Monopolitic Competition in Hair Salon Industry - 835 Words

Q. Explain Monopolistic Competition among firms for a particular industry. Draw graph. Monopolistic competition The model of monopolistic competition describes a common market structure in which firms have many competitors, but each one sells a slightly different product. If there was no differentiation, the competition would turn into perfect competition. In effect, monopolistic competition is something of a hybrid between perfect competition and monopoly. Comparable to perfect competition, monopolistic competition contains a large number of extremely competitive firms. However, comparable to monopoly, each firm has market control and faces a negatively-sloped demand curve. Monopolistic competition as a market structure was first†¦show more content†¦5. A central feature of monopolistic competition is that products are differentiated. There are four main types of differentiation: 1. Physical product differentiation, where firms use size, design, colour, shape, performance, and features to make their products different. For example, consumer electronics can easily be physically differentiated. 2. Marketing differentiation, where firms try to differentiate

Homosexuality Sin Essay Example For Students

Homosexuality Sin Essay Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that isdetestable(Leviticus 7:22). This is the quote that most often justifiesChristian homophobia. This essay will show that everyone, is this is what theybelieve, is welcome into the kingdom of God no matter what their sexualpreferences are. The Gay and Lesbian community should be welcomed into the houseof God instead of being turned away for being openly homosexual. This subject isthe cause of some conterversy between the church and the Gay and Lesbiancommunity. The Church seems to think that being homosexual is a choice theindividual makes in order to directly defy Gods wishes, The Christianhomosexual position when carefully examined can be exposed for what it is atits very core: an attack upon the integrity, sufficiency, and authority ofscripture, which for the Christian church is an attack upon the very nature ofour Holy God! (P3 Scroggs). Others think that it is just a phase thateveryone goes through, and once you fulfill your ho mosexual desires you cantruly be heterosexual again (Moberly). Some people have evidence that the wordsin the Bible were translated wrong from Hebrew to Greek and then to English. They believe that this should be made known and made right. The Christian Churchis ruled by patriarchy, it was men who wrote the bible and interpret the wordsof God. This goes to show how men have been telling us what to think say andfeel since the beginning of time. They convey their own prejudgices into thebible and tell Christens that this is what they should believe or it is a sinagainst God. These are some of the main points that will be the foundation ofthis essay. Patriarchy is the foundation of the Christian Church. The Church wasfounded by men, ran by men, and ruled by male ideologies. Until recently menwere the only ones who were allowed by the church to be Ordained Priests. It wasnot until the mid to late 1960s that women were permitted to attend divinityschool and studied seminary classes that prepared them for ordination. Yearsafter Vatican II, theologians, canon lawyers, and biblical critics allinterrogated the tradition and found no persuasive reason why woman should n otbe ordainedwomen enrolled in divinity schools and studied at seminaries inastonishingly large numbersand so were prepared intellectually andpsychologically for ordinationCatholic womenhad vocations to bepriests-intersected with a crises in the priesthood itself: with fewer men beingordained and many leaving the priesthood to marry, there seemed to be a realneed to consider womens ordination (p680 ). But eventually they decidedagainst the ordination of women with no real explanation except that it has beenthe tradition of the church since the beginning. Men want to continue to rulethe church with their ideas of patriarchy such as no ordained women priests, andno homosexuals are sons or daughters of God. The Christian church believes thathomosexuality is a choice that people make in order to defy the word of God. Although some people have other ideas about what homosexuality really is. Elizabeth R. Moberly, author of Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, says thatshe doesnt think that homosexuality is wrong. She says that homosexuality isjust a phase that everyone goes through and you have to act out all of yourhomosexual desires before you can truly be heterosexual. Therefore she believesthat you cannot condemn someone for being homosexual because everyone hashomosexual desires, some are just stronger desires than others (Molberly). Others have proof that you cannot choose your sexual preference; it would belike choosing your skin color. It is natural; you have no choice in the matter. Something neither chosen nor changeable; heterosexuals who have made theirpeace with homosexuals have often done so by accepting that premise. The veryterm sexual orientationimplies biology(p117 Skier). Some people havecome to terms with the fact that homosexuality is not a choice or a preference,it a biologically made certainty. To ask homosexuals to hide or change theirsexual orientation would be asking them to hide who they really are in order toplease the church. Coming back to the phrase Do not lie with a man as onelies with a woman; that is detestable (Leviticus 18:22), and If a man lieswith a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads (Leviticus20:13). According to these verses the act of homosexuality is punishable bydeath, this seems to be a very serious offence. Other offences punishable bydeath, according to the bible are sins such as cursing onesparentsadultery, incest and intercourse with a menstruating woman (p 44Helminiak). In this the 20th century how can we conceder these serious offences?If the Christian community would see such a thing as cursing ones parents asthey see homosexuality there would be no Christian community. Also, the list in1 Corinthians includes adulterers, thieves, and the greedy. 1 Timothy includesthat of liars and perjurers. Then why is the sin of homosexuality seen intodays society as so terrible they cannot be ordained and a sin such as greedis not given a second thought when they are considered for ordination. There arealso some people who believe that the bible does not oppose homosexuality; thispoint will be shown throughout this essay. The book The New Testament andHomosexuality by Robin Scroggs suggests that the bible does not opposehomosexuality. In the case of Leviticus he says that the bible isnt dealingwith homosexuality in general. He suggests that the answer to the condemnationobjection is to the wasting of male semen. The condemnation of malehomosexuality acts must be seen in the context of the procreative ethic which itserved. since today wasting of semen may not considered sin at all, thecontemporary relevance of the law in nullified (p13 Scroggs). Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., author of What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality saysthat the translation of the words man-lying-with-man was translated fromHebrew to Greek wrong. The Hebrews had no word for homogenital behaviortherefore it was translated as the man who lies with a male the lying of awoman this phrase could have been translated one of two ways. The first beinglying of a male and the second lying with a male. One is interpretedas any homosexual act and the other as an act of male prostitution. This authorbelieves that the sin is not the act of homosexuality but is the act of maleprostitution. These are some ways of interpreting this bible verse. The story ofAdam and Eve is often used to defend homophobia among Christians. The sayingthat is most often used for this purpose is that God created Adam and Eve, notAdam and Steve. They conclude from this story that man and woman were made inGods image together and this is the way that God intended. But nowhere in thisstory does it condemn same-sex relations. The point of this story is oftenoverlooked, it was to paint a picture of a sad and sinful state and to insistthat this was not Gods doing. God created the good in the world but peoplemisuse creation, so life becomes hard. Genesis is a lesson about religion,Gods way and our sin, not a lesson about sexual orientation. Nothing in thosetwo chapters suggests that heterosexuality, in contrast to homosexuality, was aconcern in the authors mind. People may argue that it is not what the Biblesays, but what it doesnt say. Since the Bible does not actively supporthomosexuality, it must be that the Bible condemns it. But this conclusion is notvery logical. It is simply that we do not know the actual opinion on thesubject. Some scholars actually point out positive instances of homosexuality inthe Bible. 1 Samuel 18:1-4 shows the affection on the part of the prince,Jonathan, toward the Shepherd boy, David: The soul of Jonathan was bound tothe soul of David, and Jonath an loved him as his own soulJonathan made acovenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan strippedhimself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor,and even his sword and his bow and his belt. The story goes on to say thatKing Saul finds out about the relationship between Jonathan and David and callsit perverse and refers to Jonathan a bastard. King Saul says that Jonathan hasbrought him shame with his nakedness, which implies to sex in biblical times. Climate Change And Mexico EssayAnother way of looking at the phrase to know is that it refers to not onlymale-male sex, but also male-male abuse and rape (Helminiak). The author of TheNew Testament and Homosexuality thinks that the sin this parable is referring tois not that of natural homosexuality but rather that of homosexual acts bypeople who are not homosexual a pervert is said to be a person who engages inacts contrary to his or her orientation. Thus a heterosexual person who engagesin homosexual activity is a pervert, just as a homosexual person would be whoengages in heterosexual acts (p14 Scroggs). Although, some insist that thissin in this parable is nothing to do with homosexuality at all. They say that itrefers to the sin of inhospitality. There was a cardinal rule in Sodom that saidcitizens of Sodom were to offer hospitality to travelers because the nights inthe deserts were so cold the results of spending the night in the desert couldbe fatal to the traveler. This rul e was so strict that people couldnt evenharm an enemy who had sought refuge for the night. So, The old man believed thathe was upholding the law of hospitality by not exposing his guests to the abuseof the men of Sodom (Helminiak). There are many passages from the bible itselfthat proves that the sin in this parable was that of inhospitality. Theprophet Ezekiel (16:48-49) states the case baldly: this was the guilt of yousister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperousease, but did not aid the poor and needy. The sin of the Sodomites was thatthey refused to take in the needy travelers (p40 Helminiak). Jesus himselfmakes reference to Sodom, and the issues is rejection of Gods messengers inMatthew 10:5-15: These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions:Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and staythere until you leaveIf any one will not welcome you or listen to your words,shake off the dust from your feet as you lea ve that house or town. Truly I tellyou, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day ofjudgment than of that town. In this reading there is absolutely noreference to sex but a direct reference to the rejection of Gods messengers. There are other less direct biblical references to Sodom: Isaiah 1:10-17 and3:9, Jeremiah 23:14 and Zephaniah 2:8-11. The sins listed in those places areinjustice, oppression, partiality, adultery, lies and encouraging evildoers. The Bible often uses Sodom as an example of the worst sinfulness, but theconcern is never simply sexual acts. Least of all is the concern homogenitalacts (p41 Helminiak). The irony with this parable and how it is interpretedby todays society is that now the gay and lesbian community is not welcomedinto society as God wants all people to be instead they are shunned and madeoutsiders. They are disowned by their families, separated from their children,fired from their jobs, and beaten and killed in the streets. All this is done inthe name of religion and supposed Christian morality. This is the behavior thatthe bible truly condemns. So those who oppress homosexuals because of thesupposed sin of Sodom may themselves be the real sodomites, as theBible understands it (p41 Helminiak). Thorough this essay the question ofwhether or not the Bible really opposes homosexuality has been asked andanswered with the belief that the Bible does not oppose homosexuality. Withcareful examination of the texts in the Bible that is used by Christians toattack homosexuals for being what they are it has been proven that homosexualityis not a sin but is merely used by homophobics as a justification for theirhomophobia. The belief that Gays and Lesbians choose their sexual orientation todefy the word of God is wrong because they have no choice whether to behomosexual or heterosexual, we are the way we are because that is what Godintended. God doesnt make Junk is a famous Christian saying, itstime that Christians paid attention to what it is saying. Numerous people haveanalyzed the quotes taken from the bible that was stated throughout this essayand they agree that there is no reference to homosexuality being a sin. If thesepoints are not enough to convince fellow homophobic Christians that theirhomophobia is coming from the wrong place then it is asked of them, did thebible not say that God loves EVERYONE? Well which one will it be: God screwed upwhen he made homosexuals and they are evi l, or God loves everybody? The choiceis yours to make. BibliographyHekminiak,Daniel A., Ph.D. What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. Episcopal Bishop of Newark NJ. 1994 Moberly, Elizabeth R.. Homosexuality: A NewChristian Ethic. James Clarke Co. Ltd.. 1982 Siker, Jeffery S. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. Westminster John KnoxPress Louisville, Kentucky. 1994 Scroggs, Robbin. The New Testament andHomosexuality. Fortress Press Philadelphia. 1983 International Bible Society. The Holy Bible., Zondervan Publishing House. 1984