Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage is a rather silly argument. When one thinks about it at least, which is not what most people tend to do. Accounting of course for the seperation of church and state, Gay Marriage is NOT a law of any sort trying to get churches to allow homosexuals to waltz in and change church policy. I believe that's where most dissent comes from, plus all of the "destroying the sanctity of marriage" malarkey. There's simply no good reason to not allow homosexuals to engage in a civil union. This gets them all the benefits of a marriage, which is what they want, and in no way does the pope's panties get in a wad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's actually a church that is straight up FOR gay marriage, regardless of some extra-friendly clergy. So why can't we have the best of both worlds? Sure, if a homosexual wants to get married in a catholic sense, he better bring that up with the local diocease, but really now, is that a matter for the state to decide? The ONLY reason I can conceivably come up with as to why homosexuals aren't given the same rights as heterosexuals, is that the uptight politicians are jealous. That's right, jealous. As one comedian once said, "If I had another man living with me, I'd get so much more done."
Adoption of Children by Homosexual Couples
In my opinion this subject should be considered with each individual case, and not as a general law or rule. But others have very strong opinions for both sides of this controversy so I will discuss those points.
Is it fair for children, who have already gone through so much, to have to grow up in such a controversial situation? They will not only be questioned about their real parents, but also about their adopted parents. Both of these questions on their own have a very likely chance of causing severe stress, and an far more difficult time of becoming comfortable with themselves. So once they are combined, it seems as if we are setting the child up for failure. Although inside the home, the child might be loved and cared for, the outside implications can destroy a child. Adopted children usually need an extrememly stable and secure home situation to be the foundation of their new lives. When such a union is not widely accepted by society, it has less potential to be as stable and secure.
Is it fair for children, who have already gone through so much, to be denied a loving and providing home just because of a same sex couple? There is a decrease in parents willing to adopt American children, because of many complications that can be avoided by adopting from foreign countries. Although there is a decrease in heterosexual couples, there are many homosexual couples waiting to get in line. Many same gender couples, want to settle down and begin to raise a family, just as the typical couple would. By being is such a unique home the children will not be deferred by differences, but will embrace others even if they are not like them.
Is it fair for children, who have already gone through so much, to have to grow up in such a controversial situation? They will not only be questioned about their real parents, but also about their adopted parents. Both of these questions on their own have a very likely chance of causing severe stress, and an far more difficult time of becoming comfortable with themselves. So once they are combined, it seems as if we are setting the child up for failure. Although inside the home, the child might be loved and cared for, the outside implications can destroy a child. Adopted children usually need an extrememly stable and secure home situation to be the foundation of their new lives. When such a union is not widely accepted by society, it has less potential to be as stable and secure.
Is it fair for children, who have already gone through so much, to be denied a loving and providing home just because of a same sex couple? There is a decrease in parents willing to adopt American children, because of many complications that can be avoided by adopting from foreign countries. Although there is a decrease in heterosexual couples, there are many homosexual couples waiting to get in line. Many same gender couples, want to settle down and begin to raise a family, just as the typical couple would. By being is such a unique home the children will not be deferred by differences, but will embrace others even if they are not like them.
man on man/woman on woman
Homosexuality is not like hair dye. You can't change and mix it into different colors at whimp. Homosexuality can't be changed, colored or replaced.
Homosexuality is a fact of life.
To deny marriage to individuals who are homosexual is like telling a brunette she can't dye her hair blonde because it'll throw off all princples of race, class and sexual selection.
Conservatives need to grow up and stop living in their veil-covered lives.
Modern day Americans continue to uphold Puritan ideals, by keep sexual conversatoin behind closed doors and off the dinner table. This scare of promiscuity hurts the future generations growing up in an AIDS spawned soctiey.
The sooner the political world realizes this, the faster professional growth will improve, as well as relations regarding a "diverse" element will mull over smoothly and authentically.
If change is so horrible, then things like slavery would still be in place. The idea of the conservative machine slanders any change within history made towards human rights, liberty and freedom.
Homosexuality, along with heterosexuality should be studied in the classroom for further exposure to uninformed and closed individual. Homosexuality is not something that should be shoved under a rug, but instead an assest to society that should be appreciated and rewarded in compensation for past prejudice and anullment.
The marriage between two men or women is not going to hurt the youth. And once married and legally respected, these indviduals should and probably will return the favor and contribute to the intellect and aethestic of the community. Marriage should be defined within the government outside of religious horse blinders. If a country in South Africa can allow it, then why can't the Americas?
"It demonstrates powerfully the commitment of our lawmakers to ensuring that all human beings are treated with dignity," said Fikile Vilakazi of the Joint Working Group, a national network of 17 gay and lesbian organizations.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/11/14/safrica.gay.marriage.ap/index.html
Homosexuality is a fact of life.
To deny marriage to individuals who are homosexual is like telling a brunette she can't dye her hair blonde because it'll throw off all princples of race, class and sexual selection.
Conservatives need to grow up and stop living in their veil-covered lives.
Modern day Americans continue to uphold Puritan ideals, by keep sexual conversatoin behind closed doors and off the dinner table. This scare of promiscuity hurts the future generations growing up in an AIDS spawned soctiey.
The sooner the political world realizes this, the faster professional growth will improve, as well as relations regarding a "diverse" element will mull over smoothly and authentically.
If change is so horrible, then things like slavery would still be in place. The idea of the conservative machine slanders any change within history made towards human rights, liberty and freedom.
Homosexuality, along with heterosexuality should be studied in the classroom for further exposure to uninformed and closed individual. Homosexuality is not something that should be shoved under a rug, but instead an assest to society that should be appreciated and rewarded in compensation for past prejudice and anullment.
The marriage between two men or women is not going to hurt the youth. And once married and legally respected, these indviduals should and probably will return the favor and contribute to the intellect and aethestic of the community. Marriage should be defined within the government outside of religious horse blinders. If a country in South Africa can allow it, then why can't the Americas?
"It demonstrates powerfully the commitment of our lawmakers to ensuring that all human beings are treated with dignity," said Fikile Vilakazi of the Joint Working Group, a national network of 17 gay and lesbian organizations.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/11/14/safrica.gay.marriage.ap/index.html
Title IX
Title IX is not only about sports, it is a legislation that stops sex discrimination. Title IX states, “No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid.” However, when most people think about Title IX they think sports and sports funding. It is part of Title IX, but not the major part. I think that Title IX is good with respect to woman getting a good education and not being discriminated in what majors that choose. According to http://bailiwick.lib.uiowa.edu/ge/aboutRE.html women’s law and medical degrees went up dramatically. I think this is very good and Title IX is serving its purpose here.
However, for the sports part of Title IX it I am not that found of. I always find myself saying, “Stupid Title IX.” This is probably because I am a guy who likes sports and likes to watch men’s athletics. I think that there should be women’s sports, but I don’t think there needs to be equal funding for men’s and women’s sports. What is going to help the schools bring back the most money is men’s sports. There are always more fans in the stands at men’s basketball games than at women’s games. Under Title IX the schools have to take the money for the sports budget at make it and make it proportional to the number of male and female student athletes. I think that if we can have a dominant men’s team by spending money to give athletes scholarships than we should. We should not have to give equal spending to a women’s team that not as many people care about. In my opinion Tile IX is good in some ways, but not others.
However, for the sports part of Title IX it I am not that found of. I always find myself saying, “Stupid Title IX.” This is probably because I am a guy who likes sports and likes to watch men’s athletics. I think that there should be women’s sports, but I don’t think there needs to be equal funding for men’s and women’s sports. What is going to help the schools bring back the most money is men’s sports. There are always more fans in the stands at men’s basketball games than at women’s games. Under Title IX the schools have to take the money for the sports budget at make it and make it proportional to the number of male and female student athletes. I think that if we can have a dominant men’s team by spending money to give athletes scholarships than we should. We should not have to give equal spending to a women’s team that not as many people care about. In my opinion Tile IX is good in some ways, but not others.
Gay Marriage
I think its hard to determine the morality of Gay Marriage considering that we do not really understand exactly what homosexuality is. Some people say its genetic, others say its a mental disorder, some say its a choice like all sins. Whatever homosexuality is we must use the information we currently have to decide if homosexuality can be allowed to marry one another legally. Now if marriage really is the hallowed union of a male and female then homosexuals would not just be barred from marriage, they would be incapable of it if they intended to marry someone of the same gender. Personally ive seen men who used to be gay but have now gotten married to a woman and started a family of their own. I have heard the claim that homosexuality is genetic but so far no one has shown me any proof and the idea already has some obvious problems with it considering the fact that gay couples cannot reproduce on their own.
Dont get me wrong, I agree that there are plenty of homosexuals out there that are actually pretty decent and upstanding people. I personally do not hate homosexuals but I am disgusted by the act of homosexuality. Still I understand that in todays society of political correctness and absolute tolerance such a view would immediately draw the label of homophobic. However I said before that until we can understand exactly what homosexuality is we must go with what we already know and this knowledge varies from person to person. I can say this however, since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, the act has been banned in almost every single state and in most cases by a solid majority. This by itself is enough to show that obviously most Americans find something inherently wrong with marriage being defined as something other than the Union between a Man and a Woman.
Dont get me wrong, I agree that there are plenty of homosexuals out there that are actually pretty decent and upstanding people. I personally do not hate homosexuals but I am disgusted by the act of homosexuality. Still I understand that in todays society of political correctness and absolute tolerance such a view would immediately draw the label of homophobic. However I said before that until we can understand exactly what homosexuality is we must go with what we already know and this knowledge varies from person to person. I can say this however, since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, the act has been banned in almost every single state and in most cases by a solid majority. This by itself is enough to show that obviously most Americans find something inherently wrong with marriage being defined as something other than the Union between a Man and a Woman.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Gay marriage
Should gay couples be allowed to get married?
This is a very complicated thing. My position is that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people. However, the term marriage is a religious term that our government has adopted. Marriage holds religious connotations and therefore should be left to the church. If a church decided to marry a gay couple, that is their business not the government’s. The government should offer “civil unions,” meaning that in the eyes of the law the couple has a common law marriage and is awarded all the rights of a straight couple, as well as things like the option of adoption. There is no reason on earth why a couple should not be awarded these rights by the government. To deny rights has discrimination written all over it. It is no different than the way that blacks used to be treated in this country. The only thing that is different about gay people is their sexual orientation. They are still good, respecting, productive, law-abiding citizens and should not be denied the rights that all other citizens freely enjoy.
The flip side is that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. No one else. Many people are not comfortable with the idea of two men or two women getting married and feel that it is not traditional, is shunned by their religion or feel that it “just isn’t right,” and therefore shouldn’t be allowed. Many people simply don’t understand the concept of being gay and see gay people as having something wrong with them. Many people are even friends with gay people, but still can’t find it in themselves to totally support something like marriage between gays because they have been taught their whole lives that it is wrong and a sin, immoral, and something to be shunned. However if the term marriage is replaced by the term civil union and kept separate from the church, it is amazing how people’s opinions change.
This is a very complicated thing. My position is that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people. However, the term marriage is a religious term that our government has adopted. Marriage holds religious connotations and therefore should be left to the church. If a church decided to marry a gay couple, that is their business not the government’s. The government should offer “civil unions,” meaning that in the eyes of the law the couple has a common law marriage and is awarded all the rights of a straight couple, as well as things like the option of adoption. There is no reason on earth why a couple should not be awarded these rights by the government. To deny rights has discrimination written all over it. It is no different than the way that blacks used to be treated in this country. The only thing that is different about gay people is their sexual orientation. They are still good, respecting, productive, law-abiding citizens and should not be denied the rights that all other citizens freely enjoy.
The flip side is that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. No one else. Many people are not comfortable with the idea of two men or two women getting married and feel that it is not traditional, is shunned by their religion or feel that it “just isn’t right,” and therefore shouldn’t be allowed. Many people simply don’t understand the concept of being gay and see gay people as having something wrong with them. Many people are even friends with gay people, but still can’t find it in themselves to totally support something like marriage between gays because they have been taught their whole lives that it is wrong and a sin, immoral, and something to be shunned. However if the term marriage is replaced by the term civil union and kept separate from the church, it is amazing how people’s opinions change.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Beatles
Some would disagree, I even admit I am somewhat skeptical of such claims, but many believe that The Beatles were the founders of Rock and Roll. The Beatles, originally from Liverpool England came to America in 1964, were they released their first album Please Please Me. Originally called the Quarry Men, but switching their title to The Beatles after dropping Pete Best and adding Ringo Star into the line up. The first appearance of The Beatles came as a televised presentation on the Ed Sullivan Show which pulled 73 million viewers that tuned in to catch the English quartet. The first album was released in 1964. The first single release in the UK became “Love Me Do,” however, The Beatles produced another huge hit in the US, “I Want To Hold Your Hand,” which became a charter topper soon upon the arrival in the States. The Beatles became a huge hit because their albums were self-written and they arranged many sounds eventually composing their own to form a unique sound unto their own. Not only did The Beatles have an original sound to their name but they also produced 19 albums in 6 years. They also hold records for holding the most number one hits at the same time and have topped many charts with their original singles. So even if you are like me and don’t particularly care for all The Beatles produced in their time, we can all at least respect the work and dedication they put into their art.
Artiste
So this is probably a tad late, but I'm going to go ahead and blame the horrible weather.
One of my absolute favorite works of art was done for a book entitled The Dark Tower. It's the 7th in a series by Stephen King, and the final in the series as well. The art shows the main character standing in front of the Tower itself, in a massive field of roses. Having read the book, the entire picture is a huge emotional impact. A single rose in the series has taken a large emotional attachment for readers, and the Tower is what the main character, Roland, has been questing for for 7 books. The colors are beautiful and deep, showing both beauty and strength. The monolithic tower offsets the field of red with it's dark brick, causing it to stand out quite sharply.
Sadly, the only picture I can find is a cropped version of the book's dust cover. Just imagine it as wider to the right, and without the title and whatnot.
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/37/65/b5d9124128a027b4804b6010.L.jpg
One of my absolute favorite works of art was done for a book entitled The Dark Tower. It's the 7th in a series by Stephen King, and the final in the series as well. The art shows the main character standing in front of the Tower itself, in a massive field of roses. Having read the book, the entire picture is a huge emotional impact. A single rose in the series has taken a large emotional attachment for readers, and the Tower is what the main character, Roland, has been questing for for 7 books. The colors are beautiful and deep, showing both beauty and strength. The monolithic tower offsets the field of red with it's dark brick, causing it to stand out quite sharply.
Sadly, the only picture I can find is a cropped version of the book's dust cover. Just imagine it as wider to the right, and without the title and whatnot.
http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/37/65/b5d9124128a027b4804b6010.L.jpg
Drawing Restraint 9
From the mind of Matthew Barney and song from Björk, "Drawing Restraint 9" envelops its viewer into modern day Japan where we follow a whaling ship's route and happenings in correlation to the film's character exploration. Barney incorporates traditional Japanese markings and wardrobe amidst an environment clearly defected from nature and drenched into industrial conformity. The characters (played by Barney and Björk) are stripped from their material assets in a gradual progression leading to coal-smudged teeth and partly shaved heads adorned by wool and shell elemental clothing.
With a musical score composed and sung by Björk, the mood effused from the film stays at a steady iced pace with subtle escalations of intensity. Famous for her sonorous, mournful voice, Björk transforms the whaling ship's industrial bestial state into a frozen mystic setting.
Along with his two main forces, Barney also projects parallel accessories to his film, with pearl-divers in white wet suits, whom are seen from the middle towards the end of the film. Key visual styles almost make this two hour and 25 minute feature, roll like an everlasting music video.
The visual's poignancy entraps its viewer to follow along with the film's metamorphosis and leaves one with a feeling of detachment, as the film depicts the removal of whale blubber and its transformation on the ship.
With a musical score composed and sung by Björk, the mood effused from the film stays at a steady iced pace with subtle escalations of intensity. Famous for her sonorous, mournful voice, Björk transforms the whaling ship's industrial bestial state into a frozen mystic setting.
Along with his two main forces, Barney also projects parallel accessories to his film, with pearl-divers in white wet suits, whom are seen from the middle towards the end of the film. Key visual styles almost make this two hour and 25 minute feature, roll like an everlasting music video.
The visual's poignancy entraps its viewer to follow along with the film's metamorphosis and leaves one with a feeling of detachment, as the film depicts the removal of whale blubber and its transformation on the ship.
My Favorite Works of Art
My favorite works of art come in the form of words. Jodi Picoult is a well known author and has recently been in the spotlight for her piece My Sister's Keeper. Jodi has a way with words, a way to make you emotionally involved in the occurances, a way to make the unique but realistic characters seem like your co workers, friends and family. She also has the wonderful capability to intertwine that romantic storyline with current societial issues. Jodi researches many different topics that are important to us and will be important to us in the future. In My Sister's Keeper, readers get a look into the life of a family wrestling with the questions: Is it right to infringe on one of our daughter's lives and possibly harm her to save the life of our other sickly oldest daughter? Was it right for us to have our second daughter a product of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, so that she would match her siblings bone marrow?
The family appers to be like any other, but they are different, they are plagued with many problems. Kate is the youngest of the children, and is the main character of the book. She has gone through many medical procedures to help her older sister fight her chronic leukemia, but none of those procedures and surgeries have ever been done with her real consent. The girls' oldest brother uses drugs and alcohol to escape from his family's "problems" thus adding to the stress of the parents. The novel follows the struggles of daily life, a loved one with cancer, an older brother with substance abuse issues, the complicated and sudden life analyzations forced upon the married couple, as well as the federal trial for Kate to recieve medical emanicpation from her parents. With an ending that is almost guareenteed to make a couple tears be shed, this wonderful piece of art is a must read.
The family appers to be like any other, but they are different, they are plagued with many problems. Kate is the youngest of the children, and is the main character of the book. She has gone through many medical procedures to help her older sister fight her chronic leukemia, but none of those procedures and surgeries have ever been done with her real consent. The girls' oldest brother uses drugs and alcohol to escape from his family's "problems" thus adding to the stress of the parents. The novel follows the struggles of daily life, a loved one with cancer, an older brother with substance abuse issues, the complicated and sudden life analyzations forced upon the married couple, as well as the federal trial for Kate to recieve medical emanicpation from her parents. With an ending that is almost guareenteed to make a couple tears be shed, this wonderful piece of art is a must read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)