If some members of the society think that LGBT people should be criminalize, then it would also be important to criminalize adultery—this is against the Ten Commandments in the same bible. There is need to tolerate the LGBT community; we should change laws if we expect to change attitudes against the community. There are homosexual men who never engage in a sex relationship with other men and the heterosexual men who will engage in it. Also, there are heterosexual couples who do so too. The society fails to discriminate against the heterosexual couples who take part in buggery.
The early 1900s was an era when homosexuality was denounced socially, as it was unlawful for majority of the world including the United States of America. Authors were cautious when discussing themes of homosexuality that did not conform with public opinion. Scott Fitzgerald’s wit and cleverness, were instrumental in showcasing the underlying theme of homosexuality without certifying it. In The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, protagonist Nick Carraway consistently possesses characteristics of a homosexual, through his adoration of Jay Gatsby, homosexual encounters and his apathy towards females. The Great Gatsby, is told in a first person perspective, through the persona of Nick Carraway.
Indeed, after the 'incident ', he wonders whether he should "go forward with the charge or blow his own brains out or what?" (2129) This question demonstrates that Lionel starts to doubt, because there appears to be an option other than downright submission to society 's norms. Even so, the alternative is a pessimistic one: should he no longer "go forward with the charge" that his role as a member of the 'Ruling Race ' imposes on him, he would (have to) 'blow his own brains out ', because his homosexual proclivities are forbidden. Lionel thus faces the impossibility to accept his nature: he can only choose between upholding society 's ideals and committing suicide. Still, the very fact that he doubts is an important evolution in Lionel 's behaviour.
Boys will (not) be Boys A common saying in recent times, “boys will be boys,” is largely accepted as an argument against brutality, specifically male brutality. This statement claims that it is in boys’ physiological makeup to be savage and violent however this is not true. “Boys will be boys” does not take into consideration the vast movement society has taken against violence which proves that the desire for destruction does not exist in everyone. Although William Golding’s fictional novel, Lord of the Flies displays the innate desire in humans for chaos and destruction, he failed to recognize that this is not universal. The boys in Golding’s novel are all trying to fight the savagery that comes from being stranded on a desolate island.
In a court case a judge Lawrence Karlton “He states that the phrase ‘under God’ violates the children's right to be ‘free from a coercive requirement to affirm God’” (CNN). This shows that the Pledge is putting kids in an environment that might go against his/her believes. And according to Under God, “A surprising number of Americans nonetheless felt that the judges had a good point-that the reference to God in the pledge was an inappropriate endorsement of religion on the part of the government.”(Piereson). The government, by having students say the Pledge isn’t fair because it endorse or support religions with God, and not acknowledging the religions that don’t believe in
But all of them constitute breaches of the moral code. Some actions are not taboos in themselves, but talking about them is prohibited. Mental illness is one example for this phenomenon, represented in The Body by Teddy Duchamp 's father. This verbal taboo is transgressed by Milo Pressman when he calls Teddy a “loony 's son” (347), which is a violation of what Gordie calls “the cardinal rule for kids these days” a little later: “You could say anything about another kid […], but you didn 't say a bad word ever about his mom and dad” (381). In other cases it is not the topic itself, but the way something is expressed, that constitutes a taboo.
The film’s moral message is about hate crime against the gay community is wrong. But it doesn’t only show that message, the film is also trying to encourage gay people to come out and not be afraid of being what they are and also educate those who do not understand what being gay means. For example, one interview in particular was about a man who slowly came out to be gay. He never came out because he would feel as if people would bash him in disgust. But he changed his opinion and and came out to being gay when he witnessed a group of people giving respects to Matt Shepard by walking behind a parade.
Nazi demonstrations are prohibited in India on the grounds of public order. The deliberate intentions of outraging the religious feelings can disturb the public order. There is a lot of difference between India 's Constitution and the United States of America 's Constitution. By looking as India 's Constitution it looks that India 's Constitution preserve the rights of minorities whereas the aim of the state is to promote the welfare of the people. One should not consider that Indian judiciary is as free as American judiciary.
This argument had started a long time ago with supreme court case “Boys Scouts of America v. Dale(2000).” In this case a scout leader by the name of James Dale came out as gay in a newspaper article, he was quickly removed from his leaders position in his troop and he soon sued the BSA for discrimination. At first the case looked good for Dale as the court thought that him being a part of the troop would not alter the group in any significant way and had the BSA reinstate him. However, later the BSA said that their First amendment rights were being infringed upon so it appealed to the U.S supreme court. After much discussion the ruling turned in favor of the BSA because it was a private organization and homosexuallity was against the groups values, the supreme court ruled in favor of the BSA(Brannen). This law change brought up issues like the law allowing gay scouts into the organization like the charter organizations disbanding troops and the scouts leaving the troops so the modifications to the law will be similar to the gay scouts.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of “freedom of speech” Bill of Rights, n.d., p. 1). It was designed to guarantee a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are unpopular. One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech. Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group, based on “race, ethnicity, religion,” and sexual orientation (Karman, 2016, p. 3940). Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas.
Since the students merely advocated for change during the organized demonstrations, President Franklin had no grounds to violate the students’ First Amendment rights. Also, the lower court’s ruling that allowed the President the authority to ban any organization whose beliefs are inconsistent with the mission of the university was erred based on the decision of the Healy court that authorized students the ability to advocate for their concerns. Therefore, the Concerned White Men organization should be allowed to advocate for their beliefs, although they differ with the traditional beliefs of the University. Also, the “X-Men” organization should be allowed on campus because the previous court’s decision also gave group activities, such as an organized game like Assassin, constitutional
Martin Luther King Martin Luther King harped on civil disobedience for any moral arguments. Treating citizens differently based on skin color was nefarious, King wished to speak out to change but insisted on non-violent acts to do so. He expressed his thoughts in the “I Have a Dream” speech publically in a passive fashion. This passionate, positive and encouraging speech flourished King’s views and changed the American government’s unjust laws. Although, King did not use destructive force to get his point across, he did break some laws.
In our society, gay marriage opposers are notorious for citing “religious freedom” in order to not serve the LGBT community, and by and large we have accepted this. By bringing a somewhat obscure religion- Hinduism- into the discussion, Von Drehle is able to give the reader a better picture of what Davis is actually doing- and by forcing the reader to recognize that for anything else, citing religious freedom would not be an excuse to not perform one’s duties as an elected official in a community. By starting out with a question to the reader rather than an opinion he wishes the