This is my blog, where I will post anything I think is of interest.

• 14May 09

  A secular case for traditional marriage

  Based as it is on the principle of complementarity, marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, procreation. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman. -Bill Bennet

  

  First of all, marriage is an institution of procreation, establishing first and foremost the characteristic of a stable biological family. "Love" is certainly a trait that should be held in marriage, but marriage isn't required to love someone. Any individual can love another, whether it be their spouse, their best friend, or even their dog. This does not mean, however, that humans should begin marrying their best friends or their pets. That's not what marriage entails, although it often is portrayed as such by same-sex marriage advocates.

  What same-sex marriage proponents are advocating is a depreciation of the term "marriage" to include the most artificial rendering of the term "love". Love doesn't require marriage. Love also doesn't require sex. This idea that the three are entwined is false. Furthermore, although it is a sad state of our era, sex no longer requires marriage. Sex has been reduced to mere practical purposes without any regard for the social distractions that it may cause in relationships. Materialistically speaking, a rocky relationship is overshadowed by satisfactory sex. So, as long as the endorphins are kicking in, humans have this unfounded tendency to think that it's okay to be uncommitted to their partner.

  But if sex doesn't come with the stigma that it requires marriage, why do homosexuals feel the need to get married? It surely can't be some religious belief. If it's that, then there's no reason to debate my secular side. I'll just let the Bible quote itself for me and leave it at that. Hoo hum diddely doo, neighborino. Not until those pesky secular liberals banish Christianity will that happen. I kid though. Perhaps they want to be committed to an individual? While marriage does entail commitment, it also entails procreation. Additionally, commitment, much like love and sex, don't require marriage, so this idea that these words are entwined with each other are once again false.

  --

  Now, I will proceed to post and refute some of the popular arguments made by same-sex marriage advocates.

  Traditional marriage denies same-sex couples legal rights

  Marriage is a legal institution in addition to a social institution.Loving v. Virginiaconfirms just this. Additionally, benefits spring up from marriage.I have to recognize the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore I cannot deny the rights withheld from same-sex couples, but honestly, I find this to be an irrelevant issue. If, there is something that compromises homosexuals to a degree that needs to be changed, then that issue should be taken with the law. It's the laws that should be changed, not marriage.

  Now, I am going to be ignorant on the remainder of this issue, because I have not severely taken an in-depth look at the benefits of marriage now can I affirmatively say that they should be allowed for people of different sexuality, and I don't feel it within my power to tackle it issue by issue. The list is a long one, if you're interested.

  http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

  It's bigotry; discriminatory

  And...? It's also bigotry to outlaw public waste. Pornography. Prostitution. Et cetera. Just because it's different doesn't mean it has to be tolerated. I think bigotry gets a negative wrap personally, and maybe understandably in some cases, but there is a tolerance level which should be set faithfully by society and when that tolerance level is violated, it's understandable to feel, perhaps, a little outraged over the matter.

  --

  Now that I've defended my argument, I will put in check certain arguments from traditional marriage proponents that are a bit lacking and people who agree with me should steer clear from in terms of using them as actual debate points.

  Homosexuality is wrong

  I agree; I believe sex outside of reproductive purposes is wrong. To add onto that, I will bring up that I also think premarital sex is wrong; it's akin to serving in the military without commitment to your country. However, I just can't imagine myself advocating laws being passed to outlaw premarital sex. Likewise, the same is true with sodomy. There are a couple reasons: (1) It would infiltrate the privacy of a couple's bedroom. (2) It just sounds Orwellian (see: Junior Anti-Sex-League); although this is erroneous thinking at best. (3) Humans are flawed. Some are going to break protocol and spend the night together. What, then, shall we do if they break the law? What consequences should we bestow onto them? Should we stone them? Surprisingly, there are no Old Testament laws in favor of stoning a young couple cheating marriage (unless they're both men; lesbians get a break). There's no practical response to premarital sex, except maybe counseling, but that's rehabilitation, not punishment. Likewise, there's no practical response to homosexuals actively engaging in sex.

  Homosexuality is a choice

  There's some debate to this, with scientific evidence claiming that homosexuality could be part of our genetic makeup. I haven't really looked into this.There's a difference between sexuality and sexual behavior.

  Satan supports same-sex marriage; God supports traditional marriage

  Being that I'm a "there is no such thing as a God; I have perfectly logical configurations why God can't exist; shut up with your riff raf; I don't need to hear it!" kind of atheist, the use of God and/or Satan doesn't work well for people of my ilk, or normal atheists, or agnostics, or even liberal theists, not that nontheists are all liberal as I seem to imply. And I agree. However, if something is absolutely true, it is absolutely true regardless of your belief on other issues. It is irrelevant on other issues, and sometimes I get the impression that traditional marriage advocates preach to the choir; to the people that already agree with them on almost every issue for principle purposes. The "fact" that God supports traditional marriage should not therefore warrant that you have to show God must first exist in order to argue your point. It's irrelevant. Making irrelevant points part of your thesis threatens the loss of credibility of those who already stand against your irrelevant points. So all the atheists will be adamantly against what all the theists are doing for traditional marriage because they're doing it in the name of the Lord, and if you don't accept it, burn in hell with you and your queer partner. (Please note: exaggeration of fundamentalists).

  I see this all of the time with abortion. Everyone likes to bring up contraception, but it's totally irrelevant to the issue. Advocating both abortion and abstinence-only education in the same breath as though they both were central to each other is a crash-and-burn argument, even if both abortion and abstinence-only education are both morally upstanding. One can be right without the other. As soon as one picks flaws on one issue, they might be lead to believe the other one is just as flawed.

  This is obviously my most biased argument (in case you couldn't tell).

  • Posted May 14, 2009 9:56 pm PT
  • Category: Relationships
  • 12 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 26Apr 09

  My DS Lite broke

  Yesterday, I was playing Metroid: Zero Mission on my Nintendo DS Lite when the game suddenly turned off. I tried to turn on the power again, but it turned off immediately and continued to act that way. Since then, the game will turn on for anywhere between a second to a minute before powering down by itself. Since I was playing a GBA game, I decided that it was time to dust off my old original Game Boy Advance and use that. However, I soon found that the lack of a backlight makes it hard to see the game, regardless of how much light there is, to the point where my eyes are simply hurting.

  

  So, it looks as if I'm in a need for a new system to play Game Boy games and Nintendo DS games. Since I want a system to play the original Game Boy and Game Boy Color games, I'm going to get a Game Boy Advance SP. For my DS games, this is a good opportunity for a DSi. Although it lacks a GBA slot, I can play those games on an SP instead.

  • Posted Apr 26, 2009 3:52 am PT
  • Category: Games
  • 15 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 18Apr 09

  I'm a liar

  

  I reconsidered my exile from GameSpot. Mainly in part because I couldn't help but remember that gaming is a hobby of mine and there's no other place to get information on games and to provide content on video games. That being said, I've decided to lift my exile from GameSpot. Instead of staying away from the site completely, I'll just use the actual gaming feature of the site. In addition, I'll post on unions and such, but I'll keep my distance from the main topic forums. I think that will keep my out of harm's way.

  Anyway, I will continue my duties as leader of the Secular Ethics Council. I will be active on will be The Atheism Unionat the moment, but feel free to pitch in any unions you may be a member of that could use a new member, especially if they're off-topic unions.

  Oh, and MetalGear_Ninty, you have my number.

  • Posted Apr 18, 2009 2:01 pm PT
  • Category: General
  • 16 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »