Lies they would have you believe

Comments

[this is good]
You rock.
You are so awesome!!! I am a Christian, but I have what most Christians don't have. AN OPEN MIND!! I say if 2 people, whether those 2 people are 2 men or 2 women are in love and want to share a life together... let them. I really don't have a problem with people being gay. I say let people live their lives!!
[this is good]
Do you think black people should get married? Hispanics? Fat people? Left-handed people*? Please, let's not give the government any more "great ideas", like the geniuses in Mississippi who want to bar obese people from restaurants.

Seriously, [this is awesome and totally dead on]

*And don't we already have enough problems as left-handers?
The other day I was talking with a conservative friend about Gay marriage to which my stance was. Everyone *should* be equal, if being Gay or being Arab, or being whatever the fuck isn't illegal in your country then those citizens should be 100% equal, and afforded the rights of every other citizen. Her arguement was, "What if someone wants to marry their dog, or marry a 12 year-old-boy? Should that be legal too?" Which floored me at the ignorance of that question. A dog is not a person, it does not have human rights, it is based under a totally different set of laws as are all animals. And children are considered children by the law, no one would change that... but it showcases what people like Rush Limbaugh are trying to feed into the minds of conservative Americans. That by simply giving people the same rights as the rest of the population, they're opening the floodgates for all sorts of deviant and abberant behavior and asking for it to be made legal. Fuck that shit pisses me off... sorry for the rant.
[this is good]
Really well said, I must say.


[this is good]

You do rock!

At least I hope you are. Yep! Frankly, that a woman wouldn't identify herself as a feminist boggles my mind. Actually, I do know why. I was raised to think that "feminist" was a dirty word and feminists are immature man-haters. Fortunately, I grew up.

Right on about gay marriage. Last week I did a presentation on arguments for the legalization of same-sex marriage in my Poli. Sci. class. I know this already, but through putting together my presentation I became more convinced than ever that it will happen, and soon. The sooner the better!

You're also right that a president or political party can't "ruin" a country.

Probably none of us will end up moving to Canada or Europe if our candidate of choice isn't elected.

Well, I might :) I know a lot of Americans say this, but the reality is, of course, that it isn't a viable option for most. However, I have my English passport ready to go... ;)

Which feminism?

The one in a certain set of books? Or the other set of books?

The one found at universities, or the one found in churches?

The one you experience as an individual? Or the feminisim of many others?

Should I listen to what you say? Or what many others say?

Which feminism?

[this is good]
congrats - you made the news and politics page!
Thanks! :) Because you called for the ThisIs (whatever) pages to change! :)
I wouldn't say I have that kind of pull. But, the weird thing is, about 4 of the folks in my neighborhood are featured on the various pages right now.

Well, unfortunately, many people calling themselves feminists do, in fact, get pretty judgmental about women who choose to stay home with their kids (Linda Hirshman, of course, being the shining example). And the sad fact is that once your friend Jen decides to stay home with her kids, the various wings of the feminist movement will have very little to say to her or offer her. There will be lip service about her being equal to men and to working women, sure, but there are not a lot of serious feminist efforts to improve the lives and lots of women who stay home to be mothers.

Also, while I essentially agree with you about gay marriage, comparing it to fat people getting married or Hispanic people getting married doesn't quite stand up, as the objections raised to gay marriage (and not the others) have to do with what people see as the purpose of marriage. If you think that marriage is primarily about love, then gay marriage isn't much different from any other kind. But it is only recently that people started thinking that is what marriage was for, and a lot of people still don't think that.

Also, it is almost certainly not the case that 10% of the population is gay. It is probably closer to 2-3% with a somewhat larger--possibly close to 10--percentage having had homosexual experiences but not being primarily gay.

[this is good]
Great post! I do agree with ginbaby on her points though, more often then not when a woman is homemaker she gets more flack from other woman then she does men. Its like some woman believe she auto drops IQ points just because she is a homemaker.
Lots of interesting comments here. Fair warning: I am a conservative, and a Catholic.

But it is only recently that people started thinking that is what marriage was for, and a lot of people still don't think that.

Ginbaby has hit the nail on the head, though we'd obviously disagree on the issue. "Marriage" is a sacramental union full of metaphysical goings-on that are wrapped up in the ability to produce new life. Sex must both unify the couple and allow for the continuation of life, to share in the work of Creation. Sex which does only one or the other falls short of its God-given purpose. That is the religious understanding.

Politically, the issue is the devaluation of marriage (in which our government has a vested interest [more taxpayers -- too cynical?]) and the prospect of endless government involvement in our personal lives. While homosexuals should not be strung up for their proclivities, neither should our government be in the business of affording rights for a sexual choice. Race is not chosen. Religion can be chosen, but is often inherited. Ethnicity is not chosen. Having sex is always a choice. How can the government begin to determine that a homosexual union is valid?

As for feminism, I think the distinction between equality of personhood and equality of ability has been blurred, if not altogether lost. Allow me to "riff" here, with the understanding that I am merely speculating. Women must be firefighters, and so we lower the standard for their test. Women must serve in the military, and so we require they do fewer push-ups. Women must be represented in the workforce, and so our government requires it. All things being equal, if women are talented and driven to compete then they will succeed. To claim otherwise, to say that there is a need for affirmative action for women, is to deny the very equality feminists espouse. Perhaps that strays too far afield for this thread, and would be better discussed elsewhere.

I would say only that feminism which turns up its nose at motherhood, religious life and the absolutely crucial role of men in our society as fathers (as well as other typically masculine, positively archaic gender stereotypes) is inauthentic.


Finally, I agree with your last point. The country won't be destroyed by whoever is in office. It will be destroyed only when its citizenry can not be bothered to defend its own liberties. Look to Europe to see the lingering death of nations, stricken with a relativistic cancer.


I would say only that feminism which turns up its nose at motherhood, religious life and the absolutely crucial role of men in our society as fathers (as well as other typically masculine, positively archaic gender stereotypes) is inauthentic

I'd have to agree.

[this is good]
great post! congrats on the TIG!
You made the TIG page! :)
[this is good]
I applaude your being true to yourself and most of all for being open-minded. We should not let others dictate what we should feel about this country or about gay marriages or feminists or the presidential hopefuls. A very brave post.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in