Same-Sex Marriage Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Same-Sex Marriage - Essay Example There is no logical or scientific basis for a constitutional amendment to forever constrain the definition of marriage by preempting state power in the area. As a preliminary matter, there exists some persuasive evidence in support of alleged biological causes of sexual orientation, some less persuasive evidence for various environmental or psychosocial causes of sexual orientation, and some unsubstantiated data suggesting the existence of a" gay gene" designated the Xq28 area of the X chromosome for males. That the evidence is not precise does not negate the fact that, as noted by Crooks & Baur, sexual orientation runs more frequently in certain families, that prenatal hormone levels affect certain features of fetal masculinazation and feminization, and that sexual orientation is often formed prior to school. It would be more accurate to suggest that we only understand sexual orientation partially rather than to state that we understand it perfectly as a voluntary choice. The former qualification is supported by the empirical data whereas the latter absolutism is simply false. In the final analysis, the data is at best speculative; none theless, public policy makers, including George W. Bush, ought to assess such divergent findings holistically in order to find out which conclusion is more probable. Public figures must acknowledge in this context that people are, to some extant, born with a certain sexual orientation; that these sexual orientations may differ in degree or change throughout the life span does not diminish the significance of the underlying predispositions. It is more probable than not that predispositions exist, that sexual orientation is not a question of pure choice, and that public policy should treat people as they are rather than how some people wish or imagine them to be. If this were not enough, the public policy debate is also complicated by the fact that public opinion also varies among and between people with different sexual orientations. As noted most prominently in separate studies conducted by Kinsey and the National Health and Social Life Survey, categorizing an individual's sexual orientation precisely is nearly impossible (Crooks & Baur, 2005). Sexual exclusivity, for both males and females, is comparatively rare; furthermore, even a bisexual orientation is characterized more by degrees than by a firm commitment to the orientation. The evidence simply does not establish any firm basis for treating homosexuals or bisexuals as a distinct type of people; absent such a legitimate or verifiable distinction, there is no overwhelming logical basis for classifying people as exclusively homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Arguments, therefore, which deny the need for same-sex marriages by pointing out that only a small percentage of the populatio n will be affected are oversimplifying the truer demographic realities. When one accounts for the four different types of bisexuality, in addition to narrower notions of exclusive homosexuality, the number of people affected or excluded from the marital institution increases substantially. The fact is that somewhere

Explain (with examples) the extent to which SSM was supportive of a Essay

Explain (with examples) the extent to which SSM was supportive of a group approach - Essay Example Today, SSM has become a useful tool in any situation (or problem) involving human activity. Take for instance this trivial situation of two friends watching TV and arguing if the programs were good or bad. Using the SSM model, there will be no point arguing because both are right. Friend A may like it because of the pact action sequences and Friend B may not like it because the plot is too predictable. Whichever it is, SSM model argues that the standard for a good TV programs is inherent in both and one value judgment is not necessarily superior or more right than the other. If these ideas were explicit, the two friends may still argue on some points but their ideas would cease being unsubstantiated opinion and become defensible. Wilson (2001) points that defensibility should be the main criterion in an argument since ‘what is right’ in most cases, is likely unachievable. Such concept is important to complex situations in any social organization that capitalizes on defen sible arguments. This report will then put primary focus on SSM supporting group approach by discussing how SSM rallies group dynamics. Checkland introduced the steps to be followed methodically in SSM. The first step being the identification of the unstructured problem – is best accomplished as a group. For example, when the A.REthinking group was tasked to identify an ill-structured problem, it became easier to consolidate and develop ideas because feedbacks, whether positive or negative, help process and systematize insights. The more diverse the members’ backgrounds are the more enriching the discussion will be. Wilson discussed that the â€Å"people-components† can attribute meaning to their situation and define their own purpose for the organization. Checkland’s collaborators even suggested that the real potential of SSM is best exemplified in its early stages since it is the period when members of the organization achieve