His emphases that many people worry that children raised by homosexual couples would suffer from confusion over sex roles, and they might turn out to be homosexual. Society is afraid the continuation of this phenomenon will become a threat of human race extinction. In contrast with Pollit is totally different because she explains The considerable body of research on the children, and the parenting abilities of gay men and lesbians has consistently found that they are as good parents as their heterosexual counterparts and that their children do not differ appreciably from children raised by heterosexuals. In other words, children who are raised from homosexual households are no more likely to be gay or lesbian than other children. These are different points of view with important and credible
He states that results of research on the harmful effects of media violence on children are either so vague that they can be openly interpreted to something different or so insignificant that they can be ignored. Fowles side of the article focuses on criticizing the opposite side. He claims that there is not enough evidence on the media for being the primary source of violence that infects children. He finds several interpretations to each of the research studies that claim that there are negative effects on the exposure to media violence. He makes a point that viewers are not incompetent and that they actively interpret and process violence in the media to know the reality of the violence they viewed.
there is no solid proof that the media causes violence, and although parents do a lot to help and protect their children, there are still some steps that can be taken to protect their children against violent and sexual material. Government intervention not stands for it. Violence starts at home, not on TV or in a computer game. America needs to stand together and fight youth violence and promiscuous sex without taking away the rights of citizens. We all want to help America's youth, but Government intervention (stronger enforcement of existing laws or new legislation) into availability of popular culture media would not help to reduce violence and promiscuous sex among America's
Traditionally, extending federal criminal law and moral legislation reserved to states that revealed many vices of over-criminalization. The common features are excessive unchecked discretion for enforcement authorities and inevitable disparity among similarly situated people. However, other areas of society argue they are against sodomy and same sex marriages because of having traditional views that these laws preserve order in society. Nevertheless, another area certain to bring about argument is gay marriages take away from cultural values and set bad examples to the nation�s youth. Anti-gay groups oppose gay couples adopting children because of having parents of the same sex and this is more harmful than having no parents.
Marriage is the most important social institution, and it is a formality for the perpetuation of procreation; hence same sex marriage cannot meet this requirement. In other words, same sex marriage does not aid in procreation, which sustains our species. Same sex marriage will destroy our society. Some believe that although gay couples cannot produce children, they can have adopted children and fulfill a social need. That may seem like a good idea, but I am sure that there must be differences between a child who grows up in an environment with same sex couples than with regular heterosexual parents.
People against the use of Huckleberry Finn in the schools believe black children are offended by the use of the word “nigger’ anywhere, no matter what the teacher uses to justify it. Equal Protection and opportunity have also been a popular topic in the Huckleberry Finn controversy. Author, Dorothy Gillmam once said, “1st Amendment rights are crucial to a healthy society. No less crucial is the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection under the law” (Leonard 19). The use of the word “nigger” in Huckleberry Finn does not provide black students with equal protection and is in violation of their constitutional rights.
While parents cannot determine whether their children have sex, use contraception, or become pregnant, the quality of their relationships with their children can make a real difference (Miller, 1998). The family unit must be restored. Parental influence focusing on the issues surrounding adolescent sexuality may help many teens from becoming parents at an early age. A variety of factors contribute to teenage pregnancy. The breakdown in American society includes moral and ethical issues.
All things he obviously doesn’t think the gay community is capable of. I thought going into this assignment that if I read the oppositions portion of the debate, it would sway me to want to write this assignment against gay marriage, but I must say I couldn’t stand to read the authors article. Not only was it hard to follow, in my opinion, some of his statements offended me. (AND IM NOT EVEN GAY!) Marriage connects us with our animal origins?
Parents that are ignorant to positive parenting methods resort to violent punishment including physical abuse, humiliation and constant criticism that cause irreparable damage to the future adults of society. The result of incompetent parenting is usually an individual incapable of abiding by societies norms being unleashed on the public. It is the opinion of others that improving the way people parent is unlikely. “Can we influence a behavior that is rooted in upbringing and culture, affected by stress, and occurs mainly in private?” Bornstein goes on to dispute this claim by introducing a parenting system called the Triple P- Positive Parenting Program, funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, developed at the University of Queensland, Australia. “Triple P is one of several evidence-based parenting programs that have demonstrated how society can reduce behaviors that put children at risk” (Bornstein).
Americans today tend to believe that same sex couples are a bad influence on a child’s natural growth. David Hogberg, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, voices his opinion on why he disagrees with same sex adoption by stating that“…families will again expand beyond the traditional structure in which a family is headed by a man and a woman, to now include families being headed by two men or two women.” By this, Hogberg is implying that changes in tradition are bad. I think Hogberg is mistaken, because if that were the case, we’d have nearly none of the innovations we flourish from today. What he, and every other anti-gay-adoption antagonist fail to realize is that homosexuals are not malicious people: they have morals and ideals that can influence children in the best ways possible. Children thrive on love, attention, positivity.