On March 1st of this year, the city of Austin made an ordinance banning businesses within city limits to give out single use plastic bags, and instead may charge for bags (must be made of reused materials) or give out paper bags.There are several pros and cons to the ordinance.
Plastic bags are terrible for the environment. They can take from 20-1000 years to degrade, uses a ton of oil to make, ten percent end up in the ocean never to break down, and many are not recycled. The bag ban would lessen Austin's contribution to this issue. Reusable bags are more durable and carry more groceries, and restaurants can still use plastic bags for leftovers and whatnot. It also makes Austin unique and more environmentally sustainable.
However, this raises issues on government interference with daily life. How far is too far when it comes to regulation? Can a city just make a law without putting it through the state legislature? Another con is that if people don't wash their bags, this can lead to e.coli poisoning. Lastly, most people do reuse their plastic bags to line mini trashcans, use them to carry lunches/other things in, etc. Another argument is that it hurts businesses, as paper bags cost more to manufacture than plastic.
So while I support environmental sustainability and embrace using the reusable bags myself, the ordinance raises some questions on government interference and consumer and business rights. I am not sure the bag ban is going to last much longer, as there are already lawsuits pending and many consumer complaints.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Critique on a Classmate's indictment of Homosexuality
I will be critiquing your editorial on homosexuality and gay rights. I will start by pointing out that your article is more of an indictment of homosexuality itself rather than the lawfulness of gay marriage, which has nothing to do with government. For example, you said:
"When I watching “This Week,” I was simply dumbfounded when Karl Rove said that he could actually see the next REPUBLICAN president supporting homosexuality!! Never in a million years would I have imagined this world coming to this."
This is in no way evidence or logical reasoning against gay marriage, and is a clear example of homophobia outright.
Regardless, gay marriage should be legal. In the Loving v. Virginia case of interracial marriage in 1967, it was decided that the laws banning interracial marriage be struck down. Chief Justice Earl Warren and the rest of the justices came to the decision that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). To deny gays the right to marry is basically saying they are not equal to straights, and goes against the the fundamental concept of the Declaration of Independence.
Most arguments against gay marriage are that it would desecrate the sanctity of marriage, the slippery slope argument, and lessen procreation. First off, marriage is not so sanctimonious these days, with the 50% divorce rate. And if the sanctity of marriage was grounds for the banning of marriage, wouldn't atheists not be able to marry? Or interfaith marriages? If gay marriage was legal, churches would still have the right to refuse marrying gay couples if so desired. Secondly, many argue that allowing gay marriage would open the floodgates to bestiality, incestual marriage, and polygamy. This is easily disputable. Allowing two people who love each other who are in a safe, healthy relationship does not hurt anyone, unlike bestiality or incest. Third, many argue that marriage is for procreation. If this was the case, older couples and sterile couples shouldn't have the right to marry either, as pointed out by Supreme Court Justice Kagan. This is absurd of course. Also, many gays have and start families through surrogates and in vitro fertilization. Children of gay families turn out just as well-adjusted as children of straight families, such as myself. It would also make it easier for gays to adopt.
If we allowed gay marriage, it would actually strengthen the institution of family. More weddings means more money into the economy. Gay couples could finally have the same legal benefits as straight couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. And finally, giving gays the right to marry would lessen the unfair discrimination they receive.
My parents have been together for over 15 years, have a total of 6 kids, live in a nice neighborhood, and are committed to each other. They also happen to be a gay couple. They did not choose to be gay, that is just who they are. They have been waiting over 15 years and they deserve the right to receive the same benefits as straight couples.
"When I watching “This Week,” I was simply dumbfounded when Karl Rove said that he could actually see the next REPUBLICAN president supporting homosexuality!! Never in a million years would I have imagined this world coming to this."
This is in no way evidence or logical reasoning against gay marriage, and is a clear example of homophobia outright.
Regardless, gay marriage should be legal. In the Loving v. Virginia case of interracial marriage in 1967, it was decided that the laws banning interracial marriage be struck down. Chief Justice Earl Warren and the rest of the justices came to the decision that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia). To deny gays the right to marry is basically saying they are not equal to straights, and goes against the the fundamental concept of the Declaration of Independence.
Most arguments against gay marriage are that it would desecrate the sanctity of marriage, the slippery slope argument, and lessen procreation. First off, marriage is not so sanctimonious these days, with the 50% divorce rate. And if the sanctity of marriage was grounds for the banning of marriage, wouldn't atheists not be able to marry? Or interfaith marriages? If gay marriage was legal, churches would still have the right to refuse marrying gay couples if so desired. Secondly, many argue that allowing gay marriage would open the floodgates to bestiality, incestual marriage, and polygamy. This is easily disputable. Allowing two people who love each other who are in a safe, healthy relationship does not hurt anyone, unlike bestiality or incest. Third, many argue that marriage is for procreation. If this was the case, older couples and sterile couples shouldn't have the right to marry either, as pointed out by Supreme Court Justice Kagan. This is absurd of course. Also, many gays have and start families through surrogates and in vitro fertilization. Children of gay families turn out just as well-adjusted as children of straight families, such as myself. It would also make it easier for gays to adopt.
If we allowed gay marriage, it would actually strengthen the institution of family. More weddings means more money into the economy. Gay couples could finally have the same legal benefits as straight couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. And finally, giving gays the right to marry would lessen the unfair discrimination they receive.
My parents have been together for over 15 years, have a total of 6 kids, live in a nice neighborhood, and are committed to each other. They also happen to be a gay couple. They did not choose to be gay, that is just who they are. They have been waiting over 15 years and they deserve the right to receive the same benefits as straight couples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)