Protecting traditional marriage is a huge issue for me. I will be voting for proposition 102, which states that only marriages between one man and one woman will be allowed in the state of Arizona.
I believe all people should be treated with respect. I also believe that all people should be allowed religious liberty (including the freedom to avoid affiliation with organized religion). Because we live in such a litigious society, it seems inevitable that legalizing same-sex marriage will infringe upon our religious liberty. A principle our country was founded upon. For further explanation read this article. Or this one.
Also, Here is a video about a health care situation in Canada. It highlights why many Americans are scared of moving to a more socialized health care system. I don't pretend to be an expert in the area, by-the-way, just found the video interesting...
3 comments:
We have prop 8 here in CA that states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. I'm okay with civil unions. I'm okay with same gender couples having the same rights as hetero couples (except for the whole adopting/ having kids thing. And yes, it is total religious reasons I believe this) I only have an issue with them re-defining "marriage". You can't change the meaning of a word. Make up another work, or just settle for Civil Union. They will be taking our religious freedoms away by changing marriage. Which is a RELIGIOUS term. Thanks for that post! I get heated about that topic.
I read the articles, and watched the video.
We see things fundamentally different on the same-sex marriage issue. I see it as a benefit to society, strengthening traditional values in a non-traditional way. I also see same-sex attraction as a result of biological impulse, not because of a desire to be different, sinful, or want everyone around them to judge and label them (which is often what happens).
If I felt that their biological make-up was not the root reason for their same-sex attractions, then perhaps my feelings about the issue would be different.
As for the the health care in Canada video... I think I can change your mind about this.
First off, we are never told when this story happened. It is true that the wait times for an MRI were quite long (a few months) when the technology was new.
Let me share a quick personal experience about how long it takes to get an MRI in Canada (Alberta, not Ontario).
One day, last summer (2007) while reading some webpage or other on the Internet, to my shock I discovered my eye sight in my left eye begin to go "blank" in certain parts of my eye. I called my parents to ask for advice and they said to go into the emergency room immediately.
I went to emergency, I waited about 45 minutes to an hour and then was looked at by a nurse and then a doctor. By this time my vision had returned but the doctor wanted me to have an MRI right then. I told her I wanted to hold off and so she did but said that if the vision problem came back that I should come back immediately for the MRI and that in the meantime I should go to a specialist on Monday (it was a Saturday). I "jumped the line" and saw the specialist first thing Monday morning. He checked my eyes, which had recovered and the temporary blindness never did come back and so I am relieved and happy about that.
So, the time it takes to get an MRI here in Alberta is maybe a few hours after going into the hospital.
And guess what all that cost me directly? Nothing.
Back on the guy from Ontario. As far as I could tell, his only complaint was wait times, not quality of service.
So, we should pause and ask the question, what is the reason for the wait time? Is it because his tumour wasn't as serious as it could have been? Is it because there are other people that needed the same services worse than he did?
Obviously the surgeon that he was waiting for was busy doing brain surgery everyday until it was his turn.
Think about this in a macro, rather than micro way. In a private system, there are still just as many people that need the surgery. Only those that can pay, regardless of seriousness, would be getting service.
The ability to jump the queue means someone else is either waiting or can't afford the surgery.
$28,000 was what he paid, and he wants it back. Would you even contemplate asking your free-market government for assistance?
I think the reason they put him on the waiting list was because he only had a class 2 tumour and likely weighed the risks out and were serving people that NEEDED the operation more urgently.
His wife mentioned that they were ready to put a second mortgage on their house if they hadn't been able to raise the money. Health care shouldn't cost someone their home.
I'd be interested to see the stats on Canadian and American health because without seeing them, it seems to me that more Canadians would be able to get the services they need when they need them, not when they can afford to pay for them.
I don't disagree about homosexuality being a biological impulse. I don't have a problem giving them rights. I'm all for letting them form legal unions with similar rights to marriage. I just want them to come up with a different name for the legal union. That way my church won't lose it's tax exempt status in a discrimination lawsuit for refusing to perform same-sex marriages in its facilities.
Post a Comment