The essay written by Katha Pollitt, titled, “What’s wrong with gay marriage” is an intriguing one. At first, the author, explains the notion that marriage and procreation do not necessarily go hand-in- hand. And later, she carefully interprets the true meaning of marriage; by stating there is a separation of church and state. Most importantly, the author speaks to her audience in a clear and logical manner; without adding personal biases. Although the essay may seem to have deterministic view on social behavior.
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
Not only is the media coverage in conflict with O’Flaherty’s personal interests, it also shines an unnecessary spotlight on other members of the LGBT community that would prefer not to be defined by their sexuality. True equality for the LGBT community will not be achieved until they are able to go about their lives the same way heterosexual people can. Calling attention to their sexuality, in a positive manner or not, prevents a normal livelihood for the nine million Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or gay. The best way to support this community would be to give them the same treatment that we would anyone else, without bias or judgement based on their sexual
Firstly, when Will said ‘To end the practice of “birthright citizenship,” all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment first sentence’ (601). How could anybody say it was a misinterpretation on something that someone else wrote? We as a nation should look at immigrants not as a threat, but for an opportunity for a friendship. Some people might not have been able to go anywhere, so they came to America to feel relived from the stress that was put a pond them. Thus, many might not like people coming over to the “land of the free”, but what
If you also look at the arguments against the options of restricting immigration, it talks about how refusing to let asylum seekers in “will fuel anti-American sentiment throughout the world”. But that doesn’t mean we should have open borders because that not only will make already residing Americans feel not secure, but it is an open door to anyone.
Equality for all. Do the majority of coaches and parents really want equality for all athletes? The answer to this question is, surprisingly, under discrepancy. Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded educational activity and or program, is starting to be thought of as “over the top.” Title IX faces controversy as some think that it takes away from male sports. However, the main purpose is to stop using federal money to support sex discrimination in programs.
Senior fellow for policy studies, Peter Sprigg in a Question and Answer article titled “What’s Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?” addresses this matter of controversy by stating-in his opinion- the ‘vast negative consequences’ concerning gay marriage equality. In order to answer these questions, Sprigg uses a cataloging of biased satire, as opposed to factual information in backing up his opinions. Thus, considering his audience consists of those who are for gay rights or, at the least, do not understand such a negative connotation regarding what could be an incredibly life-changing milestone for many, I am very much against his close-minded responses. Furthermore, although it is technically lnews learning that Peter Sprigg in particular thinks allowing gay couples to marry is wrong I can’t say that I’m definitively taken aback when I discover that yet another individual carries this mindset that, “Homosexual relationships are not marriage”(Sprigg P.2), though disappointing nonetheless. Thus, the author chose this ‘Question-Answer’
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.
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
The Equal Rights Amendment was passed to eliminate the discrimination on women and men to have equal rights throughout the United States. Political campaign and politicians were trying to go against voters from supporting the Equal Rights Amendment but Phyllis Schlafly attracted the attention of the nation and she points out that equality of rights under the law should not be denied by the United States or by any state because of gender. People agree with her because she believes equality of rights would eliminate laws that protected women and if the amendment became law they will lose preferential treatment in child custody, legally be subject to the draft and might get less pay from child support. Phyllis says, “why do we have to lower ourselves