Posted by Timothy,
10:39 AM
-
Friday, May 27, 2005
Many Surrogate Mothers Prefer Gay Couples
The New York Times has an article today on the increased popularity of surrogate mothering for gay couples, citing how gay couples tend to be more appreciative than hetero ones. I can't pretend to fully understand the workings of the Christian Right, but I'm surprised they all complain about gay marriage but rarely say a word about surrogate mothering for gay couples, or gay adoption rights. If marriage is a religious act, one would think child bearing would also be considered one. Many of their complaints about gay marriage focus on traumatizing kids, or setting a bad example for society, but one would think gay adoption/surrogacy would have these same effects (assuming one believes they do in the case of gay marriage). Perhaps the christian right has simply decided it's a legal battle they can't win.
There seems to be a lot of ignorance about this issue on the right though. In arguing about gay marriage, I've had more than one person counter that if we allow gay couples to marry, the next thing you know, they're going to want the right to adopt. When I point out to them that gays already have that right, they're disbelieving. Anyone have an idea why this is? I'm tempted to call it hypocrisy.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
8:05 AM
-
Thursday, May 26, 2005 ACIR Public Forum Today
The ACIR will hold a public forum today, from 4:00-6:00pm in the Faculty Lounge of the Hop, to discuss, among other things, divestment from Sudan. The ACIR must render a decision by the end of the term regarding divestment, in order for the Investment Committee and Board of Trustees to review and approve the decision as soon as possible. (Genocide is one of those timely matters where expediency is appreciated). The more students come to the meeting, the better the discussion and debate will be, and the more likely something conclusive comes out of today's event. Alumni, feel free to blitz in statements of support to Darfur(at)dartmouth.edu More importantly, if enough of you show up, this could be the last you have to hear from me about divestment.
Posted by Niral Shah,
1:18 PM
-
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Women Taking Men's Last Names: Discuss Matt Yglesias says:
As I was saying the other day, I think economics and rational choice and so forth are just great. But if Tyler Cowen really thinks he can discuss why women are much more likely than men to adopt their spouse's name at marriage as a strategic bargaining question without any reference to social history well, let's just say he'd better think a little harder about that. I think it's pretty clear that we've got a hefty dose of path-dependence and historically-determined expectations operating here.
For the record, I take an extremist line on this question. Adopting your husband's name isn't the worst thing in the world to do, but it's still wrong. And, no, feminism isn't all about choices. It's about equality. And, yes, given the historical dynamic changing names is often the individually rational thing to do in a self-interested sense. But right and wrong isn't about self-interest. Now, no more posts today, it's time for some birthday celebratin' but feel free to condemn my extremist (and under-explained!) view on this.
Posted by Timothy,
1:25 PM
-
Sunday, May 22, 2005 The Invasion of the Bible Thumpers
The latest installment in the NY Times’ rather topical, mostly less than insightful mini-series on class in America is about evangelical Christians who are staking their claim on the Ivy League. As I read it, I reacted with a mix of dread and bemusement.
But then I got to thinking about that reaction. I started to question what precisely it is that has given me such a distaste for the evangelical brand of Christianity. I don’t really like zealotry period, but I tend to accept it or at least laugh at it when it comes from the secular left. “Oh, those anarchists, they’re so naïve!”
Maybe it’s that I resent partykillers. Maybe I just mind the impenetrably holier-than-thou attitude, which amounts to barely disguised condescension and blatant intolerance. But then I turned that accusation back on myself. Those were exactly the reactions I have to evangelicals. Forcing tolerance on the intolerant is no more ethically valid than forcing abstinence on the horny, even under liberal values.
But what really gets me about evangelicals is that proselytizing takes total precedence over social action. Perhaps to them, proselytizing is social action—it certainly is to Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons. But how constructive is that? I don’t think very. (I acknowledge that many evangelical churches do have soup kitchens or other things, some with no strings attached, but for the most part, their mission is to save your soul, not fill your stomach.)
To me, faith is equivalent to love, and the best kind of faith is not coerced or obligatory. Faith, like love or freedom or virtue, is voluntary. And the only way, I believe, to make the choice for faith—of any sort—in democracy, in Allah, in Jesus Christ, in tomatoes—is to make the conditions available wherein a fully voluntary choice may be made, where someone can praise and love the object of their faith with an unburdened heart.
The adage “If you want peace, work for justice” can be restated: “If you want faith, work for justice.” Rather than attempting to turn all of us "heathens" into abstemious, clean-mouthed, desireless genuflectors, go save a country. Go lobby your Congressperson to stop genocide. Go donate that money to a real charity. Don't wave your cross in my face, help the poor.
