When The Boy Scouts of America caught hear of this, it was immediately taken to court. Opening in 1992,the court 1st went with Dale’s appeal stating that the Boy Scouts had violated the sexual basis law of Pennsylvania. Later this would be overturned because the Boy Scouts of America’s First Amendment right of expressive association clearly saying, "The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA."
Christina Ortiz Professor DeBellis Foundations of Psychology 12/7/11 Psychological Effects of Same Sex Orientation in the Military Since the wildly debated policy otherwise known as the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was made into law in 1993, the controversy over the role of gays in the military has been heavily disputed amongst Congress in its following years. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” restricts the military’s ability to question members about their sexual preference hence “Don’t ask”, and allows homosexual, gay, and transgender individuals to serve provided they do no openly discuss their sexual orientation and abstain from any homosexual activities (“Don’t Tell”). Since 1993, 12,500 gay men and lesbians have been discharged from the military when their sexual orientation became evident whether on their own account or from a third party. In an article published in September of this year by the New York Times entitled ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, the Senate along with the House voted to repeal the policy, sending the stipulation to President Obama, who signed into law on December 22nd, 2010. The policy was first endorsed after former president Bill Clinton had unsuccessfully tried to overturn a current ban on gay military members.
In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country. Gun control on American citizens has been attempted ever since the Bill of Rights’ 2nd amendment said, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This sentence and its meaning have been debated by lawmakers and firearm-bearing citizens to this day, and we can not agree on what our founding fathers intended the amendment to mean. In my mind I see it only one way, the second amendment gives the people the right to own and keep any firearm they feel they should have. One point argued about the second amendment is at the end of the quote, it claims that our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” This phrase, however, is debated to whether they are talking about the right to simply own a firearm, or to place any limitations on firearms capabilities. The word infringed means to inflict upon a right or privilege.
Toni Meyer and Jocelyn Floyd both argue against same-sex marriage relying heavily on the fact that it will harm children today, but does same-sex marriage actually impact our society and more importantly children by doing more harm than good? Both articles being analyzed have many similarities but only pose arguments to one side and this is important because the readers are left with a simple question such as, what does the other side have to argue? Toni Meyer is the author of “Gay marriage is a social that will cause serious harm to children”. In his opinion Gay marriage is in no way beneficial for children, and relies on this argument in order to persuade his audience with the use of emotion as the topic of destroying our future generations is one many can feel emotional about. Toni also uses facts and evidence to support his claim, primarily with a study that was conducted at the University of Texas which stated “homosexual marriage will cause serious harm to children” (2).
Therefore In this essay I intend to put across both side of the arguments and then conclude with my own personnel opinion. Some people are against smacking children because the research evidence shown is overwhelming; smacking children is an ineffective way to manage children's behavior and damages their development. We have laws that protect adults from being assaulted by other adults however many people still believe that smacking children is a legal form of discipline. Is this therefore not ironic? As an adult can be protected by violence but a child does not have the same right.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
So basically what the gay community are suggesting is not ‘equal rights’ but ‘extra rights’, which leads me smoothly onto my next point. If the government hit their head and in the state of concussion decide to make same sex marriage legal, it would only be fair to make acceptances for other forms of banned marriages, marriages of which are considered incest, bigamy, and under aged. There’s reason we have restrictions placed upon marriage, those mainly being to keep up traditions and to protect the well being of our society. For instance, I’m pretty sure allowing 13 year old love birds to get married wouldn’t contribute to lowering the divorce rate, or condoning brothers and sisters to be wed and fill our country with their disabled offspring is such a good idea. I have come across no compelling reasons that would suggest homosexual marriages are to the well-being of
Though countries develop, does our morality and beliefs develop too? There are no laws to protect them, but the government has intensive works that there are no discriminations in terms of work, but how about in the private sectors? We were often told that gays are of the “lower class” and that the church prohibits it. But if you were in the one’s shoes, would you rather hide what you truly feel, or just let go and be happy? Some might find this modern time to be totally different.
He was arrested more than once for resisting the government. His view on just and unjust laws was that an unjust law did not harmonize with the moral law- it just was not right. Martin Luther King Jr. did not want to "evade or defy the law as a rabid segregationist would", but he did not want to stand there and let the government do him and other African Americans wrong; therefore, he broke only the unjust laws, and he did so openly. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. were two men fighting against unfair laws peacefully. Peacefully is the key word.
However, the majority of people in society don’t believe that it is right to buy all music from stores if they can buy it online and so there for do so. Another example is that positivists believe that smoking under the age of eighteen is illegal and therefore should be prosecuted if caught. However, natural law theorists believe that if someone wants to smoke under the age of eighteen then they should have the power to do so. In order to understand how the law is connected to morality, we need to understand the differences between law and morality. In the United Kingdom, parliament and senior judges in the appeal courts make laws.