Casual Stories

There is a lot of casual discussion about the separate issues that religion plays a part in, while maybe not maybe not as a whole, there are a lot of conversations about gay marriage, and sex education is often on the political agenda. The news often has a story about abstinence only education or teen pregnancy. Evolution vs. Creation discussions are less common because the issue is less divisive. The divisiveness of the issue often determines the frequency of discussion. Based on the prop 8 vote in California people are fairly split on gay marriage, and as a result a lot of casual stories

Data

"The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge." This statistic shows the ineffectiveness of abstinence only education. A type of education that continues to be taught in public schools across the country. I find it interesting that such a ineffective method of teaching sex education is still sponsored by the government, I mean, we would throw a fit if the government allowed some schools to teach less efficient or accurate way of doing arithmetic. If this method caused large portions of students to do very poorly on the SAT and therefore the education they received had harmful consequences on the rest of their lives. The reality is no different except certain people believe that this is what they believe is morally correct and therefore push their beliefs onto other peoples children. One of the poster children of abstenence only education is Sarah Palin and it is very ironic that her daughter got a bun in the oven during her vice-presidental run. I don't think it will be long until the people or the government take the initiative to lower funding for abstinence only education.

According to Mills, freedom should only be restricted by what harms others. If this was a model we were to take with gay marriage, there are two arguments. The “marriage preservationist” would argue that allowing gay people to marry would harm the marriages of straight people. This act would devalue marriage to them and therefore be harming them. While the gay marriage activist would argue that not allowing gay people to marry is harming gay people because they aren’t able to put a legal label on their relationship and it restricts their freedoms. Probably more importantly in restricts legal rights that are given to married couples, such as visitation rights, tax benefits, insurance, and other legal matters that improve and simplify peoples lives. At least in regards to liberty allowing gay marriage harms far fewer people than prohibiting it especially considering that the “harm” that it causes doesn’t actually change or affect the people who oppose it. However, many people who oppose gay marriage support civil unions which give gays the same legal rights as married couples. Civil Unions essentially are marriages except for minor differences and terminology. This is probably the most equitable and therefore common solution in the near future. 

A ring as a symbol of marriage may seem cliché, but I think it is a symbol that represents the core of the discussion. Laws are being voted on this November to give gays the exact same rights as married couples, but without the wording ‘marriage’. Essentially allowing a compromise that leaves both parties better off or established. The rings represent marriage and show the distinction between marriage and the civil unions. The debate and arguments are over the possession of the rings. Gay marriage in that sense is very much like Lord of the Rings. 

I feel like the public isn't manipulated to a great extent on the topic of gay marriage, or school curriculum. These are topics that are personal, and are derived from either religious beliefs or moral convictions. These different opinions come from Church, a family, or a community. While people view these topics because of the way it was 'framed' to them, I believe the political world is interpreting the views of the public into policy opposed to the other way around, which seems to happen more often than not.