I’m a moderate on guns (if not most issues). Here is poking some fun at my gun-advocate friends. Obviously everything possible is a right…but dangerous things do have regulations to minimize the downside:
It’s funny how people interpret tolerance as intolerance. We live in a world of 7 billion people, and minorities of a billion or less try to impose their values. I am against that imposition of values, from BOTH sides of the debate. The funny thing is that in discussions people assume that since I don’t want their values imposed I am against them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t want their philosophical opponent’s values imposed either.
I don’t want abortion forbidden, or have it mandated a church must pay for it.
I want birth control available but don’t demand a church school pay for it.
I want freedom of sexual preference but do not demand someone approve of it.
I want freedom to protect yourself with a gun in your home without that right being a risk to your neighbor’s rights.
I want the Catholic Church to be free to have only male Popes but don’t demand you approve of him.
I want you to be able to exercise your world view–without forcing that world view on others.
I want freedom. For both parties.
The only problem people have with tolerance, is that that tolerance includes the views of others.
Why on these issues do we feel the right, if not need, to tell others what they may do?
I think most social issues today are over-emotional. You mean you are getting ANGRY that two brothers can’t marry? You mean you are getting ANGRY that a health plan doesn’t include contraception for men to protect them from unplanned child support? You mean you are getting ANGRY that someone wants to save the “life” of the unborn or are getting ANGRY someone doesn’t consider 3000 cells a human life?
Most issues aren’t worth getting angry over, simply doing something about in cooperation with those who disagree.
It was clear women deserved equality, and Blacks deserved equality. It is not clear that two brothers or best friends, though equal, should be able to marry for benefits while one raises their children, or that condoms should be a medical expense. These things are simply policy matters that people blow into “social issues”, particularly when they can LABEL some of the parties as victims.
Incest and Rape are two good reasons for Abortion. However, from the Right’s point of view this is a life, regardless of how it came about. So their position is quite consistent–we just don’t agree. We must at least respect the position that a human life-process has started as a reasonable position. Abortion is in fact terminating a biological life that started the moment of conception…it is simply a question of how valuable that life is as it develops, an interesting conundrum. I find two positions ridiculous: 1) that a conception is a human life with rights, and 2) that a later term fetus has no human rights. Fortunately few abortions are late term, and early-term abortion is legal.