Is That Really Necessary?

I have held onto this for a little while so as not to implicate any specific party or individual.

So... imagine this scenario:

You go out and have a nice time on what may or may not have been an actual date. Regardless of the title you have a nice enjoyable time with someone that you do indeed have an attraction to. You stroll around for a while having nice conversation before walking them to their car (which happens to be in a public garage). When you arrive at said vehicle, you stand around and chat a bit more, enjoying the company of the person that you are with. At some point, the idea comes across to one party or the other that a kiss might be a nice idea, and a nice innocent kiss is shared, though it may in fact have been witnessed by a few individuals. After this moment, the conversation continues. Imagine the entire scene at the car lasts only 5 minutes or so.

As you are nearing the end of your conversation, but before goodbyes are said, you are approached by a security guard saying that you can't loiter in the garage, and you need "move along." While I am sure you can imagine a slight frustration, there is no real significance to the event, until not 10 seconds later, before the first guy has even left, another, zooms up in his "car" stating that you have to leave the garage immediately.

Hmmm...

Suddenly this seemingly innocent direction becomes something else entirely. This "story " is something that is a bit dark indeed. This happened to me, and I have held onto the story for a bit, but it still bothers me just as much. If you didn't gather from the story, ambiguous though it was, someone, whether it be the original passersby or the guard(s) him(them)selves, didn't very much like the idea of 2 boys sharing a moment in a parking garage. Now, I should also point out for those of you who don't know me that well, that I was quite serious when I said that there was a brief, and innocent kiss followed by more conversation. I am not a guy who likes to make out with people all over the place, but am also not afraid to show affection. To see people be so bothered by it, upsets me quite a little bit.

Now, I did take some time to think about the fact that maybe I misread the situation, but there are three factors I can't get around. 1. I don't normally feel victimized, so I wouldn't imagine that would be my first response. 2. The person I was with, called me and felt the exact same way. And finally, 3. I have had LONG conversations in that very same parking lot before with random friends, even groups of friends, where the security guys come and go all the time with no second glance. I think about it and I think that a lot of people end up at someone's car chatting it up after doing something before saying goodbye. You see it at the movie theatre, bars, restaurants, everywhere. Nope. This was different.

I guess I am telling this story both because it bothered me a little, and I like talking about the few things that actually upset me, and to marvel at the things that people let get to them. At what point did two people caring about each other become a dangerous or harmful thing? How does that even effect someone else? I am of course not just talking about this instance, but the constant tirade that people have about not only being gay, but any other form of expression that people find fault with. Seemingly for all of human history there have been those that are threatened by the harmless actions of other individuals, and so they turn violently against those things that are inherently peaceful, and sometimes even good. You would think that there are enough real dangers and problems in the world that need to be fought against that people would have more than enough conflict. Oh well. That's that. It is probably something I will continue to be challenged by and something I will continually lend my voice to.

Startlingly True

I just got back from Boys State, and with an average of 4 hours of sleep each night, I am not going to be writing an epic novel this evening, despite the many things that I want to say about the week. I did want to take just a second and post this quiz result, as well as an observation that was made over the week.
First the quiz:

You Have a Choleric Temperament

You are a person of great enthusiasm - easily excited by many things. Unsatisfied by the ordinary, you are reaching for an epic, extraordinary life. You want the best. The best life. The best love. The best reputation. You posses a sharp and keen intellect. Your mind is your primary weapon. Strong willed, nothing can keep you down. Your energy can break down any wall. You're an instantly passionate person - and this passion gives you an intoxicating power over others. At your worst, you are a narcissist. Full of yourself and even proud of your faults. Stubborn and opinionated, you know what you think is right. End of discussion. A bit of a misanthrope, you often see others as weak, ignorant, and inferior.

What Temperment Are You?

That really tells it all. As for the observation this week, one of the other Coordinators I work with was introducing me, and he called me "the maverick." I didn't think much about it at first, but then later someone was talking about it again, and I realized how appropriate it was.

The dictionary says that Maverick is:

One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter

or

Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence

Whether I mean to or not, I really do try and defy the norm constantly. I want to set myself apart just a little, ensuring my uniqueness. Maybe this is a side effect of trying to fit in for a long time, or maybe it is another sign of my ego, who knows. I don't necessarily think that it is a bad thing, and at Boys State it was used more as a descriptive compliment than anything, but it is certainly something I plan to pay attention to.

Selfish Virtue?

In my last post I talked about the possibility of there being no selfless act, and no potential to actually do a good deed. Excitingly for me, more people responded (I post this blog a few places) than normal, and it gave me more to contemplate and reflect on.

One friend of mine pointed out that selfishness, may not be inherently bad. If you are a long time reader of this journal, then you know that I have brought this possibility up a great many times, and I certainly feel that there is truth to this. To act against your own person, I feel defies the very reason for your existence, whatever that may be. From a religious standpoint, if God created you, then working against yourself is working against the creation that he made. From a more atheist standpoint, there is no real reason to tear yourself down. My personal belief (and the one expressed by this friend) is that the only time selfishness becomes a problem is when you are willing to destroy others for your own gain. Now this is a dangerous statement to make, because at what point do you draw the line. If someone will get hurt if you don't do something, but you will definitely get hurt if you do, whose needs and life takes priority? The selfish thing would be to evaluate whether or not the pain you will feel afterwards will be greater. For example if you were to let your mother feel pain instead of you, one might assume that your anguish and guilt later on would indeed be greater, and thus you should take the pain. With a stranger, that might not work the same. While I think there is truth in this, there is certainly no clear answer.

One thing that was brought is that it all goes to intentions. To quote: "If you're doing something because of personal satisfaction or boosting of ego, or what not... Then I'd guess it's selfish.. But if you truly are doing something because you CARE..." This response is funny because in the song in Wicked that I quoted last time, one of the later lines is that "My road of good intentions lead where all such roads lead," drawing on the old phrase that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. For one, I think there is a huge risk of moral superiority trumping all else, like CRUSADES, WITCH HUNTS, etc. I would venture to say that at least SOME of the people involved in there was because they were doing what they thought was a selfless act towards something or someone else. Even beyond that though there is the question that arises is it ok to do something bad if you do it because you care? Is it ok to hurt someone if it will help them later? Finally, I think that the point I tried to make last time was that if you are doing it because you CARE, you are still doing it to provoke feelings that you like. Though indeed the cause may seem more warm and fuzzy than say boosting your ego, the truth is that the meaning is the same: You are doing something for someone else that will make you feel better, or avoid you feeling bad. So how does that make one any better or worse? Is it because one feeling is "better" than another? Hmmm...

Finally the last I want to comment on is that of God's role in all of this. I was presented with a question of whether or not we were created by God with no benefit to Him, or if indeed we were created in His own image for some purpose of His own. Now the interesting thing brought up by this is that if God did indeed have a purpose in creating us, and didn't expend the energy for nothing, and if indeed we were created in His image, than by his own example, we are incapable of making a selfless act. On the flip side was the fact that indeed our goal was to overcome the fact that most acts are selfish and find the ability to make a "true" selfless act. That certainly would appease most churches (and in my opinion, excuse them from the many acts they commit that are very selfish in nature) but I am not sure that I buy it. I think that there is a clear delineation. Either there are selfless acts or their aren't. The thought of striving towards something that might not, and more importantly should not exist is rather hellish to me.

I do indeed like the idea that was brought up about karma, and I think that most faiths in the world have some indication of this, but I don't think that it answers the question of good or wickedness. If I am trying to help someone, but things go bad, does that mean that I am going to get kindness, or harm coming back to me? Is it again, related to the intent, or maybe the action, or maybe the result? I think that this last question may be at the heart of any of these discussions. Which part of an action do you look at? Can they all be in line? I would say mostly they cannot, so which takes priority? Ah, thoughts for another day.