I don’t mean listen to that irritatingly catchy song. If you start a
task happy then you are coming from a position of strength. You’ll feel
more energetic, more calm and be able to handle anything that life
throws your way. People want to be around relaxed, happy people. You’ll have better relationships with friends and co-workers. You will be more aware of the chances and opportunities around you.

I’m not going to give you platitudes about how to find your
happiness. There isn’t any one answer that suits all situations.
Recognize that no one in your life can make you happy except for
yourself, and if you don’t start from a position of happiness then
everything else becomes so much harder. Irritation and constant complaining are the little yellow canaries in the mineshaft that you’re losing hold of your happiness. Keep hold of your happiness, it is the best asset you have.

This issue is a bit more vague, a bit harder to argue, but one that I think should be argued. My main argument against allowing homosexuals to get married is that it adds a plasticity to the definition of marriage, that once followed, cannot logically be stopped.

The argument centers on what should the definition of marriage be? Who should that include? Traditionally marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. The union of two men or two women was not recognized.
However, that definition is being changed, and same sex marriages in many states is being recognized.

Now, the reasoning behind the original definition was based on most importantly, religion, along with cultural reasoning. But the argument from the homosexual camp is that the state cannot enforce religion on its citizens, and that you cannot legislate morality. I have to disagree. As I stated in the Abortion article, every law on the books is someone’s legislated morality. To some people, they find the murder of others to be allowed in their morality. And yet, the government enforces its morality on those people.

But here is where the real trouble steps in. Now, we are redefining marriage to allow the union of two consenting adults, even if they are of the same sex. But if the original definition of marriage has no absolute meaning, why should this new definition have any truth to it as well? Why can it not, logically, be extended to include two consenting people, even if that is an adult and a child?

Should we allow a man to marry a little boy, if both consent to it? If not, why not? Because once we say that the current definition of marriage has no absolute meaning to it, then the one we insert for it can be changed just as easily.

I, on the other hand, believe morality to be an absolute, that something is inherently right or inherently wrong, and that we either conform to that belief, or we don’t. As such, I believe our definition of marriage either complies to an absolutely moral standard, or it does not.
One response would be that the world isn’t just black and white. And my response would be that morality isn’t a color wheel.

Well, as can be expected of a white Republican male, I am against affirmative action. But, my opinions on the matter should not be discarded just because of my race, my politics, or my gender. I have a few arguments with affirmative action, in any form, be it quotas, preference, or recognition. We can look at a few of them one by one:

Race-based preferences are unfair.
This is the main complaint against them, and while it may be overdone, it still is a valid argument. Affirmative action was developed originally to level the playing field for minorities in the workforce and in college entrance. However, this cannot be logically defended, because the goal of affirmative action was to prevent the candidates race as being a hindrance into either getting a job, or getting into a school. But the methodology was to make race a preference, and enforce it legally. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways, and still be logically consistent. The very thing they were fighting against, race based generalizations, is what they employ in its institution. For the whole premise of affirmative action is that 1. hiring managers and college admission advisors are generally white, and 2. that they are generally racist and will choose a white candidate over a black one.
If we make the negative generalization that whites are generally racist, why can we not, logically, be allowed to infer that blacks are generally inept, dishonest, under qualified, or whatever negative generalization you would like to use?

I am not necessarily against affirmative action because it is unfair, because life is unfair. However, when a system is introduced that attempts to make something fair, by being unfair to another group, I think it is a hypocritical and self-defeating program.
The fact is, there will never be an end to racism, because racism is the form of hatred, which is just another form of the biggest problem: humanity. People are corrupt. No human, or human system can attempt to fix that.

Affirmative action demeans black achievement.
Affirmative action cheapens the achievement of blacks, and other minorities, because it places the focus on their race, something they had no choice in, over their merit and accomplishments, something they had sole choice over. I will not lie and say that no black person can succeed and still be the recipient of affirmative action. But the problem is, when does it stop? When do we say that this person no longer needs the help that affirmative action gives him?
For instance, do we allow a black student entry into an elite school, pay for it with money he receives based on his race, graduate, get a job where race plays a role, and then accepts promotions throughout the company based on his race? Where does helping someone who is underprivileged become just another government enforced free ride?
This is not only unjust, but it forever taints that persons accomplishments as not quite good enough to stand on its own weight.

Racial preferences in schools are needless.
In many colleges, race is considered a favorable aspect in admissions, much like a students scholastic ability, grades, or athletic ability is. However, this is done for the sole purpose of increasing the number of minority students for the sake of raising the number of minority students.
Colleges look at SAT scores, grades, and athletics because it rewards students for their work, and it benefits the school (smarter students mean more prestigious alumni, better athletes mean better teams, and again, is an advertisement for the school).
But, I ask, what reward should a student get for not being white? And how does a student being non-white benefit the school? You could say that it adds diversity, and a diverse outlook and opinion to the school. Okay, but why is the outlook and opinion of a black or Hispanic person more valued than, say, the opinion of a person of Eastern European descent and the fifth generation of a Czech family? Is the minority experience one of greater value than the white?
I, of course, think both are equally important, but that we cannot pander to diversity for diversities sake. Having the fortune of being born a black female does not mean you have some especially keen insight into the world. It only means you have a different one. And that is even more diversified by an infinite number of factors.

My thoughts? How about we stop focusing on race in general? Why should I care if youre black and Im white? Why should I care if you were born into a wealthy/poor family? How am I supposed to feel because of that? Why not both of us judge each other based not on the color of each others skin, but on the content of our character?
Or perhaps, almost 40 years later, we’re still not ready to do that….

It’s a tough decision, because on the one hand, I think most of us would agree that morality has to come into play. For instance, we do not think murder, theft, rape, etc. should be allowed or condoned, but on the other hand, we definitely do not want it to go to an extreme.
I’ll give an example: I personally have no moral qualms with drinking, smoking, dancing, or listening to “rock ‘n roll”. Now, to the Southern Baptists, these are all perilous evils that threaten our very souls. And I even think fundamentalist Muslims would agree with that. However, some want all or some of those criminalized (and that includes people from both sides of the political aisle).

It is obvious though that we need some type of morality in our law making. The question is, whose and what morality?

Should the Judeo-Christian morality be made law? If so, why? Why not the Babylonian ethical view point, or the Roman?

As a Christian, I of course know the Judeo-Christian morality to be right, however not everyone believes that. So do they owe respect to laws and morals that they don’t believe apply to them?

It’s a tough and treacherous path to walk along, deciding the “common morality” known as public law. But I believe that the founding fathers instituted a perfectly suited method when they set up our democratic republic.
This is shown perfectly by the fact that neither side is completely content, which is probably how it should be.

But how do I think the laws should align? I think most people agree and hold to a common morality. Most cultures throughout history have all clung to the same basic moral precepts, such as do not kill, do not steal, do not rape your brothers donkey, etc.
I also think that most people, in the right situation would bend most if not all of these ethical guidelines. The problem comes in the continual, slow bending of these ideals until they are no longer being applied and held to.

Yes, the slippery slope argument may be a logical fallacy, but the slippery slope is a moral reality. And one we must constantly struggle with.

The constant battle between freedom and law is one constantly being fought, but I am glad it’s being fought. Yes, I may not agree with the ACLU, but thank God we have morons like them to help keep us in check.

I think the lazy part of our nature longs and yearns for a society with no competition, no checks, no balances, one in which all of our ideas will be followed out, but only a fool craves that.

Entropy being what it is, and people being who they are, it’s only a matter of time before any political ideal gets twisted to an extreme that’s hardly recognizable, and I think the beauty of this country is the creative friction that exists in all of our political debates.

Yes, you may be an idiot for thinking differently, but thank you for having the passion to engage me. It’s when apathy takes over that we’re in for a real nightmare.

Capital punishment is one of those areas where I feel that the support for it has dropped because people have lost the moral courage to do what is right.

I can hear it now “Oh, you think it courageous to have armed guards escort a helpless man, and have him led to a room, strapped down, and murdered by the government?”
Yes I do. Just in the same way that I believe that it takes much more courage and toughness to punish a child, than it does to let them do whatever they want.

There are a few different reasons why I believe that capital punishment is necessary. For one, its biblical. Too often people try to argue that in the Bible that it says “Thou shall not kill”. That is not quite right.
In Hebrew, the word used in the Ten Commandments is ratsakh, which refers only to illegal killing, i.e. premeditated murder or manslaughter. In the Jewish Mishnah, has been written this: “Why was only one man (Adam) created by God? � to teach that whoever takes a single life destroys thereby a whole world.”
Life is so sacred to God, that the only punishment that is just is to take the offenders life. Also, many Christians seem to be against capital punishment, solely because it was written in the Old Testament, and somehow it shouldn’t apply. But Gods command to Noah came in Genesis 9:6. It was a law predating Mosaic covenant, and was not part of the ceremonial aspect of the law. Christ did not abolish the Old Testament, but fulfilled the Law, meaning that the ceremony, the sacrifice, and our sin were done away with. That doesn’t mean he abolished the Ten Commandments, or His moral will.

I am also for capital punishment because it is the only just response to murder. Imagine that your neighbor steals your car, and gets to keep his. How is that just? The same thing with murder. It is unjust that when one person takes the life of another, they should be allowed to enjoy what they have deprived someone else of. How is that just?

Also, capital punishment is a deterrent. Some will say no, its not, but I like Ernest Van De Haag’s idea. Lets punish murders done on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with capital punishment, and the rest of the week we will punish it with life in prison. What days do you think murders are going to go down?

Lastly, capital punishment is NOT about revenge. I don’t believe in revenge, and I think when we execute someone, we should do so sadly, and not out of anger or spite. It is a duty we do because its just, not because we are sadists who enjoy the murder of other. That is why I am for making executions as painless and quick as possible. We are taking someone’s life. We shouldn’t celebrate that. We should mourn the need to.

Basically, your stance on capital punishment speaks about how you value human life. Do you think it something that is so violent and despicable of a crime, that the punishment must fit the crime? Or do you think that one person dead really isn’t all that big of a deal?

Abortion is murder. I know that is an unpopular and sometimes clichéd statement in Western society, but nevertheless its true. When someone claims that they believe women have the choice to do what they want with their bodies, I have to agree. But how does that give them rights over another’s body? There is another body inside of hers that she does not have a choice over. The fetus is not part of the mother, but inside the mother. Here is the distinction. I am inside my clothes, I am not part of my clothes. I am inside of a building, but I am not part of the building.

Here is the argument, broken down simply:

1. What is in the womb is alive
2. What is in the womb is human in nature (it has human DNA, not whale DNA or fungus DNA)
3. What is in the womb is innocent of any crime
4. Therefore, what is in the womb is an innocent living human being.

What a woman wants a choice to is to kill another person. Argue all you like, but this right is not one a person has over another.

Now, there are many different questions about this that I get asked, and I will attempt to answer them here. Remember, I am not anyone’s judge. But just because I cannot judge (condemn) a person, I can judge (discern) what is right.

What about in cases of rape and incest?

I dont believe that abortion is right in even those extreme, and very sad instances. This is always reacted to by women as cruel and ignorant, but let me defend my position. When a woman is raped, something horrible has happened. But does killing the most innocent party involved somehow make it right? The child has done nothing wrong, yet many would execute it.
I cannot know the feeling of rape, nor the feeling of having a child in me that was caused by such a terrible thing. But my understanding isn’t required for my defense of the child. None of us can know what it feels like to be aborted. None of us can know the feeling of being ripped from our mothers womb piece by piece. But our feelings play no part in determining right or wrong.
I am not saying that it would be easy, fair, or even enjoyable. But what I am saying is that aborting the child that is a product of rape is no less murder because the mother was a victim. It only adds one more victim, and one who’s blood lies on the mothers hands.

What about cases in which the child is born handicapped or mentally impaired? The child cant have a normal life.

First, let me ask you, please define normal life. Then once you do that, let me ask, how do you know your definition is correct? Who are we to determine who has a normal life and who does not? Some people would say that obese people cannot have a normal life. Some could say that children with glasses cannot lead a normal life.
Now some would say that the obese and those with glasses can have productive lives, and still do something. True, but why should we determine who lives and dies based on how useful they are to us?
Here is what I am saying: Having or being a mentally handicapped child cannot be easy. I would never make light of others struggles. But there is something seriously wrong with this world when we would execute someone because its “too hard” to be alive. Winston Churchill once said “A kite flies higher against the wind”. Struggles shape our character, and make us better people.
Or simply put, I could never, nor do I think anyone else should be able to, presume that unless someone else’s life fits into their idea of normal, that they will kill them.

But the fetus isn’t conscious/intelligent/aware/breathing, etc…

When you are asleep, you are neither aware nor conscious. I shouldn’t be able to execute you because of that.

As for intelligent, let me say something. We cannot kill someone because of the amount of intelligence they have. Having more intelligence or knowledge does not give someone that right. Ill give an example. I say this not to brag, but to make a point. Ever since I was a kid, I have taken placement and aptitude tests, and I am what’s known as 90th percentile intelligent, meaning I am smarter than 90% of the people in the country (well, at least academically…). So does that mean that since I am smarter than most people in this country, do I now have the right to kill 90% of the population? If not, why not? I am more intelligent, and I could make a case that their lives will never be as productive or meaningful as mine.

The fact is, someone’s mental ability is not a reason to execute them.

You’re not a woman so you’ll never understand.

Ill never understand what exactly? How it is to be a woman? Of course I wont. Nor will a woman understand how it is to be a man. But when talking about morality, and actions that are right or wrong, gender has nothing to do with it. If it was, then some things that are wrong for men will be okay for women and vice versa. Also, that allows us all to create our own standards of conduct, rather than relying on a universal absolute of right and wrong.
Also, if men cannot understand the argument of abortion, and are not in a place to decide on its legality, then the ruling of Roe v Wade must be overturned, because all of the justices in the decision were male.

I wouldn’t have an abortion myself, but I think it should be legal…

Well, then let me ask you this: why wouldn’t you have an abortion? Is it because you feel its wrong? If so, why do you think that something you feel is immoral should be legal? You can say you do not want to impose your beliefs on others, but are not millions of women imposing their belief that abortions are moral on unborn children?
Is that not like saying, “I couldn’t molest a child myself, but I think people should have that choice”?