Leviticus puts the matter sharply and apparently beyond quibble: Thou shalt not live with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination. Sullivan suggests that all of these injunctions were written on the same moral level and hence can be accepted or ignored .He does not fully sustain this view, and in fact a refutation of it can be found in Prager’s essay.
Leviticus puts the matter sharply and apparently beyond quibble: Thou shalt not live with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination. Sullivan suggests that all of these injunctions were written on the same moral level and hence can be accepted or ignored .He does not fully sustain this view, and in fact a refutation of it can be found in Prager’s essay.Tags: Developing A Small Business PlanBusiness Plan Dance StudioHomework Help NumberCreative Writing CareerEssay About Welfare ReformAnimal Topics For Research PapersFree Printable Homework Sheets
As a consequence of two pending decisions, we may be about to accept homosexual marriage.But apart from this, Sullivan—an English Catholic, a homosexual, and someone who has on occasion referred to himself as a conservative—has given us the most sensible and coherent view of a program to put homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same public footing.His analysis is based on a careful reading of serious opinions and his book is written quietly, clearly, and thoughtfully.To this assault, natural-law theorists respond much as would the average citizen—never mind “utility,” what counts is what is right.In particular, homosexual uses of the reproductive organs violate the condition that sex serve solely as the basis of heterosexual marriage.But Sullivan cannot deny that Paul singled out homosexuality as deserving of special criticism.He seems to pass over this obstacle without effective retort.Lifting bans in those areas, while also disallowing anti-sodomy laws and providing information about homosexuality in publicly supported schools, would put an end to the harm that gays have endured.Beyond these changes, Sullivan writes, American society would need no “cures [of homophobia] or reeducations, no wrenching private litigation, no political imposition of tolerance.” It is hard to imagine how Sullivan’s proposals would, in fact, end efforts to change private behavior toward homosexuals, or why the next, inevitable, step would not involve attempts to accomplish just that purpose by using cures and reeducations, private litigation, and the political imposition of tolerance.If so, since the United States Constitution has a clause requiring that “full faith and credit shall be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” a homosexual couple in a state like Texas, where the population is overwhelmingly opposed to such unions, may soon be able to fly to Hawaii, get married, and then return to live in Texas as lawfully wedded.A few scholars believe that states may be able to impose public-policy objections to such out-of-state marriages—Utah has already voted one in, and other states may follow—but only at the price of endless litigation.