Controversial Discussion/Debate

On gay marriage, I am against it. I know that sounds like I'm a terrible person, but it's not that I hate gays. I am against it as I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I can't really go beyond that. It's pretty much the gist of it.

Abortion is a toughie. I am for sure, 100% against it. However, I do understand that if it is illegal, people will resort to dangerous garage abortions which can kill the women too.

I have several reasons as to why I am against abortion. I've heard the argument that "it's a part of the woman's body." No, the zygot has a completely new set of DNA. It may depend on the woman to grow and develop, but it is an individual with a unique set of DNA. That means that to 'terminate' it would be ending a life.

It's kind of funny really. The people who are for abortion have been born. I believe FDR said that. Well, he said something like that. But my point is that a lot of people also say that it isn't a baby yet. When does a person become a person? Is it when they're born? Are they not alive before then? Isn't there a heartbeat in the womb? Is it because it can't take care of itself so we shouldn't let it live if it's going to be unwanted? But does that mean that we shouldn't let a four year old live who is in a bad situation?

Okay, that's the end of my rant. I hope that made sense. Have a great day!

 

Time for me to weigh in on these issues.

1) Gay Marriage:

For me, it's an equality thing. I firmly believe that everyone should have equal rights. That extends to everyone, including and especially the LGBT population.

Straight married couples have complete and full partner benefits. Even many straight couples that aren't married, but cohabitate like they are, but for whatever reasons choose not to get married, get some domestic partner benefits. In many cases, gay and lesbian couples do not. So, if one partner dies, or is in the hospital with a serious illness, then the family could completely shut the other partner out of everything. IMO, that's not right.

My position is that People should have the right to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender/sex. IMO, you Cannot legislate morality.

2) Abortion

I am pro choice. I don't necessarily agree with abortion, but by the same token, I feel you cannot legislate morality, or what someone does with their body.

3) The Death Penalty

That's a tough one, and it's really, really hard to reconcile. However, I'm for it in certain applications. There are heinous crimes, like snatching and killing children, there are people who mutilate just for pleasure because they're sociopaths, and incidents where someone will just kill someone else in cold blood during a robbery. Those types of crimes, for me are ones that definitely deserve the Death Penalty.

I think that the way the Death Penalty, heck, the whole prison system is admistered and applied is horrible. I know a lot of it is the System in general, which I don't want to get into right now; but I think that it's so heavily weighted against minorities and people who don't have money that it's rather sick.

3) Immigration

I would definitely like to see immigration overhauled. There HAS to be some way to make it easier to immigrate to the US while still keeping things secure. I live in an area where there are a lot of Hispanics and a lot of immigrants and their children. Definitely some of them are here illegally. I also know people who've come to this country legally, and had to jump through all sorts of hoops and pay through the nose just to stay here.

Something needs to be done, because the numbers of immigrants are increasing, and not everyone coming here is a solid citizen. Fairly recently, within the past couple of years, there was an incident where there was a car accident, and the man who caused it was driving drunk. Turns out he was an illegal immigrant who had been deported at least once already, and had gotten into other trouble after he'd come back, but wasn't recognized as being here illegally!

90% of immigrants, probably more, come here for a better life. That I recognize. However, there are rules that need to be followed with it. It is an insult to the people who actually work through the system and come here legally that there is so much illegal immigration.

4) Corporal Punishment

I think that in some cases, it's necessary. Sometimes, kids just need to be spanked. However, there is a difference between discipline and abuse. I think one should only use the hand, not a belt, not a switch, not a paddle. I also think that corporal punishment should always be a punishment of last resort. It should NOT be your first response. I always think verbal redirection or a time out is better.

5) Health Care

I'm very much in favor of universal health insurance. I see people who have no insurance whatsoerver, or minimal coverage. They really, really struggle to find quality care, or to even find providers. If you have a chronic condition, forget it. You are sunk. I think there can be a good system. Look at parts of Europe, look at Canada. They have good national health care systems. Of course, being the US, I'm sure they'll find a way to mess it up. Look at the VA system, It's fairly horrible, from what I've heard.

Of course, All of the above is my opinion, and YMMV

 

i only did gay marriage, but since others have done the other subjects too, i might as well

-Abortion - absolutely 100% pro choice, what someone does with their own body is totally nothing to do with anyone else. i don't agree that a bunch of pre-formed cells is a life, far less a human one. i do agree that they become this at some point and therefore i think there should be a cut off point (i think here in the uk it's 24 (or 28, i think they changed it recently) weeks) - personally i'd put it a bit later than that, but it seems reasonable. as for the father knowing, i think it depends on context. i don't think the father automatically has a right to know anyway. as for the pro-life movement, i fail to see how anyone can claim to be pro-life for protecting aforementioned bunches of cells by shooting real life people. it seems utterly contradictory.

-Disciplining Children: Spanking vs. Time-out - time out. i used to get spanked as a kid and i always said it did me no harm but then i dunno, i'm not exactly the sanest person around (although there are other reasons for that). i just don't think it's very fair, as they say "pick on someone your own size". kids should be disciplined of course but there are other ways of doing it.

-Immigration. in principle i'm all for migration in either direction. that said i live in the uk which is a tiny tiny place and we have so many immigrrants. i don't begrudge them at all, i think it's great they have a chance to go somewhere to get a better life, and frankly if britain hadn't been so damn imperial it wouldn't happen so much (because most immigrants are from former colonial areas, such as india, pakistan etc). integration worries me a little - i don't think anyone immigrating should be forced to adopt every aspect of the new country's nationality, i think it's only right to keep some of their heritage and customs, however it does worry me when immigrants can't take part in british life because their custom dictates that they only mix with peopl they know and speak their native language. i don't like ghettoisation and that is a big issue. the other thing that always bothers me (as a politics student) is that it's almost always the more right wing/conservative element of society, and yet that sector is also most supportive of the free market economy which by its very nature supports free migration. again, it's highly contradictory.

just wanted to comment on this as well:

i think this is true but to me there's only one solution - the west has been exploiting other, poorer nations for centuries and taking all the profit. until as much energy is put by the west into helping the nations they plundered/colonised/invaded get to a standard of living that's comparable with ours, then people from those places will continue to see the west as some kind of paradise, and will continue to want to move here. also, until we (ie the west) change our militarism in such places, either by being more or less interventionist (dependent on circumstance), people from those places will seek asylum in the west. i could say that until the west is as corrupt as some of the less developed countries then people will always seek asylum here, but it's not about the west getting more corrupt, it's about raising standards in these other countries so that people don't need to live in fear or poverty or whatever else. obviously i'm not naive enough to believe the west is some shining beacon of great political practice and virtue, but we do have enshrined laws governing rights which explains why so many people in poorer/more corrupt/politically unstable nations want to come here. the west has done far too much interfering and exploiting (usually for profit) and not enough helping, imo.

but naturalised citizens, born and bred, drink drive as well, don't they? i don't think someone's political status doesn't make it a worse crime. perhaps the previous deportation might have a bearing on that, but maybe he came back because his home country was so terrifying he had to get out? anyway, basically i think it's kind of sad when the press make such a big deal about immigrants (illegal or not) doing criminal activities - it's like a whitewash over the fact that all kinds of people do the same things who are to the naked eye at least model citizens.

-Healthcare - i'm a huuuuge fan of the NHS, i would not be without it (or some other form of universal healthcare) ever. it has many flaws and there are times i've ranted about it because there have been screw ups, but i would never, ever get rid of it. i think making people pay (especially over the odds, to the point where sickness bankrupts them, like happens to some ridiculously high proportion in america, something like 50-70% of bankruptcies are caused by healthcare bills) for their health, which is frankly a basic human right, is counterintuitive and counterproductive. in "the trade" healthcare provision for cost is one of the biggest market failures there is. i realise that everything has to be paid for - after all food and shelter are human rights and we pay for those but they are different in that they are part of the free market - healthcare isn't in most places, even america (where it's part of an insurance based market) because the market in health isn't set by supply and demand in the same way as it is for groceries, but i think there are ways of doing it that don't cripple people financially when they require treatment. our system is paid through taxes, which seems like a reasonable solution. most people have to pay for drugs that are prescribed (although there are exemptions). the main thing is that even if you don't pay the tax you can get the treatment - homeless people get treated if they need it, free of charge and (in theory although sometimes it cocks up) with the same standard as everyone else. i'm insanely proud of our health service, and nye bevin (who founded it) is a genuine modern hero.

-The Death Penalty - absolutely against it in any and all circumstances. punishing people for murder by murdering them just doesn't make any sense at all. if the state can do something, why not the people? obviously machiavelli would argue that the state has a different set of morals to work on and to an extent i agree, but i still think it's wrong. anyway people have been punished by death for centuries but they still commit the same crimes, how on earth anyone can feasibly call it a deterrent punishment is beyond me. if it was there wouldn't be any murder, because everyone would be too scared of getting caught. someone mentioned that it costs more than keeping prisoners alive - it seems counterintuitive but it is true - death row facilities cost far more than normal ones, and people on death row are frequently there for extended periods (in part because of the appeals process but i'm sure there are other factors). i'm a bit with foucault on this, the punishment should fit the crime better - this is a slight digression but he said that the fact that non-stranger rape is treated as a much lesser crime than stranger rape (in terms of punishment but also in terms of people being believed/taken seriously) shows that the system is severely skewed. rape is rape whoever does it and the punishment should be the same (obviously taking any mitigation into account). the same should go for all crimes, murder included. one murder is not worse than another murder, and the punishment should be across the board, with the only altering factor being mitigating circumstances (like insanity etc). the ONLY time that i think this isn't true is when a woman who's suffered domestic abuse for a prolonged time finally snaps and murders the abuser, i think that is the biggest mitigating circumstance there is. that said, i don't think provocation is always a mitigating circumstance. basically the standard punishment should be uniform, with mitigating circumstances being taken on a case by case basis.

oh, and obviously this is just my opinion

 

Exactly, that is a huge issue. I am all for immigration, and an overhaul of the system, because as it stands now, the whole system is broken. People come here for a better life, and send money back home to help alleviate the crush of poverty there. The only problem with that is that then infrastructure there decays because of lack of funds.

I agree, countries of the west, especially the US DO exploit the other countries. Especially in Latin America. I find it ironic that so much was made of Marxist regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua, but at the same time there was a horrible regime in Haiti that was in good with the American government at the time, and nothing was said. Actually, INS would deny Hatian immigrants entry to the US, but anyone from Cuba was allowed.

Boggles the mind.

No, I wasn't saying it like that, I was using the case as an example of how porous our borders are, and how poor a job the government does in knowing who is in the country, and the lack of communication between various agencies. IIRC, this man had been deported, then came back, and had multiple incidents of drunken driving, even had his license suspended or revoked, but no one knew that he was not supposed to be here.

I agree there. It's a little different here in the States, with it being a society made up of immigrants and a population that comes from a wide variety of cultural heritages.

Still, there's the push towards assimilation, which does bother me. The whole "Speak English" movement upsets me because I know that English is a very unique and complex language, and is not easy to learn.

It also bothers me that the Hispanic populations are criticized for maintaining cultural values and heritage, while many other ethnic groups are not. I've seen a lot of people make disrespectful remarks about things like Mexican Independence Day, or Cinco de Mayo, when the same people celebrate St. Patricks Day, Greek Easter, Oktoberfest or the Day of Epiphany.

It's difficult being thrown into a new culture and environment, and the natural instinct is to cluster together with people who are alike. I'm a bit mixed on this, because I feel that people have to assimilate somewhat into the culture to be successful, but I do think that they should be allowed to retain the hallmarks of their culture, even several generations down the line.

Honestly, one of the things that makes Immigration such a hot button issue everywhere, but in particular the United States is the race issue. It's one I'm a bit reluctant to go into, because it's very easy to misconstrue something and have it escalate. I know other countries, especially in western Europe, like the UK, Holland and Germany have been struggling with this for quite awhile, to the point of violence in the streets at times. It's not quite like that here in the States, but there is a lot of tension, especially in border areas like Southern California, Arizona, and Texas.

I'd like to see a solution to this, but I'm not optimistic, at least not in my lifetime. There's just too much political junk involved for there to be an easy, workable solution, IMO.

 

this is true - by sending funds to their families back home, their productivity benefits neither their native country nor their chosen one.

well, just look at the long list of latin american coups-d'etat that were "not supported" by the US administration, and that in no way whatsoever had to do with oil and other resources lol. and even now, look at the fuss over hugo chavez. obviously the man is massively flawed and is looking more stalinist by the day but in many ways he's the only world leader that has fiscal and resources policies that actually benefit his people before other nations, and i think he has to be applauded for that, but of course, he's taking the resources away from outside exploiters and therefore he must be stopped. if only the US government had the means and funds at the moment to organise a swift coup/kidnapping and replace him with someone more amenable to their needs, but they should've thought of that when they invaded iraq/afghanistan... [/sarcasm/cynicism/whatever else]

tbh nothing western governments do boggle my mind any more, i'm way past the point of jaded disilluion!

ah yeah, well that's definitely a fair point. i could start spouting max weber's thesis on how bureaucracy takes over the entire running of every aspect of a state in the modern world but i'd need to reread it first! but yes, bureaucracy is a massive problem in the west - like you say agencies often don't speak to eachother which leads to all kinds of problems and espcecially in areas like immigration, fiscal benefit planning and so on. there's uproar over here in the uk because the NHS budget has risen dramatically, and something like 50% more management consultants were hired over the last few years than doctors/nurses. doctors and nurses here don't get paid an awful lot (and nurses in particular) so why the government is shelling out tons of money on management structure is a question no one seems to be able to answer. the nhs functioned fairly well before all the management people got involved, and now seems to have longer wait lists, worse cleanliness levels and so on. bureaucracy really is a very annoying thing!

oh, i dunno, england is the ultimate immigrant nation really, albeit several hundred years ago. it really bothers me when nationalists start saying "england for the english" and so on - i always want to say "what english? most of us are normans, a few are vikings, some are germanic, an the only true english people live in a tiny corner of either wales or france". drives me insane! but i do see your point - a nation that has been relatively recently founded on immigration can't exactly turn that on its head and become isolationist.

yeah, completely agree. as a linguistics student i think it's massively important to keep variety of language alive, i love english, i think it's the most fascintating language there is, but then i am english! also, english is a bastard language made up of a mish mash of many other languages (eg french, latin, greek, scandinavian, germanic, slavic, etc) and i think other languages coming in and influencing english is really important as well, there are many new words in english all the time from all kinds of areas, and that's brilliant.

i think people should keep their culture and language, i think it's very important, but i also think there should be a duality for immigrants - ie those that come to live in an english speaking country should probably have a basic grasp of english, otherwise how would they survive? i find it hard going on holiday to somewhere if i don't speak enough of the language, it gets to be really frustrating if you can't communicate, and i think cultures that enforce the isolation of the native language from that of the chosen country only do themselves a disservice because it's hard to live somewhere if you don't at least try to understand it a bit, and that really does lead to ghettoisation.

yeah, i'm inclined to agree and there's definitely been struggle here over it, and in other parts of europe (russia i believe has a particularly tough problem with it) but the race issue is such a vast can of worms i'm not sure i want to go there....

 

i disagree - to eliminate war and violence you have to eliminate the very idea of property and ownership, and by extension territory and resources-profit. this is where even communism failed, because humans are by nature acquisitive (if you're being nice about it anyway, greedy is probably better) and it is (imo) impossible to eliminate ownwership and property. as long as someone wants to own something (be it resources, land, money, food, minerals, other people, animals, whatever) they will be taking it from someone else who will always want to take it back from them. conflict is *always*, at root, over ownership rights. the indian revolution, the french revolution, the american revolution and civil war, the entire middle eastern mess is based on land proprietorship, ditto many of the problems in the balkans, and far east, the issue over china's (illegal) occupations of tibet and the tarim basin, and so on ad infinitum - and that's before you even start on the weapons trade, sex trade, drug trade (and of course the utterly pointless entity that is the "war" on drugs, both share the same roots) and other similar activities. basically it always comes down to money, be it in paper form, electronic form or land/resources form.

 

Well, I will stick to my original post.

The nature of man is IMO very important as the war, poverty, violence and greed. And Kimbo´s topics touch base with the definition of being human. Is the death penalty goverment granted murder or not?
Is the empryo lfe or death? The root of any war or violent act stems from a disagreement. But is hate and greed the shadowemotions of being a person/human?

So whatever stand you have on theese topics, will exclue thoose who thinks the oppersite. And I would ask myself if they and their norms were standart would I be polite and nice or would I rebell? And IMO that goes for both sides.

oh ....it´s hard for me to keep short....:guffaw:. Gave myself a 5 line permit and have now crossed the line:guffaw:.

 

I totally agree with you dear, and couldn't have put it better myself. I think my views come from my religion (I'm a Christian), and I guess also from the way I've been brought up... Like Kelly, I have nothing against people who are gay, it's just the act of homosexulaity that I disagree with... I don't want to offend anyone, but those are my views...

On abortion, well, I'm definitely pro-life, I don't believe abortion is ever right, unless it's going to cause death or serious damage to the mother to carry on with the pregnancy... I think that every child has the right to life, and believe that a child is a child from conception, therefore I see abortion as killing an innocent baby...

Just my 2 cents on a couple of issues...

 

but how can you really separate gay people from the act(s) of homosexuality? even if someone is non-practising (ie celibate) their sexual/romantic thoughts are still going to be focussed on gay sex acts as opposed to straight ones. i don't buy that "love the sinner, hate the sin" stuff for a second - the act of the sin would not exist without a sinner to do it. also an awful lot of straight men do what could be called gay sex acts with women (i'm trying to be oblique here...). and may i just point out that in no way at all do i see gay sex/gayness as a sin, i don't care what people do behind closed doors and i tend to view things the other way around and believe that sins of that nature are created by status quo lovers (not the band:lol to alienate and marginalise anyone that they feel threatened by.

personally i don't believe in marriage anyway. as a feminist it's the last bastion of patriarchal dominance and i think it's a very oppressive institution. that said, if someone wants to get married, that's up to them, they don't have to agree with that, it's just that i never, ever would - there is too much symbolism/language/ideology attached to marriage that disgusts me. the reason i've said that is that i don't honestly understand why a gay person would aspire to marriage - i can totally understand why they would aspire to civil equality with married couples, and that's brilliant, what i mean is i think marriage should be replaced - across the board - with a civil, non religious, equality and commitment contract. in law that's pretty much what marriage is anyway, i think if we got rid of the old patriarchal ideology, women would finally be getting closer to gender equality, and gay people wouldn't be ostracised by way of "their" kind of marriage being different from "our" kind of marriage.

hmm, seems i've gone off on one again.

 

I hope answering this isn't off topic, but since religion is a controversial issue, I don't think it's taboo here.

In my opinion, you're stereotyping religious people by saying that. I personally do not have anything against someone who is gay. You may think I'm spitting out bull, but it's my belief (I am a Christian) to love everyone. So that includes gays. It's like how even though you've done something wrong, your mom still loves you. That's how I'm trying to explain.

On a biological level, I disagree with homosexuality. I think that it is against nature as nature is for the continuation of the species, and like T'Witchy said, if homosexuality was supposed to be the norm, both sexes would have both sets of biological systems.

Anyway, I hope I'm in line with the rules of the thread. Have a great day XD