While the majority of the population believes that the legalization of gay marriage will have negative impact on the society, gay activists claim that it is against basic civil rights to prohibit them from marrying. The constitution gives us many civil rights and remedies. One of the liberty granted to us is to be in pursuit of happiness, which homosexual people are not allowed to chase. They cannot be married to the person they love. It violates their freedoms.
(Zinn, 2005) Women are not represented appropriately at all levels of governments’ decision making in community, but specifically at national and regional levels. The legal system in most of the countries discriminates particularly against women in the fields of inheritance, family law, land ownership, property, criminal law and citizenship. The prosecution of cases, in most of the countries, involving violence against women is difficult and complex. The discrimination specifically against girls and women- including economic discrimination, gender-based violence, harmful conventional practices and reproductive health inequities- remains the most persistent and pervasive form of inequality. Moreover, girls and women bear extra hardship during, as well as, after conflict and different humanitarian emergencies.
The high taboo towards male rape victims, and validating their rapist are things that should not be happening in this modern day society. It shouldn’t matter your gender, age, race, or sexuality you should be able to receive help, and have resources accessible to you if you have gone through something such as sexual assault. You shouldn’t have to fear coming out and standing up against your rapist, you shouldn’t have to wonder if people will believe you if you try to talk about what happened. Males can be victims and deserve to at least be given so much as to be recognized as such if something that damaging and emotionally ruining event or events happens to them. More information and resources need to be widely available not only to those who were raped as males but everyone.
By denying the same right as anybody else just because you are different is a clear form of discrimination, and it goes against the constitution. Marriage is a contract between two people and honestly I think that the society should not be interfering this bond. Not permitting the right to marry another human is a severe violation of the human rights and freedom. James Carville “I was against gay marriage until I realized that I didn’t have one.” The statement is self-explanatory: “You don’t get to judge because you don’t have the
It also can lead to physical injuries that are practically never seen in heterosexuals; lesbians also have a higher risk of acquiring an STD when sexually active. Because homosexual sex is unnatural, there is no way to ensure procreation, which is part of what a marriage promotes. Because they are unable to have children, they must resort in either sex with a person of the opposite sex, which contradicts their marriage, or artificial insemination. If the Catholic Church advocates human rights for persons in same-sex relationships, one may ask why it cannot recognize same-sex unions as constituting marriage. While in common with traditional marriage, same-sex unions may involve love, affectivity, monogamy and lifelong commitment, the two types of unions differ in essential features.
They should be able to have a life without fear. Living in fear is not living at all that’s why some gay people prefer not to come out from the closet. What do they mean by coming out from the closet? Gay people normally come out because they do not want to hide their sexual orientation anymore. They want to be honest to those people they care and trust about their sexual orientation, about who they are.
Critics and conservatives often argue that publication and distribution of obscene articles (books or movies) are the leading cause of sex crimes like rape and molestation and justifies ban anything that may appeal to prurient interest. most psychologists testify to the harmlessness of obscene publications, and the early fixation of sexual patterns of conduct. Thus the only other reason to ban wide dissemination of obscene material is that is leads to lowering of moral standards of society. Determination of obscene content in any article is very subjective save, hardcore pornography and judging obscenity on the anvil of public morality which itself is very subjective. With no set standards as to what may constitute obscene punishment under section 292 IPC may be deemed to be retrospective as it is dependent on the censorship of the
On the other hand, he is following what scriptures read. In the Bible homosexuality is wrong and the baker doesn 't want to be associated with gay people because God “said” being gay is bad. If you look at it from this standpoint, the baker’s discrimination is justified because he is only doing his duty by obeying
She later remarked that many people were unaware of what the object was and referenced it as a bloody penis. Chicago expressed this ignorance as a testament to the damage done in our perceptual powers by the absence of female reality. Chicago proposed that “maybe the existing forms of art for ideas of men have had are inadequate for the ideas of women (wm).” She was promoting an art of difference. Many women also adopted vaginal iconography to reveal and celebrate the biological source of women’s difference (wm). “Red Flag” emerged from her conversation with four other women about menstruation and how it is a taboo issue that was never discussed in art or literature.
Should a craftsmen be able to discriminate against a same sex couple if their faith condemns gay marriage? That is the topic of the debate. The case’s intricacy comes from the fact that ruling in favor of the baker could open the floodgates to many forms of discrimination against many different types of people if someone’s interpretation of the bible condemns that person’s race, sexual orientation, as well as many other characteristics that make humans unique. For that reason justices may change their opinion and vote for the gay couple, but another strong counter argument can be made there as well. The argument being that according to the First Amendment citizens of the United States are granted with freedom of religion and arguably when he denied the couple a wedding cake Jack Phillips was exercising his amendment protected religion.