man. i am so confused. i always assumed that i would just vote for bush because i liked him, but i've been reading some stuff online and i realize that i don't really know anything about anything.
everyone is pushing people to vote but should i vote if i'm not an educated voter?
which would be worse?
i've always considered myself pro-life and against homosexual marriages. now i am wondering. after wading through a lot of reading on political views i'm not so sure about how i feel. i personally am not homosexual and i don't think that they should be able to get married, but just because i think that doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to think the way i think. it never occurred to me to think of it that way before.
i have friends that are homosexual and i love them but i hate seeing what being homosexual does to them. i don't think it's a happy, natural way to live. i love them but not what they're doing, and if someone thinks that's not possible, let me assure them that they're wrong, i mean it's just like loving a person but hating the ugly shirt they're wearing.
so i think that marriage should be between a man and a woman but i've decided that i don't think that my beliefs should be forced on others.
above all i think that we should have agency up until the point that we infringe upon someone else's agency in a way that could have been avoided.
i would then say that i think i've decided that gays and lesbians and bisexuals should be able to decide whom they want to marry, but they should not be allowed to adopt children.
all children should have the chance at having a mother and a father. i realize that many children are raised by a single "straight" parent, so you argue where is the mother and father there, but that is less avoidable. i'm not going to take someone's child away because their husband was abusive or their wife died. children should have the chance though, the opportunity and if they're adopted by two men or two women then they never have the chance. their agency is being taken away in a way that is avoidable.
now on abortion. i am pro-choice in the meaning that the choice should happen when the parents are having sex, not after the women is pregnant. the choice happens much before the pregnancy. if people are going to have sex then they should know that a very common consequence of that action is a child. they should not then be allowed to abort the child if it doesn't fit in their master plan. there are however occassions when abortions should be allowed, some rape cases for example, there was no choice there on the mother's part. none whatsoever. or if the mother and father want the child but it is so deformed that it will die shortly after birth and maybe hurt the mother during the birth, little chance things like that should be open for the mother and father to decide whether or not to have an abortion. people should be allowed to have the choice.
choices. freedom to make choices. that is what our country is built upon. if we take away the freedom to marry the person we love, will the freedom of following the religion we love be next?
of course i don't think murderers and the such should be allowed choice to do their evil deeds, because of course their agency should end when it infringes upon someone else's in a detrimental way. so there do need to be laws. for without laws there are no consequences. without consequences there are no incentives for doing wrong or right. with no reasons to do evil or good, evil and good cease to exist because there is no distinction between them.
what touchy subjects are being debated during this election.
i haven't even begun to touch the war subject.
on a happier note... i was able to talk to some friends from back home and that pretty much made my day. i only got to leave messages for bri and ems but c and chelle were able to talk to me. i love you girls!