I just read some of that last post. I totally meant ramble alert, but I was in a hurry. It was quite random too.
Ok, Man Camp. Here's my proposal: We each suggest what we want in the camp and maybe each suggest three spots. Then we vote or reduce possibilities by simple deduction of what we want, what's feasible, time, weather, money for gas or entry, etc. Any thoughts or other ways we should do it?
Another thing for us to consider: who can drive? I wouldn't mind, but the vehicle is in the shop and I honestly have no idea when it will get out. Transmission problems--the joy.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Too large for a comment
I am leaving town for the weekend and probably won't be getting online much, so I offer some thoughts now. Not very good ones, because I haven't given it a great deal of thought. RANDOM ALERT!!
I think in some respects the plan is a good one. I wonder if the City of Enoch had a similar judge system. It was a community full of religion that succeeded fully in getting everyone translated. What a unique society.
But every society is so completely different. Is there one common goal of society for all societies? Celestial? The same society here will exist there? From a religious standpoint we would say the City of Enoch was ideal. Non-religious people wouldn't say that nor would they believe in a perfect city that was translated. They would envision something different.
We might ask: how would it be for us in another society completely dominated by another religion. We have faced that to some extent. I was in 95% Buddhist country. 4% Muslim and the rest something else. How did that government do with other religions? Decent. But not a hundred years ago.
In some respects in might depend on how close the dominant religion was to what we term as the true religion. While Buddhism is very different, the basic beliefs are good and entail good living principles. The only problem is getting people to live it. The Thai country would be better off if everyone lived their religion.
In the D&C (I forget the section) it says that government should protect the exercise of conscience. What does that mean? Do current governments protect that? Would a completely religious government allow non-believers that protection? In the BoM case, I believe they did.
The High Priest being the Chief Judge? I interviewed a judge in Provo. He probably is a high priest. Wonderful man. I'm not sure I ever felt the spirit so much when interviewing someone or interviewing a secondary source about the primary source. He has strong religious principles and it makes him, in my opinion, one of the best judges possible. He has the Gift of the Holy Ghost and he prays to now what to do. Would you rather have someone using only physical evidence to judge you? Or would you like someone who can ask a higher source to get a better idea. He told me he meets people all the time that thank him for putting them in jail. He probably made some inspired correct decisions for those people. Other decisions may be inspired for the good of society. I always thought in the mission field that the Lord puts you in the place where you are needed to help others, but where you can be helped the most too. Dual purpose. Probably that way for judgments. Put the criminal where it will help them best and help society best. Tough to decide, for sure, so I'd rather have heaven's help.
So, in that judge's case I'd say having a judge that is religious works well. That isn't quite what you were asking, but I think it is a benefit to our society. Should all of them be religious? Good question.
Sometimes as people we think things should be static or black and white. That person is ugly or evil. We shift between dichotomies where none should exist or we think some things should be static and non-changing. While God is unchangeable, he does play ball differently according to what's happening. He commanded Nephi to kill, etc. The Constitution was not meant to be the final word on government. It was meant to grow as the county grew. Fascinating. What if different types of government are good at different times? Kind of a weird idea I just thought up. In BoM times the judge system and religion intermixed was the best option for them. The City of Enoch had whatever they had. We have ours. We are probably placed in governmental situations that test our faith and agency and will help us somehow. Even bad governments may have a role to play (like bad empires against wicked ancient Israel) The British Empire could be seen as bad because they killed and conquered many people, but because of them Christianity spread far and makes missionary work so much easier. Not so black and white.
So, what if different governments are better for different times? A society that completely adopts an ideology at one point needs different things than a system that adopts 20 ideologies. Just a quick-thought thought.
What should we adopt today? Total religious judge system would provoke uproar, so maybe good LDS people who decide to be judges and do the best they can? ?
Obviously we live in a day where there are bazillions of ideologies and religions. Totally different than when ancient Israel was with the Egyptians or moved into the desert. Or different than BoM times. We probably need a government that is different. The D&C says the Constitution was given by the Lord. Why didn't he create a Priest/judge system again? Something else needed to protect and test all of his children I guess.
Anyway, total stream of conscious thought junk going on above me. Sorry. Hope some of it is thought provoking and not simply thought vomiting. KED OUT
I think in some respects the plan is a good one. I wonder if the City of Enoch had a similar judge system. It was a community full of religion that succeeded fully in getting everyone translated. What a unique society.
But every society is so completely different. Is there one common goal of society for all societies? Celestial? The same society here will exist there? From a religious standpoint we would say the City of Enoch was ideal. Non-religious people wouldn't say that nor would they believe in a perfect city that was translated. They would envision something different.
We might ask: how would it be for us in another society completely dominated by another religion. We have faced that to some extent. I was in 95% Buddhist country. 4% Muslim and the rest something else. How did that government do with other religions? Decent. But not a hundred years ago.
In some respects in might depend on how close the dominant religion was to what we term as the true religion. While Buddhism is very different, the basic beliefs are good and entail good living principles. The only problem is getting people to live it. The Thai country would be better off if everyone lived their religion.
In the D&C (I forget the section) it says that government should protect the exercise of conscience. What does that mean? Do current governments protect that? Would a completely religious government allow non-believers that protection? In the BoM case, I believe they did.
The High Priest being the Chief Judge? I interviewed a judge in Provo. He probably is a high priest. Wonderful man. I'm not sure I ever felt the spirit so much when interviewing someone or interviewing a secondary source about the primary source. He has strong religious principles and it makes him, in my opinion, one of the best judges possible. He has the Gift of the Holy Ghost and he prays to now what to do. Would you rather have someone using only physical evidence to judge you? Or would you like someone who can ask a higher source to get a better idea. He told me he meets people all the time that thank him for putting them in jail. He probably made some inspired correct decisions for those people. Other decisions may be inspired for the good of society. I always thought in the mission field that the Lord puts you in the place where you are needed to help others, but where you can be helped the most too. Dual purpose. Probably that way for judgments. Put the criminal where it will help them best and help society best. Tough to decide, for sure, so I'd rather have heaven's help.
So, in that judge's case I'd say having a judge that is religious works well. That isn't quite what you were asking, but I think it is a benefit to our society. Should all of them be religious? Good question.
Sometimes as people we think things should be static or black and white. That person is ugly or evil. We shift between dichotomies where none should exist or we think some things should be static and non-changing. While God is unchangeable, he does play ball differently according to what's happening. He commanded Nephi to kill, etc. The Constitution was not meant to be the final word on government. It was meant to grow as the county grew. Fascinating. What if different types of government are good at different times? Kind of a weird idea I just thought up. In BoM times the judge system and religion intermixed was the best option for them. The City of Enoch had whatever they had. We have ours. We are probably placed in governmental situations that test our faith and agency and will help us somehow. Even bad governments may have a role to play (like bad empires against wicked ancient Israel) The British Empire could be seen as bad because they killed and conquered many people, but because of them Christianity spread far and makes missionary work so much easier. Not so black and white.
So, what if different governments are better for different times? A society that completely adopts an ideology at one point needs different things than a system that adopts 20 ideologies. Just a quick-thought thought.
What should we adopt today? Total religious judge system would provoke uproar, so maybe good LDS people who decide to be judges and do the best they can? ?
Obviously we live in a day where there are bazillions of ideologies and religions. Totally different than when ancient Israel was with the Egyptians or moved into the desert. Or different than BoM times. We probably need a government that is different. The D&C says the Constitution was given by the Lord. Why didn't he create a Priest/judge system again? Something else needed to protect and test all of his children I guess.
Anyway, total stream of conscious thought junk going on above me. Sorry. Hope some of it is thought provoking and not simply thought vomiting. KED OUT
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Government, cont.
I've got a Gospel Doctrine lesson on Nephite Government (Alma the Younger, King Mosiah, Reign of the Judges, etc.) this next Sunday, and since our last discussion (d)evolved into a discussion about government, I'm curious if any of you have thoughts on the Judges system that I might pilfer for my lesson.
What aspects of Mosiah's plan do you think are good ideas? What parts wouldn't work? What about appointing the High Priest to be the first Chief Judge? Can a government built so solidly on religious principles be accepting of the non- or counter-religious people?
What aspects of the Judges system should we adopt? Which wouldn't work today?
What aspects of Mosiah's plan do you think are good ideas? What parts wouldn't work? What about appointing the High Priest to be the first Chief Judge? Can a government built so solidly on religious principles be accepting of the non- or counter-religious people?
What aspects of the Judges system should we adopt? Which wouldn't work today?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Man Camp Location
So, Abe and I were discussing man camp locations. Since it is about a month a away I thought we could talk about it again (and I go in phases of writing on the Herd blog and this last while has been one of them).
Abe and I discussed some places over by Escalante. They have slot canyons, arches, etc. Could be a good place to go explore. OOH. Google Bull Valley Gorge. This is a great place I've wanted to hike since I drove over it. Neato Burrito.
Another option I thought of is Cathedral Gorge State Park. It's not as cool as roughing it somewhere, but imagine exploring the little canyons and crevices at night. Pretty exciting I'd like to think.
These are just some of my thoughts this morning. We could visit some ghost towns or camp in the bottom of the mine out by Milford or....Cedar Mountain....or whatever.
Name the sites you want. Sorry to fill your inboxes.
Abe and I discussed some places over by Escalante. They have slot canyons, arches, etc. Could be a good place to go explore. OOH. Google Bull Valley Gorge. This is a great place I've wanted to hike since I drove over it. Neato Burrito.
Another option I thought of is Cathedral Gorge State Park. It's not as cool as roughing it somewhere, but imagine exploring the little canyons and crevices at night. Pretty exciting I'd like to think.
These are just some of my thoughts this morning. We could visit some ghost towns or camp in the bottom of the mine out by Milford or....Cedar Mountain....or whatever.
Name the sites you want. Sorry to fill your inboxes.
Monday, May 21, 2012
New Movie?
The guys we hired to do our music for The Device have several cds of music, the latest being Makara, which was released in 2010.
Should we make a new movie and use their music again? :)
Should we make a new movie and use their music again? :)
Quick thoughts
Good place to talk about things. I knew we'd come up with very thoughtful...thoughts. Basically a think tank. If we were to continue such a discussion on such a complex topic I guess it would be helpful to have some kind of discussion map where it shows the basic question with other questions stemming from that along with arguments and what not. Hard to keep everything organized in my head and on the screen.
Do we want to keeping discussing this issue? Or move on to evolution? J/k.
Do we want to keeping discussing this issue? Or move on to evolution? J/k.
Re: The Great Issue of our Time
What is the question here? Is it an issue of the rightness or wrongness of a particular behavior? Is it a test of how well our personal theories about government coexist with our testimonies of the Restored Gospel and of modern-day prophets, or of our commitment to such?
My thoughts on this issue recently have centered around whether or not a position I hold based on belief should be a position I try to bind to other people in law. my feelings and positions have shifted and changed even over the last few days as I have read and considered everybody's comments. It has really made me think deeply about the interplay between government and religion, and the purpose of government.
If the question is whether or not homosexuality is wrong, my answer is that it is. If the question is whether or not same-sex unions should be legalized under the title "marriage," my answer is also simple: no. My belief should inform my involvement in the democratic process, as well as my own actions and behaviors. I guess I am less Libertarian on this point, as I think that the rules of a community should reflect the values and aspirations of that community.
Why is it illegal to take the life of another person? Because our community ostensibly values every person's life, and believes that each person has a right to live, and we don't want the people we are close to, or ourselves, being killed. We have legislated a value.
Nearly any reasonable person would say that homicide should be illegal because it is, by it's nature, bad. Even a libertarian (I would guess) would say that there ought to be a rule (law) against killing one another, and a means, chosen by the community, of enforcing it (government). There seem to be things that everybody knows are bad, and things that not so many people know are bad, and things that some people say are bad but which others call good. Still more would say that nothing is inherently wrong, because of the temporary nature of existence and lack of meaningful consequences, etc.
How many people have to think something is bad before it deserves to be defined by law as such? How bad does something have to be before it qualifies for its own legislation? Is badness that affects only the doer ever necessary to be made illegal? Can I say that doing bad things makes you a weaker person, less productive to my community, and use that reason to write a law?
We are never (so long as mortals are in charge) going to agree on the basic answers to these questions, let alone the degree to which they should apply. This is exactly the reason we live in the United States of America, because the colonies couldn't agree on a single government, but recognized the value of some common laws and currency. As with most divisive issues, I say let the states decide, and let the Supreme Court Justices get day jobs. If you have a different idea of when life begins than I do, let us not try to "prove it" in the highest court we can find (honestly, that doesn't prove anything), let's agree that there is a possibility we both might be wrong and respect each other anyway, and if I can't stand the sight of your face, I should perhaps go live with people who are more like-minded. If enough of us feel that way, we should do what we can to protect our common ideals and, if necessary, make some laws which apply to our similarly-minded community.
Should it be a goal of government to preserve itself and its people? If you think about America as a sort of being or organism, you can imagine a sort of self-preservation instinct; we avoid things that would hurt us, and seek after what helps us grow and be healthy. Natural and human resources are like food, invaders are like diseases. It seems obvious that we should defend ourselves against an invading army which would damage or make off with our resources, but what about other threats? Moral threats, if unchecked, can damage or destroy the human capital by making them less happy, less efficient, and more dead. Therefore, as Ked pointed out, we have laws against some kinds of behavior. It can be argued (and has been stated by those we consider to be prophets) that the breakdown of the family produces fewer happy and moral people, and that less morality and happiness sickens the country as a whole, threatening our persistence as a society and the well-being of our community. Therefore, we would argue that to preserve the country, we should preserve the family. On this basis I believe I can observe the Bretheren's appeal to "promote [the measures presented in The Family: A Proclamation to the World] designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
Then again, if you don't think it's government's job to preserve the country, or that such preservation should not come at the expense of certain personal liberties, that argument is essentially null.
What is difficult about all of this is our (and everybody else's) real, fervent belief in absolute right and wrong. Yes, there are things that are wrong by their nature, and I personally find homosexual behavior to be on the list. However, the principle of stewardship prohibits me from doing much about that belief outside of my own family, and the principle of agency limits what I can do about it outside of my very own self. I just don't think it is right for us to try and coerce our beliefs on others for reasons they will not accept. As James has pointed out, if we try to do so, we should expect nothing less than some good old-fashioned golden rule retribution.
Yes, the prophets hold stewardship over the Earth to teach and warn, and yes, we ought to follow them in promoting the value of the family, but we can do it charitably, correctly utilizing the power we each have as citizens, recognizing that every person has a right far beyond what the government can guarantee to believe and behave how he wants to. If we think that doctrines A or B should be made secular law for the purpose of preserving our society, it has to be done through the mechanisms available, by consensus. For us, it means doing our best to present what we hold to be truth, respecting every person's right to an opinion.
It is futile to present evidence in an argument when both parties do not recognize the validity of the evidence (making religious appeals ineffectual), or when either party is so committed to his position as to be beyond convincing. Therefore, if we are going to convince anybody, we should spend our time talking to somebody who might listen (being ourselves willing to listen), and bring to the table something besides "God said so." We can bring that too, since we believe it to be true, but we should realize it won't advance the argument much.
When people can not agree on the fundamentals of an argument, they stop trying to find out what is right and revert to proving who is wrong and who is evil. You have the religious right saying homosexuality is wrong and will destroy us all because God said so, the liberal left saying it isn't wrong and would you please leave God out of it because He only exists in your imagination, the right responding with threats of brimstone at some certain but unproveable time in the future, the left responding with words like "bigot", and certain "news" organizations make an insane amount of money by capitalizing on (and amplifying) the rhetoric and emotion, further preventing any useful dialogue.
Anyway, back to my question about the relationship between my beliefs and our laws. Homosexuality is wrong. I would say I know that to be an unalterable truth. Others disagree. Based on the fact that we disagree, it would seem to be imprudent to pass a law in one direction or the other because such a law would impede on somebody's belief -- unless a consensus can be reached that it is wrong or not because:
a) it is against the community's common values, or
b) it threatens the strength and continuity of the community (proven hopefully by strong scientific evidence).
Technically this should be possible. In reality, I don't see it happening on a national level. Whether it is a politically motivated sentiment or not, I think that President Obama's position to leave the issue to the states is the right one.
Because I recognize that we all, as a country, are not going to agree on the issue, I hope we will get to a point that we can continue on in mutual trust and peaceful misunderstanding. I agree with a good many goals of the gay rights movement. I see no good reason to marginalize a person based on what he or she decides to do with whomever behind their closed doors when it has no bearing or reflection on the person's intelligence, dedication, or ability. There's no reason to deny a person a job simply because he is gay. I recognize that it is human nature to be wary of that which is different or not well understood, but I will sure do my best to try see beyond that irrational fear. I also think that two people who care for each other deeply and are concerned for one another's well-being should be granted the right to be there for one another, in a hospital for example. A simplistic assessment of the legal ramifications being discussed, perhaps, but hopefully a good expression of my feelings.
Because I listen to NPR, much of the discussion I hear seems to assume that the issue of the morality of same-sex marriage is a settled one, and that the smarter and more educated folk are just waiting for the rest of us to catch up with the times, as if we were on opposite sides of the civil rights movement we learned about in school. I rather resent this characterization because it casts an automatic light of Dr. King and the Freedom Riders on the one side, and makes people imagine that my friends and I party while wearing pointy white hats. This is just not true. If we could talk like humans to one another, somebody might find out that I don't want anybody dead. I don't want anybody riding in the back of the bus if they don't want to. I don't want anybody to be disrespected (including myself) because we don't agree. I'm not going to say that I think AIDS is a plague sent from God to destroy the wicked (how would I know if it were?). I want you to have a good job. I want you to be happy. I don't want to tell you how you have to be happy, but if you want to talk about it I will sure try to explain why I feel the way I do.
My point in a nutshell: We disagree. That's fine. Let's all honestly, humbly, and respectfully find the best ways to strengthen and protect ourselves, our families, and our society.
One last thought: Some people are gay and want to be. Some people are gay and don't want to be, for the simple reason that they just don't want to be. I worry that if this idea that one is the way one is and can't or shouldn't change gets too much traction, we will be discriminating against those who wish to change by limiting their options for doing so. Let's not even argue about whether or not it is possible, but respect a person's desire to try. There are a good many things that people do these days that weren't supposed to be possible, and I think that there may even be a market for treatment if those with resources weren't afraid of being smeared by those who say they are protecting gay rights. I know there are a few things about me that I'd like to change, and that changing those things may be against my innate mortal nature. I'm glad nobody faults me for wanting me to be stronger or more patient. It's about me being the person I want to be, and really, isn't that what this whole rights movement is about?
My thoughts on this issue recently have centered around whether or not a position I hold based on belief should be a position I try to bind to other people in law. my feelings and positions have shifted and changed even over the last few days as I have read and considered everybody's comments. It has really made me think deeply about the interplay between government and religion, and the purpose of government.
If the question is whether or not homosexuality is wrong, my answer is that it is. If the question is whether or not same-sex unions should be legalized under the title "marriage," my answer is also simple: no. My belief should inform my involvement in the democratic process, as well as my own actions and behaviors. I guess I am less Libertarian on this point, as I think that the rules of a community should reflect the values and aspirations of that community.
Why is it illegal to take the life of another person? Because our community ostensibly values every person's life, and believes that each person has a right to live, and we don't want the people we are close to, or ourselves, being killed. We have legislated a value.
Nearly any reasonable person would say that homicide should be illegal because it is, by it's nature, bad. Even a libertarian (I would guess) would say that there ought to be a rule (law) against killing one another, and a means, chosen by the community, of enforcing it (government). There seem to be things that everybody knows are bad, and things that not so many people know are bad, and things that some people say are bad but which others call good. Still more would say that nothing is inherently wrong, because of the temporary nature of existence and lack of meaningful consequences, etc.
How many people have to think something is bad before it deserves to be defined by law as such? How bad does something have to be before it qualifies for its own legislation? Is badness that affects only the doer ever necessary to be made illegal? Can I say that doing bad things makes you a weaker person, less productive to my community, and use that reason to write a law?
We are never (so long as mortals are in charge) going to agree on the basic answers to these questions, let alone the degree to which they should apply. This is exactly the reason we live in the United States of America, because the colonies couldn't agree on a single government, but recognized the value of some common laws and currency. As with most divisive issues, I say let the states decide, and let the Supreme Court Justices get day jobs. If you have a different idea of when life begins than I do, let us not try to "prove it" in the highest court we can find (honestly, that doesn't prove anything), let's agree that there is a possibility we both might be wrong and respect each other anyway, and if I can't stand the sight of your face, I should perhaps go live with people who are more like-minded. If enough of us feel that way, we should do what we can to protect our common ideals and, if necessary, make some laws which apply to our similarly-minded community.
Should it be a goal of government to preserve itself and its people? If you think about America as a sort of being or organism, you can imagine a sort of self-preservation instinct; we avoid things that would hurt us, and seek after what helps us grow and be healthy. Natural and human resources are like food, invaders are like diseases. It seems obvious that we should defend ourselves against an invading army which would damage or make off with our resources, but what about other threats? Moral threats, if unchecked, can damage or destroy the human capital by making them less happy, less efficient, and more dead. Therefore, as Ked pointed out, we have laws against some kinds of behavior. It can be argued (and has been stated by those we consider to be prophets) that the breakdown of the family produces fewer happy and moral people, and that less morality and happiness sickens the country as a whole, threatening our persistence as a society and the well-being of our community. Therefore, we would argue that to preserve the country, we should preserve the family. On this basis I believe I can observe the Bretheren's appeal to "promote [the measures presented in The Family: A Proclamation to the World] designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
Then again, if you don't think it's government's job to preserve the country, or that such preservation should not come at the expense of certain personal liberties, that argument is essentially null.
What is difficult about all of this is our (and everybody else's) real, fervent belief in absolute right and wrong. Yes, there are things that are wrong by their nature, and I personally find homosexual behavior to be on the list. However, the principle of stewardship prohibits me from doing much about that belief outside of my own family, and the principle of agency limits what I can do about it outside of my very own self. I just don't think it is right for us to try and coerce our beliefs on others for reasons they will not accept. As James has pointed out, if we try to do so, we should expect nothing less than some good old-fashioned golden rule retribution.
Yes, the prophets hold stewardship over the Earth to teach and warn, and yes, we ought to follow them in promoting the value of the family, but we can do it charitably, correctly utilizing the power we each have as citizens, recognizing that every person has a right far beyond what the government can guarantee to believe and behave how he wants to. If we think that doctrines A or B should be made secular law for the purpose of preserving our society, it has to be done through the mechanisms available, by consensus. For us, it means doing our best to present what we hold to be truth, respecting every person's right to an opinion.
It is futile to present evidence in an argument when both parties do not recognize the validity of the evidence (making religious appeals ineffectual), or when either party is so committed to his position as to be beyond convincing. Therefore, if we are going to convince anybody, we should spend our time talking to somebody who might listen (being ourselves willing to listen), and bring to the table something besides "God said so." We can bring that too, since we believe it to be true, but we should realize it won't advance the argument much.
When people can not agree on the fundamentals of an argument, they stop trying to find out what is right and revert to proving who is wrong and who is evil. You have the religious right saying homosexuality is wrong and will destroy us all because God said so, the liberal left saying it isn't wrong and would you please leave God out of it because He only exists in your imagination, the right responding with threats of brimstone at some certain but unproveable time in the future, the left responding with words like "bigot", and certain "news" organizations make an insane amount of money by capitalizing on (and amplifying) the rhetoric and emotion, further preventing any useful dialogue.
Anyway, back to my question about the relationship between my beliefs and our laws. Homosexuality is wrong. I would say I know that to be an unalterable truth. Others disagree. Based on the fact that we disagree, it would seem to be imprudent to pass a law in one direction or the other because such a law would impede on somebody's belief -- unless a consensus can be reached that it is wrong or not because:
a) it is against the community's common values, or
b) it threatens the strength and continuity of the community (proven hopefully by strong scientific evidence).
Technically this should be possible. In reality, I don't see it happening on a national level. Whether it is a politically motivated sentiment or not, I think that President Obama's position to leave the issue to the states is the right one.
Because I recognize that we all, as a country, are not going to agree on the issue, I hope we will get to a point that we can continue on in mutual trust and peaceful misunderstanding. I agree with a good many goals of the gay rights movement. I see no good reason to marginalize a person based on what he or she decides to do with whomever behind their closed doors when it has no bearing or reflection on the person's intelligence, dedication, or ability. There's no reason to deny a person a job simply because he is gay. I recognize that it is human nature to be wary of that which is different or not well understood, but I will sure do my best to try see beyond that irrational fear. I also think that two people who care for each other deeply and are concerned for one another's well-being should be granted the right to be there for one another, in a hospital for example. A simplistic assessment of the legal ramifications being discussed, perhaps, but hopefully a good expression of my feelings.
Because I listen to NPR, much of the discussion I hear seems to assume that the issue of the morality of same-sex marriage is a settled one, and that the smarter and more educated folk are just waiting for the rest of us to catch up with the times, as if we were on opposite sides of the civil rights movement we learned about in school. I rather resent this characterization because it casts an automatic light of Dr. King and the Freedom Riders on the one side, and makes people imagine that my friends and I party while wearing pointy white hats. This is just not true. If we could talk like humans to one another, somebody might find out that I don't want anybody dead. I don't want anybody riding in the back of the bus if they don't want to. I don't want anybody to be disrespected (including myself) because we don't agree. I'm not going to say that I think AIDS is a plague sent from God to destroy the wicked (how would I know if it were?). I want you to have a good job. I want you to be happy. I don't want to tell you how you have to be happy, but if you want to talk about it I will sure try to explain why I feel the way I do.
My point in a nutshell: We disagree. That's fine. Let's all honestly, humbly, and respectfully find the best ways to strengthen and protect ourselves, our families, and our society.
One last thought: Some people are gay and want to be. Some people are gay and don't want to be, for the simple reason that they just don't want to be. I worry that if this idea that one is the way one is and can't or shouldn't change gets too much traction, we will be discriminating against those who wish to change by limiting their options for doing so. Let's not even argue about whether or not it is possible, but respect a person's desire to try. There are a good many things that people do these days that weren't supposed to be possible, and I think that there may even be a market for treatment if those with resources weren't afraid of being smeared by those who say they are protecting gay rights. I know there are a few things about me that I'd like to change, and that changing those things may be against my innate mortal nature. I'm glad nobody faults me for wanting me to be stronger or more patient. It's about me being the person I want to be, and really, isn't that what this whole rights movement is about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)