Research Paper ( this is the feedback i got from my teacher, Your in text citations and works cited need to follow MLA format. Focus on naysayers. For instance why should someone who’s a non Christian be bound by Christian rules about marriage. Alternatively – in a secular democracy why should we be governing according to religious doctrine – you haven’t explained these.” If you could fix the stuff in the feedback that would Be amazing. Introduction: Families have been created since the beginning of society. Biblically it started with Adam and Eve, they were put on earth to procreate and have a family. The foundation of the family with a man, wife and children have been known to be sturdy and dependable in all types of situations and times. As society has grown the conventional way has changed. Same sex partnerships and marriage have not only become common but legal in many states and countries. Some call this way of life a condition while others call it an unhealthy choice (Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin). “In modern world society, sexual minorities do not hide their condition and openly declare this. Debate on legal status of same sex marriage is still under way and there are many different opinions on the subject. The purpose of this essay is to shed light on varying opinions before reaching to conclusions” (Acker). Arguments For: marriage is a constitutional and fundamental right, it is the basis for creating the most important of all possible unions in which a man and a woman can have. The right to marry, occurs for any couple who wants to define themselves in their connection with each other and often with God. In the Bible, God created man and woman, in the book of Genesis Adam and Eve were created to procreate in the world and bring to pass family. It also states, “It is not good for man to be alone: I will make him a helper fit for him” (Bible. Genesis 10:3). That is why after man was created Eve was also created. The creation of mother Eve as wife for Adam is one of the main intentions of God. This was to ensure the life of man in love, for God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. The scriptures strongly declare marriage is a union of a man and a woman based on love and mutual understanding for the birth of children. As the Patriarch himself explained, such measures must be taken in response to a wide international discussion on the issue of same-sex marriage. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexuality and adulterous” (Bible. Hebrews 13:4). The idea of marriage helps to relieve fear in some. Often people connect with the opposite sex because they do not want to be alone. Many prefer to share their knowledge and likes with someone who has the same desires. One of the most important common denominators between a man and woman is the couple’s desires to have children and raise them in a cohesive and common environment. Many believe this is a legal and God given right which is inextricably linked to the right of birth, adoption, and raising children. Others choose marriage with the thought of growing old together. Some relish in the idea that there will always be someone to take care for them up to their last days on earth. Opposing arguments: In the USA, same-sex couples can adopt children according to American lawmakers, they have fully explained the possibility of same-sex couples creating happy families. In accordance to the Constitution of the United States, same-sex couples who are married have the right to rely on the same legal regime as heterosexual couples and limiting those rights would mean depriving them of their freedom of choice and their personal humiliation. For the traditional family this has been considered a slap in the face because they feel it takes a strong union between a man and a woman to raise healthy and mentally stable children and for them this is very wrong in the site of God. Sexuality is one of the most intimate facets of private life. In addition, it is protected through the prohibition of discrimination insofar as homosexuality is one’s personal preference and condition. Yet there are many who flaunt their personal preferences in public, parades and offend those who are near them. The normalization of marriage between homosexuals does not harm individuals, married, or those who choose to unite, it does not change their stability or in their expectations. In addition, the absence of reproductive function is not unrelated to heterosexual unions, whether for reasons of age, illness, or the freedom of choice. It is likely that the legal essence of the institution lies in the exclusive and permanent compromise with the couple involved heterosexual or homosexual (Gerstmann, Evan). Many loved ones who have family members that are homosexual are not only concerned about their sexual preference but what the psychological and health outcome can be with that lifestyle. There is a greater risk of suicide, sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS). The burden of taking care of someone with AIDS often falls to family members, even when they have a marital contract with a person of the same gender. The other opposing argument is that the same sex marriages are not entitled to health, life insurance and Lawful rights as the conventional married couple. The new laws that have been put into effect have given all couples these rights and privileges. Conclusion: In expressing respect and consideration for the opinions held by the scientific doctrine and by some of the bodies of recognized competence called upon to examine the constitutional bill, I think that the legislation on marriage between citizens of the same sex is in accordance with the Constitution. Although I disagree with the foundations and the conclusion which have just been set out for the reasons which I will now develop. The argument that a historic, secular institution like marriage cannot be reached in one of its elements without immediately being distorted so that it becomes unrecognizable or irrelevant. In my opinion, it is so obvious that the legislation of same-sex marriage implies a rupture of the master image of the matrimonial institution. Although there are constitutional arguments for irradiation of fundamental rights over this typical social manifestation, no reservation arouses the option of the legislator to extend the subjective and modal spectrum of this institution. The legislator could have had recourse to a specific legal instrument, different from marriage, to achieve the equivalence of homosexual unions and, at the same time, more effectively capture its unique profiles. The solution has not been imposed by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court reaffirmed that the right to equality does not correspond to the hypothetical right to impose or require differential treatment (Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin). Work Cited Chamie, Joseph, and Barry Mirkin. “Same‐Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2 Sept. 2011. Franke, Katherine M. “The Politics of Same-Sex Marriage Politics.” Scholarship Archive, 2006. Gates, Gary J. “Marriage and family: LGBT individuals and same-sex couples.” The Future of Children (2015): 67-87. Gates, Gary. Vol. 25, No. 2, FALL 2015 of The Future of Children on JSTOR. 2015. Gerstmann, Evan. “Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution by Evan Gerstmann.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University Press, 2017. Nicolas, Peter. “Common Law Same-Sex Marriage.” SSRN, 25 June 2010. Wilson, Robin. The Calculus of Accommodation: Contraception, Abortion, same – sex marriage. 1417. Wilson, Robin Fretwell. “The calculus of accommodation: contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, and other clashes between religion and the state.” BCL Rev. 53 (2012): 1417. Hebrews. Perspective on Marriage (Heb. 13.4 … 1999). Moses. “Worthy. Bible ” Parallel ” Genesis ” Chapter 10 ” Verse 3.” Genesis 10:3 KJV – Worthy. Bible – Online Bible Study, 1999, www.worthy.bible/bible/parallel/genesis/10/3. Life. Church. “Bible.” App Store, 11 Feb. 2019. Acker, Joan. “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations – Joan Acker, 2006.