Thoughts of a Blessed Vagabond: October 2005

Teh Skate Session of Teh 14/10/05

double ollie sequence 1

double ollie sequence 2

teh proish noob

destruction

styled rock fakie

Viktor air

not too shabby for word:

Viktor air

original pics here:
(they are below, mouse over, right click save as if you like)

viktors photshop

mine word

Viktor air 2

Viktor air

Myspace

Ugghhh... i have a myspace account now...

duurrrrrrr

it's right there ^... hover over.

Follow my Logic

Speaking about gay marriage, you can, by simple logic and playing devil's advocate, prove the existence of a higher moral code to which we as humans adhere, thereby assuming a superior force in this world exists to give us said code, and to then give a valid reason for an anti gay marriage stance that you could have.

Follow my logic, from a real conversation:

I do not agree with the principle of gay marriage, mainly for reasons that have to do with calling it marriage in the first place. Call it union, and there is all of a sudden less tension among both parties, seeing as marriage MEANS the union of a man and a woman. It cannot be 2 men, or 2 women, BY DEFINITION.

With that said, why oppose it? From a Christian point of view, God's law comes to mind, and his scripture. The fate of Sodom should give us a clue as to how God thinks of homosexual practices. Yeah, you can say the real problem is humiliating the visitors by making them play the role of women in the relation, that's not the problem, and you know it (to a know it all dude thinking that hospitality was the problem in that...)

But for many people, and really, for the people who agree with gay union, God is a non issue. And if you take God out of the picture, then is no reason at all to oppose gay marriage from a social standpoint. Why oppose the union of people who love each other?

In comes Darwin. According to his theory of evolution, natural selection governs ALL organisms, and the law of the jungle makes no exceptions. If you are an evolutionists (MACRO evolutionists for people who will argue that point), then you should oppose gay union, too.

Why you say? Simple: gay people cannot reproduce, therefore do not contribute to the gene pool and the better of humanity. We should let them die out, or get rid of them. In all logic, if the law of the jungle applies to us, we should be segregating, or even killing gay people to help out our species. And no matter what you say about it being a gene that makes you gay, all the more reason to weed these genes out of our gene pool.

Of course, no one wants the death of all gay people, I certainly do not, unless you are a social Darwinist, like the crude Nazis, or completely mad.

But why, if you are a Darwinian would you possibly oppose the death of all gays? In all respects, they are "inferior" by your standards, since they cannot reproduce. If you disagree with this, you are a rebel against Darwin. And therefore, according to National geographic: " go against the whole enterprise of science."

Enter higher moral code. You therefore must agree that there are some fundamentally wrong things to do in this world, like, in this case, to kill gay people. So you agree that there is a higher standard of conduct in this world. And I believe that to be from God*, and therefore, this higher moral code coming from God also means that what God has said is to be respected, thus my position on opposing gay marriage.

Did you follow my reasoning? I think it makes sense.
think about it.
Also, moral conduct is not compatible with Darwinistic assumptions (morals are not an instinct, they are taught. End of story).

so what we have here is some food for your thought, if you will.

peace out.
patty

*( I had a lengthy discussion of why things are good, wether things are good because God made them (in which case good is arbitrary and could be wrong under different circumstances), or whether God made good things by a higher moral code than himself, but I maintain that things are good because God is, as he is the moral code for all people, and the higher moral code himself)