Question Description
Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions : Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.The success of the campaign to legalise gay marriage across many western countries is quite astonishing. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best.Yet I see something to regret in the line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement. Proponents have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success.But as a contribution to public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom because it is a demand to have ones conformity recognised rather than to have ones difference respected.I dont begrudge the gay rights movement its victory. Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction. A genuinely just society would respect everyones equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other peoples ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy. After all, a great many of those government benefits are explicitly intended to support the institution of marriage at the expense of alternative non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships or singleness, partly by incentivising people to pursue conventional ideas of the good life and partly by making it hard for them not to. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to - the right to fit in.Q.What does the author mean when he says Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction?a)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient benefit only.b)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as an insufficient measure in the wrong track.c)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a sufficient measure in the wrong direction.d)He views the legalisation of gay marriages as a partial benefit that doesnt solve the actual problem.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.