#7 Same-Sex Marriage
Despite my own personal views on same-sex marriage, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) presents more valid reasons as to why same-sex marriage should be legalized than researcher Peter Sprigg from the Family Research Council. However, Both arguments are rather recent which provides the latest statistics and politics referring to the same-sex marriage movement and both authors speak from credible companies. Both sides also rarely deviate from opinion and only provide facts, which are backed by research. The HCR addresses the facts that same-sex couples in long-term relationships are denied the basic protections and rights that heterosexual couples are granted including, hospital visitation, social security benefits, immigration, health insurance, estate taxes, retirement savings, family leave, nursing homes, home protection, pensions and another 1,100 plus federal benefits and protections of marriage. Countering the HCR, Sprigg provides answers as to why homosexual relationships do not qualify as a marriage, stating that the law defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Sprigg also mentions how homosexual couples are can receive equal rights as marriages, such as a listing ownership rights in wills and how other common arguments of same-sex marriage are nonsense (some actually go against the HRC's statements). Another argument of Sprigg is that homosexual relationships are harmful. He shows this by statistics showing that along with homosexual relationships come higher rates of many diseases, both in men and women, and higher rates of mental health problems such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, depression, and suicide. As propaganda, Sprigg drags the disease and mental health into the status of children that homosexual relationships raise. On the contrary the HCR does not filter their argument with any propaganda. The HCR also does offer any cause/effect arguments. From Sprigg, the cause/effect relationships go hand in hand with his propaganda and thesis that homosexual relationships are harmful. He does this by flowing his research on the ratio of disease and health problems to the idea that the following will bring effect to children the homosexual couple will raise and thus society in general. The information gathered from the arguments really makes the reader wonder how distorted the information from both sides actually is because it seems like both authors are continually arguing points and counterpoints in the writings. For instance, the HRC says that in the case of an emergency the patient's spouse is legally permitted to visit the patient arguing and that if homosexual couples could marry they could have this right. On the other side, Sprigg says that the patient in the hospital has the right to choose who can come visit, and in the case of homosexuality would more than likely opt to allow the domestic partner to visit, thus marriage does not bar much from hospital visitations. In response to the analogies listed Sprigg's outreach the HRC's. The strongest analogy the HRC makes is that the idea that homosexual marriage would make all marriages meaningless is a scare tactic. Sprigg, however, digs into an issue that pro same-sex marriage often make. In this he breaks down the idea that same-sex marriage and interracial marriage are different because the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman, strengthening his thesis. The HRC does however simplify the issue by not giving enough examples. Although the HRC does give a list of good reasons they also leave off gray area saying that a sum of 1,100 other federal benefits are left out for homosexual relationships but at the same time Sprigg also counters some of the seemingly valid reasons the HRC provides, leaving one to wonder why the HRC didn't list more reasons. Sprigg seems to be the sole stereotyping author. He assumes that with homosexuals given the right to marry will ruin the sanctity of marriage because of the renown short term relationships gays and lesbians become involved in. Sprigg also seems to be the only author providing hasty generalizations. He does this in his propaganda/cause/effect relationships/and stereotyping. This generalization states that all homosexuals generate no positive such positive stigma to society as a whole because of their general high ratio of disease and mental health.