gay married

合集下载

同性婚姻维权第一案

同性婚姻维权第一案第一篇：同性婚姻维权第一案同性婚姻维权第一案(根据本事件做出判断，答对可获得10个学分)2016年07月25日 16:10厘清对“一夫一妻”和“立案登记制”的误解——同性婚姻维权第一案肖君拥刘林波案情呈现：2015年6月23日，孙某某和他的男朋友胡某某来到长沙市芙蓉区民政局婚姻登记处办理结婚登记，民政局工作人员以“没有法律规定同性可以结婚”为由予以拒绝。

孙某某不服，决定通过法律途径争取自己的权利。

同年12月16日，他和代理律师石某某向芙蓉区人民法院提交了起诉材料，请求判令芙蓉区民政局为其办理婚姻登记。

12月24日，法院向当事人寄出一份要求补充立案材料的快递，要求补充孙某某男友信息。

2016年1月5日，法院受理了案件。

4月13日，长沙市芙蓉区人民法院就孙某某、胡某某与长沙市芙蓉区民政局行政违法一案公开开庭审理，经过3个多小时的庭审，最终法院认为长沙市芙蓉区民政局拒绝为同性的孙某某、胡某某办理结婚登记符合法律规定，驳回孙某某、胡某某的诉讼请求。

至此，被誉为中国同性恋婚姻维权第一案暂告一段落。

5月5日，孙某某、胡某某向长沙市中级人民法院提起上诉，请求法院判令撤销一审法院的判决。

处理意见：第一种意见认为，《婚姻法》原文并不是“一男一女”，而是“一夫一妻”，“一夫一妻”并不是指要一男一女的异性恋才能结婚，而是男男、女女、男女都可以结婚。

因此，民政局拒绝办理婚姻登记并无正当理由，人民法院按照立案登记制要求，予以立案的做法十分正确。

第二种意见认为，《婚姻法》规定了结婚条件为“一夫一妻”，说明结婚对象需为一男一女。

因此，民政局拒绝办理婚姻登记是依法行政，立案登记制并不是所有的案件都予以立案，违法起诉或者不符合法定起诉条件的不能立案，本案中法院不应立案。

我们认为，民政局不予办理结婚登记的行为是依法行政，法院的立案行为存在错误。

专家意见：湖南省政协委员、湖南天地人律师事务所主任翟玉华：芙蓉区法院受理这个案件，我认为是符合民事诉讼法的规定的，因为只要符合案件受理的条件，按照民事诉讼法的规定就应该受理，我认为这是符合法治精神的。

10 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal

10 reasons why gay marriage should be illegal01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural thin gs like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 同性恋不自然。

真正的美国人反对不自然的东西,比如眼镜、聚酯、空调。

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that h anging around tall people will make you tall. 同性婚姻会鼓励人们对同性恋者,同样的道理,周围高个子人会让你高。

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy beha vior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal st anding and can sign a marriage contract 合法化同性婚姻会打开门到各种疯狂的行为。

人们甚至要和宠物结婚,因为狗也有法律地位可以签署一个婚姻04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn´t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can´t marry whites, and divorce i s still illegal. 异性婚姻已经存在这么久了,不应改变;所以,妇女还是男人的财产,黑人还不能和白人结婚,当然离婚也不应合法。

Homosexual Marriages同性恋婚姻

Homosexual MarriagesAs a philosophical opinion says, all men are created equal. Except for the material conditions like money or background, everyone has the same equal rights and other things. And marriage is one of them. So I hold that homosexuals should be allowed to get married.Firstly, the trend has changed compared with that before. According to some dictionaries, the definition of “marriage” has changed a little. It not only includes “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, but also to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”(/dictionary/marriage) As we all know that the dictionary is changing with the pace of society development, especially the new fashion words, so it’s obvious that homosexuals are realized by many people and are acknowledged to get married. However, most people don’t agree with the homosexuals’marriage, and “nearly seventy percent of people in the United States oppose gay marriage.”(/marriage.htm) I think it is an apparent discrimination.Secondly, everyone is equal in the same society. Can you find any big difference in homosexual people except their sexual preference? No. what is always misunderstood by almost people is that they don’t have choice to not be homosexuals. To some degree, it is determined when they born. As far as I know, some of them love the same sex people instinctively; but some of them love the person first and the person happens to be the same sex as him or herself. Therefore, they all are ordinary people, so they should enjoy the same rights as us. In every country’s law, the right of marriage is protected. And those people who love the same sex own one of the human rights.As a member of society, “they have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accommodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etc.”(/marriage.htm) What if youlove another person sincerely? Of course, you will try your best to get married and to consist of a happy family. So do homosexuals. They are only applying one of their rights——marriage, and they haven’t harm other s’ benefits. If you take account of the moral influence on teenagers or others, you also have to admit that it’s only in moral aspect. According to the laws, people should implement their rights when it is not harmful to others’ benefits. In this way, the same sex marriage should be legalized by the government.Thirdly, love is the foundation of marriage. Once we were told by a teacher that love is word and marriage is sentence. Therefore those homosexual people already have the foundation, and what they need now is the adoption by law. When two persons are going to get married and build a family, they must be willing to share happiness as well as hardship together and be responsible for each other. I think homosexual people also can do what others do because of the more difficult love between them. They want to live together and take care of each other as ordinary people do whenever they need, because they love each other. Providing that a homosexual man has got married with a normal woman, I guess they would not live happily. Facing his wife, without true love, he would usually miss his lover. At the same time, his wife might be disappointed for her husband unfaithfulness. If it were me, I wouldn’t want be that. So I think they have the right and should be allowed to get married.Fourthly, allowing homosexuals get married can make a big difference on the society development, especially the population pressure all over the world. What we all know that the earth is enduring big pressure from the population which produce so many problems, such as environment problem, employment problem, and so on. And the marriages between homosexuals can make contributions to it. On the one hand, they can’t have their own children which can delay the fast increase of population. On the other hand, almost homosexual couples usually would adopt those orphans from poor areas which benefit the children as well as the society, because those children can gain more love and care and good education from the parents and meanwhile can relieve the society’s economy burden. But many people would oppose it for it willlead to “aging of population and will affect the production capacity and decline the birth rate, etc.”(/wiki/%E5%90%8C%E6%80%A7%E5%A9%9A%E5% A7%BB) In my opinion, it isn’t a deal to worry about, because “the proportion of homosexuals among all people is low, about 5% to 10%.”(/wiki/%E5%90%8C%E6%80%A7%E5%A9%9A%E5%A7% BB) After all, they are the minority part, so there is no need to worry about the economic impact.Lastly, as for those cons for homosexual s’ marriages, I think they are groundless and haven’t any reality bases. Could it be said that “the children brought up by homosexual parents must be also homosexual?”(/2006/09/01/12-reasons-gays-shouldnt-be-allow ed-to-marry/) Of course not! As I said in the preceding part, “most of them couldn’t simply choose to be heterosexual even though they wished.”(/marriage.htm)In conclusion, considering the feasibility, the necessity and the advantages as well as the infeasibility of the cons, I insist that homosexuals should be allowed to get married.。

Gay marriage_Let them wed

Gay marriage: Let them wedThere is no compelling reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage, and several compelling reasons to include themJan 4th 1996MARRIAGE may be for the ages—but it changes by the year. And never, perhaps, has it changed as quickly as since the 1960s. In western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted both in statute and in society; marital failure itself, rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds for a split. With change, alas, has come strain. In the 25 years from 1960, divorce rates soared throughout the west—more than sextupled in Britain, where divorce appears inevitable for the world's most celebrated marriage, that of Charles and Diana Windsor. Struggling to keep law apace with reality, Britain's Tory government is even now advancing another marriage reform, seeking, on the whole sensibly, to make quick or impulsive divorce harder but no-fault divorce easier.That, however, is not the kind of reform which some decidedly un-Tory people are seeking—and have begun to achieve. Denmark, Norway and Sweden now allow homosexual partners to register with the state and to claim many (though not all) of the prerogatives of marriage. The Dutch are moving in the same direction. In France and Belgium, cities and local governments have begun recognising gay partnerships. And, in the American state of Hawaii, a court case may legalise homosexual marriage itself.As of today, however, there is no country which gives homosexuals the full right of marriage. And that is what gay activists in more and more places are seeking. Marriage, one might think, is in turbulent enough waters already. Can gay marriage be a good idea—now?Home, hearth and healthTo understand why the answer is yes, first set aside a view whose appealing simplicity is its undoing. “Governments are not elected to arrange nuptial liaisons, much less to untangle them,” writes Joe Rogaly in the Financial Times. “It is a purely private matter.” On this l ibertarian view, the terms of a marriage contract should be the partners' business, not the state's. With the help of lawyers and sympathetic churchmen, homosexuals can create for themselves what is in all practical respects a marriage; if they lack a government licence, so what?The government-limiting impulse motivating this view is admirable. But, in truth, the state's involvement in marriage is both inevitable and indispensable. Although many kinds of human pairings are possible, state-sanctioned marriage is,tautologically, the only one which binds couples together in the eyes of the law. By doing so it confers upon partners unique rights to make life-or-death medical decisions, rights to inheritance, rights to share pensions and medical benefits; just as important, it confers upon each the legal responsibilities of guardianship and care of the other. Far from being frills, these benefits and duties go to the very core of the marriage contract; no church or employer or “commitment ceremony” can bestow them at one blow. If marriage is to do all the things that society demands of it, then the state must set some rules.Just so, say traditionalists: and those rules should exclude homosexuals. Gay marriage, goes the argument, is both frivolous and dangerous: frivolous because it blesses unions in which society has no particular interest; dangerous because anything which trivialises marriage undermines this most basic of institutions. Traditionalists are right about the importance of marriage. But they are wrong to see gay marriage as trivial or frivolous.It is true that the single most important reason society cares about marriage is for the sake of children. But society's stake in stable, long-term partnerships hardly ends there. Marriage remains an economic bulwark. Single people (especially women) are economically vulnerable, and much more likely to fall into the arms of the welfare state. Furthermore, they call sooner upon public support when they need care—and, indeed, are likelier to fall ill (married people, the numbers show, are not only happier but considerably healthier). Not least important, marriage is a great social stabiliser of men.Homosexuals need emotional and economic stability no less than heterosexuals—and society surely benefits when they h ave it. “Then let them'unchoose' homosexuality and marry someone of the opposite sex,” was the old answer. Today that reply is untenable. Homosexuals do not choose their condition; indeed, they often try desperately hard, sometimes to the point of suicide, to avoid it. However, they are less and less willing either to hide or to lead lives of celibacy. For society, the real choice is between homosexual marriage and homosexual alienation. No social interest is served by choosing the latter.To this principle of social policy, add a principle of government. Barring a compelling reason, governments should not discriminate between classes of citizens. As recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some American states could not wed. No one but a crude racist would defend such a rule now. Even granting that the case of homosexuals is more complex than the case of miscegenation, the state should presume against discriminating—especially when handing out something as important as a marriage licence. Thus the question becomes: is there a compelling reason to bar homosexuals from marriage?One objection is simply that both would-be spouses are of the same sex. That is no answer; it merely repeats the question. Perhaps, then, once homosexuals canmarry, marital anarchy will follow? That might be true if homosexual unions were arbitrary configurations, mere parodies of “real” marriage. But the truth is that countless homosexual couples, especially lesbian ones, have shown that they are as capable of fidelity, responsibility and devotion as are heterosexual couples—and this despite having to keep their unions secret, at least until recently. Would gay marriage weaken the standard variety? There is little reason to think so. Indeed, the opposite seems at least as likely: permitting gay marriage could reaffirm society's hope that people of all kinds settle down into stable unions.The question of children in homosexual households—adoption, especially—is thorny. That question, however, is mainly separate from the matter of marriage as such. In settling a child with guardians who are not the natural parents, the courts and adoption agencies will consider a variety of factors, just as they do now; a couple's homosexuality may be one such factor (though it need not, by itself, be decisive).In the end, leaving aside (as secular governments should) objections that may be held by particular religions, the case against homosexual marriage is this: people are unaccustomed to it. It is strange and radical. That is a sound argument for not pushing change along precipitously. Certainly it is an argument for legalising homosexual marriage through consensual politics (as in Denmark), rather than by court order (as may happen in America). But the direction of change is clear. If marriage is to fulfill its aspirations, it must be defined by the commitment of one to another for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health—not by the people it excludes.。

gay marriage 作文

Gay MarriageIn recent years, the debate over same-sex marriage has grown from an issue that occasionally arose in a few states to a nationwide controversy, reverberating in the halls of Congress, at the White House, in dozens of state legislatures and courtrooms, and in the rhetoric of election campaigns at both the national and state levels.Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflicts arise over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status, or not have any such rights. For my part, although I will never become a lesbian, I support the same-sex marriage, because love is a natural and free thing, same-sex couples should have the equal rights as opposite-sex couples.According to a survey, nearly seventy percent of people in the U.S. oppose gay marriage, almost the same proportion as are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights but also oppose gays on this one issue. There are some reasons why people cannot accept homosexuality.First, people have a conventional idea that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. But now, the definition of "marriage" is changed. Marriage has no boundaries of nation, race, age and even sex.It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied.People may say same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. I think it's not. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, and thereby reduce the number of supposed heterosexual marriages that end up in the divorce courts.There are also many people who think marriage is for procreation. Procreation maybe an important part of marriage, but not whole absolutely. If that's the case, the infertile couples are not allowed to marry. People may also argue that same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. But the fact is that many gay couples raise children adopted from heterosexual marriages because of their failed attempts. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. But the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic——a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive.In addition to what I have listed, there are other arguments on this issue, like homosexuality would undermine civilization. In my opinion, civilization is concerned with culture or spiritual outlook of our people, not who you marriage.As we have seen, the debate on gay marriage will be go on. So let's get on with it. Let's get over our aversion to what we oppose for silly, irrational reasons, based on ignorance and faulty assumptions, and make ours a more just and honorable society, finally honoring that last phrase from the Pledge of Allegance "With liberty and justice for all."。

英语演讲稿同性恋婚姻合法化doc

英语演讲稿同性恋婚姻合法化篇一：同性婚姻合法化(英语)Is It Necessary to Legalization of Same-sexSame-sex marriage (or called "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage") refers to the marital relationship between two persons the same biological sex or gender identity between. In same-sex marriage supporters, which is also recognized as the "marriage equality" or "equal marriage rights."Today, twenty-first century, facing the threat of AIDS, the pressures of gay marriage, as well as worrying the health of gay mental and other practical, how earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the gay community has become an extremely complex social problem. Currently, a series of social problems caused by the growing population of gay is of social concern, including discussions on the legalization of same-sex marriage has become increasingly fierce. Particularly renowned sociologist Dr. Li Yinhe "Chinese proposal to legalize same-sex marriage," and much controversy, not only controversial proposal itself, more proposals reflectsthe enormous social value conflicts --- mainstream and non-mainstream collision, people start thinking about same-sex marriage should not be legalized.In essence, homosexuality is a kind of the opposite sex can not produce to meet the requirements and nature of natural physiological phenomenon. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality would lead to a decision Classification of Diseases, thefollowing year, the American Psychological Association has also made a similar decision. World Health Organization also confirmed in 1992: homosexuality is a natural phenomenon belonging to minorities, then it is not classified as mental disorders (sexual perversion). In XX, China promulgated the third edition Psychiatric Association, "China Classification and diagnostic criteria of mental disorders", the same will be removed homosexuality from the classification of diseases, which means that homosexuality is no longer considered a disease, homosexuality is no longer in our country for the first time classified as a pathological mental abnormality.Since homosexuality is not pathological, but rather a normal human behavior and minorities normal way of life, therefore, homosexuality as a citizen of a country, its basic legal rights as heterosexuals should obtain legal recognition and protection of the country's any person or organization shall not be infringed.篇二：关于同性恋话题的英语演讲稿As we all know,famous Chinese director Ang lee said,"Everybody has a Brokeback Mountain in the heart."Homosexuality is the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex.In the modern society, they suffer from the social norms of pressure,such as family,marriage, love and sex roles.Besides,they also suffer from the misunderstanding of the crowd, prejudice and hatred.Their feeling and life can not get social support.Gay bashing is rare in modern China. The authorities do not actively promote gay issues in China. Although there is no law against homosexuality or same-sex acts between consenting adults, neither arethere laws requiring people to accept individuals who engage in gay acts, and there are also no gay organizations in China. It is believed that the Chinese policy towards the gay issue remains the "Three Nos": no approval, no disapproval, and no promotion.In fact,no body knows whom he will love when he was born ,of course includes the sexuality. They were just told and teached they can only love the opposite sex person. No matter you love boy or girl, the same sex or different sex, it’s nature. No one have the right to command your choice or deny your love."love" is very valuable,and we should be the equal point of view,understanding of "love" is everyone has the right to pursue, regardless of homosexual or heterosexual.True love doesn't rightly or wrongly.Both gay people, is normal people, their feelings also worthy of respect, also need to eulogize.Our society should be more forgiving.We should take the most common, ordinary attitude towards prehend and accept it,so we can not discriminate them.Because they are also have their own emotion and make contribution to the society.Ofcourse, homosexuality also should pay attention to prevent the spread of AIDS.Now I just want to say : everything that exists is rewarding and blessing for them.Of course, I'm not a gay.Thank you.篇三：英文演讲：Same-sex Marriage 美国同性婚姻合法化的影响Same-sex MarriageTo begin with, I would like to show you a picture. [pic.] Supporters of same-sex marriage waved the rainbow flag after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry at the Supreme Court in Washington, June 26, XX. So today, I would like to show my opinions about effects on legalization of same-sex marriage.Socially, argues of same-sex marriage are everlasting.On a negative side, same-sex marriage can bring us countless problems. /The health risks are enormous to themselves and others.The fact is that homosexuals do not live as long as heterosexuals due to the healthrisks associated with the lifestyle.Whether or not you want to say that AIDS is a homosexual disease, the fact is that it is highly prevalent among the gay and lesbian community due to their great number of sex partners. The collateral damage to the rest of society as far as health risks cannot be denied./Also, gay marriage reduces the number of children born in society, and we need a stable population base to operate properly. If gay marriage increases and heterosexual marriage decreases, society will be harmed.//On a positive side, people shouldn’t ignore the advantages. /Gay marriage decreases the extra cost that can be used for benefits programs at state level. In this regard, New York City’s comptroller estimated and articulated that if gay marriage is legalized, it can contribute around $142 million to the economy of city and around $184 million to the state’s economy. /As you can see, there are so many children who are waiting to be adopted by someone and it can be made possible in case of same sex-marriage, as they go to adopt children easily. One of the studies conducted in July XX delineated that gay fathers’children have same lifestyle, statusand are well-adjusted as those children adopted by heterosexual parents./Additionally, the major cases of divorce, abortions and increasing rate of population can be found less in case of gay marriage. For an instance, Massachusetts had shown the lowest rate of divorce in XX after gay marriage was legalized there first in XX. Alternatively, Alaska and other seven states those had prohibited gay marriage constitutionally shown more than 17% increase in divorce rates.Politically, legalization of same-sex marriagehave impacts on the coming general election in the United States.Democrats and Republicans show different attitudes towards same-sexmarriage.Democrats tend to favor equal rights for gay and lesbian couples the right to get married and adopt children. While Republicans believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman so they do not support gay marriage or allowing them to adopt children./This discrimination mainly comes from their religious believes. According to the Bible, God created humans to engage in sex only within thearrangement of marriage between a male and a female. AlthoughChristians are directed to respect everyone, Jesus didn’t encourage his followers to accept any and all lifestyles. Rather, he taught that the way to salvation is open to “everyoneexercising faith in him.”Exercising faith in Jesus includes conforming to God’s moral code, which forbids certain types of conduct—including homosexuality./InThe XX presidential campaign, The Democratic National Committee discuss about gay marriagein the party platform for the first time ever. Many surveys showed that it seemed to play a role in the success of Obama administration.However, the debate between Obama and Romney were still mainly focused on the still-struggling economy. As the financial problems are likely to solved by Obama’s care, voters start to concern about the same-sex marriage.Support for same sex marriage in America rose from 37 percent to 57 percent between the years of XX and XX. And Hilary Clinton, one of the sustainers among the democratic, received high applaud because of her opinions onlegalization of same-sex marriage, which will lead tosupport from the floating voters.Personally, I believe legalization of same-sex marriage brings us positive effects. The first keyword is equality. I firmly believe that we are all equal, and that everyone should be treated the same. Gay marriage is an acknowledgement of equality. Two people should be able to formalize their relationship, regardless of whether they are both men, both women,or one of each. The second keyword is harmless. Pagans like me believe in the tenet ‘Do what you wish, as long as it harms no-one’. Well, what harm does allowing a gay couple to get married really do? It is really just giving them equal rights and status and does not affect anyone else. It certainly won’t bring society down. The last key sentence is we are who we are. Sexuality is not something you choose, nor is it something that anyone should be made to feel ashamed of. Gay couples have the right to get married because they are who they are, and there is nothin(转自：小草范文网:英语演讲稿同性恋婚姻合法化)g wrong with that at all.Peace, Love and Tolerance, that should be themost valuable attitude towards the modern society.。

Should gays be allowed to marry

Should gays be allowed to marry?Rachel10110350104T2gay marriage is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.Homosexual phenomenon has existed even since the human society come into being. In abroad, homosexuals had been persecuted terribly. Nowadays, with the development of homosexual rights movement and human rights movement, the rights of homosexuals have been enlarging continually. During the homosexual rights movement, the legalization of homosexual marriage is the top goal of homosexuals. However, it is widely acknowledged that marriage is a union of man and woman , should gays be allowed to marry? Even though anyone can pursue love freedom,regardless of sex.gay marriage will be a control on population growth. they also want to have children and usually they will adopt orphans. This will help a lot of orphans.If country can pass the law of gay marriage, then undoubtedly many gay will be attracted to come to the country. many nations have admitted the same sex marriage, but I still believe that it will hurt family and society.1.Affecting the human evolutionAlthough the purpose of marriage is not only for reproduction, yet the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species .due to physical condition everybody knows that homosexual cannot bear a child.You may argue that they can adopt one .But our children need the education given by father and mother both. The cooperation of mother and father plays an unique role in a child’s growing process. They help children to shape a sound world value, to foster a health relationship with opposite sex. But in homosexual families, what can you give to children?In addition, scientists have found most of homosexual is not by nature but by nurture. A child living in homosexual family is more likely to adopt the same .If gay marriage is allowed, the nation will soon begin to experience an increased degradation of the nuclear family ,resulting in fewer kids being raised by both a mom and a dad.2. Legalization of homosexual marriage may overturn the basic moral discipline in China.Marriage is a holy and sacred concept in Chinese ethic system and Chinese culture evolution. And a traditional family is the cell of a harmonious society. Homo marriage undermines what the marriage itself should be. And from my perspective, you due what you want to value. Homo marriage legalization is catering for the minority at a high cost of society as a whole.We witness an increasing number of people who advocate homo marriage just in order to appear to be enlightened and tolerant. And some mainstream media are also agitating and exaggerating this tendency. And if the culture continues to send that message, if our educational system sends that message, you know what? Eventually the basic morality will change and people's ethic will change.3.undermining the institution of marriagehomosexual marriage is undermining the institution of marriage, which is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The word "marriage" does not mean whatever you want it to mean .But you didn’t explain how it can be nefit our society. You also didn’t explain what the impact would be on the institution of marriage and on our children.If the only reason for marriage is that we want it, So, what if a man wants marry a kid, what if an animal? If it happens, The legalization of marriage will be meaningless, the protection for all families will be lost, finally, the basic social structure will break down.Gay is harmful children because gay is harmful to children because they cause marriage is not stable and emotional chaos ,they trigger easy to cause the spread of AIDS ,and they impose a dangerous marriage . Are you ready to persuade your family to permit your decision? Legalized marriage isn’t simply personal preference, but more about the protection of social stability and morality . So I don't agree with gay marriage.。

Gay marriage sample essay

Most people believe that they deserve the rights they are granted by the government. An upstanding citizen who pays their taxes, serves their community and abides by the law should be afforded the rights of an American. However, not all citizens are afforded equal rights. Gay and lesbians are consistently denied rights that are typically taken for granted by the average American. Specifically, gay and lesbians couples are denied the right to marry even if they are upstanding citizens. They are held at an unfair disadvantage solely because of their sexual orientation. This discrimination must stop because gay and lesbian couples are law-abiding citizens too, who should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples.One common problem that plagues gay and lesbian couples that are denied the right to marry is their inability to claim their partner’s social security after he or she has died. The Human Rights Campaign, which work to achieve equal rights for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender people, is supporting the effort to attain survivor benefits for domesticate partners. They believe, “Any alteration to the Social Security system must include partners of gays and lesbians in its definition of survivor”(Survivor Benefits 1). Currently, there are no programs that give homosexuals survivor benefits like the ones that are provided for heterosexuals who are married or divorced. Gay and lesbian partners are not able to claim benefits of their deceased, regardless of the fact that all working citizens heterosexual or homosexual pay into the Social Security system for survivor benefits (Survivor Benefits 1). Sadly, this leaves many gay and lesbian couples with an unstable retirement. The most disturbing fact is that even though homosexuals and heterosexual both pay the government for survivor benefits, even people who divorced can even claim survivor benefits whereas a lifelong gay/lesbian partner cannot (Survivor Benefits 1). This is blatant discrimination against people of different sexual o rientation. This is only one example of how the government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages denies homosexuals rights that are supposedly protected by the state.The ones who suffer the greatest repercussions of such prejudices are the children of gay and lesbian couples. Non-biological children of gays and lesbians cannot receive survivor benefits if the deceased partner did not legally adopt them. But how is this related to whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Same-sex couples do have the privilege of adopting children to begin a family of their own. However, they are often rejected because of their unmarried status. Even if the government does not wish to provide some financial security for homosexual couples, it should not punish the children of such relationships. The government directly discriminates against the children of same-sex marriages by not allowing them the same rights as children who have heterosexual parents. Children do not chose who their parents are regardless of your stance on the issue. The Human Rights Campaign has adopted the idea that, “any change must also define survivor to include non-biological children of gays and lesbians found in the changing American family”(Survivor Benefits 2). This is absolu tely necessary because it is absurd that innocent children are being denied basic rights due to the sexual orientation of their parents. Death is a painful enough experience; nobody should not have to worry about their financial standings with the government after dealing with the loss of a loved one, let alone, a child. Survivor Benefits must include same-sex unions not only because it denies homosexuals rights that are regularly afforded to heterosexual couples; but because the children of these relationships are being discriminated against as well.Homosexual’s lack of legal recognition effects them in numerous ways. The argument is much deeper then weather or not they should be married because they live together. If same-sex couples are paying taxes to build roads and help public schools like the heterosexual couples, they should be afforded the same rights. This is the exact argument the gays and lesbians of Vermont are using. In the Baker v. Vermont court case, “gay and lesbian couples had argued t hat they were denied the protection of more than 300 laws as a result of not being allowed to marry” (Meredith 1). Homosexuals are finally suing the state because they are not receiving protectionunder the laws of state strictly because they are gay. In fact, the Vermont House of Representatives voted in favor (76-69) of a same-sex civil union bill. This shows that looking at the matter as a legal issue, it is evident that homosexuals are not regarded equally in the eyes of the law, and that the first steps to fix this social injustice are just now being taken; however, the controversy is still obvious as the vote is very close . The Director of Education for the Human Rights campaign state, “It’s a big step in the right direction…while its no full marriage, it’s very close.” Same-sex civil unions are clearing the path for nation-wide legal recognition of same-sex relationships. These same-sex civil marriages are demonstrating that the concept of “marriage” and the rights an American deserves, regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation, can be simultaneously respected.The fight is for gay and lesbian couples to gain legal recognition, not religious recognition.Even most people against same-sex marriages agree that they do not hate gays they just disagree with their lifestyle be cause of their religious beliefs and church affiliation. The battle to legalize same-sex civil unions is not trying to infringe upon the beliefs of the churches. These unions are to be recognized by the state, not by all churches. Priests do not have to perform these ceremonies, nor do they have to be held in a church. It would be unfair for the government to decide in what people should and should not believe, this would be an infringement upon our right to freedom of religion. However, this does not give the government the right to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples in the eyes of the law because the government and religious beliefs are supposed to be separate. Weather same-sex civil unions should be recognized legally is not a religious question. This is a debate over whether or not people of different sexual orientation are to be viewed equally in the eyes of the government, and will be accepted into mainstream America.However, some people argue that same-sex marriage would be tolerable if they were confinedto their own communities. That way the general public would not be “subjected” to their practices. Gay people are not lepers. We can not isolate a faction of the population and force them to live in designated areas. This idea parallels the concept of moving all the Native Americans onto reservations. Thinking such as this is archaic and regresses back to another closely related idea: segregation. Do people really want to repeat one of the largest social injustices of American history? As established by the segregation trials during the 1960’s and 1970’s, separate but equal is not equal. It creates a division and a difference.The trials that are now finally questioning the treatment of gay and lesbian couples are easily compared to those of inter-racial marriages. One example is the famous case of Loving vs. Virginia. In this case, a white man and black woman were married in Washington D.C., however, their home state of Virginia fused to recognize the marriage and exiled them for twenty years. Later when they took the state of Virginia to court it was decided that they could not be denied the right to live where they pleased due to their inter-racial marriage (Oyez 1). This court decision is arguably one of the strongest forces in nation-wide legal recognition of inter-racial marriages. It is evident that the same-sex civil unions that are now being recognized in Vermont are slowly making the way for other states to join the movement. The Baker vs. Vermont case is a strong reminder of the troubles America once faced. Separate but equal is inherently unequal and unfair.Therefore, it is necessary to set aside religious issues to look at this debate from a legal standpoint. It is necessary that the government recognize the civil unions of same sex couples because all citizens of the United States should be afforded equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. It is because of this legal discrimination that homosexuals are denied such rights as hospital visitation, socials security and disability insurances.Discrimination is wrong. The first step in correcting social injustice must be taken soon. The issue of legal marriage between two people of the same- sex must be settled now to stop the discrimination that is openly occurring across America.。

Gay Marriage in Argentina A queer calculation The Economist

chanted in rhyming Spanish.
The Kirchners eked out their legislative victory by courting senators
individually: Ms Fernández even brought two allied lawmakers who had expressed
have been Pyrrhic. It will endear them to voters in the cosmopolitan city of
Buenos Aires. But the capital is already so hostile to the Kirchners that they
answered Catholic leaders’ call for protests against the measure by marching
there on Tuesday. But when one small religious group tried to return the next
Kirchners were looking for a controversial bill they could force through the
legislature to prove the government could still get its way, and they settled on
Fernández, on a trip to China, to fire back that “it is very worrisome to listen
to expressions like ‘war of God’ or ‘projects of the devil’ and things that

[下载打印版本]同性婚姻

历史沿革
虽然当今世界主流的婚姻模式是一男一女组成的异性婚姻（人们也常常称这种婚姻为“传统”婚姻）。但是，回溯婚姻的历史，婚姻关系并非总是以爱情为基础的“一生一世一双人”的单偶制异性恋婚姻。历史上所记载的大多数文化都奉行的是多配偶制婚姻，尤其是一夫多妻的婚姻模式。在旧中国，许多婚姻由父母包办，是一种家族之间的经济联盟，而非浪漫的爱情承诺。婚姻也远非一生一世，例如阿拉伯文化就曾允许暂时性婚姻的存在。同性婚姻也在很多文化中被记载，如非洲文化、印第安文化等。综上，婚姻一直以复杂且多样的模式存在于不同的文化之中，人类社会中并不存在一种恒定的婚姻模式，“传统”婚姻也未必一定是“完美”婚姻模式的范本，从历史的角度否定同性婚姻是罔顾史实的。
无论是同性婚姻还是同性性行为，都并不是现代文明的产物，而在人类社会早期便已存在。在华夏文明中，汉哀帝为董贤“断袖”的爱情故事家喻户晓；虽然当代伊斯兰教对同性性行为有着严厉的谴责，但在早期伊斯兰文明中，同性性行为被允许，且与异性性行为同样常见；在美洲印第安文化中，存在着男性与女性之外的一种性别，这种性别的人是承担着女性责任的男性，他们可以与男性发生关系且备受尊敬；在古希腊和古罗马文明中，既存在闻名遐迩的年长男子和年幼男子之间的“老幼配”同性关系，也有荷马史诗记载的著名的阿喀琉斯和帕特罗克洛斯之间兄弟情般的爱情。在明代的中国福建地区，成年女子可以和女孩、成年男子也可以和男孩结成亲密的联盟关系。
相较于西方各国，中国目前尚处于逐渐建立“同性恋去病化”的认知阶段，同性婚姻相关立法方面几乎处于空白。我国司法机关对于其他国家提交至中国的跨国婚姻提案采取的是拒绝受理、拒绝承认和拒绝执行的判决。
2000年，社会学家李银河教授起草了《同性婚姻法案》，多次委托人大代表或政协委员在两会中将此份提案提交，但至今未能成为正式议案。2003年，李银河教授委托人大代表在两会中进行同性婚姻合法化的提案，使得同性婚姻第一次公开进入官方的立法讨论。但是没有代表愿意签字，因此满足不了30人的附议。2006年，李银河第三次向全国两会提交提案，但受到媒体压力未能成功提交。2015年，李银河再次委托一位人大代表提交提案。

同性婚姻英文PPT

video
The reason of causing homosex
Congenital factor The reason of causing homosex Acquired factor
Environment
Acquired factor
society
Experience
The appoints of same-sex marriage
Question
• What do you think of the future of same-sex marriage? • Do you think gay marriage can adopt a child? • One day, you find you are a homosexual, how do you do? • What do you think the attitude of university to homosexual?
Personal presentation
Made by：Sibao Huang
Gay Parade
Same-sex marryour best friend is a gay, what do you want to say to him?
• How do you do when your children show he is a homosexual in the future?
61927, 60%
Votes of accept their children is a homosexual
8892, 8% 23437, 23%
can can't
Hard to say
71049, 69%