Consider this:

We wouldn't be having a discussion on government health care, pollution control, and waning natural resources if people stopped copulating. But, we can't talk about that because it's not the people's fault they can't learn that the juice coming out of their penis makes more people.

Consider this:

An honest word is hard to come by these days.

Proposition 8: Part 1

Let's set some ground rules before we begin:

First: Read the whole thing through. Nothing is more infuriating than taking words out of context and although wild accusations and suppositions take place, perhaps they are put there to get you thinking about the argument as whole, not just a right and a wrong side.

Second: Regardless of your what your stance is on the issue, don't let that clutter your thinking. Approach this read with as much ambiguity as you possibly can.

Finally: Consider this:

Proposition 8 has tentatively passed. There are some cheers and some boos and a lot more quiet onlookers. Yet, out of all of this, some things strike me as remarkable. Firstly, the very liberal people of California voted down the right for homosexuals to marry. Secondly, a very committed group of people urged the judicial system to weigh in on the validity and the constituionality of proposition 8. Finally, this has happened before.

Let's start with the third statement first as, I find, it's always good to know your history. In a bygone era, many states passed into law laws prohibiting interracial marriage. However, Supreme Court rulings concluded the laws to be unconstitutional and they were struck down. In 1967, before the Supreme Court rulings, 70% of Americans polled opposed interracial marriages. Now this statistic may be an accurate depiction of American beliefs, at the time, or it might be skewed. I don't have access to the method used to poll American's or the sample size and, therefore, I can't, with absolute certainty, say that this is a valid statistic. However, for the sake of argument, let's take this statistic as a valid statistic and explore its meaning.

Most of us, generally speaking, would look back on the 60's as a time of oppression and dogmatic thinking. However, it was also a time of exploration and new thinking for a younger generation. It is this younger generation, I believe, that comprises this 30% of Americans that support interracial marriages. So, the question I would propose is this: if 70% of the country opposes interracial marriages, but 30% of the country supports it, how long, if at all, will it take for 30% to turn into a majority given how the demographic of the United States of America is changing on a daily basis? Furthermore, and now we're getting into a little philosophy here, is the United States of America truly a country or nation in the classic sense?

I'll get into that second question momentarily, but first, lets consider the changing demographic that is the make-up of North American society. Every year approximately 1.2 million legal and illegal immigrants arrive in the United States and, every year, the United States issues approximately 900,000 permanent residency visas which far outweighs out-migration and deaths. Now let's take our 1967 example. In 1970, the number of immigrants living the United States was 9.6 million and the number has steadily risen to approximately 28.4 million in 2000. That's approximately 9.5 million immigrants per decade in addition to the increase in native population and the increase in population from immigrants whose children were born United States citizens. So, given this population bloom, how long before 30% becomes 51%? How long before the minority becomes the majority? Not very long. OK, but so what? What does that prove? That we should stick around and wait until there are enough homosexuals and homosexual supporters around to change public opinion? Not exactly, this leads me to my next point; is the United States of America truly a nation?

The dictionary defines a nation as: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. What is "sufficiently?" As far as I can remember, the United States has been marred with questions about its unity from day one. Are we a part of Britain? No; American Revolution. I like slaves and you don't; Civil War. Drinking? Absolutely not; Abolition. And so on and so forth. The United States has been marred by questions of its unity for all of its 234 years. But why? When we examine other nations in history, yes, we find strife, but we also find a level of unity and of consistent thought. So how is it, in a such a short expanse of time, that we've managed to break away from another country and break away from each other and still get away with calling ourselves a nation? The United States is not a nation and this is where, I feel, the disparity of thinking arises.

We have a flag, an emblem, a leader, a system of government, a military, a navy; we look and smell like a nation of people, but we aren't. The United States is a hodge-podge, rag-tag group of immigrants that were forced together out of very different and dogmatic ways of living in the hopes of carrying on a better life. Somewhere along the way, people began to think that they were the natives and, suddenly, this cycle of majority and minority that the immigrants attempted to escape has become a part of their life again. America's demographic is constantly in motion and the immigrant of yesterday, is the native of today. To think of ourselves as a nation is something to be met with confusion. The United States is a collective of people trying to live the life they want to live and they want their children to live. But therein lies the problem, in the pursuit of happiness, others are made unhappy. So who should prevail? No one. The United States has set laws preserving the rights of its people and the justice system is blind, so to speak, in their use.

This thought of the United States as a country is a dangerous one. If, on one hand, we want to be a nation, then the overturning of a voted proposition is blasphemous. Where is the sufficient unity? On the other hand, if the United States is a collective, than it is the duty of the justice system to protect the rights of the minority from the prejudices of the majority. Now I'm starting to get into the first statement: the very liberal people of California voted down the right for homosexuals to marry. I believe part of the issue that has arisen from this conflict is that some people view the United States as a nation and others view it as a collective.

To be continued.

Consider this:

Instead of being the world's greatest Guitar Hero player, why don't you pick up a real fucking ax. Douche.

Consider this:

Why is it called the projects? Whose project are these people? It's a fucking ghetto.