Monthly Archives: November 2011
Is marriage actually a right?
I started thinking about this the other day when I saw this picture on another blog.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. I understand that we want equality. That we don’t want certain people to be able to do things and ban other people from doing them. That’s discrimination.
However, where is marriage mentioned as a right in our constitution or bill of rights…or anywhere in our law in fact? Or is there some legal precedent that was set at some point that made marriage a de facto right of some sort?
I’m just a little confused.
I’m going to leave this up to my readers. Tell me why you think that marriage is (or is not) a right. I’m more than a little bit interested in your opinions on this topic.
So the other day a friend of mine posted the following insightful comment on facebook:
Why is everyone so upset about candidates trying to do away with the Department of Education?
It was an intelligent comment as it is a worthless federal department. But it strangely got this response:
maybe because that’s what Bachmann supports and so the perfectly reasonable [sic] people in this country know immediately it’s a bad idea…
Now I’ll grant that this second comment came from someone who has always struck me as having the I.Q. of turnip, but it does seem that this a widely held belief that Bachmann is a moron. But what is this based on? (Besides the fact that there is misogynistic hatred of women in this country which I have already talked about at length.)Well we have two odd pop culture gaffes. The kind of flubs we all make where we reach for one name and our brain pulls out another, or where we associate one place with something entirely unrelated. These flubs had nothing to do with policy and in fact any person who talks all day without a script probably makes a dozen of these a day (or if you’re Obama you just stand there going uh, uh, uh, until someone brings the teleprompter out).
I am getting tired of people comparing the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street. Now I am not fully in support of the Tea Party, while I like what they stand for they need to prove to me that they can last beyond a single election…at that point I will whole heartedly say I am a Tea Party member (also assuming it stays solely focused on economics and ignores social issues). And the Tea Party hates the fact that the government gave bailouts to banks because it was a bad economic move…Occupy Wall Street hates that banks took the money (not so much with the government giving money)…but this is really the only place where the two movements kinda sorta touch…as an example of a Venn Diagram these two movements are a poor case. The Tea Party is asking for government to get out of the economy, the Occupy idiots are asking for the government to take charge.
Occupy Wall Street = Nothing like the Tea Party. There, now can we move on from making these comparisons CNN and MSNBC?
So this stupid ad campaign for a clothing company I’ve never heard of has world leaders who by all rights should be at each other’s throats (because in almost all of them there is at least one person who makes the Who’s Who of World Most Evil Tyrants). The stupid statement on all of these is the non-word “Unhate.” Not anything as usual as maybe “Depose tyrants” or “Stand up to evil” or maybe even “Evil must be opposed”…no Unhate. That’s right you should be deeply offended and disgusted by the numerous crimes against humanity that this lot has racked up—it’s wrong to not have revulsion at the sight of butchers like Mahmoud Abbas, Hu Jintao, Kim Jung Il, Hugo Chavez and the like.
There was this anime that I watched years ago, it was called Vandread and the set up (in general) is that men and women live on separate planets, they are bitter enemies, and can’t stand one another. You might wonder how generation after generation of this could occur, considering you sort of need a man and a woman to procreate.
Well it’s science fiction, so who cares about that. Both planets have found ways around this little procreation problem. Through genetic manipulation two women can contribute genetic information and artificially inseminate one of the partners in the relationship. In the same vein, two men could contribute genetic information and grow a child in a ‘factory’ of sorts.
Like I said, it’s science fiction. Interesting premise, but you can’t actually do that can you?
Actually you would be wrong…apparently.
I’m as surprised as you are, trust me.
I should really keep up with science news more than I do, because these articles I’m sharing aren’t exactly new. I apologize.
The breakthrough paves the way for lesbian couples to have children that are biologically their own.
Gay men could follow suit by using the technique to make eggs from male bone marrow.
But critics warn that it sidelines men and raises the prospect of babies being born through entirely artificial means.
The research centres around stem cells – the body’s “mother” cells, which can turn into any other type of cell.
According to New Scientist magazine, the scientists want to take stem cells from a woman donor’s bone marrow and transform them into sperm through the use of special chemicals and vitamins.
Newcastle professor Karim Nayernia has applied for permission to carry out the work and is ready to start the experiments within two months.
Of course this isn’t just a breakthrough for lesbians hoping to have children of both their genetic types, or simply a hope that gay men will be able to do the same in the future, but also a hope for couples where one of the couple is infertile.
It’s a big step forward.
I love science ^_^
And in opposition