Mawiage!

I've found myself thinking about the debate about same sex marriage, and I've been struck by how unethical it is to support bans on marriage in the first place. I understand that religious factors and history have had a huge hand in the current situation, but I just can't see how we are currently able to defend laws against gay and lesbian unions. Of course, reading the bloody name of this blog illustrates the number one suspect, that society has swallowed another stupid pill. It's probably expected that I would back up the homosexual community on this one, but for the record, I've gotten to this place through a different path than most might expect. I'm not a huge fan of the lifestyle that seems to have been built around the concept of homosexuality. It seems overly concentrated on the superficial aspects of society. Frankly speaking, gay isn't something I should be able to hear is a person's voice or see in your clothes. The moment that the concept of a gay/lesbian lifestyle appeared in out world, that lifestyle started to separate itself from the actual attraction to the same sex that defines the minority. The way that this has been idolized and encouraged in our culture has me worried.

To me, sexual preference is a personal thing, and should be treated as such. I understand that for many years homosexuality was repressed in modern society and only now can a gay man love freely, but I would counter that sex itself and anything to do with sex was pretty repressed in modern society, and only now the concept of dealing with sex as opposed to ignoring it is openly accepted. I might be overstating my discomfort here, and would like to make it clear that what I am bothered by is the culture, not the act. It's just something I find an annoyance at best.

This is why the absolute hatred of homosexuals portrayed by conservative media bothers me so much. Looking at the Bible, and knowing the religious teachings, one can only conclude that religion in this case is an excuse, not a divine calling. I can't see how anyone could really want to hold one sin so high above the others when it comes to the source material. My personal guess is that it's a form of social inertia coupled with a bunch of people who think they can use religion as a socially acceptable way to openly hate someone. Despite what we say in public, all emotions feel good. Anger feels good. Endorphins, adrenalin, dopamine, it's all there making us feel good. I think that of all of the people holding signs and raving against gay marriage, perhaps only 1/10 of them really meanit with any sense of religious conviction.

Of those people that actually are worried about the issue, there are only two arguments I've heard of that holds any weight in my mind. The first is the concept of homosexuality as a sin. Despite the rarity of mentions in the Bible compared to other sins, there are some who feel that we shouldn't be allowing people to "live in sin" or allow it to be encouraged. Well, I did have a friend who came up with the only appropriate response; "Who doesn't sin?". It is also the cornerstone of the Christian faith, that all of us are tainted by sin and living a virtuous life isn't the path to heaven. Also, with that in mind, if our concern is that they will go to hell, then maybe some Christians should rethink their methods of saving people, because ostracizing and abusing these people is not likely to get them to change their views.

The other argument I hear has a little more merit and a little more meat for discussion. It involves concern about rewriting the definition to the word "marriage". Some of my family hold this view and have stated a good point, and I feel I should paraphrase one of them to do the argument justice. "I love my wife, I love her more deeply then anything in this world. I entered into a divine contract of marriage with her, and people are now wanting to lower the bar. I'm not going to deny homosexual people the right to love each other, but by redefining marriage you are fundamentally cheapening the title I have with my wife." I can see where this argument might have merit. After all, according to Christian doctrine, homosexuality is considered a sin, (though I consider it a very forgivable one) and the the argument stands as long as you personally aren't being hypocritical in its application (make certain you aren't wearing any cotton/polyester blends).

The main counter to this however is one of language. We seem to have had the unfortunate lack of foresight to adopt the same words for "union under God" and "union under Government", and we seem to be letting our wires be crossed. I for one (and a few others) think that we should follow through with the separate church and state thing that we hold so dear. As a Christian I actually am on the fence when it comes to gay marriage in the church, but I do think that there should be nothing that stops two people of the same sex getting the tax benefits that come with marriage via government. I'd say limit the government to performing "civil unions" and let marriage be a religion thing. That seems a reasonable way to clear up the confusion. If a homosexual couple want to be married under God, then they should talk to their religious leader.
Now that I've made what I feel on the matter clear, I'd like to raise a point of ethics. Whether or not I feel it is wrong, how can any of us abide by any law that limits activities based on sexual preference? As I said, sex has always been one of those touchy subjects that no one is comfortable with, but after cruising the internet for a while, one knows that guy on guy action isn't the weirdest thing out there. If we are talking about base perversion, then we should be looking at banning leather stores and equestrian shops just to be safe. Actually there isn't a single damn thing out there that hasn't been sexualized in one way or the other, so why this one fetish. Then again, it seems to me that this is mostly a generational thing. I'm not seeing too many actual gay haters out there who are under the age of 30. I really feel that if this were an alternate world and there were a movement trying to ban gay marriage as opposed to upholding the ban, we would hate them for it. Todays controversy it isn't the fact that the majority of people are against same sex marriage, it's that there is legal inertia, and a lot of people are indifferent.
At the end of the day, everyone's got a fetish. Some of them are freakier than others, but one of the core lessons when dealing with each other (in the bedroom and out) is the acceptance that everyone is different, and what works for me won't necessarily work for you. What turns me on might disgust others, and that which turns Fred from my carpool on will most likely turn me off. This is okay, It doesn't mean he's right or wrong, just different. If a person is morally offended by homosexuals, I would ask them to re-examine this, cause from the looks of things, same sex marriage opponents seem to be mostly Christian. Most of these Christians seem to be protesting out of spite, and I think letting yourself treat anyone else differently due to spite is more deadly to the soul than a legion of rainbow wearing flaming homosexuals any day of the week. That's the bottom line here, folks. I don't support the homosexual community out of anything other than apathy. I don't care what they do in the bedroom, and I don't think the Government should either.

Free Music?

So I mentioned before that a lot of the internet issues that exist today are basically caused by our fear of organizations violating net neutrality for unethical advantages in other fields of society. This is very thinly trying to not say that the RIAA are jerks. I refuse to be unbiased on this one. For over a decade, I have watched this battle on music copyrights escalate, and it has just gotten worse and worse. The escalation has been rather one sided, in my opinion. Though technical advances have occurred, the only real escalation from the downloaders has been what we can download in addition to music. The RIAA and MPAA on the other hand have become more and more draconian in their attempts to stem piracy. After reading a list of things that these companies have said and done, I have come to the conclusion that these organizations are actively causing suffering of their consumers for the sake of making profit. This to me speaks of certain lack of ethics and morals with the decision makers of these organizations.

This opens quite an interesting thought, and I feel it traces back to the old story of Robin Hood. It may not be legal, but fighting this evil is right. I think a lot of people out there justify downloading in that light. I've seen so many people take the title of pirate, and wear it proudly. I've also seen this rash of "coping isn't stealing" videos going around, and I think it's complete BS. The person you copy the song from isn't the person you're stealing from. Let's see you try that defense with counterfeiting and see how well you fare. I for one cannot see why there is a debate on this. Long story short, there is no magical defense that will make downloading content that has been produced for purchase a moral act. Movies that you don't want to buy, can be rented. If you only want one good song from a CD that is full of crap, you can get the song from iTunes or one of their competitors. If you don't want to give money to an organization that you feel is corrupt and evil, then the proper way of doing things is to do without. People who justify downloading are akin to a Robin Hood who steals from the rich and just keeps the money for himself, or a Robin Hood who feel good about what he does because he gives 10% of his loot to the poor. The idea doesn't fully fly.

The response from these companies isn't totally insane either, it's just outside of intelligence and good taste. A friend of mine addressed this on his site, and it makes sense. I don't really rag on the RIAA for trying to make people think twice about downloading copyrighted material, I rag on them for trying to manipulating statistics, using the debate as a platform to make money, attacking people via their ISPs, and so forth and so on. As I said, I don't mind the idea of making a particular action so costly that no one would do it, but I do mind using the idea as a way to make a quick buck. Their attempts to clarify law on the matter are also thinly veiled attempts to cement themselves into the world and maintain a monopoly on an outdated business model. It's comical in a way that only an over sized bureaucratic entity is able to provide. However, all this does is complicated the issue. Two wrongs never make a right, it just makes both people have reason to blame the other and not blame themselves.

Now I'm not a saint when it comes to this issue, nor am I going to be an absolute hard-ass. If you want to listen to a song once in a while, or just want to listen to it once or twice, then by all means, load up a video that uses the song. If you are trying to find a new band that you will like, feel free to download their album. All I'm saying is that until you pay money for listening to the music, then you are receiving a product you did not pay for. All that's really needed to understand where I am coming from is a basic understanding of exactly how commerce works. Remember how I said that I wouldn't paint everyone in the industry with a single brush? That's because musical production requires a lot of trained personnel. Even the most low tech studio I've ever seen, needed a trained person to mix and balance the artist's recordings. Then there are people involved in convincing stores to carry the product. I do believe in marketing, and its benefits to the world. Don't forget factory workers who do the mass production. Hell, all of these people deserve all the money they get. I'm not saying it balances out, but I do think that if you like the work an artist did, then all the people involved in the creation of it should be paid.

What is all boils down to is personal responsibility. While the corporation running the industry is fairly evil, that never gives us right to do evil back. If you receive a song that was meant to be purchased, and you like it, purchase it. If you don't like it, delete it. If you want to listen to it, but don't like it enough to buy it, make a decision and stop waffling. To all those people like me, who download music to discover new artists, make certain that you follow through and actually buy the music. I am guilty here, but it doesn't change the fact that I know what I should be doing to be in the right. If you dislike the RIAA, and their practices, then protest, start an activist group or buy CC. At the end of the day, I don't think of a pirate as an evil person stealing from hard working musicians, I think of them as Average Joes who are just too lazy to follow through on doing the right thing, and if we stop giving the RIAA reasons to do stupid shit, then maybe the law would back us up once in a while.