Blog Task: Is Same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

The statement “Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalization?” can be understood as, are gay marriages workable now at this stage of modernization.
Same-sex marriage is defined by winkipedia as a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Thus at this age of globalization, are similar sex marriages recognized and accepted all over the world?

In this age of globalization, there are still many countries in the world debating, whether to accept the presence of homosexuals and gay marriages in the country. Some countries in the world believe that homosexuals would bring about sexual diseases like AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), leading to social problems and health problems in the country. Thus these countries create laws to ban gay marriages and any homosexual activities. Russia is one of the countries in the world, which still has not approved gay marriages. Similar sex couples are not given equal treatment and are discriminated against legislative benefits, like spousal insurance.

Next, same sex marriages are usually also not accepted in many societies. In some societies, people show their disapproval of same sex couples, by promoting antigay movements. For example from the 1960s, campaigners and rioters organized movements to oppose gay rights. These movements showed how much they condemned homosexuals and their displeasure of gays present in the society.

Lastly, religions such Christianity and Islam view homosexuality as a sin. They see the practice and acceptance of homosexuals in society as a weakening of moral standards. An example would be the Unification Church, which agrees with this view. Another religious antigay group would be The Westboro Baptist Church. They are known for their extreme racist and anti-homosexuality views on the world. People from the group have picket the funerals of soldiers who have died in the Iraq war with signs that say controversial things such as "god hates fags", "Thank god for AIDS" and "Thank god for 9/11", and claim that they were killed by the "judgment of god" because they were fighting for a "fag loving" country. As these antigay movements were by religious groups, it affects the minds of the young and the followers, leading to an increase in people who discriminate homosexuals.

Hence, it may still not be a practical for homosexuals to have marriages at this point of time, as there are still antigay activists and religious groups which strongly disagree with the presence of homosexuals.

However, same sex marriage can be a practical consideration at this age of modernization. Most countries in the world agree that people should have their own rights, and that includes the rights to choose who they want to marry and to live with. Therefore, countries in the world have accepted gay marriages and legalized it allowing homosexuals to set up their families. Some examples of countries starting to accept homosexuals in their society are, America Belgium and many others.

Next, allowing same sex marriages in the country also has it benefits. Legalizing gay marriages can cause the country’s economy to flourish. This is because, with the presence of single sex marriages, there would be an inflow of “pink dollar” or the “Dorothy dollar”, causing the country’s economy to improve. Thus with increase revenue, the country would be able to develop. Some examples of industries taping into these markets would be the American Airlines. With the specific advertising campaigns and the formation of a team devoted to gay and lesbian marketing, American Airlines saw its earnings rise from $20 million in 1994 to $193.5 million in 1999.

Hence in conclusion, I believe that it is possible for similar sex marriages now, as countries may support the presence of homosexuals in their country so as to increase annual revenue the country earns.

JUNE HOLIDAYS BLOGGING TASK

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Freedom of expression is the right of a person to communicate their opinions freely either in public or private, through speech or movements, without fear of being persecuted by the government or authority figures.

Singer believes that the freedom of expression is important to any democracy and should not be limited. Coming after the deaths of at least 30 people in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Nigeria and other Islamic countries during protests against cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, Singer feels that cartoonists do not have the right to mock religious figures on the sly. Cartoonists mock religious figures on the sly and do not get caught while people who express their views out get imprisoned, like David Irving for denying the Holocaust and he feels that it is ridiculous. Singer feels that freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. He says that people must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock. This is true to a certain extent. As only with freedom of expression accepted in a society, can a society progress.

I feel that freedom of speech is important in self-governance, discovering truths and promoting tolerance. Freedom of speech is crucial in any democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government's choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement. Freedom of speech is also important in discovering truths as only when people are not afraid to say out what they feel will then be many truths be discovered. Also, freedom of speech is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Free speech would bring out more tolerence in a society as self restraint to control feelings evoked by thoughts that we disagree on would help shape the intellectual character of the society. Protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance and such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society.

On the other hand, Zsofia Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. He feels that protecting public interest is more important than freedom of expressing one’s view. If we neglect the feelings of a particular group of people in the society, conflicts would arise and lead to bloodshed events such as the prophet Muhammad incident.

I feel that Szilagyi’s viewpoint should be adopted in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism. In our networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Media messages, films and art works cannot be addressed to a specific cultural group - traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility and restrictions should be implemented. Insensitivity towards society problems would lead to conflicts. Such as the race riots in 1964. Rioting broke out on 21 July 1964 for Prophet Muhammad's birthday when a protest demonstration by Malays escalated from a verbal war of taunts and insults with Chinese bystanders. The ensuing violence which continued for five days, left 22 people dead and 454 injured.

This incident shows us that racial insensitivity would lead to many problems and the only way to prevent it is through racial harmony. We are constantly reminded to be tolerant of other races and live together in peace and harmony. And this can be done so by restricting freedom of speech through the mass media like the newspapers. The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it needs to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom.

TASK 3

"The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder." Do you agree?

According to winkipedia, capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Capital punishment has been abolished in most democratic countries around the world with only a few democratic countries retaining it. Among non-democratic countries, the use of death penalty is common but not universal.

The death penalty is a very subjective issue. Personally I feel that the death penalty is a deterrent and not murder. The death penalty gives justice to the victims and his family and assures the society that the criminal would not pose a threat to anyone anymore. Furthermore, it is more economically sound than putting them in jail and wasting taxpayer’s money as it requires money to keep them in jail. Also, imagine how the victim’s family would feel if they knew that the murderer who caused the death of their loved one is still sitting behind bars and they had to pay for his living expenses in jail. They would certainly feel injustice, as the saying goes, “an eye for an eye”. People would definitely want to see justice being carried out and the criminal to pay for his crimes. Furthermore, the death penalty serves as a deterrent to others, to prevent repeat offenders by setting a precedent of the felon. Imagine if there were no death penalty, nothing would be serious enough to scare and stop criminals from committing all sorts of crimes.

However, opponents of capital punishments might argue that it does not deter criminals more than life imprisonment. It might be seen by others as a violation of human rights. However, aren’t they violating the rights of the victim in the first place when they committed the crimes? There are also some executions of those who are wrongfully convicted. Those are just a few cases within many. The death penalty should not be abolished just because of some mistaken cases. However, many argue that two wrongs do not make a right. Since the crime is already committed, we should look forward to rehabilitation instead of execution. However, is the society gracious enough to forgive and forget what the felon has done? Would the families of the victims be able to accept this? I do not think so. I believe that it is every human nature to want revenge and retribution to be done back on the criminal.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the motion that the death penalty is not a deterrent but murder.

TASK 3

"The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is murder." Do you agree?

According to winkipedia, capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Capital punishment has been abolished in most democratic countries around the world with only a few democratic countries retaining it. Among non-democratic countries, the use of death penalty is common but not universal.

The death penalty is a very subjective issue. Personally I feel that the death penalty is a deterrent and not murder. The death penalty gives justice to the victims and his family and assures the society that the criminal would not pose a threat to anyone anymore. Furthermore, it is more economically sound than putting them in jail and wasting taxpayer’s money as it requires money to keep them in jail. Also, imagine how the victim’s family would feel if they knew that the murderer who caused the death of their loved one is still sitting behind bars and they had to pay for his living expenses in jail. They would certainly feel injustice, as the saying goes, “an eye for an eye”. People would definitely want to see justice being carried out and the criminal to pay for his crimes. Furthermore, the death penalty serves as a deterrent to others, to prevent repeat offenders by setting a precedent of the felon. Imagine if there were no death penalty, nothing would be serious enough to scare and stop criminals from committing all sorts of crimes.

However, opponents of capital punishments might argue that it does not deter criminals more than life imprisonment. It might be seen by others as a violation of human rights. However, aren’t they violating the rights of the victim in the first place when they committed the crimes? There are also some executions of those who are wrongfully convicted. Those are just a few cases within many. The death penalty should not be abolished just because of some mistaken cases. However, many argue that two wrongs do not make a right. Since the crime is already committed, we should look forward to rehabilitation instead of execution. However, is the society gracious enough to forgive and forget what the felon has done? Would the families of the victims be able to accept this? I do not think so. I believe that it is every human nature to want revenge and retribution to be done back on the criminal.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the motion that the death penalty is not a deterrent but murder.

TASK 2

Censorship is the selection and limitation of information by the government on the media. Censorship has both its advantages and disadvantages depending on how you view the issue. Some people argue believe that censorship is neccessary as censorship protects the moral values that are prevalent in society, thus it reflects our values. Viewers of media receive messages, which, in some cases, they need to be protected from to prevent them from absorbing the wrong information. Censorship is needed as there would always be people who are incapable of judging what they see from the right and wrong. An example of such a group of people is children. Children are vulnurable as they are unable to judge from what is wrong and right. They are more easily influenced by the media as compared to adults. However, some people view censorship as unneccessary as they believe that films can influence, but that citizens should not be all treated as though they cannot interpret media images safely.

TASK 1

I feel that the media plays a very important role in our society. The media is useful in spreading out information to the public, introducing new subjects, conveying thoughts to others, sometimes it even serves as propaganda, influencing and changing the mindsets of people. The most powerful effect of media is that it can control and change your actions and thoughts as it is almost anywhere, everywhere. The media comes in the form of televisions, radio, magazines, internet, the newspapers, books, advertisements and films, etc. The communication tools of media are basically in the form of images, sounds or words. The type of media displayed to us. the general public, depends on the extent of the censorship allowed by the government. Only the government has the power to limit the extent of censorship. i feel that censorship by the government is important because without it, every type of information ranging from violence to gore can be viewed by everyone, including children. Children are supposedly at the age whereby they learn and copy all the things they see around them without knowing what the things they are doing actually mean. Hence, it is bad if there were no limitations of information by the government. The media is supposed to be a tool to protect the young and weak-minded, to prevent riots (racial and religious), to decrease tension of all sorts, to handle sensitive issues and to protect national interests. However, there are two sides to a coin. The disadvantages of media is that there is no freedom of expression because of the limitations by the government, reporting is objective and selective, also, most media only shows what it wants to portray. Hence, it is often bias, depending on which side it is on.

introduction

Hi to all. My name is Jacqueline Ong Wee Ling and im from class 23/07. I am currently in guitar. Basically, im a simple girl who is blur at times. i can study if i set my mind into it. However, whenever i feel like studying, i would be distracted by all sorts of things and i end up spending the day watching the TV, using the computer or sleeping. I am a very lazy person i admit. I rather spend the whole day at home sleeping or slacking than going out. My interests and hobbies are playing the keyboard, playing the guitar, playing with my fat and cute hamster (ah pui) , playing AUDITION (an online game which im very addicted to) , swimming, shopping, going to the arcades, taking lots of neoprints, watching animaes ( prince of tennis!, inuyasha) and reading comics. I also love to draw manga characters from the comic books. I would draw almost anywhere if you give me a pencil and a paper. And, i miss my secondary schoool, Swiss Cottage a lot. i miss 4E1, my previous class, i miss all the people there, i miss the food there, i miss SJAB, and i miss the teachers there! (mrs chua, mdm zainab, mai da bian, mr ravi) If only my previous school has integrated programme, then i wouldn't need to come to AJC. All the memories i had in Swiss Cottage are all precious and memorable and i will never forget those days. If i had a choice, i would choose to stay in Swiss for the rest of my life.