Essay - ( 0 |\| + |? 0 \/ 3 |? $ 3 `/

• Another essay.
  
  Comment however.
  
  
• Same-sex Marriage and Child-Rearing
  
  Legalization of homosexuality is a hot topic today. The opinions about it seem polar at times. The sentiments behind it seem charged quite often. Many people hesitate to step on people's toes while some boldly rush forward, fired by heartfelt conviction. Everyone has their reasons for supporting or not supporting homosexuality. Since the legalization of homosexual marriage in several states around the union, the issue of homosexual parenting became significant in the minds of proponents and opponents. Opponents claim that homosexual parenting does little if anything to aid the upbringing and nurturing of children. Broadly speaking, homosexual parenting hamper the healthy development of children, even in a country so enmeshed with openness of mind and acceptance of diversity.
  
  Diversity is an important matter of discussion. From school to the work place, diversity presents itself to the world at all times. No doubt education regarding diversity, especially in such a land as our own, is valuable. What better way to teach about diversity than to have homosexual parents, an education-through-experience opportunity, some would say. Indeed, homosexual parents may very well successfully supply a doss of diversity education to children. The children would learn all about how their mothers share their lives together for their mutual benefit; the children would learn how to be polite. Bigotry never saw a bigger stone to budge. This approving view of homosexual parenting, however, is fairly odd, when considered as an argument. Yes, the parents would be diverse; yes, the teaching would be fair to homosexuals; but such teaching goes far beyond the most simple facts of diversity. By simply being homosexual parents, they teach extraordinarily complex lessons on diversity. They start with differential calculus instead of simple addition. Mentally and physically, they violate the most basic of diverse teachings: man and woman. The most basic, common form of diversity on the planet is the existence of men and women. Every other diverse thing—race, religion, sexual orientation, or what have you—proceeds the fact of men and women. Thus, the most logical introductory lesson on diversity should regard both sexes, man and woman. Learning to relate with a man and a woman, the two most common types of people anyone deals with, should come before learning how to relate with a man and a man or with a woman and a woman. Learning to personally relate with only men or only women is like a birthday party with only cake: it is never complete without ice cream.
  
  At least passively, homosexual parenting promote a false biological view. This view denies the necessity that both men and women need to exist in order for humanity to continue. Of course, a young adult understands mentally that it is impossible for life to continue through just men or just women. This biological lie still resides subconsciously within homosexuals and any of their children; the homosexual life-style rails directly against the facts of nature governing reproduction. Men and women, not men and men or women and women, beget offspring. Whether intentional or not, any other message attacks, though futilely, all standards of sexual biology. Who knows what the minds of children concoct to justify as natural homosexual parents' actions. They may turn over in bed one morning and decide they can only relate to people that are like them, people who are the same sex, that is. But this argument may also go against heterosexual parenting: a child may think that they can only relate to people that are not like them. In a sense, neither is true. Anyone may relate to anyone else as a friend, but no one may relate to just anyone else in a legitimately intimate manner to produce children. At least biologically, homosexuality and heterosexuality differ in that unnatural and cannot result in our species continuance while one is natural and can result in our species continuance. Also, by constantly being aware, subconsciously or otherwise, that their homosexual parents are intimate and later knowing that they cannot reproduce naturally, a child may come to believe that unnatural reproduction or adoption is the way that it meant to be, that it is better than natural reproduction. In fact, that is another lie. Not even considering the possibility of having children with syndromes or contracting diseases such as AIDS or hepatitis, consider the average costs of artificial reproduction (Wilkins-Haug, Hines, Colburn). Artificial insemination costs an average $300-$500 (CostHelper.com). At a particular institute, other artificial means—intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization, and gamete intrafallopian transfer—average $1,200, $9,500-$32,000, and $8,000-$10,000, respectively (AdvancedFertility.com, ParentingWeekly.com). Adoption may as much as $35,000 (TheAdoptionGuide.com). Fostering natural biological reproduction, which is free, seems quite sound and proper—at least, if the pocket book factors in, and except for those with a Beverly Hills address, the pocket book always factors in.
  
  Another thing uncommon to the Beverly Hill addresses is the traditional American family, consisting of a mother, a father, numerous children, and probably a Fido or two. As far as biology is concerned, homosexual parenting removes the father-mother standard of a family. A same-sex parenting team consist, by definition, two fathers or two mothers. Even if one parent takes a more traditionally father-like or mother-like stance, the image is forced, and the parent will tend to fall back into more natural habits—if a woman functioning as a father, back to nurturing sweetness without the necessary firmness; if a man functioning as mother, back to commanding authority without the necessary understanding. Of course, both of these standards find themselves challenged in modern society, but according to history and nature, it seems such womanly softness and manly boldness are standard. Without a well-defined version of either parental unit, a child face confusion about his own parental purpose in the future. Is he to be feminine or masculine? Confusion, as everyone knows, leads to misplaced emotion, unjust anger, self-pity, or some other undesirable thing. If left to fester, these emotions find their way into actions. Actions helmed by rampaging emotions nearly always result in a ghastly wrecks. The wrecks make up the acts of a play that the emotional actor calls his life. Though seemingly indirect, mothers and fathers, or lack thereof, do mold the lives of their children. Mothers and fathers function as the behind-the-scenes specialists—lighting technicians, prop-movers, make-up artists, and choreographers. Many people get where they are because parents provided them with the stuff they needed to get there. Some of those emotionally charged, so-called fatherless children—technically, no one is fatherless—grow up only to become worse off than the fathers they never knew; more likely than not, these fatherless children do, in fact, turn out materially worse off than their own fathers (Sorensen and Zibman). Those same fatherless children, probably suffering from loneliness and lack of encouragement, are twice as likely to become sexually active at a young age, increasing their likelihood of becoming pregnant by seven times (Ellis, et al). Dare anyone consider the sorrow of a motherless home? For now, pass it by and suffice it to say that it seems quite sound that children should be in homes with both a father and a mother, a man to function as man and a woman as a woman.
  
  Homosexual parenting possesses some drawbacks, not to say heterosexual parenting has none. Nothing is perfect, but to add more hurt to the hurt that exists already seems beyond unreasonable. It sounds insane. By no means are these problems exclusive to homosexual parents-to-children relationships, but issues presented above are significant. It presents serious questions demanding thoughtful answers. Should all couples, no matter sex or sexuality, be permitted to have children? Should children be had naturally or artificially? Should children be adopted? Who should decide who has children—couples, doctors, attorneys, families, governments, nature, or something or someone else? When do we start and stop protecting children, whether from themselves or their parents? When does protecting innocents begin and allowing freedom end and vice versa? What is innocence, and what is freedom? So broad and vast is the topic, it is hardly worth trying to limit to a few pages, difficult to argue and easy to question. Both the questions and the answers are ours. Now our minds must answer.
  
  Works Cited
  
  “Artificial Insemination – How Much Does Artificial Insemination Cost?” CostHelper. August 2008. CostHelper.com. 23 October 2009. Web.
  
  “Cost of IVF at the Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago – High [Q]uality, [L]ow [C]ost IVF.” Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago. AdvancedFertility.com. 23 October 2009. Web.
  
  Colburn, Don. “Artificial Insemination Cited in Hepatitis B Infection.” Washington Post 3 March 1987. Web.
  
  Ellis, B.J., et al. “father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy?” Child Development 74 (2003): 801-821. Web.
  
  “Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer.” PreconceptionWeekly. ParentingWeekly.com. 23 October 2009. Web.
  
  Hines, William. “Artificial Insemination and AIDS: The Risk of Infection Is Small but Worrisome.” Washington Post 5 January 1988. Web.
  
  Sorensen, Elaine and Chava Zibman. “Getting to Know Poor Fathers Who Do Not Pay Child Support.” Social Service Review 75.3 (2001): 420-34. Web.
  
  “How much does adoption cost?” The Adoption Guide. TheAdoptionGuide.com. 27 October 2009. Web.
  
  Wilkins-Haug, Louise, et al. “Isolated fetal omphalocele, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, and assisted reproductive technologies.” Birth Defects Research 85.1 (2008): 58-62. Web.
  
  
• If I get around to revising this essay (or any past or future essays), taking into account others' input, I'll put up the revision somehow and somewhere on the blog.
  
  
• Invisible kudos to the being who deciphers the non-letter part of the title. ;P

here again

• It's been so long, but it's never too late. I'm going to post things again whenever I feel like it. I think I might post some school material--I can always use feedback on that stuff.
  
  
• The following bullet is the first essay. Feel free to smash, dash, and slash away at it. I welcome it.
  
  
• Confronting Action
  
  By trade, law enforcement has always been involved in confronting and apprehending criminals and would-be criminals. Officers have always been challenged to develop new methods of fishing out the bad apples. Profiling is one of those methods. In recent years, profiling has taken a hard check. Accusations of racism and bigotry, some emboldened by humane virtue others misconstrued by dangerous ethics, have pelted the method. Unfortunately, all of this fire regarding morals and rights has burned out the original, true quality version of profiling that many officers practice today. This profiling not only packs away the discussion of race and dress, but it establishes a standard of legal action for law enforcement officers to follow under any circumstance for any class, religion, race, or age. As separated from all modifications, profiling means observing someone until he acts in a manner that will undoubtedly lead to something bad, something criminal in this case. At this point, at the point when the officer knows something criminally bad is just about to happen, action should occur, not sooner, not later, but now.
  
  There are a couple issues with this wait-until-it-happens approach. As intrusive but effective preventive measures begin disappearing, no longer being obstacles of crime, many would-be criminals will find in much easier to commit their crimes. Of course, it is not responsible for anyone to ignore such an obvious issue, and that issue—preventative measures for white collar and other nefarious crimes—may have many non-law enforcement answers. Against white collar crime, increased private and personal security for computer systems could be implemented, or more people could be better educate themselves in such areas as accounting, banking, or another business disciplines. Combating physical or violent crimes, people could become more fluent in martial arts, whether using their body or weapons. The issues of white collar and other assorted crimes is but a cobble stone before the great pillar, a pillar that now often feels so small in this nation: freedom. With each step distancing ourselves from the government, our dependence on it shrinks while its dependence on us expands. The government is to be kept alive by the people, not the other way around. Removing law enforcement as a necessity to our peace of mind makes us more independent, free to pursue that which we ought.
  
  An officer, however, does not have the option to pursue what he ought. He must pursue what he ought. He cannot mull about what should be done; he must do what should be done. In our justice system, having opinions about facts has been reserved for other positions—judges, attorneys, juries, but not officers. Facts mold the occupation of law enforcement. No one ever hears about a detective who speculates lackadaisically about the drugs and the guns and the blood. Likewise, an officer, following the example of that good detective, would quickly realize that preemptive confrontation, confrontation speculating about the future, is very illogical and risky, especially himself. No matter how they are formed, speculative opinions remain speculative opinions. All this is not to say that opinions are totally worthless. On the contrary, opinions, even if they are based upon appearances or whatever other information and thoughts are running through the head, can do much to aid any officer. As opinions of one person alert him to the opposition of other opinions, so opinions alert officers through reminder, whether necessary or not, to pay attention and keep an eye out.
  
  Eye-balling such an issue as profiling turns up much fruit to sort through. Profiling is a tool to be used wisely. Though it has stirred up anger and abusive language, yet it is not without useful purpose; its image can be reformed. Its proper application improve the effectiveness of officers. It reestablishes the responsibility of officers to prevent crime, not to play hide-and-seek with it, while elevating their status in the eyes of their constituents. It improves tranquility, streamlines procedure, and focuses purpose. Profiling proves to be more than just an issue of social rights; it is a single word holding a whole world of meaning.