Today the biomedicilization of the body is in the back of my thoughts. I am going to write a play about the year 2235 when geneticists found a way to implant intelligence through the level of mothers intelligence and intellegence consumed while pregnant. Just like nutrients and food is passed through the plancinto at crucial moments intellegence will pass the same way. Thus predisposing offspring to jobs as lawyers, philosophers, engineers, chemists, poets, and genetisists.
It blows my mind
Red October style
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
convince me?
Yesterday at work I found myself reading an article in Newsweek titled: The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Theodore Olson may be known to you as a conservative lawyer who supported Bush, and his administration, but you may also be surprised to hear he has a positive voice in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. His argument is simple enough, gays and lesbians are a part of our society and have been for sometime, so why are they not treated equally. He talks in the article about how privilege and respect are entitled to every human being. When we are not allowing these basic human rights Olson argues that we are saying these humans are worth less, are less legitimate, and less permanent making them less valuable in our communities. This is something that Olson says we do not have the influence to decide. The argument that Olson finds most frustrating is the argument that tradition should dictate our decisions on Prop 8 and gay marriage. He is not convinced because traditions are always changing and "simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way."
I am though not fully convinced, impressed, or trusting of Theodore Olson. I am though happy that he is fighting and arguing his case for gay marriage. The conservative voice is important in this discussion and he is countering very basic arguments. In general he is reaching a pretty wide audience but he is limited in that all his examples of gay and lesbian marriage are stable white couples. The article printed in Newsweek pictures 5 different gay and lesbian couples, all of which lack outward minorities. I understand that we must know our audience, and in this case we are bidding towards to conservatives, but I don't think we need to lose our diversity and colour when doing that.
Olson writes that, "the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and out place in a community." This is a conservative argument that my politics can not get behind, because I do not believe that we are defined by those we wish to spend the rest of our lives with. I think it's just as important to be part of a community regardless of marriage. I wish that we, the queer movement, could be taken seriously and treated equally regardless of marriage. Will marriage change the way queer students are treated in high school?
Also I find myself again not supported by the laws and institutions. I am not one to counter the gay rights movement or the marriage bills, but I am always unsatisfied by the approach and the content of the changes we only hope to make. I think we are legitimately trying to help people an include a huge community, but I am not convinced we are going about the process in the correct way. I wish we outwardly included people of colour, and transgenders in the movement, conservative or not because we can not hide these people when change does begin to happen.
My question remains, why will marriage make us equal?
Overall I am happy that some other, more conservative voices are becoming involved and heard I am hopeful that the movement will eventually be good for everyone. I just don't want us to lose sight of that 'eventually', by focusing on appeasing the conservative because that's not productive or fair to the movement.
Let me here your thoughts!?
I know there are lots of arguments to be made and I only have one of many. I am open to all your conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, democratic, etc. views, even if I don't agree or am not fully convinced yet.
Theodore Olson may be known to you as a conservative lawyer who supported Bush, and his administration, but you may also be surprised to hear he has a positive voice in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. His argument is simple enough, gays and lesbians are a part of our society and have been for sometime, so why are they not treated equally. He talks in the article about how privilege and respect are entitled to every human being. When we are not allowing these basic human rights Olson argues that we are saying these humans are worth less, are less legitimate, and less permanent making them less valuable in our communities. This is something that Olson says we do not have the influence to decide. The argument that Olson finds most frustrating is the argument that tradition should dictate our decisions on Prop 8 and gay marriage. He is not convinced because traditions are always changing and "simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way."
I am though not fully convinced, impressed, or trusting of Theodore Olson. I am though happy that he is fighting and arguing his case for gay marriage. The conservative voice is important in this discussion and he is countering very basic arguments. In general he is reaching a pretty wide audience but he is limited in that all his examples of gay and lesbian marriage are stable white couples. The article printed in Newsweek pictures 5 different gay and lesbian couples, all of which lack outward minorities. I understand that we must know our audience, and in this case we are bidding towards to conservatives, but I don't think we need to lose our diversity and colour when doing that.
Olson writes that, "the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and out place in a community." This is a conservative argument that my politics can not get behind, because I do not believe that we are defined by those we wish to spend the rest of our lives with. I think it's just as important to be part of a community regardless of marriage. I wish that we, the queer movement, could be taken seriously and treated equally regardless of marriage. Will marriage change the way queer students are treated in high school?
Also I find myself again not supported by the laws and institutions. I am not one to counter the gay rights movement or the marriage bills, but I am always unsatisfied by the approach and the content of the changes we only hope to make. I think we are legitimately trying to help people an include a huge community, but I am not convinced we are going about the process in the correct way. I wish we outwardly included people of colour, and transgenders in the movement, conservative or not because we can not hide these people when change does begin to happen.
My question remains, why will marriage make us equal?
Overall I am happy that some other, more conservative voices are becoming involved and heard I am hopeful that the movement will eventually be good for everyone. I just don't want us to lose sight of that 'eventually', by focusing on appeasing the conservative because that's not productive or fair to the movement.
Let me here your thoughts!?
I know there are lots of arguments to be made and I only have one of many. I am open to all your conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, democratic, etc. views, even if I don't agree or am not fully convinced yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
