Demographic Transitions and its phases

Demographic transition is the term used for the changes a population experiences over a long period time. These changes are measured by the birth rates and the death rates of the population. The theory of demographic transition indicates that all populations must go through the three original phases before there are low, stable birth and death rates, and the population sustains a sustainable growth.

The four phases of demographic transition are:

1. High Fluctuating
1. During this phase, there are high death rates and high birth rates. Usually, there is little or no access to birth control, and people tend to have more children in order to make sure that there are descendants that will live long enough to procreate and take care of the elderly. In the first phase, the population can be either constantly fluctuating or consistently declining. The high birth rates usually compensate for the high death rates, however, if a serious epidemic affects the population, a great loss is expected because these populations tend to have poor healthcare.
   
   
   
2. Early Expansion
1. In the second stage of transition, death rates start to decline due to advancement in medicine and available healthcare for the ill and elderly, and also because of different lifestyles. This means that the population is experiencing growth
   
   
3. Late Expansion
1. During the third phase of the demographic transition, the population is stable. Demographers state that contraception begins to become widely available and this in turn helps lower the birth rates. Also, the population’s lifestyle has changed. With the decreasing death rate, people foresee that they will have a longer life and tend to post-pone starting a family, and even then, they no longer have numerous children.
   
   
4. Low Fluctuation
1. In the last stage, the population is either stable or slightly growing. This happens because the death rate is becoming a steady percentage and people understand that there is no need for large families, as in the past.

Overall, the living conditions tend to improve as the population advances in the demographical transitions. In the early demographic transition phases, people are often very ill, lead unhealthy lives and have a short life expectancy. They tend to have many children in order to make sure there are enough hands to cultivate lands and care for elders and children lead a poor quality lifestyle. However, with the increase in the life span, populations begin to work differently. Mature people start taking care of the family, and providing for all members, elders are able to care for themselves longer, children are able to grow and acquire knowledge prior to experiencing hardships and are much more healthy. This is because people are able to live longer lives and are more conscientious of their health. As a population, people tend to advance more technologically, and are able to expand into larger communities. Also, this impacts the environment as well. Because people are living longer, there is a larger amount of people alive at the same time. This affects the environment in a negative way because it can lead to a depletion of natural resources, deforestation in order to make lands for crops and living areas, and also because there is an overall higher density in all of earth’s populations: more cattle is needed to feed more people, more grains need to be cultivated in order to feed more cattle, and so forth. However, if a plan is developed to make sure the population grows at a sustainable rate and makes sure that the natural resources available are used in a conscientious manner that promotes an overall balance of all species, this phase of the demographic transitions is the most beneficial.

References

Montgomery, K. (n.d.). The Demographic Transition. In Department of Geography &
geology Resources. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/
geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm

Barcelona Field Studies Centre S.L. (2009). The Demographic Transition Model. In
Geography Field Work of the Barcelona Field Studies Centre. Retrieved
May 24, 2009, from http://geographyfieldwork.com/DemographicTransition.htm

Autotrophs are the organisms that synthesize their own food from photosynthesis. This means they produce glucose in order to feed themselves. A couple examples of these are plants, such as oak trees, algae, and the blue dragon sea slug. These organisms use sunlight in order to synthesize glucose.

The name given to the organisms that use aerobic respiration exclusively to break down glucose are obligate aerobes. They can only survive in environments that contain oxygen, because these organisms oxidize fats and sugars in order to obtain energy. Almost all animals are obligate aerobes. Some examples of these organisms are the Bacillus bacteria, humans, and fish.

Cells that do not use oxygen to meet their energy needs are considered anaerobic organisms. These cells use the fermentation process as their way of obtaining energy. The way they do this is the following: glycosis produces pyruvate, and ATP from glucose, creating lactic acid. Some organisms produce alcohol instead of lactic acid. It is important to note the fermentation produces a considerable amount of less energy than respiration.
Human muscles use fermentation to get energy and certain kinds of yeast create alcohol from fermentation, thus creating beer.

Enzymes are molecules made of proteins, which in turn are made of amino acids. Although enzymes are not direct participants in a chemical reaction they do however how the characteristic that they accelerate the reaction, up to a million times faster than its original rate. Some examples of enzymes are amylase and sucrase.

References

Examples of Cellular Enzymes. (n.d.). Cellular Enzymes. Retrieved May 23, 2009,
from http://faculty.southwest.tn.edu/jiwilliams/examples_of_enzymes.htm

Schulte McMenamin, D. L. (1990). The garden of Ediacara. In The Emergence of
Animals . Retrieved May 24, 2009, from http://books.google.com/
books?id=pBEkPTUCVtEC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=list+of+autotrophic+organisms+%22some
+autotrophic+organisms+are%22&source=bl&ots=rvRaHi_CYq&sig=73pMjCpOqNXlegsuH-zOG4
O94xM&hl=en&ei=uf4ZSrbXO4OstgfkpdnuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA1
07,M1

Obligate Aerobes. (2008, October 10). Biology Online. Retrieved May 24, 2009,
from http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Obligate_aerobe

Support for Same Sex Marriage
an overview of the reasons why gay marriage should be allowed by law

Imagine a world where not all people were allowed to share the privileges and glories of a legal union to their significant other, because of some else’s religious views. A world where, because of the characteristics that some people seek in their partner, they are condemned and stratified. Imagine people being forced to live under someone else’s beliefs, and forcibly, live under their conditions, which state that the union to a significant other is unacceptable. This is the reality of gay couples have to face in a daily basis, because gay marriage is yet to be passed as a legal right.

Same sex marriage has been the center of controversy for a while now because of the passionate opinions people have in regards to this subject. Although it was made legal in California, there has been a new veto passed, called Preposition 8, in which it is declared illegal once again. However, many advocates are very active in the efforts to legalize same sex marriage once again, and they have just cause for it.

Although many people believe that same sex marriage should not be allowed, same sex marriage should be permitted because of the legal connotations of marriage, and because of this, same sex life partners should have the right to these as well as heterosexual couples. Also, if we take a look at our country, we see that State and Church are separate entities. This means that although it is religiously unacceptable to many, gay marriage should not be banned by law.

Gay couples are looking to have a stronger, consolidated union and legal recognition of this is a right, not a gift. Gay couples are also individuals who spend their lives together, for the pursuit of happiness. All people, provided that they cause not harm to other, have the right to pursue happiness, as any individual does.

Taking a look at the opposition, we see that their arguments are not sufficient to validate a just cause to oppose and legally ban gay marriage. The main reason people oppose gay marriage is because it is opposed to what is taught from the Bible. Traditional values have taught us all that marriage is between a man and a woman. Many people still see homosexuality as an immoral act that needs to be condemned and eradicated. Because of this thought, allowing gay people to join their lives in marriage is a preposterous ideal. Marriage is seen as the product of the union between a man and a woman, which has the ultimate goal of allowing them both to become parents; but the conservative views in regards to this are best put in the words of Frank Zepezauer, “The heterosexual, two-parent family is being assaulted on many fronts. Of these, the most significant has been defined by the homosexualist drive to establish single-sex marriage” (Zepezauer 1997).

Sadly, many individuals see the gay community as the cause of the downfall of marriages. Nowadays, a great percentage of marriages end in divorce, and this trend is at an all-time alarming high. However, it is incorrect and unacceptable to allow society to blame this the gay community when there are other factors that are the main catalysts for divorce, such as domestic violence, drug abuse, spousal abandonment, and infidelity. As Jim Wallis states: “To say gay and lesbian people are responsible for the breakdown of the heterosexual family is simply wrong. That breakdown is causing a great social crisis that affects us all, but it is hardly the fault of gays and lesbians.” (Wallis 2008). More alarmingly, conservatives believe that all gay people are promiscuous individuals, and allowing them to marry is a sacrilege to the institution of marriage, and arguments against this go as far as to state the gay marriage would b proposed to not even limit itself to two people, as Robert P. George and David L. Tubbs said: “The evidence, however, suggests that acceptance of the norm of sexual exclusivity is a minority view among homosexuals in the United States and elsewhere. Furthermore, because intimate relations between persons of the same sex are inherently—and not merely contingently—unconnected to procreation, there is no principled reason to limit same-sex marriage to two persons” (Tubbs, Robert P. George and David L., 2006). This claim is invalid because gay people do not seek group marriage- they seek to allow their unions to a single significant other to be acknowledged by society as a solid commitment, as a nuclear unit, and as an inherent right of all citizens.

Some female activists insist that same sex marriage denigrates women in the sense that it eliminates them from the equation: women are no longer the sole focus of male romantic love. Sam Schulman stated that “with [. . .] the success of the gay-liberation movement, it is women themselves, all women, who will be hurt. The reason is that gay marriage takes something that belongs essentially to women, is crucial to their very freedom, and empties it of meaning” (Schulman 2007). The reality is that gay people will be gay, regardless of the acceptance of gay marriage by society. It is their nature and identity to feel attraction towards a person of the same sex, not the opposite. Because of this, we can say that although traditionally, the role of marriage was to provide a haven to the union a man and a woman; by excluding gay couples from marriage, we are denying them the freedom our country so proudly claims to value so dearly.

Aside from the emotional bonds that gay people share being one of the reasons why they clamor for the right to marry, there are also legal connotations and constitutional rights that need to be taken into consideration as well. In our country, State and religion are to be kept separate by constitution. Therefore, this would eliminate the opposing argument that homosexuality ought to be condemned because the Bible “says so”. Throughout history there have been several cases where these arguments come to light. Two of the most notable ones are:

Jones v. Hallahan (Kentucky, 1973). A lesbian couple argued that denying them a marriage license deprived them of three basic constitutional rights—the right to marry, the right to associate, and the right to freely exercise their religion. . (NOLO Law for all, 2005)

Baker v. Nelson (Minnesota, 1971). A gay male couple argued that the absence of sex-specific language in the Minnesota statute was evidence of the legislature's intent to authorize same-sex marriages. The couple also claimed that prohibiting them from marrying was a denial of their due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution. The court stated that it could find no support for these arguments in any United States Supreme Court decision. (NOLO Law for all, 2005)

It is clear in both of these cases, the prejudice and stratification was applied to the final verdicts, and is a very obvious case discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Overall, we must keep in mind that gay marriage isn’t demanding to be acknowledged in a religious aspect. No spiritual compromise of faith is being requested, merely a legal recognition that two individuals are committing to spending the rest of their lives together, supporting and assisting each other throughout life, functioning as a separate, individual unit of society. The legal compromise of the word marriage leaves many inherent rights at stake for gay couples, rights that they otherwise do not have any access to. These are rights that should come with any official union, and there are no ways to enforce them if the union of a couple cannot be considered legal. Same sex couples are not eligible for Social Security benefits, [or] immigration privileges (NOLO Law for all). This means that unless both individuals are US citizens, neither one can request their marriage to support the other’s request for a US citizenship. Sadly, there are even more rights and benefits that gay couples will have no access to because of the laws prohibiting gay marriage, benefits such as:

· family laws such as annulment, divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, domestic violence, adoption, and property division

· rights to sue for wrongful death, loss of consortium, and under any other tort or law concerning spousal relationships

· medical rights such as hospital visitation, notification, and durable power of attorney
family leave benefits

· joint state tax filing, and
property inheritance when one partner dies without a will.

(NOLO law for all, 2005)

A notable case of the implications of these rights can be observed in the judicial case of Matter of Estate of Cooper (New York, 1990). Cooper died, leaving the bulk of his property to his ex-lover. His current lover sued to inherit as a surviving spouse under New York's inheritance laws. The court concluded that only a lawfully recognized husband or wife qualifies as a surviving spouse and that "persons of the same sex have no constitutional rights to enter into a marriage with each other." (NOLO Law for all, 2005). It is shameful to see how individuals who claim gay marriage is not permissible, also take away what little is left of a person’s legacy and commitment to their significant other, turning a blind eye to the biblical claims in regards to this.

Although Gay marriage seems appalling to many, every person has the right to all the legal rights that come with the recognition of their union, and this should not be denied. It is important for the general public to open their eyes and realize that this is not a “Gay/Lesbian Rights issue”- this is a civil rights issue. Because Church and State are separate institutions in our country, Gay marriage should be allowed- regardless of religious factors and beliefs. Keep in mind the words of Jim Wallis in regards to this: “Do we really want to deny a gay person's right to be at their loved one's deathbed in a hospital with "family restrictions"? Do we also want to deny that person a voice in the medical treatment of his or her partner?” (Jim Wallis 2008). These inherent rights are the main things we are denying gay couples by banning same sex marriage.

Many people are manifesting in Congress to stop gay marriage and to amend the constitution in order to make marriage exclusive to a man and a woman. People need to be active and support gay marriage because if not, fundamentalists and right wing activist will ensure that gay people are suppressed and discriminated, denying their rights to a legally recognized union. Gay people have all the right, as much as straight couple, to have legal recognition of their union. Our country is one where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is entitled to all. Gay people are not the exception, and should not be treated as such.