Blog 5: Gay Marriage

Women’s Suffrage Movement (1848-1920). Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). Gay Rights Movement (1924-present). If you are currently living in the present, you should know that the gay marriage controversy is a real thing. Can you believe that? Why does humanity have such a hard time accepting equality. 

Lets try to define marriage. You can try as you might but you can’t define something relative to its culture. You can’t define something that pre-dates history which also has changed over time. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms. 

Marriage has been a huge part of religion. Some people believe that marriage is a religious ritual therefore support their arguments against gay marriage with religious teachings. No one is forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, but America is not a theocracy. Marriage in the modern age is not just a religious ceremony, it is a legal status. You can’t make religious rules into laws that apply to everyone. 

Its not a very long controversy once you take out religion. I have yet to find any decently formulated counterarguments which don’t tie into religion in some way. Other then that, I think we can all agree that gay marriage does not hurt anyone or society. 

References:
http://gaymarriage.procon.org
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-gay-marriage-be-legalized
http://www.gaymarriagehq.com/5-reasons-why-gay-marriage-should-be-legal-62/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0761909.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–68)
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

Blog 4: North Korea

The article North Korea Threatens to Attack U.S. With ‘Lighter and Smaller Nukes’ really caught my eye because we just recently learned about "big mean scary world" and I feel like this is a perfect example of that in the news today. I believe that the authors intended audience is just the general public, and it seems to be working in my opinion. I have personally heard a lot on this topic from my peers and I feel like it is because it is targeting its audiences fear. The article did use a lot of quotes like “As we have already declared, we will take second and third countermeasures of greater intensity against the reckless hostilities of the United States and all the other enemies, they had better heed our warning.” But I would feel like it would be more credible if they had given their sources. This article is more of an informative article because it is not really making an argument. I found this quote interesting, "North Korea would use such peace talks with the United States to sideline South Korea and try to negotiate the withdrawal of American troops from the South." I think that we should have a peace treaty even if it means removing troops from South Korea. In this article Come Home, America, it gives great reasons why America should remove troops from other parts of the world, not just North Korea. So how severe are these threats? Well The Washington Post says After North Korea threat, White House says US can defend itself against attack and gives a lot of references to quotes by White House spokesman Jay Carney, The top U.S. envoy on North Korea Glyn Davies, Sen. Marco Rubio, and more. But ultimately, I think the article feels, as stated, "It is difficult to know how capable U.S. missile defense is, should it be required." Other articles on the other hand, are very skeptical on the White Houses response to these threats, such as America, North Korea's threats are not coming from a crazy uncle -- they're real. "These [Washington Officials] also downplay North Korea’s capabilities—even as they grow steadily stronger." This article feels these threats are not something to take lightly and suggests action. "To adapt this to North Korea and the changing threat it poses, the U.S. should move intermediate-range nuclear cruise missiles to the region.  To make deterrence seem more real, we should also have a NATO-style Nuclear Planning Group with Canada, Japan and perhaps other Pacific allies."