|
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
|
|
|
|
| The way I feel about you is the way I feel about faith. Faith never lets me down. Faith gives me hope. Faith allows me to love. I want faith. I believe I need it. I've shunned faith. I've looked faith cynically. I know how faith works. I know how to go through the motions of faith. I want faith. I have yet to feel faith stir my inner most being, though. Faith doesn't feel right. And so, neither do you. Neither have you.
| | |
| Random thought of the day....
I don't mind not having a large amount of money, because I think being a man among boys is better.
| | |
| If 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.
| | |
| Last 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.
| | |
| I 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.
| | |
|
