I'll be 50 this year, I voted every election since I turned 18, and only once was I ever unsure about who was the best candidate. That time, I voted for Perot instead of the Republican. Even the Republican primaries were pretty clear, and I never gave a rat's ass about the Democrat primaries.
This is the most interesting primary I've ever seen, since this time I just don't know who to vote for or even consider. Which Republican candidate is best? Do I even like ANY of them? The Republicans have not been doing their jobs for the last several years and I'm pretty disgusted with the party overall. And the Democrats aren't looking all that bad this time around. I think in the Presidential election, I may just vote Libertarian, but I really do want to vote in the primaries (in CT, you can't vote the primaries if you are an independent, that's the only reason I have stayed registered as a Republican).
To help myself out, I have bookmarked the Issues section of each candidate's website, along with the Libertarian's and a general ratings site. I haven't read all of them yet. I deleted Biden's and Dodd's since they dropped out. Starts with Republicans:
Huckabee
Romney
McCain
Paul
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Kucinich
Libertarian Party
Washington Post candidate review
Of course, this is just their talk, I guess I'll have to try and look at what they've actually DONE too.
The one that surprised me was Huckabee. I viewed him as an over the top, bible thumpin' hillbilly who would pardon Son of Sam if a preacher told him to, but damned if he didn't have one of the clearest, most concise, straightforward set of positions! I'm really going to have to give him another look, even though I can't stand the thought of such an ugly fat ass family in the white house.
Hope this list of links helps some other confused soul out there.
Update: 01-28-08:
I've removed a few more who've dropped out and made the links into actual links.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Friday, December 21, 2007
Bratz vs Barbie
Right off, I hate Bratz dolls. I mean I freaking detest them. Despite that, I never forbid my daughters from playing with them. Didn't matter, as they liked Barbies more, though my oldest was into dolls before Bratz got popular.
I myself never bought them, but I never bothered with others.
Last I heard, Bratz had almost 50 percent of the doll market, and had just about caught up with Barbie. I suspect that they have now surpassed Barbie.
Being a parent, this got me thinking about the differences between the worlds of Barbie and Bratz:
Feminists have hated Barbie for decades, and all the Stienems and Dworkins of this poor world loudly proclaimed that she was partly responsible for all the troubles of American girls. "Ban Barbie" they cried.
OK, let's suppose for the sake of this rant that you buy into the feminist argument that little girls are so intellectually and emotionally vapid that they will be scarred for life because they can't get themselves to look like Barbie. This despite the fact that it's generally known and understood that no human being can be built like that without major surgery.
Let's suppose that all little girls should have been playing with the Happy to be Me dolls to protect them. Those were a flop, so I guess the feminists just didn't fight hard enough.
And now Barbie is being replaced by the Bratz dolls. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I haven't heard any screaming about these from the feminists outside of some blogs, so I have to assume that, overall, they have no problem with these dolls. I guess feminism's third wave is real.
In my humble, male, old fart opinion, the Bratz are mutant hookers with currently stylish clothes and cool cars. The little wretches have to smoke crack because they don't have noses to snort coke with.
They do look like they're high. They look furtive and mean.
So let me get this all straight.
Barbie was horrible because she had an unattainably perfect body. OK, got it.
There were astronaut Barbies, and doctors, nurses, veterinarians, and so on. Barbie games had her rescuing lost and hurt animals, skiing, riding horses, and of course doing her hair and such. She had a nice smile and a positive can do attitude. Her movies reflected all this too.
But that's all materialistic and shallow I'm told.
Bratz do exactly NOTHING except endlessly shop for clothes.
That's it, pretty much.
Well, I must say that if little girls use dolls as role models, as feminists think they do, then Bratz are a hell of a lot easier to aspire to!
Barbie doctor? Dude, that takes work, ya gotta study for, like, hours y'know.
Why study or work when any girl can just hang out at the mall, charge a few bucks for sex with old pervs and pull in (pun intended) enough cash to buy some really stylish new designer clothes? Probably have enough left over for booze, drugs, etc. too.
I guess that must not considered shallow or materialistic.
So, it seems to me that feminists believe that unnaturally attractive, professional, positive attitude dolls are an abomination against all of women kind, but just plain unnatural, negative attitude, slacker dolls are swell.
In "researching" this for all of 10 minutes, I did come across a whole lot of blogs and forums with individuals complaining about Bratz. But nothing in the way of news articles. I remember reading about the horrors of Barbie in newspapers and magazines ad nauseum in the 80's and 90's. It's a huge difference.
Because of the resounding silence on the part of feminist leaders (perhaps there are no more? Perhaps feminism is dead as a movement since women have achieved so much that organizations and leaders are no longer necessary?), I can only conclude that Bratz represent the ideal of today's concept of feminism, the so called "third wave."
Well, I hope you like where you've ended up ladies.
I myself never bought them, but I never bothered with others.
Last I heard, Bratz had almost 50 percent of the doll market, and had just about caught up with Barbie. I suspect that they have now surpassed Barbie.
Being a parent, this got me thinking about the differences between the worlds of Barbie and Bratz:
Feminists have hated Barbie for decades, and all the Stienems and Dworkins of this poor world loudly proclaimed that she was partly responsible for all the troubles of American girls. "Ban Barbie" they cried.
OK, let's suppose for the sake of this rant that you buy into the feminist argument that little girls are so intellectually and emotionally vapid that they will be scarred for life because they can't get themselves to look like Barbie. This despite the fact that it's generally known and understood that no human being can be built like that without major surgery.
Let's suppose that all little girls should have been playing with the Happy to be Me dolls to protect them. Those were a flop, so I guess the feminists just didn't fight hard enough.
And now Barbie is being replaced by the Bratz dolls. Maybe I'm out of touch, but I haven't heard any screaming about these from the feminists outside of some blogs, so I have to assume that, overall, they have no problem with these dolls. I guess feminism's third wave is real.
In my humble, male, old fart opinion, the Bratz are mutant hookers with currently stylish clothes and cool cars. The little wretches have to smoke crack because they don't have noses to snort coke with.
They do look like they're high. They look furtive and mean.
So let me get this all straight.
Barbie was horrible because she had an unattainably perfect body. OK, got it.
There were astronaut Barbies, and doctors, nurses, veterinarians, and so on. Barbie games had her rescuing lost and hurt animals, skiing, riding horses, and of course doing her hair and such. She had a nice smile and a positive can do attitude. Her movies reflected all this too.
But that's all materialistic and shallow I'm told.
Bratz do exactly NOTHING except endlessly shop for clothes.
That's it, pretty much.
Well, I must say that if little girls use dolls as role models, as feminists think they do, then Bratz are a hell of a lot easier to aspire to!
Barbie doctor? Dude, that takes work, ya gotta study for, like, hours y'know.
Why study or work when any girl can just hang out at the mall, charge a few bucks for sex with old pervs and pull in (pun intended) enough cash to buy some really stylish new designer clothes? Probably have enough left over for booze, drugs, etc. too.
I guess that must not considered shallow or materialistic.
So, it seems to me that feminists believe that unnaturally attractive, professional, positive attitude dolls are an abomination against all of women kind, but just plain unnatural, negative attitude, slacker dolls are swell.
In "researching" this for all of 10 minutes, I did come across a whole lot of blogs and forums with individuals complaining about Bratz. But nothing in the way of news articles. I remember reading about the horrors of Barbie in newspapers and magazines ad nauseum in the 80's and 90's. It's a huge difference.
Because of the resounding silence on the part of feminist leaders (perhaps there are no more? Perhaps feminism is dead as a movement since women have achieved so much that organizations and leaders are no longer necessary?), I can only conclude that Bratz represent the ideal of today's concept of feminism, the so called "third wave."
Well, I hope you like where you've ended up ladies.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Media Filter
I find this election the most interesting ever, and I may even post a few things on it.
Therefore, I figure I should mention how I filter the news (we all filter news, we are all biased, those that say they are not are the worst).
First off, I believe that there are 3 laws of news that all mainstream media follow, rather like Asimov's 3 laws of robotics:
1. "Sell Product." This means attracting eyeballs and ears. Get people to listen, watch , or read your news any way you can. Decency, accuracy, objectivity, and intelligence be damned.
2. "Promote the Democrat party and liberals, but denigrate the Republicans and Conservatives." The American people, and indeed the world, must be made to love and admire the Democrats and hate the Republicans. Were it not for the need of profit, this would be law number 1. So, Democrats and liberals are only made to look bad if law 1 requires it (such as the coverage of Slick Willie's sexual peccadilloes).
BTW, Fox News follows this second law too, only in reverse.
3. "Inform the public." This is way down in the order importance. Laws 1 and 2 are in constant conflict and the source of much agonizing, with law 2 triumphing often as not.
Law 3 is an afterthought.
OK, so generally it goes like this:
If there is news about a Republican/Conservative doing something wrong, the actual transgression was only half as bad as it is reported to be, and pretty much all evidence of wrong doing is reported at length.
If there is news about a Democrat/liberal doing something wrong, the actual transgression was at least twice as bad as reported, and much detail is left out.
Again, Fox does this in reverse.
Well that's how I view the news. So now you have some understanding of my world view.
Like that means something.
Therefore, I figure I should mention how I filter the news (we all filter news, we are all biased, those that say they are not are the worst).
First off, I believe that there are 3 laws of news that all mainstream media follow, rather like Asimov's 3 laws of robotics:
1. "Sell Product." This means attracting eyeballs and ears. Get people to listen, watch , or read your news any way you can. Decency, accuracy, objectivity, and intelligence be damned.
2. "Promote the Democrat party and liberals, but denigrate the Republicans and Conservatives." The American people, and indeed the world, must be made to love and admire the Democrats and hate the Republicans. Were it not for the need of profit, this would be law number 1. So, Democrats and liberals are only made to look bad if law 1 requires it (such as the coverage of Slick Willie's sexual peccadilloes).
BTW, Fox News follows this second law too, only in reverse.
3. "Inform the public." This is way down in the order importance. Laws 1 and 2 are in constant conflict and the source of much agonizing, with law 2 triumphing often as not.
Law 3 is an afterthought.
OK, so generally it goes like this:
If there is news about a Republican/Conservative doing something wrong, the actual transgression was only half as bad as it is reported to be, and pretty much all evidence of wrong doing is reported at length.
If there is news about a Democrat/liberal doing something wrong, the actual transgression was at least twice as bad as reported, and much detail is left out.
Again, Fox does this in reverse.
Well that's how I view the news. So now you have some understanding of my world view.
Like that means something.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Free Speech Still Alive, kind of
Yeeeeeha! Don Imus is back on the air!
Mark your calendars, December 3 2007 from 6am to 10am on WABC, the same channel that brings us Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc.
Now I had quit listening to Imus years ago, as he just didn't seem very funny anymore. He spent most of his time bitching like any grouchy old fart. Hell if I wanted to hear how everyone in the world is "tedious" I could hang out at a retirement home.
But when Sharpton and Jackson used him as a vehicle to put themselves back in the spotlight and reaffirm their positions as leaders of the black community, getting him fired in the process, I was mighty upset.
I will listen to Imus now on my drive into work. I don't care if he's funny or not. I don't care if he just sits there and makes rude noises and drools. I'm listening to him simply because I'm glad those asshats didn't win completely.
Oh, and I'm going to really enjoy listening to and reading all the whining, like this:
LA Times Whine
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
And again I say:
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Mark your calendars, December 3 2007 from 6am to 10am on WABC, the same channel that brings us Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc.
Now I had quit listening to Imus years ago, as he just didn't seem very funny anymore. He spent most of his time bitching like any grouchy old fart. Hell if I wanted to hear how everyone in the world is "tedious" I could hang out at a retirement home.
But when Sharpton and Jackson used him as a vehicle to put themselves back in the spotlight and reaffirm their positions as leaders of the black community, getting him fired in the process, I was mighty upset.
I will listen to Imus now on my drive into work. I don't care if he's funny or not. I don't care if he just sits there and makes rude noises and drools. I'm listening to him simply because I'm glad those asshats didn't win completely.
Oh, and I'm going to really enjoy listening to and reading all the whining, like this:
LA Times Whine
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
And again I say:
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Give doze Dems a break
I've noticed that the Democratic congress has been getting poor grades of late. Now, being a Republican, I find that funny. I really enjoy it.
But I have to admit that it seems more than a bit unfair.
Hell, they've managed to do a bunch of stuff, such as upping the minimum wage. I guess their constituents believed the hype that they were going to ride in on white horses, er, mottled horses (white is evil right?) and change the whole wide world.
Nope, sorry. Napoleon pulled off that 100 day thing, but we have no Nappy's these days.
For crying out loud, cut them some slack.
Bush vetoes right? What, they can stop him from doing that? How?
The Republicans still have some power (Nyah, nyah), and the Dems really have to try and work with them at least somewhat. Keep in mind that this is harder now because at least half of the Republicans that got voted out were moderates who would have been at least somewhat willing to compromise. The Republican party is far less moderate than it was just 10 years ago. Oh, by the way, what sort of message do you think that sends the remaining Republicans?
Also, things are going better in Iraq, which is bad for the Democrat party. Then too, their buddies in the media have cut back a bit on Iraq reporting (always negative), which allows the good news to come in clearer. Not good for Dems as this bolsters Republican resolve and decreases the possibility of any concessions, along with decreasing the publics negative view of the conflict somewhat.
No, it seems to me that the Democrats in Congress have tried and done a fair job considering all that is still against them.
"Do nothing" is an unfair label.
But I have to admit that it seems more than a bit unfair.
Hell, they've managed to do a bunch of stuff, such as upping the minimum wage. I guess their constituents believed the hype that they were going to ride in on white horses, er, mottled horses (white is evil right?) and change the whole wide world.
Nope, sorry. Napoleon pulled off that 100 day thing, but we have no Nappy's these days.
For crying out loud, cut them some slack.
Bush vetoes right? What, they can stop him from doing that? How?
The Republicans still have some power (Nyah, nyah), and the Dems really have to try and work with them at least somewhat. Keep in mind that this is harder now because at least half of the Republicans that got voted out were moderates who would have been at least somewhat willing to compromise. The Republican party is far less moderate than it was just 10 years ago. Oh, by the way, what sort of message do you think that sends the remaining Republicans?
Also, things are going better in Iraq, which is bad for the Democrat party. Then too, their buddies in the media have cut back a bit on Iraq reporting (always negative), which allows the good news to come in clearer. Not good for Dems as this bolsters Republican resolve and decreases the possibility of any concessions, along with decreasing the publics negative view of the conflict somewhat.
No, it seems to me that the Democrats in Congress have tried and done a fair job considering all that is still against them.
"Do nothing" is an unfair label.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Gays, Laws and Marriage
In way over my head, philosophically, but with all the laws being passed (or not), it is something I should probably think about.
Right off the bat, I admit to having some homophobic tendencies, as do most heterosexual American males. I would be mortified if people thought I was gay, I will be hating life if one of my kids turns out gay (though I'd forgive, that's right forgive), and the thought of gay sex is repulsive. Mind you, I am not repulsed by gay people, but the act. So for example, I can talk to gay folk about anything all day, except sex.
Oh, and I myself am not a normal man in that I am not turned on by seeing lesbian sex. I don't like sports either. Maybe I need help.
One of the problems I have always had with gay men is that I can't for the life of me understand it. Men are ugly and silly looking, even those that are considered handsome. I can understand women being attracted to men because nature wired them that way out of necessity, but men being attracted to each other simply must be a mistake. On the other hand, I can completely sympathize with lesbians. Not just because of the appearance factor, but because we men so often are complete asshats.
And now for my main anti gay argument.
For many years, I could convince myself to be non judgmental. I told myself that it's just another lifestyle and I shouldn't cast stones. Then one day, I got an honest to God "let's see what's going on in there big fella" prostate exam and my whole outlook changed in seconds.
I was in my 30's, and had been through exams in the Army and such. Over the years, several doctors had diddled my derrière with their dexterous digits, with little discomfort.
Now, I went to a doctor at a walk in clinic to check on my leaky John Thomas. The doctor was a woman who appeared to weigh 100 lbs soaking wet, and her thumb probably had the diameter of my pinkie.
She greased up the latex and inserted up to the knuckle or so I assume. Never had any of the previous doctors achieved the depth she did. Brothers, I'm telling you I nearly jumped into the opposite wall, and it was all I could do to keep from screaming and begging her to stop.
It was one of the most unnatural, bizarre and all around unpleasant feelings ever.
Close your eyes and imagine what it would be like to be tongued by one of those dual mouth critters from the Aliens movies. Got it? Now you have a general idea how I felt.
Then I realized that gays actually want things shoved up there! Big, honkin' luv pepperonis. Oh sweet mother of God, some stick Gerbils up there!
No way is this natural, no way is this anything remotely like what nature intended. The only possible explanation is that gays are wired way wrong, kind of like a neurological elephant man.
Ah, but would I hate an elephant man because he's misshapen and ugly? No.
Would I be upset if he moved in next door? No.
I would have no problem shooting the breeze with him on the phone or emailing and such.
I would not want him to be ostracized or attacked in any way.
But, I would not want to look at him. I would have problems with looking at him, and as wrong as that is, I am just that shallow.
So the analogy goes with gays in my narrow vision.
Move in next door, have a few drinks, brag about your new Mercedes, etc. Well, as long as you're not a jerk, that's the basic criteria for anyone after all. You're just another person and your sexual deviation (yeah that's how I mean it) is not important.
Just don't ever, ever, ever talk about your love life. It is, however, perfectly OK for you to make fun of my obesity and baldness.
On laws protecting gays, well I don't know.
It seems to me that existing laws protect against all sorts of discrimination and we don't need special ones for gays, but I could be wrong. I generally don't like adding more laws to the books, I think we have too much already.
I personally know of no incidence of a gay being passed over for a job or promotion, or ostracized at any place I've ever worked. Of course, it could be that there were gays there who hid it out of fear of such reactions.
Really, in order for me to support such laws, I'd have to be presented with actual cases of discrimination or harassment of gays, then be given an explanation of how the proposed laws would apply to the cases, and finally an explanation of how existing laws would apply, if at all. Of course, if the existing laws work as well as I suspect they do, I couldn't support more.
I'm sure Barney Frank is sincere, but I can't take him at his word, I need an objective argument.
On gay marriage, again I don't know.
Marriage is a union of a man and woman, not a man and man or woman and woman. I've believed that for years. Mainly, I've viewed marriage as a means of achieving a stable environment in which to raise children. The legal and religious ties bind at least as strong as the love, and have the added advantage of being constant. Since marriage is primarily a procreation thing, I reasoned, there's no place for gays in it.
Ah, but lately I've thought about people who are married but don't have kids. For them, it is the financial and/or emotional aspect of marriage that is important. Those that I've met seem to be doing well, and truly love each other, but in my former view, their marriage was a farce.
Well, I've changed my mind, and I no longer feel that marriage is strictly for child rearing purposes. This of course, opens me up to the possible validity of gay marriage.
However, I do have two other concerns that hold me back from full support.
One, we have civil unions. As far as I know, this carries all the legal protections of marriage. If gays are so worried about these protections, why push for marriage? Just deal with the unions. OK maybe marriage is important as some sign of acceptance. But since it's obvious that there is still so much opposition to gay marriage, why not settle for these unions for now? I know it's easy for me to say, but in 10 or 20 years, if the unions go well and there's little solid, secular ammo available, then it might be reasonable for gays to petition for the right to marry.
And that segues right into my second reason, cowardice.
Gay marriage is an entirely new concept. It has no precedence in this country. We simply cannot foresee all of the possible results of this, such as financial or legal abuses. And the general, perhaps uninformed, consensus seems to be that gays (at least men) are not the least bit monogamous, which would indeed render marriage a joke. I think this is one of the things religious folks fear. Bad enough we have about a 50% divorce rate now, what happens if gays make it a revolving door?
So if gays are successful and monogamous in the civil unions, then it'll be easier to convince folks like me that marriage is OK.
Of course, there is gay marriage now in some states. I say we could put a moratorium on the rest of the states and observe how well it works in those that have it. Maybe 5 years would be good enough, but I'm still thinking 10.
Easy for me to say, I know. I guess if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd be pretty ticked off too.
BTW, I haven't researched this much at all. For some reason, I just want to belt out opinions and "feelings" and then find out how close to true I got.
Right off the bat, I admit to having some homophobic tendencies, as do most heterosexual American males. I would be mortified if people thought I was gay, I will be hating life if one of my kids turns out gay (though I'd forgive, that's right forgive), and the thought of gay sex is repulsive. Mind you, I am not repulsed by gay people, but the act. So for example, I can talk to gay folk about anything all day, except sex.
Oh, and I myself am not a normal man in that I am not turned on by seeing lesbian sex. I don't like sports either. Maybe I need help.
One of the problems I have always had with gay men is that I can't for the life of me understand it. Men are ugly and silly looking, even those that are considered handsome. I can understand women being attracted to men because nature wired them that way out of necessity, but men being attracted to each other simply must be a mistake. On the other hand, I can completely sympathize with lesbians. Not just because of the appearance factor, but because we men so often are complete asshats.
And now for my main anti gay argument.
For many years, I could convince myself to be non judgmental. I told myself that it's just another lifestyle and I shouldn't cast stones. Then one day, I got an honest to God "let's see what's going on in there big fella" prostate exam and my whole outlook changed in seconds.
I was in my 30's, and had been through exams in the Army and such. Over the years, several doctors had diddled my derrière with their dexterous digits, with little discomfort.
Now, I went to a doctor at a walk in clinic to check on my leaky John Thomas. The doctor was a woman who appeared to weigh 100 lbs soaking wet, and her thumb probably had the diameter of my pinkie.
She greased up the latex and inserted up to the knuckle or so I assume. Never had any of the previous doctors achieved the depth she did. Brothers, I'm telling you I nearly jumped into the opposite wall, and it was all I could do to keep from screaming and begging her to stop.
It was one of the most unnatural, bizarre and all around unpleasant feelings ever.
Close your eyes and imagine what it would be like to be tongued by one of those dual mouth critters from the Aliens movies. Got it? Now you have a general idea how I felt.
Then I realized that gays actually want things shoved up there! Big, honkin' luv pepperonis. Oh sweet mother of God, some stick Gerbils up there!
No way is this natural, no way is this anything remotely like what nature intended. The only possible explanation is that gays are wired way wrong, kind of like a neurological elephant man.
Ah, but would I hate an elephant man because he's misshapen and ugly? No.
Would I be upset if he moved in next door? No.
I would have no problem shooting the breeze with him on the phone or emailing and such.
I would not want him to be ostracized or attacked in any way.
But, I would not want to look at him. I would have problems with looking at him, and as wrong as that is, I am just that shallow.
So the analogy goes with gays in my narrow vision.
Move in next door, have a few drinks, brag about your new Mercedes, etc. Well, as long as you're not a jerk, that's the basic criteria for anyone after all. You're just another person and your sexual deviation (yeah that's how I mean it) is not important.
Just don't ever, ever, ever talk about your love life. It is, however, perfectly OK for you to make fun of my obesity and baldness.
On laws protecting gays, well I don't know.
It seems to me that existing laws protect against all sorts of discrimination and we don't need special ones for gays, but I could be wrong. I generally don't like adding more laws to the books, I think we have too much already.
I personally know of no incidence of a gay being passed over for a job or promotion, or ostracized at any place I've ever worked. Of course, it could be that there were gays there who hid it out of fear of such reactions.
Really, in order for me to support such laws, I'd have to be presented with actual cases of discrimination or harassment of gays, then be given an explanation of how the proposed laws would apply to the cases, and finally an explanation of how existing laws would apply, if at all. Of course, if the existing laws work as well as I suspect they do, I couldn't support more.
I'm sure Barney Frank is sincere, but I can't take him at his word, I need an objective argument.
On gay marriage, again I don't know.
Marriage is a union of a man and woman, not a man and man or woman and woman. I've believed that for years. Mainly, I've viewed marriage as a means of achieving a stable environment in which to raise children. The legal and religious ties bind at least as strong as the love, and have the added advantage of being constant. Since marriage is primarily a procreation thing, I reasoned, there's no place for gays in it.
Ah, but lately I've thought about people who are married but don't have kids. For them, it is the financial and/or emotional aspect of marriage that is important. Those that I've met seem to be doing well, and truly love each other, but in my former view, their marriage was a farce.
Well, I've changed my mind, and I no longer feel that marriage is strictly for child rearing purposes. This of course, opens me up to the possible validity of gay marriage.
However, I do have two other concerns that hold me back from full support.
One, we have civil unions. As far as I know, this carries all the legal protections of marriage. If gays are so worried about these protections, why push for marriage? Just deal with the unions. OK maybe marriage is important as some sign of acceptance. But since it's obvious that there is still so much opposition to gay marriage, why not settle for these unions for now? I know it's easy for me to say, but in 10 or 20 years, if the unions go well and there's little solid, secular ammo available, then it might be reasonable for gays to petition for the right to marry.
And that segues right into my second reason, cowardice.
Gay marriage is an entirely new concept. It has no precedence in this country. We simply cannot foresee all of the possible results of this, such as financial or legal abuses. And the general, perhaps uninformed, consensus seems to be that gays (at least men) are not the least bit monogamous, which would indeed render marriage a joke. I think this is one of the things religious folks fear. Bad enough we have about a 50% divorce rate now, what happens if gays make it a revolving door?
So if gays are successful and monogamous in the civil unions, then it'll be easier to convince folks like me that marriage is OK.
Of course, there is gay marriage now in some states. I say we could put a moratorium on the rest of the states and observe how well it works in those that have it. Maybe 5 years would be good enough, but I'm still thinking 10.
Easy for me to say, I know. I guess if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd be pretty ticked off too.
BTW, I haven't researched this much at all. For some reason, I just want to belt out opinions and "feelings" and then find out how close to true I got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)