Thursday, March 28, 2013

Epic Conundrum

Most people can agree on most things: murder is wrong, drugs are stupid, Indiana Jones 4 never should have happened, and stealing forty cakes is just terrible.


When things become more divisive, mankind usually turns to science. There are some questions, however, for which even science cannot provide a clear answer. In these circumstances, we find ourselves forced to rely on philosophical debate. Heaven help us all.

Gay marriage is one of those things.

One of the biggest arguments against gay marriage and homosexuality in general is that it's just plain gross. Inexperienced as I am, the idea of any kind of sexual contact skeeves me out. Should I shun my sexually active friends? Should Jews avoid me entirely because I happen to think bacon is tasty? Would it be best for my friends who like coleslaw to stop talking to me because I can't stand the stuff?

There's the argument that children are entitled to a mother and a father. This holds no ground whatsoever because it falls apart as soon as someone brings up single parents. By this reasoning, any widow or widower with young children should be forced to either remarry or put their kids up for adoption. Couples with children would find it much more difficult to get a divorce, even if it were in the children's best interest. It just isn't sound reasoning.

Economics also comes into play. The basic unit of society is the family. Families raise children to be productive members of society. It's how the system sustains itself. Homosexual couples do not produce children, and if you invest too much of a resource (adults) into something (homosexual couples) that will yield no return (children), then the system will deteriorate. This point is too weak to punch through tissue paper. The legality of gay marriage has little to no effect on the number of homosexuals, single or otherwise, and the argument does not address the matter of unmarried heterosexuals at all.

Perhaps most prevalent is the argument that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It does. But not everyone is Christian. America was created by people who came looking to escape religious persecution. Freedom of religion is one of our core national principles. It is not fair to foist religious beliefs on someone else.

So, since all these arguments against gay marriage are so easily debunked, I must support legalizing it, right? Here's where things get tricky. The answer is no.

Honestly, this matter tears me apart. I love all my friends dearly and I hate knowing that my views to some seem bigoted, hurtful, and unfair. I may very well be a bigot. I do not deny that. But just as it is not fair to foist religious beliefs on someone else, it is not fair to ask me to give up my religion.

Let me explain. I do not care whether you live with someone and I don't care what relationships you have, aside from the hope that they are healthy and happy. I'm totally okay with the civil union thing. But I cannot call it a marriage. To me, it would be like calling a soothsayer a prophet of God. They are not the same thing.

I apologize from the bottom of my heart and soul for any hurt that you may feel because of this. I am so sorry. Know that I love you, even if my feelings on this matter cause a rift between us, though I hope that they do not.

The reason the debate bothers me so much? I have nothing to support my stance aside from my belief in my religion. And I don't have any good answers. Maybe the government should deal only with civil unions? I don't know. And I am sorry. But this is what I believe. I cannot simply put it aside, though it might make life easier if I could.




Monday, February 25, 2013

Alfred

I met a homeless man today as I was going to Walmart to get some WD-40 to fix my car. It insists that one of the doors is open when, in fact, it is not. His name is Alfred. The homeless guy, not my car. I bought him dinner at the fastfood place just inside. Not really sure why. All I've got is that at the time, it seemed the logical thing to do. No, not even that. I got nothing.

Anyway, the two of us sat just outside the Walmart and talked while we ate our french fries. Alfred has been homeless for about 12 years now, and this is not the first time he's been homeless. He has cerebral palsy and back pain from an injury when he was young.

I told him about my own jobless state. I got my BS degree in civil engineering. I've been looking for a job for several months.

It was just interesting. I asked Alfred about what jobs he's had and about why he isn't working now. I'm sure this means nothing coming from someone like me, living my whole life as a member of the middle class, but it sounded like Alfred was making excuses to not even try. He has cerebral palsy, so he can't do much physical labor. If he gets a job, his SS check will decrease, and if something were to happen to the job, he'd be left high and dry. He can't afford an apartment.

The whole time, I kept thinking of one of my dear friends named Michael. Michael has cerebral palsy as well. I met him in college. Currently, Michael is in law school. He's one of the brightest, kindest, happiest people I've ever met.

I wonder, what is the key difference between the two? Probably in upbringing. And if I had been born in different circumstances, what would I be like? I guess it comes back to the classic nature vs. nurture debate. There's no way to know what might have been, but at the same time, I can't help but wonder.