View Full Version : Editorials
Like In the News, but for interesting editorial pieces.
Marriage is for white people (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=414215)
An interesting view of the world we live in today, compared to 1960, as far as marriage goes.
Asonokirk V 2.0
04-13-2006, 10:37 AM
Like In the News, but for interesting editorial pieces.
Marriage is for white people (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=414215)
An interesting view of the world we live in today, compared to 1960, as far as marriage goes.
I think the choice of a title for this article is deliberately provocative, and is the type of journalism that rankles my sensibilities. It evokes a feeling of "this article is again showing whites are racists" expectation going into reading it.
However, the statistics tell a story that is very relevant and important as an indicator of exactly the direction in which our society is heading.
Intelligent_Design
04-13-2006, 12:25 PM
Like In the News, but for interesting editorial pieces.
Marriage is for white people (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=414215)
An interesting view of the world we live in today, compared to 1960, as far as marriage goes.
Wow that title is just ripe for Snarking.
I think the choice of a title for this article is deliberately provocative, and is the type of journalism that rankles my sensibilities. It evokes a feeling of "this article is again showing whites are racists" expectation going into reading it.
However, the statistics tell a story that is very relevant and important as an indicator of exactly the direction in which our society is heading.
I know. I wasn't deliberately looking for an editorial article when I found this one. You know how they do it, though. Writers know they have to catch your eye, and this one caught mine. I stared at the title open-mouthed for a moment before I read it. I think it is terribly relevant, and shows that black women are charging forward and taking a stand for themselves. It's sad that marriage has taken such a sharp decline, but it is a great change to see people rather than get married for the wrong reasons, decide to not get married for the right ones. I think that is a huge step in the advancement of women. I do believe that women in this society have been brought up to be independent, but only to the point that it doesn't prevent us from getting married and having a husband to become co-dependent with, or better yet, dependent upon. As much as some women fight for equal rights, there are more who fight for the old-fashioned right to "lean on your man" and want to be taken care of. For as many marriages as I've seen where the husband and wife can barely stand one another, yet stay married because that's the way it's done, or the woman doesn't think she can make it on her own, or the husband made sure over the years that she couldn't, I don't blame anyone for not wanting the burdens of marriage.
That being said, I can't wait to be married. lol
Intelligent_Design
04-14-2006, 06:14 AM
If I was gay stuff like this would piss me off.
If I was gay stuff like this would piss me off.
Like what, exactly? Marriage? That heterosexual women are choosing not to get married when homosexuals don't have the choice?
Intelligent_Design
04-14-2006, 08:03 AM
Like what, exactly? Marriage? That heterosexual women are choosing not to get married when homosexuals don't have the choice?
Yep.
Yep.
ok. You have the right to think whatever you want. This is the editorial page, after all.
Asonokirk V 2.0
04-14-2006, 08:57 AM
Ok, the old gays/marriage debate.
I've thought long and hard about this one, and have come to the following conclusion:
Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. That is why the convention was created, and can be considered a type of axiom in that regard. Allowing gays to marry in the traditional sense of the word represents a change to the definition of the word and concept. An analogy would be the fact that the speed of light is 186,000 mps. That is an axiom and unless the laws of physics are altered that number cannot change.
Therefore, in order for gays to marry in my opinion, the majority of people must agree that the word and act of marriage means a joining between two people, without their individual sexes being relevant. I, personally, have no real opinion as to whether or not gays should be allowed to marry each other, but I respect the beliefs of everyone and until the majority consensus is such that gay marriages are acceptable, I have to believe that gays will have to learn to respect those beliefs held by others, the same as I do.
Ok, the old gays/marriage debate.
I've thought long and hard about this one, and have come to the following conclusion:
Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. That is why the convention was created, and can be considered a type of axiom in that regard. Allowing gays to marry in the traditional sense of the word represents a change to the definition of the word and concept.
Well, according to religion, that is what marriage is. In this country, we have this fabulous thing called "separation of church and state." It's too bad the current government doesn't honor that. But if they did, there is no reason gay people could not marry. Maybe they couldn't get married in a church, or temple, or synagogue, but they could be married by a justice of the peace, or a ship's captain, or an Elvis impersonator. If there is such a problem with marriage and divorce in this country, it is certainly not the fault of homosexuals who don't have the right in the first place. We should be more concerned with teaching children how to read than keeping people who love each other from getting married.
This reminds me of adoption and the Humane Society. Any schmuck can blow a load and become a father (accept it and become a mother), but if you don't meet the established criteria, or have enough money you can't adopt a child, no matter how loving and safe and wonderful your family is. The Humane Society kills strays after they've been in the shelter too long, but if you have tried to adopt one of their animals, you know it's near impossible to meet their standards. No matter how much a gay couple loves each other or how long they've been together, they don't meet our government's standards for marriage, so they are SOL.
A test for the United Nations (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=406514)
About a month old, but refers to Darfur.
Intelligent_Design
04-14-2006, 11:02 AM
Well, according to religion, that is what marriage is. In this country, we have this fabulous thing called "separation of church and state." It's too bad the current government doesn't honor that. But if they did, there is no reason gay people could not marry. Maybe they couldn't get married in a church, or temple, or synagogue, but they could be married by a justice of the peace, or a ship's captain, or an Elvis impersonator. If there is such a problem with marriage and divorce in this country, it is certainly not the fault of homosexuals who don't have the right in the first place. We should be more concerned with teaching children how to read than keeping people who love each other from getting married.
This reminds me of adoption and the Humane Society. Any schmuck can blow a load and become a father (accept it and become a mother), but if you don't meet the established criteria, or have enough money you can't adopt a child, no matter how loving and safe and wonderful your family is. The Humane Society kills strays after they've been in the shelter too long, but if you have tried to adopt one of their animals, you know it's near impossible to meet their standards. No matter how much a gay couple loves each other or how long they've been together, they don't meet our government's standards for marriage, so they are SOL.
Well said, I knew we could reach common ground on somthing :hugs: :)
Well said, I knew we could reach common ground on somthing :hugs: :)
Just because I am fiscally conservative, don't want to give up my guns, and believe that people should try to handle their own shit before the government steps in to help (LAST RESORT), doesn't mean I believe in treating any person like their sexual preferences, or income level, or color of their skin makes them less of a human being, therefore less deserving of rights. I believe in LESS government, not more. Which brings us back to my argument. Fuck the two party system and their ridiculous pandering to special interests. Let's get back to the Constitution, update it to be as relevant to our time as possible, and get our shit back in line. Fire everyone, start fresh. Ridiculous? Of course it is! Revolutions usually are, at least until they are successful.
omicron
04-14-2006, 12:59 PM
Ya know, I am more and more turned on every time I read one of Kah's rants.
Of course, Traz's rants effect me in a whole different way :wink:
Omi
sickness
04-14-2006, 01:27 PM
Kah makes your junk tingle while Traz makes you think about him tossing your salad?
sickness
04-14-2006, 02:37 PM
Hey, he opened the door on that one. Opened it WIDE.
DaForce
04-14-2006, 02:45 PM
Hey, he opened the door on that one. Opened it WIDE.
We so need to get you laid.
And soon too from the looks of things.
.
sickness
04-14-2006, 04:06 PM
Actually, that got taken care of recently but now I've got the problem that I need it more.
Space Tycoon
04-14-2006, 06:22 PM
The Death of British Freedom
by John Pilger (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=8849)
The dying of freedom in Britain is not news. The pirouettes of ambition of of the prime minister and his political twin, the treasurer, are news, though of minimal public interest. Looking back to the 1930s when social democracies were distracted and powerful cliques imposed their totalitarian ways by stealth and silence, the warning is clear. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has already passed its second parliamentary reading without interest to most Labor MPs and court journalists; yet it is utterly totalitarian in scope....
.
Some readers miss shades of gray in crime stories in black and white (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=402695)
This is hard to explain unless you read it. We have an editorial writer out here, Eugene Kane, who is intelligent, but quite a bit to take at times. This is one of his better pieces. It's a piece about the division of Milwaukee and its suburbs. Wisconsin is known as one of the more segregated states, with Milwaukee being a majority-minority city, and its suburbs being almost exclusively white. I've been told that other cities, states, and countries are not like this, but it is hard to imagine the other side of the coin. I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just want to show you what it's like out here, and then you can all tell me how it's different where you live. Deal?
What this Country Needs is a Little Innovation (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=415927&date=4/14/2006)
Something positive for a change!
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.