Let me begin by stating that I believe that the Declaration of Independence is one of the most powerful documents ever conceived. As I read it, I can’t help but feel an appreciation for the intelligent men and their good wives that assembled to so eloquently pour their innermost hopes and desires for a government into a single document.What I am about to discuss is a topic which will inevitably become the most heated and intense political debate of my lifetime. The end result of this debate may be so severe as to divide the country apart and to cause the people to “throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”; one which conforms to their beliefs. The primary reason for such an intense debate is the subject of freedom. It boils down to the interpretation of freedom declared to be “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For history’s sake let’s read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to more clearly understand the reason governments are established and overthrown.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
What one person might feel is a freedom of choice or action, another person might completely disagree with that opinion. The subject I am about to delve into regarding freedom is held closer to U.S. citizens heartstrings than we truly perceive at the moment. This subject is like a perfect storm of two massive, immovable opinions that have no choice but to pound against each other until one side relents or is destroyed. Resistance is futile. What I am talking about is THE EL NIŃO of all EL NIŃOS……..ONE HUGE BIG GAY STORM. Oh you will try to avoid it- just like we have for hundreds of years but every great civilization always has to confront this beast and make a stand. That day has come.
Let me see if I can be of assistance. I think we can all be sorted under 3 classifications regarding the Big Gay Storm.
1. Vehemently oppose gay marriage.
2. Vociferously support gay marriage.
3. Vaguely could care less about gay marriage, neither for nor against, as the topic is either unimportant, insignificant or does not affect your life as of yet…..or so you think!!!
4. V for Vendetta truly was a terrible movie.
Most people will agree with classification #4 and one other classification. Where do you stand? Classification #3 is for people who are naïve, young, or without a backbone. These people will be the first to be destroyed by the Big Huge Gay Storm, for everyone must take a real side as we will soon find out. There will be no middle ground when the dust has settled.
Earlier I stated that debate is centered on the concept of freedom but the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence cites why this debate of freedom even exists. Let us read,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The freedoms we are talking about have been stipulated by the “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.” So what are the laws of nature and nature’s God? Ah, that my friend is subject to individual interpretation. I can’t shove my opinion down your throat anymore than you can shove your opinion down my throat lest we encroach upon one another’s freedoms.
I am going to simply judge classification #1 and #2 then attempt to understand from my perspective why they believe the way they do. Some or all points may apply to a person within each classification.
Classification #1 - AKA Gay-Hater Beliefs
1. Homosexuality is inherently wrong.
2. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
3. Gay marriage defies the laws of nature.
4. Gay marriage defies the laws of nature’s God.
5. Gay marriage imposes on hetero's freedom.
Classification #2 – AKA Homo-Lover Beliefs
1. Nothing is wrong with homosexuality.
2. Anyone should have the right to marry if they want.
3. Gay marriage does not defy the laws of nature.
4. Gay marriage does not defy the laws of nature’s God.
5. Gay marriage does not impose on anyone’s freedoms.
Instead of break down every one of these points for interpretation I am just going to tell you exactly how this whole problem with the Big Huge Gay Storm is going to play out. Classification #2 will be deemed the winners by the Supreme Court and a new amendment will be added to the Constitution declaring something to the effect anyone can get married and there will be no distinguishing difference, on paper, between a homo and hetero marriage. The Supreme Court basically has to push for an amendment or else it will bounce between the state and the feds forever, just like right now. According to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence someone’s gay marriage should never really affect my “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” just as a hetero marriage shouldn’t either. Based solely on the principle of freedom, gay marriage is just as warranted as hetero marriage. Yep, I said it.
Ok well that was pretty easy, within a couple hundred words I figured out exactly what the government is going to do about this problem……but I never discussed what will truly cause the cataclysmic collision of two parts of society. It boils down to this: Pro homo rights groups want gay marriage legalized for 3 reasons.
They want everyone to agree with them that being gay is ok.
They want rights to make claims, through marriage, for healthcare purposes.
They want rights to make claims, through marriage, for the transfer of wealth such as taxes, inheritances, and other money grubbing and form filling reasons.
Reason #1 will be the cause of the Huge Big Gay Storm. Gay rights groups want to essentially make it constitutionally ok to be gay- for the government and everyone it governs to say, “being gay is ok.” Gay people would like everyone to think that their gay marriage will not affect your life or your freedoms but that is where they pervert the truth.
If I uphold gay marriage and make it constitutionally acceptable then I have gone against my “moral code.” Morally speaking that is like telling my kids that I uphold gay marriage because gays should have the freedoms they want irrespective of the fact that I think it is wrong for some reason. That is why it is so contestable, everyone should have the same freedoms but that doesn’t mean that morally speaking those freedoms are agreeable. Man is it going to get ugly. Everyone has their own “moral code.” You just don’t tell people to change their inherent moral code or force them to change their moral code without riots, guns, murders, tanks, and sometimes political upheavals.
Now let it be noted that the society's interpretation and agreement of moral codes is THE primary reason that most governments are dissembled or newly formed. Please re-read that sentence and let it sink in.
Now everyone is going to read the next part and think I have completely lost my mind. As crazy as it sounds, if the U.S. lasts long enough to make it through all the phases, this is how the future will play out.
Pro-Homo Mind Melt Phase #1-Well, if you don’t agree with gay marriage that’s fine. You can think that. That’s ok! Just give us our constitutionally guaranteed rights and you can think whatever you want.
Pro-Homo Mind Melt Phase #2- See that’s not so bad. Gays aren’t that bad. We are just fine. Love us too!
Pro-Homo Mind Melt Phase #3 – What do you have against gays? You know it is unconstitutional to have any negative sentiments towards gays.
Pro-Homo Mind Melt Phase #4 – So you are a gay hater, huh? Since that is unconstitutional you will now go to prison until you agree with that sentiment.
Look at the history of the civil rights within the U.S. and it is not a stretch of the imagination to think things can get this bad. But it’s ok. History also teaches us something else. I came up with this theory on my own so don’t blame any televangelist for my doctrines.
Jonathan Mullen’s great theory of “The Gay Rise Before the Fall”: Every great society in the written history of mankind has openly accepted homosexuality. It happened just before every great society fell. Whether they were defeated from the outside or within, they all fell shortly after their society accepted homosexuality. Whether it became a government mandate of acceptance or culturally acceptable it doesn’t matter, they all fell. Rome, France, England, Babylon, Maya, Mesopotamia, Sodom and Gomorrah. Oh great history professors please prove me wrong because I haven’t found proof otherwise as of yet.
The great question is, how many Pro-Homo Mind Melt Phases will the collective society pass through until a group stands up and says, “No more! I won’t put up with this anymore! This society and this government do not agree with my mind nor my heart! I want out!” During Pro-Homo Mind Melt Phase #1 Utah and Texas won’t even last 6 months. Watch and see. Who knows how long the rest of the states or union will last?
Do I hate gay people? No, not at all. Do I understand them? No, not at all. Do I agree with homosexuality? No, not at all. Am willing to bet that my mentality is still the vast majority in the U.S. today? Yes, absolutely. That is what is slowing the storm more than anything else.
There it is. If I am wrong on any account please let me know. Let time be the judge of how right or wrong I am.
Next up: God and the government, separation of what??
6 comments:
Dear, GREAT and WISE Frooftradamus
Let me be the first to comment... To say the least about this spill on gay marriage, it was fun to read. I will definitely look forward to seeing how this plays out, Texas and Utah will definitely be the firsts to fall, We can already see the the beginnings of war, look at prop 8 in California. It will be like A an E of old ;)I also have a love for the Declaration of Independence. That's were our government is going wrong, they don't understand what is written. They don't understand "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"! I think that this rings more true than anything, Our keys to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are only OURs through PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and SELF DETERMINATION and by no other means!! Happiness, life and liberty are not GIVEN to us through the government, they are earned by us. If you want it go get it! Well now that I've gotten carried away I will end this first post. I look forward to reading more...
MasoV
The Vance Variable: A non-scientific observational response to the thought provoking theory of the great JRM
I’d like to think that unaccounted variables are the cause for most wars and civil turbulence. When only one variable is blamed for a war or disaster the bigger picture is missed. If historians really believed the civil war was started and fought over the issue of slavery then many parts of that history would need to be censored. If historians thought for even one minute that World War II started over the moral issue of genocide, then the historical record would need to be edited. These moral issues were byproducts of the war, only one variable added to many others. Often the true cause of the conflict is missed. It is really hard to accurately account for all the variables that are involved in a conflict. Historians have their favorite views and persist that their opinions on how events occurred in the past are correct. At the same time every little “fact” is debated and some “new” evidence is found that actually changes the historical record.
My views on marriage, from a non-religious observation, and how “gays” fit into this mess………I mean partnership.
1. Women relied on men to bring home the bacon. Men hunted, gathered, herded, farmed, ect. and women spent the day preparing food, caring for children, ect. Life was hard and survival was the game of the day.
2. A male could take a woman into his tent and “Giggidy Giggidy” the woman belonged to the male. This could also be for multiple women, after all most males have a desire to pass along their genetics and that means to as many women as possible. Marriage was a loose acknowledgement that a woman was part of a male’s household, like sheep, or tents. A male could trade a female wife if he needed something more of value.
3. The daily grind of survival could be avoided by having other people do the hunting and gathering of food. A male could obtain wealth, and engage in extra-curricular activities, like being an artist, politician, merchant, ect. A woman was chosen as the “main squeeze” to pass on a blood line for inheritance reasons. This did not stop males from enjoying the company of other women, hence the creation of “bastards” who could not inherit the male’s wealth. I trace my own family history back to “The Book Of The Bastards.”
4. As civilization has advanced more wealth has been obtained making it possible for a large portion of a population to live off of the goods of the producing class. Once women realized they did not need a “male” to bring home the bacon, and a woman could become a provider, divorce shot through the roof. The divorce rate is around 60 to 74 percent. Marriage is more a partnership now then a survival mechanism.
5. Male/male, and female/female sexual relations are made possible due to a pool of wealth and resources. Neither sex has to rely on the other for support and can venture into other activities. Hmmmm….wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean?
6. Conclusion, marriage is a man made system that is based on survival and passing on genetics, but is still in practice due to traditions within the respected cultures. The religious claim marriage is a holy order from God but I’m not going there. I’m basing my conclusions on observation, not faith based doctrine. I’ve observed each religious body has their own view of how and why marriage exists. I do not like debating a faith based person due to “personal interpretation” of doctrine and lack of observational logic. They are not allowed to observe and come to a conclusion if it contradicts holy doctrine. Not really worth the effort.
I think the assumption that most civilizations fell when homosexuality was accepted by the masses is way too simple. I think that variable was made obvious due to the excess amount of resources and wealth of a civilization and the ease with which to sustain one’s life. It has been my observation that the decline of most recorded civilizations were due to power struggles over control of resources. When quality of life is degraded for a group war soon follows. The Roman Empire expanded to increase wealth and resources for the noble class. Rome fell to other peoples wanting more control over resources. There was documented homosexuality from the beginning to the end and then homosexuality stopped once the Empire crumbled, oh wait, homosexuality continued even after the civilization collapsed. So it must not be an important factor.
Europe has perpetually been at war over resources. The emigrants from Europe and England left the country due to other people controlling the resources. My ancestors came to this country because bastards could not own land or vote.
When the local recourses were controlled by a few individuals those who were unhappy moved West. This pattern has continued to the current day regardless of whether people were married or not. There have been openly gay people every step of the way.
If civilization-wide war happens it will not be due to a “moral issue” but the lack of control of recourses. If you are unhappy with how your government operates and you start having money, food, water, and shelter shortages then where will you go? You can no longer say, “Go West my son” because there is no more West, only California, where the resources have already been divided up. There is no “new” land to discover. There are no longer un-controlled recourses where a family can start over. Sure blame the gays for the destructions of civilizations, but they are only a product of a resource rich society. A resource rich society is a target to those who lack resources.
Even if gay marriage is made legal and the government is overthrown, the new government is still going to want taxes and control over the resources. You still have to deal with a growing population hostile countries that want our lands, waters, minerals, oil, food, and ever thing else that sustains a mass of people. It is estimated that the population will be at 9 billion by 2040. That’s a whole lot of people to be on earth at one time. I do not see gay marriage as a major issue in the future, they will always remain a minority, because most guys just like “female” boobies.
I think that there will be more important issues for us to deal with then who is having sex with who. I think feeding our families and quality of life will be the most important issues.
Just wanted to throw the “Vance Variable” into this gaaaaaaaaaaaay storm.
your readers leave really long comments
Gay Relations does not equal babies. In accord with the natural selection of nature, gay relations have no benefit. Being biologically FIT(selected for by nature selection) means you have the ability to produce offspring, Gay Relations = not fitness. Being Gay is against nature. Even the simplest of organisms know who to bread with... excluding asexual organisms and the 0.0000000001 of other organisms that don't follow this rule of nature.
Vman: When a comment is longer than the original post --- its really time to start your own blog!
1. In the past majorities have followed supreme court decisions. Roe v. Wade, p*rn as freedom of speech, teaching of evolution. No reason to doubt that it would be the same now, particularly as young people have supported gay marriage, older people are the ones opposed. (Thanks, I believe, to Will & Grace, Friends, Sienfield, South Park, Jon Stewart and many other hilarious but morally unconcerned staples of pop culture)
2. The core argument about gay marriage is wether or not you believe that men and womyn are fundamentally the same or if they have fundamental differences. If you believe that they are fundamentally the same except some minor facts about reproduction (who cares about that, anyways?) than you have no coherent argument against gay marriage (that is the law of nature to which you are referring) In that sense prop. 8 and the churches fight against gay marriage is E.R.A. part 2. My fear is that part 3 (it passing electorates) will start to resemble the polyg hunts of the 1890's. The only demographic projection that precludes that outcoume is lots of immigration from poor countries.
Post a Comment