Tags: How To Write A Composition PaperA Book Report On Peter Rabbit LyricsArumentative Essays On AnimalsArgumentative Sample EssaysXbox 360 Vs Wii EssayNfwl-Nra Bill Of Rights Essay ScholarshipPhd Thesis In Industrial Engineering And Management
But Sullivan cannot deny that Paul singled out homosexuality as deserving of special criticism.He seems to pass over this obstacle without effective retort.
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.
In Prager’s opinion and mine, people at the time of Moses, and for centuries before him, understood that there was a fundamental difference between whom you killed and what you ate, and in all likelihood people then and for centuries earlier linked whom you could marry closer to the principles that defined life than they did to the rules that defined diets.
The New Testament contains an equally vigorous attack on homosexuality by St. Sullivan partially deflects it by noting Paul’s conviction that the earth was about to end and the Second Coming was near; under these conditions, all forms of sex were suspect.
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.
Our courts, which have mishandled abortion, may be on the verge of mishandling homosexuality.
As a consequence of two pending decisions, we may be about to accept homosexual marriage.
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.