God, homosexuality, and the problem of H. sapiens.

Homosexuality is one of those things like war and poverty that men have looked at uncomprehendingly since the beginning.

It is my feeling that my own language, based on sixteen characters I cannot share because I haven't the stamina to research how to get a computer to produce them, is responsible for certain positions I have taken on the frontiers of civilization, one of them my position that homosexuality is best eliminated, with as much care as possible not to cause the individual comfort of these people to be encroached on. That homosexuality is a sign of a dysfunctional civilization, even a dysfunctional species, is easy to see for those who also see that there is no God. Unfortunately there are billions of people who don't see that about God, and this makes it a demanding task to have a reasonable discussion about homosexuality, even speaking alone as a writer does.

So here is my position:

This species is subject to universal substitution of sufficiency, as a valid motive of comment, for progress in argument. If a comment has some way in which it can be taken immediately as sufficiently motivated, with a threshold of sufficiency on the order of what allows people to remain unmoved, to fit where it does into a discussion, then that comment is justifiable under the universal consensus of the species. Thus outfitted, the members of this species propagate their status gotten by the generosity of others far away and perhaps long ago, without having to do any Goddam thing of their own to progress beyond war, poverty, and homosexuality. As a state of species motivation, this amounts to an enormous bulk of material precious to each person that commands attention only because some or other rule of order allows it, and thus the beast is so arrayed for being out at pasture.

The species is proud of its self-image. It associates that image with God. In fact, there is no argument in it. Modern appliances in a civilization that has no argument preventing the occurrence of war and panic seems to me what we expect of children. "Don't worry about learning how to earn a living now. It's time to play and have fun. Worry about earning a living when you're older."

The argument is harder than this. So far I have dealt in plausibilities. These are closer to argument than sufficiency, but still not as argumentative as what the best science demands. I am not arguing with a prototypical individual, but with what I can make out to be a statistical description of the whole population, without depending on the existence of some who agree with me. Those who agree with me will have their battles but until progress is made in the discussion with the whole population there is no solace from being not alone.

Truth is fine. Navigating points of argument is considerably wider in scope. It cannot be done by professing commitment to truth. What is in common with all H. sapiens? What frequency are its other characteristics, not in common? Those who have seen the greatest variation in these characteristics are confined by the things in common. There knowledge is blocked.

Let me rest. Call it be-ers block.

On the quoting and attribution of my work.

I am under the impression that what I publish in this or my other blogs cannot be borrowed or used by others without attribution in a form that is legally prescribed. I am not familiar with those legal provisions but I find it in my interest to learn what they are.

I am not a lawyer. Legal research is not one of my studied abilities. Therefore I must make the best use I can of what occurs to me to be sound ethical practice. As a writer, I know that there are written sources of information about the law which I can make use of to improve the legal standing of this that occurs to me as ethical. On a zero budget I can do no better than this, it seems to me. A legal opinion by a lawyer would cost money that is not nearly reachable by my budget. (It is my experience that they ask for a retainer before performing any work and these are on the order of $500. That is not something I can foresee being raisable by me for the indefinite future.)

Toward starting a discussion of this matter, and in keeping with what I have just said, I now wish to introduce a quote regarding sharing when sharing is being encouraged. It is a quote from Wikipedia's Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, regarding use of material on Wikipedia.

Before giving the quote I must state that I do so because it bears on the topic of use of someone else's material, not because I consider it legally applicable to my blogs, which I may or may not do according to my study of the document from which the quote comes, or the quote itself. There are differences between Wikipedia and my blogs. I give the quote because there seem to be some similarities, and, as a person of less than legal qualifications, I am induced to give it in the sense of a useful beginning to my discussion, which itself may prove to be short and small in detail since I am not able to know how much there is a need for me to engage a thorough discussion here of the law.

Here is the quote:

"* Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
"* Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license."

Now this calls up considerable substance which I cannot comment to. What is a "similar or compatible license"? What, indeed, is a "license" altogether?

And as I say, this passage may or may not have some relevance to my blogs. But like Wikipedia, I would be pleased if my work were influential, and influential work is quoted by others. Wikipedia may object to my attributing such a view to them, and if so I will admit that it is only a personal reflection based on what I have seen, and not to be construed as something I propose as fact.

But I offer the quote as an example of what has been said by a source which seems to be widely considered reliable in matters stemming from being influential and quoted, about its own position on the matter of others using its work.

Without knowing the law, I must stop at merely saying that if anyone quotes my blogs, it would be my preference that they annotate the material as a quote and attribute it to me in the sense of my blogs. Also, I would prefer that the magnitude of the material quoted be limited. It is my understanding that both of these preferences have a solid legal footing.

Let the reader take heed of these matters and know that they are something on which I have an opinion, with significant implications in terms of the elements here discussed in so brief a manner, but not in that lacking an interest by legal authorities.