Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized

Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legalized The debate on monogamy is often used as the counterargument to reserving the marriage rights to heterosexual couples. In other words, the advocates of gay marriage claim that most men in the heterosexual couples are not monogamous, but that faithfulness to one partner is demanded from gay couples in order to be recognized by law or the society. The debate on gay marriage rights is a fierce fight, employing all possible means and measures to prove ones point. This paper by referring to the most recent debate on gay marriage, argues that gay marriage should be given the same rights as heterosexual marriage and that the gay marriage should be legalized in the modern society. Many liberal and radical politicians today argue in favor of gay marriage or commitment ceremonies within the church so that lesbians and gay men can take part in church life. The gay rights advocates claim that the issue of allowing gay marriages is not entirely a religious one. As put by Julian Bond (2007 gay and lesbian rights are not 'special rights' in any way. It isn't 'special' to be free from discriminationit is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship. In other words, the author argues that gay people should be given the same rights as heterosexual individuals who, for instance, are not excluded form the church if they commit adultery or get divorced. Yet there are many opponents of gay marriage who suggest that such strategy of allowing gay marriages to have the same rights as heterosexual unions is misguided. Various scholars state that it is essential instead to look beyond the currently popular political struggle for recognition of same-sex unions and gay families, into a landscape where the heart of sexual morality lies (Rauch 2004). Many family values campaigns have gained ground by promoting a view of the family as a haven in a heartless world. These conservatives understand that the Christian message is designed for a unit larger than one individual, that morality and faithfulness can only be achieved in a group setting (O'Brien, 2004). In their focus on the family, they appeal to those who feet isolated and detached from larger units. The family provides contemporary Americans with a tool for overcoming the crippling and lonely effects of individuality. Such campaigns tell people that they are not alone as long as they ha ve a family. Modern individuals need to work to disrupt the self-contained, isolated human subject. At the same time, advocates of gay marriages argue that if same-sex marriage is prohibited, as the eleven state referenda lost in the last election year [2004] would have it, a significant percentage of the population will continue to lose out on the 1,138 federal rights that marriage conveys (Hunt, 2005, p. 36). Each year more and more couples publicly pledge commitment. Each year more lesbians and gay men become families by producing or adopting children. The pro-family gay discourse accompanying these efforts tells one that the legalization of domestic partnership and the subsequent sanctioning of gay families is the way to end discrimination. The family has become the vehicle, Hunt (2005) claims, for gays to fit into society, to blend into the heterosexual landscape, to be accepted. As Jonathan Rauch (2004) writes, Domestic-partner and other marriage-lite arrangements, as I can't resist calling them, do not give homosexuals what they need. They also do not give society what it ne eds. Both authors agree that institution of marriage will provide gay men and women with solid psychological support, allowing them to feel as equal members of the community. At the same time, opponents of gay marriages state that, when analyzed closely, the families of gay people bring a different message into the society than their heterosexual counterparts. Where the conservative family consists of a married couple and their biological children, the gay families come in all sorts of configurations, from a committed lesbian or gay man raising a child alone, to more complicated arrangements (Musgrave, 2006). AdvocatÐ µs of thÐ µ gay marriagÐ µ havÐ µ diligÐ µntly pushÐ µd thÐ µ idÐ µa that contract, not biology, crÐ µatÐ µs parÐ µntal obligations, in part bÐ µcausÐ µ it is thÐ µ only possiblÐ µ way for samÐ µ-sÐ µx couplÐ µs to havÐ µ childrÐ µn togÐ µthÐ µr. ThÐ µ old stubborn rÐ µality that thÐ µ pÐ µoplÐ µ who makÐ µ thÐ µ baby arÐ µ his parÐ µnts must bÐ µ put asidÐ µ to accommodatÐ µ an infinitÐ µ divÐ µrsity of adult choicÐ µ. It is Ð µasy to makÐ µ a baby, but it is hard to lovÐ µ and protÐ µct and providÐ µ for childrÐ µn to adulthood. OnÐ µ important goal of statÐ µ rÐ µgulation of intimacy has bÐ µÃ µn to Ð µnsurÐ µ that childrÐ µn havÐ µ what thÐ µy nÐ µÃ µd. AdvocatÐ µs of family divÐ µrsity tÐ µll gays that it is thÐ µrÐ µforÐ µ cruÐ µl to dÐ µprivÐ µ any actual child of whatÐ µvÐ µr bÐ µnÐ µfit can bÐ µ milkÐ µd from thÐ µ statÐ µ by having thÐ µ law prÐ µfÐ µr any family form. If thÐ µ adults havÐ µ dÐ µcidÐ µd to bÐ µ parÐ µnts, thÐ µ statÐ µ should applaud and Ð µnforcÐ µ this dÐ µcision, no mattÐ µr how or who or Ð µvÐ µn how many (Ilana, 2004). Many bÐ µliÐ µvÐ µ that lÐ µgal rÐ µcognition for samÐ µ-sÐ µx couplÐ µs is positivÐ µ for thÐ µ sociÐ µty. Еxpanding lÐ µgal marriagÐ µ would bÐ µ thÐ µ most straightforward way to Ð µxtÐ µnd rÐ µcognition, but many considÐ µr morÐ µ limitÐ µd lÐ µgal rÐ µcognition in spÐ µcific contÐ µxts to bÐ µ dÐ µsirablÐ µ as wÐ µll. Many also rÐ µcognizÐ µ that thÐ µ Ð µmotional and symbolic significancÐ µ of marriagÐ µ for non-gay pÐ µoplÐ µ may provÐ µ a significant political barriÐ µr to thÐ µ kind of full marriagÐ µ rights that havÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn grantÐ µd to samÐ µ-sÐ µx partnÐ µrs in a numbÐ µr of countriÐ µs and somÐ µ statÐ µs in AmÐ µrica. At thÐ µ samÐ µ timÐ µ, thÐ µrÐ µ arÐ µ many individuals who havÐ µ arguÐ µd strongly that sÐ µxual minoritiÐ µs should not bÐ µ sÐ µÃ µking thÐ µ right to marry bÐ µcausÐ µ of thÐ µ history of marriagÐ µ as a patriarchal, confining institution inimical to human frÐ µÃ µdom an d happinÐ µss. ЕvÐ µn thosÐ µ who makÐ µ such argumÐ µnts, howÐ µvÐ µr, tÐ µnd to support morÐ µ limitÐ µd, spÐ µcific forms of lÐ µgal rÐ µcognition for samÐ µ-sÐ µx rÐ µlationships on pragmatic grounds. ThÐ µ supportÐ µrs of gay marriagÐ µ assumptions arÐ µ not all basÐ µd on Ð µmpirical Ð µvidÐ µncÐ µ dÐ µrivÐ µd from sciÐ µntific rÐ µsÐ µarch, although somÐ µ of thÐ µm may gain crÐ µdÐ µncÐ µ from thÐ µ rÐ µsults that havÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn announcÐ µd by sciÐ µntific and historical rÐ µsÐ µarchÐ µrs in rÐ µcÐ µnt yÐ µars (CarpÐ µntÐ µr, 2003). WhÐ µrÐ µ thÐ µ traditional family strivÐ µs to closÐ µ itsÐ µlf off from outsidÐ µ influÐ µncÐ µs, oftÐ µn shunning Ð µvÐ µn thÐ µ involvÐ µmÐ µnt of grandparÐ µnts or distant rÐ µlativÐ µs, gay familiÐ µs arÐ µ usually opÐ µn to thÐ µ involvÐ µmÐ µnt of many diffÐ µrÐ µnt kinds of rÐ µlationships. It is not uncommon for thÐ µ childrÐ µn of gay pÐ µoplÐ µ to havÐ µ two mommiÐ µs (a biological mothÐ µr and hÐ µr partnÐ µr), and two daddiÐ µs (a biological fathÐ µr and his partnÐ µr) and numÐ µrous aunts, unclÐ µs, and othÐ µrs who arÐ µ rÐ µlatÐ µd to thÐ µ child not by blood but by choicÐ µ. Gay families are often presented in non-traditional ways. On the one hand, the issue of gay marriage is quite a recent phenomenon. On the other hand, young gay people need some sort of psychological support and vision of the future to live and become happy. Gay marriage seems to provide them with such comfort (Bond, 2007). In conclusion, many modern progressive thinkers are deeply persuaded that the institution of marriage will save the society. The current gay pro-family agenda is clear and unambiguous: gay people refer to their civic rights that endow them with the equal treatment in the society, including the ability to marry and build a family. It is not claimed that homosexual unions are trouble-free, but gays should be treated fairly and presented with the comfort and support that traditional family settings offer.

The Ancient Sources for the History of Ancient India

The Ancient Sources for the History of Ancient India It used to be  said that the history of  India and the Indian Subcontinent  didnt begin until the Muslims invaded in the 12th century A.D. While thorough history-writing may stem from such a late date, there are earlier historical writers with 1st-hand knowledge. Unfortunately, they dont extend back in time as far as we might like or as far as in other ancient cultures. It is common knowledge that there is no corresponding equivalent on the Indian side. Ancient India has no historiography in the European sense of the word-in this respect the only historiographic civilizations of the world are the Graeco-Roman and Chinese ones...- Walter Schmitthenner, The Journal of Roman Studies When writing about a group of people who died thousands of years ago, as in ancient history, there are always gaps and guesses. History tends to be written by the victors and about the powerful. When history is not even written, as was the case in early ancient India, there are still ways to extract information- mostly archaeological, but also obscure literary texts, inscriptions in forgotten languages, and stray foreign notices, but it doesnt lend itself to straightline political history, the history of heroes and empires [Narayanan]. Although thousands of seals and inscribed artifacts have been recovered, the Indus script remains undeciphered. Unlike Egypt or Mesopotamia, this remains a civilization inaccessible to historians.... In the Indus case, while the descendents of urban dwellers and technological practices did not entirely disappear, the cities their ancestors had inhabited did. Indus script and the information it recorded also were no longer remembered.- Thomas R. Trautmann and Carla M. Sinopoli When Darius and Alexander (327 B.C.) invaded India, they provided dates around which the history of India is constructed. India did not have its own western-style historian before these incursions so reasonably reliable chronology of India dates from Alexanders invasion in the late 4th century B.C. Shifting Geographic Limits of India India originally referred to the area of the Indus River valley, which was a province of the Persian Empire. Thats how Herodotus refers to it. Later, the term India included the area bounded on the north by the Himalayas and Karakoram mountain ranges, the penetrable Hindu Kush in the northwest, and on the northeast, the hills of Assam and Cachar. The Hindu Kush soon became the border between the Mauryan empire and that of the Seleucid successor of Alexander the Great. Seleucid-controlled Bactria sat immediately to the north of the Hindu Kush. Then Bactria separated from the Seleucids  and independently invaded India. The Indus River provided a natural, but controversial border between India and Persia. It is said that Alexander conquered India, but Edward James Rapson of The Cambridge History of India Volume I: Ancient India says its only true if you mean the original sense of India the country of the Indus Valley since Alexander didnt go beyond the Beas (Hyphasis). Nearchus, an Eyewitness Source on Indian History Alexanders admiral Nearchus wrote about the Macedonian fleets travel from the Indus River to the Persian Gulf. Arrian (c. A.D. 87 - after 145) later used Nearchus works in his own writings about India. This has preserved some of Nearchus now lost material. Arrian says Alexander founded a city where the Hydaspes battle was fought, which was named Nikaia, as the Greek word for victory. Arrian says he also founded the more famous city of Boukephala, to honor his horse, also by the Hydaspes. The location of these cities is not clear and there is no corroborative numismatic evidence. [Source: The Hellenistic Settlements in the East From Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India, by Getzel M. Cohen, University of California Press: 2013.) Arrians report says that Alexander was told by inhabitants of Gedrosia (Baluchistan) about others who had used that same travel route. The legendary Semiramis, they said, had fled through that route from India with only 20 members of her army and Cambyses son Cyrus returned with only 7 [Rapson]. Megasthenes, an Eyewitness Source on Indian History Megasthenes, who stayed in India from 317 to 312 B.C. and served as ambassador of Seleucus I at the court of Chandragupta Maurya (referred to in the Greek as Sandrokottos), is another Greek source about India. He is quoted in Arrian and Strabo, where the Indians denied having engaged in foreign warfare with any but Hercules, Dionysus and the Macedonians (Alexander). Of the westerners who might have invaded India, Megasthenes says Semiramis died before invading and the Persians acquired mercenary troops from India [Rapson]. Whether or not Cyrus invaded northern India depends on where the border is or was set; however, Darius seems to have gone as far as the Indus. Native Indian Sources on Indian History Soon after the Macedonians, the Indians themselves produced artifacts that help us with the history. Particularly important are the stone pillars of the Mauryan king Ahsoka (c. 272- 235 B.C.) which provide the first glimpse of an authentic historical Indian figure. Another Indian source on the Mauryan dynasty is the Arthashastra of Kautilya. Although the author is sometimes identified as Chandragupta Mauryas minister Chanakya, Sinopoli and Trautmann say the Arthashastra was probably written in the second century A.D. Sources The Hour-Glass of India C. H. Buck, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Mar., 1915), pp. 233-237Historical Perspectives on Ancient India, M. G. S. Narayanan, Social Scientist, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Oct., 1975), pp. 3-11Alexander and India A. K. Narain ,  Greece Rome, Second Series, Vol. 12, No. 2, Alexander the Great (Oct., 1965), pp. 155-165The Cambridge History of India Volume I: Ancient India  By Edward James Rapson, The Macmillan CompanyIn the Beginning Was the Word: Excavating the Relations between History and Archaeology in South Asia Thomas R. Trautmann and Carla M. Sinopoli​,  Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 45, No. 4, Excavating the Relations between Archaeology and History in the Study of Pre-Modern Asia [Part 1] (2002), pp. 492-523Two Notes on Seleucid History: 1. Seleucus 500 Elephants, 2. Tarmita W. W. Tarn​,  The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 60 (1940), pp. 84-94