Melf's Monologue on Random Topics... (A good portion of this page has been updated early 2008 as it had not been really updated
in several years and my attitude has changed somewhat since then.)
Table of Contents
- Melf's "Life As A Classroom" Metaphor
- The Bible
- The Existence of God
- The Afterlife
- Christianity backlash
- Abortion
- The Death Penalty
- Assisted Suicide
- Drugs and Prostitution
- Marriage
- Same-Sex Relationships and Marriage
This is a simple metaphor I came up with one day. I'm sure I'm not the
first person who has thought of this, but
it was still a fun exercise and encompasses a lot of what I think about the Bible and other
life things, including that we're pretty much clueless.
THE CLASSROOM:
Life is a giant classroom. Students are born into it a with no direct memories of any
place before. They are born surrounded by other students of all different levels.
WHERE'S THE TEACHER?
Because the classroom has plenty of learning materials, most
students sense there is, or was, a purpose to the classroom
and something they are supposed to be learning there.
Therefore, many people believe there is supposed to be a
teacher. They think that if there was a teacher, the classroom would be fairer.
Many students believe they have had one, or many, teachers come to them in
the guise of students and they have been exalted as teachers
(or at the least, teacher assistants.) Some believe that
because those few seemed to understand the greater purpose in
the classroom, they either must have had previous experience
in this classroom or must have had some kind of contact with
the teacher. Many try to emulate them in hopes of being a
better student.
Many students believe the teacher is still watching them,
despite being unseen. Many believe they they will be graded on
everything they do. But since the students do not know what
they are supposed to be learning, nor how they are
progressing, no one can agree on what to do. Some people seem
to understand better than others and impart their wisdom, but
opinions continue to differ.
WHERE'S THE TEXTBOOK?
Some people say there are meant to be classroom rules. In
different parts of the classroom, the students in that section
have come up with rules to keep order among themselves. The
rules vary from section to section, but most agree that
hurting other students is wrong to the purpose.
Many students think they were supposed to have a textbook from the
beginning; some are still looking for one but others claim to have
found one. The Koran, The Upanishads, The Bible and other
such books were written by students a very long time ago who
were believed to have a connection to the teacher that students now
don't have. No one knows if this is true, but students think
a book that may be a textbook is better than no textbook at
all. Everyone wants to agree on one textbook, but no one can.
BUT WHY?
No one knows how many chances they get to learn from
this classroom. No one knows if there are more classrooms.
All students know is that they have a drive to learn, an
insatiable curiosity, and a desire to be loved and to live a
fulfilling life. Those strong universal wants suggests that
there is not only a purpose to the classroom, but a purpose to being a student.
Just living in the classroom, experiencing it, and learning everything they can from it
and from the other students seems to BE the purpose. There may or may not be a final goal.
My biggest complaint about organized religion is that many followers go into it blindly. Perhaps
it is because that's what they were raised to do. Their parents worshipped. Their peers believe.
It seems like a good idea. It's probably the right thing. Maybe, it is easier
than trying to figure out the meaning of life from scratch. This is certainly not the case for all
people who follow a religion - many of whom HAVE thought it out thoroughly - but it seems like the
response to a lot of "Why do you believe that?" is "Because the Bible says so." But then ask,
"What makes the Bible the answer-all to everything?" and less people seem to have a good response.
The collection of books known as the Bible may be divinely inspired. Or it may not be.
Whether it is or isn't, if you can find worth in it, then that is a wonderful thing, as it would
be for any inspiring book you've read. But I do think it is dangerous to trust one piece of
writing more than another just because people popularly believe the Bible to be God's Word. It may be
a best seller, that doesn't mean you want to put your life in its hands even as you would not put your life in
the hands of Grisham or Rowling. Even if you have
read the entire document through and come to the conclusion that it is indeed the Real McCoy, I still think people
should trust their own judgement and experience over the words inside the Book.
Even further then just believing it to be inspired, I become very worried when people start to take the Bible literally.
First, there are translation issues. This is an old book written in a different time and a different culture, not to mention an ancient language.
We have
trouble deciphering Shakespearean English at times at that was only 500 years ago and in the same language and similar culture, so
the possibility for misinterpretation and confusion is great, even in the best of translations. And sometimes, things
simply do not translate. (I know from experience trying to translate Japanese to English. Things that make perfect sense in Japanese
can sound ridiculous or awkward in English and vice versa.)
Also, on a more scientific basis, many of the stories in the Bible (especially earlier ones regarding the
creation of the world) are clearly a work of metaphor and it is
highly doubtful that they were meant to taken literally. The very first story in Genesis is vivid and interesting, full of
great ideas. It almost seems an injustice to believe that Adam and Eve really were
the first two humans, created directly by a communicative God, only 4000 years ago.
GOD MUST HAVE GIVEN US A BOOK! I've heard this said before. I respond, why would God do that? Cultures and
languages change so rapidly that no human, written word could encompass it. Besides, a huge percentage of the world
is illiterate and there are still thousands of languages the Bible has not been translated into.
Human beings have the power
of reason and intellect and a strong capacity for curiosity and wonder. To blindly believe the Bible as 'God's word'
seems to scoff at these gifts. Most of all, in every culture I've come across, I've seen humor. Humor is vital to
surviving the human experience. The Bible has no humor.
Why do people want there to be a Answer-All Book so badly? Perhaps laziness? Life itself is full of
lessons and patterns. In our emotions and interactions, we learn far more about how to live than we do following
the dry instructions of an old book. Paying attention to our surroundings and learning from our experiences
is the key to living a healthy life. If the Bible helps, that is great, but the most well-written book can not replace life.
In my experience, I've never had a moral dilemma that life itself did not present
the answer to if I focused on it.
There is an idea I've heard during my religious upbringing that a person's job
on Earth is to do God's will. And the mystery of life is to figure out what that Will is.
Many religious services are referred to as Worship. I have trouble believing that a being
that is supposed to be so advanced, so loving, and so omnipotent would want obeying subjects and worshippers. The idea of God
the Father makes a little more sense. A father doesn't want his children to sing songs to him and praise him.
He wants children to learn and discover. He'll guide them of course, but if he tells them everything to do and
punishes them if they don't, that would seem to indicate that his children exist to learn to do
what he says. Not a tall or interesting order. Hardly worth creating a human over.
The bottom line is that we don't know anything; we can only guess. God could be the ultimate creator.
God could be the ultimate judge. God could just be once of many more advanced beings.
Or perhaps the word God simply means a self-aware universe. Speculating on the 'will of God' is
a complicated business. Speculating on your reasoning, your experiences, and most of all, your gut
seems a much better method of deciding the best way to behave.
I was raised Roman Catholic. One question I never had answered as a child was, 'What makes us right and all other religions
of the world wrong?' It would seem a shock to me that, in order to make a successful journey through life, you first
had to be lucky enough to have Catholic parents or at least a Christian influence or else you are lost in limbo.
Statistically, doesn't every religion have a chance of being right? It seems the far more likely
conclusion is that all religions add up to the same thing. The messages are similar. Achieve and share happiness and
love are pretty common themes. I would think a God, looking down, would be more interested in your journey in
finding happiness and sharing love then they whether you have been baptized or said 'the right' prayers.
Is there an afterlife? None of us really know, but there is a great deal of anecdotal, and even a little
physical,
evidence suggesting that there is some form of one.
Personally, I think there is a kind of life after death. I believe that
the self-awareness we have now continues after we physically die. One reason is that nothing
we know of can cease to exist, it can only change form.
Even paper, if you burn it, turns to smoke, ash, and heat. You cannot destroy anything without
creating something else. Our dead bodies theoretically provide fine organic fodder for trees and plants.
If we as humans are only the sum of our parts, then we would become simply fodder as well,
but my gut, internal sense is that we have a spirit or soul. We have an awareness of ourselves that goes beyond other
animal life on the planet. We have a drive to grow, evolve and become better.
We want to have fun, explore, learn, and are never satisfied if we can help it. Our curiosity and wonder, which has lasted through all sorts of circumstances, cannot
be just some chemical in our brains. Our journey cannot finish so quickly, if our enthusiasm is a clue.
I believe we have an eternity of experiences ahead of us in different
worlds and realms as we cycle through existence and learn new lessons.
HEAVEN AND HELL I cannot believe that either place exists. I cannot believe that in a constantly
cycling world - night and day, summer and winter, inhale and exhale - as well
as a constant growth and renewal - seed to sapling to tree to seed; baby to child to human to baby - that
there would be some static, unchanging place to go. Can we be truly happy without constant growth and the knowledge
that there is always more to learn and discover? Our drive to evolve is too strong to suggest that we are willing to stop and
be at peace.
Why would our spirit be contrary to every single thing we can see around us from the tiniest tadpole to
the our enormous galaxy? Everything cycles, grows, cycles, dies, is reborn, cycles, grows, etc. Why are
we any different? On a lower level, it also simply does not make sense that any one person would be
judged on one lifetime (or even judged at all).
WHAT DO I BELIEVE? I believe that there is a spirtual realm outside of this one that is full of excitement and movement.
I do not feel that we are just human animals, gone to dirt when we die and that's that, but my only evidence for not beliving that is simply
a feeling. That's it. I just think we continue to exist after our body dies and I believe
strongly that it is a 'fair' place where everything evens out in the end.
I think the universe is out there waiting for us to have adventures in it. I believe we have as many lives as we want to and that
our circumstances in one particular life are useful, but not vital. We are here to learn and have fun. To explore and share joy.
I don't believe in Heaven and Hell. I don't belive in judgement and punishment. You can impede your own progress, but you can never condemn yourself.
I think everyone is here and no one will be left aside, lost or unsaved at the end. I don't believe in evil.
(People who one would call 'evil' would rarely to never call themselves evil.) I feel optimistic about existence and am looking forward to
it continuing for eons as it has gone on so far.
Being raised Roman Catholic, I admit I had my own personal backlash against religion. I felt that, as a child, I was being brain washed
to an extent and was told to believe without thinking. There was definitely positive elements to such an education, but I was rarely
told 'why' we did anything and that really bothered me.
I still have a dozen prayers memorized.
My frustration led me to my own backlash against religion and motivated me to write my
original 'ranting' page here. But as I've met more and more people for whom Christianity (if not Catholicism) has been successful, I've started
becoming aware of this entire country's backlash. I never noticed the backlash before since I was in total agreement at the time. But now that I'm starting
to view more objectively, I can see it. "Christianity" has become synonomous with "ignorant" or "not progressive" or, even "violent."
People say things about Christians that they would never, ever say about Muslims or Jews. For if they did, they would labeled as an intolerant
bigot. So why are people so free to dis Christianity?
My best guess is that people feel free to insult it for the same reason people easily insult Whites and Males. They are the Ruling Power.
But I think the fact that the public accepts casual dismissal of Christian view could be a harbinger of bad things to come.
I think we should be very aware of what we say and what we mean. I'm not a Christian but I respect that Christianity (not necessarily the
Church, but just the pure ideals of being Christ-like) has done a lot
of good in the world. They practically invented charity.
I'm not arguing here the question on whether abortion is 'right' or 'wrong.' Whether abortion
is 'right ' or 'wrong' is something I think can be determined on a case to case basis only, depending on the situation
and feelings of the woman involved. It might be indeed a bad thing in the scheme of life. I admit that abortion may indeed be 'wrong' in
many cases. Or it might be a good thing. There is
no way to know for sure. However, what you believe has little relevance to the question of whether it should or should not be legalized.
But evidence shows, beyond a doubt, that it MUST remain legal.
We have never been able
to conclusively show what happens before we are born, after we die, or if it matters. Consequently
we can only make this decision based on circumstances we can quantify. We know that in countries where abortions
are illegal, expensive, or difficult, that women will try to perform an abortion themselves, often resulting
in their injury and death, and the orphaning of their other children. Making abortion illegal will
not stop abortions.
Probably the most compelling evidence that abortion should remain legal comes from Levitt & Dubner's book "Freakonomics." They found,
looking at data from both the U.S. and Romania where abortion went from illegal to legal and vice versa, the consequences in the crime rate were
drastic. The data they collected showed clearly that when abortion is legal, the crime rate drops several years later. Children who would have been aborted
if it were legal are born unwated and uncared for and therefore are more likely to commit crimes in their teenage life.
VERY SIMPLE FACTS ABOUT SEX AND PREGNANCY THAT SOME PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN
FACT: Women cannot control when they get pregnant. Even today, no birth control
method is 100 percent perfect.
FACT: People will have intercourse whether
for reproductive reasons or not. For hundreds of years in many cultures,
birth control methods, often herbal, have been devised. Obviously, people in the past as well as the present
want to have sex without
having children. In addition, despite the threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, people
continue to have sex regularly. It is primarily a recreational, not reproductive, activity, and one people
will do no matter what the consequences. No matter how many threats are made about the dangers of sexual intercourse,
history shows it changes actual attitudes very little.
FACT: Sadly, women are coerced and sometimes forced into having sex.
CONCLUSION: Unwanted pregnancies WILL occur.
Abstinence is a nice thought, but is not something the masses are capable of.
Birth control is expensive, rarely covered by insurance, and often difficult for women to come by.
Abortions, when performed by trained doctors, are very safe. We are one of the few first-world
countries who feels uncomfortable enough with this subject that we bring up illegalizing it.
In a perfect world, without poverty or sex crimes, without male coercion or struggling single mothers, without
a population that is already suffocating the earth, one
could perhaps make a case, albeit a religious-based one, for illegalizing abortion.
However, we can only live with what we have. And what we have here is a case of quantity of life
versus quality of life. Wanted babies, by definition, will grow up happier, loved, and supported and will
therefore be a part of the next generation's solutions, not problems. Unwanted babies are more
likely to be neglected, uncared for, abandoned, or mistreated. Just like in most things, quality is
more important than quantity.
FACTS ABOUT ABORTION
One of the earliest delivered babies to survive was born at 24 weeks. Today's science CANNOT yet replicate
the conditions of a pregnant woman so any babies younger than that CANNOT survive without their mother.
Abortions carried out in the first trimester are 10 times safer
than actually giving birth. Abortions, contrary to myth, do not increase the likelihood of breast cancer.
Abortion, also contrary to myth, rarely causes serious depression.
ADOPTION, NOT ABORTION I've heard this phrase from right-to-lifers. In one sense, they are correct:
there is a great demand for healthy newborns. On the other hand, however, there is a great need for
foster parents. Most parents want to start off with a young, perfect child and there is nothing wrong with that.
However, unwanted babies that are carried to term are more likely to be unhealthy. In addition, unwanted
babies being raised
anyway are, more often than not, the children that will need foster parents in the future. Stopping abortions
from being legal will not create more options for adoptive parents. It will only create more mother-baby
deaths due to botched abortions and more unwanted children who may be abused or neglected.
Right-to-lifers want to put a value on every single conception. How far does this go?
Should every possible potential for life be actualized? Is every sperm sacred? Obviously not.
If it was, we wouldn't have enough of anything to go around: food, space, shelter, clothing, love.
So when does our sense of responsibility to the living population give way to the our responsibility to the
one yet to be born? Intercourse? Conception? After the first trimester? After the first heartbeat?
After
the fetus feels pain? After it can survive outside the mother's womb on life support? After the due date?
Legally, individual rights begin at birth. We created these human rights automatically thinking
of ourselves as individuals at birth. How can we make any assumptions about what is best for a potential
child when it cannot even survive on its own? Potentiality is not reality.
My second biggest pet peeve about right-to-lifers is that, in addition to condemning abortion,
many also CONDEMN BIRTH CONTROL! You can't have it both ways. Will you give people no control over
their lives? My first biggest pet peeve is
the few right-to-lifers
that decide violence is a solution.
"Let me use their own terminology against them.
They aborted a child in the 200th trimester." - Dennis Miller.
In conclusion: if you don't agree with abortion, don't have one. However, don't
make that decision for every woman unless you've personally experienced their specific circumstances and
weighed all the consequences, good and bad.
Want to look at the facts yourself? Try:
National Right to Life vs
Planned Parenthood
On these two pages, all the facts, rumors, myths, and the evidence behind each side of the abortion issue
are laid clear.
Actually, I don't have much an opinion on this which is most likely becuase it does not really affect my life.
However, in general I think it should be banned. The main, simple reason, is that
we don't know if death IS a penalty. It might be a reward. What do we know? Unless it actively
helps people here on earth to be safer (as in, if a serial killer keeps escaping from prison and
doing more harm and the only way to stop it is to kill him,), then there is no reason for it.
My other problem with the death penalty is that someone always has to pull the figurative trigger. Putting
that responsibility on someone is a bit more than we should ask of any citizen.
Another problem I have with capital punishment is that we are one of a very few first world countries that
still does this. Execution
feels very medieval or, at the very least, like the old west. Haven't we grown beyond that like most
of the rest of the civilized world has?
This is the third topic I feel that we, as humans, can have very little input on. DEATH IS A MYSTERY!
We could be, and probably are, making a big deal over nothing. Our decision can ONLY be based on
what is best for the living. Taking away someone's freedom to die is taking away their motivation to live.
And I think, in every assisted suicide case, the death of the person involved
is what everyone wants emotionally, logically, and financially. Who is the law to go against everyone's wishes
when we don't have any reason for it other than a lingering fear of the meaning of death and the (slim)
possibility of judgment from some deity?
Drugs and prostitution are two things that if legalized would a: be much more
controllable and b: would generate profit for not only private merchants, but for the
government, through taxes.
On the topic of drugs, however, I will not go so far to
say that all drugs should be legalized. Cocaine (and ecstasy) can kill you the first
time you use it if you don't have the proper enzyme to break it down and, like other
drugs, is instantly addictive. Drugs that the FDA would not approve should not be on the market of course.
However, drugs that are naturally growing plants should not be put in the same category.
Marijuana is not addictive (unlike nicotine) and its effects are many times less troublesome - and fatal -
than alcohol.
Mushrooms are a bit more dangerous, but not anywhere near the dangers of LSD or other chemical-based drugs.
If you make naturally occurring drugs legal, you can control doses and how it is sold.
In many high schools, it is easier to
get marijuana than cigarettes because the shops are so stringent about carding whereas marijuana is a free market.
There is no reason prostitution should be illegal. It's already been proven that making it illegal
will not stop it from happening. Prostitution is not called 'the world's oldest profession' without reason.
Making prostitution legal protects the women involved by providing a safe environment
for both parties to go about their act. I'm not condoning this common pastime,
but right now, the women involved are often abused by their clients and pimps because there is no
legislation protecting them. I doubt very much that making it legal will attract a lot more women, but
it will protect the ones that have no other option. Most importantly, it will find alternate solutions for
those under 18. Right now, under the radar of the law, child prostitution can take place easily. However,
when the women get protected, so do the children. In the legal world, those children can be helped instead
of taken and abused by the very powerful organizers of this underground society. Besides, with the exception of the poor wives of
cheating husbands, legalized prostitution will
not harm or effect anyone else. It is a private act enjoyed by two consenting parties. I think it
is partially this country's taboo on sex that has made prostitution such a touchy subject.
Conclusion: why not give legalizing it a try. It can't be worse than what we have.
Marriage can be great. A wedding ceremony is an satisfying event that gives memory and meaning to the transition from one state to another.
The ceremony is a good time for relatives to meet and bestow presents, as well as a pretty good party.
Being legally married is
helpful for joint bank accounts, insurance and other legal issues. However, there is a downside.
Marriage can foster
a sense of forced commitment, involves name loss, and has the possibility of extreme inconvenience in the future.
Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. I think the idea that we all need to 'get married and
have children' when we grow up is not healthy. I don't think everyone is meant to 'get married' or
'have children.' People need to be free to choose without the pressure
of society and/or family. Our society, however, loves marriage, despite the woes that it causes in
about half of its participants. Truly married people do not need to be married.
Marriage, when it works, does carry with it a healthy sense of security, especially involving
raising children, and the comforting knowledge that you will grow old with another person.
However, these nice qualities sadly fall apart when it does not work.
Marriage Ceremony: An incredible metaphysical sham of watching God and the
law being dragged into the affairs of your family. - O. C. Ogilvie
In my opinion, there is no such thing as heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality. I believe
that, for each of us, there is a kind of person we are attracted to and a kind of person that will be a
good match for us, personality-wise. Which genital organs the person has is usually of little matter.
I'm baffled by people who think having relationships in any way but involving a man
and woman is unnatural. Firstly, it passes the cultural and time rule: There have been
same-sex partners in many very different cultures over thousands of years whether it was looked
down upon or not. Secondly, it passes the species rule: several different animal species
(giraffes for example) have been recorded in same-sex activity. (And, really, should we be basing
any natural acts upon animals when only about three percent of them are monogamous and many species eat their parents/children?)
Thirdly, no negative side effects have been recorded in countries where it is well tolerated
(like Australia) nor have any been reported in the children raised by same-sex couples. No real evidence
exists that can show why it is 'wrong' or should be 'looked down upon'
Purely on a physical level, I think that a man and woman together are the most awkward.
Men and women feel sexual pleasure in completely different ways and the first male/female experience for people is
always a bit odd on both ends, rarely comfortable, natural, or what is expected. There are a huge variety of
ways to feel deep sexual pleasure in all manner of pairings (or triplings, etc) and, with someone of the same
sex, it is usually far more comfortable (and equal).
The only advantage (or disadvantage) to a man-woman
pairing is the possibility of reproducing. The earth has more than enough human beings. We are hardly on the
verge of extinction except perhaps BECAUSE of overpopulation. We have no reason at the moment to procreate. We've
done enough of that in the past few centuries.
The most important thing of all: how can anyone find fault in people who love each other? This is a situation
where the only thing hurt is the sternly heterosexual person's shame. In my experience, the people who
speak most strongly against same-sex relationships are those who feel ashamed of their own feelings in that
direction.
Conclusion: live and let live.
NEW, MAR 2004: Recently, there is a debate over whether to legalize/ban same-sex marriages.
My first response: Huh? There's an argument about this? People actually care enough about what
two strangers are up to that they'll make a law about it? I thought we'd gotten over the 'ick' factor
decades ago! What happened? We're in the 21st century people!
I guess America is having a digression. So I'll digress for a moment along with them. My question:
Is there any logical, rational reason to ban it?
How does this law make the average person's life better and not worse?
Clearly, some people are uncomfortable
with the idea of same-sex couples, despite the media being fairly good about exposure. But that's hardly the
basis for a law.
I could make a much better argument for banning smokers, but you don't see that happening. (Though many states
are making the move forward in public places at least.)
I've heard the statistics about how 'the children of father-less families' and 'children raised by members of
the opposite sex' are more likely to commit crimes, run away, be drug abusers, etc.
I think, one will see that these statistics uncannily resemble those of abused or neglected children.
The problem
is not in the number or gender of parents, but in the amount of love and support the child receives. Even the
statistics can't deny how many successful children come from single parents and same-sex parents.
The problem is that not everyone is a good parent and there is little we can do about that except
educate people as much as possible.
I can definitely see the advantages of having an older woman in a young girl's life and an older man in
a boy's life, especially
during puberty, but this can be accomplished in many ways besides banning gay marriage (or single parenthood
for that matter.)
What are straight couples really losing from same-sex couples getting married? Nothing
financially. Nothing legally. Nothing physically. Just a wishy washy sense of personal ideals.
I'm curious to what the courts will say to that argument. I want to hear a good, logical reason, even from
a lawyer, how you can ban something that hurts no one.
I've heard wild arguments that say 'well, if you leave marriage open to anyone who loves each other, you are
leaving it open to polygamy, bestiality and even ICKIER things.' Well, um, regarding bestiality , show me
a consenting adult beast who can understand and sign a marriage certificate, and I'll show you how little
I can object to that. Polygamy is an interesting issue because it almost icks ME out (because
it gives off a powerful-man-with-a-harem type feeling and I don't think some men need any more sexual prowess
ego than they
already allow themselves) however, if all wives/husbands and children are content and, more importantly,
loved, how can I stand in their way? How can I say it is wrong just because I wouldn't do it? Can't.
The current argument over same-sex couples (I still have to shake my head that this is actually an
argument now) reminds me of the 'ick' factor people felt decades ago about multi-race couples. The
ickiness went away, surprise, surprise and now only the rare person cares. No one, NO ONE would
ever dare suggest banning multi-racial couples, not even our white bread (soon to be ex-)president. The race
'ick' factor, if still even present, is all but gone from our tongues and all for the better. In the future,
the same-sex ick factor will go away as well. And, if we are even colonized by aliens, the human-alien
species 'ick' factor will also be noted, then go away. And so forth until we celebrate our differences and
honor love and devotion over stodgy ideals.
From CNN.com:
"Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. It is for that reason
I support a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman." -George W. Bush
I want to know how it serves my interests! I want someone to tell me why illegalizing something that
disturbs
nothing but ideas is any different from banning books. America used to be pretty far in the lead with
things like women's rights and minority rights. Suddenly we're making a choice to de-progress, to
go backwards in the fight for freedom, tolerance, and the pursuit of happiness. Explain!
The fact that religious arguments are being taken at all seriously scares me. The separation of
church and state is what holds a free democracy together. Put the two together and you get
the Middle East. (Besides, even the religious arguments carry almost no weight. People who condemn homosexuality
because 'the bible says so' had better not eat shrimp or lobster and better not wear mixed-fabric outfits
either. And they probably sacrifice goats to boot. Even more loose interpretations of 'what God wants' are
ridiculous. First off, how arrogant are you to know what God wants and secondly, can you really imagine Jesus,
Mr. Love Your Neighbor [Even Your Same-Sex Neighbors] As Yourself saying "You people who love each other can't
make a baby, so you are heathen. Leave my presence and live in shame!" Jesus condemned no one, not even
his executors, so I
think Christians should follow in his footsteps.)
I've never met anyone who had a problem with same-sex marriage. I kind of want to, so I can hear, in their own words, a
justification for straight-out intolerance. I mean, it is not (like the Onion parody) that you
are being forced to enter into a same-sex arrangement. It is not a law that affects anyone but the
people who choose to participate. If it is about why homosexuality is wrong, then that is
probably even less plausible since I think absolutely NOTHING supports that on any level, but you can give that
argument a try. melissafedak at hotmaildotcom.
Parting words...
Okay, world, my advice to you: whenever you make a decision, base it on what will give you
the greatest and most fulfilling happiness now and in the future.
Selfishness, maybe, but it seems to be true that if you make the people around you happy, you will become
happier. The self-serving act, when done with absolute truth, serves the universe.
Enjoy this life that we're living right here and now. We may one day look back on it from a new
spiritual perspective, or we may instead be flitting around to other dramatic planets in the universe and
see what stories there are to find there. Appreciate the joy of the good times and the painful irony of
the bad times. When you meet a fellow human being, remember both that they are another part of you and
at the same time remember that their differences are what you define yourself by, so we are all individuals, yet co-dependent.
Secret happiness is sometimes the greater joy and shared happiness builds connections. Appreciate nature, for
is the closest we can get to perfection: the state of constant growth and change.
|
ABOUT
MELF'S
LIFE IN
LIFE IN NEW
MELF'S
RANDOM
MELF'S