Allowing Gay Marriage Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Allowing Gay Marriage - Essay Example This is wrong for many reasons, not least of which is the infringement on basic human rights. For many years marriage was between a man and a woman, both of the same races, for the purpose of having children and raising a family. That definition has changed a great deal. For example, the law criminalizing the marriage of two people of opposite races has been abolished. Yet we still cling to the definition of marriage that includes â€Å"a man and a woman† as though it were the only thing in the world that mattered. Why is it so difficult for us to accept change in a fluid world? We do not require people in married relationships to be the same race, in fact that would be discriminatory on more than one level. Yet we find it impossible to step beyond what is considered the definition of marriage. It is generally accepted that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is both unnatural and a recent invention. This idea is wrong, however. In fact homosexual tendencies have been observed in over 1,500 animal species, including dolphins, lions, and the dwarf chimpanzee which is one of humanities closest relatives. These homosexual tendencies range from life long partnerships, as with some birds, to single sexual interactions. In fact humans have accepted homosexuality for thousands of years. The first recorded homosexual couple dates back to 2400 BCE in ancient Egypt. These men were Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, and are depicted in Egypt’s most intimate embrace on the walls of their tomb. There have been numerous other cases of the acceptance of homosexuality in Greek and Roman times as well. We can see from this that homosexual tendencies are neither unnatural nor a new invention. What other arguments are there, then, against same-sex marriages? Unfortunately, the arguments are numerous, if a bit unfounded and full of rhetoric. The most

Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Are Democracies Inherently Peaceful - Essay Example The main reason people oppose monocracy and military rule is that countries led by such ruling systems are more likely to engage in wars and other type of international conflicts as compared to democratic system. Citizens of those states cannot obtain a peaceful living environment and this situation adversely affects their quality of living. As compared to monocracy, oligocracy, or military rule, democracies are inherently peaceful unless they are unjustifiably attacked by external powers. Giving specific focus to the era of World War I & II, this paper will discuss how democracies are inherently peaceful. Democracy and Peace Many authors opine that democracies strive to provide a peaceful living situation to their people and ensure that living standards of citizens are improved continuously. Undoubtedly, a country’s citizens are the primary stakeholders of a war as they actually bear the miseries of engaging in or financing wars. Therefore, common people are less likely to su pport wars or cross border intrusions. In a democratic country, people have more say in making decisions, and hence they can successfully veto individuals’ decision to fight and finance wars. In contrast, king is the sovereign ruler in monarchies and people have little participation in decision making. As a result, kings can individually take decisions to start or support wars with little personal risk. In order to improve this worse situation, leaders worldwide are strongly supporting democracy. In the opinion of Bass, the Clinton administration’s efforts to form a global ‘community of democracies’ was an attempt to bring peace to the whole world and it was greatly encouraged by many nations. As Bass notes, in their book ‘Electing to fight’, political scientists Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder opine that emerging democracies are often unstable and are more likely to fight wars. To justify their claim that new democracies without having fu lly formed domestic institutions are aggressive, the authors cite the examples ranging from France’s attack on Prussia in 1870 and Vladimir Putin’s ongoing monstrous clampdown in Chechnya. However, sometimes even fully formed democratic countries become warlike because of several reasons. To explain, it is better to consider the 1959 attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel or Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. Those wars were fought because the democratic governments often found it difficult to trust dictators for serious negations. Similarly, the US attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was in response to the 9/11 terror attack by Afghan militants. More clearly, some wars or interventions organized by democratic countries cannot be termed as aggressive or unpeaceful because they are ultimately aimed at the protection of fundamental democratic notions. As Buchanan points out, Elihu Root, Theodore Roosevelt’s secretary of state stated in 1917 that â₠¬Å"to be safe, democracy must kill its enemy when it can and where it can† (np). The democratic peace theory, often referred to as democratic peace, strongly supports the argument that democracies are inherently peaceful. According to Pace, the democratic peace theory states that democracies are not likely to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies (269). The democratic peace is contrast to the theories describing war engagement and it can be considered as a ‘theory of peace’ explaining motives that discourage state-sponsored violence. The democratic peace theory is mainly based on the premise that democratic leaders are to bear the responsibility of war losses and they are responsible for answering a voting public. In order to retain their public support, democratic leaders