Marriage Equality Dispute

Hey Everyone!

So if you’ve been watching the news or been on Facebook recently - really if you haven’t been on some sort of Hobbit retreat or living under a rock - then you’ve probably heard all the hoopla about gay rights and marriage equality. This is a very sensitive issue for a lot of people on both sides of the argument, so before I get started I want everyone reading this to know that I am going to go about this as softly and civilly as I can. After all, for a civil rights campaign you have to be civil or the civility of the civil… never mind, I had a bad pun in mind but I saved you all from it. But you get my point. I hope. A lot of people don’t sometimes and I don’t know why…

One more thing before I get started: I know it’s important to know the agenda behind everything in politics before you let it affect how you think about an issue. You need to know what the person behind the bit of information is trying to push. So let me get that out of the way. I’m 17. I’m straight. I am male. I am pro-marriage equality. This article will be about trying to win over the “traditional” marriage advocates, and I will attempt to do this by addressing certain points that are their main beefs when it comes to marriage equality. If you are a traditional marriage advocate, please don’t stop reading. I am not going to undermine your beliefs or lash out at you or yell at you or put you down for having a personal belief. You may not like what I say or you may think it’s wrong, but take a few minutes to skim over this article with an open yet suspicious mind. Maybe it will answer a few of your questions, or ease some of your concerns… or maybe it won’t, that’s your opinion.

Okay, now that I have the disclaimers out of the way, let’s move on to the actual content.

Probably the main issue traditionalists have with the idea of marriage equality is rooted in their personal beliefs. Whether their beliefs are religious, spiritual, or just a preference, they believe in their heart that something about a same sex couple tying the knot is wrong. Can we argue with their beliefs? No. Personal beliefs are just that: personal. They are something you, yourself, hold true to your heart and it is your personal beliefs that provide a backdrop and home base for everything you do, say, or think in life. You may believe that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and that is great. That is your personal belief.

However, the recent stir in the media is with regards to the government’s belief in what marriage should be defined as. Currently, it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Now, the states can go ahead and legalize same sex marriage and allow same sex couples all the benefits that straight couples get regarding taxes, property rights, and emergency situation rights (like if your loved one was in the hospital and only immediate family is allowed to see him/her, you would be considered immediate family). However, in the eyes of the federal government a same sex couple is just two really good friends. Bros. Gal-pals. No matter how legal it is in New York or Vermont, it’s null and void in the eyes of the federal government.

This is where politics come in (Oh no). This is where we need to draw a line between personal beliefs, and the government’s job. The United States is a country of freedom. It was founded on the belief in certain undeniable rights as human beings. The first amendment to the constitution is a good place to see some of these rights. Among them are Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to peacefully protest, and Freedom of Religion. We’ve all heard these somewhere before, hopefully. One of the arguments against same sex marriage is that the bible denounces it. It says it’s immoral. It says it’s an abomination, a sin, and a great big “no-no” for lack of a better word. But here in America, we have freedom of religion. Now, I’m going to stay away from the “freedom from religion” phrase we here a lot on the news and stick to the facts. In the constitution, if you read the first amendment, you’ll see where they mention freedom of religion they mention how the government should go about making laws with regards to religion. It states that Congress shall pass no law towards the establishment of any religion. That means that congress, the branch that of government that passes laws, cannot pass a law with regards to any religion. They cannot pass a law saying we all must attend Church on Sunday. They cannot pass a law saying we must pray five times a day towards Mecca. They cannot pass a law mandating the application of sheep’s blood to your front door during Passover. And finally, they cannot pass a law that restricts people from doing something because the Bible says it’s wrong. As much as many people want it to be, the Bible is not the constitution.

 The problem I see with the government’s definition of marriage is it is outdated. America has traditionally been quite homophobic or homo-ignorant or homo-oppressive. Whether those last two terms are actual words, I don’t know. If they aren’t, I’d like credit. The government’s current definition of marriage is denying a certain group of people rights that another group of people have. That is wrong. That is prejudice. That, on some levels (and this is another touchy relation), is the same as racism (when I say “same as racism” I mean the basis of racism: hate, fear, misunderstanding, and misinformation, is the same).  I say it is outdated because just forty or fifty years ago, even though homosexuality was present, it wasn’t as out in the open as it is today. It was hush-hush. It was on the down low. If you were gay, the only people you wanted knowing you were gay were other gay people. Back then marriage was a union between a man and a woman. But today, homosexuality is out in the open. As much as the traditionalists don’t like it, it is actually pretty common. It’s on television, in books, and (whoa) in real life! Real life! That thing where you go outside in the sunlight and talk to people! Yeah! Some of those people are gay!

Joking aside, what marriage equality activists are trying to do is get same sex couples the same rights as straight couples in the eyes of the federal government so the states that do legalize same sex marriage are recognized under federal law. Marriage equality activists are not going to force your Church to marry gay people. We are not ignoring your personal beliefs. We are not saying you need to be gay. I know those concerns sound silly to some of you, but those are actual concerns among some traditionalists! My mom is still worried that her Catholic Church will be forced to marry gay people if it’s legalized.

We are saying that if you have an issue with same sex marriage, then don’t have a same sex marriage. Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you are obligated to take part. All we are trying to establish is a country where a certain group of people is not denied rights another group of people are given.

The idea against marriage equality is one that is backwards in the eyes of America. Regardless of what you think about “America being a Christian state”… America isn’t. America is a freedom state. America is a country you can come to and worship whoever you want, say whatever you want, protest whatever you want, and, hopefully soon, marry whomever you want.

Another point of argument against marriage equality is, “It will ruin the sanctity of marriage.” This is a quick one to de-bunk. If you are somebody who uses this to support your argument, please pay attention. The marriage of two men or two women who are madly in love with each other, who will do anything for each other, and want nothing more than to be with each other for the rest of their lives will ruin the sanctity of the Kardashian seventy two hour marriage. That’s what you’re saying. You are saying that a union of a straight couple that is only for financial, political, or personal gain is better than the union of a same sex couple who is in love just because one is a straight couple and one is a homosexual couple. Before you say something like, “it will ruin the sanctity of marriage,” remember that for centuries marriage was not about love; it was about acquisition of land and wealth. It wasn’t about the union between two people; it was a union between two entities. Sometimes it was how countries at war settled treaties!

Now that we have at least part of the religious taboos about same sex marriage scratched off, let’s move on to a different issue the traditionalists have with same sex marriage: the structure of the family. This is something I hear a lot as a point of argument against marriage equality. I hear people say, “Children turn out better when they are raised by their biological mother and father.” Although that’s is probably true, it is a terrible argument against same sex marriage. Let’s not forget that it is perfectly okay for a straight, single man to raise his children by himself. Let’s not forget that it is perfectly okay for a straight, single woman to raise her children by herself. Let’s not forget that it is perfectly okay for a straight man, woman, or couple to raise adopted children.  So if it is okay for a straight couple to raise their non-biological kids, or it is okay for a single parent who is straight to adopt a child or raise their biological children by themselves, why is it not okay for a gay person or a same sex couple to raise adopted children? Don’t tell me it’s because they’re gay. There are just as many sources out there that say a child turns out better when raised with love regardless off what gender or sexuality the parent(s) are then there are that say children turn out better when raised by both their biological parents.

What a child needs when it’s being raised isn’t a blood relation; it needs love. A child needs support and nurturing and to know that it is loved and that no matter what happens he/she has a loving home to come back to. If you are a parent, think of the love you have for your child. Think of how deep that connection is no matter what happens. Now will you for one second say that you will deny another person the ability to have that kind of connection with another human being, say that you will deny another person the ability to raise and nurture and love a child, say that you will deny another person that gift just because they love somebody of the same sex?

If your personal beliefs are still “traditional” after reading this, that is okay. In fact, it is beautiful that you have a belief that is so deeply ingrained into your person. However, your personal belief is just that: personal. It is not somebody else’s belief. It is your belief. Maybe it’s your religions belief, but it’s not somebody else’s belief, and it is the government’s job to make sure that nobody’s belief is denied just to uphold somebody else’s. If you have a problem with gay marriage because it goes against your personal belief, then don’t, for the sake of anything, get a gay marriage. But, do not be so self centered that you feel the need to make the government force your personal belief onto the rest of the country.

--Tom K.

A Lesson on the Law of Conservation of Matter

Greetings!

Good day everyone. My name is Tom Kitt and this is the first post on my new blog. I'm a seventeen year old college student, and I'm a pretty decent nerd. Geek. Cool stuff admirer. Whatever you want to call me. Some people call me weird, but I take that as a compliment because without "weird" life would suck.... a lot. Boring mundane "normal" tasks would overtake our lives, and we'd be nothing but drones doing the same thing every single monotonous day and eventually the weekdays wouldn't even need names because they would all be the same. So yeah, weird is good.

I have another blog ( toms3dhuckfest.blogspot.com ) and that is dedicated solely to model aviation and other related things (that's my hobby). This new blog I've created will be just a bunch of things I think are cool, things I have created, maybe some links to cool things from my other blog, cool stuff (like bow ties, bow ties are cool)... basically I'll play it by ear. I want to start a youtube channel with ties to this blog, but again it's all ear-play.

Anyway, let's get started. The first thing is pretty scienc-y. You've probably heard of the "Law of Conservation of Matter/Mass" in your science class somewhere down the line. If you haven't, it's basically a scientific law stating that matter/mass (those words are interchanged from person to person, source to source) is not changed during any kind of transformation, physical or chemical. All the atoms you started with, will be there when you're done. For example, you burn firewood. You'll be left with a bunch of ash, but also smoke escaped, and the matter of the log was transformed into heat and light energy as that magnificent thing that the cavemen stumbled upon: fire!

For a more illustrated example, take a look at this. The following is pretty much why I started this blog. I saw something cool, and instead of doing something important, made myself busy with typing up this thing... and now I need a place to put it. This happens whenever at term paper is due soon, so I figured I'd start a blog to put all my procrastination projects on...

So, without any more boring ramblings, here's that thing I made:

A Lesson on the Law of Conservation of Matter

I recently was scrolling through my tumblr blog feed and I saw a very interesting gif with an interesting caption. It was unusual, as my tumblr dashboard is normally filled with Doctor Who and Avengers stuff, so it grabbed my attention. The caption read: “How to eat chocolate, indefinitely.” Okay, this I HAVE to see!

I clicked the source button and was brought back to the original source of the gif on tumblr. I’m not sure if this is the original creator of the idea, but regardless, below is the link I will provide. Credit to whoever came up with this idea:

The Eternal Chocolate Gif

This utterly amazed me. I looked at it. I analyzed it. I made sure there were the same amount of squares as before the gif started, and I made sure it was the same height… everything! I knew it couldn’t be true, but as a chocolate lover and a broke college student, I wanted ot know if there really was a way to bend the laws of physics and truly eat one candy bar… forever.

My first idea was to go and buy a chocolate bar and try it with that. As delicious as that idea sounded, I knew I would eat it before I got home, would be out a dollar, and even if I did manage to get it home It would have melted or broken and I would have to start all over.

My next idea was better: use something physical, tangible, reliable, and cheap. So I went to my office, grabbed a pen, a ruler, a pair of scissors, a highlighter, a calculator,  and a piece of 8.5x11 printer paper.  I knew the dimensions 8.5x11 would be tricky to make anything even out of, so I decided to shrink the paper to 5x10 so the numbers would be more even. Also, the chocolate bar in the gif was a 25 square bar (5x5), so the numbers 5 and ten would work nicely for nice rectangular pieces. See the photos below:

The next step was to look at the gif and see where the pieces were separated and then transfer that onto my paper chocolate bar. I noticed that the bar was cut diagonally from a bit past center on the second brick up from on the left, to a little before (when moving from bottom to top) center on the second brick down on the right. I then drew some dots along that line and connected them with my pen using a straight edge. I then looked to see where the bar was cut both vertically and horizontally, and transferred them onto my paper chocolate bar. They were split directly on the brick lines, so to illuminate where the cut was going to be made, and also to help with the arrangement of the pieces later, I highlighted all the cut lines with a blue highlighter, and cut along the line. See photos below:

Then I moved the pieces around, mimicking the movements made in the gif: I removed the single brick from the rectangle, swapped the placement of the two-wide section and the three-wide section along the diagonal line, and replaced the two brick section. At first my mind was blown! I was only looking at the general shape of the rectangle, and I could not believe that it came together! I was completely blown away.

But upon further analysis I noticed the lines did not line up, and that meant that something was wrong with it and it was not like the original. So I went to my magazine shelf, grabbed one of my model aircraft magazines, and placed the original figure onto the magazine. Luckily, on my first try the magazine I picked fit the figure perfectly! There was a margin along the top where everything lined up to, and the bottom of the page was where the bottom of the figure laid. Check below:

I then did the same thing before: removed the single brick, swapped the three-wide and the two-side, then replaced the two brick piece.

Unfortunately for the chocolate enthusiast with limited chocolate funds, the pieces did not fill the original space. The gap left by the single brick was evident as the figure could not reach the top of the margin as it did before.

Yet there is still one last thing to realize about this little experiment. What is the space left open, and could that remaining rectangle fill it? Well, I had to do some cutting, and please excuse my poor craft skills, but yes it does!... well, if I cut it correctly if would fit better, but you can eyeball it and see that the remaining paper will fill in the excess area.

So, that has been the first post on my new blog. Please try and check back every once in a while. Soon I'll customize my blog with something where you can punch in your email address and every time I update the blog you'll get an email notification (it doesn't spam you! I've used it for over a year on my other blog and follow it myself to make sure it's not spamming my lovely followers). Please feel free to comment and share this with your friends! Thanks for reading.

--Tom K.