Saturday, March 13, 2004As spiritual cousins to the Amish, Mennonites feel a particular distaste at the prospect of an Amish-based "reality" TV show proposed to air this summer on UPN.
After plans for Amish in the City emerged in late January, we thought such a preposterous concept would soon vanish on the shifting tides of taste. Unfortunately, we misjudged the network's determination to make Amish in the City its latest prism of comedic distortion, this one directed at an already misunderstood, and often exploited, faith group.
The premise of the show calls for a group of Amish young people to move in with city-dwelling Gen Y'ers, with the resulting disjunction generating millions of dollars in laughs for UPN. The expectation, apparently, is that the Amish youths will "freak out," as network honcho Les Moonves said, when they see the debauchery available in the combustion-driven world.
Whether this will make "interesting television," as Moonves also asserted, we leave to the masses already gorged on The Osbournes and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance.
But that such a show is an insult to the Amish, or even to Christians in general, stands without a doubt. [I'm not sure how such a show would be an insult to garden-variety Christians more so than to anyone else, but OK...] In fact, a lot of "reality" TV is insulting - to the people involved and even to the viewers who bask like radishes in its headache-inducing glow. It is also an insult to those whose insurrection scuttled CBS's proposed New Beverly Hillbillies series, which was just Amish in the City with a cee-ment pond.
[As someone who pays very little attention to 99% of anything having to do with TV, I hadn't heard about the protest that arose from this proposed show, but the group that ran a newspaper ad against it made some excellent points. A lot of things confuse me in life, but there's one thing I'm pretty sure about: we don't have much chance of evolving beyond our current human condition if our most popular forms of humor stay confinded to those that ridicule and degrade the different and the disempowered. I'm a big fan of political/social satire that highlights foolishness and faulty thinking on the part of the famous and powerful, but capitalizing on ignorance and prejudice to make fun of people like the Amish and the rural poor is a very different thing—and a very tasteless, unenlightened one a that!]
We encourage anyone who opposes such programming to complain not only to UPN, but to its sponsors. If UPN can't see the emptiness of such a show, perhaps a threat to their advertising coffers will prove more enlightening. And if this fails, just boycott the show, or take a lesson from the Amish themselves and throw your TV on the brush pile behind the barn.
After all, an unwatched show is almost like no show at all.
I did not know until I was educated by a Judging Amy episode (besides Gilmore Girls, my favorite currently-airing shows are CBS dramas, although I don't get to see them that often) about the fact that Amish young people who are coming of age are encouraged to spend a year in the "real world" before deciding of their own free will whether or not to join the church themselves and live out their lives in the Amish way. That in and of itself is pretty darn enlightened and speaks profoundly to the wisdom of the Amish culture.
Even an editorial on the CBS website speaks out against the UPN show idea! (Not that CBS itself would have any right to decry stupid reality shows, but I guess this guy is allowed to have his own opinion, which is reassuring!)
This guy, who does have a name, which is Lloyd Garver, has another great opinion piece on the political distraction value of the anti-same-sex-marriage hysteria of Bush and his right-wing friends. He starts out on a comic note: "When I first heard the term 'same-sex marriages,' I was against them. I figured just because a couple is married, why should sex always have to be the same? All right, I didn't really think that about same-sex marriages, but I also didn't think they would become such a big deal. I guess my fingers slipped when I was taking the pulse of America, because boy, was I wrong."
He goes on to ask some of the questions I myself have asked: "In the past two weeks, thousands of gay couples were married in San Francisco. Is your respect for marriage smaller than it was two weeks ago? Is your marriage less important to you now? Do you love your spouse any less than you did before the 'Valentine's Day weddings?' If your marriage is affected by the marriages of some strangers, don't blame the bride and groom. Blame your marriage." Indeed. "What about all those celebrity weddings — like Britney Spears' — that seem to make a mockery of marriage? Should we pass a constitutional amendment forbidding flighty famous folks from tying the knot? What about that cousin of yours who married that guy that everybody knew would treat her horribly and eventually leave her? Should there be a constitutional amendment to prohibit that kind of unfortunate marriage?" How about a law requiring pre-marital counseling? Maybe even one requiring pre-divorce counseling! Sounds much more reasonable to me that a right-wing, anti-gay, anti-family, anti-marriage Constitutional amendment!
And here's the most important question: "If you're against gay marriages for legal, ethical, or emotional reasons, you're certainly entitled to these feelings. But do you believe it's such an important issue that things like national security, the economy, and foreign policy should be pushed aside so time and money can be spent on passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit them?"
Garver's article isn't just about SSM but more generally about the way hysteria over "threats to our nation" caused by "sexal immorality" serves to keep us from focusing on important issues. Another recent example is the whole Janet Jackson breast silliness. Garver writes: "Faster than you could say 'Lewinsky,' Congressional committees were formed to investigate 'Nipplegate' and other offensive fare being foisted on us by machines with an 'off' button. But how long did it take for a committee to be formed to investigate why we received such poor intelligence on Iraq before sending over American soldiers to risk their lives?" And perhaps more importantly: what real power does this commission have, and will we actually know the outcome of its investigation any time in the next decade? I keep asking: where's the moral outrage in this country over real threats and atrocities like the Dubya regime's new "pre-emptive" war policy and its incarceration of hundreds of people, including children, in an illegal prison in Cuba?! As George Carlin said, our priorities are seriously screwed up. Really, truly warped.
7:02:11 AM | This is Post #176 | Permanent URL:
|
You visit the earth and water it, making it abundantly fertile; your river is full of water; you provide the people with grain, for so you have prepared it. You water its furrows abundantly, settling its ridges, softening it with showers, and blessing its young sprouts. You adorn the year with your bounty; your paths drip with fruitful rain. The pastures of the wilderness overflow; the hills are robed with joy, the meadows clothed with flocks, the valleys decked with grain; they shout and sing together for joy.
AKA Psalm 65
P.S.—One place on the web I found this Psalm is on a really useful Mennonite site discussing environmental/health issues inside our homes and suggesting actions we can take to reduce the negative effects of indoor pollution on our health and wellbeing.
P.P.S.—I've never looked at them before, but the Mennonites seem to be interesting folks, who, from what I can tell, have a fair range of Christian theological perspectives, united by a committment to peace and social justice. I thought they were the ones that made women wear funny hats, but it seems that there are different branches of Mennonites, so maybe only some of them have the hat thing, I don't know... But the Mennonite Church USA, which seems to be the most prominent group, has a page of Mennonite responses to Gibson's Passion film and they are diverse and thoughtful...
5:25:48 AM | This is Post #175 | Permanent URL:
|
I recently joined an online community called The WELL. I made a profile for it. It's rather nice...
Madeline is a radical, progressive, socialist, internationalist, ecofeminist, anti-racist, white, 27-year-old, student, francophone, writer, bisexual, polyamorous, Pagan, Unitarian Universalist who lives in San Jose, California.
She aspires to be a Witch in the Reclaiming tradition.
She advocates for personal liberty, communal responsibility, peace, economic justice, ecological sustainability, civil rights, sexpositivity, nudity, queer rights, women's rights, and international cooperation.
She believes in ultimate unity.
She values diversity, communication, self-expression, compassion, creativity, passion, play, laughter, pleasure, harmony, and the natural world.
She believes in education, integration, reform, reconciliation, restitution, rehabilitation, re-creation, transformation, re-visioning, and growth.
She decries marginalization, disempowerment, violence, punishment, division, ignorance, narrow-mindedness, zenophobia, and vindictiveness.
She loves animals, babies, music, drumming, crafts, earrings, chocolate, games, jigsaw puzzles, reading, writing, discussions, roller coasters, pizza, crossword puzzles, hiking, camping, singing, downhill skiing, guinea pigs, gardening, and the Internet.
4:38:25 AM | This is Post #174 | Permanent URL:
|
Thursday, March 11, 2004As human beings, we are more than the means to reproduce our species: both basic common sense and deeper philosophical inquiry affirm that marriage is, has been, can be, and should be about so very much more than procreation! The traditional Christian God (the one worshipped by the RR) is a violent, chauvinistic, moralistic, vengeful, selfish, angry lout, and the ideas of marriage they promote are patriarchal, narrow-minded, anti-feminist, uncreative, and ultimately STUPID and BORING!
Instead marriage should be about relationship, committment, love, and family, in the deepest and most inclusive sense of those terms—about building a life together—about creating, declaring, and upholding a bond that is at once personal, intimate, communal, civil, legal, and social—a consentual and intentional covenant between equal human individuals that establishes them as a nurturing, nourishing family unit. It is a union of persons, not genders, and thus, obviously, the gender configuration of the persons involved is entirely irrelevant to the legitimacy and/or sanctity of the union.
To value marriage is to affirm its validity and insist upon its accessibility for all who desire it. To champion marriage is to fight against the imposition of irrational limitations upon it by ill-informed, misguided, anxiety-driven "traditionalists". To uphold the dignity of marriage is to reject attempts to essentialize it, to caricaturize it as no more than—as I once said—a union for the facilitation of penile/vaginal intercourse (which sounds to me more like a marriage between a man and his bottle of Viagra!). To defend marriage is to protect it from the absurd illogic that would deny it to those who seek it, all the while pressuring it upon others who do not. To proclaim marriage as a basic human and civil right of all who mindfully choose it is to raise it to the most enlightened standard of human potential.
Indeed it is not the loving same-sex couples who are a threat to the "meaning" of marriage, but in fact it is the fearful, backward, small-minded forces of the RR that pose a threat to the growth and development of the human race.
11:22:33 PM | This is Post #166 | Permanent URL:
|
...I'm just about (being) anti-United States. I don't like the way this country operates. I think we've ruined this place. And I think it's largely because of businessmen... I go out there to show the rest of the Americans how badly they're doing. This country has been, for about 180 years now, badly mishandled. And it's been in the wrong hands. It's been in the hands of the business interests.
And a lot of the beauty of this country has been shattered by them. The physical beauty and the kind of institutional beauty that was originally built into this place - this experiment, this magnificent experiment in democracy is just being shredded to pieces by these right-wing Christians, the Ashcroft branch of Republicanism...
Q: Do you feel like this country has progressed any way, shape or form in the past 20 years?
A: Everybody's got more jet skis and Dustbusters now and sneakers with lights in them. They've got more cheese on their thing that they buy. They get double helpings. See, Americans measure all their progress in the wrong way. They measure by quantity and by gizmos and toys. And not by quality and by things that are important.
The most interesting thing to me is that the things that people would seem to have the most right to have - that is to say health, food, shelter and a job are the things that are last on the list. To me, that is fundamental. Those are the things humans most need to function, and we have placed them at the bottom of the list. So I think that says a lot about national character and priorities.
My comments: Amen, George. As I've always said, it's all about priorities, and ours are very much in the wrong places.
4:38:18 AM | This is Post #165 | Permanent URL:
|
Tuesday, March 2, 2004Or, More Proof that Dubya and Right-Wingers are Full of Shit
Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association
Arlington, Virginia The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, the world's largest organization of anthropologists, the people who study culture, releases the following statement in response to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as a threat to civilization.
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."
1:00:54 PM | This is Post #160 | Permanent URL:
|
Although many posts have been routed to this cateogry, it hasn't had an actual home page until today. And most of the posts don't have anything specifically to do with Paganism, but instead are on topics that may be of interests to Pagans. I was doing a bit of a Web search to see what links I could put on the page and came across this APV, apparently an organization in its infancy. I've joined its forum and mailing list, so I guess I'll see if it actually goes anywhere!
2:04:19 AM | This is Post #159 | Permanent URL:
|
Monday, March 1, 2004
A full-spectrum approach to human consciousness and behavior means that men and women have available to them a spectrum of knowing—a spectrum that includes, at the very least, the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit. —Ken WilberI do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. —Galileo GalileiSometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. —Lewis CarrollDo you remember how electrical currents and 'unseen waves' were laughed at? The knowledge about man is still in its infancy. —Albert EinsteinYou cannot see anything that you do not first contemplate as a reality. —RamthaThe spirit down here in man and the spirit up there in the sun, in reality are only one spirit, and there is no other one. —The Upanishads
While the evangelical Christians revel in Gibson's gorefest (and in their twisted interpretation of the significance of the life and teachings of the executed Jewish radical Jesus of Nazareth), those of us interested in the present and the future of life on Earth and in increasing our understanding of the nature of the Universe and of humanity and of the human mind, as studied by physicists, doctors, and mystics (rather than as dictated in the writings of some patriarchal, anti-Goddess, war-obsessed, primitive, desert nomads!), a mind-altering film has just been released that I am excited about seeing—that is if it makes it to the Bay Area! I can only hope and assume that eventually it will!
As Radical as Einstein
As Blasphemous as Bruno
As Heretical as Galileo
"WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed, not even dreamed of since Copernicus.
It's a documentary. It's a story. It's mind-blowing special effects.
A new art form
About a New Worldview
For a new audience
This film plunges you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated—where neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived by its protagonist—where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought.
Like the movies, The Matrix, Vanilla Sky, and Minority Report, this film shows you a greater reality behind the one we all accept as true, and you have the ability to create absolutely anything from your own thought.
But the difference between this film and those movies is—
This isn't science fiction.
It's stranger still—
It's real.
(Keep reading!)
12:48:17 AM | This is Post #156 | Permanent URL:
|
Sunday, February 29, 2004Susan Jacoby's forthcoming Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism will be published in April by Metropolitan Books. The author is also director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York.
In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus, the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."
Today's Religious Right is completely out of touch with the thinking of our esteemed "Founding Fathers" and with the nature of our Constitution, which "was written and ratified by a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians equally fearful of entanglements between religion and government... the men of faith who helped frame the Constitution were confident enough of the strength of their religion that they did not feel obliged to enlist the aid of government to promote their personal beliefs." [Apparently today's evangelical Christians are less confident in the strength of their religion to hold its own without the benefit of unconstitutional government support!]
My comments: The RR always likes to believe that the Founding Fathers were a group of pious traditional Christians, which is so much bull-dookey: they included Deists, Unitarians, and other "unorthodox" types. Most importantly they were not interested in creating a theocracy: far from it! They were products of the Enlightenment, and they were champions of the separation of Church and State.
8:37:22 PM | This is Post #155 | Permanent URL:
|
I hate to be giving any attention whatsoever to this repulsive spectacle, but Spong's words are so intelligent and right-on that I can't help but repeat them!
Once again, Gibson is reading the gospels through the lens of medieval piety. In the early church, especially in the writings of Paul, the death of Jesus was likened to the believer's act of being baptized. The believer in baptism was united with Christ in his death so that he or she could live with Christ in his resurrection (see Romans 6:1-11 and Col. 2:12). But Gibson turns this into a sadomasochistic scene of pain inflicted and suffering endured. It is so long and violent that it qualifies this film for an "R" rating, "for adults only."
The earliest Christians knew that crucifixion was not unique to Jesus. Thousands of people had died this way at the hands of the Romans. To the Jews crucifixion was particularly associated with shame and embarrassment, since the Torah said that one who was hung upon a tree was "accursed" (Deut. 21:22, 23). The fetish about the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus was again a pious devotional technique that ultimately attributed a sacred meaning to suffering and made cruelty an attribute of God, both of which are strange, even unhealthy theological concepts. Yet Gibson has developed these ideas to a fine art. His interpretive work may engender a guilt-laden piety but we need to recognize that it is not biblically accurate.
It really is such a disturbing, twisted, unhuman, inhumane, fucked-up theology! That not only would the Divine permit suffering It has the ability to stop at any time at Its whim, but that It would actually demand suffering. That the Divine, the Spirit of Creation of the Universe, the Earth, all of life, humanity, sunsets, rainbows, and newborn babies would seek to punish anyone. What is this obsession with punishment? I find the concept so bizarre and repulsive. I do not comprehend how people think anyone has the right to punish another human being (as with prisons, and even punishing children). Punishment is a sick and twisted concept. (To jump back to children, I am a firm believer in firm and structured parenting, a critic of children who are out of control, but I don't believe that physical violence or "punishment" have any proper role in the parent/child relationship. I certainly believe in "discipline" in the sense of order and routine and structure, but not in the sense of "punishment". Actions have consquences, and wrongs require apology and restitution, but punishment is a sadistic, unhealthy, unloving concept I strongly reject.)
The Deity I know and love and worship is One of Infinite Love. You can reject this Love, fail to see it, turn away from it, but you cannot escape it. The whole conservative Christian focus on "free will" (with regard to explaining sin, damnation, etc.) I find absurd. It completely ignores the way virtually every human being feels towards their children, essentially making human beings more loving and compassionate than their God. There is nothing, absolutely nothing a child can do to make a parent stop loving them. There is nothing that can cause an ultimate rejection. There is no time, no matter what they've done or how they've hurt you, that you wouldn't welcome them back into your arms with love. That's the nature of parenthood! But this Christian "Father" God is apparently a pretty shitty parent, because He's willing to abandon some (arguably most, according to many Christians' beliefs) of His children to eternal torment. Christians defend this saying that He has no choice because of His infinite goodness. What an utter load of bullshit! Your God is a sadist, a bigot/ethnocentrist (look at how He prefers one group over others in the OT), and a really horrible parent!
4:42:01 AM | This is Post #152 | Permanent URL:
|
Sunday, February 22, 2004I tend to assert a lot of things based on what I think mixed with bits of knowledge gleaned here and there. Maybe everyone does that, I don't know, but I definitely do! Thanks mostly to my intelligence (as I'm really not the most widely informed or well-read person!), it generally works out pretty well, but nevertheless, it's always nice to have my assertions validated by those more learned and credentialed than myself! First I was reading the bonobo book description, and there was exactly what I'd been saying to Steve about procreation not being the only "natural" function of sex, and then I did a Google search on the words "sex" and "procreation", just curious to see what was out on the Web on the subject, and I came across a page on legal commentary site (FindLaw's Writ), with an article by a law professor, Joanna Grossman, "Are Bans on Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional? New Jersey Says Yes, But Massachusetts, In a Landmark Decision, Says No", and lo and behold, the MA supreme court said just what I've been saying:
Like the New Jersey case, the Massachusetts case began with seven couples in committed relationships, four of whom have children, trying to enter into a civil marriage in their home state.
The trial court ruled against the couples, claiming that the primary purpose of marriage, under Massachusetts' marriage laws, is procreation. The court concluded that the state thus could rationally distinguish between couples that are "theoretically . . . capable" of procreation and less likely to rely on "inherently more cumbersome" non-coital reproductive methods and other ones.
The problems with this ruling, of course, are legion: What about opposite-sex couples in which the woman is over childbearing age, or that are infertile? Could the state also "rationally" tell them they cannot marry? Certainly, it cannot. Indeed, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court later noted in its opinion: under state law, even those "who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry," and infertility is not a ground for divorce.
Why should the state care if a couple relies on easy or cumbersome reproductive methods? And why should reproduction for, say, a lesbian couple, be less likely at all? A couple made up of two women, both of whom might be fertile, has double the chances of procreating.
Fortunately, the Massachusetts' Supreme Court was wiser. It interpreted the state's marriage law to mean the "voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others"--invoking the interpretive principle that a statute of dubious constitutionality should be construed in such a way that it is constitutional.
Does this mean I'm qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice? hehe ;) But really, though, it's only perfectly obvious! The only people to whom it's not perfectly obvious are those who are blinded by an irrational fear of same-sex marriage and its "dangerous" consequences!
Speaking of which, I surfed on "FindLaw" to an AP news article describing how the California judges are basically following the simple logic that says that same-sex marriages are a "threat" to no one!
The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.
"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said. ...
Chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.
"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.
I also learned from this article that, "On Friday morning, Newsom officiated at the wedding of Carole Migden, who leads the state's Board of Equalization, and her partner of 19 years, criminal defense attorney Cris Arguedas." For the benefit of those who think gays and lesbians are somehow a threat to children, I would like to point out that both Migden and also Sheila Kuehl, another prominent lesbian in California politics, in addition to advocating for women and for gays and lesbians, have been strong advocates for children's issues during their careers. Kuehl is particularly well-known as a children's issue advocate and has authored quite a number of bills to protect and benefit children.
7:11:57 AM | This is Post #146 | Permanent URL:
|
Saturday, February 21, 2004I mentioned this book in my recent "discussion" with Steve Skojec, but I was just reading its description on Amazon.com, and now I really want to read it myself! It is apparently a lovely book, so perhaps I will have to own it! It has received a bunch of 5-star ratings from Amazon reader/reviewers (I haven't seen that very often on Amazon. The Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice book also got such reviews, so I really want to read it too!) Anyway, I want to share its description here (I got this from Amazon; I assume it is from the book jacket) as others may be inspired to read it as well:
This remarkable primate with the curious name is challenging established views on human evolution. The bonobo, least known of the great apes, is a female-centered, egalitarian species that has been dubbed the "make-love-not-war" primate by specialists. In bonobo society, females form alliances to intimidate males, sexual behavior (in virtually every partner combination) replaces aggression and serves many social functions, and unrelated groups mingle instead of fighting. The species's most striking achievement is not tool use or warfare but sensitivity to others. In the first book to combine and compare data from captivity and the field, Frans de Waal, a world-renowned primatologist, and Frans Lanting, an internationally acclaimed wildlife photographer, present the most up-to-date perspective available on the bonobo. Focusing on social organization, de Waal compares the bonobo with its better-known relative, the chimpanzee. The bonobo's relatively nonviolent behavior and the tendency for females to dominate males confront the evolutionary models derived from observing the chimpanzee's male power politics, cooperative hunting, and intergroup warfare. Further, the bonobo's frequent, imaginative sexual contacts, along with its low reproduction rate, belie any notion that the sole natural purpose of sex is procreation. Humans share over 98 percent of their genetic material with the bonobo and the chimpanzee. Is it possible that the peaceable bonobo has retained traits of our common ancestor that we find hard to recognize in ourselves? Eight superb full-color photo essays offer a rare view of the bonobo in its native habitat in the rain forests of Zaire as well as in zoos and research facilities. Additional photographs and highlighted interviews with leading bonobo experts complement the text. This book points the way to viable alternatives to male-based models of human evolution and will add considerably to debates on the origin of our species. Anyone interested in primates, gender issues, evolutionary psychology, and exceptional wildlife photography will find a fascinating companion in Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape.
(Steve and everyone else, please note the sentence I have bolded!!)
7:04:58 PM | This is Post #145 | Permanent URL:
|
Thursday, February 19, 2004Let me first clarify that I am not talking about anyone's particular religious definition of marriage, which could be any number of things, but only about a reasonable definition of civil marriage.
I'm going to keep the focus on two people, although I will comment on the numbers issue at the end.
One could, theoretically, logically define civil marriage as a union between two persons for the sole purpose of procreation and child-rearing. However this would leave out many heterosexuals who are currently validly legally married, and they would probably object. Furthermore, it would not exclude gays and lesbians, unless it was specified that the procreation and child-rearing could only involve the biological offspring of both individuals (and this will be possible pretty soon anyway!), in which case even more heterosexual couples would be disqualified.
So, leaving out procreation and child-rearing, one can logically define marriage as:
A legal and social bond between any two persons (*) (regardless of their physiology, skin color, social background, genital configuration, etc.), existing on both private and public levels, reflecting an act of committment to a common life (establishing a common household/family unit), and imparting certain rights and responsibilities.
(*) Excluding, arguably logically, immediate biological relatives, for various complex reasons that I can't begin to fully explain.
Sure, one could word it in all kinds of other ways, but I think this is pretty good.
So, then, given this definition, it makes no logical sense to further define it as a union between two people, one male and one female, because such a union is entirely possible between two females or two males. Some people don't seem to think so, but I argue that this is only because they don't actually know any loving, committed same-sex couples, so it's simply ignorance on their part and no logical proof of anything.
The only thing that is not possible between two females or two males that is possible between one female and one male is penile/vaginal intercourse. (And all of this isn't even bringing into the equation intersex and transexual people!) Everything else is possible. It's possible for them to make a committment, to establish a household, to share rights and responsibilities, to be in love, to raise children, to care for one another, etc., etc. So then, unless we are going to define marriage as a union for the facilitation of penile/vaginal intercourse (sounds more like a marriage between a man and his bottle of Viagra!), rather than a union of two people for the purpose of sharing life together, there is no logical or legally-valid explanation for gender discrimination in the issuance of civil marriage licenses.
(QED, Amen, and Blessed Be!) ;)
Oh yeah, regarding numbers, two is logically arbitary, and I don't agree with it, but, as I've said, the vast majority of people do, and legalizing same-sex marriage isn't going to change that. Ya do what'cha can, and if it's going to be two people, then at least it ought to be any two people, not certain people's definition of which kinds of two people, whether based on race, class, religion, gender, etc., etc.
4:51:37 AM | This is Post #142 | Permanent URL:
|
© 2004 Madeline Althoff
(This is a Radio-powered blog.)