A Weird World
Had a ball guest hosting on KABC. Even so, the program reinforced the fact that there are a number of people out there with ideas that are, to put it kindly, pernicious.
We started with Jesse Diaz -- organizer of today's march in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants -- a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of California-Riverside, and a "Minority Fellow in Criminology and Race & Class Inequality" (funded by the American Sociological Association). Diaz asserted that illegals have a right to "demand" US citizenship on the grounds that American oppression is responsible for Mexico's economic exigencies. Perhaps it's not surprising that he likewise believes that California actually belongs to Mexico . . . On the air, he used the "n" word and a four letter word (s--t), both caught, thankfully, by an alert producer. Even so, tells you a little bit about the quality of discourse favored in academia and by the American Sociological Association.
Next was supposed to be Dolores Huerta of the United Farm Workers -- it would have been interesting to hear her explain why union bosses are in favor of amnesty for illegals, given that illegal immigrant labor lowers wages for unionized workers. Would she have admitted, as Say Anything points out, that unions want to "negotiate legal status for illegal immigrants" so that "they can set about organizing thm for the collection of the dues that keep organizations like the AFL-CIO flush with cash"? We'll never know, because Huerta was as hard to find as . . . as a union boss at a Republican campaign rally. Hmmm.
Finally, Janet Lessin, President of the World Polyamory Association came on to discuss "alternative" forms of marriage in the wake of the arrest of polygamist Warren Jeffs last week. It's a hard topic to handle without being too theoretical on the one hand, or too salacious, on the other. Ultimately, Lessin had no real answer for the objection that polyamory may be fine for the adults who "choose" it -- but for children, it's significantly less beneficial than the traditional nuclear family. Lessin also declined in theory to "judge" me if I decided to marry both my brothers and my dog; ultimately, she argued that legally-recognized adult relationships should be based exclusively on "love" and admitted that there was no principled distinction between the arguments for gay marriage and for the legal recognition of the polyamorous relationships that she seeks. Hey, didn't Rick Santorum get in trouble for saying basically the same thing?
We started with Jesse Diaz -- organizer of today's march in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants -- a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of California-Riverside, and a "Minority Fellow in Criminology and Race & Class Inequality" (funded by the American Sociological Association). Diaz asserted that illegals have a right to "demand" US citizenship on the grounds that American oppression is responsible for Mexico's economic exigencies. Perhaps it's not surprising that he likewise believes that California actually belongs to Mexico . . . On the air, he used the "n" word and a four letter word (s--t), both caught, thankfully, by an alert producer. Even so, tells you a little bit about the quality of discourse favored in academia and by the American Sociological Association.
Next was supposed to be Dolores Huerta of the United Farm Workers -- it would have been interesting to hear her explain why union bosses are in favor of amnesty for illegals, given that illegal immigrant labor lowers wages for unionized workers. Would she have admitted, as Say Anything points out, that unions want to "negotiate legal status for illegal immigrants" so that "they can set about organizing thm for the collection of the dues that keep organizations like the AFL-CIO flush with cash"? We'll never know, because Huerta was as hard to find as . . . as a union boss at a Republican campaign rally. Hmmm.
Finally, Janet Lessin, President of the World Polyamory Association came on to discuss "alternative" forms of marriage in the wake of the arrest of polygamist Warren Jeffs last week. It's a hard topic to handle without being too theoretical on the one hand, or too salacious, on the other. Ultimately, Lessin had no real answer for the objection that polyamory may be fine for the adults who "choose" it -- but for children, it's significantly less beneficial than the traditional nuclear family. Lessin also declined in theory to "judge" me if I decided to marry both my brothers and my dog; ultimately, she argued that legally-recognized adult relationships should be based exclusively on "love" and admitted that there was no principled distinction between the arguments for gay marriage and for the legal recognition of the polyamorous relationships that she seeks. Hey, didn't Rick Santorum get in trouble for saying basically the same thing?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:12 PM
2 Comments:
American oppression is responsible for Mexico's economic exigencies
Did Sr. Diaz explain the nature and means of said oppression? I'm guessing--I don't get KABC on the other coast, naturally--that he just put it out there as a given that "everyone knows".
LAG,
If you're speaking of adults only, where would there be a breach of trust in an incestuous marriage? Leaving kids out of the equation, there is no arrangement I can think of for which the arguments for gay marriage won't apply. So the question is always, which arrangement ISN'T worthy of license and which is? If we allow for one, mustn't we allow for all?
I think the ramifications aren't even imagined yet. Let the Netherlands risk it all first. We can observe.
I, too, have engaged in fantasy regarding multiple wives. But like yourself, the reality is a different story. Hey, just one naggin' me is tough. I couldn't handle any more. And I love this one. But again, have we even thought of all the possible legal issues involved with such arrangements. Not yet I think. Also, if we were to extend our current feelings about marriage to more than one wife/spouse, there would seem to be a greater need for one supreme leader or head of the household with more and more spouses involved. Despotism in the home would seem likely.
I think the gay community would not want to dispense with the term "marriage" as it is what they are really after---to be regarded the same as heteros. To use different terminology would defeat that goal. But, I also feel, and we see signs of it now, that indeed religious institutions would be pressured, if not outright required, to at some point ignore their beliefs on behalf of the gay agenda.
Though it's true that it would be hard to predict how children would fare in a polyamorous household, I think it's terribly bad form to even gamble on such things. We constantly hear that "studies show" that kids fare best in traditional Mom/Dad households, but I think common sense should be sufficient to understand that point. Now, it seems to me that there are those that are trying to convince themselves otherwise in order to further their own desires for marriage rights.
Post a Comment
<< Home