A Non-religious Contract In America Essay examples -- essays research

A Non-Religious Contract in America     The religious standards of Ameri butt ends immediately have plummeted to a new low.Fewer people are deprivation to church than earlier in the century. Many people aremarrying without even so going to a priest by getting a mark to marry them.Divorce is steadily on the rise. Todays auberge accepts homosexuals Now the income tax return arises over whether we should allow homosexuals to marry. And you knowwhat? It is really none of the govern handsts business.     America contribute no longer deny its homosexual citizens the sort out to have alegal hymeneals. Looking at todays society, we can see that there is no goodreason to deny gay couples the rights that straight couples have in gettingmarried. The United States has always had the idea of separation of church andstate, and spousal relationship is one upshot that must(prenominal) maintain that idealogy in the eyes ofthe governing. The cent ral to separating church and state in the debate overmarriage is winning the definition of marriage that best applies to society today.To do that we must figure at marriages state in the 1990s.     Religion is losing its dominance in the issue of marriage. We cannotargue the fact that there are more divorces in the land today that there were20 years ago. This points to Americas increasing acceptance of divorce.Therefore, we can conclude that religion has become less of an issue for manyAmericans when marrying because well-nigh religions strongly discourage divorce, whateverto the point of not allowing it at all. This leads to the question, "What istodays hind end for marriage?"     Some propose that the sole purpose of marriage be to bring life into theworld. If this were true, then it would be unacceptable for many in thiscountry to ever be married. There are many women and men who simply do not wantto have baberen. Should we c ondemn them and not allow them to marry justbecause of this view? Should we not allow those who are physically unable tohave children to experience the joy and happiness that marriage brings? Thosewho cannot bear children of their own can adopt children would we rather theyraised that child without one or the other parental figure? Obviously societydoes not operate with this as the basis for marriage. So the argument thathomosexuals should not m... ...nsfor the government to be involved in making the decision of whether deuce peoplewill be uphold that "contract."     The marriage of two heterosexual person people, no matter how public they maybe, has no impact on the lives of everyday citizens. This will be true forhomosexual couples as well. The government still needs to be involved in whataffects the rest of the public. Thus, the only thing that it is acceptable forthe government to regulate is how ones marriage should relate to the bearingparts of society (such as taxes).     The government does not have the right to decide who should and shouldnot be allowed to get married. The United States prides itself on separatingissues of the church from state related issues, and it must do the same withthis one. Though some religious groups may have problems with allowinghomosexuals to marry, America as a completely must not be so restrictive. TheAmerican government must look at marriage as strictly a pecuniary issue, becausethe only parts of marriage that the government actually gets involved in are thefinancial issues. Let line 3a be filled by anyone, gay or straight.