No Donnie, These Men Are Nihilists

I will apologize in advance for today's post; since I'm tasked with being the first this week, and it just so happens that today is New Year's Day, and I'm very tired from being out late last night and not getting much sleep. I had a topic in mind, but after my conversation with Glenn last night, I thought I'd try something that might inspire some disagreements.

I think we'd all for the most part agree on many important issues of the day, issues that are important to me, such as raising the minimum wage, ending corporate welfare, etc. (I'd list more but I'm too lazy right now). But there are some that are not such easy calls. These issues are, admittedly, not of as much importance to me as others, but they are ones that get touted in the media as being so important and moral and whatnot. Here is my "stand" on a few controversial issues.

I'm pro-suicide. I think that people should have control of their lives, and this includes the taking of their own life. Now, obviously I think that if someone is attempting suicide and needs help, obviously they should be given help. But if someone is terminally ill, or losing their mind, they should have the choice to end their own life. I've never understood why prolonging one's life to the last possible second, no matter what pain (physical or mental) might be ahead, is of such importance. There are, after all, things much worse than death. I'm pretty terrified of death, but if I was faced with losing my mind and memories, or a painful degenerate death, I would choose not to go through with it. But we live in a society where even when someone is in a vegetative state, we want to prolong their life.

I'm pro gun control. I wrestle with this one; I think that obviously people should be allowed to have a gun, for whatever reason: hunting, self-defense, or even just because they like guns. That's fine. And obviously the second amendment establishes the right to bear arms. I would argue, though, that the framers of our Constitution obviously couldn't anticipate the AK-47, or cop-killer bullets, and the other assorted weapons that obviously aren't used for hunting or any rational self-defense. I wouldn't take away someone's hunting gun, or the gun that's under the bed just in case someone breaks into the house, or whatever, but I think that some gun control laws are necessary. The fact that this issue isn't much in the public debate anymore shows how effective the Right Wing has been in making his issue non-negotiable; though some argue that the Left has at least won some gun control laws under Clinton, and the NRA no longer fights against these laws that are on the books- these laws, of course, don't have much teeth to them, and I will always hope that, if the Democrats can hold some power for several years, we can shift the debate back in our direction.

The last issue I'll bring up is gay marriage. I'm somewhat torn on this issue. Now, obviously I don't personally care what gay people do. I'm not gay. It has no impact on me. And I strongly believe that it is a civil rights issue and anyone, especially regardless of their sexual orientations, should have the same rights. To me, that's not even an issue, and I don't understand why anyone would even think twice. I mean, how can heterosexuals, some of which do some pretty morally reprehensible things in their heterosexuality, say anything about anyone else's sexuality (I also find it ironic that those on the Right will legislate people's personal lives, what goes on in one's bedrooms and homes, but cry about government intervention if anyone on the Left mentions any sort of gun control). It's also my view that those who are so vehement about homosexuals are likely closeted homosexuals, for why else would they be so threatened about it? However, I'm torn on the issue of whether gays should be married in the same way as heterosexuals. Obviously I am for civil unions, and I am for homosexuals having every single identical right that anyone else has, and get the same treatment that any other couples get. But I think that, in a way, I might still prefer the word and "institution" of traditional marriage stay the way it is. I'm of the understanding that gays want to have the same rights as those that are married, and I'm for that. Does it make a difference if it's exactly done in the same way as marriage has traditionally been done? Which one will be husband and which one will be wife? (I must note here, before anyone unleashes any sort of wrath on me, that I'm being somewhat of a devil's advocate here; I don't feel very strongly about this issue- except, of course, that everyone should have the same rights, including two people in love regardless of the individuals. I'm only hoping to spark some conversation).

Now, I'm back to lying around doing nothing and watching my Twilight Zone marathon.