Sunday, July 13, 2008

Happy Sunday

Do you remember when having long hair was a more or less clear symbol that you were a member of the counterculture?

Wow, those days are long gone, aren't they? Watch as some dude who could pass for a young Ozzy Osbourne interrupts (mid-sermon) an openly gay Anglican bishop who could pass for an old Ozzie Nelson.

What's with kids today, anyhow?

Oh, and by the way: if I live to be a thousand, I will never understand why anyone gives a shit what anyone else does in the privacy of their own bedroom. Alas, we humans are a petty lot.


Jill-o said...

You know my thoughts on this, of course. (For those of you who don't: I'm a straight person who helps fight for gay rights.)

But, my uptight acquaintances tell me that they're not particularly concerned with what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, it's the fact that gay people are (*GASP*) being affectionate (*my eyes bleed from all this hand-holding!*) in public places. They don't want to see it or be exposed to it, because then their kids might think it's normal and OK.

The children! We must think for^H^H^H of the children!

Maria's Music said...

In a democracy (albeit an idealistic one, though I don't believe this ruins the logic) the government represents the predominant beliefs of the whole. Therefor, government recognition of something would represent the majority of America recognizing that thing. Government recognition of gay marriage would represent the majority recognizing (and consequently condoning) gay marriage, which as we saw in California (a progressive state if there ever was one) simply is not the case (currently, at least).

To that end it does not seem right that the government recognize (or condone) gay marriage.

At a time in history the government fought to punish and correct what it thought (the majority thought) to be sexual deviancy (contraception, homosexuality, etc.). That is simply no longer the case. So at least in terms of government recognition we do not care what happens in private bedrooms.

Andrew Durkin... said...

I guess I'm just with John Stuart Mill on the question of individual liberty -- if something someone else is doing is not harming me directly, why should I care? If it doesn't interfere with my life, why should I care?

I know the challenge may be in defining "interfere" -- but once you start going down that road, where do you stop? Maybe I happen to hate the color green. I look out the window and that's all I see. So do I outlaw trees? (Or interrupt them while they're giving a sermon?)