Go to Here's A Thought: One Thing A Penny Still Buys
- Add a comment
- Go to For Those Who Think Mary Cheney's Pregnancy Choice "Unconscionable"
Beautifully argued, Ciel. Socio-religious morality dominance is ages old
and will continue far into the unforeseeable future. Unfortunately...
posted by
saul_relative
on December 11, 2006 at 9:56 PM
| link to this | reply
If we had a true separation between church and state,
the issue of who should be able to marry and who, not, would never arise. The law is based on culture-based morality as defined by the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is hardly universal! In fact, many cultures have recognized and distinguished between not 2, but 4 genders, or sexual identifications.
To those who claim that marriage between men and women is 'how it has always been done,' as if that is a reason never to change that, let me point out that a couple of centuries or so ago, there came a time when those who recognized an implicit wrongness about a certain cultural institution stepped up and challenged it, and finally prevailed: now, in civilized societies, institutionalized slavery is outlawed (though that is a whole nother discussion, the degree to which slavery itself still occurs, by other names and rationales)
It may take us generations and centuries to correct a long-held belief and tradition so deep-set that it is an institution. But that is no reason not to do it.
posted by
Ciel
on December 11, 2006 at 6:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Oh, it's a slant on the entire nonissue, Corbin. From both sides, but
moreso on the holier-than-thou right. You may be liberal in your thinking about same-sex unions, but you know that most on the right mobilize at the sound of the first two syllables of homosexual. I don't condone ignorance on either side of the political aisle, but this ridiculous argument that gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage is just so much rabble-rousing. An institution, by the way, which doesn't seem to be any stronger for the "till death do us part" agreement made "in the eyes of god". And that same argument goes toward Christian antipathy against homosexuals as abominations, destroyers of family values. They're just people with a different lifestyle than the accepted norm. You can slice and dice all you want, but the general consensus on the right is anti-gay everything...
posted by
saul_relative
on December 7, 2006 at 9:13 PM
| link to this | reply
As a Republican...I am puzzled by this post....
Is there a movement among Republican opposing homosexuals having children? I hadn't received any fundraising letter from such a group.
I don't have a problem with it....never have. I have through and since college had many homosexual friends. Still do today.......I don't believe the way they are is a choice.....I believe it is how they are born.
If this post is actually a slant on Gay Marriage...then make the post on gay marriage. I don't favor gay marriage....marriage is an institution that has been around through several millennia and to me it's involves a man and a woman. And no matter what you say is going to change that for me. I do think that Gay couples are intitled to domestic partnerships....the same protections as married couples with regards to property, wills, and benefits. And should be granted such. There are many in my party that would disagree with that and that is fine.
Is it wrong for a party to attempt to fire up a segment of it's base by promoting something like a marriage amendment? No more than another party satisfying a segment of it's base by promoting say.....the Minimum Wage or Amnesty for Illegals, or Third Trimester Abortions. The purpose is the same, the intent is the same, only the topic differs.
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 7, 2006 at 1:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Hard stuff to deal with, hypocrisy. It's usually those who preach the
loudest against something who are the most guilty of that same something.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 7, 2006 at 1:27 PM
| link to this | reply
That's what I've been calling it along, too, Saul and it ticks me off.
posted by
Blanche.
on December 7, 2006 at 12:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Drew. And you're right. Homosexuality has got to be the most
divisive non-issue in the political arena. And what do children care about homosexuality and politics? If they can't eat it or play with it (or both), a thing is useless to a child. Something adults need to keep in mind.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 7, 2006 at 12:21 PM
| link to this | reply
Where I come from, Blanche, they call that, um, yeah, HYPOCRISY.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 7, 2006 at 12:16 PM
| link to this | reply
What's not moot, Saul, in my opinon, is the two-faced Republican stance
on homosexuality and Mary Cheney. She's her father's daughter, ergo the same rules do not apply. Typical of their elititist thinking.
posted by
Blanche.
on December 7, 2006 at 12:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Mary Cheney's decided to have a child, Parnell. In fact, she's pregnant.
That choice, the choice of choosing pregnancy over non-pregnancy, is what the current furor is over. It's rather ridiculous. And mostly moot.
posted by
saul_relative
on December 7, 2006 at 12:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Saul
Freud usually only stirs up the controvery in these modern times, but you have chosen a brilliant quote to shed a fine light on what should be a non-issue. Americans will have all kinds of time to mire themselves in the political stew throughout a lifetime, there should be a grace period before party-line controversy sinks its teeth into a person. At least until the child cuts its first tooth.
posted by
The_TAO_of_Drew
on December 7, 2006 at 5:39 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul, it's not her sexuality that bothers me I'm fine with that, it's the
Republican hypocritical attitude, welcoming Mary Cheney and her lesbian partner into the inner sanctum while excoriating homosexuals at large, that makes me ill.
posted by
Blanche.
on December 7, 2006 at 1:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Saul
I'm sorry, I haven't picked this up in the news. What has Mary Cheney decided to do?
posted by
Antipodean
on December 6, 2006 at 11:51 PM
| link to this | reply