Vaid’s Liberal Argument :: Research Papers

Vaids Liberal ArgumentAndrew Sullivan and Urvashi Vaid atomic number 18 two of the near prolific advocates of homosexual equality. Urvashi Vaids book, Virtual Equality, argues that homosexuals are living as if they are equal to heterosexuals when in fact homosexuals are still treated unfairly and need to seek true liberation. Sullivans book, Virtually Normal, examines several different semipolitical groups and their differing beliefs concerning how society should deal with oddity. The arguments expressed in Vaids book suggest that Sullivan would reason her into chapter four of Virtually Normal, entitled, The Liberals. It becomes evident that Vaid is neither a prohibitionist, Liberationist, Conservative, nor an advocate of Sullivans lofty politics. Sullivan would categorize Vaid into the Liberal category because her ideals concerning societal education, anti-discrimination laws, and individual freedom adjoin those of Liberal politics. Though Vaid may share the same goals as another(prenominal) political groups, her methods of achieving these goals are definitely Liberal.Vaids argument does not fit Sullivans Prohibitionist category. Prohibitionists, according to Sullivan, believe that homo sexual activity goes against the grain of both Christianity and natural law. Homosexuality, the Prohibitionists believe, is deemed virtuously wrong in the bible, and should be denounced as well as punished. Sullivan writes It is that homosexuality is an aberration and that homosexual acts are an abomination (20). Sullivan goes on to write drawing on Aristotles conception of normative nature, Aquinas theorized that all human beings had a single fundamental natureAccording to Aquinas, all human beings sexuality is linked to procreationThis is what sexual activity is for (32). The above thinking is what Prohibitionists bring down natural law. Each being has a natural function, and, for humans, that function is to reproduce. Here, it would be wrong for people to have se x without the intention to reproduce. Since there is no reproduction involved in homosexual sex, Prohibitionists denounce homosexuality. Though Vaid herself may be a homosexual, it is her argument and not her identity that suggests that she could not be placed into the category of Prohibitionist. Vaid writes At its core, this right-wing movement rejects the two-hundred-year-old experiment of American pluralism and, in its place, proposes a Christian state, a theocracy. Right-wing leaders and organizations explicitly reject democratic values like tolerance, dissent, individual freedom, and compromise (307). Vaid believes that the spectral right, a proponent of Prohibitionist politics, is against diversity, democracy, and equality. For this reason, Sullivan would not categorize Vaids argument in the Prohibitionist category.