Abortion

Another of the big ones, right out of the gate.
Usually people argue about the point of personhood: is abortion murdering a person, or is it ridding one's own body of a few cells.
Really, it doesn't matter if it is a person at the moment of conception or not. Here, I'll make it easier for you.
If a person needs a kidney transplant and will die without it, is someone who is a match required to give them one? Should they be required to by law, or is it their own choice? It is a relatively simple procedure, and the donor will most likely survive with few lingering health issues, but it has its risks.
Pregnancy is like all-organ donor. Sure it's temporary, with its inconveniences and its health risks and its own recovery time.
So the real kicker: if a person in need of that kidney will die without it, does the law require you to give one? No.
So why should it be any different with pregnancy? The baby will die if you don't let it borrow ALL of your organs, so does that mean you have to?
No.
The law does not require you to share your body, your organs, any part of you, even if someone else will die without the use of it. End of story.
Or is it? Some would argue that pregnancy is usually (rape obviously not included) self inflicted-- you should take responsibility, having put yourself into that situation in the first place. While I would like people to take responsibility for their actions, morality should not be legislated. Also, think of the baby past the pregnancy. What good does it do the child to be born into that kind of situation? Unwanted, maybe to parents incapable or unfit to take care of them. What kind of life is that? Again, not something that can be legislated.
The legal issue organ-donation, whether for 9 months or forever. The law cannot require it, and so abortion cannot be illegal, point of personhood notwithstanding.

Marriage

Just in case you thought I'd pull the punches, let's talk about one of the controversial topics right off the bat.
Gay marriage is a simple issue. The two big issues seem to be legal equality, and the "sanctity" of marriage. Here's how it breaks down, and why I say it's simple: equality under the law applies to all citizens regardless of religion, gender, sexual preference or social status. Therefore so long as it does not infringe on someone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is a non-issue. Relationships between consenting adults of legal age, so long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights, fits that bill. Following that logic, having done nothing constitutionally wrong, homosexuals, transgenders and the like deserve equal protection under the law. That means same rights as straight couples. Same tax breaks, same hospital rights, same everything. We've tried this before: "separate but equal" is anything but.
As for the "sanctity of marriage," that seems to be a religious issue. Separation of Church and State means that sanctity cannot be legislated. In plain English: just because your church says it's wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. If it doesn't violate anyone else's rights, it isn't constitutionally illegal.
So what does this all mean? Equal rights is, and sanctity is not a legal issue. So if "marriage is a sacred institution," the US government has no right in legislating, or even legally recognizing it. So either gays can get married because it is a legal status conferred on a couple by the government enabling that couple to enjoy certain privelages (such as tax breaks), or marriage is a religious ceremony, and legally everyone gets a Civil Union, or whatever you want to call it, regardless.
The counter-argument that bothers me the most is that inanity of "if we let gays get married, next we'll have people trying to marry a duck." Screw you. Since when is a duck able to consent to a legal union of any sort? And comparing children and animals to gays? Children are not able to consent (age of consent-- it exists for a reason) and animals aren't either. Homosexual adults are. This is a non-argument. You're just spouting idiocy and wasting everyone's time.
Recap: give equal rights and privaleges to couples consisting of consenting and legal adults because it is a legal issue, and either call it marraige for everyone because it's a legal status, or decide that marriage is a religious rite which the government has no business recognizing at all.
Why is this so hard?

Sedition and Sedatives

What's Wrong With This Picture? Too many sedatives and not enough sedition.

Call me an idealist, but I actually believe in most of the principles this country was founded upon: Separation of Church and State, Of the People By the People For the People, Right of Free Speech, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness... I bought it hook, line and sinker.

Our government was founded very simply and specifically. The Constitution delineated every function our government was to serve, every right it had, every move it was allowed to make. Very clear, precise and simple. So where did it go wrong? Why are things such a mess? Because we forgot one little detail: The Constitution gave our government these rights and no others. It is SUPPOSED to be limited. A government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.

So if things are so wrong, why aren't people more upset? Why all the complacency? Why are there no uprisings, no rebellions, no outrage? We're all sedated. Whether by medications, short-sightedness or indoctrinated compliance, it all adds up to the same thing: every inch we fall back on our Constitution, thinking "oh it's such a little thing to give," we lose a mile.

That's what this is about. I want people to start thinking about what's wrong with our government, our society, our institutions and our mindsets. Question everything and we can begin to see a way out of this mess.