Thursday, June 19, 2014

This week

1) More Anti-American rants-  There was a news article this week discussing Argentina owing American investors.  In the comments (this was the Canadian version) people were quick to point out how many trillions the US owed.  The irony was not lost on me so I pointed out that Canada also owes.  1.2 trillion to be exact.  There are very few countries that run in the black.

2) Breasts- There's been two discussions across Catholic bloggers this week a) about a woman who was shamed over Facebook and b) a fellow blogger describing how she feels about top-down breastfeeding.  Without hashing it out again, I asked someone whose opinion about breastfeeding I value what she thought.  As she pointed out, it's all about intention.  It's actually rare that breastfeeding is used to be sexual.  And while boobs are sexy (so are feet, necks, hands, lips) that isn't their primary function.  So let's cut people some slack.  It's just lumps of fat with mammary glands.  I see that all the time in my kids' books when looking at apes.  But nobody says "oh, no!  Cover the ape nipples."

Oh don't look now!  Breasts!  taken by Chris Phutully

3) Gender- During a facebook discussion, I was told how ignorant I was about gender.  Apparently gender is fluid.  You can be whatever you feel.  Except in this case a mayor in Canada altered a child's birth certificate.  The certificate now states that the child was actually born male instead of the reality which was she was born a girl.  This was followed by a news report that says a school district in Canada will now force its teachers to use "gender-less" pronouns.  There are no gender-less pronouns in English or French (especially French which assigns gender to objects).  They've decided to come up with their own. 

I contemplated a whole post where I wrote about how although I have blue eyes I feel that they are violet.  And how I should petition the US govt to change my passport to reflect that.  Because you know identifiers are now fluid.  But I didn't.  I felt that would make too many minds explode.

4) Gay Marriage- If you didn't know there's a March going on for Marriage. Someone mentioned the explosion about it on twitter so I went to take a peek.  A couple hours later I forced myself to let it go.  Apparently people can't handle the Socratic method.  Thinking and answering questions is just too much.  They must be right and I, in the words of a tweet, am "uneducated trash."  I also am "illegally" tramping on someone's "rights."  I didn't realize that free speech, free assembly, and so forth were "illegal." 

But maybe you can answer my questions.  What makes marriage unique?  And what interest does the government have in regulating marriage?  Seems simple enough, yes?

The responses were: Marriage is about two loving consenting adults.  But then why aren't girl friend/boy friend relationships recognized by the government? 

And my favorite "Because I pay them to" so you need the government to validate your relationship?  I thought gay people and some heterosexual people didn't care about things like that.  They already know about their relationship.  And in this context because it gave "emotional and financial stability" among other things which I pointed out were already legal.  To me that's grounds for shakiness.  If you aren't emotionally and financially stable (and I don't mean temporarily having problems) than there's already something wrong with the relationship.  Marriage isn't a band aid.  Just ask divorced couples.

No, it's simple.  The government recognizes marriage because of children.  Before dna testing, children were legitimized and whatnot because of their parent's legal marriage.  If you were illegitimate you weren't afforded the same rights to inheritance etc.  While government recognizes both now, it still recognizes the need for stability and the rights of a child to his/her natural parents.  That's why in most divorce cases, parents are given joint custody of children.  Gay people can't have children without a third party.  It's creating a child without the legal right to one natural parent.  And states are starting to see that children have a right to natural parents or we wouldn't have these child support cases brought on sperm donors. 

Otherwise it's not in the state's interest in giving tax breaks or investing in recognizing every romantic relationship.  These are all done for the interest of children.

Someone asked about hetero couples who go into marriage not wanting children.  "You know they are valid."  Actually no, I don't consider them valid.  Marriage is an agreement to beget and raise children.  That's what makes it unique to every other relationship.  Not to say that sometimes the begetting doesn't happen but it's the intent to.  Just like the government recognizes business partnerships meant to make money.  They don't always do.  "But that sounds so cold"  Yes, the government has no real reason to recognize romantic relationships.  "Marriage is about love and attraction."  No, it's not.  You just slammed generations of marriages that were arranged.  It would be nice to have love, but again it's not in the government's interest.  How would it test for love anyway?  Hormones? Lie detector? 

"What about those who know they can't?"  Again it's the intent.  If you're 80, you may not expect to have children, but stranger things have happened.  I personally see no reason to remarry if I'm in that boat.  I wouldn't want to give birth to a child at 80, but some people may welcome that.

Here's to hoping that your week is less illogical than mine.

1 comment:

  1. Re your #2: yep, yep, and yep. One of my favorite phrases about modesty is that modesty is situational. One wouldn't wear a swimsuit (so not getting into the "can I wear a bikini" debate, so I'm just saying "swimsuit" :p ) to Mass or to a formal ball, but it's perfectly appropriate on the beach, just like a formal ballgown isn't really appropriate for grocery shopping. I'd feel a bit uncomfortable if a random topless woman walked past me, but I couldn't care less if she's breastfeeding in my living room and, for that matter, in front of my husband, sans blanket or similar cover. Intent, thankyouverymuch. Same thing goes, as far as I'm concerned, for breastfeeding at Mass. To paraphrase our Pope: if the kid's hungry, feed him!

    At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable, either, for some women to prefer to breastfeed in private. I don't care if someone nurses her baby in front of my husband, but I, for some reason, am not comfortable doing so in front of men other than my husband. I admit it's odd, but that's how I feel about it. *shrug*


I love to read your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!