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.

Search This Blog