The case is elegant, and it is compelling. But it is not unanswerable. And answers have indeed been forthcoming, even if, as i indicated at the outset, many of them have tended to be couched somewhat defensively. Thus, rather than repudiating the very idea of an abstract "right" to marry, many upholders of the traditional definition of marriage tacitly concede such a right, only going on to suggest that denying it to a minority amounts to a lesser hurt than conferring. Others, to be sure, have attacked the bawer/Sullivan line more forthrightly. In a september 2000 article.
Essay on Same sex, marriage, free content Web
In the apt words of a letter-writer. Commentary in 1996: Homosexual marriage. preserves and promotes a set of moral values that are essential to civilized society. Like heterosexual marriage, it sanctions loyalty, unselfishness, and sexual fidelity; it rejects the promiscuous, the self-serving, the transitory relationship. Given the choice between building family units and preventing them, any conservative should favor the former. Bawer, for his part, has come close to saying that the inability of many male homosexuals to remain faithful in long-term relationships is a consequence of the lack of marriage jekyll rights-a burning sign of the more general stigma under which gays labor in our society and. As it happens, though, this particular line of argument is already somewhat out of date and is gradually being phased out of the discussion. The toleration of gay styles of life has come about on its own in American society, without the help of legal sanctions, and protecting gay couples from the contempt of bigots is not the emergency bawer has depicted. Quite the contrary: with increasing numbers of gay partners committing themselves to each other for life, in full and approving view of their families and friends, advocates of gay marriage need no longer call upon the law to light (or force) the way; they need. In brief, legalizing gay marriage would, in Andrew Sullivan's summary formulation: offer homosexuals the same deal society now offers heterosexuals: general social approval and specific legal advantages in exchange for a deeper and commitment to another human being. Like straight marriage, it would foster social cohesion, emotional security, and economic prudence.
In their separate ways, they have been campaigning for gay marriage for over a decade. Bawer's take on the subject is succinctly summarized in his 1993 book, a place at the table ; Sullivan has held forth on the desirability of legalizing gay marriage in numerous articles, on his website ( m and in an influential book, virtually normal (1995). The civil-rights argument goes like this. Marriage is a legal state conferring real, tangible benefits on those task who participate in it: specifically, tax breaks as well as other advantages when it comes to inheritance, property ownership, and employment benefits. But family law, since it limits marriage to heterosexual couples over the age of consent, clearly discriminates against a segment of the population. It is thus a matter of simple justice that, in Sullivan's words, "all public (as opposed to private) discrimination against homosexuals be ended and that every right and responsibility that heterosexuals enjoy as public citizens be extended to those who grow up and find themselves. The utilitarian argument is more subtle; just as the rights argument seems aimed mainly at liberals, this one seems mostly to have in mind the concerns of conservatives. In light of the disruptive, anarchic, violence-prone behavior of many homosexuals (the argument runs why should we not encourage the formation of stable, long-term, monogamous relationships that will redound to the health of society as a whole?
Nevertheless, in the somewhat fragmentary notes that follow, i hope to re-articulate what i am persuaded everyone knows to be the case about marriage, and perhaps thereby encourage others with stronger arguments than mine to help break the general paralysis. Let us begin by admiring the case for gay marriage. Unlike the case for completely unrestricted abortion, which has come to be something of an embarrassment even to those who advance it, the case for gay marriage enjoys the decided advantage of appealing to our better moral natures as well as to our reason. It deploys two arguments. The first centers on principles of justice and fairness and may be thought of as the civil-rights argument. The second is at once more personal and more utilitarian, emphasizing the degradation and unhappiness attendant upon the denial of gay marriage and, conversely, the human and social happiness that will flow donation from its legal establishment. Both arguments have been set forth most persuasively by two gifted writers, Bruce bawer and Andrew Sullivan, each of whom describes himself as a social conservative.
I do not doubt the accuracy of those arguments.* But they do not seem to get at the heart of the matter. To me, what is at stake in this debate is not only the potential unhappiness of children, grave as that is; it is our ability to maintain the most basic components of our humanity. I believe, in fact, that we are at an "Antigone moment." Some of our fellow citizens wish to impose a radically new understanding upon laws and institutions that are both very old and fundamental to our organization as individuals and as a society. As Antigone said to Creon, we are being asked to tamper with "unwritten and unfailing laws, not of now, nor of yesterday; they always live, and no one knows their origin in time." I suspect, moreover, that everyone knows this is the case, and that. Admittedly, it is very difficult to defend that which is both ancient and "unwritten"-the arguments do not resolve themselves into a neat parade of documentary evidence, research results, or citations from the legal literature. Admittedly, too, proponents of this radical new understanding have been uncommonly effective in presenting their program as something that is not radical at all but as requiring merely a slight and painless adjustment in our customary arrangements. Finally, we have all learned to practice a certain deference to the pleas of minorities with a grievance, and in recent years no group has benefited more from this society-wide dispensation than homosexuals.
Essay, research Paper Out
".tampering with the unwritten and unfailing laws.". November 2003, the feeling seems to be growing that gay marriage is inevitably coming our way in the. S., orientation perhaps through a combination of judicial fiat and legislation in individual states. Growing, too, is the sense of a shift in the climate of opinion. The American public seems to be in the process of changing its mind-not actually in favor of gay marriage, but toward a position of slightly revolted tolerance for the idea. Survey results suggest that people have forgotten why they were so opposed to the notion even as recently as a few years ago.
It is curious that this has happened so quickly. With honorable exceptions, most of those who are passionately on the side of the traditional understanding of marriage appear to be at a loss for words to justify their passion; as for the rest, many seem to wish gay marriage had never been proposed. In this respect, the gay-marriage debate is very different from the abortion debate, in which few with an opinion on either side have been so disengaged. I think i understand why this is the case: as someone passionately and instinctively opposed to the idea of homosexual marriage, i have found myself disappointed by the arguments I have seen advanced against. The strongest of these arguments predict measurable harm to the family and to our arrangements for the upbringing and well-being of children.
The theories themselves have been barely surviving continued attack of the scientists. Many have already claimed the many gay men who do not have the Xq28 pattern? Many have claimed to have disproved Xq28 theory. How do you account forHomosexuals who dont have it? Alternatively, how do you account for heterosexuals who have it? A canadian study said that there was no significant difference between maternal and paternal uncles being gay.
As for the second theory i discussed, the weakness is that it is almost impossible to pinpoint the exact genes that determine sexual orientation. The current theories are not convincing. Twin studies providestrong evidence of a genetic factor in homosexuality. If there is a genetic factor, then we are very far from knowing what the genes are, and how they are transmitted. Scientists must continue searching for a gay gene(s). It will be tough and probably near impossible to come up with a complete answer.
Difficulties in editing a thesis on, business
These scientists say that even if the selective advantage were small (less than 2) it would be sufficient to balance the affect of the loss of fertility of the homozygote. The two theories that I have discussed are validexplanations of how the gene could be passed on consistently from generation to generation consistently. Perhaps much more valid than if they were to stand on their own. I feelit necessary to discuss some of the weak points of these theories. To resume believe in these theories, you must believe in genetic determinism. Many people do not. They believe that environmentalfactors determine sexual orientation. They would argue that a social behavior as complex as homosexuality cant be governed by a couple of genes.
They speak of possible selective advantages of the kin of homosexuals. In their words if alleles persist for a condition that is reproductively deleterious in the homozygote, thenthere must be a selective advantage for the heterozygote. The hypothetical advantage need not have anything to do with sexual attraction. It could involve genes of other attributes. An example would be resistance to endemic disease. That would promote a larger sibship(thereby offsetting the phenotypically gay individual). Another examplewould be personality handyman traits associated with gay genes. A trait like that would improve hunting skills is a good example. It would make up for the genetic loss if these traits increase thesurvival rate ofkin.
have two the genes on the chromosome are more likely to be expressed. Hence, a man with the Xq28 has a greater chance of being gay. As for women, presence of Xq28 does not seem to affect sexual preference. That may be due to their extra x or that the genes simply might not express themselves the same way in women. Thus, normal heterosexual women can pass the gene down through successive generations. Other scientists like richard. Bailey have a different ey believe that dozens or hundreds dozens or hundreds of alleles are related to sexual attraction. That believe homosexuality can be inherited genetically but do not claim to know the specific genes responsible.
If one of the identical twins is gay, then there is over a fifty- percent likely hood that the other will also be gay. This is strong evidence that homosexuality has at least a partial basis of inheritance. Thus, a search began to find the gay gene(s). Dean hammer noted that a seemingly high number of homosexual men that he studied had gay uncles on xmas their mother s side. He speculated that the gay gene(s) might be located on the x chromosome. Hammer examined X-chromosomes of gay men, trying to find any differences with the x-chromosomes of heterosexual men. In the region Xq28, he found a pattern that was common to many homosexuals.
Key business drivers examples of thesis
Does a gay gene Exist Essay, research Paper. Does a gay gene exist? Two possible writing ways the genetic material for homosexuality may be transmitted,. Michael bailey of Northwestern. Did a study on 161 gay men. Each had at least one identical twin or fraternal twin or adopted brother. Fifty two percent of the identical twins were also homosexual, as compared with twenty two percent of the fraternal twins and eleven percent of the adopted brothers. Similar studies have been done by dean. Hammer and others with the same results.