Federal courts not allowed to rule on same-sex marriage...
A bill was passed today that blocks federal courts from ruling on same-sex marriages. So the decision to allow same-sex marriages will now be left up to state and local governments to decide upon. Article at the washingtonpost.
Friends, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, ...it has been brought to my attention that we live in times of great diversity. With such a variety of beliefs and values, it is sometimes hard to tell which values are the most righteous ones, and which values are to be deemed a great hindrance to the healthy functioning of the society we live in. Some of these values deserve a bit of undivided attention for the sake of future generations.
After spending a great deal of time thinking about and considering ways in which we should address the issue of homosexuality in our lives, I have decided on a solution that would do better to help people on both sides of the issue; the oppressors and the oppressed, the persecutors and the persecuted. As I've already said, it is detrimental to a healthy society to weed out those who might damage our moral fabric in ways unprecedented for future generations. It is up to us to decide where we stand on the issue of gay marriage, as well as many other nontraditional practices, such as listening to heavy metal music, or becoming a vegetarian. If we do not pay attention to these issues, our rights to a uniform, non-diverse society will be overrun by those who have within themselves no value for the sameness of things. It is those people who want a state that allows one to be however they want to, live however they want to, raise children and pursue careers; a state of anarchy... we must give these people a place to go.
Now it should be said that those who have practiced homosexuality have always been considered a danger to our way of life as we know it. Because of this, I propose that we, as people of the United States of America that promote justice, fairness, and freedom, give these human beings a place where they can flourish and thrive by themselves, and have relatively little effect on our normal lives. In addition, I would offer that we give anyone who presents any kind of moral challenge a place of existence where they can live their lives and prosper. It is in the spirit of peace and altruism that I offer this proposition. The implementation of such a suggestion may seem a bit out of reach, though if we pool our collective common sense, the clearer the solution becomes.
It is true that the state of Massachusetts recently signed a bill which will allow for the marriage of same-sex couples; it is in this state that our solution can be found. About 10% of the population in this wonderful country is said to practice a form of sexual orientation that is not the well known standard of a man and a woman. The same might be said of those with nontraditional practices in their daily lives, such as yoga, or outrageous hair styles. The country of Bangladesh is roughly three times the size of Massachusetts and is home to about 130 million people. With only about 300 million people in the whole United States, it would be rather easy to fit the 10, or even 20 percent of the population that is considered a danger to morality into the state of Massachusetts so that those who have a prejudice against difference need not fear them any longer and can humbly coexist in more of an epistemic sense; each side will be aware of the other's existence, but will have comfortably limited contact with each other.
I propose that this will be advantageous to our society for a number of reasons. Those of us who prefer to live normal lives will not have to worry about whether or not our values will be challenged, unless of course we find ourselves in the diverse state of Massachusetts. The oppressors will no longer have to live in fear of all that is different, all that is alien to them; morality will prevail for these people, as it will for the people of Massachusetts. No longer will we have to see these icons of diversity in our large cities, such as the Gay 90's club in Minneapolis, MN, or the Buddhist temple in Florissant, MO. Instead, there will be images of Christ our savior and the child-friendly McDonalds. Ours will be a society without difference, without danger to our long held beliefs, as it will for the people of Massachusetts.
Those who reside in the state of Massachusetts will not be allowed out of state other than for reasons of work, in which case they will be required to respect our way of life. Just the same, those of us who are not of homosexual orientation should not enter into the state of Massachusetts for the sake of preserving a harmonious society on both sides. Of course, if there is too much intermingling from either side of the moral/non-moral spectrum, there will be laws to enforce such a dreaded situation from ever getting out of control. It is not my desire to build prisons for people with non-traditional lifestlyles, as most of them are not murderers of life, or guilty of committing any other serious offenses. With that, I do believe they should at least have rights to life in a place determined by those who are for the promotion of a fair and just society. If not for fairness, then what for? If not for justice, then what for? These values are at stake as long as we continue to ignore them.
I think it will be agreed upon by both sides that the implementation of such an order will do well to free us from the chains of bigotry and intolerance. It will be a welcoming invitation to those that may suggest something different to end longstanding debates of this nature. I do realize that Massachusetts may not in the end be a large enough state for there are many different kinds of people that exist among us. For this reason it may be suggested that Connecticut and Rhode Island be added to this providence of difference. Doing so will extend the lands of those that are different to a more accomodating level. By doing this the people on either side of the noted state boundaries can be sure that there will be enough room to go around. The founders of this country would have us do the same in the name of diversity and equal rights. It is only through independence that one can be truly liberated. With my plan, those that are oppressed will enjoy the equal treatment under the law that they deserve.
I personally am dissapointed that I would ever have to suggest we go to such lengths to insure the peace and prosperity of all, though if we must act like children fighting on a playground, maybe it is best that we are seperated. In a perfect world we would respect each other's differences, though in this world, there wil always be those that are perpetually afraid of change.
This is something I wrote a while back that is supposed to convey a sense of irony, though it is somewhat difficult to notice as it sounds serious as opposed to sarcastic. Overall, I just thought that it sounded almost as ridiculous as many of the arguments/claims against gay marriages, e.g. "it will be the end of our society", "they will all go to hell", "the american family is at stake", etc. Anyway, here ya go...
Friends, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, ...it has been brought to my attention that we live in times of great diversity. With such a variety of beliefs and values, it is sometimes hard to tell which values are the most righteous ones, and which values are to be deemed a great hindrance to the healthy functioning of the society we live in. Some of these values deserve a bit of undivided attention for the sake of future generations.
After spending a great deal of time thinking about and considering ways in which we should address the issue of homosexuality in our lives, I have decided on a solution that would do better to help people on both sides of the issue; the oppressors and the oppressed, the persecutors and the persecuted. As I've already said, it is detrimental to a healthy society to weed out those who might damage our moral fabric in ways unprecedented for future generations. It is up to us to decide where we stand on the issue of gay marriage, as well as many other nontraditional practices, such as listening to heavy metal music, or becoming a vegetarian. If we do not pay attention to these issues, our rights to a uniform, non-diverse society will be overrun by those who have within themselves no value for the sameness of things. It is those people who want a state that allows one to be however they want to, live however they want to, raise children and pursue careers; a state of anarchy... we must give these people a place to go.
Now it should be said that those who have practiced homosexuality have always been considered a danger to our way of life as we know it. Because of this, I propose that we, as people of the United States of America that promote justice, fairness, and freedom, give these human beings a place where they can flourish and thrive by themselves, and have relatively little effect on our normal lives. In addition, I would offer that we give anyone who presents any kind of moral challenge a place of existence where they can live their lives and prosper. It is in the spirit of peace and altruism that I offer this proposition. The implementation of such a suggestion may seem a bit out of reach, though if we pool our collective common sense, the clearer the solution becomes.
It is true that the state of Massachusetts recently signed a bill which will allow for the marriage of same-sex couples; it is in this state that our solution can be found. About 10% of the population in this wonderful country is said to practice a form of sexual orientation that is not the well known standard of a man and a woman. The same might be said of those with nontraditional practices in their daily lives, such as yoga, or outrageous hair styles. The country of Bangladesh is roughly three times the size of Massachusetts and is home to about 130 million people. With only about 300 million people in the whole United States, it would be rather easy to fit the 10, or even 20 percent of the population that is considered a danger to morality into the state of Massachusetts so that those who have a prejudice against difference need not fear them any longer and can humbly coexist in more of an epistemic sense; each side will be aware of the other's existence, but will have comfortably limited contact with each other.
I propose that this will be advantageous to our society for a number of reasons. Those of us who prefer to live normal lives will not have to worry about whether or not our values will be challenged, unless of course we find ourselves in the diverse state of Massachusetts. The oppressors will no longer have to live in fear of all that is different, all that is alien to them; morality will prevail for these people, as it will for the people of Massachusetts. No longer will we have to see these icons of diversity in our large cities, such as the Gay 90's club in Minneapolis, MN, or the Buddhist temple in Florissant, MO. Instead, there will be images of Christ our savior and the child-friendly McDonalds. Ours will be a society without difference, without danger to our long held beliefs, as it will for the people of Massachusetts.
Those who reside in the state of Massachusetts will not be allowed out of state other than for reasons of work, in which case they will be required to respect our way of life. Just the same, those of us who are not of homosexual orientation should not enter into the state of Massachusetts for the sake of preserving a harmonious society on both sides. Of course, if there is too much intermingling from either side of the moral/non-moral spectrum, there will be laws to enforce such a dreaded situation from ever getting out of control. It is not my desire to build prisons for people with non-traditional lifestlyles, as most of them are not murderers of life, or guilty of committing any other serious offenses. With that, I do believe they should at least have rights to life in a place determined by those who are for the promotion of a fair and just society. If not for fairness, then what for? If not for justice, then what for? These values are at stake as long as we continue to ignore them.
I think it will be agreed upon by both sides that the implementation of such an order will do well to free us from the chains of bigotry and intolerance. It will be a welcoming invitation to those that may suggest something different to end longstanding debates of this nature. I do realize that Massachusetts may not in the end be a large enough state for there are many different kinds of people that exist among us. For this reason it may be suggested that Connecticut and Rhode Island be added to this providence of difference. Doing so will extend the lands of those that are different to a more accomodating level. By doing this the people on either side of the noted state boundaries can be sure that there will be enough room to go around. The founders of this country would have us do the same in the name of diversity and equal rights. It is only through independence that one can be truly liberated. With my plan, those that are oppressed will enjoy the equal treatment under the law that they deserve.
I personally am dissapointed that I would ever have to suggest we go to such lengths to insure the peace and prosperity of all, though if we must act like children fighting on a playground, maybe it is best that we are seperated. In a perfect world we would respect each other's differences, though in this world, there wil always be those that are perpetually afraid of change.
posted by TheZenFly at 9:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home