There are plenty of social issues that are important in politics
these days. Everybody seems to be highly concerned with what everybody
else is doing. With these issues, I like to ask myself "is it really
worth the effort to oppose an issue that some people care so dearly
about?" Some examples:
Gay marriage - I agree that homosexuality defeats the original
purpose of marriage, which exists (from an evolutionary perspective)
for the purpose of procreation and to ensure that all children grow up
with their two original parents. So, gay marriage doesn't make
scientific sense... but why would I really care? Allowing it would make
many same-sex couples very happy and it wouldn't really affect me in
any practical way. Just because it defeats the purpose of marriage
doesn't mean that I should prevent them from doing it... sure, I think
it's a pointless idea (if you look at it scientifically), but if they
want to do it, why would I stop them?
Abortion - I can understand that the issue here is whether or not a
human life is being destroyed. However, it seems like that should be a
question that can be effectively answered only by an expert scientist
in the field rather than by a politician. Why can't we just get a
consensus from the scientists and then leave the issue alone?
Immigration - Sure, we need to worry about securing our borders.
But what about the people who come here legally and go through the full
quota process? Why do we have to make life difficult for them?
Religious polygamy - If polygamy were widespread, then it would be
a problem for obvious reasons. But as long as a group of consenting
adults is happy (assuming that no sexual abuse is going on), why do we
feel the need to separate innocent children from their caring
polygamist mothers? They're not really threatening our society; they
just have a certain preferred way of life. Why do we let the government
get involved in religious issues?
A lot of it (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, polygamy) comes down to
religious issues. Although the term "separation of Church and State" is
thrown around all over the place, it seems like people generally ignore
it. Why was it such a big deal that some people thought Barack Obama
might be Muslim? Why does the government think of marriage as a holy
bond between a man and a woman? Sure, religion has a place in a
person's life; honestly, I wouldn't even mind it if the US declared
itself to be a Christian nation. But as long as we maintain the concept
of "religious freedom," we cannot make policy decisions that involve
religious values.
» left by robert melaccio sr (1 year 126 days ago.)
Well said. It all boils down to choice, that is individual choice and not what we want to impose on others. As a society we set laws, boundries, beliefs that the majority of us adhere to, want and profess and establish. As a member of that society we are obligated to follow those laws or work to change them within the system. Now here is the real got you. If we profess religion of any type and that religion is against homosexuality, abortion or anything else that we who profess to believe in that religion if and get this, we foster, promote or condone that which is against that belief and get this, the law of this land, then there is where the conflict comes in. There are state laws and national laws and never the twain shall meet. There lies the conflict. Good writing. Best wishes RTM
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
