英语演讲稿,每篇两三分钟,the death penalty is unnecessary eating meat is unnecessary marriage is unnecessary

英语演讲稿,每篇两三分钟,the death penalty is unnecessary eating meat is unnecessary marriage is unnecessary
英语演讲稿,每篇两三分钟,
the death penalty is unnecessary
eating meat is unnecessary
marriage is unnecessary

英语演讲稿,每篇两三分钟,the death penalty is unnecessary eating meat is unnecessary marriage is unnecessary
1.Anger and frustration at rampant crime
Media accounts are daily filled with stories of senseless violence,oftentimes against innocent people:the rape and murder of a child snatched from a schoolyard,a young woman beaten and raped while strolling in a park,the killing of an elderly couple in the comfort of their home,a baby left for dead in a dumpster only minutes after his birth.Respectable people instinctively recoil at such horrors,wondering when — and if — the violence will ever cease.They look into the innocent faces and trusting eyes of their young children and grandchildren,concerned over how best to protect them.They fear for the elderly,knowing that there are some people who,in the blink of an eye,would take advantage of them for their own selfish gain.And the result — society becomes filled with fear and cries out for a deterrent.And should that deterrent fail to eliminate future crime,at least vengeance has been brought to the perpetrator.
Oftentimes,it is the lack of remorse by many criminals that encourages good people to support the death penalty.Even among Catholics,a 1997 Gallup Poll found that 51 per cent believed that the death penalty should be the punishment for murder,while 43 per cent felt that the punishment should be life imprisonment with no chance for parole.Is this majority — however narrow — a reflection of the anger and frustration with the crime and violence that are destroying our society?
2.The Ethics of Eating Meat
Most vegetarians I know are not primarily motivated by nutrition.Although they argue strenuously for the health benefits of a vegetarian diet,many see good health as a reward for the purity and virtue of a vegetarian diet,or as an added bonus.In my experience,a far more potent motivator among vegetarians--ranging from idealistic college students,to social and environmental activists,to adherents of Eastern spiritual traditions like Buddhism and Yoga--is the moral or ethical case for not eating meat.
Enunciated with great authority by such spiritual luminaries as Mahatma Gandhi,and by environmental crusaders such as Frances Moore Lappe,the moral case against eating meat seems at first glance to be overpowering.As a meat eater who cares deeply about living in harmony with the environment,and as an honest person trying to eliminate hypocrisy in the way I live,I feel compelled to take these arguments seriously.
A typical argument goes like this:In order to feed modern society's enormous appetite for meat,animals endure unimaginable suffering in conditions of extreme filth,crowding and confinement.Chickens are packed twenty to a cage,hogs are kept in concrete stalls so narrow they can never turn around.
3.The Federal Marriage Amendment:Unnecessary
Members of Congress have proposed a constitutional amendment preventing states from recognizing same-sex marriages.Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment claim that an amendment is needed immediately to prevent same-sex marriages from being forced on the nation.That fear is even more unfounded today than it was in 2004,when Congress last considered the FMA.The better view is that the policy debate on same-sex marriage should proceed in the 50 states,without being cut off by a single national policy imposed from Washington and enshrined in the Constitution.
Dale Carpenter is associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School.
A person who opposes same-sex marriage on policy grounds can and should also oppose a constitutional amendment foreclosing it,on grounds of federalism,confidence that opponents will prevail without an amendment,or a belief that public policy issues should only rarely be determined at the constitutional level.
There are four main arguments against the FMA.First,a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because federal and state laws,combined with the present state of the relevant constitutional doctrines,already make court-ordered nationwide same-sex marriage unlikely for the foreseeable future.An amendment banning same-sex marriage is a solution in search of a problem.

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

上百度搜呗