[Michael] I'm confused; how does race enter into the quality of a marriage?
[Arlo] It doesn't. And it shouldn't. My point is that the same arguments that are being made in opposition to gay marriage were made (by the same people, likely) in opposition to interracial marriage. "It'll destroy society", "it'll lead to polygamy", you know, the same "fear" and ridiculous slippery slope nonsense that passes for argument on the EIB network. [Michael] The fact that heterosexual marriage is "better" than a gay union or non-married relationship is a social convention, and you cannot prove that either has more quality. [Arlo] No. Which is why "fear" and the "slippery slope" are all they offer. But thanks for adding another voice of reason. [Michael] It may be easier to raise a child in a two-parent household, but is having two bad parents inherently better than having one good parent? Sounds like a social convention developed over time from the economic and pragmatic rigors of parenthood. Two would be better than one if a family was responsible to raise their own food, build shelter, etc. [Arlo] Agree. There are definitely economic-pragmatic reasons why in our society "two" is better than "one", and in the same vein two really good parents will likely have an easier time than one really good parent, but does two ipso facto mean better? I suspect you are right, no. In fact, from my own experience, I'd say that one really good parent is better than two really mediocre parents. To take a tangent, I've proposed that the Genesis myth is really about the "divinity" of "giving birth", how the mother/father become "gods" in "creating life", and have the same spiritual responsibility towards that creation as do the gods of myths have over "life". I think, using a Campbellian approach, that re-invigorating this metaphor is a useful activity. To quote J. O'Barr, "Mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all children. Do you understand?" (The Crow) [Michael] The attitude that old school morals and conventions are better...just because they're better, is the definition of a static pattern. [Arlo] And the platform of politicians. Be weary of those who masquerade as champions of freedom when all they really want is the "freedom" for everyone to adopt "old school morals and conventions". "You can be free to be like me" is a statement of vile irony, and when you hear the self-professed "beacons of liberty" squalk about "freedom", be warned that this is really what they mean. Present discussion on "gay marriage" offered as an example, but don't take my word for it. Follow the true dialogue and you'll see. [Michael] Blind faith in the government is an interesting proposition. It seems like a supreme irony in a democratic republic founded on civil disobedience. [Arlo] Civil disobedience makes you "unpatriotic" now, Michael, haven't you been following the erosion? It makes you "an enemy of freedom", "aligned with terrorists", "surrenderers to terrrorism". We had a good discussion on "blind obedience" about a year ago, check the archives if you are able. It was quite enlightening. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
