Musical influences

I pretty much gravitate toward guitar-orientated music, being a player myself. I've been having an ongoing debate with my dad about our respective top 5 lists in the category of guitar players. My list goes:

1 Jimi Hendrix

2 Carlos Santana

3 Jerry Garcia

4 Trey Anastasio

5 Steve Stevens (Billy Idol guitarist)

Let me clarify: This is my greatest SOLOIST list. There are other categories in which these guys might not even appear. I am not one of those hippie myopes that can't see outside their hippy world. I am not engaging in "name dropping" by including Steve Stevens. I almost put David Gilmour in number 5. But Steve has been a huge influence on me, even though it's not apparent, even to me sometimes. One might argue Gilmour is a better soloist, though.

A glaring omission has been brought to my attention: Eddie Van Halen. This is *my* top 5 list , and he's not on it. He is however on my top 15 list.

As far as other music is concerned, I LOVE Alicia Keys, Norah Jones, and Sade. And Kylie Minogue...maybe it's her butt, I'm still not sure. There really isn't much going on in the male music department that is interesting to me. Punk is a waste of time, Rap isn't music, and hip-hop is WAAAAAAY too self indulgent. R&B *CAN* be interesting. Like Anita Baker and the jazzier stuff. Jazz (like Miles, Coltrane, etc.) is like a bunch of geniuses sitting around trying to NOT make sense. There are snippits that come out of it that are worth exploring, and the general idea of musical freedom is admirable, but, what is it from which you want to be free? Melody? Harmony? Repetition? These are among the fundaments of music without which you are left with chaos.

Punk was a defiant movement away from corporate pop and social norms. Ok, I understand. But then they go and write a bunch of formulaic songs using the same general patterns found in pop. All they got away from was the musicianship.

Rap...yeah...see, there is *NOTHING* musical about it. For the most part, it's ripped off music that some self-important ego-maniac is using to tell everyone how up-and-coming he is. The music is just a back-drop for his/her rantings and bitch-mongering. It ought to be illegal to give these rappers millions of dollars. It certainly is dangerous. A poor idiot is relatively harmless. A rich idiot is a menace. That was absurd, about "it ought to be illegal", I know; They earned the money. But they earned it by appealing to the lowest of human desires. What that says about the mindset of these kids (and adults) that buy all those Rap records is paramount. Is this what we have to look forward to? Future leaders that grew up listening to rap? We already have to listen to P-diddy's political wisdom. Then it will be the idiots who listened to him giving their "wisdom". I'm not saying anything should be done about it. I *AM* a Libertarian, after all. Rap wouldn't survive long if people had their heads out of their respective asses. The only good thing about it is it's beneficial to the working class because we build their mansions, sell them their cars, and clothes, and bling, and other forms of trickle-down economics.

I'm gonna quit now, lest this turn into a commentary on the social decay of western civilization as we know it....

Interview

Since I almost got carpal tunnel syndrome from writing it, I thought I would post it for anyone who cares...

This is an interview my brother-in-law did for a school project:

Troy: What or who inspired you to be a musician?
Steve: Well, primarily, it was my dad. Some of my first memories are of my dad playing guitar. The songs he played (and still plays exactly the same) are etched in my mind and elicit an almost primal, instinctual response in me. Feelings of safety, comfort, and childlike love all spring up as if I was young again.
Then, when I was seven and started liking my own music, I remember hearing Carlos Santana the first time. The way he was able to wrench out different emotions with a single note, almost forcing you to dance with the raw, native rhythm...anyways, I realized the power a musician could have and the ecstacy the musician and audience could share and I wanted that for myself. And I could see that it was possible because here was my dad, someone real, who could do that, albeit on a smaller scale, so I knew I could do it too.

Troy: At what age did you start playing and what instrument?
Steve: I believe I was 8 when I first started fiddling around with an electric guitar that my uncle gave my dad. I really wasn't interested in the acoustic guitars that my dad had, mainly because the rock stars that I loved (Santana, Fleetwood Mac, Wings) used electric guitars. So when he brought that home, I pretty much slept with it. By the time I was 10 I could play a few simple songs and at 12 I was copying solos from every song I could.

Troy: What kind of instruments do you play and which one do you enjoy
playing the most?
Steve: In elementary school I played the trumpet and trombone and in middle school I swiched to drums, all the while playing guitar at home. I played drums in the marching band up through 10th grade and drum kit in 9th and 10th grade, as well as other percussion instruments. But the whole time I was playing guitar at home. In 10th grade I was accepted into the Stage Band class and for the first time got to play guitar with other people. I dropped drumming and haven't really played drums much since. But I learned about the structure of music in general and the role of melody from playing trumpet and trombone and from percussion the ultimately important role of rhythm. All this has helped me in playing guitar. I also enjoy bass guitar, congas, and singing (is that an instrument?)

Troy: Do you have a favorite type of music Jazz, Rock, Pop, R&B, etc…? Who is your favorite artist or group?
Steve:I would have to say that I love rock most. I have a natural affinity for guitar-oriented music, which eliminates most classical musical. There are areas of Jazz that I like: cool jazz, R&B-style jazz, Brazillian jazz. I love pop, as long as it's real music played by real musicians using real instruments. I will name a few of my favorites in a few categories:

Jam Bands:
Phish, Grateful Dead, Spin Doctors, Allman Brothers

R&B:
Anita Baker, Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey (the early stuff), Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye

Jazz:
Joao Gilberto, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Stan Getz, Miles, Coltrane, Django Reinhart

Rock:
Billy Idol, Eagles, Jackson Brown, Iron Maiden, Pearl Jam, U2, the Police, Rush, Santana, The Cars, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley....

Troy: Did playing an instrument come easy for you? Did you have to
discipline yourself to practice or did you look forward to making time for
practice? How often do you practice?
Steve: See, practice is like pulling teeth. I used to play every waking minute until about 13, which is when I discovered girls. But I wouldn't call it practice, it was more like, "what *can't* I do?" then I would try to do it over and over again until my hand went numb and then I usually found that, a few days later, I could do it. Nowadays, I do have to discipline myself to practice, and I don't do it nearly as much as I should. I used to watch tv with my guitar in hand, running up and down the neck in different scales. I can't do that now because I end up yelling at my daughter for tweaking the tuning machines and then my wife is mad at me. Also, the desire to play only comes when I'm feeling good about life and like I accomplished something; usually Friday after getting paid and before the weekend. I find that I have the best time when I'm alone in the house so I can really turn it up without worrying about my daughters' eardrums. So it happens about once a week. My wife has noticed that I get short tempered if I don't get to play often enough and under the right circumstances.
Becoming proficient at playing guitar did not come easy for me. It took 15 years before I was really comfortable anywhere on the neck and able to forget about the mechanics and just feel my way around. I have a friend who asked me to show him a few things. Then, two weeks later, a few more things. He would ask technical questions about music, and playing guitar at work. After about 10 months, he brought his guitar to work and played for me, and he was better in ten months than I was in ten years. Really. He was a natural; I wasn't. I hate him.

Troy: Will you describe your most memorable musical performance and what made it your favorite?
Steve: Wow. I think it was my senior year in high school. We learned a melodic instrumental song (Santana) and I played it with a full band in a school concert. It was pretty much a guitar solo through the whole song. Very complex, but we NAILED it. None of my friends were there, but my hero, the lead guitarist in a local band, was there and he was really impressed. I felt ten feet tall.
Aside from that, I have played upwards of 400 gigs, with crowds ranging from one to 2000 people, and every one was memorable and my favorite. There is something about playing live that is addicting. I really miss it.

Troy: Will you encourage your daughters to play musical instruments and do you hope to perform with them someday?
Steve: Yes I do encourage them. I think I will wait until they're a bit older and more coordinated before I get them instruments. But I try to influence them to learn and love music now. I think you have to love it and want it and be addicted to the feeling of it, and experience the power of it before you really have the courage to own it.
And I think that I could never achieve anything greater than to be able to make music with my daughters, someday.

Libertarian Socialists? HUH?

So, my wife steers me to this jackass on myspace who says he is a "Libertarian Socialist" and has this big manifesto outlining his philosophy. This guy is the best example of pro-creation gone awry and his parents should be flogged for unleashing this nincompoop upon the rest of the world, but Jennifer is feeling like maybe I should try to help him understand the folly of his pseudo-philosophising. So, as an exercise in futility, I responded thusly:

Wow...The lack of understanding of human nature and basic economic principles is astounding! This mindless drivel would be laughable if I thought it was just you that thought this way. Knowing, as I do, that there are millions of people that hold such jack-asstic opinions makes me skeptical about the future of the human race.
You understand nothing about Libertarianism. What you describe is called SOCIALISM. Do you think adding the word Libertarian as an adjective will make it more palatable? Like sprinkling sugar on a dog turd? What have you been reading? Who have you been listening to? Don't be such a tool. I know you're young, but don't let people steer you around like a pawn.
Tell you what...I'm gonna do you a favor...Read *everything* on this page, now. Tonight. It's an archive of the weekly columns of Walter Williams; a black man and professor of economics and a true Libertarian. At the very least, you'll understand more about capitalism and economics and the function of morality in a free society.

Socialism, in any of its many forms, is force. The group forces the individual to act in the best interests of the group. The Individual exists only for the benefit of the group, and his every resource, even his very body and mind, are the property of the group, to be used, abused, even disposed of in any manner the group sees fit.

Libertarianism recognizes that the group exists only for the benefit of the individual. There *is* no group benefit if even one individual suffers. And if the group fails the individual, the group ceases to exist. The hope here, for humanity, is not for a utopian shangri-la, with everyone fat and happy, sitting around a campfire humming "Imagine" by John Lennon. It is for *every* human being to be free to pursue his own happiness, by his own definition of the idea, at his own pace. It is then that we will begin to realize that we are most happy when we act charitably towards our neighbors and work hard to build a safer tomorrow for our children. That is a happiness worth pursuing.

You should put down the Nietche, Marx, Chomsky and Nader and read some Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Mortimer Adler. Especially Mortimer Adler; He will teach you *how* to think. Then maybe you can begin to know *what* to think.

Tragically, he has it set so he must approve/deny all responses to his blog, and I'm betting he won't approve mine. What a waste...

Another essay

Here's another essay, from 1995, from Englsh 1A at RCC. My teacher was a perfect dimwit and I dropped out because I couldn't take it anymore. Had I finished this class, I would be walking around today with an Associate of Science Degree in Electronics in my back pocket and my hammer in my hand. As it is, I just have this hammer in my hand...

The Cult of Confusion

These days, it seems, a clear-thinking individual is hard to come by. As more and more issues surface where there seems to be no clear-cut answer, the result is often confusion. Like cancer, confusion in one matter seems to spread into others. Now, we have in America a society of scholars who have accepted a clear and simple task; to keep an ever-vigilant eye on our government and our society, in the hopes that the greater flow of information can keep America on course. Im speaking, of course, of the news media. These people are supposed to be the elite, the cream-of -the-crop. I know they have all had at least one course in logic. How they let confusion reign when they have the power and means to shine the light is beyond me.

The media likes to hide behind the fact that they must stay objective, however, objectivity does not mean you cant take a position. For example, if I say The sun rises in the west, you can take the position that the sun rises in the east and still maintain objectivity. If I say Liver and onions tastes horrible, there is no position you can take which will be objective. The point here is that there is such a thing as Objective Truth. Between Objective Truth and Subjective Opinion lies a gaping chasm and bottomless pit. This is where confusion, befuddlement, disorder, distraction, perplexity, and discord lie in wait for the hapless philosopher in each of us.

Much like a puddle, in which it only takes a second to stir-up all the gunk at the bottom and hours to settle back down to clarity, once you fall into the chasm of confusion, its hard to get out. Since you obviously made the mistake of falling in there, you may not have the tools to get yourself out. Too often, people reach into their mental tool bag and grab Emotion, leaving the dusty tool of Logic behind. Emotion is great, but you cannot laugh or cry your way out, you must use reason. The puddle will only settle if it is left completely alone. This is where the media fails us. It seems to me, every time a confusing issue comes up, the media keeps poking the finger of confusion into the puddle, never allowing it to settle, when a few carefully chosen words, expressing Objective Truth, would have sufficed and the confused among us might have figured it out.

Case in point: A lady goes to McDonalds, gets coffee, drives off and spills it in her lap, burning her badly. No-one bothered to tell her, If you dont want third degree burns in your lap, dont spill it there. Coffee is HOT! Why the hell were you driving around with hot coffee in your lap?!!? Was there any opinion in the statement above? Sure it could have been said more sensitively, but when such a ridiculous matter has the potential of affecting real people, there is no time for sugar-coating. The people, already confused after years of subjectivism, awarded her millions of McDonalds hard-earned money. Even after the fact, there should have been an outcry from the media but all we heard was, A lady got millions for spilling coffee in her lap. How does this make you feel?

Another example, this one from our textbook, Voices and Visions: A Texas cable company cancels MTV in response to complaints about content. Many letters expressing concern on both sides of the issue were received by both the cable company and the local papers, Im sure. However, the letters chosen to be included in our textbook were fine examples of irrationality and confusion. One letter called it censorship. Another said he had the right to choose what to watch. This confusion could have easily been avoided had someone simply said, If you want to watch MTV, go buy a satellite dish and get it yourself. This Cable company has the right to choose what programs it offers. No-one is restricting your right to choose. In the ensuing frenzy of confusion over whose rights superseded whose, every Americans rights were called into question and the only result was more confusion.

It all seems to boil down to rights. Everyone is confused as to where his/her rights end and yours begin. The words sorely lacking from the media are, You have the right to pursue happiness. You also have the right to get lost in your pursuit. You do NOT have the right to find it. You have the right to be a jerk and I have the right to protect myself from jerks. You have the right to not work. You also have the right to starve when you cannot buy food. If someone wants to, they have a right to help you as they see fit. You have the right to speak freely. I have the right to not have to listen to you. You have the right to buy coffee and spill it in your lap. These words, and more along the same lines, would do much to dispel the mass confusion afflicting this country. The end result of all this is that our rights get taken away. How our rights, granted by God to all human beings and protected by our elected government, can be taken away by men is unfathomable. This could only have happened in a climate of confusion. The media is asleep at the wheel, or in knowing complicity. They are either perpetuating or fostering confusion, and since we can assume they are scholars and learned men and women who would not be likely to fall for such simple fallacies of logic, we can safely assume it is the latter.

Socrates and the State: Libertarian Viewpoints

Here's an essay I wrote in 1994 for my English class at RCC. This was before I really knew anything about Libertarianism, but, as you will see, I was a Libertarian already, whether I knew it or not.

For those who don't know, Plato, circa 400 BC, wrote about his teacher, Socrates, who was arrested, tried, and executed for basically being smarter than everyone else. The actual charge was "leading men astray and corrupting the young." He wasn't really executed, i guess, but he was allowed to poison himself in lieu of execution. The trial, however, is a shining example of the problems with governmemt. Even worse is that even now, 2500 years later, these problems have yet to be solved.

Socrates and the State

The trial, and subsequent death, of Socrates illustrates a struggle in which we still find ourselves in today. There is a lesson in the Crito we still have not learned; that government, and the law enforced by it, is the servant of Man, and when government ceases to serve, it is the duty of Man to change or, in more extreme cases, to overthrow it. The government in Athens was primitive and didn’t have the benefit of thousands of years of experimentation that we enjoy today. But that is no excuse for being irrational. That the court found Socrates guilty shows how much respect that Law has for Truth. That Socrates chose to accept the ultimate penalty shows the grip the government had on the minds of its subjects.

Why did Socrates choose death? The answer is not to be found in the Crito. In the Apologia, after the prosecutors asked for the death penalty and Socrates is given the chance to counter-propose, instead of asking for banishment (which would have been accepted, it is implied), Socrates, knowing he will die for it, proposes instead that he be made an honorary citizen and celebrity. Inflamed, the court gives him death, and Socrates expresses contentment. A more appropriate question might be why did Socrates choose to stay rather than escape. Socrates chose to stay because the verdict of the court, though not based in fact, was that of a legitimate court of law, with which he had ultimate respect. How he could have respect for an entity that violated his Rights for speaking his mind is beyond my comprehension.

It might be appropriate here to examine the meaning of Rights. Rights exist whether they are respected or not. They belong, equal in amount and importance, to every Human Being as the wave belongs to the ocean. Rights cannot be taken away as they are not given. They can only be infringed upon. Infringement of ones Right to liberty is enslavement. Infringement of ones right to life is murder. And when ones Rights are violated, everyone’s Rights are violated, and the violator is guilty of a crime punishable by death. Did Socrates violate someone’s Rights? They say he made the worse argument the better. If it is better, then who said it was worse? Socrates was a doctor of Wisdom. When he detected faulty reasoning, he asked questions until the right answer was agreed to by all present. This made many angry, especially those in high position. Socrates challenged the status quo and they killed him for it. No rights were violated, no crimes committed. I suppose one could say he violated people’s right to remain ignorant of their folly, but, if one wished to remain ignorant, one shouldn’t be discussing philosophy with a philosopher, should they? The State was clearly in the wrong

Did Socrates break any Laws? What are laws, anyway? Are they to be obeyed at the expense of our Rights? By definition, Laws are instituted to safeguard our Rights. Law is like the telescope with which we might view the stars. The Law does not contain the Truth as the telescope does not contain the stars. When Rights seem to conflict with each other, Laws tell us how to remedy the situation. They do not work in every situation, though, and we must sometimes use the Reason of the wise among us to sort it out. Laws are clumsy and congestive, a necessary evil in a society of individuals. Any power Laws have is equal to the willingness of the People to obey. If a member of society breaks a Law and the People decide the Law is valid, the violator deserves punishment. So did Socrates break any Laws? This is not given as a reason in the trial. Clearly Socrates could not have broken any laws as he violated no Rights. It can only be that the State misused its authority to the detriment of the very people that granted it.

If Laws safeguard our Rights, then they are always good, right? Not so. We have today many laws on the books that restrict our Rights, as if that were possible. If these Laws violate the very definition of the word, can they be Laws at all? Do we obey such a “Law” just so we don’t "destroy the foundation of society?" This is a cancer inserted among the foundations of our society by ignorant or unscrupulous legislators that will eventually cause the collapse of everything we hold dear. By passing into Law something that violates our Rights, the State is bringing about the collapse and destruction of society. Are we not obligated to leave to our children a world conducive to growth and achievement? If our lives are to be worth anything, we must fight for truth wherever we see error. Had the State realized this, they would have held Socrates up as a hero and savior of Athens. Had Socrates understood this, he would have escaped and fought to save the city he holds so dear from those who pervert the truth.

Socrates, giving voice to the Laws, says, “…Since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny …that you are our child and slave?” (838). What? Did he just say "slave?" This error stems from the mistake of thinking that the State gives us our rights, and therefore we owe something back, such as fealty and obedience. Whatever power the State has, it was given by the People who gave it life. The parent nurtures the Child, not the State. The Sate is not our Daddy, or benevolent Mother. One must think of the State as a mean, hungry dog, tied up in the backyard, and expected to bite anyone that comes in range. The dog serves to guard the valuables of it’s owner, and the owner feeds it, but must use care that the dog doesn’t bite him. And anyone who doesn't wish to be bitten need only stay out of it's circle of influence. The State is our slave because it has no inalienable rights itself. We bring it into being and we can bring it to annihilation when it ceases to serve.

Had Socrates the capacity to recognize these points, he might have acted differently. The lesson we have to learn is, that which is inherently disrespectful is undeserving of respect. A government that harms its citizens must be destroyed and scattered to the four winds and remembered so that we may not make the same mistake again. Socrates would have made a great leader in the fight to change Athens for the benefit of the children. But he drank the hemlock and deprived the city of his wisdom.

Wanna hear something even more right-wing?

I thinks we should restrict voting to people who own and live in their own home. If you can't earn and save enough money to buy a piece of America and have the sense and fortitude to keep it and make it thrive, you have NO BUSINESS helping decide the direction of the country as a whole. Also, anyone on any public assistance should not be able to vote due to conflict of interest. What the hell is going on, anyway? Why do we have drive-thru's where you can register to vote and get a cheeseburger? If someone is sooooo stupid/lazy/ignorant that they need to be helped to register and be driven to vote, why would their opinion on socio-political issues matter? Could it be that poor/uneducated/un-informed/un-motivated/un-capable people are just easier to mis-educate/mis-inform/mis-direct? Why do the democrats always want to make it easier for these people to register/vote?

Make no mistake; I don't hate un-educated, simple people. America was/is built by them. But while a ships cook surely serves an important, vital function, no-one solicits his opinion on navigational matters. But we've got whole organizations devoted to registering these people and celebrities imploring the chronically dumb-assed to get out and vote. Stay home! Play nintendo and order a pizza and thank god you were lucky enough to be born in a country that recognizes your inherent right to pursue your own happiness, however you choose to define it.


And why do people listen to celebrities, anyway?
You could crumble up everything ever written by Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Julia Roberts, and Sean Penn and fit that and two hacky-sacks into Danny Glover's jock-strap. Yet Andy Garcia's well written, informative, and passionate movie, "Lost City," gets buried by liberal hollywood because it shows the dark side of Cuba's Castro, from Garcia's personal experience, no less. All we get from them is drivel like "Motorcycle Diaries" and Che Guevara t-shirt cameo's in hundreds of other movies/tv shows.


Do these celebrities feel insecure because they play smart people on screen and they are not personally as smart? Do they think that because they play the President on tv that their opinion should be held in high esteem? Remember Trapper John, M.D? He got letters for YEARS from fans asking about rashes and medicinal side-effects. And all he did was play a doctor on a tv show! Do we want these people voting on bond issues, representatives, and presidents?

By the way, Che Guevara was a cowardly murderer who once shot a young boy in the head for stealing food. NOTHING HE EVER DID should be inspiring to any rational person, including his younger, idealistic days which should be a lesson and warning to idealistic youths everywhere. The lesson is: leftist ideology leads to forcing your will on other human beings.

Why are Libertarians opposing Proposition 8?

Ok, so, there's two kinds of Libertarians. I'm going to call one "Libertarians" and the other "Libertines." "Libertine" usually refers to a philosophy popular in the 17th-19th centuries characterized by being one "devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behavior sanctioned by the larger society." That's from Wikipedia. I use the term here because I watched the Libertarian convention and it was HI-JACKED by these Libertines who just wanted to be able to smoke pot, marry their malamute, or just not be taxed. I had to sit through HOURS of pot-heads, homosexuals, pedophiles, cannibals, skin-piercing enthusiasts, etc. just to hear a few snippets of genuine Libertarian philosophy. See, Libertarianism is about personal responsibility and accountability. Yes it means that if you want to shoot junk into your veins or have sex with an apple pie, no one should stop you. But it doesn't mean those are admirable things to do in your off time.

So, we end up with all these freaks in our party. What to do...I dunno, but that's why Ron Paul, a genuine Libertarian, refused when offered the Libertarian nomination after he lost at the Republican convention. It's also why Ann Coulter, my HERO, will not call herself a Libertarian, though everything about her screams it. Most philosophical Libertarians stay in the Republican party because they know that the best way to bring it about is to make the Republican party more libertarian , as an adjective. The same way most socialists vote for democrats. and not Ralph Nader.

Which brings me to Prop 8. A few questions first:

Why is the government involved in Marriage, as a legal term?

Why does the Government subsidize it with benefits such as tax breaks,
direct transfer of assets after death, and GREAT EXPENSE of court
resources to unscramble it when it goes awry?

What benefit does the State get from it to justify these subsidies?

Who, in their right mind, would want to get married in the first place?

The root answer to all this is children. The State benefits when children are born, brought up healthy, educated, and turned loose in a free market as stable, productive citizens. This is how economies grow. The more, the better.

So the government comes up with ways to promote, to entice, and to enhance the relationships that bring this about. This is not new. It has been going on for 6000+ years of recorded history.

There have been studies, some very recently, showing that the healthiest, most stable and productive children come from households based on a husband-wife, man-woman, relationship. A balanced child, way more often than not, has been raised through the influence of both father and mother. Most people don't need to be told this, but some people won't believe shit tastes bad unless there has been a "study" to prove it.

Marriage is not subsidized by governments because people "love" each other. Love has nothing to do with it. Love is a fleeting, irresponsible emotion. It is much better to base a marriage on respect and devotion. Love comes when it comes, and it comes more often, and is more resilient, when there is respect and devotion. Anyone who gets married because they are in love should get their head examined. Which is why it is soooooo important to teach your children respect for other human beings and devotion to your principles, and to have principles in the first place, and to make sure those principles are ones worth having.

It is clear to me that opponents of Proposition 8 misunderstand Marriage, its purpose, function, benefit, and consequences. I suspect their opposition is based on something other than what they are telling us. In 1999, they got equal rights under the Domestic Partnership law. All they are really fighting for now is the "right" to call it "marriage." They feel it will be more legitimate if they get to call it "marriage." Spreading cream cheese on a cow patty doesn't make it a bagel. I really think it is based on envy and a desire to have their lifestyle legitimized by society. What they don't understand is that I can't legitimize their lifestyle any more than I can legitimize someones desire to grow a soccer ball tree. You can try all you want; I won't stop you. But I'm not going to tell other people you are engaged in a worthy cause, or fighting the good fight, or try to get you farm subsidies, just like the orange growers get.

And don't tell me I hate homosexuals. I don't. I just don't understand it. I just can't understand how a man can not be fascinated by tits. It's un-natural. I understand lesbianism better; hell, I sympathize. My feminine side is a lesbian. This is not a liver-and-onions thing, either, where you either like eating it or not. This is like saying you don't like EATING.

But there is a reason there is two genders on this planet. Whether you believe in God or not, it is so we can pro-create. The sex drive either came from god to people the planet or was a mutation that caused the species to survive by sheer numbers. Every species. Heterosexual sex is not merely one of many possible sexual "orientations." It is the only orientation. All other types of sexual activity are more accurately described as "re-orientations" or simply perversions. Included in this is fellatio, butt-piracy, foot fetishes, armpit-lovers, and scat/watersports enthusiasts. And while I have been known to indulge in perversions from time to time, I by no means am about to base an entire relationship on them and then try to make society feel bad for not acknowledging it and subsidizing it.

Which brings me to my last point: Homosexuality has none. No point that is. None beyond your own selfish desire to grow soccer ball trees. It has no benefit to society, no benefit to the economy, and no benefit to the human race. It only benefits the homosexual. And does it, really? I would respect it more if they just said they were doing their part to prevent over-population.

Libertarians should not hound homosexuals into hiding. But they should not subsidize an activity without any benefit. Spending the peoples money without getting any concrete, verifiable benefit goes against Libertarian philosophy.