Why US?
July 2, 2008
The United States is a superpower that runs to the aid of third world countries because that is their role as big brother…no pun intended…really. Trouble is, why aren’t they keeping up with their own household first? We have national debt, homeless VETS, corrupt officials, and troubles in our own homeland that need to be taken care of before we can help someone else. Why not? Why not better our country? Let the other countries better their realms as they please while we do ours as we please. Read more
Tags: United States
Why I’m Not An Activist
March 14, 2008
I have long had strong convictions for the minority groups. Whether they be the minority race or status, I have always wanted to help people. I am a people person. I feel for people and their situations. I can place myself in their situation and know their hardships.
But I cannot be an activist in general because I do not like the stigma that they perpetuate. Activists become so engrossed in their causes at times that they lose sight of the motivating factors; it becomes a race to win rather than a fight for equality. Read more
SOLD!
January 31, 2008
In thinking about the state of the US, our laws and thinking, and our ever pending money issues, I began to think about gay rights. I know the debates and the attacks on gay and lesbian marriages (and have made some comments on the matter before), but what I cannot understand is why people cannot look at it from a monetary point of view.
In today’s economy where everyone is complaining about debt and social security, why would you take other avenues of revenue off the table? Think about all that goes into preparing a marriage ceremony: the dresses, the tuxes, the catering, the marriage certificate, the band, the church, the car services, the plane tickets, the hotel rooms…etc. etc. etc…. Sure, gays and lesbians still have ‘gay marriages‘, but how many forgo the bells and whistles knowing that it will not been seen as legal in the eyes of the judicials? So many gays and lesbians will have a ring ceremony or something special with just their friends, but so many would love for more. It is not just a straight girl’s dream to have the princess wedding.
And why not take the monetary value to another level? Why not enforce a tax or subsidy or some sort of extra fee for a gay or lesbian marriage? Now before you all get your panties in a bunch, hear me out. Now we all know the dissension between the Christian Advocates and the Gay Marriage Supporters as well as how much Americans cannot handle change, but we have to take some lessons from history. When Lincoln freed the slaves, there were not mixed socials the next day celebrating this newfound ‘justice.’ It has been said that Rome was not built in a day. We need to take what we can get in order to work towards what we want.
I myself cannot understand why dissenters waste their money on ruling everyone else’s lives.
Tags: gay marriages, lesbian marriage
Can’t, Never Could
November 5, 2007
I had a teacher once who hated to see her kids give up so easily on anything. Whenever she would hear us say that we can’t do something, she would say to us: can’t, never could. It never really made any sense in my mind’s eye, but today is a little more clear. See, if we say we cannot do something, then logically we never could have done it, right? In other words, the only reason not to be able to do something is because it just never was doable. But if it could be done, then I should be able to do it and not saying that I can’t.
I recently read an opinion article of a young man who thought it fitting to propose the title ‘You Can’t Protect Everything.’ My disdain for the article has nothing to do with its title however. Let’s take a look at an excerpt from that article:
Let me express the voice of those thinking students who understand what nondiscrimination really should be about.
If you look carefully at the list of things which the university does not discriminate against, they are all things that one is. They are not things that one does.
In other words, I did not choose to be born male. Nor did I choose to be born white. In fact, with ever more shrill cries for affirmative action, I might have chosen to be born neither.
The policy states that the University does not discriminate based on “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability or veteran status,” according the article.
Each of these affiliations relates to things that a person is. A person is black. A person is female. A person is old. A person is disabled. One doesn’t choose to be these things. One simply is.
Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.
While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.
There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.
But, let’s say there was a gay gene. How would this gene be inherited? How would this gene last for more than one generation?
I was so taken aback by this ‘educated’ man’s ignorance that I simply had to post a reply to his column in the comments section. My comments on his opinion:
“Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.”
Why is it justifiable to make exceptions to a point that you are attempting to make so as to merely support your side? You attempt to make a point that we do not choose to be a sex, race, or age, etc. and therefore should rightfully not discriminate against those, but not homosexuality. Yet, you realize that your point does not hold water when it comes to the aspect of religion so you are quick to make the First Amendment comment. What about ‘veteran status’? Don’t we have those who choose to go into the military, thus choosing this status?
“While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.”
Really? I didn’t know I ‘do homosexuality.’ I was under the impression that I ‘am’ a homosexual. So do you ‘do straight’ or are you just straight?
“There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.”
There is also no such thing as the religion gene or the veteran gene for that matter. But that’s not what is up for discussion is it? So why bring up a moot point?
And then to go on to compare homosexuality to body piercings! I love it! Let’s not stop there, though. Let’s not forget about clothes! The government should not protect us from being discriminated against because of what we wear! That’s our choice after all! But wait… does not a nun wear a habit and priest wear their vestments? So we can discriminate against them because they are wearing silly clothes…no wait, we can’t because they are religious people who only wear them because that is their religion so to discriminate against them would be to discriminate them based on their religion…wait…right?!
The thing with clothes and jewelry and any other accessory you choose to adorn for the day is that these are all accessories! These are not who you ‘are.’ But then you will say that you can choose not to be gay, right? But then you still have to admit that being gay or straight is just that: ‘being.’ You are comparing inanimate objects to a state of being. This is like comparing apples and parachutes.
All in all, you attempt to bring up several points as to why rights of homosexuals should not be protected, but when you apply the vacuum test, they fail. You cannot apply one logic to homosexuality, one to religion, and then yet another to veteran status.
Do a little more research before you post illogical barbel. After all, even an opinion should use some logic; because if it doesn’t, it’s really just a load of bull.
I would like to point out that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Sure, many think that being gay is a choice. So today I’m gonna choose to be gay. Tomorrow I think I’ll choose to be bi. Maybe next week I’ll dabble with ‘other’. I’ll choose to be straight only every other weekday though….
Obviously the author and I have different opinions on what our choices are, but it is not for lack of knowledge or research that I make the statements that I make. An educated opinion, while still an opinion, allows for educated debate.
Just as when I spoke on children growing up raised by gay parents, I think it is highly illogical that someone would choose to be chastised all their life. That even as a young child, that they would go against peer pressure and love someone of the same sex. So when someone says to me that being gay is a choice, I have to wonder why? Why would someone choose to be the outcast? Perhaps because I don’t choose to be an outcast, I will never understand it, but I still want to. I try to put myself in other people’s shoes; play devil’s advocate so to speak, but I still can’t understand the ‘why’.
I must say, I enjoyed one follow-up editorial that another student wrote. There were a couple of others who wrote in reply to the editorial as well:
Sexuality, Rights Are Who I Am
All in all we realize that no one will ever have the ‘right’ answers; that in a world where relativity and opinions allow us to be the ignorant race that we are, we cannot find the happy medium that is unity.
Tags: discriminate, homosexuality, ignorance, gay, rights, opinions, choice
Anti Abortion Alley
November 1, 2007
On April 1, 2004, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law. Also known as Laci and Conner’s Law, the law establishes that one may be prosecuted for causing death or bodily injury to an unborn child.
`(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that–`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
I find the wording peculiar. The very premise of abortion laws now is that a ‘baby’ is not really a living member of the homo sapien community until it is out of the mother’s womb. Yet, this law is calling this entity an ‘unborn child’. Bush’s press secretary quotes:
“The President does believe that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims.”
So how is it that we are supposed to accept abortion laws when the current laws contend that the fetus is an unborn child and the President insists that a crime against this unborn child has two victims? Obviously pro-abortionists caught onto the snafu too because they were in an uproar.
However, one abortionist in New Hampshire, Dr. Wayne Goldner, candidly gave his position on the Peterson case, “On a realistic basis, (the fetus) was not a human being, it was a potential human being,” he said.
I love this ‘idea’ the best. ‘Potential’ human being?? Is this guy for real? And he has a PhD??!! Is this to say that the fetus may or may not be a human? Color me confused, but I thought once a woman became pregnant, we throw them ‘baby’ showers…not ‘potential’ baby showers. Sure, he may be going on the premise that this unborn fetus may never get to be born due to complications during pregnancy or other horrors, but does that make it any less of a human? The syntax is wrong if that is what he was trying to say, but what befuddles me the most is that someone so educated could make such a stupid remark.
The law does contend that it cannot be used against those who choose to have an abortion. But it that does not make it any less illogical. Here we have a law that contends if someone kills or causes ‘bodily’ (and on an aside…how can we say this is not yet a human being, but it still has a body?) harm to an unborn child, that they have committed two crimes: one against the mother, and the other against the unborn child. Yet, if a mother decides to kill their baby, there is no crime… Why does it matter the manner in which one takes to terminate the life of this unborn fetus?
I think the abortion debate is flawed in many areas. Anti-abortionists contend that we should not play God and that abortion is murder (also against Christian beliefs). Yet, they can go around judging, slandering, and hindering their brothers. How does this make them any better of a Christian? The Bible contends that there is no difference in the weight of sins. Abortionists contend that we should have the choice to do whatever we want to with our own body because it is ours. Yet the Bible contends that the body is God’s temple. The Bible does also contend that we have free will. This means we have the choice to do whatever we want to (good or bad), yet Anti-abortionists cannot allow for it? They want to say that it is wrong to play God or go against the Word of God, yet they cannot allow others to institute the free will that God gave to us all? Hypocrites.
I myself am Pro-Choice, but given the choice, I would choose not have an abortion. And if anyone asked me what they should do, I would tell them every time not to have an abortion. I do not believe in abortions, but I do believe that we should have the choice that is given to us through the free will that God has granted us. I do not think it is appropriate to call Pro-Choicers ‘Pro-Death’ because that is not what they are. They are exactly what they are labeled: pro-choice. Because like in my instance, I am against abortions, but still pro-choice. So I cannot be pro-death if I do not condone it.
Do I think there should be anti-abortion laws on the book? Yes. Why? Because I think abortions have become the new birth control and it has done a great injustice not only to the unborn children, but to the mothers as well. Just as we have to have sanctions to ensure order, I think we should have sanctions to ensure our legacy, safety, and good name.
Tags: Unborn Victims of Violence Act, abortion, unborn fetus, pro-choice
Broken Homes?
September 5, 2007
When a marriage ends, a straight couple breaks up, or a woman becomes a single mother; in any means, the child should be taken from the woman. After all, Christian activists contend that gays and lesbians should not have kids because a child needs both a mother and a father. So the same should apply to single parents. Because the child cannot have both a mother and a father, the child should be taken away and given to those who can provide the nuclear unit.
But the child would still be able to see his or her father, you say? Why then cannot the same argument be applied to a gay or lesbian family? Because you do not want it to? Because the family is gay or lesbian? What does that have to with anything? Once a family is split up, does that automatically make them bad homes?
The children will learn to be gay you say? What about the children that are allowed to stay in homes where the father abuses the mother or the child? Will they then learn to be abusers? What about the homes where the mother or the father is of a certain profession? A baseball player or a housewife? Will they learn to become a baseball player or a housewife? What about the ones where the mother or the father is of a certain religion? Will the child then be that religion? If we as adults know anything about growing up, we know that first, it is not learned that we follow in our parent’s footsteps, but also that we have control over our lives.
It is a well known fact that we do not always become our parents. If anything, we rebel against our family unit. We rebel against their ordeals, beliefs, and wants. Why would we expect any different from a child growing up in a gay family? Would not the horrors of the bashing that their parents are surely to meet be enough to detract them away from that way of life (if, as you contend, homosexuality is a learned act)?
Who wants to be abused and judged? Who would voluntarily step into the depths of despair? Who would voluntarily take on that judgment? That wrath? The world is not accepting of gays and lesbians so why would a child learn to be gay when they see the discrimination? Would not that teach them to not be gay? Being gay means to be hated, despised, ridiculed, beaten, and made fun of. Why would that mean that the child would then allow for it? Would not the child learn that this is in fact not the way to go? It would seem that the way to keep a child from going gay would be to have them placed in a gay family. After all, if they see the abuse and homosexuality is supposedly a choice of the person, would not they then choose to be straight? Because…after all…homosexuality is learned, right?
The very arguments that a straight person makes are the ones that they should and could apply to their own community. I have a cousin who is in fact gay. She is the eldest of 4 kids. She is the only one that is gay. But if we are supposed to learn our sexuality from our upbringing, how is it that she is gay and her siblings are not? The argument one straight person makes to support their own foolishness is ridiculous. The fact that one is held high above the other should not be allowed. It is called hypocrisy and is all that the people know. We should stop teaching our children to become hypocrites.
Tags: Christian activists, judged, homosexuality, hypocrites
Law of Attraction
September 4, 2007
Why are women not attracted to all men? Why are men not attracted to all women? It is natural, right? It is the way to be; to be attracted to the opposite sex. So why are you not attracted to all members of the opposite sex?
You cannot sit there and tell me it is because of their personality or how they look. They are a man, and you are a woman; you should be attracted to each other and be with each other because this is the way of God. Never mind that you do not have any feelings for this man or this woman; God says you must be attracted to the opposite sex so you must deny your true feelings and be with that man or woman.
How logical does that sound? How logical is it to say that God wants us to only be with men or women no matter if we are attracted to them or not? We should deny our feelings just to be with the opposite sex? Because this is how God wants it?
The Bible warrants that your body is a temple that should be kept pure. But because God knows that the flesh is weak, He made an exception to say that we could have sex in the unity of marriage. To be totally devoted to God would be to abstain from sex, but God does not penalize us for doing it when married. Just because He does not penalize us, does not mean that He supports the idea. God would still rather we are abstinent. How would we populate then? Exactly. Does reading the Bible translated from the Greek and Hebrew origins really make sense often?
Foundations of many belief systems are borne on the simplest of ideas. A small verse in a book of hundreds of chapters can make or break a system! It is the innate ability of the human race to take the smallest of things and blow them out of proportion. It is the legalistic approach to religion that condemns everyone. The Bible says there is no God and as such we should not believe in God…it does say it you know. ‘The fool sayeth in his heart “There is no God”‘. But because the Bible says it, I should accept it, and condemn others by its words. Never mind the context, the times, or who it is spoken to or about because it is in the Bible, and that Book is God-breathed.
By Christian logic, there should be no reason for a woman or man to be single. We should all be attracted to each other and thus be with each other. There is no excuse because God said it. Never mind that God also said that we should gouge our eye out if it offends us for example, by looking at a woman with lust. After all, that is just an allegory. We are allowed to pick and choose what things God meant literally and what things He did not mean literally. Why? Because we are Christians and what we say goes.
Tags: attracted, opposite sex
