Blogging task- Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalization?

In the 21st century, countries in the world are becoming more developed. This is mainly due to technology, which brings everyone in the world closer to each other, creating new business opportunities. With development, a country’s economy flourishes and the people’s standard of living improves. People become more educated and are opened to new ideas and principles. However, does this mean that single-sex marriages are accepted as well?

Most countries in the world have yet to accept same-sex marriages. These countries believe that gay marriages would lead to social problems, such as breaking the traditional family structure and overturning the anthropological order. Therefore, laws are made to ban single sex-marriages in the country. One example of a country which does not accept gay marriages would be America. In America, as gay marriages are not recognized. Gay couples do not enjoy the numerous benefits given by the government to set up a family, for example health benefits or housing subsidies. Thus, without recognition from the country for their marriage, it is usually difficult for the couple to set up their family.

Next, many societies in the world also do not accept gay marriages. The people reject single sex marriages and also carry out antigay campaigns, to flush the gays out of their country. They usually carry out these campaigns through riots, or even violence, so that what they do will be heard by the world. Through these campaigns, they cause fear and terror in single-sex couples, causing them to leave the country. An example of antigay campaigns held would be during the 1930s, when the German Nazi party came to power. The Nazis sent homosexuals to concentration camps, burned books on homosexuality, banned gay organizations, and even killed those who were deemed homosexuals within the Nazi Party. Thus with antigay campaigns, the safety of single sex couples is usually affected.

Therefore, same-sex marriages may not be a practical consideration at this point of time, as there are still countries and societies that do not accept the presence of gays.

However, there are changes in how people treat homosexuals in this era. With education, people now know that homosexuals are born gay and it is not something that they choose to be. Thus people are beginning to accept homosexuals into their societies, allowing gay marriages.

Firstly, there are cases where people are fighting for gay rights. Pro-gay activists and organizations fight for gay rights through large scale activities like campaigning. They show people how gays are treated unequally, and alter the people’s mindset on gays. One such party or organization which supports single sex marriages would be the Green Party of the United States. The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose their partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or sexual orientation. Thus, the Green Party is supportive of legislation against all forms of antigay activities. With support from such organizations, homosexual couples can now marry legally and set up their families, and are not hated or discriminated by the society.


Next, many countries in the world are also starting to change their view points on single sex marriages. Many societies are starting to accept gay marriages. One example is, in America there is an increase in acceptance of homosexuality and equal rights for gays and lesbians over the past 30 years. According to the Gallup poll (source: Wikipedia), the percentage of Americans who think that same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal has increased from 32% to 57% since 1986. Thus this shows that people are starting to accept homosexuals, who were once seen as “not straight”, and single sex couples are now given equal rights as other “straight” couples.


Therefore in conclusion, even though there are regions in the world which still does not accept same-sex marriages, I believe that majority of countries in the world have started to accept homosexuals, and see them not as “freaks of nature”, but as normal people, who needs love and care from others. Thus, same-sex marriage is indeed a practical consideration, at this age of globalization.

Blogging task-“The mother of revolution and crime is poverty” Do you agree?

The statement “The mother of revolution and crime is poverty” can be understood as, poverty is the root of crimes or evil deeds such as theft, and is the reason for people to stage a coup.

I do not agree with the above statement that poverty is the main cause of all crimes and rebellion. I feel that poverty contributes to these problems only to a small extend. I believe that there are factors and reasons other then poverty, which leads to people committing certain crimes and staging a rebellion. Some of these factors causing people to go against the authorities or commit crimes would be, to for independence or personal rights, for power, religious reasons lack of education or just plain jealousy.

Many may feel that poverty is the main cause of crimes, such as robberies, theft. However, I believe that what really leads to someone causing these social problems is the lack of education. Without proper education, one would be unable to obtain a job. Without a job and an income, the person would resort to stealing in order to feed himself. A person, who is born poor, will not steal from others to sustain his life if he has proper education. Instead, if he has qualifications, the person would be able to obtain a job easily, and with the monthly income, he would be able to take care of himself, and even his family. There are indeed certain exceptions, whereby the breadwinner of a family only has a low paying job, and thus would be unable to cope with the needs of the family. In this case, the government usually provides aid for these families, and with the aid they will be able to cope with the expenses. Therefore, I believe that the lack of education would be the main cause of crimes.

Next, I also believe that jealousy is another reason for one to commit a crime. When a person is jealous of what another person has, he or she may resort to stealing, in order to get what he or she wants. One example would be mobile phone thefts cases in schools. I believe that, these problems usually arise when a student is jealous of what his peers have. Even if the student has his own personal mobile phone, he may want a similar phone his peer has. Thus he resorts to stealing. Therefore even if a person is not poor, he or she may commit crimes, to satisfy their personal wants.

Also, people may commit crimes because they feel that there is unjust. For example, the 1998 Indonesian riots, whereby the Chinese Indonesians were attacked and their property were robbed. The Indonesian non Chinese attacked the Chinese as they were unhappy and jealous of the Chinese, jealous of what they have and believe that they are taking away things that should be theirs. Thus they started destroying their property and stealing their items. Hence, I believe that crime cases are not due to poverty.

Poverty does contribute to revolution, but only to a small extend.

When there is poverty in the nation, the people would feel that the government is not doing their job, or the policies the authorities implement, are not effective, and useless. Thus when the people are unhappy, they would not adhere to the laws and policies set by the government, and would revolt. One example would be, former president of Indonesia Suharto, was overthrown by the people of Indonesia and during his period of governance, and was taken over by an opposing party led by Megawati. He lost support from the people, as they felt that they were treated poorly under his leadership. Thus poverty does lead to rebellion and revolution in a country.

There are also other factors causing revolution in a country.
Firstly, for power. In the past, China was ruled and government by emperors. At that time, there were different dynasties, for example the Qin dynasty where Qin Shi Huang ruled and government the country. The Qin clan was mighty and strong, and had taken over numerous clans. The remaining clans would fight back, in order to gain new territories or to protect their own. However, in the clans that were taken over by Qin, there may be insurgents who are unhappy with the way the state emperor rules the region, and would rebel and oust the leader to gain power. Hence for power, people would rebel or start a revolution.

Next, people may rebel, to gain independence or to get their own rights. One example of such case whereby the people started fighting against the government would be the civil war in Thailand. The conflict between the insurgents and the governmental army for their rights has been increasing over the period. The people from southern Thailand believe that they are treated unfairly and unequally, thus in order to get what they want, they would have to fight with the government. Hence the people are rebelling to achieve their own rights.

Hence, I believe that poverty is not the main cause of revolution and crimes in a country.

blogging task- which author's view should be adopted in the context of sg's multi-racial society?

I feel that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted in a multi-racial society like Singapore’s. With more social responsibility, people would think twice before expressing their views, or to say out what they personally feel. In a society where people lack the responsibility to be cautious of what they are saying would lead to chaos and conflicts between the people. These conflicts not only happen in multi-racial societies, it also happens between people of the same race and religion.
In Singapore, more focus is placed on social responsibility than on freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, I believe that there is freedom to speak only to a small extent in Singapore. A person can speak freely and express his or her thoughts only when the person has concrete evidence of what he or she says is true. Those who say out what they feel in the public without any evidence would face dire consequences. They would either face a lawsuit, or get fined for making unsupported speeches in the public, and would be seen as public nuisance. Hence, this limits the freedom in which the people can say what they want, or what they feel. The Singapore government adopts the idea of creating more social responsibility in the country. I believe that, that was the right choice and that more focus should indeed be placed on social responsibility. As Singapore is a home to many different races, it is difficult to ensure that all people would receive what they want, or to live a type of lifestyle that they like. For the people to live in peace, sacrifices are made to accommodate to the needs of all races, but not the wants of the people. This would show the people that the government is not showing biasness to any race. Hence when people express their views, criticizing others or another race, the government would step in to stop the negative views from spreading, and to maintain peace between the people. For example, the issue whereby a person narrated his views on his personal blog, stating his unhappiness on another race. This racial issue has been brought to court, and the person was sentenced to jail and fined. This ensured continual racial peace and harmony between the people.
In the article by Peter Singer, he stated that all people should have their rights to freedom of speech, and that David Irving should be freed on the account that what he said wasn’t punishable as it was his rights. However, I feel otherwise. This is because, if this idea that the Holocaust did not occur was passed down to younger children in rural regions, with little education, they would not know much about how cruel the German soldiers were and what they did. They may even be taught that what the German soldiers did wasn’t wrong and would follow their footsteps.
Therefore, I do believe that Singapore should continue to adopt the view that more focus should be placed on social responsibility and not too much on personal freedom.

Is death penalty a form of deterrence or a form of murder?

Throughout the centuries, death penalty was seen and used as a form of punishment, to warn people of certain crimes, and to show them the consequences they would face if they were to commit them. It gives justice to the victims, and assures the country that the person who committed the crime would not be able to harm the people anymore. Hence, I believe that death penalty is a deterrent and not a form of murder.

Death penalties causes people to be afraid of committing crimes, as they would be sentenced to death. Therefore, most people will remain as good citizens, abiding by the law. Also, when a criminal is sentenced to death, he will not harm anyone again, bringing more safety to the people.

However some would feel that a life sentence in jail would be enough for the criminals, for them to repent, to regret what they have done. Furthermore, a life sentence in jail would mean that they will not be freed, or allowed to rejoin the society again. Hence the criminal would not be able to harm others again.

I on the other hand, feel that by sentencing the criminal to life sentence in jail, would not be effective enough to teach the younger generations about the seriousness of the crime. Even though, life sentence does prevent the criminal from committing any more crimes to harm others. I feel that it only impacts a little on those “new generation criminals”, who may cause even more chaos in the country, jeopardizing the security and safety of the country. They may feel that life sentence is only a small matter, even after committing the crime, they would not have to be hung, or electrocuted, instead they can now spend the rest of their life in jail, enjoying the food shelter provided by tax payers.

However, in some other countries like India, where stoning is allowed by the government, death penalty may not be a deterrent, instead it could be a form of murder, to get back on the criminal for whatever harm he made to the society. The people gets an eye for an eye through stoning the felon. The process of stoning causes slow death, and shames the person. He feels unbearable pain when he is being stoned. The people believes that through this process, the criminal will regret deeply for what he has done.

I still believe that death penalty is a deterrent, and not a murder. This is because, in all methods of punishment, the younger generation still learn from the past mistakes committed by the older generation, and know what punishment they would receive if they were to commit the crime. Hence it serves as deterrence, preventing people from committing crime, decreasing crime rates in the world.

merits and demerits of censorship, and why is it necessary or unnecessary

There are merits and demerits for implementing censorship.

Firstly, the merits of censorship. Censorship removes any source of entertainment, showing strong violence, gore, or even sexual scenes. These scenes may corrupt the young’s mind, affecting their psychological development thus causing them to perform crimes or acts which may harm the society in the future.

Next, the demerits of censorship. Censorship allows the government to sieve out some issues that they deem sensitive, preventing them from being broadcasted, or told to the people. Thus this causes the people to be kept in the dark about some issues that may be linked to various sectors of our country, for example our country’s funds or even the country’s defense.

I personally believe that censorship is important in our country. Censorship removes any programs, music, movies or any other forms of entertainment, that shows too much of violence, gore, “skin”, or anything that affects the psychological development of a child. Without censorship, the younger generation may have easy access to adult movies, or shows, causing them to have a wrong mind set about some issues. For example, a survey in one of the articles given, has stated that teens who spend more time watching sex and violence, are more likely to practice it. Hence, with easy access to uncensored adult movies, the younger generation may have a different mind set, for example to them it would be okay to hit someone in the street, as shown in the show.

Even though people may say it is okay to have no censorship, as parents would be able to teach their child the right values. However I feel that if parents do not have the right values to teach the younger generation, the younger generation will still be affected. With exposure to uncensored entertainment, even the adults are prone to be psychologically affected.

Henceforth I believe that censorship is important, even if it has its cons, like the removal of sensitive topics from the news by the government. Therefore, censorship is a must in our society.

Spilling Blood with Oil in Iraq - the way that the media present what is perceived over what is real

The media usually just provide articles based on a political figure’s opinion on certain issues, without concrete evidence that is really the truth. This affects the views of the readers on the issue, for example, the issue on whether to attack Iraq. With reports on Iraq killing or ill-treating the US prisoners of war, the citizens of USA will feel angry after reading the it, hence they will support the government’s decision on waging a war on Iraq. Therefore a war starts even though the reasons behind it may not be sufficient or real.

I feel that the media is strongly influenced by the ruling political party in the country. The media provides information that is only in favour of maintaining the party’s position as the ruling party, and also those that support the party’s decisions. This may be because of the strong censorship the government placed on the press. Hence things that may ruin the government’s good image will not be reported. Therefore, even though the information provided may not be the truth, the media is still oblige to write it, and announce it to the people.