Same-Sex Marriage

I believe that everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love regardless of sex. Seeing as I am personally affected by this, I am extremely biased, but that is not the only reason. "Making it official" really gives people a more committed feeling. That's not to say that two men or two women living together aren't in a committed relationship just as gratifying as a married man and women, but psychologically, it can be extremely important to some people. Aside from that, there are also huge amounts of legal benefits that come with marriage. In the article we read, there was an example about a woman who was unable to be in the room to support her partner/wife when she was giving birth to their child. Even though the doctors were aware of the fact that the woman was going to be the mother of this child, they would not allow her in because they weren't legally married. Really important issues like death and health are affected by marriage laws. I just can't understand how one person can look at another and say, "You do not deserve these rights because you fell in love with the wrong person, and you are living the wrong life." The exact same quote could have been used when interracial marriage was in debate. Now if you said a black person couldn't marry a white person, you would be ostracized by society.

However, though I believe that the government has no right to deny this to a couple for something that they were born being on the basis of religion, I think that a church should have the option of refusing to marry a couple. Separation of church and state means that the Bible should stay out of the laws, but I understand that some people will never be able to get past their prejudices. The benefits of marriage come with a legal certificate. Determining whether or not to preform the religious ceremony should be up to the individual congregations.

Marriage

Wolfson begins this reading with an extended definition of marriage to show how integral it is to our culture, global culture, and historical culture. Marriage has almost always existed, and everywhere there are people, there is a form of marriage. His main points are that marriage is a way to declare to society that you are in a committed, loving relationship, gain indispensable legal benefits, and to feel more as one with your partner.

I think that his definition is logical and complete, but it feels as though the reading is very weighted. Except for the last paragraph, Wolfson writes assuming that all people want to be married. He makes it seem as though without marriage, your loving relationship is incomplete, which though for many is true, there are also many who are happy with their own autonomy within the relationship. He does not push the fact, but to a minor extend I feel like he invalidates the relationships of non-married people with no intent to marry. He also assumes that all who marry have good marriages. I know couples who had lived together for years and broke up within months of "making it official." He doesn't account for the fact that despite claiming unconditional commitment, people do lie, cheat, and abuse.

It Takes a Family

Dr. Horn compares raising a child to boarding a plane. One plane always reaches the destination, while the other makes it most of the time. Santorum uses this analogy to explain why a mother-father family is important. He argues that though it is possible to raise a child with only one parent (the plane that mostly makes it), the child will best succeed in a mom-dad household (the plane that always makes it).

I think it's interesting the Santorum never gives a "why" to his argument. Using the plane analogy, this is because there is both a mother and a father flying the vehicle, but he never says why they fly it better than a single mom or dad. He provides more than enough facts to make his argument, but no evidence of how they do it better other than that's just what he believes. He also fails to account for the fact that if too much attention is given to the child, (s)he'll become coddled and spoiled. (S)he will be unable to fend for his/herself once (s)he reaches the real world because in ever given situation there has been an overly-devoted parent there to hold his/her hand.

Also using the plane analogy, it would seem as though two men or two women could fly the plane just as adequately as one man and one woman. I feel like this analogy undermines his whole argument in "The Meaning of Family." Unless of course, he applies the "liberal marriage" factor that he proposed. By his logic, because homosexuals are in relationships strictly for sexual desire, they would be unable to fly the plane because each would be too preoccupied on pleasing him/herself instead of landing the child safely. According to him, only a married mother and father would be capable of the selfless love needed to fly the plane.

Appearances

Vazquez waits to disclose the fact that Brian and Mickey were heterosexual victims of homophobic violence because she was aware of the fact that the reader would automatically assume that each was gay. In an article that is clearly about violence against the gay community, the reader would simply accept that the article would use examples of gays getting hurt for their sexual orientation. However, the fact that she discloses this fact makes the examples far more shocking. A straight reader would likely be less inclined to protest homophobic violence because it is outside of their little bubbles; it's the stuff that happens out there instead of right here. By informing the reader that Brian and Mickey were straight, Vazquez gives the gravity of her argument significantly more weight. She instills the idea that everyone is a victim, particularly if they happen to be gender deviants. Antigay violence is not only an issue of prejudice against a minority, but also is sets back all motions toward gender equality.

When heterosexuals can be victims of gay violence, it becomes clear that society is not yet prepared to accept "manly" women and "girly" men. It means that to an extent, the genders are expected to stay in the cultural spheres dictated by their sex. Women may as well all be housewives, vacuuming in their heels and house pearls while men go off to do manly jobs and earn manly pay checks. Expanding the horizon of antigay violence to straights makes the lack of equality for men and women, gays and straights, far more ominous.

Transcendentalism

Eustace Conway was not a transcendentalist. He shared many transcendentalist views, but he was searching to achieve a different purpose. Eustace may have had an extreme reverence for nature, but his perception was not the lofty spiritual sort of take the transcendentalists had on it. Yes, he understood that nature was perfect with everything in its place, but he didn't care to ponder its higher meaning. He was utilizing it, both to achieve his goals and to survive. He was at a more gruesome, basic level than the transcendentalists, though he was a spiritual being. Additionally, Eustace Conway lacked the focus on the individual. He wished that society were different, but he longed to be a part of it. His pining after his father's affections, as well as the love of a female mate reflect how his actions were based on things other than self-gratification. If he were not so focused on pleasing his father, he may not have excelled at so many achievements.

I think that Gilbert sees Eustace as more of a pioneer than a transcendentalist. She saw him as someone who wanted to ensure that the wilderness survived, but he was also there to take advantage of its resources and survive using only the skills so that he could accomplish what he needed himself. Instead of finding spiritual truth, Eustace was looking for personal betterment through physical deeds and risky adventures. I agree with this.

Nature-Emerson

"The stars awaken a certain reverence, because though always present, they are inaccessible; but all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence."

This line means that in order to truly have a connection with nature, one must make himself accessible. No matter how hard he tries, he will never be able to reach the stars. However, if he opens himself to them, they will reach for him. This is true of all components of nature, but today, man no longer has the desire or the care to be a part of the natural world. Man lives artificially; his clothing is synthetic, he lives in climate-controlled boxes, and no longer even has to walk anywhere if he doesn't want to. He is not open to nature because in the modern world, this is no longer necessary. The path to understanding nature is not to scientifically analyze it for its worth; one must simply open himself to it, and allow himself to become family.

"Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart of the child."

This means that as we grow older, we lose the desire to connect with the natural world. As children, we have not yet been conditioned to reside strictly within or fake, synthetic boxes, and instead feel open and comfortable with nature. Because the children are more open to it, they have made themselves accessible. They are ready to experience nature's influence. I actually see this today. If you look outside at the park on a beautiful summer day, I see little kids bouncing around, just happy to be outside playing. Their parent sits to the side reading a book or the newspaper. I recently saw a survey that said one of teenager's biggest criticisms of their parents was their disregard for "going green"-type things, and a piece of me wonders if this is the reason why.

Gilbert's Reason: Last American Man

I think that Elizabeth Gilbert wrote The Last American Man partially to spread the idea that being one with nature is the best way to live. However, she does not do this by glorifying Eustace Conway’s life. On pg 264, she records a conversation she had with Conway regarding building a snowman. Conway was unable to even consider making a snowman without taking a pragmatic approach. He spent a long time just weighing the worth of this seemingly trivial activity. He decided that the fun was not worth the cost of time or the carrot for its nose. She instead chooses to glorify the ideal that everyone cannot look past when considering Eustace Conway as a human being. On the next pg, Gilbert writes, "The best man that Eustace can be is the man he becomes when he's alone in the woods." Later, she even confronts him about it, asking him why he cannot just live in harmony in nature and not engage in the activities that cause him so much stress. Every time he has to try to convert multiple people to living his lifestyle, he becomes miserable. Social interaction (when with the average, or even above-average modern American) brings out the worst in Eustace. However, when he is truly communicating with nature, without having to care about how incompetent other human beings are, he experiences his own bliss.

Gilbert does not want everyone to abandon their homes and jobs for the sake of the woods, but I think she adamantly believes in the Pacos Bill/Paul Bunion/Daniel Boone stories of the rugged manhood that can only be experienced outside of the comfort of our boxes. I think that she believes that we would be living truer lives if we could better understand our reliance on the nature around us, and she wrote the book to try to communicate this to people.