Sunday, July 6, 2008
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Abortion Parental-Notice Law Repealed
Abortion is not a topic that I want to cover directly. I am pro-choice and I will leave it at that. The question is, should parents of a minor be notified before she receives an abortion?
At first I thought that it sounded like a good law, but then I thought about it more. Obviously not everyone has good parents. There are many different dynamics of families, and some minors are just not in the position to communicate with their parents on that level. Lynch Stated:
"I strongly believe parents should be involved in these decisions, providing important support and guidance. Unfortunately that is not possible in every case.”
It is up to the parents to raise their children with open communication and understanding. Girls who feel that they can go to their parents will. Those who do not, will not. In some cases it may be dangerous for the minor to have her parents notified.
I do not know the exact details of the law, but I would hope that in the 44 states that have one like it, there is a clause that states that if there is reason to believe that notifying the parents would put the minor in a dangerous situation, then the law would not be enforced in that case.
Another problem with this law however, is that if a minor knows or learns of its existence, they may decide not to get help from a professional and take matters into their own hands. Jessica Coleman was 15 when she hid her pregnancy from everyone except her boyfriend. She stabbed her baby with scissors after she gave birth to him over a toilet. She obviously felt that she couldn't turn to her mother or an organization such as Planned Parenthood. Now she is in a maximum security prison. This is an extreme case, but having “safe haven” laws and NOT having laws such as the one being discussed here, can prevent anything like it from happening again.
This law had good intentions but I agree that it is unconstitutional. It could potentially do more harm than good.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Same-Sex Marriage: Let it Be
Ahhh, another topic of debate: same-sex marriage. This is a topic that I feel very strongly about so if you have an opposing argument, please share.
I wrote one of my first posts about the separation of church and state because I knew that I would refer back to it in this post. But before I get to that, I think this argument has to begin with people's thoughts on homosexuality.
Most people who disagree with homosexuality and think that it is wrong is because they believe that one is not born gay, but rather chooses that lifestyle. Now can you honestly tell me that with the way that gay people are treated in our society, that every person who is "out of the closet", chose to be so? Give me a break! With the discrimination and hate crimes commited against them, and just the overall disapproval of homosexuality, it is a ridiculous idea to me that someone would voluntary choose that. I'm sure there are many who do choose homosexulity for one reason or the other, but to say that ALL gay people choose to be gay is just outrageous to me. Next thing you'll tell me is that during slavery, black people chose to be black knowing full well the implications of that.
I have heard so many stories of people who try to hide their homosexuality. They try to ignore it and lead a normal life, only to later come out of the closet because they can't take it anymore. Families are torn apart when one parent finally admits to who they are. Just recently on MTV's The Real World, the gay roommate, Davis, was shown crying, stating that he wanted to be straight because life would be so much easier and he could have everything that is considered normal. So please do NOT tell me that being gay is a choice...moving on.
Separation of church and state is an important topic here because the main arguments against same-sex marriage are religious. If you believe that your god thinks that homosexuality is wrong, then that is your right. But to make a law that affects all Americans based on that belief is wrong. What about the homosexual atheist who wants to get married? They can't because the god that you believe in, and they don't believe in, disapproves. How is that fair in ANY way?
By saying that gay people do not have the right to marriage, we are saying they are not considered true American citizens. We are denying them the rights that they deserve. There is a whole list of rights and benefits that they cannot have due to this injustice.
Another argument against gay marriage is that we must preserve the sanctity of marriage. Now first of all, sanctity:
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
Hmmm...sounds a bit religious to me. That alone should make this argument invalid, but I will continue. The U.S. divorce rate is roughly 50%. It sounds to me like straight people aren't doing a very good job of preserving the sanctity of marriage themselves. Americans these days marry multiple times (i.e. Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor), elope while in a drunken state (i.e. Brittany Spears), and commit adultery (i.e. Rudy Giuliani who happens to be running for president!). In my view, there's not much sanctity to preserve, but who is to say that allowing gays to marry takes away from the sanctity in the first place? Two people that love each other and want to make that commitment should be allowed to do so as long as they are human beings.
On a side note, I found it very intriguing that during the Republican debate, most of the candidates stated that the war in Iraq was necessary and that we must do what we can to win it, yet they do not support gays and lesbians openly serving in the military. This was the concensus even with the knowledge that recently nine army linguists were dismissed from the army for being openly gay...at a time when there is a shortage of needed translators and interpretors for the American troops in Iraq. So basically they would rather not have these people who are crucial to the success of the war in Iraq serve in the war, simply because they are gay. Are you kidding me with this?! *sigh*...moving on...
Another argument against marriage that is actually not religious, but very weak, is the definition of marriage itself:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
...oh but wait...there's more now!:
2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriageb : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
However there is matrimony: the union of man and woman as husband and wife.
Dictionaries are not written in stone. Our culture continues to evolve and so must everything that documents it. The meanings of words change as we can see in the definition of marriage. The definition of matrimony can easily expand, as have the defnitions for other words. For example....let me just pull one of the top of my head.....oh I dunno, how about "gay"! Didn't that used to mean happy? It still does (although I doubt you would fine many people who still use it that way), but it's meaning also includes:
1 a : happily excited : MERRYb : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits 2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY b : brilliant in color3 : given to social pleasures; also : LICENTIOUS4 a : HOMOSEXUAL b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals
So basically, the definition of marriage is whatever we make it.
I do believe that one day gays and lesbians will be given the right to marriage. It was only in 1967 that interracial marrage became legal. I really hope that we can stop judging others based on our own personal religious beliefs and look at each other as human beings who deserve to be treated equally. The discrimination that is being done now is not much different from the kind that has happened in our history. It makes me so sad to see parents teaching their children bigotry and racism. We should know better by now.
I wrote one of my first posts about the separation of church and state because I knew that I would refer back to it in this post. But before I get to that, I think this argument has to begin with people's thoughts on homosexuality.
Most people who disagree with homosexuality and think that it is wrong is because they believe that one is not born gay, but rather chooses that lifestyle. Now can you honestly tell me that with the way that gay people are treated in our society, that every person who is "out of the closet", chose to be so? Give me a break! With the discrimination and hate crimes commited against them, and just the overall disapproval of homosexuality, it is a ridiculous idea to me that someone would voluntary choose that. I'm sure there are many who do choose homosexulity for one reason or the other, but to say that ALL gay people choose to be gay is just outrageous to me. Next thing you'll tell me is that during slavery, black people chose to be black knowing full well the implications of that.
I have heard so many stories of people who try to hide their homosexuality. They try to ignore it and lead a normal life, only to later come out of the closet because they can't take it anymore. Families are torn apart when one parent finally admits to who they are. Just recently on MTV's The Real World, the gay roommate, Davis, was shown crying, stating that he wanted to be straight because life would be so much easier and he could have everything that is considered normal. So please do NOT tell me that being gay is a choice...moving on.
Separation of church and state is an important topic here because the main arguments against same-sex marriage are religious. If you believe that your god thinks that homosexuality is wrong, then that is your right. But to make a law that affects all Americans based on that belief is wrong. What about the homosexual atheist who wants to get married? They can't because the god that you believe in, and they don't believe in, disapproves. How is that fair in ANY way?
By saying that gay people do not have the right to marriage, we are saying they are not considered true American citizens. We are denying them the rights that they deserve. There is a whole list of rights and benefits that they cannot have due to this injustice.
Another argument against gay marriage is that we must preserve the sanctity of marriage. Now first of all, sanctity:
1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
Hmmm...sounds a bit religious to me. That alone should make this argument invalid, but I will continue. The U.S. divorce rate is roughly 50%. It sounds to me like straight people aren't doing a very good job of preserving the sanctity of marriage themselves. Americans these days marry multiple times (i.e. Larry King and Elizabeth Taylor), elope while in a drunken state (i.e. Brittany Spears), and commit adultery (i.e. Rudy Giuliani who happens to be running for president!). In my view, there's not much sanctity to preserve, but who is to say that allowing gays to marry takes away from the sanctity in the first place? Two people that love each other and want to make that commitment should be allowed to do so as long as they are human beings.
On a side note, I found it very intriguing that during the Republican debate, most of the candidates stated that the war in Iraq was necessary and that we must do what we can to win it, yet they do not support gays and lesbians openly serving in the military. This was the concensus even with the knowledge that recently nine army linguists were dismissed from the army for being openly gay...at a time when there is a shortage of needed translators and interpretors for the American troops in Iraq. So basically they would rather not have these people who are crucial to the success of the war in Iraq serve in the war, simply because they are gay. Are you kidding me with this?! *sigh*...moving on...
Another argument against marriage that is actually not religious, but very weak, is the definition of marriage itself:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
...oh but wait...there's more now!:
2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
However there is matrimony: the union of man and woman as husband and wife.
Dictionaries are not written in stone. Our culture continues to evolve and so must everything that documents it. The meanings of words change as we can see in the definition of marriage. The definition of matrimony can easily expand, as have the defnitions for other words. For example....let me just pull one of the top of my head.....oh I dunno, how about "gay"! Didn't that used to mean happy? It still does (although I doubt you would fine many people who still use it that way), but it's meaning also includes:
1 a : happily excited : MERRY
So basically, the definition of marriage is whatever we make it.
I do believe that one day gays and lesbians will be given the right to marriage. It was only in 1967 that interracial marrage became legal. I really hope that we can stop judging others based on our own personal religious beliefs and look at each other as human beings who deserve to be treated equally. The discrimination that is being done now is not much different from the kind that has happened in our history. It makes me so sad to see parents teaching their children bigotry and racism. We should know better by now.
Friday, June 8, 2007
I have lost all respect for Donald Trump: Rosie vs. Trump
So this is somewhat old news, but with Rosie recently leaving the View it has come to my attention again so I will rant.
So it all started when Rosie O'Donnell made negative comments about Donald Trump after he made an announcement that he would not fire Tara O'Conner (who held the Miss USA title at the time). Tara apparently had drug and alcohol use problems. And of course, as is the norm now for "celebrities", she entered rehab to deal with her problems. As we all know now, when a celebrity does something stupid, whether it be drinking and drugs or using racial slurs, they go to rehab. We are then supposed to forgive and forget and let them proceed with their public careers. Whatever, moving on...
So Rosie pretty much thought the whole thing was ridiculous and compared Trump to a snake oil salesman, stated that he has gone bankrupt in the past, and laughed at the idea of him being the "moral compass for 20-year-olds in America." Out of all the comments that Rosie made, Trump seemed to be the most bothered by her claim that he has been bankrupt. So Trump goes on pretty much every show that will have him, slamming Rosie.
Watch what she said.
Let's look at a brief list of some things he called her:
*loser
*fat
*ugly
*lesbian
*woman out of control
*bully
*despicable person
...and the list goes on.
I could dedicate a whole blog just to all the crap he said, but I won't. He pretty much attacked every aspect her of he could.
So recently after her hasty exit from the View, Trump publicly stated that he was proud to have started her downfall. To that I say: Get over yourself Mr. Trump!
There was no "downfall" and Rosie's exit from the View certainly had NOTHING to do with you. Shut up!
Let me first say that I have so much respect for Rosie O'Donnell. She had the guts to really question our administration in a public forum and stick to her guns. That being said, I have lost ALL respect for Trump based on his reaction to her statements. It must also be noted that I never saw Rosie respond in the same manner that he did. She did not attack him in a childish manner as he did. Her comments were actually valid and based on something while his were not.
See some of what he said here.
I may be a little bias however. Rosie did do a hilarious impression of Trump and his comb over (see picture above). I feel her response to him still wasn't nearly as ridiculous as his response to her.
See her initial response.
It blows my mind that someone who I respected as a talented business man could be so incredibly childish and petty. The names he used the most to describe Rosie that I saw were fat, lesbian, and loser. Are you fu*king serious?? He had NO valid argument against her and I think he did more damage to himself then he did to her. He looked like a complete fool in my view. It was even worse when he brought Barbara Walters into it saying that Barbara told him she didn't like Rosie. That was a completely unprofessional thing to do and I hope that Barbara cut ties with him.
After that I refused to watch his show the Apprentice. I probably wouldn't have watched it anyway, but I made a conscious effort not to. Many have said his public retaliation was just to get ratings for his show which isn't doing so well anymore. If the opportunity arose I would not do business with Trump.
All he had to do was make ONE statement clarifying any claims she made about him and that's it! A respectable person would have not retaliated in such a manner. A respectable person would have taken the high road. Trump obviously chose a different path on the lowest road possible.
If Rosie wanted to respond in a similar manner what could she call him?:
*ugly
*loser
*can't keep a wife
*bad comb over
*stupid
*degenerate
....and the list goes on.
This whole mess was called a feud in the news but it was one-sided in my opinion. In either case I think Rosie is the clear winner.
This "feud" is a good example of why I started this blog, and why I stay fairly anonymous and ask people who comment to do the same. What would Trump have said if he had only read the statments made about him, not knowing who said it or anything about them? He would be forced to address what was said and the merit of it, rather than attack the person who said it. That's exactly what I want for this site.
Thoughts?
So it all started when Rosie O'Donnell made negative comments about Donald Trump after he made an announcement that he would not fire Tara O'Conner (who held the Miss USA title at the time). Tara apparently had drug and alcohol use problems. And of course, as is the norm now for "celebrities", she entered rehab to deal with her problems. As we all know now, when a celebrity does something stupid, whether it be drinking and drugs or using racial slurs, they go to rehab. We are then supposed to forgive and forget and let them proceed with their public careers. Whatever, moving on...
So Rosie pretty much thought the whole thing was ridiculous and compared Trump to a snake oil salesman, stated that he has gone bankrupt in the past, and laughed at the idea of him being the "moral compass for 20-year-olds in America." Out of all the comments that Rosie made, Trump seemed to be the most bothered by her claim that he has been bankrupt. So Trump goes on pretty much every show that will have him, slamming Rosie.
Watch what she said.
Let's look at a brief list of some things he called her:
*loser
*fat
*ugly
*lesbian
*woman out of control
*bully
*despicable person
...and the list goes on.
I could dedicate a whole blog just to all the crap he said, but I won't. He pretty much attacked every aspect her of he could.
So recently after her hasty exit from the View, Trump publicly stated that he was proud to have started her downfall. To that I say: Get over yourself Mr. Trump!
There was no "downfall" and Rosie's exit from the View certainly had NOTHING to do with you. Shut up!
Let me first say that I have so much respect for Rosie O'Donnell. She had the guts to really question our administration in a public forum and stick to her guns. That being said, I have lost ALL respect for Trump based on his reaction to her statements. It must also be noted that I never saw Rosie respond in the same manner that he did. She did not attack him in a childish manner as he did. Her comments were actually valid and based on something while his were not.
See some of what he said here.
I may be a little bias however. Rosie did do a hilarious impression of Trump and his comb over (see picture above). I feel her response to him still wasn't nearly as ridiculous as his response to her.
See her initial response.
It blows my mind that someone who I respected as a talented business man could be so incredibly childish and petty. The names he used the most to describe Rosie that I saw were fat, lesbian, and loser. Are you fu*king serious?? He had NO valid argument against her and I think he did more damage to himself then he did to her. He looked like a complete fool in my view. It was even worse when he brought Barbara Walters into it saying that Barbara told him she didn't like Rosie. That was a completely unprofessional thing to do and I hope that Barbara cut ties with him.
After that I refused to watch his show the Apprentice. I probably wouldn't have watched it anyway, but I made a conscious effort not to. Many have said his public retaliation was just to get ratings for his show which isn't doing so well anymore. If the opportunity arose I would not do business with Trump.
All he had to do was make ONE statement clarifying any claims she made about him and that's it! A respectable person would have not retaliated in such a manner. A respectable person would have taken the high road. Trump obviously chose a different path on the lowest road possible.
If Rosie wanted to respond in a similar manner what could she call him?:
*ugly
*loser
*can't keep a wife
*bad comb over
*stupid
*degenerate
....and the list goes on.
This whole mess was called a feud in the news but it was one-sided in my opinion. In either case I think Rosie is the clear winner.
This "feud" is a good example of why I started this blog, and why I stay fairly anonymous and ask people who comment to do the same. What would Trump have said if he had only read the statments made about him, not knowing who said it or anything about them? He would be forced to address what was said and the merit of it, rather than attack the person who said it. That's exactly what I want for this site.
Thoughts?
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Whatever happened to the separation of church and state??
I felt that this is a good opening topic for my blog since it relates to various other issues I would like to discuss. Seriously, what happened to the separation of church and state? As defined by wikipedia:
The United States is supposed to be a secular nation. The first amendment states:
From my understanding this means that laws will not be made based on religious beliefs and citizens will have the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose. My issue is with the first part.
If laws are not to be based on religious beliefs, how have the religious affiliations of presidential candidates become a relevant topic? Now I can understand to some extent the question being asked. One's faith can greatly impact the decisions they make in life, and could therefore affect their leadership decisions. I can understand that a person who worships the devil not being elected into office, but I do not feel that an atheist would be accepted as president, and that bothers me. Have there been any presidents in the past who were not Christian? Could you see there being a non-Christian president any time soon?
I must hand it to the Bush administration. They realized the importance of religion to the American public, and they ran with it...and they ran hard. I believe that religion was a huge factor in the re-election of Bush. The majority of Americans (especially conservative Republicans) are Christians, so he repeatedly referred to God in his campaign. Most republicans and many Christians are against gay marriage and are pro-life, and these are two very large reasons they voted for Bush. I know of people (both Republican and Independent) who voted for Bush soley because of their agreement with his views regarding these issues, and that frustrates me so much.
Now I have no problem with someone saying they are pro-life and against gay marriage. It is when they give religious reasons for these views (espeically quotes from the Bible) that bothers me. Let me clarify further by saying that it frustrates me when people give religious reasons for the implementation of laws that govern all Americans. We have to remember that there is not a national or official religion, and therefore, just as the first amendment states, laws should NOT be made based on religious beliefs.
Religion is a topic that I have pondered a lot lately. I will admit that I began to have issues with organized religion after reading the DaVinci Code. I myself was raised as a Christian, so I was very familiar with the historical aspect of the book. It feels sacrilegious of me to question the Church, but how can you not? Historically the Church had political power. Is it unreasonable to believe that, through the hundreds of years that Christianity has existed, there has been corruption? It amazes me how much faith people put in the Bible! It is repeatedly read and studied, and rules the lives of so many people. A youtube video of Penn and Teller about the Bible was brought to my attention. I urge you to watch it with an open mind and just consider what they are saying. As a Christian, you may struggle with it as I did because you are brought up with certain beliefs that you assume to be true. I am not saying I agree with it, or disagree with it. I want you all to watch it, consider it, and give your thoughts.
Faith is a very powerful thing. We cannot be naive and believe that there is no religious leader out there who abuses their position, knowing the power of it. Think of the evangelists on television who get people to send money to them, and the priests who have abused young children. I am certainly not saying all religion is corrupt and devious, but you have to know that in some cases it is.
Religion can also be a very dangerous thing. Each group believes that they are right and all others are wrong. How many wars in history have been based on religion? The very terrorists that threaten our nation today, do so based on their religious beliefs. People are discriminated against, abused, and killed due to religious differences.
Religion used for guidance and strength for an individual is perfectly acceptable. It is when you attempt to use your religion to govern others that causes problems. We as humans are born with an innate sense of what is right and wrong. We do not need religion to tell us this. We are a secular nation of religious tolerance. Remember that, and everything that it means.
What are your thoughts?
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states
that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and
independent of one another.
The United States is supposed to be a secular nation. The first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
From my understanding this means that laws will not be made based on religious beliefs and citizens will have the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose. My issue is with the first part.
If laws are not to be based on religious beliefs, how have the religious affiliations of presidential candidates become a relevant topic? Now I can understand to some extent the question being asked. One's faith can greatly impact the decisions they make in life, and could therefore affect their leadership decisions. I can understand that a person who worships the devil not being elected into office, but I do not feel that an atheist would be accepted as president, and that bothers me. Have there been any presidents in the past who were not Christian? Could you see there being a non-Christian president any time soon?
I must hand it to the Bush administration. They realized the importance of religion to the American public, and they ran with it...and they ran hard. I believe that religion was a huge factor in the re-election of Bush. The majority of Americans (especially conservative Republicans) are Christians, so he repeatedly referred to God in his campaign. Most republicans and many Christians are against gay marriage and are pro-life, and these are two very large reasons they voted for Bush. I know of people (both Republican and Independent) who voted for Bush soley because of their agreement with his views regarding these issues, and that frustrates me so much.
Now I have no problem with someone saying they are pro-life and against gay marriage. It is when they give religious reasons for these views (espeically quotes from the Bible) that bothers me. Let me clarify further by saying that it frustrates me when people give religious reasons for the implementation of laws that govern all Americans. We have to remember that there is not a national or official religion, and therefore, just as the first amendment states, laws should NOT be made based on religious beliefs.
Religion is a topic that I have pondered a lot lately. I will admit that I began to have issues with organized religion after reading the DaVinci Code. I myself was raised as a Christian, so I was very familiar with the historical aspect of the book. It feels sacrilegious of me to question the Church, but how can you not? Historically the Church had political power. Is it unreasonable to believe that, through the hundreds of years that Christianity has existed, there has been corruption? It amazes me how much faith people put in the Bible! It is repeatedly read and studied, and rules the lives of so many people. A youtube video of Penn and Teller about the Bible was brought to my attention. I urge you to watch it with an open mind and just consider what they are saying. As a Christian, you may struggle with it as I did because you are brought up with certain beliefs that you assume to be true. I am not saying I agree with it, or disagree with it. I want you all to watch it, consider it, and give your thoughts.
Faith is a very powerful thing. We cannot be naive and believe that there is no religious leader out there who abuses their position, knowing the power of it. Think of the evangelists on television who get people to send money to them, and the priests who have abused young children. I am certainly not saying all religion is corrupt and devious, but you have to know that in some cases it is.
Religion can also be a very dangerous thing. Each group believes that they are right and all others are wrong. How many wars in history have been based on religion? The very terrorists that threaten our nation today, do so based on their religious beliefs. People are discriminated against, abused, and killed due to religious differences.
Religion used for guidance and strength for an individual is perfectly acceptable. It is when you attempt to use your religion to govern others that causes problems. We as humans are born with an innate sense of what is right and wrong. We do not need religion to tell us this. We are a secular nation of religious tolerance. Remember that, and everything that it means.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
