The noble lie thus forecloses a piece of irrationality on the part of the public (which is always the justification of noble lies).The trouble with noble lies is that sooner or later people see through them.
The noble lie thus forecloses a piece of irrationality on the part of the public (which is always the justification of noble lies).The trouble with noble lies is that sooner or later people see through them.Tags: Rhetorical Analysis AssignmentGood Excuses For Not Doing Your HomeworkWhat To Write In A College EssayTopics For Term Paper In EnglishPolysynthesis LinguisticsExample Of A Personal Essay
(Some same-sex couples are also raising children, much to traditionalists’ horror, but we leave this aside.) Third, couples belonging to either of these two groups have the same reasons and motivations, rooted in their love for each other, to abide by the standards of conduct that we traditionally associate with marriage, namely exclusivity and fidelity subsequent to a vow of permanent commitment.
In light of all this, it is a matter of simple fairness to treat the two groups the same way, and legislators and voters should favor doing so.
he debate about same-sex marriage often seems limited to two points of view.
According to one, opposing the judicial invalidation of traditional marriage laws is tantamount to supporting segregationist racism.
As a sociological reality, this criticism is hard to dispute.
But as an argument against same-sex marriage it rests on a false choice.It may be true that, once they become actual parents, a couple acquires all the more reason to abide by the traditional standards of marriage.Now they will do so not only to fulfill their marital vow to each other, but also for the sake of their children.First, civil marriage already includes a group of people — married, childless men and women — who are irrelevant to its child-centric purpose.Second, there is another group of people — committed same-sex couples who wish to marry — who have just as much reason to want the law’s recognition and protection of their relationships as married, childless men and women do.It may also be true, as traditionalists argue, that we would never have designed an institution from scratch solely to protect a certain category of amorous relationship.But neither did we have to safeguard the interests of children by protecting a certain category of amorous relationship.So we made civil marriage generally available to sexually complementary couples.We did this without apparently taking notice of same-sex couples, let alone aiming to discriminate against them.But instead of specifically reminding parents of their responsibilities, traditionalists have sought something much more sweeping. I think their quest is quixotic, but I understand its motivation.Restricting sexual relations to heterosexual marriage would cut off, at the first link in the causal chain, a large number and variety of bad outcomes for children. But it would also rest on a one-sided and extreme view of human sexuality.