Members if I may interject,I am wondering aloud why people who engage
in same sex relations really what the others who do not to believe that whatever they are involved in is actually marriage.
Is it not time that these people coined a new word that actually defines whatever they are involved in and stop dragging the word marriage to describe their acts???.
Besides,why would my opinion of their acts be that important to them?.
From time immemorial, marriage has been understood by all those who got involved in it and the more these people want to change its' meaning,the more the definition remains the same and hence my urging them to get another word that would assuage their fears and at the same time provide them with the so called fredoms they want to enjoy.
Thank you.
Kipenji.
=========================================================
dbbwanika db <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
dbbwanika db <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dr. Jay
You are almost right sociologically- as there isn't much to discuss about gay marriages from that perspective.
However if you started by doing a simple experiment i.e. taking with your class at a wastewater purification plant in your city or town. There it is more evident that your esteemed students will wittiness first hand with all their sociological senses the purity of human faeces.
Wastewater comes from our modern sociological behaviours of urban planning; i.e. flash water toilets, washing machines etc.
Why do this experiment for your own sake � and you did not mention how sex that is a natural need will be sustained among these uni-sex patterns. Did you?
There is abundant material on World Wide Web about the bacterial load or how human faeces can be biologically unhygienic- that is to say how they can attract all types of bacteria from the nutrient load therein. This might be false nevertheless � let your students do a study of the bugs normally found in the rectum and then list them, hopefully thereupon their sociological intuitions will have had a somewhat expansive pespectival switch.
I sense sociology facing an epistemological decay thereafter � but all the tit bits of academic excellence are yours.
Yours in academics,
Bwanika,
> Thanks for all who replied to my former, mislabeled query about logical
> arguments against gay marriages.
>
> My class briefly touched on gay marriages yesterday. I simply told the
> class that I was at a loss to understand why people are opposed to it
> because I really don't understand more than the vague religious
> arguments
> we've all heard (and I really don't understand those).
>
> The only new reason we could come up with is the argument apparently put
> forward in Europe. The logic is that the "native" populations of some
> countries are dropping so they need heterosexual unions to produce
> children. This sounds kind of convoluted to me; they assume if gays
> can't
> marry they'll "straighten" up their act, pal up with hetros and pop for
> kids?
>
> I plan on talking about this topic later in the semester, so any
> insights
> would be appreciated. Until then, I'm going to enjoy the liberals
> trying
> to explain why separate but equal (marriage versus civil unions) will
> work. Good luck, John Kerry.
>
> Jay
>
>
> Jay Watterworth
> Department of Sociology
> University of Colorado at Boulder
>
> Nora Ephron said (about Washington politics, but apropos here), "No
> matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."
>
> "If music be the food of love, play on. Give me excess of that."
> William Shakespeare, "Twelfth Night"
>
__________
bwanika
url: www.idr.co.ug
Logon & Join in ug-academicsdb discussion list
http://www.coollist.com/subcribe.html
List ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your Email address:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
url: http://uhpl.uganda.co.ug
http://pub59.ezboard.com/fugandamanufacturersassociationfrm1
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save �80
