Irony. Hypocrisy. and Debate.

[permetaform]

So apparently there's much a-buzz about a certain It in Austin, TX these past few days. (as pointed out by notapipe) Long story short?

Wife of Republican governor (of TX) supposedly leaving him soon.

Supposed Reason: "...his extramarital excursions of the male variety." (quoted from here)

Yes, you've read that right. (There's much relevant linkage here, here, and here.)

The other guy, supposedly?

Apparently it's the Secretary of State.

::twitch:: dudeonastick I don't think I can make this up if I tried.

oh. aheh. ::hides the polislash:: ahem. you know what I mean...

And it's not even the fact that the intimation of a relationship makes me cackle with glee of a very current_affairs and LexLuthorInOffice sort of way. It's not even the fact that this is hypocrisy right in the face of it all and etc. etc.

'Cause right now I'm kinda torn between the "don't bash the gay!" with the "you spineless, powergrubbing asswipe." ('cause Republican Gov. from Texas who signed certain 'marriage' related bills? yes.)

I kinda just pity him, if it's true, because the dude signed the TX defense of marriage act and there's pretty much near no place he can go to get support now. The right-wingers hate his guts, the liberals hate his guts, and everyone else is screaming "hypocrite!" The poor schmuck. Kinda makes you want to tar and feather him, eh?

[]

And a semi-related touch on the topic of wayfairer's rant on the slasher who was against gay marriage...

::twitchy::

okay, I'm just kinda gonna put my neck out there an mention that even though the stance seems awful strange, perhaps it's not *entirely* off-the-wall?

I mean, one could read non-con, and not support it right?

*Granted*, rape hurts other people, whereas the argument goes that homosexuality involves two concenting adults and thus hurts no one.

However, the view *exists* that gay marriage will hurt other people, too, and no matter how illogical that view may seem, it is held and believed in and I'm not sure a rant will entirely *work* (although the prescence of a rant makes *me* feel better).

An example perhaps:

Many of the asians in my aquaintance are familiar with the practice of assigning kids problem sets of math and grammar as soon as it the concepts could be pounded into their little heads; afterschool tutoring, for as much as could be handled, piano lessons down the throat and violin lessons if you can manage.

It's a method of developing mental discipline, you might say, and I've come across people who were *horrified* at the concept, who've said that it is *detrimental* to the kids (that it *hurts* the kids) and that they've never met a happy asian family.

And yet *I'm* still probably gonna do the same for my kids, because *I* believe that the early training has helped my mind develop and that *I* believe that it does no harm.

::shrugs:: Now, I know the example may not be the best, and the parallels are weak but. My point is, it's all subjective, no?

And, yes perhaps it's true that guardian_writer was out of line in stating her opinion, I haven't had a chance to read her exact words, and I'm not quite sure how much she was aware that her words were a direct slap in the face to possibly a significant percentage of her friendslist, but I'm glad that she made her opinion known.

Stunned at the tactlessness and absurdity and hypocrisy of it, but glad nevertheless.

It's in the same way that I'm glad for wayfairer's rant, even though I kinda feel that the rant might not entirely get through, on an argumentative basis, because of how automatically defensive the person to whom it is addressed might get. As a stump speech, it is marvelous, it is wonderful for rallying the troops and making one feel justified and happy on our moral high ground.

As a persuasive argument however, it...might not get heard, if y'know what I mean. I kinda feel that it might fall short of it's goal of persuasion, since no ground was given, no leeway, no mercy.

I'm not sure which Book of War (Sun Tsu or Machiavelli or ?) it is where it state to never corner an enemy; do so and they'll have no retreat. Do so and they'll have nothing to lose, and can you say flame war? yes.

::wry smile:: In any case, voila! Welcome to the rammifications of free speech!

'Cause really?

Free speech means that I have a responsibility to be offended, sometimes on a daily basis, and not to 'strike' back but rather to carefully 'engage'.

Free speech (in it's plural form, in society, in context) not only means to be able to rant at will in one's own corner of the 'net or the world or whereever one might be, but to be challenged in the speaking.

And in some way...In some way it's better, ne?, to be challenged in the speaking. It's veritable proof that you (as a person, as an entity, as an experience, as a group of thoughts, as a bunch of ideas) are not only not alone, but that you are unique.

Or at least that's how I view it.

[]

In sight of the previous rant on free speech, may I extend hugs to calichan, ladyjaida, fabu, stephdray, carmarthen, marquesate, lasergirl69, cawti, franzeska, d_r_o_n_e, and every which one of you that've ever willingly [or not? ::wink::] discussed a topic on which we've disagreed. I'm a brat sometimes when I argue (and I try to watch that though I sometimes don't succeed) and please know that I always enjoy the different opinions and viewpoints presented because ya'll are so refreshingly diverse.

[]

...::blinkies:: y'know. I wonder how much my frustration/bratty-ness comes through in my writing.

...

::blush::

erm. aheh.

Let's just say that the 'delete' key? It's a blessing.

Then again, I'm firmly of the 'bite your tongue if you can't say it nicely' philosophy (in its "nice=precise=effective" definition). So.

[]

Along perhaps similar topics, an old censorship post by przed, and a post rejecting the use of the "semicolon" argument to impede conservative protestors by theferrett (pointed out by wayfairer).

The last in particular I like and find telling. My personal reactions occur something along the lines of "Well, it's about *time* that someone 'cheated' for civil rights!" and being vaguely guilty at that thought because you don't *stoop* to your opponent's level and THEN being appalled because, dude, that's so gryffindor and you can't get nowhere if you don't have at *least* as effective tactics as the opposition.

::sporfle:: welcome to my brain.

Comments

[evyg.livejournal.com]

call me crazy, but i see a clear distinction between being gay/bisexual and advocating same-sex marriage. if you choose to ignore the aspect of personal freedom/freedom of choice and all that, the phenomenon of same-sex marriage can still be deemed "harmful" to society and economics and what have you. marriage, as a historical phenomenon, is a sacred union sanctioned by the church, in order to ensure the breeding, upbringing and financing of future citizens, so that they won't be a liability to the state.

allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women, is not within the church's best interest (but as church and state are now separate, that wouldn't really pose an issue), but neither within the state's. the only compelling REASON same-sex marriages should be allowed is the highly personal statement that "everyone should be allowed to love who they want", and as obvious as this may seem to most of us, it is not something that can be formulated and argued in legal terms (also, you ARE allowed to love whomever you want, and even live with whomever you want; it's just the technical term "marriage" and its traditional and financial advantages that are out of your reach).

there are no real advantages to the state in allowing same-sex marriages, other than perhaps a somewhat higher percentage of happy citizens, which honestly isn't that big a concern when you have money tipping the scale. it can be argued that a gay couple doesn't breed, thus negating the whole "point" of marriage as an institution.

and i'm not saying that these aren't outdated views from the angle of our newer society, or that i'm against same-sex marriage (in fact i am very much for), but as we push further and further towards individualism and liberalism, we have to keep in mind the aspects that make up society: what's best for you isn't always best for the group, and vice versa.

...also, isn't the question of same-sex marriage mainly (if not purely) a Christian debate? considering we have religious freedom in most western countries, it's kind of an interesting log to throw onto the fire.

Re:

[permetaform]

very true, also I've gotta raise my eyebrow at this:

the only compelling REASON same-sex marriages should be allowed is the highly personal statement that "everyone should be allowed to love who they want"

because it's gotten to be more on a civil rights issue as well, were the financial advantages aren't there. True, the financial advantages are there *because* a breeding couple is advantageous to the state. However, that would therefore pretty much negate anybody who's barren or sterile and couples who choose to remain childless. ::shrugs::

but as we push further and further towards individualism and liberalism, we have to keep in mind the aspects that make up society: what's best for you isn't always best for the group, and vice versa.

ooo, also a good argument. I was going more for the 'different perspectives' angle than not, though that statement will get you into the quagmire of the "What's best for the country" debate (which, actually, I think our democratic candidates are duking out right at this moment ::snicker:: poor fellows, America is a tough crowd, to say the least).

isn't the question of same-sex marriage mainly (if not purely) a Christian debate?

Well, there's the matter of civil rights, really, with the differentiation of that and 'marriage' and the "Separate is NOT equal" argument that's paralleled in Brown vs. Board of Education (ie. the segregation of blacks and whites in the school system)

Re:

[evyg.livejournal.com]

"what's best for the country" is a very interesting way of putting things: it's the same quagmire as "society being entirely made up by individuals and should therefore cater to the individual's interests/needs, but what's best for the individual/s isn't always best for the society as a whole" - only on a larger scale, as this involves the country as an outwards representative as well.

Re:

[permetaform]

yeah; a brain-teaser of magnificently spastic porportions...::snerk:: and considering which, I'm sometimes remarkably pleased that it's all managed to hold up as well as it has.