i want to say that i am a huge believer in EQUALITY, but hate affirmative action. Supreme Court justice Thomas certainly thinks affirmative action is crap as well. (read just about anything he has authored).
we have so many people that receive undeserved position and power simply because of race, gender, or sexual orientation. "because they are entitled" to receive whatever it is. the problem is that they are not 'entitled' to crap. they need to earn it just like everyone else has to. (PLEASE note that i am not saying discrimination is acceptable. IT IS NOT.) we are beginning to see the development of a backlash. many people that have accomplished monumental achievements have then had them dismissed because it is assumed that they were 'given' the help or accomplishment as a 'beneficiary' of affirmative action. I even think that this is a part of the problem with Sarah Palin, she is defensive and says that people are sexist because they call into question her experience and credentials to be VP. maybe they are simply trying to determine if you fit the bill? maybe they want a QUALIFIED individual in charge of the country. and if you can prove to be that, then your gender has no bearing.
this little rant is my segue into Proposition 8 in California. it is the proposition that deals with marriage and how it is defined. at least that is what they have marketed it as. they say if this proposition is passed it will not allow gay marriage. if that is all that they were trying to do i would say 'can't vote for that.' as far as i am concerned everyone has the right to have half of their crap stolen in divorce proceedings. but it isn't about them being able to marry. it is about forcing their choice onto other people. i take issue with the part that will pass law that requires all churches to marry them, if they are asked to. that is forcing your beliefs and lifestyle on others that don't share that view. if you want to be married and the State says 'OK' and your pastor says 'no,' you should go get a civil union. you don't force your pastor to perform the marriage with threats of legal recourse. that is changing from equality to bigotry, just going the other way. the failure of the propostion also forces the teaching of homosexual sex as part of sex education in schools. The purpose of these programs is to promote abstinence if at all possible and to limit irresponsible sexual practices. i don't know about any of you, but they never told me how to 'do it' (i think most people are bright enough to figure that out), so we don't need to teach kids how to 'do it' differently.
equality, people, not reverse bigotry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The false sense of 'Entitlement' that we Americans so smuggly represent, is astounding!
it is so sad, how true your comment is, Erin.
Jeff we are the entitled generation. I used to get a sense of it consistently when i was in Utah with my "wealthy" friends. They were entitled to fancy cars, a palatial estate and other amenities that typically are the fruits of diligence are good old fashioned elbow grease. As for this prop 8, i am not sure if you are aware, but the LDS is asking church missionaries in Cali to support Prop 8 along with the common prostelitizing. My mom mentioned this to me last week as she heard it on the local news back in SLC. The ironic thing about our world is that people are entitled to believe whatever they choose, they are just not allowed to act accordingly, in most cases. To enforce legal repercussions onto a church of any kind for not condoning a union of which they are morally opposed is not only wrong, but it is inherently unconstitutional. What's new? Where the hell is our Batman now?
Let me start by saying that you have a great style and some great points. However, Sexual Orientation is a protected class only under the laws of discrimination, not under the provisions of Affirmative Action. I see your point on the matter, though. As far as Prop 8 is concerned... it is not about jamming anyones lifestyles or practices down anyone's throat or teaching kids how to have gay sex. I will agree that the governement has no right forcing the clergy to conduct ceremonies for anyone that their sect or denomination does not support should be married... has everyone forgotten that seperation of church and state is a two-way street? No, the state should not have a role in determining that a clergyman MUST marry Bruce and Mark or Rosie and Donna. However, they should acknowledge that if a church WILL marry them, the state should honor that as a marriage. (This would effectively put the argument BACK into the non-secular realm and gets the gays off the governments back -at least as far as in this argument).
Now as far as the teaching of gay sex in schools. I hardly think this is a How-to that is being proposed, anymore than Sex Ed (which some of us will remember was quite a big deal when it was proposed) was a How-to for us. I think it is more of a how-no-to catch or spread pathogens that are costing america (and the world) millions in lives and BILLIONS in insurance shortfalls. (Conversely, it is also a huge money-maker for he pharmaceutical companies) By the way, it is the same basic ignorance of the importance of education on the matter that allowed HIV to become such a HUGE pandemic in the first place. Now HIV is not a gay epidemic, and in fact is less of an issue in the gay community these days than it ever has been, likely because for so long straight kids thought it stopped at their door and they were immune... SO, to educate kids how not to get pregnant, but fall short on the protection against HIV for kids however they turn out is just irresponsible. Part of the problem I think, lies in people thinking that education of the matter will induce the PRACTICE of gay sex... to that end, I have to say that YOU are aware of gay sex... does it make YOU do it? I didn't think so. Maybe people are afraid that their kids will come out before they are out of the house, making it a bigger deal. Either way... you make a good case and i like your style. It is definitely a touchy issue and a hard one to handle. And you have, in the spirit of any great blog, put forth a great issue for discussion... Bravo for that.
Thank you Bill,
I actually concur with your whole comment. sometimes a short post ona blog never gives justice to what you are attempting to convey. the seperation of church and state is something that more people should remember.
as for the education in school, i may have had a different education, maybe even a better one than some. but, i still went to public school, and we discussed all the STD's and pathogens as you said. if they are simply wanting to include that... i have no problem with that. except that it is already included (or should be)and they don't need ledgislation to make it so.
thank you for an insightful comment. one of the best! and yes, i try to have good discussions on here.
Post a Comment