The Gay Agenda: The Fight for American Gay Rights

Greetings all!

Welcome to my blog, this time being posted on President's Day in honor of our past leaders. The topic for this week is the gay rights movement in America, specifically what is being done and what must be done to achieve the civil rights of our people. This week's quote is by Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of the Indian independence movement along with Jawaharlal Nehru, and a strong advocate of nonviolence. It's simply a little quote that I find truthful often. Now, to the debate at hand. 

Gay rights are a sticky issue in America, primarily because of religious belief that they should not be able to get married, have kids, etc. This is a prominent belief among Christian conservatives, along with Islamic conservatives (though not as common in America). In both groups, the denial of gay marriage comes with the inherent belief that marriage is a religious establishment and is therefore protected by the state. And yes, there is so much wrong with this. Many people still say that gay is a disease or a genetic deformity, and therefore they shouldn't get married. But does this make sense? Even if gay was a disease or an inherited genetic problem (which it is not), that doesn't give anyone the power to take away their civil rights. People with AIDS have just as much right as those without, and therefore were gay a disease (it is not), gays should be able to receive equal treatment anyway. Another argument is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because then they'll raise kids, and psychology would suggest that this would be a poor parenting model. I'm pretty sure that having two crack-addicted, dumbass parents is also a poor parenting model. But if they're straight, they can still get married and raise kids. News flash, people: most gays are not crack-addicted dumbasses. So why shouldn't they be able to marry and have kids?

Some people argue that gay is unnatural and that because only humans do it, it must be something wrong with us. This is false, actually. Tons of species practice homosexuality (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx), with about 8% of those species that do being gay. That's awfully close to the amount of humans which have admitted to having experimented with homosexuality in their lives (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/williams-institute-report-reveals-million-gay-bisexual-transgender/story?id=13320565#.T0LimYePWuk). After looking at these reports, we can make out that gay is just as natural in humans as it is for a significant portion of the animal kingdom. Therefore, no reason to deny gay rights. Now, we come to the two major arguments against gay rights in America. Almost every denier of gay rights uses these or believes these at some time, and many often use these arguments whenever gay rights come up. These are the belief that gay is a choice, and that gay marriage/child rearing goes against religious institutions. 

Let's look at the "gay is a choice" argument first. On the surface, it is already flawed. Conservatives make a constant barrage of speech about how the federal government should not be able to dictate the way we run our daily lives, and how government should not be able to force us to choose something or force us to not choose something. Do you see the hypocrisy? Even if gay was a choice (which it is not), that would be no reason to deny gay rights to marriage. Because by doing so, the federal government implies that it favors heterosexuals, and it does not want people choosing to be gay. By restricting the rights of gays, the federal government would encourage people to repress their "choice", thereby making America into something conservatives fear most: a country where the government has first and final say. 

Now, to the second counterpoint. Gay is most certainly not a choice. A reason many people use is that there is no scientific evidence pointing to people being born gay. This is what is known as an argument based on negative evidence, where no evidence to the contrary means that the hypothesis can be assumed as true until positive evidence disproving it is discovered. This is the same kind of argument that the people hunting Bigfoot and ghosts use. "Just 'cuz you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not real." Look, I really don't care. Bigfoot and ghosts don't exist, because there is no evidence to support their existence. On the topic of being born gay, we at least have an indicator: most all gays say they are born gay. Since gays have firsthand experience, I'll take their word for it rather than denying the only thing we have close to proof. I don't know about you, but I don't have the rampant egotism necessary to think I know better than them. 

And now, the final anti-gay rights argument. The religious one, my favorite. Conservatives consistently note that marriage is a religious institution, and that by allowing universal gay marriage we force religions to accept a secular law that does not agree with their religious freedoms. Since this is a pluralistic society where freedom of religion is important, this is the only anti-gay argument that I accept as valid on face-value. Unfortunately, this point cannot apply to us. Mostly because at every point in our history, civil rights trump religion. They always have, and they always will, and this is a good thing about our country. We are not like Iran, where protection of Sh'ia Islam overrides rights whenever deemed necessary by the Ayatollah. My proof is in the 1960s, the American Civil Rights movement for black peoples of America. One of the contentious issues of the times was that many churches and other religious houses would not perform interracial marriages because it went against their beliefs to do so. In 1967, the Supreme Court gave a resounding "hell no" to that argument. They did this because, as I have stated, civil rights trump religious ones. If we are to ensure a fair and just society, we must be willing to sacrifice a little so that all our people live with equal treatment and rights. This applies to modern times. Just because churches don't want to marry gays, that doesn't give them the power to deny the civil rights of homosexuals, and it never will. 

One more thing: saying that gay marriage will lead to animal marriage is bogus, because ANIMALS ALREADY DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS HUMANS. They don't, and they never will. People won't be marrying animals after gays, because people simply don't want to. Also, by using this argument you effectively imply that gays are no better than animals, so it only makes you look bad. It only hurts you.

That is all for this week, and I hope I have attacked the issue at all angles. If you feel I missed something, would like to add something, or etc. simply leave a comment right here. My Facebook and Twitter account are also open, along with my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off. 

Justice Is Done: The Killing of Osama Bin Laden

Welcome to my blog!

After weeks of not posting due to various reasons, I have returned to post once again. Note that in the future, I will avoid not posting if at all possible. This week’s topic is right in the title; the culmination of American efforts to find and end Osama Bin Laden. The reason I address this is not because I supported the man, or Al-Qaeda, but rather because of the ethical issues our mission and treatment of said mission bring about. This week's quote is from current president of the United States Barack Hussein Obama, after Bin Laden had been killed. It holds no significance separate from this post, but I thought it would be good to include.

Now on to the topic at hand. Osama Bin Laden was not a good person. This is undeniable; his actions over the years allowed terrorism to grow and many people to die without reason. However, we also murdered him. Yes, I know that he has killed many. But we can't allow our nation to pull stuff like this. Even after World War 2 ended and Nazi leaders were captured, we didn't kill them immediately. They were put on trial for their horrendous crimes first. They got the death sentence, but we were still willing to give them the rights of due process before acting against them. The Nazis killed far more than Bin Laden ever did, and yet we shot him on sight. While I would not have opposed the death sentence for him, I do believe he deserved his right to a fair trial before having his life taken. This is what makes us different from other nations, and if we wish to declare our superiority or feel good about ourselves as a nation, we must use this as evidence. By extinguishing Osama before he had a chance to trial by jury, we eliminate the possibility of ever redeeming ourselves of our so-called greatness. Michael Moore made this point a while ago, and I agree with it in full (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/some-final-thoughts-on-death-of-osama-bin-laden).

But many still argue that it was a just cause, due to the way Bin Laden struck against the U.S. without provocation. This isn't entirely untrue, but unfortunately this is another instance of us bringing terrible things upon ourselves. It starts in the early 1980's, when we backed and trained the Taliban against the pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan. While it served our interest of beating communism then (an unjust cause, I might add), the Taliban would later become the group that would shelter and train Al-Qaeda. We did another disservice to ourselves in the Iran-Iraq War when we backed both sides as part of double containment. When Iran-Contra was exposed, Iraq and Iran found out we backed both of them in order to destroy them both. This created serious hatred for the U.S. Afghanistan watched this, as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda growled. Now they were trained, armed, and had a common enemy. Then Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, and they watched as the U.S. and coalition western forces trounced Saddam Hussein. Their drive against America was fueled. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed, with Bin Laden responsible. No surprise there. But everything culminated starting in 2000 and ending in 2001. During this short period, the Bush government provided aid to Afghanistan, unaware of what was going on. And then, the September 11 bombings occurred. We were devastated and afraid, and finally saw how the Taliban worked. So we invaded Afghanistan and crushed them, forcing Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to flee. But the damage had been done at this point. We have given weapons and training to our enemies, and then given them reasons to hate us and even attack us. So while the terrorist strikes against the U.S. came from Osama, it's not like we didn't help push him to it. 

But some would still say that capture was impossible, and therefore killing Osama was the only viable option beyond allowing him to flee. Bullcrap. We had him surrounded by highly trained men with strong weaponry. We mowed down the guards, and had him ready to surrender. But the "shoot first, ask questions later" motto apparently also applies to the military, because that's what we did. We could have captured him and held a trial, and then put him to death. But we forfeited that opportunity to improve our image by at least a little. However, what's done is done I suppose. Now that Bin Laden is gone and Al-Qaeda is falling back, we can finally rest a little easier knowing terrorism won't be an enormous threat for sometime as long as they have no coordinated leader. That's what I thought, until just weeks later when I heard a movie would be made about the mission. Are we serious? Not only do we have to murder a guy and then cheer about it, but then we have to glorify said murder by making it into a film? Nothing got better when I saw the trailer just days ago, with the ad going along to the soundtrack of Eminem. This is sad. We kill a guy, and then make murderers into heroes while mixing in a drug-addled white rapper. Perfect. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as this is acceptable as true American spirit nowadays. None of this is right, and we should be ashamed at least to some degree. We need to try to preserve our integrity.

Well, that is all for this week, and I hope I have provided a full response to the issue at hand. If you'd like to say something to me, ask a question, or anything else you can do so in the comments section here. I also have a Facebook and a twitter, and my email at zerospintop@live.com is still open. That is all, and this is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.