What is companionship? Many would say that these are just two things that go hand in hand in what many would consider marriage, but according to Sprigg, “It’s still not sufficient to define marriage”(Sprigg P.7). In addition, He uses this to support his protest that homosexual relationships shouldn’t be given the legal status of marriage. To some this is all simply a man answering questions while declaring his standpoint on the topic, but to me it’s much more. As a member-for lack or a better word- of the LGBT community it honestly breaks my heart to see that someone could be so determined that marriage defies same-sex relationships as well as have the audacity to even claim said unions have any ‘consequences’ at all, and negative at that.
First Argument Esolen’s first argument is that we should not give sexual revolution the force of irrevocable law. The contention joins marriage rights to a regularizing perfect of long‐term, monogamous, sexually reliable closeness, and shields marriage rights in view of the estimation of that perfect (2). Esolen says the unrest has made a joke of virtue virtuousness sense of pride, constancy and besides worship. He clarifies that across the board present day assault on marriage has expected a constraint that sums to a mix of social impacts that deny sentiment of its ponder and secretly celebrated in the considerable writers who respect the sublimity and supernatural occurrence of adoration. He refers to entries from The Winter’s Tale by Shakespeare and Epithalamion by Spenser in which they give a look at how eminent human love is that has
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
In Stephen Mays article “ What About Gender Roles In Same Sex Relationships” he talks about how the traditional gender roles of a relationship do apply in a small way to same sex couples but he also says “Imposing gender roles on on gay couples is even more ridiculous than doing so with straight couples”. The whole purpose of a gay relationship is that there is no “woman” and in a lesbian relationship there is no “man”. People are so accustomed to the traditional relationship of a man and a woman that they try to push those gender roles onto single gender relationships. When a man shows personality traits that we would normally associate with a woman, that does not make him the woman in the gay relationship because he is biologically a man. I couldn 't agree more with Mays in this article, a women can be more masculine and that does not make her a man, so why does society feel the need to force strict gender roles on everyone.
For example, the Justice Department (DOJ) filed a law suit against North Carolina for discrimination against Transgenders (and North Carolina countersuing for over-reach) for standing to protect women and children by denying transgenders the right to enter girl’s restrooms (DOJ, 2016). Apparently, North Carolina is intolerant for denying transgenders rights that are privy to biological women and children; however, the DOJ believes they are tolerant for forcing this over-reach of the law on others. Religious Liberty is under attack by the present administration who is demonstrating zero tolerance for the rights of Christians and Jews. The question is, “Are we going to use our freedoms while we still have them constructively, or are we going to stand up and defend them to keep America, One Nation under
Although some people believe that being gay is wrong and that it should be “corrected”, when it comes to the rights of children and their right/s (?) to express their sexuality, parents should not be able to control their children’s same-sex attraction by sending them to conversion therapy because it is unconstitutional, the methods used are evidently damaging to children, and the ex-gay movement is posing a large threat to the LGBT community. Parents should not be allowed to force their children into conversion therapy because doing so is an infringement on a child 's basic rights, it is unconstitutional, and minors (below 18 years of age) deserve the right to make certain decisions for themselves. (?) It should be banned on a national level
Which means that there is no logical reasoning behind people disapproval of gay marriage. Rather, it is merely something which someone else’s religion dislikes. At the end, marriage is not defined by religion; but instead interpreted by the government. Even if the “holy book tells you to wed all the girls in apartment 3G” you are still are not allowed to do so. Regarding the controversial issue of same sex marriage.
Issues like these may well be controversial, being based on an individual 's creed and principles. After researching for months about homosexuality, I came to a conclusion that the homosexuals should be treated no less than the heterosexuals. What the antagonists of homosexuality say are: it is unnatural; it is against the divine will of God, it runs counter to the tradition and more. Occasionally someone would bring up a "real" problem but most of the claims by the opposing side stand on the basis of a highly subjective valuation. As a result, they had to go to great lengths to expound on their position.
Another reason is that many Islamic countries practice Sharia Law which is not at all in line with western values as it oppresses women and homosexuals. What I think these people fail to see is that religion is simply being used as a tool of oppression in these areas. Another thing which people are not able to realize that Islam is not the only religion that has been used to justify violence. The crusades was a war that was fought on the behalf of Christianity in a quest to reclaim Jerusalem from the Muslims. What this proves is that it is possible to convince someone to commit acts of violence if you tell them that it is God’s
Racial profiling should not even exist as far as I am concerned because it strictly promotes labeling among minorities. Just because someone may look different does not mean that they are up to no good. Racial profiling is used on everyone except white people which automatically makes it unfair. The police have developed this tool in such an unfair way that it completely promotes this problem of unfair treatment. This problem will not get any better until