Human Rights In Hindu Marriages

Therefore, the proposed amendment should not be passed. It will only worsen women’s rights in marriage/divorce, and work/education, due to the fact of its popularly unknown ambiguity. If the ERA were to be implemented, it would put responsibilities on women in a marriage

Citizens have that right to protest against the government because there are basic rights that the government must provide for their citizens. The right to practice religion freely is one that most Americans might be familiar with. Oftentimes it is required to take part in one faith throughout a country. In the case of Antigone, Polynices had taken an army against Thebes, and in the eyes of King Creon he was a traitor. For that, he was not to be buried and given his last rites.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India stipulates that “the state not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Protection prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion race, caste, sex or place of birth.” Therefore this law should imply that all Indian women have and can practice the same rights as men. However these laws, while legally set in stone, are not socially acknowledged much of the time. Evidently, in India, lawfully, women have equal rights to men, but taking into account the amount of rapes, sexual assault crimes, deaths and discrimination they are faced with in India, they are certainly not socially equal. While it’s true that even in the most progressive countries females still have to deal with sexism, , in India and countries around it many men treat women as objects.

Also, one thing that is seen common in all of those movement was people and their fight for their rights and liberties. Briefly, civil rights and liberties have always moved together, and their difference is complicated as people tend to use them in interchangeable way. However, their difference is that, civil rights is the equality that people demand for whereas, civil liberty is certain activities that government itself does not have the authority to do (Muller). For example, people should not be discriminated regarding their gender, race etc. is civil right, and the first amendment which says that government cannot establish America as any religious country is civil liberty.

Mary Douglas quipped, “Inequality can have a bad downside, but equality, for its part, sure does get in the way of coordination.” Yes, inequality can have bumps in the road as she states with a bad downside. However, equality can bring in more than a bumpy road; it can tear down the balance of nature. Ultimately, equality could distract us from our relationship with God due to the excellence no one can compete with; Our world without God can lead us to this twisted, ungodly, and most terrifying place if we as a people decide for worldwide equality starting

Traditional women started to oppose the ERA. Schlafly said the ERA was designed for the benefit of young career women and warned that if men and women had to be treated identically it would threaten the security of middle-aged housewives with no job skills. The opposition included states ' rights advocates, some religious groups, and business and insurance interests. Among the arguments against the ERA were that it would prevent husbands from supporting their wives, it would invade privacy, and it would lead to rampant abortion, homosexual marriage, women in combat, and unisex bathrooms. If the ERA becomes part of the Constitution, any law discriminating on the basis of sex will have to meet the strict scrutiny test.

Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws and demands of a government. People argue that going against the government is not right and that it is breaking the law. Although in some cases it may not be right, it does not mean it is breaking the law. The Declaration of Independence states, “... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” meaning Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness then, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Bill of Rights Institute). The government should respect the people and provide safety and happiness.

Love and Obstacles: An Argument Against Gay Marriage To many Christians, the institution of marriage is a delicate sacrament, enshrined in biblical text. For these individuals, gay marriage represents an immoral sin. However, while faith-based beliefs certainly play an indelible role in the gay marriage debate, they are inconsequential to other more important facets including economic, social, and political perspectives. Despite what civil activists may argue, the legalization of gay marriage presents numerous consequences to the people of this great country and to the rights’ of the States. Religion aside, political and governmental issues have a long-standing and historical place in the gay marriage debate.

The debate whether abortion is morally permissible or not permissible is commonly discussed between the considerations of the status of a fetus and ones virtue theory. A widely recognized theory of pro-choice advocates can be thought to be that their ethical view is that fetus’s merely are not humans because they lack the right to life since they believe a fetus does not obtain any sort of mental functions or capability of feelings. Although this may be true in some cases it is not in all so explaining the wrongness of killing, between the common debates whether a fetus does or does not obtain human hood, should be illustrated in a way of a virtuous theory. The wrongness of killing is explained by what the person or fetus is deprived of, such as their right to life; not by means of a heart beat or function of one’s body, but by the fact that it takes their ability of potentially growing into a person to have the same human characteristics as we do.

The ideological perspective of collectivism calls for many ideologies and biases when it comes to the government. The “unity of all people” aspect of collectivism forces the government into very unifying scenarios, such as specialized laws for example being gun control, concerning the protection of the people. However, this should not entirely be embraced; mainly, for the sake of the individual’s rights and freedoms. Again, the main reasons why we must not embrace government control concerning protection from undue harm is because of its abuse of the individual’s money, abuse of the individual’s rights given by God, and its abuse of the government’s authority on the decisions of the individual’s freedoms. To begin, the common good of the