Supreme Court to allow lower court rulings permitting gay marriage in a number of states to stand provides a useful basis from which to contemplate a thesis statement supporting the right of homosexuals to marry. There are generally two approaches to the issue of gay marriage, legal and moral, and both have plenty of partisans and detractors. In short, there is apparently no legal basis upon which to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Nine scholars and writers respond to pointed propositions about sex, gender, and marriage. That shows the kind of commitment to fair-minded discussion that the marriage debate could use more of.
But I find myself at a bit of a loss as to how to respond. Predictably, I leave them. He will forgive me, and other gay people, for not taking his word for this, and for seeing in it little more than an expression of heterosexual self-congratulation.
The epistemological problem with such propositions is that they provide no common purchase for people of diverse standpoints to discuss public policy.
If anything, they excuse the proposer from engaging real-world evidence on marriage and family policy or assessing the equality claims of sexual minorities. My own way of talking approaches marriage as a social institution, not a Platonic form. Marriage is not infinitely malleable, for sure, but it is also not reducible to one perfect idea.
It serves multiple ends and constituencies, and its strength comes from being a hybrid of legal and social, secular and religious, public and private. Attempting to reduce it to a single defining purpose e. Insisting that it cannot fundamentally change as the world changes likewise weakens it, by making it brittle or irrelevant or both.
Any sexual expression of love between me and my life partner now husbandMichael, is mere fornication that should be socially discouraged?
How much stigma and torment our love has borne? I wish I could help him and others who talk this way to see why, to a gay American intheir approach seems not only unpersuasive but also callous. Jonathan Rauch is a contributing editor for National Journal and the Atlantic, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, and a vice president of the Independent Gay Forum.
However, it is not clear how essential sex is to these relationships, now that it serves chiefly to align political identities. This essentializing of sexual desire oversimplifies human persons and their proper end, and excludes the possibility that complementarity reveals something basically human.
Catholic thinkers are almost as guilty of essentializing sexual desire when they fail to reject the deep current in the tradition that sees women primarily in terms of sexual utility.
As a consequence, sexual complementarity is either distorted or over-simplified. But the complementary relation between male and female is explained by layers of metaphor planted in the ground of the essential desire of the woman for her man.
Where should we locate sexual difference in the human person, philosophically speaking?
The Catholic philosopher John M. Rist, in his recent book What Is Truth? One locates sex difference in the body and not the soul, giving rise to a dualist ascetical theology; the other locates sex difference in the soul-body composite precisely because of the deep, natural unity of body and soul.
Thomas Aquinas prefers the latter, more Aristotelian picture. He therefore says we must look at woman in two ways: For Rist, the more Thomistic narrative is clearly preferable because it allows sexual difference to be more than merely bodily.
But he doubts the usefulness of either traditional narrative, given that the worldly ordering of woman to man for the sake of sexual utility is elaborated with reference to her relative weakness, her moral inferiority, her tendency to be ruled by the emotions thus tending more easily to viceand above all, her relative passivity.
Woman is raised up, like Christ himself, precisely in her passivity and receptivity to the Father. We must do good theological anthropology, speaking meaningfully of complementarity in defense of the good of heterosexual marriage.
But this must be done with philosophical care and honest examination of the tradition. This will then provide us with a language that allows us to reflect more realistically, more pastorally, on married life.
Paige Hochschild is assistant professor of theology at Mount St.Thesis Statements: Granting legal marriage rights to gays and lesbians would threaten the stability of the family, a pillar of our society.-or-.
T hirteen theses in defense of so-called heteronormativity and other supposed heresies, from a Christian and specifically Catholic perspective, for the purpose of public debate. 1)Homo sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species that depends for its propagation and socialization on the complementary differences between male and female.
marriage essays. Essay on marriage: essay examples, topics, questions, thesis statement. marriage Essay Examples. Marriage and Happiness Essay Crucial challenges and changes in the modern society have affected the reasons for marriages For example, marriage for getting independence from parents may result in loosening bonds Instead, more.
Writing Thesis Statement for gay Marriage Research Paper October 23, Mika The legalization of gay marriages is arguable as of now and it . Thesis: Gay marriage has a major impact on today’s society, in regards to its legality, how future generations will be affected, and how it will affect the institution of marriage in the future.
Not a Very Good Idea.” Gay Marriage is always an argumentative topic in our society today, But Gay marriages are not without their pundits. Thesis Statement Many people have their own beliefs and reasoning's when it comes down to Gay Marriage. Me personally I think that Gay Marriage shouldn't be even allowed.