Lewis explains that this happiness is only “sexual happiness”. Lewis emphasizes in this article that we do have a right to pursue happiness as far as it follows Natural (moral) Law, and legal Law. To Lewis, this situation was not abiding by moral law. Lewis’ statement that “our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behavior which, if it had any other end in view, we would be condemned as merciless, treacherous, and unjust.” rings so true to me.
In “My Amendment”, Saunders introduces the argument about same and similar sex marriage using satire, pathos and ethos. B. Thesis 1. Saunders effectively lets his audience know that it is wrong for the same sex to get married or similar sexes to get married through the use of personal experience and opinions with emotional stories. II. Body: A.
One of the definitions that Christina presents is that sex is the acknowledgement and sexual enjoyment of at least one of the individuals who partakes in the sex that he or she just had sex. She reaches this definition after previous definitions that she had come up with because they were too exclusive. The generic definition of sex, which is penile-vaginal intercourse, was definitely too limiting because it did not take into account any of her sexual encounters with women. Then she came up with a definition for sex to be anything that both individuals agree on to be sex, whether or not it was enjoyable. However, this definition was too restricting and messy because people are inevitably going to have differing opinions on what is and is not considered to be sex.
Therefore, between two male homosexuals, there can be a father and a mother. Bennett, fails to conviceus as to why we should not allow same sex marriages, because he does not state facts but only his own views. Furthermore, marriage is a bond between two people who love and cherish each other. Not only a man and a woman have the ablility to do that, but alsosame sex unions have the ability to accomplish the standards of a successful marriage. Both man and woman have equal rights and the rights of the other party cannot be limited because it defies the “traditional” meaning of marriage.
I will be discussing the arguments of two a Philosopher who wrote in the midst of the sexual liberation. Thomas Nagel has closely related arguments with some points of agreement and some in contention. Thomas Nagel establishes the “sex as communication” metaphor when he presents his own argument for what constitutes sexual perversion. Before he makes his case he offers what he calls the “skeptical argument”. This argument contends that sex is an appetite like any other, with a number of ways of being sated.
They are contradicting themselves because they are only giving some of us the right to marry in search of real happiness, the others are expected to shack up and pretend. If you are what is considered to be a straight person, you can go out, meet your soul mate, get married and have that wonderful American dream everyone talks about all in one night. Homosexuals however, can go out, meet their soul mate, and move in together but that’s about as far as they can get legally. They won’t be allowed to marry or reap the benefits of marriage in most states and if they decide to move to a state that honors same sex marriage it will only be honored in that
In doing so, other states may have to follow along due to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Claus. The meaning and definition of marriage will be changed if legal union of gay and lesbian couples are acknowledged. Bennett claims that marriage is recognized universally as an act meant to unite a man and a woman. Marriage is society’s most important institution; if same sex couples are able to marry, this important institution will be destroyed. Bennett’s article is effective
“Privacy is the interest that individuals have in sustaining a ‘personal space’, free from interference by other people and organizations” (Clarke, 2007). An individual’s sex life seems to be the ultimate example of personal privacy, however, within the military guidelines, if you are a soldier and commit adultery; it is considered a criminal offense. “Adultery is a violation of one of the articles in the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. But in order to be found in violation of the code, the affair must involve sexual intercourse, must involve someone who is legally married, and must hurt a unit or bring discredit among the armed forces” (“Unfaithful in uniform,” 2008). With this being said, if there is enough evidence, a soldier who has committed adultery can receive punishments directly from their commander, loose rank, be discharged from the military or even face a court-martial as a direct result of their personal sexual relationship.
Our minds have created justifications to alter these guidelines when they our actions do not measure up to the social norms. Susan Bordo’s essay, “Beauty (Re)discovers the Male Body” focuses on the gender roles society has created while revealing the way the mind justifies a particular sexual way of life. Laura Kipnis’s essay, “Love’s Labors” addresses love and adultery. Kipnis addresses the common way of thinking of why and how cheating is so prevalent in today’s culture. Kipnis goes into detail about the impact love has on our way of thinking.
According to Messerli in the “Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized?” he observes in support to Stoddard’s argument that: One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that type of lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we want to encourage?