Gallagher is against legalization of gay marriages, in order to achieve the greater good. Furthermore, she questions if such a vast social change to gratify a small population, is the right thing to do. Gallagher says that “stopping gay marriage is not victory, it is only a necessary step to the ultimate victory: the strengthening of a culture of marriage that successfully connects sex, love, children, and
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.
In the essay “What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?” (2003), Katha Pollitt refutes all of the reasons why people think gay marriage is wrong. The author expounds on this argument by first showing that procreation is not a requirement for marriage because there are many straight married couples who don’t have children, the next argument that is refuted is that women domesticate men, but married men and un-married men still commit suicide and still do drugs so marriage won’t change that, and the final argument that was refuted was the argument made about historical marriages, but marriage has always been here and always will be and much of historical marriages polygyny was often as well as forced, arranged, and child marriage. By refuting
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
However, the Oceanian government did not cease to promote the belief that, “sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema" (Orwell 69). The Party wished to disturb the public with such a description as part of their attempt to eradicate the sex instinct. Furthermore, the Party founded the Junior Anti-Sex League, focused specifically on making young women exhibit hatred for sexual intercourse not intended for reproduction. Although the PUWP did not attempt the exact same, it explicitly avoided discussions concerning any other aspect of sexual relations than reproduction. It was generally not a common topic of debate in any public setting.
Conversion Therapy Although many people have strong convictions against gay people, sometimes leading parents to attempt to change their children’s sexual orientation, it should be banned on a national level for parents to be able to force their children under the age of 18 into conversion therapy because it is unconstitutional, it evidently damages the child's wellbeing, and the methods have never even been proven by credible research. Members of the ex-gay (anti-LGBT) movement argue that banning reparative therapy is an infringement on the rights to freedom of speech and religion, while parents following this movement have similar feelings and believe that putting their child through conversion therapy will help them be ridded of an "unwanted
“‘One nation under God’ is indisputably a statement of religious belief. By including it, the government is unconstitutionally using patriotism as a secular cover for advertising that particular belief” (Sherman). When people politely refuse to utter these words, they are often persecuted and considered as citizens lacking in nationalism. They are simply refusing to take part in the recitation of a false statement. The United States is categorized as a secular, free country, and should live up to the expectations that accompany such title.
In his argument, Balmer fails to respond to Matthew 5:31 where Jesus forbids divorce except in cases of abuse. Instead, he focuses on the fact that Christians now “accept” divorce. Does studying divorce rates among Christians truly refute the Biblical position on divorce? If it did, it would mean if a Christian lied or stole, the Bible would support lying and stealing. People cannot evaluate the character of Jesus by a person who claims to follow Jesus as many Christians fall susceptible to sin and deviate from the Bible.
He claims that the institution of marriage has been invaded into such that it loses its divine meaning. For him, marriage is not made for more than two people who are the husband and the wife. The marriage institution is not supposed to be for two men and two women as stated by Goeglein in his presentation. Also, Goeglein says that the marriage institution is not made for one woman and two men as many Americans have defined it in the recent past. Goeglein concludes on this attack by claiming that the institution of marriage is supposed to be respected and handled with utmost honesty
Homosexuality can be defined as a sexual orientation and a sense of personal and social identity with or without alternative life style. For some western countries homosexual issues are the norms and are accepted in their lives but it is different with countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and others. The majority of them are from among those who are Muslims. Their views on homosexual issues are different in that they assume homosexual acts are totally wrong because they are strictly forbidden in Islam and are a great sin if it is done. Homosexuality means, the sexual orientation and fantasies, with or without overt sexual behavior with same sex partner.
Boswell in this controversial article argues that homosexuality is not a term that is regularly used in scripture, and the use of scripture cannot be used to assert that homosexuality is morally wrong. Paul three different times in his writings condemns what most contemporary scholars see as homosexuality, but Boswell points out that the term “homosexuality” was never a term “before the late nineteenth century” (Boswell 262). This would assert that Paul never directly condemns the act of homosexuality, and that anyone who interprets Paul as saying these things is not correctly reading scripture. I do not agree with this exegesis, and while I can see that this man is very well read and well learned in the Bible, he seems to have already answered
According to David Newton in “Same-Sex Marriage: Overview”, up until 1990, the controversy on same-sex marriage hardly existed, as people automatically shunned the idea. Marriage was between a man and a woman- that was all people knew, and all they wanted to know. However, in 1990, for the first time, 3 same-sex couples sued the state of Hawaii, hoping to gain the right of marriage. Instead, they received an amendment to Hawaii’s constitution banning same-sex marriage- the state’s quick, easy answer to the couples. And the struggle began from there, encompassing 25 years, innumerable lawsuits, and multiple hindering bans.
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