Bush Supports Gay Rights... sort of

As much as I've criticized the conservative anti-homosexual groups in some of my other writings I have to give credit to President Bush in appointing General Peter Pace. If anyone is sure to work hard at keeping homosexuals out of the military its him. I have to applaud our country's efforts since 1994 to throw out close to 10,000 able bodied soldiers for their sexual orientation. Just think that by continuing this policy President Bush not only sacrifices more upstanding, moral, straight soldiers in the Iraq war but is willing to bite the bullet and accept lower numbers of troops than necessary to complete our mission there. He could easily have used thousands more to get the job done. By continuing this policy President Bush is doing an excellent job to support gay rights by saving hundreds of homosexuals who may have died had they actually been sent to fight for this country in Iraq. Its wonderful to know that even in these times conservatives do their best to save the lives of citizens in America's minority groups.

If the above paragraph doesn't sound ridiculous to you for a variety of reasons then there is something seriously wrong with you. If you are a conservative who hates gays then logically you should support them serving in the military on the front lines. Not only would their deaths help save the moral straight soldiers in Iraq but would help to keep control of a worsening situation in that destabilized country.

On the other hand if you support the rights of homosexuals to not be penalized for their orientation then you should support their sacrifice for the benefit of this country that allows them such freedom of choice.

Really, its absurd that during wartime our country does not use every able bodied soldier who has volunteered to server his or her country. Removing soldiers from the ranks for things that don't conflict with their ability to fight is retarded. Sun Tzu would be rolling in his grave at the idiocy of it. As for my personal opinion I don't think giving homosexuals a disproportionate number of dangerous assignments so they die in combat is fair either but thats just another problem to overcome in gaining some much deserved acceptance and respect for homosexuals. Seriously, as long as the guy or gal isn't grabbing you constantly you shouldn't give a crap if you have to bunk with them.

No longer having 10,000 more soldiers that you could have used is just another thing that adds up to how to lose a war. Maybe President Bush will think about it when chaos breaks out in the green zone sometime.

Source

Texas Against Public Health

Isn't it wonderful that this day in age the government won't even look out for the welfare of its own people by helping everyone get vaccinations? Or are they planning further ahead and hope that a bunch of women dropping dead of an entirely preventable cancer will reduce our ever growing population and stave off overcrowding and mass starvation?

Forgive me for being so blunt, but it seems like the Texas House of Representatives are a bunch of morons. They stop mandatory vaccinations which would save thousands of lives and the only excuse they make is that they think the governor has a vested interest in requiring it because he has ties to drug companies. Well yes, the drug companies are going to make money off of it but thats what they do and it still benefits the public not to die of cancer. Basically, all they are doing by blocking vaccinations is being jerks for their own political reasons.

My parting advice to Texas is, get rid of the jerks next election. Maybe then people won't have to die of cancer.

Source

A Comedy of Errors

Some of you may be familiar with this story but for those of you who are not, a substitute school teacher is facing a considerable amount of prison time because she is clueless about technology.

It is incredibly stupid that prosecutors charged Julie Amero with anything. The investigators failed to check the computer for spyware and malware which could have directed it to porn sites creating the prior search history she was convicted on. The poor woman has been criticized for failing to protect the children from seeing the pornography on the computer even though witnesses have testified that she not only pushed them away and tried to block the screen from their view but ran to get help to remove the pop-ups because she didn't know how. Considering her lack of knowledge she did everything right that she could do except lock the door when she left to get help to keep kids from wandering in.

I don't know about everyone else but I can forgive her for that one mistake when she is obviously so frantic to get rid of the pop-ups and concerned for the wellbeing of children that it slipped her mind.

If she is at fault then the school system must be doubly so because due to not keeping their security updated the pop-ups were allowed through their filter. The point is this sort of thing can happen because there are dirty people out there who make these kinds of spyware and malware programs. The prosecutors should spend their time charging them instead of a clueless substitute teacher.

I have had a similar experience with pop-ups on my home computer years ago. I was visiting a site totally unrelated to pornography and a pop-up came showing porn. When I hastily clicked the X to remove it about a hundred other pornographic pop-ups began flooding my computer screen. I ended up having to unplug the computer because its was locking it up.

My father has also had a similar experience at our public library when someone who had previously been using the computer left pornographic pop-ups on the screen. He tried clicking X and more pop-ups flooded the screen. He ended up going to find one of the librarians who took care of turning off and restarting the machine. He may not have been as clueless as Mrs. Amero but he certainly didn't want to damage or violate library policy by turning off the library's computer himself.

Julie Amero obviously felt the same way about respecting other people's property so instead of unplugging it and chancing that she would damage it by doing so she got someone who would be qualified to make such a decision. She clearly didn't know if it would hurt the computer or not to turn it off and did the only thing she could reasonably do, get help.

Yet these idiotic people want to punish her for it.

Source

The Third Question Answered

In an earlier post I discussed the nature of God. There were three main questions/objections posed to his existence. I answered the first two then but left third for a later time. The problem of evil is what I will discuss here in this post.

How can God allow evil to exist and even be responsible for its creation if He is an omni-benevolent God?

A common response to this question is that God did not create evil but Satan did. The classic comeback to that statement is God is omniscient and would have known that Satan would create evil and, therefor, by proxy be party to its creation.

This thinking that God could do something evil is wrong headed. I originally thought this problem would be much more complicated but it is not. God could not have committed an evil act when creating evil because it doesn't follow logically. If God created evil then the act of doing so would predate evil's existence and therefore not be subject to being considered an evil act.

That solves the part of the question involving the creation of evil but now we are left with, "Why would God allow evil to continue to exist?"

The answer to this seems a little more complicated. The simplest explanation would be that it is required for evil to exist in order for there to be such a thing as good. Without evil humanity could not recognize the good. This is slightly problematic thought since now that evil exists the question becomes "But isn't God committing an evil act by allowing evil to exist?"

The answer to that is much more difficult. I would think that the answer is no. Otherwise we are all committing an unbelievable number of evil acts by not helping others simply because we have the ability to. The U.S. has the amount of wealth necessary to end starvation and cure disease in Africa but in order to do so we would have to give most of it up. The average American is not willing to do this. U.S. citizens are, for the most part, not responsible for all the evil things happening to others around the world but we refrain from interfering to stop them from occurring. This is in the same vain as God not interfering to end all evil even though he has the ability to. There seems to me to be more to the world than just good and evil or there are maybe more types of good and evil. Not causing evil could be said to be good but interfering to stop evil can also be said to be good. The question here is "Is putting an end to evil a greater act of good than simply refraining from committing evil acts?"

If the answer is yes then while God is good allowing evil to continue to exist is not the greatest possible good act available to Him. However, it is not evil so He can still be considered to be omni-benevolent. One would like to think that God exemplifies the highest possible good and allowing evil to exist when there is a greater possible good in eliminating it makes Him seem less great. However, evil is necessary for good so it may be that He is justified in not eliminating it and is thereby engaging in the greatest possible good by allowing it to continue to exist. Humanity on the other hand has no possible objection on the grounds of necessity to not choose the greater of the two goods and help others as much as they possibly can. The only answer to humanity's faults is that we are human and not angels or God. There is a good argument here that we should try to be though. There does not seem to be a straight answer to why God or humanity should not do the greatest good possible. It is also conceivable that there is nothing in this universe but good and evil and I am wrong in assuming that there is something other or more than one type of good. If this is the case, then I see no way to say that God is omni-benevolent since allowing evil to exist does not seem to be an act of great goodness and more closely resembles evil if there is no neutrality.

What can you expect from people who threw perfectly good tea overboard?

Its amazing to me just how stupid people can be when they are fed propaganda day and night instilling an unreasonable fear of terrorism. Take a look at the things that caused all the problems in Boston this week. Link

It doesn't look like a bomb to me. Besides, what terrorist is stupid enough to put flashing lights on his IED (Improvised Explosive Device) to attract attention to it? Surely, any good terrorist wouldn't want people to notice that he's placed a bomb so that no one tries to escape it. On a more interesting not the media is editing the image of the cartoon in the pictures so as to make it more presentable to the public. I find this highly unethical. If you show an image it should be as it originally was or you are distorting how the public sees reality. Its just wrong to do that. If you'd prefer not to show it period thats fine but if you show it it better be unchanged.

The supposed "bombs" were placed two to three weeks ago in ten cities including Boston and only just late this week got noticed as suspicious. Obviously, no one thought they were a problem for a few weeks and the other cities didn't consider them a threat at all. This whole mess is a result of overactive imaginations on the part of Boston officials. They should just admit they made a bad judgment call and leave the poor guys who set up the cartoon billboards alone. Its really nice that Turner Broadcasting offered to pay for the city's expenses since I don't think they are liable for a public official's stupidity.

The lesson to take out of this is cartoons do not equal bombs. Stop being paranoid, accept your mistakes, and move on. Good Luck to Peter Berdovsky, 27, and Sean Stevens, 28, in getting the charges dropped. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Link

The N Word

Before I launch into discussing the topic I'd like to make excuses for my long absence from writing. I have been busy for a while now but in addition to that I haven't felt it was worth repeating myself again and again in response to new world events. Much of what is going on in the world is still more of the same as it was the last time I wrote. I've also been having a bit of writer's block and several things I've started writing I haven't finished. If you are easily offended by bad words you may wish not to read this. I've refrained from using the main work in question out of courtesy to others who may be sensitive even though this righting is strictly academic. There are several other words I use in full which may or may not also offend but are also discussed in a strictly academic manner. You have been given warning. Now on with the real topic.

As I'm sure you all know Michael Richards made racist remarks to some people while performing at a club. This sparked some justified outrage among other people as it very well should. The patrons to which Mr. Richards made his comments were disrupting the atmosphere surrounding his performance. This quite justifiably was upsetting to him but does not justify the comments he made. However, it does make logical sense that if someone makes one angry enough that one would wish to say something to that person which would hurt them as much as is possible. Hence, why it makes sense that to insult and demean a person of African origin one would call them the N word. Just because it follows logically to use racial slurs does not mean it is right to use them. What interested me the most after watching a segment of the video of this scene was that one of the individuals who Mr. Richards had referred to by the N word responded to him by using a racial slur for someone of Caucasian origin, Cracker. One might be inclined to view this individual as no better in behavior than Mr. Richards. But surely he was only responding in kind because he was angry. Then again that was Mr. Richards' excuse. So it should be said that no racial slur is justifiably appropriate at any time. An eye for an eye solves nothing even if it is logical.

Another subject of related interest is the use of the N word by individuals of African origin referring to people like themselves to which it would have once, and still sometimes is, applied. It is unfathomable to me why one would use a derogatory word to refer to oneself but be outraged when someone of a different racial background uses it. No one should use the N word if only to keep people from demeaning themselves.

Why do we display such anger towards racial slurs and not nearly so much towards other derogatory terms? Words like bastard, asshole, jerk, nerd, geek, bitch, and slut. There is really no difference between the N word and these words when used in anger to demean someone. The N word demeans a person by stating their race is of less worth. Bastard demeans a person by stating their family lineage is of less worth. Asshole and jerk both demean a person by stating their personality and behavior is of less worth. Bitch demeans a person by stating their personality, behavior, and sex is of less worth. Slut demeans an individual by stating that person is of less worth because she engages in a large quantity of sexual behaviors with many individuals. Make no mistake it was made to demean one sex, females. Men get by with the same sort of behavior and no negative social repercussions. Nerd and geek are demeaning to individuals who look and dress a certain way and who may have certain hobbies. Each term is equally demeaning to the group of individuals to which it is applied as the N word is to the group of people it was created to demean. It is inexplicable that the repercussions for using these words to make people feel as if they are less are infinitely less severe. It would be good if the next time everyone hears these words used by someone to hurt others if you were to all ask yourselves "How is the basic behavior behind using these words any different than using the N word to describe a different group of people?"

Xfire for Mac

Its been a long time coming but there is finally Xfire for Mac. Just follow these instructions at your own risk.

1. Get Adium version 1.0b8 Note: the newest version is 1.0b9 but it may cause errors with the plugin.

2. Get the plugin here http://www.kaintek.com/?page_id=18

3. If after downloading the plugin it appears as a folder instead of a plugin just make a duplicate of it and rename the duplicate to how it looks without the word copy after its name. It should now appear as a plugin.

4. Double click on the plugin to install it.

5. If you get the (null) (null) error then right-click on the plugin and show package contents. Then follow the folder path Contents/MacOS/ and then right click on xblaze and open with the terminal. This will likely give you an error message but you should now be able to run the Xfire plugin in Adium without getting the (null) (null) error.

6. Enjoy Xfire and your Mac.

Anyone ever wish the Senate was comprised of pregnant school girls?

What a wonderful day it is today that we should see the senate pass a bill which would throw a person in jail for helping a girl escape abusive parents. This crap abortion bill passed in the senate fails to provide any exemption for anyone helping a girl get an abortion whose parents have abused her. This would stop a girl's grandparents from helping her. The bill does provide a means by which a girl could petition a court to allow her to have an abortion without notifying her parents but this is utterly ridiculous. How is a girl of 13-14 going to get to a courthouse to file any sort of petition? Even if she could walk there in a small town odds are her bloody parents would find out about it. All this bill does is stop anyone from helping someone who has been abused by her bastard of a father/other relative. Who do you think is going to be better at deciding whether or not a girl has abusive parents and should be allowed anonymity? A judge who has never seen her or her grandparents who actually are around at least some of the time? The exemption that was drafted to protect those who help abused girls in these cases was shut down because of evil people who know that since the Judge has no clue what is going on he/she will always decide the parents should be informed. Adults have an unerring propensity for believing in other adults over whatever children have to say. There is simply no good reason why people who help others should have to face criminal charges for doing so.

Reference

What is it worth to you not to have bombs dropped on your head?

People never cease to amaze me with their idiotic behavior. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when you hold two people capitive that their government is going to do everything it can to release them. Most likely this involves beating you into submission by any means possible. Hezbollah are a bunch of idiots and should be looked upon with disgust. They could end this war in Lebonan right now if they'd hand over the two soldiers they took prisoner. Instead they still keep the soldiers prisoner and kill Israeli civilians while letting lebanese civilians die because their hideouts are mixed right into populated areas. I sincerely hope people supporting them figure out that it really does more harm than good. It'd save a lot of lives.

Searches without Warning

The Supreme Court decided today that it is ok for Police to search homes without knocking or giving some form of warning before entering. I am perfectly ok with this since I don't think this violates the Constitution as a form of unreasonable search. In the case in question the police did have a warrant. Throwing out evidence from cases in which the police failed to announce themselves is absurd because it has nothing to do with whether or not a suspect committed a crime. I do wish to point out that this ruling may cause future problems when the police barge into someone's home unannounced. Suppose the police have the wrong house and just run right in and the homeowner thinks he is under attack and kills a police officer in what he perceives to be self defense. I can envision lawsuits where the police have shot an innocent man dead because he was defending his rights. It may be useful to police to sometimes not knock before entering but they should in most cases still do this anyway and be very sure of what they are doing when they use this new freedom of theirs.

Only Partially Free Speech

"A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that government whistle-blowers are not protected by free-speech rights when they face employer discipline for trying to expose possible misconduct at work."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini

"Adopting the position of the Los Angeles prosecutor's office and the U.S. Justice Department, the high court ruled that a public employee has no First Amendment right in speech expressed as part of performing job-required duties."-UPDATE 1-U.S. court rules no whistle-blower free-speech right By James Vicini

So this would mean that everyone has protection from being fired under free speech but only when it is not related to their speaking about their work. It seems to also mean that anyone who works for the Justices can be fired simply because they use their free speech to disagree with the court's decision. After all, its work related. Speaking of misconduct at work this is the second time in recent history the Supreme Court has let down their fellow human beings. The other case was the recent one where they ruled it was ok for the local government to take your land, paying you a sum that is likely less than what you could sell it for commercially, and then giving it over to industry for development. Don't you just love this country where the average citizen's rights are so well protected?

Source

Learn English

I cannot fathom why anyone would be against requiring immigrants to learn English. If someone comes here and doesn't learn the language then they are forever in a huge sea of the unknown as people converse around them. It would be a great idea, though by no means a should be a requirement, if they could learn it even before they come. It would make their lives a million times easier. I heard some liberals crying out that the bill was based on prejudice towards illegal aliens and even legal immigrants from Mexico. You can't change your ethnicity but you can learn English. It makes no logical sense to call it prejudiced when one can actually change something about one's self and learn the language. It isn't logical to move to China and expect them all to learn English for you either. Its even a bit arrogant and insulting if one believes everyone in a country should learn another language for one's self. America is a meltingpot of people who all have shared two things throughout history. That being a common language which brings them together and a desire for the rights and freedoms of this country. Having more than one language is devicive. This bill helps ensure Americans all understand each other in a mutual language and become united in that understanding.

The Great Wall of Mexico

There seems to be a growing debate about what should be done about the growing number of illegal aliens in the U.S. There are two ways to fix this. The first is to let them in and the second is to keep them out. I personally would prefer that they be allowed to stay on the provision that they are all accounted for by having records, paying taxes, etc. I'm happy with such an open door immigration policy. What I can't stand for are unregistered illegal aliens. They work here, don't pay taxes, and undercut the salaries of legal citizens who work here. Essentially they are stealing from the government and the citizens of this country. I realize that even allowing all of them to come here legally likely won't stop them from coming here illegally anyway. Any illegal alien who becomes legal is likely to get fired by the greedy scum employing them and replaced by another illegal. What is needed is strict penalties for employing illegals to stick up for their rights and the rights of our citizens to be treated fairly and given proper salaries. By this I mean forget just fines and go with jail time. The best way to enforce fair salaries and ensure people aren't fired for doing the right thing and becoming legal is to make sure the only way into this country is the legal way. That means guarding the border. Too bad President Bush sent all our troops to Iraq to guard its border instead of ours. The more of the Guard that is Guarding our border the better. The more illegal aliens we keep out the more likely we'll be able to keep out any terrorists trying to cross the same way. What's the argument about defending people's rights to fair wages and not to be blown up by terrorists? Defend the border and let everyone in the only way, the legal way.

What? Did Someone Make a Caricature of Him too?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Nigerian who was considered a candidate for pope last year, made his strong comments in a documentary called "The Da Vinci Code-A Masterful Deception."

Arinze's appeal came some 10 days after another Vatican cardinal called for a boycott of the film. Both cardinals asserted that other religions would never stand for offences against their beliefs and that Christians should get tough.

"Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget," Arinze said in the documentary made by Rome film maker Mario Biasetti for Rome Reports, a Catholic film agency specializing in religious affairs.

"Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others," Arinze said.

"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected," he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

- Cardinal urges legal action against Da Vinci Code By Philip Pullella

For some reason the way this cardinal reacted to the Da Vinci Code reminds me of a bunch of Muslim's after those Muhammad caricatures were published. I absolutely love how he professes that it is a fundamental human right not to have one's Christian beliefs questioned. The only fundamental right that remotely comes close to what he professes is in the first amendment and that only allows for the free exercise of religion. There is nothing in the first amendment that says one has to respect another religion only that the believers of it are allowed to worship. For instance, suppose there is a mosque of Muslims who believe the people murdered in the WTO got what they deserved because they were infidels. Am I going to respect their beliefs? Hell no. Do I believe they still have the right to worship Allah since they as of yet haven't gone out and martyred anyone? Yes they may worship Him as they see fit. The most idiotic statement this cardinal makes is that Christians shouldn't forgive and forget. If I remember correctly there is a whole lot of advice in the Bible professing forgiveness. I think the cardinal needs to read through it again before he opens his mouth and makes himself look foolish a second time.

Source

Teaching Creationism: Listen to Europe and Just Say No

"The Archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it,"- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

"For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time," - The Archbishop of Canterbury from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

Apparently, certain American Christians do not have this awareness the good Archbishop speaks of. The Archbishop is correct that by making the Bible a theory it is downgraded. A theory in science can be disproved and is constantly open to questioning. This is not the realm the Bible should be in. It should stay in the realm of religion. So to all those who want to teach it in public schools I say "No".

If you happen to be Catholic please listen to the Vatican: "In January the official Vatican newspaper said a decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution was "correct.""- from Anglican Leader Says the Schools Shouldn't Teach Creationism By Sarah Lyall

I hope the other Christians in America see the logic in keeping the Bible in the realm of religion and not as questionable scientific theory. Just say no to creationism in schools.

Source

Does Anyone Think they Fired the Wrong Guy?

"Ray Nagin, New Orleans mayor, said on Wednesday night he was shocked by video showing President George W. Bush being told the day before Hurricane Katrina hit that the city’s protective levees could fail. The tape contradicts the president’s statement four days after the hurricane struck: “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.”- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’

"Trent Duffy, White House spokesman, said the tape was misleading. 'It seems to me to suggest that the president was not fully engaged in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The president was fully engaged and involved in meetings on the response,' he said."- Reuters: Bush ‘warned day before Katrina struck’

If the President was fully engaged in the meetings and the mess that was the response to Katrina why did we fire Mr. Brown and not Mr. Bush?

Source

Once Upon a Time on a Field

Once upon a field many years ago I was running the miles as all school children do for P.E. As I was running I can't seem to remember much of what I was thinking. Quite possibly, I wasn't thinking much of anything at all. Whenever I run these days I rarely think of much other than where I'm running to or maybe the feel of the breeze blowing over me as I run. But the story I'm telling begins when I stopped running. I had reached the last stretch of the mile around the field we were using as a track. It was early morning and cool. It was what I consider the best weather one can run in. I was one of the first few people to reach that stretch though not the very first. I slowed my pace and came to a stop. Then I knelt down on the ground staring at the grass in front of me for an instant before looking up and around at the field. I was thinking then just how easy it would be to keep going. I could have just continued and placed high in the rankings. I continued to kneel on the ground and watch the other runners for a couple minutes. During this time the coach and one of the other students came up to me to make sure I was ok. I was fine. I told them as much several times having to reassure them. Then I continued on my way running the last quarter of the last lap of the mile. At least two people passed me probably a couple more but I can't remember for certain now. That didn't bother me though. It still doesn't. The reason was I realized that I could easily outrun them and it just wasn't important anymore after that. I suppose the reason I stopped was to simply take in the moment. It was a very nice morning after all. A possible moral of the story if there is one is that one should not judge a person who appears to fail. The coach and the student both thought I had stopped because I was exhausted or something of the sort. Their assumptions were not accurate. So whenever you see someone who appears to have reached their limits it would be a good idea to realize that they may be capable of much more but simply have lost the desire to do more.

No... Not Embarrassing At All...

"The Energy Department said it has come up with $5 million to immediately restore jobs cut at a renewable energy laboratory President George W. Bush will visit on Tuesday, avoiding a potentially embarrassing moment as the president promotes his energy plan." - Jobs cut at energy lab restored before Bush visit By Tom Doggett Reuters Monday, February 20, 2006

No that isn't embarrassing at all except that they were caught restoring cut funding and it has been published. I think this shows exactly how seriously George W. Bush believes in cutting our energy dependence on oil.

Just as a note to everyone: Articles like this don't usually make it to the front page of Google News. Sometimes you have to click on the U.S. button on the sidebar to find something interesting.

Source

Why be Concerned by Homosexual Marriage?

I've always wondered why so many people get so worked up over homosexual marriage. Every time I've asked someone who is against it why they have their position I never get a satisfactory response. The best answer I have received is that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman. This answer is completely unsatisfactory in defending the argument because their position is reduced to arguing over the definition of a word. I have no problem with calling homosexual marriage civil unions for the sake of progress towards decency since the whole purpose of homosexuals being allowed to marry is for them to have the same legal rights contained in the legal definition of marriage as heterosexual couples. It is exceptionally cruel to deny someone’s partner the right to be beside his partner's deathbed just because they are not legally married. In many instances homosexual couples have been together just as long or longer than many married couples. Yet we as individuals, a society, and country do this to people. Homosexual marriage will end this cruelty to people. Denying someone basic decencies such as this over the use of a word makes one a representative of evil. My best clue to a better reason for the position against homosexual marriage is that it is religiously offensive to them. It is conceivably possible that those with this position see homosexual marriage as an offense against God. However, this does not adequately explain why one should oppose homosexual couples having the same legal rights in their unions as heterosexual couples. The rights in question are legal rights not religious ones. The act of marriage that could be construed as offensive is homosexuals performing the marriage ceremony with the Bible and everything. Denying homosexuals legal rights does not stop them from performing this ceremony since they have done it without getting marriage licenses for years. Under the constitution of this country it is unconstitutional to stop homosexuals from taking part in a marriage ceremony with their partners because such a ceremony falls under the jurisdiction of religion and freedom to worship as one sees fit is a cornerstone of this country. All denying homosexuals the legal rights under marriage does is punish people who haven't caused anyone harm. Those seeking to deny homosexuals the right freedom of religion are no better than the clerics in the Arab world who tell their followers to go out and burn stuff because they won't allow freedom of speech when it has to do with their prophet. The advent of homosexual marriage in no way changes anyone's marriage or makes anyone's marriage less strong in the eyes of God or the law. I suggest to all those who are against homosexual marriage that you should go home and spend some quality time with your spouse and children instead of trying to make people who are different suffer. Maybe then the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.

Sayings Again

I am what I am.
-The Major

Reality is rarely how you feel about it.
-The Major