| 08/21/08 08:14 PM |
#472
|
|
Elmer Dante
All,
In light of some of the previous posts, I thought I'd post this. I think that everybody has a story to tell. Each of us has baggage accumulated along the way and each of us would have done things differently if we had the luxury of being able to live life over again.
I also think that everybody who has participated on this site is great. When I look at each person's personal profile, I see just how fortunate each of us has been and can't help but think that each of us owes at least some of our good fortune to our experience at Morris Catholic.
In response to some of more politically charged posts, I'd like to make a few comments, while at the same time hoping to comply with Cheryl's advisory post. One of the United State's strengths is its commitment to pluralism. We have a two-party system. Our Constitution guarantees pluralistic viewpoints by guaranteeing citizens of the United States freedom of speech (in a public forum, not in private forums such as the workplace). If I were in public office (and, I assure you, I won't be), I would want to continuously engage in pluralistic dialogue by surrounding myself with both liberal and conservative advisors.
There are great Republicans (e.g., Abraham Lincoln and President Ford) and there are great Democrats (e.g., John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter). There are legitimate conservative views and legitimate liberal views. Sometimes compromise is necessary; sometimes, through dialogue, an accord can be achieved; and, sometimes, it is necessary to agree to disagree. Some of my closest friends are Republicans with whom, on some issues, we agree and on others we agree to disagree.
Abortion is an emotionally-charged issue—those on both sides of the debate will agree on that particular fact. Since birth and death are the two most significant events in a person's life, why wouldn't it be an emotionally charged issue? I don't think that any thinking person on either side of the debate could think of abortion as something 'good.' Whatever side one takes on the issue, the decision to have an abortion is tragic. Tragic because a woman decides so for economic reasons, tragic because of a violent act against her by a man or tragic because circumstances were such that someone was unable to welcome the coming of a child as a gift from God (or, to demonstrate my commitment to pluralism, Goddess, the Universe or whatever you, the reader, regards as the highest super agency of the universe).
I've seen unreasonable positions on both sides of the debate. For example, some in favor of legalized abortion take the unreasonable position that abortion is simply a medical procedure and not an issue open to moral debate as if it is something that somehow transcends the scope of philosophical and ethical inquiry.
On an altogether different note, I wanted to comment on another undercurrent I noticed in some of the posts. Most 21st century social scientists believe that the terms 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' are outdated labels and that human sexuality is far more complex that the use of the two terms implies. As my brother has shown me, the gay world is far more complex than most would imagine, there are straight-looking gays, effeminate gays, there are 'bears' and a host of in-between. I'm told that these groups are often exclusive and that it is not unusual for those who fit into one classification to avoid those who fit into one of the other classifications.
There is also, in the gay world, the phenomenon of what is colloquially known in the gay community as "fag hags" (straight women who have close relationships with gay men). An acquaintance of my brother (her husband plays on my brother's partner's softball team) wrote her doctoral dissertation at Rollins College on this phenomenon and successfully defended it. She is now a professor of gay studies.
Before closing, I'd like to make two more points: One directed to Kevin and another directed to everyone.
Kevin: What would the gay community have been without Stonewall? Wasn't that riot the real birth of the gay community's self identity? Although I don't advocate violence, sometimes it is necessary.
Everyone: Another point I'd like to make fact that some of the great men of history were gay: Michelangelo, Alexander the Great and (thanks to revisionist history) Abraham Lincoln. Although Alexander was a blood thirsty warrior, he also had a sentimental side. When his dog died, he ordered his priests and their acolytes to have a great religious procession in honor of the dog—oh, how I like his style. When my dog died, if I had the clout, I’d have had his funeral at Westminster Abbey with the Archbishop of Canterbury officiating.
(Hopefully, I haven’t offended anyone. If I have, please forgive me.) (Kevin: I hope I provided some insights into the gay community with which you would agree). Remember: We live in a post-modern world—a world in which there are worlds and few absolutes. In other words, we no longer say “it’s this or that”; we now say, “it’s this and it’s that.”
My best to all,
Elmer
PS: Kevin: In response to your story about your dog, I thought I’d give you a similar story. When I closed on my house last year, I was running from one house to another, quickly walked the dogs, and brought them to the kennel in order to go to the closing, collect the key to the new house, and subsequently bring them there.
When I arrived at the attorney’s office, whom I hadn’t met before, I suddenly smelled an odor that suggested that while walking the dogs, I stepped in something in the grass. He led me into a conference room, left me alone and I quickly checked my shoes (while thinking, where the hell can I wipe them off). When I checked my shoes, I found nothing (and then thought, it’s on my coat or pants, but found nothing). Well, to make a long story short, it was my attorney’s breath. Nice, huh.
|
|
