Perez Hilton should be fired. Carrie Prejean should run for Governor of California. Watch videos to the right or in my YouTube channel:
Selected posts from YouTube's comments:
About having children, I meant the normal way for couples to bear children. Not every couple can do it. A general law should cover only the normal ways how people behave. All exceptions can be covered by other laws to ensure the fairness. Even the gay couples can clone their own children; I still don’t consider that’s a normal way.
For example, a person is born without a leg; we should not change the laws to fit his or her conditions. But we can have other laws to protect those individuals.
The gay couples should pursue the new laws to claim their rights. This is win-win situation because you get new rights and don’t take away existing rights from other people in existing laws.
Gay couples can have all the rights but not the title of husband and wife.
You don’t want to confuse the future generations the difference between males and females, and marry anyone he or she wants to, including close relatives. If gay marriage law passes, most children’s books about boys and girls should be banned because it is not fair to gay people. What kind of society is that?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Nature Against Same Sex Marriage
There is no minority right for same sex marriages. The marriage is the natural right for opposite sexes. Same sex couples do not have that right, though they can have their forms of union. Like using public ladies' rooms is the women's rights and not for men. Men cannot claim any right using ladies' rooms.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Human Evolution
Nature tells it all. In our earth past environments, most species evolve into 2 sexes. It means that the nature has decided the normal way to continue the human being as a species.
Marriage is reserved for the male-female relationship which is required to provide born efforts of bearing and raising children. In general, the natural parenthoods provide the best values, resulting from past evolution, advancing human species.
One-sex relationship, however, is not the norm to continue the human species and cannot be awarded the marriage. It has nothing to do with the discrimination against gay couples in the society or related to any religious belief. Though the non-natural parenthoods can provide good cares of the children, it cannot replace the normal way designed in the long duration of human revolution.
Like close relative marriage, same-sex marriage is not natural.
JrrCool
************************
Freedom of Chioce
Opinion from Peter S.:
I know your point. And I had the same opinion with you. But now I am not so sure.
I think the key issue here is not same-sex-marriage, but the freedom of choice. Do you believe people have the freedom of choice, even though the choice may not be agreeable to our tradition, education, or the main thought of most people at a point of time? Even the choice is not right! We have a lot of debates of this kind in human history. Life is an adventurous, trial-and-error process. We should thank the brave people to try new things, with great sacrifice or great reward to themselves sometimes, to enlarge our body of knowledge. That's why freedom-of -choice is important in making progress, and there is always a cost to it. No free lunch, as someone says. Sometimes, freedom can mean inconvenience, even chaos to ordinary people.
Other than freedom-of -choice, there is another bigger issue. Who has the ultimate authority to say yes or no? God may be the answer. But how do we know the opinion of God-- the Law of Nature? by the Bible? the church? or by experiments -- trial-and-error? Experiments may not only be the only way of making progress in science, but in all human endeavors. That's why freedom is so important. Again, there is a cost to it. And we have to put up with the turbulence come with it.
By the way, there may be more happy couples in the same-sex-marriage than the different-sex-marriage. Is there any survey on this subject? That would be interesting.
Hopefully, we can have a conclusion after the experiment. And then, the whole society can be advanced to a higher stage.
In short, I am not against it, even though I will not do it. Same as gambling. And I believe that most TV programs are much more harmful than same-sex-marriage to human beings.
God bless us.
********************
Reply from JrrCool:
Dear Peter,
Thank you for precious opinion. You said it so detailed that all your points are well understood.
Ironically, I used to think your way that freedom of choice is number one priority. But now I think there isn’t any freedom of choice if the choice affects the present or future social structure.
If the marriage is giving up the key element of reproduction for advancing human species, the social structure will be changed. If the marriage is only based on love, pleasure or convenience etc., then anybody can marry anyone else as long as they do not reproduce so there won’t have any genetic defeat problems.
Of course no one knows the good or bad of any new adventure. People should judge, based upon their wisdom and past experiences, whether a risky step should be taken. Like the case in communism, many people thought it was a good idea. Now it is considered a bad idea in the past century. However, who knows? May be 200 years from now, people will think it is a good idea again.
About happiness, realistically, people don’t need to get married to be happy. Also gay couples do not need to get married to be happy too. So this is a different issue.
TV programs can be another example of misuse of freedom of choice. It’s the producer’s choice that he thinks it is good idea for general public.
Above is just my opinion that you may not agree. It’s good to have a nice discussion with you.
************************
Asian Democratic System
Opinion from H. B.:
Hi!
It's a very interesting topic and also controversial one which touches the nerve of all.
To me, personally, I am totally agreed with you. But not all people are "me". In Asia, our political systems are generally pro-family and the society (priority in our legislation is family/society based), thus our perception of VALUE is very different from the West; mainly in that we are not practising an absolute Democratic System to that of the West.
Therefore, I am not surprise that there is a view of Freedom of Choice which cannot be totally denied under the rule of absolute democratic system, every individual opinion counts as they each have their own "Rights".
This is the problem of practising Absolute Democratic System, no one could discounted the view of other individual. You can debate on it until all faces are flushed, the question is still remained open (not like the case of majority wil prevail) like chicken n eggs.
When you talk about species, I assume you refer to Homo sapiens and not all living things, which are very complicated; displaying different form of reproduction patterns to suit it's own propogation/prolification purposes.
Anyway, I am very happy and comfortable with our environment here that adopts "hetero" (or different sexes) -marriage as a norm. Above is merely some of my gripe to exchange and I do not wish to engage in this futile discussion.
Cheers,
Marriage is reserved for the male-female relationship which is required to provide born efforts of bearing and raising children. In general, the natural parenthoods provide the best values, resulting from past evolution, advancing human species.
One-sex relationship, however, is not the norm to continue the human species and cannot be awarded the marriage. It has nothing to do with the discrimination against gay couples in the society or related to any religious belief. Though the non-natural parenthoods can provide good cares of the children, it cannot replace the normal way designed in the long duration of human revolution.
Like close relative marriage, same-sex marriage is not natural.
JrrCool
************************
Freedom of Chioce
Opinion from Peter S.:
I know your point. And I had the same opinion with you. But now I am not so sure.
I think the key issue here is not same-sex-marriage, but the freedom of choice. Do you believe people have the freedom of choice, even though the choice may not be agreeable to our tradition, education, or the main thought of most people at a point of time? Even the choice is not right! We have a lot of debates of this kind in human history. Life is an adventurous, trial-and-error process. We should thank the brave people to try new things, with great sacrifice or great reward to themselves sometimes, to enlarge our body of knowledge. That's why freedom-of -choice is important in making progress, and there is always a cost to it. No free lunch, as someone says. Sometimes, freedom can mean inconvenience, even chaos to ordinary people.
Other than freedom-of -choice, there is another bigger issue. Who has the ultimate authority to say yes or no? God may be the answer. But how do we know the opinion of God-- the Law of Nature? by the Bible? the church? or by experiments -- trial-and-error? Experiments may not only be the only way of making progress in science, but in all human endeavors. That's why freedom is so important. Again, there is a cost to it. And we have to put up with the turbulence come with it.
By the way, there may be more happy couples in the same-sex-marriage than the different-sex-marriage. Is there any survey on this subject? That would be interesting.
Hopefully, we can have a conclusion after the experiment. And then, the whole society can be advanced to a higher stage.
In short, I am not against it, even though I will not do it. Same as gambling. And I believe that most TV programs are much more harmful than same-sex-marriage to human beings.
God bless us.
********************
Reply from JrrCool:
Dear Peter,
Thank you for precious opinion. You said it so detailed that all your points are well understood.
Ironically, I used to think your way that freedom of choice is number one priority. But now I think there isn’t any freedom of choice if the choice affects the present or future social structure.
If the marriage is giving up the key element of reproduction for advancing human species, the social structure will be changed. If the marriage is only based on love, pleasure or convenience etc., then anybody can marry anyone else as long as they do not reproduce so there won’t have any genetic defeat problems.
Of course no one knows the good or bad of any new adventure. People should judge, based upon their wisdom and past experiences, whether a risky step should be taken. Like the case in communism, many people thought it was a good idea. Now it is considered a bad idea in the past century. However, who knows? May be 200 years from now, people will think it is a good idea again.
About happiness, realistically, people don’t need to get married to be happy. Also gay couples do not need to get married to be happy too. So this is a different issue.
TV programs can be another example of misuse of freedom of choice. It’s the producer’s choice that he thinks it is good idea for general public.
Above is just my opinion that you may not agree. It’s good to have a nice discussion with you.
************************
Asian Democratic System
Opinion from H. B.:
Hi!
It's a very interesting topic and also controversial one which touches the nerve of all.
To me, personally, I am totally agreed with you. But not all people are "me". In Asia, our political systems are generally pro-family and the society (priority in our legislation is family/society based), thus our perception of VALUE is very different from the West; mainly in that we are not practising an absolute Democratic System to that of the West.
Therefore, I am not surprise that there is a view of Freedom of Choice which cannot be totally denied under the rule of absolute democratic system, every individual opinion counts as they each have their own "Rights".
This is the problem of practising Absolute Democratic System, no one could discounted the view of other individual. You can debate on it until all faces are flushed, the question is still remained open (not like the case of majority wil prevail) like chicken n eggs.
When you talk about species, I assume you refer to Homo sapiens and not all living things, which are very complicated; displaying different form of reproduction patterns to suit it's own propogation/prolification purposes.
Anyway, I am very happy and comfortable with our environment here that adopts "hetero" (or different sexes) -marriage as a norm. Above is merely some of my gripe to exchange and I do not wish to engage in this futile discussion.
Cheers,
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Right to Marry
I am not against gay couples at all. It’s just the right to marry should be reserved to opposite-sex couples. This right comes from nature that human being is best to reproduce in a diversified way. That’s why human species evolved into 2 sexes. Non-diversified reproduction, like that comes from close relative marriage, is inherently not good.
If anyone can just marry anyone else, eventually the marriage will become meaningless. One can also argue that unmarried people are being discriminated. In order for all people to be equal, the marriage system should be abolished.
Also parenthood will become less important. By human nature, parents can best take care of their own children. Adoption is not the best way, though acceptable, in general.
Only a small group of people want the same-sex marriages at this time. It basically does no harm to other people. However, if it becomes law permanently and becomes a norm in society. I think it will change the social structure and affect everybody. It shouldn’t be taken lightly and we have the right to make some decision.
JrrCool
************************
Opinion from R. J.:
BTW -- I take it from the name of your blog, that you don't support
same-sex marriages -- why is this? -- I personally don't have any issue
with it -- I don't claim to understand the sexual attraction to the same
sex, and I admit its strange and unusual -- but there are lots of other
strange things in society, like racial hatred, etc. -- At least they are
characteristically non-violent -- But since this issue has been around
for all of recorded history, I don't think its some new age aversion --
And I also don't think we should ostracize these people from society,
just because they don't fit into some box that we think we fit into --
Besides being symbolic, it provides these people with the same legal
status to social security, inheritance, spousal benefits, etc. -- Aside
from their sexual orientation, these people are just like you and me --
they feel joy and sadness the same way --
That's my 2 cents -- Feel the love, be the love --
Your friend --
************************
Reply from JrrCool:
Dear R.,
I am not against gay couples at all, so I don’t have very different opinion from what you said.
All I said is if anyone can just marry anyone else, eventually the marriage will become meaningless. It’s not good for human’s future which requires more than love.
************************
Reply from R. J.:
Now on your reply -- this is a good point, but from a male/female
perspective -- just about anyone can marry just about anyone else -- and
not just once -- And in the beginning, these people enter their
relationship with love and commitment -- and some succeed, and some fail
-- Gay people are and will be no different -- I'd rather society focus
on how to maintain good marriages & relationships, and/or possible
recognize incompatibility in the beginning -- than focus on the how may
X & Y chromosomes are standing at the alter --
Cheers --
************************
Reply from JrrCool:
Dear R.,
We have a common view that same-sex marriage basically does no harm to other people at this time since only a small group of people want it.
My argument is if it becomes law permanently and becomes a norm in society. I think it will change the social structure and affect everybody. It shouldn’t be taken lightly and we have the right to make some decision.
~~
************************
Opinion from Bob:
I agree with you that we shouldn’t discriminate against gay couples even we do not agree with gay marriages. Some people are born gays and that’s the way they are and they are protected by laws. However, the laws should be written for the benefits of the normal population.
For example, if a person is born blind, obviously he shouldn’t be discriminated and is deserved the love from his family and freinds. Though the society should help him as much as possible, It does not mean he is normal and the society should facilitate thoroughly for the benefits of these people at the cost of normal people.
Have a good day!
If anyone can just marry anyone else, eventually the marriage will become meaningless. One can also argue that unmarried people are being discriminated. In order for all people to be equal, the marriage system should be abolished.
Also parenthood will become less important. By human nature, parents can best take care of their own children. Adoption is not the best way, though acceptable, in general.
Only a small group of people want the same-sex marriages at this time. It basically does no harm to other people. However, if it becomes law permanently and becomes a norm in society. I think it will change the social structure and affect everybody. It shouldn’t be taken lightly and we have the right to make some decision.
JrrCool
************************
Opinion from R. J.:
BTW -- I take it from the name of your blog, that you don't support
same-sex marriages -- why is this? -- I personally don't have any issue
with it -- I don't claim to understand the sexual attraction to the same
sex, and I admit its strange and unusual -- but there are lots of other
strange things in society, like racial hatred, etc. -- At least they are
characteristically non-violent -- But since this issue has been around
for all of recorded history, I don't think its some new age aversion --
And I also don't think we should ostracize these people from society,
just because they don't fit into some box that we think we fit into --
Besides being symbolic, it provides these people with the same legal
status to social security, inheritance, spousal benefits, etc. -- Aside
from their sexual orientation, these people are just like you and me --
they feel joy and sadness the same way --
That's my 2 cents -- Feel the love, be the love --
Your friend --
************************
Reply from JrrCool:
Dear R.,
I am not against gay couples at all, so I don’t have very different opinion from what you said.
All I said is if anyone can just marry anyone else, eventually the marriage will become meaningless. It’s not good for human’s future which requires more than love.
************************
Reply from R. J.:
Now on your reply -- this is a good point, but from a male/female
perspective -- just about anyone can marry just about anyone else -- and
not just once -- And in the beginning, these people enter their
relationship with love and commitment -- and some succeed, and some fail
-- Gay people are and will be no different -- I'd rather society focus
on how to maintain good marriages & relationships, and/or possible
recognize incompatibility in the beginning -- than focus on the how may
X & Y chromosomes are standing at the alter --
Cheers --
************************
Reply from JrrCool:
Dear R.,
We have a common view that same-sex marriage basically does no harm to other people at this time since only a small group of people want it.
My argument is if it becomes law permanently and becomes a norm in society. I think it will change the social structure and affect everybody. It shouldn’t be taken lightly and we have the right to make some decision.
~~
************************
Opinion from Bob:
I agree with you that we shouldn’t discriminate against gay couples even we do not agree with gay marriages. Some people are born gays and that’s the way they are and they are protected by laws. However, the laws should be written for the benefits of the normal population.
For example, if a person is born blind, obviously he shouldn’t be discriminated and is deserved the love from his family and freinds. Though the society should help him as much as possible, It does not mean he is normal and the society should facilitate thoroughly for the benefits of these people at the cost of normal people.
Have a good day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)