Why Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional

To the contrary of what most students in my generation believe, I'm a strong believer that gay marriage is unconstitutional, and should not be legalized. We seem to be drifting further and further from the constitution as time goes by. Now just to be clear, I'm by no means a "homo-phobe". I'm very much accustomed to the way that things are currently, (especially in Austin, Texas believe me). I do not hate any one because of their sexual preferences, nor do I judge them. That being said, one of the biggest reasons I feel the way I do is because of religion.

It is my belief that our Country and our Constitution was founded on a strong, Christian foundation. When the Constitution was written, the founders were mostly all Christians, and believed the Country should be the same. Although we are a "free" country, and allow a country for other religions, cultures, and ideas to roam freely, our foundation should always remain Christian and follow the Constitution.

In the Christian religion, marriage is between a man and a woman, just as Adam and Eve. In the bible, the act of being gay or sleeping with someone of the same sex is considered a sin. I know there are a lot of points to be made here, about how lying, cheating, and etc are also considered sins in the bible, but the point I'm trying to make here is that sin should not ever be legal. This only encourages it and makes sin look okay in the eyes of so many that already believe that religion and doing good isn't very important anymore.

Even if you were to take out the fact of religion, many of the founders also had a strong belief in the importance of family. It bears repeating, a working family should be between a father and mother, not two fathers or two mothers.

Is Obama Not Doing Enough About Ebola?

In the article "Amid Assurances on Ebola, Obama Is Said to Seethe" on the New York Times people are still aggravated with the government on the way they are handling the Ebola crises. It really is a shame that President Obama now has to deal with Ebola while having to deal with so many issues with ISIS. I believe that President Obama is doing everything he can for our nation. This article is directed towards the people of the United States who are "tweeting" or over dramatizing the concerns with Ebola. Just because there has been four people with Ebola in the U.S doesn't mean the whole United States is going to be infected. Ebola is not easily contracted and I don't believe the people of the U.S should be as concerned as they are. Instead of "tweeting" about how tragic it is go out and do something about it. "For two turbulent weeks, White House officials have sought to balance those imperatives: insisting the dangers to the American public were being overstated in the news media, while also moving quickly to increase the president’s demonstration of action." I completely agree with this statement, it is a concern that Ebola has been detected in the United States but the way the media is going about it is a little too far fetched if you ask me. President Obama has tried to calm the public down about the situation we are in but they simply wont listen. Ron Klain has been elected to coordinate the governments efforts on Ebola, which I believe was a great idea to take some of the pressure off of President Obama. “Part of the challenge is to be assertive, to be in command, and yet not feed a kind of panic that could easily evolve here,” I do not agree with this statement however. President Obama is doing everything he can, what more is there that he can do to stop or make sure the Ebola does not spread to more people in the U.S? The Ebola "outbreak" is not nearly as bad as it is in West Africa and I hope that it never becomes that bad.

Analysizing ISIS From a New Perspective

In The New York Time's "The Fundamental Horror of ISIS", the writer tries to capture the attention of open-minded individuals mostly middle-aged, (because how much of the younger generations actually read the paper or New York Times anymore?). In addition to informing the reader about the terrors that go on in the Islamic State, the writer claims that these said terrors cannot be placed entirely on the nation itself, although the evil seems to be specific to that area right now. The writer then states that ISIS should be stopped before they go on to do bigger and badder things.
The writer supports this with the logic that even Al Qaeda, who was responsible for 9/11, thought of disowning the Islamic State's cruelty and torturous ways. The fact that even Al Qaeda thought they had gone too far shows the reader that these things they have done are close to pure evil and are needing to be stopped. Later on in the article, the writer claims that the beheadings and crucifixions have actually gained a lot of supporters, including Europeans and Americans. He goes on to say that the masked man who beheaded the American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff were from Britain, NOT Iraq, and that goes to show that it isn't just Muslims committing these crimes. The writer then states "To claim that this savagery is rooted in a certain people or a certain religion is to forget that the great atrocities of our age have been perpetrated on different continents by people professing different ideologies and different religions. Before the Islamic State there was Rwanda, and the Lord’s Resistance Army and the killing fields of Cambodia, and before that, in Europe, the Holocaust." He then continues with saying "Comparisons are meaningless at this level of evil, as are attempts to explain the horror by delving into the psychology or rationale of the perpetrators. Even to call what this group does “crimes against humanity” is to put a legalistic spin on raw evil."
It is my opinion as well as this author's that these monstrosities do need to be stopped somehow, someway. The Islamic State can try to justify it's evil doings all they want, it by no means gives a realistic excuse for the tortures, rapes, and horrible murders of children, Americans, women, and people of other ethnicities/religions. I also agree with the fact that this type of evil cannot be compared or analysized to fit just one particular culture or nation. This level of cruelty and wrong doings can only be described as evil and the result of hatred and discrimination brought into a weak and confused nation.
The writers credibility is pretty high because of the fact that it is from a big time newspaper, and in order to be a part of the editorial board, (whom wrote this opinion article), you would have to be very knowledgeable and well educated. Although I do believe that The New York Times, (as any other media source), can be biased or lean towards one political culture/party. The only quotes the writer uses are directly from Roger Cohen, The New York Times' own columnist, which proves to be very biased.