The government must really be patting themselves on the back with this Kim Davis case. Oh, boy.
They took the "peaceful, hippie liberals" and turned them into bigots with stones in hand, ready to stone Davis to death. Because this will prove that the bible and religion is bad. Or something....
I, for one, really dislike religion, generally. More so, I really dislike when people use religion to oppress others. It is a truly great crime to deny others their needs/desires/or rights by law in order to obey "religious beliefs".
On the other hand, if someone believes in religion, and follows their beliefs to the end of the world, I think it's groovy if they stick to that. Not to stone anyone, light them aflame, lynch them, or cause any physical harm to them.... This is not EVER acceptable. But if someone is willing to go to jail, become public enemy number 1, and be threatened on a daily basis because she followed her beliefs, which, I repeat, did not physically harm anyone, I can't help but respect her a little bit.
I don't expect others to think the way I do. Some people jump at each other's throats over this debate, but I simply have my own view on it. I see great irony in casting stones upon others and calling others bigots while saying that what the other person fought for is not worthy of anything but death....
You can't have it both ways. I'm sorry. If you believe that people *should* follow their beliefs and have religious freedom, and we should respect their beliefs, then you'll just have eat your own words when it backfires.
I find it hilarious.
I don't agree with the choice she made, nor her beliefs. I wish she could lose her job and remain in jail and maybe someone could convert her. However, she believes in a specific Holiness, and I respect her right to believe and follow her religion as she wishes. We should all respect her choice.
In a sane world, we'd all wipe the dust off our hands, realize the woman made her choice in life, and move along. People murder, people rape, people abuse... and we're worried about a woman who rather go to jail rather than sign a paper for two people!?
This isn't a sign of the times, we all know America is progressing. We know that marriage between homosexual individuals will now and likely, forever be legal. We all must continue to fight for peace, love, and understanding, but as of now, the marriage thing is set and settled. That's good to go, ain't nobody, not even Kim Davis is going to change this. America is very pro-gay marriage.
So, then, if one woman wants to go against the law... let her. She wants to risk her reputation and face the consequences? No further action is necessary. That case is over. Stop letting the media manipulate and distract you. The fact that I've now written not one, but two articles about this, because it was such a fiery subject, says something. It says that we are once again getting caught up in bath salts and ebola and every other stupid trend that becomes the news' money funnel.
Let Davis rot in... well, nowhere, most likely. There is no Hell. Let her marinate in her paranoia and schizophrenic-like tendencies. Let the woman suffer in peace! Or, at least, stop talking about stoning her. Sheesh!
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Now We're Getting Obedient?
It is seldom that I comment on pop-news, but there are stories that come along every now and then that really trigger the Socrates in me. This is the case for the Kim Davis situation.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)
Upon hearing the details of this case, my first instinct was to oppose Davis and her actions. Denying marriage to two consenting adults, of any mix-n-match of sexual identities sounded like a horrendous, unethical, and illegal act. I wished Davis to be placed in jail, plain and simple, for having broken a law. For her name to be denounced and her professional title removed. The woman should be burned! Well, not to that extent. But, like most of the liberal-minded individuals surrounding me, I felt she was completely in the wrong.
And, I still do. I think her belief in God, God's laws, and God's punishments had no place in her office, nor in her decision to (or to not) wed two homosexual individuals. However, do I think her a dirty weasel who was completely sick in the head to not only break the law, but also go against the principles and morals of her job? Simply put, no.
One of America's favourite heroes, Martin Luther King Jr. himself once said,
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
Upon hearing the details of this case, my first instinct was to oppose Davis and her actions. Denying marriage to two consenting adults, of any mix-n-match of sexual identities sounded like a horrendous, unethical, and illegal act. I wished Davis to be placed in jail, plain and simple, for having broken a law. For her name to be denounced and her professional title removed. The woman should be burned! Well, not to that extent. But, like most of the liberal-minded individuals surrounding me, I felt she was completely in the wrong.
And, I still do. I think her belief in God, God's laws, and God's punishments had no place in her office, nor in her decision to (or to not) wed two homosexual individuals. However, do I think her a dirty weasel who was completely sick in the head to not only break the law, but also go against the principles and morals of her job? Simply put, no.
One of America's favourite heroes, Martin Luther King Jr. himself once said,
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."
Does this profound thought not apply to those with whom we disagree? Should man or woman only stand up and break a law they consider unjust IF the liberal majority agree with their point of view or disagree with the law? Where are all those activists and protesters who once firmly believed in civil disobedience... in following your own moral values rather than those of the state... putting yourself at risk of imprisonment and public shaming in the name of your personal beliefs?
Rosa Parks made the choice to go on the bus all those years ago, she then chose to break the law and sit in the front of the bus. Was she also just a hooligan breaking laws? If Miss Parks had not believed in equality, or she had not believed in it to the extent that she did, she never would have put her life and reputation at risk. However, she did, and to this day we praise her. Both because she stood up for the black people, but also because she civil disobedienced the heck out of that situation.
With the government taking more and more control over our lives, this is no time to turn against those who are willing to stand up against that with which they disagree. We should be praising Davis for her willingness to stick to her beliefs in the face of tremendous hatred, as well of the dangers of disagreeing with the popular opinion. What she refused to do did not end any lives, nor did it put anyone in harm's way. The solution only required the engaged couple go to another county clerk.
Yes, Kim Davis belongs in jail. Breaking a law explicitly results in jail time. However, turning against her as she fights for her beliefs is not the next step. Raising awareness and tolerance for homosexuality and the need for equality is where our focus should go next. That includes equality for all to follow their religious beliefs. For all to make choices that they can morally standby. For all to stand up to "The Man" and show that civilians, even those with differing opinions, can stand together and create a community rather than a lynching mob.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Casual Encounters
Since I am trying to stay hip and trendy with the kids, I just started learning a new modern song on guitar. The song is called "Stay With Me" by Sam Smith. Prior to finding this song under "Top 100 Hits", I had never heard of the song, heard the song, or heard of Sam Smith (no relation to The Smiths or Patti Smith, it seems.)
After playing the song a couple times, I realized two things:
1- This song is pretty boring.
2- This song is quite stupid.
I am getting ahead of myself here, though. Let's just stick with the main point Mr. Smith is making. He's not in love with the person he was intimate with, but at the same time, he wants the person to stay with him. For what? The day? Does he want to go shopping for matching Crocs and share a slice of apple pie at a 24-hour diner, or does he mean, seriously, you have to stay with me, you're naked, your hands are roped together, and I will use my taser on you if you try to escape? I mean, let's define this relationship right off the bat, please.
After all, "you" are all he needs. A one-night stand who doesn't leave. However, "you" probably want to run off to work or to your spouse or to feed your dog. All reasonable requests. Also, let's not ignore the first two lines. He straight-up makes it clear that he doesn't want to be intimate with you, but he's a man, he needs to commit the act. It's normal, it's healthy, he's really just an animal following his primal instinct. Alas, he doesn't love you, so cuddle him a bit, then go feed your dog. This man has NEEDS! Hey, he called you darling, didn't he? If that's not respect, I don't know what is.
What occurred to me after reading these lyrics over several times is just how many songs are pushing casual sex. I get it, being a "slut" is now the cool thing to do. Open relationships and open minds, man! Because everyone wants and needs different things, we have to accept ourselves and the desires of others. Like, groovy, yeah.
Just one question, if I may....
Did we learn nothing from the AIDS epidemic? Free love is not cool, man. Condoms aren't 100% effective. Birth control isn't 100% effective. Even being sterilized isn't 100% effective! Like, yo, how about you simmer down, hot pants? If you have needs, go have that checked out. Go to a store, or a website, or hire a "friend of the night". She/he gets paid to take that risk. If you have two consenting adults, I understand that's it's all s'aright morally and whatnot, but this does not mean that one should jingle all the jangles in town. Don't go blowing on every wind chime you see just because you "need to" and that's what it's there for.
Have fun, forgive yourself and others for your past (or forget about it), but don't go climbing up too many coconut trees or, eventually, one will fall on you and break your legs.
You still with me? Cool. Stay with me.
After playing the song a couple times, I realized two things:
1- This song is pretty boring.
2- This song is quite stupid.
Guess it's true, I'm not good at a one-night stand But I still need love cause I'm just a man These nights never seem to go to plan I don't want you to leave, will you hold my hand? [Chorus] Won't you stay with me? Cause you're all I need This ain't love it's clear to see But darling, stay with me
(http://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/s/sam_smith/stay_with_me_crd.htm)
Let's see what we have here.... The young man just had a one-night stand, but he's realizing he's not very good at them. I guess this means he gets emotionally attached?
Why am I so emotional?
No it's not a good look, gain some self control
Yes, it's confirmed. He doesn't understand why he gets so emotionally attached... ya know, to the person with whom he was just physically intimate. He's saying that this is a bad trait and he should stop caring about people after intimacy. Sure, emotions should have nothing to do with the most vulnerable thing one can do with their body.... This seems like a good lesson.
I am getting ahead of myself here, though. Let's just stick with the main point Mr. Smith is making. He's not in love with the person he was intimate with, but at the same time, he wants the person to stay with him. For what? The day? Does he want to go shopping for matching Crocs and share a slice of apple pie at a 24-hour diner, or does he mean, seriously, you have to stay with me, you're naked, your hands are roped together, and I will use my taser on you if you try to escape? I mean, let's define this relationship right off the bat, please.
After all, "you" are all he needs. A one-night stand who doesn't leave. However, "you" probably want to run off to work or to your spouse or to feed your dog. All reasonable requests. Also, let's not ignore the first two lines. He straight-up makes it clear that he doesn't want to be intimate with you, but he's a man, he needs to commit the act. It's normal, it's healthy, he's really just an animal following his primal instinct. Alas, he doesn't love you, so cuddle him a bit, then go feed your dog. This man has NEEDS! Hey, he called you darling, didn't he? If that's not respect, I don't know what is.
What occurred to me after reading these lyrics over several times is just how many songs are pushing casual sex. I get it, being a "slut" is now the cool thing to do. Open relationships and open minds, man! Because everyone wants and needs different things, we have to accept ourselves and the desires of others. Like, groovy, yeah.
Just one question, if I may....
Did we learn nothing from the AIDS epidemic? Free love is not cool, man. Condoms aren't 100% effective. Birth control isn't 100% effective. Even being sterilized isn't 100% effective! Like, yo, how about you simmer down, hot pants? If you have needs, go have that checked out. Go to a store, or a website, or hire a "friend of the night". She/he gets paid to take that risk. If you have two consenting adults, I understand that's it's all s'aright morally and whatnot, but this does not mean that one should jingle all the jangles in town. Don't go blowing on every wind chime you see just because you "need to" and that's what it's there for.
Have fun, forgive yourself and others for your past (or forget about it), but don't go climbing up too many coconut trees or, eventually, one will fall on you and break your legs.
You still with me? Cool. Stay with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)