When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves.
I am constantly amazed when reading discussions about gay marriage how absolutely ignored are children in the whole thing. The state ie, society has a fundamental interest in seeing that there is both a sufficient birthrate to perpetuate the society, and that these children are raised in an environment that is, at least minimally, considered likely to produce healthy and well adjusted citizens.
The benefit of reproduction to the state justifies the benefits bestowed on married couples. Now, the restrictions on to who can marry is based on the idea that the ideal family begins with a man and women who consensually live together, produce children, and care for them.
Many like to note that not all married couples can or do have children. In some cases this is personal choice, others have medical issues.
Regardless, this does not provide grounds for disqualifying them for marriage. There are reasons for this. In the case of medical conditions, there maybe treatments that solve the problem. In addition the issues may not be known, or may arise after marriage.
In the case they are not able to have a child of there own, but desire one, then they can still provide a role to the state by adoption of a child.
This is not as an ideal environment as a child raised by their biological parents, but ranks as second best. In the event of personal choice, this is a variable.
Couples when they marry may not desire children, but latter may change their mind. The state does not benefit from this.
Simply put, the state lacks a means to screen these couple. And, as noted, these couple still may provide a benefit back to society. What I have noted can be found in a plethora of court decision over the past years on ruling involving marriage. You will note, morality or religious preferences are not included.
The simple fact is, marriage as a legal institution provides a tangable benefit back to the state in return for the cost ie the benefits of marriage.
The state has a duty to ensure that anyone can participate in a given institution or aspect of society as long as they have the ability to perform the necessary duties.
This is no different than job applicants meeting the qualifications for that job. In the case of marriage, the state has determined the minimal necessary requirements are that there is a consenting male, consenting female, not of close relations are necessary to provide for a potential child.
The fact the restrictions are quite minimal is a reflection that added restrictions are untenable legally when the state is challenged in court. The simple fact is that the typical homosexual couple is incapable of bearing children in a manner that is anywhere near equal to the typical heterosexual couple.
In fact, they can not produce a child without involving a 3rd party. For a homosexual couple, this the rule, for a heterosexual couple this is the exception. Thus, to extend marriage to gay couple would require the state to provide benefits to a group of people that do not provide the return.
This is patently unfair, and a violation of the concept of equality. To extend the benefit of marriage to a group that cannot equally participate in reproduction is a violation of this concept. Now, if you care to argue that children are irrelevant to marriage, you then are in the position of arguing the state has no right to regulate personal relationships at all.
In addition, you will be in a position of contradiction eons of human history in mating. The day that gays can prove equality in reproduction as heterosexuals is the day they will deserve, rightfully, access to it. But until them, they no more deserve the benefits of marriage than I do as a single male.
And speaking personally, I will vote against gay marriage because it is a violation of equality.Fiction begins with empathy, as a writer imagines what it would be like to be another individual. He or she puts him- or herself into another person’s shoes, except that, of course, the person is a literary character, rather than a flesh-and-blood man, woman, or child, whom the writer creates.
Words: Length: 5 Pages Document Type: Essay Paper #: Nature of the Parables of Jesus Jesus used parables as a form of teaching because, like the rabbis during this time, he wanted to convey ideas with simple word-pictures so people could understand the concept of God and the kingdom of God.
The term was first used by the German writer and philosopher K. F. E. Trahndorff in an essay in The German opera composer Richard Wagner used the term in two essays.
It is unclear whether Wagner knew of Trahndorff's essay. The famous essay of Essays and Reviews, with the Dissertations from The Epistles of St. Paul and a sketch of Jowett's life by Sir Leslie Stephen from the National Review, , is reprinted in The Interpretation of Scripture and Other Essays () and also in Scripture and Truth, Dissertations, ed.
Lewis Campbell (). The UK Reading Experience Database; Open access research project and database based at The Open University, investigates the evidence of reading in Britain from UK RED contains more than 30, searchable individual records of reading, as well as information about readers and reading practices through history, audio-visual material, and interactive tutorials to support independent.
Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet.