I realize that this post may attract or invite comments - inflammatory ones - that may become offensive. I ask, kindly, that you resist the urge to blow up my Facebook page or my blog with such comments. I welcome opposing viewpoints, when offered intelligently, concisely, and reverently. But please bear in mind that this blog - MY blog - is a representation of my own personal viewpoints, interpretations, and opinions. It is not now, nor has it ever, claimed to be matter of fact. Bearing that in mind, please enjoy the following offering:
As the campaign season is upon us, in full swing, we are constantly bombarded with messages about how we should think or feel about a topic, a candidate, or an issue. I, for one, have grown weary of being essentially mandated to pick between the lesser of two (or more) evils. I am tired of selecting my candidate from a list of mediocre choices, all of whom give me cause to begin searching for land-purchase opportunities in Canada or Central America. Quite frankly, the election process has me often more angry and confused than excited to exercise the privilege of casting a ballot. Anyone else feel this way? I want Camelot back.
More than that, however, I am growing frustrated at the level of stupidity the government must believe that I, or at the very least the whole of society, must possess. Why does government, in any form or fashion, get to dictate to me how I raise my kids or how I spend my money? Is it just me, or do some of these things seem completely unconstitutional? I give you the following two examples: (1) mandatory HPV vaccinations, and (2) "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) and/or "gay marriage."
I begin with the HPV vaccination issue. HPV (human papillomavirus) is a sexually-transmitted disease that has been linked to cervical cancer in women. This link has recently been called into question with a study done by the CDC that showed that 95% of HPV-infected women did NOT get cervical cancer. Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done in this area, as the HPV studies are all relatively new and somewhat inconclusive. That aside, Governor Rick Perry signed an executive order in 2007 mandating all teen girls in the state of Texas get the HPV vaccine. This was later overturned by the state legislature, but not without harsh criticism from Perry, and serious opposition in his recent debates with other Republican presidential hopefuls. This particular issue irritated me. I have a daughter. Do I need government telling me to vaccinate my girl against an STD? Let me give my personal opinion on the matter. I would likely vaccinate her. In fact, I think it's a safe bet that I would and will vaccinate my daughter - all of my kids, actually - against any and all diseases if I knew for certain that it could and would eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, the probability that they would get the disease. That's just good parenting, if you ask me. My issue is this: why does the government get to decide what "good parenting" is? Why do legislators who don't even live in my neighborhood or send their kids to my schools get to decide what vaccines are needed and which are not? Oh, I know what you're thinking - she doesn't vaccinate?? No, I definitely do. And I believe everyone should - especially against very highly communicable diseases like measles, mumps, pertussis, etc. But HPV is a sexually-transmitted disease. It's transmitted during sexual contact, not coughing in the same classroom as my baby. Something like that, I believe, should be at the parent's discretion, not the government's. Isn't this also why we don't have mandatory birth control? Moreover, I hate the idea that government thinks I am such an idiot that I wouldn't look into issues to protect my child's health. I know there are plenty of morons in the world that don't, but it irritates me to be governed as if I'm one of them. Or governed by one of them... as a side note, Michele Bachmann, no study conducted thus far has shown the HPV vaccine to cause or be linked to mental retardation... apparently, that's just you.
Now we come to issue #2. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" issue. This could get sticky. See, I personally believe that marriage was created for a man and a woman. I personally believe that if a guy wants to make a promise to another guy to be faithful and monogamous, then he should certainly be allowed to do so through a "civil union" - a promise recognized by the state to receive benefits and rights as two humans who have vowed to run their household jointly. Just don't slap the label of "marriage" on it, because that word was set apart by God to represent the union that He created. I, in my heart, believe that such unions were intended for men and women to join, to create families, and to give rise to future generations that promote lineage. However, I don't believe that homosexuality is any more sinful than things that I do daily - lie, lust, mistreat my body, etc. Let's be real, folks: who among us does not sin? Hate to be the one to break it to you, but all sin - ALL SIN - is ugly and black and unholy and cannot be in the presence of a holy God. So we ALL fall short of the glory. ALL of us - homosexuals, heterosexuals, blacks, whites, rich, poor, whoever. No one escapes this life without sin. So why bother to point out how two dudes committing is so bad? I didn't realize that you hadn't ever done anything God wouldn't be proud of... just sayin'. Meanwhile, let's bring it back to the DADT policy. I never liked this policy, but I understood why it existed. Let's be real for a minute. We may all say we know a gay person and they are our best friend or whatever. But if we didn't know this person so well, would we be comfortable undressing in front of them? Sharing a bunk with them? A shower? Likely not. So if the majority of the military is "straight" and only a few are "gay", it seemed to make more sense to keep the gays quiet so our military could function. That sucks, but it seems to be at least logical. So now what? While I don't personally have any issue whatsoever with a person's sexuality, perhaps we need to look at it from a logistical standpoint. Furthermore, I have issue with ANY person in uniform having "inappropriate displays of affection" in uniform - whether you are kissing a guy or a chick. Bottom line here: the military is your job, and it is also your life. Perhaps the guidelines should be more strict across the board? No one needs to see anyone else's tongue down anyone's throat - regardless. Class it up, Department of Defense. And to the members of our military who think that since DADT is gone that they may flaunt about with their sexuality, remember this: you signed up to be a soldier/sailor/airman/marine/etc. FIRST, and an ordinary US citizen second - meaning that when you took the oath, you pledged to follow the military lifestyle with all of its rules, despite what you think is fair or cool or whatever. I know, because I took that oath once, too. It isn't easy - but that's the beauty of having a VOLUNTEER MILITARY - no one MADE you agree to this lifestyle. You agreed to it, deal with it. So, to wrap this up, I think that homosexual unions should be allowed, homosexuals should be allowed to serve in our military, and government should butt out of both of those instances. But the individuals who participate in those commitments - both civilian and military, gay and straight - should respect the commitments that they make, whether to one another or the government they serve.
I realize that I get worked up, and may sound harsh sometimes. I guess, for me, it's just super-frustrating to think that our government - which is of the people, for the people, and by the people - seems to represent only itself, not its constituents... unless it is that we are all completely silent, and unwilling to make our representatives hear how we feel. Or do we, the majority, really feel this way? I don't know. But I believe in the privilege of voting, and I encourage everyone to do so. No one gets the right to complain if you haven't cast your ballot.
No comments:
Post a Comment