|
blumdude
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Paulie
Country: United States
State: Missouri
Metro: St. Louis
Birthday: 9/3/1984
Gender: Male
Interests: Everything!
Expertise: Computer junk, relationships, counter-strike!
Occupation: Computer related
Industry: Business
Message: message me
AIM:  Blumdude
Member Since:
3/20/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Semantics and Syntax: Why California's Proposition 8 FailedIf there is one thing I know about laws, all laws, is that their meaning can be interpreted (differently) based on the context and syntax used to create them. If there wasn't any room for interpretation of the law, then there wouldn't be a Supreme Court to decide what laws mean. If we accept this, than we can say that there is still hope for homosexuality in California (and everywhere else, for that matter). The solution is to tweak the words and propose a different law while changing existing laws to fit the situation at hand. But first, let's explore the current state of our society.
We have a situation where a massive amount of people are increasingly secular, relativist, and privatist. California, not surprisingly, is on the forefront of these philosophies, even if its citizens are discouraged by the results of Proposition 8. There is a general feeling of "do whatever you want to do, just don't tread on me to do it", not only in California, but in many states, particularly in the more urban areas. After all, this sort of freedom and respect is what our country was built on. We can do whatever we want, until we infringe on the rights of others, and we keep it to ourselves. Bedroom behavior? Who cares, just don't tell me about it. Type of car? No worries, do what you want to do as long as you don't mess with my right to be less (or more) environmentally conscious. So how come this doesn't translate to gay marriage? Well, it did, for a few months anyway. To understand one of the primary root causes, we must look at the words we have chosen to use and the demographic of the people we are addressing to decide on those words.
First, let's look at the words, or, for my purpose, one word, namely, marriage. We can go into the etymology of the word, the definition, and all the various roots, but I am going to focus more on the history of the act of two people coming together, in a union. The union of a man and woman in civilized human history, going back to Egyptians and Mesopotamians, though little is known about the exact language used to describe the events taking place, was seen as a contract, a promise, in words or writing, that provided the patriarchal societies with a means of legal inheritance and succession. The ancient Chinese view was similar. The act of marriage, as we call it today, was used to create a boy to pass on the surname and the family line. It is even more clear in Greek and roman societies that when a woman moved into a man's home, it was to bear him children. Sometimes this was done with a written contract, conventio manum in Latin, a handwritten contract. Sometimes it was just understood. This union was validated at the bearing of the first child. This act was still purely for offspring and inheritance/legal issues to be resolved. If we look at the Old Testament as a historical documentation of the Jewish culture and religion, before the Ten Commandments and the books of laws, marriage was also an act of inheritance and law. Bear sons to pass the name and fortune and goodwill of the name. Greek society was particularly ruthless when it came to the role of women. They would be usurped into the clan they were married into. They usually would never have contact with their old family, and if it there was, it was with good purpose.
Along the course of history, though, the act of a man taking a woman became more than a legal contract, but rather a mandate of the god of various religions. Pagans long worshiped gods of fertility, but they werent really into the sanctity and holiness of marriage. They just wanted kids, like everyone else, to settle legal claims to property and to pass on a family name. However, in Judaism, the Ten commandments, the books of law (what are they... deuteronomy, leviticus...one other?) and in various Old Testament scriptures, marriage is seen as holy. God wanted people to be married and never unmarried once so. Marriage was no longer this legal contract, but a spiritual contract to bring forth worship and honor to God together, between a man and a woman, and to bear children who would also be raised to worship and praise God. The New Testament extends this view further with more verses (I am not a Bible Scholar, and I cannot find all the instances I have seen...do your own research!). So, with Judeo-Christian religion we have perhaps not the first instance of the sanctity of marriage, but the first doctrine with historical, lasting significance. The union still had legal significance, but it was done on account of God's will and in God's eyes. This doctrine stuck and remains today what the Christian-influenced societies refer to as marriage. People sign a legal contract, a license, legally married in the eyes of government, but it is the church, the temple, the altar, the religious presider, and other factors that deem it a marriage in God's eyes.
So we see that today's concept of marriage is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values. What has also evolved since the Roman empire, at least in the United States, is the special benefits that come with being seen as in union, legally and contractually, with someone. Besides the standard inheritance clauses, there are also tax breaks, medical considerations, and financial capabilities that married persons receive that non-married 'partners' do not receive. So what does all of this mean? Well, if you prevent certain people from getting married, you prevent them from sharing the rights that other people have. If you look at the US history of laws that restrict rights that are still in effect, they do mostly with proper age, proper testing, state of mind, and criminal status. If you are too young, mentally disabled, legally insane, or a felon you have far fewer rights than the majority of people who do not fit any of these groups. However, when we look to Proposition 8, defining marriage, and the rights that go with it, the homosexual community members that are not too young, mentally disabled, insane, or felons are having rights stripped from them that should be theres under the law of man. The law of God is a completely different story. The law of God is fairly explicit on what marriage is and it does not include homosexuality. So here we have conflicting governing bodies. We have the secular law and the spiritual law. It is no mystery as to why they are at odds.
The problem exists in the terminology. We have a phrase describing existing homosexual legal partnerships, and that is called a 'civil union'. One issue with civil unions is that they do not afford exactly the same rights as marriages, even if that marriage is performed by a judge in a court instead of a priest in a church. I think this is coined 'marriage apartheid'. Civil unions and marriages are separate but equal, or something like that. This makes no sense to me. The lawmakers and proponents and opponents of one side and the other... they are missing the point with their laws. The laws are set about to define civil unions and marriages within the context of gender and sex. The laws should be defined in the context of faith and religion, or more correctly, renamed. Bring up all the statutes and ordinances and amendments and legalese about what a married couple is in a word processor. Find marriage. Replace All with civil union. Problem solved. Make it the act of government to bestow upon any one person and another the right to be united and seen as one entity legally, able to receive tax benefits, medical benefits, inheritance benefits, and adoption rights. Let it also be the government's responsibility to dissolve the union if both parties agree to desolve it. It is a legal contract. That is what a legal union is to our government. Marriage is for the spiritual union of one person and another in the eyes of God and the faith's congregation. When you enter into a civil union and spiritual union, that is not only marriage of man and woman, but human and God. Neither act affords special benefits in our government, only one act keeps the sanctity of married life alive. If you do not unite with someone in the context of God, you are therefore not defiling that God which you do not believe in. It is up to the faithful to keep the faith.
I am not harping on religious, or homosexuals here. But homosexuals should not be married. That violates the rights of the religious who regard marriage as holy. At the same time, homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a legal contract of civil union. It would violate their rights not to allow them this legal action. The laws shoudl be changed to strike marriage and replace it with civil union. A person's gender, as a matter of secular law and equal rights, should not determine their right to unity with another person under the law. A person's gender, as a matter of theology and faith, could indeed determine their right to unity with another person under God's law. I am not a privatist in full, because I think people should declare their faith as they see fit. However, that faith is a fiercely personal revelation and state of being for an individual.
There is much more to discuss. Does this apply to other faiths, other faith rituals, where does the human law begin and detrimental faith law end....I cannot answer those questions. My non-religious, but complete leap-of-faith statement is that homosexual union does not promote degradation of society, or culture. If anything, it brings the homosexuality out of their community and into the mainstream, only being different from people not by the rights afforded to them, but by the personal choices they make with their sexuality. After all, we have a right to choose our president and not disenfranchise those who voted for the loser. Why can't everyone have the right to choose to unite with someone and not be disenfranchised because they chose the road less traveled? I think there is still hope. The amendment doesnt say anything about civil unions or the rights of civil unions. There is hope, but it may not be the fulfillment of the dreams that homosexuals currently have.
| | |
| Double YewLast night I got invited by Julie to see a sneak preview of the movie "W." by Oliver Stone. I have to admit, I did not know what to expect. Some were saying satire, some were saying biographical, some were saying a fictionalization of his life, some said comedy, some said drama, some said a slightly better than mediocre attempt at a psychological case study of the human man...
Well I would say it was part everything mentioned above. I wouldn;t say it is a 'good' film. But it was enjoyable. I think it was an honest portrayal of Bushie's life, of course with all those unknown conversations going how we imagine them in our heads, with some accuracy, but not complete accuracy. Oil, lies, insecurity, security, withheld information, mistrust, retribution, should haves, would haves, etc etc. In some respect you almost want to pity Geo. Laced with actual quotes from Bush and recreated speeches, the movie actually has a shade of honesty that, if it was meant as satire failed miserably, and if it was meant as honest drama, also failed miserably. Something in between a dry satire and a biographical dramatic psychological exploration of man... who knows! But I did enjoy it.
My friend Julie cried a bit. I understand why, and her reason was valid. There is no idea what conversations and ideas were actually discussed, but the movie definitely assumes it is a sort of selling job that Bush has to do to get the common citizen to believe that the war in Iraq is just, even if it is preemptive. While I see the marketing job as wholly undesirable, I think if the general population wasn't so easily swayed, perhaps remained a bit more skeptical of the authority, that it wouldn't be so easy to market to them....us. Just look at grocery stores, or other corporations... advertise advertise advertise....and people will buy your product. Make claims that are hard to believe but hard not to believe...make it sound awesome...give it pomp and circumstance!! People eat it up. And we have always done so. And we will continue to do so. Unless we learn to look at the facts, and do our own personal investigation. Even if that investigation lands us in the majority, or a commonly defined group of similarly minded people...at least we did the right thing and made an informed decision!
That is all.
| | |
| ease of useI bet that if someone went on www.okcupid.com right now, created a profile with enough pictures and information, s/he could have at least one sex partner by the end of the night and not even have to lie. Just haveto be like, you;re cute, funny, lets go on a date and get jiggy. I probably should stay away, because the temptation of that, though unlikely that I would give in, is really horribly scary.
| | |
| Storied FranchiseThe last month has been a whirlwind of wonderment...
I am re-evaluating constantly everything in my life because, though I despise micromanagement, I know my working self isn't always focused on the small details. I focus on the big picture,the big plans, the big kahuna of ideas, and then I move on and make more big plans big ideas. I wish someone else would carry them out, someone more apt than I.
I have started taking classes. I am not sure what they will lead to.
I bought a guitar, and I strum almost every night. I was told to do scales and learn dexterity. Easier said than done.
I have created new friendships that confuse the hell out of me and my friends. I just don't GET the current dating scene. Carrie, she's fun and sarcastic and intelligent. Jenna, she's charming and caring. Sarah Q. is a doll and very logical. Christine, smart, sexy and testy. Megan L., smart, compassionate, talkative. All women. All good people. But I am just not into them like that. They know it, too. Not to say they like me in any special way, but it's hard to know these things about myself and balance them and get involved with anyone: that I crave and desire physical affection, that i want a woman not only to love, but to share life with and make my own life less hectic and pressuring, that i am in no way psychologically ready to proceed with attaining what i want, and that i need to focus on what I neeeeed and not what I want. I know a wife will not make me happy. I know physical affection will not satisfy me. I also know that I am loved by a few people. A few people who would be forever moved if I were to die this instant. That love is sometimes I think the only human affection I ever need to feel.
I need to meet guys, dangit. I joined two community groups through church. I have classes and obligations that keep me from going to one or the other every few weeks, so I dont want to miss a discussion. The all mens community group seems to be leaps and bounds above the mixed gender, mixed marital status group. For guys, we all seem to talk alot. The other group seems to have less insight, less well-formed 'big pictures' of their faith or other people's viewpoints. Maybe it's a more narrow group. Being the only non-Christian in both groups doesn't make me feel weird or bad. I am searching. I am studying. I am waiting to feel something in order to know my faith instead of just think it.
I have been losing my stamina at work. It's not very fun, but I do my job well. It just gets exasperating.
My newfound empathy is overwhelming. Somehow I turned from a self-interested "aww thats sad but life goes on" type of person into a more selfless, "i am attempting to understand and feel your pain, to help you and be what you need me to be for you" type of guy. I have done this nearly unconsciously, though I cannot deny the desire is there to be this newer expression of my self.
I registered to vote. I doubt I will actually vote. But I couldn't find a reasonable argument against the act of registering. After all, I do take interest in politics, even if I do not agree in totality with either majority candidate. I should give myself the option in case I ever see a reason to vote on something.
I have tonsillitis. Tuesday was a hospital day, bleeding from sores in my mouth. Not abcesses. That having been found out after xrays and CT scans. Thank God. Tonsillectomy would have been horrible.
Ashley and Brian are married. I am so happy for them. I love them together. I love them. Spent a Sunday together opening gifts and talking and crying and playing Rock Band. Great times.
I think as a person I need to keep up the good work, and keep doing what I do, and keep analyzing every move I make. This is a chess match...or maybe I am a baseball team, and I need to manage it. There will be some down years, and some up years, and when it comes time to be forced out of the league, to quit the game, I'll leave behind quite the storied franchise.
| | |
| Daydream CatcherYou ever stop to think about...what you just thought? Do you then realize how amazingly hard it is to go back to thinking about that which you just thought without knowing you are thinking about it? Right. See? Well as I was sitting at dinner tonight, solo, I decided to let my brain go. I decided to let my stream of consciousness, my daydreams, take over. However, I wrote down everything I could remember. It was about an hour's worth of thoughts and happenings. The only context is that it is a Mexican restaurant.
What exactly is gout, other than crystallized uric acid? What exactly is TexMex food? Is this TexMex? Nah, this is real Mexican. Or is it? A conspiracy, no doubt. This live music is entertaining. I think I should paint my basement faux brick. I could get the guy from that one TV show show does realistic flames on cars and see if he does brick. That hole looks like lips. Maybe I could paint the basement ceiling as the Milky Way like in the picture I just saw yesterday online. Maybe with skulls. The neighbors would think I'm a Satanist. This soup is awesome. If I owned a sign company, I would make them new Happy Hour Specials signs. I'd hope they'd use 'em. I wonder if I asked for more limes and ADD sugar to my water if I could make a wicked limeade. That little girl is so cute, it looks like it's a special day. They are waiting for one more, the guy on the phone. NO! Come back live music!! Sweet he brought me more limes. I'm not gonna do something weird. Oh they are back...oh it's her birthday!! Hellllllo ladies...girls night? She looks like a 30-year old version of Maryanne Gerbin. I should have swam tonight, I feel fat & full, but that soup is soooooo good. Man these musicians are nice. soft. mellow. more ladies, hello! Oh they are done again, I bet someone says...yup there he goes, not a very strong accent! Who is this? Navy. Army?...Navy. Air Force? Navy. Oh how cute, it's a bag of gifts for her! I wonder who he is...step-dad? She is so excited. This lime is tasty, omg. Uncle, he is acting like I would. Uncle. Air Force. Where else is there a base nearby? Man I hope Nat is feeling OK. Maybe biological father? She's rubbing his head now. A coloring book...Barbie? Wonder if these people are wondering why I am staring at them writing in this fancy looking pad. Health Inspector Blum. The music is playing more distantly now. It's nice! I wish I could play even this. I am just waiting for these girls to talk to me. I should go. What route will I take home? I wonder if the musicians take tips. I'm gonna go and see if they have a jar. If not, I'll just thank them.
The musicians did have a tip jar, for which we all are grateful.
| | |
|
