(no subject)
Aug. 6th, 2003 03:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vaxjediRandom thoughts throughout the day (long)
I heard someone say "I don't wanna pay more taxes. And I don't know anyone else who does."
Well, I do. If we get good services for our taxes, I am all over it. Always have been. I have no problem with the high income tax in the state of Oregon, because we get services - the Oregon Health Plan is pretty good. Even when we didn't use it, I paid happily. And now that I am in the system for Miri, I appreciate it even more. If it werent for SSI, for the Oregon Health Plan, for all of the various departments we've interacted with, I wouldn't be able to get my daughter the support she needs and we would be thousands of dollars in the hole every year, even with my insurance.
And ya know, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it meant schools were funded better either.
I don't use my Visor much anymore. I had gotten a protected wallet thingy for it, but having it in my pocket turned out to do weird things to my hips (my hips are out of whack as it is - the pressure was pushing just enough to aggravate it). So I don't carry it around. And even when I did, I didnt use it heavily. I kept phone numbers in it, but I don't really call many people. I'd put dates in the calendar, but never use it. I had a bunch of notes for rpg stuff and such, but the interface became a bit awkward, even with a thumb board. And I never found any games or pastimes on it that I liked. I have the LJ client on it, but I had the same problem, plus I always think of posts while I'm driving, and can't write them down.
I'd like to use it more. I'm just not sure how.
I just realized that Im in a grumpy mood this morning. We have two people out, which means I have no real backup until noon. Every few days or so, I'll just need to get away from this particular facet of my job for a while, otherwise I start arguing with techs. I've found that I need uninterrupted solitude from time to time in order to function. It's hard to get.
I make the mistake of reading the editorials on Yahoo! News, including many of the editorials from conservative pundits (except Ann Coulter, I learned long ago that her editorials are really a complete waste). I often end up annoyed by them. I admit, I am a raving liberal - I find most of the conservative social views either confusing or just outright aggravating.
Anyway, a number of them lately involve the whole gay marriage issue. I'm really tired of seeing "it'll diminish the sancity of marriage" and "undermines the importance of family" arguments. As far as I can tell, these arguments stem from the "well, it's just wrong, ya know?" argument with a large helping of "um, sure, yeah I have a good reason". How does encouraging more families, albeit non-traditional ones, destroy families? Will people look around and say "well, those fags are married, so I guess I can just go and leave my wife and beat my kids - it doesn't matter anymore"? If family and marriage is "good" and gay people want to make families and get married, isn't that gay people wanting to do "good"? Isn't that "good"? Shouldn't we encourage people to do "good"? And how does two (or more even) people who you don't even know getting married threaten your marriage? If the actions of two unconnected people who will probably never affect you directly undermines the sancity of your marriage, just how santified can your marriage be?
Of course, I realize that a lot of my arguments reduce to "There's nothign wrong with it" and "I can marry whomever I damn well please". Stubbornly-held axioms on both sides, I guess.
One of the editorials I read was complaining about many governments reaction ot the Vatican's condemnation of gay marriage and it's call to the devout to oppose it. Some governments were viewing the statement as akin to a hate crime. And the editorialist was pointedly lambasting liberals for not being so open-minded when conservatives acted out of a sense of morality. She felt that the devout were being persecuted for being devout and moral and felt that a person should be allowed to act as they see as moral, as a person and as a legislator.
My view on this is slightly different. I agree, one should act as one feels is moral. However, in the US, I think there is a meta-morality involved. This is a nation not based out of a single culture, ethnicity, religion or creed. We, as a nation, have embraced and codified into law the principles of plurality. We are a society based off of the co-existance of several cultures - it's that whole great American melting pot ideal. If you accept plurality as an ideal, then you must also accept that there will be difference of opinions, that there will be conflicts and if a pluralistic society is to be maintained, compromises must be made. This is part of the American morality, as an avowed and active pluralistic society - that the law and the government must be broad to accomidate legitimate differences in opinion and/or belief.
I heard someone say "I don't wanna pay more taxes. And I don't know anyone else who does."
Well, I do. If we get good services for our taxes, I am all over it. Always have been. I have no problem with the high income tax in the state of Oregon, because we get services - the Oregon Health Plan is pretty good. Even when we didn't use it, I paid happily. And now that I am in the system for Miri, I appreciate it even more. If it werent for SSI, for the Oregon Health Plan, for all of the various departments we've interacted with, I wouldn't be able to get my daughter the support she needs and we would be thousands of dollars in the hole every year, even with my insurance.
And ya know, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it meant schools were funded better either.
I don't use my Visor much anymore. I had gotten a protected wallet thingy for it, but having it in my pocket turned out to do weird things to my hips (my hips are out of whack as it is - the pressure was pushing just enough to aggravate it). So I don't carry it around. And even when I did, I didnt use it heavily. I kept phone numbers in it, but I don't really call many people. I'd put dates in the calendar, but never use it. I had a bunch of notes for rpg stuff and such, but the interface became a bit awkward, even with a thumb board. And I never found any games or pastimes on it that I liked. I have the LJ client on it, but I had the same problem, plus I always think of posts while I'm driving, and can't write them down.
I'd like to use it more. I'm just not sure how.
I just realized that Im in a grumpy mood this morning. We have two people out, which means I have no real backup until noon. Every few days or so, I'll just need to get away from this particular facet of my job for a while, otherwise I start arguing with techs. I've found that I need uninterrupted solitude from time to time in order to function. It's hard to get.
I make the mistake of reading the editorials on Yahoo! News, including many of the editorials from conservative pundits (except Ann Coulter, I learned long ago that her editorials are really a complete waste). I often end up annoyed by them. I admit, I am a raving liberal - I find most of the conservative social views either confusing or just outright aggravating.
Anyway, a number of them lately involve the whole gay marriage issue. I'm really tired of seeing "it'll diminish the sancity of marriage" and "undermines the importance of family" arguments. As far as I can tell, these arguments stem from the "well, it's just wrong, ya know?" argument with a large helping of "um, sure, yeah I have a good reason". How does encouraging more families, albeit non-traditional ones, destroy families? Will people look around and say "well, those fags are married, so I guess I can just go and leave my wife and beat my kids - it doesn't matter anymore"? If family and marriage is "good" and gay people want to make families and get married, isn't that gay people wanting to do "good"? Isn't that "good"? Shouldn't we encourage people to do "good"? And how does two (or more even) people who you don't even know getting married threaten your marriage? If the actions of two unconnected people who will probably never affect you directly undermines the sancity of your marriage, just how santified can your marriage be?
Of course, I realize that a lot of my arguments reduce to "There's nothign wrong with it" and "I can marry whomever I damn well please". Stubbornly-held axioms on both sides, I guess.
One of the editorials I read was complaining about many governments reaction ot the Vatican's condemnation of gay marriage and it's call to the devout to oppose it. Some governments were viewing the statement as akin to a hate crime. And the editorialist was pointedly lambasting liberals for not being so open-minded when conservatives acted out of a sense of morality. She felt that the devout were being persecuted for being devout and moral and felt that a person should be allowed to act as they see as moral, as a person and as a legislator.
My view on this is slightly different. I agree, one should act as one feels is moral. However, in the US, I think there is a meta-morality involved. This is a nation not based out of a single culture, ethnicity, religion or creed. We, as a nation, have embraced and codified into law the principles of plurality. We are a society based off of the co-existance of several cultures - it's that whole great American melting pot ideal. If you accept plurality as an ideal, then you must also accept that there will be difference of opinions, that there will be conflicts and if a pluralistic society is to be maintained, compromises must be made. This is part of the American morality, as an avowed and active pluralistic society - that the law and the government must be broad to accomidate legitimate differences in opinion and/or belief.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-06 09:04 pm (UTC)