From the video, the students and Professor Michael Sandel debate arguments about supporting and opposing the idea of same sex marriage and even solo marriage. They take the spot of legislators for voting a new marriage law that is morally right and permissible in the society. Then they come up with a third viewpoint that if the states and government want to be neutral then they shouldn’t be involved in such regulation. It is extremely challenging to find an acceptable law to correspond to the diverse ethnicities because everyone holds their unique fundamental beliefs. It would be problematic to argue with each different perspective of same sex marriage. The people should be free to select their partner, two consenting women or men. I agree
…show more content…
For instance, as Matha Nussbaum writes in an article on dissent magazine,
“WHEN PEOPLE talk about the institution of marriage, they often wax nostalgic. They think, and often say, that until very recently marriage was a lifelong commitment by one man and one woman, sanctified by God and the state, for the purposes of companionship and the rearing of children. People lived by those rules and were happy.”
People like those describe in Nussbaum’s text is not wrong. Their beliefs is their beliefs, they do not need to change because others have different beliefs. A dear friend of mine, who is opposing the idea of same sex marriage the first time she hears it. I question her why she can’t accept a homogenous couple. She says she feel it’s wrong and it’s against the natural rule. I consider it as not a strong statement arguing same sex marriage is impermissible but I do understand her ideology. I reply back saying are we not supposed to do what is not natural. We have some many other things are not natural or we can’t define as natural yet, for instance, making vaccines out from animal cells, using rats in dangerous laboratory experiments, and destroying trees for building materials. Now those are different from same sex marriage but it falls to her argument in the unnatural
For instance, as Matha Nussbaum writes in an article on dissent magazine,
“WHEN PEOPLE talk about the institution of marriage, they often wax nostalgic. They think, and often say, that until very recently marriage was a lifelong commitment by one man and one woman, sanctified by God and the state, for the purposes of companionship and the rearing of children. People lived by those rules and were happy.”
People like those describe in Nussbaum’s text is not wrong. Their beliefs is their beliefs, they do not need to change because others have different beliefs. A dear friend of mine, who is opposing the idea of same sex marriage the first time she hears it. I question her why she can’t accept a homogenous couple. She says she feel it’s wrong and it’s against the natural rule. I consider it as not a strong statement arguing same sex marriage is impermissible but I do understand her ideology. I reply back saying are we not supposed to do what is not natural. We have some many other things are not natural or we can’t define as natural yet, for instance, making vaccines out from animal cells, using rats in dangerous laboratory experiments, and destroying trees for building materials. Now those are different from same sex marriage but it falls to her argument in the unnatural