Fahrenheit 9/11

Written by Rocky Ramsey

Continued from page 1

It wasn't blue skies and sunshine for everyone under Saddam. Michael doesn't devote one word torepparttar thousands of Kurds that Saddam killed with chemical warfare. There wasn't any mention ofrepparttar 132332 large mass graves found in Iraq with over three-hundred thousand men, women and children either.

I enjoyedrepparttar 132333 section ofrepparttar 132334 film dealing with senators and members of Congress who voted on bills they had never read. It applied to Republicans and Democrats.

I think Michael used humor and poignant interviews to get his point across more effectively in Rodger and Me and The Big One. In both of these movies he had a point to get across, but he didn’t do it with blind hatred.

Rocky publishes Movies, Money and More - Celebrity News, Reviews, Humor, Cheap DVDs, T-Shirts, Posters, Movie and TV Collectibles, and more. Check out the website today. Save money so you can watch more movies. http://www.MoviesMoneyandMore.com

The War of the Words: Are Heterosexual Monogamists the Patent Holders on ‘Marriage’?

Written by Martin Winer

Continued from page 1

Is homosexuality evil? Well first, what is evil. Torepparttar religiously minded, they say evil is what God says is evil as given inrepparttar 132330 book of absolute truth. I’ve found that people who believe in absolute truths usually do so only because they are absolutely wrong. I admit that I have little respect or patience for those who derive their definitions of evil from a book and thus outsource their thinking. I dismiss them quickly forrepparttar 132331 same reason I scrape cold peas of my dinner plate, because they are cold and uninteresting. For those who are prepared to think about what good and evil really are, we come torepparttar 132332 notion of utility. Good things serve a purpose and bad things do harm. This categorization is relative to a certain frame of consideration.

The ‘packages’ your dog delivers onrepparttar 132333 neighbourhood park are not good for you to eat, yet are gourmet meals torepparttar 132334 community of flies. Thusrepparttar 132335 truth torepparttar 132336 statement: “doggy packages make good eating” is relative to whom is speaking. In a thinking world, to show that homosexuality is evil, we must demonstrate that it is evil in one of two frames. We must prove harm to either homosexual individuals or to society as a whole.

To homosexual individuals,repparttar 132337 main harm done to them by being homosexual isrepparttar 132338 lack of acceptance they receive. Many heterosexuals quickly point torepparttar 132339 often 'sad' lives some homosexuals end up living. However, to borrow fromrepparttar 132340 poet Andrew Lang, they do this "... like a drunk leans on a lightpost, for support instead of illumination". The truth is that heterosexual intolerance of homosexuality isrepparttar 132341 cause ofrepparttar 132342 'sadness' they observe. Still, as acceptance slowly increases, we see many more homosexuals today live productive and successful lives. They do not necessarily live reproductive lives, but either do all heterosexuals.

To our society at large, homosexuality may have a reproductive impact, but on a planet of 6 billion, is this really an issue? If we really would like to have a discussion about harm, let’s talk aboutrepparttar 132343 harm of subverting this ‘evil’ impulse to be homosexual, only to have men live in a traditional marriage unhappily, hurting both himself, and his wife and perhaps children. Thus aside fromrepparttar 132344 heterosexual discomfort it causes, there is no harm caused by homosexuality and hence it is not evil.

Finally, is homosexuality a choice? Why askrepparttar 132345 question? We ask because if it is a choice, we can ask them to make a different choice. Well, homosexuality is a choice but only inrepparttar 132346 same way heterosexuality is a choice. Heterosexuals could choose to be homosexual if they really wanted to. What we refer to in common speak as a choice actually has two components, first a pressure and second a pure choice. When faced with an oncoming freight train, we have a tremendous survival pressure to move. Still we have a pure choice as to whether to move or not. Most of us would move. Inrepparttar 132347 case of our sexuality there are pressures given to us by our environment, genetics and evolution and inrepparttar 132348 case of heterosexuals there are no other pressures which would cause us to use our pure choice to override this strong evolutionary pressure. Inrepparttar 132349 case of homosexuals, societal pressures can cause individuals to use their pure choice to over-rule their evolutionary pressures. The fact thatrepparttar 132350 natural pressure can be overruled does not suggest or imply that it should because most such individuals live lives withrepparttar 132351 constant stress of juggling conflicting priorities and are never truly at peace.

In order to determinerepparttar 132352 existance and severity of this pressure to be homosexual, being unable to jump intorepparttar 132353 minds of others, we need to empirically observerepparttar 132354 effects. The empirical proof comes from asking: Why would any person willingly join a historically persecuted group ifrepparttar 132355 pressure wasn't strong to do so? Throughout history homosexuals have been shunned and forced to lead marginalized lives. This fact is common knowledge, thus it is impossible to state that homosexuals became or become homosexual on a flight of fancy.

So are heterosexual monogamistsrepparttar 132356 patent holders on marriage after all? Why do homosexuals wantrepparttar 132357 word so badly, even if they’ve already gotrepparttar 132358 equivalent rights? Homosexuals wantrepparttar 132359 word forrepparttar 132360 same reason that heterosexuals wantrepparttar 132361 word, because of its meaning. It represents a deep, long-term, and socially recognized relationship between two people. Heterosexual monogamists claim to berepparttar 132362 patent holders on marriage because tradition,repparttar 132363 bible and nature have provided immutable and clear definitions of marriage that conveniently agree with them. None of that is true.

Martin Winer is a heterosexual author interested in social issues.

He is a computer scientist by day running a website at: www.rankyouragent.com and a social scientist by night.

If you'd like to provide feedback, he can be reached at martin_winer@hotmail.com

    <Back to Page 1
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use