In the article “For Gay Marriage,” author Andrew Sullivan claims that denying the act over the controversial issue of legalizing marriage to homosexuals is the most offensive act pertaining to their communal tolerance. The main plea amplifies that the religious customs, state affairs, and the accustomed marriage is noted as acceptable in today’s society. Sullivan states that he is not getting into what churches do in their open biblical session, but what he believes the state should be more involved and take action to fix the social acceptance among homosexuals. By putting together that homosexuals should have the same basic rights as heterosexuals including marriage sparks the author to suggest that homosexuals are just as financially independent
When debating the legalization of same sex marriage, religious reasoning and accusations of bigotry often provoke obstinance. Instead of reiterating those arguments, William J. Bennett, a prominent cultural conservative, former secretary of education, and author of The Book of Virtues, focuses on societal effects in his op-ed article, “Against Gay Marriage.” Though Bennett’s piece conveys partiality, it also attempts to discuss this issue scrupulously to ensure readers will consider his argument and perhaps accept his implications. While some of Bennett’s word choices convey tolerance of the gay community, his rhetoric incites readers to accept that preserving society requires marginalizing homosexuals. Bennett’s use of the word “discovered”
Christianity is scripturally locked into the concept that God views homosexuality as an abomination. There are many verses in both the Old and New Testament confirming this point. If the churches accept homosexuality as an authentic alternative lifestyle, it would be an admission that the scriptures are wrong. However, to hold fast on this issue will further alienate the growing tide of people, most notably the young, who view it as a matter of equality. Christianity loses no matter which direction it goes.
In his article “For Gay Marriage,” Andrew Sullivan argues that homosexuals should be given the right to be legally married. Sullivan claims that homosexuals are just as deserving of marriage as heterosexuals are. Sullivan discusses how unethical it is to refrain a homosexual couple from marrying. He argues that legalizing gay marriage will promote a healthier environment for homosexuals by allowing young homosexuals, who have publicly announced their sexuality, to have role models. According to Sullivan, the legalization of gay marriage will help strengthen the bond between homosexuals and their parents.
Nowhere in The Natural History of Religion does Hume’s explicitly speak in favor of atheism (perhaps due to the fear of persecution at the time), and yet, I would categorize this work as atheist. Hume strategically places monotheism or “theism” in contention with polytheism, leading the reader to assume that one would eventually prevail, but instead, he picks apart at both until readers are left questioning their own faith and wondering what a more rational alternative might be. In sections 1-5, Hume discusses polytheism and its origin. In sections 6-8, Hume discusses how we transition from polytheism to monotheism, and finally, in sections 9-15, he compares and contrasts the two, pointing out weaknesses and flaws in both. Throughout the book,
WHAT IS MARRIAGE is a journal article published by Harvard Journal Law and Public Policy, which argues against gay civil marriage. The authors made an assertion that the common good of our society would be damaged if the Supreme Court admitted the same-sex marriage. They explained this contention by listing the side effects that gay marriage may bring and defending conjugal view of marriage through illustrating the essential features of marriage. Yet, I disagree with the idea they claimed and I will break down some of their unsound arguments by illustrating the logical flaws behind them. To begin with, one of the serious consequences that gay civil marriage would cause they argued, is a potential public pressure that would force judges to
Religion is a part of people’s culture. It is an identity that can be shared with in a culture, which makes it a common conflict in all cultures no matter which religion one may identify with. In the United States 83% are Christian, according to a survey conducted by ABC news, but the United States is a melting pot of cultures, this mean one culture or religion should not have leverage over the affairs of the government. This is why in the US there exists the separation of church and state but the extent of said separation is unclear, causing religion to be the bases of people arguments regarding politics. In the government these arguments should be seen as invalid because church and state are no longer completely separated causing one culture to be placed above the others.
Furthermore, when observing the nature of the will, it is seemingly less contradictory to having one that is truly free than the church supported position of Augustine. When we look at Augustine’s theory, it is not difficult to wonder exactly how our will is free; for if we are incapable of performing anything that is inherently good on our own, then either the act of allowing God to come into our hearts and change them so that we can act according to his will is not good (a position no Christian would claim to be true), or the act of allowing God to convert our hearts is not something we have any control over; if the conversion is forced, then our wills are not truly free, and the we have lost one of the primary aspects of what separates humans from the rest of creation (the other part being in the image and likeness of God). However, since the teachings of the church must be in accordance with the catechism and the bible, then Augustine’s perspective does not depose us of having free will, and we turn to Anselm for further clarification as to how this is
The founders understood the messy history of other countries that did not have this separation. If there was no divide, many secular laws might be compromised by the Church because of its moral beliefs and regulations. Even with our country’s separation, there are still battles today on the subject. Some people believe that because the country was founded on Christian principles that Christians should have preference over other religions. Recently some political candidates argued that Syrian refugees should not be allowed in the country unless they pass a religious test.
Functionalists worry that if homosexuality became a norm, then the continuation of our species would be threatened. This is an argument used in many cases that are against gay rights and gay marriage. Some societies may even punish one for being homosexual because it violates their social norms. While gay rights have improved over the years and people are more accepting than they use to be, we still have countries like Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries along with Nigeria and a few other African countries that execute people for just loving someone of the
A male dominated religious belief system grew from the desire to dominate politically. They felt they had a right to restrain and have power over sex. Centuries of sex being a sin has evolved into sex being embarrassing and even to extremes taboo. Religious beliefs are a powerful weapon when it comes to swaying opinions in politics and sex, especially when you are debating about sexuality, and equal rights. This documentary covers all of the sociological theories.
Also professional business could risk government sanctions because they don?t treat gays and straight couples the same because they believe it is wrong. The reason of marriage is to procreate and expand the population and with gay marriage you just can?t do that. Today I have tried to persuade you why I think gay marriage shouldn?t be allowed. Allowing it just wouldn?t set a good example for the next generation, why leave our kids with a mess we could fix for them. Work Cited Huckabee, Mike.
(Tolsma 5)” The three groups consists of those who oppose for Religious beliefs, then there are Self-interest Maximizers and Political Libertarians. The religious opposers claim that vaccinations are against their religions, but the political libertarians believe it goes against their constitutional right to be told what to put in
“no religious outlook or Weltanschauung, can enjoy a privileged status, let alone be adopted as the official view of the state” I found this passage noteworthy because it demands that no religious outlook be put before another, but that is exactly what happens and has been happening, all these years. I would like to say that I think the reason there is such a lack of equality with different countries and “cultures” and why we are in constant war is because of this exact reason; religion. Most religious people always think their religion is better than another persons and this causes conflict. The countries laws reflect their religious views in the morals that they choose to have. If religion wasn 't such a big concept would we find peace between different cultures and countires?