Proposition 8: restores hetero-marriage--and religious oppression

The real dilemma with Prop 8 comes from this fact: We don't live in a Christian nation. It's true that many people SAY so, but really, we don't.

There were a lot of Christians in the beginning, but this nation was not even founded on Christian beliefs, no matter what anyone says. This whole idea of ''America,'' ''Land of the Free, Home of the Brave,'' ''USA'' and whatnot, was only ever conceived in the first place to ESCAPE RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. Freedom from religious oppression.

Half the signers of the delcaration of independence were deists and/or masons/freemasons. same thing as those who signed the constitution. (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html, http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm, http://deism4u2xplore.tribe.net/thread/03ef5d80-932c-436a-a3fb-eecf70645e62)

What will happen with Prop 8 is this nation, designed to be ''religiously impartial,'' will be offering special rights to a certain religious group, and not to another. There are rights that only married ( http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm ) couples share.''Freedom from religious oppression....just as long as you're Christian'' is what Prop 8 really stands for. If it were really after sanctity of marriage, why would it only attack gays? Why not the divoce rate, as well? Why not those drive-thru wedding places in Vegas?

--Hold on...I'm about to rant, and it won't be pretty--

Just because God rained down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, doesn't mean that you should try to emulate his actions. Let me ask you a question...that ''great commission thing'' where you're supposed to go into all the world and convert it to christianity...how's that going for you? When you told the gays they were going to hell for their evil lifestyle, did that win anyone over? Then why the hell would you get a different response when you try to make a LAW against gay marriage? Does that ''great commission'' tell you to go and make laws, or does it tell you to make converts? You're really bad at this.

You know what you're showing the rest of the world with Prop 8? You're showing them a person who will fight TOOTH AND NAIL for something that doesn't affect ANYone else. Why not attack smoking? Make that illegal. That destroys the temple of the holy spirit, and second-hand smoke is deadly! Why not put a tougher punishment on drunk driving? See, those things actually kill people. Gay marriage? Not a chance. And what's more sacred, marriage, or life itself? Let's face it: Love your neighbour: FAIL

So I went to Crystal Cove today...

Note: some of these pictures are huge.

Pictures galore!

This is the kind of beauty one gets accustomed to in Dana Point.

I wrapped it up with a big bang here; this one's not scaled down from the original size. Click it and pick your favourite part! :-D

It's my new car!

Awww he waited for me!

Just a block or so north of 17th street and PCH; look over to the far right and you can see Ruby's on the Pier.

To the persecuted carni/omnivores:

I apologise for being so confusing in my previous post. I will clarify with a more organised version:

Given:
X.) As we live on earth, we must eat to survive.
Y.) Anything we eat must die.

Scenario # 1: ''Hierarchy''
ALL lives are valued differently, and some lives are more valuable than others.

What we can conclude:
A.) Cows deserve to live more than plants.
B.) Humans deserve to live more than cows.
1.) Wait, how did I arrive at Conclusion B?! The same way anyone arrived at the conclusion it was less evil to eat plants than cows.
C.) It is not wrong for humans to kill cows for food.
D.) It it less wrong for humans to kill plants for food.

IF Scenario # 1 is wrong to say that some things deserve life over others (Human > cow > soy ), then everything has the same right to live as everything else (human = cow = soy).

Scenario # 2: ''Pervasive Equality''
ALL lives are valued equally and have an equal right to life.

What we can conclude:
A.) It is just as bad to kill a cow or plant for food as it would be to kill a person for food.
B.) Humans still must kill in order to eat.
C.) Rather than killing humans; cows and plants are killed, incurring the same guilt nonetheless.
1.) if you have killed a carrot by eating it, you may as well have killed a cow or a person.
D.) In this scenario, killing a cow or killing a plant deserves no condemation, since all must kill to eat, so all are equally guilty.
1.) if you farm cows for food, you ARE killing more plants than those who eat strictly plants; however, ALL are murderers in the gravest degree.
a.) Mathematically speaking, the cow farmer has caused more death, but how many times must one kill before he is considered a murderer?


Conclusion:
Scenario # 1.: Eating animals is okay. Eating plants is ''more okay.'' Neither action is bad. Eating humans is the most evil thing to eat.

Scenario # 2.: Eating animals is terrible. Eating plants is terrible. In order to survive, we must do terrible things. Eating humans is just as bad as eating anything else. Just...please, don't eat humans, okay?

What cannot be is (human = cow > soy) Either there is total Pervasive Equality, or there is a hierarchy. If some lives are equal to humans, and other lives are not, who gets to make such an arbitrary judgement which determines the morality of everyone else's food?

*here's the reason this post was originally written*
Those who still eat meat are made to feel guilty (by SOME vegetarians/vegans, not all) by means of the ''Pervasive Equality'' idea. If Pervasive Equality is true, then everyone who lives is a murderer, and to point a blood-stained finger and shout through dripping red teeth at your brother or sister they are a murderer is more evil than necessary.
*that was the reason this post was originally written---^*

For the record, I identify with the ''Hierarchy'' idea. I addressed ''Pervasive Equality'' to show, in its entirety, the reasoning being used to condemn omnivores/carnivores for eating animals when, according to some, there is more equality across different life forms than others are aware of.

For example, let's say you draw the line at cows, and say it's wrong to eat cows. That's fine for you, but to push that guilt system on someone who loves hamburger is wrong. You have drawn the line, but what about that other person? What if THEY want to draw a line? Doesn't it matter what they say, every bit as much as what you say? Who wins? Either: (Scenario#1).: lines can be drawn by everyone, or (Scenario#2).: no lines can ever be drawn; otherwise it just gets tainted by one person's personal arbitration. This means that ''Pervasive Equality'' is the only other viable scenario to the ''Hierarchy'' idea (i.e.: ''If they're not all unequal, then they are all equal.'')

This is different from your own personal code of ethics. I won't touch that. This is talking about the institution of a policy on all people (something I wouldn't attempt, but it seems others are more bold than I am.) in Scenario # 1, it's not wrong to eat cows. Stop putting guilt trips on me. In Scenario # 2, how can you condemn me while the blood is still fresh on your hands?

Also, please don't ask me to defend ''Pervasive Equality'' (questions/statements such as ''why don't we eat humans, then?'' and ''well, your cow farms kill more plants than we do.''). It's not my stance. I know that cow farms cause the death of countless plants. I don't care about plants that cows eat. You (though not ALL of you) wanted to condemn me based on ''Pervasive Equality,'' why are you asking me to defend your own position?

Cali Pics

Click the pics for larger versions :-)

My first night in California, Miss Ortal took me to Moonshine, an adorable restaurant in Malibu, just off the Pacific Coast Highway. It was perfect. Good food, fresh ocean air... :-)

A few days later, Miss Joni and I met up at In 'n Out and fed the little birdies our leftover french fries :-) awwww look at 'im! :-)

Then we went to huntington beach, where we first met :-)

I wrote in the sand and took a picture of what I wrote, because that's how I roll.

And here's California, being photogenic, again ;-)

Then today, I was driving around and found this place near Camino Estrella and Camino Capistrano, in Dana Point. That's a good view of Dana Harbour in the distance.

High tide of the same scene I took pictures of about a year and 5 months ago.

Look at all those pelicans hangin' out on that rock... pelicanning.

That's right between the pelican rock and the big rock. See in the distance, there would be a walking trail to go around to the cave, but it's allllll under water! So, I went to the jetty.

This is about halfway on the jetty, looking south.

Same picture, with the moon at the top :-)

Hey man, you should watch where you're walking. I bet that rock's slippery.

Oh, hey guys! I mean...gulls ;-)

This one gallie said...

Warning! Warning! Rant in... 3... 2... 1...I'm sick to death of listening to people talk about how much they love animals and care about the environment, how much they want to save the world...PUT DOWN YOUR STEAK! If you loved animals and the environment so much, you wouldn't be eating animals and thusly killing it. There are so many facts and figures I could throw at you, but instead I'll repost something from this...

"#6, is a first time mother. She is frantic. Her baby is missing. She is pacing desperately up and down the paddock, bellowing and crying, and calling for her lost boy, fearing the worst, having her fears confirmed. She is one of the thousands of defenseless females born into a quaint, verdant, organic dairy farm. She will spend her entire short life grieving the loss of baby after baby. She will be milked relentlessly through repeated cycles of pregnancies and bereavements. Her only experience of motherhood will be that of a mother's worst loss. In the prime of her life, her body will give, her spirit will break, her milk 'production' will decline, and she will be sent to a horrifying slaughter, along with other grieving, defeated, 'spent' mothers like herself.

She is the face of organic milk.

"You cannot care about animals or the environment THAT MUCH as long as you go on consuming them and their bi-products.


So I said:

Dear _________, you had to know you'd get some people riled up with a post like this. I love ranting like this, though, so I can't say much about that.

I will say this, though: soy is still murder. It's just that soy doesn't scream when you kill it, so those who kill it don't feel so guilty.

We're a part of the earth, so eating other things on earth will happen.

Suppose eating soy is decidedly not as bad as killing cows. Fine. In that case, some lives are more valuable than others.

1. Is a human life, then, more valuable than that of a cow?
2. If so, then why is it less important that humans to live and be happy than it is for cows?

However, if a cow's life is significant to such a degree that humans ought not eat cows, then all life, likewise, shares that same pervasive significance; even though one must still eat living matter to survive.

1. In that case, it is the same sin to eat soy as it is to eat cows, and we might as well eat cows if we're going to ''mercilessly slaughter'' countless soy plants.
2. It would be better to kill just a few cows, so that less lives will be snuffed out.

either way, using cows for food is not as evil as you make it out to be.