Essay On Gay Marriage Example Of Marketing Plan For Small Business
In her review of it in (January 1996), Elizabeth Kristol asks us to try to answer the following question: what would life be like if we were not allowed to marry?
To most of us, the thought is unimaginable; to Sullivan, it is the daily existence of declared homosexuals. _____________ Sullivan recounts three main arguments concerning homosexual marriage, two against and one for.
The legislature, for its part, holds a different view of the matter, having responded to the court’s decision by passing a law unambiguously reaffirming the limitation of marriage to male-female couples.
No one knows what will happen in the coming trial, but the odds are that the Hawaiian version of the equal-rights amendment may control the outcome.
To this assault, natural-law theorists respond much as would the average citizen—never mind “utility,” what counts is what is right.
In particular, homosexual uses of the reproductive organs violate the condition that sex serve solely as the basis of heterosexual marriage.
Accordingly, it reversed the denial of a marriage permit to a same-sex couple, unless the state could first demonstrate a “compelling state interest” that would justify limiting marriages to men and women. But in the meantime, the executive branch of Hawaii appointed a commission to examine the question of same-sex marriages; its report, by a vote of five to two, supports them.
But Sullivan cannot deny that Paul singled out homosexuality as deserving of special criticism.
He seems to pass over this obstacle without effective retort.
Leviticus puts the matter sharply and apparently beyond quibble: Thou shalt not live with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination. Sullivan suggests that all of these injunctions were written on the same moral level and hence can be accepted or ignored .
He does not fully sustain this view, and in fact a refutation of it can be found in Prager’s essay.