Sunday, June 30, 2013

Supreme Court Windsor Ruling

     Last Wednesday, June 26th, the Supreme Court finally made a ruling on the Supreme Court case Windsor vs. United States that I've mentioned in several of my blogposts and have been following. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Section Three of DOMA states "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Now that this Section is no longer valid, the Federal Government must recognize all homosexual marriages. So what does that mean for homosexual couples across the United States? It means several things:
  • Homosexual couples can now receive federal benefits and protections for their marriages
  • Homosexual couples can get married out-of-state in states that allow homosexual marriage and it will be recognized by the Federal Government anywhere (so if a homosexual couple in Utah wanted to get married they could go to Washington, get married, and that marriage will be Federally recognized)
  • Many adoption agencies required that the adopters be a married couple, so many homosexual couples will now be able to adopt
  • One more step has been taken towards granting homosexual couples the full protection of the law and full equality with heterosexuals
This Supreme Court ruling does NOT force States to recognize same-sex marriages (so, in the above example, Utah can still ignore the same-sex marriage but the Federal Government cannot) but we are one step closer to having this occur.
     Ultimately, homosexuals have gained an enormous advantage that will lead to further advancements in Civil Rights. Just as the blacks gained rights one piece at a time, just as the Japanese gained rights slowly over time, just as ANY minority has slowly earned their proper rights denied to them in America, homosexuals WILL eventually achieve full equality with heterosexuals. This Supreme Court decision puts us one step closer towards equality and has given us the momentum to further gain equality. Please share the good news of the Supreme Courts just decision with everyone!

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Sunday Posts and Brokeback Mountain

     I know it's been a very long time since I last published, that mostly has to do with the fact that the last month has consisted of nothing but AP and IB testing. I've been exhausted. I will start publishing on Sundays (except next Sunday since I will be camping). Sundays are a very convenient and easy way for me to publish as it's the day I typically have the least amount of work. I have a very interesting post coming up next time, but today I'll keep it short and simple.
     A month ago, I watch Brokeback Mountain with my girlfriend, and I cried. I don't often cry at movies, but I cried. For those who have not seen Brokeback Mountain, it is a movie about two homosexuals (one played by Heath Ledger) who must keep their relationship a secret. After being discovered, one member is brutally murdered and the other is lied to in order to about the circumstances of his lover's death. It's an incredibly sad tragedy about a world that doesn't understand homosexuals and a world that hates homosexuals. It's a very worthwhile watch and I would recommend that everyone watches it. Until next time, thanks for all you guys do for the homosexual community!

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Upcoming Weeks

The next few weeks are quite busy as I will be AP and IB testing for the next month. I will try to post when I can but do not expect many posts in the next month. Thank you my followers for wanting to make a diffrence in this world.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Homosexual Marriage Debate

     Hello readers! I have recently been arguing for homosexual marriage with an individual on Google Plus. For those who do not know, I recently made an argument against this article by a Mormon apostle found in my blogpost not too long ago, here is a link. Following this article, a "friend" on Google Plus attempted to provide a counterargument. The link to his counterargument is located here. Please read his essay before reading mine as it will make my essay make much more sense. Also, it is beneficial to have his essay open side-by-side with mine as it will make the essay make much more sense (note that the word "you" below is a placeholder for his name so as to keep him anonymous):

           I find that the best way for me to argue your points without becoming accusatory is to rebuttle each point one at a time, as such my essay will largely model yours. You will probably want your essay open when you read this as I will not be explicitly mentioning what paragraph of yours I am debating.
        I agree with your point that gender is a core characteristic that is fairly permanent (however it is changeable via surgery and hormone treatments). But your gender should make no difference other than for reproductive reasons. Yes, men and women have natural secondary characteristics and differences in ability, such as men tending to be stronger and women tending to be more flexible, but that is no reason to treat them different socially. Why can a man not be a house husband and the women the main breadwinner? Why can a woman not be a body builder and a man be a gymnast or ice skater? The fact is that anyone of any gender can be their own individual separate of gender biases and traditional gender roles. It is to my understanding that you agree with this so I should make it clear why I bring this up: it is a response to you saying that “equality” is removing everything about gender. Essentially my point is that the only permanently unique characteristic of each gender is which role they play in reproduction and the line stops there.
        You mentioned that marriage is “ancient, millennia-old, universally recognized” as if its universality and longevity is an argument for maintaining its current form; it’s not. Slavery, selling of children, and torture were all once, and in some cases still are, “ancient, millennia-old, universally recognized.” Yet these three institutions, among many others, are inhumane, harsh, and degrading. So an institution being “ancient, millennia-old, universally recognized” is a completely invalid reason for maintaining marriage as it is, however you have other arguments of a more valid nature that I will soon debate.
        I don’t understand what’s wrong about “genderless marriage” or even what it fully means and don’t want to make an argument against it that is going to be off topic or miss the mark. Could you please elaborate?  
        I’m not saying separate all values from law, I can see where my statements were ambiguous. What I am saying is that values that are solely religious should not be incorporated into law, ever. I know you disagree that homosexuality is solely religiously based and you have made several arguments, however I will debate those later. For now it sufficeth to say that the fight against homosexual marriage has no logical basis other than the “majority prefers it” (which is not true, a recent poll puts the number of American’s supporting homosexual marriage at roughly 58%) and the majority once preferred slavery, torture, etc. A majority preference is often oppressive and is typically a weak argument for law. Also, laws should not be based off pathos. Laws need be based of logos. Laws based off pathos have often led to harm and oppression. I repeat that there is no sustainable logical argument against homosexual marriage.
        The lawyer makes a good point between tolerance and endorsement and I agree. However, endorsing an action for one group and not another is oppressive. Saying that one social group as a whole can exercise a right or power but another is prohibited from making those same decisions is to endorse one group over another. In other words, it still marginalizes and damages a social group, typically a minority. The law needs to endorse all social groups, or not. To elevate one social group or another is naturally oppressive and harmful.
        To your question about why have marriage at all, I actually agree with that point where the government is concerned. I don’t believe the government should have any say in a social ceremony other than for immediate bodily protection (such as crowd control and traffic control during large gatherings). And, in fact, couples are very capable of raising families without being married. In fact, one can raise a family just as well without being married as if they were married. The only reasons statistics differ from my above statements is because many “less-than-optimal” households have unmarried parents. It is not the lack of marriage that makes them bad parents, but rather the type of people that the parents are that causes them to not get married. In the same sense, anonymous individual, I’m sure you’d be just a good of a parent whether you were wed or not. Marriage does not spontaneously increase one’s parenting skills. There are only two purposes for marriage: to gain a social sanction to have sex, and for a couple to create a socially binding promise to be loyal to one another. The first point (social sanction for sex) only applies to couples who believe that extramarital sex is wrong and care what others think about their having extramarital sex. The second point (commitment) is only for couples who see marriage as having a binding power to create a commitment; in other words, if a couple believes that they are capable of commitment without marriage and doesn’t desire marriage because they see no value in it, it is useless. To reiterate the above few sentences, marriage is an inherently useless institution that only has the power that individuals grant it. So the question naturally arises: why am I fighting for homosexual marriage if I would prefer no government involvement in marriage? It is a point of inequality and oppression and it is much more likely to get the government to sanction homosexual marriage than to take their hands completely out of marriage.
        Your paragraph concerning harm dealt to society by less-than-ideal households is by far your strongest point. As such I will spend some time on this point. You are very much correct in the assertion that less-than-ideal households produce children more likely to commit crimes and be overall detrimental to society. However, homosexual households don’t produce children of this nature. Slightly over 20% of homosexual households are raising kids either from a previous marriage, rape, or adoption. These children are no more likely to be violent or criminal in nature than children raised by heterosexual parents. The only study that states to the contrary defined homosexual parents as any adult (in a heterosexual union or otherwise) that has had the desire to cheat on their spouse with another of the same gender. In other words, they didn’t truly study homosexuals as a comprehensive whole, but rather those with a desire to cheat and potentially ruin their current relationship. The study did not accurately sample the homosexual population and is therefore completely void. The notion that homosexual couples’ children are more likely to be homosexual is also highly false. Homosexuality is biologically determined and not taught, so it’s not possible to teach a child into a sexuality. On the reverse side, sanctioned homosexual marriage would decrease divorce rates and crime rates. A decent number of divorces are due to a homosexual marrying a heterosexual in order to hide their homosexual nature and gain social acceptance, not for love. As such these marriages often end in divorce. Also, many homosexuals living together stay together for life. Allowing homosexuals to marry would decrease divorces due to the first mentioned reason and increase the number of permanent couples due to the second reason. Finally, since homosexuals cannot have their own biological children (actually, a friend who I won’t mention and I came up with a biologically valid method for homosexuals to have their own offspring and supposedly such research is being conducted) so many homosexual couples adopt. Orphaned children who aren’t adopted by the time they reach maturity are often lacking in proper parental care and harbor angry feelings. These children are more prone to crime and other detrimental activities. By increasing the number of adopters, more children will be adopted increasing the number of children who receive proper parental attention and thus reducing the crime rate. In addition, as homosexuals adopt kids, it increases the quantity of many available to orphanages and decreases the number of children the money must be spent on. The newly enriched orphanages can perform give much higher quality care to the children left in the orphanage and better fund campaigns to get people to adopt. Allowing homosexuals to marry is all-around beneficial for any society.
        You apparently misunderstood why I related homosexuality to the soda ban. I was showing that declaring a law as “arbitrary and capricious” is, via precedent, a valid way to attack a law. I was also comparing the ridiculousness of banning homosexual marriage to the ridiculousness of banning large sodas.
        “What happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house” is a very valid and true statement. If what I do does not affect your rights, than why inhibit it? If a man choosing to marry another homosexual does not take away from your rights (which it doesn’t), than why prohibit it? If a woman decides to marry another woman, what forceful affect does it have on you? Nothing. A homosexual couple marrying doesn’t take away from any of your rights. They’re not taking away from your rights, don’t take away from theirs. Finally, about your last few sentences of that paragraph, what happened? Your arguments had at least some basis until these sentences. Let’s reiterate those sentences in a few other contexts to show their invalidity:
·    Atheist: But what happens when I'm trying to teach my children about what I believe, and I have to explain to them that these nice people are oppressing minorities in the name of an imaginary being and that society is wrong about something I know and believe is right?
·    Different religion: But what happens when I'm trying to teach my children about what I believe, and I have to explain to them that these nice people are doing something our God says is wrong and that they’re wrong about something I know and believe is right?
·    Liberal/Conservative: But what happens when I'm trying to teach my children about what I believe, and I have to explain to them that these nice people are doing something politically wrong, and that the government is wrong, and that society is wrong about something I know and believe is right?
Etc. etc. etc. These are things that cannot, must not happen. Because you do not agree with your neighbor does not mean you can force their hand. Freedom exists. I legitimately feel like your final statements of that paragraph are a direct attack on freedom. Let people be themselves.
        I adequately addressed your final paragraph in my last essay, I will not bring it up here.
        I have a final point to offer. Before you get offended, I am not attacking your religion, I’m being legitimately curious. You believe that your god gave us agency to choose. You believe that he is the one to judge mankind and that man are to not judge others. Why then do you not allow homosexuals the agency to choose to marry and, if your religion turns out to be correct when we all die, for your god to judge them and punish/reward them? Why do you feel it to be your need to force others to conform to your god’s standards?

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Freedom to Marry

There is an organization called Freedom to Marry that is very proactive in the pro-homosexuality cause. They keep their members updated on the legal battle for homosexual rights and have recently asked their members to post a few pictures. I encourage everyone to join their email group to receive notifications of how the homosexual fight is progressing and what you can do to assisst it. The pictures are found below. For more images follow my:
Google Plus page or Community: Voice of the Minority
Twitter: @Alexminorvoice

I won't share many more photos on this blog as it is more article oriented and it makes more sense to post pictures on websites better designed for images.

Note: I'm not being payed or asked by them to advertise them nor do we have any form of relation beyond ny being a member of their organization.

Thursday, March 28, 2013


Sorry I haven't posted in nearly two weeks. With it being end of term life has been very busy and I've been continuing the debate from last article on Google Plus. I will post updates on that debate later, for now I'm just gonna post some pictures that represent my views on the topic of homosexual equality.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

My Response to Mr. Oaks' Article

     In 2006, Mr. Dallin H. Oaks received an interview from the Mormon church's Public Affair department in order to clarify the Mormon church's view of homosexuality. In this article I will reply to Mr. Oaks interview. His interview is available by clicking on the link above (interview) or by going to this website: Please read this article before reading my reply below:

     I will begin by stating that I have read this interview through before. This is now my second reading. I will begin with the points I agree with. Mr. Oaks is very much correct in that people have every right to speak against homosexuality. We are a country and people that believe in and practice the principle freedom of speech. I also heavily agree with his point that  "religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach." While I obviously disagree with his use of the word "know" (he should use "believe"), he is very much correct in that we all have a freedom of religion that provides for the preaching of whatever we believe in. We all have the right to preach against whatever we believe to be "sin" and to reject said "sins." I have heard that someone was attempting a friend of mine that the Mormon church must accept homosexuality. I disagree. A religion is a private organization that may choose it's beliefs and members in the same manner that various clubs, LGBT organizations, woman organizations, prestigious clubs, etc. can pick and choose and reject members. I do not advocate forcing religions to accept any principles as it is their freedom to select what they accept and believe.
     However, this is the final point upon which myself and Mr. Oaks agree. While I agree that the threat of imprisonment of the pastor that he mentioned is an infringement of his rights, most religious individuals are themselves infringing on the rights of the homosexual; this is accomplished when religious individuals cross the boundary known as the separation of church and state. Mr. Oaks himself crosses that boundary when he makes the statement "It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has gives" when asked his opinion on some countries sanctioning homosexual marriage. Not everyone believes in the Mormon God, Catholic God, Protestant God, Hindu Gods and Goddesses, Muslim God, Buddhist nirvana, and some believe in any power at all. Even people of the same religion often disagree on the true nature and intentions of their god. As such, religious definitions, especially those by a religion's deity, cannot be used to define and enact secular law. Mr. Oaks, as a Mormon,would not approve of Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant beliefs being forced upon him via law. Nor would a Muslim, Jew, Catholic, or Protestant approve of Mormon beliefs being forced upon them via law. In addition, any individual would revolt and challenge said law. It is for these reasons that the boundary of church and state was formed and exists today. Yet religion frequently crosses this barrier. Laws with obvious religious undertones such as those against homosexuality, drugs, abortions, sodomy, etc. are continually enacted, even today.
     The last sentence of the above paragraph brings me to the central point of this article: everyone is free to like, dislike, and believe anything you want, but no one has any right to force those beliefs on others via law. One can choose to dislike and reject homosexuality in the same manner as a homosexual can dislike and reject heterosexuality, a religious individual can dislike and reject atheism and vice versa, a Mormon can dislike and reject Catholics and vice versa, etc. etc. etc. Most individuals would consider it wrong to instate a state religion, illegalize religion, force a healthy diet by law (, make a law to wear a specific uniform, only drive cars without specific license plate letters on Sundays (Mexico in the past, not sure if still currently a law), etc. To give an example specific to Mr. Oak's article, heterosexuals would not approve if a largely homosexual (or even a largely heterosexual) government outlawed heterosexual marriage. It is also obvious that homosexuals do not approve, and are greatly angered at, the illegality of homosexual marriage. In essence, people fundamentally disagree with THEIR lifestyle being controlled by law. However, those same people that hate their lifestyle being governed by law are typically okay with specific groups lifestyles' being controlled by the government; blatant hypocrisy.
     Everyone's lifestyle is their choice, be it heterosexual, homosexual, socially conservative, socially liberal, goth, punk, emo, modern, ancient, vegan, vegetarian, carnivore, healthy, unhealthy, virgin, sexually active, religious, non-religious, etc. One may disagree with a lifestyle, but that gives them no right to legally limit that lifestyle; that lifestyle also has no right to legal limit your lifestyle. One may think their lifestyle is best, but they have no right to force that lifestyle on others; that lifestyle might think their lifestyle is best, but they have no right to legally force it on you. This includes religion. No religion has the right, nor should it have the power, to force it's beliefs and lifestyles on another because not everyone agrees with that religion. Disagreement on a religions validity and teachings by other religions is precisely why the concept of the separation of church and state is morally correct and supposedly upheld in modern society. Because it is impossible to objectively conclude that one religion is better than another or that one lifestyle is better than another, lifestyle and religious preference is completely and utterly arbitrary and subjective.
     The judge in New York City invalidated the city mayor's ban on sugar drinks due to the law being "arbitrary and capricious." This is because a law based on arbitrary and subjective opinions and beliefs naturally oppresses certain groups of people and forcibly removes their freedoms with no logical basis and due process of law. The laws against homosexual marriage and, in some cases, conduct are based on arbitrary and subjective beliefs and opinions of religious individuals who are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle. The laws that limit homosexual freedoms have no factual basis; in fact, the only basis for anti-homosexual laws is opinion and belief. While religion, and society as a whole, has the right to believe and preach whatever it desires, they do not have the right to forcibly remove one's rights ever, especially not when it's based on biases against specific lifestyles or commandments by their peculiar god. The crossing of this principle against many lifestyles, but especially the homosexual lifestyle, causes oppression against, pain for, and misunderstanding of the said lifestyle. Ergo, homosexuals are oppressed, pained, and misunderstood by society as a whole, but especially religious individuals like Mr. Oaks.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Voice of the Minority Community

     I know have a Google Plus community called Voice of the Minority. Please join my community where discussions can be held and people can discover each other to support one another in combating oppression. Thank you to all my readers who read my articles whether they be poorly written, rapidly typed, well-written, or anything else. Your support means much to me as I write this blog and maintain several sociall networking sites about this blog.

Homosexuals ARE Oppressed!

     I had a friend recently say that he did not believe that homosexuals are oppressed, so I'm going to list some reasons as to why they are, but first, the definition of oppression as defined by Google: Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. With that in mind let’s now examine how people oppress homosexuals:
  • They [homosexuals] are not allowed to make the same choices as heterosexuals by law (marriage, adoption, etc.)
  • They are treated with contempt and looked down upon by society (being fired from their job after homosexuality is discovered)
  • They are marginalized in many social situations (ignored, beat, mocked)
  • They are not given tax benefits of being married because they cannot marry
  • They cannot receive the same privileges and legal certificates as heterosexuals (marriage certificates adn social status)
  • They are considered inferior and sinners by many religious individuals
     What part of the above list doesn't scream unjust treatment or control? Exactly, none of it does. The entire list demonstrates unjust control of a minority by the majority. The entire list shows unfair treatment of a minority by a majority. Homosexuals are treated in an inferior manner because they are different. Homosexuals are withheld from making choices by law because the majority does not agree with them. What here isn't oppression? Homosexuals are oppressed. And it's those people that say that they are not oppressing homosexuals are the same people that allow oppression to happen; people who don't recognize oppression allowed the Holocaust to happen, they've allowed countless genocides, they've allowed dictatorships, they've caused hundreds of thousands of suicides. In short, those who refuse to recognize oppression are dangerous. People! Wake up, recognize the oppression your causing, and stop!

(I apologize for the poor argumentative nature of this post.This post is really more here to state that homosexuals are being oppressed than to factually argue that they are. This post is more a statement than an argument.)

Sunday, February 24, 2013


     Todays article is just another article about what I'm going to write about next. For those who haven't picked up on it, I've been accussing people of hypocrisy religiously (how religions preach equality and agency but don't practice it), socially and religiously (The Golden Rule), and socially (by claiming to fight against oppression, but only oppression of specific groups while oppressing people themselves). The points I try to make may br hard to understand simply because I am not the best writer there is, but I will always try to get my point across because I'm aiding a worthwhile cause. My next few articles will be about why oppressing homosexuality is morally wrong and supporting it is morally right. Some of these articles may seem similar to past articles, but they will differ to better illustrate these points of morality and homosexuality.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Top 10 Reasons to Legalize Homosexual Marriage

     It's been quite some time since I posted an article by someone else concerning the movement to legalize homosexual marriage. Today I found a short, simple, straight to the point, and well reasoned article about this subject called Top Ten Reasons To Federally Legalize Homosexual Marriage. It is powerful and summarizes many arguments supporting homosexual marriages. I hope this article opens some eyes and creates a starting point to base people's desire to support homosexual marriage and encourage people to take a part in the progressive movement for homosexuals.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Homosexuality and "The Golden Rule"

     Most people, both religious and otherwise, claim to believe in the principle of The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. The quote is self-explanatory and very blunt: if you wouldn't want someone doing something to you, don't do it to them, end of story. If you don't want someone oppressing you, don't oppress them. If you don't want someone taking away your choices and rights, don't take away another's choices and rights. If you don't want people hating on you, don't hate others.
     Yet, as always, society is a hypocrite. They claim one thing and practice another. Society says follow The Golden Rule, but then oppresses homosexuals by taking away their rights, choices, and freedoms. Society says that inhibiting people intentionally is wrong, yet it inhibits homosexuals. Society disagrees with the practice of discrimination, yet it discriminates against homosexuals.
     Now I'll turn my attention to religion, specifically Christianity, once again with the following image:

     The Golden Rule is often said to originate from the Christian's Jesus' quote in Matthew 7:12. Not only that, but most religions preach this rule as stated in this article. The picture above clearly demonstrates the hypocrisy of religion concering The Golden Rule. The Golden Rule implies that if one wants to be loved, he/she should love others. Yet the Christian's Jesus seemed to think it was so important that he stated it explicitly. The Christian Jesus, as shown in this picture, means ALL people when he said all people. However, religious people still continue to apply their commandments to only specific groups of people. Despite this, most Christians, and indeed most religious people, choose to ignore this explicit commandment they claim to follow and the derivatives of The Golden Rule.
       Society claims that The Golden Rule is beneficial and should be followed. Religious people claim its a commandment from their God and, as such, must be followed. Yet almost no one does. Society agrees that following The Golden Rule would provide for a healthier and better society; but society inhibits itself by not practicing what it preaches concerning The Golden Rule. If society, especially religion, actually starts following The Golden Rule and applying it to everyone, society would benefit and all people and minorities would no longer he oppressed or harm by the majority.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Boy Scouts of America's Homosexuality Policy

     As many of you probably know, the Boy Scouts of America have banned homosexuals for working for their organization throughout its existance. However, this last Wednesday (1/6/13) they were supposed to announce their new policy of allowing homosexual employment in the BSA. They intentionally leaked this information about a week before that date to gauge a reaction from the general public and their supporters. The results were negative. The BSA was begged to drop the policy, or at least out the decision for further discussion. BSA's larger supporter, the Mormon church, was the largest contributor to the BSA's final decision to postpone a decision on their new policy until May.
     I hereby call upon all my readers and all people everywhere to encourage the BSA to enact their pro-homosexual policy this May. This can be done by contacting the BSA on their website or writing a letter to one of their offices as listed on their website. The best person to contact is their public relations contact at It is by the efforts of the people that change will be enacted. We must fight for what we believe in. So please contact David Burke and encourage the BSA to do what is morally and ethically right by enacting their pro-homosexual policies this May.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

The Bible and Homosexuality

     I need to start off by saying that I'm not going to try and convince you that the Bible supports homosexuality, because is doesn't (Sodom and Gomorrah). Today I'm here to show why opposing homosexuality because "the Bible says to" is an illegitimate argument, why society does not base its laws on the Bible, and what society does base its laws on. I will start with a picture quoting a conversation from West Wing below:

Let's look at some other immoral actions in the Bible and then discuss why society doesn't follow them today:
     *Example #1: Genesis 38:8-9 shows the Lord killing someone for ejaculating outside of a woman he slept with. In addition, this man was forced to have sex with his brother's wife by their societies standards because his brother had died.
     *Expamle #2: Genesis 19:31-36 is about two girls getting their father drink so that they can sleep with him.
     *Example #3: In Biblical times, Jews could only walk so many steps on the Sabbath or risk grave punishment.
     So why doesn't society practice these three examples and those quoted in West Wing? Because the values behind these examples take away from another's freedmons that don't subtract others' freedoms. Killing a man for choosing to spill his semen on the floor takes away that man's freedom to ejaculate where he wants. That freedom does not take away anyone else's freedom. Forcing that same man to marry his brother's wife takes away his freedom to choose whom he wants to marry. The freedom of choice in marriage takes away no one else's freedom. Getting any person drunk and then having sex with them takes away his/her freedom to have or not have intercourse with anyone of their choosing. The freedom of choice of partner in intercourse takes away no one else's freedom. Selling ones daughter into slavery takes away her freedom to be free. Her freedom to be free doesn't take away from anyone else's freedom. Killing someone for working on the Sabbath takes away from their freedom to choose when to work. The freedom to choose when to work takes away no one else's freedom. Wearing garments consisting of two different threads takes away their freedom of choosing what clothing to wear. The freedom to choose what clothing to wear takes away from no one else's freedom.
     To sum up the last paragraph, only those things that take away from another's freedom is banned. Murder is banned because it takes away from ones right to life. Stealing is banned because it takes away from one's right to property. Speeding is banned because the chance of taking away from another's right to life is too high. This list can be continued indefinitely. 
     Society no longer follows many Bibilical laws because they unnecessarily take away from one's freedom. In fact, society, in general, considers it unethical to take away a person's freedom unless that freedom forcibly removed another's freedom. For instance, American society would not aprove of the Mexican laws dictating what cars can he driven on what days based on the license plate number because this removes our freedom to drive what cars we want when we want to without proof that our driving of these cars will take away another person's freedom. In fact, laws that run contrary to the principle of only taken away freedoms that harm others are being repealled daily. As a prime example, the Twenty-First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution repealled the Nineteenth Amendment. The drinking of alcohol does not take away other people's freedoms, so banning it removes the drinker's freedom to drink alcohol. However, drinking while driving has too great a risk of taking away another's right to life. Rape while drunk or raping a drunk removes the rappee's freedom to have intercourse only with people of their choice. Therefore, society allows drinking but no many actions that occur while drunk because these drunk actions take away from another's freedoms but drinking itself does not.
     In essence, society does not make laws simply because they are based on values from the Bible; instead, society bases its laws on the principle of whether or bot an action forcibly removes another's freedom. Some laws based on this principle do coincide with Biblical commandments, but they are not based on Biblical commandments. I'm fact, most people consider it morally wrong to force religious beliefs as law upon a nation. How would you feel if Mitt Romney had won the elections and passed a 10% tax on all non-Mormons that went straight to the LDS church? Or if a Muslim president enacted a law forcing five prayers to Allah a day and punished people who did not follow this law? For those same reasons, laws should never be based on the Bible or any religous text or belief.
     How does two homosexuals marrying take away anyone else's freedom? It doesn't. No one else has their freedom endangered by allowing homosexuals to marry or elsewise be together and display their love for one another. Therefore, outlawing homosexual marriages and practices is needlessly holding back the freedom of homosexuals. In addition, the argument that "the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination" is invalid since our society does not base laws on any religious text, or at least claims not to, and doesn't believe in making laws based on religion. Laws should he secular, and the American society, as a whole, agrees that laws should be secularly based. Finally, like The Nineteenth Amendment, laws against homosexuals WILL be repealled eventually as society learns the error of their ways and bases laws even more upon the principle of banning actions based on their forcible removal of other's freedoms and not on religion or prejudices.

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Homosexuality Is Not A Sin

     A sin is an act against God*. To act against God, one must perform an action contrary to his values. Many say homosexuality is a sin because God values only love between opposite genders. Today, I will demonstrate how the Christian perception of God dictated that he supports homosexuals and, therefore, homosexuality is not a sin. (God, for now on will refer to the God preached by Christianity)
        God, according to Christians, loves people regardless of how their birth conditions; namely, God loves people whether they're born healthy, blind, deaf, mentally incapacitated, with a damaged heart or lung, with erectile distinction, sterile, or with schizophrenia. God doesn't judge you for circumstances beyond your control, including the conditions with which you may or may not be born with. The logic behind this preaching is sound; if a supposed God genuinely loves his children, than how could he punish them for something they had no control over, for something they coupdnt possibly have control over, for something that happened before they were even born?
     Well, whether you want to believe it or not, it is a fact that sexuality is decided in the womb. In one study discussed in my high school AP Psychology textbook, researches isolated a protein responsible for the outcome of a monkey's sexuality. If this protein was removed while the monkey was in the womb, it would be homosexual without fail. The opposite occurred if the protein was present while the monkey fetus was in the womb. While not ethical to alter an infant's sexuality without their consent (which is impossible to obtain from a fetus), nearly identical proteins are found in the human fetus. This is why identical twins can have differing sexualities, because one fetus has this protein and the other does not.
     If God loves people for who they are regardless of birthed conditions, how can he judge people for their sexuality, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, if its determined before birth? People can't choose their own sexuality, so how can they be blamed for it? God cannot punish someone for something beyond their control, and this includes sexuality. Christians preach God punishes or blesses people for their choices. Sexuality isn't a choice. Therefore, God doesn't bless or punish people for any sexuality. Therefore homosexuality is not a sin, or act against God, because God doesn't punish people for for what they're born as. Now, once again (read my other articles), I ask, if people preach they need to be like God, and God doesn't treat homosexuals differently or call it a sin, then why do his followers?

*Atheists say there is no sin because they believe there is no God. How can one make actions against an imaginary being? Saying there is no sin does not mean atheists don't believe in wrong and right or moral behaviors. It just means that they don't believe in acting against and unreal being.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Homosexuality and Religion

    Religion is, without a doubt, the largest opponent of homosexuality. Most religions claim its ungodly, sinful, and preach against it openly. Some religions try to convince people to change their sexuality and most religions contribute greatly to society's negative perspective of homosexuals. Religions oppress homosexuals in the aforementioned manners despite their own teachings. Today I will illustrate how various major religions' preachings dictate that they should not oppose homosexuality (not necessarily support it, but not to preach against it).

Catholics, Mormons, and Christians:
     Though not a specific denomination, many Christian religions share many beliefs and value, therefore I will discuss them all as one. Also, note that some Christian denominations support homosexuals, so this is only talking about the denominations against homosexuality. Catholics, Mormons, and Christians preach that we are all are children of God. Like a good parent, Catholics and Christians also claim that God loves all his children. Part of love is tolerance and acceptance, and loving someone for who they are. These three religions also claim that it is men should judge not. So now I ask, if they preach to not judge, then why do they judge homosexuals? If God loves them unconditionally and tolerates and accepts them, then why don't Catholics, Mormons, and Christians? If you're supposed to become more like God, then shouldn't you also love, accept, and tolerate like God? If God says treat all people equally (consider the parable of the woman Jesus saves from the Pharisees who wanted to stone her and his healing of everyone, even sinners), than why don't these religions treat homosexuals equally? These religions preach that their members should be like their God who loves unconditionally and accepts everyone. As such, so should their members.

Hindus and Buddhists:
     The Hindu and Buddhist religions believe and preach the concept of Karma. Which, according to religionfact is: "The Sanskirt word karma means "actions" and refers to the fundamental Hindu principle that one's moral actions have unavoidable and automatic effects on one's fortunes in this life and condition of rebirth in the next." Basically, do good and good happens to you and do bad and bad happens to you. When Hindus were themselves oppressed in their own country, karma dictated that the British be punished for their crimes. A successful revolution threw out the occupying British. Then, according to karma, the actions of people against homosexuals will come around and punish them. If you accept and tolerate homosexuals and love them unconditionally, your good deeds will reward you later. If one believes in the concept of karma, then they should accept homosexuals as it is right and a good action with a beneficial consequence for all.

     The following quote comes from ezsoftech: "In surah Al-Room Allah (SWT) says, "And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors; most surely there are signs in this for the learned." Noble Qur'an (30:22)

With this verse, Islam declares equality among people as one human race, one humanity, that is because Islam respect a human for being a human not for any other reason; Islam does not distinguish between two races, or two groups of people, or between two colors, and the Prophet Muhammad (saw) addressed the people signifying that concept during the last Hajj pilgrimage, saying: "O People! Your God is one; your father is one; no preference of an Arab neither over non-Arab nor of a non-Arab over an Arab or red over black or black over red except for the most righteous. Verily the most honored of you is the most righteous."" Muslims actually have the best claim for not being hypocrites when oppressing homosexuals; this is because the Prophet Muhammad said that the more righteous are above the less righteous. Therefore, if Muslims claim that homosexuality is unrighteous (I will argue in my next article), then they can claim that heterosexuals are above homosexuals. However, Islam still preaches equality and thus, even if Muslims consider homosexuals as inferiors, they must still be treated and loved equally by Muslims everywhere.

     Every major religion preaches equality; tolerance, acceptance, and unconditional love for all people. Yet relatively few religious people apply this belief to homosexuals. All religous people, if they truly believe in their religion, must accept, tolerate, and love homosexuals as equal. They need not like homosexuality, but they need to love and accept them as they claim to. Religion is the biggest opponent of homosexuality, yet their values support the acceptance of homosexuals. Simply out, religion needs to stop their hypocrisy by ending their oreachings against homosexuals.

Note: There are two thesises (thesi?) that were left unargued in this article, namely how religion greatly contributes to societies negative perspective of homosexuals and why homosexuality isn't a sin. These two points will be argued in upcoming articles. Also, if you haven't noticed, I've been arguing how current values of societies should support acceptance of homosexuals, but don't. These articles also argue why those values should still be applied to homosexuals. This general trend will continue for several articles, so take note. Finally, I'm an avaid atheist. I know what I know about these religions from my childhood and avid research for the writing of this article. Thank you my few readers for believing in me and minorities.

Friday, January 18, 2013


     In has come to mind that admist my fight for the equal rights of homosexuals, I never mentioned Transexuals or Bisexuals. I support all minorities and all forms of consenting sexuality and equality for everyone. As such, I support Transexuasl and Bisexuals as well. I apologize of not making note of this earlier.

Put On Their Shoes

     I have often heard that the best way to understand another's situation is to place yourself in their shoes. So let's all take off our shoes and put on the shoes of an oppressed group. Since I am currently fighting for homosexuals, I will write about a heterosexual being placed into a homosexual's situation. However, the principles remain the same for any oppressed group.
     Imagine that the nation's population was predominantly homosexual. Now let's have them place the same harsh restrictions, both legally and socially, on the heterosexuals as the majority of the current society places on the homosexuals; you can't marry your opposite-gender lover, you're weird for loving him/her, people openly criticize you for loving a gender not your own, you're an outcast for oyur love, you don't get tax benefits because of your sexual affiliations. How many heterosexuals would like these restrictions? None. Heterosexuals would call these injustices unconstituional, immoral, wrong, hateful, discriminatory. They would hate them. Yet this is what homosexuals face everyday.
     So now I speak directly to all people who fight or believe against the equality of homosexuals: you'd hate these injustices being enacted against you, stop enacting these injustices against homosexuals. In fact, to people everywhere, stop enacting injustices against minorities. You don't want them committed against you, so stop committing them.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

My Indictment of Society

     As has been stated countless times on this blog, homosexuals are oppressed by society despite our socities claimed despisal of oppression. Many Americans objected President Bush's signing of a bill to increase trade with China because Americans opposed the poor work condition and oppression of the Chinese workforce. During the Cold War, Americans protested Communism because they believed it oppressed individuals and took away their freedoms. The world was appalled at Hitler's Holocaust and Stalin's "other Holocaust" because of the evils committed and freedoms taken from the oppresed of the respective Holocausts. In short, humans hate the concept of oppression towards anyone. Now, nations, especially Americans, oppress gays and lesbians; Americans and many other nations restrict their freedoms, both legally and socially. The injustices against homosexuals is both morally wrong and hypocritical in all belief and legal systems.
     Every government and religion preaches equality. Democracy wants equal freedoms among all citizens. Socialists want equal oppurtunity among all persons. Communists want equal outcomes among humans everywhere. All major religions teach their members to tolerate others, and many state that others are free to believe as they choose. Yet preach is far removed from practice. Homosexuals are denied marriage in nearly every country. In many countries, homosexuals feelings and practices are still punishable by imprisonment and/or death. Governments support all their citizens and desire their equality, as long as they fit certain social requirements. Most developed countries grant everyone equality under the law, as long as they fit specific social criteria. Religions preach that tolerance is given to all, who believe like them (Crusades ring a bell anyone?). Many major religions claim that a church's beliefs should not affect the laws of the land, yet they openly criticize policies and laws that run counter to their subjective beliefs and encourage their members to strike down laws of tolerance. I will now make an indictment: society is a hypocrite. It crys for tolerance, but only for certain groups. It openly opposes oppression worldwide and will even sacrafice its citizens to end it, for particular peoples. I now beseech everyone in this world: practice what you preach, and tolerate everyone else.
     Simply because you believe somehting does not make it right. People believe differently and behave differently for a reason. Regardless of your beliefs, other people aren't inheritantly evil for acting contrary to your lifestyle. You wouldn't approve of people accussing and punishing you for not living according to their beliefs. Look at the countless rebellions and revolts over being forced to behave and believe in a specific manner. No one wants to be told how to live their private lives. You don't want to be told how to live your private life. No one wants their freedoms restricited just because they differ from society. You don't want your freedoms taken away just because you differ from society. So now I speak directly to every individual on this earth, stop it. Stop oppressing others. Stop hating on others. Stop denying others rights. Stop being hypocrites.
     Open your eyes.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Social Acceptance

     Yesterday's post is a great prelude to what I will he discussing in this blog over the next few weeks: social acceptance of homosexuals. I've already states where there is no legal or constitutional basis for homosexuality and how it is a natural sexuality. I will now be discussing why society should accept homosexuals unconditionally and why, regardless of your beliefs, not accepting homosexuals is morally wrong. Stay tuned to the blog and tell your friends!

Monday, January 14, 2013

Updated Blog

     So up until my last post, this blog has been entirely written on my Android, including this post. I discovered how much power Blogger offers via its templates on a computer. I have used these tools to update the blog as such:

*A slew of social networking shortcuts to make it simple to redistribute this blog's articles to the general internet. I encourage everyone to use these tools to spread the message of equality.

*Several ways to follow this blog in a convenient manner including RSS and email.

*A blog search bar below each article

*Blog pageviews in the footer

*Google Translate options to read this blog in many languages

     Thank you my beloved readers and please help spread the word!

Update: United States v. Windsor

     Today I will offer only a short update on the homosexual Supreme Courst case of Windsor v. Untied States: the Supreme Court has set a schedule for the filing of the various party briefs and amicus cure briefs found here. In addition, the Supreme Court has scheduled argument for this case on Wednesday, March 27, 2013.


I've decided to drop all hopes of a schedule as I'm very busy and could never stick to it. I will right as often as I can. Check daily for articles!

Sunday, January 13, 2013

I'm Back!/Homosexuality's Future Plight

     I'm finally back to writing in my blog! It's been a long break in which I've had my blog come under fire. But alas I will continue fighting oppression! For the rest of today's article I will be discussing what I forsee to he the issues facing the acceptance of homosexual marriage in society. I have already established the Constitutionality of homosexual marriage, so I will focus mostly on issues concerning the state and social issues.

     All major issues of oppression typically engage in a similar course from legalization of the oppresses cause and social acceptance of the oppressed people/cause. To demonstrate this course, I will summarize it by telling the story of the fight for freedom of African Americans, Jews, and Atheists. Note: these stories will be brief and generalized as each of these subjects can and does take up volumes.

African Americans:
     As we all know, African Americans were oppressed and enslaved for millennia and still are in some parts of the globe. To narrow and simplify my story, I will focus on the their story in the United States immediately after they were freed by the Civil War Amendments.
     Even after black's received freedom, they were oppressed; they couldn't vote, they were tricked back into essential slavery, killed, and they were hated and persecuted with laws that only applied to them (Jim Crow Laws). Both state laws and society continued to oppress African Americans. Even the Supreme Court favored and extended laws discriminating against blacks. It took the blacks over one hundred years to secure equal rights with white people. Blacks incremently went from non-slavery, to voting, to legal equality, to social equality. And it took them a century to do so via the legal system, civil disobedience, and persitance on the part of the African Americans.

     Jews faced many of the same issues as blacks throughout their entire known existance as a religion and people. The Holocaust is the extreme form of the oppression that Jews suffered. Jews were blamed for any unpleasantry that occurred with nearly every country in which they held residence. When Israel was created, many local countries were angered and made laws against Jewish immigration and Jews in general. Even today, Jews are legally and socially oppressed in the Middle East.

     Once upon a time, and even today in some countries, atheists are secured or imprisoned for their beliefs. They were accused, as many minorities are, of being social monstrosities (read The Stranger by Camus for a more detailed account of this situation). As such, many were not granted equal rights both legally and socially. After the founding of a Jew country, and hundreds of years, atheists are now accepted legally, but are still socially oppressed (notice that no American President has been, and most likely never will be, atheist as the majority thinks atheists are moral-less).

     There is a consistent patternn among oppressed groups: legal oppression is overcome, then some legal freedom is gained, freedom is slowly acquired, then finally social freedom is obtained. Not until social freedom is obtained do previously oppressed groups share true equality with the majority. This same pattern will hold true for homosexuals. First they obtained the right to live together and have sex in 2003 by the Supreme Court. Soon, the Supreme Court will rule that homosexuals can marry. But a long and painful path still faces homosexuals. They still have to obtain social equality which may take well over a century from today, but eventually, as long as we (homosexuals and homosexual supporters) remain persistent, homosexuals will obtain equal treatment and acceptance as all people deserve.

Search This Blog