Prop. 8 boils down to redefining what the institution of marriage is, and whether it's traditional definition should evolve. As I've stated, I've thought it through on many logical aspects and could efficiently argue both sides (without naively resorting to character attacks). Those who argue that Prop. 8 is discriminatory are right in saying so, but not necessarily with the malicious undertones that are attached with the word "discrimination". The truth of the matter is that any and every institution is discriminatory towards one group or more. (example: Leisure World is a geriatric institution that discriminates people under a certain age, that's reverse agism) Just pick an institution and I guarantee you'll find discrimination everywhere, hmm...the discrimination argument doesn't really seem that strong now does it? Or should we go around picketing at every institution?
"Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service. As structures and mechanisms of social order among humans, institutions are one of the principal objects of study in the social sciences, including sociology, political science and economics. Institutions are a central concern for law, the formal regime for political rule-making and enforcement. The creation and evolution of institutions is a primary topic for history." Wikipedia
The institution of marriage is a social structure that legally unites men and women with the intent to create a family and was/is not founded on discrimination, (discrimination is a natural result that comes with the fact that marriage is an institution). Now we all know it doesn't always happen that way, but I intend to uphold that ideal, regardless. I have the assurance that in my lifetime, gay marriage will be backed by our legal system. I don't agree with it, and I will never vote for it. I will just tally it up as another social blunder.
As for people calling God a jackass, you obviously don't know him or care to know him, so feel free to call him what you will. He's been called worse. Jesus Christ was crucified by a group of people who felt the way same way most of you feel right now. They saw a man that was telling them to change their behavior, and they said "we ain't changing shit!" They called him the lord of flies (Beelzebub, which implies that he rules over feces which is the major source of flies) and tried to shut his mouth by killing him. Truth is, despite the people's rebellion against choosing his "better way", he loves them and despises their sin.
People become involved in homosexual practices for many reasons. Those who feel they were born that way are not sinners for their natural attractions, sin doesn't come into play until that attraction is acted upon. I don't believe God made anyone the way they are. I believe he created humans and gave them guidelines as to how they should live, if they want to return to his presence. If you don't feel a desire to love God or even admit that he exists, so be it. I believe he is real, and when our mortal existence comes to an end and it's time for him to mete out our rewards, he will REWARD everyone according to their works. Everyone will feel that the reward they recieved was just, because God is just. Not everyone will return to live in his presence, but that does not mean that they are going to hell.
Not all christians hate homosexuals. I don't hate them, I love them, I just don't make love to them. Shame on anyone who does things to others with malicious intent. When all is said and done there is only one thing that truly matters to me. God loves us all and desires the best for us, even though we hate him for asking us to show restraint. I have natural urges to sleep with a lot of women and I'm married. I have to struggle with my sexuality as well. I have an even greater urge to kill and torture people, it almost consumes me at times (I know I got issues), but I must fight my "natural" urges to the day I die if I want to recieve a greater glory. I've asked God to strip me of these feelings, but I've come to the conclusion that this must be my obstacle to overcome, and in the end I can show him that I overcame.
always desiring for the unity in community,
Salvador
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Protests and Arguments on Proposition 8
Voicing your opinion, empowering or just whiny? It's funny how I voted yes on 8 after much consideration and without a hint of hatred in my heart for anyone, yet many people (who voted no on 8) feel the need to ignorantly attach an air of negativity to anyone who doesn't hold their position. The ironic thing about it is that they spew hatred while simultaneously repeating the clever "no on h8!"
Before I continue, Prop. 8 is being referred to as the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century. Really?! Prop. 8 is the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century?! People who are gay are suffering the black experience of the early to mid 1900s? As a whole, they're getting hosed down, raped, robbed, beaten, lynched/murdered, stripped, tarred and feathered, and forced to use sub-standard facilities apart from society? Wow! Not getting to say, "we're married!" holds equal weight to the aforementioned? Or, is it more like the Latino experience where they're currently suffering police brutality, racial profiling, deportation, absurd sentencing, wages far below minimum wage, and severe discrimination for their APPEARANCE, not their lifestyle? Hmm, Prop. 8 falls under that umbrella?...interesting.
I've previously stated several reasons for voting yes on 8, (I won't be a broken record about it) and discrimination and hatred had nothing to do with it, in the least degree. My vote was based on logic and reasoning. I could see and understand why people voted no on 8. I feel that to take an educated stance on anything, you must first be able to effectively argue all sides of the issue at hand. And, likewise be respectful of people who decide to take the opposing stance. Attack the issues, not the people. I recognize, as I feel you must have by this point, the ignorance that has almost thoroughly permeated both parties. But, enough of the soap box speech. My words seem to fall upon deaf ears. I was hoping that after the people had spoken, the issue would be put behind us. How "un-American" of me to accept the people's voice on this matter. This topic is obviously more important than, I don't know, people losing their life to actual WAR, to drug trafficking, to a prejudiced judicial system, to poverty, to mafia's and gangs, to rape, to incest, to child abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual), etc. Let's continue this discussion that really has nothing to offer me or my people. Oh, I see the error of my ways, (sarcastically) let's fight for a group of people who aren't being IMPRISONED or MASSACRED, and are doing well off in our economy and society (collectively). Let me stand behind a group of people who are warring against another group's moral stance over semantics, not rights, SEMANTICS.
Unless, someone is willing to participate in an educated exchange of ideas, I will no longer engage in a discussion that is completely irrelevant to me.
Good luck with your "struggle",
Salvador
Before I continue, Prop. 8 is being referred to as the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century. Really?! Prop. 8 is the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st Century?! People who are gay are suffering the black experience of the early to mid 1900s? As a whole, they're getting hosed down, raped, robbed, beaten, lynched/murdered, stripped, tarred and feathered, and forced to use sub-standard facilities apart from society? Wow! Not getting to say, "we're married!" holds equal weight to the aforementioned? Or, is it more like the Latino experience where they're currently suffering police brutality, racial profiling, deportation, absurd sentencing, wages far below minimum wage, and severe discrimination for their APPEARANCE, not their lifestyle? Hmm, Prop. 8 falls under that umbrella?...interesting.
I've previously stated several reasons for voting yes on 8, (I won't be a broken record about it) and discrimination and hatred had nothing to do with it, in the least degree. My vote was based on logic and reasoning. I could see and understand why people voted no on 8. I feel that to take an educated stance on anything, you must first be able to effectively argue all sides of the issue at hand. And, likewise be respectful of people who decide to take the opposing stance. Attack the issues, not the people. I recognize, as I feel you must have by this point, the ignorance that has almost thoroughly permeated both parties. But, enough of the soap box speech. My words seem to fall upon deaf ears. I was hoping that after the people had spoken, the issue would be put behind us. How "un-American" of me to accept the people's voice on this matter. This topic is obviously more important than, I don't know, people losing their life to actual WAR, to drug trafficking, to a prejudiced judicial system, to poverty, to mafia's and gangs, to rape, to incest, to child abuse (emotional, physical, and sexual), etc. Let's continue this discussion that really has nothing to offer me or my people. Oh, I see the error of my ways, (sarcastically) let's fight for a group of people who aren't being IMPRISONED or MASSACRED, and are doing well off in our economy and society (collectively). Let me stand behind a group of people who are warring against another group's moral stance over semantics, not rights, SEMANTICS.
Unless, someone is willing to participate in an educated exchange of ideas, I will no longer engage in a discussion that is completely irrelevant to me.
Good luck with your "struggle",
Salvador
Friday, October 24, 2008
Let Me Take Your Rationales on Gay Marriage for a Brisk Run
Does the bandwagon have room for one more? Let’s just use our imaginations a little. How open-minded and understanding are we really, and how far are we willing to go with this? Who has the right to draw the line and set the limits? Oh, the audacity of some people…setting boundaries. Let’s take the abstract concept of “fundamental rights” that seems to be escaping everyone’s lips (as if the notion was universally accepted or defined without the liberty of interpretation) and run with it, but not too extreme. Although, some may already feel that Gay marriage is extreme. Let’s pretend that we have forgotten what a social contract is, (a concept which serves as the foundation upon which all civilized societies are built upon). Let’s make believe that the phrase separation of church and state is what people are misinterpreting it to be; as if the majority of our standing laws have no moral basis stemming from religion.
Let’s try to shed all those icky memes that we received from our GUARDIANS and turn our backs on laws that “protect” the fundamental unit of society, and do away with all that religious mumbo jumbo that has carried humanity on its back for so long. People are spitting out this new concept of memes as if all ideas and thoughts carry the same weight, but let’s pretend they do. It’s the dawn of a new era. I like that idea, a lot. The rationale I’m hearing is that nobody should interfere with consenting adults wanting to get together. If everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the fundamental right to marry, then the law should not have anything in the books to prevent gay marriage.
The next thing to take off the books is polygamy. Hey, if it involves consenting adults, then why should we care, legalize bigamy and polygamy, they are moral constructs infused into our laws. Hmm, I’d like that, (I think). Better yet, if the “government” is to be stripped of religious influence, then why do they care where and how I get my kicks. If the whole basis is individual rights and adult consent, then legalize prostitution. It could increase Federal revenues and decrease divorce rates (and broken homes), why buy a freakin’ cow when you could get the milk elsewhere. Why marry? Just commit to being companions with someone in an open relationship, if that’s what you want. Along those lines, adultery should have no standing in court cases. It involves consenting adults…who’s to say what’s “wrong” and what’s “right”, right? Who cares about the fathers, mothers, children, friends, etc. getting their wittle fee-wings hurt, it’s “just a MEME we barf out *shakes fist*”, right?
As long as I get what I want out of life without morals impeding with my aspirations then my fundamental rights will be preserved. So why stop there, if alcohol is legal and makes me feel good, why aren’t all drugs legal? If you merely scratch the surface of investigating our nation’s drug laws, you’ll quickly find that they stemmed from fear and racism from "white" politicians who felt threatened by the Chinese and their opium dens in northern California; thinking that their white women were being corrupted, Oh no! minorities pleasing white women, destruction is imminent! Let’s be as adamant about abolishing those laws too. Our prisons won’t be as crowded, or will they? I love how little justifications chip away at the greater whole. Wow, who knew that using LOGIC could be so much fun?! I'll stop there, or should I continue? No, I've probably ruffled enough feathers by now.
I love slippery slopes. I also, love trotting around the high horse of self-righteousness and trampling over antiquated religious ideals. Who needs that crap about self-restraint and principles when we have secularism? We have selfish; I mean, self-governance and group consensus. Who cares if the masses are asses?! Let’s embrace free thought and exploration of new memes, despite the dreadful cost, yay hippies, uh…I mean progression!
Proposition 8 is not an issue of hate, although tragically many people are treating it that way on both sides (religious freaks showing contempt to homosexuals, and free-thinking kooks despising people who hold traditional values). Let us overlook the obstacles placed before us by these two extremes and try to foresee the course we embark on. People can be naïve, bigoted, and close-minded on voting Yes or No on the issue, whether they recognize it or not. And with that, I dismount the bandwagon of cynicism, trendy ideals and acceptance.
With love, for all,
Salvador
Let’s try to shed all those icky memes that we received from our GUARDIANS and turn our backs on laws that “protect” the fundamental unit of society, and do away with all that religious mumbo jumbo that has carried humanity on its back for so long. People are spitting out this new concept of memes as if all ideas and thoughts carry the same weight, but let’s pretend they do. It’s the dawn of a new era. I like that idea, a lot. The rationale I’m hearing is that nobody should interfere with consenting adults wanting to get together. If everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the fundamental right to marry, then the law should not have anything in the books to prevent gay marriage.
The next thing to take off the books is polygamy. Hey, if it involves consenting adults, then why should we care, legalize bigamy and polygamy, they are moral constructs infused into our laws. Hmm, I’d like that, (I think). Better yet, if the “government” is to be stripped of religious influence, then why do they care where and how I get my kicks. If the whole basis is individual rights and adult consent, then legalize prostitution. It could increase Federal revenues and decrease divorce rates (and broken homes), why buy a freakin’ cow when you could get the milk elsewhere. Why marry? Just commit to being companions with someone in an open relationship, if that’s what you want. Along those lines, adultery should have no standing in court cases. It involves consenting adults…who’s to say what’s “wrong” and what’s “right”, right? Who cares about the fathers, mothers, children, friends, etc. getting their wittle fee-wings hurt, it’s “just a MEME we barf out *shakes fist*”, right?
As long as I get what I want out of life without morals impeding with my aspirations then my fundamental rights will be preserved. So why stop there, if alcohol is legal and makes me feel good, why aren’t all drugs legal? If you merely scratch the surface of investigating our nation’s drug laws, you’ll quickly find that they stemmed from fear and racism from "white" politicians who felt threatened by the Chinese and their opium dens in northern California; thinking that their white women were being corrupted, Oh no! minorities pleasing white women, destruction is imminent! Let’s be as adamant about abolishing those laws too. Our prisons won’t be as crowded, or will they? I love how little justifications chip away at the greater whole. Wow, who knew that using LOGIC could be so much fun?! I'll stop there, or should I continue? No, I've probably ruffled enough feathers by now.
I love slippery slopes. I also, love trotting around the high horse of self-righteousness and trampling over antiquated religious ideals. Who needs that crap about self-restraint and principles when we have secularism? We have selfish; I mean, self-governance and group consensus. Who cares if the masses are asses?! Let’s embrace free thought and exploration of new memes, despite the dreadful cost, yay hippies, uh…I mean progression!
Proposition 8 is not an issue of hate, although tragically many people are treating it that way on both sides (religious freaks showing contempt to homosexuals, and free-thinking kooks despising people who hold traditional values). Let us overlook the obstacles placed before us by these two extremes and try to foresee the course we embark on. People can be naïve, bigoted, and close-minded on voting Yes or No on the issue, whether they recognize it or not. And with that, I dismount the bandwagon of cynicism, trendy ideals and acceptance.
With love, for all,
Salvador
Saturday, October 4, 2008
People seem to have a problem with other people who don't stereotype.
I am not one to put a limit or condition on the human mind. I firmly believe that there is no obstacle that the human mind can't overcome. Time and experience can eventually decrease/eliminate bias. The problem with saying that everyone stereotypes is that it is a generalization, and like we know, all generalizations are inherently erroneous, including this one. Nevertheless, I could see how individuals may have an issue with a person who is tolerant and understanding of all.
First of all, there is a degree of indignation toward someone who has presumably achieved something that is thought to be impossible, and the claimer is seen as presumptuous. Secondly, there is a paradox if a person completely avoids judging and/or stereotyping. People who haven't achieved that level of understanding and empathy toward all see something wrong with this supposed unbiased person in order to attribute a flaw in their character and thus "humanize" them.
For example, an unbiased person says: "I have no problem with anyone", to which the skeptic retorts: "So, you have no problem with Hitler, and with what he did?" This is a catch-22 for the so-called unbiased individual, he/she answers "No" and they instantly become a heartless bigot; he/she anwers "Yes" and their I-don't-judge-people claim is automatically debunked. Truth of the matter is, that in life there is black and white, and all degrees of shades in between. Alfred Kinsey said it best when making a reference to male sexual behavior "the world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html With that rationale, people can be categorized on a continuum, falling on and between the two extremes of being extremely (racist, biased, prejudiced, etc.) and being completely (empathetic, understanding, impartial, etc.).
First of all, there is a degree of indignation toward someone who has presumably achieved something that is thought to be impossible, and the claimer is seen as presumptuous. Secondly, there is a paradox if a person completely avoids judging and/or stereotyping. People who haven't achieved that level of understanding and empathy toward all see something wrong with this supposed unbiased person in order to attribute a flaw in their character and thus "humanize" them.
For example, an unbiased person says: "I have no problem with anyone", to which the skeptic retorts: "So, you have no problem with Hitler, and with what he did?" This is a catch-22 for the so-called unbiased individual, he/she answers "No" and they instantly become a heartless bigot; he/she anwers "Yes" and their I-don't-judge-people claim is automatically debunked. Truth of the matter is, that in life there is black and white, and all degrees of shades in between. Alfred Kinsey said it best when making a reference to male sexual behavior "the world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html With that rationale, people can be categorized on a continuum, falling on and between the two extremes of being extremely (racist, biased, prejudiced, etc.) and being completely (empathetic, understanding, impartial, etc.).
Monday, September 15, 2008
DNA transmission complete!
His protein coat moved through the new acidic environment with more speed, his flagella lashed with greater intensity, and with a devastating entrance into the ova he brought death to millions of his cohorts. Two cells melded into one, then divided exponentially until it created this; the only surviving remnants of that night's emissions. The process was nothing short of miraculous and his birth has given me incentive not to bring an end to my own life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
