MIDNIGHT!/ Sunday, September 16, 2007
Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?
Recently, there has been much controversy over the issue on homosexuality especially in societies such as Singapore where the older generation still tend to take a very firm stand against it. However, as we move on with times, we as humans need to place more emphasis on human rights and freedom and learn to accept that homosexuals are humans as well and should be treated no differently from others.
In some european countries such as France, although same-sex marriages are legalised, the parties involved in this form of marriages are not allowed to make medical decisions for their other half in the case of an emergency. The hospitals are more often than not forced to go to their families for medical decision. This is made worst when family members shun them because of their homosexuality and refuse to acknowledge their ties. Which is why it is important for us to alter such laws which discriminate against them and that same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this modern age.
One main reason why same-sex marriages are viewed with such disgust to many is because of religious belief that god made both Adam and Eve for a reason and not simply two Adams or two Eves. Religious people view such marriages as severe violations to their god and cannot simply accept it, such views are passed down from generation to generation through the family or through the church. However there has been cases where even the most pious of people such as a pastor can be gay and such cases has sparked off much criticism and talk. But we need to be able to follow the golden rule in the bible of "do unto others as you would them do unto you" in other words, we should not discriminate them simply because of their homosexuality. It is high time we stop using religion as an excuse to discriminate and allow same-sex marriages.
Many people tend to argue that marriage is to raise children and that parents of the same gender are not equiped adequately to handle this and their children grow up losing out to other children from a "normal" family. This is a very unjustified claim as it does not matter what gender the parents are as long as they can provide the care, love and protection for their children. Is it fair to say that a kid from a family with parents of the same gender will turn out worst than another from a family with parents of opposite genders when ultimately, the parents of opposite genders divorce and are leave their child hurt and scarred for life?
However many state that same-sex marriage does not promote reproduction and the continuation of our species as we were made by nature to do. It is largely true that if same-sex marriage is legalised, there would be an increase in homosexual couples getting married and there would be a decrease in birth rates as they are unable to reproduce with the same sex and this could have detrimental effects on the world such as an aging population. This leads us to ponder if same-sex marriages should really be allowed.
As "marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." Taking all the factors into careful consideration, I believe that we should not discriminate against the homosexuals and that if we are to accept same-sex marriages, more must be done to educate the public first and steps must be taken in stages to implement it.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
7:56 AM <3
>>>
MIDNIGHT!/ Sunday, August 12, 2007
“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty”
Do You Agree?
centuries ago Aristotle said " The mother of revolution and crime is poverty " how true is this in our modern context as compared to Aristotle's time?
it is not so different at all, as the saying goes, Money is the root of all evil, or rather the lack of it. revolutions have been coming and going throughout the course of human history, for the better or for worst but it always brings about drastic changes in humans. for example, in the past the lower class citizens who usually make up the bulk of the country's population rebelled and created revolutions like the one in Russia back in the 1910s.
I agree to a large extent that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty. In an article by Wayne Arnold, in the International Herald Tribune, it was clearly stated that even though the average wages in Singapore were rising with the economy, the incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had fallen since 2000. This implies that the income gap between the populations of Singapore had widened. While the rich are getting richer, the poor are also getting poorer. This widening will almost certainly have adverse effects on our country's social cohesiveness, the poorer community might round up together and plan a revolt or riots. They might even start a revolution on its own in Singapore.
Another example would be from the article by Geert De Clercq, under Yahoo! News Singapore, it states that one in three students on government scholarships came from wealthy families, which only make up 13 percent of Singapore households. Whereas, students from households of incomes less than $2,000 only make up 7 percent of scholarship winners. This clearly shows the advantages that students from wealthier families have over students from poorer background as they are more likely to have a headstart in terms of education.
although it is true that poverty tends to drive people to commit crimes in acts of desperation, not all crimes are due to that one sole reason. many crimes are done in the name of revenge, greed or even simply for fun. It is also not fully justifiable to say that the poor is responsible for the crimes as even the rich do commit crimes though that number is considerably less. Revolutions may also be sparked off by other reasons such as unhappiness with the government and certain policies which might be deemed unfair.
in summary, i would say that although poverty is one of the main reasons if not the main reason as to why crimes are commited or how revolutions are started, it is not the only reason as many other factors must be taken into consideration. The government has the responsibility to ensure that the widening gap is solved before it is too late.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
6:22 AM <3
>>>
MIDNIGHT!/ Thursday, July 05, 2007
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?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted where the citizens should practice self-censorship in order to maintain the racial harmony here in Singapore. Singaporeans should always be mindful of what they say to avoid stirring up any hostile reactions from another racial group. An example is the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, there was no malice in the intention of publishing it, however the lack of sensitivity led to worldwide outburst from the muslim community. In this time and age where the muslim community are already recieving bad publicity due to the Islamic terrorist attacks being ever more frequent, it is extremely crucial to ensure the racial harmony is not disturbed in a country as small as Singapore where the people are her only resources.
On the other hand, the use of freedom of speech can not be ignored either in order for a democratic nation to be successful. A view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth”. 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. We 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.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that a sense of social responsibility should be practiced more than freedom of speech in Singapore. Even though every individual may have their own opinions and views on certain things, it is important that they keep certain things to themselves and to use the freedom of speech with responsibility in order to not stir up racial distrust or tensions in Singapore which is very susceptible to racial disorder.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
5:52 AM <3
>>>
MIDNIGHT!/ Monday, May 21, 2007
"The Death Penalty is murder and should be abolished." Do you agree?
The issue on the death penalty has long been debated as to whether or not it is really neccessary. It is usually carried out by means hanging, lethal injection, firing-squad etc. Naturally such a controvorsial idea have supporters on both sides of the coin. Supporters argue that it deters crime, prevents the same crime from being carried out again and many believe it to be a fitting punishment for crimes such as murder, but where does it cross the line? for example, in Singapore alone people get the death sentence for merely trafficking afew milligrams of controlled substances in order to make ends meet or to pay for medical fees for their children. Is this what justice is? to take the life away from a fellow human for such crimes which in comparision to crimes where criminals escape the gallows under the insanity plea after commiting murder.
Many people firmly believe that the death penalty should be abolished as it really isnt very much different from the act of murder itself. The only difference is that the death penalty is considered to be carried out in a lawful manner. it works under the basic principle of " an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", furthermore a person is execute as he/she is deemed to be too dangerous to be left in the society, but if that person is put in jail he/she can not harm anyone at all which then gives the reason no meaning at all.
Despite many people citing the use of Capital punishment as an efficent deterence, statistics have clearly shown that the effect is minimal in decreasing the crime of rates of capital crimes. Some criminals are forced into doing it while others are simply stubborn or strong willed and deterence will not hinder them.
In summary, i believe that although the Death Penalty should be kept and not abolished, the reasons as to why it should be done has to be revised. Even though everyone deserves a second chance to prove themselves, some have already wavered from the right path too long to return.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
11:24 PM <3
>>>
MIDNIGHT!/ Sunday, April 29, 2007
Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state the reason why you think it is necessary or not.
The issue on censorship is surely a controversial one, sometimes it is used too much, other times too little. Where do we draw the line between the two? Typically Censorship is controlled by the government, mass media or religious groups in certain countries. It is closely linked to concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, however when overused it is associated with dictatorship, human rights abuse and repression.
Censorship can be categorize into five main types, namely moral, military, political, religious and corporate censorship.
Moral censorship is the means by which any material deemed to be of questionable morality is removed or cut. For example, Pornography is often censored under this rationale. Materials displaying excessive use of violence are also censored for this same reason. So i would have to say moral censorship is definitely necessary to prevent the young from being exposed to such things at such a young age.
MIlitary censorship is the process of withhelding military intelligence or tactics. For example, in the Iraq war the US govenrment has restricted the photographing or filming of dead soliders or their caskets and its subsequent broadcast. This is done to protect national security but many people feel that the citizens of the US deserve the right to know what they are paying all their taxes for. Funding a war where the progress is uncertain and information is scarce. Despite many other democratic nations supporting the notion, i feel that it is unnessary to practice censorship to such a degree for lives are at stake.
Political censorship occurs when governments are holding back information from their own citizens. The logic is to prevent revolts as any dissent against the government is seen as a weakness for the enemy to exploit. This is necessary in order to ensure national security as a country must always appear stable and safe even if its not the case.
Religious censorship is the means by which any material goes against the preachings of a dominant religion. Limitations are usually forced on the less dominant religions by the more dominant ones. This form of censorship is not necessary as people should be free to believe in what they want and to say what they want as long as it is not morally wrong.
Corporate Censorship is when companies prevent articles or materials which potray them in a negative light from being published. This is unethical as the truth should be revealed to the public so that the public will know where they are putting their money in.
In conclusion, i believe that no fine line can be drawn between too much or too little censorship. Different context requires different levels of censorship which is why i feel that it is definitely neccessary but the degree of censorship has to be varied.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
6:34 PM <3
>>>
MIDNIGHT!/ Sunday, April 22, 2007
The media has a whole bag full of devices and methods to implement for the sole purpose of disguising opinion as facts in order to stir anguish and to create controversy amongst the citizens. One such device is the media's usage of subjective perception. When the news of the Singapore swimmers were released to the public, stating that the swimmers were mocking and gloating at the American relay team following their disqualification. However the truth could have been that the Singapore team were merely smiling in disbelief at seeing their toughest competetitors being taken out of the race. It is hard to believe that such a small matter can have so huge an impact on the world. The issue is even being publicised in America by magazines, this can have serious detrimental effects on Singapore's bilateral ties with America. An official inquiry regarding the incident has started and if found guilty, the Singapore team will have to make a public apology to the American team.
Such irresponsible use of the pen by the reporter is extremely disturbing, that by merely stating their own opinion, they are able to stir up feelings in the masses and in a way, control their emotions. The use of the media will have to be controlled and they cannot be allowed to write anything which they want just for financial reasons. However, we cannot blame the reporter entirely as he/she did not force anyone of us to believe it, rather we choose to believe it by simply reading the article. We should not go a step too far ahead of ourselves and instead read other sources before reaching a conclusion.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
9:29 AM <3
>>>
MIDNIGHT!/ Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Global Warming - Bulletins From a Warmer World
The climate is changing at an unnerving pace. Glaciers are retreating. Ice shelves are fracturing, sea level is rising, permafrost is melting. What role do humans play?
The statistics are shocking. "When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased dramatically to fewer than 30, and the few remaining have shrunk in area by at least two-thirds."- Quoted from National Geographic.
With global warming, many dire consequences will have to be faced if we continue to turn a blind eye to it. Not only will we have to endure the rise of temperature in the already sweltering heat but also we will face a far worst predicament when the ice caps melt causing a rise in sea level. Many low-lying cities such as New York City will be flooded and completely decimated, this in turn causes mass evacuations of the affected to higher grounds where there will be a shortage of space to accomodate everyone.
Another issue will be the increase in number of forest fires and the issue of desertification. When more forested areas are burn down, it contributes to the rise in global temperature as there will be more carbon dioxide in the air to trap the heat in the Earth's atmosphere. With the rapid deforestation by forest fires, many species of plants and animals will be lost with it. There is a probability of plants with medicinal value being lost forever. if we do not take efforts to solve the pressing issue of global warming.
We have to take the initiative to take certain measures. For example, the emission of green house gases will have to be cut down and reforestation projects must be carried out to cope with the rapid rate of deforestation. The use of alternative sources of energy other than the burning of fossil fuels is another solution. Many countries have taken steps to reduce the emission of green house gases as seen in the Kyoto Protocol.
It is a mortal imperative for everyone to play a part in helping to solve the issue of global warming before it is too late.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
5:06 AM <3
>>>
"The Family Plays a Critical Role in Our Society."
With regards to the statement "The family plays a critical role in our society." i would have to agree with it as the family is the most basic unit of any society, be it urban or rural. Despite the many different backgrounds of people, the functions of a family do not differ much, as the saying goes "Charity begins at home"- through charity many more values such as compassion, generosity and empathy can be obtained. As the children are the leaders of the future, it is especially crucial to ensure that the proper values are instilled within them from young.
The mass media might have a certain influence on the mindset of children, but that's where it stops. Whereas the family has a constant and lasting effect on the children's behaviour and characteristics. The media and the Internet provide all sorts of information, both fact and fiction. Which is why a family is crucial in explaining to a child how to differentiate between the two.
I cannot emphasis more on how a family is indispensable when it comes to building the confidence of a child. It is paramount in parenting to ensure that a child is given constant encouragement and support in what they do. It is essential that a child understands that failure is not the end but only the beginning for it is only through failure that success is earned. As a child matures and grows with time, the role of a family evolves. During a child's adolescent years, the role of a family is to protect and to nurture him/her. As the child reaches teenage life, the role of a family is more to provide emotional support and to help him/her learn the meaning of taking responsibility. The roles of a family is ever changing but still its main goal is to prepare the next generation for the society and its many complicated roles.
Thus in conclusion, I would have to agree with the statement that the family plays a critical role in our society.
Damnit, it ain't meant to be.
4:07 AM <3
>>>
