Dave Short

My earliest memory of religion was, when in sixth grade, I lost my Social Studies book. The cost to replace it was $20, which was, in my adolescent world, a king’s ransom (it still is… heee heee heee). So I remember praying to God each night that I would find the book by the end of the year. And find it I did, close to the end of the year. That was the only time I can recall when I’ve called upon God. Needless to say, it did not do much to my religious perspective.

I grew up believing that there was a God because that’s what you’re supposed to do, as a Christian in this blessed-by-God nation of the U.S. of A. It’s kind of like the Economy: everybody is always taking about it, so it must be there. Even though you can’t see it. I remember having a catholic friend in Walla Walla who lived down the street from me. The crucifixes hanging in his house, replete with a crucified Jesus, scared the shit out of me (pardon my French). I remember thinking of being put up on that cross as a punishment, maybe for not believing in God. So I thought, what the hell, everybody say’s he’s real, if I’m right, golden ticket, if I’m wrong and there is no God, no harm done. This is called Pascal’s Gamble, and it’s a very cowardly way to go through life.

Now, somebody might say it’s awfully crummy to have one’s only religious experience be to have prayed to avoid a fee for a book, and I can’t agree mmore. By eighth grade, I had become an athiest. There was no resistence from my parents because I believe they both are athiests or close, at least. I have never been to church a day in my life, but I have no regrets. I had to keep quiet about my leanings at school, because I think pretty much every kid in Corvallis is some sort of Christian, with the exception of a few friends. I stayed that way for quite a while.

During my senior year of high school I realized that flatly stating that there was no God, no matter what, was almost as ignorant and pig-headed as stating that there was a God, no matter what. I changed my absolute stance to one of question; I do not believe there is a God, but if I see something to convince me otherwise, my mind is open. My views even evolved a little during my last year of high school to allow for a tiny bit of spiritualism. If you believe there is no God then it’s really hard to believe in free will, for example. I believe we have free will, so there’s got to be some sort of mystical or spiritual force somewhere. I just don’t believe it has much pull on our lives. Perhaps there is no “God”, but we are all our own Gods. If I could pick any religion, it would probably be Buddhism, as evinced by the presence of the Bhagavad-Gita on my bookshelf and not the Holy Bible.

The only thing I am fervent about when it comes to religion is that people should leave everyone else alone. It’s flat-out wrong to try to force somebody to switch religions or to call someone else’s religion wrong (paradox time: was it wrong of me to say that, since someone’s religion may be based on making other people switch? The mind reels).

I mention this because I read an article in the Independent today about a bill some Dems in the Montana legislature want to pass which would legalize same-sex marriages. It should come as no surprise to anyone that this bill will, quite frankly, piss a lot of people off. But I want to know why?

The usual conservative response is that legalizing gay marriages will endanger the family. How? These people are already gay. Gay people in love are probably going to be living with each other. Many people can attest to the relative worthlessness of marriage today. What difference is a piece of paper, besides a few tax reasons? (Note: I’m not saying that I don’t believe in marriage; I want to marry someday. I’m just pointing out the facts. Please don’t take me for a heartless cynic!) And what difference is it if a marriage liscence says ‘Mike and Tim’ instead of ‘Mike and Judy’?

A long time ago, marriage was the business of the Church. This was to, among other thing, keep blood ‘pure’ and to keep people from having sex. Nowadays marriage is the business of the state. And church and state are supposed to be separate. So what’s the big deal? As far as I can tell, gay marriages would hurt nobody. There might even be benefits. I’m not sure about the facts when it comes to adoption, but it seems to me that a child is better off with two parents than one. Still with me? An unmarried gay couple probably can’t adopt, but a married couple is more likely to be able to raise a child. Now, if they weren’t married, there wouldn’t be a straight couple to to take their place. What I’m saying is that there are not a number of possible marriages. So, a child is raised with two parents of the same sex. He will probably grow up to tolerate the beauty of love, regardless of its form. Trying to keep gays from marrying is just a form of spite, equivalent to putting up a huge fence on your lakeside property so that your neighbor, who lives closer to the shore, cannot see the view.

Let me put it this way:

I would rather see a child raised by a tolerant, gay couple than by a close-minded, bigoted, “normal” family.

But don’t listen to me. I’m a hellbound, godless agnostic. 😉