By: age: youth and young adults are generally for ssm the elderly are against or evenly split. Political affiliation: most democrats are in favor, independents slightly less so, republicans are opposed. Religion: conservatives are very strongly opposed religious liberal, progressives, and secularists are in favor main line denominations are split. Geography: the northeast is supportive the west coast is about evenly split the rest of the country is against. Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages. arguments against: religious freedom: for most americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony.

If the definition of marriage is changed to allow ssm, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same sex couples. Children benefit: many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. Teaching about ssm: the role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools.

If ssm is legalized, schools would be required to teach that same sex marriage is equivalent to opposite sex marriage, starting as early as kindergarten. Same sex marriage has lead to increased acceptance of single parenthood and has undermined the institution of marriage in scandinavia. Some people feel that a dying person should have the option to be euthanized to end their time of intense suffering. But is that the right thing to do? should people have the choice to end their own life? what is euthanasia anyway? euthanasia is when a terminally ill patient chooses to end her\his own life by participating in physician assisted suicide. The practise of euthanasia should never be legalized in the uk and should be banned wherever it is presently legal such as belgium, netherlands, and few parts of usa. I think euthanasia either, voluntary, involuntary, or nonvoluntary, direct or indirect is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, let the ill people live as long as they can, maybe there will be a cure for them in the future.

Doctoral Dissertation Assistance Kissinger

Some medical conditions, which were thought to be incurable earlier, can now be cured. These advances in medical technology have made it possible, to completely cure several types of deadly diseases such as pneumonia, malaria, cancer, kidney failure etc. We aren’t giving them a chance to live we are depriving them of hope to recover. Just like the past, the diseases that we might think to be incurable might be completely curable tomorrow. Legalizing such a thing will only persuade more people to give up their courage and will to fight it out. complaining, censorious, and over sensitive, university students are destroying their own institutions.

wait, seriously? people think that? an earlier version of this essay was posted at the blog feministkilljoy what do i mean by against students ? by using this expression i am trying to describe a series of speech acts which consistently position students, or at least specific kinds of students, as a threat to education, to free speech, to civilization, even to life itself. in speaking against students, these speech acts also speak for more or less explicitly articulated sets of values: freedom, reason, education, democracy. Even if that failure is explained as a result of ideological shifts that students are not held responsible for – whether it be neoliberalism, managerialism or a new sexual puritanism – it is in the bodies of students that the failure is located. Students are not transmitting the right message, or are evidence that we have failed to transmit the right message. Students have become an error message, a beep, beep, that is announcing system failure. In describing the problem of how students have become the problem, i analyze some recent writings that seem to be concerned with distinct issues even if they all address the demise of higher education and involve a kind of nostalgia for something that has been, or is being, lost.

I have made the decision to quote from these texts without citing the authors by name. I wish to treat each text as an instance in a wider intertextual web and thus to depersonalise the material. Some of these texts do cite each other, and by evoking the figure of the problem student who travels through this terrain with an accumulating pace and velocity they all participate in the making of a shared world. The problem student is a constellation of related figures: the consuming student, the censoring student, the over sensitive student, and the complaining student. By considering how these figures are related we can explore connections that are being made through them, connections between, for example, neoliberalism in higher education, a concern with safe spaces, and the struggle against sexual harassment. One of my concerns in willful subjects was with the politics of dismissal. I was interested in how various points of view can be dismissed by being swept away or swept up by the charge of willfulness.

So: what protesters are protesting about can be ignored when protesters are assumed to be suffering from too much will they are assumed to be opposing something because they are being oppositional. The figures of the consuming student, censoring student, over sensitive student, and complaining student are also doing something, they are up to something. Different student protests can be dismissed as products of weaknesses of moral character generated by student culture or campus politics and as the cause of a more general decline in values and standards. I too would be critical of how universities are managed as businesses i too would be critical of the transformation of education into a commodity of how students are treated as consumers. I too am aware of the burdens of bureaucracy and how we can end up pushing paper around just to leave a trail. Critiques of neoliberalism can also involve a vigorous sweeping: whatever is placed near the object of critique becomes the object of critique. For example, my empirical research into the university’s new equality regime taught me how equality can be dismissed as a symptom of neo liberalism, as just another mechanism for ensuring academic compliance.

Uk home secretary and minister for women and equality theresa may justified a withdrawal from some of the stated commitments in the 2010 equality act by arguing the law would have been just another bureaucratic box to be ticked. It would have meant more time filling in forms and less time focusing on policies that will make a real difference to people’s life chances. The practitioners i researched in on being included: racism and diversity in institutional life talked of how academics use similar arguments: that these forms and procedures are just another box to be ticked, in order to dismiss the more general relevance of equality to their work a real difference . They can then enact non compliance with equality as a form of resistance to bureaucracy.

Dissertation Services Uk Guidance

Equality becomes something imposed by management, as what would, if taken seriously, constrain life and labor. Whilst we might want to critique how equality is bureaucratized, we need to challenge how that very critique can be used to dismiss equality. He conjures an ideal image of academic life, and not necessarily one that is a past although it lingers or seems that way.

He evokes oxbridge: a time and a place where professors and dons are the ones who get to decide what they are doing and how they spend or allocate their time and resources. He writes, it is the dons who decide how to invest the college’s money, what flowers to plant in their gardens, whose portraits to hang in the senior common room, and how best to explain to their students why they spend more on the wine cellar than on the college library. All important decisions are made by the fellows of the college in full session, and everything from financial and academic affairs to routine administration is conducted by elected committees of academics responsible to the body of fellows as a whole. One of the hardest experiences of my academic career was attending a wine evening at a college in cambridge. I remember sitting there as expensive bottles of wine were opened, one after the other, thinking austerity, realizing in the pit of my stomach, what tightening our belts allowed some not to give up. Note also how critiques of neoliberalism might be masking elitism: a hatred of the masses, and a perception that standards are lowering because of the widening of participation. It is interesting that the specific decisions referred to are how to justify the amount of wine being consumed not whether the wine being consumed can be justified , gardens being planted, and portraits being hung, rather than the content of courses being taught.