Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Essay -- Homosexuality same-sex couples

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution guarantees the right for same-sex couples to marry. Should gay marriages really be allowed? Has the Supreme Court ruled in error? Gay marriage should be legal because all individuals have the same right in society; because same-sex couples can constitute a good based family; because it is just a way to make official a common union nowadays, even with the religious issue; because it is not related to polygamy; and because love matters and it does not differ in nature according to the sex of its object or the person who experiences it. The first reason why same sex marriage should be legal is because it is fair for all individuals to have the same rights in society. With the end of sodomy laws, a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, conservatives have lost their last excuse to write off gay lives and love as unworthy of social accommodation. But whatever ones feel about the reasoning of the decision, its results is clear: gay Americans are no longer criminals. Even if they were, as murderers on death row that have the constitutional right to marriage, they should have too. The second objection about why same sex marriage should be legal is because a same sex couple can really constitute a good based family, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics that has recognized that gay households can be just as loving and supportive an environment for raising children as the straight kind. Opponen...

Are the five precepts realistic principles for a Buddhist to live by today? Essay

I personally think that the five precepts are realistic enough because they are quite similar to the things that a Muslim may or may not do. The reason I say this is because I am a Muslim and some of these precepts are the same for me to follow in everyday life. For example, precept 2: ‘I undertake to abstain from taking what is not freely given’ In other words, it means No stealing or any form of exploitation or taking advantage of someone. This should not be hard to follow because, first of all; this is against the law and I doubt it that any other religion would allow stealing. All of the precepts are really what I, as a Muslim is not allowed to do, except the first one (‘to abstain from harming living beings’). The reason I have brought myself into this is because as I said before, I do most of these and I don’t find any of them hard to follow so why should a Buddhist? The obvious answer to the title would definitely be yes, because they are the same as what people with other faiths must not do. Precept 1 is a very simple precept and must be easy to follow, since there are millions of other vegetarians from other faiths in our world and they find it easy and realistic enough. I think that it is easy to survive by being a vegetarian, because there are a lot of other foods to eat except meat etc. Precept number 2 is also realistic because you will never be allowed to steal unless you want to, and if you are not interested to steal, then you won’t; so this one is also realistic enough as well. I would think that Precept 3 would be slightly harder to follow and less realistic because of what everyone else is doing at this moment. In the U.K and in most other countries se outside marriage is a very common thing and this might draw you in. I am not saying that you should, but some people would have sex for fun and this precept may also be interpreted as avoiding any over-indulgence, such as gluttony such as sex for fun which in this world would be hard not to have. Precept 4 is also not as realistic as 2 & 3 because these days talking behind people’s backs and lying is such a common thing that even if you don’t want to lie you will be forced into it. Precept 5 is also not realistic because everyone really has a bit of a drink and even some Buddhist do, so this is not a very strong precept; but still it wouldn’t be hard to follow. Also what would be the point of following this when some Buddhist’s drink moderately or not moderately? They still drink! Basically I think that this is the most random precept and there is no point to follow but all the other precepts should be realistic enough.

The Crucible Compared to The Scarlet Letter - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 1 Words: 382 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/05/08 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: The Scarlet Letter Essay Did you like this example? Nathaniel Hawthornes, The Scarlet Letter is comparable to Arthur Millers play The Crucible because they are in the Puritan New England era during the 17th and 18th century and follow the same laws and harsh punishments for that time. The Scarlet Letter is a story of Hester Prynne, a woman dealing with the Puritan punishment given to her, where The Crucible follows rumors about witchery cases as they spread throughout the small town. Hester Prynne, the main character of The Scarlet Letter, was found guilty for adultery and sentenced to wear a red scarlet letter A on her chest to let the townspeople aware of her sin. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Crucible Compared to The Scarlet Letter" essay for you Create order Similar to The Crucibles main character, John Proctor, who admits to having an affair on his wife with housemaid Abigail Williams. Instead of him having to wear a scarlet letter A, he is hung for the public to see. When John was pulled into court over the accusations Abigail has made of his infidelity, he admits to his sin. He is emotional and he is hurt by the pain he caused to himself and to his wife. Whereas when Hester was accused she speaks nothing about her sin and mistake, she stays quiet and doesnt show emotion towards her punishments. The reason Abigail takes John to court for the purpose of revenge, to admit to his sin is so that Elizabeth, John Proctors wife, will leave him and Abigail will have a chance to be with John. But with a turn of events Elizabeth and John forgive each others sins. Hester Prynnes story isnt much different. Her infidelity was with the Reverend Dimmesdale, once her husband, Chillingworth, comes back into the picture he seeks revenge on Dimmesdale by guilting him and having his conscious put thoughts and ideas in his head. Another comparable theme that these two share is the time period in which they take place. Both of the stories/plays take place in Massachusetts around the 17th and 18th century Puritan era. During this time religion was at an all time high, religion was well known and respected throughout the setting. This means when whichcraft comes into play, its automatically the work of the devil, because it is not Godly. Which also means when infidelity happens it is frowned upon and a sin.