|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I was trying to stay away from any sort of discussion about Prop 8 because any sort of argument about it inevitably involves two things that people are most irrational/illogical about: religion and politics. However, I came across a statement on a forum that I couldn't let stand, and I typed out a reply. Since I haven't posted on this thing in forever, I thought I'd toss in my two cents here as well.
Original Post:
Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage is a holy thing, it shouldnt of never been allowed in the first place. a Preist that host gay marriages is making a mockery of everything hes supposed to stand for, and im not talking out of my ass homosexuality IS A SIN read the bible
My Response:
And this is exactly the kind of narrow-minded, self-centered point of view that allowed Prop 8 to pass.
"I believe in Christianity, therefore everyone must also believe in Christianity. If I believe everything people tell me about what the Bible says is true, then everyone should believe everything I am told about the Bible is true. The only kind of marriage I recognize is the kind that involves a man and a woman and is presided over by a priest, therefore everyone else should not recognize any other kind of alleged non-Christian 'marriage'."
Marriage is a concept that is beyond any single religion or faith. The idea that the Christian faith should somehow define what the US should recognize as a valid marriage is about as far from the idea of freedom of religion as you can get. The Constitution specifically prohibits the establishment of a national or official US religion, and specifically allows for each citizen to follow whatever set of beliefs he or she wishes too. What part of that in any way suggests that the government, state or federal, has the power to deny two persons the right to marry as a result of the way ONE religion (or ANY religion) defines the term "marriage"? As far as I know, marriage is a concept present in many societies, many of which have nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible.
People get married in the US under different faiths (or even no faith at all) all the time, and yet the government has no issue recognizing those marriages. Marriage between a neo-nazi and a pagan? No problemo. Marriage between a Jew and a Muslim? Go right ahead. Marriage between two secular, non-religious people? Just sign on the dotted line. Marriage involving oaths based upon a fictional religion/faith/philosophy, i.e. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings? Live on in geeky matrimony. But marriage between two people of the same gender? Noooooooo, that's not marriage as it was intended to be defined. The rest of those? Yeah, that's what marriage was always supposed to be about.
Whatever faith or non-faith you choose to adopt, the FACT remains that marriage has become a non-religious, secular institution that serves a non-religious, secular purpose in the US. People get married for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with religion or faith, such as tax benefits, marital property rights, immigration status, etc. The notion that gay marriage should not be recognized because of any religion, let alone one, ignores the facts and reality surrounding marriage in the present in the US. | | |
|
You will be remembered.
| | |
| "Modern man has brought this whole world to an awe-inspiring threshold of the future. He has reached new and astonishing peaks of scientific success. He has produced machines that think and instruments that peer into the unfathomable ranges of interstellar space. He has built gigantic bridges to span the seas andMartin Luther King, Jr. gargantuan buildings to kiss the skies. His airplanes and spaceships have dwarfed distance, placed time in chains, and carved highways through the stratosphere. This is a dazzling picture of modern man's scientific and technological progress.
Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.
Every man lives in two realms, the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals, and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms, and instrumentalities by means of which we live. Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live. So much of modern life can be summarized in that arresting dictum of the poet Thoreau: 'Improved means to an unimproved end.' This is the serious predicament, the deep and haunting problem confronting modern man. If we are to survive today, our moral and spiritual "lag" must be eliminated. Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul. When the "without" of man's nature subjugates the "within," dark storm clouds begin to form in the world."
- Martin Luther King, Jr., excerpt from speech given when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964
The part of this speech that caught my attention the most was the third paragraph speaking of how people have allowed the "internal" to become lost in the "external." Thoreau's words ("Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention
from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end,
an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at."; Thoreau, Walden) follow that same point. The point, to me, is that people have become preoccupied with superficial things in life that ultimately do not matter. Whether it's "bling", cool electronics, pretty shoes/bags, a mansion, or any other form of extravagance, it seems like too many people have forgotten that they are all simply a means to an end, not the end itself.
My dad once told me that if he could somehow buy true happiness with money, that he would take that deal anytime without hesitation. His point was that true happiness is so hard to come by, and his implication with his "if" was that money did not always get you true happiness. That statement from my dad struck me as particularly profound when he said it to me (although I didn't really understand the implications at the young age at which he told me), and has always lingered at the back of my mind to this day. After thinking about it for a while, I have to agree with both his statement and its implications, because I too believe that true happiness is a precious thing that money pales in comparison to.
What leads me to those conclusions are the facts that one can never have "enough" money, and there will always be better and/or nicer things to purchase and own. I've known and know of many people who appear to have everything a person could ask for (a large house, a nice car, expensive belongings, etc.) but remain unhappy and unsatisfied with their lives. On the other end, I've known and know of many people who appear to live a very mediocre life in terms of material value, but who are very happy and satisfied with their lives. I can't help but take this as evidence that money and material objects do not bring happiness by themselves, but that they are simply a means to achieving it.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that I think money is worthless and that I wouldn't take it if you gave it to me (I'm not THAT idealistic). Money has very real value in that it gives people security, opportunity, and an increased ability to dictate one's own life. However, I think many people neglect the fact that money, like so many of those "external" things that MLK speaks of, are merely tools we use to achieve our goals, means to our ends. So many people get caught up in "the race" to obtain money and other material things that they forget that obtaining those things is only the first step towards true happiness. It's not wrong to want more money and more material things, but only wanting those things limits one's life in terms of achieving happiness.
I'm not making this post to preach to anyone, or to tell anyone that they're living their life wrong, I'm mostly just thinking out loud. I have never been a person who has been very preoccupied with material things, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Every once in a while I am tempted to purchase some material thing that seems pretty cool and that many people seem to want (if they all want it, maybe I should too?), but I usually decide against it after considering the matter for very long. Things like expensive cars, iPods, advanced gadgets like digital cameras or flatscreen TVs, name brand clothing, etc. all have appealed to me at various times, but I usually end up concluding that I could very easily do without those things and that they would give me very temporary happiness or enjoyment, thus making the typically large expenditures of money (and thus my time and effort) not worth the cost of acquisition. Sometimes I think I'm depriving myself of things unnecessarily, but then what my dad told me years ago and speeches/quotes from people like MLK or Thoreau remind me that I'm not really depriving myself of anything unless a purchase will bring a worthwhile amount of happiness to me or to those I care about.
Summary (for people like Jon):
My opinion:
Time/Effort -> Money -> Expenditures/Purchases/etc. -> Happiness
What I see and disagree with (missing the last step):
Time/Effort -> Money/Expenditures/Purchases/etc./Happiness?
| | |
| Craigslist ad for a rich man:
What am I doing wrong?
Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes
at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in
mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I
don't think I'm overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives?
Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average
around 200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000
won't get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who
was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's
not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing
right? How do I get to her level?
Here are my questions specifically:
- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars,
restaurants, gyms
-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings
- Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?
- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east
side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have
nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop
dead
gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?
- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment
banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they
hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY
Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest
way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front
about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't
able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a
nice home and hearth.
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
PostingID: 432279810
The Answer
Dear Pers-431649184:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your
predicament. Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy
who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it.
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple
a crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what
you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I
bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade
and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is
very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty
that you won't be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins
in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a
buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business
sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease.
In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my
money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need
an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating,
not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets.
So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly
beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it
hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and
then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to
enter into some sort of lease, let me know.
| | |
|
