Problem:
The ideals of Western Society are based on Christian teaching combined with Greek and Roman Philosophy. This creates questions about what types of relationships between people are moral. Such as, should our society recognize gay marriage, or civil union, or neither? An ethical answer that stays true to the foundational basis of Western society can only be formulated by the subjectiveness of “right” depending entirely on what history decrees and the examination of these crucial concepts.
Analysis:
The first concept is marriage, within the current society marriage is “considered to be a mutual commitment to a sexually exclusive life-long companionship expressed in a formal legal or religious ceremony made between a male and female.” (Morality Today) This generates an interdependence of responsibilities and obligations to one’s partner and progeny. Where the male traditionally provides financial and economic security and the female bears and cares for the children limiting her individual freedoms. Or vice versa the female bears the children and provides financial and economic security, while the male cares for the children limiting his personal freedoms. Or some other combination of the two extremes.
Marriage has its historical roots mainly in the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic cultures and “has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of the medieval Christian church, the demands of the Protestant Reformation, and the social impact of the Industrial Revolution.” (Erwin J. Haeberle) The influence of these cultures, doctrines, and policies has made the “natural” form of marriage to be a binding religious and secular contract between a man and woman. The relation of the secular with the religious has taken ma...
... middle of paper ...
...ther [within a long-term relationship] less required” This passage reflects the Natural Law Theory by showing that “mystery” of another’s body and mind that is different from oneself encourages a mutual commitment that enhances the productivity of the sexual experience and perhaps creating a lasting relationship.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, by examining the foundational basis of Western society and the subjectiveness of “right” decreed by history I believe as society currently is, homosexuals do not have an ethical right to marriage. However, some form of protected civil union is acceptable. The reason for my opinion is because marriage as currently practiced in the United States has too many religious connections in the minds of the people and the government cannot force a religion to change their sacraments to allow something that they do not approve of.
When one thinks about morals, he or she often find himself in difficulty. It is a fact that morals are mostly passed from one generation to another. However, we all face challenges when trying to understand whether they are all accurate or not. To start with, Morals are those values that normally protect life and always respectful of the dual life value of individual and others. Therefore, Morals are those rules that normally govern actions that re wrong or right. We know that morals may be for all people in the society or individual beliefs in the society. Some of the great morals include freedom, charity, truth, honesty and patience and all of them have a common goal. It is a fact that when they function well in the society, they end up protecting and enhancing life. These morals need to be examined always to make sure that they are performing their mission of protecting life. As a matter of fact, morals are derived from the government and society, self and religion. When morals are derived from the government and society, they tend to change as the morals and laws of the society changes. An example of the changes is seen in the cases of marriage versus individuals living together. It is true that in the past generation, it was quite rare to see any couple living together without having any legal matrimonial ceremony. However, this
Moral Theory and Personal Relationships In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way.
The application of morality begins at a young age for many people. Many children take on the morality of their parents through the daily events that influence their development. In many ways, parental sexuality means fidelity, and the ability to stay monogamous in order to properly raise a child in a complete family unit. This in turn expresses sexual fidelity as a form of morality, and without sexual fidelity, there will be painfully undesirable consequences. Along with the family unit being an influential aspect of sexuality, religion, particularly Catholicism, claim that sexual activity is solely justified by the reason of procreation. Freud also perceived sexuality as the dark and evil part of the human being, when allowed to freely express sexuality, the person i...
“The sanctity of the oath” (Keillor 102), the controversial hot topic of this year. This is a subject that has sparked great debates not only to those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Some hold the oath as a promise of civility and humanity. On the other hand, others view the morality the oath is supposed to stand for as unreachable and unattainable. In my opinion Garrison Keillor sums it up in his essay, “The Republicans Were Right, But.” I feel this is a good essay based upon the author’s argument of morality, his use of symbolism, and the entire structure of the essay.
Homosexuals can marry just like any other person, with the same rights and obligations as heterosexuals. If a homosexual complains of discrimination because he or she can't marry someone of the same sex is as if a polygamous complains of discrimination because you can't marry several women, or a pedophile with a child. There is no discrimination with none of these ones. Everyone is equal to the la...
Web. 10 Sep. 2011. . “Marriage.” Judaism 101: Marriage. Web.
Writers have different motivations on why they decide on what they write about. It must be something that will grab the reader’s attention and make them want to read their works. Often writers include situations that are not considered appropriate for the era when the piece was written. Some subjects are too sexually explicit. In two such short stories, Kate Chopin’s “The Storm” and Anton Chekhov’s “The Lady with the Little Dog,” both writers chose to involve adultery in their stories. Whatever motivation there is to cheat on a spouse, there is not an acceptable reason to do it. This controversial subject was not common and both authors chose to break the rules. Although equally successful in their writings, Chopin’s “The Storm”, was not published until many years after her death.
Sherif Girgis wrote his article, “Marriage: Whose Justice? Which Diversity?” in response to John Corvino’s, “What Marriage Can Be” article. Corvino’s article introduced the inclusivist view of marriage and then attacked Girgis’ conjugal view of marriage, which was introduced in Girgis’ book, “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.” Corvino’s inclusivist view was meant to expand the definition of marriage, not re-define it (Corvino, p.6) and although Corvino’s defense of the inclusivist view was, “sophisticated, civil and well-informed” according to Girgis, it was also, “Contradicting virtually every philosophical and legal tradition until yesterday, it nonetheless offers no positive case for its thesis” (Girgis, p.1). Girgis obviously does not agree with Corvino’s inclusivist/revisionist view, but he does so on the basis that it has too many weaknesses. The conjugal view is superior as it most properly defines what true marriage is and should be. In the ensuing sections, I shall describe what the conjugal view of marriage is and why Girgis believes it to be superior to both the
...at to the stability of family life in our society. Sexual intercourse, explained by Haines (2011), is a special bond that is created for the aim of reproducing children despite not being able to, at times. It unites two dissimilar body parts in a way that can produce a reproductive effect. Thus, same sex relationships are opposed because male-female relationships are the only sort that can fully embrace the sexual complimentary (Haines, 2011). If we de-emphasize the procreative function of marriage, then it is only focused on the intensity of feeling between married couples (Pinkerton, 2014). Pinkerton (2014) said that no matter how deep and intimate one’s feelings may be, it can decrease after many years of raising children. This would ultimately lead to divorce and broken families which threatens the stability of family life in our society as stated earlier.
...uction created through inhumane mistakes and violating the rights of whole literary genre of people out of pure ignorance and fearfulness . Dean Martin Luther Riley B King, Jr . Once said, “Unjustness anywhere is a scourge to justice everywhere.” Though we have come a long way in correcting our wrong-doings of our violent chronicle, we still have many milepost to interbreeding before we could ever call ourselves the “demesne of the free people .” Allowing gay marriage would be a positive whole step in the right centering by supporting our citizen’s rights and by helping them to pursue to lives of exemption we have all been promised, all the while strengthening our economy and the togetherness of our country. Unjustness towards gays is injustice towards human beings. We need to learn to come together through our similarity and check exploiting each other’s dispute.
In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen shows examples of how most marriages were not always for love but more as a formal agreement arranged by the two families. Marriage was seen a holy matrimony for two people but living happil...
Throughout the years, societies view on marriage and cohabitation has been changing, especially from the 1950s up until now. Marriage and cohabitation are in relation to social location, education, immigration and social class. In addition, these changes are influenced through socialization and their surrounding environments as people’s beliefs and expectations vary from what a defined family really is. Same-sex couples are now getting married and the divorce rate is on the rise, including non-married couples raising children. Most importantly, each individual determines who they marry or whom they share their love with through conditioning or in the course of shared similarities. People have dissimilar values, beliefs and attitudes and throughout the life course may change again, including the future generations. This paper reviews why marriage is on the decline and cohabitation is now the accepted social norm, including other aspects such as specific rights that couples have over others in the past. Religion is a powerful tool that alters minds of those who are affiliated with it. As a result, their beliefs are conditioned and marriage is valued differently than those who are not married. All in all this paper will further explain the change, continuity and
... on topics like this. You will certainly never get a unanimous decision from a large group of people such as the United States. While you have two sides to the topic both have their reasoning for what they believe and I am no different. In the article, Seth Forman makes some valid arguments as to why he believes homosexuals do not deserve the right to marry. He uses religion for his first example. The Freedom of Religion is one of the rights granted to Americans by the United States Constitution. It is also the cause of many disagreements such as this one. The bible does state that marriage should be between a man and a woman but Proverbs 8:17 states: “I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.” Those who believe in god and truly need him are loved no matter what. What many people don’t understand is that homosexuals don’t choose to be gay.
Marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church. (n.d.). academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2023218
As stipulated in the definition of Equal Rights, the bill of rights contains ten amendments. It is inside these ten amendments that the right to separation of church and state is held (Lewis 3). Since this is the case, based on this amendment, all homosexuals should be allowed to marry, no matter if it is against certain religions or not. When it comes to this particular topic though, religion is no longer disregarded, but is instead pushed to the forefront where it suddenly matters more than someone’s happiness. This is not an example of the freedom our country claims to give.