Answered>Order 24380

Compose a 1500 words essay on Gay rights. Needs to be plagiarism free!

Download file to see previous pages…

In their defense, the supporters of the Florida Marriage Amendment emphasize the benefits of dual-gender childbearing and also point towards the role of dual-gender marriage in procreation. A major moral argument has been thrust upon the United States in attempting to justify such state laws as the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment. Not surprisingly, the main backers of the amendment include state churches and pro-family organizations. Florida Marriage Protection Amendment should be repealed because it violates the very basic principles on which this country was built such as the right to liberty and the right for the pursuit of happiness. The law in Florida implies one can choose his or her life partner only from the opposite sex if he or she wants the union to be officially sanctioned by the state. Same-sex couples are experiencing the unfortunate hindrance of their own natural rights as a basis for the state to place a moral compass upon its citizens. By effectively eliminating a same-sex couple’s right to marriage, this amendment to state law deprives the same-sex couples numerous financial and non-financial benefits that come with marriage such as joint tax filings, savings on various types of insurance, support payments, and numerous promotional offers offered by commercial enterprises to married couples. This has produced an environment conducive to state-sanctioned discrimination against same-sex couples by denying them the financial and legal rights available to their dual-gender counterparts. The law gives support to the notion that homosexuality is a lifestyle as argued by religious institutions and not a natural phenomenon as argued by the scientific establishment. In other words, gay individuals are believed by the Florida state establishment to be engaging in a lifestyle by choice as opposed to by a fixed destiny based on genetics from birth. The laws are usually intended to protect society from the harmful consequences of one person’s actions. Human beings are reasonable creatures and thus, perfectly capable of evaluating the potential consequences of their actions. Therefore, it makes sense to hold one person responsible for the harm done to the society as a consequence of his or her own risky behavior. However, the laws attempt to draw a delicate line between individual freedom and one’s rights towards the society. This may explain why not all risky behaviors are regulated in truly democratic societies. While the goal is typically to protect every person within a society, it must also be to provide each person with the natural inalienable rights as set forth by that society’s government and its people. Its people must determine which rights are necessary. As an example, excessive alcoholic consumption can be fatal but there are no laws dictating how many drinks one can drink in a certain period of time but laws do discourage irresponsible behaviors such as drunk driving. Even though both are risky behaviors, in the first case, the risk is born by the same person performing the action while in the second case, the risk is involuntarily transferred to the society. The same reasoning could be applied to smoking laws, traffic laws, and numerous other health regulations. By the same logic, same sex marriage is a private matter that does no direct harm to the safety or security of society.