My dad recently said to me: "Tolerance is the virtue of those who believe in nothing."
Let me put it into context for you: He challenged me to a debate on gay marriages. Here is my first arguement:
"On Jul 10, 2006, at 6:04 PM, Greta Mayer wrote:
Here's the thing: This is inevitably going to be a religious discussion. You are going to quote a verse from the bible where it says that homosexuality is wrong. and then i am going to point out that the bible was written hundreds of years ago by MAN, and i think this is where the thing will end. We have differing opinions on your source. I think it is a wonderful story, full of good analogies, and symbolism, and it contains some great morals and ethics to use as a basis, but i do not believe the bible is a manual for life as your church tell you so. I can't see as to how God would care who we choose to (or not choose to) love. Why would that matter to him? Why would that matter to you? Marriage is nothing like murder, and you can't even compare them. If your actions do not affect anyone else, not the case with murder, then so what? Who cares what they do as long as they are not affecting you? It is their choice to disobey the "word of god", and accept any consequences that might incur from that choice. He gave us free will, after all, did he not? Is it your job to save the world? This action does not affect anyone else and that is my first argument.
My second is that under god all people are equal and deserve the same treatment. Of course it is the christians that are the first to scream hateful things while you walk down Bourbon st. during Mardi Gras. Or bomb the abortion clinics, or hold rallies condemning parents in front of children who don't understand why those people hate them. I'm not saying everyone is like this, I'm saying it's easy to pick out these people because they give a bad name to Christians everywhere and I think Jesus would be ashamed of them. But they exist and I'm sick and tired of all the blood that has been shed in Christ's name. In all of his names. All people are created equal and deserve the same rights. It's about equality. Thirdly, with everything that is going on in the world today, are there not better things for us to worry about? We are at war, global warming is destroying the planet, and the government is at it's most chaotic, idiotic, un-governing state ever. I believe that this is arising as an issue to take the focus off of what is really going on, as is immigration. I don't let the government tell me what is important to me, I don't trust them at all. Although it seems i have already made your argument for you, I am interested in what you will counter with. I can see you discussing this as dinner table fodder...wait, scratch that. I am not sure your "Pollyanna" would let you. ooh, i am so mean! I warned you not to discuss this with me, it is one of my favorite causes.
Debate away!"
Ok now this is his first rebuttal:
"On 10/07/2006, at 21:28, Richard Mayer wrote:
O.K. Lesson 1 Never NEVER challenge a writer to a written debate.
How's this . . . Tolerance is the virtue of those who believe in nothing. Rather than stand up for what is right (or wrong) the voice of tolerance says we should just let everyone "be". That we will understand each other and understand each others beliefs and cultures if we accept them as they are. I can buy that concept to a point. The question is . . . where do you draw the line? Is it hypocritical for someone to hate when a Christian tries to force his faith on one but he doesn't mind cramming tolerance down everyone else's throat?
What do you call a philosophy that forcefully and consistently violates its own central pillar of belief? In conclusion: All actions effect all things."
And me again:
On Jul 11, 2006, at 6:30 PM, Greta Mayer wrote:
"That is crazy. You're speaking about tolerance like it's a bad thing. Like it is the easy way out. It sounds a little like the propaganda of the Nazi party. Jews are wrong in their opinion, any one not of aryan descent is an abomination. So, rather than just be tolerant and let everyone "be", they decide to kill them all. Yes that is the extreme but it applies to an extent. It is human nature to fight amongst each other and separate ourselves. Tolerance and peace is what Jesus Christ preached. Are you saying he's wrong? You draw the line when your actions effect someone else's quality of life. i think. Yes all actions effect all things, but you can't control the world. A butterfly halfway around the world can flap it's wings and cause a devastating hurricane. That is the nature of the beast. You succeed when you can rise above the winds and make lemonade from trampled soybean crops. When you can live true to yourself in the midst of all the chaos and opposition. That takes courage. No, it is not hypocritical. When one party is being hateful, and the other party is being peaceful. How is that hypocritical? I don't know. What do you call that philosophy? Catholicism? "
And him:
"O.K. - I meant "you win" with the first sentence of my reply (see Lesson 1) Tolerance of wrong behavior IS a bad thing. If you have a friend that is seeing another one of your friends' girlfriend on the side, is it right because it feels right to him? Do you tolerate the behavior because it isn't hurting anyone? The Hitler analogy is extreme but you actually make my point as well as yours. The only reason Hitler was able to gain power and then use that power to his mis-guided ends was because NO one was willing to stand-up and say it was wrong. The German population was just busy trying "to get along with each other" and the rest of Europe. They tolerated him until it was too late. It's easy to tolerate. What takes courage is actually standing up for what's right and against what's wrong. Your friend may tell you to bug off. Or look at you like your crazy. But in his heart he knows what he's doing is wrong and he may just thank you for being a friend."
Then I said something like what the German people's problem really was...a poor economy and no leadership, and someother stellar arugements (i'll post them when i find them) and then he basically quit.
So as punishment for losing the debate, I sent him a petition to sign and return to his congressman saying he opposed the FMA (Federal Marriage Ammendment) and discrimination in the constitution(which he never signed, by the way). Being that he just gave up, I am still open for debate. Thank you for playing.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Why Nutcrackers Are So Ugly
I'm sick of Christmas. But there's one thing I'm not sick of: The Nutcracker.
So in honor of that, I've decided to tell you the story of how the nutcracker came to be. Enjoy!
Disclaimer: I'm doing this entirely from memory so there may be inconsistencies. In other words, it's my favorite childhood story so sue me if I get it a little skewed.
Long ago, in a kingdom not too far from our own, there lived a king and queen. The queen gave birth to a beautiful princess and they named her Pirlipat. But the queen feared another queen who lived in the castle, the queen of mice. So she had princess pirlipat's cradle guarded by six cats and six nurses. Well one night all six nurses and all six cats fell asleep and were awoken by the cries of the infant princess, just in time to see the queen of mice leap from the cradle and disappear through a crack in the floorboards. They rushed to the cradle but leapt back when what they saw inside made them turn back in horror. The princesses beautiful blue eyes now bulged out in a glassy green and were much too large for her own head. Her pink lips were a mouth that stretched from ear to ear and her teeth, large and square.
The king and queen tried everything to restore the princesses former beauty to no avail. At last they had the court astronomer draw up her horoscope and it was discovered that the curse could only be broken, if Pirlipat swallowed a rare nut known as the Krakatuk. Moreover, the nut had to be cracked by a young man who had never shaved and had always worn boots.
The king bade the astronomer to find the krakatuk or face death, but after traveling the length and breadth of asia and africa he concluded the search was hopeless. On his way back to accept his fate, he made a stop in Nuremburg to visit his brother who was a local toy maker there. "What luck you stopped to see me" his brother cried in delight. "I have the krakatuk. And the young man who can crack it!" He went in the back and returned with a small, dark nut whose shell was incredibly tough and engraved on it was the word krakatuk. The toy maker then called for his nephew, Christian Elias Drosselmeier, whose cheeks were rosy and smooth and who had teeth as hard as steel.
Back at the palace, Drosselmeier was led into the princesses chamber who by now was a young woman and placed the krakatuk in his mouth and crack, crack, shattered the shell into tiny pieces. The princess swallowed the kernel and marvel upon marvels was transformed to her former miraculous self with golden hair, twinkling blue eyes and perfect pink lips. As payment, the astronomer was spared his life and Drosselmeier was offered the princesses hand in marriage but as he took a step back, he brought his left bootheel squarely down upon the queen of mice. Now Drosselmeiers features were transformed to the glassy green eyes, protruding jaw, gaping mouth, and large head. To which the princess reacted "marry that ugly nutcracker? No way!". As the queen of mice lay dying on the floor she uttered her final words: "My newborn son, with seven crowns shall bring the master cracker down. His mothers death he will repay beware nutcracker that fated daaayyyy!" And so the astronomer and his nephew were banished from the kingdom. But before they were, the astronomer was able to discover that his nephews curse could only be broken if he defeated the queen of mice's' son and earned the love of a woman in return. And that, my dear, is the story of why nutcrackers are so ugly.
Disclaimer two: I am reciting this, as said before, from memory. And that comes from the Hoffman story audio version narrated by Claire Bloom. Hence the expressive nature of some of the words.
So in honor of that, I've decided to tell you the story of how the nutcracker came to be. Enjoy!
Disclaimer: I'm doing this entirely from memory so there may be inconsistencies. In other words, it's my favorite childhood story so sue me if I get it a little skewed.
Long ago, in a kingdom not too far from our own, there lived a king and queen. The queen gave birth to a beautiful princess and they named her Pirlipat. But the queen feared another queen who lived in the castle, the queen of mice. So she had princess pirlipat's cradle guarded by six cats and six nurses. Well one night all six nurses and all six cats fell asleep and were awoken by the cries of the infant princess, just in time to see the queen of mice leap from the cradle and disappear through a crack in the floorboards. They rushed to the cradle but leapt back when what they saw inside made them turn back in horror. The princesses beautiful blue eyes now bulged out in a glassy green and were much too large for her own head. Her pink lips were a mouth that stretched from ear to ear and her teeth, large and square.
The king and queen tried everything to restore the princesses former beauty to no avail. At last they had the court astronomer draw up her horoscope and it was discovered that the curse could only be broken, if Pirlipat swallowed a rare nut known as the Krakatuk. Moreover, the nut had to be cracked by a young man who had never shaved and had always worn boots.
The king bade the astronomer to find the krakatuk or face death, but after traveling the length and breadth of asia and africa he concluded the search was hopeless. On his way back to accept his fate, he made a stop in Nuremburg to visit his brother who was a local toy maker there. "What luck you stopped to see me" his brother cried in delight. "I have the krakatuk. And the young man who can crack it!" He went in the back and returned with a small, dark nut whose shell was incredibly tough and engraved on it was the word krakatuk. The toy maker then called for his nephew, Christian Elias Drosselmeier, whose cheeks were rosy and smooth and who had teeth as hard as steel.
Back at the palace, Drosselmeier was led into the princesses chamber who by now was a young woman and placed the krakatuk in his mouth and crack, crack, shattered the shell into tiny pieces. The princess swallowed the kernel and marvel upon marvels was transformed to her former miraculous self with golden hair, twinkling blue eyes and perfect pink lips. As payment, the astronomer was spared his life and Drosselmeier was offered the princesses hand in marriage but as he took a step back, he brought his left bootheel squarely down upon the queen of mice. Now Drosselmeiers features were transformed to the glassy green eyes, protruding jaw, gaping mouth, and large head. To which the princess reacted "marry that ugly nutcracker? No way!". As the queen of mice lay dying on the floor she uttered her final words: "My newborn son, with seven crowns shall bring the master cracker down. His mothers death he will repay beware nutcracker that fated daaayyyy!" And so the astronomer and his nephew were banished from the kingdom. But before they were, the astronomer was able to discover that his nephews curse could only be broken if he defeated the queen of mice's' son and earned the love of a woman in return. And that, my dear, is the story of why nutcrackers are so ugly.
Disclaimer two: I am reciting this, as said before, from memory. And that comes from the Hoffman story audio version narrated by Claire Bloom. Hence the expressive nature of some of the words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
