Ozymandias

OZYMANDIAS
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away

Shelley had it right when he wrote this poem. All the "great works" of our leaders, all the posturing of power and authority, in the end, that does not matter. Our works in this life are not mighty, they are not meaningful, they are but stone carvings, to be lost in the sand. The toys we acquire, the pleasures we experience, all can be boiled down to little blips in time that are ultimately insignificant on the vast ocean of time. Cultures have come and gone, the people within them have died, generations have passed onward, we as the human collective have grown, but no man's power has survived the test of time. Only the achievements of the many have had a bigger impact upon the world. Artists and writers end up having a more lasting impression on the world than politicians, warlords, despots, and the "powerful;" because their ideals live on far longer than the accumulation of stuff wealth and power. Worldly pleasures, no matter how shiny they may be right now, end up being nothing more than gilded trash.

In man's search for meaning in this world, we have put too much emphasis on selfish desires. We hope that there is a "greater being" out there that will grant us our last desires, and hope this belief gives us immortality. We posture to be seen as larger than life controllers of our realm, even as we sink to the depths of common vermin in our treatment of fellow beings. It is the survival of the species, and the support of the entire community that we must be focused on. Looking to lift up the poor and downtrodden, even at the expense of our luxury. Rather than aspire to be like the celebrities, CEOs and those of great wealth, they should be pitied. They give no great service to us. They have acquired more than the rest, and while that is admirable that some have a talent or a work ethic that is desired, their great qualities are squandered in the pursuit of great indulgence.

To talk of "greater beings" is not to insult those of a religious bent, but to point out that the great religions ask little of their followers in the service of their fellow mankind, but only ask "believe in me." Believe in grand posturing. Serve the institution to which you were born into. Fear for your immortality, and shame those who do not agree with you. Many a person turns to religion, to find peace, and open their lives to charity, yet many turn away from religion, find the same peace, and hope to enrich the lives of others all the same. Holding fear in an afterlife, and hoping that just giving lip service to the right god of your chosing is in the end like worshiping at the feet of Ozymandias. As of now, we look upon the works and despair, but when the sands of time wash away, will these works be worth despairing over, or will they crumble into nothingness?

Same Sex Marriage arguments are getting me Grumpy!

Yesterday, after pouring over document after document on the positions of "Same Sex Marriage" vs. "Traditional Marriage," I came to the conclusion that this was one of the very few arguments that was actually getting me somewhat grumpy. Now, arguments never get me grumpy unless the person I'm dealing with is a total scumbag, and with a few exceptions, most of the people I've dealt with on either side of the issue were not scumbags. There were a few who's divisive language was certainly venomous to any discussion, who held their opinion in such high regard that the sound of disdain to the other side masked any real hope for truth in their speech. But that is not what is getting me grumpy.

What is getting me grumpy is that for more than a year, I've fought within myself, back and forth, trying to understand what opinion I hold towards "marriage." And at the end of countless arguments, research, and proverbial head bashing, I am still no closer to an amiable solution than when I started. Perhaps even less so, as when I started, this was a case of "live and let live" vs. "religious nut jobs" and in that battle, 99 out of 100 times, I'll side against the religious wackos. What I found out in arguing is that this time, the Theocrats may actually have some valid points to their arguments, that go beyond "Bible Said It, I Believe it, That Settles it." At the end of it all, though, I can't stand on an opinion because the Religious Reich holds the opposite view, their opinions are just as deserving to be examined, taken apart logically, then discarded or accepted through rational means.

At the end of this all, the only thing I can say is that my opinion on the "battle" is that I just don't know, and somehow I need to be okay with that, because I don't feel that either "side" actually knows what they really mean. So, rather than continue banging my head against this wall, its time for me to "retire" from this argument, and find another battle that I already have my opinion on.

Why some people are gay

An interesting article in Time Magazine came out today, dealing with homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom. Most theories as to why it exist oddly had little to do with stable homosexuality, and more to do with social bonding, and interesting reproductive techniques, for instance:

Some male animals might mount other males as a way of denying them access to the ladies. For instance, as the Journal of Natural History noted in 2006, male dung flies often must compete violently to impregnate females. In those situations, "the most sensible strategy for beating a competitor in the race to an arriving female would be to mount him and remain in situ for as long as possible." Then, when the lady dung fly finally sails by, the aggressor male can pull himself out from the dominated male and — because he is on top — get above to the female faster.

The article pointed out, towards the end,

What all these theories have in common is that same-sex sexual activity is either an accident or a quirky genetic method of helping males impregnate females. Which raises the evolutionary question of why men and women who are exclusive gay and lesbian exist. One answer is that exclusive gays and lesbians are a relatively new creation: the concept of exclusive homosexuality barely existed before modernity; even a century ago, most same-sex-attracted men and women got married and had kids.

So, this leads me back down the path of what does it mean to be accepting of gay rights, and allowing homosexual relationships in our society. Does this mean that perhaps marriage is not the best alternative for a "stable, committed homosexual relationship?" Perhaps the Salt Lake City Plan would be the viable alternative to this.

However you flip the coin, someone's going to feel offended by any option available, so its best to find the most rational solution to all this. If what we're finding in nature is that homosexual relationships are not permanent, or even for the sake of same sex attraction, but for more heterosexual strategy, then perhaps there is something to set it apart from "marriage."

The True Beauty of the Argument

When most people think of an argument, it appears to be a very "negative" idea. How could two or more people, disagreeing on something be anything but unpleasant we think? But, the true beauty of the argument comes from this very dynamic. When I disagree with you, and I behave in a civil way, I allow expression of thought to become more fluid, and I can build up or tear down what I believe. If its a good idea, I find support coming in from all angles, not just my particular world view. If its a bad idea, the same arguments over and over again show just how weak my thought pattern could be. Many times I have changed my mind because of an argument. It is the cleansing fire to which ideas are tested, and when done correctly, you can see the "impurities" of your argument melt away.

Too often though, we would rather speak with like-minded people, to share our values, and reinforce the particular world view we hope to believe. The discussion in these cases, can lead to a chummy, half assed argument between "oh I agree" and "You're going to love this idea." It can quickly polarize your opinion far beyond what is rational or even what you originally felt was a modest compromise. Many a time the groups of "like minded individuals" get together and come up with an absurdity. Like minded Muslims gathering together, for instance, and deciding that not only does their god love them, but their god wants to see infidels killed. Like minded Christians gather together, and find that because they all are in agreement, they must be right, and anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with Jesus, and is deserving of eternal damnation. Like minded Gays gather together and find that anyone who opposes them in the slightest is a hate filled bigot. And not to be outdone, their opposition, those in support of "Traditional Marriage" gather together, and sing about "Adam and Steve" and how unnatural an act homosexuality is, and how its taking away their right to discriminate, failing to understand that the issue at hand threatens both side of the argument and their "individual rights."

When Proposition 8 came out, many a traditional marriage activist expressed anger towards the "Activist Judges" and the "Corrupt Courts." Now that the courts have upheld the proposition, gay rights activists feel that voter referendums and the voice of the majority is inherently wrong and that a minority group deserves a special bypass of the political discussion. With the theory of evolution v. intelligent design, those who feel that "the designer" should be taught in school wish to bypass, for themselves, the scientific discussion that gets this type of information out there, hoping to rely on school boards instead of Review Boards.

I bring up these examples to point out that in all cases, rather than focusing on the argument they are presenting, each group feels that the system is out to get them. That they are being unfairly treated, and that there must be something they can do to deserve special treatment within the community they so desperately wish to dominate. Intelligent Design fails the Scientific Method, and as such is not good science. The battle for sexual rights is still raging on, with no quick and easy solution, but getting special treatment, or an opt out of the argument is detrimental, not just to the side you oppose, but to the side you agree with. The only way to execute fairness and freedom amidst our VERY diverse nation is to allow the arguments to take place in the proper forums. Eventually, through tears and a plethora of arguments, I have no doubt a reasonable solution will come forth. But what we need right now is an Argument. No special treatment for anyone to bypass the exchange of ideas. Allow the system to work its magic, and when you feel that the system has failed you, perhaps you need look no further than the argument you presented to the table. If you lost, and feel wronged, build a better argument.

What is Marriage: Part 2 - The case for Social Change.

Proposition 8, a proposition that set to define marriage between man and woman was one of the hottest debates in the election, receiving more monetary support on both sides of the issue than any of the other initiatives across the nation. The only campaign in the 2008 election that generated more money was the presidential race. The total contribution from both campaigns hit an estimated 73 million dollars, with 35.8 million going to the yes group, and 37.6 million to no. (Leff). Ultimately, the battle will not be solved by the passing of proposition 8, or the ensuing political turmoil that has been left in the wake of the outcome. Homosexuals should be extended the rights of marriage, and be included in this institution with heterosexual couples because tradition changes as society evolves. We as a society value diversity and freedom of choice and as such we should value individuals choosing a partner regardless of gender even if we may not choose or agree with this lifestyle.
The staff of Psychology Today ran an article detailing the history of marriage in western culture. “Through most of Western civilization, marriage has been more a matter of money, power and survival than of delicate sentiments. [...] These days, we marry for love—and are rewarded with a blistering divorce rate.” In Ancient Greece, “a woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.” (Marriage, a History). During the fourteenth century, “ordinary people can't choose whom to marry either. The lord of one Black Forest manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing.” (Marriage, a History). Even in America, our institution of marriage hasn't been simple tradition. In the 1690's, “one Virginia colonist describes a woman he knows as 'more fond of her husband perhaps than the politeness of the day allows.' Protestant ministers warn spouses against loving each other too much, or using endearing nicknames that will undermine husbandly authority.” (Marriage, a History). So to say that we need to cling to the tradition of marriage is to ignore the entity as it is: a changing organization that grows with the needs and views of the parties involved.
“An irrational appeal (to tradition) urges maintaining the tradition merely because we've always done so.” (Ruggerio). Many traditions that we have had in our history have not been morally wise, even though at the time we felt they served a valuable purpose. There are traditions of human sacrifices, and slavery (which has been present in almost every major culture recorded). Tradition that places women in a less powerful role, such as the ancient Greeks who felt that love of woman was inferior because women were the “inferior sex.” Each tradition has been challenged, and needs to be challenged by our society. Just because our ancestors did so is not an excuse today. Society grows and changes over time, traditions are expanded upon or cast aside. To make special cases with which to appeal to tradition is to undermine the process of a vibrant and growing culture.
Even though we may have codes in place to grant the same rights to same sex partners through domestic partnerships, as stated in California Law, Family Code Section 297-297.5, the very act of differential nomenclature does set the two institutions apart as “different.” By giving two different names to the same entity, we invoke a tacit agreement, and place a silent mark of inferiority on a homosexual union. Rather than creating new laws to define the same item, if we legally expand the law to include the “special circumstances,” we get rid of underlying social qualms, as well as simplify the law for more effective enforcement. Separating the definitions of a union between “marriage” and “domestic partnership” based on sexual orientation may seem like a small act, but there are larger issues involved. “The power of marriage is not just legal but social. It seals its promise with the smiles and tears of family, friends and neighbors.” (Rauch). As such, our naming of who can get into the institution isn't just a legal attribute, but a social one. The weights and importance of marriage goes far beyond the legal system, and into the realm of enforcement via society. When two people are married, there is an expectation of fidelity to that partner that extends well beyond that of simply dating. To exclude one group is to play favorites.
As the Fourteenth amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (US Const. Amend. XIV Sec. 1). We have a constitutional directive to ensure every member of society is granted the same rights and liberties regardless of differences. This includes the rights and responsibilities of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual.
“As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society's most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation.” (Rauch.) While the issue is far from that of Conservative/Liberal, the point here is that yes, marriage is a fundamental institution in our society. It is one of the prime building blocks for our culture, and both those for and against same sex marriage agree to this. But it is this very fundamental nature that makes the argument for extending the rights and social graces of marriage to each member of society, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. This is probably the reason why opinions can get so heated. Each person understands the importance and vitality of marriage, and wishes to uphold the standard of beauty they themselves see. Be it straight or gay, all want to be embraced in the fundamental power of the institution of marriage.
As far as religion is concerned with same sex marriage, whether or not a church upholds the wish of a same sex couple to be married in their church isn't a state issue, but the issue of the church. As our first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” (US Const. Amend I) as expressly stated in our Bill of Rights, each religion has the freedom to worship how the please, and admit whomever they please into their congregation. Just as I cannot be married in a Catholic church because I am not a Catholic, so will a homosexual person not be granted a marriage in a church that doesn't approve of homosexuality. And just as I am not Catholic, I still must have respect for those practicing Catholicism. I may disagree with some viewpoints, or even find some customs strange and foreign to me. But this does not make these beliefs or behaviors wrong in the sight of the law, and it does not give me the right to treat them as second class citizens. As such, no group under the banner of our free nation deserves to be excluded from validity of humanity.
So the issue becomes less and less about the freedom of a particular religion to protect its rights, and more about the freedoms and rights we extend to those within our society. “Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage.” (ACLU). As stated by the objective of Same Sex Marriage activists, the issue isn't on religious marriage, but civil marriage. No words are expressed in how the individual churches should respond to homosexuality, but that the duty of our country is to let personal issues be personal choices, and that our laws should reflect positively on constructive choices such as marriage.
The argument for marriage between man and woman isn't an issue of hatred or bigotry. Most people who voted yes on proposition 8 weren't doing it out of a sense of hatred or loathing of a particular culture. Many Californians pride themselves on accepting diversity and embracing the differences each person brings to our community. Expanding tradition is naturally hard. It is understandable that many would be afraid to change the world so drastically in their eyes, but social change is a necessary move if we are to be a truly free and equal nation. The issue of same sex marriage isn't one of hatred, but of ignorance. The truth will be resolved eventually, as the facts themselves are made clear. This is the process we are going through. We need to be willing to expand upon tradition, and let our society take the course that strengthens our population in the goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What is Marriage?

The argument for who should be included in the institution of “marriage” is an interesting one. Obviously, as members of society, homosexual individuals shouldn't be discriminated against, or held as second class citizens, nor should any group. As the Declaration of Independence says, “all men are created equal,” so it unequivocally falls that every person under the banner of the United States should be given fair and equal treatment. However, the question I raise is what is it about the institution of “marriage” that begs the equality issue? Is it really a matter of rights, bound by clauses and legal documents? Or is there something more to the word than meets the eye in the political discussion? I would and will argue that marriage is about much more than simply a recognition of love, or a bundle of rights extended to people who form a union. Marriage, as one man and one woman, serves in this country as a cultural package that makes us better citizens. It is also the agent of diversity, and biological success. With marriage defined as more than just the signifying of two peoples love, we can start a social discussion that will hopefully strengthen families, and promote better individuals.
The goal of marriage isn't the expression of commitment between two people, but is ultimately about the best way to organize our genetic material, and raise it to be strong in the future generation. Biologically speaking, the only way for humans to spread their genetic coding is between male sperm and female egg. This is the only successful way to create life. Male to male or female to female paring won't work to produce offspring. So, if an institution were in place to provide an umbrella over creating viable offspring, and raising it, this would be the beginnings of the basis for marriage.
Kay S. Hymowitz wrote “Traditional marriage gives young people a map of life that takes them step by step from childhood to adolescence to college or other work training—which might well include postgraduate education—to the workplace, to marriage, and only then to childbearing.” This is important to note because of the structuring of life she outlines. The process by which we structure our lives towards a goal, biological needs and psychological needs included here, is very important if we are to maximize our potentials. We fulfil all the requirements to improve our status; educate ourselves, get good jobs and the like, and then, we work on bringing in the next generation with the eye towards bettering our future. We want to give our children the best start we can, and that means producing offspring in the environment of least stress.
In another article by Kay Hymowitz, she writes “Political thinkers imagined the American family as a factory specifically designed to turn out self-governing citizens—something quite different from what other kinds of families did. They believed that the affectionate ties between spouses led to civic responsibility: marriage based on individual choice would promote trust and equality that could then be projected into public life.” We have established in the United States, an institution of marriage that promotes free will, accountability, and trust. We choose our spouse, and convey the love of that decision onto our children. We have laws against child abuse and forms of corporal punishment towards children that should give the rising generation a sense that authority is to be respected and questioned, but never feared. By keeping an institution working within the bounds of creation of new generations, we keep the ideals set in place for good thinkers. One man, and one woman means smaller families, but more emphasis is placed on raising children. “The small size of American families helped here. As any soccer mom or dad knows, parents with two or three children can invest far more attention in each individual child than those with eight or ten. By the Jacksonian period, the size of American families began to shrink.” (Hymowitz, Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage).
“If gay marriage is a civil right, then people who believe that children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots. How will we raise young men to become reliable husbands and fathers in a society that officially promotes the idea that fathers don't matter?” (Gallagher). This brings up a point that males are often seen by society as not directly involved in the lives of their children. So, if we marginalize the roles of mother and father, and make them ambiguous, we could end up accidentally pushing the role of fathers out of a home. Women are seen as the more nurturing of the genders, and while this may or may not be true, how we view the world will often dictate how we act within the culture. Men who may have made exceptional fathers may find themselves void of that identity if marriage is reduced to a form of “love certificate.”
As David Blankhorn said in an LA Times Op-Ed, “In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood -- biological, social and legal -- into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.” Once again, this drives home the idea that if marriage is anything special, it is really about the children. When we arrive at a marriage, we agree that when offspring enter the picture, we will do our duty to raise them and bring them up in the best possible manner.
This institution is big enough that both sides have gotten passionate and sometimes cruel at the expense of the others, but there really aught to be a reason for the importance of the word marriage. As California code outlines, in the Family Code, Section 297.5 “(a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” So, the rights were never taken away in the instance of proposition 8. All rights and privileges that are bestowed upon married couples are also bestowed upon same sex couples under the current California domestic partnership codes. Thus, it becomes an importance of a definition on marriage, not a case for rights.
One argument I've heard that I disagree with completely is that of comparison between black civil rights, and homosexual marriage. The key thing to note with skin tone versus homosexuality is that behavior does not indicate skin tone. One can behave the same as a person of a different race, and as such, should be treated the same. But, with homosexuality, there is a behavioral difference that is key to note. I behave certain ways, certain effects happen upon my life. They may be good, they may be bad. But, I cannot change the effects of behaviors to my liking. I can change behavior to match a desired effect, but to think the opposite is folly. Thus it goes with homosexuality. If you are homosexual, and I won't argue it as a genetic basis, and you act upon your homosexuality, then obviously your behavior will bring about different consequences. If you had pretend to be straight, you may be less happy, but you may enter into a marriage, and have children. If you act with your homosexual tendencies, and fall in love with a person of the same gender, you may live a happy and fulfilling life, but you do lose out on things that are embodied in marriage. This includes procreation and the title of marriage, and perhaps some of society will disagree with your decision. Unfortunately, some of society will always disagree with any decision any of us makes.
To sum up, the rights of the child are the imperative when it comes to the institution of marriage. Putting in place a legal context for the production and raising of your next generation through the institution of marriage is a sound way in our society to do so. If we strengthen the definition of what it means to be a marriage, we may see strengthened families, more involved father figures, and other added benefits. And finally, to behave in certain ways is diversity, but it also follows with natural and logical consequence of those behaviors. Good or bad, one must accept the entirety of what life they choose. One cannot pick the outcome of choices made, only the direct choice you make to begin with.

History in the making

This election was amazing. Obama won by a large margin, signaling in a new era of pride. For the first time in a long time, I am proud to be an American, with a real palpable pride. Not that I don't love living in America, but last night, the awe I felt as Barack Obama won the election was electric. It was a win in my book on so many levels. For the first time in our history, someone other than the old white guy won the election, which to me was huge. It shows that our politics have changed so much in the past fourty years as to be accepting of a man not by his race, but by what he stands for. This wasn't a victory for black people. This was a victory for every ethnicity.

I voted for Barack Obama because of his intellectual prowess. I feel this is what America needs to get us through these troubling times, and that was what got my vote. I think John McCain is an amazing man in his own right, but was not who I felt would be the better leader of the United States.

I am very optimistic about the new Executive Branch, and hope that the Democrats can work with the Republicans to create an America we can all be proud of. The victory for Obama isn't the end of a long journey, but the beginning of the seeds of change. I sincerely hope he can live up to the promise of his campaign, and his "yes we can" mentality truly shapes us back into a great nation we can be proud of. I also hope that John McCain is able to play a pivotal role in the new government. The two choices were in my book great men.

When all was said and done, this was truly an historic occasion. Not only did the youth (my people) get together and come out in large viral numbers, nor was it the first man of color to enter the white house, but many elements were strong and hopeful. The internet is becomming a tool for good, a great motivator. The winds of change are upon us, and I love that.