What is on your mind

[StrongButch]

I am going to mass this morning. I hope no dirty thoughts enter my mind. (lol) I need to behave one day a year. (lol)

[~ocean]

Unity ~ ya baby ~

[jac]

What's on my mind................

Tomorrow is April Fool's Day - a prankster's/jokester's kinda day.....

What to do what to do?? Hmmmmmm

[loves tulips]

It's a beautiful, beautiful day here & it's got me thinking about.....

Picnic's, warm & soft sunshine, the smell of grass & blooming flowers, the birds singing distant & muted in the background, naked skin warm from the sun & making sweet love on a blanket outside, kisses that make your toes curl, contentment & satisfaction.

Yep, that's what's on my mind.

[TheMerryFairy]

How lucky I am to be surrounded by generosity and friendship. I am having a wonderful day and I hope you are all having a great Sunday as well.

[WolfyOne]

I have 4 days off work coming up
Oh how I look forward to being away from that place
I'll probably be sad when I have to return
Although, not even my boss can take the happy out of my heart, no matter what

[Bèsame*]

Listening to the rolling thunder, waiting for the storm. This is so cool. Kinda eery being here alone as the clouds roll in. Just put on a movie, Rock of Ages, will being singing along I'm sure.

Opened the jewelry hospital, going to fix the favorite pieces

Hmm, had pizza delivered for Easter dinner.

[girl_dee]

Places to rent in a part of town that i love tomorrow. Hopefully it will be better than the last place i looked.

[laruss]

I don't think I can catch up so I will try and move forward from here.
I missed so many of you.
Life is good.

[KCBUTCH]

Shameless Flirting, Home work, dinner, Dog, sleep, Game Of Thrones
April and the 1/2 way get together

[JustLovelyJenn]

A lot is on my mind... its weighing pretty heavy tonight....

[always2late]

Originally Posted by KCBUTCH

I am so livid right now due to the opening sentence in an article I am supposed to read for class

"When cousins do more than kiss"
by Anthony Layng
"NOW THAT same sex marriage increasingly is becoming acceptable in the U.S., might not incestuous marriage be next? Both have been condemned by legal sanctions and religious beliefs. However, since these are subject to change, what is to prevent first cousin marriage from gaining popularity?"

I sent a message to my professor stating it's offensive, insensitive, prejudice and verging on hate speech and I am considering reporting her to the board at my college for allowing such an article to be a required reading.

ANY THOUGHTS?

Originally Posted by Gráinne

Is this the professor's writing, or are you reading articles of all different viewpoints? I think that's part of college; exposure to opinions you don't like or find reprehensible.

Many books have been protested or banned at some point, but are still studied even in high schools or younger.

I know it was hard to read, but perhaps that's the point-to enrage and discuss. If we read only what we agreed with, didn't make us think, and didn't rile up emotions, that's not really worth the cost of the course.

While I agree that one of the purposes of higher education is exposure to opinions one might not agree with, I think the issue here is not the fact that this is a disagreeable opinion. I think it is more that this is an egregious comparison. It is, albeit in a circuitous way, linking same-sex marriage to incest. The fact that the article goes on to speak of the appropriateness of familial relationships and has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage only highlights the point that the comparison needn't have been made at all. How is it relevant to the subject? It isn't. It is basically taking the worst of same-sex marriage opponents' talking points and misinformation and using it as a jump off point to start an article.

[KCBUTCH]

Originally Posted by always2late

While I agree that one of the purposes of higher education is exposure to opinions one might not agree with, I think the issue here is not the fact that this is a disagreeable opinion. I think it is more that this is an egregious comparison. It is, albeit in a circuitous way, linking same-sex marriage to incest. The fact that the article goes on to speak of the appropriateness of familial relationships and has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage only highlights the point that the comparison needn't have been made at all. How is it relevant to the subject? It isn't. It is basically taking the worst of same-sex marriage opponents' talking points and misinformation and using it as a jump off point to start an article.

This is my point exactly- I have decided to take the full article to my Intercultural communications Professor since she is an expert of language and its context and is very knowledgeable about hate speech and discriminatory inferences before I do anything else

[Ciaran]

Originally Posted by KCBUTCH

I am so livid right now due to the opening sentence in an article I am supposed to read for class

"When cousins do more than kiss"
by Anthony Layng
"NOW THAT same sex marriage increasingly is becoming acceptable in the U.S., might not incestuous marriage be next? Both have been condemned by legal sanctions and religious beliefs. However, since these are subject to change, what is to prevent first cousin marriage from gaining popularity?"

I sent a message to my professor stating it's offensive, insensitive, prejudice and verging on hate speech and I am considering reporting her to the board at my college for allowing such an article to be a required reading.

ANY THOUGHTS?

Originally Posted by always2late

While I agree that one of the purposes of higher education is exposure to opinions one might not agree with, I think the issue here is not the fact that this is a disagreeable opinion. I think it is more that this is an egregious comparison. It is, albeit in a circuitous way, linking same-sex marriage to incest. The fact that the article goes on to speak of the appropriateness of familial relationships and has NOTHING to do with same-sex marriage only highlights the point that the comparison needn't have been made at all. How is it relevant to the subject? It isn't. It is basically taking the worst of same-sex marriage opponents' talking points and misinformation and using it as a jump off point to start an article.

Any comparison between the rights and wrongs of a same-sex marriage and an incestuous one would clearly be wrong. However, and without reading the piece in its entirety, I wouldn't be at all certain that's necessarily what the author is trying to do.


Rather, could the article not simply be demonstrating that societal views to what constitutes a marriage can change significantly over short periods of time?


Whilst still not ideal, the same-sex marriage debate has made significant leaps and bounds in recent generations and there is a tidal wave in favour. In a relatively short time in history, we'll be in a position where same-sex marriage has equal legal authority to heterosexual marriage in almost all of the "western world".


However, until relatively recently, same-sex marriage would have been viewed with absolute disgust by the "moral majority" and as something as "awful" as a marriage of family members. In fact, in many instances, it would have been viewed as worse. I only knew one of my four grandparents and by all accounts, all four were fantastic and loving people. However, I do wonder what their reaction would have been if, say in 1950, they had been asked their views on gay marriage? I would be astonished if it would been anything other than "no way".


Similarly, what is right or wrong as a marriage has changed more generally. Not long ago, it would have been frowned upon for a widow to remarry as she was meant to grieve for her dead husband for the rest of her life. That's a much less commonly accepted view or practice these days.


The fact that the commonly held view of what is a justified marriage is changing reiterates that marriage, and what should be allowed to constitute a marriage, is societal. Many parts of the world have marriage customs and traditions that are, to me (and presumably most others on this site) revulsive i.e. forced marriages, often incentivised by the prize of a dowry and typically involving a young girl and a much older man. Also, not only a significant age gap, but it's not nor meant to be a marriage of equals.


And, yet, such marriages are the norm in parts of the world and in those same parts of the world, same-sex relationships can lead to imprisonment or worse.


So, based solely on that opening, I wouldn't be certain that the article is linking same-sex marriage to marriage of family members - rather, it could very well simply be demonstrating that society's views of the acceptable boundaries for marriage are prone to significant change over short periods of time and dependent on prevailing cultural norms.


In my view, it potentially lends itself to a good debate in the classroom.

[Gráinne]

Plus, an article like that would not have been out of place ca. 1967, when interracial marriage laws were struck down in the U.S. That was a huge cultural step that, like gay marriage, was tremendously controversial for over a century although it existed before the Civil War. That well may be the point, that attitudes on marriage shift rapidly.

Marriage between cousins was of course common in royalty (with unfortunate genetic problems resulting), but also happened between regular people due to proximity and small communities.

I agree that the broad theme may be the rapidly (40 years) changing mores on marriage, and not comparing gay marriage to repulsive acts.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by KCBUTCH

I am so livid right now due to the opening sentence in an article I am supposed to read for class

"When cousins do more than kiss"
by Anthony Layng
"NOW THAT same sex marriage increasingly is becoming acceptable in the U.S., might not incestuous marriage be next? Both have been condemned by legal sanctions and religious beliefs. However, since these are subject to change, what is to prevent first cousin marriage from gaining popularity?"

I sent a message to my professor stating it's offensive, insensitive, prejudice and verging on hate speech and I am considering reporting her to the board at my college for allowing such an article to be a required reading.

ANY THOUGHTS?

Before I feel justified in getting bent out of shape about this, it would help to know what course this is for and the rationale the prof gave for picking this particular article. Context sometimes changes initial perceptions.

[LeftWriteFemme]

[TheMerryFairy]

Many, many things and where I stand. Meanwhile I am floating up above my path, in my thoughts and watching it all take shape.

[Semantics]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Before I feel justified in getting bent out of shape about this, it would help to know what course this is for and the rationale the prof gave for picking this particular article. Context sometimes changes initial perceptions.

Here's a link to the article:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/When+c...s.-a0238095380


I personally don't find the article offensive, because it's not using incest as rationale against same-sex marriage. It's looking at the biological vs. sociological reasons against incestuous couplings. The main arguments against same sex marriages tend to be sociological (although you do get the people who throw in the idea that same sex couples can't procreate, which is used as a biological argument against it). The author is trying to take this idea and apply to incestuous marriages.

I can see why KCBUTCH found it annoying and triggering. It gets old to always see the comparison made. However, I think if it's being used in its appropriate academic context (which isn't an argument against same-sex marriage), it doesn't offend me. Although as Kobi said, the context of its use could easily change my opinion on it.

[TheMerryFairy]

Number crunching, Please let this be possible.