Some people think that acceptance already .“As far as the gay issue, I don’t give a damn one way or the other as long as they don’t bother me…… Laramie is live and lets live.” While this might work for the heterosexual community the homosexual community could not disagree more. 'Live and let live ' is, at best, a load of crap. It basically boils down to: 'If I don 't tell you I 'm a fag, you won 't beat the crap out of me '. What kind of philosophy is that? In the Laramie project, there is the difference between acceptance and tolerance is attention.
The 1st amendment is a God-given right and the fact remains that there will be idiots in a world that hands a microphone to the very first controversial person because a world that distorts the view of political, religious, and social matters to persuade a country to feel a certain way toward an issue deemed pivotal towards keeping the status quo of keeping a racial superiority while keeping a suspicious hint of racial tension. Just because a church exercises the right to free speech people try to add in emotions to an emotionless issue. If you added emotions into everything people would start getting arrested for calling someone ugly or annoying. The world and people as a whole need to learn to grow a set and learn how to not get offended
Now you have changed your vote for the same reason. I do not think you have the right to play like this with a man’s life. This is an ugly and terrible thing to do.” By juror 11 establishing this point it had made a few heads turned to prove that what the other jurors are doing is unjust. Remarkably, replicating the other juror’s answers just to proceed about with their lives displays that they could care less about what the trial is actually about. Copying people’s opinions can, determine wonders and horrors for a person, but it is in a matter of judgment to accomplish it or
First of all, the girls, including us, will be damned for working and dealing with the devil. This alone will make the people of Salem have a grotesque view of us and we would almost never be able to redeem our previous image. If we are accused, we either have to say we are guilty and live with our reputation or we deny the charges and get hung for something we did not do. Also, you must ponder on the question, if truth not told, how will it affect your relationship with John Proctor? We know he is a man of God and would not put himself in a position of being with someone who deals with the devil, because he would not want to cross the line any more than he already has with you.
By alluding to God, it poses a slight threat on men, saying that it is “self-evident” that these rights should be shared, not restricted to only one gender (para. 2). Stanton and Mott want women to know that because of the destructive and misogynistic nature of the men in government, because of the constant abuse and prejudice that has come from men in general, that if because this behavior is constant and growing in dangerousness, they have the right to “refuse allegiance” to said government (para. 2). It is unjust and discriminatory against women to deny the rights that should be fairly given to them since they are part of the government.
While this movie may not be for everybody it does contain an interesting and controversial commentary on society. It seems that the primary message argued in A Clockwork Orange is that through abuse Alex has been considered cured, people must not be used as scientific experiments even if the experiment is for the greater good of society. The needs of the many do not outweigh the rights of one and by breaking this moral code by the elected officials drastically changes the way the society favors their government and its practices. Social engineering is not the answer to eliminate a disruptive youth culture and maintaining order within society. Violent impulses, sexual urges, the enjoyment of music, participating in social camaraderie are all essential parts of the human experience and eliminating any part of that experience would eliminate what it means to be a
In the article “The reality of Racial Profiling” it stays “racial profiling is unconstitutional… is “invidious,” “wrong,” “ineffective,” and “harmful to our rich and diverse democracy.”” We are all to be viewed as equals under the constitution, but that is not happening at the moment. Many have found it easy to racially profile others. Just as it is unconstitutional, it creates tensions between the different races. They try to compete to see who is better and others will hate each other because they either feel less or more than
Meanwhile the government are not protecting the LGBT community because it’s considered “wrong” this causes violence towards homosexual. For example, the cons about Gay Rights is that “Married LGBT couples can access the same assistance as heterosexual couples and are afforded the same amount of protection under the law”(Duigon 4). The government does not show equalness towards the LGBT community as they do to the “straight” people. It’s disappointing that protection is reduced because he or she is attracted to their same gender or more, but how government ignores that fact that they are struggling as well at the other and yet nothing has changed for them. To go into more detail, Mississippi has created a law to where doctors can refuse to provide medical care to he or she that are homosexual, as well as therapist do not have to counsel them either.
Both candidates agree hate-speech is harmful and shouldn’t be tolerated. Carson has stated that “free speech is wonderful, hate speech can do real harm.” Trump has said that we must not tolerate the hate crimes such as the murder of Matthew Shepard for his sexual orientation. Carson and Trump differ slightly when is comes to same-sex marriage, however. Carson believes in gay rights but not gay marriage. He believes that homosexuality is a choice and that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.
They begin celebrating their subculture as a drastic victory. However, it is a tragedy, and draws to identity politics, in which people of a particular social background form and celebrate their own exclusive political viewpoints or cultures; and consequently, they are alienated from the standard culture. The identity politics is a dominated tool to generalize all the people’s views and indirectly force them to return to a hideaway, in the homosexual community, it is called homophobia. From Liu’s explanation, as a reader, I strongly disagree with the idea of identity politics in the gay culture. I am not saying that the homosexual need to take pride in themselves in public, but to receive respect from other people.
The U.S. is supposed to be the epitome of democracy, as this is what our Founding Fathers rebelled against Britain for. To go against these ideals, no matter the situation, is tantamount to turning our backs to our country. To turn our backs and close the doors to freedom for immigrants who have done nothing wrong to us and are begging for safety goes against every notion of what we define as humanity. To persecute a certain group of individuals just because of their ethnicity is illogical and goes against every moral value we have been raised to believe. As Japanese Americans, whose ancestors have faced adversity through the immoral use of internment camps, which led them to being stripped of everything they owned, and succeeding despite this setback, we, as a community, must act against these immigration restrictions.
This can be linked to American society since doublethink in America is demonstrated in big supreme court decisions. For example, after the Supreme Court passed the gay marriage law, they received criticism that “if gay marriage is a civil right, then anyone who opposes it is guilty of a civil rights violation” (Jeffress). The legalization of gay marriage would cause much of the population to forget the past laws regarding marriage, requiring them to retain new beliefs that the government imposed on them. This can be troubling to citizens since they are almost forced to think in the opposite way of what they believe in. This takes away a part of the idea of freedom of thought since they are encouraged to
While it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. The Court has considered sexual relations outside marriage as disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage.