Allowing Same Sex Marriage in Malaysia

Allowing Same Sex Marriage in Malaysia Marriage normally brings together men and women who complement each other in extraordinary ways (Willard and Harley, n. d.). However, there is an existence of another form of marriage which is a same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is legally and socially defined as marriage between two adults of the same gender identity or biological sex (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014). In the earlier century such as ancient Egypt, the marriage between two persons of same gender was encouraged (Altergott, 2012). At that time, attraction between two people with same sexuality is normal and it is considered as an action to express love. In late twentieth century, legalization of this form of marriage becomes a wide debated issue in many nations. However, there are around seventeen countries has approved the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide such as Netherlands which is the first country to offer marriage equality (Pew Research Center, 2013). As of May 2014 in America, same-sex marriage has been legalized in the following states such as Massachusetts, New York, Washington and Delaware (Gay Marriage, 2014). In addition, both Vietnam and Thailand became the first Southeast Asian countries that allow and accept gay marriages but Malaysia is far from adopting the similar accepting attitude to this issue (Michelle, 2013). The issues on religious beliefs and adopted children are the common reason of opponents to affirm their stand. Despite there are some arguments that against gay marriage, there are some reasons that our country and nationwide should consider seriously on the issue of allowing gay couples the equal right of marriage. People usually condemn same-sex marriage based on their religious beliefs. However, it is morally wrong to discriminate homosexual couples solely based on their sexual orientations. In fact, eliminating the right of homosexual couples to get marriage is meant to denying the healthy relationships among gay communities. Therefore, same-sex marriage should be allowed for protecting the right of same-sex couples although there are many arguments against it. Legally allowing gay marriage in our society is able to give basic human right as well as freedom for those who have same-sex orientation based on their behavior preference. The equality principle of human rights is meant by the availability of civil marriage without discrimination to all couple (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012). Therefore, the right to marriage should be given to everyone as long as that kind of marriage does not hurt anyone. One of the civil right is pursuing the happiness but happiness unable to be chased by homosexual communities when people denying gay marriage (Delano, 2013). In this situation, couples with same gender have no right to marry with the person they love and this is obvious that unequal right of marriage may violate their freedom. In fact, no one should have the right to choose the partner for marriage of other people because this is also morally wrong to eliminate the right of marriage for two people who feel affection for one another. Furthermore, allowing gay couples the right to marry in a legal way is able to foster true freedom of religion (Corner, 2014). Many people are not willing to accept gay marriage as they believe that this form of marriage is morally wrong in their religious belief. However, this is a violation of the true freedom that should be deserved by everyone. In the view of religion, everyone should have the right to get married with the one they love regardless of gender, race or other social category (Faith in America, n.d.). However, banning the gay marriage is actually against the natural and original principles of religious belief. People should be given the right to stay together with another one by concerning on the condition that they will contribute their true love to each other, regardless of sexuality. Therefore, it is no reason to ban the gay marriage based on the religion beliefs. Also, giving the right of marriage for same-sex couples can promote social equality. When gay marriage or same-sex union is in force, this can directly eliminate the minority discrimination towards gay and lesbian. So, this will automatically increase the societal acceptance towards this form of marriage. Based on the statistics, public support to same-sex marriage has risen 8% from the year which gay marriage was first legalized in United States (Saad, 2012). By allowing gay marriage, people will learn to accept and understand the real nature of homosexuality. Therefore, this will able to help in reducing social misunderstanding over the definition of same-gender relationship. Also, permitting gay communities the right to marriage is meant to allow them the right to deserve their dignity and respect. Since everyone has their own dignity, people should not treat gay couples unfairly but respect should be shown to them anytime to prevent them to believe that they are inferior and not worthy to be treated equally. So, this will directly reduce the social stress faced by the gay couples by showing true equality to gay couples in society. In addition, marriage equality will allow gay couples to enjoy benefits and protection legally. Everyone should be treated equal regardless sexuality. By allowing them the right of marriage, gay couples are able to access government benefits and protections of the law which is same with the heterosexual communities (Nolo Law, 2014). Additionally, marriage equality may integrate homosexual individuals into the community. This allows government to provide well protection and benefits to them in an easier way to prevent this community to be treated unfairly in society such the housing benefits and insurance protections to their partner. A strong sense of belonging of gay and lesbian to community can be built with the benefits and support given by government. This is will lead the homosexual couples to be more motivated to make contribution to the society. This is also a cornerstone to create a stable society. Allowing same-sex marriage also can reduce social misunderstanding towards this form of marriage by insisting the right concept on this issue to the people. The ideas of society which think that gay relationships are shallow and uncommitted are inaccurate. Therefore, allowing gay marriage is able to reduce such form of harm to the gay and lesbian. In fact, the unstable relationship is just like in the straight society, where such relationships will also exists but this is merely occupied the minority part within gay communities and exist primarily among the young people (Bidstrup, n.d.). As we know, the relationship will last longer and become more stable as people getting aged and becoming more mature. This natural scenario not only exists within heterosexual communities but also the homosexual communities. So, gay couples should not be denied to marry with the reason of they build shallow and uncommitted relationships all the time. Other than that, allowing gay marriage is able to overcome the problem of misunderstanding over the nature of homosexual relationship. Over the years, people always consider homosexuality as a form of deviant sexual behavior (Messerli, 2009). However, there is a statement about homosexual relationships have existed for around 600 years according to the historical evidence (Bryner, 2007). Also, people always misunderstand that sexual orientation is a choice so that gay and lesbian are able to reform their same-sex orientation to be an opposite-sex anytime they want. However, many researches were being done for proving that there is a biological causation for homosexuality. Scientists stated that the sexual orientation is congenital and unable to be altered (Law Teacher, n. d.). That means if an individual is born to be gay, they cannot made any changes on their sexual orientation. So, it is not fair to treat them in a different way as this is not their choice to be different. Permitting same-sex marriage in a legal way can also improve the health of gay, lesbian and bisexual community. In contrast, banning the same-sex marriage is able to damage the health of those who are identified as sexual minority (Schwecherl, 2013). This decrease both physical and mental related health risk in gay communities. In term of physical health, allowing gay marriage in a legal way may reduce sexually transmitted diseases by discouraging the promiscuous sex. According to the research of scientists, there is an obvious improvement of heath by legalizing same-sex marriage. This is because medical visits about physical problems among homosexual individuals has significantly decreased associated with the reduce in healthcare cost in the twelve months following the change in marriage law as compared to the twelve months before the changes made (Hatzenbuehler et.al., 2012). In addition, allowing gay marriage in a legal way may bring a lot of health benefit regarding the mental health. Since marriage allow couples to become happier they can stay together with the one they love, marriage equality should be promoted to allow the same-gender couples to pursue their happiness (Anderson, n. d.). In addition, unwed people seems less mature in thought and less concern about their discipline. This leads them to be more likely to take some unnecessary risks. So, the homosexual marriage should be promoted to allow same-sex individuals to marry as married people often consider the feeling of their partner before taking risky actions since they are committed to take care of their partner. In addition, since allowing gay marriage is able to reduce or even eliminate the social discrimination, married individuals will less likely to deal with problems of psychological health includes depression (Hatzenbuehler, et. al., 2012). Mental health among sexual minority also ca n be reduced as they can share their problem to each other and they can solve the problem together. On the other hand, there are opponents who argue that allowing same-sex marriage will destroy traditional family values in our society. They always affirm that marriage will only make sense when it happens between opposite-sex couples and allowing this form of marriage will merely alter the natural definition of marriage. Besides, opponents also have considerations about the right given for gay to marriage will directly reduce the normal rates of reproduction. They believe that gay couples are will directly affect the future reproduction level since they do not have the ability of having own children. Opponents argue that allowing same-sex marriage will increase the health risk of gay couples and the heterosexual communities as well. They think that allowing gay marriage will lead to highly promiscuous and bring many related diseases though same-sex couples demonstrate that homosexuality will not harm anyone by trying to segregate their behavior from such diseases (Slick, n.d.). Allowing gay couple the right to marriage will also help in improving their family stability. This is able to promote children well-being in many aspects (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013). Since children represent the future of the nation, their development should be supported by the society regardless of whom they are parented by. Nowadays, there are about six millions of children are being raised or adopted in households led by gay couples in America (Gates, 2013). However, there are many of them who adopt children are prohibited to get marry legally and this leads the children who are raised by gay couples to be disadvantaged. The lacking of support for gay families denies children within these families the same protections which are afforded by children in heterosexual families. Therefore, this will mislead the children within gay families to believe that their parents are inferior who are not worthy to be treated equally in society. Also, this can avoid the family members o f gay community to be adversely affected. This is because lack of opportunity for gay couples to marry family will add family stress within it. Giving the right of marriage to gay couples can increase the social acceptance and prevent impacts caused on the health and welfare of all household members. Also, the close bond if kinship will be formed by people with a more committed relationship as they are interdependence to each other. So, this definitely will stabilize a family. Therefore, allowing gay marriage can help to support the family stability within gay communities by addressing this injustice. With deeper understanding over gay marriage, it can be known that allowing gay marriage may also bring financial gain or income to government and the society. One of the benefits in term of financial that brought to government and society is the increasing in tax revenue on marriage licenses and tax revenue on sales of wedding items (Ramos et. al., 2009). Since everyone will spend money on their wedding ceremony, this will definitely boost the domestic economic within a gay marriage legalized state. Since permitting same-sex marriage may discourage promiscuous sexual activities and decrease the sexually transmitted illness, it may also reduce the costs of organizing healthy program and campaign. As the marriage equality is able to resolve the problem of psychological health within gay communities, this will also improve their abilities and performance of job which is good for any business and employers. As we know that married couples are happier and become more optimistic and energe tic than singles, they will be more productive. Therefore, this allows them to be more concentrate in doing their works. By an indirectly way, this can improve the business competitiveness and economic conditions within our country. It is also obvious that allowing same-sex marriage does not harm the opposite-sex marriages and communities as well as the traditional family values. This is because society will continue to function well with the existence of gay marriage. There is no proximity between implementation of same sex marriage laws and rates of opposite sex marriage (Ferro, 2013). There is a research of United States recognize that there is no significant changes in rates of opposite-sex marriage as compared the rates after and before the legalization of same-sex marriage (Diebold, 2013). This means same-sex marriage does not bringing down the venerated institution of marriage. Allowing this form of marriage will not alter any previous set legal framework of the marriage institution as gay couples will accept to the same duties that are currently imposed on married opposite-sex couples (Mormons for Marriage, 2014). Apart from that, people always condemn that gay marriage is exposed at high divorce rate as the relationship between gay couples is uncommitted. In fact, divorce rates do not correlate directly with gay marriage. This is because data shows that divorce rate in the states such as Massachusetts that allow marriage equality is lower than in states that gay marriage is not recognized (Aldridge, 2012). Also, decreasing reproduction rates which always condemn by heterosexual communities towards same-sex couples is not only caused by same-sex marriage but also infertile couples. Since infertile couples are still gaining the equal right of marriage, gay marriage should not be the exception. In conclusion, same-sex marriage should be allowed and accepted by government and society since it is uncivilized and unmerited but it promotes the social equality in the way that it does not harm anyone. However, it must be controlled under strictly regulations to protect the equally welfare of both homosexual and heterosexual communities. Therefore, in order to allow the gay marriage by not affecting the other communities, governments should be take a more serious view on the legislation of this form of marriage to ensure the basic human right of everyone being protected. Educational programs should also be supported and developed to change the social view towards this issue.

Mansfield Park, the novel, or Mansfield Park the film? Essay -- essays

There have been many adaptations of Jane Austen's books over the years; all six of her novels have been made into films or television dramas with varying degrees of success, from the classics of Persuasion, Pride & Prejudice and Sense & Sensibility, to the funny modern version of Emma in the form of Clueless. In this paper I want to show how director Patricia Rozema has made Austen's novel Mansfield Park much more modern, accessible, and, as some claim, radical, by skipping parts of the story that would make the film version drag, and importing events and dialogue that have significance into scenes, often created by Rozema, that are more appealing. There is always controversy whether a Jane Austen masterpiece can be adequately conveyed through the medium of film. It has been said that ‘seeing a movie or television adaptation of any of Jane Austen's works is like hearing a symphony of Mozart played on a harmonica’ which suggests that the adaptations are cheapened by the filmmakers and sometimes wildly misinterpreted. Andrew Wright says that many adaptations of Austen's work are made to ‘entice the demi-literate or those of presumably short attention span.’ This is the criticism that faced director Patricia Rozema with her film version of Mansfield Park, which states the very start that the film is only loosely based on the film, but also draws inspiration from the early journals and letters of Jane Austen. There are two schools of thought on the adaptation of Jane Austen's novels, whether they are beneficial or not. It is clear that Rozema’s version of the film makes it more accessible to viewers . M. Casey Diana has experimented on Austen adaptations with her class group: ‘She divided her students into two groups; one read Sense and Sensibility first and then saw the Thompson/Lee film, the other saw the movie first and then read the book†¦the first group had a hard time comprehending (never mind responding on any deeply imaginative level to it), and both groups used the movie as a "gateway" into the book or an explanation afterwards. The film version certainly gives us a more vivid view of the story, especially in scenes set in Fanny’s Portsmouth home, where we can see the squalor you end up in when you marry for love. The film is also more poignant on the issues of slavery and abuse of human rights. I am referring to the wailing Fanny hea... ... and other Film/Video adaptations http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/jabbcvid.html 01 May 2005 Wright, Andrew Jane Austen Adapted Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 30, No. 3, Jane Austen 1775-1975. (Dec., 1975), pp. 421-453.Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0029-0564%28197512%2930%3A3%3C421%3AJAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U Diana's "Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility as Gateway to Austen's Novel: A Pedagogical Experiment," http://www.jimandellen.org/austen/janeausten.onfilm.html 31 April 2005 Elley, Derek http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=upsell_review&reviewID=VE1117752061&cs=1 Posted: Mon., Aug. 30, 1999, 01 May 2005 Bezanson, David 05/05/04 http://movieweb.com/movies/reviews/review.php?film=1386&review=2451 02 May 2005 Martin, Melissa. SparkNote on Mansfield Park. 2 May. 2005 . Bezanson, David 05/05/04 http://movieweb.com/movies/reviews/review.php?film=1386&review=2451 02 May 2005 Martin, Melissa. SparkNote on Mansfield Park. 2 May. 2005 . Romero,C. Antonio Culturekiosque movie reviews NEW YORK, 31 December 1999 - http://www.culturekiosque.com/nouveau/cinema/rhemansfld.html http://www.haro-online.com/movies/mansfield_park.html 01 May 2005

Heating the World

Introduction: The community considered Tucker very fortunate for his marriage, and so did Tucker, nevertheless he had no knowledge of modern women and the marriage had bought changes he had not predicted. This is a statement made early in the short story â€Å"Heating the world† written by Owen Marshall. This story is set in a rural Northern area of the South Island. The story is a fiction piece classified under social genre, it is also written in third person, so it is narrated from an on-lookers perspective rather than a personal perspective.This lets the reader develop their own thoughts on the characters and view the ideas in which the writer may be trying to convey. An Idea that is developed throughout the short story is that marriage can bring unpredictable change to a typical rural bachelor. This idea is portrayed through Tucker’s conversations about his new wife to â€Å"Neville O’Doone his counsel in such things†. Tuckers views on life and finance , what he thinks are Justifiable purchases and why are also ways of showing the idea before and after marriage.The idea is also conveyed through Tucker’s views on the introduction of new food, fashion and modern life’s necessities. At the beginning of the short story we get an idea of where Tucker is in his life. Tucker recently married at forty two after having been one of the last bachelors in his district to marry shortly after his mother had passed away. Before marriage Tucker had done for himself and lived in â€Å"traditional rural simplicity rather than poverty†. His financial priorities were focused on things for the farm which were â€Å"natural expenses of life†.So it made his life very unsettled becoming newly married when his wife started to spend money. Tucker found her purchases unjustifiable. Quote: â€Å"to buy a new lampshade or replace the kitchen lino for reason of colour co-ordination would no more enter his head than to dine at the V ictor Hugo restaurant in town when he had food in his own home. A four and half thousand dollar skeet gun on the other hand, or an irrigation mule at twenty thousand, were perfectly justifiable purchases. † This quote shows that marriage has bought up issues that Tucker wouldn’t have changed himself previously because they weren’t initially important.It also shows that Tucker was cautious with his money before marriage even though initially he didn’t have to be (Farm worth about half a million on a bad day). Another statement made in the text about Tucker was that â€Å"At the tables of his married friends he developed a taste for lasagne and apple strudel† The reader can see that his traditional life has changed and that perhaps he always expected to have home cooked meals once married. Therefore showing unpredictable change when Tuckers wife starts to buy new things for the house and is starting to introduce Tucker to the finer things in life, suc h as dining out.During the story we view the dialogue between Tucker and Neville during which Tucker first seeks advice from his friend. Tucker approaches the conversation by addressing Neville’s wife and asking if she likes soap. This is where Tucker starts to voice his concerns about how many â€Å"soaps† there are in the bathroom. â€Å"I counted seven along the bath last night, and all partly used. † The thought that there are so many different types of products available has Tucker in a state of confusion, it also has Neville come to the conclusion of why it may confuse Tucker who had only one bar of yellow soap in his bathroom before marriage.The reader will begin to see that this new lifestyle is becoming hard for Tucker to makes sense of after so many years of living his simple bachelor lifestyle. Tucker also states that â€Å"We’ve put in a shower as well. † This shows the development of the idea because the text shows the reaction of Tuck er to new changes. This shows that Tucker could not predict such changes and was surprised and slightly unprepared for such change to happen after he was married. Again throughout the whole short story we see Tucker’s reactions to being introduced to modern life’s new necessities such as food, clothing and renovation.The first reaction was to all the types of soaps in the bathroom and a need for a shower. Explained in the previous paragraph. Tuckers introduction to new fruits was stated when he again was expressing his concern to his friend Neville. Tucker couldn’t believe that you buy fruit because all his life he had grown it in their own orchard, â€Å"now the whole crop lies beneath the trees in the orchard for the wasps and the birds†. He also exclaimed the fact that they quite often had fruit in the bowl, â€Å"but the thing is, see, that it often goes off before its eaten and has to be thrown out†.The whole concept of produce being purchased and wasted was poisonous to Tucker. Along with the fact that his wife kept buying him new clothes and that his new daughters had a pants draw each was incredible! (Considering he now has 3 daughters). Tucker was accustomed to having as stated â€Å"three pairs of underpants-one to wear, one to wash and one to change into. † This shows the simple life he previously had and the unpredicted change which now seemed to bother him once he had become married.

How The Theory Of Civic Engagement Can Be Used For Create...

Discussion The following section will examine several case studies to highlight concrete examples of how the theory of civic engagement can be used to create successful and sustainable collaborations between museums and the communities they serve. Case Study 1: Developing Exhibit Programming at Carnegie Museum of Natural History The case study of the preparation of the arrival of the traveling exhibit Race: Are We so Different? by the Carnegie Museum of Natural History (Cole 2014) demonstrates how this approach of institutional capacity to create, sustain, and nourish relationships with community members can be achieved successfully beyond the realm of theory. Specifically, this case lends insight into how the surrounding community can†¦show more content†¦As for the institution itself, the museum saw this exhibition as a step toward larger institutional changes. They recognized that they primarily serve a white middle class audience. For Carnegie, this exhibit and hopefully the programming accompanying it would help the museum to become more diverse, inclusive, and diversify the demographics of their audiences. Carnegie formed a community advisory board composed of already invested community members. Then using these connections, advisory board members connected the museum staff with â€Å"on-the-ground† community and public service workers, following along the lines of Jackson’s (2008) argument for â€Å"on-the-ground† research, to help develop programming for the Race exhibit. What this meant was working with local and regional public service workers whose jobs are to engage with â€Å"cultural inclusion, race equity, and community organizing† on a daily basis (Cole 2014:57). In addition, the museum team was educated on both sides of the debate surrounding race as well as bringing in outside experts to lead presentations and other programming, showcasing the museum’s willingness to learn rather than their need to be experts. Staff (particularly docents) was trained on how to help visitors navigate the difficult topic of race and how to engage with visito rs on the topic. While Carnegie was