Wow, I haven't posted at all this semester, and it's drawing to a close.
Hopefully I'll write something interesting once all the chaos has died down...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Gay Marriage
So, the lawful marriage of homosexual couples under the eyes of the government is a subject I'm passionate about. Not because I am gay (do I even need to qualify that?), but because I simply cannot stand aside and watch as ignorance and superstition feed the ravenous hatred and bigotry that is so prevalent right now.
I have come to conclusion that I am not pro gay marriage; I'm anti- straight marriage. I don't believe that gay couples should be able to marry so much as I think that straight couples should only be able to be granted civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution; leave it to the houses of superstition to perform the ceremony.
However, the above statement is really just an argument in semantics. A couple, in either Civil or Matrimonial Union, should have equal rights regardless of the sexes of the individuals involved; otherwise, it's sexism.
Interestingly, I've heard the argument that gays do, in fact, have the same right to marry as straights: they are perfectly free to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
The argument falls back on the definition of marriage; the troglodytes who oppose gay marriage provide the following criteria for marriage; you may marry somebody:
What we need to change is the fourth criterion, the one about the opposite sex.
The argument that I've been hearing lately from the assholes on the other side of Proposition 8 could almost be the definition of slippery slope fallacy.
Basically, they contend, if we can "arbitrarily" change on criterion-- the one about being the opposite sex-- why do we retain the others? Generally, you'll hear something along the lines of: "I want to marry my dog, a tree and a couple 3-year-olds. Surely this is equally as valid as arbitrarily removing the sex requirement of the traditional definition?"
Turns out they're wrong. Myriad arguments can be made as to the necessity of the other three criteria: age and consent assure that nobody is being married against their will, and that children are not being molestet; the "unmarried" criterion simply ensures that monogamy remains the norm. This, too, is a candidate for deletion, but let's just assume the monogamy is necessary for the proper functioning of society with respect to government and taxation.
Before we continue, it will be instructive to define the purpose of marriage.
Is marriage designed for the production of children? Not exclusively so, or else couples would need to pass a fertility test before partaking of nuptials; being childfree would be grounds for forced separation and probably legal action on behalf on the part of the state.
Is marriage designed to raise children? Again, not exclusively so; childrearing is sufficient but not necessary reason to be united in legal matrimony. Even if it was, gay couples have been shown to be equally as effective as parents when it comes to raising children.
Is marriage designed to give people who love each other? No. People have been married not because the participants were willing, but because there were advantages to their respective families for doing so, and punishments for refusing. European nobility comes to mind immediately as an example, but this phenomenon is not exclusive to rich inbred whitefolk.
It is this last point that I would like to emphasize. Gay-marriage opponents point out that marriage is not dependent upon "love"; this is both a sad preview of their view of human relationships, and straw that breaks their argument-camel's back.
Very well. Supposing, for the moment, that this is somehow relevant, the opponents have just flushed the relevance of one of their favorite (fallacious) arguments down the drain; that is, the argument that homosexuality is a choice is now entirely irrelevant to the matter.
Because it is pretty well concurred that sexual orientation is not a choice, gay-marriage proponents win the argument either way: believing that homosexuality is voluntary and denying couples the right to marry based on sex is overt discrimination; stating that love is immaterial to the institution of marriage means that you have no reason for maintaining heterosexual-only marriage.
To summarize, here is a list of everything that will happen if gays are allowed to marry:
Notice how "holocaust", "persecution of heterosexuals", and "end of the world" are not included on that list?
The reason that there is no "slippery slope" as a result of allowing gays to marry is because removal of the other critera actually leads to bad things. I have provided a list of the remaining three criteria, and what would happen if they were to be removed:
In addition to these three, some states have restrictions on the consanguinity of the potential couple; ostensibly, this is to prevent incestuous relationships from ever producing children. While this is a noble goal, the same reproductive restrictions are not placed on other factors, such as drug and alcohol usage or financial stability. These factors are far more likely to negatively impact a child's health, so I have not included incest laws in my criteria.
I have come to conclusion that I am not pro gay marriage; I'm anti- straight marriage. I don't believe that gay couples should be able to marry so much as I think that straight couples should only be able to be granted civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution; leave it to the houses of superstition to perform the ceremony.
However, the above statement is really just an argument in semantics. A couple, in either Civil or Matrimonial Union, should have equal rights regardless of the sexes of the individuals involved; otherwise, it's sexism.
Interestingly, I've heard the argument that gays do, in fact, have the same right to marry as straights: they are perfectly free to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.
The argument falls back on the definition of marriage; the troglodytes who oppose gay marriage provide the following criteria for marriage; you may marry somebody:
- of marriagable age,
- who consents,
- is unmarried,
- and of the opposite sex
What we need to change is the fourth criterion, the one about the opposite sex.
The argument that I've been hearing lately from the assholes on the other side of Proposition 8 could almost be the definition of slippery slope fallacy.
Basically, they contend, if we can "arbitrarily" change on criterion-- the one about being the opposite sex-- why do we retain the others? Generally, you'll hear something along the lines of: "I want to marry my dog, a tree and a couple 3-year-olds. Surely this is equally as valid as arbitrarily removing the sex requirement of the traditional definition?"
Turns out they're wrong. Myriad arguments can be made as to the necessity of the other three criteria: age and consent assure that nobody is being married against their will, and that children are not being molestet; the "unmarried" criterion simply ensures that monogamy remains the norm. This, too, is a candidate for deletion, but let's just assume the monogamy is necessary for the proper functioning of society with respect to government and taxation.
Before we continue, it will be instructive to define the purpose of marriage.
Is marriage designed for the production of children? Not exclusively so, or else couples would need to pass a fertility test before partaking of nuptials; being childfree would be grounds for forced separation and probably legal action on behalf on the part of the state.
Is marriage designed to raise children? Again, not exclusively so; childrearing is sufficient but not necessary reason to be united in legal matrimony. Even if it was, gay couples have been shown to be equally as effective as parents when it comes to raising children.
Is marriage designed to give people who love each other? No. People have been married not because the participants were willing, but because there were advantages to their respective families for doing so, and punishments for refusing. European nobility comes to mind immediately as an example, but this phenomenon is not exclusive to rich inbred whitefolk.
It is this last point that I would like to emphasize. Gay-marriage opponents point out that marriage is not dependent upon "love"; this is both a sad preview of their view of human relationships, and straw that breaks their argument-camel's back.
Very well. Supposing, for the moment, that this is somehow relevant, the opponents have just flushed the relevance of one of their favorite (fallacious) arguments down the drain; that is, the argument that homosexuality is a choice is now entirely irrelevant to the matter.
Because it is pretty well concurred that sexual orientation is not a choice, gay-marriage proponents win the argument either way: believing that homosexuality is voluntary and denying couples the right to marry based on sex is overt discrimination; stating that love is immaterial to the institution of marriage means that you have no reason for maintaining heterosexual-only marriage.
To summarize, here is a list of everything that will happen if gays are allowed to marry:
- Gay couples will get married.
Notice how "holocaust", "persecution of heterosexuals", and "end of the world" are not included on that list?
The reason that there is no "slippery slope" as a result of allowing gays to marry is because removal of the other critera actually leads to bad things. I have provided a list of the remaining three criteria, and what would happen if they were to be removed:
- Age of Consent: Removing this criteria means that babies and small children are molested. If you can't see why this is bad, kill yourself. Seriously.
- Individual gives Consent: non-cooperative marriage is a unique combination of kidnapping and rape. In this instance, the two-for-one is not a good deal. Again, if you don't understand this, I strongly encourage self-termination.
- Individual Is Not Married: This is in place to prevent polygamy and/or polyamory. While pluralistic marriage arrangements are not necessarily bad, they do tend to lead to unfavorable power distributions and the easier exploitation/abuse of the weaker individuals within the marriage group. At this time, I have no comment on whether or not this should be made illegal. I'm leaning towards "not".
In addition to these three, some states have restrictions on the consanguinity of the potential couple; ostensibly, this is to prevent incestuous relationships from ever producing children. While this is a noble goal, the same reproductive restrictions are not placed on other factors, such as drug and alcohol usage or financial stability. These factors are far more likely to negatively impact a child's health, so I have not included incest laws in my criteria.
Me? Poetry? Never...
So, I wrote this somewhat-poem for my facebook profile "about me" section. I plan on changing that part of my profile sometime soon, and I don't want to lose this. It's not very well written, and I am not big on poems, but I think it captures the essence of me.
Here it is:
I am...
perpetually curious.
Always the scientist, usually the philosopher, sometimes the artisan and on rare occasion the artist.
Jack-of-all-trades, master of most.
The eternal student, the jubilant teacher; The magician who will reveal his secrets if asked nicely enough.
The harbinger of enlightenment, the waster of ignorance; child of logic and husband of reality.
Passionate in my rationalism; and thus by neither lovers nor warriors claimed.
The enforcer of the Golden Rule, the arbiter of justice; balancer of your karmic burden.
The last light before you enter the darkness; only grown-ups come this way.
The grateful son, the encouraging brother; probably the only really honest friend you have.
Rarely one to deny enthusiasms; restraint is the product of hopes and desires.
Strong enough to stand alone; nonetheless thankful for friends.
Here it is:
I am...
perpetually curious.
Always the scientist, usually the philosopher, sometimes the artisan and on rare occasion the artist.
Jack-of-all-trades, master of most.
The eternal student, the jubilant teacher; The magician who will reveal his secrets if asked nicely enough.
The harbinger of enlightenment, the waster of ignorance; child of logic and husband of reality.
Passionate in my rationalism; and thus by neither lovers nor warriors claimed.
The enforcer of the Golden Rule, the arbiter of justice; balancer of your karmic burden.
The last light before you enter the darkness; only grown-ups come this way.
The grateful son, the encouraging brother; probably the only really honest friend you have.
Rarely one to deny enthusiasms; restraint is the product of hopes and desires.
Strong enough to stand alone; nonetheless thankful for friends.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
WRONG
I seem to be hearing the following quite often: According to our understanding of the laws of physics, helicopters should not fly.
Helicopters do not defy the laws of physics. The only difference between a helicopter and an airplane is that in a helicopter, the wings move relative to the fuselage.
Helicopters do not defy the laws of physics. The only difference between a helicopter and an airplane is that in a helicopter, the wings move relative to the fuselage.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
The Turning of the Tide
So, we have a new president-elect.
He is a man of color, and he has some questionable ties to Islamic organizations. He has made statements in favor of the implementation of some kind of state-funded healthcare program, and he apparently hates guns.
This is not nearly reason enough to hate him.
I did not vote for Mr. Obama. I voted for Ron Paul of the Constitutional Party. However, I told myself before I cast my vote (after standing in line for 3.5 hours in order to re-register, because my original registration application was never processed...) that I would be happy so long as McCain/Palin did not make it to office.
This brings me to my point: I am tired of everybody who voted for McCain bitching and moaning, talking about how Obama is "not their president" or how they're going to move to Mexico. Seriously? STFU. Now you know how the other half of the country felt after the 2004 elections.
Your party fucked up. You may take this criticism seriously, because as libertarian-leaning individual, I normally expect to be attracted to the Republican party more often then not.
(For those of you who are not from the United States, the Republican and Democratic parties basically have a duopoly on our political system. Third parties rarely make it to any meaningful position.)
It is significant, then, that I feel entirely disenchanted withe the GOP. I can attribute this to four primary failings of the Republican party:
The Republicans did this to themselves. If they hadn't fucked up so much, they might could have had the vote of the people they were counting on. It is unfortunate that there are people who believe that Mr. Obama is unfit for the presidency simply because of his skin color, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), or political ideals. These people remind me of cavemen.
Obama is not going to ruin the country- he can't fuck up more than President Bush already has. He already has his work cut out for him thanks to the economy and the war; he does not need the incessant, empty criticism of people who are bitter because their head-in-the-sand mentality was not catered to with another idiot of a president.
He is a man of color, and he has some questionable ties to Islamic organizations. He has made statements in favor of the implementation of some kind of state-funded healthcare program, and he apparently hates guns.
This is not nearly reason enough to hate him.
I did not vote for Mr. Obama. I voted for Ron Paul of the Constitutional Party. However, I told myself before I cast my vote (after standing in line for 3.5 hours in order to re-register, because my original registration application was never processed...) that I would be happy so long as McCain/Palin did not make it to office.
This brings me to my point: I am tired of everybody who voted for McCain bitching and moaning, talking about how Obama is "not their president" or how they're going to move to Mexico. Seriously? STFU. Now you know how the other half of the country felt after the 2004 elections.
Your party fucked up. You may take this criticism seriously, because as libertarian-leaning individual, I normally expect to be attracted to the Republican party more often then not.
(For those of you who are not from the United States, the Republican and Democratic parties basically have a duopoly on our political system. Third parties rarely make it to any meaningful position.)
It is significant, then, that I feel entirely disenchanted withe the GOP. I can attribute this to four primary failings of the Republican party:
- Gay Marriage: If people pay taxes, they have the right to get married. The only possible objection to allowing homosexuals to marry comes from a religious standpoint.
- Abortion: abortion is basically a property-rights issue once you remove religious influence. A property rights issue, that is, with a very clear-cut moral and ethical understanding.
The Republicans did this to themselves. If they hadn't fucked up so much, they might could have had the vote of the people they were counting on. It is unfortunate that there are people who believe that Mr. Obama is unfit for the presidency simply because of his skin color, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), or political ideals. These people remind me of cavemen.
Obama is not going to ruin the country- he can't fuck up more than President Bush already has. He already has his work cut out for him thanks to the economy and the war; he does not need the incessant, empty criticism of people who are bitter because their head-in-the-sand mentality was not catered to with another idiot of a president.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
So very busy
Ugh, this semester is turning out to be tough. I picked up a second job as a programming contractor, because my "real" job pays well but doesn't get me the hours I need. Unfortunately, food and shelter are some of those essential needs that also cost money to acquire and maintain.
School could be easier. I'm finally grokking my mechanics class (physics 301). Not that it is conceptually or mathematically hard; it's just that modelling problems in order to solve them has proven itself an elusive skill. Fortunately, my other physics class (computational physics, 331) is a conceptual walk in the park; the only difficulty stems from the ambiguity in our professor's assignments. If she would just come out and tell us what she wants instead of trying to get us to infer it, things would be significantly easier.
Why did I start writing this? Oh yeah, so that the month of October wouldn't go by without at least one post from me, meaningless as it is.
You are dismissed.
School could be easier. I'm finally grokking my mechanics class (physics 301). Not that it is conceptually or mathematically hard; it's just that modelling problems in order to solve them has proven itself an elusive skill. Fortunately, my other physics class (computational physics, 331) is a conceptual walk in the park; the only difficulty stems from the ambiguity in our professor's assignments. If she would just come out and tell us what she wants instead of trying to get us to infer it, things would be significantly easier.
Why did I start writing this? Oh yeah, so that the month of October wouldn't go by without at least one post from me, meaningless as it is.
You are dismissed.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Stop Breeding!
Lately, for whatever reason, I've been noticing lots of people talking about having loads of kids. They like babies, apparently. The unfortunate thing is, all of these people are either very stupid or very religious. Usually both.
It's a well-established fact that stupid people outnumber smart people; the reasons for this are debated. Some, like myself, believe it's at least partially due to a system that rewards excessive reproduction; others think it's due to the removal of restrictions placed on women- back in the day, smart women became teachers because that's all they were allowed to do; today, smart women can do anything a smart man can, and if you set up a nice practice as a lawyer or doctor, would you want to take time off to give birth to a kid? I doubt it.
I also believe that many people do no fully comprehend the implications of childrearing. I know a couple of girls I graduated high school with now have kids, the sad thing being that they were looking forward to being mothers.
See, I place babies in the same category as puppies, kittens, and guinea piglets: sure, they may be cute now, but when you have to clean crap/barf/urine off the carpet, you're going to be thinking differently, at least until said animal learns better. The difference between these girls and me is, they don't see the downside- all they think is OMG babiez SOOOO CUTE, and that's it. No plan for the child's future; no plan to make their future kid more successful than they are (this wouldn't be difficult for the girls I've cited; it would involve going to college and not having kids right after you graduate). But no, instead they choose to have children not for their childrens' sake, but for theirs. It's some kind of bizarre maternal badge of honour, apparently, to have kids even when you're not ready for them.
As if teenage ignorance wasn't enough, we also have a movement within most fundamentalist communities (christian and muslim alike) that aims to produce as many children as possible per sanctified union; women are treated as nothing more than baby factories, and girls are taught never to aspire to anything other than reproductive excess. I wouldn't be so opposed to this "quiverfull" movement if 1) it was not inspired by superstition and 2) the kinds of people having boatloads of kids were scientists, engineers, and doctors- you know, people who actually contribute tangible benefits to society.
But no, you instead have Billy-Bob and Sue-Anne marrying right out of high school and never aspiring to make anything of themselves; they are taught that sex is evil and that higher education is the work of the devil, so Billy-Bob is resigned to working the rest of his life at the steel foundry or whatever, and Sue-Anne is relegated to an existence made up exclusively of cooking, cleaning, fucking, and breeding, in varying order.
Does anybody else see the problem with this? THIS IS WRONG! People should not make more people simply for the sake of having more people; they should make more people because they believe they can make better people than themselves: individuals who, once their education is complete, can turn around and give something back to society.
It's a well-established fact that stupid people outnumber smart people; the reasons for this are debated. Some, like myself, believe it's at least partially due to a system that rewards excessive reproduction; others think it's due to the removal of restrictions placed on women- back in the day, smart women became teachers because that's all they were allowed to do; today, smart women can do anything a smart man can, and if you set up a nice practice as a lawyer or doctor, would you want to take time off to give birth to a kid? I doubt it.
I also believe that many people do no fully comprehend the implications of childrearing. I know a couple of girls I graduated high school with now have kids, the sad thing being that they were looking forward to being mothers.
See, I place babies in the same category as puppies, kittens, and guinea piglets: sure, they may be cute now, but when you have to clean crap/barf/urine off the carpet, you're going to be thinking differently, at least until said animal learns better. The difference between these girls and me is, they don't see the downside- all they think is OMG babiez SOOOO CUTE, and that's it. No plan for the child's future; no plan to make their future kid more successful than they are (this wouldn't be difficult for the girls I've cited; it would involve going to college and not having kids right after you graduate). But no, instead they choose to have children not for their childrens' sake, but for theirs. It's some kind of bizarre maternal badge of honour, apparently, to have kids even when you're not ready for them.
As if teenage ignorance wasn't enough, we also have a movement within most fundamentalist communities (christian and muslim alike) that aims to produce as many children as possible per sanctified union; women are treated as nothing more than baby factories, and girls are taught never to aspire to anything other than reproductive excess. I wouldn't be so opposed to this "quiverfull" movement if 1) it was not inspired by superstition and 2) the kinds of people having boatloads of kids were scientists, engineers, and doctors- you know, people who actually contribute tangible benefits to society.
But no, you instead have Billy-Bob and Sue-Anne marrying right out of high school and never aspiring to make anything of themselves; they are taught that sex is evil and that higher education is the work of the devil, so Billy-Bob is resigned to working the rest of his life at the steel foundry or whatever, and Sue-Anne is relegated to an existence made up exclusively of cooking, cleaning, fucking, and breeding, in varying order.
Does anybody else see the problem with this? THIS IS WRONG! People should not make more people simply for the sake of having more people; they should make more people because they believe they can make better people than themselves: individuals who, once their education is complete, can turn around and give something back to society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
