Time to try and be rational about a topic that has attached itself to the hottest button in American politics (gay marriage and its equivalents, civil unions, et al).
Let us just ponder for a second on the tangible changes that would occur if homosexual men and women were allowed to marry in the United States. What do I mean by tangible? I mean changes that we can touch, (figuratively) changes that would ACTUALLY affect the day to day lives of the average American. Wait, the average American is not gay (speaking in terms of majority/minority), so, actually, it WOULDN'T effect the average American.
Wait. This cannot be true!
Wouldn't there be gays throughout the streets dancing around in their fanciful gayness?
Well, there might be, but aren't there already a few of those doing that, and many others who don't bother to act differently than a normal person, because, in fact, other than their sexual preference they see themselves as NORMAL people?
This seems to be true, I see men holding hands in the park, women walking arm in arm giving each other side-long glances of love while strolling down the street, and gay marriage is not even legal!
So, what exactly does legalizing gay marriage mean?
Rights. This is about rights. This is about being protected when things go wrong. This about being able to share in the same benefits that heterosexual married couples get to share. This is about being able to be with the person they love, while hurting NO ONE, and being able to do it while getting the same rights as any one else.
This is not about religion. Church and state are separate for a very specific reason. Many early Americans had escaped religious persecution in England and sought freedom to believe what they would like.
Believe it or not, if gays can marry legally, you may still go about your life thinking they are not married.
It is not important whether or not you think gays should be married in the eyes of God. It only matters whether they should get the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples who pledge to live/love together get (cause let us be honest and frank here, not all marriages are based on love, whether gay, straight or otherwise, there are people who do not understand love, or at the minimum struggle to understand it).
What rights?
Tax breaks for one. Married couples get tax breaks.
Shared health care benefits.
The right to be considered "family" when their loved one is laying sick on their deathbed
Being able to take 'family leave' when their spouse might be sick and not get docked in pay or vacation time
Auto and home insurance 'family' discounts
and many others you can read here
All these things could be put in place, and the average American would not even bat an eyelash.
And do you know why?
Because allowing gays to have those rights, does not effect the average American. Those who oppose gay marriage are fighting for the ideal of marriage. The problem is, that ideal has been shattered a thousand times over time. This is not a recent problem. Sure, divorce rates are up, but that is only because now it is OK in our society for a woman to divorce a man who is beating her and her children, when it once was not. Divorce rates are up because it is OK for a woman to divorce a man who has cheated on her once or twice or many times over, when it once was not. Marriage has not weakened, no, bad marriages have been exposed when they once were not.
The ideal of marriage is something we SHOULD strive for, however, allowing the ideal to include same-sex marriages, should not change that.
A marriage should be a covenant between two people whether in religious context or not who have pledged their love and loyalty to each other above all. Nothing more, nothing less.
The question I keep asking myself is 'what in f*ck's sake does this have to do with chicken?'
Insert Restaurant-A.
Restaurant-A is a privately owned company, owned in majority by someone who is not the 'average American' by default. This owner makes gobs of money hand over fist by selling average Americans waist-expanding fried chicken and waffle fries (don't get me wrong, love a good waffle fry, but let us not pretend for a second that any of their food is really nutritious or good for you, however that would be a topic for another day, and not particularly important for the topic at hand).
Restaurant-A's owner makes lots of money and he is entitled to spend his money however he chooses. He can spend his money on a pink donkey. He can buy a space station. However, he cannot do anything illegal with it (well, he CAN, assuming he isn't caught.. oh you get my point). Basically if he wants to support the effort to keep the status of same-sex marriage, well... the same, he rightfully may do so.
Now, I am customer B. I can do whatever I want with my money. I think Restaurant-A's food is gross, but I'm on a long car trip and there are two restaurant options. Restaurant-A and McRestaurant. Admittedly, these are both awful options and I'm probably just better off taking ex-lax and saving myself spending $15 on two value meals for my wife and myself.. All the same, I am inclined to eat. While in the past I have preferred Restaurant-A's choices to McRestaurant offerings, I am compelled to eat at McRestaurant because I disagree with Resaurant-A's open stance on same-sex marriage. Am I making a choice based on a simple bias? Sure. Do I even know if McRestaurant's board of trustees feels the same or different than me on the topic? Nope. But that is my choice.
Customer C thinks that people of the same sex should not marry. Customer C chooses to eat at Restaurant-A. Good for him. He exercised his right to choose something.
These are all examples of the freedoms we have in America.
These are all examples of logical ways of supporting or opposing things you feel passionately.
However, the problem is what is right for you, the individual, is not inherently right for the country as a whole.
This is a difficult concept to wrap my mind around. I want what is right for me to be what is right for the country. It just makes sense.
However, it is wrong.
Once we start applying how we feel about a topic toward the way our country should be governed, we have committed ourselves to a myopic view of the government. A single-minded view. Thinking that the government should mirror the values you have for yourself, disregards someone with different values. Some values should be clear. We should universally value life (we could debate the definition of life, but this isn't a debate on abortion). We value the right to love (others) and happiness. Having these universal values create the tenets of law. However, when what once seemed universal no longer is, it ceases to become a universal value. If perhaps once it was valued that a marriage should be between a man and a woman and ONLY a man and a woman, it was a prudent law to establish. However, once there is a rise to change this law our laws will change.
If you believe in democracy, then you believe you have the right to sit on either side.
And you of course do.
But this is not about what is in the bible. Nor is it about what we view as right.
This is in fact about rights. For human beings who love each other. Often upholding the ideal of marriage, whether or not their country says they are allowed to enjoy the benefits of being married.
And so I come back to a previous question.
How would a change in the legality of same-sex marriage affect you, personally, day-to-day?
And what the hell does it have to do with chicken?
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Short Story (or at least half of one)
So, here's what happened. I was substitute teaching 6th grade English. I was bored. The kids had a writing prompt (and some reading prompts questions, etc) that they were doing, so I joined in the fun, and this is what happened.
I chose the prompt, "Late one night my neighbor knocked on my door and asked.."
Shall we commence?
-------------------------
Late one night my neighbor knocked on my door and asked "Have you seen my wife?" I quickly racked my brain, flipping between a myriad of images from my daily travels, trying to recall if I had stored an image of Herb's wife in my...
"Wait a second, Herb, you aren't married."
"Valid Point," Herb retorted, "but you can never be too sure these days." Before I had even a second to glean meaning from his comment, Herb grabbed my wrist and deftly yanked me out into the cool night, whilst maneuvering his other hand to my front door knob he pulled the door shut, hardly making a sound. Astonished, I gazed at Herb, at a loss for words, as my neighbor looked slowly back and fort, from one side of my lawn to the other.
"I'm not sure who I can trust," Herb started
"Herb," I interrupted, flustered, having just realized that now I was standing on my front stoop in the cool night air, in my pajamas, with my neighbor Herb, and began feeling quite embarrassed by this thought, "What's going on?" Herb hesitated, his eyes widened as he seemed to ponder what he was to say next. Then the color drained from his face, looking like a ghost he muttered three words
"I don't know." He looked positively disheveled. Unkempt really, his hair was a mess of brunette brambles, and I think I saw one of those burrs that you curse at when they kling to your pant legs.
"Where on Earth have you been Herb?" I asked soothingly, hoping to calm my clearly agitated, (and who knows?) potentially dangerous neighbor. Trying to take control of the situation I gestured back inside my home, hoping to have this bizarre conversation anywhere else but outside, at night, chilled now, in my pajamas. Hand on the know, I turned my wrist. But the knob stayed put. THAT'S IT! No longer was I going to placate Herb with pleasantries. He had locked me out of my house at this dreadful hour. Enraged I spun on my heels, ready to lambaste my neighbor with a very hurtful and tactless insult. But, to my amazement, and to the amazement of the woman walking her dog (and quickening her pace I might add) along the sidewalk, Herb had removed his pants. Not his shoes. Not his socks, just his pants.
"That's how they track you." He said, holding his pants up by a leg, looking at me, waiting, seemingly as if I was to follow his lead.
"Herb, I'm in my pajamas, on my front steps, it's 3:15 in the morning, maybe later, it's 42 degrees out here, maybe colder, I am not taking off my pants! Let them," I paused, hoping that repeating his ridiculously irrational fear to hi would knock some sense into his skull, "let them find me. Let, whoever they are, find me. But, if they find me, it will certainly be with my pants on!" Herb, looking puzzled for a moment, then bemused in another, calmly replied,
"Well, then we only have 52 minutes to do what needs to be done." Words would not do justice to the rage I was experiencing. This was outlandish, unreal, unforgivable. I now stood on my front step, in the cold night, in my pajamas, talking with my neighbor, who wasn't wearing pants (which he had just chucked into to the bushes) but was wearing shoes and socks, locked out of my house. I realized, I just wanted to go back to sleep. Let this whole thing be forgotten. Herb wasn't really an odd neighbor, honestly. Just yesterday I let him some hedge trimmers, and, like a normal person, he unsurprisingly used them to trim his hedges.
Actually, Herb was excellent at tending his lawn. Often, I was embarrassed of my own untidy landscape compared to his pristine lot. Where I had an overgrown set of bushes, Herb had well maintained azaleas, and other flowering plants and bushes I couldn't even pretend to name. Ultimately, this behavior Herb was exhibiting was quite unsettling, and seemed to be a vast departure from his normally calm, collected and pleasant self. He was a simple man in my opinion. In his late 40s, divorced years ago (he often refers to his ex-wife as the woman who could not forgive him his simplest mistakes), never remarried, and no kids. He mostly kept to himself, but; as I mentioned, was talented with the architecture of his landscape. I suppose he may have even had a career in it. Honestly, I wouldn't know, as I recently moved into this area, not two months ago.
Once, on a sick day from my job (I am an office worker, of the boring pushing paper variety) I observed Herb departing his driveway at 7:23 in the morning, presumably on his way to work, driving his nondescript, grey Ford Focus, mid 2000s model. So I can only assume he has a job, with mostly regular hours, and by all accounts, he had seemed to me, in our limited exchanges (a 'howdy neighbor' or 'looks like rain') to be of sound mind.
In my short time in this neighborhood I had hardly met more than a handful of people on the block, and remembered maybe half of their names...
LOCKED OUT! UGH! My wife took our two daughters to her mother's to celebrate Nana's birthday, I was stuck with a meeting late in the afternoon and had promised to catch up the next day (no way was I going to miss cake!). My keys! My car keys are, of course, locked inside. Cell phone as well. My life, locked in my house as I stare at amazement, oddly turning to amusement at my presumably, though now doubtfully sane neighbor, pleading with me to help him. He was mumbling something to himself about 'them' and 'we only have forty-seven and a half minutes left' but I was trying my best to tune him out and focus my mind at the task at hand. That task being, how was I going to dispatch my neighbor to leave me alone and figure out a way to get back inside my house.
----------------------------
That's all I got for now.. hopefully more comes to me eventually (that is all I wrote that day when subbing, I suppose if I took a second, I might have some more to write on it.)
I chose the prompt, "Late one night my neighbor knocked on my door and asked.."
Shall we commence?
-------------------------
Late one night my neighbor knocked on my door and asked "Have you seen my wife?" I quickly racked my brain, flipping between a myriad of images from my daily travels, trying to recall if I had stored an image of Herb's wife in my...
"Wait a second, Herb, you aren't married."
"Valid Point," Herb retorted, "but you can never be too sure these days." Before I had even a second to glean meaning from his comment, Herb grabbed my wrist and deftly yanked me out into the cool night, whilst maneuvering his other hand to my front door knob he pulled the door shut, hardly making a sound. Astonished, I gazed at Herb, at a loss for words, as my neighbor looked slowly back and fort, from one side of my lawn to the other.
"I'm not sure who I can trust," Herb started
"Herb," I interrupted, flustered, having just realized that now I was standing on my front stoop in the cool night air, in my pajamas, with my neighbor Herb, and began feeling quite embarrassed by this thought, "What's going on?" Herb hesitated, his eyes widened as he seemed to ponder what he was to say next. Then the color drained from his face, looking like a ghost he muttered three words
"I don't know." He looked positively disheveled. Unkempt really, his hair was a mess of brunette brambles, and I think I saw one of those burrs that you curse at when they kling to your pant legs.
"Where on Earth have you been Herb?" I asked soothingly, hoping to calm my clearly agitated, (and who knows?) potentially dangerous neighbor. Trying to take control of the situation I gestured back inside my home, hoping to have this bizarre conversation anywhere else but outside, at night, chilled now, in my pajamas. Hand on the know, I turned my wrist. But the knob stayed put. THAT'S IT! No longer was I going to placate Herb with pleasantries. He had locked me out of my house at this dreadful hour. Enraged I spun on my heels, ready to lambaste my neighbor with a very hurtful and tactless insult. But, to my amazement, and to the amazement of the woman walking her dog (and quickening her pace I might add) along the sidewalk, Herb had removed his pants. Not his shoes. Not his socks, just his pants.
"That's how they track you." He said, holding his pants up by a leg, looking at me, waiting, seemingly as if I was to follow his lead.
"Herb, I'm in my pajamas, on my front steps, it's 3:15 in the morning, maybe later, it's 42 degrees out here, maybe colder, I am not taking off my pants! Let them," I paused, hoping that repeating his ridiculously irrational fear to hi would knock some sense into his skull, "let them find me. Let, whoever they are, find me. But, if they find me, it will certainly be with my pants on!" Herb, looking puzzled for a moment, then bemused in another, calmly replied,
"Well, then we only have 52 minutes to do what needs to be done." Words would not do justice to the rage I was experiencing. This was outlandish, unreal, unforgivable. I now stood on my front step, in the cold night, in my pajamas, talking with my neighbor, who wasn't wearing pants (which he had just chucked into to the bushes) but was wearing shoes and socks, locked out of my house. I realized, I just wanted to go back to sleep. Let this whole thing be forgotten. Herb wasn't really an odd neighbor, honestly. Just yesterday I let him some hedge trimmers, and, like a normal person, he unsurprisingly used them to trim his hedges.
Actually, Herb was excellent at tending his lawn. Often, I was embarrassed of my own untidy landscape compared to his pristine lot. Where I had an overgrown set of bushes, Herb had well maintained azaleas, and other flowering plants and bushes I couldn't even pretend to name. Ultimately, this behavior Herb was exhibiting was quite unsettling, and seemed to be a vast departure from his normally calm, collected and pleasant self. He was a simple man in my opinion. In his late 40s, divorced years ago (he often refers to his ex-wife as the woman who could not forgive him his simplest mistakes), never remarried, and no kids. He mostly kept to himself, but; as I mentioned, was talented with the architecture of his landscape. I suppose he may have even had a career in it. Honestly, I wouldn't know, as I recently moved into this area, not two months ago.
Once, on a sick day from my job (I am an office worker, of the boring pushing paper variety) I observed Herb departing his driveway at 7:23 in the morning, presumably on his way to work, driving his nondescript, grey Ford Focus, mid 2000s model. So I can only assume he has a job, with mostly regular hours, and by all accounts, he had seemed to me, in our limited exchanges (a 'howdy neighbor' or 'looks like rain') to be of sound mind.
In my short time in this neighborhood I had hardly met more than a handful of people on the block, and remembered maybe half of their names...
LOCKED OUT! UGH! My wife took our two daughters to her mother's to celebrate Nana's birthday, I was stuck with a meeting late in the afternoon and had promised to catch up the next day (no way was I going to miss cake!). My keys! My car keys are, of course, locked inside. Cell phone as well. My life, locked in my house as I stare at amazement, oddly turning to amusement at my presumably, though now doubtfully sane neighbor, pleading with me to help him. He was mumbling something to himself about 'them' and 'we only have forty-seven and a half minutes left' but I was trying my best to tune him out and focus my mind at the task at hand. That task being, how was I going to dispatch my neighbor to leave me alone and figure out a way to get back inside my house.
----------------------------
That's all I got for now.. hopefully more comes to me eventually (that is all I wrote that day when subbing, I suppose if I took a second, I might have some more to write on it.)
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Oh, religious arguments, hello my old friend?
Never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. Right? That is the old saying, I believe, or at least something like that. The purpose of this has to be because, everyone is an idiot and when arguing with idiots, you do not want to have food on the table, because this will just confuse them into throwing their food, and your wife will not want to clean up the mess. No? Ok. Fine. It is probably because religion and politics are two topics that rely little on fact and largely reside in the realm of opinion. And we all know "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one, and everyone thinks theirs don't stink." Further to justify why you shouldn't argue religion or politics (potentially anywhere) is that it is not like arguing who the best NFL Quarterback is. My point being, if I think the best QB is Colt McCoy, I at least understand why you have left the conversation laughing at me. There is not a lot of evidence to back up my claim. However, if you walk away laughing a person who tells you that their religion believes that god is a mystical hippopotamus, with magical tusks of fury, you are likely to get slugged in the back of the head with a magical hippopotamus tusk.
People take religion and politics seriously. Extremely so.
I never argue politics. Mostly because I do not argue things that I choose of my free will to be ignorant to. I am a cynic. I tend to think that in our government, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to screw over the citizens they have sworn to serve. Like I said, I am a cynic. I accept that this is a clear generalization, there are probably many politicians with good hearts and good intentions. I simply choose to ignore them, because I am tired of finding out about the ones who do not have good hearts and do not have good intentions. This is my choice, and mostly, I run into no opposition when I bow out of political conversation, or when I sit quietly listening to other people argue, simply inputting when I think a fact here or there may be potentially misinterpreted or interesting.
Religion on the other hand, being ever more explosive, I can't seem to keep out of.
I do not know why, either. I simply cannot ignore a religious debate. Perhaps my education is at fault. I attended a Jesuit Catholic high school, and forever have been burdened with having an inquisitive mind when it comes to religion. However, often, I am on the side of not believing.
Good to know I am at least consistent. I am a cynic.
I used to take issue with many things regarding religion.. but let us just shake this whole thing down and get to the crux of most religious arguments between people who believe and those who tend to believe a little less. THE BIBLE.
Is it true? Is it the word of God? Is it likely that Jesus was born of a virgin Mary, etc, etc, etc.
Three words. I. Don't. Know.
Of course, that is where belief kicks in. Obviously, it takes a leap of faith, that as a human being you must be willing to take in order to believe.
Honestly, it's a leap of faith I once took, but no longer can.
Because.
I am a cynic.
Let us assume that God sent his word in the form of the Old Testament, which was written many (many, many, many) years ago by the early Jews. Why don't Christians follow these rules? Sure, pork is delicious (Bacon in particular).. but if it is unclean and God has ordained that we do not touch it, why do Christians choose to not follow that rule, but Jews do? Does this mean we can, as Christians, pick and choose what rules to follow? However, Jews cannot.
The Christian church has been a shining example that "power corrupts, but absolute power, corrupts absolutely." The early history of the Christian church is fraught with examples of leaders abusing power. Who is to say that they guarded the Word of God with reverence, when they often were clearly corrupted and interested in only themselves? As a cynic, I have a hard time with this. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Bible has remained the true word of God over centuries and millennia of cultural distress and upheaval.
The Bible is a collection of many stories, written by many different people, all of whom claimed to be inspired by God. However, there are many more writing which are ignored, despite the same claims of divine inspiration. How was it determined which should be added to the Holy Canon? A group of priests got together and after long hours of prayer and thought and deliberation, they determined whose word was in fact the act of divination and whose was not. That's right, more HUMAN BEINGS claiming to be messengers of the will of God.
It all just smells. It smells bad. And I cannot stomach it.
But like I said, I am a cynic.
Most things in this world are possible, however, few are probable. An immaculate conception for instance, is possible, if simply because there is so much about our bodies that we STILL do not understand. However, it is not probable. Of course, if such an event were to be guided or aided by the hand of a supernatural being, I suppose it becomes increasingly possible, however no more probable. The Bible seems to consist of many possibilities which are not quite probable. It almost seems like it was set up to be something that could not be proven, and equally could not be disproved.
I know that is simply speculation, but it is how I have interpreted it all. I welcome anyone to challenge any of it. However, I will not believe, simply because you say "it is the word of God".. Clearly I am too cynical to jump into that pool.
Is it logic, or just pessimism? That I do not know, but it is what I think. In no way am I trying to belittle believers for believing what they believe, they are willing to take a leap of faith that I cannot. That is all, nothing more, nothing less.
People take religion and politics seriously. Extremely so.
I never argue politics. Mostly because I do not argue things that I choose of my free will to be ignorant to. I am a cynic. I tend to think that in our government, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to screw over the citizens they have sworn to serve. Like I said, I am a cynic. I accept that this is a clear generalization, there are probably many politicians with good hearts and good intentions. I simply choose to ignore them, because I am tired of finding out about the ones who do not have good hearts and do not have good intentions. This is my choice, and mostly, I run into no opposition when I bow out of political conversation, or when I sit quietly listening to other people argue, simply inputting when I think a fact here or there may be potentially misinterpreted or interesting.
Religion on the other hand, being ever more explosive, I can't seem to keep out of.
I do not know why, either. I simply cannot ignore a religious debate. Perhaps my education is at fault. I attended a Jesuit Catholic high school, and forever have been burdened with having an inquisitive mind when it comes to religion. However, often, I am on the side of not believing.
Good to know I am at least consistent. I am a cynic.
I used to take issue with many things regarding religion.. but let us just shake this whole thing down and get to the crux of most religious arguments between people who believe and those who tend to believe a little less. THE BIBLE.
Is it true? Is it the word of God? Is it likely that Jesus was born of a virgin Mary, etc, etc, etc.
Three words. I. Don't. Know.
Of course, that is where belief kicks in. Obviously, it takes a leap of faith, that as a human being you must be willing to take in order to believe.
Honestly, it's a leap of faith I once took, but no longer can.
Because.
I am a cynic.
Let us assume that God sent his word in the form of the Old Testament, which was written many (many, many, many) years ago by the early Jews. Why don't Christians follow these rules? Sure, pork is delicious (Bacon in particular).. but if it is unclean and God has ordained that we do not touch it, why do Christians choose to not follow that rule, but Jews do? Does this mean we can, as Christians, pick and choose what rules to follow? However, Jews cannot.
The Christian church has been a shining example that "power corrupts, but absolute power, corrupts absolutely." The early history of the Christian church is fraught with examples of leaders abusing power. Who is to say that they guarded the Word of God with reverence, when they often were clearly corrupted and interested in only themselves? As a cynic, I have a hard time with this. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Bible has remained the true word of God over centuries and millennia of cultural distress and upheaval.
The Bible is a collection of many stories, written by many different people, all of whom claimed to be inspired by God. However, there are many more writing which are ignored, despite the same claims of divine inspiration. How was it determined which should be added to the Holy Canon? A group of priests got together and after long hours of prayer and thought and deliberation, they determined whose word was in fact the act of divination and whose was not. That's right, more HUMAN BEINGS claiming to be messengers of the will of God.
It all just smells. It smells bad. And I cannot stomach it.
But like I said, I am a cynic.
Most things in this world are possible, however, few are probable. An immaculate conception for instance, is possible, if simply because there is so much about our bodies that we STILL do not understand. However, it is not probable. Of course, if such an event were to be guided or aided by the hand of a supernatural being, I suppose it becomes increasingly possible, however no more probable. The Bible seems to consist of many possibilities which are not quite probable. It almost seems like it was set up to be something that could not be proven, and equally could not be disproved.
I know that is simply speculation, but it is how I have interpreted it all. I welcome anyone to challenge any of it. However, I will not believe, simply because you say "it is the word of God".. Clearly I am too cynical to jump into that pool.
Is it logic, or just pessimism? That I do not know, but it is what I think. In no way am I trying to belittle believers for believing what they believe, they are willing to take a leap of faith that I cannot. That is all, nothing more, nothing less.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Facebook De-Friend?
Another innocent has been claimed by the Penn State University scandal. Me. I have been de-friended on Facebook because I didn't share a harsh view of the situation. Now, I'm not one for counting up all of my FB friends and taking pride in a number or anything of that sort, however, I think that to take the effort to de-friend someone simply because they don't share your opinion, is a bit much. Though, who am I to question someone who thinks I'm "annoying, and an idiot?".. I think that pretty much sums it up.
Basically it went down like this.
Ex-friend posts status that says (to paraphrase, because I can no longer see the post, as I have been de-friended, blocked, divorced, erased from memory, hard deleted, etc)..
"Penn State University should lose all of their games, because they should not be allowed any happiness after the things that Sandusky did."
or at least, something like that, and so I responded, disagreeing, on the simple principle that such a sentiment punishes MORE innocents. The student athletes who have worked VERY hard for much of their life to get a scholarship and a chance to play for a D-1 football team, do not deserve to suffer the repercussions of the evil, despicable things that Sandusky did to those innocent boys. They deserve every opportunity to succeed, and to wish ill upon them for their coach's crimes is like blaming a son to bare the sins of his father.
He responded with an inane argument about how "if I had kids, I would understand."
As if the concept that pedophilia is the WORST crime a person can commit can only be comprehended by those who have sired children.
I countered his argument with something along these lines.
"Don't give me that 'if you had kids' bull simply because you don't have a compelling argument. How different your opinion would be if you were the father of one of the athletes playing for PSU"
Anyway.. shortly after that I was de-friended, end of story, end of relationship...
Now, don't get me wrong. Joe and I were never the greatest of friends, with many rocky moments. We simply played a club sport together at the university we both attended. In fact, I hardly call this a loss. Though, clearly, it irks me on some level, otherwise I wouldn't be blogging about it, would I?
I guess it begs the question, "how close are we, or were we to our friends on our friendslist on social networking sites?".. To be honest, I have "friended" basically anyone I have had a conversation with. I am not that shallow am I? I suppose, if I'm honest with myself, I probably am. Or certainly, it's nice to have lots of status updates to read. Certainly, there are friends who I am close to, or at least was close enough to in the past, that keeping up with them vaguely through a social network is preferable to actually keeping in touch with them on a phone or by letter.. or *gasp* by getting together with them in person.
Have social networking sites actually skewed our view on what friends are? I have to think that people don't expect or think that they have as many friends as their FaceBook friends list indicates. I mean.. I was friends with this Joe, even though he essentially is a person that I disagree with on most issues. Even though when I took over for him as president for the aforementioned club team, he A) stole the team's digital camera and B) left us with a bank account consisting of negative numbers.. he also bailed on me and his friend when looking for a third roommate. Maybe I was just naive enough to think we should be friends. Clearly, while maybe we were friendly at times, we were never actually friends. I know what a friend is, I have only a few, but I cherish their friendship as much as I cherish my relationship with my wife.
I think it's clear that social networks have given us the illusion that we are friendly with more people than we would actually tolerate in reality. I challenge anyone to look at their friends list and count the people from the list you would actually like to have a conversation with. I bet the number is less than 50. I bet my number could be smaller than that (out of 550+ friends on FB.. that is.. well, sad). Though, in general, I hate people, so my response should be ignored. I am sure there are cheery people who would number more along the lines of 100%, but who could stand them anyway? I guess it just suggests that maybe we don't know what "being a friend" means anymore. I think I know, but sometimes it seems that other people do not. What do you think?
Ok, that was sappy, and for that I apologize. This was supposed to be edgy and clever, but whatever, sometimes you just gotta say what you gotta say and that's that.
Until next time.
Remember, use some common sense. There isn't enough of it out there.
Basically it went down like this.
Ex-friend posts status that says (to paraphrase, because I can no longer see the post, as I have been de-friended, blocked, divorced, erased from memory, hard deleted, etc)..
"Penn State University should lose all of their games, because they should not be allowed any happiness after the things that Sandusky did."
or at least, something like that, and so I responded, disagreeing, on the simple principle that such a sentiment punishes MORE innocents. The student athletes who have worked VERY hard for much of their life to get a scholarship and a chance to play for a D-1 football team, do not deserve to suffer the repercussions of the evil, despicable things that Sandusky did to those innocent boys. They deserve every opportunity to succeed, and to wish ill upon them for their coach's crimes is like blaming a son to bare the sins of his father.
He responded with an inane argument about how "if I had kids, I would understand."
As if the concept that pedophilia is the WORST crime a person can commit can only be comprehended by those who have sired children.
I countered his argument with something along these lines.
"Don't give me that 'if you had kids' bull simply because you don't have a compelling argument. How different your opinion would be if you were the father of one of the athletes playing for PSU"
Anyway.. shortly after that I was de-friended, end of story, end of relationship...
Now, don't get me wrong. Joe and I were never the greatest of friends, with many rocky moments. We simply played a club sport together at the university we both attended. In fact, I hardly call this a loss. Though, clearly, it irks me on some level, otherwise I wouldn't be blogging about it, would I?
I guess it begs the question, "how close are we, or were we to our friends on our friendslist on social networking sites?".. To be honest, I have "friended" basically anyone I have had a conversation with. I am not that shallow am I? I suppose, if I'm honest with myself, I probably am. Or certainly, it's nice to have lots of status updates to read. Certainly, there are friends who I am close to, or at least was close enough to in the past, that keeping up with them vaguely through a social network is preferable to actually keeping in touch with them on a phone or by letter.. or *gasp* by getting together with them in person.
Have social networking sites actually skewed our view on what friends are? I have to think that people don't expect or think that they have as many friends as their FaceBook friends list indicates. I mean.. I was friends with this Joe, even though he essentially is a person that I disagree with on most issues. Even though when I took over for him as president for the aforementioned club team, he A) stole the team's digital camera and B) left us with a bank account consisting of negative numbers.. he also bailed on me and his friend when looking for a third roommate. Maybe I was just naive enough to think we should be friends. Clearly, while maybe we were friendly at times, we were never actually friends. I know what a friend is, I have only a few, but I cherish their friendship as much as I cherish my relationship with my wife.
I think it's clear that social networks have given us the illusion that we are friendly with more people than we would actually tolerate in reality. I challenge anyone to look at their friends list and count the people from the list you would actually like to have a conversation with. I bet the number is less than 50. I bet my number could be smaller than that (out of 550+ friends on FB.. that is.. well, sad). Though, in general, I hate people, so my response should be ignored. I am sure there are cheery people who would number more along the lines of 100%, but who could stand them anyway? I guess it just suggests that maybe we don't know what "being a friend" means anymore. I think I know, but sometimes it seems that other people do not. What do you think?
Ok, that was sappy, and for that I apologize. This was supposed to be edgy and clever, but whatever, sometimes you just gotta say what you gotta say and that's that.
Until next time.
Remember, use some common sense. There isn't enough of it out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)