What Are Safe Spaces in USA?

The term safe space was originally used in educational institutions to demonstrate that the student body, teachers, or school will not put up with anti-LGBT aggression, hate speech, or harassment – and that the place was, therefore, declared as “safe” for all LGBT students.

The term has since become more comprehensive. Today, the term is used to refer to space (usually in a school campus) marked as autonomous, where people who consider themselves “marginalized” can assemble and express their experiences with or feelings about marginalization without being judged, harassed, or challenged.

The concept of positive spaces or safe spaces has been criticized by proponents of freedom of speech. Critics of the concept assert that safe space deters students from being exposed to and from discussing sensitive material that should be explained and discussed in an instructive environment. The declaration of an increasing number of safe spaces across universities is perceived as a move to suppress free speech and to stifle the expression of differing political views. Advocates of free speech point out that safe space policies ban people from discussing certain topics that are likely to cause offence, and thus, curtail freedom of expression.

 

The Beginnings of Safe Space

The phrase “safe space” is believed to have been initially used in the 1970s. Safe space referred to a specific place in the school campus designated as posing no disapproval, conflict, or condemnation. It is free from any conversation, idea, or action deemed to be potentially intimidating or aggressive.

These spaces were created in university campuses as “safe” for transgender students, victims of sexual assault, people of color, and other marginalized groups. Individuals belonging to these groups were free to discuss issues and problems in forums without fear of other people condemning or attacking them.

In the United States, the concept of safe space drew inspiration from the women’s movement. It referred not only to physical space but to space fashioned by women coming together in search of community. It referred to space where women were free to express their thoughts and to act freely, gain collective strength, and conceptualize strategies to advance their cause.

Gay groups and consciousness-raising communities were among the first to embrace the concept of safe space. In the late 1900s, GLUE or the Gay & Lesbian Urban Explorers worked out a safe spaces program. They conducted anti-homophobic seminars, diversity training workshops, and other events where they distributed magnets bearing the symbol for universal acceptance – an upturned pink triangle encircled by a green circle. They encouraged people to use the magnets to express their support for gay rights and to declare their work spaces free from antipathy toward homosexuality.

Safe space insulated individuals belonging to marginalized groups from the views, especially hostile ones, of people who were not like them.

 

Safe Space Today

The concept of safe space remains popular to this day. There are many advocates for positive spaces where individuals can loosen up and be themselves without having to feel afraid, unwelcome, or uncomfortable because of gender identity, sexual orientation, biological sex, cultural background, race or ethnicity, mental or physical ability, or age. It is space where rules protect every individual’s feelings, dignity, and self-respect. Women use kik girls to keep their space safe while chatting on the app. It is space where everyone is encouraged to respect each other despite the differences.

The concept seems to be morphing quickly. There are now advocates who want segregated living quarters for students who belong to marginalized groups. The original concept provided the means for marginalized individuals to discuss issues in a safe and inclusive milieu. Today, the concept seems to border on the urge to isolate oneself and create physical segregation. There are groups that insist that their well-being is hinged on being able to live only with individuals of their own kind.

 

Violation of the Freedom of Speech

Many people think that safe space activism violates the First Amendment. They think that the concept of safe space is a mechanism employed by individuals to withdraw from other people whose opinions or views contrast with theirs.

The call for segregated safe spaces in school campuses is seen by some people as an explicit rejection of the concept of collaborative engagement. A strong and vibrant educational institution should encourage its students to remain open to the unfamiliar, explore and discuss differences, and express and account for ideas. The concept of safe space seems to restrain this ideal.

Some universities welcome incoming freshmen with unmistakable messages about safe spaces. They reiterate their commitment to intellectual freedom. They do not condone individuals who use the concept to keep away from perspectives and ideas that do not align with their own.

 

Positive and Negative Undertones

Safe space can provide emotional refuge. It provides people a sense of community, as well as the chance to feel secure, particularly in times of dysfunction and pain.

These spaces are important on campus. They promote the converging of like-minded individuals who agree to keep from criticizing, ridiculing, or acting aggressively. They represent discretion, respect, and comfort in certain pockets in the university.

On the other hand, the concept of safe spaces is perceived as a threat to freedom of speech. It restricts education. It inhibits open dialogue, intellectual debate, and rational arguments. It censors provocative speech.

If you want to have a constructive discussion about the pros and cons of safe spaces, you should be open to the diverse meanings the term has for different people. It is difficult, almost impossible, to have a productive conversation about the concept when people refer to different models when using the term safe space.

What are the Issues with Abortion in USA?

Abortion is a subject matter that has always been up for debate. To learn more about the issues surrounding it, you’ll be given the pros and cons of abortion in this article.

Pros

The United States Supreme Court in 1972 ruled that abortion was included in one of the so-called, zones of privacy,”where people could exercise individual rights. The ruling states that the right of privacy is a broad subject matter that can also encompass a woman’s decision whether to proceed or terminate her pregnancy.   This is the first argument that pro-abortion groups have: it is already law. The other arguments for legalized abortion include the following:

One, abortion gives women control over their bodies. Women should be able to take responsibility over what happens to their bodies. Women should be able to use any fuckbook to meet partners for any sexual benefit. By restricting their right to abortions, they lose a dimension of control over their destiny.

Two, a fetus becomes a baby only when it is already “viable”. Abortion advocates believe that terminating a life before it possesses the ability to survive independently of its mother, is not immoral or illegal. It is not murder.

Three, there is no evidence that a fetus can feel pain during the abortion process. This is especially true for fetuses during the early stages of development. The nerves and brains are too underdeveloped to allow for the fetus to feel pain.

Four, women will pursue abortions anyway, whether it is legal or not. They might as well have access to regulated and safe abortion clinics that can perform the abortions safely.

Five, women who allowed to go through abortions end up more mentally stable over those women who are denied abortions. They say that women who are denied abortions are angry and resentful, and if they have children against their will, they are passing on this resentment and mental issues to their children.

Six, women can choose to abort babies with potential birth abnormalities or deformities. They argue against bringing people into the world with built-in defects, already giving them a handicap right from the onset of life. Having to take care of physically and mentally handicapped babies can also present severe financial challenges for the parents.

Seven, women who are allowed abortions can be more financially stable than those who are denied abortions. Most women who have abortions do so, because they are not ready, from a financial standpoint, to take care of children. By not having unwanted children, they tend to be more economically stable.

Cons

The main argument against abortion is that it is in effect, a homicide. The snuffing out of a human life, whether a formed version, or a mass of developing cells, is murder and this should not be acceptable in any society.

The other arguments against abortion include the following.

One, life becomes at conception. A fetus, regardless of its age, is comprised of living cells that have the potential to become human beings. Terminating a fetus is in effect, terminating a live person. Since they should be considered as live persons, unborn babies should be granted the same constitutional rights as regular United States citizens.

Two, fetuses feel pain during the abortion. Fetuses already have a brain with interconnected nerves and nerve endings. Being subjected to the procedures and chemicals in an abortion are violently painful.

Three, the procedure itself is immoral, and against religious values. Many religious leaders invoke the Bible and argue that God says that a baby has already been “knitted” inside the mother’s womb, and since God frowns down upon killing unborn babies, abortion is immoral. It seems to promote a society that considers life a disposable and cheap.

Four, abortions can cause psychological trauma. Opponents say that many women who undergo abortions are racked with feelings of guilt, and sometimes fall into depression.

Five, abortions based on potential birth abnormalities, is discriminatory. Society frowns upon discrimination against physically and mentally challenged people. By disallowing the birth and development of the fetuses of such people is also discrimination.

Six, the availability of abortion on demand reduces the sense of responsibility for a woman. Many pregnancies are a result of an irresponsible or little thought of actions. By allowing abortions on demand, women are being insulated from having to think about the consequences of their actions.

Seven, abortion disproportionally affects African-Americans. Statistics show that African-American women are about three times more likely to undergo an abortion as women of other races.

What are the Issues with Gay Marriages in USA?

The main issue about gay marriage is whether the United States Constitution protects the rights of couples who enter into a contract of marriage. While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015, that gay marriage should be allowed in all fifty states, the debate rages on, and the opponents still protest loudly and vociferously against it.

The main argument presented against gay marriage is that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that this is a traditional tenet that cannot be broken, because they argue, that the main purpose of marriage is procreation.   They further contend that because homosexuals cannot procreate, they are going against “natural law”. The other “anti” issues are:

One, it denies the child a mother and father figure/influence that they believe is essential for the proper development of a child. They believe that a child will grow up to be “mal-adjusted” because of the absence of a solid male/female influence.

Two, gay marriage promotes the homosexual lifestyle, which at least according to the Bible is immoral. They argue that gay marriage turns a moral wrong into a legal, civil right. Religious times further argue that gay marriage is offensive to God, the same God that the Declaration of Independence mentions at its very beginning. Further, they argue that gay marriage creates some sort of gender confusion among the so-called children of gay marriages, and that the differences between male and female are blurred.

Three, its legal acceptance signifies governmental imposition of a practice that is highly offensive to a great number of Americans. In effect, allowing gay marriage is an imposition of the practice’s acceptance on all American society.

Four, acceptance of gay marriage represents a slippery slope towards the validation of other rights, which have long been considered unacceptable and immoral. They ask if the time for marriage with an animal, for example, is already coming. A homosexual lifestyle continues the moral decay of society, allowing for the acceptance of practices that have long been considered unacceptable, and even abominable, not only by the United States, but by humanity in general.

Five, it will further erode the moving away from black and white standards that have long been the strong moral fiber of “strong” societies. Allowing for another “accommodation” like gay marriage will most likely lead to the relaxation of other rules, which can affect society in an adverse fashion.

Proponents of gay marriage have many arguments, foremost of which, in circular fashion, is that it is legal already. But outside of this, they argue that it should be legal because of the following:

One, divorce rates will go down, because they believe that gay couples have fewer reasons to separate, including infertility.

Two, adoption rates for orphaned and abandoned children will rise. Since gay couples cannot procreate, their best chance, aside from contracting a surrogate mother, is to adopt children. This will reduce the number of abandoned children in society, which should be a social benefit to all.

Three, it validates the separation of church and state. Proponents argue that since one major argument against gay marriage is that it violates moral principles based on religion, banning gay marriage means that government is imposing a restriction based on religion, which violates the separation of church versus state dictum. Government has no right to impose a restriction based on religion.

Four, it violates the rights of citizens, both as individuals and as couples, to enjoy the protections and benefits provided by the government and the private sector.   These include tax advantages, pension and insurance benefits, and rights to privacy. For example, they complain about hospitals that do not allow the release of medical information to “partners” who are of the same sex, and will only release the information to opposite gender spouses, or blood relatives.

Five, it will reduce the amount of teenage suicides. Proponents believe that many students commit suicide because homosexual teenagers feel that society is exclusionary and discriminatory towards gays. Bullying and being made fun of are major reasons behind teen suicides, and gay marriage is a big step forward in accepting the gay lifestyle as normal and healthy.

Six, it will reduce discrimination, and even violence, towards homosexuals. Proponents believe that gay marriage is a giant step towards the acceptance of gays in society, in general. They argue that this will make for a gentler and accepting society, less prone to bullying and violence.

This article was sponsored by the #1 naked selfie site. A proud sponsor of gay rights.