|
Post by Karen on Apr 9, 2008 11:17:43 GMT -5
See, I get why people are protesting the Olympics. I think China bites, myself, especially regarding Tibet. I just want the protesters to keep their hands to themselves, is all. No grabbing. But I want them there, all the same. We also bite, especially regarding Iraq. But there are good people in China - and I just don't get the violence against the Olympic torch/bearers.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Apr 9, 2008 11:31:22 GMT -5
OK, these were just questions that were rolling around my head the other night when I couldn't sleep. I could do some real research and find the answers on my own, I suppose, but I thought it might be interesting to get a dialog going here about this topic. <snipping the head spinner parts> Other silly thoughts I had: how are they going to fill out the birth certificate? Will Thomas be the mother or the father? If he is the biological father, then what is the sperm donor? Holy moly. I thought my life was complicated. To answer your last question. Thomas is the biological mother and legal father, and the sperm donor would be the biological father. The partner is the other mother. The legalities of the whole marriage thing I won't get into, except to say I feel that we should ok the lawful unions between people of legal age and with their consent. No matter their gender. I don't see anything wrong with calling it 'marriage' either, but that is up to the specific religion/church to decide if they want to bless it, and the lawmakers should stay out of that part of it. But I also don't see anything wrong with people who get a lawful union calling what they have together - marriage. It's all just a matter of semantics/perception and people not wanting to change the status quo out of fear. Clear as mud, eh? I think changing gender is a separate issue. And that this specific case is a out of the norm.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Apr 9, 2008 11:37:30 GMT -5
See, I get why people are protesting the Olympics. I think China bites, myself, especially regarding Tibet. I just want the protesters to keep their hands to themselves, is all. No grabbing. But I want them there, all the same. We also bite, especially regarding Iraq. But there are good people in China - and I just don't get the violence against the Olympic torch/bearers. Agreed on Iraq, but I don't think that our government having done some of the same things means that our citizens should refrain from criticizing China. And, in San Francisco at least, no one's hypocritical - we have weekly anti-Iraq protests here. The protesters are against the Beijing government, not the Chinese people. And, yeah, the violence against the torchbearers themselves is completely unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Apr 9, 2008 11:46:10 GMT -5
OK, these were just questions that were rolling around my head the other night when I couldn't sleep. I could do some real research and find the answers on my own, I suppose, but I thought it might be interesting to get a dialog going here about this topic. <snipping the head spinner parts> Other silly thoughts I had: how are they going to fill out the birth certificate? Will Thomas be the mother or the father? If he is the biological father, then what is the sperm donor? Holy moly. I thought my life was complicated. To answer your last question. Thomas is the biological mother and legal father, and the sperm donor would be the biological father. The partner is the other mother. The legalities of the whole marriage thing I won't get into, except to say I feel that we should ok the lawful unions between people of legal age and with their consent. No matter their gender. I don't see anything wrong with calling it 'marriage' either, but that is up to the specific religion/church to decide if they want to bless it, and the lawmakers should stay out of that part of it. But I also don't see anything wrong with people who get a lawful union calling what they have together - marriage. It's all just a matter of semantics/perception and people not wanting to change the status quo out of fear. Clear as mud, eh? I think changing gender is a separate issue. And that this specific case is a out of the norm. My opinion on marriage: The legal marriage license recognized by the government should be separated from the religious wedding ceremony. Any two consenting adults should be able to marry, with all the rights, responsibilities and tax penalties already accorded to heterosexual couples, regardless of orientation. If they want a religious or civil ceremony in addition to the legal form, they can find a church that will perform one for them. Anne, wanted a civil ceremony, didn't quite turn out that way
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Apr 9, 2008 11:49:31 GMT -5
OK, these were just questions that were rolling around my head the other night when I couldn't sleep. I could do some real research and find the answers on my own, I suppose, but I thought it might be interesting to get a dialog going here about this topic. <snipping the head spinner parts> Other silly thoughts I had: how are they going to fill out the birth certificate? Will Thomas be the mother or the father? If he is the biological father, then what is the sperm donor? Holy moly. I thought my life was complicated. To answer your last question. Thomas is the biological mother and legal father, and the sperm donor would be the biological father. The partner is the other mother. The legalities of the whole marriage thing I won't get into, except to say I feel that we should ok the lawful unions between people of legal age and with their consent. No matter their gender. I don't see anything wrong with calling it 'marriage' either, but that is up to the specific religion/church to decide if they want to bless it, and the lawmakers should stay out of that part of it. But I also don't see anything wrong with people who get a lawful union calling what they have together - marriage. It's all just a matter of semantics/perception and people not wanting to change the status quo out of fear. Clear as mud, eh? I think changing gender is a separate issue. And that this specific case is a out of the norm. I think it's very sweet. The wife can't have children because of uterine cancer/hysterectomy, so the husband went ahead and reversed his sex change (temporarily) in order to bear a child for them. In my mind, it doesn't change whether Thomas thinks of himself as male - after all, Dave said that he'd do it if he could, just because it's an experience I can (theoretically) have and he never can. And he's got no desire to be female. Legally, the birth certificate will list Thomas as the father and his wife as the mother, since Thomas is legally male in Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 9, 2008 12:03:35 GMT -5
Holy moly. I thought my life was complicated. To answer your last question. Thomas is the biological mother and legal father, and the sperm donor would be the biological father. The partner is the other mother. The legalities of the whole marriage thing I won't get into, except to say I feel that we should ok the lawful unions between people of legal age and with their consent. No matter their gender. I don't see anything wrong with calling it 'marriage' either, but that is up to the specific religion/church to decide if they want to bless it, and the lawmakers should stay out of that part of it. But I also don't see anything wrong with people who get a lawful union calling what they have together - marriage. It's all just a matter of semantics/perception and people not wanting to change the status quo out of fear. Clear as mud, eh? I think changing gender is a separate issue. And that this specific case is a out of the norm. My opinion on marriage: The legal marriage license recognized by the government should be separated from the religious wedding ceremony. Any two consenting adults should be able to marry, with all the rights, responsibilities and tax penalties already accorded to heterosexual couples, regardless of orientation. If they want a religious or civil ceremony in addition to the legal form, they can find a church that will perform one for them. Anne, wanted a civil ceremony, didn't quite turn out that way Which absolutely fits the description of separation of church and state. As for what you call it: even conservative churches who refuse to perform such a ceremony (and have a personal right (in their eyes a moral obligation) to so refuse) can't really control what other people call it. Even if they refer to it as a "civil union" you can't really dictate what Mr and Mr Jones say regarding themselves. I'm okay with that. Sadly, I'm certain (and NOT okay) with the secular bodies and the liberal churches being reverse-hateful regarding the beliefs of those who, in faith, cannot accept such a liason as "bless-ed" by God. [Yeah, I know plenty of the conservatives are hateful first---it's such a sad, never-ending circle. But you will never be able to legislate people's moral feelings/beliefs. I'd be satisfied if a large majority could simply adopt a "live and let live" attitude and be kind and civil under all circumstances. Oh yeah, and if the media would be sure to point to those who are non-hateful instead of only the sensationalistic bombasts on either side.]
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Apr 9, 2008 13:40:46 GMT -5
My opinion on marriage: The legal marriage license recognized by the government should be separated from the religious wedding ceremony. Any two consenting adults should be able to marry, with all the rights, responsibilities and tax penalties already accorded to heterosexual couples, regardless of orientation. If they want a religious or civil ceremony in addition to the legal form, they can find a church that will perform one for them. Anne, wanted a civil ceremony, didn't quite turn out that way Which absolutely fits the description of separation of church and state. As for what you call it: even conservative churches who refuse to perform such a ceremony (and have a personal right (in their eyes a moral obligation) to so refuse) can't really control what other people call it. Even if they refer to it as a "civil union" you can't really dictate what Mr and Mr Jones say regarding themselves. I'm okay with that. Sadly, I'm certain (and NOT okay) with the secular bodies and the liberal churches being reverse-hateful regarding the beliefs of those who, in faith, cannot accept such a liason as "bless-ed" by God. [Yeah, I know plenty of the conservatives are hateful first---it's such a sad, never-ending circle. But you will never be able to legislate people's moral feelings/beliefs. I'd be satisfied if a large majority could simply adopt a "live and let live" attitude and be kind and civil under all circumstances. Oh yeah, and if the media would be sure to point to those who are non-hateful instead of only the sensationalistic bombasts on either side.] That'd solve a whole load of problems right there.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 10, 2008 9:52:02 GMT -5
Which absolutely fits the description of separation of church and state. As for what you call it: even conservative churches who refuse to perform such a ceremony (and have a personal right (in their eyes a moral obligation) to so refuse) can't really control what other people call it. Even if they refer to it as a "civil union" you can't really dictate what Mr and Mr Jones say regarding themselves. I'm okay with that. Sadly, I'm certain (and NOT okay) with the secular bodies and the liberal churches being reverse-hateful regarding the beliefs of those who, in faith, cannot accept such a liason as "bless-ed" by God. [Yeah, I know plenty of the conservatives are hateful first---it's such a sad, never-ending circle. But you will never be able to legislate people's moral feelings/beliefs. I'd be satisfied if a large majority could simply adopt a "live and let live" attitude and be kind and civil under all circumstances. Oh yeah, and if the media would be sure to point to those who are non-hateful instead of only the sensationalistic bombasts on either side.] That'd solve a whole load of problems right there. *nods* But there's always a difficulty striking a balance between the individual and society. Think of the things that you find completely reprehensible which ones you'd be content to let other people do. And there's also the question of what exactly the purpose of the law is, because that is the root of conflict for a lot of legal issues.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Apr 11, 2008 16:01:17 GMT -5
That'd solve a whole load of problems right there. *nods* But there's always a difficulty striking a balance between the individual and society. Think of the things that you find completely reprehensible which ones you'd be content to let other people do. And there's also the question of what exactly the purpose of the law is, because that is the root of conflict for a lot of legal issues. I guess the list of "completely reprehensible but it's okay if you do it", for me, is anything that doesn't hurt someone else. In other words, go ahead and do it, but please don't do it to me.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 17, 2008 14:04:12 GMT -5
Ooh! Turns out that Obama is speaking at ECU this evening. I think I'm going to go. The Clintons were in town this past weekend, but I didn't really have any interest. On the other hand, I'm actually really excited to hear Obama speak, as a person, as well as a presidential candidate.
And I think I'm going to stick to my principles and not register for a party in order to vote in the primary, despite my interest. I was tempted though.
I'll post my impressions and such about the rally tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 18, 2008 8:52:17 GMT -5
Ooh, turns out that there are people to vote for in the primary afterall, despite being unaffiliated. Must read up on them though, because I have no idea who they are.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 18, 2008 9:21:17 GMT -5
Rally last night was fun, though I would never travel a great distance or wait in line a long time to attend one of these things, unless it was for some one very special. I've never been to a political rally before, so I don't know how this one compares, but the crowd screamed and cheered pretty much like they were at a sporting event or rock concert.
And there was a lot of introductions that went on forever, preaching to the choir, and go, democrats, go stuff. There was an "invocation," which was really more like a prayer, and I really didn't like that that was included. The Congressional Representatives spoke for a little while in the beginning, but there was no hint as to who exactly is pouring all this money into developing Greenville.
I enjoyed watching the crowd dynamics and the Sign Language lady while we were waiting for Obama to speak.
His speech was pretty much hitting on all the issues and key points of his campaign, so I won't repeat them. The one thing I really liked was his college tuition credit in exchange for a certain amount of community service; I really hope that gets realized in one way or another.
All in all, I agreed with pretty much everything that Obama said, but of course the real question is whether, if elected, he can really do what he promises to do. Even with the best of intentions, politicians often falter or are blocked from carrying out their campaign promises. For example, he mentioned the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists on politics and government and how they block real progress on issues like energy dependence and healthcare, which I think is at least partially true. He promises to ignore (I think? Or at least limit exposure to?) them, but when you've got lots of people shouting in your face, it's really hard not to react to and be influenced by them.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 18, 2008 15:41:13 GMT -5
Rally last night was fun, though I would never travel a great distance or wait in line a long time to attend one of these things, unless it was for some one very special. I've never been to a political rally before, so I don't know how this one compares, but the crowd screamed and cheered pretty much like they were at a sporting event or rock concert. And there was a lot of introductions that went on forever, preaching to the choir, and go, democrats, go stuff. There was an "invocation," which was really more like a prayer, and I really didn't like that that was included. The Congressional Representatives spoke for a little while in the beginning, but there was no hint as to who exactly is pouring all this money into developing Greenville. I enjoyed watching the crowd dynamics and the Sign Language lady while we were waiting for Obama to speak. His speech was pretty much hitting on all the issues and key points of his campaign, so I won't repeat them. The one thing I really liked was his college tuition credit in exchange for a certain amount of community service; I really hope that gets realized in one way or another. All in all, I agreed with pretty much everything that Obama said, but of course the real question is whether, if elected, he can really do what he promises to do. Even with the best of intentions, politicians often falter or are blocked from carrying out their campaign promises. For example, he mentioned the influence of special interest groups and lobbyists on politics and government and how they block real progress on issues like energy dependence and healthcare, which I think is at least partially true. He promises to ignore (I think? Or at least limit exposure to?) them, but when you've got lots of people shouting in your face, it's really hard not to react to and be influenced by them. Thanks for the report, Liz.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 18, 2008 15:42:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 27, 2008 20:29:42 GMT -5
Did anyone see Rev. Jeremiah Wright's interview with Bill Moyers on PBS on Friday night?
Currently CNN is rebroadcasting the speech he made today in Detroit to the NAACP.
I am enjoying it greatly. Personally, I like the flamboyant style of some African American preachers.
And he is not (at least thus far) coming off as any kind of weirdo.
I hope I can find a transcript tomorrow to read through the whole thing, but I'm guessing it will be MUCH flatter on paper than it is in person.
|
|