Perspective

Instead of doing my taxes this morning - I scrolled my lj flist. Granted, taxes are a bit tough to do with a sprained ankle and a bunged up knee - since I have sit with my feet on the floor and papers scattered about, and the laptop in front...not in the armchair, with feet elevated and laptop on my lap. Also, I do have until April 15, after all. No rush.

Been thinking about perspective a lot this week. My injury has provided me with a whole new perspective - regarding walking around NYC and handling basic things - like stairs. Perspective is different than point of view. Although it is easy to confuse the two. In art classes - they used to teach us that perspective was where the viewer is standing - the eye of the camera so to speak. It shows only that which is in our line of vision. Since our vision is limited to range - we cannot see beyond a certain point. Distance, size, shape, weight, are all affected by where the viewer is - the exact angle.

Happens in reading internet posts too - your perspective is different if you read lj posts as they are posted, each day, as opposed to reading them all at once, just scrolling down the list, for a three to four day period - much as you might read an internet book. If you read as posted - it's like chat or getting emails. If you wait until Saturday and read two weeks worth, it's like reading an anthology series or a book of letters. You may even be less inclined to respond than you would have if you read the post the moment it was posted. I saw three posts today that I would have responded to - if I'd read them the day or within moments of the posting, but now - the immediacy of the post is lost and there are 14 or 2 other comments that say more or less what I would have said. My perspective reading that post is different from those who responded immediately - because I've not only read the post, I've also read all the comments, and I've read the two posts that happened after it.

Perspective can be based on so many factors - where you are standing, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, education, religion, and gender.

In college, I saw a woman on a bike get hit by driver. Depending on your perspective - it looked like a hit and run. Many of the students who saw it - believed that she got hit, and the car sped off. The driver did not care. They saw it as just another horrible hit and run.

I was first on the scene and the closest in proximity. So I saw the driver get out of the car. I saw him approach me and the woman. I knelt. I waved at him. Indicated I was leaving my bag with her and pointed at the health center, he nodded. And I took off to get help from the nearby health center. When I returned, which was less than fifteen minutes later, due to the fact that numerous others had called for help before me, the driver was gone. In his place were a small crowd of men, different shapes and sizes, and ethnicities, and mostly white. The woman was in pain, holding her knee, and an ambulance was roaring to a stop. I didn't know or think other's might call for help or see the accident, since from my perspective, all I saw was the woman,the bike, the car, and the driver.

The people behind me - saw me, the car, the driver, the woman, and the bike and the driver leaving the scene. The people behind them, only saw the woman and the car speeding off. And those behind them, just the girl on the pavement and me returning to the scene. Finally, there were those who saw us go off in the ambulance and nothing else.

We all believe what we see - our view of the scene is the correct and only one at the time we see it, we are a bit suprised with someone provides a different perspective.

At work this week, I was talking to one of our consultants - who sought to cheer me up by sending me two photos he took on a recent trip to the Caribbean - photos that he uses to cheer himself up and that make him happy. I got the photos. Looked at them. And closed the email. They were of a porch, some trees, and I could sort of see the ocean. Nothing fancy or intriguing. When he asked me if I got them and printed them off to post on my cubicle walls, I thanked him but said, you know, it's just a porch and some trees..."Oh, right," he replied, "For me, when I look at them I remember my vacation, I remember the smells, etc. But you just see a porch. It's a matter of perspective."

Five Things That Made Me Happy This Week

I may delete that last post - it was poorly written. Don't know yet.

Five Things that made me happy this week:

1. Cactus Flower from one of my co-workers - it's a small cactus - basically a green cactus stem with a yellow spiked cactus bulp and several little orange red bulbs dotting it.

2. News that Brian Lynch and Frank Urru will start a new comic series that takes place directly after the events of Angel After the Fall - entitled "Spike". The series is from IDW.
It will star Spike, and have appearances from the other Angel characters including Angel, Gunn, and Illyria. As well as new characters created by Lynch - such as Betta George, Beck, and Tock. And will last a year, possibly longer. The series - according to Lynch - is an examination of all the facets of the Spike character - his role as romantic, bad boy, poet, smart-ass, hero, anti-hero, big brother, little brother, uncle, etc. And the focus will be Spike's journey to discover who he is, and what he wants to be and what he wants his role to be. At some point late in the series - Spike will cross paths with Drusilla as well. Angel will often appear in the series. Lynch sees Angel as Spike's big brother or that's how they look at each other - they care deeply about one another, but would never openly thank each other. The comic will be written like a TV series, with episodes, but an arc. He wants to pass some notes by Whedon, but it is not being overseen by Whedon in any way. Issue 17 of Angel After the Fall - was co-plotted by Whedon, who worked on the outline with Lynch and the character arcs.

Very very happy about this. [Have decided based on londonkds review of Angle:Aftermath by Kelley Armstrong - that I may just skip that comic. It's not necessary for the Lynch or Buffy books, and it looks rather dull and uninteresting to me. Also not really a fan of Armstrong.] Another happy bit about Lynch - he's writing a Gunn one-shot, and co-writing a two part Drusilla story with Juliet Landau - who had been following his work on the Spike and Angel books. Apparently Juliet and Joss Whedon are simpatico with me on Lynch's writing and perspective on these characters. YAY!

The bad news is I have to wait until October or November to actually read any issues or see it.

3. BSG - rocked this week. Helps that it featured two of my favorite storylines - Kara Thrace, and Boomer/Galen. Yes, I know, everyone and their puppy dog is ga-ga over the guy who plays Helio and I can certainly see why, but his acting and his characters? Leave me...ambivalent. Pretty, but bland. What can I say? Am character actor girl. I adore Aaron's portrayle of Galen. Amazingly good actor and I find myself sympathizing with his plight. Also he's not pretty or buff - he looks like the guys I work with, he looks like a cheif construction worker. A guy who likes to construct and design houses. And Boomer - unlike Athena, is so complicated. These are two dark, damaged, crazy, kind, people - whose lives would have been completely different if world had not come to an end. I have a theory about who Kara Thrace is, but I'm trying to keep this post spoiler free.

4. Lost - also rocked this week. I wonder how many people on my flist, who are watching, went whoooa. Hee. Wasn't surprised myself - because, I saw the preview and they more or less foreshadowed it with Jin. Can't say much more without spoilers.

5. I solved two problems at work. One of which, had me near to the brink of tears on Tuesday with frustration. But I resolved it on Wed, and am quite proud of myself. Now, just have six problems to go.

The Arguments Against Gay Marriage - Countered

What follows is a somewhat edited reponse to an argument posted on a meetup group I belong to. A Civil rights one, ironically enough, regarding Proposition 8. Proposition 8 was the ban against Gay Marriage in the State of California. I'm posting it here, because the argument

The argument, which I've seen a lot and heard a lot is:

"The problem comes when, the government forces church's to wed those -to which, doing so, would violate their beliefs! It is a violation of our 1st Amendment rights! We can not ignore its religious connotations -because, it is clearly, a matter in which, religious leaders (as well as, those who gather in their churches) will be affected by. It is unjust, to force your beliefs on others. If, it were not a religious matter, than, there would not have been such, an up-roar caused by the whole matter. Again, I stand-by the U.S. Constitution! We do not have the right, to dictate others religion! Regardless, of our own personal feelings of right and wrong(going by such, emotional decisions is how our Constitutional rights -have always, been violated and trampled upon -for, "a higher good" or, "a higher cause"). It is unjust. Period. "

Marriage is not in the United States governed by religion, because in the US we have numerous religious doctrines - not just Christian or Jewish or Muslim. Under the US constitution - there is a separation of church and state. What this means is that the government does not interfer with its citizens' rights to practice the religion of their choice as long as that religion does not "harm" or significantly interfer with the rights of other citizens. Harm is not defined as offending your delicate sensibilities or your beliefs. It is defined as physical harm or preventing you from getting married, living your life, eating, and shelter. Also the right to religion and freedom of speech does not grant you the right to prevent those who you don't agree with to practice their religion and speak.

If we were to do as you suggest, and ban gay marriage merely because it offends your church and your religion, then why stop there? Should we also ban the internet because its existence interfers with the Amish's religious beliefs? Should we ban medical science, the search for a cure for breast cancer, and vaccines because they interfer with Christian Scientist's belief in faith healing? Should we ban the eating of pork because it offends a specific group of Jews and Muslims? Also what happens when religions disagree? Mormons practice polygamy as part of their religion - not all Mormons, just a specific sect. This practice is offensive to other religions.

The problem with freedom is - in order to have it, ourselves, everyone must have it - which means we have to tolerate things others do and say that we may not like very much. But if we want them to tolerate our behavior and our views, we have to tolerate theirs, within reason of course. As long as our rights do not significantly infringe on someone elses we are okay and free to do what we will.

You have not proven in your post that gay marriage in any way shape or form "significantly" infringes on anyone's rights. If anything your desire to prevent it - is infringement and an infringement on the very rights you are so determined to protect.

You argue that legalizing gay marriage forces churches to marry people. This is not true.

First you are assuming that marriage is only a religious practice. It's not. A good
percentage of people in the US do not get married in a church. There are more civil unions in NYC alone than there are in the Catholic church. A civil union can be done by anyone who has a license - they can get this license on the internet.

My brother and his wife, for example, were married in a swimming pool, by their best friend, who was licensed to marry by the church of crafts. Their union was considered legal - since they obtained a "marriage" license from New York State. What this means is that they share property, including their daughter, and if anything should happen to my brother or his spouse - the surviving spouse does collect the life insurance in the event of their death, and has power of attorney, as well as the right to make major decisions regarding their health care. In New York State - you have to be legally married in order to share benefits, to collect life insurance, and for joint property ownership. New York unlike California is not a common law marriage state - you do not get to share benefits etc, without marriage. In California - if you are a man and a woman (after Proposition 8's passage) - and having been living together for about ten years (forget how long) - you are considered married under the law. (I'm pretty sure California is a common law marriage state.). Marriage in the legal sense is about the division of property. Historically that property included, incredible and offensive as it may sound, children and women. It was also based on ownership of land - a woman had no property. Unless - when she married her husband, and there were no surviving heirs from her father's side of the family, her husband would get her family's land as a dowry. Property passed with her upon her marriage.

Without proposition 8 - churches would still have the right to turn away gay couples. No one is forcing the church to do otherwise. The only person who is being forced to marry the gay couples is the Justice of the Peace - who is a representative of the State of California or the "government", not any religion.

If you argue that a Justice of the Peace shouldn't be forced to do this, then you might as well argue that a doctor shouldn't be forced to treat someone whose religious views he disagrees with. It's silly. And falls under the definition of "significant harm". The right of two people to get married overrides the Justice of the Peace's delicate and somewhat homophobic sensibilities. He/she is not operating within the boundaries of "religious belief", he/she is operating within the boundaries of the law, and upholding the law.

While, you could argue that permitting gay marriage is no different than permitting incest, polygamy, child/adult, two children, animal/person, etc - your argument would still fall apart. First of all - the signficant harm definition comes into play. Incestuous marriages are prohibited because of birth defects, and health issues. If a parent/child, two siblings, or two close relations get married - there is a high risk of genetic defect. It's simply not safe.

Granted, homosexual unions cannot produce children the old fashioned way - either, but when two people of the same gender have sex they will not produce a genetic disaster. With modern medicine - homosexual unions can have children via artificial insemination and adoption, and have been proven to be good and nuturing parents. An incestuous union - has not had such a successful record. Two people who are underage getting married - they are not consenting adults. And a human and animal? The animal is not a consenting adult who can clearly communicate its desires nor is it considered covered by the law. None of these are good "slippery slope" arguments against gay marriage, any more than they were good arguments against bi-racial marriage.

The Mormon Church's funding of Proposition 8 is a bit ironic, not to mention hypocritical - considering their practice of polygamous marriage has long been banned by states outside of Utah. Polygamy to my knowledge has largely been banned due to the division of property issue.
Also, the fact that women's rights are considered at risk. In polgamous marriages, men marry many women, and the women or harem, may be considered "property" of the man - this goes against the woman's right to be considered an equal party to the marriage under the law. Same-sex marriages do not pose this problem. We do not have one party who has more power than the others nor are we attempting to divide property numerous ways.

The procreation argument - that gay marriage does not result in procreation is a bit ludicrious in this day and age. If a woman can have six babies by herself with artificial insemination, why can't a homosexual couple have a child? Heck, my ex-college roomate did with her partner and is a fine parent to two children. Or at the very least adopt one? Also, a good percentage of people who get married choose never to have any children. So, the procreation argument? Doesn't work any more. Sorry. You may not like that, you may believe it is "morally" wrong - but tough, your moral sensibilities are overridden by an individual's right to have a child or not have a child if they so choose.

I have yet to see a logical and rational argument against gay marriage. What I see are increasingly emotional, selfish, ignorant, and irrational diatribes from people who are afraid or homophobic.