Yara M. Banna

English 203

Ms. Dania Adra

24 October 2015

Gay Marriage

            “Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists a compelling enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage” (Normandin). Gay marriage has been a very controversial issue in the past few decades. In fact, homosexuality has always been considered as some sort of taboo. There have been many arguments against the Same-Sex marriage, but the arguments in the article written by Ryan Normandin were slightly different. And since I have a very doubtful personality, I’ve made it my mission to refute his argument. According to Ryan, gay marriage shall not be legalized because “states have laws regulating marriage, forbidding first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals”. In his opinion, marriage should be a marriage that benefits the state by what he called “procreation”; something gay marriage does not provide. Allowing myself to be a bit aggressive, I shall argue that first, allowing same-sex marriage does not imply a social deterioration towards allowing marriage between siblings, animals, etc. Allowing gay marriage simply aims to giving homosexuals the access to the same marriage laws as any heterosexual couple. I would like to shed the light on the weakness of the “procreation” argument. Many heterosexual couples refrain from reproducing, but they are still granted their rights in marriage. Marriage is an institution that units two humans under the name of love. Marriage is not a factory that produces children! After all, marriage is only a societal institution, the natural world did not create marriage; humans did. That is why all humans should be granted that right.

            In his article, Ryan also includes another argument which is concerned with the wellbeing of the children that are going to be raised by the married homosexual couple. He says, “Regarding families where the father is absent, research by University of Canterbury professor Bruce J. Ellis has shown that, “greater exposure to father absence was strongly associated with elevated risk for early sexual activity and adolescent pregnancy”.” For the sake of a healthy upbringing, parents from different sexes is crucial. It is very important for children, especially during their complicated Libido stages to have a mother and a father to guide them healthily through it. This does not question the eligibility of a homosexual couple, but it’s just the way it is. “An increasing body of evidence shows that it is indeed more advantageous for children to grow up having both a mother and a father.” I fully agree with this argument because “we cannot put the “enhanced happiness” that same-sex couples would get from raising a child above the well-being of that child.”

 Article Here!

                                

Works Cites

Normandin, Ryan. "Gay Marriage Should Not Be Made Legal - The Tech." The Tech. 6 July 2011. Web. 24 Oct. 2015.

Doubting/Believing

Batool Elhage

English 203 

Dr. Dania Adra

23rd October 2015 

Mercy Killing 

           Euthanasia is composed of two Greek words meaning “Good Death”. Which is referred as mercy killing in English. They argue that there is mercy and good in killing in some cases. But the question is how do you decide and what are you standards for allowing it? Some people consider it acceptable for ill adults, but not for children. Well, you’re not being any better than Hitler when he used to kill who wasn’t mentally and physically healthy enough. As you see those standards will differ from one person to another. In addition, you’re not the one that gave the life, then you’re not allowed to take it away. Referring to the text “You should be allowed to choose how you want to end your life.”, then why suicide is considered to be a sled-crime, isn’t the one committing it choosing the way he wants to die. Also, since when giving up was a way of dying in dignity as stated in the text “right to die in dignity”. This has nothing to do with dignity. Instead, it is an act of losing hope and giving up. People should always keep trying and enrich their lives with hope because no one knows what happens. Miracles do exist.

           Moreover, I do feel bad for the patient’s family, especially for the ones suffering severely, as they do also feel part of the pain “To see your close ones suffering is not an easy situation to handle.” and that will sure exhaust the patient. Maybe by giving up they’ll be relieving the suffering, “It is a practice of ending the life of a person or animal in a painless or minimally painful way for merciful reasons usually to end the suffering of a patient before death.” Anyway, the pain will stop one day. It’s just a matter of time.

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/medical-law/should-mercy-killing-be-legalised-medical-law-essay.php

Work Cited:

Copyright © 2003 - 2015 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales.

Doubting/Believing

Ahmad Rifai

Professor D. Adra

English 203

October 21, 2015

Doubting/Believing

Video gaming is slow becoming an integral part in our young generations lives, internet cafe’s have become a sort of a social center for children and adults alike to go and enjoy playing the games they love while socializing. One of the most popular genre of games played in these social hubs are action games such as counter strike, call of duty, and GTA. All these popular violent video games eventually sprung up heated controversy between people saying they do make children more aggressive, and others saying they don’t. Brad Busman argues that playing an excess amount of violent video games, along with other mental and social problems can create a bad cocktail that would damage young teens such as Aaron Alexis, and turn them into killers. I personally do not believe this is true. If anything playing video games, violent or non-violent, could be the only escape young teens such as Aaron have from their problems. It gives them something to enjoy in their life and to help ease their mind from whats happening around them. Video games are known to help stimulate the reward system in your brain when ever you achieve something or do something impressive in a game, this reward system would make you feel happy and at ease and could even boost your self esteem.

But what i do have to agree about with the author is that playing violent video games can make the player tend to be a little more aggressive, but of course not to the point of committing a mass murder. Ive personally noticed how playing some games such as GTA would make me a little more angry towards problems in my life, but of course it wouldn't make me go all psycho and wish to kill everything. Even with mental illness and problems I do not believe that playing any of these video games would make a person do what Aaron did.

Work Cited:

Bushman, Brad. "Opinion: Do Violent Video Games Play a Role in Shootings? - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Death Penalty

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/22/opinion/blecker-death-penalty/

Hikmat Nassour

English 203

Mrs Dania Adra

21 october, 2016

        Death Penalty is a very controversial topic in the present day when almost nothing can be hidden from the public, and where human rights activists are present in every corner of the world to tell the stories of those who cannot tell it themselves. I disagree with Robert Blecker where he says, “No matter how vicious the crime, no matter how vile the criminal, some death penalty opponents feel certain that nobody can ever deserve to die.” Blecker should tell that to the murderer, perhaps before he kills his next victim. One cannot simply overgeneralize this way because there is no limit to how vicious a crime may be, it could be worse than imaginable and who are we to decide that the person who caused this deserves to live? Perhaps his death would do well to humanity. Blecker ends his article with, “We, the People will find a constitutional way to do it.” Perhaps an alternative should be found before death penalty gets completely abolished.

          On the other hand, there is little or no doubt that justice systems around the world try to be fair, however, the word “crime” is relative; in some countries insulting a leader would make you deserving of death in the eyes of the law. Furthermore, there are many instances whereby the punished (jailed, for example) turns out to be innocent. The article mentions the Boston Bombings, now how sure are we thatTsarnaev, the teenager was the culprit? We can never be fully sure, and giving him the death penalty in that case would be a huge injustice. Also, many may argue that race plays an enormous role in courts of law where the accused may be judged by his colour or background. If Tsarnaev was not Asian, would it be harder to believe that he was behind the Boston Bombings? There is no way to remedy the occasional mistake that results in the execution of innocents. What can the court do when this is discovered? What will they tell the family? People will no longer trust the law. In addition, death penalty does not deter crime, in the US, states that have the death penalty had higher crime rates than states that did not. When death penalty is applied, the family of the criminal pays the price, they are traumatized yet they are innocent. The death penalty does not help the family of the victim either; it does not bring back their family member and does not end their pain- itonly pays to encourage revenge.

Work Cited:

Blecker, Robert. "With death penalty, let punishment truly fit the crime". CNN. Web. August 22 2013. 

Legalizing Drugs, A Benefit or A Curse?

Ali Shibli

Ms. Dania Adra

English 203

21 October 2015

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/28/war-on-drugs-no-victory

 Legalizing Drugs, A Benefit or A Curse?

               The debate over legalizing drugs has been taking over throughout the world in the past several decades. Nevertheless, various countries granted this as a right for people to possess, and legalized it within its borders. As a matter of fact, “Danny Kushlick”, the political activist and founder of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, argues through his article "The War on Drugs has Brought Only Casualties" for changing the methods used to conquer illegal drug usage and replacing it by alternative solutions, of which is legalizing drugs and having it under control. I quiet disagree with this voice, for it implies harmful effects on the society and the globe as a whole entity. Despite the fact that drugs are being used extensively throughout the world whether legally or illegally, legalizing them would increase the percentage of this usage which in time turns to abuse usage. Bearing in mind the impact of drugs on our bodies from symptoms of sickness, depression, liver and kidney problems, and way to mental and psychological hazards that some cases have up to now no treatment makes it difficult to accept the idea of legalizing drugs. In addition, drugs are known to implement in our bodies, penetrate through our sub consciousness and generate a desire for more and more. I wonder whether the governments of the countries that legalized drugs were aware of the consequences. Ever since that policy rose, the rate of crimes increased, people abused drugs and suffered its side-effects, and hospitals were overweight with patients from several situations… A study shows that 59 people died of Marijuana (used in drugs) over dose in Colorado and Washington after legalization within weeks; a ratio that is at its own a good evidence on the gravity of this issue.

                Yet, Danny Kushlick had some light in his argument. He articulated that the enforcement-led approaches to control drug usage are producing rather negative results than positive ones. It is an obligation that systems update and pertain alternative methods to cure the problem. But to solve any problem completely you must find a solution that does not generate other problems. To generalize this fact, legalizing drugs is not a good solution for the problem, rather, it generates various other problems; of which are mentioned above. Governments, however, as Kushlick claims, shall find the alternatives and reduce the negative effects of the so-called “unintended consequences” that the UNODC faces.

 

Work cited:

Kushlick, Professor Danny. "The War on Drugs has Brought Only Casualties". The Guardian N.p. Thursday 28 June 2012 13.12 BST. <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/28/war-on-drugs-no-victory>.

 

 

Doubting/Believing

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/the-charlie-hebdo-massacre-in-paris.html?_r=0

Farah Al Bayaa 

Professor Dania Adra 

ENG 203 

The Freedom of Speech Reconsidered 

In its facile definition, the freedom of speech is the right to express and communicate ones opinion without the fear of censorship or the government. It is the right of every human being to express their opinions and beliefs; article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.” However, what if the right to express became the right to abuse? Will it still be acceptable? The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris is an illustrative example of the freedom of speech reconsidered. 

In contrast to the articles content, I believe that the Cartoon photos of the Prophet Muhammad were indeed an offense to 1.2 billion Muslim believers around the world; the fact that Islam has been a volcanic topic for the past several years, any act towards Muslims was considered an act of offense. Hence, it became a dilemma between free speech and hate speech. In opposition to what President Francois Hollande stated;  “the massacre was “an assault on “the expression of freedom” that is the “spirit of the republic”, offensiveness does not qualify freedom of speech. Additionally, the New York Times article stated that the leader of the National Front party Marine Le Pen “sought political advantage with talk of “denial and hypocrisy” about “Islamic fundamentalism.” yet one cannot overgeneralize the attack on other muslims who are against violence, hence using the massacre as a way to worsen the image of Muslims and deliberately anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism is unacceptable for two muslim men died protecting the people during the Charlie Hebdo massacre. 

Despite my strong argument against the above topic, offensive images do not justify the murder of innocent victims. As the New York Times stated 11 people were wounded and 10 were killed; no act in the world should justify murdering innocent lives, people can use multilateral alternatives such as protesting their opinions peacefully instead of resorting to attacks and shedding blood on the streets of Paris. Additionally, as the article stated people linked the attack to 9/11 and started using the slogan “Je suis Charlie” which can be justified as an act of fear towards a new terrorist atmosphere; although the numbers of deaths between the two incidents and incomparable, the Charlie Hebdo Massacre was a clear international resemblance to the 9/11 attacks it initiated a international outcry for help. 

Work cited: 

“The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris.” The New York Times. 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” UN news center. UN. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

Gun Control

Gun control in The USA

This text argues that roughening the population’s access to guns will not reduce the seemingly high number of firearms related deaths that got up to 33,636 in 2013 according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is stated that “passing more gun control laws” won’t solve this problem well I strongly disagree. In the US on average 88.9 people over 100 have guns; this is undoubtedly an astonishing ratio, I believe since a lot posses guns that they will more likely tend to violence to resolve their problems: this explains the elevated number of mass shootings occurring in the country for this reason the government should limit the access to guns to a strict minimum, since inevitably the more guns laying around the more hazardous the situation becomes. Next the text claims the possession on guns by law-abiding residents helps reduce the number of deaths in an attack by “apprehending the shooter” well you wouldn’t need that if in the first place this mentally unstable person wasn’t able to procure himself a firearm. On another note, this article showed that “non-gun related homicides in the US is three times higher than in England” thus proving Americans are more violent but this is clearly reason enough to make sure they don’t get armed; the author wanting to prove a point ended up contradicting his own principal claim.

         Now looking at the text in an alternative way we can see that it shapes some logical arguments. There is no way of “extinguishing” this gun supply since they will always find a way to manage the illegal selling of weapons that will be added a great list of illegally vended merchandise. Also it is impossible to “confiscate” all guns owned and if not prevent people from entering guns to a “gun-free” environment for example the high school mentioned where a shooting went down was banning the entry of weaponries. Besides we can all approve that “dangerous people” will eternally find a manner to acquire lethal weapons by means of “stealing or borrowing” as it is declared and we need to make an effort to deal with these “unstable personalities”. And finally we can see the logic one of his key arguments about gun owning individuals who will seek to stop an assailant since the fact of carrying a gun will make them more confident in themselves.

Work cited

Wilson, James Q. “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer.” LATimes.com. Los Angeles Times, 20 Apr 2007. Web. 13 July 2014.