There has been a lot of discussion in the US about gay marriage, especially in this corner because of the recent Massachusetts state court ruling saying that prohibiting homosexuals from the recognition of marriage is discriminatory and violates their civil rights to equal treatment. I've been giving this some thought here and there over the past several weeks.
One of the first things that set me into deeper thought on why I don't believe in gay marriage was ironically this banner floating around the internet, especially on LiveJournal.com. It states that "Marriage is love". While it sounds like a Hallmark moment, it violates a famous quote of Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". The quote doesn't say marriage requires love, but simply marriage is love. It implies an inverse that love defines a marriage. In other words, if two people love each other, that's all that matters. It doesn't take too much to come up with examples where that thesis breaks down.
G.K. Chesterton used to write semi-satirically about discrimination against the dead. Those who came before us set up all of these institutions and traditions which we are so ready to clear away. He likened it to a progressive who sees a fence, sees no need for it and so is ready to knock it down. Since he doesn't see a purpose, what good is it? And yet, a fence doesn't spring up on its own. A wise progressive would try to understand why the fence was put there in the first place. Once he fully understands why it was set there, one can make an informed decision about its necessity and the benefits of taking it down.
While many well meaning Christians defend marriage from the Bible and quote stories, verses, etc., this has little traction with the proponents of gay marriage. They either discount Scripture entirely in a "that's your religion" sense, or they can quote any number of verses from the Old Testament that we no longer follow (especially about restrictions and punishments) and ask why we don't follow them anymore. If we say that Jesus and Christianity replaced those old idioms, they say "aha!". So while I love and respect the Bible, I don't think you can defend traditional marriage in a secular world with biblical arguments. As the quote says, 'even the devil can quote scripture'.
From what I've studied there are certainly plenty of theological reasons that can written about the nature of marriage, but again it comes down to "that's your religion" or "we're just talking about civil marriage, not sacramental marriage / matrimony".
One thing I've admired about Catholicism is its respect for natural law and reason. It does not pit faith against reason. One need not "check their brain at the door" in being a Catholic. It doesn't take a mere "the Bible says so" simplicity. Catholic teaching is an amalgam of scripture, tradition, revelation, reason, natural law, and the synthesis of these with 2000 years of time to elaborate. Certainly some items are taken on faith (like the Trinity) but a lot about the nature of man, sin, sex, gender, and yes, marriage, can be seen in nature and through reason.
One of the things that is obvious in this world is that gender is real. Despite the efforts of the past 40 years to make women "just like men" men and women are different. Not just physically, but in almost every dimension. Science shows us this. We have thousands of jokes about it. We even have pop culture books that proclaim "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". Men and women each have predispositions towards certain virtues and certain vices. Often these tendencies and traits, while complementary and initially appealing, can clash and cause a lot of friction in the long run. Analogies are made to fire and ice, oil and water, cats and dogs. In Catholicism we believe that we are called to sanctity in a manner that is fully human. For instance, while as men we may not be as patient and good a listener as women are, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But without the glue that traditional institutional marriage provides, we lose a major societal support to overcome those differences, to cherish those differences between the feminine and the masculine, and to reach our full potential as spouses.
In the case of gay marriage, where is that complimentarity? You have two men or two women? Where is the masculine and feminine? Where is the ying and yang? The sweet and sour? What characteristics of the opposite gender are you struggling to honor, embrace, or cherish and ultimately develop in your own life? You have two of the same gender. I posit that it's not nearly the same struggle as a man and a woman deal with, and in embracing those differences, can become fuller persons.
The second thing is that traditional marriage is by its nature fruitful love. There are numerous studies that show the benefits to children of having a stable mother and father relationship. It is undisputed. This doesn't mean that other familial relationships don't exist, but merely that society has a vested interest in preserving the nuclear family to the maximum extent that it can. Two men or two women can have physical relationships with each other their entire life and never, ever have to be concerned that children may spring forth from that love. There is a reason why traditional married sex was and is still called "the marital act". It has benefits in strengthening the union between the spouses, but it also calls forth the possibility that we can cooperate with God and bring forth a new life. That's also why we often speak of 'procreation'. God creates, we 'pro-create' -- we cooperate with Him to bring new life forth from where there was none. That's one of the unique ways a married couple images the Divine. Two men or two women have to work hard to adopt a child. With many married couples, there are many cases of unplanned but hardly unwanted children that spring forth from their love. I know of several couples who have had such "bonus babies". It's in society's best interest to try to keep those spouses together. The traditional family is still the bedrock of a stable society.
The common reply is "how does it hurt you if we get married?" Because it changes the definition of marriage. Not to be vain, but as a hardware/software engineer, I have more than two nickels to rub together (thanks be to God). What if I decided to define myself as poor? What if I felt that it was unfair that the poor get tax breaks and subsidies that I'm currently ineligible for. How does it hurt those who truly are poor? First, it stresses the fixed resources allocated to the poor further so that each one might get less. Second, if it were truly accepted societally that I was poor, wouldn't that make being poor seem that much less of a struggle? Isn't it hard to sympathize with the genuinely poor when you see me with my wife, kids, house, cars, etc claiming that "I'm poor". Should I say that you hate the middle class if you don't respect my "poverty". After all, don't I deserve the "equal protection" that the law provides to those "other" poor? Loosening a definition in this way does impact the poor directly and society's impression of what it means to be poor. In the same way, defining marriage to be merely a committed lifelong coupling loosens the definition too much.
It's not that I don't have respect for those with homosexual attraction. It's not that I don't believe that homosexuals have committed relationships. But saying that homosexual commitments are equivalent, deserving of the same honors, rights and responsibilities, from a societal and legal definition isn't honest. I love my daughters but if they say that they want cake for breakfast instead of toast because cake is also based wheat, eggs, etc, it's not loving for me to just give in just because they want it. I've been married for nearly 15 years to the same woman. With her I've grown tremendously as I've come to appreciate what Pope John Paul II calls "the feminine genius" -- those graces that seem to come so much more naturally to women. Together, thus far, we've brought five beautiful children into this world. Between her and the children, I've grown more patient, loving, and selfless than I ever would have been if I had been on my own or been in a relationship with another man. There is that famous line in the movie Jerry Maguire: "you complete me". When you truly live out your vocation in a traditional marriage, the spouses do complete each other. The love between those spouses may bring forth new life and more opportunities in the school of love, self donation, and sacrifice. Non-traditional definitions of marriage are not the same. They may be loving, committed relationships, but they are not the same.
Just wondering....have you ever had friends who were gay or lesbian? or been friends with gay or lesbian couple?
Posted by: Suzy at February 24, 2004 09:04 AMYes, why do you ask? Did something I wrote imply that I don't sympathize with homosexuals because I don't know any?
Do you have any perspective on this?
I find that there are a bunch of knee jerk reactions when one doesn't support gay marriage. "You hate gays." "It'd be different if it was someone close to you." "Well I know of a loving gay couple..."
Just to be clear, I don't hate gays. I believe that they can have committed relationships. If they want to fight for rights (health care benefits, property rights, etc) as a committed couple, fine. But don't short circuit the whole process by trying to declare those unions equivalent. The laws we have that surround marriage came about over a very long time. Don't merely say "me too" and piggy back on those laws with a simple judicial fiat from the courts. Traditional marriage is a difference with a distinction.
Somehow I'd be willing to guess that my perspective is not the same as you've received in your psych classes to date, eh?
Posted by: Scott at February 24, 2004 09:30 AMI don't want to get too deep into this, and I really haven't given it much thought, but I do believe that 2 same sex people can have differences enough to complete each other- to be the yin and yang. I may be wrong, but I believe that in a same sex relationship, generally one of the people is a masculine personality and one is feminine, right? It's not just a physical thing. I think it's not fair/accurate to say that only a woman can have what is typically considered a feminie personality, the same goes for men. With the legalization of gay marriages, I imagine that it is more than just the rights associated with it- I would think that if I were in that situation, I would want my relationship validated by society- just to be recognized. No, maybe it is not the same as traditional marriage, but I dont think it is dishonest. I think the 2 people still complete each other, grow together, and can be fruitful in many ways- maybe not by having kids together naturally, but by whatever they do together. I don't see ability to have children together as a basis for true marriage, because a lot of married people can't have children, and there are some married people who don't want children or might not make the best parents. I do understand what you are saying about the traditional family being the bedrock of society, but I do accept that there can be differences, and they can be equal- I don't feel that I am better than others, maybe just luckier or more blessed.
I don't know why I am writing all this, because like I said before, I really haven't thought too much about it. I am not insulted at all by the legalization of gay marriage.
hey- yes, i guess my beliefs follow what alyssa said- i did have to check about the opportunity to be friends with gay individuals or couples- just because it easier for some to make inferences or statements about gays when they have not had the opportunity to have friendships with them- so i was just wondering about that part- in both sexes they do play male and female roles, as alyssa said- i just think of myself- if i were born a female, and was truly in love with another female and had no attraction to males by no choice of my own, i would hate every moment knowing that i was in love and could not have the same opportunity- right now i am in love with a male, and i want to be married, and i cant imagine how it would affect me if I couldnt have that chance- plus, there are so many straight marriages that break apart- if we prevent gay marriages we might as well say we prevent marriages of those who have dated after only one year, who are under 20 years, who have domestic violence in the relationship, etc.for these may sometimes also exploit the purpose of real love by using marriage since most of these marriages statistically end in dovorce and yet have the right to be recognized as married, etc- i dont know if i am clearly staing my point-
also, in psychology, the only discussion of homosexuality is that it used to be seen as a mental illness and be a diagnosis - but that is not longer- pushing more and more against gay marriages i feel further pushes that label - either way, i believe an individual has no choice as to whether they are gay or not- NO choice to feel that way for another and how dare we take away the right for them that every other individual has because of something they have no control over- we take rights away from criminals
Hi All,
The whole world can read this. You are all so very intelligent. Please use proper grammar and punctuation. Use two spaces after sentences. And don’t forget to capitalize.
I’m very glad to see you can all think for yourselves.
Take care,
Butch
ps. After previewing this, I noticed your program takes out extra spaces, Sorry.
Posted by: Butch at February 24, 2004 01:30 PMActually, it's HTML that ignores extra spaces.
I want to thank you both for your responses. I can't follow up at the moment in any depth, but was wondering (esp for Suzy):
Can anyone confirm/deny that the individuals within a homosexual couple each tend to have either the masculine or feminine roles/tendencies within the relationship (as Alyssa supposed above)? To me, it always seems like a partnering of the same. I'm not saying the personalities are the same. But I don't see the gender tendencies within those relationships.
Got to go for now. Perhaps more feedback to follow later...
Posted by: Scott at February 24, 2004 01:52 PMThis is very interesting. I enjoy an intelligent exchange of ideas (and grammar).
I have known a few gay couples and they definitely exhibited strong contrasting personalities to each other, a male or female if you will. I'm not really sure of my opinion on the matter but I do agree with Alyssa that if I were predisposed to being homosexual I would like my relationship recognized officially.
I have a question about your comment on Catholicism not pitting faith against reason. What about creationism versus evolution? Doesn't our faith say God created the heavens and the Earth in seven days (six with a rest), and denounce the theories of evolution and Darwinism?
I thought they did but Alyssa thinks different. I also have a hard time resonably coming to terms with the Transubstantiation (I hope I spelled that right Uncle Butch). My knowledge on things theological is inexcusably limited.
Again thanks for the forum, it's nice to be stimulated by something other than Blue's Clues.
Tom
P.S. Please put a spell checker on this so I don't have to keep pulling Alyssa from her wifely duties to correct my spelling.
Posted by: Tom at February 24, 2004 11:01 PMHi Tom,
Yes, it's been interesting.
No, Catholicism does not denounce evolution and Darwinism. They are the likely means God used/uses to get us where we are. Unlike a fundamentalist, Catholicism does not insist that "bang" the universe was created and then seven literal days later there was the earth, animal, plants, and man. Catholicism criticizes those approaches when they totally remove God from the equation -- as if it all "just happened" due to random statistical processes, as if we're all just some freak accident of physics and chemistry.
Everyone has reason to have difficulty with Transubstantiation. It defies ordinary thinking. But then again, so does the Incarnation - God made man. How can that be? The Resurrection. Whenever I read a story of a true miracle -- not, as Saturday Night Live's Father Guido would say, "just a card trick" -- I am awed and perplexed for lack of explanation. Some things can't be reasoned. They defy reason. But they still happen.
For instance a common misconception was that the Church persecuted Galileo for proclaiming (by the way not for the first time in history) that the earth goes around the sun. "See! The Church hates science and reason." The Church was a major supporter of science, universities, and higher learning in the Middle Ages. It was when Galileo started to take his discoveries and extrapolate too far to undermine the significance of the Bible and the Church that he was chastised. In a way it's not unlike taking evolution too far.
I'll look into a spell checker down the road but few web applications have good spell checking options. Spell checking in web interfaces tends to be clunky. I'm more interested in the dialog. At least there's a preview button. Some web sites _only_ have "post". If you mess up, that's it. Writing well takes time. Often I can only write coherently when the kids are still in bed. As I said, the exchange of ideas is what's important to me. If it takes a second post to clarify something you wrote earlier, it's not the end of the world. I fully understand what it's like to suddenly "have to go" because of something a child is doing in the next room. *grin*
And hey, Uncle Butch came out of the wood work! That's a first. Cool!
Posted by: Scott at February 25, 2004 06:18 AMHow would gay/lesbian couples who wanted to get married sould they could adopt or have children through artificial insemination affect your views?
Granted we're going to be on different sides of this debate, but I don't see it just as a me-too approach. There's definitely some of that, but it also seems like a way to allow gays and lesbians to give more back to society by creating families.
That said, I am worried about the possible fallout from this fight for civil rights/culture war.
Posted by: Will at February 25, 2004 01:39 PMhi again!!
well, in the past few years being away at school, i have become much more familiar with diversities of ALL types- i did go see a 'transgenedered' speaker once- i have been to the gay bars, seen drag shows, and gay commedians- so i did become more familiar with the gay community- i think whats important is to note that there is a big difference between sex roles and gender roles- this is well exemplified in gay couples- for example, (and you'll have to excuse my language) in a gay female relationship it is often referred to (in the gay community) as the "butch" and the "bitch"- because one is more masculine, while the other is more feminine- i could find out more i'm sure- one of our professors in married and gay and may know more about it- either way, it wont affect me- i just see it as oppression- if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...- were moving backwards in time- why dont we just take womens right to vote away while we're at it- Thats how it seems to me- well i've said my piece so i'm done now- got some midterms to work on - oh what fun!
Hi Again,
I was wondering how long it would be before someone drew a parallel to taking away women's rights or supporting segregation. With that behind us, can we stop the cliches and keep this calm?
BTW, women's right to vote came after a worthy struggle and came from legitimate legislative processes. This is four justices proclaiming law by dictating to the legislature that they must pass a gay marriage law. Not unlike abortion, it doesn't arise from the 'voice of the people', it circumvents it via the judiciary. If anyone is upset that 2000's election was a fiasco because "Gore won the popular vote" and "Bush won via the courts", why is this OK when four, just four, people are demanding that the legislature pass legislation to suite their liking? The same people who were upset at a southern justice for not following the law and taking down the Ten Commandments see no problem with San Fran justices marrying gay couples against current California law. In the former case, he's not following the law; in the latter case, it's proclaimed as the virtuous act of 'civil disobedience'?
I'll again repeat that I believe homosexuals do have committed long term exclusive relationships. I'm *not* against them being recognized as such - even legally. I'm not against them being granted any civil rights. I'm opposed to just redefining the institution of marriage as if the two were equivalent. To me it does _not_ walk, look, and sound like a duck.
Two men being together will never learn to cope with PMS. They'll never learn to be patient with an irritable pregnant spouse. They will never have to be concerned with an unplanned pregnancy (in the case of two women, they have to work at it). One man may be more effeminate, but that doesn't mean either of them learns what one learns from having a wife.
In every relationship based on love, people learn, develop, and grow. Father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister. These are life long and based on love, but we don't call them marriage. And certainly, over time, we've fought for and written into law several benefits -- such as my ability to get healthcare not only for my wife but for my children as well. But even there, there are limits -- such as dad's inability to medically insure Suzy because she has now exceeded the age limit. Is that age discrimination? Are we somehow rolling back family rights by that? I just don't see the "my relationship is just like yours" nature between two guys coming together and a man with a woman.
Interesting writing in today's OpinionJournal at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735
Quote:
"Those judges are here in Massachusetts, of course, where the state is cutting back on programs to aid the elderly, the disabled, and children in poor families. Yet a four-judge majority has ruled in favor of special benefits for a group of relatively affluent households, most of which have two earners and are not raising children. What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children."
"Astonishingly, in the media coverage of this issue, next to nothing has been said about what this new special preference would cost the rest of society in terms of taxes and insurance premiums. The Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a real problem of distributive justice here. How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they CANNOT claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?"
The author then goes on to mention tolerance:
"As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles."
It seems to me that whenever we've had law dictated (as by the judiciary) instead of come up from the people, Will (see above) is right in that it causes tremendous in-fighting and civil strife. People respect women's right to vote because we voted it in. Yet over thirty years later in the US, abortion continues to be a huge controversy (unlike seen in other countries) because we didn't vote on it. It was handed down to us.
I close for now with the question of where does it end? If we decide to add another spouse to our household is that OK? If we are loving, committed, sincere? It once was OK in certain cultures. If ten years from now Michelle dies, can I marry Claire? She'll be 18. Oh that's right, she's already expressed a desire to marry Mr. Russell when she grows up. *grin* Nevermind...
If only Jerry Lee Lewis made his musical debute in the year 2004 instead of the 1950's. No one would have been scandalized by him being married to his teenage cousin. That revelation killed his music career despite great hits like "Great Balls of Fire". We were so narrow minded back then.
Posted by: Scott at February 25, 2004 02:54 PMLet me clarify that I am not opposed to gay marriages, but I do not know if the way it is/has been legalized is the right way to go about it. If I was given the opportunity to vote on it, I would vote to allow them. The legalization process that is going on is probably not the best approach, but I do not claim to know that much about politics or the best way for it to happen.
I do not think there should be an amendment banning gay marriage, but TJ wants there to be one just because he thinks it would be cool to have an amendment passed in his life, especially since he is studying the US Constitution right now.
I also think that some of the things you refer to a man having to get used to by being married to a woman may not always be the case. For instance, I don't ever suffer from PMS- Tom has not had to learn to cope with PMS. Are we not complete then?Should senior citizens not marry because they can't have children, and generally don't deal with PMS, pregnancy concerns, and the like? 2 people learn from each other things other than gender/sex differences.
I am also starting to feel offended with all the negative things you refer to about women...PMS, irritable pregnancies...Is that all a man learns?
Taking an additional spouse and marrying relatives are totally different issues...we are talking about the union of 2 individuals, which is different than polygamy or the genetic danger of incest. I don't even want to get into this...
Basically, I think gay marriage is an issue that maybe we shouldn't discuss anymore...religion and politics are often causes for disagreement... and I don't want anyone being mad at anyone! It's okay to disagree- I am choosing to let this go now!
Love you all!
Alyssa
How does that saying go "Don't talk about money, religion, or politics at the table"
Posted by: Chris at February 25, 2004 06:41 PMTuesday morning at 5am TJ was in the bathroom being sick. I got up and tapped on the door.
"You OK, buddy," I asked?
"Yeah," came his weak response. "Just pukin."
Just a little something to lighten the mood.
Love,
Tom
Posted by: Tom at February 25, 2004 09:15 PMRough night for the little guy...
Posted by: Chris at February 25, 2004 10:23 PMHi Tom and Christopher,
Thanks. My best wishes for TJ. I hope he feels better now. I've been wanting to write about the day off, the arrival of the folks, the things the kids have been doing with their grandparents, etc. It's just that clarifying things has taken up a good portion of the writing today.
It takes work to avoid stereotyping the other side. It's easy to paint the sides of the issue as either 'anything goes' progressives or 'homophobic traditionalists'. In my own case, I specifically tried to avoid talking about the morality side because it gets into religious views, theology, etc. I've also tried to avoid any mention about the success rates of _types_ of unions lest we go into an unproductive "mine is better than yours" argument.
To Alyssa, I apologize if you took offense at my examples. My intent was not to come across as a male chauvenist pig. What I was trying to get across is that being married to someone of the opposite gender has differences from being married to someone who has tendencies of the opposite gender. The examples were negative because if marriage were just about the joys, we wouldn't need to have an institution. People would just flock to it. Just as with parenting where a lot of the struggle is with diapering, crying, and (as in TJ's case) puking, so in marriage, a lot of the need for the institution comes from its unique struggles.
I've had a lot of mention about the exceptions: Will asked what if the gay couple has children, Alyssa mentioned what if you don't deal with PMS, what if the married couple isn't going to have children.
If you look at most US law, it is quite often based on generalized classes with the intent to help them. Occasionally you'll see references to 'means testing' but often not. For example, take child tax credits, a subject that hits close to home. If Grandpa Bilik was suddenly struck with a fit of generosity, paid off our mortgages, and set up trust funds to pay for our kids tuition from grade school through college (hey, a man can dream, eh?), Alyssa, Tom, Michelle, and I would not need that child tax credit that was recently passed as much as other typical families with five young children. But the tax credit was not based on our debts, it was based on our children. The generalization was that this is tax relief for families. It used a rough metric that the more children you have, the more assistance we'll give.
In a similar way, the current marriage laws do try to hold a man and a woman together because they tend to have natures that contrast each other and they tend to be the source of all legitimate children. Are there exceptions? Yes. There are rich people who take advantage of government program designed to help the poor. There are people with a sliver of minority heritage in their backgrounds who exploit race based set asides. There are married couples who have no children and gay couples who adopt. But just as we have programs to help the poor, programs to help seniors, we have an institution to help preserve and maintain married couples and the families they tend to produce.
I don't think that polygamy and marriage with blood relatives is that far off the plate. There was a piece of software that I used a while back. I went to the weblog of the author one day. This guy was in a stable loving relationship with two women. Instead of a pairing, it was a trio. He would write about 'why can't people accept that I have a committed relationship with two woman?' and 'we all love each other' etc. He sounded incredibly like the current arguments. If we changed a few of the nouns from the above discussion, it could easily be a discussion of why is marriage just between two? Regarding the genetics angle, we've already mentioned that not all marriages result in children (intentionally or not). If I love a relative and am not going to have genetic concerns because we avoid children, what basis is there for preventing the marriage? (To be clear, YES, I am creeped out by the two examples)
This is the reason I asked at what point does it stop. A couple of decades ago we were asked to overlook what goes on in the bedroom. Not long ago we had civil unions. Now we have a request for official recognition as marriage. Do we really think that this is a end point in the sexual revolution?
I also tend to agree with the author of the OpinionJournal article about tolerance. Once it is a legally recognized, I foresee that legal action will come down strong on those who don't tow the line. Consider a few examples in recent times. Some Catholic teaching hospitals refuse to teach their medical students abortion procedures. They are exposed to legal action because 'abortion is a right' and by not teaching the procedure to perspective doctors, you are interfering with that right. Some Catholic dioceses get sued because the health plan for their non-clergy office staff doesn't include coverage for contraceptives. The lawyers insist that contraceptives be covered in spite of it going against Catholic moral teaching. I don't think it'd be that far of a stretch to see churches facing legal action if they consistently refuse to marry a gay couple. It may not happen right away (as the first two examples didn't either), but I'd predict it would happen.
As I stated at the outset, I was inspired to write because of the banners and trite bumper sticker style quips of support for gay marriage I've been seeing on the Internet. I didn't want to just stand idly by but I didn't want to put some curt little 10 word or less pro traditional bumper sticker message. I wanted some context behind it. I debated whether to shut off comments in this post because I thought it could inflate things beyond discussion into heated anger, but I thought the discussion would be useful. I never expected to change any minds. I'm glad that the other views got out there. As St. Francis said, 'O divine master grant that I may not so much seek [...] to be understood as to understand'. I have more insights than I did a few days ago and it gave me the opportunity to further explore things -- like the 'what if' exceptions.
I'll be turning off the comments on this entry in a day or so. And tomorrow I hope to give you context on my day off and the visit by mom and dad. And who knows, now that Suzy got off her writing duff, perhaps she'll also write more about how things are going with her studies at school. Just messing with you, Suzy. But we do all want to know how you're doing and can't wait to see you next summer. Write soon about graduate life. Writing on a weblog is a good opportunity to polish writing skills (independent of capitalization, spelling, punctuation, etc...) and it's very therapeutic.
Posted by: Scott at February 25, 2004 11:13 PMNo comment!
Posted by: alyssa at February 26, 2004 09:06 AM