I was talking to a friend about how she should intentionally mess up her laundry for fun since it would make laundry much more interesting. She then asked me who would buy the new clothes that would eventually result from this temporary amount of fun. I told her the Clothing Fairy would come by and replace all of her messed up clothes with new clothes in the latest fashion.
Naturally, I started to think, "What if there was a magical fairy that could cure all of the world's problems?" Could you just think of all the possibilities that could exist with the various magical fairies that would have to exist for this to work? Here are some examples:
The Annoying Neighbor Fairy: Having trouble with your neighbor? Are they playing absurdly loud music until 4:00 AM only to change the type of music from techno to acid rock? Well worry no more, my friends because the Annoying Neighbor Fairy will wait until that neighbor falls asleep (or passes out) and "relocate" your neighbor to a house far, far away.
The Bad Driver Fairy: Someone cut you off? Someone driving down the wrong side of the road or through construction zones to get by that tiny bit of traffic? Someone just completely disregarding human life while cruising down your residential street at 120 MPH? Fear not for the Bad Driver Fairy will revoke said driver's license and impound their car in their mystical impound in the sky. There's no phone number to get it back!
The Economic Crisis Fairy: Stock market declining? Economic indicators showing your country is going down the toilet? Investment brokers needing more Prozac than usual? Help is on the way! The Economic Crisis Fairy will stimulate your economy with a wave of their magical wand, infusing the market with magical cash and restoring consumer confidence in your economy. Within moments, your everyday citizens will be eager to go out and buy that useless crap you've been putting on shelves!
The Health Care Fairy: Sick as a dog but don't have insurance? Can't get yourself fake citizenship in a country like France or Canada so you can take advantage of their free health care? No need to cross the border any more! The Health Care Fairy uses their extensive knowledge of American Medical Bureaucratic Systems to cut through the red tape as well as "softening" the hearts of those medical board directors to give you your procedure for free. So when you need that quadruple bypass surgery, you know you're covered.
The Hangover Fairy: Had too much to drink last night? Spending your morning bent over the toilet? Does the sound of a pin dropping make your head throb? Forget about it! The Hangover Fairy is here to make sure that your nights of liver abuse have no affect on your ability to get through the next day! No more vomiting, no more headaches, and no more unpleasant aftertaste! Get your drink on without the annoying consequences of tomorrow!
That's just a few. There's more I can think of, but not at the current moment. I might add to this eventually.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Random rants of a political nature...
First off I think that it's imperative to address the upcoming election. One cannot address the current election without discussing the candidates. As for Obama, I have had quite an opinion of him. I'm an admirer of his charisma, his personal charm, and his ability to rally people to politics like no one else has done in quite some time. However, when it comes down to being the candidate of "change," I think he gives it more lip service than actual substance. He has many "right" ideas, such as a progressive tax scale to balance the budget (hopefully) and giving the middle class the ability to have more spending power (which is the base of a good economy). He at least wants people to be able to have affordable health care, although it's still a far cry from a nationalized health care system that would provide free care (and by "free" I mean free when you walk in the door, but you pay for it through tax revenues) to everyone. His strategy for Iraq is decent, I suppose. Getting the soldiers back home is a good goal, albeit more difficult than anyone really knows. By adding Biden to the ticket, Obama makes up for an apparent lack of experience in "executive" and "foreign policy" arenas and gets a VP who can mentor him and be a representative of the United States abroad, which as oftentimes been the VP's delegated role when the President doesn't wish to go somewhere. If Obama were to meet some sort of an unfortunate end, Biden would be a fine choice to step into the presidency and serve out the remainder of Obama's term.
Then you move onto McCain. Me being a heavily biased liberal, I cannot objectively speak about McCain. His Republican tax platform is ludicrous (in the sense that it won't balance the budget), his desire to cut down government even more is a disaster (since government has problems doing what it is supposed to do at its current capacity), but I guess I admire his desire to end the useless riders that get attached to a bill that assign money to states like Alaska to buy off a Senator's or Representative's vote to pass the bill. I just used Alaska not because the senator is easily bribed, but because everyone should know by now that McCain's VP is from the state of Alaska. But his policy in Iraq is finally "catching up" to that of the Democrats and saying that a timetable is an okay thing, insofar as conditions on the ground are met (blah blah blah). McCain, not having a huge reputation for being a social conservative (despite him saying he does), picked a woman who has those credentials to be his running mate. Sarah Palin is a self-described hockey mom (although it should be grandmother), who is ardently religious (and carries the many beliefs associated with extreme religious beliefs), and apparently got up at 3:00 AM every day to go kill some moose when she was a kid. I recently read the viewpoint of a conservative friend of mine who said that Sarah Palin made her glad to be a conservative woman. I suppose she is the conservative woman's choice (at least a semi-progressive conservative woman's choice) but she is certainly a minority amongst Americans. Her hard-line conservative values are actually strongly outside the mainstream about just as much as the Republicans claim Obama is too liberal and outside the mainstream. I think the reality of the situation is that more people are becoming liberal and progressive while fewer people are clinging to their traditional beliefs. Sarah Palin's experience with 2 years of governorship, 3 terms as a mayor of 9,000 people, a member of the Oil and Natural Gas Board in Alaska (and her father just happens to be an oil driller), a member of her 9,000 population town's city council, and a former runner up/Miss Congeniality in the Alaskan beauty contest really highlight her (lack of) qualifications. The conservatives complain the Barack Obama simply has experience in being a community organizer... but his community had over 5,000,000 people in it (at least I think that's how much Chicago has...). Who would you say has more experience, the mayor of 9,000 and the governor of 600,000 or the organizer of millions? Maybe I just have fuzzy math going on...
Then there's the whole hooplah about Proposition 8. I've written extensively on this topic many times and in many places. The meat of the argument really just boils down to this: if we're a society that preaches equality, then we, as citizens, have an obligation to ensure that EVERY citizen is treated equally. For those who are not in California or familiar with California politics (or even American politics), Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that legally defines marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman, excluding any homosexual couples from the process. The Supreme Court of California said that such exclusion is unconstitutional (which kind of makes it strange that an amendment is being ratified since it was deemed unconstitutional to begin with...). In my view, it's simply tyranny of the majority at work once again in the United States to terrorize and imprison a minority group who does not have the means to stand up for itself politically.
Then you move onto McCain. Me being a heavily biased liberal, I cannot objectively speak about McCain. His Republican tax platform is ludicrous (in the sense that it won't balance the budget), his desire to cut down government even more is a disaster (since government has problems doing what it is supposed to do at its current capacity), but I guess I admire his desire to end the useless riders that get attached to a bill that assign money to states like Alaska to buy off a Senator's or Representative's vote to pass the bill. I just used Alaska not because the senator is easily bribed, but because everyone should know by now that McCain's VP is from the state of Alaska. But his policy in Iraq is finally "catching up" to that of the Democrats and saying that a timetable is an okay thing, insofar as conditions on the ground are met (blah blah blah). McCain, not having a huge reputation for being a social conservative (despite him saying he does), picked a woman who has those credentials to be his running mate. Sarah Palin is a self-described hockey mom (although it should be grandmother), who is ardently religious (and carries the many beliefs associated with extreme religious beliefs), and apparently got up at 3:00 AM every day to go kill some moose when she was a kid. I recently read the viewpoint of a conservative friend of mine who said that Sarah Palin made her glad to be a conservative woman. I suppose she is the conservative woman's choice (at least a semi-progressive conservative woman's choice) but she is certainly a minority amongst Americans. Her hard-line conservative values are actually strongly outside the mainstream about just as much as the Republicans claim Obama is too liberal and outside the mainstream. I think the reality of the situation is that more people are becoming liberal and progressive while fewer people are clinging to their traditional beliefs. Sarah Palin's experience with 2 years of governorship, 3 terms as a mayor of 9,000 people, a member of the Oil and Natural Gas Board in Alaska (and her father just happens to be an oil driller), a member of her 9,000 population town's city council, and a former runner up/Miss Congeniality in the Alaskan beauty contest really highlight her (lack of) qualifications. The conservatives complain the Barack Obama simply has experience in being a community organizer... but his community had over 5,000,000 people in it (at least I think that's how much Chicago has...). Who would you say has more experience, the mayor of 9,000 and the governor of 600,000 or the organizer of millions? Maybe I just have fuzzy math going on...
Then there's the whole hooplah about Proposition 8. I've written extensively on this topic many times and in many places. The meat of the argument really just boils down to this: if we're a society that preaches equality, then we, as citizens, have an obligation to ensure that EVERY citizen is treated equally. For those who are not in California or familiar with California politics (or even American politics), Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that legally defines marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman, excluding any homosexual couples from the process. The Supreme Court of California said that such exclusion is unconstitutional (which kind of makes it strange that an amendment is being ratified since it was deemed unconstitutional to begin with...). In my view, it's simply tyranny of the majority at work once again in the United States to terrorize and imprison a minority group who does not have the means to stand up for itself politically.
To drill or not to drill? There really is no question...
One of the big issues coming up in the election is the matter of sending expedition teams off various coasts in the United States to find out if there's any oil out there to drill for and to invariably decrease our need for "foreign oil." Well, let me speak on this for a minute.
Many people might expect me to go the way of the environmentalist and argue about how oil rigs will end up polluting the atmosphere and make our beaches and coastal areas unsightly when you look out and there's this massive oil rig staring right back at you. However, although those are decent reasons to not allow for the drilling of oil offshore, I have different reasons for my desire to not see oil drilled offshore.
First off, the argument that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is actually misleading. Oil is a global commodity traded at a global price. The value of the dollar is really the only thing that affects the price for American consumers differently than that of people in other countries. Also, it has been stated in the CIA World Fact Book (something you can look up online) that in 2004, the United States was exporting 1,048,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. I thought we were still looking to reduce our dependence on foreign oil back then. So why were we exporting it to other locations? I would also like to say that the fact that other nations' data has been updated in more recent years while the United States information has remained stagnant. Conspiracy? Perhaps...
Secondly, it will take years for the oil rigs to actually get set up and start drilling. Exploration teams have to first be sent in to see if there is actually any oil beneath the surface off the various coasts. If they manage to find a bed of oil big enough to exploit, they'll mark it and send a rig out to begin drilling. But rigs take two years to manufacture from order to completion (as I saw on a TV special, I believe either on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel). Naturally, oil companies don't have spare rigs sitting around waiting for oil to be discovered. That would take expenses to maintain and they would have to have land to store the rigs. After the rig is built, it has to be shipped from the construction yard to the location of the drilling. Moving the rigs overland is hard enough, but the rig also doubles as a craft that can move out into the water after it is sent there. So, the rig is also using gasoline to move into position. Sometimes places where the explorers thought there was a lot of oil actually had less oil than was expected, which can be equally infuriating to both producers and consumers. So not only will it take years to actually get the oil manufacturing infrastructure in place, it might not actually yield any significant results.
Thirdly, since we have no nationalized oil industry there is no way to ensure that the oil that is drilled out of the ground will actually stay in the United States. As stated in the first reason, oil is a global commodity. The oil we drill in the United States can just as easily be shipped out to foreign nations as it would be to keep it in the United States. It also doesn't matter if the oil is drilled off the coast of California or in the desert sands of Saudi Arabia, the price for each barrel of oil will be the same. Oil companies do have a goal of trying to minimize costs while maximizing revenues (as they push into our heads during accounting all the time) if they can still drill oil out of the ground for the (made up) price of $20 per barrel, why not go ahead and ship it to Vietnam or China or Japan to make $129 per barrel? Besides, the companies who drill oil are not always the companies who sell gasoline. Dutch Royal Shell Company is one of the rare companies that does both. Exxon-Mobile recently said it was looking to get out of the gasoline-selling industry and focus more specifically on drilling and the sale of petroleum. As I stated before, if it's going to cost the same to drill a barrel of oil from the United States as it is from Saudi Arabia, there's no national loyalty to whom they sell it to. If America nationalizes its oil industry and eliminates corporate national disloyalty, then I think we could drill for oil and force for it to go to American consumers.
Fourthly, the oil companies keep changing their story as to why the price of fuels are so high. Shortly before Katrina, the oil companies were complaining that the reason for the gas price hikes were due to the lack of refineries in the United States. Since then, I've heard no progress being made in the construction of refinery sites in the United States. Perhaps I didn't keep my ear to the ground on that one, but many were at least put out of commission when Katrina hit the area. Now the oil companies are complaining about supply and demand when there are oil producing nations that are not producing at full capacity (and are able to do so, as they claim, if they had a buyer for the oil). So if we're not exhausting the oil that can currently be produced, then why do we need to find new sources of oil? Also, in California specifically, we have lowered our demand for oil over the past two years, yet we have not seen a corresponding decrease in the price of gasoline in the state. It's still up from where the price was two years ago.
I wrote on a forum not too long ago that the statement that drilling for oil off the coast of the United States will lead to less dependence on foreign oil (thus leading to a decrease in price) is either ignorant or purposefully misleading. As I have stated, oil is globally traded on an open market not guaranteeing where it comes from. The rigs will also take years to be put into place so the benefits from offshore drilling will not be felt for a while (definitely contrary to the "immediate" relief that Americans would like). Also, since corporations have no national loyalty, there is absolutely no guarantee that the oil drilled in the United States will stay in the United States. It's just about as likely as a California State Quarter with Yosemite on the back will stay in California its entire life. I say if we want to drill off the coast we either need to nationalize our oil industry or else we need to have a written guarantee by the corporations that would be exploring for oil off the coasts that the oil will be sold domestically at a reduced market price so that way we can actually "solve" the problem of higher gas prices and our "reliance" on foreign oil.
Many people might expect me to go the way of the environmentalist and argue about how oil rigs will end up polluting the atmosphere and make our beaches and coastal areas unsightly when you look out and there's this massive oil rig staring right back at you. However, although those are decent reasons to not allow for the drilling of oil offshore, I have different reasons for my desire to not see oil drilled offshore.
First off, the argument that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is actually misleading. Oil is a global commodity traded at a global price. The value of the dollar is really the only thing that affects the price for American consumers differently than that of people in other countries. Also, it has been stated in the CIA World Fact Book (something you can look up online) that in 2004, the United States was exporting 1,048,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. I thought we were still looking to reduce our dependence on foreign oil back then. So why were we exporting it to other locations? I would also like to say that the fact that other nations' data has been updated in more recent years while the United States information has remained stagnant. Conspiracy? Perhaps...
Secondly, it will take years for the oil rigs to actually get set up and start drilling. Exploration teams have to first be sent in to see if there is actually any oil beneath the surface off the various coasts. If they manage to find a bed of oil big enough to exploit, they'll mark it and send a rig out to begin drilling. But rigs take two years to manufacture from order to completion (as I saw on a TV special, I believe either on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel). Naturally, oil companies don't have spare rigs sitting around waiting for oil to be discovered. That would take expenses to maintain and they would have to have land to store the rigs. After the rig is built, it has to be shipped from the construction yard to the location of the drilling. Moving the rigs overland is hard enough, but the rig also doubles as a craft that can move out into the water after it is sent there. So, the rig is also using gasoline to move into position. Sometimes places where the explorers thought there was a lot of oil actually had less oil than was expected, which can be equally infuriating to both producers and consumers. So not only will it take years to actually get the oil manufacturing infrastructure in place, it might not actually yield any significant results.
Thirdly, since we have no nationalized oil industry there is no way to ensure that the oil that is drilled out of the ground will actually stay in the United States. As stated in the first reason, oil is a global commodity. The oil we drill in the United States can just as easily be shipped out to foreign nations as it would be to keep it in the United States. It also doesn't matter if the oil is drilled off the coast of California or in the desert sands of Saudi Arabia, the price for each barrel of oil will be the same. Oil companies do have a goal of trying to minimize costs while maximizing revenues (as they push into our heads during accounting all the time) if they can still drill oil out of the ground for the (made up) price of $20 per barrel, why not go ahead and ship it to Vietnam or China or Japan to make $129 per barrel? Besides, the companies who drill oil are not always the companies who sell gasoline. Dutch Royal Shell Company is one of the rare companies that does both. Exxon-Mobile recently said it was looking to get out of the gasoline-selling industry and focus more specifically on drilling and the sale of petroleum. As I stated before, if it's going to cost the same to drill a barrel of oil from the United States as it is from Saudi Arabia, there's no national loyalty to whom they sell it to. If America nationalizes its oil industry and eliminates corporate national disloyalty, then I think we could drill for oil and force for it to go to American consumers.
Fourthly, the oil companies keep changing their story as to why the price of fuels are so high. Shortly before Katrina, the oil companies were complaining that the reason for the gas price hikes were due to the lack of refineries in the United States. Since then, I've heard no progress being made in the construction of refinery sites in the United States. Perhaps I didn't keep my ear to the ground on that one, but many were at least put out of commission when Katrina hit the area. Now the oil companies are complaining about supply and demand when there are oil producing nations that are not producing at full capacity (and are able to do so, as they claim, if they had a buyer for the oil). So if we're not exhausting the oil that can currently be produced, then why do we need to find new sources of oil? Also, in California specifically, we have lowered our demand for oil over the past two years, yet we have not seen a corresponding decrease in the price of gasoline in the state. It's still up from where the price was two years ago.
I wrote on a forum not too long ago that the statement that drilling for oil off the coast of the United States will lead to less dependence on foreign oil (thus leading to a decrease in price) is either ignorant or purposefully misleading. As I have stated, oil is globally traded on an open market not guaranteeing where it comes from. The rigs will also take years to be put into place so the benefits from offshore drilling will not be felt for a while (definitely contrary to the "immediate" relief that Americans would like). Also, since corporations have no national loyalty, there is absolutely no guarantee that the oil drilled in the United States will stay in the United States. It's just about as likely as a California State Quarter with Yosemite on the back will stay in California its entire life. I say if we want to drill off the coast we either need to nationalize our oil industry or else we need to have a written guarantee by the corporations that would be exploring for oil off the coasts that the oil will be sold domestically at a reduced market price so that way we can actually "solve" the problem of higher gas prices and our "reliance" on foreign oil.
Semantics Aside
Here we go again, another case of "ring around the rosie" with the horrifying issue of gay marriage.
Here's my very concise argument to the people who don't want to let it happen: seriously, go take the stick out of your rear, sit down, and meditate on things for a minute.
Let's go over the arguments, shall we?
1) Gay marriage is an assault on our traditional values, the sanctity of marriage, and the sacred institution of the family!
Answer: No it's not. I want Bible verses, please. Please show me exactly where it says that "No man shall enter into the covenant of marriage with another man, nor shall a woman enter into the covenant of marriage with another woman. It is forbidden and this sin shalt not stand in My presence." If you can find a verse very close to that, then I'll laugh at you and say, "So what?" Times change.
The "sanctity" of marriage? Please. People get married, divorced, have children, become abused, neglected, and commit adultery all the time in "sanctified heterosexual marriages." How many times do you actually hear of homosexual partners cheating on each other? It happens, just like in heterosexual marriages. That's the whole point. They're no different. Marriages between heterosexual couples are anything but sanctified. Marriage can be a wonderful, beautiful experience between two people who are in love and wish to share lives (and if you are so inclined to believe, eternity) together. Believe me, I have nothing against the so-called institution of marriage as it stands now. I hope to be involved in such a relationship myself. However, I cannot abide by people who claim that marriage between heterosexual couples is somehow "holy" and "sanctified" when it is broken and needs serious correction before it could truly be called by those adjectives. Fix the problems with your own sexual orientation before you go meddling in the affairs of other people's.
Also, the institution of the family has changed over the years. No longer is a family simply considered "mother, father, kids." Parents die, get divorced, get remarried, etc. etc. etc. Families come in many shapes and sizes now. Some people are raised by grandparents, others by aunts and uncles, others by not just their parents but their grandparents and their aunts and uncles as well. Some people grow up in foster homes, orphanages, with adoptive parents. How are these things the "traditional" family? A family really consists of a group of people who love each other, are willing to sacrifice for each other, and share a bond closer than that of friendship. Just because you have a mother and/or father doesn't mean you're close to them. Just because you're linked by genes doesn't make them family. Consequently, people who aren't of your genetic make-up can be closer to you than your biological kin could ever be. What defines the family then? And who says that two men or two women could not properly raise a child? There is no prerequisite that says you HAVE to be a heterogendered couple to properly raise a child, otherwise, you've messed it up. Single parents can raise children just fine (my mother and uncle are good examples of children raised by a single parent). So if a single parent can raise a child just fine, then why not let two people do it? They'll give the child the attention they deserve, they love they need, and the nourishment required. Besides, all the adoption agencies and foster homes are complaining that they are overcrowded and could use more couples to get into the adoption business. So if the need is so great, then why exclude people who genuinely want to do what's best for a child? The answer: simple prejudice and simple-mindedness.
2) In California, at least, homosexual couples are already given protection under civil unions. They only want the name "marriage" applied to them.
If civil unions are the same thing as marriages, then it's a matter of semantics. So why not just let them call it marriage? Let's look to some things, shall we? Marriage is a religious institution that has been secularized by the United States government for purposes of taxation benefits as well as insurance and retirement benefits. Essentially, marriage is one big benefits package. If you look at marriage as a religious institution, as many religious groups do and will when making their argument in argument 1), then under the Constitution of this country, Congress (and if Congress can't, then no state government can) cannot bar the free practice of religion. Therefore, I would argue to you that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. But since marriage in the United States is not a religious institution, but rather a secular one, then I would bring up Brown vs. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas of the early 1950s. This brought up the whole idea of the "separate but equal" issue. While the case proved that the institutions that were involved in the Brown vs. BoE case were not equal, I think the same principle can be applied here to the whole Civil Union vs. Marriage debate. The two institutions of civil union and marriage are defined as "separate but equal." Essentially they offer the same things (at least when it comes to benefits from the State of California). But in the era of racism and segregation that proliferated the Southern United States from the 1860s to the 1960s (and even until today in some parts) can we argue that this whole civil union thing is just another way of legal segregation. It's California's own Jim Crow Laws in effect. We don't want to give homosexuals the right to marry, so let's just let them have this completely separate institution called "civil unions" that will allow them to gain benefits, but keep them out of our churches. Grow up.
My mom, who actually instituted argument 2) at the dinner table last night, actually had a really good idea to solve this whole problem. Let's just get rid of marriage as a secular institution. Let's just call all state "marriages" civil unions from now on. If you want to get married, you'll go into a church and they can perform the lavish ceremony that you want and it will be all religious (and to each church their own), but you'll sign a "Civil Union License" instead of a "Marriage License." That way, marriage will stay where it belongs, in the churches, and the government will be neutral and equal to all its citizens (as it should be). What would be so wrong with that? I would like to see anyone argue that point effectively without entering into an endless stream of religious psychobabble that is completely inadmissible in a secular argument. It's not up to the government to keep your religious tenants safe, it's up to the government to keep all religions safe (as long as they are not harming people, private property, or the Constitution).
3) Gay marriage will lead to bestiality and all kinds of other evil activities!
Yes, that's what they said about interracial marriages 50 years ago. Again, grow up. Besides, if you're worried about bestiality, you can deny marriage rights to an animal. They are not citizens of the United States, so they don't deserve equal protection under the law as we do.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I'm only picking this church out because I have been a member of it and have had some experience with this faith), as is customary, issed a statement stating that members needed to vote for the upcoming amendment to the California Constitution banning gay marriage as it is necessary to "preserve the sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family." I will argue that this statement is both unnecessary and hypocritical. We only need to make the case for my argument against the "sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family" in Part 1 of this two-part note. The hypocritical part is where I shall make a new argument.
The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith to give a definitive standard of what the Mormons (the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have been known as) believe. All in all there are 13 Articles of Faith. The one I would like to draw everyone's attention to is Article 11, which states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." If this Article is supposed to be one of the pillars of the LDS Church's beliefs, then why are they contradicting it by asking their members to deny the right of people to worship God in their own way? Isn't marriage a religious institution that is afforded to the race of men by God to establish the institution that we now know as the "family?" Well, if a church's definition of God's Will is different then theirs, then are they not worshiping "how, where, or what they may?" Perhaps the Article, like the Second Amendment of the Constitution, was very vague. Perhaps it really intended to say, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may; except in the case of gay marriage, which would lead to the dissolution of the family and the collapse of all modern civilization, in which case the aforementioned Article of Faith is to be suspended until the abhoration of gay marriage is abolished." I might draw the ire of some of my LDS friends, but one cannot deny the fact that this is a contradiction of principle. One cannot say that they allow men to worship God how, where, and what they may while imposing restrictions upon them when they want to worship in a manner different from them.
To all religions, I say let your own religion dictate whether or not you are willing to marry homosexual couples in your church and allow the government to remain neutral on the subject and grant equal protection to all its citizens under the law.
Here's my very concise argument to the people who don't want to let it happen: seriously, go take the stick out of your rear, sit down, and meditate on things for a minute.
Let's go over the arguments, shall we?
1) Gay marriage is an assault on our traditional values, the sanctity of marriage, and the sacred institution of the family!
Answer: No it's not. I want Bible verses, please. Please show me exactly where it says that "No man shall enter into the covenant of marriage with another man, nor shall a woman enter into the covenant of marriage with another woman. It is forbidden and this sin shalt not stand in My presence." If you can find a verse very close to that, then I'll laugh at you and say, "So what?" Times change.
The "sanctity" of marriage? Please. People get married, divorced, have children, become abused, neglected, and commit adultery all the time in "sanctified heterosexual marriages." How many times do you actually hear of homosexual partners cheating on each other? It happens, just like in heterosexual marriages. That's the whole point. They're no different. Marriages between heterosexual couples are anything but sanctified. Marriage can be a wonderful, beautiful experience between two people who are in love and wish to share lives (and if you are so inclined to believe, eternity) together. Believe me, I have nothing against the so-called institution of marriage as it stands now. I hope to be involved in such a relationship myself. However, I cannot abide by people who claim that marriage between heterosexual couples is somehow "holy" and "sanctified" when it is broken and needs serious correction before it could truly be called by those adjectives. Fix the problems with your own sexual orientation before you go meddling in the affairs of other people's.
Also, the institution of the family has changed over the years. No longer is a family simply considered "mother, father, kids." Parents die, get divorced, get remarried, etc. etc. etc. Families come in many shapes and sizes now. Some people are raised by grandparents, others by aunts and uncles, others by not just their parents but their grandparents and their aunts and uncles as well. Some people grow up in foster homes, orphanages, with adoptive parents. How are these things the "traditional" family? A family really consists of a group of people who love each other, are willing to sacrifice for each other, and share a bond closer than that of friendship. Just because you have a mother and/or father doesn't mean you're close to them. Just because you're linked by genes doesn't make them family. Consequently, people who aren't of your genetic make-up can be closer to you than your biological kin could ever be. What defines the family then? And who says that two men or two women could not properly raise a child? There is no prerequisite that says you HAVE to be a heterogendered couple to properly raise a child, otherwise, you've messed it up. Single parents can raise children just fine (my mother and uncle are good examples of children raised by a single parent). So if a single parent can raise a child just fine, then why not let two people do it? They'll give the child the attention they deserve, they love they need, and the nourishment required. Besides, all the adoption agencies and foster homes are complaining that they are overcrowded and could use more couples to get into the adoption business. So if the need is so great, then why exclude people who genuinely want to do what's best for a child? The answer: simple prejudice and simple-mindedness.
2) In California, at least, homosexual couples are already given protection under civil unions. They only want the name "marriage" applied to them.
If civil unions are the same thing as marriages, then it's a matter of semantics. So why not just let them call it marriage? Let's look to some things, shall we? Marriage is a religious institution that has been secularized by the United States government for purposes of taxation benefits as well as insurance and retirement benefits. Essentially, marriage is one big benefits package. If you look at marriage as a religious institution, as many religious groups do and will when making their argument in argument 1), then under the Constitution of this country, Congress (and if Congress can't, then no state government can) cannot bar the free practice of religion. Therefore, I would argue to you that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. But since marriage in the United States is not a religious institution, but rather a secular one, then I would bring up Brown vs. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas of the early 1950s. This brought up the whole idea of the "separate but equal" issue. While the case proved that the institutions that were involved in the Brown vs. BoE case were not equal, I think the same principle can be applied here to the whole Civil Union vs. Marriage debate. The two institutions of civil union and marriage are defined as "separate but equal." Essentially they offer the same things (at least when it comes to benefits from the State of California). But in the era of racism and segregation that proliferated the Southern United States from the 1860s to the 1960s (and even until today in some parts) can we argue that this whole civil union thing is just another way of legal segregation. It's California's own Jim Crow Laws in effect. We don't want to give homosexuals the right to marry, so let's just let them have this completely separate institution called "civil unions" that will allow them to gain benefits, but keep them out of our churches. Grow up.
My mom, who actually instituted argument 2) at the dinner table last night, actually had a really good idea to solve this whole problem. Let's just get rid of marriage as a secular institution. Let's just call all state "marriages" civil unions from now on. If you want to get married, you'll go into a church and they can perform the lavish ceremony that you want and it will be all religious (and to each church their own), but you'll sign a "Civil Union License" instead of a "Marriage License." That way, marriage will stay where it belongs, in the churches, and the government will be neutral and equal to all its citizens (as it should be). What would be so wrong with that? I would like to see anyone argue that point effectively without entering into an endless stream of religious psychobabble that is completely inadmissible in a secular argument. It's not up to the government to keep your religious tenants safe, it's up to the government to keep all religions safe (as long as they are not harming people, private property, or the Constitution).
3) Gay marriage will lead to bestiality and all kinds of other evil activities!
Yes, that's what they said about interracial marriages 50 years ago. Again, grow up. Besides, if you're worried about bestiality, you can deny marriage rights to an animal. They are not citizens of the United States, so they don't deserve equal protection under the law as we do.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I'm only picking this church out because I have been a member of it and have had some experience with this faith), as is customary, issed a statement stating that members needed to vote for the upcoming amendment to the California Constitution banning gay marriage as it is necessary to "preserve the sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family." I will argue that this statement is both unnecessary and hypocritical. We only need to make the case for my argument against the "sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family" in Part 1 of this two-part note. The hypocritical part is where I shall make a new argument.
The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith to give a definitive standard of what the Mormons (the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have been known as) believe. All in all there are 13 Articles of Faith. The one I would like to draw everyone's attention to is Article 11, which states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." If this Article is supposed to be one of the pillars of the LDS Church's beliefs, then why are they contradicting it by asking their members to deny the right of people to worship God in their own way? Isn't marriage a religious institution that is afforded to the race of men by God to establish the institution that we now know as the "family?" Well, if a church's definition of God's Will is different then theirs, then are they not worshiping "how, where, or what they may?" Perhaps the Article, like the Second Amendment of the Constitution, was very vague. Perhaps it really intended to say, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may; except in the case of gay marriage, which would lead to the dissolution of the family and the collapse of all modern civilization, in which case the aforementioned Article of Faith is to be suspended until the abhoration of gay marriage is abolished." I might draw the ire of some of my LDS friends, but one cannot deny the fact that this is a contradiction of principle. One cannot say that they allow men to worship God how, where, and what they may while imposing restrictions upon them when they want to worship in a manner different from them.
To all religions, I say let your own religion dictate whether or not you are willing to marry homosexual couples in your church and allow the government to remain neutral on the subject and grant equal protection to all its citizens under the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
