Machiavelli and International Relations

The United States is currently the world’s hegemon. Although it is somewhat up for debate, we are the most powerful country in the world. In 2014, we spent more on military than the next 10 highest countries put together. (2014 Military Spending) This puts us in a unique position internationally. We have the power and determination to do pretty much as we please. But does being a hegemon come with a certain responsibility to do the right thing, or do we only need to do what benefits us?

According to Machiavelli, we should act however we can to gain power outside of our own state. International politics is pure anarchy. There is no global central authority that states must answer to when acting. Within this system, states always act in their own best interest. If Saudia Arabia decides that they want Iraq’s oil fields, there is technically nothing to stop them from invading and taking them, especially with Iraq’s government and military as weak as it is. Of course, there would be repercussions from the international community, such as economic sanctions, but there is no real threat of serious action. International relations echoes what Machiavelli says right in the beginning of his book. When talking about invading another state, he says that settlements are the best way to go. “Unless you establish settlements, you will have to garrison large numbers of mounted troops and infantry. Settlements do not cost much, and the prince can found them and maintain them at little or no personal expense. He injures only those from whom he takes land and houses to give to the new inhabitants, and these victims form a tiny minority, and can never do any harm since they remain poor and scattered.” (Machiavelli, pg 10, chp III) Basically, kick a few poor people out of their homes, you get cheap housing for your people, and there is no chance of retaliation. This is practically how international politics work. Take what you want with little regard to the locals, and you won’t face many consequences.

However, is this the right thing to do? Is this the right way to act? As the (arguably) world’s only superpower, do we have the responsibility to set the precedent for international relations? We can do almost whatever we want. We could invade and conquer many other states fairly easily. We should set a better precedent by saying “It is not ok to do something just because you have the power to.” Russia, while not a superpower any longer, is still a formidable military force. They have the power to conquer their weak neighboring states. In the first and second Chechen wars, they invaded Chechnya and took control of many parts of it. They had the power to do that. Machiavelli would most likely argue that this was ok. They gained their territory without much backlash, besides a Chechen insurgency that the Russian military is fairly equipped to handle. I think we can all agree that a government trying to take back former territory that is now a sovereign state is wrong. Since we in the United States have the power to contest this, as well as the backing of the United Nations, should we? Do we, and other powerful Western states, have the responsibility to fight and set a precedent against aggression (and other international atrocities) like this?

The Beavan’s of the World

Beavan is a man of passion for what he believes, but I also found him to be a bit hypocritical in his lifestyle. In his book, No Impact Man, I read about a man who was ready and oh so eager to tell the world off for what he believed to be right. From his wife to the doorman of his apartment building, he eagerly likes to tell others how they should live in light of the global warming, greenhouse gasses, ecological sustainability and so on. Now, I do agree with his words, “so much of my trash-making and waste is about making convenient the taking care of myself and my family” (Beavan, p. 45). I just don’t think he was as dedicated as he thought he was. Now of course, the “No impact pledge” he made for a year, was a real eye opening experience for him, that was obvious. He seems to come to his senses when he asks himself the question, “Am I self-evolved or just self-righteous”? Great question. He realizes that “maybe I ought not to be writing a book about changing other people. Maybe I ought first to worry about changing myself” (Beavan, p. 13).

I find myself to be like Beavan in many ways, I can be highly idealistic and tend to climb up on soap boxes about things that are truly important to me, also presuming that those same things should be important to everyone else as well. The scene regarding the fur coat his wife wanted, but he was adamant about her not having, reminded me very much of a situation in my own life and marriage. I do not drink Starbucks coffee, not because I don’t love it, (I do), not because I think it costs too much, (it is expensive), but because of the CEO Howard Schultz and his pompous attitude toward customers who have views different from his. Prior to my decision my husband and I loved Starbucks, we would meet their every Wednesday on our way home from work or meet with other friends their all the time. But once I gave it up, I automatically assumed he would too. I mean he had to feel the same way I did, right?

Not so right.

He listened to the rant of Mr. Schultz, (I played it for him), and he thought about it, but in the end decided that it wasn’t all that big of a deal to him. I was quite disturbed, but I was also adamant that I would not spend any money on Starbucks or their products any longer. So I no longer met him on Wednesdays and we had to find another place to meet with friends. I no longer purchased Starbucks coffee for our home or any Starbucks products, but I did learn that day that just because something is very important or something really bothers or upsets me, does not mean everyone is going to feel the same way about it, not even my own husband. So I learned to be highly idealistic on my own and I learned not to push my convictions on to others either. I like Beavan was trying to get someone else to “change [their] behavior”, while remaining “utterly complacent about my own” (Beavan, p. 6).

Beavan and those married to people like him, are all different people with different passions beliefs, convictions and principles and we must all learn to stand up, not only for what we believe to be right, fair, good or honest, but also stand up to the Beavans of the world who would try to force us to carry their own passions, convictions and principles as well.

The Moral Dilemma: To Foer or To Beavan?

 

After reading both textbooks, “Eating Animals” and “No Impact Man,” I felt a sudden urgency and obligation to do my part on these important issues. For one, becoming more consciously aware and purchasing ethically processed meat was something that I had to immediately implement into my life. As to Beavan’s case, I felt a desired need to invest more time and effort into reducing my impact and convert my current lifestyle. As I began to integrate both of these aspects into my life, I began experiencing an extremely difficult time incorporating Beavan’s notion of reducing my environmental impact.

The primary reason why I could not conform to Beavan’s concepts of reducing my environmental impact, resided on the notion that I would have to implement a drastic and radical approach to my current routine. Switching to a public form of transportation posed the greatest threat to incorporating Beavan’s concept. As we had previously discussed in class, the horizontal layout of Arizona introduces a rigorous and more time invested transportation routine compared to New York City’s vertical layout, hence the practical accessibility within walking distance.

In my current situation, walking would not be considering an option, because it would be impossible to accomplish anything. Therefore, I looked into public transportation as another means for reducing my impact. Unsurprisingly, after thorough research it would be physically demanding to alter my daily routine according to Beavan’s lifestyle. As I calculated my travel time to my internship, I couldn’t even believe how much time I would have to invest on traveling. For a 25-minute car ride, it would take me 2 hours and 25 minutes on the bus, including an additional 40 minutes to walk to the bus stop from my house and from the bus stop to my internship site. Totaling my one-way bus ride time to 3 hours and 5 minutes compared to my usual 25-minute travel time in a car. Evidently, this pivotal aspect hindered my ability to completely commit to Beavan’s lifestyle. However, even though I do not utilize public transportation as my main form of transportation, I have incorporated other alternatives such as recycling and carpooling that do reduce my environmental impact, however, not to the equivalence of Beavan’s case.

Therefore, Foer’s approach to food with a conscious awareness suited my lifestyle and appealed more to me. Soon after reading Foer, I began to experience a vast variety of emotions. Every gruesome depiction of an image depicted one after another brewed such anger in me that I began to regret eating meat. For this reason, I began to appreciate Foer’s mentality and understand how important and critical this is to our lives. The most drastic change I have implemented was not eating fast food meat. For some reason, the ambiguity that surrounds the supply of meat to fast food restaurants repeals me from partaking. Implementing Foer’s conception of purchasing ethically processed meat and free-range eggs provide something I could actually do. Two weeks in, and this simple transition has so far been realistic and effortless.

Overall, approaching both of Foer’s and Beavan’s concepts sparked an awareness that wasn’t full there before. Unlike previous readings, both of these authors introduced new approach to addressing morality. In addition, both authors introduced how intricate the dimensions of morality and how this concept does not have to confine to the formal and proper notions of morality.

So where are we now?

The semester is coming to an end. In the typical fashion of college students, most of us are very excited of the prospect of a few weeks off and one more semester behind us. This will be my final semester at ASU, I will be graduating in December. The path for my degree has spanned 10 years, two colleges, and 4 campuses. In that time I have had my fair share of studies with 13 semesters of classes. While I look at those courses and the knowledge that they gave me, it pales in comparison to what my life has told me in that same amount of time. While 120 credits is a lofty accomplishment, it is one without contrast. In those same 10 years I became a United States Marine, a professional in the corporate world, a husband, and a father. I came into the Fall 2014 semester solely looking to check a box that has remained empty for 4 years. I got a lot more than that. What I have gotten from the Fall 2014 semester and POS 394 is something simple, yet provocative. In the last 13 weeks, I have learned contrast.

Contrast by definition is: “the state of being strikingly different from something else, typically something in juxtaposition or close association”. What the heck can I mean by that?

I have seen, heard, and felt strikingly different views and interpretations from the same readings. For 10 weeks we have all been assigned the same readings, yet each week we all have taken different values, focuses, concerns, and priorities from each. At times these views have been contrasting. We had conflicting views but were never able to prove anyone wrong or incorrect. We all chose to not only be different, but to accept that in others. We began to see the contrast.

There are clear and evident reasons why we hold diverse views and opinions. Each of us come from different faiths, races, economic statuses, professions, experiences, and even decades. But for two hours and forty-five minutes a week, we are pretty much the same; just lowly students at the ASU’s West Campus. Each week some people shared and others listened, but I bet that we all had a few “that’s a good point” or “I never thought of it that way” moments. Each week we walked into that room and brought with us the experiences of our lives, positive and negative. Some shared vocally, others with a few keystrokes, but they all had impact. Everyone said something at least once, and it always mattered, it always had weight, because it was their experience. Rarely, did we all agree. The deeper we dug the more contrast we found.

I love this newly found contrast in my life. It began as the contrast of me 10 years ago. I was an eager 19 year-old who thought he had the world on a string. I look back at so much of those experiences and think that I would never do them again (I messed up quite a bit), but I am damn glad I did. I celebrate the contrast in me since it shows growth. It took this semester to want to celebrate that contrast between myself and others. While we never did figure out who was right, there were a few things we never spoke about in a negative light. While morality may be subjective, a few other things aren’t really. Tolerance, understanding, and working together have proven to be pretty universal. Contrast may be how we measure the difference between things, but it has nothing to do with right or wrong. Contrast only quantifies the difference.

Often, contrast only relates to the difference between light and dark.

Have We Learned Anything?

With this semester winding down, I’m feeling nostalgic. When I first signed up for the course Morality and Politics: Liars, Scolds, and Zealots I had absolutely no idea what to expect. The title is a mouthful, the concept seemed comical, and the description offered little more than “covers topics of immediate or special interest to a faculty member and students.” What the heck is that supposed to mean?!? But I signed up anyway, and I’m actually very glad that I did.

Throughout the semester we have deliberated and debated what role (if any) morality should play in politics. After hearing from the heavyweights (Machiavelli, Kant, Walzer), I’m curious to see what decision we all have come to. I know that my definition of what counts as “political” has shifted a bit throughout the course and it has lead me to reexamine my ideas of power and deception. The lens with which I look at the world has been readjusted and I’m seeing things differently now. For example, in these last few weeks we’ve seen that where we buy our groceries from and what we put in our mouths is a political decision and it matters. I think this new way of looking at things, if nothing else, is something I’d like to take away from this course.

Even if you’re not super into politics, we’ve now made a distinction that will incorporate more of your daily life. I think it’s important to note that the discussions we’ve held and the texts that we’ve read will have significant importance with some of us (myself included). How often do you read about things or hold class discussions that force you to take a long hard look in the mirror and face yourself? To really reevaluate the choices you are making? I know that I haven’t had many courses like that and I’m sure I’m not alone! Perhaps aside from philosophy majors, I would say quite a few of us are taught the material, memorize it, take the test, and move on. No matter what the content is, the cycle repeats itself. Even in the few sociology courses I have taken, the way the topics are presented is more factual: this is happening now, this is what the experts are saying, etc. Rarely (if ever) have I had it taught to me in a way that made me feel like I was involved. But this course was different.

Throughout this semester, I have found myself not only confronting my own (as well as others’) beliefs head on but also then really taking them into careful consideration. Why is it that I jumped to that conclusion so fast? How can I justify it? Where did I get that idea from? And I am so grateful to have had the opportunity to have done that. This gave me a chance to exercise my critical thinking skills and I feel like I am going to be a much more responsible and respectable member of society because of it. You often hear around election time that the solution to all of our problems is “an informed public.” That if only the American people were “informed” they would all come to the same, miraculous, right decision. We’ve demonstrated just in this class that finding the “right” answer is next to impossible. I’m more inclined to think that maybe there isn’t a right answer. But the kind of work and thinking we were forced to do this semester is a start. Maybe if everyone in America were to confront their beliefs and really look at them under a microscope they would have a better understanding of what it even is that they belief and why. Maybe then we would quit arguing past each other and be able to construct a solution.

Liberty and Justice For All?

Throughout the course, we have discussed many different topics regarding morality. There have been discussions on legalizing marijuana, utilitarianism, idealism, etc. After listening to our discussion, I left asking if people understood a theme in both books, “an individual sacrifice for the greater good is a moral act.” I asked whether or not there is an issue that the majority of Americans can agree upon. This led me to the topic of income inequality. Based off of an article I read from the Pew Research Center, income inequality is one reported to be one of the “major problems” facing the globe (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/08/with-41-of-global-wealth-in-the-hands-of-less-than-1-elites-and-citizens-agree-inequality-is-a-top-priority). Why can many agree that this is a problem and yet nothing seems to be getting done? There are movements around the world in some countries and yet based off the article income inequality is believed to continue to be the most important issue in the coming years.

Corporations dictate our liberties

In countries such as Greece, Spain, and Italy income inequality is believed to be a “major problem” in over 70% of the individuals being interviewed. Those numbers are staggering and yet many continue to go on with their daily lives without any fight. To put these numbers into perspective, when the United States was polled, 46% of people believed that income inequality is a “major problem” and 32% thought it is a “moderately big problem”. People struggle to survive, but there are no dramatic changes to the system that can aid or keep their “hands off” of policies. Our leaders have seen that income inequality is a salient issue to people, but is anything getting done? We can see that in other nations, the overwhelming majority see this an issue that needs to be solved and the article states that the number one reason why this is a concern is due to government. In the United States 78% believe that this is a “major” or “big” issue, but this past Congress might go down in history as one of the least productive. Public opinion agrees that income inequality needs to be addressed, but the way in which we solve the issue is viewed in different ways. The United States is comprised by the two major political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. They each have different ideas on how government should be run, but many would say that each want the “American Dream” to be achieved, right? This idea that Americans have been taught to believe that each person is born with equal opportunity to succeed and if an individual works hard, they can achieve success. People believe in this ideology, but the article shows that this is not a likely scenario that a person born in a poor household can achieve extreme wealth. Extreme wealth is being in the .7% in the world according to the article which is equal to over a million dollars.

Now as we discussed in class, patriotism and individualism is embedded in each of us. Going to school, every morning we said the Pledge of Allegiance. Americans are taught young of this exceptualism. America is, “One nation under God, indivisible,”. We are taught as children that “God” is on our side. We were never taught to examine the idea of God or the possibility that God may not take sides. Children are rooted and given the chance to think for themselves, but are influenced by messages regarding religion. The connection to America grows and love for the country develops. America supports and follow, “liberty and justice for all.” Americans are given core principles such as liberty and justice as children. Based off the article do we really abide by those values? Do we really obtain liberty and justice for all? There are people in this country that struggle to survive. They are enslaved by a job that pays them scraps while the corporation make billions. There are children that drop out of school in order to work just to pay the bills. Families work day after day in order to have food on the table, but the media relays messages to their viewer relaying that if you struggle your lazy or you’re a moocher if you ask for help from the government. We are always told that we can achieve any goal, be whatever we want, and if we work hard enough you can have the “American Dream”, but are ridiculed if a person asks for help. The theme of the two books is how a person can create change. Is this possible? Maybe the progress we seek is not through saving animals or the environment, but in other ways such as public transportation, education, or holding our representatives accountable. Can we as a society recognize a problem such as income inequality and actually fix it? There must be a call for change to fix the system that creates, continues, or allows income inequality. Foer and Beavan sacrificed for the greater good once they recognized a problem. 78% of Americans see that there is an issue. I ask are do you agree? Do you believe if you contributed in little ways to help solve the issue will it matter? Can we even comprehend a solution to this problem?

Morality and My Impact

It took me about a week to read Colin Beavan’s book, No Impact Man and throughout the entire time, I asked myself, what is my impact? Well, turns out, it’s a lot more than I realized. I found out, I recycle when I remember, when it’s convenient, and when I have time. And that’s just when I looked at how much I recycle! I’d be lying if I said, it didn’t matter, but it does. I thought I was helping the environment and humanity quite a bit because I’ve always thought I recycled ALL the time. Sadly, I don’t.

Now, while researching YouTube videos on why recycling is important, I encountered some that had me practically apologizing to all human race for my inconsiderate actions! And the other half, like the above video, just pointed out an obvious effect of what happens when we don’t recycle. Can you tell what type of videos I preferred? The point of this substantial post is to share how Beavan’s book impacted the way that I view my impact on the world.
At first, when I considered how little I recycled, I thought of how morally wrong that was. But, isn’t it the thought that counts? Yeah, I think I was just in disbelief. Turns out, I REALLY REALLY think it’s morally wrong. Ever since I realized how LITTLE I recycle, I became almost obsessed with what I buy, when I recycle, and properly recycling. I did this, not because Beavan shed some new light on recycling, but because he re-opened a door that I had forgotten about. That recycling isn’t just about me, but about EVERYONE. Everyone that is alive and everyone that is to come.

I didn’t really think that it was morally wrong that I recycled so little, but that I had forgotten the reason for why I even started recycling. That was what I found morally wrong. How do I take a course on morality and think that I’m satisfied with my morals, when I had forgotten some of them. Believe it or not, one of them included, recycling. I just kept think of Robert Collier’s quote, “You have to sow before you can reap. You have to give before you can get.” How can I expect change when I can’t even change? How can I consider myself a moral person when I’ve been committing an immoral act? Now, I know that it’s just recycling, but is it just recycling? Recycling impact not only us, but all living things that aren’t even born. Don’t do it for yourself, you probably won’t see any change, but do it for those you care about. That’s why I recycle; better than I did before Beavan. So, thank you Beavan, for re-opening a door I had forgotten about and reminding me of a moral I had long forgotten about.

Below are just some websites that give you facts about the importance of recycling and how to change less drastically than Beavan.

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-recycling

http://www.nrdc.org/recycling/

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwasterecyclingfacts.htm

Eating Meat: Tastes Fine To Me

After reading “Eating Animals” by Jonathan Safran Foer, my stomach couldn’t help but to turn at the thought of eating meat for the few days that followed.  My mind was filled by the more than descriptive imagery of large cesspools of animal feces, cows being left to die in a graveyard of cattle carcasses, and male chickens being thrown into a wood chipper-like mechanism because they are basically worthless to factory farms.  However, those thoughts of the obviously inhumane treatment of animals did begin to fade.  So, I then asked myself, “Why was it so easy to forget about something that I felt would actually encourage me to become more conscience of the food on my plate?  Why, in the poultry aisle of Fry’s, was I suddenly able to select and purchase chicken as easily as I could before reading this book?”  After reflecting on these questions, I decided that it was due to the fact that I was raised to think of meat as a means of feeding myself and not as a poor, victimized animal and that mindset is difficult to brink cold turkey.  I am also unable to commit to eating only humanely raised meats at this time.

In socioeconomic studies, the lower class focuses on how much you ate, the middle class questions whether or not the food was good, and the higher class is concerned with the overall presentation of the meal.  Being the son of two Cambodian refugees, our main focus was always whether or not you had enough to eat.  My parents’ reasoning for this stemmed from their personal experiences – much like Foer’s grandmother in the “Greatest Chef Who Ever Lived.”  Both my parents and Foer’s grandmother had to rummage through scraps in their home countries due to times of war.  My parents and their relatively large families shared a can of beans and a bag of rice a week in these awful conditions – which led my parents to believe that worrying about whether or not the food tastes good or looks pretty on a plate was of little concern.  Foer’s compassion and concern for these animals is admirable; still, it is very difficult to change a lifetime of eating meat after just 267 pages of a book.

“Tell me something: Why is taste, the crudest of our senses, exempted from the ethical rules that govern our other senses?  If you stop and think about it, it’s crazy.” (Foer 93)  When you stop and critically analyze anything, it will always seem a little “crazy” – that is, of course, if you actually have the time to critically analyze it.  When I stop to think about the mass slaughter and overall treatment of these animals, it does strike me as immoral.  Nevertheless, the family dinners that bring all of us together, the feeling of satisfaction when you bite into a steak that was cooked exactly the way you wanted it, and knowing that everyone in country could possibly go to sleep on a full stomach somewhat justifies how we process and package our meat.  My only concern with the factory farms is their environmental footprint it leaves behind.

What would you do?

A lot of time when we are discussion in class we often times say that we can’t say what we would honestly do unless we were actually in that situation. ABC has helped clear up interesting scenarios. I have personally watched robbers get help stealing a bike to the every debated Tiger Mom.

In this clip it questions what people would do if they show a teen being abused by her boyfriend. My friend Amber, has stated that she would have went Mama Bear on Sandusky, What Would you Do? put actually people in extremely tense and awkward situations.

In this clip a woman actually fakes a pregnancy to attempt to get her boyfriend to marry her. I personally would tell the guy if I had the chance to get him alone and separate from his girlfriend. One man actually watches the actress purchases the positive pregnancy test from a pregnant woman, and then watches at the actress tells her “boyfriend” that they are expecting, the gentlemen does not speak up and tell the man that is a fake test, he said that men sometimes need a push.

I honestly and whole heartily think that we as humans would react differently when present with a different set of circumstances. Since I am a female, I would not stop to help someone with a flat tire of car troubles because I would not feel safe, but the other day when I was got the gym, there was a gentleman that appeared that he needed a jump. I asked him if he needed a jump he said that he did, so I pulled around and helped him. In a situation like that I helped because I know where I was and I would not concerned about my safety.

I have learned a lot about myself as a person while taking this class. Although I have not spoken up or participated in class a much as I would have liked. I have really enjoyed taking this class. Dr. Kirkpatrick has been a hoot. I love how high energy she is that she have an extreme passion for what she is doing

http://https://webapp4.asu.edu/directory/person/1975281

Morality in Fame and Opinions

In trying to decide what to write about for my final substantial post lots of things plagued my mind to talk about. I thought about the class as a whole and what we have been talking about in terms of morality. Every day we make decisions based on our ideals of what we as individuals believe to be moral. My mother always told us that when making decisions we have to be able to look in the mirror at the end of the day and be confident with the decisions we have made. So in my train of thoughts I found a topic that has occurred over the last week or two.

In today’s society is has become very easy to put your thoughts out into the digital stratosphere. For example this blog has allowed us to voice our opinions that allow for friendly debate. Things like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram provide outlets to exercise our right to free speech. I have accounts to all of these outlets to where I can keep in contact with far away family members and friends that have moved away. This allows me to also follow and peak into the lives of my favorite entertainers. The celebrity world has become just as obsessed with these forms of social media outlets as the non-celebrity population. Some of them even take the opportunity to use it as ways of expressing thoughts and emotions on particular topics that they are passionate about. For example I follow Kristen Bell on Instagram and Twitter in which on both accounts she talks about volunteering for habitat for humanity and voting. I find people like her inspiring in using her status as a celebrity morally to promote great causes. However some celebrities do not use social media in the same fashion.

In the past few weeks the Duggars from 19 Kids and Counting have been in the news for the ways they have used their celebrity status on social media. A week ago they asked married couples to post pictures of themselves kissing on the Duggar’s Facebook page. Naturally all different types of couples were happy to participate in the request. However after the Duggars found pictures of same sex and interracial couples had appeared on their page they quickly took them down and then blocked the users. This act sparked an outrage that has invaded all media outlets and even a petition to cancel the television show.

This has sparked conversation among my friends and family on whether or not the show should be cancelled. In my opinion when you sign on to become a public figure to take on the moral responsibly for the things you say and do. In their situation they are looked upon as the perfect family made up of morals and values, their viewers strive to be just like them. In this powerful situation their followers take what they saw and do very seriously almost to the point of imitation. The Duggars have been very outspoken about their anti-gay opinion when comparing it to pedophilia. Let me just state that I believe that everyone has the right to their own opinion and to voice it, however I believe that it comes with moral obligations. When someone has the ability to reach mass amounts of people with their spoken words or actions they have to be mindful that people can take their words to heart and even to the extremes. In this case they are tossing out facts into the public to which they have no proof; they are stating a harmful opinion. A man started a petition to cancel the show stating the reason for it is because they are using their fame to promote discrimination and fear mongering against the gay community.

I don’t agree with their beliefs but they have the constitutional right to have them and voice them. But in the position of fame they have the moral obligation to be conscious of what they say to the public because you never know what kind of person will take it too far. This is 2014 hate should be a thing of the past, people should have the right to live however they want.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/14/the-duggars-gay-kisses-_n_6154504.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/petition-cancel-19-kids-and-counting-gay_n_6185260.html