Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Gay marriage and desegregation- a fair comparison? |
| 05.23.04 (7:23 pm) [edit] |
|
I'm a bit late on this topic, as the 50th anniversary of the [i]Brown[/i] court case as well as the onset of legally recognized gay marriages in Massachussetts was last Monday, but better late than never, right? By comparing the court decision to allow homosexuals the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals to the court decision 50 years ago that separate institutions for blacks and whites were unconstitutional, a strong message is sent to those conservatives who oppose allowing legalized gay marriage. It is highly unlikely that many would contend that the racial barriers of the past were a good thing. Equating the denial of marriage rights of gay couples with equality among races is an emotional appeal to those opposing gay marriage. Inequality is considered wrong in America, where the ensurance of equal rights has been sought throughout the nation's history. However, it isn't entirely fair to equate the denial of basic rights to equal education and facilities to the denial of rights to marriage. It is appropriate to keep in mind that separate is never equal, and that discrimination is deplorable, but it is trivializing to the civil rights movement to equate gay marriage and desegregation. Homosexuals are not discriminated against in all facets of life. I entirely support the decision to grant homosexuals the right to marry, as it is unconstitutional to deny rights to any group of citizens so long as the same rights are given to others. But it is misleading to compare the denial of marriage to the discrimination of our segregated past. I'm hoping that George W. Bush will not be given much support in his call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, as it would be simply shameful for the nation to engage (no pun intended, really) itself in a political war centered on adding an amendment- that would be itself unconstitiontal- to the constitution. Denying rights is not the intention of our constitution, and our laws and society should reflect that. |
| 24 Comments |
| Abortion and the Death Penalty hypocrisies |
| 05.23.04 (5:11 pm) [edit] |
|
On the surface, it is seemingly hypocritical to be pro-life and support the Death Penalty, or to be pro-choice and oppose the Death Penalty. Both abortion and the Death Penalty involve the loss of lives, so how can opinions be opposite on the two issues? For pro-lifers, the issue of abortion is not about legality, it is about morality. Abortion is considered immoral, therefore it should not be legal. Morality dictates what is lawful, in this scenario. It is not equivocal to compare the death of an innocent fetus and the death of an adult presumedly guilty of a heinous crime. If the legal matter of abortion is based on what is morally right, according to pro-life views, is it hypocritical that these same people accept and support imposing the sentence of death upon a criminal? If it is immoral to kill anyone (aside from self-defence), how is the Death Penalty acceptable? It would seem to be more consistent for pro-lifers to also be anti-Death Penalty. Similarly, many oppose the Death Penalty while supporting the right of abortion. In this view, the Death Penalty is considered an infringement of personal rights by taking away the individual's life. But that doesn't seem consistent with the pro-choice view. If we consider the same view of the pro-life group, it would seem that being pro-choice means supporting the morality of abortion. That would seem in favor of allowing death, and would be contradictory to the view that no one should die, even if they commit a heinous crime. However, the argument on the morality of abortion is irrelevant to the pro-choice view; it is concerned solely with legality. My understanding is that the differing views of abortion and the Death Penalty are not conflicting, but do warrant examination. As stated previously, abortion is considered based on two different standards- morality and legality. Only the pro-life stance deals with the moral aspect, and uses that to determine legality. Legal rights are the only consideration for the pro-choice view. As for the Death Penalty, the pro side maintains the view that those who commit atrocities should be punished accordingly, and in some cases death is the appropriate punishment. The con side would argue that death solves nothing. This view focuses on the importance of life and finds the government imposing a punishment of death to be obtrusively forceful beyond the bounds of reasonable treatment. There are certainly more aspects of each view of both issues, but, in essence (and to argue my personal views), if abortion is made illegal, it infringes upon the rights of the individual by taking away an option (not a birth control method, but a means of a healthy alternative to many situations), and allowing the Death Penalty violates the rights of the citizens by taking away lives. While allowing abortion in no way forces anything on the public, allowing the Death Penalty can have negative societal consequences. Though I disagree with those who are pro-life and those who support the Death Penalty, I can understand their reasoning and do not see it as hypocritical. That being said, if anyone can provide a single convincing reason (to me) to either oppose the right to abortion or to support the Death Penalty, you will forever have my admiration. |
| 18 Comments |
| President Bush's re-election bid is offensive |
| 05.21.04 (3:38 pm) [edit] |
|
No, not because of images of war in the campaigns, not because of ugly rhetoric (that's the sad standard in political campaigning- just browse the tblog politics section), and not because images from 9/11 were used early on. It is a sense of direct, personal offense that I get when I see a Bush campaign ad. I recall feeling a similar sense of offense during the presidential campaign of 2000. I thought, "How could this guy honestly think he could be our president, and how dare he insult the American public by even running?" Looking back, it doesn't seem as though I had much reason to be concerned (well, overly concerned) or to be offended by the mere notion of the then Governor of Texas running for president. Now, as I see ads on television for the Bush campaign, I feel justly angered and insulted. While war wages, soldiers are killed, insurgents riot, and scandals surface in Iraq, President Bush is seeking re-election. I personally resent this. With all the errors Bush has made from the onset of the war in Iraq up to this point, with Iraqi self-rule looking uncertain, it is difficult to swallow the messages Bush is using to campaign. Fine, not everything that is going or has gone wrong in Iraq is Bush's fault. Maybe he is the best candidate for the task of succeeding in the war in Iraq. But I highly doubt it. Not only was he wrong about there being stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, the justification given for an urgent war; he and his administration have been wrong about the difficulty the soldiers would face in Iraq, the level of involvement the war would entail, the severity of the battles, and the way things would be handled. For starters, it is bad policy to invade a country based on false pretenses, then claim the intention is to liberate the country's citizens. It is particularly bad policy to declare war on a country with few allies supporting the decision, and with great dissent among the world community. With the economy suffering for the past few years, it is hard to imagine Bush has done a commendable job, even so much as to deserve to run for president again. The messages of the Bush campaign are not about demonstrating the strong leadership he has shown as president, or detailing the good he has done for the nation, as there are very few strong points to his presidency. The hope for Bush is to attack his opponent enough and to pinpoint every reason against voting for John Kerry so that the voters will be persuaded to re-elect Bush. I find this insulting. Given that there are extremely few aspects of Bush’s presidency that are remotely good, how could he attempt to win re-election? Now, I am possibly even less a fan of John Kerry than I am of George W. Bush, but when the incumbent has to resort to petty attacks on his opponent so early in the campaign, that says something. Bush has very little to run on as President, very few accomplishments, and a great amount of negatives. What upsets me the most about his attempt at re-election is that he could very well win. As much of an insult as I find his poor attempt at remaining in office, America may allow that to happen. He does not have a very high approval rating, nor will he likely be leading by a large margin at any point in the presidential race. But many Americans simply feel they must choose between the lesser of two evils. That is the only way Bush can win. A vote for Bush or Kerry is a wasted vote, to me. Neither deserves to even run for president. |
| 14 Comments |
| President Bush's accomplishments |
| 05.09.04 (9:21 pm) [edit] |
|
As the scandal over Iraqi prisoner abuses unfolds, it causes me to wonder if anything under the Bush Administration has been a success. The onset of his presidency was tainted with the controversy over how he made it into office. Democrats still argue that Bush 'stole' the election, as Gore received more of the popular vote than Bush. Republicans argue that Bush won the election by the standards defined in the constitution. My opinion on the matter is that Bush did win the election, but that the current system is majorly flawed and democracy would be much better served if we were to revamp the system. Moving on, Bush's leadership was tested on 9/11. To his credit, and perhaps the only redeemable aspect of his tenure as president, Bush reacted to the terrorist attacks with resolve, sought to unite America in a trying time, and showed an unwavering sense of leadership. However, I personally disagreed with his actions in the aftermath. Knowing that among the major reasons for the attack by bin Laden's organization was a hatred for the US and our seemingly imperialistic and often domineering actions in the Middle East, indescriminate attacks by the US in retribution would not be a great way to cure the problem. That being said, a lack of response at all would not have sent a very good message to the world community, either. In essence, President Bush did a good job in the aftermath of 9/11. Until he decided that going after bin Laden and al Qaeda was no longer to be the primary focus of the 'War on Terrorism.' I won't go so far as to say that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq; about a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks; about the war in Iraq being urgent; but the premises presented by the Bush administration were false and misleading. There is no evidence Saddam was in any way involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Any link between Hussein and al Qaeda was merely forced in an attempt at laying blame on a more accessible target. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD, either. His violations of UN Resolutions granted some action be taken, but the US' role in the world community certainly should not be as the police. If Hussein actually had posed a major threat, then action would have been justified. Had there been any urgency to the war in Iraq, it may have been justified. As it is, the only possible justification for the war was that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who needed to go, and, while this is certainly a valid point, it does not warrant a war- there was no urgency. So the President led us into an unnecessary, and arguably unjust, war, under false pretenses, and with many negative outcomes thus far. There was the bitterly erroneous proclamation of "mission accomplished" by President Bush, declaring the end of major combat, while the war wages on over a year later. Now we have reports of Iraqi prisoner abuses by American soldiers. I wouldn't blame this on Bush or Rumsfeld, but the lack of action taken and the avoidance of the subject prior to the media's release of the photos does not present the Bush Administration in a favorable manner, to me. But there is one positive for the war in Iraq- Saddam's capture. The success (or failure) of the war in Iraq can be measured on many levels, but it is certain that in regard to the brutal dictatorship in Iraq prior to the war, it was a success. I'm not old enough to consider the historical implications of Bush's tainted presidency or how this presidency really compares to others, but it is very clear to me that this man should not serve another term as the leader of America. |
| 34 Comments |
| The morality of sex- for reducto |
| 05.02.04 (4:44 pm) [edit] |
|
Please read nothing into the fact that this blog on sex is dedicated to you, reducto; my heart already belongs to another. In this post, I intend to explain in what ways my views as a pro-choice atheist relate to the views of a pro-life Catholic. In my view as well as the Catholic view, abortion is replete with immoral implications. Particularly if abortion is treated as merely a means of birth control (though I sincerely doubt many consider the act of abortion to be so insouciant), it does not seem a moral solution. In both Catholicism's teachings as well as my own views, birth control is considered wrong. Condoms, birth control pills, and all other, similar, forms of contraception seem unnatural. How then, do my views as a pro-choice atheist differ from those of the pro-life Catholic? Being pro-choice means that I do not express a moral sentiment on the issue of abortion, other than the morality of granting the individual the rights to their own life. That sounds rather pro-life, doesn't it? It is reminiscient of totalitarianism, however, to neglect the rights of the woman in favor of securing rights for a fetus that cannot be granted without the interference of the government into the private lives of its citizens. All individuals have certain inherent rights, and to argue that the baby must also receive those rights requires that the potentiality of life is valued over choice, over personal affairs, and over freedom from intrusive governmental standards. If abortion was banned, it would not be protecting life, it would be denying the rights of all women. If abortion is allowed to remain legal, the decision is not forced upon all, true freedom is expressed. To the Catholic contention that abortion is murder, that abortion is "playing God," it must be understood that there are other health concerns and that abortion is not merely a birth control device. Circumstances vary, and a legal standard dictating that abortion is wrong in all cases would not only be obtrusive, it would also hinder life by placing unnecessary risks on such a natural thing as birth. Abortion cannot be considered playing God, as it is not, in most instances, an attempt to maintain power over life or to control another's life. And if God is truly all-powerful, then we cannot circumvent that power. As far as birth control goes, Catholics are against the notion for that reason- it prevents life and therefore is an attempt to play God. Contraception goes against my personal views by reducing (and often replacing) the romantic value of sex. In essence, though my views seem in line with those of Catholicism, the difference lies in the meaning given to the act of sex. For Catholics, the purpose of sex is procreation. For me, the highest function of sex is romance. I recognize, however, that romance is often not the most important aspect of a sexual relationship, and is often not even present. Similarly, any reasonable Catholic should recognize that sex is not always a means of procreation. That is not the sole purpose of sex. Thus, we must all admit that there is a certain amount of responsibility that we must take, and that is why we use birth control devices. We must also allow others to take responsibility for themselves, and that is why restricting freedom should not be an option. Being against abortion is one thing, but supporting the restriction of rights by promoting the pro-life cause is in violation of America's values. |
| 22 Comments |
