Abstract Gay marriage is a frequent debate in our current society. A lot of people state that marriage is a sacred intuition that should not be harmed starting with the religious communities and also a part of the population. But the rise of many associations and movements that state clearly that homosexual couples should benefit from the same rights and same privileges as the heterosexual couple. In fact their union will not harm the institution of marriage because it is based on love and it is the only reason that should allow two human begins to commit to each other. The Right to Marry: Throughout history homosexuality has been treated differently depending on culture religion and historical context.
In fact, Karma’s law emphasizes that the individual’s behavior determines the way he/she will be treated in his/her future or born in his/her second life. In other words, a person who had committed immoral acts in his/her first life will pay the piper by nature, perhaps via reincarnation, and this contravenes Christianity’s beliefs, which proclaims that God is the only one who is allowed to condemn folks on their acts on earth. Moreover, Karma’s law doesn’t know the so-called “forgiveness”, and its repercussions cannot be avoided. On the contrary, God is the source of charity and mercy; he tolerates all of our sins and forgets them as long as we are asking for it, according to the Bible: “If we make it our habit to confess our sins, in his faithful righteousness he forgives us for those sins and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.” (John 1:9, International Standard Version). Consequently, the contradiction between Karma’s law and the existence of God pushes us to believe in one of them.
His gist is that privacy should be respected which makes him moderate moralism, law should only intervene when society won’t tolerate certain behaviour, law should be a minimum standard not a maximum standard and act as general guideline. Is the act of polyandry tolerable by the society? In some society it is tolerable but in some they will not. However, to abolish the act of polyandry will also intervene with the privacy on the individuals. Devlin would have thought the act of polyandry to be immoral and disintegrates the society however, being a moderate moralism he would not have wanted to intervene with the privacy of other unless the act has become very widely practiced and start causing harm to the society.
People cannot change who they are attracted to and people cannot change who they are even if they wanted to. People cannot just tell themselves that they are attracted to someone, love is not a choice. America is a free country but we still judge people and we still get judged. "Same-sex marriage is a civil right,"(Pro) people say, be who you are, but then when you open up to them and show them the real you most of them you lose your friendship with and they do not want to be there for you anymore, it is sad trying to be who you are but then you just get judged for it. "Prior to the ruling, 37 states and the District of Columbia had legalized gay
(Chopin) There is criticism against the construct of marriage, in this case Mrs. Ballard feels oppressed and the death of her husband frees her, but it is never stated that she was abused or mistreated in a specific way. The fact that she would cry in front of Mr. Ballard’s body shows that she feels no hate against him, so if Mrs. Ballard wasn’t mistreated, has no grudge against her husband, why does she feel oppressed in her marriage? My interpretation is, that it is neither Mrs. Ballard’s fault, nor Mr. Ballard’s, the problem lies in marriage itself. There are often jokes that the sacred bond of marriage robs someone’s independence or it is simply like prison. Chopin seems to support this point of view by showing us Mrs. Ballard who is overwhelmed of joy after she realizes that her husband’s death means also freedom.
So, it 'makes sense' to say that if you force intimacy time you'll fix your marriage, right? But marriage isn't backwards compatible like that... It doesn't work because these logical solutions are NOT going to work when there is no feelings of attraction or emotional fondness behind them. So even if you're going through the motions correctly, there is no guarantee that you will actually fix your marriage. In fact, if anything you're almost guaranteed to make it worse, because you'll remind your wife how bad things have to be that she can't feel ANYTHING even when you're apparently trying so hard.
If gay marriage was legal, they would not face such problems and discriminations, they would get better attitudes from people. Governments do not accept gay marriage because they are afraid of the community’s upcoming acts. Governments have a big mistake in ignoring gay people’s human rights because of religious reasons. Religious ideas of people must not affect the legalization of gay marriage and child adoption. Governments exist to provide equality to all of the people living in their community, ignoring their race, sex, religion and sexual orientation.
Therefore, shifting away from this nature of marriage will likely lessen the stage of warlike depression in our society. Arranged marriage should be forbidden since it neglects one 's entitlement to settle their own choices, it conveys a constrained union, and the troubles of changing the way of life between both sides. Neglecting one’s own choice is practiced in such marriage. In Banerjee’s words, the choice of spouse is “being arranged by parents and the parental family, with no involvement of the husband and wife-to-be” (1973, p. 1184). Firstly, arranged marriages stops the freedom of mate choice.
Even if their marriage is valid, they can’t dissolve it since there is no such rule here. We could agree with this opinion because not everyone could afford legal separation and annulment. Also, there is no law for marriage that doesn’t worked out. If one can’t file a divorce against his/her partner, then the cycle of domestic abuse will
In rare case it could be the ex-husband seeking maintenance from his ex-wife. Neither spouse is automatically entitled to spousal maintenance on divorce. The law favours the ‘clean break’ principle, which basically means that after a divorce the parties should become economically independent of each other as soon as possible. The court, however, does have the discretionary power to award spousal maintenance if necessary. During a marriage, each spouse owes to the other a reciprocal duty of support, provided that the person claiming such support is actually in need of it and that the other spouse can actually provide it.