Proposition ∞

Prop 8 was recently overturned in California. For those who don't know what Prop 8 is, it is a mandate to ban gay marriage. Of course, the decision will be appealed, most likely leading to what will become one of the more momentous Supreme Court decisions of this new century. The battle is, of course, being waged by whom one would imagine it would be: the more religious, conservative people on one side ardently pushing against the more liberal on the other. That story seems almost ubiquitous in every political situation now. What's my opinion on this, you ask? (I assume you asked. If not, well, I'll tell you anyway because I'm sure you want to know.)

To understand the religious reasoning behind the conservative argument, one has to know why the bible urges only men and women to be together, while forbidding homosexual relationships. The main reason, as could be repeated by any historian with knowledge of the time period, was the high mortality rate of children between the 1st-10th century AD (and even beyond then, until hygienic practices became standard). In order to continue the species (emphasis on continue), humans must propagate as much as possible. If only 20% of children survive after 2 years of age, make sure you try at least 10 times. Sure, the emotional devastation of losing 8 kids might be too much, but it's for the continuation of the goddamn human race. Having homosexual relationships undermines the idea of that continuation, and thus the church thought to forbid it. (On a side note, most of the "rules" in the bible are common sense aphorisms to ensure that people have as few problems as possible in life, because we all know that screwing around with your neighbor's wife can get you killed.)
As for the fallacious statements that some organizations tout which usually decry that children raised in homosexual relationships have more problems in life, they are exactly that: fallacious. They have little to no statistical evidence, or really any evidence of any kind. In fact, in my sociology class, I read a study that homosexual relationships are statistically more stable than heterosexual relationships. Shove that in your pipe and smoke it, Palin.

My opinion, as an uber-liberal, somewhat Socialist Jedi, is that each and every person has the same rights as the other. That's it. If one person has the right to marry whoever they wish, then a different person, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or thoughts on Batman, has that exact same right. That's it. Equal protection of the law is embedded in the Constitution of the US. Deal with it and move on.

I prefer to avoid the normative arguments about how love is universal, since this is more a matter of equal rights than equal love. Personally, I'm glad that Prop 8 has been turned on its side. It's a victory for equal rights and a step toward a better future for the US. With the erasure of Prop 8, maybe, hopefully, eventually the conservative and mundane will realize that love and equal rights are infinite and not beholden to any restraints.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Das Religio!

Just a note:

I occasionally write blogs on www.shoutwire.com, usually just to pass the time. I suppose that I could start putting them here as well. Here is the first:

Religion, as it stands today, is the biggest institution in the world. Nowhere else does one find so many devout believers in a subject, nor so many willing to pontificate about something which no one really knows about. It is something questionable and grandiose, and something that almost no human can comprehend. That is one facet that deserves further study.

Religion, in its roots, was the original explanation for the natural occurrences that one would see in a normal Earth day. The sun rose and set because Ra rode his chariot across the sky. The seasons changed because Persephone was kidnapped by Hades. Everything revolved around the Earth because God created man, thus making them perfect, and everything revolves around perfection.
Technology and science have both debunked almost every religious explanation for the natural phenomena we see every day. Of course, mankind has not yet progressed to the stage in which we will be able to explain almost everything (though I'm hoping to see that in my lifetime), but that does not mean that everything does not have an explanation; it simply means that it is necessary to search.

There are a few advantages to religion, however, the largest one is that it provides solace to those who have lost loved ones. It is much more reassuring to hear that one has moved on to a better place rather then just gradually wearing away in the ground. The question remains, though: should we continue to follow a text that is 2000 years old?

Several instances warrant this question: the religious reluctance to allow gays to marry; the "necessity" for the leader of the United States to be a Christian (or Catholic, in JFK's case); the hatred of other ethnicities simply because their religions have clashed for the last millenia, and the simple scientific ignorance that religion encourages, amongst a plethora of other instances.

There are many arguments to be made in favor and in opposition, so I wanted to open the floor to debate. Please, try not to be overly insulting or condescending. Just because someone does not follow the same beliefs as you does not mean that they are idiotic.

One last caveat: instead of citing religious examples, such as the bible, use logic. It is much more convincing than going on a tangent about quoting Leviticus or John or...well, you get the picture.

addendum (after viewing several comments):

There is a fine line to draw between religious beliefs and the law. For instance, while watching Monty Python's Life of Brian (great movie, I recommend it), even the utterance of the name of god was punishable by stoning. Gladly, we have since moved past that stage in human development, but the question still remains: how much should religion impact the law, if not at all?

One side can argue, philosophically, that man has developed preconceptions about what is right and wrong, i.e. causing harm to others, burglary, arson, etc. It is not necessary for religion to interfere in the legal processes of the state, as law already has a firm legal grounding in thousands of years of philosophical precedent.
On the religious side, one can argue that the bible and other religious scriptures give a firm outlining of a secure law in which all would be content and satisfied. Obvious examples are do not kill, respect thy elders, etc. Keep in mind, however, that these were written in a time when it was not uncommon for two men to fight over the ownership of a sheep.

Aside from law, hearkening back to what cbjrdm stated before, it is quite evident in today's world that many (if not every human) are searching for a purpose. Whether they know it or not, we all search for something to fulfill our lives. Several of my friends gamble profusely, some only know of sports, and a few spend their entire lives dedicated to either video games or religion (reference to the Monty Python quote "You're a messiah, I should know; I've followed three."). Should we look to fill that need with trivial things, or should we work towards something meaningful? In fact, what do we, as a society, consider meaningful?

The original is http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/273155/E_Religion_hopefully_This_One_Works_.html. Enjoy.

Das Flüg