Okay, I’ll grant you that my line about “pork products and foreskin” wasn’t the best. I hope I didn’t offend any Jewish people, and if I did, I’m sorry. What I was trying to point out is that it’s not very fair to identify a religion simply by what it restricts. That just goes to cast religions as codes of hate and intolerance and religious people as intolerant hatemongers.

When I equated philosophy with religion, I was using philosophy not so much in the classical sense but in the sense of a philosophy as perhaps a way of thinking and relating to the world and all the things and people in it. I have a personal philosophy, in this sense, as do you. My religious beliefs have a great impact on my philosophy, but they don’t affect some things. For example, my religious beliefs don’t affect how I think about affirmative action. They might for some, but not for me. How I feel one way or the other about that issue is part of my own personal philosophy; philosophy being my code of ethics, morals, values, and behaviors. In this sense, yes, religion and philosophy share many traits. If I wrote down a long book on my personal “philosophy” and some people read it and started to follow it, I wouldn’t call it a religion, because I’m not a deity, but it would seem like one to some people. I think our debate here is semantics.

Yes, I did take some generalized shots at liberals, and that wasn’t necessarily fair. However, what gets me is that a group of people, and I am assigning labels here to all people who would call themselves “liberals”, who seem to embrace the concepts of open-mindedness mock those who disagree with them on some things. I’ve seen this all the time on television, and I’ve seen cases where liberal-minded people have essentially laughed at conservative and sometimes also religious beliefs on this matter, catagorizing those conservative/religious people as closed-minded and hatemongers because labeling them as so trivializes their position on the issues at hand, helps shift negative regard in their direction, and undermines the integrity of the conservative argument, thus giving the liberals a leg up on furthering their own agendas and positions. Decrediting your oppositions position is an ages old tactic in politics; nothing new here. If they were really the open-minded people they claim to be, they would simply accept the conservative opinion and then continue to try and bolster their own opinions without mocking and deriding the opposition. There is a distinct difference between derision and disagreement. The example being if I say “I disagree with your opinion” as opposed to “I can’t believe you think that; what kind of idiot are you?” Yes, I know conservatives take shots at liberal opinions all the time, but in many circles conservatives are thought of as “closed-minded.” That doesn’t excuse it just because conservatives do it, but it’s even more ironic when done by a group of people who are supposedly open minded. My whole belief is that you respect the opinions of your opponents, though you may disagree with them very strongly, and do what you can to add weight to your own opinions.

And, no, I don’t know many philosophers. I explained my use of the word philosophy already. I was trying to make a point in a purely legal sense, and we are talking about the legality or lack thereof of same-sex “marriage” in America, so naturally I would talk about the fundamental documents of America itself. My whole point is that even the most fundamental rights that all Americans are privileged to have that are espoused in the Declaration are subject to restrictions by the law of the land, and I gave examples. These rights were put down in this most formative of documents, and are held very dear, but they are not universal to all people, or everyone in the world would have them too. These “rights” were written down in the nation’s most formative days by some very well-meaning and clever men, and that’s why we have them. If they had never said anything about freedom of speech, would we have much greater restrictions on what we can say in the modern day? Almost certainly. Furthermore, they are not totally inviolate against any governmental restriction because they have been restricted many times in the past, will certainly be edited more in the future, and few people will disagree that these changes are a good and necessary thing. November says that all people have the same rights, but we know that these rights are restricted in many ways and not fully applicable to all people in all situations. I think the fact that two 16 year old children cannot marry is a good example of this. The founding fathers wrote down a few of the most essential rights of Americans, and over the course of decades other legislative people tweaked and adjusted these rights as they saw fit for the good of the nation.

If we need to debate homosexual marriage under the law then we are even further behind than I thought. But I think we can all agree that as far as the government is concerned all human beings have the same rights. Unconditionally. Equal. Unequivocally. Period.

No, they don’t. This is obvious. The most basic rights in the Declaration of Independance are restricted and modified in some situations, and marriage is not listed along with freedom of speech, press, religion, and so on. If all these rights were unconditional, the government wouldn’t have put conditions on them, would they? That tells me that marriage is a legal and man-made institution, and subject to legal restrictions and the whim of certain men. There are certain conditions placed in the law that give or deny certain people the right to marry, just as there are conditions placed upon the rights of people to do many other things in other situations. This institution was created by law, and over time the restrictions towards who can enter into this institution were ironed out, and the benefits of being in this institution were adjusted as well. In the early days of the nation, people didn’t live nearly as long as they do now and mortality was much higher, so it was in the best interests of people to get married and start having children sooner. Later, the government decided that it was a good idea to put an age restriction on marriage, and they did. A restriction that excluded certain people from being able to marry was placed on the law books where no restriction was before, and nobody seems to mind that you have to be a legal adult to marry. Also, at some point it became law that you can only have one spouse at a time. This is a good indication of the influence of Christian doctrine on law, because Christianity proposes monogamy, while other religions do not. If at some point in the future the law says that only a man and woman can marry, then this is hardly anything new. If this is a violation of people’s rights, then so are all the other restrictions on marriage, and those need to be abolished as well. If denying homosexuals the right to legal marriage is not showing equality, then keeping 17 year olds from marrying is also violating their fair share of equality, and that restriction has to go as well.

Finally, Guerrilla Guy got my point precisely. I don’t approve of what many Christian extremists do to show their distaste on this issue, and I won’t be lumped into a group with them. The fact that I am much more calm and rational about this than some others shows the inherent flaws of human behavior and interpretation as it pertains to church doctrine. But all people have things they disapprove of, and in some cases those dislikes are shaped by religious beliefs. I don’t think that gay people are inherently bad, but their behavior is, in my eyes. You can be gay and still do many other wonderful and beneficial things for the world, but that one behavior is not moral in my opinion. If I don’t wish to associate with someone because he is gay and I think that’s morally wrong, then it’s no different in my eyes than you or anyone else no longer associating with a former friend because he is a drug dealer (for example). In either case, you and I both stopped associating with someone because he does something we consider wrong. Because my decision is based on religious beliefs and yours might be more secular is neither here nor there. We separated ourselves from someone who does things we think are wrong; everybody does it, all the time. Some people separate themselves from friends and colleagues who do things they consider wrong, and some choose to continue the relationship. That is each person’s prerogative.

Geoff

I really like the sentiment that Christians are defined by condemning people <sarcasm>. I certainly want to be identified as a person who speaks ill of things and casts people to Hell, rather than a person who takes his theological beliefs and uses them to make himself a better person, and, in a small way, making the world a better place. I define myself both religiously and just plain personally by how I conduct myself and how I relate to my loved ones, as well as how I try to be fair to people around me. That’s why I am still decent to people I know to be gay; I don’t approve of their behavior in the least, but because one of the main tenets of my faith is “loving thy fellow man”, I treat these people with the same consideration and human decency that I would any other people. However, I reserve the right to dissolve my association with these people because they live their lives in a way I consider immoral; just like I might stop being friends with someone for selling drugs or cheating on his spouse, because I also think those things are immoral as well. It’s very left wing to characterize Christians by the fact that they “condemn” things; I could equally “condemn” liberals by the fact that they’re only real beliefe is not restricting anyone from doing anything; they seem to believe everything should be tolerated but intolerance. Criticizing Christians as those who are defined by the fact that they condemn everything from their holy pedestals because they are against certain things is like bashing Jewish people as those defined by their condemnation of pork products and foreskin. Religions are in many ways philosophies with deities attached, and both religions and philosophies are guides for how to act to the people who believe in and embrace them. I don’t approve of anyone, of any religious affiliation or none, who goes around damning to hell anybody who disagrees with them. I don’t do that because I’m secure in my own beliefs; not everyone is. I also would like to think that God wouldn’t want me to act that way. Christians aren’t defined by what they disapprove of any more than anybody else. It’s simply a school of thought and belief that endorses some behaviors and restricts others. Yes, Christian doctrine says “don’t kill, don’t steal” and so on, but it also says “honor thy father and thy mother”. It endorses certain behaviors thought of as “good” just as it prohibits certain behaviors thought of as “bad”, just as any individual person’s own code of ethics tells that person what is right and wrong, whether or not he has any religious beliefs or not.

Defining a group by what they say people shouldn’t do is patently unfair. It’s that whole bloody liberal sentiment of treating someone like an idiot just because he has the bollocks to disapprove of something. Religion is just one of many factors that shapes how people think, feel, and act, and it’s no more fair to characterize all Christians as “close-minded” because they disapprove of some things than it is for me to characterize you as a bad person with no morals because you disagree with me on this one issue. I don’t think that of you, and you shouldn’t think that of me, any other Christian, or the whole Christian community in general.

All “rights” are constructions of man, and specifically, in this case, the US Declaration of Independance and/or Constitution. Certain countries, like the US of A, have supposedly unlimited freedom of speech. On the other side of the globe, in China, I just read an article about how the government was trying to track down some people who said derogatory things about the government on a message board not unlike this one. This practice would be anathema to America. This just shows that rights are not universal, and the existance or lack of them is a creation of the powers that be. There is no “right” to marry; it is a construct of the government with certain advantages and disadvantages and is a priviliege granted to adults that they may or may not take advantage of. Different rights apply to different people, by the definition of law. For example, a man and woman who are not both of legal age cannot legally wed; I think the age is 18 (I’ve never tried to get married). Is this interfering with their supposed “right” to marry? That’s debatable. The fact is that the government created the legal institution of marriage, and at some point and they decided at some point that 18 is the age to marry (it should be older, if you ask me, but you didn’t), and nobody seems to dispute that overly much. They are putting restrictions on the “right” to marry. If they someday put the restriction on that same “right” that only a man and woman can partake of it, how is it any different? It’s also law that a person can only be married to one other person at the same time… isn’t this also restricting that “right”? I fail to see the difference between these restrictions and the possible restriction of marriage being to one man and one woman. If restricting people the right to marry based on gender is against the founding ideas of this country, then restricting their right to marry based on other criteria is also “unconstitutional” or whatever you want to call it, and those restrictions have to be removed. Some people talk about eliminating the legal institution of marriage altogether, and I am not totally opposed to that. Whether the institution exists or not when I myself marry, it will still be to me a mostly religious thing. I will still have my wedding in a church with a vicar performing the ceremony, scripture will be read, and our children will eventually be baptised. The signing of the marriage license is mostly meaningless to me. But that’s me, and if non-religious people marry at city hall and it’s a totally civil ceremony, then that’s great too. I just hope that they marry responsibly and for love, and are very happy together for many years. If at some point the government completely dissolved the insitution of marriage, is that infringing on that right? No, because it’s not a right. It’s a construct of the government, and they have the ability to change the parameters of that construct when they see need.

Even the basic rights held so dear in the Declaration of Independance and Constitution are constantly restricted and legislated, so even if marriage is a fundamental right, it’s not inviolate against legislative restrictions. For example, people aren’t allowed to use certain “profane” words on television shows. Is this restricting their free speech? Seems like it to me. We supposedly have freedom of press, but if you print naughty stories or pictures of naked women, they can only be sold in certain places, they are often not allowed to be displayed openly, and you have to be a certain age to buy them. There’s supposed to be freedom of religion, but if you put a nativity scene on public property, it’s breaking the law. I could go on and on.

The point is that all of the basic rights that America so cherishes, as well as legal constructs and privileges such as the civil institution of marriage, are subject to legislative restrictions They have always been and always will be, and are sure to be legislated more in the future. Even amendments to the Constituion, the most fundamental document of America, have been changed a few dozen times. Every legal institution under the sun has been legislated, modified, and restricted, often to public agreement. Some people were awfully happy about prohibition; many more were not, and it didn’t last. Restricting marriage more, whether to make it man-woman only, or to make the legal age 21, or to make it so you can only get married on the weekends, or whatever, is nothing that hasn’t been done a million times in thousands of other situations. Restricting certain people from marrying based on specific criteria isn’t any more heinous than restricting someone on the TV show “Friends” from saying “fuck”, but Dennis Miller could say it on HBO every 2 seconds and there’s no legal repercussions to it at all.

As for you, Stuka, you raise a good point. I no longer attend church either. Partially because I’m an ocean away from the church I grew up in, and I doubt I would go anyway. I became very disillusioned with the hypocrisy of many people in the church. It can ruin your regard for man’s religious constructs when you find out that people who act so pious are doing horrible things behind the scenes. Finding out that our vicar was cheating on his wife was a heavy blow <sigh>. Though overall I live a very, very upright life that adheres quite closely to church doctrine, I have strayed a few times myself. I don’t think I’m supposed to work on Sunday, but I have before and I will again. I’m not going to condemn (there’s that word again) you for your opinion, because it would be rather hypocritical of me. No member of any religion is totally perfect… not you, not I, not anybody.

Geoff</sigh></sarcasm>

I would first like to say I posted this poll in another section of the boards, and I think it was pulled for being off topic. My apologies to the moderators.

Anyway, I wanted to ask people about their strategy gaming preferences. I have been an avid strategy gamer ever since I got my first PC about a decade ago. I cut my teeth on classic RTS (Real-Time Strategy) games like Starcraft, Warcraft, and Age of Empires. Later I played Empire Earth so much that I developed a stress disorder in my mouse hand. Lately, and by that I mean in the last year, I’ve come to fancy turn-based strategy games more and more. I’ve started to find a lot of real-time strategy games very annoying, because I find that they involve too much frantic button pressing and memorizing dozens of hotkeys in order for someone to be really good. Computer opponents have the huge advantage of literally being able to be in 5 places at once, and I find that the winners of these games are usually those who can press buttons fastest, rather than those who have the brightest strategies. I simply am starting to think that turn-based games really allow wise tactical and strategic minds to shine. I would like to think of myself as a pretty solid tactician, and I’ve met several people who could hand me my ass in a real-time strategy game like Warcraft 3, but wouldn’t stand a chance against me in Axis & Allies, since they can’t easily win by using hotkeys and pumping out troops faster than I can.

I assume that anyone who frequents this board is a fan of strategic games, so my question to the public is this: What do you prefer? Real-time (or simultaneous movement, I suppose), or turn-based? Comments, opinions, and silly stories encouraged.

K-Ration:

It wouldn’t matter in the sense that even if you point out factual inaccuracies in my arguments, it wouldn’t change my opinion on this issue. I am sure there are many factual errors and logical flaws in my essay, but I wrote a lot of this largely from memory and gut instinct, without doing any real research. Some issues are mostly logical ones, like tax law reform, where one can look at figures and numbers and projections and then decide what revisions benefit the most people. Some opinions are made in the heart and the soul, and this is one of them, at least for me. Having the flaws in my arguments pointed out will certainly set me thinking and thus make me a wiser and better person, so I invite them, but they won’t change my opinion, either. I do know that in your case, K-Ration, you aren’t trying to change my mind, you’re just trying to inpsire open and honest debate, and that being as it is, I look forward to your reply.

As an example, if I may… If you asked some random person how he felt about abortion, and he replied “It’s awful; killing unborn children is simply wrong”, you could present him with all the evidence in the world of how much money is saved by all these unwanted children not coming into the world, the quality of life to be expected for a child who is coming into a family who isn’t ready for him financialy or emotionally, the probability of an unwanted child “slipping through the cracks” of society and acting as a source of social entropy, and so forth, but it wouldn’t change the fact that to this person the killing of unborn children is just immoral, and he doesn’t need figures to justify that one way or the other. To this man, it’s a decision made without logical thought. For me, on this issue, it’s the same thing. I made notes of my more “logical” reasonings for two primary reasons: The first reason being to inspire some serious thought in people who happened to read them, and to let people see some of the ideas and beliefs that fly around in my admittedly disturbed mind, that in part led to me feeling the way I feel.

It’s been my observation that a lot of people do not object to gay marriage because they take the attitude of “Well, it doesn’t hurt me, so I guess it’s okay.” I don’t work that way, and I think that’s a common and depressing theme in American society. Also, I think it’s a very apathetic, cowardly, and reprehensible way to live. Too many people take a very lukewarm stance on controversial issues because they either fear social ostracism from people who disagree with them, or they simply don’t care to care, basically. On any issue, this just bothers me. I am reminded of two quotes:

“He who stands in the middle of the road gets hit with traffic from both sides.”

and

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who stand silent in the midst of controversy.”

Unfortunately, I cannot remember the author of either of these; I am a big fan of pithy quotations, but I have a terrible memory for names. :-?

The point being that some decisions are just “gut” decisions, and are made, as I said earlier, with the heart and soul and not the head. As an exceedingly logical person, this is hard for me sometimes. Even if some of my arguments are flawed, that doesn’t change how I feel. If homosexual people can’t “choose” their lifestyle, then I can’t “choose” how I feel on how they “choose” to live thier lives, among other issues. I have often said that if jerking your hand back from a hot stove is a reflex of the body, then emotions are the reflex of the soul. If watching a few seconds of a lesbian “wedding” makes me feel sick inside, then that’s just my inner self telling me in no uncertain terms how I really feel, deep down, about this.

We can hide how we feel and what we think from other people, and we can alter what we say and what we do to support that illusion, but what we really feel, inside, is simply the truest extension of who we are as people, and while one can go a long way to hide that from the outside world, you can’t truly hide that from yourself.

Geoff

Thanks for the courteous reply, K-Ration. I can only hope any further ones are half that respectful. As you can see, I’m up way too late tonight.

I wouldn’t propose for a moment that my many, many points are without numerous flaws. But when you speak from the heart, it often doesn’t have a proofreader. I don’t give a cracked iron quid if anybody agrees with me, I just want people to respect my opinions, and I will respect theirs.

As I said, some opinions are formed with the head; others with the heart. This was one of the latter.

As for you, Cystic Crypt, don’t bash “dogma”; I really enjoyed that movie. :D But thank you for getting my point about the media condemning the views of those who don’t agree to the liberal opinion; I was afraid that much of that would get lost in my near-endless ranting and some opinions that many would consider “hate speech.”

I tip my hat to you, gentlesirs, and I invite any future nitpicking, should you wish to spare the time. Thanks for taking the time to read my posts. I think I may love arguing even more than I love redheads and British Ale (God that’s sad).

Geoff

Top of the morning, all

I’ve been a big fan of strategy gaming ever since I received my first PC, as I mostly enjoy games that require a lot of thinking, deduction, and logic. At first I was all about RTS (Real Time Strategy) games. I cut my teeth on such games as Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, and so on. Later, I played Empire Earth so much that I developed a repetitive stress disorder in my mouse hand. Lately, and by that I mean in the last year, however, I’ve moved more and more towards turn-based strategy games. I am currently playing Silent Storm (which is great), Hearts of Iron (which is semi-real time, and also extremely hard), the occassional game of Risk (I’m remembering why I came to hate that bloody game), and, of course Axis & Allies. I’ve become frustrated with RTS games because of the computer’s ability to do fine manipulations of his troops and resource in many places at the same time when the human cannot, the dozens of hotkeys one usually has to memorize in order to be extremely efficient, and the fact that in my experience most games involve little strategy and are more about who can press buttons and crank out troops more quickly. I’m simply finding that in turn-based games there is more time for genuine strategic planning and execution, and thus a more enjoyably cerebral gaming experience.

So my poll is this: Which do you prefer? Real-time, turn-based, or no preference so long as you can conquer the weak? Addition posts with comments, opinions, favorite games, and silly stories encouraged.

Sic semper tyrannis!

Geoff

(continued from previous post)

The thing that separates homosexuals from all the other “major minorities” is simple, in my eyes. Being black, female, Asian, Hispanic, short, tall, or what have you is a more or less immutable physical condition. If you harm or insult a coloured person merely because he’s black, then you are basically hating someone merely for having a lot of extra skin pigment, at least in relation to pale Anglicans like myself. Homosexuality is different because it is defined by a behavior, not a set of physical characteristics. Many gay men look and act very effeminate, and many lesbians look and act very masculine, but many others do not. Many people believe that there is a genetic/biophysiological component to homosexuality, and I don’t doubt that. I think there has to be for such a perversion of human nature to occur. If you saw me in a public place “making out” with another man, you would almost certainly think I was gay, but if you heard me speaking in “ebonics” I rather doubt you would think I was black (I’ve done it, and with my accent, most people laugh their bloody asses off). There is a common saying in Christian circles, and that is “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” What that means to me is that you dislike behaviors, not people. Homosexuality is a behavior, and thus, if people don’t like it or think it’s wrong, then it is their prerogative to denounce that behavior and avoid it if they so choose. I do not feel that this gives people the right to abuse, verbally or physically, gay people or gay “sympathizers”, because we are all Gods’ children and I feel safe in saying he wouldn’t want us to do that. But if people have a problem with other people’s behavior, then they should be allowed to avoid that person if they would rather not associate with someone they feel is doing something wrong or immoral. People should be allowed to believe what they believe, and not be torn to pieces when they believe things contrary to the general opinion of the power classes and those that are most visible (celebrities) and the groups that distribute and control the spread of information (the media) and, concurrently, “public” opinion.

All that being said, this is the part where I piss everyone off big time. Brace yourselves. I am a devout (and obviously verbose) Protestant, and I feel homosexuality is a sin, and is unnatural. Despite this, I do not go around insulting, belittling, or harming gay people, because, though I would never speak for the Almighty, I doubt that God would want me to act that way towards my fellow man. However, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance, and while I tolerate the often very public and graphic exposure of homosexuals and their behavior in this world, I will never accept it. I will state clearly that I think that the Bible is a convoluted and confusing book oftentimes, but its stance on homosexuality is quite clear indeed. Even trying to say the phrase “gay marriage” makes the bile rise in my throat. One of the things that further convinced me of my opinion of homosexuality happened several weeks ago. I was channel surfing and caught for just a few seconds a lesbian “wedding” in progress. Seeing these two young women looking at each other in that certain way, standing next to a supposed “priest” made my entire body go almost numb with a feeling that I can only describe as a profound “wrongness”; I quite literally felt physically ill. Anything that causes me such an immutably negative, gut-wrenching, visceral reaction is simply wrong. Some value judgements are made not with the mind, but with the heart and soul. Despite the fact that they often seem as different as day and night, women and men were meant to be together, though their unions are often far from perfect. By some mystical, mysterious, confusing, wonderful connection, time and time again men and women come together, fall in love, make love, and produce children to perpetuate the species. If you look at every animal species in the world that shows sexual dichotomy (two distinct genders), those two genders somehow find each other, mate, and carry on their bloodlines. Yes, I know species other than humans show homosexual behavior, but I don’t care. This is the simple law of nature, and homosexuality is a perversion of this natural order. In my eyes, homosexuality is no better or worse than pedophilia (sexual desire for young children), necrophilia (sexual desire towards corpses), bestiality (sexual desire towards animals), or dendrophilia (sexual desire towards trees). It is an unnatural desire towards a creature that nature never intended someone to be attracted to. Yes, most gay people probably have some sort of biological disposition towards members of the same gender, but we are all custodians of our own behavior, and we have to accept that there may be consequences to our actions, even consequences beyond this life, perhaps. That being said, why is it that homosexuality is largely accepted, but these other philias are not… Why would people who wouldn’t bat an eye at seeing a same-sex couple getting affectionate would vomit if they saw someone having sexual relations with an animal or corpse? Well, I would assume it’s because it’s between two consenting people, but that leads me to ask that if a sheep could talk and consent to having sex with a grown man, does that make it okay then? Most would say no. I think the bigger reason that so many people don’t object to homosexuality is because, over a great period of time, homosexuals and the media have slowly spoon-fed the existance and appectance of homosexuality into society, and in combination with the overwhelming liberalism and permissiveness of modern America, people have eventually come to accept it to a great degree. Fifty years ago, the mention of such things would make people absolutely aghast with horror. The fact that this “lifestyle” is now widely accepted proves my sad theory that there is nothing in this world so bizarre, odd, perverse, and backwards that you can’t get people to go for it if you market it properly. But as to the theory that many accept homosexuality because it’s between two consenting people… just because two people mutually agree to do something doesn’t make it acceptable; if two men in this modern age wanted to fight each other to the death with axes because they had a score to settle, the authorities wouldn’t stand aside and allow it to happen, if they knew about it. The way homosexuals act so offended whenever they encounter any opposition or distaste towards their behavior is just ridiculous beyond telling. To do something so counterpoint to human nature and not to expect any criticism or negativity towards it is arrogant beyond words. While heterosexuals are certainly not doing what used to be a sacred institution any great flattery in the last few decades, to have the state sponsor perverse unions of man-man and woman-woman is truly a sign of the rapid decay of American society. Frankly, American social movements and evolution are ridiculous anyway; it could say in the Declaration of Independance and/or the Constitution in very clear language “Marriage is an institution only for a man and a woman, and if this were ever not to be so then the entire country would be sucked under the ocean by a gigantic whirlpool” and eventually people would still insist that gays should be allowed to marry. The timing of this movement is simply because America has mostly departed from its more pious days, and since nothing specifically is written anywhere denying people this right, and the American philosophy in general seems to be “Don’t restrict anyone from doing anything”, the time was ripe for such a movement. To not only condone but to actually endorse unnatural acts is so inherently wrong that it makes me very, very sad. I fear for the future.

I realize this post was incredibly long winded, and is going to upset a lot of people. I have way too much free time, and am perhaps too opinionated and even self-righteous for my own good, but ever since the gay marriage thing came very much into the public eye a few months ago, I have thought about it a lot, and it never ceases to trouble me. The reason for my long post is just that; many weeks and lots of thought gave me ample time to put my feelings into words. I realize many people are going to read this post (if they have the patience) and say horrible things about me, and I really don’t care. I chose not to mince words even in the slightest, because you can lie to other people for a long time, if you wish, but you cannot truly lie to yourself. I have had to hide my true feelings on this issue for a long time, for fear of reprisals by people who don’t agree with me and with my firm belief of letting people form and have their own opinions. This isn’t the forum I would have thought to use as a sort of soap box, but when I saw the thread on the boards, I couldn’t hold back any longer. I am glad I had the opportunity to finally “let it all out” on this forum, and I hope that my ranting, such as it is, will encourage people to think and discuss while preserving my anonymity. It is not that I am ashamed or afraid of my beliefs, but I realize that there are many people who would seek to do me harm were I to express these admittedly strong and controversial beliefs in a more truly public forum. I am not really trying to change anybody’s mind, but I felt the need to unburden myself, and what I am truly hoping to do is to show people that freedom of speech HAS to be universal; people have to be just as free to denounce something as they are to endorse it. I am almost as offended by the media’s policy of belittling and demeaning people who disagree with them as the fact that the legalization of same-sex realtionships is even being considered. I chose to use bold, shocking, and daring language so that perhaps it would startle people into greater self-awareness. If I can get even a handful of people to stop and think about this and other difficult issues in a society where people are often too busy to be introspective, then I feel I’ve done a little good for us all.

To all those who take the time to read this, thank you and God bless I’m going to go put on my asbestos knickers; let the flames begin.

Geoff

The following is the majority of an essay I have been writing in bits and pieces over the last few weeks on this very topic.

You know, I have heard several people, gay and straight, mention what they thought America’s founding fathers might have said on this topic. I think there’s a simple reason that no specific condemnation or endorsement of same sex marriage was ever made in any of the formative American documents, and that’s because the founding fathers never imagined anyone would conceive of it. I have no doubt that if you could conjure up the departed spirits of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and ask them their position on this, I think they would be aghast that we would even consider tolerating such unions, much less legally endorsing them. I’m sure many will despise and hate me for that remark (it wouldn’t be the first time) but I think it’s pretty obvious.

I’ve noticed a trend in America as I have become more politically aware over the last few years, and that is that freedom of religion is often mistaken of freedom from religion. People want to totally separate church and state from one another, but you cannot separate religion from America, for it constitutes the very fabric of the nation. That being said, America has surely deviated from basic Christian principles (though shalt not kill, but abortion and capital punishment are surely killing). I will be the first to say that over the course of many centuries various groups have used “holiness” and righteousness" and supposedly the “will of God” to justify many atrocities: The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Holocaust, to name a few. If the way that mortal men interpret and structure Christianity wasn’t horribly flawed in some ways, people wouldn’t have broken away from the oppressive Catholic church in the sixteenth century, Martin Luther would have never nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in Whittenberg, and the Protestant reformation would never have been necessary. The fact that Jesus Christ had all these wonderful ideas about peace and loving thy neighbor, yet people spent centuries killing each other trying to decide exactly how he said it, shows how truly flawed man’s interpretation of religion can be. However, the core ideas of Christianity, of good moral behavior, peace, and loving thy fellow man, are those that can encourage people to be better than they are. A much wiser man than I, whose name I have sadly forgotten, once said “I tend to judge the merits of a religion by the behavior of those who profess to adhere to it”, and I certainly know that my beliefs have made me a much better person than I otherwise might have been. Frankly, I think this country would, given the horrible rates of cruel & violent crimes, corruption, and immorality, be a lot better off if everyone was a little bit more religious, or at least held truer to the most basic tenets of Christianity. It’s not that I want people to share my theological inclinations or even always agree with me, but I think it would simply make people more good and moral, and thus make life better for us all. My opinion aside, a very important thing to consider is that one certainly doesn’t have to be a religious person to be a good person, and I am more concerned with helping people be better people than getting everybody to march to the same drumbeat.

Nevertheless, it has been my experience that whenever anything religious is put in any public context, everyone acts as if they were so traumatized by it. If you don’t want to get involved in any religious ceremonies, then just bloody walk away. I have never in my life felt that I was in a situation where I was forced to be involved in any religious context. I was watching Tough Crowd with Collin Quinn on Comedy Central a week or so ago, and one of the guest comedians said something to the effect of “the only group you can really make fun of anymore are religious people.” I hadn’t really thought of that in those words, but it’s more true than I’d rather like to think about. The fact is that this country and many of its most basic laws and codes were based of off Christian ethics, and no other factor in the history of recorded time has influenced human beliefs and morals more than religious teaching. To act as if it’s absurd for religion to affect people’s thinking about gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, and any of a number of other issues is absurd in and of itself. The legal institution of marriage in the modern world (modern being probably within the last millenium), with all its benefits and restrictions, was derived from the religious institution of it, and the Christian stance on this issue is crystal clear. Long ago, marriage was simply an institution in the eyes of God, and very, very sacred. At some point, and I honestly don’t know when, the government of America, as many other countries have, made it a social and legal institution with benefits (tax breaks) and restrictions (only one husband/wife at a time, of course). I will be the first person to say that many, many heterosexuals have made a mockery of what I consider still a sacred covenant, by marrying for money, prestige, guilt, revenge, lust, or any other of the many wrong reasons people get married for, as opposed to just marrying for love (what a concept). That being said, does it necessarily mean that the American people and the government should tarnish this ancient institution even further?

America has devolved to the point where everything under the sun is tolerated, except for ANYTHING that smacks of intolerance. It seems that as soon as someone disapproves of anything, they are branded with the mark of sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, and with every other discriminatory, recriminatory label in the English language. The fact that the horribly biased media is so unfailingly liberal makes it so that, in the case of this topic, they constantly disemminate the view that homosexuality is perfectly fine and not at all bad in any way. The fact that homosexuality has become a subculture all its own proves this. Also, homosexuals complain about the bias that they receive in this country, but if they don’t bloody like it they can go to the Middle East where they kill gay people in brutal ways. All things considered, they have it pretty well here. Further, "they* (being the media) endorse the opinion that anybody who has a problem with homosexuality is a horrible, hateful, intolerant, mean-spirited person, and thus they scare the general populace of the country into agreeing with them or at least hiding their beliefs if they have the nerve to have moral, ethical, or religious distastes towards homosexuality. Last time I checked, and granted I haven’t been in this country as long as many of you, there was still a “free speech” clause in the rulebooks somewhere, and unless I’m mistaken greatly that means that it not only allows people to endorse anything they want, but it also allows people to decry anything they want as well. The moral here is that freedom of speech is bilateral, and it’s an insult to put down intelligent, reasonable people simply because they disagree with you. But since the media is so utterly left-wing, that is the state of the matter, and it goes against the most defining principles of this nation.

(Part 2 to follow)