Posts
The Turkey is Econ. The knife is ones ability to carve Econ into understandings. You can have a very sleek, sharp blade for carving tasty morsels of the beast. You can then share these tasty strips of meat with everyone at the table in an appetizing way from which EVERYONE benefits.
You can take your dull, plastic knife and dig barely recognizable chunks out of the carcass. We'll all taste the Turkey, but it just ain't right!
...Or you can take a shotgun and blow the entire Turkey off the table. Sure there's meat around but it doesn't even taste the same.
There is one other angle to this ... You can take that finely sharpened blade to slice carvings unparalleled by the culinary achievements of the finest Chef, then throw it on someone's plate and scream, "HERE! EAT!"
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Gay Marriage Semantics Off Track
On gay "marriage" the issue really IS semantics. If you recognize gay “marriage” then you have to recognize them EQUALLY in ALL things on balance with straight marriages, including adoption and educational fiction books for kids in public schools. If they go for “Civil Union” or some other new word, they can then attack EACH equality issue one by one like making sure work benefits packages go to those civilly united in the same way they do for those married.
Civilly united might mean something besides “gay” and monogamous, too, like dependant brother and sister relationships. It doesn’t have to be about having committed sex. I think they are going about this all wrong and they might just be missing out … or maybe being sneaky by claiming it’s only about things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits and not really about all those other things not EVERYONE is ready to back away from.
Let me over simplify: Assume the letter of a law written in 1920 read specifically (this is fiction but not off track), "Only married couples shall be eligible to adopt children." If gay "marriage" becomes recognized because reasonable thinkers vote it in thinking it's a movement toward "things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits" then reasonable thinkers will have been duped into voting FOR gay "adoption" when really they only wanted to vote for gay "marriage". That's why it's semantics. That's why the movement needs to begin with a term like "civil union" and then get that term recognized with each "right" sought. They won't get them all at once, so why let the baby be thrown out with the bath water? This is an emotional fight rather than a logical approach to reason. They won't change the moral make up of this country ... and many of us (regardless of basis for that moral make up) can get behind certain elements of this movement. "
Civilly united might mean something besides “gay” and monogamous, too, like dependant brother and sister relationships. It doesn’t have to be about having committed sex. I think they are going about this all wrong and they might just be missing out … or maybe being sneaky by claiming it’s only about things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits and not really about all those other things not EVERYONE is ready to back away from.
Let me over simplify: Assume the letter of a law written in 1920 read specifically (this is fiction but not off track), "Only married couples shall be eligible to adopt children." If gay "marriage" becomes recognized because reasonable thinkers vote it in thinking it's a movement toward "things like taxes, social security, immigration benefits, property rights and hospital visits" then reasonable thinkers will have been duped into voting FOR gay "adoption" when really they only wanted to vote for gay "marriage". That's why it's semantics. That's why the movement needs to begin with a term like "civil union" and then get that term recognized with each "right" sought. They won't get them all at once, so why let the baby be thrown out with the bath water? This is an emotional fight rather than a logical approach to reason. They won't change the moral make up of this country ... and many of us (regardless of basis for that moral make up) can get behind certain elements of this movement. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)