What is needed at this juncture is a light and humorous but slightly provocative post. Having come from a fairly relaxing vacation, this would seem an easy goal. Yet I find myself desperately avoiding all real news, especially of the Israeli conflict and CIA director appointment variety (in order for reasons of depression and distaste for using my brain in analysis). I'm vaguely mulling posts on malpractice, on classism, on intelligence agencies and intelligence in people and what it means to have a productive, a useful, life. A comment to this post will guarantee a post on your topic of choice.
Short of that, keep waiting for that light, short, fun post. I'm am nearly certain it will materialize.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Am I Being An Asshole? Or Criminally Naive?
Marriage has been on my mind lately and I've been seeing some discussions of divorce.
There's a feeling today, that to disapprove of divorce is a terrible, oppressive thing to do.
I'm all for the legality of divorce and utilizing divorce when a marriage is abusive (of course!) in any way or simply terminally unhappy or someone falls seriously and terribly in love with someone else. Go for it. People should be happy.
Yet.
How can there not be a moral disapproval dimension to divorce unless we assign no value to marriage?
A marriage happens when you make a promise to someone else. You promise them forever. And usually, you promise it in front of your friends and family and a representative of the state, you ask them to witness your promise and support it. Then you go around telling everyone you meet that you've made this promise to this person ("This is my husband") and expecting them to treat you and your spouse as if they believe you will keep that promise.
If you get divorced, you lied. You made a mistake, you should never have made that promise, that commitment. This doesn't mean you should be ostracized from society, or made to feel badly for the rest of your life. Doubtlessly you've suffered far more for this mistake then society or any bystanders. However, it is a moral failing. You did fuck up. Society gets to think that.
I'm all for making time limited contracts ("I commit to you for the next five years") or maybe contracts with different terms ("I promise to be good to you for as long as we are together"). However unless we get rid of the promise of forever, I don't see how getting rid of the disapproval of divorce makes any sense. The promises of marriage are borderline insane, and everyone who makes them should damn well realize it.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Marriage
I had hoped that Proposition 8 would not pass and had underestimated how upset I would be when it did. I wasn't quite expecting us to loose but I am not shocked that we have.
This is a post that I probably would not write if this blog had a large audience because it's not a post helpful to marriage equality or eradicating sexual orientation based discrimination and I would not want to damage those goals for anything. However, I felt the need to share my opinion with the internets, especially since I haven't seen it expressed elsewhere. Here it goes.
The other side has a very valid point. Marriage for same sex couples will lead to more societal acceptance for homosexuality. I believe that more acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more homosexual couples.
I believe (and I know that others disagree, and that this isn't proven by any scientific evidence but also that lots of others do share my opinion) that something like 10% of people are straight, 10% are gay, and the rest are some variety of bisexual. Now, part of my belief in this might be that I'm bi and that to imagine that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a person of a particular gender is as difficult for me as imagining that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a redhead when they prefer blondes. It's weird. The fact that different cultures have wildly varying incidents of homosexuality is fairly convincing that genetics are not the only factors (while the fact that homosexuality exists no matter how terribly it impacts the quality of life of individuals is convincing that individuals often can not control whom they find attractive).
So, if there are a lot of bisexuals out there, people who are equally attracted, people who are repressed, men who might prefer men but find women occasionally attractive, women who lust after both but can only 'connect' with a man, etc. then social acceptance of same sex pairing will likely lead to many more same sex romances. It logically follows that those people who think gay relationships are inferior in any way or that being gay is undesirable (if occasionally unavoidable) will not want homosexuality to be socially acceptable (and thus will have reservations against same sex marriages). Most people in the United States today, even most people who are 'accepting' and would never try to make life difficult for gay people as a general matter of course, who would accept a family member that was gay and wish them happiness and love would really prefer that no one they care about be gay. These people don't want their children growing up in a world where they see marriage as a contract between two people , who see nothing wrong with same sex relationships because then these children might go ahead and find out whether that passing fancy for that pretty girl could be something more real instead of obediently redirecting all impulses.
I don't think there's anything inferior about being homosexual or same sex relationships. I want them to be socially accepted and marraige equality is an important step for that. But truthfully? to deny that this all leading down a certain path? is disengineous. All revolutions are step by step and we'll fight this one a step at a time but the other side isn't being irrational in seeing what we're aiming for and the natural consequences. (No more so then sexists were irrational when they fought so hard against every gain for women, they knew it was going somewhere, and it is, toward equality).
ETA: Of course, today I see this, where Amanda says the same thing. (Could have saved me the time!) :)
ETA2: Oops, the above link is the second half of the post that was in my head but on second thought it doesn't mirror what I actually wrote above.
This is a post that I probably would not write if this blog had a large audience because it's not a post helpful to marriage equality or eradicating sexual orientation based discrimination and I would not want to damage those goals for anything. However, I felt the need to share my opinion with the internets, especially since I haven't seen it expressed elsewhere. Here it goes.
The other side has a very valid point. Marriage for same sex couples will lead to more societal acceptance for homosexuality. I believe that more acceptance of homosexuality will lead to more homosexual couples.
I believe (and I know that others disagree, and that this isn't proven by any scientific evidence but also that lots of others do share my opinion) that something like 10% of people are straight, 10% are gay, and the rest are some variety of bisexual. Now, part of my belief in this might be that I'm bi and that to imagine that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a person of a particular gender is as difficult for me as imagining that someone is incapable of enjoying sex with a redhead when they prefer blondes. It's weird. The fact that different cultures have wildly varying incidents of homosexuality is fairly convincing that genetics are not the only factors (while the fact that homosexuality exists no matter how terribly it impacts the quality of life of individuals is convincing that individuals often can not control whom they find attractive).
So, if there are a lot of bisexuals out there, people who are equally attracted, people who are repressed, men who might prefer men but find women occasionally attractive, women who lust after both but can only 'connect' with a man, etc. then social acceptance of same sex pairing will likely lead to many more same sex romances. It logically follows that those people who think gay relationships are inferior in any way or that being gay is undesirable (if occasionally unavoidable) will not want homosexuality to be socially acceptable (and thus will have reservations against same sex marriages). Most people in the United States today, even most people who are 'accepting' and would never try to make life difficult for gay people as a general matter of course, who would accept a family member that was gay and wish them happiness and love would really prefer that no one they care about be gay. These people don't want their children growing up in a world where they see marriage as a contract between two people , who see nothing wrong with same sex relationships because then these children might go ahead and find out whether that passing fancy for that pretty girl could be something more real instead of obediently redirecting all impulses.
I don't think there's anything inferior about being homosexual or same sex relationships. I want them to be socially accepted and marraige equality is an important step for that. But truthfully? to deny that this all leading down a certain path? is disengineous. All revolutions are step by step and we'll fight this one a step at a time but the other side isn't being irrational in seeing what we're aiming for and the natural consequences. (No more so then sexists were irrational when they fought so hard against every gain for women, they knew it was going somewhere, and it is, toward equality).
ETA: Of course, today I see this, where Amanda says the same thing. (Could have saved me the time!) :)
ETA2: Oops, the above link is the second half of the post that was in my head but on second thought it doesn't mirror what I actually wrote above.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Charlie Huston
I love books. Reading is my first and most favorite hobby, though I still haven't found a spiffy way of slipping this into casual conversation. Somehow, sometime in my twenties 'reading' stopped being a decent answer to the 'what are your hobbies' question, I've no idea why.
Anyway, I love good books. Good writing, good plot and great characters all in one manuscript. So rare, so delicious. I'll take two out of three when I must (often) and sometimes even one out of three but oh when I can get all three! (I do a little dance). The only way to make this even better? An author that is a decent bloke. An author I can like and admire and possibly even adore just a little. (What's worse then finding out the author you've been crushing on is a total homophobic asshole? Yes, yes, I am bitter, virtual cookie if you guess which authors have broken my heart.)
The prose style is distinct and unique, the character is engaging and recognizably different from the male protagonist of the author's other series (do you have any idea how rare that is?). The world is gritty, violent, fascinating and set in NYC.
This is Charlie Huston's Caught Stealing.
It is available for free in pdf form! Right now! For a limited time only! Go!
The two sequels will also be available soon. (Why the hell is this website so ugly and difficult? No fucking idea. But worth it for the great book for free!) How is that now the awesomest thing you've heard this month? (Well, second awesomest, I'm still feeling the afterglow of Nov. 4).
Why is Charlie Huston himself awesome? Because he writes without sentimentality but with great empathy. Because he offers us all new and original writing on his blog for free (a sure way to my heart). Because I love the way he talks about his family and himself. Why don't you go find out for yourself?
P.S. Dear Charlie, if you could only clean up your blog you would have an officially awesome online presence. Yes, I know you're very busy right now, what with baby and books and books and baby. But Srsly. Srsly!
P.P.S. I actually adore his Joe Pitt series a tiny bit more but Hank Thompson is very very cool.
Anyway, I love good books. Good writing, good plot and great characters all in one manuscript. So rare, so delicious. I'll take two out of three when I must (often) and sometimes even one out of three but oh when I can get all three! (I do a little dance). The only way to make this even better? An author that is a decent bloke. An author I can like and admire and possibly even adore just a little. (What's worse then finding out the author you've been crushing on is a total homophobic asshole? Yes, yes, I am bitter, virtual cookie if you guess which authors have broken my heart.)
The prose style is distinct and unique, the character is engaging and recognizably different from the male protagonist of the author's other series (do you have any idea how rare that is?). The world is gritty, violent, fascinating and set in NYC.
This is Charlie Huston's Caught Stealing.
It is available for free in pdf form! Right now! For a limited time only! Go!
The two sequels will also be available soon. (Why the hell is this website so ugly and difficult? No fucking idea. But worth it for the great book for free!) How is that now the awesomest thing you've heard this month? (Well, second awesomest, I'm still feeling the afterglow of Nov. 4).
Why is Charlie Huston himself awesome? Because he writes without sentimentality but with great empathy. Because he offers us all new and original writing on his blog for free (a sure way to my heart). Because I love the way he talks about his family and himself. Why don't you go find out for yourself?
P.S. Dear Charlie, if you could only clean up your blog you would have an officially awesome online presence. Yes, I know you're very busy right now, what with baby and books and books and baby. But Srsly. Srsly!
P.P.S. I actually adore his Joe Pitt series a tiny bit more but Hank Thompson is very very cool.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Palin, 2
After the past couple of days I feel like I have to add to my recent post. Given the complete and total ignorance of Sarah Palin about the world and the United States of America I'm kind of less glad about her being nominated. I mean, in order for her nomination to have any kind of positive effect it has to be credible right? And this is freaking ridiculous.
Supreme Court decisions and newspapers for heavens sakes! I know it's shocking, but some actual knowledge (that's knowing stuff, like facts, as in separate from opinion or what kind of person you are) is required to do a high profile job in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government. Come on.
P.S. I think Katie Couric is similarly outraged.
Supreme Court decisions and newspapers for heavens sakes! I know it's shocking, but some actual knowledge (that's knowing stuff, like facts, as in separate from opinion or what kind of person you are) is required to do a high profile job in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government. Come on.
P.S. I think Katie Couric is similarly outraged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)