I think that prostitution should be legalized, because I fail to understand the rationale behind its ban.
Someone (Be it a man or a woman) who decides that he/she is going to become a prostitute has every right to do so. Obviously, for the sake of our children, I believe that prostituion must be confined in certain geographic areas where it doesn't interfere with our normal life.
The thing about prostitution is that it is more present than we usually admit. When a woman decides to marry a man without loving him a bit, but just for his money, isn't that legalized prostitution? The young men who decide to make a living as professional jigolos, aren't them prostitutes. So, the prostitutes we are preventing from doing prostitution are the most honest of the category because they openly assume their position.
The Spitzer case should trigger a global discussion on this very important topic.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Gay Rights
It has become fashionable to be in favor of gay rights. Nowadays, being even slightly critical of gay rights can cost one to go to rehab, thanks to a society which has entrusted all its thinking process with an unbalanced and liberal media.
I am not at all homophobic, because I believe that everybody should have the right to conduct thei personal life as they deem necessary. I also belive that some people are genetically gay. However, there must be a limit to this pro-gay overhelming propaganda. I believe that gay couples, if that's what they really want to do, should have all the benefits granted to heterosexual couples. However, I don't think ay couples should be allowed to adopt kids. My reason for that is twofold :
1- I believe that a child who is raised by a gay couple would be influenced by their way of life so much so that he/she will become either gay or homophobic.
2- I don't think it's fair that gay couples can be granted this right whereas they don't go through the normal process of procreation I think a kid comes as a reward of the love-making process, and can't be disassociated from it. The only exception I can think of is the case of people who can't procreate.
I am not at all homophobic, because I believe that everybody should have the right to conduct thei personal life as they deem necessary. I also belive that some people are genetically gay. However, there must be a limit to this pro-gay overhelming propaganda. I believe that gay couples, if that's what they really want to do, should have all the benefits granted to heterosexual couples. However, I don't think ay couples should be allowed to adopt kids. My reason for that is twofold :
1- I believe that a child who is raised by a gay couple would be influenced by their way of life so much so that he/she will become either gay or homophobic.
2- I don't think it's fair that gay couples can be granted this right whereas they don't go through the normal process of procreation I think a kid comes as a reward of the love-making process, and can't be disassociated from it. The only exception I can think of is the case of people who can't procreate.
Animal Rights Vs Research
I was amazed last week by the reaction of some animal rights activits against some professors at Berkeley University who were using animals in their experiments of new drugs.
As a christian, I can not condone any abuse against animals. However, my being a christian makes me comfortable to accept the idea of using animals to better our lives. God, in the Bible, sated that he created animals so we can live better, than o the food and sservives they should provide us with.
Some students went as far as threatening the professors with explosive devices dropped in their mailboxes. They called them on a daily basis. I think this is a lunatic behavior. Hadn't we used animals in the past for all kinds of experiments, we would not be where we are scientifically today.
As a christian, I can not condone any abuse against animals. However, my being a christian makes me comfortable to accept the idea of using animals to better our lives. God, in the Bible, sated that he created animals so we can live better, than o the food and sservives they should provide us with.
Some students went as far as threatening the professors with explosive devices dropped in their mailboxes. They called them on a daily basis. I think this is a lunatic behavior. Hadn't we used animals in the past for all kinds of experiments, we would not be where we are scientifically today.
Animal Rights
One who comes from a Third World country can't help beeing amazed by the dedication of animal rights advocates in this country. I was particularly shocked by the reaction of an animal rights group which denounced Sean Puffy Combs four years ago, because while having his birthday party, the artist allowed the organizers to put some light bubble too close to a bunch of birds they were using to embellish the event.
The spokesperson for the animal group stressed out what she called the insensitivity of the artists to the suffering of the birds. At that time, I was visiting from Haiti, and I wondered what this lady would say if she saw how we treated poor people in my country.
But I stopped my stream of thought at the realizaton that thanks to Global television, the lady could no longer argue that she's not aware of those facts. I think that there is a huge hypocrisy surrounding some animal rights advcates. If you are so sensitive as to care so much for animals, how can you be so careless about those children who are dying from starvation in Africa, or those in the neighbooring Haiti who are dying because they can't afford a 20 dollar-tablet?
I am not at all insensitive to animal rights, but I think that there must be a limit to the excess of its most vocal advocates.
The spokesperson for the animal group stressed out what she called the insensitivity of the artists to the suffering of the birds. At that time, I was visiting from Haiti, and I wondered what this lady would say if she saw how we treated poor people in my country.
But I stopped my stream of thought at the realizaton that thanks to Global television, the lady could no longer argue that she's not aware of those facts. I think that there is a huge hypocrisy surrounding some animal rights advcates. If you are so sensitive as to care so much for animals, how can you be so careless about those children who are dying from starvation in Africa, or those in the neighbooring Haiti who are dying because they can't afford a 20 dollar-tablet?
I am not at all insensitive to animal rights, but I think that there must be a limit to the excess of its most vocal advocates.
Minimum wage 2
The question as to whether or not the State should step into the determination of the minimum wage is quite tricky.
It is obviuos that the ideal situation is that salaries are as just as possible, so workers can be rightly compensated fo the jobs they perform. Unfortunately, when we analyze those work-related issues, our premise is that an entrepreneur is alwaysa wealthy person able to face whatever the salary set by the authorities. This is not always the case.
I think that the intervention of the State in determinig the minimum wage is to be encouraged, only because otherwise irresponsible unions will force the enterprises involved to close their doors. Enterprises where unions are oo powerful end up having more employees than they normally need, which is not fair for their owners.
We must strive not to fail into the trap, when we are discussing about work-related issues, of considering all employers as wealthy robots who don't care a bit about the well-being of their employees. After all, accepting a job is part of a contract which involves the consent of both the worker and the employer on the salary of the former.
It is obviuos that the ideal situation is that salaries are as just as possible, so workers can be rightly compensated fo the jobs they perform. Unfortunately, when we analyze those work-related issues, our premise is that an entrepreneur is alwaysa wealthy person able to face whatever the salary set by the authorities. This is not always the case.
I think that the intervention of the State in determinig the minimum wage is to be encouraged, only because otherwise irresponsible unions will force the enterprises involved to close their doors. Enterprises where unions are oo powerful end up having more employees than they normally need, which is not fair for their owners.
We must strive not to fail into the trap, when we are discussing about work-related issues, of considering all employers as wealthy robots who don't care a bit about the well-being of their employees. After all, accepting a job is part of a contract which involves the consent of both the worker and the employer on the salary of the former.
Minimum wage
The issue of the determination of a minimum wage is always complicated because it involves more parameters than one would at first think of.
In a country like the U.S., where the State guarantees the security of the private sector's properties and amenities, it is way easier to set a minimum wage and enforce it. But in emerging economies with weak states, it's not that easy. Let's take for example what just happened in Haiti and some African countries less than two weeks ago. Because of a humanitarian crisis and its resulting hunger, thousands of people get involved in bloody riots and while they were at it, destroyed hundreds of houses and businesses. This is something which happens quite frequently.
In such an environment, the private sector will always try to pay it employees the lowest possible wage, while trying to penalize its clients the more possible, because it needs to put soe money aside so it can get back to business after one of those violent riots. If the private sector doesn't do that, it will go out of business, and the first ones who will be hurt are those employees always claiming higher wages.
In a country like the U.S., where the State guarantees the security of the private sector's properties and amenities, it is way easier to set a minimum wage and enforce it. But in emerging economies with weak states, it's not that easy. Let's take for example what just happened in Haiti and some African countries less than two weeks ago. Because of a humanitarian crisis and its resulting hunger, thousands of people get involved in bloody riots and while they were at it, destroyed hundreds of houses and businesses. This is something which happens quite frequently.
In such an environment, the private sector will always try to pay it employees the lowest possible wage, while trying to penalize its clients the more possible, because it needs to put soe money aside so it can get back to business after one of those violent riots. If the private sector doesn't do that, it will go out of business, and the first ones who will be hurt are those employees always claiming higher wages.
Prayer In School
I am a christian myself, but tend to be very tolerant when it comes to the way I manage my faith. Some people take offense of the fact that some schools allow their pupils/students to pray together as a normal activity of the institution.
Those who don't agree argue that it infringes upon their rights, because they don't want to attend those prayer sessions, nor do they want to hear others praying. However, banning prayer from school deprives believers from an opportunity to pray together, to become closer to each other. One of the main characteristics of christianity is the strength which comes from praying and eating together, just like Jesus used to do it.
The debate gets more complicated today, with the diversity how faiths our schools have to accomodate. I think that the best way to manage this problem is the following: when comes the time to pray, the school principal can invite those who don't want to attend to leave and go to an area where they won't be disturbed. Then, the school can hold its prayer session which must be oecumenical in order to allow all believers to strengthen their faith.
Those who don't agree argue that it infringes upon their rights, because they don't want to attend those prayer sessions, nor do they want to hear others praying. However, banning prayer from school deprives believers from an opportunity to pray together, to become closer to each other. One of the main characteristics of christianity is the strength which comes from praying and eating together, just like Jesus used to do it.
The debate gets more complicated today, with the diversity how faiths our schools have to accomodate. I think that the best way to manage this problem is the following: when comes the time to pray, the school principal can invite those who don't want to attend to leave and go to an area where they won't be disturbed. Then, the school can hold its prayer session which must be oecumenical in order to allow all believers to strengthen their faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
