Hi folks--
These are old pictures from Mexico (New Years) that I realized I never shared. They're already on Facebook for those who see them that way. Enjoy!
Puerto Vallarta y Mexico
- Stephen
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
How to make "responsible procreation" even better
From the pro Prop 8 amicus brief:
"That same-sex relationships are not recognized as marriages does not reflect a public judgment that individuals in such relationships are 'inferior' or 'of lesser worth as a class', but simply the fact that such relationships do not implicate society's interest in responsible procreation in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do."
It's a worthy goal-- this "responsible procreation"-- but is that the only or main reason marriage was created? Pretty sure it had something to do with women being treated as property too. Regardless, thanks to our pro-survival biology it's always been pretty easy to procreate without marriage, so giving people an extra legal contract and tax benefits is only going to encourage the responsible pro-creators further, rather than do anything to keep the irresponsible in line, (at least nowadays with less social stigma, etc). I really don't see how giving some more people the legal status of marriage affects anyone's perception of the underlying responsibility or the value of the institution and its benefits. Also-- offering marriage to straight couples and excluding it from gay couples as your main solution to promoting responsible procreation would appear to be working less and less well (see rising divorce rates and out of wedlock birthrates).
The real question is: gay people exist, being gay is no longer illegal, and some gay people naturally want to participate in society including forming long term partnerships and families. They can either do that without any protections or encouragements to be responsible in the families they form, or they can do it within marriage or some sort of contract. Why hasn't this ever been suggested before? Because gay people were demonized or closeted throughout most of human history. In today's context, it makes perfect sense, for the same reasons the brief implies (promoting responsible child rearing and family structure, not just responsible sex!) to extend marriage and all associated benefits to gays. And since gays planning to raise kids together have to be generally very organized about making it happen, they're likely to be some of the most responsible participants in marriage. (Sure there will be some 24-hour-long drunken Vegas marriages in either case, but that's not at issue here. Ooh, side note-- can we also legislate a sobriety check when people fill out marriage licenses? That's a socially conservative effort I can get behind, I'm going to start a petition..)
So, let's extend marriage to gay people to preserve and extend traditional values. Let's keep and make marriage more of an "if you want to make a lifelong commitment and build a family" thing, rather than an "if you're a man in a tux and woman in a white dress, and you could accidentally have a kid together" thing. And if you want to do something further than that to encourage responsible procreation, let's focus more on straight people (hint: they're the ones making the babies accidentally) and have a look at all the other parts of our social and biological nature. Believe me, the gays are not the problem with straight relationships, and excluding them from marriage is not the solution.
-Stephen
P.S. As part of a modern day amicus brief for the Supreme Court of course you're not going to argue on the basis of how "inferior" or "of lesser worth as a class" any group of people are. But if you're arguing to leave this to voters, politics, and majority opinion-- that may be in essence what you are doing. In certain areas a majority of voters will certainly be voting based on their beliefs that gay relationships are inferior, as it was with racial animus in interracial marriage. So it's a complex issue of both popular opinion and of the moral imperative to uphold minority rights-- clearly the reason we can address it as minority rights is because popular opinion has swayed to the point where it is a plausible social concern. The oppression of a minority class is a worthwhile, but not the only, lens to view this issue through.
Friday, August 3, 2012
So should we talk about the chicken thing?
It's been ages since I wrote on this thing. That's basically because, I had a lot of distractions in my life for the past 9 months, and they seemed rather personal to put on a blog! Vague- yes, true- yes!
The thing that woke me from my blog retirement today, or the thing that made me think "man I'd like to write more than a 2 sentence Facebook status" was, ironically, fried chicken sandwiches. The Chick-Fil-A thing: owner says things about gay marriage, people realize the company profits have gone to anti-gay groups, people boycott, people support, people get angry.
I think it's overblown. I think it's kind of silly. There are so many times and places one who cares about any issue should and would have to consider where their money goes that it becomes sort of impossible-- (I already spend a fair amount of energy worrying whether I am funding child slavery and sweat shops when I buy chocolate or clothes, now I've got marriage equality to factor into my eating habits too!). But then again, we are a capitalistic society, and money speaks volumes and carries power. It's a difficult but not a worthless endeavor.
I don't want to stir up trouble, but considering I have many Christian friends, and many friends with differing political views from all over the country (and world!), I think it could be useful to hear another perspective which might be different from those people you usually talk to. I for one am a liberal Christian, and usually surrounded by liberals, liberal Christians, gays, and (yes) gay Christians when I talk about this, so maybe talking across the culture divide will be useful for me too. (For the record, I'm also pretty removed from this debate, there are no Chick-fil-A's anywhere near me, so my personal "boycott" would simply not be felt, haha.)
Conservative Christians probably feel they are supporting traditional family values, the structure of the family unit. That they are defending their religious beliefs, which are under attack. That supporting a company that supports their beliefs is a good way to make their voices heard. Maybe they honestly feel the stakes are very high because if they don't voice their support for traditional marriage it will go the way of people marrying dogs or their siblings, traditional families will fall apart, and nontraditional families are very damaging. Maybe they haven't thought much about it and just like waffle fries.
I can see that point of view and I respectfully disagree, here's why:
For starters, gay people's rights should just not be that threatening to conservative christians' rights. It's currently 3-5% of the population that is openly gay, according to the latest census. Certainly a somewhat larger percentage of the population would start coming out of the closet if things were more comfortable for them (some estimate like 1 in 10 have a serious same sex attraction of some sort), and that would be a good thing-- happier people! But orientation isn't contagious, it's not spreading. There is a limit to how large the gay population is ever going to be in this country or world, and they'll probably choose to congregate in liberal/accepting states and cities for a while, etc. This is just not a slippery slope thing which is going to start anything like the majority of our society being gay, stopping procreating, ending family structure as we know it. It's not possible. If you don't believe me, try acting against your sexual orientation sometime. It's uncomfortable, doesn't really work. Genetics, environment, and/or some random variation-- it is what it is-- and most people are straight. Straight people make babies together. I recognize it feels scary and like a slippery slope, but progress always seems new and scary, and in this case I assure you, it's not going to cause the downfall of society. No one wants bestiality or incest to be legal. It won't spread to gay people's kids either-- both orientations come from heterosexual parents and both orientations come from gay parents. Gays have significantly less biological kids than straight people anyway, so whether by nature or nurture you think there would be extra gay people, it would always be of diminishing importance and wouldn't multiply.
If you're a person who is traditional on this sort of thing then you probably don't have many gay friends to talk to about it. You probably don't see their relationships, hear their thoughts and feelings, realize what sort of people they are. Outsider groups and unknowns can be scary. But that also makes you not a very good judge of whether that population are capable and worthy of building marriages, being parents, making families. Maybe find ways to get to know some of them and then make up your mind. In the meantime, maybe you should abstain from voting or working actively against their rights, or give the gays the benefit of the doubt that they're good people and just support them.
Marriage is sort of a religious, sort of a legal matter. It's a multifaceted grey area. But to the extent that it is a legal matter, there can't be any justification based on "defending your religious beliefs" that gives you a right to deny rights to another group. That's not how this country works, the Bible won't be held up in a court of law (except I guess to swear oath). To the extent that marriage is a religious matter, it's fine to defend your interpretation of the Bible in your churches and denominations. Churches don't have to conduct gay marriages. To the extent that it is a legal matter, it is (and will eventually be widely seen as) discriminatory to not extend legal rights to a group of people. Maybe we as a society can agree to a fully available civil union, not defined as marriage, which extends absolutely all of the same rights to the other group? Maybe. But "separate and equal" was proven to be "separate" but rarely "equal" during the civil rights movement. It usually means "separate and second-class." Can't we just have a nondiscriminatory set of laws that protects everyone's rights but doesn't always agree with everyone's individual religious beliefs? Because separation of church and state suggests that's a good thing. You don't have to like gay relationships or enter into a legal gay union / marriage, but sooner or later you'll have to come up with a good legal reason for why others can't!
Think about it, this debate also has little to do with protecting traditional family values. Gay people are allowed to form families. Single people, gay people, are allowed to adopt kids or have surrogate kids. That's not illegal. The number of "gay families" may not even really change as a result of this debate. Certainly the number of traditional healthy straight families is very unlikely to change based on rights you've given to 5% of the population. If there were a few closeted gay people who now may be making fewer traditional families, believe me they would not be the healthiest parents to have around while lying to themselves anyway. If more openly gay people who currently have little motivation to form lifelong ties change from lifelong gay bachelorhood to lifelong commitment with a gay partner as a result, to each their own, but you also can't tell me that's a bad thing.
What the debate is about is legal rights. Gay families form now anyway, couples that form lifelong bonds, including bonds with children. The difference between these families and traditional families right now is how they have no legal protections. If one partner dies, the other partner is treated like a stranger by the government. One gay partner usually has to take out a big life insurance policy to protect the other, rather than the assumption by the government that assets are shared. That's just the start of it: the IRS, immigration, child custody rights, health insurance-- there are many many legal/financial advantages for being real married to a partner, that gay people are denied access to even with a civil union. It wouldn't be a big deal if it was just about wedding dresses and ceremonies.
The debate is also about more than legal rights. What got people so upset, once the Chick-fil-A founder pointed it out with his little quote, was that Chick-fil-A corporate profits (not just the owner's private wealth) have gone to some activities that are pretty discriminatory towards gay people. Groups that lobby the government to limit gay people's rights across the board, as if it's a culture war and gays are taking over. Groups that include funding gay conversion therapy. Why is that bad? Imagine having someone try to psychologically/physiologically condition you to change your orientation. I watched a documentary recently where conversion therapies used electrical shocks or chemicals that make you nauseous in contrast with images of attractive-to-you people. Horrifying. It's the plot of A Clockwork Orange in your own bedroom. Not every conversion therapy is so extreme or unethical, but they have been shown to have pretty damaging psychological effects across the board. That's why gay people / liberals feel extra angry towards Chick-fil-A, the corporate profits have gone to groups that hurt them or others. It makes sense to boycott a group that hurts you and others. You can also feel free to support them because of their agreement with your values, but be sure to think about it, realize what you are doing.
One final point-- this is an especially sensitive topic for gay people. It's personal. If you think you're saying "well I still come down on the traditional side of the debate, no offense," just be aware that it still feels fairly offensive to gay people because it limits their rights in society. It's not a fair debate-- one side has the rights and legal protections and it doesn't affect their marriages or lives or livelihoods at all, they just feel funny about changing a definition and it doesn't fit well in their worldview and religious beliefs and they're afraid. The other side doesn't have any of those rights and the course of their lives is drastically changed by the outcome. And the other side will always be a small minority, that can't just grow their numbers for support. And the other side has always been discriminated against throughout history because of the fact that they are a small group who doesn't have the same rights and can get ignored and marginalized. And few people really understand their point of view because relatively few people have really been in the position of having a different orientation from everyone else and facing a world that is completely stacked against them.
Ok! If you read to the end-- congratulations! Thanks a lot for listening to my perspective. You now have my permission to go out and enjoy some chicken, whichever brand you choose! Really :-)
I'm hungry now,
-Stephen
The thing that woke me from my blog retirement today, or the thing that made me think "man I'd like to write more than a 2 sentence Facebook status" was, ironically, fried chicken sandwiches. The Chick-Fil-A thing: owner says things about gay marriage, people realize the company profits have gone to anti-gay groups, people boycott, people support, people get angry.
I think it's overblown. I think it's kind of silly. There are so many times and places one who cares about any issue should and would have to consider where their money goes that it becomes sort of impossible-- (I already spend a fair amount of energy worrying whether I am funding child slavery and sweat shops when I buy chocolate or clothes, now I've got marriage equality to factor into my eating habits too!). But then again, we are a capitalistic society, and money speaks volumes and carries power. It's a difficult but not a worthless endeavor.
I don't want to stir up trouble, but considering I have many Christian friends, and many friends with differing political views from all over the country (and world!), I think it could be useful to hear another perspective which might be different from those people you usually talk to. I for one am a liberal Christian, and usually surrounded by liberals, liberal Christians, gays, and (yes) gay Christians when I talk about this, so maybe talking across the culture divide will be useful for me too. (For the record, I'm also pretty removed from this debate, there are no Chick-fil-A's anywhere near me, so my personal "boycott" would simply not be felt, haha.)
Conservative Christians probably feel they are supporting traditional family values, the structure of the family unit. That they are defending their religious beliefs, which are under attack. That supporting a company that supports their beliefs is a good way to make their voices heard. Maybe they honestly feel the stakes are very high because if they don't voice their support for traditional marriage it will go the way of people marrying dogs or their siblings, traditional families will fall apart, and nontraditional families are very damaging. Maybe they haven't thought much about it and just like waffle fries.
I can see that point of view and I respectfully disagree, here's why:
For starters, gay people's rights should just not be that threatening to conservative christians' rights. It's currently 3-5% of the population that is openly gay, according to the latest census. Certainly a somewhat larger percentage of the population would start coming out of the closet if things were more comfortable for them (some estimate like 1 in 10 have a serious same sex attraction of some sort), and that would be a good thing-- happier people! But orientation isn't contagious, it's not spreading. There is a limit to how large the gay population is ever going to be in this country or world, and they'll probably choose to congregate in liberal/accepting states and cities for a while, etc. This is just not a slippery slope thing which is going to start anything like the majority of our society being gay, stopping procreating, ending family structure as we know it. It's not possible. If you don't believe me, try acting against your sexual orientation sometime. It's uncomfortable, doesn't really work. Genetics, environment, and/or some random variation-- it is what it is-- and most people are straight. Straight people make babies together. I recognize it feels scary and like a slippery slope, but progress always seems new and scary, and in this case I assure you, it's not going to cause the downfall of society. No one wants bestiality or incest to be legal. It won't spread to gay people's kids either-- both orientations come from heterosexual parents and both orientations come from gay parents. Gays have significantly less biological kids than straight people anyway, so whether by nature or nurture you think there would be extra gay people, it would always be of diminishing importance and wouldn't multiply.
If you're a person who is traditional on this sort of thing then you probably don't have many gay friends to talk to about it. You probably don't see their relationships, hear their thoughts and feelings, realize what sort of people they are. Outsider groups and unknowns can be scary. But that also makes you not a very good judge of whether that population are capable and worthy of building marriages, being parents, making families. Maybe find ways to get to know some of them and then make up your mind. In the meantime, maybe you should abstain from voting or working actively against their rights, or give the gays the benefit of the doubt that they're good people and just support them.
Marriage is sort of a religious, sort of a legal matter. It's a multifaceted grey area. But to the extent that it is a legal matter, there can't be any justification based on "defending your religious beliefs" that gives you a right to deny rights to another group. That's not how this country works, the Bible won't be held up in a court of law (except I guess to swear oath). To the extent that marriage is a religious matter, it's fine to defend your interpretation of the Bible in your churches and denominations. Churches don't have to conduct gay marriages. To the extent that it is a legal matter, it is (and will eventually be widely seen as) discriminatory to not extend legal rights to a group of people. Maybe we as a society can agree to a fully available civil union, not defined as marriage, which extends absolutely all of the same rights to the other group? Maybe. But "separate and equal" was proven to be "separate" but rarely "equal" during the civil rights movement. It usually means "separate and second-class." Can't we just have a nondiscriminatory set of laws that protects everyone's rights but doesn't always agree with everyone's individual religious beliefs? Because separation of church and state suggests that's a good thing. You don't have to like gay relationships or enter into a legal gay union / marriage, but sooner or later you'll have to come up with a good legal reason for why others can't!
Think about it, this debate also has little to do with protecting traditional family values. Gay people are allowed to form families. Single people, gay people, are allowed to adopt kids or have surrogate kids. That's not illegal. The number of "gay families" may not even really change as a result of this debate. Certainly the number of traditional healthy straight families is very unlikely to change based on rights you've given to 5% of the population. If there were a few closeted gay people who now may be making fewer traditional families, believe me they would not be the healthiest parents to have around while lying to themselves anyway. If more openly gay people who currently have little motivation to form lifelong ties change from lifelong gay bachelorhood to lifelong commitment with a gay partner as a result, to each their own, but you also can't tell me that's a bad thing.
What the debate is about is legal rights. Gay families form now anyway, couples that form lifelong bonds, including bonds with children. The difference between these families and traditional families right now is how they have no legal protections. If one partner dies, the other partner is treated like a stranger by the government. One gay partner usually has to take out a big life insurance policy to protect the other, rather than the assumption by the government that assets are shared. That's just the start of it: the IRS, immigration, child custody rights, health insurance-- there are many many legal/financial advantages for being real married to a partner, that gay people are denied access to even with a civil union. It wouldn't be a big deal if it was just about wedding dresses and ceremonies.
The debate is also about more than legal rights. What got people so upset, once the Chick-fil-A founder pointed it out with his little quote, was that Chick-fil-A corporate profits (not just the owner's private wealth) have gone to some activities that are pretty discriminatory towards gay people. Groups that lobby the government to limit gay people's rights across the board, as if it's a culture war and gays are taking over. Groups that include funding gay conversion therapy. Why is that bad? Imagine having someone try to psychologically/physiologically condition you to change your orientation. I watched a documentary recently where conversion therapies used electrical shocks or chemicals that make you nauseous in contrast with images of attractive-to-you people. Horrifying. It's the plot of A Clockwork Orange in your own bedroom. Not every conversion therapy is so extreme or unethical, but they have been shown to have pretty damaging psychological effects across the board. That's why gay people / liberals feel extra angry towards Chick-fil-A, the corporate profits have gone to groups that hurt them or others. It makes sense to boycott a group that hurts you and others. You can also feel free to support them because of their agreement with your values, but be sure to think about it, realize what you are doing.
One final point-- this is an especially sensitive topic for gay people. It's personal. If you think you're saying "well I still come down on the traditional side of the debate, no offense," just be aware that it still feels fairly offensive to gay people because it limits their rights in society. It's not a fair debate-- one side has the rights and legal protections and it doesn't affect their marriages or lives or livelihoods at all, they just feel funny about changing a definition and it doesn't fit well in their worldview and religious beliefs and they're afraid. The other side doesn't have any of those rights and the course of their lives is drastically changed by the outcome. And the other side will always be a small minority, that can't just grow their numbers for support. And the other side has always been discriminated against throughout history because of the fact that they are a small group who doesn't have the same rights and can get ignored and marginalized. And few people really understand their point of view because relatively few people have really been in the position of having a different orientation from everyone else and facing a world that is completely stacked against them.
Ok! If you read to the end-- congratulations! Thanks a lot for listening to my perspective. You now have my permission to go out and enjoy some chicken, whichever brand you choose! Really :-)
I'm hungry now,
-Stephen
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Ambiguously Scenic View
Bought a guitar last weekend!
Then wrote a song!
Excuse the remedial guitar playing, I'll practice it up to play at an open mic night and rerecord.
Watch "Ambiguously Scenic View" on YouTube
Lyrics
Here I am
Underneath a sunset in the sand
All of this is mine
At one point in time
There's a wall that I fill up with all the things I've seen
A record of some pieces of the world
And in this picture of the sea it's never been clear to me
The sun looks as ready to set as it does to rise.
Peeking through
Sillhoutted clouds to light the blue
Fast and getting low
Thumb's width left to go
Over soon
Half a star competing with the moon
Reflecting in the tide
Circles burn my eyes
Time marches on marches in marches out and along
Time speeding up cause there's no conductor for this song
Encore's over and they're playing one final chord
No fear, the wall's a door
Then wrote a song!
Excuse the remedial guitar playing, I'll practice it up to play at an open mic night and rerecord.
Watch "Ambiguously Scenic View" on YouTube
Lyrics
Here I am
Underneath a sunset in the sand
All of this is mine
At one point in time
There's a wall that I fill up with all the things I've seen
A record of some pieces of the world
And in this picture of the sea it's never been clear to me
The sun looks as ready to set as it does to rise.
Peeking through
Sillhoutted clouds to light the blue
Fast and getting low
Thumb's width left to go
Over soon
Half a star competing with the moon
Reflecting in the tide
Circles burn my eyes
Time marches on marches in marches out and along
Time speeding up cause there's no conductor for this song
Encore's over and they're playing one final chord
No fear, the wall's a door
Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Italy and London 2011
Pictures from my recent trip to Italy and England (very few from England, I was basically seeing nothing I hadn't seen before).
They're in chronological order of the trip: Cheltenham, London, Piemont, Turin, Milan, Verona, Venice, and Treviso.
I'll work further on captioning them in the days ahead, but enjoy for now!
-Stephen
Monday, August 22, 2011
Christina visit August 2011
Christina was in town visiting for the past several days. Fantastic times. Our busy agenda included Lake Tahoe, Napa, San Francisco, Tiburon, and Monterey. Check out some attractive pictures in the album below.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Monterey, CA
Some friends visited this weekend-- Dartmouth / American-in-London friends who are back living in Seattle again. Did some travels south today to Monterey / Carmel. The weather was lovely, except for when we arrived at the beach hah.
 |
| August 7, 2011 |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)