My thoughts and opinions on various subjects. I posted some of them online before, on my old website.
Topic List: |
|
If you live in a country where they allow one to vote, and you are eligible to do so, then on Election Day go out and vote! If you don't care about a position or issue, leave it blank, but vote on the things you do care about. And if you don't trust politicians, find a minority candidate with views similar to yours - personally, I prefer Green. The most important thing is, if you have any opinion at all, voice it! Otherwise, you're leaving it in the hands of whom ever does voice their opinion-- and you can bet, the political and financial elite are going to be voicing their opinions!
(Originally written November 1st, 2003; revised May 19th, 2007) |
|
Gay Marriage. ...An interesting topic, that. First, one must consider the topics of homosexuality, and of marriage...
Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, can not be "a sin", as, for most, sexual orientation is not a choice. (I personally beleive those "homosexuals" who claim to have been "cured" were actually bi-sexual. There is also some scientific evidence that sexual orientation is neither hereditary or learned, but instead is determined by what chemicals and hormones the fetus is exposed to at certain points of its' development.) The most we can say (and the most the bible says), is that it is a "sin" to have homosexual intercourse. (Which goes without saying if gays can't marry, as pre/extra marital sex is also considered a sin!) Most of those who denounce homosexuality in our culture use the bible as a reference. However, the support for their view isn't as strong as they make it out to be. The only actual order by God against homosexuality (that I can recall) was in Deuteronomy-which I see more as a legal document for the original nation of Israel, rather than a religious text. Certainly, there are many laws in there we don't follow. (From a religious point of view, this is because, according to Peter, Jesus rendered these laws obsolete. From a practical standpoint, it's because we don't live in ancient Israel...) Another thing often mentioned is the city of Sodom - however, considering that when the crowd wanted Lot to give them his guests, the crowd was apparently planning public gang rape... I think homosexuality was the least of the city's problems... Personally, I don't count the bible as the ultimate authority on things, so I tend to judge morals by one simple question - "Is anyone harmed by it?" So far as I can see, homosexual intercourse between consenting adults harms no one, so what's the problem? (The risk of sexually transmitted disease is one to do with promiscuity, not homosexuality.) Moving on to marriage, one needs to decide what it's for - or who gets to make that decision. All cultures have some sort of socially recognized bonding between men and women for the purposes of creating families. However, the details vary greatly. Here, we marry for love, but in other cultures it's often arranged by the parents, with the financial and political ramifications well thought out in advance. Here, a marriage is between two people, but in other places, a man may have more than one wife (or, in rare cases, a woman may have more than one husband, or a group of men and woman may all be married to each other). Here, a marriage is increasingly seen as temporary, while in much of the world it's still for life - even if that means abused stay with abusers, and unwanted spouses meet mysterious ends. There's also the question of who is the authority that grants marriage. God? The government? Or just the people who say they have a bond? Personally, I see marriage as a social contract between prospective parents, saying that they are committed enough to each other to raise children together. It can mean a lot more, of course (and certainly doesn't have to end once the children are out of the house), but that's the main reason for having it in the first place. Without that, it's just a variation on the theme of friendship (even if usually more intense). So... by this reasoning, marriage between same-sex partners is rather pointless... Unless, of course, they can adopt... Which is another interesting question. Luckily, it's much easier a question to answer. If homosexuality is not, generally speaking, a choice, then there's no danger of parents "teaching" it to their children. The only real "danger" is that these children will grow up not seeing homosexuality as wrong... In other words, it's not really a question of right and wrong - it's a question of culture. As in, do we want homosexuality to be an accepted part of our culture? Obviously, a lot of people don't. Personally, though, I think homosexuality should be accepted - I prefer the idea of living in a culture that doesn't reject people just for being different... But, we don't need gay marriage to make that happen - we're heading towards it already. (The fact that the possibility of gay marriage is even being discussed proves that!) So, whether the government chooses to give marriage licenses to couples of the same sex really doesn't matter all that much in the end - it's the idea that counts, and the idea's already here. (Originally written Saturday, May 29, 2004) |
|
First Bush suggested Iraq and Al Quida were linked. Yeah, right. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hated each other! The whole reason Bin Laden formed Al Quida was to overthrow corrupt Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq! (The only reasons he started attacking America is because we're helping keep the Saudi government in power, and because he figured fighting the "Evil American Empire" would inspire lots of recruits.) And Saddam Hussein actually repressed Muslim fundamentalists, for fear they would attempt to overthrow him!
Well, when Bush discovered that no one outside of America was buying the Al Quida / Iraq connection, he started quoting questionable intelligence reports suggesting Saddam might still have some of the Weapons of Mass Destruction we gave him back in the 80's. (Bush also made a big deal about some aluminum rods that someone thought might be used for processing nuclear material - even though that theory was discredited months before Bush mentioned it.) And so, Bush got the UN to step up the weapons inspections... but nothing was found. Not satisfied, Bush gave Iraq an ultimatum: show us the weapons, prove they were destroyed, or we'll attack. Iraq complied, sending to the UN large numbers of documents telling of the disposal of all the Weapons we'd given them. Of course, those documents had been publicly available for years, but hey, it's what Bush asked for, right? Well, finally, Bush got a bunch of third world nations to agree to go along with the US, and convinced Europe not to interfere. After giving Iraq one last ultimatum (and how many had the US given to Iraq over the years, without ever following thought, I wonder?), the US "coalition" attacked. As expected, the invasion was completed quickly, and Saddam was overthrown. No one seemed to wonder what had happened to the Iraq army... until they started attacking the US forces-- after Bush declared major combat over, no less. Several years later, Saddam has been executed, but Al Quida recruitment numbers are up... and our troops are stuck in Iraq propping up the government we set up, as the Iraqi Civil War continues... ...Oh, and as it turns out, there weren't any Weapons Of Mass Destruction in Iraq, after all... Gee, that worked rather well, didn't it? [*rolls eyes*] (Originally written Thursday, June 25, 2004; updated May 19, 2007) |
|
On the Legality of Certain Drugs Why are some drugs and similar substances illegal? To protect people from themselves - or at least, that's the theory. It's the same idea as with prohibition. Alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, illegal drugs-- they all can be dangerous if miss-used, and due to their often addictive nature, are quite easy to miss-use.So how come some drugs are illegal, while others aren't? Well, so far as I can tell, there was a time when it was "the thing" for lawmaker to make potentially harmful substances illegal. Those drugs that were well known at the time, but served no medical purpose, were outlawed. Unfortunatly, the resulting lists of drugs that are legal and drugs that are not doesn't really make sense. Many that are banned are no worse than the ones that only doctors can prescribe, or the ones that can be used by anyone (such as nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, aspirin, etc...). Marijuana, for instance, is no more dangerous than alcohol - less so, some would argue. Of course, it is often used as an introductory drug, the first step to taking more potent illegal drugs - but so are cigarettes and alcohol. So why aren't cigarettes and alcohol illegal? Well, of course, the US tried that with alcohol, and it didn't work. People kept drinking - just like the illegal nature of marijuana and cocaine haven't stopped people from using them. Laws don't prevent people from doing things -- they just add consequences for actions. Thus, laws against stealing or murdering are good -- they make sure a person who causes someone else harm feels the consequences of their own actions. Doing drugs, however, produces its own consequences, so it seems like overkill to me to criminalize it. Apparently, a lot of people feel similarly, as after many years, Alcohol was made legal again... The only reason other drugs haven't joined it is because not enough people with political influence are willing to stand up and fight for them... Although that's changing too -- in both California and Maine, it would now be legal to produce, possess, buy, sell, and use Marijuana for medical purposes, if there weren't a federal law against it. (In fact, technically, in Maine, a doctor can prescribe marijuana, and a patient can use it, but it's illegal to grow, buy, or possess it... making any such prescription pretty much a moot point.) As you might guess, I agree to an extent with those who wish to legalize Marijuana and other less dangerous illegal drugs. The way I see it, actions (or substances) which only cause direct harm to the individuals who perform that action should not be illegal - they should be regulated in such a way as to minimize the harm or chance of harm the action causes. Ironically enough, considering this mini-essay, I have never used illegal drugs before, nor do I intend to. Heck, I avoid alcohol and nicotine, and try not to make a habit of having things with caffeine in them. I respect people's right to mess around with their mind without a doctor's assistance, but it isn't something I would want to do, even temporarily. Besides, with the amount of addiction in my family, I really can't take the risk... (Originally written Thursday, July 22, 2004; revised and posted May 2007) |
|
In my "Ideal Society" it would be illegal to intentionally kill or otherwise harm someone physically or emotionally, unless in self-defense; or to cause such harm under circumstances where one should have known harm would be caused. (I'd like to add another exception: if a person wished to be killed or injured, they could inform the state of this ahead of time, and their assistant would be allowed to do this. However, strict safeguards would have to be in place to make sure the person really wanted it, and fully understood the consequences. ... Due to the difficulty of creating these safeguards, it probably wouldn't be a practical exception.)
The preceding law would also apply to people harming animals, with the further exception that it would be legal to kill them for food. Also, environmental protection falls into this, as pollution and other environmental damage harms everyone. Theft of personal property would be illegal, of course. Copyrights and patents for characters and ideas would be for a limited time, only (five to ten years). Rights to an exact text, recording, or design (and minor variations thereof) would be protected indefinitely. There would be no death penalty, and only those convicted of violent crimes would be imprisoned. (The focus would be on preventing the crime from happening again, rather than "punishing" the offender.) As for the government to run this, it would be a some comprimise between a republic and an autocracy. The people would choose a ruler out of those most qualified for the job, and that ruler would have the a high level of control over the nation & its government. However, the leader would not have the power to change the constitution -- this could only be accomplished by the people, all of whom (with the power communicate such decisions) would have the right to vote. The people would also be able to depose a leader whom they didn't like (thus reducing the chances of a bad leader staying in power). There would be further safeguards against a bad leader gaining too much power, as well; such as the right to bear arms, and other things I haven't thought of. ... Fleshing out the details of all this would probably create a sizable system of laws and government; however, as much as possible the goal would be to have as few laws, and as small a government as possible. Incidentally, this means no legally enforced censorship, and no public decency laws. (Just "offending" someone wouldn't count as "causing significant emotional harm".) (And thus, nudity would be legal. :) ) Getting down to some details... Rights & Liberties: The right to do anything you want that doesn't cause harm to another living being, and to do almost anything necessary to ensure one's own survival. Also, the right to choose to define what constitutes "harm" to oneself, so long as one's definition does not infringe on other's rights. The rights of freedom of speech/press, and the right to vote. Powers & Opportunities; Income: As this would be essentially a capitalistic society, these would be theoretically available to all, with greater opportunities to those clever, lucky, or possessing great merit. If the government had enough money, there would also be services to provide for those who don't do so well. Health & Vigour: As much public health-care as the government could afford would be provided. For those with the money, private health-care would also be available. Intelligence: A combination of a public system and various private schools. The focus of the public system would be on teaching children how to learn, rather than on any set collection of facts that will be outdated by the time the student is ready to use them. Imagination: Funding for "the arts" wouldn't be in the budget (it's too hard to figure out which artists merit funding, anyway.) Beyond that, see my law regarding copyrights and patents. (Originally written Feb 26, 2005 & posted on some message-board; revised Mar 2007) |
|
I think of abortion as a "necessary evil". To be more specific...
The main argument about abortion is based on the question of when "life begins". However, the answer to this is far from clear cut... For the religious, life begins when an individual gains a soul. Some religions claim this occurs at conception, some claim it is at the taking of the first breath, and I've even heard of at least one non-Christian religion where it wasn't thought to occur until the child was a few years old! To those who believe embryos and fetuses have souls, abortion is murder, and at the very least should not be taken part in by the believer. To those who believe embryos and fetuses don't have souls, there's no problem with any type of abortion. (And those who believe it takes several years to acquire a soul don't feel so bad if their young children die of disease or starvation.) However, those not affiliated with a specific religion (including governments that don't have state religions) cannot rely on religious leaders to determine when life begins, so we must turn elsewhere. My first choice is science, but at first glance it isn't very helpful in this. Science knows nothing of souls, so it cannot use that to determine when life begins. In fact, saying life "begins" isn't even entirely accurate from the scientific perspective - sperm and egg cells are just as alive as any other body cells, and they all started out as parts of the mother and father. It's more accurate to say that a cell or collection of cells becomes an unique and separate individual - but even this is a gradual process, with many points that can be chosen as the defining moment. Does an individual become "individual" when their unique genetic code is created (at conception - but what of identical twins, clones, and others who share genes?), when they are capable of living outside the womb (days or weeks before birth, maybe more with the proper technology), when they are born, or perhaps when they can live without the assistance of others (late pre-teens to early twenties in humans)? In the sense that a tree is an "individual tree", I think the most accurate point to claim as the start of human life is conception - that is when the (unique except in special circmustances) genetic code that defines an "individual life form" is created. However, this is not as relevant as it sounds to the abortion debate - few people debate the morality of cutting down trees, and the early human embryo has no greater capacity for thought, memory, and emotion than a tree (or any other plant). I believe that in the case of humans (and any other sentient species) one must consider the true point where "life as a sentient being" begins to be the point where the conscious mind begins to develop. Of course, there is no more consensus on when this is than on any of our other "beginning" points. However, if one ignores the question of "the soul", the brain is the seat of consciousness - which means the conscious mind cannot even begin to form until the nervous system begins to form. I prefer to give people and other life-forms "the benefit of the doubt", which means in this that even though few even claim to be able to remember being infants or in the womb, we assume something akin to a sentient mind is at work even before the brain learns to control the body and we start to see signs of reaction to the environment. Therefore, by my reasoning, an embryo/fetus gains the status and rights of a "sentient life form" (and perhaps gains a soul) sometime after the development of the first nerve cells but before the fetus begins moving in reaction to things outside the womb - possibly even before the fetus begins to move at all. Interestingly, this dividing point allows for artificial insemination, stem-cell research, and some early abortions, but condemns late-term abortions. Do I think that all but the earliest of abortions should be illegal, then? No. Sometimes, the life of the mother is in danger - and if the child isn't ready to survive on it's own, then it would die if the mother died. In such cases, not killing the baby would be foolish. And if a woman was raped, I can hardly blame her for not wanting to bear the child of her rapist. In all other circumstances, I think the moral choice is to have the child. However, I'm not sure making such abortions illegal would be the best choice. Even back when abortion was illegal and considered immoral, women did it - and often using techniques or "doctors" that put their own lives at risk. At least while it's legal, it can be regulated. In a perfect world I'd like to see an end to mid-term and late-term abortions, legal or otherwise. In this world, however, I'd settle for laws dictating that abortions must be performed in a manner painless and humane to the unborn baby, and perhaps that if a baby is capable of surviving outside it's mother, it should be removed alive rather than aborted. (If the mother really doesn't want it, she could always put it up for adoption. This is not a perfect solution, of course, but it's probably the best one available...) (Written & Posted May 2007) |