1.05.2007
More on Gay Marriage...
My friend Scrap brought it up again. J sent me a message asking me to listen to a conservative talk show which he likes at www.pragerradio.com. (You can hear the broadcast by clicking the "Show Clips" link, and then listening to the "Liberal Arrogance" clip. He discusses gay marriage for about 20 minutes of the 34 minute clip.)On the show, Mr. Prager discusses several arguments for allowing gay marriage, and dismisses liberal arguments in support of gay marriage.
Scrap, you wanted my thoughts on the issue, so here they are...
1) First, I am NOT a liberal. I do not consider myself to be one. My thoughts on many issues do lean to the left, however, I have some conservative opinions as well... I will not subscribe to a title and form my opinions based upon the views taken by others who have the same title. That's stupid.
2) I do not believe that the government should force christian churches to allow gay marriages. Churches should be allowed to make their own decisions about who to marry or not to marry. The government does not belong in the church any more than the church belongs in the government. Unfortunately, the separation of church and state isn't as wide as chasm as it should be.
3) I do believe that the government should recognize civil unions between same sex couples. By not recognizing their rights to be united and recognized by the government as a couple, the government is making homosexuals second class citizens. Homosexual couples should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. (However, for the purposes of this argument, I'll refer to civil unions as "marriage". Mostly because it takes longer to type "civil unions".)
Now that I've gotten that out of the way... My thoughts on Mr. Prager's show...
He discusses the question "How will allowing same sex marriages effect YOUR marriage?"
Mr. Prager says it won't... Which is true. However, he suggests that same sex marriage will effect society as a whole. He doesn't really get into HOW, but I'll assume that he means by allowing gay marriage, more people will be gay. Which is an argument I've heard used often. Saying it's OK for gays to marry means that it's OK to be gay, which means that more people will be gay... This suggests that someone could CHOOSE to be gay. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, by the way. If you've ever read my previous posts on the subject, you'd know my thoughts on this... But, to recap...
- One can not choose to become gay. One is either gay or they are not. If someone TRULY believes that being gay is a choice, then they themselves are either gay and denying it, or they are bisexual and denying it. (See this post on the issue from my other blog for my "proof" on this subject.)
So, if one can't choose to be gay, then how will allowing gay marriage effect society? I mean, Mr. Prager himself says that only 3% of the world population throughout history was gay. How will allowing 3% of the world to have to suffer the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us do any damage to society?
Mr. Prager discusses the rate of divorce among gays. He says that one should assume that the divorce rate among gay marriages would be the same as that among straight marriages (I believe somewhere around 50%). This is probably true. So, he says that if a gay couple marries and is allowed adoption rights, and then divorces and remarries, the child or children could have 4 mothers or 4 fathers.
So what?
Shouldn't the rate of divorce be the issue? It doesn't matter who is getting divorced, shouldn't the focus be on how to keep anyone married?
Why would having 4 mothers or 4 fathers be any different than having 2 of each?
Now, I'm not naive enough to think that a kid with 4 gay fathers might face social problems at school and amongst his/her peers. But, that is the real problem. Isn't it? That there is such a stigma attached to gayness? That people are so hateful towards gays that they would ridicule a child of a gay marriage? Isn't that the problem?
And, there's the argument that allowing gay marriage will be an assault on the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Really? The sanctity? 50% of marriages end in divorce. Maybe that should be the issue focused on. Instead of disallowing gays to marry, maybe they should disallow those who repeatedly divorce from marrying. Maybe, you get two marriages, but after that, you can't marry any more. THAT would protect the institution more than disallowing people who are in love from marrying.
I have digressed... Back to Mr. Prager...
He then poses the question, "If we allow gay marriage, then why not allow any type of consentual marriage between two adults (paraphrased)?" He uses polygamy as an example.
Why not? Who cares who has the rights and responsibilities of marriage? Why would polygamy be a bad thing? One can make a scientific argument that it is the nature of an animal to desire more than one partner, and that denying that desire is unnatural. Maybe monogamy is the problem. By not accepting and nurturing our desires we are hurting ourselves and our society. I mean, even biblically, polygamy existed and was accepted. Maybe we've become to strict with our definitions...
I'm being a smart-ass.
Anyway, he discusses polygamy and incestuous marriage as similar subjects. He says that if one is going to allow legal unions because they are consentual and between adults, then they open the door for ALL consentual activities, including incestuous marriage. Incestuous marriage is genetically dangerous. There's a difference. If a brother and sister married and procreated, they would run an incredibly high risk of having a child with genetic defects. Not allowing incest isn't just a religious thing. It's to prevent serious health risks associated with such relationships.
But, polygamy should be allowed. Those wanting to accept the fact that they are poly amorous and unite with multiple partners should be allowed to do so. They should have the same rights and responsibilities as all of those who are in heterosexual, monogamous relationships. And the same rights and responsibilities that those who are in homosexual, monogamous relationships SHOULD have.
My point is this: The government
is creating a whole group of second class citizens by not allowing gay partners to be recognized, by the law, as united. The only reason to keep these people second class citizens is because of religious beliefs. And, like it or not, our country was founded with the desire to have freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion. The separation of church and state was discussed by our forefathers for a reason. And, now more than ever that separation is becoming smaller and smaller. The law of the land should be upheld. But, when the law is wrong, or oppressive, the law should be changed.
Gays should be recognized as citizens of this country with all of the rights and responsibilities that every other citizen has.
11.27.2006
Chaos and the Infinite Madness...
faith [feyth] –noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
cha-os [key-os] –noun
1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.
4. (initial capital letter) the personification of this in any of several ancient Greek myths.
5. Obsolete. a chasm or abyss.
I'm not sure why, but lately I've been thinking about how absolutely insane it is to have faith in some type of benevolent deity... It's just nuts. In my line of work, I hear people talking about the "Will of God" all the time... It just makes me sad...
"He'll get better, if it's God's will"
"She'll recover from that massive brain injury, if it's God's will."
"My loved one didn't survive their illness because it was God's will."
"My loved one had a miraculous recovery because it was God's will."
I suppose it's a good thing if that makes people feel better about the everyday slings and arrows that we all must suffer... Especially the big ones that I see on a daily basis at work. However, being in that line of work only solidifies for me the concept that there is nothing more than chaos in the universe...
Consider:
A guy goes out and gets completely plastered, hops in his car, and drives away. While driving down the street, he drifts across the center line and plows headfirst into a car filled with a family of four.
The casualties: 38 year old man who is active in his church and his PTA, his 10 year old son, his 7 year old daughter.
The survivors: 39 year old woman who is also active in the PTA and her church, the 47 year old drunk man.
The woman has massive injuries requiring amputation of her left leg. Bleeding on her brain forever decreases her mental capacity. She is intact enough to know that her family is gone, but not enough to function at her normal level.
The man who caused the accident spends two weeks in the hospital. His major injuries are a fractured left radius and fractures to his left tibia and fibula.
(This story is not based upon an actual case that I have come across... Just a realistic story.)
Anyone who works in acute trauma settings in healthcare can tell you that this is not an uncommon enough story.
This shouts to me, there is NO order in the universe. Too often I see situations like this, where there is so much unnecessary pain. Where is the order in that? What purpose does all of this suffering serve? We are all riding on this little planet, spiraling through our galaxy, which is spiraling through the universe, which consists of complete and total chaos.
Chaos is the only thing that you can truly rely on. Anything can happen. Anything might happen. Anything might not happen. You never know. It's complete chaos. That's all you can know for sure.
Sure, we can all place ourselves in situations that protect us from bad things. Or line us up with good things. But in reality, the shit could hit the fan any second now for any one of us... Who's to say I won't have a major heart attack or stroke before I even finish this pontification? How do I know some freak natural disaster won't destroy my house 10 seconds from now?
I don't.
And that's all I'm saying... I guess that I may have "faith" that my house won't be destroyed in a tornado at 5AM while there is just a light snowfall dusting the earth beyond my door. Or that a major earthquake won't shudder the foundation of my house and leave me pinned under a pile of rubble and old furniture. But, that faith is based upon the FACT that the weather is not right for a tornado this morning... And, that there hasn't been a significant earthquake in this area for a VERY long time. So, I guess it's not faith at all, it's merely confident conjecture based upon the information that I have.
I'm going to stop this for now... It's 5:20AM and I'm getting tired. I have more to say, but I can't form it into proper sentences right this minute...
Feel free to discuss the nonsense thus far...
11.23.2006
So, I lied...
So, I have a new topic that I'm going to post on soon. I don't have time to elaborate now, but I've been thinking a lot about the insanity of faith and the reliability of chaos. There you go. Keep a lookout for the next post on that topic... Until then...
10.17.2006
Inspired To Return...
God Bless Monkey-Shines!!!
7.12.2006
Why Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal
Anyway, thanks to my friend Shannon, who found another blog The Trivedi Chronicles which chimed in on the issue. He created a pretty funny top ten list as to why gays should NOT be allowed to marry..
Top ten reasons to make gay marriage illegal
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
5.19.2006
Shannon is in the Mix
"Just to be clear, do you consider yourself an atheist, or are you agnostic? It seems like being an atheist requires some measure of faith (that there is/are absolutely no God or Gods). Agnosticism seems like a kind of spiritual shrugging of the shoulders. I wonder if there are any aggressive atheists, as in the door to door variety ("hello madam have you heard the good word--there is no God! Might we leave you a brochure?"). I can't imagine even the most fanatical atheist doing much damage ("I bomb this temple in the name of no one!!! Die non-infidels!!!"). Perhaps I'm into monkey-shines (tm) territory. I promise to post if I have an actual opinion.
Oh, and one more thing... I heard a theory on NPR a couple of weeks ago: the normally fiscally responsible right-wing officials are less responsible of late because...they believe in the "end of days". Yikes!! Could Patton Oswalt be right? Does Bush really think he is going to be the guy that takes us into the apocalypse?"
Answers/thoughts:
1) I'm a hopeful athiest... I don't know if that makes me an agnostic or not. My rational mind dictates to me that there is no way there is any sort of benevolent deity that is watching over me. However, my romantic, wishful mind says "There MUST be something more. How can you rationalize doing ANYTHING if nothing you do has significance in the end?" Which causes my head to explode. I have to hope for some type of higher purpose, some sort of afterlife, or afterthought. Without that, there really is no reason to do anything... And no reason not to do whatever the hell you want.
2) I love this idea. In fact, I may put on a suit this weekend and go door to door to preach the word of No One. I wonder what the neighbors will think.
3) Blowing stuff up in anyone's (or No One's) name is NOT COOL!
4) I can only hope the right wing conservatives who are normally fiscally responsible are truly throwing caution to the wind and blowing their loot. Perhaps they'll spend their caches of riches and lose their power and some sane people can get some control in the government. I'd pray for this to happen, but No One doesn't listen.
5) I think that maybe Patton Oswalt is God... (Awww, hell Chewbacca!)
5.03.2006
The Logic Is Flawless
I don't think I can argue with this. The banana IS the atheists worst nightmare... A soft, chewy, sweet, nightmare. Wait... bananas aren't my worst nightmare... A band of giant spiders playing Toby Keith songs is my worst nightmare... What the hell is he talking about? I love bananas!
Note: That is Kirk Cameron in the picture with the fella talking about bananas. Apparently, when Kirk found religion, he lost the ability to recognize banana based inuendo.
Enjoy!
