I think your train of thought on all of the issues you've raised here are very common sense my friend.
Well a few things I have learned about politics and politicians...
1. There is usually a logical, common sense response to any issue or program. Moving away from this is usually the case of an individual or small group of any given body with a specific agenda be it there own personal, or of an influencial lobby. Usually the people they represent come in third at best, often times fourth in the priority of how they vote.
2. Very few decisions are actually made when the vote comes. This is usually already decided and whichever speech might be made, or which ever. They have thier mind made up and little will work to change it regardless of what is said.
3. Politicians over complicate things.
So lets look at the original issues I brought forth. I mentioned them because they are all real issues and there are still plenty of people including elected officials who cant seem to grasp simple concepts.
The Earth is billions of years old, and not 6,000?
There is tons of physical evidence to support this. But again, there are people who refuse to believe it. Why I am not sure, but either you are up with the times, or the times leave you behind.
Whether the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left up the person carrying the baby and the male counterpart?
some think of it as murder, others last resort birth control. The fact of the matter is that, according to the Supreme Court legal abortion is the law of the land. This makes sense regardless. People are always going to go to great lengths to terminate unwanted pregnancy. I dont like the idea. But I will not step in the way of what they decide is best for them and thier bodies. I believe there are other alternatives and dont like it being an actual birth control method, but those who do, I will let them deal with thier own demons they create after doing so.
Some people are born as homosexuals and some choose homosexuality, but some accomodation needs to be made to those who choose to live in long term relationships as homosexual couples?
Civil unions, as I described above, as a long term relationship between two consenting adults with the same rights, priveledges, and responsibilities as marriage. Because it may be between two people of the same gender does not effect the commitment two other people have made to themselves. It doesnt detract from it a bit
It is time for the rise of a viable third party in American politics?
In contradiction to what I just pointed out, a third or extra parties would complicate politics. But I hate the idea that the one thing the two main parties can agree on is to suppress any uprising third party. They do this through legislation on primaries and who can be on the ballot etc.
The war on drugs has been a huge policy failure?
There has been a huge amount of treasure expended on enforcement and "corrections" of such problem, and the problem isnt even close to going away. We are making criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens with a health issue. Now this isnt to say that it is alright to rob a store to get money for one's next fix. That is armed robbery and should be prosecuted as such. Same goes with driving under the influence, and any other criminal offenses commited while on drugs or in pursuit of such. But lets draw some comparison to alcohol prohibiton of the 20s that was a total and complete failure. It was instituted by lobbying from a special interest group, being the Temperance League or whatever they called themselves. It did nothing but raise crime surrounding alcohol consumption, with gangs killing each other and innocents in an effort to capitalize from the amount of money to be made through the black market. Repealing the 19th or whichever amendment it was very effective in eliminating the structure and power derived from the structure in organized crime. If you legalize something, lets take cocaine for instance, I have never touched the stuff, and never will, even if it was legal. Because something is illegal or not, makes little difference if someone chooses to partake in that substance. So, again, I dont think it wise to ruin people's lives through criminal charges surrounding possession in thier own homes when the overall policy is flawed. It is often special interest, trying to eliminate or minimize another certain group who are stereotyped to use one substance or another. For instance our current drug policy instituted during the Nixon era, was an effort to marginalize the hippies because they were outspoken about the direction America was going in.
The other common practice politicians do, is to group together issues, when one is often similar but independant of each other. If we legalize marijuana, it doesnt mean we need to legalize heroin. Nor does it mean that everyone who does marijuana will go down the slippery slope to harder drugs.
