Because of the tension in the nation with division on political affiliation, gay marriage, gun rights, illegal immigration and whatever else I may have missed, it seems that both sides of the arguments are becoming more opposed and entrenched in their views with such vigor as to not even consider what the other side has got to say. And I for one have begun to think that way. Which is precisely why I am writing this.
We are all entitled to our own beliefs and lifestyles, within reason. And this nation affords us that freedom almost limitlessly. But what I see almost daily from both sides of every issue I mentioned and a few others is a narrow-mindedness, egocentric, self-serving attitude that does not even listen let alone consider another persons stand. When I comment on different threads I usually try to stay on topic, factual and fair while still maintaining my stand and not resort to name calling because someone objects to my belief. But with constant exposure to this type of behavior from oppositionist who usually do not conduct themselves with the same considerations as I try to maintain, I find myself becoming hateful to groups and issues I have no true ill will against. These are extremists fueling the divisive fires with such inflammatory lies, name calling, etc… vile trolls they are. And I am a victim of their hateful rhetoric no longer.
For my hope remains in Christ not in man, as I believe it should be with all men(humans). But my goal here is not to turn everyone to Christ but hopefully to establish middle ground on some very sensitive subjects. I will start with “gay marriage/same sex marriage”. The word “marriage” is viewed by almost every(if not every) civilization as a union of a “man” to a “woman” made official by coitus when the female has come of age(for those civilizations). Whether or not it is or is not a religious union is not the subject entirely, because not every man and woman joined in marriage are religious or even accept God. But historically speaking on the whole from ancient books of law, and stories, archaeological finds, historical accounts and general global acceptance and knowledge of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now is that to say that no homosexual marriage has ever existed, no, but to declare that marriage by law should expand its definition to include the union of homosexuals regardless of the fact that most religions view homosexuality as sinful is just as narrow-minded and self-serving as those you accuse the same of.
Semantics always seems to play a major role in issues like these so I’m trying to by mindful of my words, so what I’ve heard is gays want equal rights to be treated the same as “same-sex” or have the same benefits as same-sex marriages. And I personally have no qualms about those requests, they are fair and valid. But if the biggest issue is the word “marriage” and wanting a “marriage” license and not a “civil union” license, then it seems no agreement will ever be reached without dissension from one side or another. Now obviously I’m not gay so I can’t really speak for the importance or need of the word marriage in lieu “civil union” but what I see to be the most important part of this issue would be the legal recognition of a “civil union” which affords the same benefits as a marriage in regards to spousal benefits, taxes, estate death benefits, SS benefits, etc.
In short a “civil union” allowing gays to marry without changing the word “marriage” adding in “civil union” for legal purposes, would allow gays same marriage benefits and at the same time appease the religious communities, securing and respecting their views on the sanctity of “marriage”, thereby ,in my opinion, satisfying the majority from both sides. Because I doubt you could ever get everyone to agree on all things.
Gun control, rights, limits and everything else it includes is another subject where the divide is great especially by those who have guns vs those who have lost a loved one or have been injured from a gun crime. Most parents who have lost a child to a gun are adamantly opposed to the current gun availability in our nation, which is understandable if you look at how easy it is to kill someone from afar with a gun or how many people you can kill with a gun in a limited amount of time. But what it doesn’t show is who are the majority of gun murder victims. It is not innocent kids, as a matter of fact the majority of murderers of children ages 5 and younger are their parents(67%)followed by a male friend of the family(23%)then other relatives(7%)with the last and least by a stranger(3%). Also more than half of the gun deaths listed yearly are self-inflicted suicides, which are included in the gun death numbers thus creating a preconceived idea that gun deaths lead in violent deaths. But death by poisons and bludgeoning(don’t have the stabbing stats) out number gun deaths(no suicides by bludgeoning). Just a few more facts on death numbers 2011 drugs 40,239; motor vehicle 26,256; alcohol 34,677; guns 32,163 of which 19,766 were self-inflicted bringing the number to 12,397gun deaths. Included in that number are accidental and law enforcement related shootings.
So before you take away anyone’s right to bear and keep arms, try convincing your local and federal LEOs and politicians to enforce current laws and make criminal punishment something criminals fear, not laugh at! Then and only then when the punishment befits the crime and criminals fear punishment: I’m hoping for hangings, drawn and quartered, cutting off fingers, etc., if crime still exists I will be open to reviewing a gun control bill as I’m sure most would agree.