The first article I will respond to is Jeff Jordon’s essay against the legalization of same sex marriage. For the most part, I am for same sex marriage so I will be reacting in a refutable manner. Initially, Jordon makes a few ground principles for his argument by addressing the issue, counterargument, and moral impasses, but it’s not until section 4: Conflicting Claims on Homosexuality that his ideas quarrel with mine. Like Gordon mentions, not everyone is a theist so therefore we don’t have to base our views on that idea, he states “if one does not adopt the religion-based moral view, one must still respect those who do: they cannot be dismissed out of hand” (Jordan 240). This is fully realizable, but in itself it is also an extreme double
…show more content…
Generally, Rauch and I had similar views. One interesting idea that I noticed in Rauch’s essay was how he actually questioned why people get married, and what constitutes it. He compares systems in America to the ones in Japan stating, in regards to western culture, “The notion of lifelong love is charming, if ambitious, and certainly love is a desirable element of marriage”. He continues, “It cannot, however, be the defining element in society’s eyes” (Rauch 254). Rauch loosely defines marriage as more of a partnership with love being sensible from an emotional point of view. This helps his argument because it raises the question, why can’t homosexuals have partnership as well? Another interesting claim that I found in Rauch’s argument was his counterclaim on people against same sex marriage, stating that people against same sex marriage recite how children play an important role in the dilemma. Although marriage and offspring often go hand in hand, it is never a required proponent of such. Going with this idea Rauch writes “… the ‘anatomical crowd’ has a problem, for a homosexual union is, anatomically speaking, nothing but one variety of sterile union and no different even in principle” (Rauch 257). What Rauch means is that if it’s permissible to reject homosexuals of marriage on the basis that their anatomy doesn’t allow for offspring, …show more content…
Although my opinion hasn’t changed reading these essays have given me insight on some beliefs that I agree and ones that I don’t. Did I think the Supreme Court got the decision right? Yes, I believe that homosexuals deserve just as much rights as us, including the right to marry. Marriage, defined by myself, is a mutual lifelong partnership between two individuals. This aligns perfectly with my view of the purpose of marriage. Despite my religion condemning the act of homosexuality, myself, and society as a whole, are not the ones to pass judgement. So what I don’t exactly agree with it. It doesn’t directly affect me. All sin is equal, ripped jeans are a sin, people wear those every day, eating pork is a sin, people eat that every day, adultery is a sin, but people cheat every day. Everyone deserves the right to happiness regardless of their race, ethnicity, social class, or sexual orientation. Without marriage a person is not complete, it is a major step in completing someone’s life. Society must realize that we should stay neutral in ideas that conflict with theistic beliefs because the not everyone is Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. It takes a variety of different people to make this world go around, especially in America, a melting pot. Depriving one group of their natural rights throws off the components that maintains an equilibrium to keep America “the home of the
Generally, Rauch and I had similar views. One interesting idea that I noticed in Rauch’s essay was how he actually questioned why people get married, and what constitutes it. He compares systems in America to the ones in Japan stating, in regards to western culture, “The notion of lifelong love is charming, if ambitious, and certainly love is a desirable element of marriage”. He continues, “It cannot, however, be the defining element in society’s eyes” (Rauch 254). Rauch loosely defines marriage as more of a partnership with love being sensible from an emotional point of view. This helps his argument because it raises the question, why can’t homosexuals have partnership as well? Another interesting claim that I found in Rauch’s argument was his counterclaim on people against same sex marriage, stating that people against same sex marriage recite how children play an important role in the dilemma. Although marriage and offspring often go hand in hand, it is never a required proponent of such. Going with this idea Rauch writes “… the ‘anatomical crowd’ has a problem, for a homosexual union is, anatomically speaking, nothing but one variety of sterile union and no different even in principle” (Rauch 257). What Rauch means is that if it’s permissible to reject homosexuals of marriage on the basis that their anatomy doesn’t allow for offspring, …show more content…
Although my opinion hasn’t changed reading these essays have given me insight on some beliefs that I agree and ones that I don’t. Did I think the Supreme Court got the decision right? Yes, I believe that homosexuals deserve just as much rights as us, including the right to marry. Marriage, defined by myself, is a mutual lifelong partnership between two individuals. This aligns perfectly with my view of the purpose of marriage. Despite my religion condemning the act of homosexuality, myself, and society as a whole, are not the ones to pass judgement. So what I don’t exactly agree with it. It doesn’t directly affect me. All sin is equal, ripped jeans are a sin, people wear those every day, eating pork is a sin, people eat that every day, adultery is a sin, but people cheat every day. Everyone deserves the right to happiness regardless of their race, ethnicity, social class, or sexual orientation. Without marriage a person is not complete, it is a major step in completing someone’s life. Society must realize that we should stay neutral in ideas that conflict with theistic beliefs because the not everyone is Christian, Jewish, or Islamic. It takes a variety of different people to make this world go around, especially in America, a melting pot. Depriving one group of their natural rights throws off the components that maintains an equilibrium to keep America “the home of the