“My gay marriage” could have been titled “My fuzzy thinking”

March 20th, 2006

In her Milwaukee Journal Sentinel opinion piece, discount cialis stuff Amanda Seligman said:

“I gave serious thought to not getting legally married, sick even though I knew that my fianc?© was the person I wanted to grow old with. I did not want to participate in an institution that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Seriously?

Did Amanda refuse to have a child because some people are infertile? (Apparently not, viagra because she mentioned a newborn.)

Does she refuse to eat, because people are starving in India?

Does she refuse to leave her home because there are people wrongly imprisoned?

Being committed to a cause is laudable.

Getting so crazy about it that you could actually be committed is not.

Entry Filed under: Media,Milwaukee,Observations

5 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Max Power  |  March 20th, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    Wow, not one of your analogies was appropriate or anywhere near the point she was trying to make. While her point was certainly way out there, it was logical nonetheless. Your retort, however, did not seem to understand her logic.

    You’re so deep in the forest you can’t see the trees.

  • 2. Administrator  |  March 20th, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    I see your point.

    But I’m not completely off base. My position is that she considered denying herself something she could have, because other people couldn’t have it. Thus, my examples.

    But if you’d like me to address the specific stance of not participating in an institution or system that is discriminatory…

    How about not driving because illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to get licenses?

    (By the way, I’ll be voting against Wisconsin’s Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment.)

  • 3. Administrator  |  March 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    Love the name. Does Homer know you’re using it? ;)

  • 4. Max Power  |  March 21st, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    I’m glad to hear you are against the proposal. I just prefer a reasoned debate and your post came across as knee-jerk and simplifying (though it was likely unintentional). But again, to be fair, the original example was also a bit over the top.

    The example in your comment is closer, but it is still comparing an institution that discriminates against people for who they are (and they would argue had no choice over) whereas an illegal immigrant actively chose to come to America illegally as opposed to being born an illegal immigrant – which is not possible. In all honesty, I’ve yet to see any analogy that works to my satisfaction.

    Your other analogies: people are born starving, but that is not an institution of eating that imposes starvation on certain people. Being infertile is not a conscious decision by an instution (like a church deciding to not recognize gay marriage). And finally, refusing to leave one’s house is not the equivalent of being in jail nor does it account for the difference between actively excluding people versus accidentally including people.

    As for my name, I got the idea from a hair dryer, and I have no idea who Homer Simpson is.

  • 5. Melinda Omdahl  |  March 21st, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    LOL Max. I can see you now in front of your mirror…

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta