If some events or terms are unfamiliar please don't take my word for it; read the book.   

1) Ellison employs the theme of blindness for both his white and black characters. The black characters are blind to the extent to their servitude, their apparent inequality, and the psychological and philosophical manacles that bind them to the faulted belief that somehow the status quo has changed and their current status as second-class citizens is perfectly fine or if not, is bound to get better. The white characters are blind to the fact that their assumed parenthood of the now free blacks is yet another form of injustice, and that their supposed benevolence to blacks is sustainable so long as the blacks remain inferior. Both black and white characters accept the roles society has carved out for them, blind to the fact that everything is wrong. An example of one of Ellison's metaphors for blindness, are the blindfolds that the narrator and his friends were forced to wear by the white men during the battle royal.

Both black and white characters hide behind masks, so that their true selves or intent remain invisible. The white men who give the narrator his scholarship hide behind masks of kindness until the narrator mentions equality in his speech. The narrator's grandfather emphasizes wearing the mask of a good slave until the painted grin becomes a parody, and excessive obedience becomes insidious disobedience. The masks of the white and black people hide their true selves from scrutiny or harm since a mask deflects or absorbs attacks made at one's self or at one's authority. Hence, the true self and the true intent become immaterial vapors, lost shadows, intangible smoke, incapable of being touched, caught or illuminated.

In the end, the most telling metaphor of invisibility and blindness is the narrator himself. He is invisible to white people because he is black and white people are blind to his needs, who he truly is as a person, and his existence. The true personality of the narrator is invisible to the white people because they are blind to his traits as a person, and can only see him through the lenses of racist stereotypes.

2) Dr. Bledsoe exemplifies Du Bois's idea of a black American possessing white and black halves to his or her personality. Bledsoe has perfected the narrator's grandfather's theory of black obedience as a means of insubordination and usurpation. However, his ability to hide behind a mask of humility and goodwill has made him cold and uninterested to the plight of his people instead of more receptive. Instead of wearing the mask to prevent the betrayal of himself and his people, he wears the mask to garner power for himself. This power and influence has turned his head and made him a sinister Uncle Tom. He would sacrifice his own people to death and destruction at the hands of white people just to promote his own interests. Bledsoe's interest in his own advancement over that of his people stems from his cynical belief that black people will never become empowered as a whole, so he might as well seize power while he can. Despite his role as a local black leader and role model, Bledsoe has a mentality that favors white dominance.

Todd Clifton is an antithesis to Bledsoe. He actively challenges stereotypes about black people by being intelligent, cultured and handsome in a society that expects him not to be. Some white people, even today, would remark that he is "so white" and exhibits good qualities that typically would make up the stereotype for a white gentleman. Prejudice and stereotypes of white and black people force Clifton and other black men and women to try to assimilate themselves into white culture, to mask their true thoughts and feelings in an effort to gain acceptance and tolerance.

Despite his good attributes, Clifton is eventually hurt by stereotypes. He realizes that the Brotherhood is just a perpetuation of black servitude and weakness. Clifton leaves, but in his despair or anger he begins selling Sambo dolls on the street. He caters to the palatable nature of grotesque caricatures of black people among white people. The dolls mock, and subjugate black people, leaving a searing, negative image of black people in the minds of anyone who sees them. They perpetuate the stereotypes that have crushed Clifton's spirit.

3) Ellison shows how thoroughly he is disgusted with the concept of humility as a means of black advancement. Although, the young narrator genuinely believes, despite his grandfather's dying words, that servility and passivity will earn him praise, the white men who managed the battle royal took advantage of his naivety and his desire to please. The statue of the black man who founded the narrator's college is an unknown man despite his grand humility. The forgotten founder represents Booker T. Washington and what Ellison thought of him and his principles. Washington strongly believed that through obedience and submission, black people would gain their rightful equality. He opted for humility over an assertive push for civil rights. He founded the Tuskegee Institute, now Tuskegee University, one of the nation's historically black colleges. Although he did the best that he could do in the segregated Reconstruction era, he accomplished little in the fight for civil rights compared to Dr. King and Malcolm X, leaders who threw down debilitating passivity and humility to empower an oppressed people.

4) Mr. Emerson, son of the trustees of the narrator's college, sees himself as Huckleberry Finn and the narrator as Jim, a belittling comparison when examined closely. "Huckleberry Finn" is a groundbreaking novel by Mark Twain that redefined white and black relations in the late 1800s. The friendship between Finn, the young white boy and Jim, an escaped slave, along with Finn's efforts to free Jim broke down barriers in the era of slavery. Yet, in the age after slavery, the age in which the narrator is living, the comparison does not hold up. Emerson is simply upholding the paternalistic treatment of blacks by whites so that he may feel good about helping someone he sees as weaker than himself. He warps the original purpose of Jim and Huck's friendship by holding it up as a standard for all interracial relationships. To Emerson, blacks will always be dependent on whites. Like, Sybil, the white woman who wants the narrator to act out her fantasy of being raped by a "savage" black man, Emerson only injects value into his and the narrator's relationship in order to fulfill a stereotype.

5) Brother Jack effectively takes up the "white man's burden" in his paternalistic treatment of the black people who looked to him as someone who could help their cause. The narrator is right in calling him a "great white father." Jack with his glass eye, is blind to seeing blacks as people and sees them only as cogs and gears in his political machine to supposedly aid people "dispossessed of their heritage." The narrator is also blind. Initially he believes Jack to be a different kind of white man, but Jack was simply wearing a mask. His actual beliefs, his racism, were just temporarily invisible. Jack believed the same stereotypes as most other white people. When the political aims of the Brotherhood shift to incorporate the complaints of disgruntled whites, the cause of the black members is abandoned. Jack has red hair, and he symbolizes the poor treatment black intellectuals received at the hands of the Communist Party in the 1930s and 40s.

6) The philosophy of Ras is attractive in the fact that it offers courage and hope, in a strong, powerful manner reminiscent of Malcolm X. Ras is a nationalist and a separatist. He believes there is no hope in the integration of blacks and whites. Blacks must either overthrow white rule or return to Africa, an idea put forth by Jamaican nationalist Marcus Garvey in the 1920s. Ras also encourages blacks to be proud of their culture. His name means "prince" in Ethiopian and it sounds like Ra, the name of the ancient Egyptian sun god. He inspires black pride.

At same time, Ras is repellent, because he advocates violence as a means to liberation, much like the Black Panther movement in the 1960s and 70s. He has the passion and charisma of a leader, but not necessarily the wisdom. He incites riots in Harlem.

Yet, the narrator rejects Ras for different reasons, reasons that allow "Invisible Man" to be easily classified as existential literature in the spirit of Albert Camus's "The Myth of Sisyphus." The narrator finally realizes that it is "better to live out one's own absurdity than to die for that of others." He realizes the absurdity of American race relations in an absurd world. Like French existentialist Camus, the narrator understands that in an absurd universe he can only find meaning in creating a meaning for himself. Trying to fulfill the expectations of others, whether it was Ras, Jack, or Bledsoe, only proved destructive to his sense of self and subjected it to caustic stereotypes.

His identity is now the source of meaning in the narrator's life. He states in the epilogue: "And my problem was that I always tried to go in everyone's way but my own. I have also been called one thing and then another while no one really wished to hear what I called myself. So after years of trying to adopt the opinions of others I finally rebelled. I am an invisible man." The narrator ultimately assumes a mask of invisibility in order to effectively rebel against his limitations.

Although Ellison's novel deals primarily with the difficulties a black man had to face in the 1950s, Ellison also wanted the narrator's ordeal to have a universal appeal. Ellison wrote of the struggle to define one's self in spite of societal expectations. Anyone, regardless of ethnicity, creed or sexuality, who is intelligent and deeply introspective may suffer from the societal roles, stereotypes and labels that prevent him or her from discovering his or her individual identity.

- Ryu

Hope this inspires thought. Here goes!

1) "Life does not stipulate consciousness. Consciousness stipulates life. Life exists because of the soul. The soul is consciousness." - Hermetica

2) "Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde

3) "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity." - Dorothy Parker

4) "A warrior skilled in indirect warfare is as infinite and inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth." - Lao Tzu, The Art of War

5) "I wonder who it was who defined man as a rational animal. It was the most primitive definition given. Man is many things, but he is not rational." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

That's all for now. Remember to get 'em while they're hot!

These bites are chewy! Eat up!

1) "Pleasure is Nature's test, her sign of approval." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

2) "People are afraid of themselves nowadays. They have forgotten the highest of all duties, the duty that one owes to one's self.
Of course they are charitable. They feed the hungry and clothe the beggar. But their own souls starve and are naked." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

3) "Orderly disorder is based on careful divison, courageous fear, strong weakness, and potential energy." - Lao Tzu, The Art of War

4) "One may have a blazing hearth in one's soul and yet no one ever comes to sit by it." - Vincent van Gogh

Still not full? Drop by same time tomorrow!

1) FRATRICIDE  - the violence is costly and unnecessary...i will not begin to point fingers since both groups have attacked each other with little precedent throughout the centuries...both sides believe they are right because both have seen innocents die at the hands of radicals....religous differences are not an excuse for the acceptance of blood thirsty fanatics.....ironically Arabs and Israelis are related...just take a peak back into Biblical history and one will see that the patriarch Abraham had two sons: Issac the forefather of the Jewish nation...and Ishmael...ancestor of modern-day Palestineans...why then do they wish to eliminate each other? ... they are brothers! .... whether they strike out to defend Allah or Hashem, they are spilling the blood of kin....the history of blood spilt between the two groups is hard to erase but one must stop the continuous retaliations...  

2) DISCRIMINATION & "THE FINAL SOLUTION" - i am all for the Jewish people yet i do think they have the upper hand in this fight ... they have the support of the US and most of the West...they also have superior weapons when compared to desperate terrorists in a hole...also Jews are white, and perhaps there is some subtle racism there in the preference other white peoples have for Jews as opposed to Palestinians who could be considered brown or colored (this is not to say that the a darker skin hue automatically makes you the underdog) ... there is a religous prejudice as well...because our two religions are linked as "Judeo-Christianity" .. Christians don't feel as sympathetic to the cause of Muslims simply because they are not close ... from the time of the Crusades, Muslims were viewed as "infidels" worthy of extinction...the West would not mind a genocide of a group of Muslims many feel should be evicted from their homes to make way for a Jewish homeland .. the Jews suffered at the hands of a German "final solution"... what is Israel's "final solution" for the Palestinians?  

3)  IMPERIALIST PIGS & THE JEWISH HOMELAND -  just because 6 million Jews (most of them children) were killed in the Holacaust does not mean Israel has the right to kill of a group that is poorly -equipped and for the most part means no harm. It is like trying to scratch an itch with a mudrake. In order to kill a band of extremists does one have to wipe out 30 school kids at the same time. War is hell, but these atrocities are uncalled for. In the end it is just the rich and the powerful bullying the weak and desperate. The Palestinians have already been put behind a wall like wild animals. How much more can their humanity be degraded.  

I do support a homeland for Jews in the Middle East. In ancient times, the Hebrew people had their own nation. Invasions and captivity forced a worldwide diaspora and after the horrible reactions of the West to Jew from the Middle Ages to WW2, the Jews do deserve a safe haven. However, ancient Israel did not cover the entire region. Historicaly, there were other groups such the Assyrians, Moabites, Ammonites, etc. that can be found in the Bible. Why should Israel try to clense the region of all Gentile people today? Another problem is that in the time between the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD along w. the Jewish diaspora and the creation of Israel, Muslim people had settled in that territory, since it was ruled by various Muslim empires, the Ottoman Empire being the last. The fact that Great Britain botched the creation of the Jewish nation in the same way imperialist powers botched dividing Africa into nations w. tribes that can actually get along, has led to the modern conflict. Muslims were forced out of the homes, men sometimes killed and women raped in order for the creation of the modern Jewish state. The creation of this state was not well -thought out and occured in a rush simply to wash away Western guilt for the Holacaust.  

If the West (i.e Great Britain, US) had taken the time to consider that Palestinians would be forcefully evicted, the Muslim countries surrounding the Jewish nation would be rifled and and a future war based on differing allegiances to War, a new bloody chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not have been written. I'm not saying that no Jewish nation should have been created or returned to the Jewish people. I'm saying that Westen imperialist powers made a mess of it (as they did for other parts of the world, ex. Africa, India). Did anyone think about paying Palestinians for their land or helping them relocate to other Arab nations in the 1940s. No, hence the hurt that has spanned generations, and incited hate. Instead of firing rockets back and forth, rational people on both sides need to sit down and talk...they need to wage a war against extremists, and religous fundamentalists on both sides, not each other.

Here are the "meat 'n' potatoes" of the philosophy! Chow down!

1) "Live! Live the wonderful life that is in you! Let nothing be lost upon you. Be always searching for new sensations. Be afraid of nothing . . . . A new Hedonism - that is what out century wants." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

2) "Settle on the best plan . . . Explore the dynamic within, develop it without . . . Follow advantage, master opportunity: This is dynamic." - Lao Tzu, The Art of War

3) "All the world's roads lead to the heart of the Warrior; she plunges unhesitatingly into the river of passions always flowing through her life.

The Warrior knows that she is free to choose her desires, and she makes these decisions with courage, detachment and - sometimes - with just a touch of madness.

She embraces her passions and enjoys them intensely. " - Paulo Coelho, Warrior of the Light

4) "Do I dare disturb the universe? In a minute there is time for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse." - T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

check out my blog http://ryu13337.blogspot.com/and stop by http://quicklaughstation.blogspot.com/as well! happy reading!!

One of the tragedies of Frankenstein is the refusal of other characters in the novel to
recognize the monster as a full human being. What qualities make us human? Which of the qualities does the monster have? Which does he not have?

The terrible physical and emotional isolation of the Frankenstein monster led to his
eventual moral downfall. His inability to function in a society that sought to blot out his existence pushed him to murder, and dictated his ultimate exile. Yet, should the tragedy of the creature's broken life rest on his personal decisions or in humanity's unwillingness to accept him? Was the creature "human enough" to be accepted? I am of the opinion that except for his horrid origins, the Frankenstein monster was indeed a human being, worthy of love, respect, and understanding.

One should not be stigmatized for one's origins or for the characteristics that are a part of who one is but not under one's control. Congenital physical or psychological characteristics should not define a person and should not give others the right to judge the moral character of a person solely on the basis of such characteristics. However, mankind has a long history of judging intelligence, and moral integrity off of congenital premises such as ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and appearance. Where one is born, to whom they are born, and even how one is born can be used by one's peers to define one's entire life. Prejudice, the inherent mistake, the common misconception, is a fault of the entire human race, a blot on the human condition, a reoccurring tragedy in the human experience. Why should the plight of the Frankenstein monster be any different?

The Frankenstein monster's tragedy is almost entirely the fault of his origins which entail his "birth", and the shameful, irresponsible rejection of Victor Frankenstein, the monster's creator and hence his psychological father. The monster's father did not think of the being he was bringing into the world as a sentient being but simply as an endeavor of science, a fun little experience. Victor succeeded, yet he was not ready for his success because he had seen the creation of the monster as the end of the journey, not the beginning of it. He wasn't ready to be a father, nor was he ready for the responsibility, the consequences. Victor was rash and failed to think things through. If his monster was such a failure he could have aborted his creation then and there instead of taking off like a father who isn't mature enough to settle down and raise children. However he was more concerned about escaping before his deeds were discovered, and the creature survived.

Just as the children of fatherless homes are forever left with an unconscious feeling of inadequacy and pain, the creature reeled from the impact of his father's betrayal and absence. His life was never the same. The monster, like the children mentioned earlier, probably asked himself "Why did my father reject me and run away from living a life with me? What makes me so horrible that even my father could not love me enough to stay?" This first act of prejudice on the part of Victor, was only a taste of what was in store for the monster in the outside world. When he walked into town, innocent, unaware of his appearance and what other people might think of him, people ran away from him. When he saved a young girl from drowning, the girl's father, unconcerned with the creature's heroics, and unwilling to find out the other side of the story, lashed out with a gun. A blind old man accepted the monster, because even though he could not see the creature's face, he could "see" the beauty of his soul in the words he spoke. Yet the old man's son, Felix, saw only the terrible visage, and in an cruel, uncivilized act, he beat the peaceful monster away. Who would not turn evil under such circumstances?

The Frankenstein monster was indeed a human being showing superior human intellect, kindness, and a natural longing for a companion. He learned to read and speak on his own. Alone he understood the meaning of Paradise Lost and analyzed it according to his life. His only request of Victor, his absentee father, was to make him a wife, someone who shared his faults and attributes, someone who would see beyond what humanity could not and love him for who he was. One can not argue that his face or appearance made the creature any less human. Babies
born in vitro are still humans. Firefighters whose faces were disfigured by horrible burns when they struggled to save the helpless are still human. So why should the monster not be considered a human? As a human being, the creature did not deserve the inhumane way humanity treated him.

- Ryu

"God of all my God am."  - Alice in Chains

God what
was your reason
for making me?
what is your excuse
creating me
looking as I am?
I wish I could change
all of this
this visage you gave me
maybe attract a mate, yet
why did you make me so ugly?
do I have to have a zit
for every one of my sins?
2)
God do
you not like me?
do you not like me
for the faults
you made me with?
why am I to blame
for you God-given defects?
don't allow sin into the world
and then say it's all our fault
what use is "freedom of choice"
when "tomorrow we die"
3)
God when
you  made us
were some made
more evil
than others?
do you want
to send us to hell?
do you really "desire
that all might be saved"?
4)
God if
you hate gay people
why did you make
them gay?
so they could suffer?
before roasting in hell?
was that
your idea
of a joke?
5)
God is
there someone out there
just for me?
cause I can't seem
to find
this person
have you created
a lonely wanderer?
with no meaning
to her life?
and no one
to live for?
6)
God did
you create us for your pleasure?
is it fun watching us
eat, sleep, kill one another
live out our lives, die?
is it fun up there?
are we a good laugh?
7)
God next
time can you make us
perfect, pure, and holy
just like you?
from the start?
so that we can always
make you happy?
and none will
go to hell?
8)
God who
made you boss?
who died and left you God?
if you're all powerful
why didn't you make us
gods too?
just as powerful as you?
if you were lonely
before time began
wouldn't more gods,
not weak little men,
make more sense?
what were you afraid of?
9)
God are
you even listening?
are you even there?
do you even exist?
did mankind just
make you up
to fill some void
deep in our hearts?
and we just can't
admit it to ourselves?
just can't
understand we evolved
and that's it?
10)
God amen
I just can't
talk to you anymore
if you hate me
what can I do?
just stop
screwing me over
just stop
ruining my life
all that happens to me
is your Will
right?
then it's all your fault
hey everybody
here's a testimony
It's all God's fault
hear that God
there's your Gospel
It's all God's fault
all your God-damn fault
Goodnight God

- Ryu

Today's bites will be served up by Ralph Ellison, author of Invisible Man !!!

America is woven by many strands. I would recognize them and let it so remain. Our fate is to become one, and yet many. This is not a prophecy, but a description.

[Very apt in the age of Obama!!]

Good fiction is made of that which is real, and reality is difficult to come by.

Had the price of looking been blindness, I would have looked.

Life is to be lived, not controlled, and humanity is won by continuing to play in the face of a certain defeat.

There are few things in this world as dangerous as sleepwalkers.

The end is in the beginning and lies far ahead.

The act of writing requires a constant plunging back into the shadow of the past where time hovers ghostlike.

When I discover who I am, I'll be free.

Tasty? More next time!

Today's post will feature varying opinions on God. Stick a fork in 'em. They're done!

Jesus loves me

this I know

cause the Bible

tells me so.

- Christian children's hymn

So Lord, I see you grinning

Must be grand always winning

How proud are you being able

To gather faith from fable

. . .

God of all my God am

- Alice in Chains, "God Am"

God is always on the side of the big battalions

God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

-Voltaire

Build a new god

To medicate and to ape

. . .

God is in the tv

- Marilyn Manson, "Rock is Dead"

God is dead.

- Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathrustra"

The buffet just beginning! Stick around.

Today we will be joined by the Enlightenment thinker, and writer Volataire (1694-1778) !!!

Please make sure to supplement your bites with Candide !

A witty saying proves nothing.

The safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjiy life and have no fear of death.

Men are equal; it is not birth, but by virtue that makes the difference.

[This is how Voltaire is responsible for the Declaration of Independence]

Love truth, pardon error.

To succeed in the world, it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well mannered.

[as you can see our guest can be quite cynical and caustic ^^]

The multitude of books is making us ignorant.

The secret of being boring is to say everything.

Marriage is the only adventure open to the cowardly.

[Please read The Picture of Dorian Gray or The Importance of Being Earnest both by Oscar Wilde for more information]

The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease.

[poor doctors]

Prejudice is opinion without judgement.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

[i.e. Hitler]

History is a pack of lies we play on the dead.

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

[read 1984]

Everyman is guilty of the good he didn't do.

Anything to stupid to be said is sung.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.

Check out Voltaire's opinion on God!
http://daemon.gaia.com/blog/2009/1/philosophy_bite_5_-_concerning_god

The future is my friend

It hurts, but it treats me well

Take hold and be its master

- Seal "I'm Alive" 1994

The most common and most biting argument thrown at homosexual marriage and consequently homosexuality itself is the fact that, as of now, two women or two men can not produce a child independently. Heterosexuality is prized for its role in the biological priority of the human race - to produce viable offspring. The reality remains that the homosexual exclusion from the evolutionary purpose of all species currently categorizes homosexuality as unnatural or at worst unworthy of existence.

In contrast with common opinion, homosexuals couples around the globe are also driven by the biological need to procreate or at very least an emotional concern for the future of mankind. This drive exists along with their innate attraction to the same sex. The homosexual is then placed in a peculiar dilemma. He or she is jack-knifed between two equally demanding drives. Of course there are modern alternative to heterosexual reproduction: adoption, surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. However, each of these alternatives are mere shadows of heterosexual conception, childbirth and child rearing, in the same way that the butch and femme subculture of lesbianism is a parody of the heterosexual husband and wife.

The mimicry of homosexual parenting does not lie in the usage of science and technology. All the previously mentioned alternatives can and have been used by heterosexuals. In fact, the assistance of technology in the health care industry has been beneficial to the birth of more healthy babies, increased fertility, and longer lives in general. Harnessing human mind power has manifested itself itself in machines and methods that have lifted mankind out of the primeval and insured our success as a species. Homosexuals should take advantage of today and tomorrow's technology to overcome the discrepancy that separates homosexual parenting alternatives from heterosexual reproduction.

The heterosexual advantage lies with conception. At the moment of conception genetic material from one partner unites with the genetic material of the other partner in one cell - the zygote. The entire process, known as fertilization, can occur in a woman's body or in a test tub. Sexual reproduction is a beneficial to a species because it provides the genetic diversity need for a species to adapt to a variety of stressors. Those in heterosexual unions enjoy the unique pride that the resulting offspring will be a mosaic of the two sets of DNA donated by the mother and the father. It is with this pride that heterosexual unions can exalt themselves above homosexual unions when it comes to the ultimate goal of reproduction.

Analysis of the modern-day alternatives for homosexuals reveals no such advantage. Adoption, although morally acceptable, does not promote propagation of one's own genes, the evolutionary purpose of reproduction and in a broader sense, life itself. From an evolutionary standpoint, the organism is simply a genome and adaptations such an exceptionally complex pre-frontal cortex allow nature to select an organism for survival and the passage of one's genome to the next generation. Outside of the humane principles of civilization, adoption is not applicable. In the wild, when a male lion seizes control of a pride, he usually kills or abandons the cubs sired by the previous alpha male. He needs the female lions free to take care of his own genetic inheritance.

The human race has not only evolved to incorporate civility into its moral code, but has also done such a good job of evolving, adapting, and reproducing that there are many people free to take care of other people's offspring. Yet, rearing another's child does not propagate one's own genes. Adoption is not considered reproduction. Homosexual couples who chose to adopt have no genetic input in the child they chose to raise; although whether they choose to care about this state of affairs is up to them.

What about artificial insemination? Women who desire to have a child without engaging in sexual intercourse with a man can choose to be impregnated with the sperm of an unknown donor. Hence, the woman, whether a heterosexual single or a lesbian, can contribute to half of her child's genetic identity. Yet, for a lesbian couple artificial insemination alienates the woman who chose not to give birth to the child. The other lesbian, although emotionally, morally, and in some cases, legally responsible for the child's welfare, is still not genetically responsible. The child will remain the combined genome of the mother and the anonymous gentleman. The other lesbian is at best a loving, adopted "father."

In this way even when the biological barrier of a necessary womb is breached for a homosexual couple, the child remains only a partial genetic investment on the part of the homosexual couple. Since "natural" heterosexual reproduction is a genetic investment on the part of both parents it remains superior to all current forms of homosexual parenthood, at least from the conservative, fundamentalist, and evolutionary standpoints.

How then can homosexual couples breach the barrier of dual genetic investment and gain acceptance from society and natural selection? The answer is quite simple and within the reach of modern-day science. It is a wonder that such a method has not been thought of or utilized before. Perhaps, the accepted, shared sense of "otherness" is so ingrained ingrained in the homosexual community, that measures taken to become more "normal" are not desired or encouraged. Or perhaps society's opposition to allowing homosexuals the tenets of "normal" life (i.e. marriage, acceptance in the US military) is so strong that homosexuals dare not make any further attempts at procreational equality.

Equality is possible through an in vitro conceptions that involves the union of only the genetic material from the two homosexuals involved. Haploid DNA would be removed from the two sperm cells or the two egg cells of the respective homosexual parents-to-be. The two sets of haploid DNA would combine to form the first diploid cell of the couple's fully biological child. The cell, a zygote, would undergo cleavage and develope into a blastula, a hollow ball of cells that would be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother for a gay couple or the womb of the designated mother for a lesbian couple. When the child is born, the homosexual parents will be just as genetically responsible for their child as a heterosexual couple.

At first blush, many will think that such a procedure is too complicated or too expensive for a triviality such as genetic investment. However, this triviality goes a long way in legitimizing homosexual parenting, homosexual marriage, and homosexuality itself. Homosexuality is seen as illegitimate and unnatural primarily due to homosexuals inability to procreate within their relationships. Yet, genetic investment on the part of both homosexual parents counts as homosexual reproduction. If availability is a concern, homosexuals must demand access to the services necessary for dual genetic investment, as they have done for adoption services and artificial insemination. If this occurs, dual genetic investment will become as endemic to the homosexual community as it is to the heterosexual community.

Critics may still label homosexual reproduction as "unnatural" because of its heavy use of technology. However, advances in technology and scientific knowledge, from ultrasound to genetic screening, can not be separated from human reproduction at this point in mankind's history. A greater dependence on improved technologies (hydrogen-fueled cars, for example) is key to humanity's quality of life and the continuation of our species in the future. Homosexuals, too, should take advantage of new advances in technology.

The benefits of true homosexual reproduction in legal, emotional, and psychological areas will be enormous. No longer will the realization that one is a homosexual be linked with the realization that one will probably not have children of his or her own. Being able to have children who are related by blood will offer homosexual marriages some of the stability and legitimacy offered to procreating heterosexual couples. A small scientific gesture can translate into political and legal sanctions for the acceptance of homosexual couples, acceptance that is needed in a progressive, liberal society.

True reproduction with a homosexual couple at its center may provide a key goal for homosexual love, a goal, that for the longest while has been thought to belong to the realms of science fiction. If dual genetic investment is practiced, homosexual parenthood will become more integrated into society. As more homosexual couples have their own children, more homosexual youth will see such families as a model for their own and will be more likely to settle down. Such youth will be less likely to turn to promiscuity, the use of drugs and other deviant behaviors society currently associates with homosexuals. They will no longer have to develop psychological and behavioral disorders due to the prejudice of the families, their peers and society. Homosexuality will cease to be a "lifestyle" and will become a part of the mainstream. Homosexuals will be impelled further to remain honest to their sexuality while still leading productive lives. In this way, dual genetic investment within homosexual reproduction has much to offer to the homosexual community and society as a whole.

- Ryu

religion divides people, it makes them afraid, it makes them superstitious, it makes them ignorant, it makes them gullible; religion may have originated with good intentions, but as religious people say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions;
religion, or organized religion at the very least, is the crutch of the dependent, the comfort of weak, the strength of the pliable, the support of those who refuse to accept responsibility and those who are afraid to die; what religion reduces mankind to is close to the stereotypical definitions of children and the elderly

to let go of the power-hungry, blood-thirsty attributes of religion is not to plunge humanity into chaos believe it or not, the world suffers enough chaos with those who believe in a talking snake's part in the original sin, morality, civilization and family values can exist without religion; how can one make honest, responsible decisions while believing the universe is only 6000 years old?  this blind faith will throw man into chaos; let those who treasure the mentality of the Middle Ages become the minority;  the human mind is not big enough for reason and fanaticism,

it's time to wake up and realize we're alone in the universe; it's time to outgrow the silly beliefs of savages, and move foward on our own two feet; there's no God to bail us out, and anyone who says otherwise is only trying to control you

 

I believe that God exists. Like Voltaire, I concede that if God did not exist we would have to invent him. Humans have an innate need to worship. We are forever in awe of beauty, nature, each other, ourselves. This is called spirituality. We also have an innate sense of right and wrong. This is morality. These were not given to us by God, but are laws of living things, of how the universe simply is. God also follows these rules. We still bother with spirituality and morality because it is somehow necessary to our survival, and therefore genes for such feelings, and reasonings, remain in our DNA, and throughout the generations we have evolved to retain such leanings. The leanings make up mankind's concept of "God".

I believe in God, but not in religion which is man-made can consists of much knee-bowing, and forehead-scraping and clasping-of-the-hands. If God exists only in our heads or as a far-away being who watches the our dealings with a detached air, then to project God's desires, rules, whims, emotions, and actions here on real-life, physical Earth is nonsensical. Obviously these projections do not actually come from God, but  from man's interpretations of God.

Since, everyone is unique and interprets God (morality and spirituality) in his or her own way, there wars and divisions based on mankind's many interpretations of God. When a person, or group of people's interpretation is used to bind people together and persuade or force others to convert (interpret God in the same way and act accordingly) that is religion. Since man is natural imperfect, his interpretations are also naturally imperfect, filling religion to the brim with hypocrisy, and illogical reasoning. No person should have power over another person just because they pretend to understand the mysteries of the universe by pretending to understand a supposed super being.

My stance on God and religion is closest to that of Deism. I am a Deist. I will elaborate more below.

THEOLOGY

Men are stumbling blocks and rocks of offense
they will teach how to be conquered
and not how to conquer
they will teach you bowing and scraping
Men will teach you religion as the way to God
but religion is not the way to God
religion is bowing and scraping
religion is a way to be conquered
Men will teach you the way of the herd
because religion is the way of the herd
Men will not teach you salvation of self
the salvation of self is the way to God
the salvation of self is the way to conquer
Men will not teach you the way of loneliness
the salvation of self is the way of loneliness
only in loneliness can you meet God
you can not meet God through Men
you can not meet God through religion
you can not meet God through the herd
all of this is the way of a minor soul
the way of loneliness is the way of the great soul
only great souls can meet the Greatest Soul
the way of the minor soul is to be conquered
to be conquered is bondage
the way of the great soul is to conquer
to conquer is freedom
free yourself
to be free
to meet God

- Ryu