I > Sudoku.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Gun Control
Gun Control is a debate that is beginning to die down, but it's still useful to address it anyways. Unlike most debates, there usually are no boundaries between politics parties. Whether you are conservative or liberal, your political party will still have generally the same ratio of against:for as the other.
For this reason, it all comes down to a simple point - should people have guns for protection, or should they have these guns withheld from them? Well, if the guns are withheld from the "assaultees", then that means that they wouldn't be able to shoot the victim as well, right? Well - no - underground gun sales will most definitely continue. In making gun ownership or sales of guns illegal, there will be an untaxed, unenforced, and uncontrollable market going on under the governments eye. This could lead to even more assaults with a deadly weapon than in the past. As much as nobody wants to admit it, guns are a homeowners only defense against an assultant, and taking that away from an armed gunman is a death wish.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage is a hot debate. To cover the bases, on one side there are those against it - Usually conservative and republican - who believe that marriage is a thing to be preserved and that it would throw off the entire sanctity of it. On the other side there are those that are for it - Usually liberal and democratic - who believe that gay people should have the same rights as those who are able to wed.
Arguing against one of the most used argument is that allowing homosexuals to marry would destroy the sanctity of marriage, and make it lose its meaning nearly entirely. Something I wold like to say which would throw off this argument is that different cultures besides the original group it was targeted towards (male-dominate Christian/Catholic etc.) have managed to make their way into the mainstream of marriage. In this day and age, people who aren't Christian (for the purpose of this argument I'm going to use Atheists). Atheists, although they do not follow the original ideas that marriage should be like - are able to wed. Also in the past, women were not allowed to have any say in marriage - It had to be a male dominate relationship. Again, in this day and age this is no longer the case. If these groups of people can wed - why not make it all inclusive and include gay people?
Another argument commonly used is that gay people cannot raise children as effectively as a male and woman couple. First off, a lot of people who are married don't have children - to say that all gay people are to have children would be a lie. So, this shouldn't be used in a argument. But - There has never been any studies either way with this, though in speculation I would assume that the raising skills would be equal, if not greater.
In conclusion - Gay people should, in my opinion, be able to get married. It would eliminate the discrimination and keep equality in order.
Arguing against one of the most used argument is that allowing homosexuals to marry would destroy the sanctity of marriage, and make it lose its meaning nearly entirely. Something I wold like to say which would throw off this argument is that different cultures besides the original group it was targeted towards (male-dominate Christian/Catholic etc.) have managed to make their way into the mainstream of marriage. In this day and age, people who aren't Christian (for the purpose of this argument I'm going to use Atheists). Atheists, although they do not follow the original ideas that marriage should be like - are able to wed. Also in the past, women were not allowed to have any say in marriage - It had to be a male dominate relationship. Again, in this day and age this is no longer the case. If these groups of people can wed - why not make it all inclusive and include gay people?
Another argument commonly used is that gay people cannot raise children as effectively as a male and woman couple. First off, a lot of people who are married don't have children - to say that all gay people are to have children would be a lie. So, this shouldn't be used in a argument. But - There has never been any studies either way with this, though in speculation I would assume that the raising skills would be equal, if not greater.
In conclusion - Gay people should, in my opinion, be able to get married. It would eliminate the discrimination and keep equality in order.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Abortion
Abortion is a hot topic and probably one of the most of the debated. The pro-life (usually Conservative and/or Republican) believe that one's life is his or her own property, and the mother who is bearing the child shouldn't take that away. On the other side, the pro-choice (usually Democratic and/or Liberal) believe that a child is not actually a child until it is born, and that the choice to abort the child or not is in the hands of the mother or father.
One of the main points that should be made, is that pro-choice or pro-life, abortion is still going to happen. The only difference is that honest people wouldn't go get aborted, because the only abortion clinics would be underground and thus inaccessible or not wantable for most. but, those that choose to go will most likely be greeted by unsafe conditions and dangers to health. While, in regulated abortion clinics it's regulated and controlled so that it's safe.
Another factor that should be taken into consideration is that many unaborted children are to drift in and out of foster homes until(if) they are adopted. Not exactly a pleasurable experience, though to judge if it's worth more than to have never existed is another mater entirely. To be honest, in a competition between the two evils - never existing or to never having a home - The one that is the most horrendous is questionable and will never be known. It is either the child's decision which wouldn't be known because the child has not... well, been born yet. (Besides, a child's reasoning abilities are often warped in nature and varies depending on their mood).
In the end, the decision is best left in the hand of the mother and/or father. I personally don't feel strongly one way or the other - but a mother or father is sure to.
One of the main points that should be made, is that pro-choice or pro-life, abortion is still going to happen. The only difference is that honest people wouldn't go get aborted, because the only abortion clinics would be underground and thus inaccessible or not wantable for most. but, those that choose to go will most likely be greeted by unsafe conditions and dangers to health. While, in regulated abortion clinics it's regulated and controlled so that it's safe.
Another factor that should be taken into consideration is that many unaborted children are to drift in and out of foster homes until(if) they are adopted. Not exactly a pleasurable experience, though to judge if it's worth more than to have never existed is another mater entirely. To be honest, in a competition between the two evils - never existing or to never having a home - The one that is the most horrendous is questionable and will never be known. It is either the child's decision which wouldn't be known because the child has not... well, been born yet. (Besides, a child's reasoning abilities are often warped in nature and varies depending on their mood).
In the end, the decision is best left in the hand of the mother and/or father. I personally don't feel strongly one way or the other - but a mother or father is sure to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
