The Big Three

[Winnow]

Just post your opinions on the big three: Abortion, Guns, Fags

Lets cut to the chase shall we?

Mine:

Abortion: Women should be in control of their bodies, and what's in their bodies. They should be able to kill a baby all the way up until the head pops out of them. (if it comes out feet first, can still terminate up to the neck)

Gays: They should have the EXACT same rights as any married couple...and marriage should not involve the government in any way...only civil unions with special laws for child custody should be recognized by the government (with gays being able to adopt as easily as heteros)

Guns: American Citizens should be free to own guns with strict registration laws and mandatory training. I hate guns and have owned zero in my life, yet am completely behind the right to bear arms.

[miir]

We argue about a lot lot of things... but not these three things.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Abortion: personally against most abortion but would not legislate against it.

Gays: should have most rights conveyed by marriage. Civil unions with no marriage.

Guns: some restrictions(ie: full auto...silencers...etc), no registration lists, mandatory safety training in the schools

[Canelek]

Abortion: Woman's choice. However, there should be some caveat for 3rd trimester (i.e. life threatening to the woman.) Seems a bit late for the "changed my mind, oops!"

Same-Sex Marriage: EXACTLY the same rights and privileges at state and federal level. This discrimination bit is getting a bit old.

Guns: Pretty much agree with Kilmoll here. I'd like to add that I am against having to register firearms, but have no issue with background checks.

[Leonaerd]

Abortion: It's going to happen whether or not a politician thinks most of his supporters love Jesus.

Fags: Are going to slap balls whether or not Jesus lovers think they should.

Guns: Are going to be held by criminals, forever.


I hate the scope of influence these "big three" have on politics, when none (except maybe guns) really have an effect on anything of political importance. To me, this is an anti-religion thread.

[Bubba Grizz]

Abortion: Against it unless the life of the mother is at stake. If she doesn't want the child that's fine but it should be born. (This is directly opposite of how I felt before I had children of my own.)

Fags: They are human beings and as such should have the same rights as all other humans. (until they become zombies and then they need to be put down...like all the rest.)

Guns: I don't have any, never did and probably won't (until the zombies). I agree with the mandatory training in order to get a license to own. Not some 5 hour course either. I'm talking about at least a semester if not longer.

[Fairweather Pure]

Abortion: I've always been and continue to be pro-choice.

Lesbians: Every single citizen of the United States of America should be given the exact same set of rights. No exceptions. No loopholes. No excuses. Anything less goes against everything America claims to be.

Gats: I support the strictest froms of gun control possible and support severe penalties for anyone breaking those laws.

[Sueven]

I agree with Canelek.

[Sueven]

Leo:

Can you explain how none of these have any impact on anything of "political importance?"

In my view, equal rights for gays is really of paramount importance for gay people. Can make the same argument for reproductive freedom, but it's a lot more straightforward for gay rights.

For instance, as I think I've mentioned before, I have a lesbian friend who is dating a Swedish woman who stands a strong chance of being deported once she finishes her PhD, because her education visa will no longer be valid and she won't be able to marry. I have a gay male friend who has a partner with severe food allergies, and frequently finds himself tied up in bureaucratic red tape that prevents or slows him from reaching his partner's side when a hospital-worthy allergic attack comes.

How are these issues in any way extraneous? These are issues that have severe consequences on peoples real lives.

[Fairweather Pure]

For instance, as I think I've mentioned before, I have a lesbian friend who is dating a Swedish woman who stands a strong chance of being deported once she finishes her PhD, because her education visa will no longer be valid and she won't be able to marry.

The guild leader of PE, Aaemdar had a similar situation that involved himself and a guy from Japan (I think, it's been awhile). Although he was unaware of it, his situation was what really made me start thinking about gay rights and was an integral part of forming my stance on the subject.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Leo:

Can you explain how none of these have any impact on anything of "political importance?"

In my view, equal rights for gays is really of paramount importance for gay people. Can make the same argument for reproductive freedom, but it's a lot more straightforward for gay rights.

For instance, as I think I've mentioned before, I have a lesbian friend who is dating a Swedish woman who stands a strong chance of being deported once she finishes her PhD, because her education visa will no longer be valid and she won't be able to marry. I have a gay male friend who has a partner with severe food allergies, and frequently finds himself tied up in bureaucratic red tape that prevents or slows him from reaching his partner's side when a hospital-worthy allergic attack comes.

How are these issues in any way extraneous? These are issues that have severe consequences on peoples real lives.

I kind of got that he felt that none of the issues would really have a personal effect on most of us if we were not women or gay....thus meaning that we should not necessarily be holding them to be a political juggernaut or voting based solely on those 3 issues.

[Leonaerd]

How are these issues in any way extraneous? These are issues that have severe consequences on peoples real lives.

Pretty much:

thus meaning that we should not necessarily be holding them to be a political juggernaut or voting based solely on those 3 issues.

This thread brought to mind how much I hate religion, and its power to turn simple, obvious answers into what Christians deride as rubbish.

"evolution?! do i look like a monkey??"
"what scummy tv! how could anybody find Archer funny??"
^ are just two recent examples from a hyper-religious nutjob I'm forced to acquaint with on occasion

To me, there is no debate on abortion and gays, just whackjob righty zealots getting in the way of simple morality (and fitting diplomacy). Any politician who pointed out how stupid it is that such topics are still debated would get my vote.

[Spang]

Pro-Choice

Pro-Equality

Anti-gun, but Pro-Second Amendment

Also, most pro-life organizations are run by people who can't get pregnant.

[Hesten]

Abortion: Womans own choise. Let them decide as they want, up till a date though, 3rd trimester sounds good to me.

Gays: Same rights as straight people. Luckily here in denmark, gays can get married, but NOT in churches, but we are working on that....should have the rights to adopt too, if you look at the average child machine redneck woman, a gay couple who spend a lot of time and commitment to getting a child would most likely be MUCH better parents than the average couple who get a child accidentially would.
In denmark, we got the absolutely idiotic rule right now that a SINGLE gay person CAN adopt, but a gay married couple can NOT. Luckily the press noticed, and its being worked on at the moment, after massive media firestorms

Guns: Should be police/armed forces/whoever is required to have guns as part of their job only. Yes, criminals will have guns, they always will no matter WHAT laws are made, but theyll have a harder time getting them when they cant steal them from any home they break into, AND crimes are less likely to have deadly concequences if only one party have guns, than if it it evolve into a shooting match.....or even worse, as i have said before, if half a campus are wearing arms, and a school shooting starts, it would cause WAY more deaths than the shooter himself would.

[Zaelath]

Gays: Same rights as straight people. Luckily here in denmark, gays can get married, but NOT in churches, but we are working on that....

Ummm why? That's like insisting gays can have their marriage in my garden (in that a church is property of the Church), and it's not like churches don't also refuse heterosexual couples that don't conform to their rules.

[Sueven]

Zae: It's possible, although I have no idea, that Hesten means that gays are BANNED from being married in churches. That'd be worth changing. I'm with you: Churches should get to choose who is married within their walls.

[Hesten]

Zae: It's possible, although I have no idea, that Hesten means that gays are BANNED from being married in churches. That'd be worth changing. I'm with you: Churches should get to choose who is married within their walls.

Yeah, a few priests have married gay couples as protests, but generally, gay couples can not be married in a church here. They CAN get a civil union at the town hall, but no church wedding. A priest CAN marry a gay couple, but were talking maybe 10 couples total in a few years as a protest against the rules.
I find it ridiculous that a community (i take it you US guys call it that, youre more religious than the danish people, most people here are at church a few times a year at most) accept everyone and preach forgiveness and helping your fellow man, and try to get everyone to be equal, and gays are ok in everything else, including paying the churches, but they cant get married in them.
I mean, what would be the next step, that gay people shouldnt be allowed to get buried in a church either?

Im ok with a few old school priests refusing to marry gays, not a problem with me, just as i would find it ok that an old racist priests would refuse to marry an interracial couple for example...i dont agree with him, BUT if he refuse to do so, why would anyone get married by him in the first place?

[Legenae]

Not going to comment on the other two but I will comment on the abortion issue.

Never really been a supporter of abortion except in cases of rape or mother/baby health. The morning after pill is nice in that if a woman is raped she can take that and not have to wait to find out if she ends up pregnant (and yes I know it's not 100 percent effective, but the failure rate is low).

I think a third trimester cut off is too late. Having been pregnant and seeing my child via ultrasound before the third trimester - well, the baby is almost fully formed. Seeing her head, arms/hands, legs and feet, hearing her heartbeat. Feeling her move and kick around and knowing that she could hear me and that she could experience discomfort (if you are laying the wrong way, etc). No way I could kill that.

Even in the first trimester I was able to make out her head, arms, legs and heartbeat on an early ultrasound. It was amazing.

Sorry but I believe you should know before the first trimester is over whether or not you want the baby. And I don't buy any story about women not knowing they were pregnant until later.

This is just my personal feeling on the subject. Do I think they should make abortions illegal? No, because then you'd just have women going to back alley doctors again. At least with it legalized you have trained doctors doing it in health facilities.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

Abortion: Totally support a woman's right to choose.

Gays: They should have the EXACT same rights as any married couple...and marriage should not involve the government in any way...only civil unions with special laws for child custody should be recognized by the government (with gays being able to adopt as easily as heteros) - yes, that's a direct quote from Winnow, I agree with it for a change.

Guns: I don't see the need for anyone to own a gun unless it's for hunting or sport. If it's sport, then the weapons can be kept under secure control at a shooting range. If for hunting, then it should be hunting rifles, not automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

[masteen]

Abortion: 1st trimester, abort at will. 4 months and more, we're beyond right to choose and into baby killing country, no matter how you shade the metaphysical morality. Rapes and major health issues only.

Gays: Separation of church and state means this should not be anyone's business, but bigoted assholes have forced the government into this. Bottom line is that faggots and their (committed, long-term) butt-buddies need health insurance too.

Guns: You motherfuckers can pry my guns from my cold dead hands.

[Wulfran]

Abortion: I'm pretty close to most of you in I don't like it, but I don't feel a right to dictate what a woman does to her body. I do think there needs to be a cutoff point for non-medically necessary ones and I'm fine with the first trimester like in Canada.

[quote="Drolgin Steingrinder]Gays: They should have the EXACT same rights as any married couple...and marriage should not involve the government in any way...only civil unions with special laws for child custody should be recognized by the government (with gays being able to adopt as easily as heteros) - yes, that's a direct quote from Winnow, I agree with it for a change.[/quote]

Bingo. Why everyone feels a legal recognition of a bond between a couple is a religous ceremony is stupid to me: this isn't the middle ages where we need to invoke the name of our respective gods to take a crap. I felt that way when the Canadian gov't brought in their gay marriage laws but instead left the door open to future battles between gays and churches. Technically, in Canada, a church can refuse to do gay marriages but then that opens the door to "who will if no one who has the legal authority wants to?" because even civil servants have the right to perform if they have religious objections,and under Canadian law opens the door to possible discrimination suits against churches who don't want to perform them. It hasn't hit the fan yet but I think its only a matter of time.

Guns: I know constitutionally, Americans have the right to bear arms but I really do question if the authors of the 2nd Ammendment on the US Constitution had any real idea of what that was going to mean 150-200 years down the road. Maybe thats why they did leave it ambiguous enough that some weaponry could be banned from public use. I really don't buy into the "defense" thing but I realize that in the US we're dealing with a cultural icon as well. Put me in with the crowd that says "thorough background checks and safety education". I don't believe in registries of weapons (like the white elephant they had in Canada) but no one said the unbalanced and unsafe have a right to bear arms...

[vn_Tanc]

I think Chelsea will cling on to the Championship but Manchester United will push them all the way. Arsenal have no hope after their hilarious capitulation to Wigan yesterday and must now focus on not slipping from 3rd to 4th.

Oh.

It's a woman's right to choose but I do like the 22 (24?) week limit in place in the UK. It's a woman's right to choose promptly
Gays should be allowed to marry and semantic arguments over the name are just silly. Call "traditional marriage" something else to differentiate it if it matter to you. Ultimate Wedlock maybe. Holy Matrimony? Marriage X-Treme?
Ownership of guns should be restricted and licensed. Nobody needs a machine gun unless they're in the armed forces.

[Kluden]

Abortion: I believe in the woman's right to choose...although I pity and feel terrible for anyone that contemplates the choice of killing off something that's a part of them. Mistakes are made though, and let's face it, most folks are probably doing the kid a favor compared to what they would grow up in.

Gay Rights: I can't think of any constitutional reason they shouldn't have the same rights. Its actually a very silly subject to me because it just doesn't make any sense to persecute/segregate people of any race, religion, creed, etc etc...its kind of what our country is founded on, so this topic just makes people look stupid, IMO.

Gun Rights: As has been said, you can pry my guns from cold, dead, hands. Its my constitution, its my right. But with that said, I do abhor the "gun culture" we have sometimes, with folks not being required to be trained in the use and care of said firearms. I'm ok with registering to own a gun, I'm even ok with requiring fingerprints. I hate to be ok with fingerprinting, but it would do one or two things 1) easily give law offices access to more possible criminals and "solving" crimes, and/or 2) help prove that legally obtained, and legally owned firearms, are not responsible for crimes. I've never had to use my firearms for more than sport, and hopefully will never have to...but I'll be damned if I'm going to let some criminal take away my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...but again, pray and hope I'm never in that situation.

edit: yeah, kind of forgot to mention the whole restricted sale thing. OK with waiting periods (although I don't have those here in VA), ok with not allowing folks to own automatic weapons, I'm fine with the laws as they are now for the most part. Let the states decide in my opinion, and folks who don't like them can always move.

[Xatrei]

I think I've made just about all of these points in one discussion or another over the years here, but here they are again:

Abortion should be available on demand, with no questions asked for the first 3-4 months of pregnancy. After that, only in cases of a legitimate and significant health risk to the mother or defect in the fetus. (This is probably my most "conservative" position of the three)

There should be absolutely no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals under the law, including marriage. If a church has no issue with performing a wedding ceremony for a gay couple, they should be able to enjoy a religious ceremony if they choose. If the church opposes it, that's their goofy, outmoded, superstitious right, and it shouldn't be forced upon them.

Gun ownership should be heavily restricted, licensed, registered and contingent upon mental health evaluations, criminal background checks, completion of mandatory safety programs, etc. Owners should be required to demonstrate that they have a weapons locker secured to the building (bolted to the foundation, etc.) in order to qualify for a license. If they do not, they could have a secondary license which would require that their weapons be stored in a secure third party facility. License & registration renewals should require periodic safety and legal refresher courses to ensure that owners are "up to date" No one should be carrying a weapon on their person or in their vehicle in public, concealed or otherwise. When transporting a weapon via auto, it should be unloaded and in a locked case in the trunk or enclosed storage area of the vehicle. Ammunition sales should be restricted in volume and only to registered owners of weapons that can use it. Private transfer of firearms should be unlawful, and any transfers should be conducted by licensed brokers / gun dealers to ensure that new owners are regulated pursuant to the first point.

[miir]

Perhaps gun owners should be at least partially liable for all crimes committed with their weapon?
That would be a pretty efficient means to ensure all registered weapons are securely stored.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Certainly. As soon as you are liable for any crime committed on your property or with any item you own. You do realize that there are more murders committed each year with blunt objects than with firearms right? RIGHT?!?!

[miir]

Re-fucking-lax, you nutcase.

[miir]

You do realize that there are more murders committed each year with blunt objects than with firearms right? RIGHT?!?!

I'd love to see where you got that BS stat... obviously something you gun lovin' retards just made up to justify yourselves.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 0s0299.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offense ... le_08.html


According to the FBI: For every murder committed using a blunt object, there were nearly 16 committed using a gun.



idiot.

[Legenae]

It's a woman's right to choose but I do like the 22 (24?) week limit in place in the UK. It's a woman's right to choose promptly

Sorry but 22 weeks is NOT choosing promptly. You are past the half-way point in the pregnancy. That is too late. It should be 12 weeks and not longer, unless for some serious medical reason.

[Zaelath]

It's a woman's right to choose but I do like the 22 (24?) week limit in place in the UK. It's a woman's right to choose promptly

Sorry but 22 weeks is NOT choosing promptly. You are past the half-way point in the pregnancy. That is too late. It should be 12 weeks and not longer, unless for some serious medical reason.

In my opinion you can choose whenever, but given you have to expel it naturally (or via caesarian) I think there's a fair penalty clause for being slow...

[Leonaerd]

Agree with Zael. Who really benefits by making a mother choose within a certain time frame? It's murder either way, a fact which I openly embrace, others regretfully embrace, still others (most?) deny they are embracing, and pro-lifers will never be comfortable with.

[Spang]

Most pro-lifers aren't even pro-life. They're merely pro-fetus.

[vn_Tanc]

It's a woman's right to choose but I do like the 22 (24?) week limit in place in the UK. It's a woman's right to choose promptly

Sorry but 22 weeks is NOT choosing promptly. You are past the half-way point in the pregnancy. That is too late. It should be 12 weeks and not longer, unless for some serious medical reason.

At 12 weeks you barely know you're pregnant. Given the time it can take to see a doctor, get confirmation, make a decision, get an appointment etc you could conceivably be asking women to decide in within about 6 weeks of conceiving. I think 24 weeks is fine.

[miir]

Sorry but 22 weeks is NOT choosing promptly. You are past the half-way point in the pregnancy. That is too late. It should be 12 weeks and not longer, unless for some serious medical reason.

12 weeks is ludicrous.
You can't even get a fucking amnio before 16 weeks.

[Xyun]

Abortion: none of my business
Gays: really none of my business
Guns: none of my business

These are considered the big 3? There is no way I would cast my vote with any of these as a priority. I care about things that directly effect me, like health care, marijuana legalization, and the economy. I'm not saying these issues aren't important, but aren't you people tired of rehashing 30 year old arguments?

[Spang]

Social inequality negatively effects everyone. Even the discriminating bigots who support it.

[Keverian FireCry]

These are only the big three for Republican politicians who bring them up EVERY FUCKING election cycle to rile up their moronic base.

[*~*stragi*~*]

Jan Brewer is a crazy c word. You no longer need a CCW to carry a concealed weapon in AZ. That is fucking terrifying.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

There are a few states like that now and I am honestly not in favor of it. Back when the Constitution was written, every man, woman, and older children handled firearms and were able to shoot because they had to use them to survive. Today, they need some type of training to make a large majority of people safe with firearms. When I was in school, they actually taught gun safety in school onec a year. They need to do that whether the parents like it or not....because even if you are anti-firearm, your kid may be at a place where there ARE firearms and they NEED to know how to be safe if they encounter one.

[miir]

When I was in school, they actually taught gun safety in school onec a year. They need to do that whether the parents like it or not....because even if you are anti-firearm, your kid may be at a place where there ARE firearms and they NEED to know how to be safe if they encounter one.

Nothing bad can come from teaching kids proper firearm safety.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Are you being a dick again or do you believe that?

[miir]

Are you being a dick again or do you believe that?

I was being serious.

[Canelek]

I fully endorse teaching kids firearm safety. Having grown up in the south, pretty much every kid has at least had some sort of rudimentary firearm, hunting and general safety instruction.

So, that's like 1 point for the south. Grats y'all!

[miir]

Well yea... the fact remains that despite our personal opinions, guns are very much a part of American culture that's not going away any time soon... so not teaching kids proper firearm safety could almost be considered negligent.

[Winnow]

Weapons training up in Canada: