"God made the gay people..."

Science has proven that being gay is based on a different combination of hormones released early on that causes formation of what causes attraction to the same sex. 

In religious terms, the argument that "God made the gay people too" makes sense.  It is not some dysfunctional choice - and, yes, there is a choice on whether to do the behavior or not - but how many of us can resist our chemicals, especially when they are a powerful (God-given?) forces. 

People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.  To place ourselves above other people who have different circumstances causing different things and different exposures causing their beliefs and models is what, I think, God might not say is very Christian or Muslim or whatever. 

Hate or discrimination is primitive uninformed behavior, lacking logic and facts. 

If people are to be true to the essence of religions, they would not do anything other than "love" and accept others.    Those who believe they are 'right' cannot "prove" that, other than citing sources that are in themselves unproven and only taken on faith - and all faith is based on interpretation.  And in elementary psychology we are taught that our perceptions and our unproven beliefs are not 'facts', no matter how many times they are repeated. 

No one religion can be proven to be right over the other 10,000 that claim to be the right religion - and, of course, they can't all be right.  So maybe the proper attitude here would be that of humility and no longer righteousness, when one is not 'for sure' right. 

So, we are all humans and we almost all agree that there are certain inalienable human rights. 

It is indisputable, no matter what your religious beliefs, that it is appropriate to respect others of all persuasions - and to follow the simple rules of only restricting what are clear and harmful excesses.

Gay rights are logical, totally. 

Holding marriage as being what it has been defined for centuries makes sense too.  

If we do not have the right to suppress others or impose our will over others unless there is a true ethical purpose, then the logical conclusion would be to not damage the institution of marriage and all the beliefs of those people that cherish it, and to assure those rights are allowed for a gay person but in a different form that is the virtual equivalent in substance.  The logical alternative is to use "civil unions" or whatever special name that works but does not impinge on others' beliefs. 

And can the gay rights side allow the marriage rights side to be honored just as the marriage rights side should allow the gay rights side to be honored?  The street goes both ways.  Compromise and cooperation are what works - not hate, righteousness, and/or suppression.

Comments welcome.  Is this logical and fact-based?  Does it remove the oppositional quality of the argument?  Isn't it better to eradicate hate and come to a workable compromise where no one position is wiped out?

What do you think?

The Rational NonPolitician

Barack Obama's Distinct Prejudices

Barack Obama is very intelligent and capable, but his distinct prejudices (and the lack of knowledge that permits this to continue to exist) dramatically hurt his ability to make decisions that benefit the economy and certain aspects of society.

These prejudices are understandable in light of his experience as a community organizer - and that his frame of mind continues in that vein. This is a good, positive trait, in that it connotes empathy and caring and values toward the good of mankind.

However, that viewpoint is not continued out into a broader view of the world. 

If this is possibly political rhetoric, designed to appeal to the base, it reeks of inauthenticity compared to his stated goals of benefitting the nation.  If it is authentic prejudice, then it is equally damaging and out of place - and he needs an education.  Basically, he suffers from lack of awareness, which is an inevitable result of his limited experience. 

He speaks of:

"fat cats"
"punish our enemies" (when referring to fellow Americans)
"being held hostage" (as if he was a victim - which is not good for a President to be)

And a myriad of such demonizing or make wrong statements. 

He denigrates the "profit motive" and forgets that it is the engine that drives the economy, which then permits us to have enough money to take care of all of our citizens.  He imposes massive sets of regulations, which are an obvious damper to business. 

I can imagine, given all of his many good traits, the power he would have without those prejudices, where he could seek unbiased, unslanted advice and hear it better. 

But the prejudices and positions have been so strong that there is very little progress in enabling private enterprise to do its part, which would be if in a pro-growth stance toward them to drive us to prosperity instead of a web of entanglement that is disabling.  (He should take, as well as the members of congress, a basic course in capitalism, such as that mentioned on the site:  Capitalism.)

If he were to let go of the demonization and see that few businesses are headed by devils and that overall the business people are good people who want to create good, but are people who have a specific focus as to how they contribute, then he would have the possibility of being an effective President. 

I would hope for change, so that he can implement "hope and change".   I did vote for him, with the purpose of shaking things up, to run our country from more of an enlightened viewpoint - plus the judgment I made about McCain not being a very good source of hope plus his having a vice president that is too weak to be a President. 

But, alas, there is no case for his being an effective President, unless he chooses to authentically run this country for the benefit of all and to let go of the politically driven rhetoric and motives.

Will he change?  I would hope so.  I would hope for a miracle...but with very little belief that it will happen.

Sad.  Too bad...

The Rational Non-Politician