American Literature before the Civil War Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

American Literature before the Civil War - Essay Example From the start, however, the New England’s literature was also directed to the learning and instruction of the colonists themselves, planned to direct them in the godly ways (Hodge, 1907). The first work available in the Puritan colonies was the Bay Psalm Book which was done in 1640, and the whole attempt of the divines who wrote heatedly to set forward their views among them was Roger Williams along with Thomas Hooker. This was to defend and encourage visions of the religious state. They set out their dreams in effect the primary formulation of the idea of national fortune in a sequence of emotional histories from Edward Johnsons Wonder-Working Providence to the epic of Cotton Mather Magnalia Christi Americana. Puritan poetry was also offered consistently to the service of God. Michael Wigglesworths Day of Doom (1662) was candidly theological, as well as Anne Bradstreets poems, issued as The Tenth Muse Lately Sprung up in America (1650), reflected her own piety (White and Rowlandson, 2009). The best of the Puritan poets, Edward Taylor, whose effort was not available until two centuries following his death, wrote metaphysical rhyme worthy of contrast with that of the English poet George Herbert. American historical literature, in a sense, is a literary face of the pious optimism of the Puritan request. The Puritans had the vision of living under an ideal order and worked with trust as well as courage to building a fresh Garden of Eden (White and Rowlandson, 2009). They therefore tended to view everything with a big quantity of optimism. The Puritans metaphorical style of insight brought American literary symbolism into form. To the devout Puritans, the material world was spiritual, nothing but a sign of God. The world, consequently, was one of numerous meanings. The Puritan style of writing is typically by simplicity. The Puritans have been detested for their severity and

Argument Stance On What Are The Ethical Costs of Modern Health Essay

Argument Stance On What Are The Ethical Costs of Modern Health - Essay Example According to Rottenberg & Winchell, in modern health, pro-life physicians find themselves at crossroads on whether to follow their conscience or adhere to the demands of their career (560-565). It is this fact that leads to one of the ethical issues in modern health. The same case applies to the pro-choice physicians, as Rottenberg & Winchell write, that have to ensure that they give all the information required to the patients, serve the patients accordingly so as to avoid cases of the patients being stigmatized and uninformed regarding the care given to them (560- 565). This brings in the informed consent issue unlike in the previous centuries where the medical practitioners had the final say on the patient’s health status. It is these advancements in modern health that have been the source of conflicts in the hospitals, the medical schools and in the organizations. Yet another factor that leads to ethical concerns in the modern health revolves around the fact that modern health has indeed evolved from two separate concepts of development that touch on bioethics and professionalism. In the modern world, one can easily argue that the medical sector is not governed by professional dominance that involved the activities of the doctors being decided in meetings and conferences. In today’s world, the interest has completely shifted to the interests of the patients; thus, lots of efforts have been put towards ensuring that order exists in the medical profession. As seen in the research conducted by Rottenberg & Winchell, the pro-choice advocates are at pains on whether to directly engage in abortion for fear of breaching the expected regulations especially when the case is an emergency case (564).

The poor in the UK

The poor in the UK Discuss whether the poor in the UK are to blame for their poverty and social exclusion? The purpose of this essay is to discuss the question of whether the poor in the UK are to blame for their poverty and social exclusion. In order to do this, a variety of perspectives will be analysed, in particular looking at political and economic perspectives. We will also consider Levitas approaches in the area of social exclusion, looking at the three models of social discourse, and also a critical examination of Murrays thesis concerning the underclass. Definitions of poverty have traditionally been divided within two subcategories, absolute poverty or relative poverty. Each definition is based on different experiences of poverty. Absolute poverty sees there is a basic need for survival and this is measured objectively and comes in forms of statistics. This is mainly used in government statistics. Relative poverty is different in that it counts on an opinion of people in society. Relative poverty uses the idea of what society or a culture sees as the norm. The earliest attempt to research poverty was by Rowntree, who conducted a study in York, in 1899. Rowntree adopted the measurement of absolute poverty in 1901 based on a minimum weekly income which was thought to be needed to survive. Therefore, a definition of absolute poverty is; Absolute poverty occurs when people fail to receive sufficient resources to support a minimum of physical health and efficiency (2006 dictionary of sociology) p304 This absolute measure was not popular with the government as measuring poverty based on falling below a certain benefit level. When the benefits level increased so did the amount of people living in poverty. This problem was solved when the 1985 conservative government scrapped the Family Low Income Statistics in favour of the Household below Average Income (HBAI). This saw the decrease of poverty in terms of figures because of the change in the way poverty was measured. The term poverty is not mentioned in any of these official government terms, therefore shows that poverty is not acknowledge as a problem to the government. The feminist argument on using this type of measurement is that it uses statistics taken from the household with a male breadwinner. Females appear invisible in these statistics and very much implies that women are dependent upon men. However, there is no suggestion that the male breadwinner equally shares his income with the household. Scott (1994) discusses the strengths and weaknesses of absolute poverty. Firstly the strengths, the measurement of absolute poverty can be used universally across cultures and societies. It can be used to draw up comparisons so Policy makers can use this to assess and distribute the income that is needed to eliminate poverty. These policies can then be taken on by researchers to look at if what is being done and if it is helping to reduce poverty. A Weakness of this measurement is that it is extreme. In todays society it is dominated by consumption and a consumer lifestyle. Some cultures deem it necessary to be able to take part in the consumer society. The goods that can be bought often have several uses other than just to survive, for example a television is not an item of survival, however to function in society the television plays a major part and a sense of unity is formed in neighbourhoods if people can relate to and discuss items featured on television. The absolute measure ignores this social process as it cannot be scientifically measured as it involves some form of opinion. Poverty measurements need much more than just relying on saying how much money is needed to live. Relative poverty can be defined as, comprehensive, should depend as much as possible on independent or external criteria of evaluation, should involve the ordering of a mass of factual data rational, orderly and informative fashion, and should limit, through not conceal, the part played by the value judgement (Townsend 1979:33) This means that it can be measured statistically; however include some form of judgement. This relative measurement would include more than just income and look at consumer society and culture. Townsends, who states individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the type of diet, participation in the activities and they have the living conditions and the amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved in the societies to which they belong. (Townsend, 1979, p.31) This definition covers adequately the link between poverty and social exclusion. Townsends research of relative poverty conducted in 1968-9 could compare people based on the national average. An important result to come out of this research was the deprivation index which stated the 12 items essential for people in society, for example clothing, diet, fuel health and education. In 1985 more items were included such as a persons taste, lifestyle, and economic social factors. Using the measurement of relative poverty does come with strengths and weaknesses. It does acknowledge subjectively and are honest in that some form of opinion is needed. Knowledge of peoples culture can be explored in terms of what their standard of living is. It explores the kinds of feeling some people have that they may be deprived more than others. Weaknesses of this relative measurement is that if fails to acknowledge those people who chose to go without the items stated in the deprivation index. It does not address the issues of real poverty in that those living in absolute poverty do not having enough to survive. Comparisons with other countries are difficult as others still use the absolute measurement and use statistics rather than opinions. Piachaud reviews Townsends deprivation index as a good measurement as it included people that make the lifestyle choices such as being a vegetarian. He claims that not having a fridge for instance is more significant than not having meat. However, this suggests that Townsends index is not as scientific as it claims. (Piachaud 1981) There is not only one kind of poor people but many that are or could fall into poverty at any point in their life. The underclass is a term used to stigmatise people and was used in the 1980s early 1990s. Charles Murray worked on the concept of the underclass and characterised them by three things; illegitimacy, violent crime, and drop out from the labour market by young men (Murray 1990) Murray wrote in 1990 that Britain has a growing population of working-aged, healthy people who live in a different world from other Britons, who are raising their children to live in it, and whose values are now contaminating the life of entire neighbourhoods. (Murray, 1990, p.6) Murray spoke of those who chose not to work, and instead to rely on benefits as a means of survival, as opposed to joining the labour market. In Murrays view, this reliance on benefits was considered as a superior option, not as a last resort. A statement by Murray to describe the underclass using a very simple and stigmatising definition by underclass, I do not mean people who are merely poor, but people at the margins of society, unsocialised and often violent. (Murray 2001). The term Underclass is a way of stigmatising a group and that Margaret Thatcher denied there being absolute poverty as there was no official government definition. Deprivation irresponsible underclass. John Moore secretary state of social security relative poverty was simply another term for inequality he claimed that poverty had disappeared from Britain altogether. (John Moore 1989) Conservative government at the time used the term underclass to categorise and deny there was absolute poverty in Britain. This view of the underclass supports the idea that the poor are to blame for their poverty and inequality than those structural inequalities at the time. With this negative concept the conservatives were set to cut welfare if the underclass did not change their ways. This widened the poverty gap and the conservatives were thought to be irresponsible and didnt address the problem of poverty in society Rather than seeing inequality as potentially damaging to the social fabric, the Thatcher governments saw it as an engine of enterprise, providing incentives for those at the bottom as well as those at the top. (Walker 1997:5) This phenomenon of the underclass tries to address them as and actual class in society being at the other end of the scale such as the upper-class. However, to be compared with as a class it would suggest there are shared values that are unique to the underclass, there are no evidence of this and should not be a class. (Bagguley and Mann 1992). This underclass perspective draws attention away from the actual cause of poverty and tries to set the notion that this class is biological when there is no evidence. Field 1989 viewed the underclass from a structuralist view and supported the view that the underclass did not stem from the individual, but from the ideologies that maintained and shaped inequality. These structural causes were stated as; record post war unemployment, widening class difference, exclusion of rapid widening living standards and public attitudes falling in Thatcher Britain. Direct criticism of Murrays underclass is that it fails to be proven by scientific methods and relies on opinions. The underclass cannot be measured accurately as the group is sometimes made to look huge or small depending on the outcome needed. The underclass perspective can be misleading and not address the real problem that poverty is causing to Britain. (Walker 1990:49) However, many writers were critical of this view, including MacDonald, who asserts that both young people and adults wanted work. They would fail with flying colours the test Murray sets to prove the underclasss existence: offer them jobs at a generous wage for unskilled labour and see what happens. (MacDonald, 1997, p.195) Crompton has been even more dismissal in her criticism of Murrays view, in that much of Murrays caselay in his attempts to demonstrate the individual moral and cultural inferiority of the least well-off members of society. In some ways then, Murrays underclass thesis, can be seen to be elitist and dismissive of those at the bottom end of the social ladder. Byrne (Byrne, 2005, p.1) notes the pejorative nature of the term underclass and the much preferred and more commonly used in the UK term of social exclusion. The term social exclusion was coined in the 1970s following research by French Civil servant, Rene Lenoir, who published The Excluded, which said that as much as 10% of the French population were excluded from mainstream society due to factors like mental illness, poverty and disability (Beland 2007). This definition of a broad category of people who, for a variety of reasons, dont fit into the social mainstream was picked up by New Labour, which created a Social Exclusion Unit when it came to power in 1997. It was based on the idea that Social exclusion is about more than income poverty. It is what can happen when people or areas face a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, discrimination, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, bad health and family breakdown (ODPM, 2004, p. 3). New labour used many terms throughout their time, stakeholder society, communitarianism, third way and social exclusion. (Hindmoor, 2005). They can be accused of only selecting terms that would win elections (Stoker, 2004). The Labour government blamed three main causes for social exclusion: the dislocation caused by the breakdown of industry in Britain in the 1980s, the Conservative indifference to the social consequences of these economic changes and the failure of the welfare system to effectively address the needs of those who were affected by the downfall of coal, steel and other heavy industries (Davies, 2007). Storrey and Childs have commented on the political agenda of the early 1990s, whereby arguments came to a head over Britains high proportion of single-parent families when a government minister claimed that an over-generous state benefit system was encouraging young, single mothers to marry the state and embark on a benefit career. (Storrey Childs, 2002, p.126. These arguments were soon rebutted by organisations such as the Association of Single Parents, but it highlighted the way that discussions on social exclusion and poverty can be seen from a purely political perspective. Of the three models of social discourse to be discussed later, the MUD discourse is seen as largely right wing, while the other two are more centrist or to the left. One recent government minister has emphasised the SID view, claiming that Work is the only way out of poverty the benefit system will never pay of itself (enough to lift people out of poverty) and I dont think it should (Alcock et al., 2008, p.335 ) Social exclusion is seen in the growth of homelessness or urban slums, the declining hopes of the long-term unemployed, the lack of access to jobs and incomes of migrants and some ethnic minorities, the increasingly precarious nature of jobs on offer to new labour market entrants. (Rodgers 1995:43) Ruth Levitas, in her 1998 book, The Inclusive Society: Social Exclusion and New Labour, suggested three models of discourse in terms of how we look at the issue of social exclusion, and how those models are applied in politics in particular to economic and social policy, as well as sociological discourse in general. (Levitas, 1998) RED. This is known as the Redistributionists Discourse. Pierson (2004) observes that those holding this view argue that only through the redistribution of wealth across society as a whole, through taxation, benefits and services, will poverty and inequality be eradicated in Britain. (Pierson, 2004, p.5). This model rejects the idea that attitudes towards work or moral issues are responsible for social exclusion. Some have noted that a vital component in the RED model of social exclusion discourse is the raising of benefits to an adequate standard as one means of eradicating poverty. (Gordon Townsend, 2000, p.359) This model is significantly different from the Moral/Underclass Discourse (MUD) SID. This is known as the Social Integrationist Discourse. This model focuses on the value of importance of work. Paid work is seen as a key factor, with entrance into the labour market as the result, providing income, a boost to the economy, and social inclusion by way of paid employment. Levitas argues that this view differs from RED discourse in that it tends to equate social exclusion with exclusion from the labour market. (Levitas 1998, Pierson, 2004, p.6) MUD. This is known as the Moral/Underclass Discourse. The fundamental argument of the MUD discourse is that individuals or groups, through choices of their own choose a method of social exclusion. Such a method may be a deliberate choice not to try to enter the labour market but instead to rely on benefits solely as a means of income. Gordon Townsend comment that MUD tends to replay recurrent themes about dangerous classesto focus on the consequences of social exclusion for social order, and to emphasise particular groups, such as unemployed and potentially criminal young men, and lone parents, especially young never-married mothers. (Gordon Townsend, 2004, p.360) We see therefore, three discourses with different answers to the question of whether the poor in the UK are to blame for their poverty and social exclusion. The RED discourse would point to the need to redistribute wealth to the poor in order to end their social exclusion. The SID discourse would like social exclusion and unemployment and would link employment to being the key to the end of poverty and social exclusion. The MUD approach would suggest for many poverty, or certainly social exclusion, are a choice that is made and then potentially taught to the next generation. We have examined Levitas three models or approaches to social discourse, and we have critically examined Murrays theory of the underclass in the context of the UK and of these three models. We have come to the conclusion that there are other factors to play in poverty and social exclusion than the choices of the poor in the UK or any blame that may be attached to them, and we have seen the elitist nature of Murrays thesis. Poverty about people social exclusion about structure of society The UK government defines poverty as having an income of 60 per cent or less of the median: using this measure, 13.2 million people in the UK lives in poverty that is 22 per cent of the population. (Oxfam)

parkinsons disease Essay -- essays research papers

Parkinson’s Disease and the protective mechanism of the antioxidant Vitamin E Description and Risks   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive movement disorder marked by tremors, rigidity, slow movements (bradykinesia), and postural instability. It is a chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disease caused by decreased production of dopamine, a neurotransmitter. Dopamine is responsible for most of the body’s smooth muscle movements. As a result, motor control in Parkinson’s patients is disrupted, causing anything from uncontrollable tremors to muscular stiffness to slow-as-molasses movements. (2) PD affects about 500,000 people in the United States, both men and women, with as many as 50,000 new cases each year. The disease usually begins in a person’s late 50’s and 60’s; it causes a progressive decline in movement control, affecting the ability to control initiation, speed, and the smoothness of motion. The symptoms of PD are seen in up to 15% of those between the ages of 65-74, and almost 30% of those were between the ages of 75-84. (3) Genetic Risks   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Scientist identified two gene abnormalities present in PD patients whose families have a rate of the disease, indicating at least some evidence that the disease is inherited. Both abnormalities cause the body to produce an altered version of alpha synuclein, the protein that shows up in dense masses in the brains of Parkinson’s patients. (3). But in another study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested heredity is a significant influence on how fast the disease will onset. Researchers identified 172 twin pairs in which at least one twin had PD. If the condition was hereditary, the rate of both twins having the disease would be lower among fraternal twins, who share some, but not all of the same genes unlike identical twins who share them all. In individuals who were diagnosed after age 50, the rate of twins who both had the disease was similar among fraternal and identical twins. In those diagnosed at 50 or younger, however, the rate wa s significantly lower in fraternal twins than in identical twins (2). Researchers also think that PD has environmental risks such as increase exposure to toxic chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, or heavy metals. For example, some studies of people liv... ...one, L., Bagala, A., Napoli, I.D., Caracciolo, M. & Quattnone, A. (2001) Plasma levels of Vitamin E in Parkinson’s disease. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 33:7-12. 6. Miklya, I., Knoll, B. & Knoll, J. (2003) A pharmacological analysis elucidating why, in contrast to (-)- deprenyl (selegiline), alpha-tocopherol was ineffective in the DATATOP Study. Life Sciences 72:2641-2648   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   10.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Parashevas, G.P., Kapaki, E., Petropoulou, O., Anagnostouli, M., Vagenas, V. & Papageorgiou, L. (2003) Plasma levels of Antioxidant Vitamins C and E are decreased in vascular Parkinsonism. Journal or Neurological Sciences. 215:51-55. 11.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Roghani, M. & Behzadi, G., (2001) Neuroprotective effect of vitamin E on the early model of Parkinson’s disease in rat: behavioral and histochemical evidence. Brain Research 892:211-217. 12.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Vatassery, G.T., Demaster, E.G., Lai, James C.K., Smith, W.E. & Quach, H.T. (2003) Iron uncouples oxidative phosphorylation in brain mitochondria isolated from vitamin E-deficient rats. Biochemical et Biophysical Acta 1688:265-273. .

How Politics is Played Told by One Who Knows the Game Essay

Good politicians get to know a lot of politicians. Lyndon Johnson would take four showers a day and brush his teeth over and over again so he would be in the same room with a bunch of politicians and he could talk to them briefly and make good connections. Lyndon Johnson also hired a man who would later turn corrupt named â€Å"Bobby† Baker who answered phones for the White House cloak room (a cloak room is like the break room for politicians.) With Bobby Baker, Johnson was able to know the inner workings of politics. Ronald Reagan also worked very hard to have good relationships in politics although he talked about Washington as if he’d never visited the place. Lyndon Johnson used a specific method to get to know important people called retail politic. In retail politics, a politician wins over one person at a time by learning about them specifically. Unlike LBJ and Reagan, Jimmy Carter lacked the charsima to win over people. Then Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill asked for seats to the inauguration ceremony, Carter offered him seats in the back of the hall; this incident hurt his support from the Speaker for many years. The author ends this chapter by explaining that he himself got to his position by networking with many important people. Good politicians get to know a lot of politicians. Lyndon Johnson would take four showers a day and brush his teeth over and over again so he would be in the same room with a bunch of politicians and he could talk to them briefly and make good connections. Lyndon Johnson also hired a man who would later turn corrupt named â€Å"Bobby† Baker who answered phones for the White House cloak room (a cloak room is like the break room for politicians.) With Bobby Baker, Johnson was able to know the inner workings of politics. Ronald Reagan also worked very hard to have good relationships in politics although he talked about Washington as if he’d never visited the place. Lyndon Johnson used a specific method to get to know important people called retail politic. In retail politics, a politician wins over one person at a time by learning about them specifically. Unlike LBJ and Reagan, Jimmy Carter lacked the charsima to win over people. Then Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill asked for seats to the inauguration ceremony, Carter offered him  seats in the back of the hall; this incident hurt his support from the Speaker for many years. The author ends this chapter by explaining that he himself got to his position by networking with many important people.

Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Marry?

Gay marriage is a sensitive topic in America today, mainly because we Americans are split down the middle between supporting it and not supporting it. My main concern, and main reason for supporting gay marriage, has always been â€Å"who is it hurting? † The main reason I hear for not supporting them would be because they cannot reproduce. There are many reasons why gay marriage should or should not be legal and they are different in everyone’s eyes. I believe that gay marriage would follow a utilitarian principle and fall under relativism and even though they cannot have children, gay marriage should be legal because there would be higher adoption rates, it is a civil right, and they are human beings. First, Gay marriage should be legal because there would be higher adoption rates. Craig, Martinez, Kane, and Gainous (2005) quotes â€Å"Support for the civil rights and liberties of homosexuals has risen as well: Most Americans now believe that gays should be permitted to teach in colleges and universities, to serve in the military, and that there should be laws banning discrimination against gays in hiring and firing, while over 40 percent are willing to allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt children. † (p. 5). America is slowly becoming more acceptable of gay and lesbian rights as well as allowing them to adopt and marry in some states. This doesn’t mean that every state in the U. S. is allowing this, and the question is why? People are afraid of the downfall that may occur in our population rates if more gay and lesbian couples are allowed to marry. This though, is not the case. I believe that there would be a spike in adoption rates. If you take into account the fact that there are hundreds probably even thousands of kids out there without having a home, and knowing that heterosexuals couples are more likely to have their own kids instead of adopting, and you will not be okay with our gay and lesbian community to marry and adopt those kids in need, is beyond me. Brian, part of a Films Media Group, film (2005) talks about his two fathers, he says â€Å"Everything I hoped for came true when Murray and Peter became my parents. I love them, I loved them for making my lunches each day as I left for school, and I loved them for caring about my thoughts and ideas. I loved them for making me feel special. † (Marriage for Homosexual Parents). This is not the only person who would testify that their parents (whether gay or straight) are not only loving but supportive of everything they do. A parent is a parent, no matter if it is a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. They go through same things that everyone would go through. The terrible twos, the potty training, waking up at all hours of the night, this list could go on and on but, because homosexuals are with someone of the same sex, they are now unfit to be parents. How this makes anyone an unfit parent, is beyond me. Parenting is about loving and supporting your child, no matter what the situation is. Gay and Lesbian parents are also going to be more supportive if their child ends up being gay or lesbian whereas straight couples are more likely to be disappointed or upset with their children. Arguably, it is safe to say that the more accepting we, as Americans, become of our gay and lesbian couples, and their adopting children, the less homeless kids, and the happier people we will have! Additionally, it is their civil right. I do not see how it is right that heterosexual couples have every right that Americans should have whereas homosexual couples are limited on their civil rights, regardless that they are Americans, because they date someone of the same sex. How can we as people and the government as well, truly deny a United States citizen their civil rights, which they were born into? Honestly, that is an outrage, and I for one am not okay with the fact that we can simply deny someone rights. I am sure that any other United States citizen wouldn’t be okay with their rights being taken away from them, so what gives us the right to take them away from anybody else? Maybe we should take everyone else’s rights away to marry and see if they think that this is acceptable to do. Yes, marriage may be just a piece of paper, but we are truly denying someone that paper that would make them the happiest person alive? Ferguson (2007) quotes â€Å"So, one common argument for gay marriage is that government denial of the legal right to gay marriage deprives gays and lesbians of access to the social sanction and status that marriage confers, and hence to full adulthood, rights to familial or joint property and inheritance rights, and full citizenship† (p. 40). How is it right that they are denied the right to marry just because of who they chose to be with? One of my favorite sayings (I actually heard at a gay pride festival in Ohio) came from a couple, they said â€Å"Why do we not get the choice to marry? Shouldn’t everyone have a choice to be miserable for the rest of their lives with the one person who actually makes them a little bit happier? † Honestly, it is so true; there are gay and lesbian couples who have been together for 30+ years who do not get the option to get married to their lifetime partner, where straight couples get married for a couple of years just to divorce and re marry again. I am not saying that all United States citizens do this, but our divorce rates have spiked recently, meaning that more and more people are divorcing. I do believe if we allowed gay and lesbian couples the right to marry, the divorce rates would drop instead of increasing each year. Ferguson (2007) also quotes â€Å"Refusing the right to gay marriage because of the so-called sanctity of marriage, a religious concept, would seem to deprive the sexual minority of the freedom to be free to marry if they choose a lifestyle not sanctioned by many religious denominations, and hence imposes the religious view that marriage should be a heterosexual privilege. † (p. 40). People are also against same sex marriage due to their religious views. There are so many different religions in the United States, and many of those support their people in whatever choice they decide to make but because we are a predominately Christian country, we are forced to follow their rules. I do not see how someone’s religion can make a choice concerning someone else’s life and what they chose to do with it. These two quotes made by Ferguson explain perfectly why the government is denying same sex marriage; it is completely unconstitutional that they are denying gay and lesbian couples of their constitutional rights to marry. Another reason that gay marriage should be legal is that they are human beings. If I am thinking correctly, many people were born here in the United States, and would be considered Americans, but since they chose to like someone of the same sex then they are instantly treated like aliens. I, myself, am straight and therefore get treated like every other person would. I have many gay and lesbian friends, and when we are out in public, you can see the difference on how they get treated and looked at versus myself. It sickens me to think that people how there can be so rude and inconsiderate of another person. Kurdek (2004) quotes â€Å"As one indication of the importance of identifying oneself as part of a couple, some gay and lesbian citizens of the United States are currently arguing that they, just like heterosexual citizens, are entitled to the privileges associated with having their relationships, legalized as marriages. † (p. 880). Our gay and lesbian couples are considering themselves citizens, but without all the benefits that citizens receive. I don’t understand why we cannot treat them with the same respect that we treat anyone else. There is no need to punish them for who they are dating. It is a matter of privacy as well. We do not concern ourselves with who straight couples are dating/living with, why do we need to invade others privacy just because they are with someone of the same sex. Everyone has the right to be happy, to have a job, and to get married. Homosexual couples, who are legal citizens of the United States, are getting treated like they are aliens because of their sexual orientation. How is it that we can treat heterosexuals with the upmost respect that they deserve then turn right around and treat homosexuals like trash? I do not see how that is fair or correct at all and knowing that we as Americans do not have enough respect for other individuals. A few reasons that people do not support gay marriage would be that their religion is strongly against marriage of homosexuals or the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce children of their own. Many people truly believe that because the bible says it is wrong to be with someone of the same sex, that our gay and lesbian couples are sinning. It is also true though that Jesus said he loves everyone, and will forgive every one of their sins. I personally do not believe that homosexuals are sinning because of who they date, but there are many people out there that do. We must remember that when Jesus was living things were a lot less complex than they are in today’s time. I believe if things had been what they are now, back then, that he would be accepting of any child, no matter what person they decide to be with. People are also against same sex marriage due to the fact that gay and lesbian couples cannot reproduce children of their own. They believe that since they are not able to reproduce any children of their own, that they would be an unfit couple, and we wouldn’t have as much youth to keep our country going. This to me is not true though. There are many people who are willing to surrogate, adopt, or even go to a sperm donor to reproduce children of their own. Just because the kids would not have a â€Å"father or mother† figure in their lives does not mean that they cannot reproduce. So many kids need adopted that you would think it would be a great idea to let our homosexual couples adopt them! But, these reasons alone are what turn so many people against gay marriage. People let their religion and their beliefs get in the way to see that it is about happiness and a lifetime commitment not about religion or kids. Utilitarian Principles basically means choices, which to me would fit perfectly with our gay and lesbian couples, in a way that they would benefit from it. Mosser (2010) defines utilitarianism as a â€Å"given set of choices, the act we should choose is that which produces the best results for the greatest number affected by that choice. † (p. 1. ). To me, a utilitarian believes that we should base our results on the greater good, and what would produce the greatest outcome and affect very few people by the outcome produced. I do not see how letting our gay and lesbian couples marry would truly affect anyone else. When a heterosexual couple gets married, that decision is theirs and theirs alone. No one is affected by this decision, minus the families of cour se, and no one seems to care that they are going to pursue a life of happiness together. How would this be any different from our homosexual couples? The only parties that would truly be affected by this decision would be the couple themselves, and their families and friends. It is truly no one else’s business on what they do and how they spend their lives, but somehow we have managed to make it our business. Americans have gotten so worked up over gay marriage, and for what, a piece of paper that says two people are committed to each other? I do not understand why we have the right to deny someone that. To me, utilitarianism would be the perfect resolution for our homosexual couples, and their right to marry whoever they please. Finally, I feel that relativism is a great way to explain the individuals in a gay or lesbian relationship. Mosser (2010) defines relativism as â€Å"the idea that one’s beliefs and values are understood in terms of one’s society, culture, or even one’s own individual values. † (p. 1. 8). What relativism means to me is that each individual’s beliefs and values are going to be honored. As you can see, our homosexual couples are getting their beliefs and values thrown to the curb and for what reason? I think that people are afraid of what could happen, which is why they are extremely against it, and why our gay and lesbian couples beliefs and values get thrown aside like they never existed. People believe that homosexual couples should not have the same rights as us and that they do not share our beliefs and values. To me, I believe that these people, who think that, are the ones that do not have the same beliefs and values. Everyone has the right to be happy, to have a job, and to get married. How is it that because you like someone of the same sex, that your values and beliefs automatically don’t matter? Relativism would play a perfect role in a gay and lesbian couple’s life, as if people followed the definition or relativism, then everyone would live a happy, peaceful life. All in all homosexual couples have been getting bullied since they first came out. You would think that people would finally start calming down and realizing that they are people who, just like me and you, fall in love with someone and want to spend the rest of their lives with them. It’s sad to know that if one of them gets sick or injured and is admitted to the hospital that their lifetime partner would not be allowed in the room because they are not related to them, even though they may have been together for years. They get no benefits that a regularly married couple would get and get looked down upon society, some even losing their jobs over it. We are treating human beings like animals because they fell in love with someone of the opposite sex. People always say that you cannot help who you fall in love with, but apparently they are only talking about heterosexual couples and believe that homosexuals have a choice and that they have made a wrong one. Friends and family of mine, who are gay, have had the roughest life with all the hatred that they have received. My best friend lost his job due to the fact that he came out as being gay. I do not understand how someone can get fired over their sexual orientation. He has received multiple messages online telling him how horrible he was and that Jesus hates him. There are people out there who actually do this, send hate mail to people over their sexual orientation. It is high time that people take a step back and realize that it is time to get over their hate and fear of our homosexual community and come together as one. If this happened, in my opinion, the world would become just a little bit better and maybe all of these hate crimes would stop and people would all get treated with the respect that they deserve to get. Until then I am going to continue standing my ground, in my supports of gay marriage and equality for all! In conclusion, even though gay and lesbian couples may not be able to have hildren of their own, marriage between the couples should be legalized because more children would be adopted, it is their constitutional right as a United States citizen, and they are human beings just like you and me. I also feel that this topic would fall under utilitarianism as well as relativism as these two topics would give our gay and lesbian couples the right to be happy and marry their loved one, just like we do now! Just imagine having a child of your own, and they ended up being gay or lesbian. They would go their whole lives with nothing but hatred from everyone, and is that really how you would want your child to live? References Craig, S., Martinez, M., Kane, J., Gainous, J. (2005). Core Values, Value Conflict, and Citizens’ Ambivalence about Gay Rights. Political Research Quarterly. 58(1), 5-17. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3595591/ Ferguson, A. (2007). Gay Marriage: An American and Feminist Dilemma. Hypatia. 22(1), 39-57. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4640043/ Films Media Group. (2005). Why thee wed? Gay perspectives on same-sex marriage [H.264]. Retrieved from http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=18596&xtid=35615. Kurdek, L. (2004). Are Gay and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples Really Different from Heterosexual Married Couples? Journal of Marriage and Family. 66(4), 880-900. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600164 Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics & Social Responsibility. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education