Calvin and Hobbes were arguing about whether nature is art or not. Calvin wrote his name in a big field of snow — with his hand, it’s a kid’s cartoon — and asked Hobbes if he wanted to buy his ‘art.’
Hobbes said he already had one, and Calvin looked through the fourth wall at us and said, “the tricky thing about art is knowing who is putting who on.”
This picture Val posted sort of expresses a similar sentiment; the person who put that sign on the tree was “signing” nature. Literally in this case, but that’s not what I mean.
What I mean is, that every time a liberal takes credit for something natural — people being gay, people being brown, people being poor, dogs being rescues, etc. — it sort of sounds to me like somebody trying to take credit for nature.
Some people are gay. Some dogs need rescuing. Lots and lost of people are brown — way more than are not brown, incidentally — and if you look around you can always find someone who is poor and/or hungry.
That’s nature. Human nature. If a human being can imagine something, chances are it exists. But it’s itself, it’s own thing. A gay person is just gay. Not PRIDEFULLY gay, just gay. Don’t judge the person for it, don’t celebrate the person for it. Just respect the person for it. Enjoy nature. Don’t sign it.
Does this make any sense? I mean, I get the joy and all the good feeling a person gets from rescuing a dog from the pound. It’s a nice thing, and a beautiful illustration of human kindness. Human nature.
But if you put a bumper sticker on your car that says “my other dog is a rescue, too” or “I live to rescue” or something like that, you are signing nature. You are like a guy who brags about giving to charity.
But that’s just me. Not all gay people want to march in parades and wear rainbow shirts, and not all dogs have to be sick and damaged to be worth adopting.
So when I saw this sign, I thought to myself, “what kind of selfish prick would put a sign like that up in the middle of a field? Who would sign the world like he owned it?”