Proposition 8: An Indecent Proposal?

 

           On November 5^th 2008, Proposition 8 was subject to a referendum by the people of California and was, to the astonishment and dismay of many, approved by a 52.2 to 48.8 percent margin. In it, a denigrating reality was forcefully shoved down the throats of the gay community: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This “proposition” has been just one of the many successful endeavors of neo-conservatives, religious fundamentalists and fearful, homophobic citizens to further stigmatize the monogamous relationships of couples of the same sex. Rather then coddle them, dissenters around the nation continue to do everything in their power to throttle them, slowly, but surely, relinquishing them of any lingering civil liberties that they can lay claim to. To some this a justified law which derives its legitimacy from the universal truths of morality, aimed at controlling, if not eradicating, the disdainful acts of the deviant hordes. To others, however, it is a subjective, case-by-case perception of morality, belonging to the now clear majority of California, being forced on those people who “unfortunately” do not share their penchant for members of the opposite sex. Could this Proposition really just be an indecent proposal?

            Before addressing Proposition 8 any further, it is dire to identify the array of groups who have instigated all the problems, as well delve head first into the pervading arguments against gay marriage. First, and foremost, are the neo-conservatives, masquerading as devout Christians, who, rather than standing up for their own personal convictions, simply act out Newton’s Third Law of Motion, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” in the political world, changing it to, “For every Liberal action there is an equal but opposite conservative reaction. They are voluntary slaves to every whim of the left and are as predictable as Sean Hannity associating Barrack Obama to Bill Ayers, “The unrepentant Terrorist, who said on 9/11 he didn’t set enough bombs,” every night at 9pm on Fox News. They make no compelling case other than the cliché, “It distorts the accepted notion of marriage” As will later demonstrated, this is a tenuous argument because changing the definition of marriage is not necessarily a bad thing.

          The other not-so-gregarious group to the homosexuals are the religious fundamentalists, wagging their fingers at the both “detestable and abominable” behavior of the black sheep of their personal God. It is their outright hypocrisy and overbearing self-righteousness that submerges society under a sea of indignant excoriation and judgment. For Christians-since this is the religion I am amply knowledgeable in- the Old Testament is cited as the common place for repudiation of homosexuality by God’s own words: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). Is this the same Old Testament God who, when asked by Moses what to do about a man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath, answered, “This man shall be put to death; let the whole community stone him outside the camp?” (Numbers 15:35). The only thing that should be deemed indignant in today’s society is this group’s endeavors to enforce their obscure catechisms on peoples of other faiths, or worse, on those who do not follow any whatsoever.

          The last group, also prevalent amid the aforementioned groups, is the fear- driven, phobia-infested, change-inhibiting homophobic bunch. Their reasoning for being against gay marriage is so flimsy, so pathetic, and so insignificant that it isn’t even worth addressing. However, because so many are plagued with this unwarranted fear of those who “despicably” love people of the same sex, it must be dealt with at once. What do you fear? Do you think that by rescinding their previously granted right of exchanging nuptial vows in the presence of a judge, you are somehow eliminating the homosexual seed out of society for good? Think again. You have only successfully stonewalled the inevitable and undeniable: Gays are here to stay; they will not be kept at bay. Your ludicrous fears only demonstrate your own insecurities, as well as your looming feelings of inadequacy in a doleful, barren existence.

          The three aforementioned groups do, however, coincide in their self-proclaimed compelling points against gay marriage. They say, if we condone it, we are leading society down a slippery slope: it can lead to legalizing pedophile relationships with children or relationships between humans and animals. However, the deluded individuals, who contrived these deliberately-misconstruing assessments, know fully well that these types of relationships would not be acceptable on the grounds that both parties are not consenting. Children are too young and irrational to consent, and animals cannot reason on the level of human beings, thus making both cases an example of perverted and abusive relationships, as opposed to consensual, monogamous ones. Also, they speculate that children, who are breed in this type of marriage, will be the unfortunate recipients of life-altering heckling at school: when they have to bring their parents to school. However, it is ironic, and even distasteful, to utilize such an idiotic excuse to prevent same sex weddings; a form of reasoning that was offered to preclude blacks and whites from marrying during our horrific, racist-oriented past. This “distortion and redefiniton” of marriage rectified audacious injustices of the past, making everyone truly equal… Aren’t the struggles of the gays of today an allusion to the afflictions that dogged the blacks in the past? Isn’t their current struggle against discrimination the same one that most of society fought to preserve during the 1950’s, but only now frown upon?  Do you really want to perpetuate the wrongs of the past?

          In short, Proposition 8 is the quelling of the voices of justice, reflecting the inability of man to accept his fellow neighbor. Whether you supported the measure, or its outspoken advocates, on religious, political, or fear-driven grounds, you must realize that it is only a matter of time until their dream, your dreadful nightmare, becomes a permanently-anchored reality in America. But for now, the Indecent Proposal of denying equal treatment for homosexuals hinders, as well as stifles, the cohesiveness of a nation in dire need of tolerance and respect.

 

“You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”-Abraham Lincoln

 

          

 

 

 

The Disillusion Of Universal Health Care….

     For years advocates of Universal Health Care have taken shots at the current system here in the United States of America. Notable figures, like Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, have made their dissent with the status quo clear as day. But could it be that their attacks on the present nature of health care in the country are fueled by a naive ideal that has no place in the great superpower of the world.

     What is Universal Health Care, but a system in which the Government claims to take on the burden of covering all of their citizen’s health costs. The people will no longer have the distasteful task of having to pay for an operation that can decide life or death. All people rich and poor alike have an equal opportunity of living a truly venerable “quality of life.” Finally, the wretched capitalist society of the world would focus less on profit and more on the well-being of its people. This is great, isn’t it? “A conscious government that regulates services to its citizens, ensuring that it is distributed equally. Sounds familiar though…isn’t that something called Communism?

     Some weeks back me and my friend were debating, as we normally do, about health care. Curiously enough he supports John McCain and thinks that Senator Obama and Clinton would not lead the country in the right direction. He claims to be an open-minded person, something that we must all be in order to be truly reasonable. I enjoyed debating him due to multiple disadvantages: he was using the Internet to supply me with an array of examples of how Universal Health Care works in many of the world’s top industrialized nations, while I was writing an important paper; I was not in the mood to debate, and he would not stop arguing until I gave into his way of thinking. To my disbelief he kept lambasting “My private health care system that leaves 45 million Americans in the bleakness of the night” until 2am in the morning. I defended my convictions by simply stating an observation: “Isn’t Universal Health Care alot like Communism….Good on paper but unattainable in reality?” First off, it is  completely ludicrous to believe that this type of system can even pass through congress, when considering the conflicting interest’s of drug and insurance companies. Second, if it were to pass, there would be miscalculated consequences overlooked by misguided idealists. Any well informed person will tell you that the rose colored glasses with which we see other nations using Universal Health Care are quite tainted. In http://swfreedomlover.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/soyou-want-a-national-health-care-system/ we see that nations like Canada, ignorantly cited as the flourishing example of this form of Health care, enforce bench marks on its citizens. In one of the examples a man ,who was in dire need of a brain surgery, was told he would have to wait EIGHT MONTHS to be treated. He intelligently chose to come to the United States to be immediately attended. It was determined that, had the man decided to wait for eight months to be operated on, he would have died much before then. His wife and lawyer agree that thanks to the efficient system in this country, his life was spared.

     Anything government run grows to be inefficient and unaccommodating. Although private health care may be seen so disdainfully by some, real life examples show that it provides a better quality care than any other plan. Yes, it is true millions are left out in this system, but at least it can be said those under the plan are receiving adequate care and not waiting on long lines, due to bench marks, for dire operations. Private Health care motivates new innovative break throughs in the field of science. Any reasoning person knows that money makes the monkey dance. Doctors and Scientists are no different: the bigger the incentive of money, the better they will do their jobs and discover cures for every-day ailments. This is the reason why the United States leads in modern medicine. Now in contrast, under a Universal Health care system what is the motivation to make new innovations, if there is no one willing to pay big money for it? Like Communism, it stifles progress, instilling a sense of conformity and stagnant mediocrity. Much like Communism, Universal Health care is heading to self destruction.

     The only two proposals of Universal Health Care amid today’s campaigning are the ones presented by the democratic party. Both Senator Obama and Clinton strive for a Universal Health care system each, however, with a slightly different way of going about it. Hilary Clinton would make a mandate requiring everyone in the country to pay their way into the plan, while Barack Obama would only make a mandate obligating children to be insured. It is important to note that however different their plans are; one thing is the same: a mandate. So the question is, what happens senator Clinton and Obama when people cannot afford to pay their way into the system? Both have indirectly stated that the person would be fined or receive some sort of punishment…SO let me get this straight, we will have people paying a fine because they cannot afford “Universal Health Care” but will not reap any benefit of the so called legitimate plan. How Just! How efficient!

     Universal Health Care by common sense is inefficient and unattainable. While the current system is no model of a Utopian World, it is the best that is offered to the citizens of the internationally recognized super power.  Let us always remember just because something works for others does not necessarily mean it will work for a nation composed of 300 million diverse people.

     Let’s do less talking and more acting.