7 months ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
وبلاگهای فارسی
-
-
7 months ago
-
5 years ago
-
5 years ago
-
5 years ago
-
6 years ago
-
6 years ago
-
7 years ago
-
11 years ago
-
11 years ago
-
11 years ago
-
13 years ago
-
13 years ago
-
15 years ago
-
15 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Blogs I See
-
4 years ago
-
7 years ago
-
10 years ago
-
13 years ago
-
14 years ago
-
15 years ago
-
-
7 comments:
My husband and I went to sign up for a gym a couple years ago. The form said: " the monthly fee for a couple (a man and a woman) is $69.99!"
They actually defined the word "couple" for everyone!
This (slogan) is a bit simplistic, as the subject of voting is "social rights" that come with marriage definition. I am not arguing against social rights for same sex couples, but I can see that it is a social issue that needs social acceptance ...
Could you elaborate more, Cuckoo?
What do you mean by "it is a social issue that needs social acceptance"? How this "social issue" is different from biracial marriages, back in the days?
the "rights" that go to a couple in a traditional marriage are a product of our social and judicial system: a society decides on these rights, hence voting.
we may call some "rights" human rights, or such, to make them trivial, but they are products of our society. there is nothing natural about human rights, they are all our conventions/inventions.
At a deeper level, even though "laws" and "social norms" interact and shape each other, but I think social norms are more fundamental. when you see a society does not accept some same-sex rights, it is likely because of the value system of people in that society and not necessarily the laws and regulations ... so same-sex couples, in reality, have to convince a majority to agree to see them as equal, etc. i do not see any way around it
i guess what i am saying is too trivial?
Hmmm...
Well; It seems a little bit difficult to expect everybody in the society to accept new things and currents immediately.
Just look at the normal rights we have today; they have been once big tabous and many people have lost their lives for them...
This is not a matter of "rights", but "equality". The thing that "majority" in California are saying is that, gay people's emotional relationships are not equal to theirs/others'. On the other hand and in the deeper level, I don't think rights are a matter of 'majority's decision'. Again, I refer to the South in the time of segregation: majority didn't want Blacks to drink from the same fountain as whites. If you'd put it to election a hundred times, it would've never changed.
Society as a whole, is a very sluggish being. It fights change to no end. But new findings, sometimes, drastically contradicts the beliefs of it. In those cases, going down the rout of democracy is gonna serve backwardness and ultimately to hurt the people.
If you were in California in the time of campaigns, you'd see how deceptive were the ads which "Yes On 8" people played on TV. The whole thing was not about making the right decision. It was about protecting a point of view, to any cost, so it would not cascade to the whole country and scrutinize the very foundations on which this freakin' churches stand on.
I agree with you both that societies move slowly, and a lot of people sacrifice to make a movement faster, but ultimately people have to change ...
Post a Comment