Hurrah For The Black Man

I voted today. I voted for Barack Obama.

I like him for simple reasons, but all those simple reasons are built up into a support from a Kate. I like him because when I listen to him speak, I can understand him. I thought the same thing about Kerry, and I voted for him, too. I voted for the loser, but look at all the Bush-isms that have come up from his mis-sayings.

I like him because many of his mannerisms remind me of my dad. And those mannerisms make me think that Obama is more honest than most politicians; my father tries very hard to be honest in everything he does. I like the black man partly because he’s black. It’s monumemtal, obviously; so was Hilary Clinton, and I didn’t quite solidify my support for Obama until Hilary dropped out. I was kinda rooting for both of them, even though I thought Obama seemed more realistic, less snarly and sneery.

Yes, a lot of my opinions of the best candidates are based around physical and personality impressions. It makes sense only when you know that I’m a very empathic person. I can look at a picture of one of Jenny’s boyfriends and pick out characteristics, good and bad, that he has, and she’s always surprised because he really does have them. I had a few days in my first year of college that my roommates realized that I could look at them without knowing them very well and tell them problems they’ve had in the past and problems they’re having presently.

I can detect minor physical reactions. It’s not magic or a superpower, it’s just a physical sensitivity. But beyond that, I agree generally with most of Obama’s political opinions. Everyone mis-states facts when giving speeches impromptu during the race; I would too if I were asked to provide an intelligent response to some of the questions they get asked.

While I watched about fifteen minutes of a presidental debate, the interviewer ask one question of both men. Every time McCain had a chance to speak first, he would attack Obama. He’d say, “Well, on this policy, Obama thinks and does this, this and this. That’s obviously bad; I do this, this, and this.” And the black man would grin in embarrassment for McCain. His grin said, “I’m sorry that you feel like you have to resort to attacking me like this.” Then when it was Obama’s turn to speak, most of the time he’d ignore McCain’s attack altogether and simply make a statement on what he believed.

That’s powerful. It’s also powerful he’s a black man. I’m sure he’s very conscious of his race, and it’s a consciousness I’ll never have. I’d like to see him elected president just because I can imagine the looks on the faces of shocked racial bigots all over the world. I can also see the faces of shocked black men who have chosen to waste their lives unemployed and with no ambition. And the faces of hopeful children; that man has become president. Or even if he isn’t voted in tomorrow, at least that man ran for president. No one will ever tell them that they can’t be president or at least try for the position. It’s ambitious, but sometimes children can be taught that trait.

My family members are split. My mom and dad both voted for McCain. My little brother voted for Obama, just as I did. My eternal partner isn’t registered to vote. He doesn’t like either of the candidates; he didn’t want to register here and then have to move and worry about registering there too. Four years ago, he scrutinized all the issues and voted for Bush because he thought the guy was the lesser of the two evils. For the next four years, he doesn’t get to have an opinion on how the president is doing.

Please. If you like Obama, if you like McCain, fine. Just have an opinion. Know who you’re going to vote for. Be active. Participate. Get involved with the world around you. And whether it’s cheer or weep respectively tomorrow, have an intense emotional reaction with me.

Advertisements

About The Original Kate

Along with artistic tendencies, Kate enjoys unusual people and is constantly striving for some sort of nonconformity. Kate offers a perspective that is thoughtful but well-written and full of images within the words. Other tidbits that might intrigue: she has very long auburn hair, and, you guessed it, her favorite color is orange.

Posted on November 4, 2008, in From Rabid-Mormon Land Known As Utah. Bookmark the permalink. 65 Comments.

  1. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  2. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  3. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  4. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  5. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  6. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  7. Part 2: This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    …continued in the next post…

    “The government is made of people, of mortals. People should not take away other people’s choices. I believe that God is the only one who has the right to condemn and to lay down moral laws. He will do so and has done so in his own due time. We choose to accept and follow whatever moral laws we want. In this respect, I think the same way of gays as I do of people who commit adultery or sex before marriage or women who have abortions. They choose those things. I won’t judge those people because I have no place to do so; I don’t think anyone else here should, either. I won’t do these things because I deem it to be personally wrong, but that’s because I choose my personal standards. I don’t choose everyone else’s standards.”

    -I agree wholeheartedly with this. Religious law has no place in secular law, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold validity. I do not subscribe to Christianity, and I believe firmly in the separation of church and state – which means we stay out of your business too. Churches have every right not to conduct gay marriages between homosexual couples. However, legal marriage is in a separate, secular category, and has nothing to do with religion, nor should it. I think the various forms of Christianity would actually gain more followers if more people thought like you. Ideas are a lot more palatable when they aren’t being shoved down your throat and coupled with strong judgements against everything you think you are.

    I truly hope you don’t feel attacked in any way after reading this, it’s certainly not my intent. I just wanted to clarify the position on the other side of the aisle (oh dear, a marriage metaphor) for you, or at least my position. I think it’s very admirable that you think about these things. I don’t think God would have put this much grey matter in our heads if He didn’t intend for us to use it.

  8. Part 2: This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    …continued in the next post…

    “The government is made of people, of mortals. People should not take away other people’s choices. I believe that God is the only one who has the right to condemn and to lay down moral laws. He will do so and has done so in his own due time. We choose to accept and follow whatever moral laws we want. In this respect, I think the same way of gays as I do of people who commit adultery or sex before marriage or women who have abortions. They choose those things. I won’t judge those people because I have no place to do so; I don’t think anyone else here should, either. I won’t do these things because I deem it to be personally wrong, but that’s because I choose my personal standards. I don’t choose everyone else’s standards.”

    -I agree wholeheartedly with this. Religious law has no place in secular law, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold validity. I do not subscribe to Christianity, and I believe firmly in the separation of church and state – which means we stay out of your business too. Churches have every right not to conduct gay marriages between homosexual couples. However, legal marriage is in a separate, secular category, and has nothing to do with religion, nor should it. I think the various forms of Christianity would actually gain more followers if more people thought like you. Ideas are a lot more palatable when they aren’t being shoved down your throat and coupled with strong judgements against everything you think you are.

    I truly hope you don’t feel attacked in any way after reading this, it’s certainly not my intent. I just wanted to clarify the position on the other side of the aisle (oh dear, a marriage metaphor) for you, or at least my position. I think it’s very admirable that you think about these things. I don’t think God would have put this much grey matter in our heads if He didn’t intend for us to use it.

  9. Part 2: This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:
    …continued in the next post…
    “The government is made of people, of mortals. People should not take away other people’s choices. I believe that God is the only one who has the right to condemn and to lay down moral laws. He will do so and has done so in his own due time. We choose to accept and follow whatever moral laws we want. In this respect, I think the same way of gays as I do of people who commit adultery or sex before marriage or women who have abortions. They choose those things. I won’t judge those people because I have no place to do so; I don’t think anyone else here should, either. I won’t do these things because I deem it to be personally wrong, but that’s because I choose my personal standards. I don’t choose everyone else’s standards.”
    -I agree wholeheartedly with this. Religious law has no place in secular law, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold validity. I do not subscribe to Christianity, and I believe firmly in the separation of church and state – which means we stay out of your business too. Churches have every right not to conduct gay marriages between homosexual couples. However, legal marriage is in a separate, secular category, and has nothing to do with religion, nor should it. I think the various forms of Christianity would actually gain more followers if more people thought like you. Ideas are a lot more palatable when they aren’t being shoved down your throat and coupled with strong judgements against everything you think you are.
    I truly hope you don’t feel attacked in any way after reading this, it’s certainly not my intent. I just wanted to clarify the position on the other side of the aisle (oh dear, a marriage metaphor) for you, or at least my position. I think it’s very admirable that you think about these things. I don’t think God would have put this much grey matter in our heads if He didn’t intend for us to use it.

  10. Part 2: This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:
    …continued in the next post…
    “The government is made of people, of mortals. People should not take away other people’s choices. I believe that God is the only one who has the right to condemn and to lay down moral laws. He will do so and has done so in his own due time. We choose to accept and follow whatever moral laws we want. In this respect, I think the same way of gays as I do of people who commit adultery or sex before marriage or women who have abortions. They choose those things. I won’t judge those people because I have no place to do so; I don’t think anyone else here should, either. I won’t do these things because I deem it to be personally wrong, but that’s because I choose my personal standards. I don’t choose everyone else’s standards.”
    -I agree wholeheartedly with this. Religious law has no place in secular law, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold validity. I do not subscribe to Christianity, and I believe firmly in the separation of church and state – which means we stay out of your business too. Churches have every right not to conduct gay marriages between homosexual couples. However, legal marriage is in a separate, secular category, and has nothing to do with religion, nor should it. I think the various forms of Christianity would actually gain more followers if more people thought like you. Ideas are a lot more palatable when they aren’t being shoved down your throat and coupled with strong judgements against everything you think you are.
    I truly hope you don’t feel attacked in any way after reading this, it’s certainly not my intent. I just wanted to clarify the position on the other side of the aisle (oh dear, a marriage metaphor) for you, or at least my position. I think it’s very admirable that you think about these things. I don’t think God would have put this much grey matter in our heads if He didn’t intend for us to use it.

  11. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  12. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:

    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:

    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”

    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.

    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.

    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”

    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.

    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”

    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  13. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:
    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:
    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”
    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.
    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.
    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”
    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.
    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”
    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

  14. This is about your next post because I can’t shut up, but I promise it’s not bitchy:
    First of all, while I don’t agree with everything you say, I think the fact that you are trying to think and feel things through in the first place is very admirable, and for that reason I’m not terribly offended by your post. In an effort to help you understand where the other side is coming from, I’m going to comment on a few things, but I promise to do it nicely. Here goes:
    “I have homosexual tendencies myself. I choose not to act on them, and that could be because I also have heterosexual tendencies.”
    I believe this is very much the case. You may have some homosexual tendencies, but you have the option of ignoring those and still being able to have romantic love in your life. Gay people who are truly gay do not have that option. It isn’t like they can just switch off the gay part of their brain and settle down in a nice hetero relationship and be happy: that option does not exist, because they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Our basic sexual proclivities emerge at a very young age. Think about it: when you’re 12, you don’t have to battle in your head about your sexual identity – you just get a crush on that boy who sits two seats up because you like his hair/sneakers/whatever. So yes, I think it’s true, Bisexual people do have “options”. There are actually a lot of scientific tests being done to see whether being Gay is inherent in someone’s genetic makeup, and a lot of the evidence points to yes. Gay men have smaller hypothalmuses to their tstraight male counterparts, whereas lesbians have larger hypothalmuses to their straight female counterparts – the hypothalmus being the part of the brain responsible for hormone production and everything that falls under that category (such as sexual attraction). So asking a Gay person to essentially “just be straight” is basically as ludicrous as asking a very straight person to start being attracted to members of their sex. It doesn’t work.
    Also, something else I can’t say enough: It’s about love, not sex. Yes, romantic love involves sexual attraction, but as you and I know, that’s such a small fraction of it. The laws in America are denying people who have shared decades of their lives together, who feel married in their hearts, the right to have that recognized as valid by the world. Their love is streated as less than. There are plenty of sexual acts (performed by both straight and gay people) that I find personally repulsive, but this isn’t about base carnal pleasures: It’s about love.
    “It’s the same choice a married man makes when he’s got the option to lift a skirt or let out a whistle or ask another woman over to his house.”
    -Again, I don’t believe it is the same thing, since the married man was (at least at some point) attracted to his wife, and he is attracted to the woman he is cheating with. Therefore a vastly different choice between choosing between attractions and choosing between the possibility of attraction and romantic love and no attraction at all.
    “I think the government should allow those people to make that choice. They should allow them to have sexual relations and allow them to be married if they wish. Yes, I realize that means they can also marry goats and inanimate objects, too, but that isn’t the subject at hand.”
    -No, it really doesn’t mean that. Goats and inanimate objects are not empowered to sign legally binding contracts (and couldn’t even if they were!) Moreover, there is no way of knowing if a goat or an inanimate object loves you back. A marital contract issued by the state is a legally binding contract between two consenting adults who presumably love each other, and opening the category up to all consenting adults is not even close to the same thing as opening it up to those other bits of ludicrousness. Another important distinction to make: Marriage is about mutual love and respect. Someone can claim they love their goat or blow up doll, but we are all aware that that is not true human love, and we are also aware that the other party does not love them back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: