Sunday Editorial on Editorials

There have been a lot of words flying around lately about Maine’s upcoming equal marriage rights law. The editorial pages of the Kennebec Journal contained some views on the subject this Sunday.

The first is from a person I would assume to be an avid Catholic – as apposed to me who is an extremely lapsed Catholic. I don’t even make it to church on Christmas. The writer has solved the gay marriage problem for everyone. They look to the Bible. Frankly I’m surprised no one thought of that before. The Bible quite clearly states “Let no man lay with another.” Thank you for pointing that out Beverly. No one had thought of using that argument before. Do you know why they wrote that in the Bible? That little gem was included to encourage men and women to marry Catholic then have babies and baptize them in the Church, thus furthering the Church’s following. Even though God may have had an influence on the Bible, a man’s hand put in on paper and men are imperfect.

The writer goes on to state that she believes gay men has a very challenging life. I am not gay so I don’t presume to know how difficult life is for someone who is. Beverly being neither a man nor, I assume, homosexual cannot properly judge either. It isn’t so much her deeming a gay life a challenging one, but what she says makes it challenging really irks me. According to Beverly a gay man has only to paths in life: to remain celibate or get married and “procreate only when you want have children”. That’s it. There is black and there is white. There is the Catholic way, which Beverly says, “makes husbands and wives respect each other”. If my wife had not still been asleep I would have laughed a good long belly laugh. Beverly must have never read Brideshead Revisited.

There have been plenty of unhappy, sexless Catholic marriages between two heterosexual couples that “procreate” only to have children. I wont even get into all those priest who were supposed to be celibate and well you know the rest. A gay man could never be happy without kids. Everyone wants children. And of course gay couples can’t adopt a child who is in need either. Then, I’m assuming that gay men should even be allowed to be couples. What kind of world are we living in?!

This just highlights the hard road Maine’s equal marriage rights bill has ahead. You see Maine allows citizens to write a people’s veto of any recently passed bill. Surely this bill will face that, as have others in the past. This bill is something the others weren’t. Marriage is not trying to be redefined here. Marriage will be marriage and civil unions will be civil unions. Those entering civil unions will receive the same legal benefits as married couples. This will take a big bite out of the religious argument that marriage should be kept separate. Support this bill however and whenever you can!

Advertisements

Sunday Editorial on Editorials

There have been a lot of words flying around lately about Maine’s upcoming equal marriage rights law. The editorial pages of the Kennebec Journal contained some views on the subject this Sunday.

The first is from a person I would assume to be an avid Catholic – as apposed to me who is an extremely lapsed Catholic. I don’t even make it to church on Christmas. The writer has solved the gay marriage problem for everyone. They look to the Bible. Frankly I’m surprised no one thought of that before. The Bible quite clearly states “Let no man lay with another.” Thank you for pointing that out Beverly. No one had thought of using that argument before. Do you know why they wrote that in the Bible? That little gem was included to encourage men and women to marry Catholic then have babies and baptize them in the Church, thus furthering the Church’s following. Even though God may have had an influence on the Bible, a man’s hand put in on paper and men are imperfect.

The writer goes on to state that she believes gay men has a very challenging life. I am not gay so I don’t presume to know how difficult life is for someone who is. Beverly being neither a man nor, I assume, homosexual cannot properly judge either. It isn’t so much her deeming a gay life a challenging one, but what she says makes it challenging really irks me. According to Beverly a gay man has only to paths in life: to remain celibate or get married and “procreate only when you want have children”. That’s it. There is black and there is white. There is the Catholic way, which Beverly says, “makes husbands and wives respect each other”. If my wife had not still been asleep I would have laughed a good long belly laugh. Beverly must have never read Brideshead Revisited.

There have been plenty of unhappy, sexless Catholic marriages between two heterosexual couples that “procreate” only to have children. I wont even get into all those priest who were supposed to be celibate and well you know the rest. A gay man could never be happy without kids. Everyone wants children. And of course gay couples can’t adopt a child who is in need either. Then, I’m assuming that gay men should even be allowed to be couples. What kind of world are we living in?!

This just highlights the hard road Maine’s equal marriage rights bill has ahead. You see Maine allows citizens to write a people’s veto of any recently passed bill. Surely this bill will face that, as have others in the past. This bill is something the others weren’t. Marriage is not trying to be redefined here. Marriage will be marriage and civil unions will be civil unions. Those entering civil unions will receive the same legal benefits as married couples. This will take a big bite out of the religious argument that marriage should be kept separate. Support this bill however and whenever you can!

Will Obama Repeal "Don’t ask. Don’t tell"?

In a word…yes.

The question is will they do anything to replace it with a better military anti-discrimination law?

Will Obama Repeal "Don’t ask. Don’t tell"?

In a word…yes.

The question is will they do anything to replace it with a better military anti-discrimination law?

Friday Frivolity – The Sociology Behind Batman And Superman

Being Friday I’ve decided to post a little entertainment piece. Now I will warn you, this entry is for the nerdliest of nerds. I wrote a short article on the sociology of Superman and Batman. I know I know, it sounds terribly nerdy and boring. It’s actually quite interesting. Put your ego aside and read it. Come on. You know you really want to anyways.

Superman began in the early days as a champion of the people. He would do anything to keep those who were weaker or couldn’t fight back protected from injustice. Superman’s method’s however were often exactly what he fought, bullying.

Superman evolved into a model of law, order, and justice. He adopted a strict moral code. People began to refer to Superman as a boy scout. Superman would always follow the law, or the American government, no matter if it were disagreeable or not. Superman is our national perception of the American Midwest.

Batman is in many ways in direct contrast to Superman. If Superman is bright American optimism, Batman is the dark underbelly. Batman is rich and urban. This has warped him into a different kind of hero than Superman. Batman follows a very lose code. No killing. Batman’s crime fight is an obsession, unlike Superman who fights crime ultimately to simply uphold law and order.

Bruce Wayne decided to become Batman after his parents were killed in a senseless mugging (depending on which version you read, but they’re all pretty close to that basic story.)

Batman however is choosing to operate on vengeance. Had his parents not died, he probably would never have donned the cape and cowl. Interestingly enough, many of Batman’s villains operate on the same principal. Mr. Freeze for his wife, Poison Ivy kind of a terrorist for plants, Penguin for being bullied and made an outcast in high society, and of course the Joker was created by Batman himself (the degree of Batman’s direct influence depends on the source).

Batman operates outside the law. This is a standard in almost all adaptations of the character. He is a vigilante. Batman isn’t welcome sight to many. When people see Superman flying through the sky they think a wrong is going to be righted. When they see the bat signal they think oh hell something has gone wrong that we can’t handle.

A good tale illustrating Superman’s problematic idealism is the Elseworld’s story JLA: Age of Wonder. Superman comes to earth in the 1800s; helping usher in what he hopes will be a new age of egalitarian prosperity using technology from Krypton. Lex Luthor however corrupts this technology for his own purposes, which Supes fails to realize until it is nearly too late. Superman cannot believe that this technology that he sees as ultimately good for all in society, could be used for selfish despicable reasons.

Superman is much more egalitarian. Though his real parents are dead, adopted parents in a quite small country town raise him. When he discovers his powers, he chooses to fight crime for the good of the people. You’re right in saying this is much more idealistic. We all want to be Superman in some ways, but thank God there are people like Batman.

On a side, I think something interesting to ponder would be this: Would each be happy if crime ceased. That is Superman’s ultimate goal. I’m not so sure if Bruce would be so content to retire.