Critical Thinking in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

The arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are too hard to ignore in their validity. First, it is a basic right in the United States, protected by the constitution. Second, contrary to arguments proposed against same-sex marriage, marriage is an ever-changing institution, open to revision. All citizens of the United States deserve the same opportunities and are guaranteed the same rights.

The reason why marriage should be considered a right in the constitution is that theConstitution has a segment called the Equal Protection Clause. Although this clause was adopted and passed with the intention to protect racial minorities, as the country grows and changes, there is undeniably going to be extensions and further applications to the clause. If there was no danger of discrimination and unfair treatment under the law, this clause would be of no importance. In the modern day, same-sex marriage couples are the minority group that is ensured and deserving of this protection.

In looking at the constitution it is apparent in the year 2013 that the Full Faith and CreditClause has been trampled on ever since the state of Massachusetts voted in favor and passed same-sex marriage in 2004. From the moment Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, there was a constitutional duty from the other 49 states to recognize that contract of marriage for same-sex couples who moved to other states from Massachusetts.

Due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause being a segment of the constitution that demands recognition of documents, it is correct, in just looking at the Full Faith and Credit Clause for states to refuse to grant same-sex couples marriage licenses. It crosses the line, however, when these states do not recognize same-sex marriages that are perfectly legal and binding in other states. It would be similar to not having a birth certificate, or better yet, a marriage license from a heterosexual couple not recognized should they decide to move to another state. It is pure discrimination.

A final argument for same-sex marriage is the plain fact that marriage is not a “traditional institution” like a lot of anti-gay marriage activists try to argue. In the United States, marriage has been practiced in a variety of ways through polygamy, arranged marriages, marriages for the protection of assets and, in the modern-day, for love. If love is the main basis for marriage as practiced today, obviously same-sex couples fit into that category. Marriage is not traditional, it is ever changing, and law-abiding, same-sex couples should have access to the institution of marriage if they so choose.

Thieves deserve to be prosecuted. Jason stole a car. Therefore, Jason deserves to be prosecuted. Grand theft auto is a major problem in the United States. Arizona, in particular, has a high rate of car thefts. In order for this trend to be reversed there needs to be a stronger pursuit of thieves when they steal cars. Thieves of any strip deserve to be prosecuted. There needs to be a resistance to plea bargaining in this category of theft and an execution of full punishment to the limits of the law.

Gambling is either good or bad. It is not bad. Therefore, it is good. Gambling, when proper rules and laws are followed, is a great form of entertainment. As long as gambling is looked at as fun and not a way to become rich, gambling can be a great way to meet people and relax. Poker, for example, teaches players to read facial expressions while maintaining their own.

World hunger is either necessary or unnecessary. It is not necessary. Therefore, it is unnecessary. World hunger is an unnecessary evil on a global scale. With all of the technological and agricultural advances humans have made in recent history, there is no reason why world hunger has to exist. The problem of world hunger is greed based. There is enough food to feed everyone, but the problem is the concentration of food in rich regions, such as America. If resources were shared and technology was made available to poorer regions, the problem of unnecessary world hunger would dissipate.

The difference between subsequent and consequent is subsequent is an event that comes after another event, whereas consequent is an event that occurs because of a prior event. For example, staying up late at night leads to the consequent tiredness in the morning. Staying up late could also lead to many other subsequent events (afterwards) that do not depend on preceding events. The difference between a condition and a cause is a condition is a factor in an overall event whereas a cause is the reason for the overall event. For example, a condition to a plane crash is gravity due to its laws but the cause to the crash would be a breakdown of a particular part of the plane. The difference between necessary and sufficient is necessary is a required piece whereas sufficient is “good enough.” For example, it is necessary in order to get an A on a paper to include and follow all instructions. However, it is sufficient to still get a good grade (a B) to follow some instructions. The difference between remote and proximate causes is a remote cause is a secondary cause whereas the proximate cause is the main cause. For example, if someone is injured playing sports, the injury sustained playing the sport was the proximate cause and the remote cause could be getting in a car accident on the way to the emergency room for treatment. The difference between correlation and causation is a correlation is a relationship between two variables whereas a causation is the explanation for that relationship. For example, there is a positive correlation between height and weight, i.e. the taller you are the more you weigh. However, causes of a person’s weight could be exercise, diet, genes or a combination of those together.

Like peanut butter without jelly. Like a baseball game without an umpire. Like a summer day without warmth. Like Oreos without milk. Like a skunk without the smell. The lottery system is a great way to ensure randomness in any sample survey. This is done by using an assigned number written on scratch paper and pulled at random. For larger populations, and this example would be larger, a random number generator is a better alternative because the computer takes care of some of the cumbersome work that researchers would have to do otherwise.

The foundation of the generalization is that making the same mistakes is feared by people. The implication is because of that fear, people make different mistakes. It can be argued that this position is accurate due to the simple fact that when a person is so focused on avoiding a particular mistake, they often do not see all of the problems leading up to different mistakes.

Reducing the size of the armed forces is the way to go in America. For starters, America has more arms stocked up than the next 10 countries combined? Another reason is America is a world leader and in order to foster an atmosphere of peace there needs to be a “lead by example” attitude as well as encouragement towards other countries to reduce their armed forces. As the world learned after the Cold War, being competitive with other countries (Russia) on an arms basis creates a climate of paranoia and irrational behavior. This concrete example in history along with the reasons above should be sufficient to show the world that reducing the size of the armed forces is the way to go.

Welfare is overall a bad thing to have as a part of American politics. This is due, in large part, because often times government assistance is abused and misappropriated. This is especially true in the context of corporate welfare. There is no reason why the government has to waste money to “aid” already thriving and successful corporations. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people too, there are better uses for the money: foreign aid, research and development and environmental protection to name a few.

From an ethical standpoint, world hunger is a tragedy. Given the vast availability of technology and agricultural advances, there is no need for world hunger. The problem with food shortage is misappropriation and greed. Sometimes the fault lies with the governments and sometimes it’s with the businesses in charge of the food industry. Regardless of the responsibility, there is no need for world hunger to exist.