December 3rd, 2011.
Philadelphia: Gay Rights, HIV virus, and society
The movie Philadelphia was an inspiring one. You would never imagine that a movie dealing with peoples sexualorientation and HIV/AIDS wouldn’t be all that great but the movie showed me how messed up past world views and opinions were. Some of the things I enjoyed the most about the movie were the fact thatit was set in a courtroom, there was a medical aspect to it, and Antonio Banderas looked hot, but that’s not the main point here. To me one of the main points of the movie was that we shouldn’t bequick to judge and that it is not our place to do so either. Situations in life are just that, events, which will in time, become just a memory because we will have surpassed them and moved on to biggerone. Ignorant people in earlier times were quick to judge other people because of their sexual orientation, they dared to imply that the eruption of the HIV/AIDS was in consequence of their sins, and Iam glad that in modern society we are able to overlook judgments and instead, are able to help HIV/AIDS positive people feel better and in certain cases loved.
The direction of one’s sexualinterest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be directed by physiologic rather than sociologic forces is the meaning that the American Heritage Dictionarygives to sexual orientation. “The United States of America’s Supreme Court first considered the issue of discrimination to gay people on Romer v. Evans, a challenge to a provision in the ColoradoConstitution (adopted by a 54% to 46% vote) that prohibited the state from adopting any laws that gave preferred or protected status to homosexuals. By a 6 to 3 vote, the Court found the Colorado provisionto lack a rational basis, and therefore to violate the equal protection rights of homosexuals. Justice Kennedy's opinion concluded Amendment 2 was "born of animosity" toward gays.” (law2.umkc.edu)...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.