Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Some things to ponder

So, let's start with the news of the last few days regarding the decision of the Supreme Court on marriage equality and of course the governors who are still refusing to go along with the decision.

#1 It's the Supreme Court. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they like the top, top when it comes to the law in America? So if they make a ruling on something, then it seems to me these idiots better sit up and do as they're told.

One of the arguments people have come up with is that marriage is for procreation. I have no idea of the statistics, but a fair few of those supposedly in a 'normal' family have children who are either so badly misbehaved they are absolute monsters, or they are subjected to years of abuse. I'm not saying this doesn't happen in other families, but I would just like to point out that normal isn't always better.

Secondly, someone else has pointed out that same sex couples do go on to adopt children. So if their parents can't be married in the eyes of the law, how would that make those children feel?

Thirdly, some say that two men cannot raise children and they should only be raised in families with a husband and wife. This, in my view, would completely invalidate the efforts of those who are trying to raise children alone. If a man is widowed with young children, does that mean he should have those children adopted into a 'normal' family because he's now considered incapable of raising them?

To me, this seems as much a sexism issue as it is a homophobia issue. Just because something doesn't fit with your view does not mean it's wrong. It's just another way of looking at it. A husband and wife are no more capable of raising children than a husband and husband.

Maybe this sounds incredibly naive, and I have to admit it doesn't really work fully in my head, but don't you think if we continue to give these people a voice via our outrage then it just fans the flames? Let's really think about this for a moment. Someone starts a hate campaign. People get outraged and the originator of the campaign is spurred on to make even more outrageous comments. Okay, so, scenario. What if we didn't give in to the outrage and said nothing? Would the campaign just die out because it had no bite? Put it this way: give a fire oxygen, it spreads.

I know what some are like. They feel like they have to stand up and say 'this isn't right', but surely that's exactly what the purpose of it is? To get people debating? To stir up outrage?

Okay, you're right. There are some pretty outrageous people out there. I don't know the actual percentages, but surely there are more people who aren't racist, aren't homophobic etcetera, etcetera, than there are these idiots? I just feel that the less attention we give to these jerks, the more people will dismiss them as crackpots and hopefully their little crusade will die quickly.

It sort of got me thinking on another tangent: about ISIS. Now these guys are bloody scary. I know they're out to eliminate every 'infidel' but let's not forget these people are Islamic Extremists. I know of a few muslims who believe in a peaceful existence and certainly don't believe all western culture is evil. Yet here we are expressing outrage at the actions of these bastards, who, yes, I admit, are evil and should die horrible deaths (and I don't believe in an eye for an eye), but if we go out and act like them, killing anyone who even looked at us funny and didn't agree with our philosophy, well, that would make us them. And every death of one of these guys just stirs them up more, making them martyrs.

I don't know what the answer is here. We can't just ignore these people and hope they'll go away. They clearly plan to strike at every example of western civilisation they can find. Still, I find myself wondering what would happen if we refused to give these people a voice, or if we let the majority of the peace-loving muslims deal with this themselves. I know there's such a thing as freedom of speech, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Take away the publicity and what is left for them?

Anyway, I was writing a chapter of one of my fiction works in progress and a discussion in the dialogue turned to the Jihadist movements. One of the characters stated they were trying to start World War Three. Another character responded: 'It has already started'. We've been at war with them for the last fourteen years.

My thoughts are a bit rambly, but I was thinking about something else here. I was working on a news article the other day and Obama was quoted as mentioning a mass killing that happened in Tasmania (Australia) about 25 years ago. I remember this mass killing. Obama said something about Australia changing its gun laws.

After what happened in Charleston I keep thinking back to something a lecturer from Montana said in one of my history classes way back in 1994. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The keyword here being 'militia'. So where on Earth do the organisations like the NRA pick up the idea that it means every individual has the right to keep and bear arms? The Supreme Court has tried to argue this for years, that the right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with the average Joe Citizen, but had everything to do with militias protecting the general populace. Now, don't go starting a debate over this, as I'm not interested. However, I do think it's time some American authorities took a good long look at themselves and their record. I live in a country where there are approximately four and a half million people and we don't have that many homicides. Certainly not one a day. But where a friend lives, in Baltimore, which apparently has less than a million people, there is at least one a day. Do you not see something wrong with this picture?

There is something wrong with a country's ideology when a young white guy can walk into a church with a gun and open fire. There is something wrong with a country where kids can take guns to school and open fire. There is something wrong with a country that cannot see that the 'right to keep and bear arms' is one of the reasons why America is considered such a violent country. Don't get me wrong. New Zealand has its faults, and a lot of them. But at least our citizens don't see keeping guns as their 'God given right'.

No comments: