I'm Pro-Choice

I favor parents having a choice as to where their child goes to school.

I favor people having a choice as to whether or not they own a gun.

I favor people having a choice as to what they want to do with their life, so long as that choice does not infringe on anyone else’s choice to do likewise.

I favor people having a choice about how they worship God, and having the choice to deny His existence.

I favor people having a choice as to where they live.

I favor people having a choice as to what they wear, within the given norms of decency in the society.

And my definition of “people” does not discriminate with regard to race, gender, religion, or anything else.

Most people in the United States see the above as obvious...so obvious that we forget how lucky we are to be able to make these choices.

Many of the great wars have been fought for the right to make these kinds of choices.

For instance, Hilter did not believe in these choices.  Neither do the terrorists.

We dealt with Hitler accordingly.  We must deal with the terrorists accordingly.

Here's the Point...

Somewhere along the line, whether it's "no, siblings should not be allowed to get married" or "no, homosexuals should not be allowed to get married", somewhere along the line a judgement is made...a moral judgement...that by law prevents two (or more) people, no matter how much they love each other or how much it would benefit them legally, from getting married.  Somewhere along the line, we start to legislate morality.

The question is not "Should we legislate morality?", since we do that all the time in lots of different ways.  The question is "Where do we draw the line?"  And in the case of homosexual marriage, the additional question is "Is this really a federal issue?"

So, that's the next round of discussion...

(1)  Where should we draw the line when it comes to marriage...and why?

(2)  Do you see this as a federal issue?

Opinions, please...

Up for Discussion...

OK, let's see where we are.

Please answer the following with a yes or no.

Is it OK for people to get married if:

(1) the two are under 18?

(2) the two are first cousins?

(3) the two are brother and sister?

(4) the two are brothers (or sisters)?

(5) there are more than two people who wish to be mutually married to each other?

Punchline coming tomorrow...

Weekend Reality Check: The Theory of Evolution

OK, let me start by saying that there are a lot of the pieces to the theory of evolution that make sense to me.  From a scientific standpoint, it is perfectly reasonable to connect the dots in the way that we have to show that man evolved from "apes".  So I'm not completely against the idea that evolution could be the correct one that actually explains how we got here.

Not that we will actually ever know conclusively.  Unfortunately, to "prove it", we would need to be able to run experiments.  Specifically, ones that could be repeated that produce consistent results and explain everything.  Unless some scientist has figured out how to create life in a lab and get it to mutate quickly into other organisms, we're sort of stuck in terms of running an experiment.

Also, from the start, I need to say that I do not find evolution and creationism as being diametrically opposed to each other.  I view the Old Testament as the religious interpretation of the historical experience of the Jewish people.  The point of the creation stories in the Bible is that God created everything.  If He decided to create everything through a process that we call evoltion, then that's fine by me, even if it wasn't recorded that way in Genesis.

Now, the problems that I have with evolution are these (and yes, I have tried to read and research to find an answer, but nothing definitive is stated anywhere...in fact, the "answers" aren't answers at all, they're just vague phrases that never get around to answering the question):

(1) Where's the proof that shows how single-cell orgamisms mutated to become more complex organisms?  Connecting the dots from an "ape" to a human is one thing; connecting the dots between an amoeba and a fish is something completely different.

(2) The theory of evolution relies on natural selection.  Supposedly, lots of different mutations happened, and those organisms lucky enough to have the mutations that were actually beneficial survived.  If that is true, then where are all of the skeletal remains of those that didn't get so lucky?  How is it that every skeleton that we have found fits neatly into the "puzzle"?  Shouldn't we have found at least one, something along the lines of a dog with eyes on the side if it's head instead of in front, that doesn't fit into the pattern...one of the mutations that wasn't the fittest and therefore didn't survive?

Again, the missing answers to these question haven't turned me against evolution.  They've just kept me from thowing my support behind it.

Any insights?  Let's discuss...

Up For Discussion, Part 3...

Would it make any difference if they were of legal age, but were first cousins?

How about if they were brother and sister?