(no subject)
I think I see the idea of same-sex marriage as something greater than that. It's almost a reflection of people's view on life, on what they're doing with their lives, why they're doing it. I see the arguments either side makes for or against and I become befuddled; it's like everyone is missing something.
I'm fair. I read a lot on the subject to figure out what it is I wanted to say about it, what it is they're saying about it. I had to battle to keep myself from getting pulled into endless arguments over linguistics. For many of the major points that either side uses I can see how their point could be negated in some way.
"God taught love and acceptance, therefore you should love/accept those who wish to engage in a same-sex marriage."
He certainly did, but he also taught that marriage is a thing between a man and a woman, at least according to the Christian god and the Christian scripture, therefore same-sex marriage is a type of oxymoron. You may have their love and acceptance, but who will concede that 2+2 =73.6. To some it can be the same as simple math.
"God taught that marriage is a thing between a man and a woman."
Yes, your god did, but your interpretation of god's intent is no more valid than a gay person's interpretation of god's intent, at least according to The United States Constitution, where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", meaning to restrict someone from entering into a union that they deem to be "marriage" according to their religious interpretation of the word would be unconstitutional. And though this is US-specific, the idea behind this decree was to do right by all people in a nation, to keep the administrating body of a people (the government) from meddling in one's personal religious affairs. Though this may hinder executing the instructions of religious institutions that dictate the followers bring people not of their faith into their faith, it is designed to respect the cornucopia of different religions out there, acknowledging that something like a government should not be expected to adopt a religious standpoint. Think, Christians, how you would feel if the US government finally did decide to adopt a religion based on popular belief; how fantastic. But let's say Christianity is not the popular belief, but Buddhism or Islam was instead, and now the state aggressively supports the practices of those institutions while oppressing yours. Now it doesn't seem as peachy a proposition. To avoid any parties being subjected to this type of betrayal by their own government, it was rightfully decided that a government would not engage in such matters, nor would it cater to the doctrines of any of those religions simply based on those single religious doctrines, nor would it do anything to restrict anyone from pursuing whatever they felt spiritually inclined towards so long as it didn't hinder another group's same rights. Whether there's 1 Christian or 1-billion Christians, whether there be 1 same-sex couple who feel they can engage in a typically spiritual act of marriage or 1-billion of them, the fact is that the government was not designed to deny any person any thing they felt they had a spiritual right to, regardless of how adamantly another religious group opposes them doing so. So the US government should not serve as your church, but as a protector of your right to have a church without being burned at the stake, and also to prevent you from burning others at the stake who want to exercise that same right. And the idea is seemingly so sound it would be wise to be adopted by other administrative bodies. Consider that in other countries Christians are being alienated for their religion. It seems an injustice, but realistically it's as equal an injustice as any person, anywhere, being alienated for the practice of any religion; whether you happen to agree with their beliefs or not does not change the black and white of it, that the best position a government can take is to not take a position on religion, but to assure that anyone who wishes to take a position is allowed to do so without the interference of the government or others.
And on that anybody could get fancy shmancy about the wording, about the different definitions of each particular word. You can argue for what you believe is the most authoritative definition of the word, and how that should apply, how I misused a word, how someone misused a word, somewhere, somehow.
But please. Words change ALL THE TIME. Certainly we can have scholars do their best to try to comprehend what was meant by the speaker given the context of the time/region/forum in which they were speaking, but to believe you can definitively figure this out and arrive at any set-in-stone conclusions is kind of bullshit. Nevermind when you then must translate between different languages. In my quest for education about the ideas of marriage, I found myself reading a great deal about the ideas of translation and linguistics. How crazy.
Yet we find swaths of people who seem to know anything about something, so passionately that they can't fathom how others could see it from any other viewpoint. I get how same-sex marriage seems like it ought to be permitted. I also get how same-sex marriage seems like it ought to be restricted or prohibited. Everyone is seeing these subjects through the perspective of their own lives and their own experiences.
How can you describe color to a man who has never seen, who doesn't speak, who doesn't hear? Your lives are that dynamically different. Where you were rich, they were poor. Where you were loathed by your parents, they were nurtured and loved. Somebody's best friend committed suicide when they were 16. The other goes out with their best friend for lunch once a week.
Oy. It's late so I may be getting off topic a little bit. I guess what it leads me to is how amazing it is that people seem to have some sort of idea as to why they're here, what they're supposed to be doing with their time on this planet. Christians are serving the kingdom of god, atheists are designing their own moral codes, everyone is doing what they think is best. I can't help but wonder how all these people became so sure of what they're so sure of. Some atheists believe it's best to treat everyone fairly and equally; what source do they use to derive this sweeping stance? Christians cite the Bible or faith as their source of morality and the like, of the power of the divine spirit. I wonder how the Bible came to be awarded such credibility. How much do most people know about that book? Certainly it may have been written precisely in the manner they believe it was, but anyone who will allow themselves to think about it objectively for a moment could see that it just as well may have been constructed to serve other purposes, to further an agenda, and not actually be derived upon...
Still off topic, and starting to tire. I had decided recently to stop writing for anyone but myself, and I find that hard to do sometimes, but I'm getting better at it.
I was writing that last sentence, not the one in the last paragraph, but the one before it about the origin of the Bible, and I thought to myself, "You owe it to yourself to question everything," you being everyone.
You do. You're here for just so short a time. Imagine the shame it would be if you let yourself spend that flash of opportunity be squandered by furiously parading non-truths.
I can then easily argue that who's to say what "squandering" is. Who's to say a life spent picking your nose, alone, under a bridge, is any more a "squandered" life than someone who spends every day in a state of ecstasy, surrounded by friends and happiness?
See, all my arguments end with me arguing that I shouldn't be arguing at all. It always ends up that if you all want to walk around and rape and kill one another, if you all want to declare this particular plot of the earth exclusively yours, then get pissed when someone else "steals" it from you, well then shit, who am I to intervene and suggest that what you're doing might not be the best thing to do, when in actuality I have no fucking clue what the best thing to do is.
I personally have settled on a perspective where there's some things that cause other people to hurt, where it would be just as easy to not cause them to hurt, and I wish that people would not do those things. Others will argue that by causing that hurt they are preventing others from being hurt. Well, what the fuck can you say to that?
I guess I've managed not to be so easily hurt. People are hurt because two people who both have vaginas make out where they can see, or where their kids can see. Why does that not hurt me, but does hurt them? Cuz we are totally god damned different. And those vagina-havers, they may be hurt that those hurt-feelers are hurt by what makes them happy.
Maybe y'all are too sensitive. :P
This is the problem. I do all this thinking, and where it brings me is to a point where I just want to explain, "If you just think about everything for a little while you'll see that you can live without having to hurt one another." Although that may be true, then they'll also wind up in a position similar to mine, where there's little left to teach or share, where all you can do is sit back and watch everyone hurt each other.
Probably best to believe in some god, enlist in some military and engage in the premature vanquishing of the precious lives of your fellow humans. The terrible position I'm in I can't even explain what's inherently wrong about the murderous nature of man. If I was charged with the scripture of some divine power I could certainly cite that, but that day hasn't come. Instead I see it, I see everyone killing, stealing, possessing, depriving, and I can't find any good reason I should intervene, I can't think of any valid argument to persuade anyone to pursue any different course. If I made such arguments it would be selfishly; I enjoy seeing people happy, therefore I will say whatever needs to be said to convince them to be happy. Though on the surface that seems straight-forward, in reality I am robbing these people of their ability to find their own answers, as my answers have lead me to a fact-less place. I know I don't like to see people hurt, but I know no reason why they shouldn't be. Therefore, if you all decide to hurt, then by all means, I cannot describe to you why you should not, except in order to please me, and what type of compelling argument is that?
Damn I took a wrong turn somewhere in my mind.
Anyhow, too late for all this. Go ahead and murder each other. But I think that kinda sucks.
I'm fair. I read a lot on the subject to figure out what it is I wanted to say about it, what it is they're saying about it. I had to battle to keep myself from getting pulled into endless arguments over linguistics. For many of the major points that either side uses I can see how their point could be negated in some way.
"God taught love and acceptance, therefore you should love/accept those who wish to engage in a same-sex marriage."
He certainly did, but he also taught that marriage is a thing between a man and a woman, at least according to the Christian god and the Christian scripture, therefore same-sex marriage is a type of oxymoron. You may have their love and acceptance, but who will concede that 2+2 =73.6. To some it can be the same as simple math.
"God taught that marriage is a thing between a man and a woman."
Yes, your god did, but your interpretation of god's intent is no more valid than a gay person's interpretation of god's intent, at least according to The United States Constitution, where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", meaning to restrict someone from entering into a union that they deem to be "marriage" according to their religious interpretation of the word would be unconstitutional. And though this is US-specific, the idea behind this decree was to do right by all people in a nation, to keep the administrating body of a people (the government) from meddling in one's personal religious affairs. Though this may hinder executing the instructions of religious institutions that dictate the followers bring people not of their faith into their faith, it is designed to respect the cornucopia of different religions out there, acknowledging that something like a government should not be expected to adopt a religious standpoint. Think, Christians, how you would feel if the US government finally did decide to adopt a religion based on popular belief; how fantastic. But let's say Christianity is not the popular belief, but Buddhism or Islam was instead, and now the state aggressively supports the practices of those institutions while oppressing yours. Now it doesn't seem as peachy a proposition. To avoid any parties being subjected to this type of betrayal by their own government, it was rightfully decided that a government would not engage in such matters, nor would it cater to the doctrines of any of those religions simply based on those single religious doctrines, nor would it do anything to restrict anyone from pursuing whatever they felt spiritually inclined towards so long as it didn't hinder another group's same rights. Whether there's 1 Christian or 1-billion Christians, whether there be 1 same-sex couple who feel they can engage in a typically spiritual act of marriage or 1-billion of them, the fact is that the government was not designed to deny any person any thing they felt they had a spiritual right to, regardless of how adamantly another religious group opposes them doing so. So the US government should not serve as your church, but as a protector of your right to have a church without being burned at the stake, and also to prevent you from burning others at the stake who want to exercise that same right. And the idea is seemingly so sound it would be wise to be adopted by other administrative bodies. Consider that in other countries Christians are being alienated for their religion. It seems an injustice, but realistically it's as equal an injustice as any person, anywhere, being alienated for the practice of any religion; whether you happen to agree with their beliefs or not does not change the black and white of it, that the best position a government can take is to not take a position on religion, but to assure that anyone who wishes to take a position is allowed to do so without the interference of the government or others.
And on that anybody could get fancy shmancy about the wording, about the different definitions of each particular word. You can argue for what you believe is the most authoritative definition of the word, and how that should apply, how I misused a word, how someone misused a word, somewhere, somehow.
But please. Words change ALL THE TIME. Certainly we can have scholars do their best to try to comprehend what was meant by the speaker given the context of the time/region/forum in which they were speaking, but to believe you can definitively figure this out and arrive at any set-in-stone conclusions is kind of bullshit. Nevermind when you then must translate between different languages. In my quest for education about the ideas of marriage, I found myself reading a great deal about the ideas of translation and linguistics. How crazy.
Yet we find swaths of people who seem to know anything about something, so passionately that they can't fathom how others could see it from any other viewpoint. I get how same-sex marriage seems like it ought to be permitted. I also get how same-sex marriage seems like it ought to be restricted or prohibited. Everyone is seeing these subjects through the perspective of their own lives and their own experiences.
How can you describe color to a man who has never seen, who doesn't speak, who doesn't hear? Your lives are that dynamically different. Where you were rich, they were poor. Where you were loathed by your parents, they were nurtured and loved. Somebody's best friend committed suicide when they were 16. The other goes out with their best friend for lunch once a week.
Oy. It's late so I may be getting off topic a little bit. I guess what it leads me to is how amazing it is that people seem to have some sort of idea as to why they're here, what they're supposed to be doing with their time on this planet. Christians are serving the kingdom of god, atheists are designing their own moral codes, everyone is doing what they think is best. I can't help but wonder how all these people became so sure of what they're so sure of. Some atheists believe it's best to treat everyone fairly and equally; what source do they use to derive this sweeping stance? Christians cite the Bible or faith as their source of morality and the like, of the power of the divine spirit. I wonder how the Bible came to be awarded such credibility. How much do most people know about that book? Certainly it may have been written precisely in the manner they believe it was, but anyone who will allow themselves to think about it objectively for a moment could see that it just as well may have been constructed to serve other purposes, to further an agenda, and not actually be derived upon...
Still off topic, and starting to tire. I had decided recently to stop writing for anyone but myself, and I find that hard to do sometimes, but I'm getting better at it.
I was writing that last sentence, not the one in the last paragraph, but the one before it about the origin of the Bible, and I thought to myself, "You owe it to yourself to question everything," you being everyone.
You do. You're here for just so short a time. Imagine the shame it would be if you let yourself spend that flash of opportunity be squandered by furiously parading non-truths.
I can then easily argue that who's to say what "squandering" is. Who's to say a life spent picking your nose, alone, under a bridge, is any more a "squandered" life than someone who spends every day in a state of ecstasy, surrounded by friends and happiness?
See, all my arguments end with me arguing that I shouldn't be arguing at all. It always ends up that if you all want to walk around and rape and kill one another, if you all want to declare this particular plot of the earth exclusively yours, then get pissed when someone else "steals" it from you, well then shit, who am I to intervene and suggest that what you're doing might not be the best thing to do, when in actuality I have no fucking clue what the best thing to do is.
I personally have settled on a perspective where there's some things that cause other people to hurt, where it would be just as easy to not cause them to hurt, and I wish that people would not do those things. Others will argue that by causing that hurt they are preventing others from being hurt. Well, what the fuck can you say to that?
I guess I've managed not to be so easily hurt. People are hurt because two people who both have vaginas make out where they can see, or where their kids can see. Why does that not hurt me, but does hurt them? Cuz we are totally god damned different. And those vagina-havers, they may be hurt that those hurt-feelers are hurt by what makes them happy.
Maybe y'all are too sensitive. :P
This is the problem. I do all this thinking, and where it brings me is to a point where I just want to explain, "If you just think about everything for a little while you'll see that you can live without having to hurt one another." Although that may be true, then they'll also wind up in a position similar to mine, where there's little left to teach or share, where all you can do is sit back and watch everyone hurt each other.
Probably best to believe in some god, enlist in some military and engage in the premature vanquishing of the precious lives of your fellow humans. The terrible position I'm in I can't even explain what's inherently wrong about the murderous nature of man. If I was charged with the scripture of some divine power I could certainly cite that, but that day hasn't come. Instead I see it, I see everyone killing, stealing, possessing, depriving, and I can't find any good reason I should intervene, I can't think of any valid argument to persuade anyone to pursue any different course. If I made such arguments it would be selfishly; I enjoy seeing people happy, therefore I will say whatever needs to be said to convince them to be happy. Though on the surface that seems straight-forward, in reality I am robbing these people of their ability to find their own answers, as my answers have lead me to a fact-less place. I know I don't like to see people hurt, but I know no reason why they shouldn't be. Therefore, if you all decide to hurt, then by all means, I cannot describe to you why you should not, except in order to please me, and what type of compelling argument is that?
Damn I took a wrong turn somewhere in my mind.
Anyhow, too late for all this. Go ahead and murder each other. But I think that kinda sucks.