Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Gay Discrimination is Wrong. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 6 page research paper/essay that offers a rebuttal to a 1995 essay by Jeff Jordan, a professor of philosophy at the University of Delaware, who argues that, in some circumstances, discrimination against homosexuals is morally and ethically justifiable. Specifically, Jordan argues that it is not only legally permissible but morally permissible, in fact, morally preferable, for the state to maintain prohibitions against same-sex marriage. Close examination of Jordan's argument demonstrates that his position does not hold up under scrutiny. Jordan not only fails to make his argument persuasively, but it suffers under the weight of points that Jordan himself brings up. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
6 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khgayjor.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Specifically, Jordan argues that it is not only legally permissible but morally permissible, in fact, morally preferable, for the state to maintain prohibitions against same-sex marriage. Close examination of Jordans
argument demonstrates that his position does not hold up under scrutiny. Jordan not only fails to make his argument persuasively, but it suffers under the weight of points that Jordan
himself brings up. First of all, Jordan lays out the parameters of his argument according to defined theses. The "parity thesis" defines the stance of proponents of same-sex marriage and
lists the factors supporting this position logically and concisely. He also outlines the "difference parity," which maintains that there is a distinct moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual acts. Jordan
proposes that a careful examination of both positions shows the "difference thesis" can be logically proven. However, this rebuttal will demonstrate the fallacies in Jordans argument and show that supporting
same-sex marriage is a question of human decency, human dignity and social justice, which are issues that should take precedence in a secular and diverse society such as the United
States. Jordans argument relies on discounting certain positions and assertions by simply stating them to be discounted, without really offering any logical explanation for this evaluation. For example, he
immediately discounts any justification for same-sex marriage that appeals to individual "rights" (Jordan 414). He justifies this stance because those opposing same-sex marriage will counter such arguments with their "right
to be free from offense" (Jordan 414). This argument takes it as a given that this "right" to an environment free of "offense" exists, but that the rights of homosexual
or lesbian partners do not. In supporting this argument, Jordan differentiates between "public" and "private" acts, maintaining that "different moral standards apply to public acts than to private acts"
...