Equality: Let People Be Happy

As a straight, nineteen year old lady living in Texas, I support gay marriage. The legislature is at it’s peak right now at the Capitol here in Austin, Texas. Yesterday, my Facebook was blown up with posts about equality and people’s opinions on how gay marriage should be voted legal in Texas.

 The Human Rights Campaign is doing all it can to spread the word about their gay marriage act, some of the ways being wearing all red to support the act, using the hashtag #Unitedformarriage on Twitters, campaigns, etc. They firmly believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone they desire to- regardless of the sex of those two people.

 It is all based on equality, and I support this act 100%. Who will it REALLY affect if two women or two men become legally married to each other here in Texas? This topic steps on toes of certain religions and I understand that there would definitely be some upset Christian Texans if this law were to be passed. But so what? They may cry about it for a few days and then move on to the next thing to worry about. 

Governor Rick Perry made his opinion clear that he believes marriage should only be between one man and one woman. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and realize that those are traditional values for some older folks. But this is 2013, where so many things have already changed in the state of Texas, and I don’t see gay marriage being the end all, be all. It WILL be okay if gays or lesbians marry each other. Hillary Clinton is on that side of the opinion. She supports gay marriage, and the Human Rights Campaign set up a site where you can personally sign a “Thank You” to send to her for her input. I think that is significant in this debate.

Texas is not the only state going through this right now. Many other states are pushing for this act to be successful. Senator Kay Hagan of North Caroline infamously stated that, “We should not tell people who they can love or who they can marry.” With this act being pushed all over the nation…I do not see it coming to an end anytime soon if it were to fail this year.   I’m sure this will be a debate UNTIL it is finally passed. The Texas Constitution, as well as the U.S. Constitution, state that we are all equal. Really? How is this ensuring equality to everyone? Come on…It’s not that big of a deal! Let people be happy!

Agreement the wrongness of Rating Women: Stage 8

According to the post regarding Rating Women made by "No more bopping around", this is how I feel >>


I absolutely agree with this post and the points that you made. I, myself, used to try to live up to all of the expectations set for women by media. Media sets these bizarre standards that imply women must be skinny, have straight teeth, pretty hair (all of which you mentioned) in order to be "beautiful." FALSE. Every woman is exactly who she is and can be beautiful being exactly that. 
Let's look at Marilyn Monroe, for example. She had curves and was looked at as one of the hottest sex symbols of the 50s. She made history for being content and dominant in who she was, and did not fall under the "standards" set for women. She made her name in history by being different than everyone else and being okay with that.
Oprah Winfrey, too, is a dominant African American who is not the ideal image of women today. She is not a model figure, and has plenty of curves, but is still known as one of the most impacting, dominant woman today.
The media affects women and they don't even seem to care. They broadcast all of these underweight models in cute clothes to give girls the desire to look like that. We have rights, as women, and I don't believe those rights are affected by our weight, what we wear, what style of hair we have, etc. In reality, it is none of our business what other people think about us. I feel as though there are bigger problems to worry about than "fitting in"...because "fitting in" happens when we are ourselves, not trying to live up to expectations or be someone we are not.

S.S.S.S.

Secret Service Sex Scandal. Apparently some men of the Secret Service, who's job is solely to protect the protect the President and investigate dangerous situations. Well, it's looking like that's not all they're worried about.... they have been accused of bringing a prostitute to a hotel in Cartegena where the President was staying just one day later.

So, I'm confused. Aren't they supposed to be watching 24/7 for potential dangers? Who was keeping their eye out when a couple of agents were busy with a prostitute? Also, I don't feel as though because they had a prostitute over that that is the main problem here. She was a foreigner, brought into the "safe zone" as I'd call it, just a day before President Obama arrived. How is that safe? Haven't we been battling foreigners for almost forever now?

 I don't know who's in charge of the Secret Service but maybe they should keep their eyes open and make sure they are doing what they're supposed to. As a result of all of this, six of the twelve agents have either resigned or been fired due to this scandal. I understand why several resigned.. People may look at the Secret Service a little differently now. And I also understand why several were fired... They weren't doing their job! Some may say this is a "moral" mishap... but I say maybe people should keep their eyes open for morals AND duties.

Find a link to the article here!

Blog Stage 6; Troop Time.

This editorial about caring about our troops participating in the war really got me thinking. I completely agree with the points that have been made. Us Americans spend so much time "supporting" our troops, but really, what are we doing to support them? I know there are acts in which we do, by supplying them with things they need, prayers, honoring their efforts, etc. But overlooking all of that, how are THEY feeling inside? Don't we need to support them as human beings just as much as we support their efforts to protect America? I have seen first hand a soldier who suffered from PTSD. I actually got to talk to him, he was a family friend, and he could not get over the things that he had seen while overseas. He got really involved into alcohol to attempt to blur out those dark images in his mind. It's sad, really, what they go through that we don't even know about. Maybe America could step up and provide free counseling, or group-therapy for all soldiers dealing with coming back to society but still dealing with the trauma they had experienced. It is true, we need to start taking care of the people who do their best to take care of us. Soldiers need to be in the right state- physically AND mentally. Without both of those, I feel as though that person could be a danger to many.

The Answer is No

On March 26, the Supreme Court began three hearings they will have over the debate of Obama’s health care plan. This debate has already been going on for quite some time and it appears as if people are getting more and more against it every time it is brought up. What is the point of the health care plan? Well, Obama had the idea to bring upon the idea of contraceptives for women to be a required part of health insurance. Apparently, the religious backgrounds and religious rights of women did not play a part in Obama’s determination to make this happen.

            Many women have already claimed an argument about this plan. Not only does it affect the personal lives of women; you can’t forget that this affects government’s money and also all the health insurance companies. This law would make government spend the money enforcing the law first of all, then spending money on providing it to the women who took advantage of it. Did we forget that Plan Parenthood has free contraceptives for women who walk in and get it? Plan Parenthood does not create this big of a mess with their birth control (compared to Obama’s plan) because they do not force it upon anyone. But what do you know, Obama wants all control! I do not feel that contraceptives should be included in any type of Medicare plan, simply because that is a decision women should have the ability to make for themselves. Catholic women obviously for many reasons do not stand for this law to be passed, because it is an intolerable act in their eyes, due to their strict religious beliefs.

            Government will have a fallout either way this law goes, I believe. I believe it is already such a big deal that no matter what happens, someone is going to raise hell about the turnout either way. Government should focus on more important matters rather than stepping on toes of women & religion. That is how I look at it. If you want birth control, go to a Plan Parenthood and get it. It should not be a part of government. Also, I feel as if the law were passed, it would hurt Obama more than help him with the upcoming election, considering it appears more of the citizens in America are against it rather than for it. He can keep trying, and the Supreme Court can continue having hearings, but in my opinion…. No.

Stage 4: Appealing to One, Not All

From going through articles talking about elections and who currently has been ranking highest in votes, I’ve gained more information on how the whole election process works. One thing that stood out to me was the fact that wealth and the income people make has more so to do with the votes than I had thought. This article "A Little Help From His Friends," by Eric Kleefeld speaks of this having to do with Mitt Romney. It’s been proven by statistics that Romney’s votes are pretty much all coming from wealthier people… meaning he has yet to really relate to all sorts of classes of income and people. This makes me think of George Whitfield, one of the most talented speakers in the world. George Whitfield made differences in EVERYONE’S life- regardless of how much money they were making. I personally feel as if Whitfield targeted the actual purposes and meaning behind the subject he was talking about (in this case, the candidates running are talking about their strengths in running the nation), and I feel as though Romney is failing to do that.

            Just because most of the primaries show that Romney’s strong voters make more than 100K a year, however, does not mean that Romney would not have gained the states he has in fact. He just might not have come out as strong, or with as many votes. I don’t believe this “makes or breaks” Mitt Romney. But I do feel as though this should be taken into consideration and looked at, for if he will run our nation one day, in my personal opinion he should be looking at all classes and giving to their needs just like he would wealthier classes.

            Eric Kleefeld, the blogger who posted this editorial, uses lots of logical appeal in his opinion, throwing out statistics to prove the number of votes Romney got from the wealthier and also the lower classes. He supports his idea by backing it up with firm polls that have been done and has looked at all angles; including ethical appeal by also looking at the fact that maybe Romney would still be so far ahead in the election even without the wealthy voters. He suggests that maybe the richer people are simply helping him out a little bit, but that he is still making good progress in this election. We will see what is to come- but I feel as though Romney should take a look at the bigger picture, and make sure he is affecting EVERYONE in the nation, not just the ones with money. Really, what difference does money make in who votes on the President?

Blog Stage 3: In Full Support

              

               In the editorial of Jason Merritt's "4 ways to reduce deaths from prescription drugs", Merritt is making a firm argument about reducing the deaths caused by prescription drugs. As far as I’m concerned, the numbers of death caused by these drugs are far more than I had thought. Sadly, it seems to take a death of one of the most popular stars, Whitney Houston, for people to look deeper into this problem. Merritt explains four ways that he suggests will help, or lessen, the number of deaths caused by taking drugs such as Xanax, OxyContin, and Vicodin. His use of logical appeal by throwing out statistics really strengthens his argument and proves that the number of people dying is quite ridiculous. These drugs cause 373,000 overdoses a year. Xanax, an anxiety drug, mixed with alcohol is a deadly combination. So why do doctors have no hesitation prescribing these drugs, knowing that the number is so high it is almost equivalent to the number of deaths related to car accidents?

            I strongly agree with Merritt’s claim, as seeing that I was in addiction for several years and am now in recovery and I have experienced the pure danger of these drugs. Merritt suggests Prescription monitoring, which has already been established but not all doctors seem to use it. Is this just a joke to them? I feel as though they should take use of these databases that are made to prevent people from re-filling prescriptions using many doctors so they can get as much as they please. Education, is another thing Merritt suggests implying that doctors don’t know exactly how dangerous these certain drugs are. I fully agree with that, considering these drugs have been around for a long time so  I can understand why doctors feel no need to research them after they have been used for many, many years. Law enforcement I feel already plays a part in this. If you were to get arrested with such pills in your possession, the officers will check and make sure you have a prescription and are not buying them off of the street. Seeing as officers are in much care for our safety, their consciousness of making sure you are entitled to the drugs should be quite a confirmation of how dangerous they really are. Medicaid has been known to pay for these drugs, which brings us to Insurance Vigilance. Are insurance companies really offering to pay for whatever drugs these doctors believe we need? It is quite simple to lie to a doctor about anxiety, in order to fill a simple prescription. A simple prescription yes, but a deadly one at the same time.

            Merritt full-on supports this argument of suggestive methods to slow down the use of prescription drugs by using all sorts of opinions and evidence. Why is it that once a star overdoses on certain drugs, that is when we really look into the effect of them? This should be something the world is conscious about regardless if someone famous dies or not. These drugs are killing 70 people a day, I firmly agree the government should put a halt to this.