Researchers at a university in Israel have concluded a study that compared brain scans of new moms, new straight dads, and new gay dads and found that gay dads develop brain patterns that resemble both mothers and fathers. The lead researcher explained that when two fathers are co-parenting, “their brains must recruit both networks, the emotional and the cognitive, for optimal parenting.” While there have been studies that have showed that children raised by homosexual fair no worse than children raised by heterosexual couples, this is the first study that shows why this may be. This is also one of the first steps towards discrediting the argument that a child needs both a mother and father in order to receive a quality upbringing.

In class on Wednesday, someone had mentioned how there might be some challenges for kids growing up in a same sex household in regards to possibly being judged by other kids at school and thinking differently than others. Though I wish it weren’t I do believe that some of this is true. I automatically thought back to an episode of Modern Family where Mitchell and Cameron are a gay couple who adopt a Vietnamese girl named Lily. In one of the episodes, she begins going to school and telling everyone she meets that she is gay. She won’t stop saying this because she believes that who you are is derived from your parents. Because her fathers are gay, then she must be as well. This relates back to how kids with same sex marriage view things differently. Yet, I think that if the public as a whole was more accepting and stopped portraying homosexuality as something that is out of the norm and something that is so different or wrong, I think that this notion will go away. This show to me portrays just how normal homosexuality is and how gay or lesbian couples are capable of raising kids and having typical lives just as much as heterosexual couples are. They did a good job in showing how to educate younger kids and families as whole on the concept of homosexuality is completely and undoubtably normal. If more people were open to this and started educating others, then I think that kids raised in same sex households will become something as normal as kids raised in interracial households, hetero households, and much more.

For most states, same-sex adoption is made legal case by case by a judge. There are 16 states however that definitely allow same-sex adoption. Some states allow second parent adoption (when one person adopts the child of his partner). There are only two states where same-sex adoption is illegal by law: Mississippi and Utah. Ohio specifically allows single LGBT individuals to petition to adopt, but does not allow a same-sex couple to jointly petition to adopt or second parent adoption. This is surprising considering the shortage of adoptive parents nationwide. According to a study by Rachel Farr of the University of Virginia, same-sex couples are more likely to adopt trans-racially compared to heterosexual couples. Therefore, it only makes sense to allow same-sex couples to ability to adopt nationwide because not only will the number of parents wishing to adopt increase, but more minority children will also be adopted.

I found many flaws in Gallagher’s piece opposing same-sex marriage. One point that left me dumbfounded was Gallagher’s argument that marriage is for the reproduction of children, and thus same-sex marriage should not be allowed. It’s true that same-sex couples cannot themselves reproduce, but it’s not as if disallowing any type of union between people of the same sex would drive them into heterosexual relationships, where they could reproduce. Furthermore, Gallagher refutes the idea that there is evidence that children raised in same-sex households are not worse off than children raised by heterosexual parents. She then goes on to discuss how the institution of marriage is in shambles – half of marriages end in divorce, the majority of children will experience a fatherless or motherless household, etc. Does Gallagher not consider that even if children raised by gay parents are worse than children raised by straight parents, they are almost certainly better off raised by any two people (same sex or not) than only a mother or father? She is essentially making the argument for proponents of same-sex marriage by saying this because it would seem that a homosexual couple adopting children would be better than what they are currently experiencing. She goes on to shoot herself in the foot again by almost pinning the problems facing marriage on the same ideals that allow same-sex marriage, when she previously states how little of the population is made up of “same-sex registered domestic partnerships.”

Reagan critiques/rejects three different ideas reefing to the rights and place of Animals. In the indirect duty approach, humans have no duties towards animals, but to other humans concerned because of animals. Regain argues this approach to be invalid because torturing animals does not just hurt humans. In the second approach he explained the cruelty kindness view. This view holds that our behavior towards animals is fine as long as we aren’t cruel towards them. An action may be kind but it may not be right either. Lastly, he describes the utilitarian approach. This approach says that animals interests should be the same as human interests. It also believes to do the act that best balances between satisfaction and frustration. Reagan does however find to flaws with this view. It denies that individuals have inherent values. And also that any action can be justified if the end result is good (Aunt Bee example).

Reagan counters these views with his own thoughts. He argues that everyone (including animals) has inherent value and that it is wrong to treat anyone with value as a resource (exploit them). He also talks about right acts, which basically means treating all individuals with respect and not using them for some other gain.

One thing Reagan’s argument fails to explain is the idea that can’t someone be really concerned about the well-being of animals but at the same time use animals for human means (as a  pet).

Imagining a world shared with zombies is difficult, but since I’m a Walking Dead fan, it’s more imaginable. If zombies acted exactly like they acted in the Walking Dead, where they are lifeless bodies looking for humans (and animals) to feed on, then I do not think they would have any rights. They would be worth nothing to society and their “lives” should not be comparable to a live human or animal’s life. I think that seeing a loved one turn into a zombie would be devastating, but they would not be human anymore, so they would not have any value. Looking at Singer’s argument, zombies are not conscious, cannot reason, and do not have any morals. You cannot train a zombie like you can a dog or cat. This shows that animals have a much higher level of thinking and can be much more easily controlled and helpful to people overall. Since zombies cannot think and do not benefit society in any way, how are they useful? Maybe if zombies were not as harmful to society we could find an ethical way to treat them, but the most sensible way to treat them if they existed would be how they do in the Walking Dead – by killing them in their tracks before they can “add to the fire” and turn more people into zombies.

To me, I think that it is completely common sense and the moral thing to believe in rights of animals. In regards to Regan’s idea, I do believe in the direct duty views. I think that when you hurt a dog, it completely makes sense that you are hurting the dog itself. Animals have rights and have the ability to feel pain so why would someone inflict that pain onto the animal? To me, just because it is an animal doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t have any type of rights. For example, those ASPCA commercials mention the abuse that some of these animals face and just hearing that and seeing the pain that these animals have inside just triggers something in me and in most other people to make us all feel as if there should be animal rights and a protection for them. They deserve love and care just as much as humans. Also, in relation to animal rights, this is the reason Michael Vick was in such deep trouble for his dog fighting circle. There isn’t anyone that I can think of that feels as if what he did wasn’t wrong. Hurting animals is morally wrong on it’s own which is why I support the direct duty view.