fun with conspiracy!

Conspiracies are fun and I was into them long before the X Files made them popular. Not that I feel any resentment toward the X Files. Quite the contrary. It made "paranoid conspriacy theory" part of the common vernacular, so now people know what I'm talking about when I use that term.

Do I actually believe in conspiracy theories? Well, it is pretty obvious that a whole lot is going on that the general public isn't aware of, but I'm not sure it really matters. I know that I'm not in charge. Whether ultimately the U. S. Government is in charge, or the Trilateral Commision or the Illuminati who are calling the shots my social status doesn't change. Conversely, regardless of who is "calling the shots" in the big picture, I am still responsible for my own life and my own happiness, and how I effect the people and the world around me.

Conspiracy theories, when you look at them this way, can be a whole lot of fun! What is even more fun is to create your own.

Here's How:

Step One: Pick a topic. It should be somewhat controversial and familiar to most people.

Step Two: Look for the obvious answers. What are the publically accepted explanations for the matter at hand?

Step Three: Find the gaping holes in the obvious answers.

Step Four: Come up with a more logical answer.

Take, for example, the current controversy over same-sex marriage.

The obvious reasons for people to be opposed to this are religious. Religious reasons don't hold up, though. First off, we'd have to accept the idea that there are sufficient numbers of people who sincerely believe that what goes on between consenting adults who aren't them is something that concerns them. Further, we'd have to believe that there are significant numbers of people who believe that their religious views should be legally forced on those who hold different views. It just seems absurd that in a country known for its freedom-loving people that there would be enough people supporting such anti-American sentiments for an anti-same-sex marriage movement to exist. Finally, even if the first two conditions could be met in 21st century US of A, it still wouldn't make sense. If one were to seek to impose one's religious values on those who don't share them, why would you pick some obscure rule from one of the more random parts of the Bible? Why wouldn't you seek to enforce the most important laws of all, the Ten Commandments? I myself have broken the Second Commandment thousands of times:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

The confusing word here is "graven" which means sculpted or engraved, or pressed into, basically creating art of anything specific rather than a meaningless decorative pattern. Basically, it is a sin to create an image of anything. "Graven" covered the image-generating technology of the time. Today this would also include photography, television and the like. It is the SECOND FREAKING COMMANDMENT and only the Amish and Mennonites obey it. I don't see anyone from the religious right trying to prohibit people from creating images. Or from working on Sundays (4th commandment) or taking the name of the Lord in vain (3rd commandment). I mean, seriously, the Ten Commandments are the cornerstones of the faith! Ignoring these while promoting the more minor rules seems, well, illogical.

The more logical answer: The gay and lesbian status quo is an ideal target market. Why? Because same-sex couples are more likely to be DINKs (marketing jargon for Dual Income, No Kids). Being a DINK means that you have more disposable income because you aren't saving up for your children's college education, paying for baby sitters and so on. The significance of DINKs shouldn't be underestimated. Ogunquit, Maine, a town long known as a gay tourist destination, decided that it wanted to start appealing to mixed-sex married couples with children (an antiquated version of "family"). They were successful but it hurt the local economy. The families came, they looked around, hung out, spent time at the beach. But they didn't spend money like the gays did!

Same-sex marriage is a slippery slope. Once that happens, same-sex couples will start taking on all the attributes of breeder couples. And they'll start saving their money! Can the economy really afford to lose the income of ten percent of the population?

So there really are legitimate economic reasons for supressing the rights of others. There may be some people who believe it is their duty to do so for religious reasons, but such people are obviously ignorant sheep. Obviously, because to believe this you'd have to be illiterate and/or lazy, either unable or unwilling to read the Bible but quite willing to follow what someone else tells you it says. Such people wouldn't have the intelligence or initiative to actually do anything to prohibit same-sex marriage. Someone intelligent enough to do so would also see the inherent illogic and hypocrisy of the religious arguments against same-sex marriage, so it wouldn't be a motivating factor.

The only logical answer is that the sheep are being used by the economists to promote their hidden agenda of maintaining an important target market. Obviously.

See how this conspiracy theory thing works? Now you try!