Dishing Out Healthy And Delicious Meals
-
People with a gift for serving up delicious-but healthful-dishes say it's
important to present food that tastes good, is made with natural
ingredient...
3 years ago
5 comments:
holy shit.
that was good. real good.
*round of applause*
thanks for sharing :)
As I told David, there are at two things wrong with Olbermann's impassioned statement.
First, there is the interracial analogy. The common law definition of marriage always defined it as being between a man and a woman. It was not necessary to change that definition in order to strike down the laws against interracial marriage. It was necessary to change that definition in order to permit same-sex marriage. So the analogy fails.
Second there is the suggestion that the opposition to same-sex marriage denies homosexuals the right to love. Of course you know from your own experience that this argument is nonsense. You and Dan have loved each other for years. Whether same sex couples love each other, or whether the law somehow tries to stop them from loving each other are different matters from whether the law calls their loving relationship marriage.
Thanks ever so much for the compliment on Mirrorboy's blog... even though even I don't think he should read it every day...
I don't think I'll be starting my own blog anytime soon, especially since I haven't figured out how to post in a truly anonymous fashion!
I guess I'll have to connect with the local middleschoolers to figure out how they bypass the blocks on sites such as MySpace, Facebook, etc. at their school libraries during lunch.
I can't imagine blogging without being honest about myself; yet, that would result in my immediate Federal incarceration...
I guess I'll just continue to be anonymous, even though a few enlightened individuals may recognize my comments since I do write proper English and do use correct grammar and do try to give advice where it's both requested and much needed...
Why don't you post more often? and on topics of more immediate interest?
I love it, he's so passionate!!
And in response to naturgesetz:
1. I've never heard Common Law defining marriage as between a male and a female before. I think what that may be referring to are gender roles--spouses; a husband and a wife. It's more generally interpreted as male/female, but can also be male/male or female/female gender roles. What Prop 22 did in CA was put in a sub-clause clarifying that the common law did not just refer to gender roles but also to sexes (because gender is not sex), and that was what was controversial. And technically, laws refusing interracial marriage were created because black people (or any other minority, for that matter) were not seen as humans but rather as objects used as labor. Even when the "labor" part was removed (slavery), they were still seen as unintelligent sub-humans, so their entire definition as a human had to be redefined socially before the laws changed.
2. Nothing in the world can deny any humans to love. But what gay people call for is a public expression of their love. The controversy isn't that gay people aren't allowed to love, the controversy is that gay people are not allowed to express their love in the same manner straight people are allowed to.
ANYWAYS, that's my take on it, and feel free to refute anything I said because I'm really not that bright. :D
Joshua —
When the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided that the equal rights amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution required the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriage (even though the voters had been assured that the amendment did no such thing when it came to them for a vote), they stated that the common law had always defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. I think we can trust the court to have known what that definition was when they said that the state constitution required them to set it aside.
I was, of course, responding to Olbermann, who, as I understood it, based his argument on the notion that support of Prop 8 was a denial of the right of gay people to love one another.
I take it that by expressing their love, you mean getting married. But the question is whether it is reasonable to call a relationship which cannot possibly produce children, because the parties cannot engage in vaginal intercourse exactly the same thing as the relationship which can include it. If procreation of children is, as has always been thought, *one* of the purposes of marriage, then a same-sex marriage is definitely not the same thing as an opposite-sex marriage, and is not really marriage in the sense in which the word has always been used, and we're only kidding ourselves if we insist on applying the word to the same-sex relationship.
Post a Comment