To Live, Love, or Own Guns

So many topics to talk about - so little time on the computer at the library!

I'm all for assisted suicide, but as I think it's been stated, there needs to be guidelines. Candidates should have to go through a psychological screening and maybe physical screening, so that anyone on a whim can't go in and kill themselves (of course they might just go out and find another means - but the denial would slow them down a bit). I think it should be the terminally ill, who would rather end their life on a positive note, rather than waste away in misery for the next few months, or people with Alzheimer's or those in a vegetative state. That's not to say perfectly healthy people should be restricted, but if they want to commit suicide, are they healthy mentally?

As for gun control, sigh, there are so many things to consider. Do you really help anything by putting up restrictions? If someone really wants an assault rifle they're going to do everything in their power to get it - especially if it's a criminal - do you think they're going to think twice about breaking a couple of gun laws to get what they want, especially if they have something much more sinister in mind for it? However petty criminals may not have that drive, and so yes, it may cut down on some crime. Like Jane, I know people who collect guns, but since they don't really use them, I doubt they would mind any kind of long term wait to get one, if a new law entailed such. In summation? I guess I'm for gun control, as long as it doesn't end up harming the people it's intended to protect.

For my final act - gay marriage. To help me illustrate my argument let me put in in terms of the civil rights movement. Say that blacks had all the same rights as whites (this wasn't the case, but hypothetically, indulge me), but it wasn't called the same thing because of the color of their skin - no one would stand for it. In essence you're still calling them less than because of something they can't help - because of the way God (if you believe in God) made them. To me it's the same thing with gay marriage. I think homosexuality is something ingrained - you're either born gay or you're not. (Here is an interesting article about something similar). To say that they can't have the word "marriage", simply because they are gay (something they can't help) is ridiculous. (Can you help the fact that you're heterosexual?). That being said, I don't think you can force churches to perform gay marriages - you probably won't have to, as there will be plenty willing to do it. However, I think that all states should recognize it (none of this crap where you can get married in Maryland, but you live in Florida, and Florida won't acknowledge it).

As for the institution of marriage, that to me has been destroyed. When a man can marry a woman and then senselessly beat her to death, but homosexuals can't marry? Please. Technically even divorce destroys the institution of marriage. It doesn't mean 'til death do you part anymore - it just means 'til I can't stand you and I find someone else to inflict myself upon. I don't think people even try to stay together anymore. With 1 in 3 couples getting divorced, it doesn't have the same stigma that it did long ago, and so people don't try as hard, don't go to counselling. (Is this enough of a conversation for you Nick?) So to say that gay marriage would go against the institution of marriage is a bit of a joke to me.

I think I've ranted enough for one day.

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.