previous - archive - next - current

I wrote some stuff the night before last... Philosophical/social/political babble. Related to God, nature (natural/unnatural things), morality, homosexuality, etc. Then, I wrote two mini poem-like things, which really aren't good enough to post, so I won't.

First, I'm going to rant a bit about God... I only wrote my definition down that night because I had already thought it all out, and didn't feel like writing it... and then I'll go on ranting about the above mentioned.

See, whenever anyone who believes in God thinks of God, inevitably they believe that God is basically our creator. The reason we are here, alive on this earth. They believe that God created everything and that the way He created those things is how He meant for them to be. Some might believe that everything He created was good, but sin caused him to introduce evil. Others may believe that sin/evil/disobedience is just the ABSENCE of God. I don't believe that second part - it contradicts the whole "God created everything, God is omnipresent, everywhere, etc". I don't believe ANYTHING has the "absence" of God. No, not even that murderer who coldly murdered X people. So, if God is present within the sinners, why do they sin? Why would God let them? Well, see, I don't know WHY, but that's about as good a question as asking "why does ANY law of nature exist?" See, laws of nature permit us to do certain things and not others. For instance, they permit us to lift say, our hands, feet, individual body parts off the ground, but not our entire bodies. Some people might be able to lift all but ONE part of their body off the ground, but not all. Well, if we do lift them all (jump or do one of those sommer saults where you don't touch the ground or anything), we come down quickly. We cannot STAY off the ground. The wonderful joys of gravity. Birds, on the other hand, can fly. So, these laws all tend to have a concrete rule, related to masses, pressures, area, density, and who knows what else (some people do, not me though lol), and for all those reasons, birds are able to fly and we aren't. See, a paper for instance, is able to stay in the air for longer than a rock. If you throw a piece of paper and it's windy, it will float. Throw a rock and it's windy (unless it's so windy that it's nearly a tornado, and it's lifting all sorts of things) the rock will fall, not float like the paper. I'm pretty sure it has to do with the density. And probably other things too. We've been able to determine direct relationships for all these natural laws... have formulas to be able to predict what happens and how it happens. So, God, or by my definition, all of these natural laws (many of which we very likely have no IDEA about... I doubt we know of more than 1 or 2% of all the laws...), has made rules by which creatures such as birds have the ability to defeat gravity w/out the aid of any external forces, and fly. Humans don't have that ability.

And see, most of these things are physical laws - they are related to how the actual PHYSICAL bodies/matter interact w/ one another. But here's the other thing - the brain. Some creatures' brains are made so that they can do certain things, but not others... take some fish, who forget. Don't have that memory - you know the whole "oh look a castle!" *3 seconds pass* "oh look, a castle!". For one reason or another, it appears that humans got lucky in this department and because of it are the dominating species in the world. Makes me feel kinda privilaged all of a sudden to be human.

Also an interesting side point: in Waking Life... the one dude was saying how the gap (in intelligence) between the average human and a super-chimpanzee (actually I'm not sure if he said SUPER-chimp or just chimp about this one) is smaller than the gap between the average human and say Aristotle or Nietzsche or Pascal or... you get the point (I don't know which names he mentioned, but.. essentially, he meant the great minds throughout history).

But anyway... I can see that Aristotle was sort of getting at what I am saying here about God being all these natural laws. He didn't say it directly... but he was saying that everything has a "formal cause" (ie, in the case of "why does it rain?" the formal cause is that rain falls from up in the sky down to the ground). So, essentially it is gravity causing rain to fall... But I mean, really, where do all these "laws" come from? You know, when the rain is a certain form in the clouds, it stays up there, only when it condenses or whatnot does it fall. Who decided to say "when rain condenses is when this force of gravity will be strong enough to cause it to fall to the ground"? I mean, who developed what force is required to lift each mass, or think of ANY relationship between things (usually things we have a formula for).. We are able to say it exists, we are able to figure out how it all works... but not where it all comes from? Where do these laws of nature come from? Well, WHATEVER that cause is, we're naming it God. (And so that question can also read: "Where does God come from?")

And now, for what is NATURAL... well, I say that anything that doesn't go against a natural law is natural. How do you know if you're breaking a natural law? Well, let's put it this way - it's impossible for you to break it. Oh whatever do I mean? Well, why don't you try and defeat gravity without using anything but yourself? You know, the way birds do? Ah, you can't. Do it, and that means you've discovered some natural law that allows you to do that. As far as we know, there is no such law. But what do we know, anyway...

So hold on there, Ari, are you trying to tell us that killing is natural because we are capable of it? *nods* Damn straight. Killing is perfectly natural. Now, before you grab for your gun (since you naturally have one sitting right there, just like everyone else does) and go off on a killing spree... Just because it's NATURAL doesn't mean you HAVE to do it. I mean, you're perfectly CAPABLE of cutting off your arm or pulling out all your teeth or sticking your hand down your throat, but that doesn't mean you have to do anything and everything you are capable of doing.

When it comes to actions, I say a good rule of thumb is not to do anything you know will hurt someone (well, if someone WANTS you to hurt them and requests it, go ahead, if you really want to...). So basically, do anything you want to someone who consents to it, and doesn't hurt anyone else who didn't request to be hurt. Of course, you won't always know what will or won't hurt someone... so generally, any act involving more than one person must have consent between both/all people. Mind you, it's not like before you do ANYTHING that involves more people than just yourself you must ask if everyone is consenting. But I'm sure you all know what I mean when I say that if you do something that involves someone other than yourself and they didn't request for you to do that, or they specifically said they didn't want you to do that, if they for some reason find that what you did has harmed them in one way or another, then you better be ready to pay for it. This of course is how rape is viewed by gov't law. But I say this applies to anything. Of course, you could go out on a limb here and say... "oh, my friend gave me a present for my birthday and that hurt me because *insert some psychological impact here... some trauma during childhood that would make it painful to receive a gift*" does this mean the friend has to "pay" for it... well, in a way, yes. Because see, likely, this friend, since he/she was curteous enough to give the gift, would likely feel bad finding out how it impacted the friend and would see how he/she could ammend things. So, that would be enough.

Well, and I suppose it's not "bad"/"wrong" if the person doing the act (the gift-giving) doesn't KNOW that it would hurt the receiver (has no way of knowing either), and the receiver doesn't inform the giver until AFTERWARDS. Then really, the giver isn't to blame. If the receiver has informed the giver of this anytime before opening the gift, then the giver would be held responsible and would have to ammend things. Like in rape - it's not rape if you say AFTER it happens that you didn't want it, but didn't say anything PRIOR or DURING the act. This is all just logic though. I mean, it's just common sense.

This also, looking at an issue people debate is either "wrong"/"immoral" or not... homosexuality. Well, let's see, firstly, is it unnatural? Hmm, nope, we're all perfectly CAPABLE of being w/ someone of the same sex, and some of us are perfectly capable of being attracted to the same sex. Is it "not what God intended"? Well, I say all that God intended for us to be able to do, He lets us do (think back to the flying thing... He didn't want us to be able to defeat gravity w/out external help, so we can't). So, really, I don't think it is "not what God intended". Another good rule for me unnatural=not what God intended. So anything you are UNCAPABLE of doing is both unnatural and not what God intended. Everything you CAN do is natural and is what God intended for you to be able to do - up to you to decide if it's wrong or not though.

If homosexuality was unnatural or not what God intended though, then all of us would be INCAPABLE of thinking sexually about members of our own sex. Now, the ISSUE, is more is it wrong or right? I say it's no more wrong and no more right than heterosexuality, but let's not get ahead of ourselves now. Well, let's see... simply finding someone ATTRACTIVE or thinking about someone sexually, who is of the same sex as the "thinker" is not wrong.. it can't be. If it's wrong... tell me, who does it harm? No one. I'd say nothing really harms anyone if it doesn't leave someone's head. I could be thinking about killing you (yes YOU, the reader, whoever you are), but that doesn't harm you or anyone else if I do nothing other than think about it. It might harm ME psychologically and if these thoughts were to be serious and all, I should probably get treated so that I *don't* cause harm to others (because if I acted upon thoughts of killing, I would do someone harm... you know, kill them. LoL). So, then, let's see... if someone who is thinking about memebers of the same sex sexually was to act upon these thoughts (oh no! the horror!), would that harm anyone? Well, let's examine this... an action involving more than one person... what was that thing I said earlier? Something about... consent? Right. So, as long as the person that the "thinker" would be "acting upon" consents to the action, sure, go crazy. Who does it harm? Not the people involved. And not the people outside of them.

Now waaaait a minute. What about when those two decide to display their affection for each other in public, the way a straight couple might (let's say they are just cuddling, or are getting married, or something couple-y)? We don't want our children seeing that! It will HURT their little minds. Corrupt them, and turn them gay! Oh, of course. Because we all know that's why everyone who is gay is gay. No, the fact that they saw 2389749230493023589720394887230985027 times more straight couples than gay couples has NO influence whatsoever. And the fact that the number I typed there is MUCH larger than Earth's population means NOTHING lol. So really, no, seeing Joe and Bob getting married, or Ann and Jane walking hand-in-hand will not suddenly make your little Tom want to do that with little Jack, or your little Katie with little Vanessa. Unless kids want to do everything they see two grown-ups do, in which case, no worries... they'll be doing a lot more straight stuff than gay stuff. A LOT more. Neither of which will really be the REASON they turn out straight OR gay.

All this about seeing gay couples will corrupt our children/turn them gay is about as absurd as saying "oh now that it's considered okay for whites and blacks to marry each other, our kids will all be having interracial relationships/marriages" Umm... nooo, they'll just think it's FINE for a white and black person to be together. They'll be ACCEPTING of it. And IF at some point in his/her life, a kid falls for someone outside of his/her race, it won't be BECAUSE of the fact that they saw others like that... it'll be because they were attracted to that particular person. Only now that it's FINE they won't have all those negative things attached w/ it like, having to hide the relationship and if others find out about it, it would be like hell broke loose.. No, instead, it would likely be as normal as it would if it was someone of the same race...

I'm waiting for the day that it's normal to be w/ someone of the same sex like that. It'll happen. Maybe not anytime in the very near future... but it will. There's not many people who will object to interracial relationships. It hurts no one. In the same way, homosexuality hurts no one. And therefore, homosexuality is not wrong. And therefore, ALL YOU FUCKING PRICKS WHO THINK IT IS NEED TO STOP LABELLING IT AS SUCH AND OPEN YOUR EYES. ACTUALLY, OPEN YOUR *MIND*! Sorry. Just letting bits of frustration out.

Oh, and just so I cover all ground on this issue... say a queer couple has a kid (artifical ways, or adoption).. I do not think this is at all harmful to the child. One, there is the issue of the kid possibly being an outcast because of it and whatnot... Hmm, didn't people have this same fear with interracial relationships? You know, kids getting picked on becuase their parents are not the same race? But that didn't happen, now did it? Kids are generally open-minded. It's only a question of whether the PARENTS/ADULTS will be accepting of it and not cause problems or not. So, really, the problem does not lie in the homosexual couples or their children... And as for the issue that then the kid would not have an influence of the other sex (the one his/her parents are not).. that isn't true. Kids have all sorts of people in their lives. Not just the parents. There are aunts, uncles, teachers, close family friends, etc. So, yes, I see no problem there...

One final issue - reproduction. Oh, you may say, "there, you were talking about how God made us the way he intended for us to be. Why then did he make us so that the male is capable of impregnating the woman to produce offspring?" Yes, you need the male and female to reproduce, for survival. And I agree that the entire population should not be gay (actually it could still work w/ artificial insemination and whatnot)... But yes. We actually don't have an issue w/ survival at this point. If anything we should be reproducing LESS. So, until we get to the point that there's so many gay people on this planet (and not many of them having biological children), that there is a significant decrease in the population... until then, you be quiet. Let's just put it this way: a homosexual relationship as far as this issue goes is very much like a heterosexual relationship in which one of the partners is infertile/impotent - both are perfectly fine as long as the ENTIRE population isn't affected to the point that we are dying off and not reproducing at all. And as I said, EVEN IF THAT HAPPENED, there are ways to reproduce (artificial insemination, surrogate mothers...) so that we as a species survive. But again, the large majority of the population will not be gay. It ain't gonna happen. So no worries.

That is all.

Oh, and for all readers who have read all this... any comments? Disputes to my views? Any flaws? Anything up for discussion... the link to the guestbook is there on the left, so click it! You know you WAAAANNA! ;)

previous - archive - next - current