducting this inquiry, and for giving me the opportunity to speak to you.

At the outset I'd like to say that quite frankly, it confounds me that we need to be going through this process in Australia, in 2006. We live in an essentially tolerant and inclusive society, so you've got to wonder why people like my partner Andreas and me are still waiting for equality.

In all but one respect, Andreas and I are an ordinary everyday middle-aged couple, living lives just like all the people around us. Thirteen years ago, in a 60-page application for Andreas' permanent residence visa we actually proved this to the Australian Government. I won't go over the details again, except to say that since then our lives have become even more closely intertwined.

We're productive members of our society. We're both employed, so we contribute to society with our taxes, and with our work we contribute to the organisations that employ us. We serve the community in other ways as well. Andreas has been a participant in the UNSW Health in Men Study since its inception. I'm a Justice of the Peace, and a first aid officer.

We participate as a couple in the lives of our extended families - indeed my nieces and nephews all think of Andreas and address him as an uncle.

We've been together now for nineteen years, so like every couple we've had the opportunity to share some incredibly joyful times, and to support each other through painful ones. We fully intend to spend the rest of our lives together, and our commitment to each other is deep, genuine and ongoing.

Just like our straight friends we contribute to the life of our society, our families and each other. Just like our straight friends, our relationship, and our expressing it by living together, is utterly lawful.

we face discrimination

Yet, in spite of this we face arbitrary discrimination in a number of areas, almost all of them because our Federal Government refuses to recognise our relationship.

My written submission lists some of our concerns: the unequal application of the Medicare Safety Net, and the fact that the definition of spouse in the Income Tax Assessment Act excludes us from provisions like superannuation splitting. Our inputs to the system are the same as comparable opposite-sex couples, yet we get less out of it. Every single one of these instances of discrimination is a nasty reminder that we are not equal.

It's not like the government gives us a choice in these matters. We can't opt out of the Medicare Levy or superannuation. Given the compulsion in the tax, Medicare and superannuation systems, it's reasonable to expect that having contributed at the same rate as everyone else, we'll get the same benefits - but we don't. Very simply we believe that forcing us to contribute to a system which discriminates against us is just plain wrong.

Just one more example from the aged care system that to us, underscores the meanness in this discrimination: where a member of an opposite-sex couple is incapacitated and requires nursing home care, the means test for an accommodation bond excludes the family home. However if one member of a same-sex couple requires residential nursing care, then that person's share of the family home is treated as a asset. What this means for us is that if either of us were ever incapacitated, we would face the possibility of being forced to sell our home out from under the other one.

Fortunately, it looks like there will be plenty of time to fix this problem before it affects us, if ever. But of course it's happening to other couples now.

normal except in one respect - harassment

Two men living together as a couple is a completely lawful situation in this country, so when I said that we are an everyday middle-aged couple in all but one respect, I wasn't referring to the fact that we're both men. For us the critical difference is that opposite-sex couples don't find themselves under attack because of who they live with.

I've lived in five countries, in varying degrees of openness with regard to my sexuality, but the only place I've been the target of homophobic behaviour is in Australia. For most of the last five years we have been the target of homophobic harassment by a former neighbour. Discussion, mediation, an AVO, and even his moving out of the neighbourhood haven't stopped the attacks. The police have been very supportive, but they are powerless to act until our tormentor slips up in front of a witness.

I'm not so nae ve as to confuse coincidence with cause, but it was notable that our former neighbour's worst behaviours were occurring while our Federal Parliament was discussing and enacting the amendments to the Marriage Act in 2004.

Andreas and I strongly believe that by retaining the inequalities, and refusing to recognise same-sex relationships, our Federal Government maintains an environment in which hate and homophobia can thrive. It validates the views of the very few in our society who would attack us because of our sexuality. The government treats gays and lesbians differently, they say, so why shouldn't we?

There are wider effects as well: for example some young gay people attempt to escape into marriages with opposite-sex partners (I did): some young gay people leave their homes and communities for the anonymity of large or foreign cities (I did): or worst of all, some young gay people are defeated entirely, and resort to suicide. All these are painful and unnecessary effects for individuals, families and communities.

We believe there is no essential difference between a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex one. Indeed decades ago when homosexuality was de-criminalised the perception of difference was made redundant. The Australia Institute's study last year on Homophobia in Australia showed that homosexuality is not an issue in most people's minds either. In our view, the only thing that's different about our relationship is the fact that we are attacked and discriminated against because of it.

A great power to end the discrimination and neutralise the homophobes resides with our Federal Government. Granting equality for same-sex relationships would rob the people who attack us of their phoney justification - it's the single biggest step our government could take against homophobic harassment and violence.

In closing, I'd just like to say that two things struck me when reading through the personal submissions to this Inquiry. The first was that the relationships documented here are incredibly resilient, given the obstacles they have overcome. The second was the sheer number of these obstacles which can be sheeted home to our Federal Government's refusal to recognise same-sex relationships.

In our view, there's absolutely no justification for this. We abide by the laws of this country, and we pull our weight in society, yet effectively we're being punished for our sexual orientation which as we all know, is entirely lawful.

So what do we think the government should do? Well, in June, the Prime Minister said that he is in favour of removing discrimination against homosexuals. A good start would be to extend the definition of spouse in federal legislation to include same-sex couples, in the same way as in now covers de facto couples. However, real equality won't come until we can also choose to formalise our relationships, the same as opposite-sex couples. Until then, we're just not equal.

Persuasive Speech Supporting Same Sex Marriage

EF_Kevin 8 / 13132   Apr 28, 2011   #2 My first idea was the imagine you're in love type thing, but I feel too cliche. Yes, it seems like a cliche! So... how can you express your own truth about it. Forget the speech for a second and just ask yourself what insight you gained while thinking about this recently. What little insight have you gained? It is probably hard to explain, but that is what essays are for. Think of what your contemplation has amounted to, and brainstorm some sentences that really express that insight. That might make your opening line. But you need to express that fresh insight in a way people can relate to. Catch their attention with a sentence that raises questions in their mind -- questions about the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CONCEPT you are sharing in the speech. Do not tell them what they have already heard. Share your newest insights. :-)

Persuasive Presentation Topics for Students: 100+ Compelling Ideas

Discover 100+ persuasive presentation topics for students, covering social issues, education, environment, and more. Find the perfect topic to engage and convince your audience.

What Makes a Good Persuasive Presentation Topic?

• Relevance: The topic should be timely and resonate with your audience's interests and concerns.
• Controversy: Persuasive topics often spark debate. Choosing a subject with differing viewpoints can make your presentation more engaging.
• Clarity: The topic should be clear and straightforward, enabling the audience to understand your stance and arguments easily.
• Passion: Choose a topic you are passionate about. Your enthusiasm will come across and help persuade your audience.
• Researchability: Ensure there is enough credible information available to support your arguments.

How to Choose the Right Topic for Your Presentation

• Identify Your Audience: Consider their interests, knowledge level, and viewpoints.
• Define Your Purpose: Are you trying to inform, persuade, or inspire your audience? Your goal will shape your topic choice.
• Brainstorm Ideas: Write down all potential topics that come to mind, even if they seem unconventional.
• Narrow Down Options: Filter your list based on feasibility, interest, and relevance.
• Do Preliminary Research: Ensure you have enough data to back up your arguments and develop a compelling case.

100+ Persuasive Presentation Topics for Students

1. social issues.

• Should social media platforms be regulated more strictly?
• Is the #MeToo movement effective in preventing sexual harassment?
• Should the voting age be lowered to 16?
• Is cancel culture harmful or beneficial to society?
• Should same-sex marriage be legalized worldwide?
• Are social media influencers a negative influence on young people?
• Is affirmative action still necessary in modern society?
• Should all public places provide gender-neutral restrooms?
• Is the death penalty an effective deterrent against crime?
• Should the legal drinking age be lowered or raised?

2. Education

• Should schools switch to a four-day school week?
• Is standardized testing an accurate measure of student ability?
• Should college education be free for all?
• Is homeschooling better than traditional schooling?
• Should financial literacy be a mandatory subject in high schools?
• Are single-sex schools better for students?
• Should students be required to wear uniforms in school?
• Is technology in classrooms a boon or bane?
• Should teachers' salaries be based on student performance?
• Is year-round schooling more beneficial for students?

3. Environment and Sustainability

• Is climate change the greatest threat to future generations?
• Should plastic bags be banned globally?
• Is nuclear energy the solution to our energy crisis?
• Should governments enforce a meat tax to combat climate change?
• Are electric cars truly eco-friendly?
• Should deforestation be made illegal?
• Is fast fashion harming the environment beyond repair?
• Should the use of pesticides in agriculture be banned?
• Is it better to invest in conservation or sustainable development?
• Should recycling be mandatory worldwide?

4. Technology and Innovation

• Are AI and automation leading to mass unemployment?
• Should there be a legal limit on screen time for children?
• Is the use of drones a violation of privacy?
• Are self-driving cars safe for widespread use?
• Should governments regulate cryptocurrency?
• Is genetic engineering ethical?
• Should social media companies be held accountable for fake news?
• Are video games more harmful than beneficial for children?
• Should there be limits on personal data collection by companies?
• Is the internet making us more or less intelligent?

5. Health and Wellness

• Should healthcare be free for all?
• Is a vegan diet healthier than a non-vegan diet?
• Should the government regulate the fast-food industry more strictly?
• Is the anti-vaccine movement dangerous?
• Should mental health days be mandatory in schools and workplaces?
• Are alternative medicines effective?
• Should there be stricter laws against cosmetic surgery for minors?
• Is addiction a choice or a disease?
• Should physical education be mandatory in schools?
• Are sports drinks beneficial or harmful to children?

6. Politics and Government

• Should voting be mandatory?
• Is the two-party system effective for democratic governance?
• Should there be term limits for all elected officials?
• Are current immigration policies fair?
• Should hate speech be protected under free speech?
• Is political correctness beneficial for society?
• Should foreign aid be prioritized over domestic needs?
• Are economic sanctions an effective tool for diplomacy?
• Is the current tax system fair?
• Should countries have open borders?

7. Science and Ethics

• Is animal testing necessary for scientific research?
• Should cloning be allowed for medical purposes?
• Are GMOs safe for consumption?
• Should human genetic modification be allowed?
• Is space exploration worth the cost?
• Should organ donation be mandatory?
• Is it ethical to use animals for entertainment?
• Should there be a limit on human lifespan extension research?
• Is euthanasia morally acceptable?
• Should we prioritize research on renewable energy over fossil fuels?

8. Business and Economics

• Should minimum wage be raised to a living wage?
• Is globalization beneficial or harmful?
• Should gig economy workers receive benefits and protections?
• Are monopolies always bad for consumers?
• Should advertising to children be banned?
• Is outsourcing jobs unethical?
• Should luxury goods be taxed higher?
• Is the wealth gap a threat to democracy?
• Should companies be penalized for environmental damage?
• Are cryptocurrency and blockchain the future of finance?

9. Entertainment and Media

• Is reality TV harmful to society?
• Should violent video games be banned?
• Is there too much censorship in media?
• Should celebrity influence on social issues be encouraged?
• Are awards shows still relevant today?
• Should pirated content be more severely punished?
• Is binge-watching harmful to mental health?
• Are eSports real sports?
• Is the portrayal of women in media improving?
• Should books with controversial topics be banned from schools?

10. Personal Development

• Is the concept of work-life balance achievable?
• Are college degrees necessary for success?
• Should everyone practice mindfulness and meditation?
• Is failure necessary for success?
• Should personal finance be a compulsory subject in school?
• Is time management the key to success?
• Are goals more effective than resolutions?
• Should everyone have a social media presence?
• Is self-discipline more important than motivation?
• Should travel be an essential part of education?

Tips for Creating an Effective Persuasive Presentation

• Start with a Hook: Begin your presentation with a question, statistic, or anecdote to grab your audience’s attention.
• Structure Your Arguments: Use a clear structure with an introduction, body, and conclusion. Make sure each point logically follows the previous one.
• Use Strong Evidence: Support your claims with facts, statistics, quotes, and real-life examples.
• Address Counterarguments: Acknowledge opposing views and refute them with solid reasoning.
• Engage with Your Audience: Ask questions, use visual aids, and interact with your audience to keep them engaged.
• Practice, Practice, Practice: Rehearse your presentation multiple times to ensure smooth delivery and confidence.

Create PPT using AI

Just Enter Topic, Youtube URL, PDF, or Text to get a beautiful PPT in seconds. Use the bulb for AI suggestions.

character count: 0 / 6000 (we can fetch data from google)

upload pdf, docx, .png

less than 2 min

Mehjabi Khan

10-Minute Presentation Topics: 100+ Ideas for Your Next Presentation

27 September 2024

Interesting Psychology Topics for Presentation for Students: 100+ Topics

Mental Health Topics for Presentation for Students: 100+ Ideas to Get Started

Leadership Topics for Presentation for Students: 100+ Topics to Inspire and Educate

Which Questions Should Not Be Considered When Evaluating Potential Topics for a Presentation?

What Are Good Topics for a Funny Presentation? 50+ Hilarious Ideas to Get You Started

How to Choose the Perfect Presentation Topic: A Detailed Guide

How to Add a Text box in Canva

Interesting Health Topics for Presentation: 100+ Ideas to Engage Your Audience

Stunning presentations in seconds with AI

Install MagicSlides app now and start creating beautiful presentations. It's free!

Get AI-Generated Presentations Ready in Seconds

Free AI PPT Tools