Thursday
2/24/04
Shrodinger's Cat and Marriage
As I generally consider myself a thinking sort of guy, I realize that although there are many political and ideological positions with which I disagree, I can still understand the rational behind them. Say, just for instance, our administration’s compulsive addiction to chasing more oil while steadfastly ignoring that the polar icecaps are melting. Stupid, but understandable.
Keeping that in mind, there are also some things I just don’t get at all, such as string theory and the whole business with Schrodinger’s cat. But worse than that, there are the seemingly simple things in life by which I’m inexplicably confounded as well; and although I’m usually flummoxed by only one event at a time, I must admit that two items this last week have had me staring at the news with a blank, drooling look of complete incomprehension.
The first is the growing furor over the notion of same sex marriage. It’s an issue that obviously frightens the bejesus out of some people, and yet for the life of me I can’t see why. I actually listen to the arguments against allowing adults the opportunity to have their union validated by society, and yet I still don’t get why. Last week the Times printed a letter from a Reverend Bill Branch who opined that same sex marriage would "devalue" the marriages of men and women. The Reverend, who is obviously an entirely sincere and thoughtful man, went on to use an analogy involving gold and sandstone. In the end, though, I read his letter twice and I still have no idea why I should feel that my marriage has been somehow devalued.
Even less helpful are those who don’t even bother with a logical rationale for their opposition to same sex marriage and simply hide behind the mantra "marriage is the union of a man and woman. Period." That sort of cowardly unwillingness to construct reasoned, logical foundation for a position that dictates how others must live their lives strikes me as unconscionable. Certainly an argument that any given societal status quo should be permanent and immutable makes no sense; after all, it used to be that slavery was cool and women’s suffrage was a terrible idea. Perhaps it’s time to grow up.
Anyway, the second thing I found entirely inexplicable this week is Nader’s decision to run again. And, although I had an equally lengthy, well-reasoned argument prepared about why he shouldn’t, I find that at times there’s no substitute for brevity.
So here it is: Ralph Nader. What an ass.
|
Shrodinger's Cat and Marriage
As I generally consider myself a thinking sort of guy, I realize that although there are many political and ideological positions with which I disagree, I can still understand the rational behind them. Say, just for instance, our administration’s compulsive addiction to chasing more oil while steadfastly ignoring that the polar icecaps are melting. Stupid, but understandable.
Keeping that in mind, there are also some things I just don’t get at all, such as string theory and the whole business with Schrodinger’s cat. But worse than that, there are the seemingly simple things in life by which I’m inexplicably confounded as well; and although I’m usually flummoxed by only one event at a time, I must admit that two items this last week have had me staring at the news with a blank, drooling look of complete incomprehension.
The first is the growing furor over the notion of same sex marriage. It’s an issue that obviously frightens the bejesus out of some people, and yet for the life of me I can’t see why. I actually listen to the arguments against allowing adults the opportunity to have their union validated by society, and yet I still don’t get why. Last week the Times printed a letter from a Reverend Bill Branch who opined that same sex marriage would "devalue" the marriages of men and women. The Reverend, who is obviously an entirely sincere and thoughtful man, went on to use an analogy involving gold and sandstone. In the end, though, I read his letter twice and I still have no idea why I should feel that my marriage has been somehow devalued.
Even less helpful are those who don’t even bother with a logical rationale for their opposition to same sex marriage and simply hide behind the mantra "marriage is the union of a man and woman. Period." That sort of cowardly unwillingness to construct reasoned, logical foundation for a position that dictates how others must live their lives strikes me as unconscionable. Certainly an argument that any given societal status quo should be permanent and immutable makes no sense; after all, it used to be that slavery was cool and women’s suffrage was a terrible idea. Perhaps it’s time to grow up.
Anyway, the second thing I found entirely inexplicable this week is Nader’s decision to run again. And, although I had an equally lengthy, well-reasoned argument prepared about why he shouldn’t, I find that at times there’s no substitute for brevity.
So here it is: Ralph Nader. What an ass.
