Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Yowser.

New to the blog thing. New to the "write it down for EVERYONE to read" thing. New to the writing down of blog-type stuff. Here's my first.

Things that irk me about people today:
  • Conversationally inept.
  • Controversy freaks them out and they go on a rampage of personal attack. Opinions differ. It's not personal.
  • People who are quick to assume a conclusion based on one or two exchanges.
In all earnestness I will absolutely:
  • Things I will campaign to have legalized along with homosexual marriage because I believe in equality along ALL lines. (The next minority will soon be louder than our current latest-and-greatest so I'd like to be at the forefront of this effort.)
  • Any and all forms of sexual orientation. All sexual attraction must be recognized: Animals, Children, No People, Men Only, Women Only, Men and Women Only, Family members, etc. I'd state dead people and inanimate objects but you gotta draw the line somewhere and this is my line...this is where it's too much for me and I gotta say NO.
  • Let's remember that each member of these categories also state this is a product of their biology or environment, whichever you believe in. In each attraction all claim the same story of attraction. In all above cases these current social taboos have had their heyday once-upon-a-time-in-history...just like homosexuality. There could be a come back on it's way -- history does repeat itself.
  • From an anthropological stand point (which is what I'm into) you can't really argue on moral grounds for or against these. I've learned lots of sweet-awesome stuff about each of these orientations and how they are being accepted not only in the past but today.
  • Examples of each we know and love: The Chiquita who married a dolphin, Child Brides are everywhere in African tribes (Niger 76.7%), Despite the classic "Adam and Eve totally did," Twins separated at birth married each other until England went all "No, our royalty NEVER interbred...EVER" on them. I'm waiting for the romance drama of this story to come out on film. No? Still don't buy it? Ok, totally a Mormon thing too. Who doesn't have a cousin who married a cousin way back when? Tila Tequila. So hot. Seriously. So hot. Ian McKellen. Sweet awesome. Rock on forever dude! Totally gonna say it: Ellen DeGeneres. Love her. Love Portia De Rossi. Together = Amazing! Brangelina. Yes. Most hot, most save-the-world, most family oriented. I only wish I could be a U.N. abadassador. Her comment on Burma totally made my week. Last but not least, Immanuel Kant, J.M Barrie, Mr. Chanel himself, Issac Newton, AND Emily Brontë ALL asexual. Really, some of the most influential people I could possibly imagine. Mr. Kant comes as no surprise since he totally was philosophically one with his sexual preference.
  • So, let's make it right, let's make it real, let's make it equal, baby! I believe in universals. Do you?

7 comments:

  1. So, my comment would be about what you expect, I have nothing personal against people who have those orientations, but, or of course, in my mind, if someone has a certain tendency or feeling, it need not always be obeyed; personally, I believe we all have predispositions toward certain weaknesses and strengths. In my humble opinion, non-heterosexuality is a weakness since it can have it's drawbacks in a sexual relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And yes, any relationship could potentially have drawbacks, but I don't think I want to go into the more specific drawbacks of the aforementioned relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A agree that asexuality is ideal for all parties (particularly those invested in the long-term survival of non-human species), as well as for those interested in androgynous angels and gray aliens. It's also clearly advantageous as far as energy available to channel into other pursuits. Also, my opinion is never humble. And Einstein also married his cousin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clearly Darwin did not take into account the evolution of androgynous species. Most importantly, if the ability to reproduce is taken out of the equation it seems silly to, in Darwinian terms, state a *lack* of sexual attraction to a procreant mate is a genetic defect. Certainly if anything other than heterosexuality is practiced-- instead of annihilation of the human species we would find ourselves becoming increasingly more androgynous to compensate. I would also like to add that genetic mutations from inbreeding could add a little spice to the mix. With all this reason it should be simple to convince the moral majority these other orientations are not deviant social behaviors but progressive behaviors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What higher life forms have high percentages of androgynous populations? I don't know of any, if there are none, then I will submit that is not presently the nature endowed on the earth we live on. Since I believe (with fairly decent logic, and other knowledge) that asexual reproduction is contrary to "the plan" (at least for humans), personally I feel no need to theorize about what else may be or could be. I think it not too brash to assume human populations would die off in several generations if a majority decided to embrace asexuality in their present form and fail to reproduce. We also now see some people turning to invitro fertilization to reproduce children without another "life mate". This new phenomenon may seem rather convenient in some ways, but, the real reason for a familial relationship with a mating couple is to "knock off" the "rough edges" of our human pride faster than they form. It is a very instructional set-up that helps engender patience and a better understanding of our own faults and strengths as well those of a partner. Hopefully, after the schooling found in a family, we are made more humble, and through Grace we may re-enter the presence of our Creator and merit the full meaning of our creation. As much as it seems inconvenient for me (I'm 32 and single) I still believe that a stable, growing, and mutually beneficial relationship is what we are to seek in this life, or the next if fortune is not on our side on this side of the veil.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is with considerable dread that those with a priori sensibilities of virtue view the sort of equality that you propose here. Such a path represents the unraveling of a fundamental premise of humanity.

    It is dread with good reason, too; for I cannot find rational support for your theory in the social contract. Those philosophers who might be most sympathetic to the natural and amoral status of sexual deviance would easily forgive such behavior in apes and turkeys. But people have dignity and reason to attend to: the sensual passions have been relegated to the closet, whatever form they may take. To even conduct a public discourse of such secret things is to shed dignity and return to the instincts of nature. For Eric Hoffer, such a return to nature meant nothing short of dehumanization. Now we demand it on a global scale - depravity masquerades as a civil rights movement.

    Neither do I find a case for sexual deviance in the Natural Rights philosophy incidental to the American theory. Nature points to our rights, not as an enumeration of instincts (as I have written elsewhere), but as a perfectly reasonable recommendation of responsibility. Nowhere do I see uncertainty about the proper function of eyes on account of a subset of the population who are born naturally without vision. Nor I do hear public outcry because we have failed to present driver's licenses to the blind.

    In 1988, Donald Norman wrote a book called The Psychology of Everyday Things. In it, he explained the concept of "affordances," which was first introduced by the perceptual psychologist, James Gibson.

    The idea of affordances is that there exist a class of things that suggest their own proper use. Affordances are often lost on bonobos, but they make perfect sense to humans. Let the brutes rely on instinct to choose their actions; statistically, some will be deviant. People, however, have additional faculties. We do not use a hammer to bake bread, nor a parasol to draw water. We can discern the designer's intention for these tools.

    Nature endowed reproductive anatomy with ample affordances, including the secondary affordance of biological causality. We need not second-guess what the intended use of such things is to be. It boggles the mind that a vocal group of advocates have convinced so many otherwise.

    "But how destructive soever this system may appear, it could never have imposed upon so great a number of persons, nor have occasioned so general an alarm among those who are the friends of better principles, had it not in some respects bordered upon the truth. A system of natural philosophy may appear very plausible, and be for a long time very generally received in the world, and yet have no foundation in nature, nor any sort of resemblance to the truth."

    Adam Smith wrote that. He was talking about licentious systems. It's the sort of system you must subscribe to, knowingly or not, in order to imagine a right to depravity.

    For a self-confessed aesthete, I wonder very much at how you can contemplate common debauchery in such a favorable light. I do not see any beauty in it.

    I think that viewing sexuality through the dispassionate lenses of anthropology is a tremendous mistake, especially when it takes the form of political activism that can result in tyranny. I fear that your strong egalitarianism comes from the leveling quality of anthropological study, for which the only cardinal sin is to pass judgment on any social practice.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Personally I find it offensive to be considered nothing more than a mere animal unable to control my thoughts, feelings and actions. I believe part of being human is having the ability to be able to choose our behavior regardless of what our hormones or genetics may want us to do. If we are unable to do so we are not any better than the stray dog that runs around the neighborhood or the monkey in a cage at the zoo. Part of possessing dignity is keeping personal things personal and private things private. It also entails being able to reason and control our actions, and thoughts, in a way that allows us to maintain a certain level of dignity. Once you have started sharing those private and intimate moments, regardless of sexual orientation, all dignity goes out the window and all that is left is animalistic behavior. Being able to control ones self shows self respect and dignity, lack of control shows none of that and only a desire to act as the animals in nature. I want no part of that kind of world because I consider myself to be a human being, which is capable of being something better than a mere animal.

    ReplyDelete