One bad argument for gay marriage is “homosexuality is not a choice.” Granted, it is not. For those exclusively attracted to the same sex, there is nothing they can nor should do to change that (I would add, though, that those attracted to both sexes, bisexuals outnumber homosexuals about 10 to 1, and for these people, you could say it is a choice). Indeed, more and more religious organizations that once had the position that homosexuality should be “cured” have modified their position to that the person should live a life of chastity (although some religious organizations had that stance all along). Therefore, gay marriage should only be rejected socially if it is harmful to society, so the task of opponents is to demonstrate that it is harmful to society or that it is harmful to children to have two mothers (when children of just one mother and no father turn out fine). Studies so far have failed to find substantial ill effects.

Opponents of extending marriage to homosexuals always note – correctly – the importance of familes in society. Families are where children are created and transformed into adults, forming the next generation. They say that a marriage is to create and raise children. However, this overly-idealistic fantasy is a slap in the face to a group of people who are rather important in society – infertile couples. They meet only the second mandate – raise children, which is rather important because many, many people (such as teenagers, particularly in places like Texas, I delight to point out) supply only the first and not the second. Homosexual couples are simply a category of infertile couples. If adoption agencies are consistent, fair and accurate in their assessment of potential adoptors’ suitability, there is no risk of homosexual parents being in any way harmful, though there may be a slight correlation between homosexuality and mental illness (presumably to having faced internal conflicts and discrimination growing up). We wouldn’t take the right of marriage away from fundamentalist Christians if we proved that such upbringing was slightly more likely to be harmful to children, would we?

Conservativism is supposed to be reality-based, not fantasy-based. Liberalism, on the other hand, is about well-thought out visions about the future; Conservatives have the job, then, of putting these ideas through the wringer. However, when conservatives are just superstitious or have unrealistic ideals, they are no longer conservatives but instead reactionaries. When people say “every child has a right to be raised by one man and one woman,” that is promoting a ridiculous view of the world while insulting single parents everywhere. The worst is when they say, “every kid has the right to be raised by the parents who created them.” In the real world, parents die, parents go to jail or otherwise are unwilling to take care of what they created. Also, parents split up and find someone else. If a woman is in an abusive marriage with children, she wants to leave and take custody of the children. If she finds someone else and falls in love, then it is only natural to marry that person and raise kids with that person. If the person happens to be man, the new union has the government’s support, but if the person is a woman, then the new couple will not have all the tools they need to rebuild the family. Custody, among other things, will be a challenge.

Lastly, conservatives understandably oppose the lifestyle of some gay males who happen to be more promiscuous. I don’t see anything inherently immoral about promiscuity itself (provided there is no dishonesty involved) but I do say it is vastly better to seek the more meaningul experiences of a trusting monogamous relationship, though human nature is too oft to seek immediate pleasure instead (as Mill says, “if happiness is to be got, it must be forgot”). Furthermore, if one wishes to lead such a lifestyle, great care must be taken to avoid the evils of dishonesty (i.e., full disclosure), sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. Regardless, supporting gay marriage isn’t supporting this behavior conservatives find objectionable. Rather, it is supporting the alternative, monogamy. If it is the government’s business to regulate marriage, then the legal tools it affords opposite-sex couples shall be extended to same-sex couples.

One last disclaimer I must add. I am not for the institution of marriage itself. It’s social engineering on the part of the government to bribe people to marry and have kids. Well, we have enough people now, so they can stop. The Libertarian position on gay marriage is to simply say that marriage should be abolished altogether and leave it up to whatever church or secular institution to determine if someone is married or not. I basically agree with this, however I think it is the pansy Libertarian position to, knowing that this is unlikely to happen, not fight so that this same thing can be available to all, particularly when it does really have an effect with regards to immigration. Getting a green card was so easy for me and my wife. If I was a woman or she a man, it would not be so, thanks to the DOMA (defense of marriage act), something Obama had promised to get rid of but has yet to. That’s simply not fair. California gives most of the same rights, but simply aren’t allowed to grant that, as it is a federal thing.

That is all. No one ever indulged me in my challenge to a debate about this, so I just had to let it all out as a blog post. I hope you enjoyed reading it, regardless of whether you agree with me (but you should agree with me, unless you are evil). If you do wanna debate, bring it on, bitch!

Spinoza layed outa quasi-religious, yet non-supernatural (one could say, Atheistic) system called naturalistic pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism approaches spirituality through nature from a Judeo-Christian starting point (the way I see it; his audience was Christian). Spinoza begins with the all-powerful God of the Hebrews and ends with an all-powerful, consisting of all things, logical, unthinking “God” (you can just call “him” the universe if you want).

Spinoza’s views have been very influential. Albert Einstein, Arne Næss (founder of the deep ecology movement), Steven Hawkings and countless philosophers have been influenced by Spinoza’s naturalistic pantheism. It has been used as a way to understand human behavior and the universe. Our brains aren’t general-purpose calculators, so there is power in phrases such as “I want to read God’s thoughts.”

I propose a biocentric spirituality that is to animism what Spinoza’s views are to pantheism and deism.

The way is to look at the nature of life itself, which leads us to realize that more things are living than those that have DNA, are carbon-based or eat and shit. I do not speak of extraterrestrials (though I do hope I can meet an alien, even if it’s single-celled, in my lifetime, so long as it’s not murderous), but to a wall that astrobiologists constantly run into.

How do we define life? When going to other planets in search for life (what life chauvanists we are), all we know to look for is something carbon-based (since carbon bonds with, like, everything) and that’s based on water (high specific heat capacity, low freezing point, high melting point, our understanding of pH is based on it, hydrogen stops oxygenation, etc…). However, the truly fascinating thing about astrobiology is that distant lifeforms can be stranger than we ever imagined. That leads us to propose more generic ideas of what life is, but depeding on how we word it, we can exclude things like virii and prions or include things like entire ecosystems or social movements (in extremely broad cases).

I would say something is living if it has an ability to maintain homeostasis in a chaotic environment and adapt (even if the individual can’t, if it can reproduce, then that counts as adapting since even simple asexual reproduction allows a slow sort of evolution). But just as a multicellular organism is made up not only of countless cells, but also a symbiosis of bacterium in the case of animals (you’ve probably heard this before, but bacterial cells outnumber human cells in your body 10 to 1 – that’s probably the main way you keep bad guys out most of the time), an ecosystem containing individual species can itself be a lifeform (please see Lovelock’s work.. this idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds). When we get broad like this, it might seem silly, but it’s just because of what you’ve been taught.

I would accept a broad definition of life, but then lay down an important dividing line – if the lifeform exists within a specific substance and has a clear boundary, within which only it maintains homeostatis, then I say it is a true lifeform (examples: ladybugs, whales, acetobacter). If it exists throughout time and place and has no definite boundary, then it is a spirit (examples: the Earth’s ecosphere, various ecosystems, religious movements).

What Hegel calls a gheist, what Smith calls the invisible hand, what Lovelock calls Gaia, what Jung calls an archetype, these are all spirits. ‘Wait’, you might say, ‘these are radically different concepts, you nit-wit!’ Ah, but cyanobacteria is a very different concept from a flying snake. So there. I know there are holes in this idea and maybe something essential is missing that would improve it greatly. So, have at it, folks!

Oh, the days I do miss he’d make a bully crawl, or a girl kiss
It cost only a call to wish, to will, to watch the teacher fall
But one meal was not sweet not cabbage, nor beans, but a loathsome beet
I wished as I might call but none unsweet, not even beets, would fall
Only a fool could think! a llama greets me from the kitchen sink!
For far and forgot be for him as near as cider and glass be
Yes, my llama friend be though nary a place you can hope to see ]]> http://thomaswebb.net/2008/03/19/my-cyclopean-fire-breathing-cider-swilling-llama-friend/feed/ 0