As I left school today I walked through the entrance that has those tire spikes across the ground to prevent people from driving out through the entrance only. So as I am about to walk across these spikes, someone drives up next to me like they were gonna go out that way, and I'm waving my hands, shaking my head saying No! no! no! The driver sees me doing this and proceeds to hit the gas and drives over the spikes, which ofcourse pop all four of his tires. Pop-pop-fissss, pop-pop-fissss. And I listen in amazement at what he just did, listening to the air in his tires slowly equalizing its pressure to its external environment, wondering when he will realize what just happened, and how he might respond to having to buy new tires.
hehehe, perhaps in this way stupidity is painful, by means of hurting their wallet. :P
Tuesday, November 17
Thursday, July 9
Random thought for the day.
Normal.
I dont like that word.
Normal is one of those ambiguous words, like truth, god, love, belief, etc. so i try to avoid them.
What i mean is that every kind of person on the planet has their own definition, and although you may have a very clear definition of one or all of these words, not everyone will agree with your definition, so the collective meaning gets lost, at least in my mind. they become mouth poo
but having an ambiguous position,
maybe thats a good thing
because no one can tell where you stand,
its like being socially non-local
im sure that might creep alot of people out though too...
but then i think, in order to be seen or heard part of you has to be local, and if you come from a non-local state, would that make it easier to hold whatever local position you liked?....
woah...
maybe i should start writing science fiction again...
I dont like that word.
Normal is one of those ambiguous words, like truth, god, love, belief, etc. so i try to avoid them.
What i mean is that every kind of person on the planet has their own definition, and although you may have a very clear definition of one or all of these words, not everyone will agree with your definition, so the collective meaning gets lost, at least in my mind. they become mouth poo
but having an ambiguous position,
maybe thats a good thing
because no one can tell where you stand,
its like being socially non-local
im sure that might creep alot of people out though too...
but then i think, in order to be seen or heard part of you has to be local, and if you come from a non-local state, would that make it easier to hold whatever local position you liked?....
woah...
maybe i should start writing science fiction again...
Sunday, June 7
Rebuttal to "A Good Argument" opposing gay marriage.
This is my response to a post: A Good Argument, Written by William C. Duncan,
Marriage Law Foundation. The double quotes are from his paper. Maine Marriage Initiative.
“Laws banning interracial marriage had to be rejected because they imposed on the institution of marriage an unrelated idea—the odious notion that one race is superior to another.”
Take the idea that;
‘Inter-racial marriage was not banned because one race is not better than the other.’
It is agreed upon that all races are equal in their importance, and to say otherwise is considered to be racist. I believe that not only are all races equal in importance, but that race is simply a social construct, and that the differences are only superficial; everyone is human.
To parallel this to gender would be to say that;
‘Same-sex marriage was not banned because one gender is not better than the other.’
Logically, the two sentences are identical. To disagree with the above statement would mean that one would agree to the idea that one gender is somehow better than the other. This is sexism.
So to ban same-sex marriage would be sexist, and supports the idea that one gender is somehow more important than the other.
“If [marriage] is fundamentally changed to accomplish a different purpose—giving government approbation to all kinds of adult relationships—it can no longer fulfill its child-centered purpose.”
Not all who get married do so for the purpose of having children; some do it to share monetary possessions, so one can get the others insurance benefits, so one can make legal decisions for the other if need be. If the purpose of marriage is to improve the likelihood of a safe upbringing for children, are these couples without children taking advantage of this union?
Should people who want to be together yet do not want to have kids not be allowed to each others money, insurance, and legal decisions?
“That is because the messages of same-sex marriage are: that mothers and fathers are interchangeable,...”
Why wouldn’t they be?
“...that living in a motherless or fatherless home will have no effect on children,…”
There are families where the father left the mother and children, or the mother left the father and children, whether it is from death or a disagreement leading to a divorce.
My dad was kicked out when I was 10 or so. The fact that he was not there was not as big of an issue as the fact that my mom was not there either, she worked two jobs and I almost never saw her. If they never got divorced he would have kept beating my mom and me and my brother. His alcohol was more important to him than his family, that’s why it didn’t work, that had nothing to do with either of my parents gender, it was about addiction.
Just because someone may not have a mother or father does not mean they will not have any female or male adult role models in their life, there are also Aunts and Uncles, as well as teachers and babysitters. I think having a close extended family is much more important than making sure that children have a mother and a father.
“...that endorsing these arrangements will have no effect on society,…”
It will have an effect on society, but not necessarily a negative one.
“...and that marriage is about nothing more than adult desires.“
Of course it’s just about adult desires.
The adults desire to share a life with each other. The adults may desire to raise children and instill their morals and beliefs into those children, supporting their belief that their own morals and beliefs are the right ones when those children become successful.
“The definition of marriage is not about civil rights. It is a matter of civil responsibility—the responsibility our society has to affirm the dignity of all people without extinguishing the inheritance of future generations: their chance to inherit a culture where a child’s birthright relationship with her own mother and father is respected and protected wherever possible.”
Birthrights can be classified into two parts; assigned birthrights, and inherited birthrights.
Assigned birthrights are decided upon by people through the popular view, whether that be through religion; as stated by sacred documents, or by politics; agreed upon by the majority, or those with the most power, prestige, or money.
Inherited birthrights are things like genetic inheritance, like if someone has a lineage of blond hair or susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia. The color of ones skin is also an inherited birthright. There is an increasing amount of studies being reported supporting the idea that sexual orientation is something that one is born with as well.
It is an Assigned Birthright to claim that all children should be raised by a mother and father. To be conceived by a male and a female is an Inherited Birthright. In other words, genetic parents are not necessarily the ones who raise the children.
To protect the assigned birthright of children to be raised by a mother and a father, is to simply protect the popular view that that is a birthright.
Its like saying; we need to protect 'this' because its popular.
“Rejecting a redefinition of marriage would fulfill this responsibility.”
Same-sex couples can raise children too, they can adopt, or find a surrogate. Allowing them to marry would give them the opportunity to raise a child who may otherwise end up in an orphanage. The responsibility of parents to properly raise children is not threatened by the chance of a child having same-sex parents.
So then does a man need a woman to raise a child? Does a woman need a man to raise a child? Why can’t a single parent just be a part of an extended family then, to have relatives or babysitters help raise their children? How is that different from two women or two men raising a child? Is it the fear that a boy raised by two moms might grow up to think they were a girl?
All of the concepts raised in this issue can be democratically verified by doing extensive surveying to determine how it is really affecting how children are raised. Everything else is simply verbal banter, and yes I admit to contributing to the verbal banter, only in an attempt to encourage others who read this to do their own research and decide for themselves.
Some of you have made it clear that you have made up your mind on what is true. But do you remember what happened when Galileo pissed off the Roman Catholic Church?
Marriage Law Foundation. The double quotes are from his paper. Maine Marriage Initiative.
“Laws banning interracial marriage had to be rejected because they imposed on the institution of marriage an unrelated idea—the odious notion that one race is superior to another.”
Take the idea that;
‘Inter-racial marriage was not banned because one race is not better than the other.’
It is agreed upon that all races are equal in their importance, and to say otherwise is considered to be racist. I believe that not only are all races equal in importance, but that race is simply a social construct, and that the differences are only superficial; everyone is human.
To parallel this to gender would be to say that;
‘Same-sex marriage was not banned because one gender is not better than the other.’
Logically, the two sentences are identical. To disagree with the above statement would mean that one would agree to the idea that one gender is somehow better than the other. This is sexism.
So to ban same-sex marriage would be sexist, and supports the idea that one gender is somehow more important than the other.
“If [marriage] is fundamentally changed to accomplish a different purpose—giving government approbation to all kinds of adult relationships—it can no longer fulfill its child-centered purpose.”
Not all who get married do so for the purpose of having children; some do it to share monetary possessions, so one can get the others insurance benefits, so one can make legal decisions for the other if need be. If the purpose of marriage is to improve the likelihood of a safe upbringing for children, are these couples without children taking advantage of this union?
Should people who want to be together yet do not want to have kids not be allowed to each others money, insurance, and legal decisions?
“That is because the messages of same-sex marriage are: that mothers and fathers are interchangeable,...”
Why wouldn’t they be?
“...that living in a motherless or fatherless home will have no effect on children,…”
There are families where the father left the mother and children, or the mother left the father and children, whether it is from death or a disagreement leading to a divorce.
My dad was kicked out when I was 10 or so. The fact that he was not there was not as big of an issue as the fact that my mom was not there either, she worked two jobs and I almost never saw her. If they never got divorced he would have kept beating my mom and me and my brother. His alcohol was more important to him than his family, that’s why it didn’t work, that had nothing to do with either of my parents gender, it was about addiction.
Just because someone may not have a mother or father does not mean they will not have any female or male adult role models in their life, there are also Aunts and Uncles, as well as teachers and babysitters. I think having a close extended family is much more important than making sure that children have a mother and a father.
“...that endorsing these arrangements will have no effect on society,…”
It will have an effect on society, but not necessarily a negative one.
“...and that marriage is about nothing more than adult desires.“
Of course it’s just about adult desires.
The adults desire to share a life with each other. The adults may desire to raise children and instill their morals and beliefs into those children, supporting their belief that their own morals and beliefs are the right ones when those children become successful.
“The definition of marriage is not about civil rights. It is a matter of civil responsibility—the responsibility our society has to affirm the dignity of all people without extinguishing the inheritance of future generations: their chance to inherit a culture where a child’s birthright relationship with her own mother and father is respected and protected wherever possible.”
Birthrights can be classified into two parts; assigned birthrights, and inherited birthrights.
Assigned birthrights are decided upon by people through the popular view, whether that be through religion; as stated by sacred documents, or by politics; agreed upon by the majority, or those with the most power, prestige, or money.
Inherited birthrights are things like genetic inheritance, like if someone has a lineage of blond hair or susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia. The color of ones skin is also an inherited birthright. There is an increasing amount of studies being reported supporting the idea that sexual orientation is something that one is born with as well.
It is an Assigned Birthright to claim that all children should be raised by a mother and father. To be conceived by a male and a female is an Inherited Birthright. In other words, genetic parents are not necessarily the ones who raise the children.
To protect the assigned birthright of children to be raised by a mother and a father, is to simply protect the popular view that that is a birthright.
Its like saying; we need to protect 'this' because its popular.
“Rejecting a redefinition of marriage would fulfill this responsibility.”
Same-sex couples can raise children too, they can adopt, or find a surrogate. Allowing them to marry would give them the opportunity to raise a child who may otherwise end up in an orphanage. The responsibility of parents to properly raise children is not threatened by the chance of a child having same-sex parents.
So then does a man need a woman to raise a child? Does a woman need a man to raise a child? Why can’t a single parent just be a part of an extended family then, to have relatives or babysitters help raise their children? How is that different from two women or two men raising a child? Is it the fear that a boy raised by two moms might grow up to think they were a girl?
All of the concepts raised in this issue can be democratically verified by doing extensive surveying to determine how it is really affecting how children are raised. Everything else is simply verbal banter, and yes I admit to contributing to the verbal banter, only in an attempt to encourage others who read this to do their own research and decide for themselves.
Some of you have made it clear that you have made up your mind on what is true. But do you remember what happened when Galileo pissed off the Roman Catholic Church?
Friday, March 27
ghuh?
prple bunnies w/pots on their heads!
flower pots?
no the ones you cook in not make cookies,
no they have dirt in them and flowers!
not flour
chocolate bunnies and sammiches?
do blue ducks laugh at prple bunnies?
straight stiks to the sky!
Quack!
Moo!
no dont moo they will hear you!
care better you for not the milk spoil!
The trees are dancing!
and they laugh @ earthquakes
shiver me timbers!! ^_^
Dust and blue metal
big dead bony hands reach out from the sleeping shrubbery!
take that you blog!
flower pots?
no the ones you cook in not make cookies,
no they have dirt in them and flowers!
not flour
chocolate bunnies and sammiches?
do blue ducks laugh at prple bunnies?
straight stiks to the sky!
Quack!
Moo!
no dont moo they will hear you!
care better you for not the milk spoil!
The trees are dancing!
and they laugh @ earthquakes
shiver me timbers!! ^_^
Dust and blue metal
big dead bony hands reach out from the sleeping shrubbery!
take that you blog!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)