I've been reading more about the social policies of John McCain.
I stumbled upon his LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) rights policies, and I have come to the conclusion that they are shit. Before anyone asks, I am heterosexual, but I am strongly for gay rights. I want to talk about just how fucked up his views on homosexuality are.
McCain supported the 2006 Arizona initiative to ban gay marriage including civil unions. Gay marriage is one thing, but civil unions are even more fucked up. He supported California Proposition 8 (basically same policy, different state), as well as the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Surprise: All of these I am in opposition to.
But what really got to me were his words on LGBT rights. McCain said that people ought to be able to enter "legal agreements ...
particularly in the case of insurance and other areas", but that the
"unique status of marriage should be retained between a man and a
woman."
Here's what really pisses me off. Lets just clear this up. If you're denying someone the right to get married, then you're denying someone their rights. Why somebody's sexual preference should determine their rights is something I've never heard a good reason for.
Secondly, "uniqueness" is something to deny people their rights for? Because he thinks that opposite-marriage sex is unique, same-sex marriage should be banned? That's fucking bullshit. I think Lamborghini's are unique, but I don't think all other cars should be banned.
We had fucking slavery in this country. Do you know how fucked up this logic would sound back then?
"Well, don't you think it's time we let these African-American slaves have equal rights? Why should the color of their skin deny them rights? Slavery is wrong."
"Well...That sounds pretty reasonable. BUT the idea of a black man working for a white man is just so unique. It's our tradition. We've been doing this for many years. Sure, treating these people equally and not denying them any rights just because of the color of their skin sounds good. But this isn't about equal rights. This is about uniqueness and tradition."
What horse shit logic. Yes, I know banning gay marriage isn't nearly as bad as slavery, but both still denied people human rights.
He is willing to deny homosexuals their rights just because he finds opposite-sex marriage unique. Of all the dumbass reasons I've ever heard to ban gay marriage, uniqueness/tradition ranks highly up there.
Never once has a good reason for why gay marriage should be banned has been put out there. That's because all of these reasons are a rationalization to cover up the prejudice people have towards gay people. All of the reasons are just to cover up how fucked up someone is that they don't want someone to have their rights because of prejudice. I'd bet money that John McCain is no different.
I'm sure a lot of you are thinking "Well, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman."
First off, that wrongly assumes that there is one rock solid semantic definition of marriage. There isn't. Marriage has been in many religions, defined numerous times, and why it's inconceivable that to homosexuals could get married never made sense to me. Secondly, why can't two people of the same sex get married? Who is getting harmed by to people of the same sex getting married? Nobody. But banning gay marriage creates victims. Banning gay marriage strongly implies that homosexuals do not deserve all of the rights of heterosexuals, and denying them civil unions is even worse. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual.
People say that marriage is a holy religious union between a man and a woman (the really fucked up people say "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"). Marriage has existed in numerous religions. And if a certain religion forbids gay marriage, that's the CHURCH's thing to deal with, NOT the Government. Plus, why can't their be secular arrangements of marriages and weddings, etc. There really is no reason. There are no victims, nobody is harmed. The only reason is people's prejudice, which is a bullshit reason.
The thing that really disgusts me isn't the prejudice (that John McCain most likely has), but it's the fact that people are so cruel as to let this bias and invalidated opinion lead them to believe homosexuals don't deserve equal rights to heterosexuals. Being against gay rights is no different than being racist. A racist and person who hates homosexuals (we'll call him a gayist for convenience) both have cruel prejudice towards someone that is invalidated. A black man can't choose his skin color, and a gay man can't choose his sexual preference.
I'm not saying the Star Wars Prequels were better.
Current mood: excited
I don't think the New Star Wars Trilogy (Prequels) are better than the originals, but lets face it, as many flaws as there were in Episode III, it featured a fucking amazing lightsaber duel:
I've been reading up on Sarah Palin, and this is what I have to say: She is a dumb bitch and there is no way I would even consider any candidate with Palin as their VP.
She opposes legalized Marijuana in Alaska. I don't support any drug prohibition. Now, people who disagree with me on my views of drug prohibition; even though I think they're wrong, I don't think they're stupid. There are just many things they don't realize. But Marijuana...I mean, I really cannot understand how anyone can possibly come up with a good reason on why this should remain illegal.
Her reasons for why she supports the death penalty. The Death Penalty is a subject where I don't think the opposing side are complete retards, but I read why she supports the death penalty, and it's such a shitty and logically disgusting reason; "If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We
have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or
kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to
do that again.".........Who the fuck are you to determine that people who rape and murder must be put to death? Yes, I know she didn't say this directly, but indirectly, she did. I'm going to assume (simply because not even I think she's this retarded) that she doesn't support the death penalty for robbers, identity thieves, con artists, etc. (Keep in mind I'm not talking about huge robbers, identity thieves, etc. Maybe a teenager who steals an iPod from a classmate). Oh, according to her fucking brilliant logic, the death penalty is perfect because we need to know they won't steal or deceive someone again. But no, I'm sure she only supports this for murderers and rapers, because she believes they deserve to die and robbers don't. I don't know who the fuck she is, but I'm sure as hell she isn't Jesus.
Her views on education and creationism."Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate
is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent
of teaching both." I hate when people say this. I know they're trying to sound like this "Oh, evolution should be taught, but why not teach creationism? It's only fair. That's what I'm trying to be. Fair." No. Creationism has NO business being taught in school. I know she's changed her words on this quote, but teaching is teaching, and she said to teach both. Well, Creationism is not science. It's one of those trash sciences that has been COMPLETELY debunked by real scientists who actually know what they're talking about. I wouldn't like it if they taught phrenology in a neurology class. Why? I want to learn about neurology, and there's no reason I should have to learn that bullshit pseudoscience. The fact that her answer implies that creationism is a valid scientific viewpoint shows how she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.
Her views on abortion. (Copied from wikipedia, and yes, it was cited) In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". My problem is her reasoning for why she's pro-life. If this question were posed to me, I would say "Who the fuck am I to make that decision for my daughter? I'm not the one who was raped. She has the right to choose if she wants to become pregnant, and that right shouldn't be taken away from her. If she was forced into pregnancy, then we shouldn't take away that right from her." I can't believe people even consider not allowing the girl to get an abortion. If the girl had sex willingly, and then she gets pregnant, I'll admit it's more iffy, but she thinks she's in the place to determine whether or not her hypothetically raped daughter should have the baby or not? Fuck her.
Sarah Palin's newborn baby with down syndrome would make a better VP than her.
Well, I've been banned here, and I've looked elsewhere for other forums to entertain myself with. One of these being the Christian Forums.
Now, even though I am Christian, I have never really met a Christian who interprets Christianity as I do, but even though I'd say half the Christians at these forums weren't complete morons, I was upset by some things I read there.
You see, I thought it would be a great place to see exactly how Christians are. It has a wide variety of Christians (Evolution believes, Young Earth Creationists, Pro gay rights, etc.), but even so, I was saddened by how people came to conclusions and how fearful they were sometimes.
Once when I was there, I saw a thread titled "Is it okay to listen to Rock music?" and I expected a bunch of "Oh, of course, Rock music isn't devil music. There's nothing wrong with it." but much to my surprise, there were many people who weren't sure if it's okay to listen to Rock, or other secular music.
Also, I read many arguments I never joined in on, but I was disappointed with how whenever somebody wanted to prove they were right, instead of explaining rationally or logically how they are right, they would just quote a Bible passage. Now, this is fine if the subject is theological or about the Bible, but the subjects didn't have to do with Religion.
And, of course many creationists there. MANY people who say "The Big Bang says nothing exploded, which is stupid" and huge distinctions were made between microevolution and macroevolution. And in fact, I remember one guy said "I don't need to understand evolution to know it's wrong".
I'm a bit surprised, and I didn't expect so much close-mindedness. Except for one dumbass here and there, I rarely see Christians like that on this forum. Oh well. Can't wait until I'm on the Pit.
Here's a new pro-choice argument of mine, and I think it's pretty solid.
Long ago in a galaxy far, far away, Anakin Skywalker (the chosen one prophesized to bring an end to the Sith) impregnated Queen Padmé Amidala. He later had visions of his Padmé dying in birth. Normally, "visions" are sketchy, but this was long ago in a galaxy far, far away, and Anakin was a Jedi Knight. This was inevitable. Anakin had conversations with Senator Palpatine before he was revealed to be Darth Sidious, a Sith Lord. Palpatine, although not revealing he was a Sith, revealed knowledge of the Dark Side, and let Anakin know of the ability the Dark Side has of saving people from inevitable death. Anakin wants to learn this, but then he realizes Palpatine is a Sith Lord. When Palpatine fights with Mace Windu, Anakin saves his life, killing Windu (a Jedi) and joins the Dark Side as Darth Sidious' new apprentice.
As he is twisted by the Dark Side, he grows greedy and wants to act as a dictator to the galaxy, along with Padmé Amidala, however, she has no desire to do this. Anakin begins choking her with the force, but Obi-Wan Kenobi interrupts and defeats Anakin, now known as Darth Vader, in battle. He leaves Vader burning, but Darth Sidious rescues him. He then reveals in Vader's anger, he kills Padmé in child birth, however, this seems more like an excuse. Anakin, never really learning how to rescue loved ones from inevitable death, doesn't kill her, rather than just simply the child-birth. From here, Luke And Leia (twins from Padmé) are relocated (Luke on Tatooine, Leia on Alderaan), the Sith create the Death Star, and form the Galactic Empire, a tyrannical government, which destroys Planet Alderaan, killing almost 2 billion people.
Padmé Amidala, nor Anakin, ever even considered an abortion. Had Padmé received an abortion, she would have been saved from death. Anakin, having no reason to join the Dark Side, would have ended Palpatine, and peace would have been brought to the galaxy, without the destruction of Alderaan, and 2 billion people.
It doesn't work as a deterrent. I've seen good evidence to suggest that in the U.S., with higher murder rates in execution states than non-execution states. To simply put this: I don't think people are more scared of execution than life or a long period of time in prison.
It kills innocent lives. People say "Yeah, but not often". Well, one is enough for me. Some people might say "Well, what if it's absolutely proved he's guilty?" Impossible. Then some might say "What if he confesses?" Not everyone who confesses actually commited the crime (Ex. John Mark Karr (Sp?)).
It's more expensive than a life in prison. Even if it was cheaper, this is really just a bonus reason and one to be used sparingly.
To me, I just don't see a good reason for it. I mean, killing the accused won't solve anything.
Common arguments:
"If it's more expensive, make it cheaper and' make the trials quicker, and put a bullet in their head once it's done. Well, this only makes the efficiency of the death penalty worse. Less thought and time is given, which leaves less room for possible new evidence. There's a reason these things take so long and are so expensive. It isn't "just 'cus".
"Some people just deserve to die."......Who the fuck are you? Jesus?
"This is the only way to make sure they won't commit the crime again." This is just horrible logic. By this logic alone, robbers, jaywalkers, people who drive over the spped limit, red-light runners, etc. must be killes. We have to make sure they won't commit the crime.
I've been asked lately who I am going to support in this election. For me, it's been a decision between these 3 candidates:
John McCain.
Ron Paul (Yes, I know he doesn't stand a chance).
Barack Obama.
Now, I don't agree with any of these people on EVERYTHING. I'll be honest, some of Ron Paul's views I love, and I think "EXACTLY", and I think the same with that on the other candidates.
Now, there are some things these candidates believe that I disagree with, however I can let slide. But some things I cannot.
I can't vote for John McCain, because I think we need to get the fuck done with the war, and I don't see that happening with McCain. For this reason alone I can't vote for him. Plus, I hate his abortion views and his belief that life begins at conception. And his LGBT rights issues are shit.
Ron Paul, man I love some of his views, particularly his more Libertarian ones. His views on drugs and the war on drugs? Hell yes. His views on the War? Even better. But He supports teaching Creationism in schools, doesn't believe in seperation of church and state, I don't care for his LGBT rights again, and he's pro-life. I think people don't look enough at education, and no fucking way am I voting for someone who thinks it is okay to teach creationism in schools.
That leaves Barack Obama. This is who I support. He has a fantastic foreign policy, believes in seperation of church and state, good LGBT rights views, not that bad views on marijuana. His views on LGBT rights could be better, but from what I've seen they're pretty damn good in comparison to Paul and McCain. He believes in seperation of church and state. I really hate his Death Penalty views, and this is a big deal for me, but there isn't enough for me to disagree with for me to say "I can't vote for you". Also, Immigration is a really big deal for me, and I 100% agree with his views on immigration.
I try to keep my religious beliefs private, so this is a rare blog for me.
This is the kind of Christian I am (no idea if this is a denomination or not. Don't care, either):
I believe in Jesus Christ, and that's about it. I personally love his teachings, and think that they are extremely helpful for people to live by. However, this is it. I believe his words are true, but the rest...well, I don't give a shit. When people refer to passages in the Bible to try and make it sound bad to Christians, and it isn't something from the mouth of Jesus, I really just don't give a shit. Genesis? Moses? I don't really care. There are some really great things in the Old Testament, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some things in there I disagree with (I haven't read it). I disagree with a passage or two in the New Testament, but nothing Jesus says. I believe in the teachings of Christ, and the rest is sort of just there. I don't really consider it that much.
That being said, now let us move on to the subject of my blog: Church.
I don't have a problem with Church, but I hate when people say it's wrong not to attend Church. If I ever found a church that did all of the following:
Interpreted Christianity like I.
Didn't play Christian Rock/Pop, and if any music at all were played, it would be some good religious music like Bach or Mozart (and I'll e-punch anyone in the face if they bring up the subjectivity of music and what's good).
Didn't talk about politics
Didn't talk about science.
Didn't talk about abortion.
Didn't talk about the death penalty.
Didn't talk about any controversial issues.
If a church met all this criteria, I might go. The only church I ever could see myself going to is Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church, because I also live in Houston, and from what I've heard, Osteen teaches some stuff I like to hear. (Side mini-blog: A lot of Christians don't like Osteen, and (it pains me to say this) many Christians criticized him because on an interview, when asked if all Jews go to hell, he said he didn't know, which no Christian does, nor should any claim. I don't mind if Christians don't care for his teachings, but I hate the Christians who hate his teachings and call him things like a "wolf in sheep's clothes" and shit.)
I don't have a problem with people who go to church. But I hate when people think it's wrong not to go.
I hate when people make distinctions between theistic and atheistic evolution. I am a theist (Christian, to be exact) and I believe in evolution, but I hate how people think that the "theistic" is important to put in "evolution" for my beliefs.
Why? Well, partly just because it just fucking annoys me. Simple as that.
But also, why is that so important. I don't mix my religious and scientific beliefs together. I don't believe something like "Oh, God created life instantly (non-Abiogenesis) and he helped evolution along the way".
Calling me a theistic evolutionist (by "evolutionist", I don't mean a scientist, rather than just a believer in evolution) is like calling me a Star Wars-Loving Guitarist. Yes, I am a Star Wars fan, and I'm a guitarist. Why anyone would want to throw the "Star Wars-Loving" in front of "guitarist" in beyond me. There's no fucking point. My beliefs in evolution don't touch my beliefs in religion, and vice versa. And the same goes to people who call it "Atheistic Evolution". What the fuck do they have to do with each other?
This is just a pointless distinction, and it's useless.
| My Profile
The Madcap's blogs, last updated : September 6, 2008
