Transgender Bathrooms: What Would Cause The Least Uproar

To begin, I think transgenderism is a tough subject due to all the emotions involved. Those who live with gender dysphoria have a great challenge ahead of them in their life. Everyone recognizes that.

I personally don't believe it is healthy to encourage the use of hormone pills or surgery to "change" genders unless you're the rare occurrence of "intersex" individuals. You might disagree, and that's ok because, if you do, the general public consensus tends to be on your side.

So, though I affirm that the best option is to not socially promote transgenderism, I wish to assert myself in declaring the second best option. And I will explain myself. Read on.

Let people use the bathroom of the gender that their doctor says they are.

All those who suffer from gender dysphoria should see a doctor. A psychologist would be best. Those doctors can inform them of the options, but also should instruct them concerning the side effects (like increased suicide rates) of pursuing a gender swap fantasy (because that's really what a gender "swap" is. Pretending to be the opposite sex).

Trans people can wear rather convincing facades. Much of the time you wouldn't even notice. Some who only have y chromosomes now have beards. How would you like a bearded individual entering the ladies' room? Or a busty person taking a pee next to you in the men's room?

You'd likely flip a biscuit.

Now, a valid argument comes forth that some pervert is going to pretend to be trans to enter the opposite restroom. Newsflash: they already could have done that for years. Plus, predators don't pick busy areas for their attacks; they select secluded areas.

Therefore, Target's decision to allow people to choose is still safe if you go during busy times and wait outside for your kids. You could even hide behind an assertion that they haven't picked their gender yet and take them to whichever bathroom you use.

Concerning having gender neutral bathrooms, trans people make up .85% of the population. It's extreme to take measures to construct a third bathroom in every building and take up all that space that we currently use for other things, all to accomodate less than one percent of people who are fine with using our current system.

To finish, be kind to those with whom you disagree on this topic. My hope is that the way I phrased this was not rude, though it is opinionated. Remember that being at odds with a viewpoint does not make you disrespectful. Being condescending makes you disrespectful. 

How To Avoid Being Offensive While Maintaining Your Beliefs

Gay marriage. Abortion. Socialism. Capitalism. Gun rights. Immigration. Religion.

If reading those topics just now didn't cause you to relive memories of poorly worded discussions online, welcome to the Internet. You must be a first time user. People's opinions vary so widely on those issues that nobody agrees 100% on every one of them. 

I've spent countless hours on online forums dissecting these issues. In so doing, I've discovered a few tendencies that, if stopped, would greatly benefit the online community, as well as a few that we should all pick up. As I've applied these concepts I've gained friendships and avoided nastier discussions that could have happened.

The should stops:

1. The use of Straw Man arguments 

This means that you put up a weak claim that supports your opponent's position and knock it down as if with great intellectual prowess.

Example: Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is the main component of acid rain. Therefore we shouldn't ingest it. In fact, we should ban it.

DHMO is water. Yes, people die in it, the government has a system under your city for distributing it, wars are fought over it, etc. You still need it to live.

So, stop saying that Bernie supporters are all under 25 and just want free stuff. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but most of the people I know that have felt the Bern are actually  middle aged with degrees. Stop saying all atheists hate the world. Stop affirming that conservatives are all racist gun nuts. It's not true.

2. Twisting words

    

Many people confuse the concept of asking clarifying questions with word twisting and manipulative phrasing.

  

Example: "You're a Mormon, so you believe in a pedophile that hallucinated and wrote a false book. Am I right?"

As a Mormon, I know exactly where that conversation is going, and it isn't going to be about what I believe. It will be about what you want me to believe in order to justify your disdain. With. Out. Fail. This questioner is trying to win an argument, which is impossible. Nobody wins if it becomes an argument. 

  

Instead of shouting out preconceived notions, a person who truly wants to know what Mormons believe would ask a Mormon why they don't think Joseph Smith was a fraud, or why they claim to have the only true church on the planet.

   

This means holding back and being willing to listen. 

Be cautious with "so what you're trying to say." If you end up rephrasing what they've said in a manner that makes it support your argument as opposed to theirs you gone done goofed.

 3. Name calling  

Telling someone they're an idiot takes no intelligence or special ability. All it does it assert that you believe yourself to be smarter than the other person and that their opinion is inconsequential. This also applies to negatively labeling ideas as neanderthal, stupid, unintelligent, etc. 

    

When someone consistently hears harsh comments like that, it seeps into their subconscious mind. If you constantly call people, or their ideas, names it makes you an abusive individual. There is no other way to phrase that. 

If you struggle with this you can change by addressing the person's idea with facts, sources, and logic instead of simply trying to refute it by shouting it down.

4. False dichotomy

Either you support my gay marriage or you're a bad person. Either you like Reagan or you're a communist. Either you like Mexican people or you want the immigration laws to remain as they are. Either Trump scares you or you're a Nazi.

Look for the third option. Avoid extremes. Acknowledge the fact that if someone likes apples they can like oranges, too.  

Fix this by asking yourself if it's possible for both sides to be true. Work other variables into the equation. What other factors affect the situation?

The should starts:

1. Defend the opposition

  

What!? You heard me. Stand up for what others believe every once in a while, especially in the absence of opposing views. Call out people who are doing the "should stops" but who are on your side. Point out straw man arguments, regardless of whether or not they'll think you disagree with them. Ask your friend if they have the source for the meme they posted.

As I've done this it really throws people off. They'll start talking about how I'm a stupid liberal and reel back when I explain that I'm conservative like them.

It really helps the world if we all hold everyone equally responsible for being academically correct.

2. Compliments 

Say nice things about well phrased stances. Mention the pleasantries about those with whom you debate the tough subjects. Discuss what you like about those with whom you generally disagree. If someone attacks a person that believes the opposite of everything that you hold dear, repudiate the offense with kind words about your nemesis. 

This isn't Batman vs Joker. It's Batman vs Superman. It's Captain America vs Ironman. Both sides fight for what they think is right.

By doing this you will have a more positive world view and you will gain the respect of others. You'll also build a better rapport with them and they may ask you about why you've come to believe what you do. It opens the doors for friendships.

3. Ask clarifying questions

I've kind of already explained the inverse, but applying this concept is important. If you don't understand your opponent's viewpoint you don't understand the subject fully. Ask away. Try to convince yourself that what they're saying is true, because if it is, you're wrong. It's ok to admit that. You're a liar if you don't. If you believe your argument to be sound you should have no qualms about learning about theirs.

4. Mention what you don't mean to say

Since most others won't ask those clarifying questions, you should answer them in your original statement. This aids your effort to be tactful. 

Listen to the difference between these next two statements.

"I don't like the Catholic Church, their doctrines, or all the lucre their leaders have."

And

"I love Catholic people, and I respect their humanitarianism, but I don't like some of the doctrines they teach. I'm not saying that all Catholics are greedy, but I do, however, have some major differences with the amount of lucre they put into their leadership positions."

I literally said the same thing in both statements, but the second one reduces the ability of someone who likes the Catholic Church to say that I'm just a hateful person. They still can call me that all they want, but they can't pull that from my words without ignoring huge indicators that I am trying to show that I'm not. I've shown that I know about the positive aspects of the Catholic Church, and that I know very good Catholic people. I've also shown that I don't want to offend those people, but I've expressed that I am against some parts of their organization rather clearly.

Try it. See if these things change your ability to connect with other people who disagree with you. Don't take my word for it. It works. I've done it. Prove me wrong.

In Good We Trust

Separation of church and state. I get it. I think it's only fair for atheists, not to mention those of Buddhist, Muslim and Wiccan faiths, to feel that religion as part of official money among other things may be hypocritical. I mean, Christians claim that gay marriage is against their religion and should be banned. A belief in God is against the "religion" of atheists. (I put religion in quotations because it is a paradoxical "religion". You know what I'm talking about). Why should we allow God's name to be on our currency, the oath in a court of law, the oath of the President and in the Pledge of Allegiance?

My non religious response is one word. Symbolism.

Everything that we put on official paraphernalia represents an idea or value that we hold precious. We being the people of Earth. Every nation's flag has on it colors and shapes and images-- symbols of iconic historical figures, deities, and events. America is no different. The stars and stripes are for the original colonies and the current 50 states. The colors symbolize courage, sacrifice and purity. We fly it above the state flags to remind us that we all have one common center that holds us together despite geographical differences and cultural heritages.

That brings us to the symbol in question: God. What does he represent to those that believe in him? Mercy. Wisdom. Peace. Selflessness. Hope. According to our founding fathers he created all men equal and gave us rights. Though philosophers have debated the logistics of the idea over the centuries, basically, God personifies that which is good and virtuous.

What would the act of removing that symbol imply?

I understand what it's like to have ideals with which you disagree shoved down your throat-- I get that every time I turn on the television, get on Facebook or see a billboard advertising alcohol or an excessively sexualized culture. I am vehemently against those, but they are commonplace. There is one ideal that I'm positive that the majority of us support which is that everyone should be the best person they can be. God represents that. In fact, Christians believe that Jesus lived a perfect life and try to realize the concept in their own efforts. I don't see why anyone would object to having that as an emblem.

My last point had to do with the most iconic American symbol: the eagle. Native tribes have a religious connection with the eagle. Does that mean that we have allowed them to force their religion on us? No. We have taken the symbol and adapted according to the dictates of our own consciences. Why can't we do the same with the symbol of God? Well, we can, but why shouldn't we? Why wouldn't we?

For purposes of preserving our heritage, I suggest we back off of the attack on the whole "in God we trust" (I'm reluctant to say) issue. There is no need that I can see to attack it unless you have a vendetta against Christianity, which is discrimination, and in turn, hypocritical.

If anyone has an explanation that falls outside of what I've perceived for went we should remove the historically significant words from our money, please.  Do tell.

If It's All A Lie

My choir director at the LDS Institute of Religion in Orem, UT has said something that has caused me to introspectively reflect on my beliefs concerning the divine mission that God and Jesus Christ gave to Joseph Smith to be the prophet during the time that they were busy restoring their Gospel in its fulness in the early 19th century. In a month or so we, as a choir, will put on a large production depicting that process and the importance thereof in the history of mankind, and I want to be as sure as ever that God and Jesus really did visit him and lead him to an ancient record of some of the inhabitants of the Americas.

What what my choir director said was along the lines of: If it is not true, than many of the truths that we hold precious are indeed false.

I want to know for myself that the Book of Mormon is not a fictional history cleverly assembled to gain praise and followers; I wish to outline here why I believe that Joseph Smith was as much a prophet of God, and as just as fallible, as all of the prophets we read about in the Bible. 

My faith personally has rather little to do with the experience that Joseph claims to have had in the Sacred Grove. I have prayed for years for a specific witness and honestly have felt slightly dissatisfied with the minimal response that I've received concerning heavenly beings visiting the earth. I cannot wrap my mind around the reality of that yet,  and it's been a deep struggle for me to stand and say that "I know that heavenly messengers have visited the earth" as we are wont to say in the LDS Church.

Rather, my belief is based on the testimony,  or witness from the Holy Spirit of God, of principles taught in the Mormon Church that could not be true unless the assertions of Mr. Smith are veritable. 

If it is all a lie:

1. Marriage the family are not eternal, and they exist just "until death do you part".
2. God and Jesus might be kind of the same person, but not really. The whole Trinity concept is what was taught in the time closest to that of Jesus, but even so, it was first accepted as doctrine by the early Christian church 300 years or so after the death of the apostles. I would get very confused as to what I should accept as the nature of God.
3. I consequently have not made a valid covenant with God through baptism by one who has the proper authority of God (the priesthood as mentioned in the Bib and should Old and New Testaments) I would therefore need to continue to seek one who does Have that authority.
4. All baptisms for the dead are sacrilegious and ineffective. 
5. Temples are evil places where people make promises devised simply to inhibit the lifestyle of church members and the peace felt there is simply the secular serenity of being in a quiet place learning positive principles.
6. The warm feeling that I get reading the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as listening to the words of people that I now believe to be prophets and apostles of God, is a feeling that is nice, but does not confirm truth and I should cease to follow any direction offered to me by those moving desires that stir in my soul.
7. I am held accountable for the sins of my forefathers, all the way back to Adam, making me responsible for the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, injustice towards wisdom, lies, deceit, unbelief in God, etc. That is the concept of original sin in which I currently do not believe.

I hold the inverse of the above statements to be true because of the tangible and undeniable confirmation that I've received from the Lord in humble prayers throughout years of questioning that the principles preached in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints indeed are the very word of God. I cannot in good conscience refuse to accept the fact that God has made it known to my soul, heart and mind that the Book of Mormon is an inspired text that has taught me so much about Jesus that I love with all of my heart. I  cannot bare to consider that the wonders He performed for my Native American ancestors never happened, and that God is letting man wander in confusion and discord about the very person that should bring us all together.

Because I believe that, I affirm that Joseph Smith didn't lie to the world about his experience in this life. I have had too many witnesses to the contrary.

You will too if you sincerely study the subject from its source and not its enemies. The source is God, and therefore his enemies are, knowingly or not, fighting His purpose, which is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

#whyibelieve 

Values

Why does the word "value" have two different meanings? One means "worth" and the other means "moral belief". How are the two connected? Have you ever speed to think about that (before I asked you to)?

Let's begin with the idea behind "worth". Worth means that there is a cost that you would be willing to pay to keep or obtain an object or ideal. The idea of supply and demand is that a seller will only be successful if they place the price on the line of what the buyer feels the product is worth. Though you would make insane amounts of profit based on the proportion of building cost to revenue, only a child would drop $1,000,000 on a candy bar, so placing the price that high is stupid. If you place the price of a car at $1, the buyer will suspect that the car is worthless and won't go for it.

Value is affected by not only production costs, but by the acknowledged need for what is being sold. I sell animated Bible videos for a job, and in order for me to inspire people to buy they must understand the importance of having good media choices for their children at home. Once that is understood and taken to heart as a priority other things become less important and the sale is made. The value increased once the need became a reality to them.

Now, about the other definition of "value": moral belief. When you say that someone has values you assert that they hold true to certain principles. Common examples of phrases concerning this idea are family values, Christian and other religions' values as well as just the secular moral values.

So what happens when we fuse the two concepts into one?

A moral belief, if it truly has worth, merits sacrifice to uphold; otherwise is has no "value". There is a certain cost that one will pay to maintain personal integrity, and that confirms the declaration that he or she veritably has "values".

For many these days, religious values don't carry with them validity. These people seem to say that those who hold true to such beliefs are bigoted or old fashioned. I contest that these people have forgotten the literal meaning of the word "belief" because some throw it around lightly and without conviction. Those who flee pain by breaking their values and bending their own personal rules figuratively sell their  moral cars at $1. This causes a decrease in the marketable price of morals when many people lower lower their moral standards in exchange for money, power and popularity. That signifies that few are willing to stand up for what they see as right anymore; the world at large won't pay the price if money and power are cheaper emotionally and spiritually.

Don't sell your values for less than what they are worth. A universal value is that life is precious. You wouldn't kill yourself to eat garbage, so don't succumb to loud protests of others to achieve popularity in exchange for your soul.

Here is a test to try out for yourself: prioritize your beliefs. What is most important to you, and what is of lesser value? Go on and write it out and reassess you current actions to see if you are being honest with yourself. 

10 Questions For Personal Reflection Concerning Your Open-Mindedness

Often we look at others and claim that they are closed to any new thought that challenges what they believe or what they have learned from their trusted sources. Let's leave those others alone and take some time to help you ascertain where YOU yourself are on the scale.

1. Do you ever assume that people that believe differently than you have evil intentions because they are "rejecting the truth"?

Frequently people assert that one priority is more important than another, thinking thoughts like, "good people place this as top priority, and bad people don't." This is a way to close yourself off right from the start. For instance, both sides of the gun control argument want safety for, but they argue about which method is safer in the long run.

2. Are you honest-to-goodness willing to admit when someone else is right and you are wrong, or do you always have to "win" the argument?

No one "wins" an argument. Truth prevails, so fighting for your point of view excessively, especially when you know that you are wrong in some sense is without avail. It's okay to admit when you are mistaken. 

3. Do you ever simply contradict somebody's point by asserting the opposite without asking why they believe that way?

This is Class A verbal violence. Think of the Monty Python argument sketch and how pointless their conversation is. If someone says something you disagree with, show some evidence that they may not have had access to instead of saying 

4. Do you associate yourself only with people that believe just like you, or do you also coexist with those of differing faiths and political affiliations?

I sometimes end up being around people that are on a similar part of the spectrum as me because it means less contention. That suggests that I can probably do better at getting along with others, but my friends and I tend to like the same activities, so it doesn't mean that I have to change my close circle of friends. 

5. Do you ever take the time to just listen to what others believe, or do you assume that they hold certain truths inevitable?

Don't assume that you know what someone else is trying to say or what they hold near and dear to them. Ask. It's that simple.

6. When was the last time you sat down and asked yourself  what you can do to better understand a religious or political standing that you know little about?

Do some research and develop your own knowledge of things as they really are.

7. Do you get defensive, or snarky when someone disagrees with you, or do you here them out?

If you start saying "but but but but" you aren't listening. If you flip around and make accusations you are struggling to own up to the truth of the matter. Also, sarcasm indicates a lack of willingness to understand.

8. Would you agree that it is wrong to degrade others based on their beliefs, even when those beliefs oppose what you stand for?

This one is hard because we often associate attacking those who support an idea with proving them wrong, but all it really does is portray hate on our part, even if we really don't hate them.

9. Do you accept others for who they are regardless of political difference/indifference, lifestyle or religious disagreement?

You don't have to constantly argue and bicker with your neighbor because you are Catholic and they are Atheist, or because they aren't Republican and they like the Patriots. You can let it slide.

10. Do you ever label those people as "stupid", "ignorant", "haters", "racist", "bigoted", "self righteous", etc.?

Name calling is the most common way that we learn to manipulate others into agreeing with us. Politicians love this one, and many activists use it, too. The labels we put on things and people can drastically affect the way we look at them. If you call someone a Nazi, you bring all of the emotion behind the Holocaust into play. If you call someone "racist" you affirm that they discriminate based on skin color or nationality alone. If you ever use terms like this, be sure to not only have evidence that they really are racist, you should have be able to sincerely and completely refute any evidence that they aren't racist. Remember that some irrefutable evidence is required in court in order to convict. Act likewise. Playing the devil's advocate against your claim will help with this one.

New Years Restitution: Positivity and Consistency

This last year I've published upwards of 20 articles and thoughts on difficult subjects, and really hit my friends' Facebook pages hard with a philosophical, but overall negative undertone behind it all. The other day I saw an old friend that is now married (it's been three years since we last met) and the first thing he said was "man, your posts on Facebook are obnoxious." I didn't ask him to clarify what he meant, whether it was that my posts themselves are bringing negativity into his news feed, or if it was just that I tend to post a lot and get comments, but I get the message: something has to change. Not for the sake of my blog, but for the sake of my friends.

So, granted that I am going to continue to blog this year, and hopefully have many more views than the 1,200 or so views I got this year (which was awesome), I am going to change my attitude and tone in this blog for the year. I want to compliment cases in which there has been good communication and analyze why it was good.

This change will present its challenges if I want to reach my goals; much of the online community feeds on nasty occurrences and criticism. I feel that most of my viewers have looked for that reason, and I have admittedly cooked up a smorgasbord of it with some vindication for dessert.

Now, every once in a while there may be a topic that I feel is good to report my thoughts on, and not ALL of my posts will fit this criteria, but the vast majority will go along these lines.

So, if anyone wishes to help me find material to write about, I would be much obliged. The idea is to find articles that discuss:

• Disagreements that ended well
• Tough topics discussed civilly
• Arguments avoided through good communication
• Encouraging positive reinforcement as opposed to punishment
• Personal reflection on self improvement via communication
• News articles that praise similar actions 
• You get the idea

Feel free to contact me via Facebook at Facebook.com/ListenFirstThenSpeak or via email at c.kent.lp@gmail.com.

Thank you for having read my blog, I hope that in some way it has had a positive effect on your life and a desire to communicate more effectively and openly.

Happy 2015!!

Gay Marriage According to Kant

Utah’s recent ban on gay marriage has been repealed by Federal Courts. The claim is made that marriage can be redefined based on the sexual orientation of the couple in order to not oppress those who are homosexual. It is obvious that the courts do not follow the ideology of Immanuel Kant in making its decisions because when one analyzes what a categorical imperative entails and screens the maxims used to support the legalization of gay marriage through the qualifications, one will discover that it cannot be legalized morally according to Kant.

Kant explains the beginnings of morality as well as how to achieve it. He purports that nothing in and of itself can be inherently good minus goodwill itself; all things can be used for good and evil with that one exception. He affirms that the purpose of reason is to help mankind achieve and discover that goodwill because all of our needs as humans have attached to them instincts to spur us on to meet them, while goodwill is not a need per say. Reason helps us to understand goodwill and to find happiness by making moral decisions that adhere to our goodwill. Kant defines the highest sense of morality as a categorical imperative which has three formulations.

The first formulation is that a moral act must be universally achievable without instigating any sort of contradiction. Killing oneself out of self pity, for example, defeats the purpose of self pity in the first place and therefore contradicts the very meaning of itself. Therefore suicide is not moral according to Kant. Also, Kant does not allow exceptions to a rule, therefore killing oneself for some noble cause still would not qualify for him as moral. He would assert that not only under his first formulation, but also under the second, which is that a moral act cannot use other people as means only, as opposed to being an end in and of his or herself. The suicidist uses his own self as a means, and thus disqualifies his action for fitting the categorical imperative. The third formulation is that anyone who declares an act moral must be willing to abide by the same, thus creating what he calls a kingdom of ends. Each and every member of the kingdom must follow the moral code as logic calls for. This also shows that suicide could not be considered moral, because anyone who thinks it moral must abide by the rule and kill himself in order to be moral. Some actions will qualify partially as a categorical imperative by satisfying one or two of the requirements, but in truth all three requirements must be met in order for Kant to assert that the action is moral. That is why he included all three formulations in his definition of categorical imperatives.

To discuss the morality of legalizing homosexual marriage, one must remember the definition of the word to be able to seek contradictions in any maxim given to support or refute the notion. Marriage has been defined in different ways throughout the course of its existence, but has been understood as the unit in which families are created and raised and entails having multiple parents/spouses present. Some cultures have declared it to being between only one man and one woman, whereas other cultures have deemed it just for one man to marry multiple women. The idea of polygamy, if the kingdom of ends wants to find itself achieved, must allow for a woman to marry multiple men as well. For polygamy to satisfy the first formulation it must exclude the option of someone marrying someone else that is already married, or a situation could arise in which a man married to three women married to three men individually who in turn have married three wives apiece etc. Marriage would therefore be a formality and nothing more, and basically it would cease to exist, especially if we were to make polygamy universal. On the other hand, marriage between one man and one woman would be moral seeing that everyone can do so and no contradictions present themselves.

Now there are people that intend to call a homosexual relationship “marriage”. Essentially, they want to redefine marriage to fit their own purposes, while affirming to allow others the same option, and therefore passing the formulation of the kingdom of ends. However, they have opened up a new can of worms here: if one person can redefine marriage to satisfy their fancy, that means that everyone must be able to in order to fulfill the first formulation. If this is true, a man who desire to marry his dog could argue that marriage should not be limited to humans because animals have rights and he longs for his companionship to be legally recognized. Since the formulations cannot be conditional, regardless of how many people agree or disagree with him he must be given that right to choose. Going back to our previous example of polygamy, a polygamist could also argue that she is bisexual and desires to have multiple partners in her marriage of both genders; all seven of them love each other and wish to engage in a four man and three woman marriage. Marriage would then mean that anyone can group living things together regardless of number and the state must recognize it as a marriage. This creates a question as to why we have marriage in the first place if the definition is subject to drastic change to fit contemporary views or personal opinion. However, the idea of civil union, which differs from marriage and is designed for those who wish to live together but whose relationship does not qualify for the term “marriage” allows for such people to have that union without inciting contradictions in logic.

Taking the last maxim one step further, if one can redefine marriage, the maxim must be universal to qualify as a categorical imperative. Therefore, if a person can redefine marriage, they must also allow for the redefinition of other words as well. This maxim would disseminate the very utility of language. Granted, connotations have changed over time, such as the word “gay”, which used to mean “happy” and now suggests male homosexuality. The word was used in a different context as a euphemism and now the euphemism has overridden the initial definition as understood by society. That is very different from changing the word “borrow” to include stealing by calling theft “borrowing without asking”. If marriage can be redefined as including the option of homosexuality, then theft could become simply borrowing because it is close enough that we can begin to use the words interchangeably. Therefore, the concepts of stealing and borrowing become one, as would marriage and civil union. Mixing definitions creates contradiction.

Moving on from the legal semantics of marriage, let us discuss the universal implications of homosexual marriage. Seeing as those following Kant’s theory aspire to live in a kingdom of ends, they must live in a manner that everyone else can adopt as well. Therefore, a person who chooses to only live in a homosexual lifestyle cannot be a member of said kingdom because if the whole human race were to do the same we would have no following generations unless we were to force certain individuals to have children, thus making them a means and not ends. Remember that allowances cannot be made based on circumstances according to Kant, even if those circumstances are emotional and physiological differences or sexual preference. However, if everyone were to submit to the idea that marriage is heterosexual regardless of sexual orientation, no contradictions are present. The human race would continue on as normal despite the discomfort of some as moral decisions are known to cause anyway.

Let us say that Kant were to concede one violation of his rule of not making exceptions based on circumstance, and that violation is to allow morals to change based on sexual preference.  Homosexuals claim the right to “marry” each other because they say that homosexuality is a natural inclination that they have. It is difficult for them to overcome it, and anyone who says that they must do so is an oppressor. Their claim written as a universal maxim would read: a person may do as he or she feels and be justified by morality. We have already discussed why homosexual unions cannot be universal, and this maxim follows suit. If human beings redefine morality to mean “how one feels”, serial killers can hold that they feel great pleasure in killing others. They can claim that it is difficult for them to overcome the urge, and therefore laws that prohibit murder are oppressive. As we can see, if we allow one group of people to decide that their struggle to accept one of Kant’s formulations for a categorical imperative and still call it moral, and we allow all others to do so, the purpose of the three formulations would fail. Therefore, there can be no exception made for homosexuals based on their emotions.

To conclude, in order to homosexual marriage to reach the status of a categorical imperative, the redefinition of marriage must be allowed in all instances based on how the person seeking to change the concept of marriage sees fit, and everyone must be able to act based on their emotions and physical desires without legal consequences. These maxims are self contradictory, and therefore homosexual marriage cannot exist morally as a categorical imperative.

Superman Complex: My Struggle With Adoption

With my name I've never been able to avoid being compared to Superman. I'm tall, dark and handsome, wear suits on a regular basis and I, too am adopted by earthly parents. I don't have superhuman strength or x-ray vision. My glasses are much needed, in fact. I don't believe myself better than anyone else, nor do I relate my sense of moral judgement to be supposedly perfect as his is. I can, however, relate to his difficulty in discovering that he was adopted.

Clark Kent and I have similar relationships with our parents. I love my family  to no end. They have done everything in their power to show that they truly love me, and I will always consider them as my mom and dad. This does not change the fact that whenever I fill out medical paperwork asking for family history, I can't answer any of the questions and have to put "no" for my lack of knowledge. It doesn't change the reality of my dilemma when asked what my race is: I'm adopted, and my birth mother claimed to be Cherokee, but due to her circumstances I was not listed as a tribal member according to their paperwork. Outside of two names I know nothing else of my origins just like Clark Kent.

Superman eventually got to meet his father through a miraculous turn off Sci Fi events. It's possible that one day that might happen to me, just slightly more realistically via hard work and legal processes that would take strenuous efforts and months of dedication. It may well be worth it someday when I'm no longer a poor college student.

So how do I deal with the load in the meantime? There is another Father that I've never met, but I've gotten to know very well. My Heavenly Father, who has throughout my life down me that He loves me as an individual. This came to mind again for me today watching the scene in Man of Steel where Superman relates to his mother that he found his father from another planet, and that he learned who he is and what his purpose is in life. It became so much easier for Clark Kent to know what to do with his life based on the advicefrom both sets of parents

Now for all of you skeptics out there that might relate God to a fictional comic book character, you may choose to believe what you will. You can say that I'm just seeking a father figure to hide my inner confusion and that I've imagined that all of this is true. Go ahead and believe so. That does not change what I myself know to be true: that I have felt a greater peace than what I have experienced from any other source in my life when I get on my knees and speak with that "fictional" God. Though not always when I want it, He answers my prayers, whether it be through scripture studies, words or actions of those around me, or random thoughts and feelings that I believe come from Him. 

If you're adopted or orphaned, or just feeling lousy in life with no purpose, I'd like to invite you to try and work with your Heavenly Father to discover who you are and where you come from before the womb. Seek the cold, hard truth as to whether or not God answers your prayers. Don't rely on others telling you that it does or doesn't work for them. Do it yourself. I've learned why I'm here on earth and know that there is  more to this temporary pass through mortality filled with both pleasure and pain.

I hope you can find all the answers that you need, and some that you just want. I still have questions, but I know who can help me resolve them. And like Superman, you can be an even greater force for good in this world.

The Christmas Spirit

Let me talk to you about a very famous man associated with this time of the year.  His story is very well known throughout most of the world. His main goal in life is to bring others joy, and often as children we grow up believing in him, but as life goes on we either forget or he must only be a fairytale because it's too fantastic to be true. He has a beard, kind eyes and always dotes a genuine smile. He is very wise and gives great advice. He knows what is going on in the lives of every human on the planet and loves to reward us for doing good. Especially around December, everyone tries to be a little more like him and feels great peace as they do so, regardless of religious inclination. He loves everyone, and those who believe in him usually have never seen him and go their whole lives without ever accomplishing it. Who am I talking about? Jesus or Santa? 

Some people hate on Christmas because they feel it forces Jesus on everyone. As a Christian, I still understand that you may not want to believe in God for various reasons, and I have no issue with that. To be honest I feel your pain when I see so much of a push for extreme feminism and gay rights. It kind of goes against what I have believed my whole life to an extent (feel free to contact me for clarification because it would take too long to explain in one post.) Given that we all know how it feels to have ideas forced upon us, I'd like to show how a good natured  secular Christmas doesn't differ that much from a good natured Christian one. 

Jesus and Santa are the key; they both personify the attributes that constitute what people see as good. I don't care which one you pick as a role model if you end up doing good things and feeling the peace that I do when I follow the teachings of Jesus. Christmas is about peace on earth and goodwill to men. You don't have to believe in Jesus to want that, and that is what we as Christians are trying to portray when we put up a nativity scene in our lawn or say "Merry Christmas" to you. We aren't trying to say "you have to believe in Jesus because we do". 

So if you're not Christian but you approve of Santa's idealized attitude towards life, you will agree somewhat with the teachings of Jesus. You don't have to worship him like I do, but you can take the time to benefit from the holiday that erupted from the desire to celebrate his birth in your own way. Spend some time with your family and love everyone a little more. 

Merry Christmas, all. Let's all get along. 

Ferguson Misunderstandings

This article has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of officer Wilson, nor of the demeanor or actions of the late Mr Brown. Those have already been scrutinized and over analyzed again and again for too long. This has to do with what is going through everyone's heads that has made the discussion of the subject so volatile.

I tried to sum up on Facebook in one concise post the thought processes of both sides of the debate; the idea was that those siding with Wilson felt that accusers jumped the gun when they called him racist and violent, while those against him were using emotion from past racist events similar to this were automatically assuming that those accusations were correct. In part, I was right, but I quickly learned that there was a while new dimension to the argument.

I began to comment back and forth with a young man on the post believing my assumptions accurate. He posted an article on the frequency of police indictments, indicating that the court system was rigged in Wilson's favor. I claimed that the frequency of indictments had nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of Wilson and that it was a completely separate issue. He then contested that the prosecutor failed to proceed in an objective and consistent manner with the witnesses, citing sources and they were all pretty legitimate articles. I respond with other newspaper entries and statements made by police officers and whatnot.

The conversion got slightly more heated than calm, but stayed much more civil than my escapade in April about modest clothing. We ended up agreeing that neither one of us had the answer to whether out not be should be indicted or punished for his actions, but we did agree that there are issues with the court system that need to get fixed. We never once even brought up anything about race in our banter, which surprised me a little at first.

I'm glad for the time that I took to slug it out and try to stand my ground on the issue some listening to my opponent by rephrasing what I thought he was trying to say. When I did, he was able to clarify why what I had asserted initially was uninformed and I learned a whole lot. I'm excited to see what my next controversial conversation had to offer for my non formal education about life.

Click here to read the full conversation

I would like to link two events together to pose a moral question

Event #1
A few months ago I had a telemarketing company repeatedly call me asking for some lady that must have had a similar number previous to me having the phone. Having worked in a call center, I was very respectful to each agent add they asked me if I was interested in their products for a disease that I do not have. I understand that they are just doing their job as directed by their employers, and felt no need to attack the agent personally. Mulitple times I requested that they remove me from their calling list, and it finally seems to have worked. Upon researching the small claims court system, I learned that I can receive hundreds of dollars for harassment.

Event #2
In my philosophy class we talked about the McDonald's lawsuit in which the plaintiff initially received multi-million dollar settlements from the company for having 180° coffee burn her severely and costing her $20,000 in surgery from the burns. This was used as a case to lead a cause against tort reform, which limits when and how one can file a class action lawsuit. That can prevent truly innocent people from receiving justice while, it is true, putting a stop to frivolous lawsuits.


My thought process is as follows:

1. Technically I could make some decent money by reporting the company and showing record of the phone calls. By all means I have been harassed by the company
2. I definitely could use some money for college but...
3. I didn't lose $500 worth of time, so receiving that much moolah for my discomfort seems a little steep of a charge. 

So my question is: though I am completely in the confines of the law in pursuing that money, is it moral for me to collect that money? Why or why not? I want to know if my case would be a "frivolous lawsuit" or if it is a valid way to tell companies not to harass people in direct violation of the law. Tell me what you think. 

A Negated Affirmative: Political Duct Tape

The following video is an excerpt from an interview with Thomas Sowell, a Havard graduate who has, throughout the decades, studied and commented on the effects of different actions taken by the government, especially those of feminism, affirmative action and racialism.

The rest of this post is a paper that I wrote in my freshman English class at Southern Virginia University. I don't remember what grade I got on it, but I do feel that it brings up some excellent points. Sowell discusses several of these points in the video, though he talks mostly about how affirmative actions affects the workplace. The focus of my paper was that of college admission and scholarships. 

 http://youtu.be/JENCxjbARFM  

  

A Negated Affirmative 

by Clark Lindsey

Duct tape offers a temporary, superficial and sometimes damaging solution for holding things together. Likewise, affirmative action as applied in the college application process not only sidesteps the underlying issue of equal opportunity, it injures society on a deeper level through a cruel irony; this attempt to defend the rights of minorities has in a twisted, yet predictable way become the driving force of reverse discrimination by diminishing the value of hard work through unwarranted handouts.
  
Affirmative action is defined as action taken to prevent discrimination (be it against race, gender, religion, etc). At the time of the issue of Executive Order 10925, in which affirmative action is first defined and introduced, the circumstances were rather dire for the minority population, with Jim Crow laws and prejudice saturating the system. This order promised minorities better job security, better prospects of being admitted to state-funded colleges, and more superior career possibilities than previously available. But a hidden, then subtle issue arose: how far should we assist the minorities before it has become too much?

Garret Hardin sheds a little light on the subject in his “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor”. He submits a dilemma in which there are fifty people in a lifeboat with room for sixty total and one hundred more people tread the water around the boat. His query follows as thus: “[W]hich 10 do we let in?” (359) Naturally [according to current attitudes towards affirmative action], the minorities deserve our attention and undying devotion, above love of self and the good of society. As today’s connotation of affirmative action asserts, the part-black, part-Native American woman should be among the first admitted, the others being the Atheist homosexual and the illegal immigrant, regardless of the collective importance of their well being. Furthermore, the children of any Congressmen, former or present should be high in consideration because of the status of their parent. Basically, whether or not they have a family, a job, or prior demonstration of academic and/or societal propensities merits little to no significance in comparison to their other, uncontrollable factors like parental status in society, race or gender. Faulty logic clearly grounds that conclusion.

Admission to higher education deserves no more interchangeability between rights and privileges as the lifeboat quandary. Why should minority students be given a leg up over the stereotypical white male unless they have exhibited a finer proclivity in scholastic abilities? Now, before I delve further into this subject, the reader should understand that I represent what I imagine to be one of the smallest minority groups in existence: Cherokee blood runs through my veins, the Mormon religion characterizes my morals, and my parents adopted me from birth. Yet no monies from schools or random institutions, let alone the government pay for my college education based on any of these aspects because I don’t find it ethically correct to accept such funds. I worked long hours at Wal-mart and the local pool to pay for my college, and I find such subsidies non-compliant with affirmative action, seeing as they discriminate recipients based on the very facets that affirmative action forbids. I mention this because hypocrisy doesn’t bode well in academia, and hard work compensates for shortcomings in faculty.
   
The fact that we have the works of Frederick Douglass proves the latter statement. He worked diligently to achieve his goals, and despite dismal circumstances, he succeeded. He was enslaved and sold as live wares for ill-earned gain, yet he reads and writes. Listen to the heartlessness demonstrated by his master and eventually his mistress:
I lived in Master Hugh’s family about seven years. During this time, I succeeded in learning to read and write. In accomplishing this, I was compelled to resort to various stratagems. I had no regular teacher. My mistress, who had kindly commenced to instruct me, had, in compliance with the advice and direction of her husband, not only ceased to instruct, but had set her face against my being instructed by anyone else. It is due, however, to my mistress to say of her, that she did not adopt this course of action immediately. She at first lacked the depravity indispensable to shutting me up in mental darkness. It was at least necessary for her to have some training in the exercise of irresponsible power, to make her equal to the task of treating me as though I were a brute. (Douglass)

Now, I do not contend that slavery rests among even the remotest of viable methods for teaching the value of being proactive, but it induced his “various stratagems” which exemplify hard work and resolve. He worked in a “ship-yard”, utilizing the other boys to learn how to read by challenging their knowledge, contesting that he knew how to read and write better than they, understanding full well that the four letters he had picked up from the labeled boards he worked with didn’t even hold a candle to the skills possessed by those he confronted. This effort epitomizes how people should move up in society; networking logically yields positive results, and humans have a tendency to work harder in adversity.
   
For example, my peoples, the Mormons and the Cherokee, by this nation alone were murdered and driven from their homes because they were different and in the way. Both established new homes, built new lives and moved on, making their plight a part of their tale and vigor—like Douglass, except on a grander scale. Myself, I am adopted, and I jokingly say that my parents picked me off of the clearance rack, and got a handful to deal with, but I still endeavored to become self-sustaining. On a much more serious note, let us not forget the bombings of Hiroshima and the legitimately hellish environment that ensued. Counter-intuitively, “[e]ven while the smoke still rose from the wasteland of total destruction, human goodwill began to go into action as people made their first moves toward recovery and restoration” (289). People push through and become stronger individuals after tribulation, and many different cultures have developed through hardship; therefore, by eliminating financial hardship because of culture you risk redefining the culture as well as encouraging slothfulness. Affirmative actors, as I call those who hypocritically purport to uphold Executive Order 10925, may not realize that giving true handouts to members of minority groups supports laziness—it removes obstacles, and therefore determination and perseverance. The anecdote about giving a man a fish rather than teaching how to fish illustrates my point nicely because of the implication that if we simply give someone in need money to get to college, they have missed the lesson of how to provide for themselves. They will not only expect more in the future, they will become dependent on their supply of fish, and complain loudly and obnoxiously upon its eradication.
   
To conclude, I have always been bamboozled by the legality of questions on college applications that ask for race, nationality, and religion. It makes sense to gather information on gender for housing and social reasons under the names of dating and marriage, but if the others are denied permission to exist in selective policies, why can admissions officials ask these statistics prior to admission? This information should be gathered ad hoc only.
Construe with me an experiment, undertaken by colleges across the nation, in which the same applicants as years previous are reevaluated, minus the controversial information aforementioned. Should one demographic dominate the acceptance rates, the others can then be offered extra help before admittance to college, meaning that they are denied initially, so that the elite of the academic field can compete with the other top scholars and advance society at a faster rate. “It’s ludicrous to say that a student who has not been given the advanced preparation… should expect to be on a ‘level playing field’ and to expect them to do as well as someone who has had the training and support” (qtd. in Dennis).

Apart from the moral reasons for equality, the issue of fairness surfaces as well. Equality is not a direct synonym of fairness or logic, though they often coincide. The government should not make blanket statements concerning fairness because they can only be judged on a case-by-case basis. The title of this essay refers to how the government has nullified its own law by allowing affirmative action to transform into the mishmash it is today. In context, equality means that students should be admitted on both academic and personal merit alone, not on any factor out of their control.

                                                                      

Works Cited:
Dennis, Raoul. “Supreme Court Decision Turning Down Affirmative Action Case Only a Small Victory.” New York Amsterdam News 92.23(2001): 42. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 12 Oct. 2011.
Doulgass, Frederick. “Learning to Read.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 46-50. Print
Hardin, Garret. “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 357-67. Print
Oe, Kenzaburo. “The Unsurrendered People.” Reading the World: Ideas That Matter. 2nd Ed. Michael Austin. New York: Norton, 2010. 288-91. Print"

Facebook Haters

Having read of the predicament of the English in the 18th century concerning the amount of poor children running through the streets stealing and begging for food, I have come to appreciate greatly the wisdom of Jonathan Swift in addressing the issue. His "Modest Proposal" in 1729 was to eat the offspring of those who are less fortunate as a delicacy, granting the dregs of society money and cleaning up the public walks for those who are more fortunate.

I wish to follow his example in purporting a solution to hate crimes on the Internet. There are some people out there who post ridiculous comments on their Facebook walls that are just outdated and bigoted. These posts include assertions of genuine beliefs that simply offend the general public because they are not politically correct.

We cannot have people posting thoughts and declarations that go against popular notions and common practices. The emotionally sensitive might have hurt feelings.

In fact, I would l like to thank those who on the Internet have placed themselves on a higher plane than those haters who speak their minds on touchy subjects, or make religious creeds known to everyone. These thought police help to make a non-contentious environment for all others on the Internet. It is likely that if they work hard enough they might be able to achieve that which George Orwell predicted in his book 1984 where even one's own children will turn in their parents for breathing out unintentional blasphemies against the government and currently upheld values in their sleep.

I myself have helped in this great cause at times but found that I do not have the time to constantly patrol the pinboards and Twitter feeds for comments that don't aline with my own. After long internal assessment I have found within myself a lack of courage to continue to attack others for what they believe and have only resorted to recounting what I myself believe.

My proposal is thus: if you ever see post with which you disagree,  please respond in the most inflammatory way conceivable without thinking through the long term consequences. Do not keep in mind the feelings or sentiments of the Facebook haters because they are no longer people. Obviously they always intend only harm and never base any of their perspectives on some sort of truth that they may have picked up through their life experience.

Please refrain from using good communicative skills, or doing any research or deep analysis before replying on your news feed. That would require effort and thought,  sometimes even a reflection of your worldview and might cause an annurism in your brain. Kind anecdotes, or rephrasing what you assume the person might be trying to portray (but has failed to do so) surely couldn't do even the slightest bit of good for internet communities. How outlandish!

These hateful people should also be shunned in public for the spiteful actions of speaking their mind that they think that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, or that abortion is wrong except in very critical circumstances, or that welfare should only be given to those who show work ethic and desires to amount to something in life instead of being a free handout for those who dont want to work. They who scourge the earth with such audacity to say what they think is right should be permanently silenced by none other than imprisonment and the removal of their fingers to never bear false witness about their sickly perceived evils of our culture again. I mean, look at the rude and intolerant nature of this next picture! How can people even say something so arrogant?!

Please join with me by sharing this blog post on your Facebook walls, pinboards and other social networking sites to inform the general population in the fastest means possible so that we can rid ourselves of free speech Nazis that aggravate us by refusing to conform to our wishes. Then maybe we can go back to posting about frivolous things like fashion, professional sports games and comedic performances on American Idol while ignoring important debates and denying the reality of pressing problems that plague our pages with pilfering profanity like traditional values. Cuss words, violence, and pushing pornographic images are much more suitable to our purpose of raising the next generation in peace and understanding. Try to promete those, too. I see that some of us have already caught on to that movement. Keep up the good work!

With an extreme attitude of sarcasm and a prayer that if you have read this you understand what is implied here,

Clark Lindsey, a recovering Facebook Police Expert

Disclaimer: there really are people out there who hate on others using social media. Those people are still human beings, but their actions should not be tolerated. Help put a stop to cyber bullying, but in a nice way. Though three lefts do, two wrongs do not make a right. Often those who harass others are insecure themselves, and as I have discussed in this post, it is possible to go too far on the offensive in the name of justice.

(Scroll down and read my other posts to learn more about my personal escapades and the mistakes of myself and others. Nobody is perfect, but we can all progress if we try! I am amenable to constructive criticism, so feel free to contact me with ideas. If they're messed up I simply won't respond and delete your comments, so please don't waste our mutual time with real hateful remarks. Sarcasm is appreciated to an extent.)

Moral Relativism: Evidence That God Exists

Having studied different moral theories of Kant, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and others in my philosophy class, it has astounded me that these incredibly intelligent men differ by such large margins in defining right and wrong. Deontologists like Kant claim that exceptions can't be made on moral laws based on circumstances; if something is not moral in some circumstances it isn't ever moral. Consequentialists like Mill assert that the ends justify the means; sometimes actions that are immoral in some circumstances are moral if they bring about greater happiness when all is said and done.

Most compelling movies and TV shows will present these competing moral claims to make the viewer try to discern for his or her own self good from evil. Often the villain will purport that his actions are only to bring world peace or to grant the people freedom, but his method is to kill millions of innocents in the process. Other times it is the hero that decides to forego killing the villain because they believe that killing is always wrong,  but their mistake also costs the lives of many bystanders or friends as a consequence.

These moral dilemmas,  and the widely variant responses concerning what should be done, often create societal discord about politics and religion or the lack thereof. Our differences as human beings sometimes lead to war or governmental coups, family feuds or neighborhoods and church congregations shunning some members. Obviously humanity is divided over issues such as abortion, gay marriage, guns, animal rights, religion, stem cell research and myriad other topics, and that is only taking into account current national views on the matters,  let alone global views that have changed over time and vary by location. Just think about how chaotic it would be if every human being ever to exist were to sit in a council to decide right and wrong by unanimous vote.  It would never happen.

Despite this idea,  each person generally tries to do what is good, with many exceptions,  but even wicked people tend to justify their actions in side way shape or form. This notion of doing what is right comes from what in the LDS church is labeled as the "light of Christ", or the inner feelings that one has to follow God and be a good person, also known as a conscience to the secular world. Everyone has a conscience even if they chose not to listen to its advice. Even amongst all the arguing and bickering over right and wrong there are some pretty universal constants in the moral world. Lying for the sake of lying is not moral, nor is killing innocent people. Taking that which belongs to someone else is also immoral. However because there are exceptions of people not caring about others and placing personal survival as the number one priority, relying on humanity by itself to truly define right and wrong is not possible. This is partiality due to the fact that when other people place their moral emphasis in a different way it is a man's nature to claim that the other people have used flawed or corrupted logic to reach their conclusions.

Now,  part of God's nature is that He understands everything perfectly and makes no logical errors ever. Let's out it this way: God understands the workings of the entire universe of which mankind through its "science" hasn't even been able to indisputably outline the parameters. He knows a lot more than all of mankind put together and has an eternity of experience using that knowledge and dealing with humans via creation and seeing world's come and go. Granted that His knowledge is without fault, He had the right and ability to discern good from evil perfectly and completely. Man does not have that right,  never had had the right and honestly never will have the right. Therfore, God can instruct man on moral issues and by following His directions man can live a moral life.

Why do I claim that moral relativism evinces the existence of God? Because man does indeed affirm that good and evil exist, but cannot agree upon the line between the two. In order for morality to exist,  there must be a method to define it universally otherwise morality becomes nothing more than opinion, and if that's the case nothing is immoral because someone will always have a different opinion. Since morality and opinion do not equal each other, a party outside of humanity must dictate morality and immorality, and the party must comprehend every situation fully to make the judgement call. The only being ever conceived that can do so is God Himself.

I then approached my professor with this hypothesis and inquired to hear what rebuttals philosophers might give to this question.  His response is that atheists will claim that God doesn't exist, but that only means that atheists do not believe in morality, rather in opinion alone. If that is the case than those that believe in no God could potentially assert that they can do no wrong in their own eyes, which means that laws exist purely as social contracts and not to prevent evil from prevailing in society.

I believe in God for more than rationalizations, but sometimes it is nice to hear logic that supports my convictions. If all of this was worded strangely and hard to understand I will try to sum it up in one sentence. People believe in good and evil but can't agree on the parameters, making morality a matter of opinion. In order for pure morality to exist it would have to be universal and not change based on social acceptability as it tends to do with mankind. God can see all things clearly enough to be able to outline the distinct between right and wrong. Therfore if you believe in morality you believe in God or in the least a supreme being.

Standing Up While Sitting Down

I hold hope for the communicative skills of the rising generation after yesterday's Life and Ethics class discussion about abortion. This topic is heavily debated upon,  and I specifically have not yet posted on it for good reason. The only reason I have chosen to talk about it today is because I was able to see my very culturally diverse class go head to head without being at each other's throats. Opinions clearly differed even amongst those of the same religion, and, as usual, my opinion presented a lonely outlier for the group that certainly sparked people's interest and got some individuals who normally don't speak in class to repeatedly raise their hands to respond to my viewpoint. In fact,  the whole class turned from asking the professor questions to asking yours truly what I believed,  and, to their credit, even why I held my beliefs.

Normally when you hear about this kind of occurrence in a church magazine the writer will portray the discussion as a crucial missionary experience, which in a sense I guess it was, but the church has no official stance on abortion that I am aware of, so I kind of was on my own and representing me myself and I. So was everyone else,  and the battle was indeed for truth's sake. As students presented their individual arguments, other students would call them out for using logical fallacies  such as over generalizations or assumptions on what a person might believe if they belong to a particular faction of beliefs. Then the original student would respond to the refutation with a defense for their argument and the truth of the matter slowly sifted itself out. My standpoint in particular was attacked brutally, but not in an insulting manner. As was I, my questioners only sought to know what was right and what was wrong.

We had ask read three articles on the subject and they all failed to mention abstinence from sex as a preventative measure for abortion. Each in turn laid out why or why not the woman has a moral right to decide to end a potential human life because her financial circumstances are difficult or her mental health isn't where it should be in order to make it through the nine month pregnancy let alone motherhood. This mindset is bright about by the labeling of the two sides of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: either you believe in preserving life or maintaining free agency. This is not the case. Many people fall somewhere generally in the middle of the spectrum on this topic.

For instance, in my case I believe the woman does have a choice concerning how to treat her own body; different in my opinion however is that I believe that choice comes before having a child as opposed to after becoming pregnant. This view was partially accepted but everyone's concern was that people in general enjoy having sex, so they wondered if I thought sex was a bad thing. I appreciated this question because it gave room to eliminate misunderstanding. Very important in clear communication.

I don't believe that it is bad. I believe that it is something to take into consideration that the biological reason we can procreate is to have children. If the only motive for having sex is to have fun and experience enjoyment one must weigh out the risks, just as one must determine if skydiving or riding a roller coaster is worth the risk. Though safety precautions may be in place,  accidentes happen. I love roller coasters, but each time I get on one I have to accept the possible consequences of my decision.

Nobody liked the answer, but no one could refute it either. Morality comes down to the idea of setting priorities: which ideals must be upheld above all others? if physical pleasure is number one and avoiding having a baby is farther down the list, then go ahead and do what you will. If your priority is to have a career and never have children, then to play it safe you may be celibate your whole life. Seeing the question of abortion as such a matter of deciding whether or not to have unprotected sex and dealing with the results makes the debate rest only on cases of rape and severe health threats for the woman. A person always maybe free to choose whether or not to sacrifice his or her life for that of another.

Anyway that was my standpoint and when the class ended five or six students approached me to explain that they disagreed with me but that we had had a very good conversation concerning the matter and today heard things they had not considered before. They expressed to me their wishes not to offend me in anyway shape or form and that I was not a monster in their eyes for holding my ground. This exhibits a rather different human characteristic than what I have seen before when making a stand as my previous posts show. During the whole conversation it was blatant that emotions were high for everyone,  but no one insulted each other or set up strawman arguments. People admitted any flaws that they had in their argument, and I feel that the class grew wonderfully from having the conversation. We were all able to set one priority straight: respecting those around us and establishing healthy relationships (not a dominant and submissive relationship nor a constant battle for it to become such) heavily outweighs being right all the time.