Some thoughts on education

     What is the purpose of education? The most obvious answer is the desire to pass on accumulated knowledge to successor generations. The second, and arguably more important, function of education is to prepare people to act as functional, productive members of the society into which they are born and of the world at large. These two purposes are the immutable reasons for all teaching, whether child or adult, general or technical, scientific or spiritual.     The debate over what constitutes a "good" or "appropriate" education has always been about the methods rather than the purpose. This is self-evident, as no one can claim a desire to teach someone to be stupider or more antisocial. This means an analysis is required of what types of education exist, how they meet the two goals of education, what is the necessary amount of education for each person, and who is responsible for providing it.
    I will begin with the first goal: we teach to pass on knowledge. There are two fundamental kinds of knowledge - concrete and abstract. Concrete knowledge involves discreet facts, demonstrable and indisputable. This includes everything from the established facts of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry to the recorded events of history, from the unearthed artifacts of archaeology and anthropology to the literature of the world. We can say about all these things that they exist and we can explain what they are. Abstract knowledge pertains to the more fuzzy world of scientific theories and social analyses, metaphysical and spiritual explorations, and non-linear creative thinking and reasoning. The content of abstract knowledge, while often grounded in concrete knowledge, is not so easily proven, and, in some cases, particularly in matters of spirituality, is utterly unprovable. The critical difference between the two kinds of knowledge is that while no rational person can deny or contest a piece of concrete knowledge (irrational reasons for doing so will be addressed later), all abstract knowledge is subject to evaluation and interpretation based on personal beliefs and value judgments.
     Historically, the two types of knowledge were taught simultaneously and in a mixture that, if anything, weighted the abstract more heavily. The reasons for this are twofold. First, much of the education was offered by religious institutions, where an obvious stress would be placed on religious studies, i.e., the abstract. More importantly, though, it was recognized by early educators that in a world where people could not be specialists, it was necessary to develop strong abstract reasoning and critical thinking skills in those who had been lucky enough to receive an education in the first place. Concrete facts by themselves are useless, merely data points. One needs the abstract skills to place the concrete information into a context and to discover the non-linear connections between concrete data points that allow for progress and invention. It is no accident that the great inventors and discoverers of the pre-industrial age dabbled in all the scientific disciplines, as well as commonly being involved in theological studies. It paid to be a generalist, and a generalist mentality is impossible without critical thinking.
     With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, people became increasingly specialized. Furthermore, with the rise of capitalist entrepreneurs who were capable of funding large-scale education projects, a sudden shift away from church-driven education drastically shifted the landscape of how people were taught.The various governments of the 19th and early 20th centuries increasingly implemented education reforms that created public schooling and required all children to attend the government-run schools unless their parents had the means to send them to private schools.
     Two transformations took place. First, education was made widely available to the vast majority of children in industrialized nations. However, this education was provided by a single centralized source, encouraging conformity and by and large weeding out innovations in teaching that did not suit the organizers of public schools. Second, the focus of schooling was shifted away from cultivating a generalist mentality towards producing specialists for the world of business and manufacturing. This is evidenced by the consistent trend of dividing subjects into discrete classes with no effort to demonstrate cross-connectedness, as well as emphasizing rote memorization of facts and figures without providing insight into their meaning. The perfect examples of these trends are math and history. Math is taught in succeeding layers (arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, etc.) using primarily formalistic definitions and formula memorization. No connection is formed between the layers, and no creative mathematical logic is instilled (e.g., word problems are designed to fit the formulas rather than providing real-world examples that provide complexity and subtlety). History, meanwhile, is taught as a succession of dates and names without any sort of context or greater understanding of the impact of events on each other. Every child knows the name of Christopher Columbus, but has no idea why or how he discovered the New World. The abstract understanding of global politics is missing.
     The reasons for this shift are manifest. Once governments in the Western world recognized the advantages of capitalism, under the financial and political influence of magnates they set up the school systems to crank out workers for the factories. A worker performing a discreet mechanized job does not need abstract thinking or reasoning to play his role. All he needs is the basic understanding of his job provided by concrete facts and an attitude of regimentation perfectly instilled by the regimentation of the school day. Going to class and taking breaks at the same time each day perfectly translates into working a 9 to 5 job. The removal of unscheduled free time from an early age results in anxiety about similar unscheduled free time in adulthood. How many people don't know what to do with themselves during a vacation? How many people are happy to go home and watch TV (also perfectly regimented) to consume the waking time they do not spend at work? How many people do not know what to do once they retire? Furthermore, the creation of competition in schools through grading and testing translates well into the competition for finding the best work and receiving promotions in the real world.
     As far as the second goal of education, creating individuals well-adjusted to society, such a school system
 works quite well. It sets children on the path to becoming productive workers in a capitalist environment. But as to the first goal, passing on knowledge, the failure to teach critical thinking leaves a gaping hole in the knowledge of the average individual. All a child remembers, if he remembers anything at all from his schooling, is a group of disjointed facts. No greater web of understanding and connection exists for him. No creative ability has been developed in him. This leads to the greatest criticism against capitalism, that it dehumanizes people by turning them into automatons. This, sadly, is more or less true
     The failure of our current system of education, then, is not in the education itself but in its inability to match our idealistic vision of what education ought to be. The lofty ideals of education are to liberate the mind of each individual and to provide him the opportunity to become or do anything he wishes to be. The ideal quickly clashes with the pragmatism of providing education to every child and furthermore to everyone who wants it beyond childhood. It thus becomes important to consider what we believe a necessary amount of education is for each person. How much is enough to liberate the mind, and how much is just enough to make a person socially viable?
     I hope that everyone can agree that the very minimum every child needs to learn are what we colloquially refer to as the "basics." These include reading and writing, arithmetic and the basic functions of math, and a general set of information regarding the world we live in biologically, geographically, and politically. All of this data falls in the concrete set of knowledge, and anyone who professes a genuine desire to propagate the sum of human knowledge must agree that these things must be taught as early in life as possible. The only notable exception to this, briefly mentioned as the irrational objection earlier, is in an educational system that is created for specific extremist indoctrinational purposes and explicitly disregards or obfuscates the basic to suit their own ends. Notable examples include fundamentalist Muslim madrassas that teach children that the Earth is flat, or the schools of Nazi Germany which taught that Jews and other "undesirables" are biologically and therefore morally inferior to a specific ethnicity or race. Such schools seek not to truly educate their young, but to create unquestioning zealots for their extreme doctrines. They do not seek to liberate the mind, but to enslave it. As such, they should not be treated as broken educational systems but as pernicious propaganda engines.
     Getting back to the point, what is necessary for a child to learn beyond the basics? In past times, a common form of education past the elementary was an apprenticeship or trade school, where one learned precisely the necessary skills for a particular vocation with the assumption that he would continue in that job for the duration of his working life. Colleges and universities were reserved for the tiny minority who would become scholars in the true sense of that word, those dedicated to study and the abstract expansion of human knowledge. The idea of getting a college degree to work in manufacturing was beyond laughable.
     While this may have been more or less effective in the ancient world and the Middle Ages where economies did not dramatically change over short time spans either through a lack of diversity or institutional regimentation, in the 21st century this is no longer sufficient on its own. There are many modern jobs that do indeed require advanced education. But that does not mean that the old system is entirely useless. The Western world has abandoned the general practice of apprenticeships, I would claim to its own detriment. In the US, a college degree has become essentially a requirement to perform any job more complicated than punching buttons on a machine, more often than not without any justification for this being so. The common argument is that in the fast-changing modern economy, a worker will work several different jobs in his life, and needs the skills to cope with such rapid adaptation. I concur with the sentiment, but we have largely abandoned a system that has merit for precisely the kind of economy we live in today. How much healthier would the economy be if instead of going to college and racking up tremendous debt only to walk away with a degree and an education that they will likely never use again, the majority of college students went into apprenticeships and trade schools? They would begin earning money sooner rather than accruing debt, learn the skills they would actually use, and arguably, would be able to repeat this process easier and quicker if they needed to change careers in the future. I believe that the purpose of college should be exactly what it had been centuries ago, to provide an in-depth education in a specific field for the purpose of continued study and exploration within that field in an academic setting. It should not be a vehicle for parties every weekend and four years of idleness for a piece of paper, as it seems to have become for so many people.
     The counterargument is that college is where people gain a better understanding of the world around them and expand their horizons. This is where they liberate their minds. This is certainly true, at least in part, but why does someone have to wait until college to gain this understanding? Why can we not teach worldviews in our elementary, middle, and high schools? We can still produce the workers we want through trade schooling, but we can foster creative thinking so much earlier. Of course, diehard capitalists might say that you don't want a button-pusher in a factory to exercise creative thinking. I say that a vast increase in creative thinking in those who desire it transforms the capitalist economy in unpredictable and, historically, positive ways that benefit everyone. A bright child should not be doomed to button-pushing simply because our current systems wants him to. We need to restore the emphasis on abstract knowledge and the teaching of the interconnectedness of knowledge that we have been steadily losing for the last century.
     Finally, I want to touch on where the responsibility for education lies. This is the most subjective part of the discussion, and so I can do nothing more than state my opinions. I think the greatest harmful trend in world history is the reluctance of every individual to accept personal responsibility for his or her actions. The easiest thing in the world is to blame someone else for your mistakes or your circumstances. Unfortunately, the education of younger generations is no different. We have increasingly shifted the burden of teaching first out of the home into private institutions, and then onto the government and a government-operated school system. We then failed to provide this system with both the necessary resources and the clear guidelines required to succeed at reaching the ideal of education that we proclaim to want for our children. But at the end of the day, as a parent, it is your responsibility to yourself and to your child to teach him as best as you can. Parents have to be more involved in their children's upbringing instead of dumping them off on the state and then blaming it for their shortcomings. Education cannot be all about fact memorization and standardized testing to sort children for future employment. It must be a living, growing process to help the child see the world in all its complexity and strive to gain as much understanding of it as he wishes. Only when the perspectives and aid of parents, teachers, and peers are combined in the raising of our children will we see an education reform that will have any hope of reaching the ideals we profess. As the proverb says, it takes a village to raise a child, and right now most of the village is not helping.

How to lose faith in your work

       The day I was laid off from my first job was valuable insofar as it taught me how little value company loyalty holds in today's economy. I had been working at the company for two and a half years already, and I felt quite a fierce loyalty. I liked the work, I liked the people. I felt that I had established a number of good friendships with several of my co-workers
       Prior to the layoff speculation had already begun about the financial state of the company. We were not in big trouble, but it was becoming clear that we were not going to make much profit over the course of a couple of months. The rumor mill naturally turned this information into a bloated monstrosity of fear, but being young and enthusiastic I pretty much ignored it. Certainly the "it can't happen to me" mentality was at the forefront of my thinking. The layoff came on the first Monday of a new month. My boss came into the lab around noon and asked me in somber tones to attend a meeting at 3 o'clock. As soon as he had made the pronouncement and left, I felt instinctively what was about to happen.
       I do not know what the average reaction, if there is such a thing, is to finding out you are about to be laid off. My reaction was that I did not want to leave my co-workers in the lurch and that I should try to wrap up all the work I had for the day. I skipped lunch and worked straight through until 3 to make sure that I had left no loose ends.
       The meeting took place in the upstairs boardroom. Again, I did not actually know what was happening other than as an instinct. I walked in to find approximately 30 others in the room, all looking gloomy. Some had clearly already been through the process at least once before and looked resigned. The CEO came in, gave us the grim news, and proceeded to go into the details of what we should be doing now that we were no longer gainfully employed.
       I was in shock. I had been completely blindsided by the layoff. But looking back at it, what upset me the most was what happened after the meeting ended. Apparently, while we were being canned, around 30 of our coworkers who still had jobs were summoned upstairs to wait outside the room. One employee per one former employee. Each one was assigned to someone specific, as if this sort of personal touch would make the whole business any easier. Once we were paired with our wardens, we were given 5 or 10 minutes to collect all personal belongings and leave the building.
       The look on my coworker's and, dare I say, friend's face while I collected the very few personal items at my desk is with me to this day. He looked miserable. He looked hurt. He looked as if he had been ordered to walk me to the gallows instead of outside into a brisk February day. He looked as if there was no possibility that we would ever be able to communicate again.
       In a way, the last is true. As soon as you leave a job, you almost certainly lose contact with all those people you spent so much of your time with. What little contact is still maintained is hard to call a friendship. It is an acquaintance, a polite how do you do every once in a while. This has been sadly true for both of my previous two jobs.
       So what was the moral? The takeaway for me was that loyalty to your place of employment is rewarded with absolutely nothing. If you are not profitable, you will be cut adrift as easily as if you were a piece of junk being thrown in the trash. And your profitability means your subservience. If you work the allotted 40 hours a week and get your job done, you are not good enough. If you do not enslave all your waking time, your entire existence to being a cog in a machine, you are not good enough. If you do not devote your days off, your sleeping time, your vacation time to being available for work, you are not good enough. If you do not permit yourself to be turned into a robot, you are not good enough. Welcome to corporate America.

Death penalty

       As previously noted, the purpose of government is to maintain the fabric of society through the rule of law. To that end, we empower our governments with the ability to punish violators of the law, giving them three options: monetary penalties, loss of freedom, and execution. The last of these is the most controversial and, therefore, the one of most interest for discussion.
       The purpose of a punishment is to correct erroneous behavior. This is done in every sphere of life, from child-rearing to the work environment to legal prosecution. The implication of a correction, however, is that the offender is given the opportunity to behave correctly at a later time as a result of the punishment. Following this argument, I believe that the concept of life imprisonment is illogical. A person who loses his freedom for the rest of his life for committing an act that merits such severe punishment is automatically deprived of the opportunity to try again. It is, furthermore, fiscally irresponsible as it places a member of society who has been judged irredeemable permanently as a burden on taxpayers. Such a burden yields essentially no possible benefit, unlike a prisoner who is expected to be released at a future date and reintegrated into society.
       This leaves one of two paths in cases that merit severe punishment: imprisonment for a specific term of years or the death penalty. The reasonable length for a term of imprisonment will be left as a subject for another time. I concede that there are people who reject the idea of the death penalty categorically based on religious or ideological views. These are positions that cannot be changed by persuasion, so I won't try. However, people who accept the possibility that the death penalty is a legitimate means of punishment often argue about when it should be invoked. The only general agreement to be found here is that execution should be used as punishment for the most violent of crimes.
       I maintain that there are two types of violence: physical and mental. Murder is a no-brainer. A person who kills another (or others) in cold blood and shows no remorse merits the death penalty if his judges conclude that he can never be safely returned into the fold of society. But this is a case of strictly physical harm. I believe that the death penalty should also be applicable (as it has been in some states in the past) in cases of aggravated rape. The mental trauma inflicted on victims of rape is commonly both severe and permanent. Furthermore, unlike murder, one cannot "accidentally" rape somebody. Since aggravated rape is currently punishable with life imprisonment, I propose the substitution of this penalty with execution.
Naturally, since the death penalty is irreversible, it should be granted only in cases where no room has been left for doubt of both the severity of the crime and the incorrigibility of the perpetrator. Serial killers, serial rapists, and mass murderers should automatically qualify. It seems to me impossible to carry out repeated instances of such violence without having had a mental break that makes it impossible to function in regular society. In our own local case, that any other punishment should be considered for James Holmes is astonishing. What would be the point?
       There is one further point to consider. The purpose of execution is to remove the most dangerous members of society. If it has been concluded that such a step is necessary, it should be carried out with as much expediency as possible. This consists of two parts - speed and method. Today, an average inmate spends nearly 15 years on death row from time of sentencing to execution. This is cruel to the inmate and incredibly costly to the taxpayer. If the inmate chooses to pursue an appeal, then a death penalty case should be given priority for review. The case should be reviewed as thoroughly as possible, to be sure, using the best methods available to us, to confirm that an innocent person will not be punished, but it should be reviewed as quickly as possible as well. Once all appeals have been completed, it should be carried forth without delay.
       As to method, this is again an area where tremendous amounts of time and money have been committed to making execution more humane, with the end result seeming to be more cruel than any of the "primitive" methods known before. Both lethal injection and the electric chair are tremendously costly and take minutes to actually kill a person. During those minutes, the condemned suffers agonizing pain. Meanwhile, hanging and firing squad result in instantaneous death if performed properly, and cost almost nothing. If the spirit of the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause implies that punishment should be merciful, then no greater mercy can be offered a condemned man than a swift and painless death.
I will conclude by asserting that I am not entirely comfortable with the state executing people. The justice system has been known to err and innocent men have gone to the gallows. But an innocent man is no better off living out a life in prison than he is going to his death. I do not support the death penalty because I think it is a deterrent to criminals. For those who have crossed the line far enough to merit such treatment, there are no deterrents. Given that such people exist, once caught, it is up to the state by common consent of the populace to remove them from society forever. I simply think the death penalty is the most effective solution to this unsavory problem.

Good laws

       The raison d'etre of government is to maintain the fabric of society. The only legitimate tool that any and every government has ever had to accomplish this task is the use of laws. Each society has proliferated more and more laws with every successive generation, while rarely stopping to review the laws already in existence to confirm their worth and pertinence. Even more rarely, practically never in fact, has anyone considered at length what attributes constitute a good and worthy law, so that potential future laws may be held against such a standard in consideration of passage. But there are surely some common characteristics that every law that would generally be considered good possesses. I will attempt to define what seem to me to be the essentials.

       It has been acknowledged by every democratic society in history that one of the fundamental rights of all people is the right to liberty. I will simply state that I agree with this view. Any law by definition is an abridgment of individual liberty for some or all of the citizens of a society. This means that it is important to denote exactly what the right to liberty indicates. While “liberty” is a nebulous term, laws must deal with concrete occurrences. I posit that the most concrete and universal definition of liberty is the freedom of choice in both thought and action. It is the freedom to think or not think on any subject and to act or not act under any given circumstance. Given this definition, there are two ways in which individual liberty can be violated: by another individual (or group of individuals) or by the state. An environment with no government, and therefore no state interference, in which any person can violate any other person's liberty is anarchy. Since a society with a government is the opposite of anarchy, it follows that the purpose of the state is to prevent the violation of a person's freedom to choose by another person. However, as previously defined, a law is an abridgment of liberty. This, then, is my first qualification for a good law: a law abridging an individual choice should only be passed if deemed absolutely necessary to protect society.

Generally, protecting society implies protecting the individuals who make up the society from explicit harm. Only a fairly narrow band of activities brings direct willful harm to people. Thus, when a law is deemed necessary, it should abridge the smallest amount of freedom of individual choice required to insure protection from denial of choice by other individuals. In effect, a law should only deny citizens the right to violate other citizens' freedom of choice.

        This qualification applies to virtually every type of violent and property crime. Murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, etc. are all violations of choice. As such, they should be punished by law. However, many, if not most, laws not dealing with what would commonly be termed criminality aim to deny the choice to think or act to consenting rational adults. Such laws include virtually every vice law ever conceived, the majority of personal property use restrictions, and the bulk of economic policy laws. This denial does not serve to protect individual liberty in any way, but rather wantonly increases the influence of the state. As such, no such law can qualify as good under the first requirement. The second requirement is, then, not so much an independent requisite as a corollary to the first, but needs to be stated independently and in positive terms. No law should restrict the participation of consenting rational adults in any activity performed in private. The specific indication of privacy is a necessity because a controversial activity, if performed in public, even if it is by consenting adults, is a violation of the liberty of non-participants to utilize public space without having to witness objectionable activities.

       This condition eliminates such groups as drug enforcement laws and sexual prohibitions from the realm of good laws. The thing that such laws tend to have in common is that they are passed on the basis of emotional or moral bias, quite often advocated by a vocal minority. The resulting effect is that people pursuing activities, even hazardous ones, that they might be interested in are criminalized despite the absence of any harm performed to anyone other than themselves or other willing participants. Since bias is a choice, any law based on bias is effectively declaring the choices of one person or group as superior to those of another person or group. The perfect example of this is the issue of abortion. Pro-life advocates lobby for anti-abortion laws based on their belief that life begins at conception. But belief is a personal bias. It has no universally acceptable rational backing. Once a child is born, there is no denying that he or she is alive and thus clearly definable as a citizen with individual rights. But prior to this point, there is little agreement as to when exactly a child becomes alive. On a matter like this, the safest path for a government is to go with the most rational solution based on undeniable facts. That is, a law should always be founded on a rational basis rather than on bias.

       Following this last principle, vice laws should be abolished entirely, and drug abusers, for instance, only punished if they perform a direct crime, such as robbery or murder, but not the mere fact that they use drugs. Taxation is also covered by the rationality principle. Since the only way the state can perform its duties is by collecting revenue from its populace, the need for taxation is justified. The merits of any particular tax law are, of course, still debatable.

       Few existing laws would meet all four of the previous qualifications. If all laws failing any of them were to be abolished, it would become painfully obvious how few laws would actually be necessary. This relative scarcity of the number of laws would also bring to the forefront the last requirement that they should meet. Laws should be universally and justly enforceable. Every murder, rape, and fraud can and should be pursued by the justice system. Every tax can be reasonably collected and a person refusing to pay a tax can be readily identified and punished. By contrast, it is impossible to track down and arrest every drug user, nor is it reasonable or just to do so. Any law that criminalizes a significant portion of the populace for acting in a way that does not violate other people's freedom of choice is fundamentally unenforceable. A law that the state cannot possibly enforce has no rational purpose, and as such should not exist.

        Finally, although this is strictly speaking not a requirement of necessary and good laws, I think it would be a good idea to build in automatic review dates for laws rather than writing them in perpetuity. A law that demands its own periodic review to continue in force would be more likely to remain valid.

Gay rights

       The debate over gay rights has been raging for so long that it seems to have become so convoluted that no simple solution is feasible. This is not, however, the case. The entire discussion really only centers around two fundamental points: how to define relationships between homosexuals and what, if any, rights are they entitled to before the law. Both of these questions, to my mind, have fairly straightforward solutions.
       The first question is whether homosexuals are entitled to any rights at all. This question seemingly depends on where homosexuality comes from. Is it a genetic trait, such as race, gender, hair color, or is it a lifestyle choice that an individual consciously commits to? The answer here is that in either case homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but let me clarify each argument separately.
       If you take the standpoint that homosexuality is genetic, then gays have no more choice about who they are sexually attracted to than what color their hair is or how tall they are. In the same way that it is unreasonable to deny someone legal status based on height, it is equally unreasonable to deny legal status based on sexual preference. US laws, and particularly, the US Constitution, has specific provisions today that forbid discrimination against and require protection of all US citizens. Namely, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Amendment XIV). In other words, if you have committed, you are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The various versions of defense-of-marriage acts and amendments to state constitutions patently abridge certain privileges of homosexuals and deny equal protection of the laws. These are absolutely civil rights violations. Since Amendment XIV was added to the Constitution, additional laws have been put in place to stop discrimination based on gender and race. Discrimination of sexual preference is the last legal bastion of bigotry left in this country. As such, it is well past time to quash this prejudice and begin truly following the precepts of equal civil rights protection before the law.
       But what if homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? If people choose to kill or rape others, they are punished by the law, so if they choose to engage in homosexuality, should they not also be legally reprimanded? The answer is simply no, and the reason is that a choice of sexual partnership neither restricts the liberties and choices of others nor brings harm to others. A criminal is (or ought to be) defined as one who brings harm to others or, more generally, denies them their liberties. Consenting sexual relationships do no such thing. The popular position taken up by opponents of gay rights is that homosexuality (or sodomy, as they often prefer to call it) is sinful or inappropriate behavior, but this is a strictly religious moral position and should have no bearing on what is written down in secular law. Much as they don't like homosexuals, they have no legal right to restrict their liberty. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “we hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Well, choosing your life partner undeniably qualifies as Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. What right has any one person to tell another with whom he can and cannot build a life? And if a couple chooses to have children, who can deny them this right? And if they cannot have children of their own, and wish to adopt a child and provide her a safe, caring, loving home, who can deny them this right? And if a person falls ill, who is better qualified to make medical decisions about him than his life partner? How can anyone deny another human being these rights under any pretense, let alone the things they do privately and consentually? But that is exactly what is happening in America today. Under the earlier definition, it is the people that would seek to deny the civil rights of homosexuals who are the criminals in our society, not the homosexuals themselves.
       As I stated earlier, using either the argument of genetics or of lifestyle choice is irrelevant. Both lead to the conclusion that homosexuals are entitled to the same civil rights as heterosexuals. So much for point number one. As for point number two, how exactly are they currently being denied their rights and why? The crux here is what has seemingly become the focal point of the entire debate, and that is the definition of the word “marriage.” This, despite all appearances, is actually the simple half of the question.
       The word “marriage” has come to us purely out of religious texts, in particularly, in our society, the Bible. Marriage is an ancient social institution, but it has historically always been first and foremost a religious institution. The ceremony of marriage is a public display before people and God of two people's commitment to each other as life partners, and since Western religions have traditionally considered homosexuality sinful, the ceremony has always implicitly meant the union of one man and one woman. The problem with this implication arose when religious morality was carried over into legal doctrine, in the case of the United States through British common law. Legal texts pertaining to property rights, adoption rights, medical treatment, in short, all legal texts pertaining to civil domestic rights used marriage as the basis for recognition of such rights. At the time of their writing, these laws had no need to make a distinction as to what marriage meant as society did not recognize homosexual partnerships. However, now that committed homosexual relationships are more recognized and gays are seeking recognition of their domestic rights, they have run into the impenetrable wall of that single word. Since marriage is historically between man and woman, any union between two men and two women cannot be recognized before the law. But I emphatically state again that the definition of marriage is a religious moral one. The laws of the United States are meant to protect a secular society where a separation of church and state is demanded by the citizens to protect their liberties from oppression by the religious majority. Thus the real problem is not the definition of marriage, on which the proponents of the Defense of Marriage Act harp so insistently, but the use of the word itself in the legal texts of the land.
       I propose an elegant solution to this problem. From the gay community, I ask simply that they concede the use of the word marriage to its religious definition. After all, it is only a word, and this is a tiny compromise. The commonly accepted alternate term is “civil union,” but I honestly could not care less what you choose to call it because the importance lies in the nature of the relationship and not in its name. From everyone opposed to “gay marriage,” I ask that the alternate term for a union of two men or two women is written into the laws as defining such a relationship and furthermore, and most importantly, that this term is given equal status with marriage in legal terms. The two terms should have equal meaning and indicate equal protection of civil rights. Thus the religious definition of marriage is not impugned by the “sinful” homosexuals, and the secular civil liberties of homosexuals are not infringed by the religious community morally opposed to them. I put forth that this is the most equitable solution for all citizens of the United States and that we can put to rest this argument that, for all its biliousness, should never have happened at all. It is time to close another chapter in the history of American intolerance and move forward to the actual problems facing our society rather than the imagined ones.

Dig Deeper

As a preamble, a brief mission statement of this blog: I am out to find the Truth. Looking for the Truth always requires digging deeper. If you are interested in digging deeper, I offer this blog to be a bigger shovel.