Written on Jabruary 29, 2004; revamped August 2006; last updated September 18, 2008.
Forever glorious be your names, O wise guests, for they prove the necessity of the adversarial dialogue! And thus we shall live freely bound by the contract of democracy!
Today is also the big day of the movie mega-industry: the Oscar night. My dream showed a pretty actress. I had seen her on TV the night before. Coincidentally, her name rhymed with FFG. I clearly heard this chant:
Is the key!
Far from strange, it was a pleasant dream! I am going to watch tonite the less and less meaningful Oscar (any award is less and less meaningful, for that matter).
I turned my TV on during my lunch break. The junior senator from my home state of Pennsylvania was debating the gay marriage issue (strongly contra) with a congress lady (strongly pro). The senator, Rick Santorum raised a very sensible civil rights issue. If the homosexuals believe they have a fundamental right to marriage, why do they, the homosexuals, deny the same right to polygamists? There is a number of polygamists in the state of Utah who demand the same legal recognition as the gays and lesbians enjoy.
People don't want to debate the issue from at least two perspectives:
~1: from the Nature perspective, as humans are part of nature and direct descendants from animals;
~2: from the History perspective, for homosexuality has been always present, in every society.
The Trial of Socrates was religious in essence. That included also Socrates' homosexuality. After all, he was the ringleader of homosexuals, including some brilliant minds. The Athenians did not want to accuse directly Socrates of homosexuality, therefore of a religious sin. The direct event that led to Socrates' accusation was the defeat Athens suffered at the hands of the Spartans. Homosexuality was not to blame for the defeat of the wise ones behind the Wall. After all, homosexuality was institutionalized in Sparta. But the Spartans themselves lived through an accented decline in population. The Spartans numbered no more than a meager one thousand bodies at the time they were defeated mortally by Thebes.
The Roman civilization is also a planetary-scale example of homosexuality. The most formidable case is made by Petronius, the arbiter of manner, in the first novel in history: Satyricon. The book inspired a great movie by the great Italian master Fellini. The book depicts two elements of what the author considers to be at the heart of the decadence of the Roman civilization: over-eating and homosexuality. The young protagonist of Satyricon is a young male who grew up as a gay boy. The novel is his odyssey to recovering his manhood. The classical Romans, as the classical Greeks did, used language that today would lead the speaker behind bars. Satyricon ends with a powerful symbol. The young gay male has the chance to mate with a female of mythological proportions. Finally, he does perform like a male! His turmoil comes to an end — and Satyricon comes to an end.
Life in the modern era is far better, as far as health is concerned. I know, there is the AIDS pandemic in many parts of the world. Overall, however, the health condition of humanity is far better than at any time in history. Humans live longer. There are increasingly more humans living on the planet. Consequently, the perpetuation of the species is not viewed as being at risk. Societies, governments in special, have taken significantly more tolerant views on homosexuality. Most societies recognize, at least implicitly, the right to one's own sexual orientation. The topic nevertheless is always hot, especially in the years of presidential elections in the United States.
Recent events in the US pushed the envelope much further. The homosexuals demanded the right to marriage in the same way that a man and a woman are married. The Supreme Court of the state of Massachusetts took a complaint of several gay couples and ruled in their favor. The Court ruled that the gay couples have an equal right to the institution of marriage as heterosexual couples do. Denying the homosexuals the right to marriage violates the Constitution of the state (the equal protection clause). Moreover, the Court asked the state legislature to amend the constitution. Opponents of gay marriage in the state legislature took issue with the court ruling. They motioned towards an amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage. The amendment would stress that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
The city of San Francisco in California defied the state law that bans gay marriages. The City Hall issued hundreds of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Other municipalities across America started the same procedures, of issuing gay and lesbian marriage licenses.
And thus the gay marriage became an electoral hot button. President George W. Bush reacted with a proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States. The amendment would define the marriage as an act between a man and a woman and ban openly gay marriages. The Democratic candidates who eye the unseating of President Bush have milder opinions. They too don't accept the idea of gay marriage; instead, they demand the legal recognition of gay unions. The homosexual unions would provide the same rights and benefits as the heterosexual unions (marriages) enjoy.
In my opinion, marriage is a religious issue. All major religions made marriage a centerpiece of their doctrines. Marriage became a political issue in the era when government and religion were one body. Marriage should remain a religious issue. The governments are right in according proper interest to marriage for the chief reason of the welfare of the children. If a man and a woman want their union to have a religious blessing, that would be considered marriage. Homosexuality has always been considered a sin by religion. Recognition by religion is not a civil right. If they hate you, you have no right to ask the government to prohibit hate towards you. That is, as long as hatred does NOT translate into direct harm or bodily injury.
On the other hand, the government is responsible for the well being of the children involved in any civil union. That's the reason why they issue marriage licenses. The term is wrong, since the governments are not, and should not be, religious bodies. The correct term should be civil union license. That would include, as required by the equal protection clause, homosexual unions. Such licenses would make official the benefits of the children in the union, as well as creating other specific environments (taxation, inheritance, etc.)
Legally, however, polygamists and women who live with more than one male partner would be entitled to the same demands. But in the end, mother Nature would always have the last word when Her children play around with those hot toys named issues!
I considered as the most significant reply in this 2004 electoral campaign to be senator John Kerry's statement: “The White House should not be on-the-job training”. Senator John Edwards beat that by a wide margin. He reminded the audience of an event during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was asked for the favor to pray with his advisors that God would be on their side. The great President declined, saying he would rather pray that he would be on God's side.
Those who think they are God's people make God look like a toy sometimes. Indeed, week as a toy. You know, we take God by the hand and move Him onto our side. You know, not that he would give us extra strength. We need him more like a talisman, a lucky charm. Sometimes the issue of God and politics is worse than childish: It's downright stupid. A general made headlines when he declared to a religious gathering that America kicked butt in the Middle East because the Christian God was more powerful than the Islamic God! You'd better be careful, general! Your statement could inspire the Islamic God to make His followers develop more devastating weapons! Anger has always led to such form of inspiration throughout History...
The 2004 match for the White House will be played between two members of the ultra secretive society The Order of Skull & Bones. The order was founded at Yale in the 19th century as a chapter of a German secret society. Both George W. Bush and John F. Kerry are Yale alumni. Every year the Skull & Bones selects 15 promising senior students as new members. GW Bush and JF Kerry were among them. The first President Bush, too, is a Skull & Bones member!
The two candidates and Skull & Bones can do a great service to the world. They should publicly give up membership in the secretive society. That would be a powerful message to all secretive organizations. Isn't the world plagued by all kinds of secret organizations, such as the secretive Mafia or Al-Qaeda?
"Yes," them candidates would declare solemnly and loudly, "God of the Old Bible created the world in seven days, some five thousand and four score years ago."
The economy of the United States is faced with serious problems, even crises. The Wall Street and the financial markets are in turmoil of historic proportions. The painful reality cannot be fixed by God or any gods. Nor have the gods created the problems — there is no God, really, to blame for catastrophes or to pray for solutions!
Speaking so fervently about God when there are so many real problems that need special attention definitely falls in the categories of delirious speech or hallucinating. That happens on a wide scale in the real Islamic nations. Hallucinating takes precedence over serious action.
During the year of a presidential electoral campaign, the U.S. media would assume the forgotten role of Torquemadas (Inquisitors) and witch-hunters. And thus one can paradoxically argue with a high degree of certainty that the President is the Supreme Ayatollah of ISA (Islamic States of America).
The electoral campaign of 2008 is still an example of dwelling on the past: Backwardness, that is. Religion continues to be an issue in this day and age in the most technologically advanced nation in history. The presidential race has a former evangelical pastor and a Mormon (a cult-like form of Christianity, with strong religious stands). They believe that the Israelis founded a godly civilization in the Americas some twenty-five hundred and four score years ago! Another candidate does not believe in evolution. He, as well as a current vice-presidential nominee, believes in creationism! This day and age!
The advancement has never been the result of religiosity. Au contraire, religion always opposes advancement, especially technological. For example, there is strong opposition to stem cell research in ISA! Not to mention that cave-brained fanatics still oppose theory of evolution! America has greatly advanced not because of religion in politics, but because of freedom from the chains of religion. Religion has always opposed advancement. Think of the planetary movement, telescope, electricity, radio, television...You name it, religion opposed it! Yet, all religious fanatics today enjoy the use of such "devilish" inventions! They speak out their venomous hatred on the radio; preach on TV begging for big money... They even watch the sky with the telescope searching for chimerical gods...
The righteous place of the gods should always be inside, in one's spirit, if need may be. At worst, faith should reside only in one's home. Families in the past had their own gods, kind of like the old belief that every house has a snake under the foundation. If allowed free in the streets, those gods become the ferocious beasts that can devour societies. Islam is daily proof. Every reasonable person knows that there is no place in the human being to host the soul. But here is a good idea. Make soul a metaphor. The soul is the cage of the gods. Keep them locked in your own cage!
Doctor in Occult Science of Freedom
Professor of Freedomology
President George W. Bush
Is skilled at planning an ambush:
Stirs prayers with dynamite
To smoke out evil from its night.
(Electoral music theme)