posted
Ah, ignore those. I wrote that in a rush. I was going to write a post explaining how I neglected to read the 2nd paragraph of your gay marriage thing but the post became too convoluted.
posted
So. Omega's a liberal now. I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind around that one, but let's give it some time.
Now, a few points:
First, I think that what you're referring to as "euthanasia" is actually assisted suicide. I've typically heard "euthanaisa" used to refer to "pulling the plug" on someone who is beyond the point of making a decision. Which is something you didn't really address.
Second:
"Of course, it might help if there was a way to pass an amendment without Congress's approval, but that's nothing I'm addressing right now."
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..." -US Constitution, article V (emphasis added)
Sounds to me like amendments can be proposed by an initiative from the state legislatures, whether the federal congress likes it or not. Of course, that's probably even more difficult than getting Congress to do it, but it still appears to be possible.
Third:
"There are tax effects, but I understand that those tend to work AGAINST the married couple."
I've never heard that. I was under the impression that joint tax returns resulted in a lower tax rate or a higher deduction or something.
Also, you didn't mention things like insurance. My mother is covered by the medical insurance my father has through his job. I'm pretty sure that most employer-based insurance doesn't let you put down "homosexual partner" as a family member eligible for coverage.
Fourth:
"While I'm at it, why do you, ANY of you, care if 'under God' is in the pledge, or 'In God we trust' is printed on coins?"
I respond with:
"...part of this country being founded on Christian beliefs is the requirement of its government to respect ALL beliefs. ANY forced participation in perceived religious activity risks alienation, which is the last thing Christians should want."
And I think that's all I noticed that I wanted to comment on.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You see, I don't have especially strong opinions on many subjects.
Yeah, me either. For example, in my bit on drugs I say I wouldn't push to have them legalized, but would pass such a law if most people wanted it passed. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Or my bit about the seventh amendment, I don't care much about that. If I were editing the Constitution in a text editor, I'd probably change that without even thinking, but neither will I shed tears if it stays the same. Shoot, when it came to helping the poor I didn't even list what I believed to be the best solution, just that we should find out what the best solution is. What I've listed aren't necessarily strong opinions, they're just opinions.
It always seemed to me you had a lot of opinions that seemed unsustainable in the real world.
Some may have been. Others were sustainable but contradictory. Still others were based on assumptions, which I now refuse to make. I don't know everything. If I have to make an assumption, I'll just not hold an opinion, thanks. I am now the living incarnation of pragmatism. My goal is to help as many people as possible. I will gather information about how I might best do that, and then do it. Simple as that. So yeah, I guess I have grown up a bit.
First, I think that what you're referring to as "euthanasia" is actually assisted suicide. I've typically heard "euthanaisa" used to refer to "pulling the plug" on someone who is beyond the point of making a decision. Which is something you didn't really address.
The definition of euthenasia we studied in one of my classes actually divided the concept into six categories: either voluntary, nonvoluntary, or involuntary; and either active or passive. Pulling the plug would be passive, and if they can't make the decision it's non-voluntary. I'd definitely oppose involuntary, against their stated will, that's just murder plain and simple. Non-voluntary and voluntary passive are recognized medical rights in most cases, so you're right, I didn't address those. What I'm addressing is voluntary active.
Thanks for the bit about states initiating a constitutional convention. I knew that was there, don't know what I was thinking.
you didn't mention things like insurance
True, but that's less of a legal thing. Insurance companies would create an equivalent product to deal with the demand for it if the government ceased to care about marriage one way or the other. I'm surprised they haven't already, to tell you the truth. My dad's an actuary, maybe I'll ask him.
As for the pledge, you're probably right. What was the supreme court ruling on manditory pledge-saying, wasn't there one recently? The coins I have little issue with. I wouldn't force anyone to say the pledge with "under God" in there. I probably wouldn't force anyone to say it at all, really. But like drugs, I won't push for a law regarding it. If it happens, sure, but I won't advocate it.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, insurance companies are involved in the biggest problem I have with euthanasia in it's basic (if incorrect or incomplete) definition - that of voluntary suicide for terminally ill patients. I worry that should it become commonplace, more and more treatments will become unavailable because of the cost. And that's whether the cost is being borne by medical insurers or a governmental health service, who will leave euthanasia as the only option.
Of course, that's pretty much what happens now anyway, except that the slow lingering death is all that's available. I'm not making a lot of sense here, I guess I'm just worried that once it becomes societally acceptable to off the old and infirm, even when it's their own choice, that it'll then become their only choice.
posted
Well I have to say that some things there left me rather speechless. In a good way. Big surprises on gun control, elections and caring for the poor.
Not that I agree with what you said verbatim, however you're actually questioning things, in a logical manner.
posted
I thought this would surprise the crap out of y'all. That's half the reason I did it.
Omega's a liberal now.
No labels, please. Labels are the other half.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's not a label. It's a noun. If you don't want to be labelled in any way, shape, or form, you'll have to stop calling yourself a "Christian". After all, both are merely terms describing, in general, certain sets of beliefs you share with a significant number of people.
"What was the supreme court ruling on manditory pledge-saying, wasn't there one recently?"
There was no decision. It turns out that the guy had lost custody of his daughter to the child's mother. Since he was suing on her behalf, the court determined he didn't actually have the right to do so, and they threw the case out.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If you don't want to be labelled in any way, shape, or form, you'll have to stop calling yourself a "Christian".
Well, you'll note the first time I said it I said no political labels. I just left it off the second time, assuming people would get that it was still what I meant.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I suppose the essential difference is that I know what Christian means and I'll argue for it. Political labels' definitions I neither know nor care, but I want to avoid the connotations they bring to mind for a lot of people. Especially given that most of those connotations are false.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And what about the fact that even Christians have disagreed for hundreds of years on what Christianity is, and that it has many connotations to different people, which are sometimes false?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: People must know that there are better choices than abortion. Young women must feel that their communities and their families will not ostracize them for their mistakes. They must know that they will find love, acceptance, and forgiveness in their homes, no matter what they may have done.
Man, you managed to sound both sincere and condecending at the same time. You could be an irish priest! The "no matter what they may have done" part sure screams "holier than thou".
I'm intrested to hear what your position is on Stem Cell research.
If you were really running for President and mentioned agreeing with a terrorist organization like the Right To Life on anything you could just pack it in and withdraw from the race right there.
Good stance on Gun control though: well thought out.
Here's where I start laughing really hard:
quote:I've never quite understood why homosexuals care about marriage. Religious aspects are obviously minimal, given Christianity's clear statements about the morality of homosexual relationships, and Christianity's prevalence as a religion in the USA.
They care about marriage because it's society's ultimate acceptance of their union. As to religion, I know several devout Christians that also happen to be gay: nothing a man-made church decrees will sway them in their feelings or their faith. Judge not, and all that, Omega.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not entirely suprised about all this since we've been seeing signs, but I didn't know you'd gone as far as you have . Good job and all, not for coming to agree with us but for coming into your own opinions.
Now for the good stuff:
Death penalty -- agree for the most part. Not sure about the last sentence.
Abortion -- My opinion is slightly different and you touched on it a bit. Basically, I'm pro-choice for the reason that banning abortion will not solve the problem, it will merely force it underground. And what causes abortion is i)the mother's choice and ii)the possibility of social ostracism. The fact that abortion is even a possibility comes from fear of ostracism. I might be making leap here because I haven't the time to explain this step by step, but basically I think to end abortion naturally and completely, society must end its fear of sex (esp. before marriage) and make teen pregancy a thing that requires no forgiveness. Can't or won't do it? Then live with the possibility of abortion as a consequence.
Euthanasia -- Basically I think euthanasia is a cop-out and if you're still living it means you have something to sort out in life. But, like a lot of things, a choice you are forced to make or not make gives you little or no learning experience. So legislation has no place in it.
Immigration -- As an immigrant myself, I find it very hypocritical to say somebody can't move to this country for its opportunities just because they can't find/don't have the money for a legal way in. Also, I think boundaries are very arbitrary. For example, Mexico used to own California; their ancestors owned the land for generations (and before as Indians). Then the U.S. comes and kicks them out, and if they wanted to come back without following our rules, they're "illegal immigrants" on the land their ancestors lived. It doesn't make sense to me. If we want to stop illegal immigration, we need to help improve their country and therefore make them want to stay in it.
I would love to see the world become a unified nation in my lifetime. You might think it impossible, but it's already happening via the Internet (e.g. how do you legislate an Internet law and apply it only to your country? You could do it, but it's difficult to enforcecan end up regulating businesses outside the country). Stranger things have happened.
I need to go to bed. I'll talk about the rest tomorrow.
posted
The world seems to be getting less and less unified, though, at least politically. Sure, Europe has formed the Justice League (I guess it would be the Justice Society, to be, uh, comically correct?), but former staunch NATO allies are now barely on speaking terms. (The U.S. and everyone else, basically.) Several nations are just dissolving altogether. The internet may bring together Star Trek fans of many nations, but what it really excels at is identity theft and espionage.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. Good job and all, not for coming to agree with us but for coming into your own opinions.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
