Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
« December 2008 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
You are not logged in. Log in
BLog for Eng. 126
Wednesday, 11 May 2005
Articals Pro and Con gay marriage
Mood:  quizzical
In an article entitled Marriage's True End by Jean Bethke Ekshtain states his feelings of why gay marriage is unacceptable in The Catholic church. He states that if gay marriage is put into effect, that it will put marriage's fundamentals out of place and devalue it in a sense. He takes The logical way of presenting his ideas and thoughts, and asks a lot of rhetorical questions to his readers. He gives mostly negative consequences to gay's marrying and that not only is it morally wrong but also biologically wrong not to mention God looks down upon gay marriage.
In The article let Them Marry by The Editors in The Economist (182-185) states that marriage is an ever changing thing- good and bad things have come from it. It says also that many places have begun to recognize gay partnerships but not one country gives these couples their full rights They deserve. The arguments They put up are those of The unions that there are certain rules to be followed in getting married, like economics. The article goes on further about The ridiculousness of not letting a certain group of people marry and that there really is not one good reason to be reached in doing so. They use "same people" They act as though They are like everyone else to win The vote of The people, regular Joe type.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 10 May 2005 3:27 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 5 May 2005
Defense against marriage act
Mood:  hungry
The Defense against marriage act is something that President Bush is trying to put into effect. It is a piece of legislation that he is trying to pass in the terms of gay people not being able to marry, and that marriage is only for straight people. It is a basic law to not allow gay people to marry decuised as an actual from the president. I think this is , the president should not be allowed to dictate this sort of thing. It is not up to him if two people fall in love that are the same sex, he does not control humane nature and their will. If two people want to get married, then they should be able to with out anyone else saying it is not allowed or even illegal. Bush needs to get over himself and should realize that going against gay people most won him the election, but he will not win this fight if he really goes for it. He God or the ruler of the world, so he be allowed to make life changing laws like this one, fascist bastard. In my opinion obviously, I do not agree with the Defense of marriage act, it would be better if the law held marriage in a higher regard, but not to limit who can be apart of it.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 9:37 AM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 28 April 2005
For/ Against gay marriage
Mood:  amorous
People for gay marriage are the people that I can relate most to. Those for gay marriage feel it is an equal opportunity to marry the one you love like straight people do. It isn't right for other people to dictate the way a person lives and to tell them who they can and can not love, I know I wouldn't like it if someone tried to run my life according to how they see fit. Gay marriage is not something that should be such a big issue in my opinion, just let the people that want to get married, get married; obviously they are responsible enough to make such a large commitment to each other, cheating should not be an issue either. Also even if people aren't allowed to get married, guess what they are still going to be together. Getting married isn't going to change that. The people against gay marriage usually say its against what is in the bible, sodomy is wrong, its indecent for other people to see, marriage is for a man and a women according to the constitution; stuff like that. Personally I don't think this is an issue worth giving so much attention to, just allow any one that is in love to get married, the end.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 21 April 2005
Why marriage
Mood:  bright
Marriage is a commitment to another person that you love with all your heart. It is to be true to each other no matter what, until you both are old and gray; growing old together and sticking by each other's sides. It really is about loving another person and wanting your life to be with that person forever, and learning to live with each other and raising a family if wanted. I want to marry because I want everyone to know that I am with the person I love the most, and will never want anyone else and visa versa for the man I end up with. Marriage just looks so fun, being with one person and having a family and going on trips and declaring our love for one another. Obviously I am a romantic, all misty eyed with dreams but I do think marriage could be for everyone, sharing your life with someone can be done with out marriage, but wheres the fun in that? The ring and the actual ceremony just sounds amazing to me, I cant wait till I get married so I can profess my love to the person I am meant to be with forever, its gonna be great and I don't care what all the cynics say about marriage being stupid- their stupid! j/k

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PDT
Updated: Tuesday, 26 April 2005 6:42 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 14 April 2005
Unit 3 reflection
Mood:  bright
In this unit I learned that sexual harassment is an ongoing issue, I had no idea how many cases there were. Also how they are dealt with surprised me. I found some of the rulings and attitudes displayed by the justices were unacceptable. They seemed more annoyed then anything else, at the waste of time and money they found the cases to be. I do sympathize only in one aspect, and that is a false charge of sexual harassment, people just trying to get attention or money by filing a harassment charge. But honestly, it is so hard not to know what constitutes as harassment and what doesn't. Saying hello can be a form of harassment to someone, if they want it to be. It is not fair that people can waste money with a false charge, or that people with real cases never come forward with it because they don't think it will be taken seriously or will take to long to even be heard. I enjoyed DVC's policy on harassment, and thought is was pretty up to par, but I would include more support of the students well being and mental state, not just their academics. I enjoyed this unit and discovering that sexual harassment is one of the most common types of law suits to date, not to mention what consists of sexual harassment in case I ever get the idea that it is happening to me. A little to much reading but I did enjoy the college policy's and also the essay on the women that was harassed and under minded at her place of business.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 7 April 2005
Supreme Court Decisions
Mood:  on fire
In Ellen Goodmens' essay High Court's Mixed Decisions, she states that she thinks that the Courts made it easier for a sexual harassment claim to be made against workers to their employers, then students to their teachers. She goes on to write about cases of harassment won by women in the work place, and students that lost with their suits of harassment and the schools lack of a policy to defend its students.A double standard is the point being made by Goodman,and how it should be eliminated. In the essay Sex Harassment and Double Standards by Marcia D. Greenberger and Verna L. Williams, writes with the same type of plot as Goodmens essay, on how there is a double standard for students and workers. How Supreme Courts protect the rights of a worker but not that of a student, unless very specific requirements are met. The essay writes of a created isolation from the schools, giving officials the right to turn their backs on harassed students.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 24 March 2005
DVC sexual harassment
Mood:  hug me
DVC's policy states pretty clearly that they are against sexual harassment. The school will take any measures to end or satisfy the complaint put against the person/persons involved in the act. It also states that if a student or employee is offered a better position, grade, etc. in the field that it also constitutes as harassment and should be reported. The punishments given if a report is filed are not stated, but it is also written that a formal complaint may be made to the District if desired. It seems that DVC's policy is pretty up to date, but it does concern me that the consequences are not given or stated for those that are filed against. It makes me think maybe the complaint will go on file somewhere for record but I don't get the feeling that anything will be done about it. I don't see though DVC not being stupid enough to leave their policy open for a law suit, it being in debt as it is, so punishment will hopefully be given but is just not listed.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 17 March 2005
O'connors decision
Mood:  lyrical
I think O'Connor overturned the lower courts decision because it was enough to see that the work environment was not suitable for Harris. If an employers actions are making an employee uncomfortable than it should be stopped. I agree with the Supreme Court to disagree with the lower courts decision, I think Harris is totally just in filing suit biased on the comments made by Hardy, they were totally inappriate for the work place, or any place for that matter. The devaluing of her work just because she's a women is unfair and harassment in my book. I don't think that the comments will make Harris go crazy or anything, but they could very well be damaging to her self esteem and self worth, and that is very damaging to a person. I think Harris should have won on the grounds of gender dominance, if a man that was higher up in a company than me, and made comments like that to me, there would be big problems.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
O'connors decision
Mood:  lyrical
I think O'Connor overturned the lower courts decision because it was enough to see that the work environment was not suitable for Harris. If an employers actions are making an employee uncomfortable than it should be stopped. I agree with the Supreme Court to disagree with the lower courts decision, I think Harris is totally just in filing suit biased on the comments made by Hardy, they were totally inappriate for the work place, or any place for that matter. The devaluing of her work just because she's a women is unfair and harassment in my book. I don't think that the comments will make Harris go crazy or anything, but they could very well be damaging to her self esteem and self worth, and that is very damaging to a person. I think Harris should have won on the grounds of gender dominance, if a man that was higher up in a company than me, and made comments like that to me, there would be big problems.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 10 March 2005
What I learned in unit 2
Mood:  lazy
This unit was very interesting to me in the sense that I really was not aware of how many legal battles there are involving the First amendment. The People vs. Larry Flint had some really great reading material on how people are disgusted with the ruling of the case, the way the movie made the real Larry Flint look was totally inaccurate, the real meanings hidden in Hustler magazine. I was very interested in what was being said by just regular people and how upset some people got. Also I enjoyed the library essays, the CDA never seems to stop fighting for the filtering of the internet in a public library. It really surprised me though as to my personal reaction with the material. I reasoned that I would be against any type of porn being where little kids would be able to view it, it doesn't seem fair for parents to have to be the ones to tell their 4 year old what the pictures on the internet really are. But to my surprise, after reading more on the First Amendment I change my mind in the sense that I think it is wrong to block material( most of the time you have to pay for it anyway) that may be usefull to another person, be it for a report or other uses, a person should be able to view any kind of information they want to on the internet. I found I liked this unit better than unit 1 and look forward to reading more on the Constitution and of the rights I posses as a citizen.

Posted by crazy3/loveshoes9 at 12:01 AM PST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older