Today I read a post at the Volokh Conspiracy talking about a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. It has been a while since SSM crossed my RSS reader so I thought I’d take a look at the comments to see if people were still spewing the same arguments. It seems they are! Specifically the, “they’re trying to redefine marriage!” argument.

Why don’t we redefine marriage? I mean, we (as in Western civilization) have redefined it several times before: Marriage used to be a social contract between two families. Rarely was it about just two people. For thousands of years it was about allegiances, shared resources, and good will. I’m not sure when it changed (the Renaissance?) but at some point we created the following “definitions” which are world’s apart from the definition of the past:

• When a man and a woman live together for over 10 years.
• When a man and a woman love each other and go through a religious ceremony; taking vows respective of their shared religion.
• When a man and a woman love each other and go through a civil ceremony; vowing whatever they please.
• When a man and woman love each other and go through a brief ceremony by way of a sea captain; not having to vow anything in particular.

• A legally-binding contract between two parties of the opposite sex that affords them special rights and privileges.

  If it weren’t for that last one—particularly the “special rights and privileges” part—the whole issue of SSM wouldn’t have been an issue at all. If it remained merely a ceremony outside of law homosexuals would not have had anything to fight for. It would not have gone to court and people would find something else to get angry about.

  So why don’t we just settle this once and for all and redefine marriage to something a bit more basic?

• A specialty, legally-binding contract between two parties that covers the rights of two people regarding family affairs (such as inheritance, visitation, children, alimony, etc).

  Then the religious can have their religious ceremonies, the non-religious can have their civil ceremonies, the pirates can have their rum at sea, and gay couples can attain equal treatment under the law.

Tonight ABC News (TV) had a piece regarding, “Sex offenders on MySpace.” Here’s how I would sum it up:

Sex offenders on MySpace: What the popular-with-those-kids-these-days site is doing about sex offenders (you must say it slow, with emphasis). MySpace has already identified and removed 7,000 accounts of known sex offenders.

So the lesson here is clear: If you’re a sex offender, we want you to remain anonymous on MySpace. However, I must ask: Why can’t sex offenders have MySpace pages? It isn’t like it’s a “site for kids”—it is just a “site”. A bad one at that. What’s the point of banning people who were caught, say, soliciting a prostitute or peeing in public (aka indecent exposure)? Hell, some MySpace profiles are indecent exposure!

There’s registered sex offenders and then there’s registered offenders. You find the former on government websites and the latter on MySpace. Why all the fuss?

Lots of bloggers are saying all sorts of nasty things about him but I’m not going to do that. Instead, I’ll let his own words speak for themselves:

• “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
• “It appears that America’s anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men’s movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening.”
• “If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.”
• After the September 11 attacks Falwell said, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
• “Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”
• ”[Homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”
• “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”
• “The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.”
• “The Bible is the inerrant … word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.”
• “We’re fighting against humanism, we’re fighting against liberalism … we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today … our battle is with Satan himself.”
• “The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.”
• “Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.”
• “The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability.”

• “I am such a strong admirer and supporter of George W. Bush that if he suggested eliminating the income tax or doubling it, I would vote yes on first blush.”

  Update: I just noticed this great game (“Hitler or Falwell?”) over at BoingBoing where you read a quote and guess who said it. Beautiful!

Check out this (brief) story about a Polish student that traveled to the U.S. to study abroad:

“When I got out of the plane in Greensboro in the US state of North Carolina, I would never have expected my host family to welcome me at the airport, wielding a Bible, and saying, ‘Child, our Lord sent you half-way around the world to bring you to us.’ At that moment I just wanted to turn round and run back to the plane.

Things began to go wrong as soon as I arrived in my new home in Winston-Salem, where I was to spend my year abroad. For example, every Monday my host family would gather around the kitchen table to talk about sex. My host parents hadn’t had sex for the last 17 years because—so they told me—they were devoting their lives to God. They also wanted to know whether I drank alcohol. I admitted that I liked beer and wine. They told me I had the devil in my heart.”

I just came across a petition to Wal-Mart to stop selling the Bible (aka the “Holy Bible”). “What the heck?” Well, in case you were unaware, Wal-Mart has a long history of refusing to sell products that it deems offensive. It only seems logical that the Bible would fall under this policy.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t see anything wrong with selling the Bible. I’m vehemently against censorship. However, I’m also pro-consistency and I can’t stand hypocrisy, religious discrimination, and institutionalized favoritism. Especially from an organization that wields so much power in the U.S.

I signed the petition. Why? Because the Bible is probably the most offensive and hateful book Wal-Mart sells. Here’s an example from the petition (just for fun, you can follow along in your own Bible if you have one):

In Leviticus 24:16 the Bible demands: “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him.” See also 2 Chron 15:12-13 and Deut 13:12-16. In the “New Testament” of the Bible, the man known as Jesus also condemns all unbelievers.

Surely such text is more offensive than John Stewart’s book, “America” which Wal-Mart recently banned from its shelves.

Imagine you’re a school principal and you see two children fighting on the playground. Your immediate reaction is to break it up and haul them back to your office. Once separated, you ask the children to explain themselves…

“Alright, lets hear it. Why were you fighting?” You point a stern finger at the child to your left.
His eyes open wide with self-righteousness, “He started it!”
You must have heard this plea at least a hundred times. You reply in an authoritative manner, “It doesn’t matter who started it. You’re both in big trouble and unless you tell me why you were fighting you’ll be in even bigger trouble.”
Upon the completion of this statement, you see that the boy on the right has cracked half a smile. You douse it with a directed blast of sheer awareness in your eyes. His face melts into a zombie-like stare.
The boy on the left blurts out, “He refuses to accept the truth!”
Puzzled, you reply, “The truth? What do you mean?”
He gives the boy on the right a hateful look as he speaks, “He does not believe in the religion of truth. I’ve been trying to convince him forever but no matter what I say he never believes.”
Astonished by his words, you exclaim, “What?!? So you decided to beat it into him?”
The boy on the left realizes your dissatisfaction and retreats from his confidence, “I… I did the right thing!” his eyes turn to tears, “I just want… The book says I should fight unbelievers! We cannot let them spread their lies and evil!”
“Clearly this boy is disturbed!” you think to yourself. Yet something isn’t right about this whole situation. You have a sneaking suspicion that the other boy must have something to do with this.

You announce, “I’ve heard enough” and point to the boy on the right; “Now what have you got to say for yourself?”
The other boy looks puzzled, “What?” he exclaims. You suspect that he’s hiding something so you stare his poker face to the ground. Guilt creeps its way across his brow.
In a very stern and slow voice you demand, “What did you do?”
His eyes look up then meet the floor, his mouth opens. It looks as though he’s trying to slowly inhale his way out of the situation.
Six or seven breaths go by before he speaks up, “I said he was stupid…” A look of shame suddenly befalls his face, “and I took his book.”
This doesn’t surprise you. “Typical,” you think to yourself. In a voice of disappointment you ask, “Where’s the book?”
In tears, the boy on the left shouts, “He threw it over the fence!!!”
Your heart begins to sink as you exhale, “Oh dear.”
“Is it true that you threw his book over the fence?” you ask.
You can see the fire ignite in the eyes of the boy on the right as he speaks, “Yes… But that was like three weeks ago!” Your eyes light up with curiosity as he continues, “It’s just a stupid book! You’d think I killed his sister or something, he won’t leave me alone!”

You’re befuddled at the situation. On the one hand, you can clearly see that the boy on the left has… Problems. He’s been mislead to believe in some sort of simplistic religion that only sees the world in black and white; truth or lies; believe or die.

On the other hand, the boy on the right overreacted and sounds like a bit of a bully. Come to think of it, this isn’t the first time he’s caused trouble at school. Throwing a boy’s book over the fence? What an insensitive clod.

“You two just started at this school, correct?” you ask both of them. They nod in reply. You shake your head, wondering how you’re going to keep these two from killing each other over the next several years.
You search your brain for wisdom and decide on the best advice, “Before I determine your punishment,” you pause in a stern voice, “I have a few words to share with you. They might just prevent you from getting into trouble again.”

You point to the boy on the left and gaze intently at him, “You need to re-think what is important. I’m no religious authority, but I can assure you that it is unethical to physically harm another person just because you disagree with them. I understand your frustration, but that behavior is unacceptable. If you keep it up, you’ll have a lot more than me to worry about in the future. It could bring a whole world of wrath upon you. Do you understand me?”
The boy looks down and states simply, “Yes… Sir.”

You then slowly move your finger towards the boy on the right as your gaze distinguishes the flames in his eyes, “and you need to learn restraint. You may find him annoying as all hell and he may even get you in trouble from time to time, but reacting the way you did is inexcusable. Do you even know who lives on the other side of that fence? If the people who live there find that book…” You shake your head at him, “Let me just say that I can only protect you when you’re in this school. We’ve had a good relationship with the owners of that property for quite some time now and I’d hate for an incident such as this to screw it up.”

Your eyes then return to the boy on the left as you warn him, “And don’t go getting any ideas about causing trouble with the people on the other side of the fence. They’re just dying for someone like you to come on over and get them all riled up. They’ll tell you that they’ll help you. They’ll tell you that they care. But when you need them most, they won’t be there.”

You shake your head and close your eyes for a moment to reflect upon what you’ve just said. You direct your voice at both of them, “You don’t have to be friends, but you have to get along. There are better things to fight for and there are better ways to go about it.”

You lean back in your chair and command, “I will inform your parents of what happened and both of you will serve a week of detention to reflect upon what I just said.” The boys look quizzically at each other. “Now get out of my office!”

The answer to this question has been staring us in the face for millennia, but there are still many who believe that homosexuality is some sort of fetish or learned behavior. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) reveals evidence that homosexuality (at least in men) may be caused by womb-related conditions:

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either “biological” brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or “non-biological” brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.

He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.

Other recent research points to certain genetic factors that may determine sexual orientation. There may not be one single cause of homosexuality in men, but it seems damned obvious at this point that it is not a “choice”.

Just read this in Scientific American:

In both laboratory dishes and mice with human prostate cancers, the nanoparticles proved extremely effective. “A single injection of our nanoparticles completely eradicated the tumors in five of the seven treated animals and the remaining animals had significant tumor reduction compared to the controls,” Farokhzad says.

Here’s the details (sure to anger religious nuts everywhere): The scientists embedded cancer-attaching proteins into nanoparticles of a cancer-killing drug, mixed it together with antifreeze propylene glycol, then injected the resulting mixture into chimera human-animal hybrid mice with human prostate cancer. Simple enough!

The key here is the process: If they can combine proteins that attach to cancer cells with cancer drugs, they’ve effectively created a cancer sniper rifle inside a simple a syringe. Just about any tumor can be treated with this method (assuming they have a drug to kill it). In time I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to provide this treatment in pill form. Wouldn’t it be great to just pick up a simple prescription from your doctor to clear up, “that cancerous growth”?

Over at BoingBoing Cory Doctorow posted a message by JJ Sutherland that comes from a journalist in Iraq:

I get a call the other night. They’ve found four more bodies in western Baghdad. Three of them are in a car. They’re bound, hands and feet. They’re blindfolded. They’ve been shot in the head. Their bodies bear wounds from beatings, electrical burns, and someone has used a drill on their flesh. The fourth is the same, the only difference being that his body was tossed onto a sidewalk. That’s just one phone call. I get a few more. Every night, it seems, dozens of bodies turn up, often killed in the same fashion, both Shi’ite and Sunni.

The post goes on to describe just what it’s like in Iraq these days. Have a look

If Iraq falls into civil war, we have failed on all fronts. Whether real or imagined

As you should all know by now, Pastafarianism is the belief that the world, the universe, and everything in it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). Being a humble god, the FSM had ignored the false religions of man until he witnessed the bias of the Kansas Board of Education towards other religions. At which point he touched Bobby Henderson with his noodly appendages and instructed him to request equal treatment in Kansas classrooms for all theories regarding the origins of life.

Last week, Al-Jazeera finally answered the question on every Muslims’ noodle… “What does the Archbishop of Canterbury think?”

Williams, head of a church that has no problem with Darwinian evolution, told the Guardian newspaper: “I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory, like other theories.”

The article is short, but well-written. It’s most telling point has to be the closing statement regarding Bobby Henderson’s divine wisdom:

He put it like this: “I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world: one-third time for intelligent design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Overwhelming indeed.