The Triangle

Issue date: 10/24/08 Section: Ed-Op

Media Credit: Mathew Sumner San Mateo County Times/MCT Campus

Media Credit: Chuck Kennedy KRT/MCT Campus

I am not going to try to convince you one way or the other about abortion or gay rights. I do, however, believe that these lifestyle choices and their consequences belong to the people who make them. I've heard from too many intended voters this election season that they chose their candidate because of their view on either gay and lesbian rights or abortion. By voting for a candidate solely or in large part because of their stance on either of these issues, you're essentially trying making a decision about how other people live in their personal lives. You would be making a decision for people whose lifestyles have nothing to do with your own. As far as I'm concerned, these two taboo issues are immensely private matters, and we have no right to try to make them when they put no one else at risk other than the parties involved.

Abortion.

Here's an idea: Why don't we just lead by example? Why don't we do or not do the things we believe in instead of forcing other people do them? For example, if you don't believe in abortion, if you find yourself pregnant, don't get an abortion. If you were to get pregnant, no matter the circumstances, would you want the government telling you how to have your baby? With this issue comes many parallel arguments, such as teen pregnancy, the point at which a fetus should gain rights under the law and sex education. They are very valid issues, but still, your beliefs about these issues can be influenced by a number of factors, factors that are out of any government's control. So we are left with those issues and issues like them being argued about by people with unwavering opinions. And if you have to equal forces pushing against each other, they cancel themselves out; thus, we get nowhere. And that's where we are in the debate about abortion.

Gay Marriage.

This is another issue that, honestly, unless you're of the gay and lesbian community, has nothing to do with you directly. It just so happens that some people (emphasis on some) believe that if something is immoral by their standards, it therefore should be against the law. Here's a tip for those people: If you do not believe that people of the same sex shouldn't marry each other, if you believe that it's immoral, then if you are a man, don't marry another man and keep on living your "moral" life. If you're a woman who believes two women shouldn't elope, do not marry a woman, and everyone's happy.

For a long time, black and white citizens in most of the U.S., and even longer in the South, were not able to marry one another. Now, we think that to disallow any two people (as long as they are a man and a woman) from marrying is immoral and is denial of their rights as citizens. How is a commitment between two same-sex citizens, through sickness and health, wrong? What is a spouse but a best friend who you want to spend the rest of your life with, and maybe have a family that may or may not include children? I understand people's arguments about a marriage from a legal standpoint. I suppose if I fell on hard times, my good male friend and I could get married so that I could be covered under his healthcare. How do we know that that doesn't happen all the time with men and women? And I suppose that could be considered, at most, cheating the insurance companies (God forbid). But who is to dictate and decide whether two people love each other?

It's when we get wrapped up in what everyone else is doing that we lose sight of the fact that we can only worry about ourselves. If you live a "moral" and "righteous" life, maybe at some point you will inspire someone to do the same thing. You can preach all you want but unless you practice what you preach, you're just lying. We do not have the right to make laws about intangible things like love or to try to dictate in some cases whether a woman can save her own life - that's when we get carried away.

This nation is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but it is also the home of the compromise; democracy is a compromise. In a compromise, neither party gets everything they want but there is enough middle ground that each party can leave the table equally satisfied. And sometimes both parties are happy. I know there are intended voters out there that have chosen their candidate based on one issue. But I strongly believe that there are more important things to consider that affect all of us than these issues that affect some of us.

We are all now sitting at that table, trying to work out a compromise. No law can leave everyone happy. Sometimes we're left to agree to just disagree. I urge you, when you go to the polls, pick that candidate that most represents not only what you want, but also what will leave you and the rest of your fellow Americans equally satisfied. And if no one candidate does that for you, why don't you run for president?



Bruce Easley is a sophomore majoring in business. He can be reached at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools