Homosutring

[twissie]

My perception of time has been thrown completely out of whack. It suddenly dawned on me that I'm at the end of yet another semester. It feels strange, perhaps especially since I only followed one class this spring. I sit here with a feeling that I should have done so much more. I should be out there actively exposing myself to try and figure out

Comments

[themarshal]

I don't get the whole "biological imperative" behind marriage that the anti-gay-marriage side is pushing. That argument is just plain wrong. We can't allow gays and lesbians to get married because they can't produce offspring. Well then what about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children? What about elderly couples who are past the point where they can birth children? What about infertile couples?

And I'm sure the answer they're thinking in the back of their minds (even if they don't give voice to it) is something along the lines of:

...but they're all straight, so it's okay!

[twissie]

I fail to follow that argument as well @_@;

Well then what about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children?

It's to my understanding that straight couples who choose not to have children are egoistic, unstable, and bound to lead sad, miserable, meaningless lives. These are statements I've had thrown my way when I've told people I don't plan on having kids, anyway 8D The mind boggles. Especially because gay couples who want to have kids are also being stamped as egoistic. What is more selfish? Wanting children or choosing not to? I'm confused :P

[citydancer]

I'm really annoyed by old-fashioned family ideals: I mean, the nuclear family is not something we can all desire. I think the younger generations are more prone to build their own, unique family sets - a chosen family, one that you build out of love, instead of one that comes because it's all you can have

[twissie]

Let's hope our generation will be able to sort some things out, in terms of establishing equal rights no matter how you choose to form your family life.

But does she present some hard evidence of a man getting rejected for sperm donations just because he has wonky ears? I somehow strongly doubt it

[citydancer]

Let's hope our generation will be able to sort some things out, in terms of establishing equal rights no matter how you choose to form your family life.Amen to that

[ponedelnik]

Simply put, I agree with everything you said.

"Bare sosialister og humanetikere kan nå gifte seg etter den nye ekteskapsloven." lol, that saves my ass at least.

[twissie]

8]

Her new book seems pretty lol. I'm tempted to borrow it at a library when it's out just to see what's really going on.

[_kisa_chan_]

This pinpoints mostly what I thougth about her too. >.< she's just ridiculous. I wonder how it must be not being able to see past you own nose tip. oO;;

[twissie]

What's weird is that she used to be pretty awesome. She was actively working for women's right to abortion back in the 70s (which is also part of why I find it so hilarious that she's now fighting for the rights of unborn children).

[lian_li]

That was a fascinating read, and also quite... depressing. I think you're awesome for for going out there and being activist, though :D!!

ETA: and, uh, I can't believe someone would write shallow crap like that and call themselves a philosopher, seriously. I had thought the stupid essentialising of so called "traditional" families was finally passé (funny how people define 'traditional' as "the 1,5 centuries I care to remember because they fit my narrow ideas!" instead of looking for true historical veracity, but, eh...)

[twissie]

Thanks 8D This post ended up taking all my time yesterday. I've got Monsen on the brain :(

It feels like a slap in the face to have works like Monsen's be awarded now. We obviously still have a lot of things to work with even though same-sex marriage has been legalised. This whole Freedom of Expression Prize thing just took the debate a hundred steps backward.

[koemiko]

Mmm. You have to remember that politically incorrect views are usually laughed off as being invalid in academic circles.

My question is, would they give out this prize money regardless of the topic? Would they have given it out to a person who was speaking out just as passionately FOR gay marriage instead of against? Because if they would, then not giving it to her would mean not being consistent with impartiality (the Wikipedia definition.)

[lian_li]

Hah, yeah, but that's the thing -- that's like giving money to people denying that climate change is caused by humans for the sake of 'impartiality' even though that particular idea has long since disproven. I really don't think there's a merit in an award that apparently says: "we award people for being morally harmful or intellectually backward". Just, uh....there's enough of those attitudes even without any koney to go around.

and I mean 'morally harmful' -- from what I gather, Monsen is coming from a position of privilege here and tries to undermine the legitimacy of equal marriages, when those are still in a vulnerable position (reactionist/conservative backlash, hah). So the bully example is apt -- there's a really skeevy power imbalance here that makes the awarding of this price so indecent, IMO.