12. April 2010 by student.

A big controversy in today’s society is gay and lesbian couple’s rights to adopt children and be foster parents.  The public, media, and society have mixed views on the subject. Over the past few years, however, professional health organizations and academics, social policymakers and the media have begun emphasizing that the exclusion of homosexual couples parenting should be lifted.  As of 2008, there was an estimate of 748,000 children in foster care, in need of a home.  Some people believe that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to be foster parents and adopt, because it will help reduce the number of children in need of a home.  There are two sides to this issue the people for it and against it, both proposing good points, but it will be best for society if gay and lesbian couples for now were not allowed this right.            In Tom Adkins article “Traditional Mother and Father, Still the Best Choice for Children”, he argues that gay and lesbian couples should not be allowed to adopt children.  To prove his argument he talks about how there is just too much that could go wrong with gay adoption and that it is not fair to the children.  In the article Adkins states that “children who are raised by gay couples are far more likely to suffer from psychiatric problems and even being pressured into becoming homosexuals later in life”.  When he refers to these children being pressured into becoming homosexual he is talking about how heterosexual parents do not usually tell their children it is alright to be homosexual and give them the option to do so.  Adkins beliefs are backed up in his article by sociologist Patricia Morgan in her most recent book Children as Trophies which consists of over 144 pages of academic papers that result with the conclusion that homosexual parenting leads to gender confusion and other emotional problems.             Other than Adkins argument of why gay and lesbian couples should not be allowed to adopt children there is the American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS) point of view. The American College of Pediatricians claims that there are several risks to children who are raised by homosexual parents.  They talk about how it has been tested for many years that it is better for children to grow up in a home with heterosexual parents in a loving low conflict home.  This research shows that the “Children navigate developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better academically, have fewer emotional disorders, and become better functioning adults when reared within their natural family”.  The article also states that it is critical to the development of a child’s growth, mentally and physically, that they have both a mother and father.  Psychologists highly recognize how important it is for children to have a mother to nurture them and show them love.  Although, recently it has been seen that the absents of fathers in a girl’s life leads to doing poorly in school, are more likely to become sexually active and have a greater chance of them becoming teen parents.  The absence of a father also affects boys.  Boys without a father are more likely to become delinquents, get into violence, and become more aggressive. Knowing all these reasons of why mother and father parenting helps a child significantly makes people wonder what affects homosexual parenting has on children.            Homosexual parenting research has revealed that children in these homes were more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity.  “This is concerning since adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle are at increased risk for mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorders, conduct disorders, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts”.  It is also proven that homosexual partners are two to three times more violent towards each other than heterosexual couples.  This shows that homosexual relationships will not last as long as heterosexual marriages, this is because they are not in a binding relationship and are more promiscuous.  “Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies and shortened life spans”.  Yes, people can argue that homosexuals experience mental illness, substance abuse, and suicidal tendencies because of the way the American society treats them, this is just another reason why they should not be able to foster these children.  These children that are in foster homes are already coming from some sort of a hardship for them to be put into foster care.  Then to put them into a situation that is less than ideal for typical Americans is not the best idea.              On the other hand, Becky Birtha argues that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to foster and adopt children.  In her article “Laws should Support Loving Households, Straight or Not” talks about how something needs to be done to lower the high number of children in foster care. Birtha disputes that heterosexual parents parenting skills lead to more aggressive and bossy kids and that homosexual parenting does not lead to psychological disorders.  She also claims that children that are brought up by homosexuals are typically nicer and more passive.  Although, Birtha has no concrete research that any of this is true, her main point she is trying to make is that if these homosexual couples can pass the background check and the training, why shouldn’t we not allow them to foster and adopt these children.              When looking at both sides of this agreement and Americas stand point of homosexuals today, it is better to not have homosexuals fostering and adopting children.  These children come from abuse and neglect homes, these children are already traumatized and hurt. What is best for them is to be in a loving home that is true and homosexuals maybe able to offer them that but the other issues are too loud to ignore. Think about how other children would look at these children when at school and they tell the other children that their new parents are homosexual. These children already have a hard enough time they do not need to be teased about something they cannot control. Also if their friends don’t seem to mind or care if new friend’s foster parents are homosexual the parents of that child might see a problem, resulting in the child not being able to do things with their friends outside of school. When parents let their children hangout with other children they always want to know the parents and people in today’s world are not socially accepting of homosexuals and might fear that they might do harm to their child. Unfortunately, the way that society sees homosexuals hurts their acceptance of being foster parents.  Until societies view on homosexual’s change that they should not be allowed to have foster children or adopt because it will just make the child’s life harder than it already is.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

12. April 2010 by student.

The myth of the increase of violence in today’s youth and the correlation to video games is untrue. For years parents have blamed everything but themselves for the changing behavior in their children’s actions in terms of violence. First it was open ideas about books that should or shouldn’t be read or than span too far from an average Christian upbringing, then the culture decided that television and movies; the images portrayed on the screen cause children to act violently.

Years leading up to now have proven this idea to be unfounded and now video games have become the targets of the parent’s accusations. According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the
United States is at a 30-year low. Interesting; if video games lead to an increase of violence then why would such actions/crimes be at a 30-year low, especially during this the era of technology where companies spit out hundreds of games a year, ten times the rate of just 15 years ago.

An interesting fact I have found is this; researchers on the correlation of violence and the vary of age have concluded that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general, over media saturated, population. I won’t deny an obvious fact, and I will address it in the blog for the sake of covering my bases, consider it’s true that young offenders who have committed violent acts such as school shootings (primarily in
America) have also been game players. But the population of young people in all of the American society in the general sense is more likely to be gamers, it’s a social norm now that almost 90-95 percent of boys have played a game at least once, and the growing populations of girls who play now stand at about 40 percent. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts.

The majorities do not contribute behavior to video games or have not committed such acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General’s report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings are not media entertainment but the risk comes from the individual’s mental stability and the quality of home life, imagine that parents influence behavior in children, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is increasingly harmful, why give children a free pass to act out against society only to blame video games as a result, I think the propaganda spanning from the parents and the “video games create violence” argument needs to stop. This idea of children and video games influence have done nothing but led adult authorities to be increasingly suspicious and more hostile to many of the younger generation, many who  already feel cut off from society.

One final point I wish to leave you with is this; while it is true that most American kids do at some point play video games, the center of the video game market has shifted toward the older generation. The new average of gamers has taken the position as individuals 18 and above, the game industry caters to adult tastes as demand for goods lintels of any business. Meanwhile, look again at the responsibility of the parents, a more than frequent number of parents go ahead and ignore game ratings, ratings set up to ensure that children don’t play them before they are old enough, it is the parents who are the ones who assume that games are for kids. One quarter of children ages 11 to 16 identify an M-Rated (Mature Content) game as among their favorites.  Parents need to share some of the responsibility for making decisions about what is appropriate for their children.

 No scientific correlation to violence and video games has been made conclusive, and no proof that an increase of violence has occurred; in fact violence is at an all-time low for the last 30 years.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

12. April 2010 by student.

Have you ever notice in a store that the boy clothes are always blue, while the girl clothes are always pink? Parents are making their children believe that pink is only for the girls. Colors do not matter. It does not matter what colors one wears. Parents are predepositing in their child’s brian that certain colors are for a certian gender.

Colors should not define who a person is. We are segrating genders and judging them on what colors they wear. If a boy or girl is a homosexual we are judging them. People are telling homosexuals that they are wrong and should not be accepted into society.

Why are we segrating our children and judging them? Blue is the color for boys becuase when a boy was born he was goodluck. Back in ancient times blue was the colors of the gods. So the male babies were a sign of power. Pink was labeled for the girls because it repersented beauty, natural, and delicate. Since girls are suppose delicate and have natural beauty that is why the girls were represented by the color pink.

Since times have changed why are we still associating blue for boys and pink for girls.

http://www.colormatters.com/colors_pink.html

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | No Comments »

12. April 2010 by student.

            Affirmative action is a policy that takes race, ethnicity, physical disabilities, military career, gender, or a person’s parents’ social class into consideration when they shouldn’t. When more white males or females with high GPA’s are accepted to Universities, the school is looked at as discriminating. When minorities are accepted with lower GPA’s but great in athletics or sometimes nothing at all, it’s not discrimination. How is this right? All schools and Universities should always show social equality no matter how prestigious they might be.

            These days, it’s almost impossible to be an average student, active in clubs/organizations, or be an officer in high school and get accepted to your number one college. I was an above average student in high school, with a high GPA and a 4.0 all throughout senior year. I also was very active in over five clubs and held officer positions in 3 of them. I never got into trouble, never suspended or even detention. I applied to an average school, University of South Florida and was not accepted. My rejection letter was longer than it needed to be. In the first paragraph they told me how sorry they were for rejecting me. In the second paragraph, they told me “Because of people’s growing interest in our university, we are trying to accept more minorities”. In the third paragraph, I read, “Because of our growing football team, we are trying to look for more athletic students”. How is that fair? A person can work so hard all throughout high school, thinking being an officer, receiving a high GPA, and being an all around good student and not get accepted to a public university.

            Your social status should not reflect whether or not you are accepted into a university. SAT scores, ACT scores, and what and how a person did in school should be 75% of what an admissions person should look at, but in reality, it doesn’t work that way. Your social stratification is looked at so much more than need be. Universities should not be able to look at the ethnicity, social standing, or what class they are in until after they decided on whether or not a student is accepted.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

12. April 2010 by student.

We all see it, ladies walking around in the middle of winter with an absoloutly perfect bronze. Tanning beds have been popular since the 70’s, and now that we are in the time where social strata, sexy body image, and glamour are a must have, tanning beds are more popular than ever. But the debate continues, whether these indoor tanning beds are healthy in moderstaion, or unhealthy no matter what. So im here to to delve into the truth about tanning beds, the good, the bad, the ugly.

There are simple benefits to indoor tanning that are not health related. They are easy to access year round, so you will never go through a pale winter stage. They are generally not expensive as apposed to spending gas money and suply money to drive all the way to a beach. And they are quick. Even if you wnated to get a tan at the beach, it would take multiple days to accumulated the same type of bronze you would get from a few short sessions in a tanning bed. But time and money are not the only aspects of indoor tanning that needto be considered. We need to realize the health benefits and fall backs as well.

 Tanning bed gurus will argue that ultraviolent rays actually help the skin. They beleieve that the rays simply just cause a darkening of the skin, which is caused by increased levels of melanin in the skin. They argue that this melanin is used to protect the skin from other different types of harmful rays, the darker you are the less you will burn. But medical doctors and dermatogists strongly disagree. They say that the increased levels of melanin in the skin are caused due to damage by the ultraviolent rays. It hs been scientifically proven that ultraviolent rays are the cause of the 3 main types of skin cancer, basil cell sarcoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and the deadliest type, melanoma. Dermatolgists say that the ultra violent rays mutilate the genes in the skin and cause your immune system defenses to weaken aganst the onset of cancerous cells. To me, it sounds like the doctors know whats up. But why do we continue to use these devices that are known to cause cancer? Is our outter appearance becoming more important than the health of our bodies? This seems to be true because on average 1 million Americans will tan in an indoor tanning bed in one day. It baffles me that in todays society, people are becoming less worried about potential health risks, because they are too worried about the aesthetics of their image. This is a problem bigger than tanning beds, this is a national crisis of body image and its beginning to turn into a very unhealthy aspect of our lives.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

12. April 2010 by student.

Facebook is becoming a world wide phenomenon among children, teens and even adults. Its only a click away and you can view what everyone else you know is doing, what they like to do, what they are “Fans” of, pictures of everything they do, live feeds of peoples every miuntes of their everyday lives. You can view videos, post pictures, create pages and fan sites. Facebook could keep any one person entertained for hours, but thats whats becoming the problem. With the more accessible and interestng the lives of other via facebook become to people, the more others begin to use and “obsess” over facebook. In a recent UK survey, the average student at a UK university checked his/her facebook profile 35 times a day. Some of you reading this may sit here and say, well thats not that bad.. and if so, you are probably suffering from FAD. Heres the statistics. Facebook has 400 million+ users, and approximately 50% of them sign on facebook every single day. Thats 200 million people! In one single day, 10 million people will “Become Fans” of a Fan Page. People worldwide spend 6 billion minutes a day on facebook combined, which is more than twice as much time spent on Google. More than 3 billion photos are uplaoded to facebook each month, and 14 million videos. There are more than 45 million active user groups currently on the site. There are 70 different translations and languages which facebook can come in. There are more than 350,00 active Applications being used on facebook, and 250 of those Apps have more than 1 million active users. But the computer is not the only portal into facebook world, more than 100 million people are actively accessing facebook via a mobile phone each day. And people who actively use facebook through their mobile device are 50% more active on facebook than others, and more prone to becoming an addict. So of all the billions of people who actively use facebook, how many are actually addicted? To be diagnosed as a facebook addict there is certain criteria that needs to be met.

1. A need for increasingly more time on facebook to feel satisfied. The less time spent on facebook, the worse you feel. Also, they tend to have open more than one facebook window at a time. 3-5, usually.

2. When time on facebook is reduced, ones social and occupational life will be in distress. for example, he will have anxiety over what is being said on his faceook wall.

3. A person will begin to use facebook as a leading way of communication in his life, for example, instead of calling or emailing a person, he will simply post a message to their wall, or use facebook IM.

4. A person will feel emotionally connected to a person’s home page, such as a girlfriend, and kiss or touch the screen.

5. A person will generally not know all of the people on their friends lists in real life. They may know one out of every 10 people.

6. When you meet people, you tell them to contact you through facebook. Or you make yourself more than one profile, or a profile for a pet.

If you fit 2 to 3 of those descriptions within the last 6 weeks of your life, congratualtions. You have joined the billions of others who are Addicted To Facebook. As an avid facebook user, though not as bad as desribed above, i beleiev we all need to take back our lives and start living for ourselves, not for our facebook friends or facebook satisfaction. Its time we start doing what we did before facebook. Go out and meet people, use your phone to contact people, only go on facebook when its neccessary, and spend more time actually out enjoying your friends company instead of talking about it on facebook! I know alot of you are going to read this and know you have a problem, even if you only fit one of the criteria… checking your facebook page 20 times a day is unhealthy! The only cure is to let facebook go and leave the internet realm for awhile. live your life, stop living your life through facebook.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

12. April 2010 by student.

Experts say engaging in a phone conversation while driving, whether the hands are free or not, distracts the brain and delays reaction times. Drivers are more likely to swerve lanes, slow down and miss important signs. Some experts say drivers who are talking on the phone are four times more likely to crash than someone who isn’t talking on the phone. Although there is no federal law stating drivers cannot use their phones while driving, the districts of Columbia have such laws. Some industries, like trucking and bus companies even have restrictions on using cellular phones while driving. While some people find it very hard to not answer their phones while driving, it would be their best bet.

 Some people hardly understand the rules of the road, and talking on the phone while driving does not help the matter in any way. I know people who have got into car accidents because they were distracted by the phone. I am guilty, along with many, many others who talk or even text when they drive. Next time the phone rings when were driving, think twice about answering it, it could save a life.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

12. April 2010 by student.

     Why isn’t foreign language being taught from kindergarten, and continued as a requirement? Are we so arrogant to assume the country isn’t changing before our eyes? What a great opportunity for our kids and their future! If those who make those decisions, the school board, senators, ect, whom we vote into office, could get out of their own way long enough to see what a great thing that would be. Not only would it provide our children a competitive edge, but it would also decrease the divide between the “them and us” thinking.  

     “Much publicized research on the development of the brain in infancy through early childhood suggests that there is a window for first language development (Pinker, 1994). Clearly first language develops best in early childhood. This body of research is interpreted to suggest that the innate wiring of the brain favors early development of both first and additional languages. A judicious interpretation of brain development research would lead to the conclusion that the young brain may well be predisposed to acquiring language(s). ”

     Of course the first language that comes to mind is spanish. Why not? You can go into JC Penny in Naples, and the clothing tags are in both English and Spanish, Home Depot has aisle locater signs in both languages. How many large companies do you call and have to press 1 for english?  People still voice a problem when an individual doesn’t speak english.  But not enough of a problem to refuse their money for products or services.  Or to hire them for unreasonably low wages. Its easy to say everyone needs to speak “the language”….but what does that mean now? Isn’t the ability to communicate locally and globally more important than whose language is “better”?

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 3 Comments »

12. April 2010 by student.

The South Park theology; this show has been described as obscene, immoral and a so called breakdown of American society, but what supports such a claim?  South Park may push the boundaries on socially acceptable viewing on television, but it addresses every outspoken and over-exaggerated message to the same degree that most American citizens hold them. The production of this show has focused around the aspects of Not only the American society but all world cultures, the issues addressed hit on religion to economy, pop culture events, the federal government and the creators of this show made the perfect standard; when it comes to entertainment either it’s all ok or nothing is. Social norms pump the life-blood of themes through this show and all that they do is comment on such.   I believe that this tradition of taking the daily race of American living and throwing a comical spin on it isn’t insulting at all; it’s easier to take into context and realize what is happening around you. What is the normative behavior of American’s moral superiority? Well they talk about it when they bring up President Bush claiming to have seen himself strongly influenced by Jesus Christ, working to serve his country with this religious authority serving as the angel on his shoulder. South Park took this idea and made a controversial comparison, they took the archetype of terrorists Bin Laden, and expressed how he too considered himself one of the true followers of Mohammed, and he had believed that he was clearly on a mission to cleanse the infidels who have disrespected sacred monuments. South Park has addressed recent presidents Clinton and Bush and the most recent election and the new president Obama. Other social changes span to the struggling economy to the stigma of religion. The creators of South Park have used the stereotype of many religious groups to poke fun at and address serious issue in a brighter light; Roman Catholic, Jewish, Scientology, Mormonism and what-have-you all have been addressed more than once and have ran the facet of good to bad, controversial and enlightening.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

12. April 2010 by student.

Most women refuse to accept it, some deny that it still exists, but after all these years the double standard for women does in fact still exist.  The double standard has been around since the beginning of time as we know it and no one can say for sure when it is predicted to end or if it ever will.  It is hard to think of a society that does not think of men and women having different roles, men are perceived to do one thing, while a women are perceived to do another, it is just the way of life. In fact, “double standard is defined by World Book Dictionary as a standard applied more leniently to one group than to another.”(Sociology index)

The double standard for gender goes for multiple things including, personality, hobbies, and not to mention the biggest problem pertaining to the gender based double standard problem, sex.  Dealing with double standards rarely goes unnoticed. It is easy to observe differences in treatment depending on gender anywhere one may go in the entire world.

One of the biggest issues of gender double standards is the issue of sex. It is easy to assume that a woman who has casual sex is a slut or whore whereas other men look up to a male who has casual sex or see him as cool.  It is well known that people will stereotype against a person depending on gender when it comes to how sexually experienced they are and to some (mostly women) this just does not seem fair. This is where feminist movement gets into the picture.

The double standard creates a chain of problems in modern day America. Because we have double standards we have feminists who are for equal rights for both men and women. These feminist are only trying to establish equality and for these women but it is hard to change the way people think, because the underlying thought will always been that promiscuous women are not as valued as a promiscuous man.

The feminists fighting against double standards, which is creating a conflict theory. The population is going to keep the same stereotype in their heads about double standards and nothing is going to change their minds, however the feminist do all they can to change the way people see women. They are not trying to make it so women can do whatever they please without punishment they just want to been seen equally as men.

I would personally love to see this double standard between genders be abolished but I know that it will not end in my lifetime. People have their preconceived notions about men and women sexuality and I do not see them changing anytime soon.   It is a continuing problem around the world however, the United States has helped control the issue and make it a less notable issue even though it continues and effects almost every American daily.

“Double Standard.” Sociology Index. Sociology Index, 2009. Web. 11 Apr 2010. <http://sociologyindex.com/double_standard.htm>.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 2 Comments »