Define Irony in Book Five: Working Through the Maze 2018

“Define Irony: A bunch of idiots dancing on a plane to a song made famous by a band that died in a plane crash.” Con Air

Those who know me on Prosebox for a while know that I don’t shy away from sharing my political opinions. Those who have known me the longest on Prosebox also know that I don’t shy away from changing my political opinions when presented with new information or when pressed to consider an issue from a different perspective.

The two “most famous” examples?
Gay Marriage and Abortion

Gay Marriage:
I was historically against Gay Marriage. Many called it a semantic debate (and perhaps they weren’t wrong) but “marriage” is considered a religious institution, a sacred religious contract, in almost all recognized religious faiths. The United States developing a law respecting the institution of marriage, then, was the United States passing a law that respected the institution of religion.

Direct quote from the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

It was, then, my contention that ALL civil partnerships that were given special status by the government (be it taxes, insurance, what have you) could not and should not be “recognized as marriages” and that the government stop recognizing “marriages” as legal unions. A church, mosque, synagogue, temple, druidic arboretum, etc. could perform marriage services and such “marriage” could be part of the non-government recognized religious life of a person (like a baptism, confirmation, bar/bat mitzvah, etc). If the government wanted to promote “family units,” they could do so contractually via “Civil Commitments for everyone.” Thus the government would not be able to legally define what an appropriate “household” would be… opening the door to same sex couples, poly-amorous couples, asexual couples.... the government could establish “Households need not be be tied to concepts of sexual activity within a home, but instead could be tied to binding agreements to remain a household.” (Because… yeah… it always made me think it was crazy talk for the government to specifically give special treatment to some because of their “sexual monogamy” decisions.)

What Changed: Why do I now support Gay Marriage? Because I listened when I discussed my views. I still believe in my opinion as stated above. But the truth of the matter is… the government would never do that. Despite the Constitution and the fact that the United States is home to hundreds of faiths (including atheism, agnosticism, and anti-theism), there are too many in the government who openly fear and acquiesce to the worst kind of Christians. Please here me: There are good Christians in the world and painting all Christians as bigots and assholes is wrong. It would be like me trying to say that EVERYONE who enjoyed the 50 Shades Books are deviant, BDSM loving, sex witches. In other words… stereotyping someone to be what you want them to be, doesn’t make them that, lol. But back to the point…
what changed was that I took my lofty ideas and beliefs and applied a dash of practicality. I can make a rather strong legal argument for why “marriage” is a religious institution. But the US Government is never going to take any steps to rectify what may be (argued as) a Constitutional issue. So… if the government is going to stay flawed, let the flaw NOT be used to discriminate against consenting, tax paying citizen adults.

Abortion:
Nobody likes the idea of teenagers using abortion as birth control. And before you poo poo the idea, allow me to remind you who you are speaking with. I had a friend in High School who was allergic to latex and used abortion as birth control! Seriously… she’d had 4 abortions by her 20th birthday. I had another friend in High School who abused drugs and alcohol… while she would use protection “most of the time,” if she was too high/drunk, she’d forget. And got 2 abortions because of forgetting. My own Wife wasn’t on birth control when she started to have sex, got pregnant, got an abortion, and then started using birth control. So… yes. Abortion as Birth Control does happen and it is unacceptable when you consider how effective and inexpensive condoms are. The very idea that people would be so irresponsible infuriates me. What’s more… there are parents in the world desperate for a child, a baby specifically, and you’d rather kill your child as opposed to allow someone else to take care of it? How selfish!!

What Changed: A number of things changed for me.
First, I was introduced to the glaring and preposterous inadequacies of some of our nation’s Health Classes. The idea that a 19 year old woman could honestly not know where babies came from was laughable to me. Until I met one. A non-disabled man reaching his 21st birthday believing that brown babies were the result of anal sex… infuriated me, seemed humorous to me, and then broke my heart. There are people in the United States that are NEVER given a chance to learn… whether from genuine ignorance, religious protection, poor schooling, whatever. There are people in this world, walking around, that look like they should have an adult level of understanding about sex and reproduction… that just don’t have that information.
Second, I had to reorganize my statement. Apparently, to some, being okay with ANY abortions meant you were Pro-Choice. Pro-Life, apparently, required a total ban on abortions. And I was never going to support that. “In cases of rape, incest, or for the health of the mother” must always be a part of any abortion law. Because otherwise? Pregnancy becomes a weapon. It becomes an additional way we victimize victims. “Sorry you were raped, but we’re going to require you to remain perpetually victimized.” Or, and here’s one that always pisses people off… in movies, when the choice is “baby or the wife” I never hesitate to say “wife.” Call me a monster but it makes sense to me. (1) The wife can be a productive member of society after recovery; the baby can’t be a productive member of society for 18 years. (2) The relationship with the wife is long established, the relationship with the baby has not yet begun. (3) If another child is desired, the wife might be able to provide another child; the baby won’t be able to add to the population for 14 or so years. (4) Taking care of the baby will require immense amounts of money and time, a task best done by more than 1 working parent; while the wife could be traumatized and require aid of her own, that aid is easier to come by. So, for the health of the woman always gets my support.
Third, I did my research. What happens in countries where abortion is completely banned. Do adoptions go up? Do abortions go down? What is the legitimate real-world cost of total abortion bans? Death. That’s the cost. And so the “campaign” statement ultimately changed my mind. Ending abortions does not end abortions. It ends SAFE abortions. or If you revere the sanctity of life, don’t kill women with abortion bans.

SO…

WHAT I WAS SAYING…

I know from personal experience that “just because you believe one thing, doesn’t mean you’ll always believe it.” I also know from personal experience that a genuine discussion about things is an important way to both understand YOUR OWN viewpoint while understanding someone ELSE’s. AND, little known fact, just because you UNDERSTAND someone else’s viewpoint, doesn’t mean you have to agree with it! I supported the war in Iraq. I did. I was blacklisted as an actor in college for that viewpoint. BUT I understood what my fellow actors felt. I thoroughly understood it. Just like I understand my Dad’s viewpoint on the Death Penalty. I don’t support it. I disagree with it. But I understand it. Which means… I don’t hate him for his viewpoint. Understanding can help overcome hate.

But I see loads of calls from the Left to “not discuss” with Conservatives.
Wrong.

I can see cutting off Trumpists. Because, frankly, Trumpists don’t see reason. That isn’t a “dick headed judgment call.” That is in response to observation. Anyone who believes Trump’s words can’t be said to see reason as Trump lies constantly. Not in “politician lies” kind of ways. A politician would say “The greatest threat to our country today is Russian hacking.” And while it is a big threat; one might make an argument for ISIL, Domestic Terrorism, Gun Violence, Drug Epidemic, Income Inequality… in other words, there is argument to be made there. Trump lies the way a toddler lies. “I won the women! Nobody thought I would. I won the women!” No he didn’t. The women vote in 2016 split towards Hillary Clinton. “We’ve broken the all-time highest record of attendance for this arena!” No he didn’t. There were over 320 empty seats. The Pennsylvania Arena has played to audiences larger. “It’s a false standard, 100 days, but I have to tell you, I don’t think anybody has done what we did over the 100 days.” No, you’re dumb. MANY many Presidents have had more effective, more well-received, more productive “First 100 Days.” Trump didn’t even sign any major laws into legislation in his first 100 days.

So, yes. People excising Trumpists from rational or logical debate makes sense to me. But for Democrats to banish Non-Trump Republicans? For Non-Trump Republicans to refuse to talk to Democrats? It makes NO SENSE. Right now, we need each other. Republicans in power aren’t doing shit to prevent Trump’s bullshit. If Republicans are going to be against Trump, they need to cooperate with Democrats to get it done. Democrats currently have ZERO power in Federal Government. If Democrats are going to put a stop to Trump, they need to cooperate with Non-Trump Republicans.

Instead… we just sit on our side of the fences, screaming at one another, refusing to listen.
Republicans… do you want an (at best) Russian Toady (at worst: Russian Agent) as the leader of your party?
Democrats… do you want to continue in a world of Pro-Racist, Pro-Fascist, Pro-Billionaire policies?

It’s like in an alien invasion movie.

We can either be Spider-Man and Venom… or we can be Amanda Waller vs. the Justice League.

When Carnage appeared, it was discovered that he was the Evil, Psychotic, Can’t Be Controlled Symbiote that threatened everything. As much as Venom hate Spider-Man, they realized that they had to team up with the Wall Crawler for the greater good.

Amanda Waller never trusted Superman and his non-State-loyal team of super heroes. So she created a team of heroes that would work for her. She used them to infiltrate and harm the Justice League. Justice League saving the world at the time, be damned.

The question is:
If you’re fighting against someone and a new threat emerges… do you press your advantage against your old enemy; or do you put your differences aside to fight the new threat?

One of those decisions works out. The other one doesn’t.