Guide for Ema Essay Example for Free

Guide for Ema Essay Guidance notes The three texts below provide information about the business environment for the Facebook company in May 2012. For this task, imagine you work for Facebook, and you have been tasked with carrying out a SWOT analysis on the company to determine whether this is the right time for the company to grow. Your job is to write a SWOT analysis and a report based on this analysis. You are writing this analysis and report for the senior management team. Your analysis should provide the team with a complete overview of the situation and should end with suggestions for what the company should do based on your analysis. This task requires you to demonstrate your skill in selecting and organising information to produce a company analysis. You should include a SWOT table or grid in your analysis and organise the document according to the SWOT framework. You should focus on the interaction between the Facebook’s internal environment (strengths and weaknesses) on the one hand, and its external environment (opportunities and threats) on the other. Your SWOT analysis should form the basis of the suggestions you make about the company’s future actions. To accomplish this task you will need to draw on the case study analysis skills covered in Book 1 of the module and the report-writing skills covered in Book 3. Remember to use the referencing conventions that have been taught in the module when you refer to the sources of information that you use. You may benefit from writing one or more drafts before you produce a final version of your report. The Influential Document Checklist will be a useful reference in this process (see the Appendix to Book 3). Your answer for Task 2 should be about 1000 words in length. Please note that all tables and diagrams included count towards your word limit. Your reference list does not count, however. Text 1 Facebook (Facebook IPO, May 2012) Facebook is the world’s largest social network, with 845 million active users around the world, and roughly 200 million in the United States, or two-thirds of the population. Created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg in his dorm room at Harvard, Facebook grew from being a quirky site for college students into a popular platform that is used to sell cars and movies, win over  voters in presidential elections and organize protest movements. It offers advertisers a global platform, with the exception of China, where Facebook does not operate. Facebook took its first step toward becoming a publicly traded company in February 2012, when it filed to sell shares on the stock market. The service is on track to be the largest Internet initial public offering ever — trumping Google’s in 2004 or Netscape’s nearly a decade before that. In its filing, Facebook said it was seeking to raise $5 billion. On May 3, Facebook set the estimated price for its I.P.O. at $28 to $35 a share, according to a revised prospectus. At the midpoint of the range, the social networking company is on track to raise $10.6 billion, in a debut that could value the company at $86 billion. Investors have been eagerly awaiting the Facebook offering, lured by the prospect of strong growth: in the first quarter, Facebook’s daily active users, a measure of engagement, increased by 41 per cent, to 526 million. Still, Facebook is experiencing the growing pains typical of a technology start-up. While revenue continues to rise, profit sputtered in the first three months of the year, falling 12 per cent, to $205 million, as expenses jumped significantly. Seeking to Offer More Disclosure to Users Facebook, unlike any other site, has come to define the social era of the Web. More than a portal, its value lies in its dynamic network of social connections and the massive amount of information shared by its users. Facebook, in many ways, is a data processor, archiving and analyzing every shred of information, from our interests, to our locations, to every article and link that we like. The collection of data is a potential goldmine for advertisers. On the other hand, all that information raises questions about Facebook’s privacy practices. Over the years it has faced intense scrutiny from privacy advocates and regulators worldwide over how it handles the data it collects from its 845 million users. As it prepares to go public, it has been seeking to offer more disclosure to users. In April 2012, it announced it was expanding its downloadable archive feature, called Download Your Information, to provide greater transparency on the types of data on individuals that the compa ny stores. More Advertising, More Dollars Facebook’s hundreds of millions of users could soon be faced with a lot more  advertising — in their newsfeed, on their mobile devices and even when they log off. In early March 2012, the company announced a new suite of advertising products intended to insert more ads into Facebook’s traditionally clean interface and to take more advantage of mobile ads, where the company has struggled. The announcement was made at the company’s first marketing conference, held at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. For users, the announcement could mean many more ads on Facebook. For advertisers, the effort offers a chance to reach more users in more places. Despite aggressively courting Madison Avenue for the last few years, Facebook has been an anomaly in the world of digital advertising. The ad units offered less creative options for advertisers who want to, say, take over the site’s home page or add moving text to an ad. Rather, the value in Facebook’s ads was in their data and personalization. The potential for more ad dollars was reflected in the company’s first filing for a public offering in February. At the time, analysts said the company was expected to be valued at $75 billion to $100 billion. But according to the filing, Facebook made only $3.7 billion in revenue last year, the bulk of that from advertising. Until now, advertisers were largely limited to a variety of ad spaces that were positioned on the right side of the Facebook home page, in addition to creating their own Facebook pages. The company said a new set of premium ads will run at different points in the site, with a special emphasis on ads running throughout a user’s mobile feed. Facebook’s Biggest Stumbling Block: Privacy Practices Facebook’s biggest stumbling block has been its privacy practices. As the world’s largest social network, Facebook has been under intense scrutiny from consumers, courts and regulators worldwide over how it handles the data it collects from its 845 million users. But as a company preparing to go public, it is under pressure to find new ways to turn that data into profit. The company has repeatedly alienated users over privacy — as in the case of the 2007 controversy over Beacon, a tool that automatically posted on Facebook what its users did or bought on other sites. It has also faced lawsuits over the use of its members’ like endorsements in ads and drawn scrutiny for a facial recognition feature. The scrutiny is at its most intense in Europe, where Facebook’s data collection practices have tested  the boundaries of stringent privacy laws. In the United States, Facebook faces government audits for the next 20 years about how it collects and share s data, along with an assortment of lawsuits that accuse the company of tracking users across the Web. In November 2011, the company announced a settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission, which accused Facebook of having deceived its customers about privacy settings. After the F.T.C. order, Mark Zuckerberg conceded in a blog post that the company had made a bunch of mistakes, but he said it had already fixed several of the issues cited by the commission. In August 2011, Facebook made changes that it said were aimed at helping users get a grip on what they shared. When users added pictures, comments or other content to their profile pages, they could specify who could see it: all of their Facebook friends, a specific group of friends or everyone who has access to the Internet. Revamping Its Profile Design In December 2011, Facebook rolled out a revamped profile design called Timeline, which makes a user’s entire history of photos, links and other things shared on the site much more accessible with a single click. That could be when many of Facebook’s 800 million members realized just how many digital breadcrumbs they had been leaving on the site — and on the Web in general. The old Facebook profile page showed the most recent items a user posted, along with things like photos of them posted by others. But Timeline creates a scrapbook-like montage, assembling photos, links and updates for each month and year since they signed up for Facebook. For better or worse, the new format is likely to bring back old memories. Going forward, it could also make it harder to shed past identities — something that people growing up with Facebook might struggle with as they transition from high school to college, and from there to the working world. Analysts said Timeline was a significant evolutionary shift for Facebook. For starters, linking Facebook more closely to memories could make it harder for people to abandon the service for rivals. Buying Instagram for $1 Billion In early April 2012, Facebook said it had agreed to buy Instagram, the popular mobile-centric photo-sharing service, for $1 billion in cash and stock, giving it a stronger foothold in the market for mobile apps. It would  be Facebook’s largest acquisition to date by far. Instagram is a social network built around cellphone photos. It lets people add quirky filters and effects to their snapshots and share them with friends, who can like and comment on them. The service has been something of a rising star in the start-up world. Barely two years old, it has attracted close to 30 million users, even though it worked only on iPhones until early April, when it released an Android version of its app. Text 2 Facebook Cites Google+ With Mobile Shift Among Potential Risks By Brian Womack on February 08, 2012 Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) – Facebook Inc., the social network that filed for an initial public offering yesterday, listed rivalry with Google Inc., regulatory scrutiny, hacker attacks and the shift to mobile technology among the risks it faces. Facebook’s competition with Google, Twitter Inc. and other social-networking providers could impede growth, the company said in the risk-factors section of its filing. Facebook also said it would face competition in China if it manages to gain access to that market, where it’s currently restricted. Certain competitors, including Google, could use strong or dominant positions in one or more markets to gain competitive advantage against us in areas where we operate, Facebook said. Their tactics may include integrating competing social-networking platforms or features into products they control, the company said. Facebook, the world’s biggest social-networking service, has attracted more rivals as its popularity among users a nd advertisers soars. The company said it faces significant competition in almost every aspect of its business. The company also cited concerns about its mobile strategy. Almost all of its revenue comes from ads delivered to computers, not phones and tablets. Facebook’s mobile software currently generates no meaningful revenue, the Menlo Park, California-based company said. Facebook further cautioned that key mobile devices, such as Apple Inc.’s iOS products and gadgets running Google’s Android software, may not feature Facebook in the future. If either of these companies gives preference to another social network – say, if Google promotes its own Google+ more aggressively – Facebook’s growth could be jeopardized. Unforeseen Threats Bigger pitfalls could yet emerge, said Kevin Landis, the portfolio manager for the Firsthand Technology Value Fund, which holds Facebook shares. Google, for instance, couldn’t have foreseen the emergence of Facebook in 2004, when it went public. Let me put it this way: If you go back to Google’s S-1 in their risk factors, there’s no mention of Facebook, Landis said. Facebook was founded in 2004. Facebook also has considered entering China, which would bring its own challenges. The country has censorship laws that have kept Facebook and other social-media companies, including Twitter Inc. and Google’s YouTube, from operating there. We continue to evaluate entering China, Facebook said. China is a large potential market for Facebook, but users are generally restricted from accessing Facebook from China. We do not know if we will be able to find an approach to managing content and information that will be acceptable to us and to the Chinese government. Depend ent on Zynga Another risk: Facebook relies on Zynga Inc. for 12 percent of its revenue, according to the filing. San Francisco-based Zynga is the biggest developer of Facebook games, including CityVille and Texas HoldEm. The revenue comes from Zynga’s sales of virtual goods and from direct advertising purchased by Zynga. In addition, Zynga produces a significant number of pages on which Facebook displays ads. The dependence goes both ways. Zynga gets more than 90 per cent of its revenue from the social network. If we are unable to successfully maintain this relationship, our financial results could be harmed, Facebook said of Zynga. Facebook also said it faces pressure from governmental bodies. It’s possible that a regulatory inquiry might lead to changes to policies or practices, the company said. Regulatory Constraints Violation of existing or future regulatory orders or consent decrees could subject us to substantial monetary fines and other penalties that could negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations, according to the filing. Text 3 As Privacy Concerns Grow, More Social Media Users Are Unfriending FEBRUARY 24, 2012 AT 7:00 AM PT by Lauren Goode As concerns about online privacy grow, users of social media sites are increasingly looking to unfriend other users and prune their personal profiles, according to a new report out today from Pew Research Center. More than 60 per cent of social media users said last year that they deleted people from their friends lists, up from 56 per cent in 2009; and 26 per cent of users who keep their profiles private say they apply additional privacy settings to limit what some friends can see. Profile pruning – deleting comments friends leave and untagging photos – is also on the rise, the report says. Women are significantly more likely to keep their profiles private, and are more likely to unfriend people than men are, with 67 per cent of women saying they’ve removed friends, compared with 58 per cent of men. Young people are more likely to manage their social media presences by deleting comments and untagging photos. The report comes just as the White House has moved to create a privacy bill of rights aimed at governing online data tracking. One of the issues at hand is a do not track tool which Web companies like Google have just agreed to support. Last week, Google was reported to be using deceptive practices to track Web users in certain browsers. As The Wall Street Journal notes, though, a do not track button would allow for some Web data collection – such as the data gathered through Facebook’s Like button. Pew is careful not to point to Facebook directly throughout the report, but notes that Facebook is by far the most popular U.S. social network (in its recent S-1 filing, Facebook showed that its user base has ballooned to more than 845 million). Pew’s report says that the term privacy settings – as well as unfriend – is part and parcel of the Facebook experience. The Pew survey on Internet usages was conducted between April and May of last year, and sampled more than 2,200 U.S. adults 18 and older. The survey found that two-thirds of U.S. Internet users had profiles on social networking sites, up from just 20 per cent in 2006. In terms of who was more likely to post things on social networks that they later admitted they regretted, males were almost twice as likely to do so, with 15 per cent copping to it, than were females, at 8 per cent. Young adults, age 18 to 29, were also more likely to post content that they’d later regret on social networks. Part 3 Task Write a reflective piece on your experience of participating on this module. Consider the questions that follow to guide you with your writing. * What was your overall experience of studying on LB160? * What were the most useful skills you learned on this module? Why? * If you engaged with the online activities on the module, what was your experience of using the Tutor Group Forum (TGF)? What were the strengths and weaknesses of the TGF you participated in? How would you evaluate the process of working collaboratively with other students? What did you learn from them? What skills did you develop through your online participation? * If you did not participate in the online activities, how did you find working on your own on the module? Do you think you would have benefited if you had been able to participate online? How? * Guidance notes * Your reflective piece should not be written in a question and answer format but as continuous text. Be sure to use examples as evidence to support your claims. * For this task we advise you to organise your text as Problem–Solution. Here, Problem implies a ‘gap’ in someone’s skills. You need to demonstrate in your text how such a ‘gap’ (if any) was addressed by LB160. You may also like to see your reflective piece as Claim–Evidence because generally you make a claim that certain skills were improved by presenting some evidence. If you like, you may want to use sub-headings too but they are not essential. * It is important to be honest in your evaluation. Negative experiences of the module are as valid as positive ones and you will not be penalised for reporting negative experiences. For the same reason, you will be assessed on the way you reflect on your learning, not on whether or not you were involved in the online activities. So feel free to use this opportunity to feed back to the module team on what the module experience was like for you. * Your reflective piece for Task 3 should be about 500 words in length.

Augustines God Vs. Epictetus God :: essays research papers

At first glance, I was immediatly inclined to argue in epictetus' favor, because it pains me to argue that Christianity is good for anybody. In the following paragraphs, i will contrast the God of Epictetus, and the God of Augustine, and in the end, my stand will be clear. Epictetus and Augustine both identify God on basic level. Epictetus says, "Where the essence of God is, there too is the essence of good. What is the essence of God?......Right Reason? Certainly. Here then, without more ado, seek the essence of good." He says strive for goodness, live in conformity with it, and you will find God. God is the vital force that creates all things and the cosmic intellegence that governs it from within. Augustine says: "Where I found truth, there i found my God, who is truth itself." He says strive for truth and understanding...In loving God, we love truth. Persons can come to know truth though inner experience and conviction, he holds that you can't obtain true knowledge without faith. you must have faith in God, who is the essence of all truth. Both philosophers address man's powerlessness in the face of God. Epictetus asserted that humans are basically limited and irrational beings, but that the universe, ruled by God through pure reason, is perfect. Because human beings can neither know nor control their destiny, they must cease striving for the attainment of worldly ends and pleasures and instead calmly accept the fact of their own powerlessness before fate. The only thing in a person's power is their response to events or outlook, namely, their morality. Augustine believed faith preceded reason. He believed people are good, but not perfect. But in Augustinean theology, each person is predestined to either heaven, or to fry like bacon, and there's nothing you can do about it. Salvation is a "free gift" with purchase, but only to every 7,000th caller. This is where i would think morality means squat. If you know God decided when you were born whether or not you were going to heaven, nothing you do makes any difference. You can step all over everbody, and run with scissors and it doesn't matter. If you go to hell, you were going there anyway. If you're going to heaven, you've got a few good stories to tell when you get there. On top of all this, Augustine says that no human mind can penetrate the mystery of of God's wisdom.

Monsato Company †A Question in Agricultural Ethics Essay

Monsato Company is a Missouri-based company founded in 1901 by John F. Queeny and his wife Olga Monsato producing saccharine. In the mid-1940s, Monsato Co. began developing agricultural chemicals and throughout the 1960s and 1970s, herbicides were developed and introduced to the farmers. In 1981, a research group was established and the business’s primary focus was molecular biotechnology. In 1982, Monsato Co. bought Jacob Hartz Seed Co., a company known in the Midwest for its soybeen seeds. Also in 1982, scientists working for Monsato Co. produced the first genetically modified plant. In 1996, RoundUp Ready Soybeans were introduced possessing an in-seed herbicide. Several other in-seed herbicides are introduced in 1997 by Monsato Co. such as RoundUp Ready Cotton and RoundUp Ready Canola. Also introduced is an in-seed insect protection called YieldGard Corn Borer. In 1998, Monsato Co. combines the technology of in-seed herbicides with their in-seed insecticides into one product for its corn seed. In 2002, Monsato Co. identifies corn hybrids, which yield more ethanol per bushel than normal corn. Later this same year, they also identify a similar hybrid in their soybeans, which will produce more oil than a normal soybean. In 2004, Monsato Co. creates American Seeds, Inc (ASI) to support regional seed business with capital, genetics, and technology investments. In 2005, Monsato Co. acquires four companies Fontanelle Hybrids, based in Fontanelle, Neb, Stewart Seeds, based in Greensburg, Ind., Trelay Seeds, based in Livingston, Wis., and Stone Seeds, based in Pleasant Plains, Ill. In 2006, they acquire several other local seed companies, some family-owned, including Diener Seeds, Sieben Hybrids, Kruger Seed Company, Trisler Seed Farms, Gold Country Seed, Inc., Heritage Seeds and Campbell Seed. Over the next several years, they also acquire other local and regional companies and continue their research and development of genetically altered seeds. Over the course of a few decades, Monsato Co. has gone from a small company making saccharine to a Midwest agricultural giant manufacturing genetically altered seed. 1 A Possible Solution: Deregulation Although the idea of producing more crops with less cost, such as additional chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides may sound, the fact remains that Monsato Co. is not only toying with nature, they are also putting smaller family-owned companies out of business. In the past several years, organic foods have become more popular. Consumers want to feed their families healthy food, not food filled with chemicals. In 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) decided to back Monsato and other biotech companies by supporting the deregulation of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. This would mean that the GE companies would have no restrictions on their technology and its use.2 Deregulation has its obvious problems. Organic crop company leaders, such as Stonyfield, Whole Foods, and OrganicValley believe that GE crops use a higher amount of toxins, herbicides, and water. Also the claims of higher crop yield will not be met and the price of this seed will be too costly for the average farmer. There is also the potential of cross-contamination of crops where a farmer using GE seed spreads the toxins to his organic neighbor through groundwater. This could lead to the organic farmer’s crops getting contaminated and his losing his license to sell organic products. Stonyfield and other organic companies opposed this ruling and in 2010 it went to the Supreme Court. The decision was that deregulation could not take place without the USDA making an environmental assessment of the genetically enhanced seeds used, and an injunction was put in place preventing the planting of GE alfalfa seeds. David and Goliath Biotech companies lobbied heavily in Washington. However, the smaller organic supporters caught the ear of the USDA and as a result persuaded them to conduct a meeting of the minds of both sides. The problem was clear – there was an incredible amount of support, political and financial, in favor of GE alfalfa. The result was that the UDSA would allow deregulation. The organic companies and farmers were faced with the fact that GE alfalfa was here to stay. What was left to fight over was whether it would be complete deregulation or one with restrictions. In their opinion, it was better to have some measure of control than no control at all, so the organic community stayed and fought. They brought to the table demands for reassurance that â€Å"(a) organic farmers whose crops become contaminated by GE alfalfa must be compensated by the patent holders for their losses due to losing their organic certification and (b) the USDA must oversee all testing and monitoring of GE crops t o ensure compliance as part of its role in protecting all US agriculture.† 3 The organic community won that portion of the battle. Conclusion The organic community may have won that battle, but they lost the war. Chemical companies and genetically engineered seed are a mainstay in today’s agriculture. Along with that they bring with them the potential for contaminated soil and damaged and lost crops of the small, everyday farmer. These farmers and family-owned businesses are being swallowed up on a regular basis. As the world’s population grows so does the demand for an ever increasing need of better, more enhanced, products. Technology provides us with the knowledge and growth for these, but in its wake leaves behind the things that matter very much to — clean air, clean soil, fresh water and â€Å"pure† food. References 1) Monsato. (2010). Monsato. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com 2) Pearson, C. (2010, March). The Most Unethical Company is also Best Corporate Citizen. Cause Integration http://www.causeintegration.com/2010/ the-most-unethical-companyis-a-best-corporate-citizen-what-gives/ 3) Hirshberg, G. (2011, January). Speaking with One Voice to Stop Monsato and Biotech. Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hirshberg/speaking-with-one-voice-t_b_816447.html

Same Sex Harassment Essay - 1298 Words

Same Sex Harassment Joseph Oncale was employed from August to November of 1991 by Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., as a roustabout on a sea-based oil rig for $7 an hour. He had worked on offshore rigs before (and does today), but says hes never encountered such abusive treatment as when he signed on with Sundowner. Oncale claims that while on the job he was sexually harassed by three male Sundowner employees: John Lyons, his supervisor; and Danny Pippen and Brandon Johnson, two co-workers. Early during Oncales employment, Lyons, Pippen, and Brandon began threatening Oncale with rape. Oncale endured months of constant harassment and verbal threats while on the job. On October 25, 1991, the threats became reality when Oncale†¦show more content†¦Oncale continued to try to work but says he, #8230;couldnt sleep because I was afraid that they would do something to me, I couldnt fight, and I felt disgraced. Oncale quit soon thereafter, stating on his pink slip that he voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse. On December 5, 1991, he filed a sexual discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His suit complained of both a hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. When Oncales case reached the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court, he was denied judgment. Oncales attorneys appealed and the case eventually appeared before the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court Justices said men who sexually harass other men (and women who harass women) are discriminating and thus breaking the law. They based their findings on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. According to the E.E.O.C., the act states that, Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individuals employment, unreasonably interferes with an individuals work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive workShow MoreRelatedEssay on Same Sex Harassment1650 Words   |  7 PagesSame Sex Harassment Imagine that you are in the shower of the gym at work and three co-workers enter, then hold you down to the ground while rubbing their genitalia across your bare skin. No matter what the circumstance you would find this behavior appalling and disgusting. Now think to yourself if every person involved had been a male. Would you say that they were just horsing around? I hope not. The attitude of American society and legal culture regarding sexual harassment hasRead MoreSame Sex Marriage Should Be Legal892 Words   |  4 PagesLove Is Love Same sex marriage is now allowed in all states across the country. But it took years and years for this â€Å"issue† to be finally laid to rest. The first state to legalize same-sex marriage was Massachusetts in 2004. There was not a last state to legalize gay marriage. The supreme court realized how many states were now legalizing it, so they just had all of the states left legalize it as well. ProCon.org supplies information that â€Å"Twenty-six states were forced to legalize gay marriageRead MoreT F Questions849 Words   |  4 Pagesdiversity means that everyone has different understandings about what sexuality means to them. 25. Bullying, homophobia and harassment can all change what you think and feel about your sexuality. 26. Acceptance of homosexuals has come far, but in society today are we near reaching an overall acceptance? 27. Homosexuals are into the opposite sex and heterosexuals are into same sex. 28. Marriage is a sacred right given to all human beings, and should not be taken away just because of sexual orientationRead MoreGay Rights in the Fire Department1610 Words   |  6 Pagesperson must be weird, stupid, or even dangerous. Though things are constantly getting better and people are beginning to be more accepting of each other some people continue to hate and cast out just because they do not have the same beliefs, sexuality, or even the same looks. The fire department has been on the business side, but people in the fire department the workers can be harmful bullies. This is not the fire departments fault but the workers that are fire fighters tend to be on the conservativeRead MoreThe Inequality Of Homosexual Individuals Face Essay1871 Words   |  8 Pagestimes is, the inequality that homosexual individuals face. Merriam Webster states homosexual means, of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex (Webster, 2 016 p.1). To society if you speak, look, act different, or love someone who isn’t the same sex as you, it makes you unequal. You as an individuals aren’t allowed to be different and it be okay. In the Social Problems book under interactionist perspective it states, â€Å"In our society, no oneRead More A Study on Gay Parenting Essay1090 Words   |  5 Pagesand lesbian marriage and various other matters that have arisen surrounding the movement towards equality of treatment and integration into society. One of these matters that has garnered attention is gay parenting. With some states now allowing same-sex marriage or unions, the next step being taken is starting a family. There has been wide speculation into sexual orientation and whether it has an impact on homosexuals and their abilities to be good parents. Because of this, many people have carriedRead MoreSame Sex Marriage Should Be Legal1358 Words   |  6 Pageslesbians all over the world often experience har assment, bias, fear, hate and more. And, it’s all because they love someone of the same gender.The discrimination doesn’t just occur because of a same-sex couple being seen together. What gets narrow-minded people even more riled up is the thought of a same-sex couple being allowed to get married. According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, same-sex marriage is the state of being married to a person of the same sex or gender in a relationship like that ofRead MoreOppression of a Sexual Minority in the US1421 Words   |  6 Pageslegal marriage. Because it is illegal to marry someone of the same gender. The United States of America were founded on the belief that everyone is equal and should be free to pursue happiness, yet there is oppression of a sexual minority that needs to end. Although there are many different people with many different reasons opposing same-sex marriage, such as religious or personal beliefs, it should not be illegal to marry someone of th e same gender because not all people support it. According to theRead MoreThe Right to Marriage for the Gays Essay532 Words   |  3 Pagesof Rights, Amendment XIV) goes along with discrimination is against the law. Allowing gay marriage ensures the people of the United States that every citizen has equal rights. It also ensures those who are coming to America that they will have the same rights as every citizen who is already here no matter their race, origin, values, beliefs, and religion. It says that America follows and sticks to their word. Allowing gay marriage will not only ensure equal rights, but it will also help those thousandsRead MoreShould Same Sex Marriage Be Legalized?945 Words   |  4 PagesEveryday there are new changes that are happening in our country which will affect today’s society. Over the years same sex marriage became a massive confrontation among the world. There were sixteen states that ban same-sex marriage some by constitutional amendment, some by law, and the majority by both. Majority of the people absolutely did not want this awful law passed in America. Everybody know the right thing to do and this was not an appropriate law to be passed. â€Å"The Catholic Church, United