One of those is American writer, socially conservative commentator and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage Margaret Gallagher Srivastav, better known under the name Maggie Gallagher. Maggie Gallagher is an opponent of gay marriage and of the belief that “sex makes babies, society needs babies, children need mothers and fathers. ” Gallagher’s focus, as you can see from the previous quote, is the children. She fears that redefining marriage to include same-sex marriage may cause damage to the values of having both a mother and a father. Gallagher is against legalization of gay marriages, in order to achieve the greater good.
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 both Amatnieks Funeral Oration for the Burial of Traditional Womanhood and Milks The Hope Speech similar rhetorical appeals and stylistic devices are used to say what the audience, as an individual, should change social injustices. While living in a similar time period, Amatniek and Milk illustrate similar beliefs about how the individual should change social injustices through civil disobedience. Milks goal is to abolish the stereotypes of gay people and have the gays speak for themselves in a position of power. In his Hope Speech Milk says, that “A gay person in office can set a tone, can command respect not only from the larger community, but from the young people in our own community who need both examples and
Charles Colson argues, in his essay “Gay Marriage: Societal Suicide”, that the legalization of Gay Marriage would break the traditional institution of marriage and lead to an increase in crime. Though, the way Charles Colson structures his argument is ineffective and does nothing to advance his crusade. First, Charles argues that the imposition of gay marriage would, essentially be, an act of “judicial tyranny”, and that it be an overreach of American jurisprudence. However, this is an historically inaccurate argument, because not only American jurisprudence has always been accused of overstepping its boundaries, but by crossing these boundaries that it’s critics say it has, allows for social progress to be advanced in America. It was the
scribe an alternative form of desire that threatens the stability of the dominant norm.” (Zeikowitz) In modern times, the word is usually associated with people who identify with the LGBT community. Some may argue that LGBT issues were irrelevant in medieval times, but they fail to understand that “fictions can be
Don Marquis establishes a philosophical argument for his view that abortion is morally impermissible in his journal, “Why Abortion is Immoral”. In this paper, I will argue that Marquis’ argument is unsound by showing that some of his supporting premises are false and that by correcting them, the argument becomes invalid because the conclusion no longer logically follows the premises. I will start off by outlining Marquis’ argument against abortion. In his first premise, he states that “Killing me (or you, reader) is prima facia seriously wrong” (Marquis 190). His second premise is “For any killing where the victim did have a valuable future like ours, having that future itself is sufficient to create the strong presumption that killing is seriously wrong” (Marquis 195).
The social argument for homosexuality dates back to the ancient Greeks. Aristophanes, investigates homosexuality, as a desire by men to share a long-term fulfilment of the soul (Heffner, 2003). (Heffner, 2003) continued to state that Aristophanes believed that two souls are longing to be together, and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create homosexuality, but that the cultural environment allows or forbids the relationship to occur. According to (Heffner, 2003) the current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a result of nature, a person’s environment and surroundings, or of his biology and genetics, the debate tolerates both sides because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause.
“Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?” “Your Honor, I cannot.” This dialogue is between Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor and Charles Cooper, the lawyer who defended Proposition 8 in the recent case on whether California’s ban on gay marriage was constitutional. Currently there are sixteen states that allow gay marriage, however there are 33 that outright ban it. Inequality is obviously present, the basis of denying some the custom of marriage on who they wish to
Consider the following phrases: homosexual community, homosexual activist, homosexual marriage. Substitute the word “gay” in any of those cases, and the terms suddenly become far less loaded, so that the ring of disapproval and judgment evaporates. Some gay rights advocates have declared the term off limits. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against slander, or Glad, has put “homosexual” on its list of offensive terms and in 2006 persuaded The Associated Press, whose stylebook is the widely used by many news organizations, to restrict use of the word. Miss Suhashini a, lecturer of Phycology Department at UTAR who was currently doing research about LGBT has looked at the way the term is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant.
This has caused a major setback to the universal human right to privacy, equality and non-discrimination. The Supreme Court judgment seemed to allow homophobia and personal ideological views to determine the interpretation of statutory law (Rao & Jacob, 2014). The ruling goes against India’s Constitution for an equal and indiscriminative society by violating the rights of privacy of a select group. Hence it is of high importance to take this matter up in the Parliament and efforts should be made to repeal this archaic
Colorado, in 1992, was one of the first states to experience a rising cultural conflict between the LGBT community and religious groups. These religious groups, the majority in this case, questioned the morality of gay individuals because of their sexual orientation and belief in same sex-marriage which is contrary to several religious doctrines. As social awareness grew, religious groups felt actions opposing the LGBT community were appropriate to keep Colorado on a moral path. The ballot initiative that enacted the 2nd Amendment was the vehicle for religious groups to exercise their power within American’s democratic system. Colorado’s 2nd Amendment excluded
Perry we see the issue regarding the major political issue of the legalization of same-sex marriages. While some individuals rebuke or chastise homosexuality, other individuals will embrace it as just another aspect of life a average norm to be. We must questions the reason for the early determination of same sex marriage constitutionality. When it comes down to it, our society is just making it illegal for people that live their lives differently from the majority of us. It is inequitable for our government to decide on whether or not homosexuals can be married.
“America’s Unjust Sex Laws” is an editorial published in the Economist that argues that America’s laws for sex offenders is too stringent. The author makes tenacious arguments that gets the reader thinking, however most of the arguments that were made I contest with. “America’s Unjust Sex Laws” argues that the sex offender laws in America are too harsh. It begins by discussing “Megan’s Laws” and the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 to describe the current sex offender laws. The author then goes on to discuss how large the sex-offender registry is in order to support their first point that harsh penalties shouldn’t be imposed for minor crimes.
In our society, gay marriage opposers are notorious for citing “religious freedom” in order to not serve the LGBT community, and by and large we have accepted this. By bringing a somewhat obscure religion- Hinduism- into the discussion, Von Drehle is able to give the reader a better picture of what Davis is actually doing- and by forcing the reader to recognize that for anything else, citing religious freedom would not be an excuse to not perform one’s duties as an elected official in a community. By starting out with a question to the reader rather than an opinion he wishes the
Just as disturbing is the readiness by which society has accepted the validity of homosexual marriage. In living memory its associated practice was abhorrent in the eyes of decent citizens; whereas nowadays its normalization and full social acceptance is a fait accompli. We feel like asking our fellow citizens what Paul asked the Galatians: who has bewitched you? So what happens to any society that loses its moral compass? It is foolish to assume that the public and political leaders will ultimately know when to put the brakes on; that they are bound to say at some stage: this far and no further.