Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Movies Shave Genetial Area
← Previous (15-07-2010)
I will not say, as many members of the upper house cleared, I have a gay friend. Nor, as was said a few years ago, I have a Jewish friend. I'll say something radical: I have a friend fascist.
This friend, of course, deny its fascist by saying it is an anarchist and his rabid opposition to universal marriage reluctance is based on a total and definitive solution to any form of nationalization of human relationships. This radical form of thought (which in times of excess alcohol could either sign) is the political philosophy that anarcho-capitalism is recognized as one of the masks that fascism has, with his contempt for legality, institutions, bureaucracies and parliamentary everything that has nothing to do with decisiveness.
In his opinion, should be a total ban on marriage, not broaden its scope. Do not argue with him (who can or want to discuss with a fascist?), But I know it is wrong on several points, but especially in one: the level of analysis.
This friend, of course, deny its fascist by saying it is an anarchist and his rabid opposition to universal marriage reluctance is based on a total and definitive solution to any form of nationalization of human relationships. This radical form of thought (which in times of excess alcohol could either sign) is the political philosophy that anarcho-capitalism is recognized as one of the masks that fascism has, with his contempt for legality, institutions, bureaucracies and parliamentary everything that has nothing to do with decisiveness.
In his opinion, should be a total ban on marriage, not broaden its scope. Do not argue with him (who can or want to discuss with a fascist?), But I know it is wrong on several points, but especially in one: the level of analysis.
Anyone can put to work the hypothesis of Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State and declare that there is the evil Claude Levi-Strauss was caught up in the same methodological illusion and a text memorable, "Writing Lesson", included in Tristes Tropiques, said to write back to people slaves to the law and subjected to a ritual of power. The history of writing, in his view coincides with the history of domination.
Of course, Lévi-Strauss is right on one level of analysis, but not in another. In countries like Argentina, with endemic rates of illiteracy, a hypothesis without foundation and liberating. Only from the grandeur of France "with its proven school could hold a pessimistic version of literacy.
With universal marriage same thing happens: we can point out the miseries of the "institution of marriage", but only from its universality, ie the transformation of a privilege in law. And we laugh about the crazy epic petty matchmaking cakes (such as mandatory voting), but the former is the cause of universal (and later, his criticism).
All this as an introduction to critical commentary on the Senate debate about the universal law of marriage, which lasted a thousand hours and, like any academic conference, expounded on stupidities and very few memorable moments of clarity and brilliance.
Moreover, as was being discussed was the legal regulation of a way of life (because life forms, correlative speech acts are themselves legal institutions), senators and senators were given a quick overview of history of sexuality, etymologies, kinship systems, the Greek institution pedophilia, the shamans and their dynastic relationship with men-women, the determination of the economy on culture, psychology and identification processes, the relationship between body and gender, in order: a social science congress, more precisely, life-forms, ie on the civil war that defined and is (I suppose that many academics, scholars and students these days have been writing speeches Senate, because we know how our politicians are gross to be able to assume that suddenly appear quoting Gide, Picture of Dorian Gray, Virginia Woolf, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Juana de Arco (which of Belize became psychotic killer cake in a hasty operation of cultural interpretation) or Habermas, and providing delicious differences between pater and genitor.
positions were, indeed, two (I leave aside the abstentions, they were few and cowardly): in favor of universal marriage and against. The debate, as the Byzantine era (because marriage between same sex and there, because homo families already exist, because the world is the world), rhetoric abounded in delights.
The arguments of those who were against were of stupidity and ignorance that does not deserve comment. Suffice it to say how hatred seeped into the hypocritical positions that started from the recognition of the acceptance of homosexuality as a reality ("I have gay friends" or even, as always encouraged to tell the perfect Hilda Duhalde, "gay family" ) and the unbearable refrain: "I do not discriminate," as if the discrimination was a verb that could be declined in person. No, right ladies and gentlemen, "discriminate" (as "murder") is a defective verb is conjugated and only a second or third person, you discriminate, they discriminate. And that is capable of delivering a similar trial is never one, but the object of discrimination. "I do not discriminate, but you are different," they said.
The informant sinister Madame Negre de Alonso did not stop to clarify that she did not discriminate, even when shocked at the mere assumption of having to teach kids now that men and women as well (as is born " ), sexuality is constructed and there are homosexuals, bisexuals and trans. And he defended conscientious objectors (Norma Morandini had to answer.) Black woman, you dye your hair and it is likely that hydrogen peroxide had destroyed his brain matter: nothing to see a universal marriage law that was discussed with education on certain varieties of the living, what you think about normal and deviant do not care or the Carmelites that Bergoglio letter, and none of us interested in this or that like it or not the judicial gatekeeper married. For that there are many employees in the state.
Many of the objectors of the project partially approved by Parliament (after insisting on their respect for the rights of sexual minorities) were pounding with the basics "natural" family (as if one would care about how where cockroaches, ants or ticks live to determine their way of life). The Senators were a most unfortunate provincial (provincial and hatred I'm the locals, so I can pronounce without a guilty conscience like a trial), medium tabletting and fearful of God's view.
The strongest representatives of the right was Luis Naidenoff, the UCR. Shysters arguments wielded with great credit that, if you were an idiot, would have agreed without hesitation. And the most cunning, the aforementioned Chiche, who said the only argument that could have slowed the parliamentary initiative: the issue is not a priority in a country where poverty, hunger and retirees are not paid for 82% mobile.
As right as well as vile, is clumsy, he ignored ignore this argument and threw wildly to discuss the natural, cultural, children, morality, ethics, relationships between life forms and acts (legal) discourse, in order: the issues most current philosophy and more Italian, but without further support arguments. Now, screw them.
repeated arguments
Many church: gay couples have more than five hundred. It is as if to say: "But how? "Besides taking a lot, want to marry?". And yes, gentlemen, we disagree with the heterosexism of boredom, and return to familiar school exhaustion. You also picking up bad and little, are bad parents. Did you see what a paradox?Neuquén
A doctor, who opposed universal marriage, said or implied that we have come a long way, and as no one stoned to homosexuals (in order, say), should be content with that.unlikely
A woman was alarmed because, according to the bill, people could request maternity leave. And secondly, in a long time obviously did not see the face of God, raised his finger wagging warning us that Argentina will supply children in countries where same-sex couples recognized by law. And another voice, whistle, reported that the privileges were violated because two senators were put on Air Force One, "as previously imprisoned dissidents." He added, lost in clouds of Ubeda, "I have long proposed abortion" (she looked like one).Among those who favored the law emphasized the unbearable Daniel Filmus, the Cordovan Judge (cool, precise and delicious combination of humorist, sage and cynic philosopher path), the Chaco Fixed, quiet and brilliant same time, Blanca Osuna, Samuel Cabanchik, Oscar Castillo (who made a delightful love story of irony and punctuated with references to the chow why Julius Caesar was so beloved among his troops, and the legendary friendship of Achilles and Patroclus). Giustiniani, Civic Front, quoted Jürgen Habermas. Pichetto, as always, like a plow gross, disgusting and disturbing.
But beyond the patchwork of social sciences, there was much classicism, Greek and Roman a lot of things, and much humanism. It was like a renaissance on TV (the record: TN speeches broadcast almost continuously and savagely cut the speeches reactionary Channel 7 did not put very little into the air).
María Eugenia Estenssoro, the Civic Coalition, fine as always, said that women can identify "with this (discrimination) that come to deal with." He confessed that he likes to say "I'm married, divorced, single mother and mistress", and it shows the evolution of the family. On the civil union alternative project said it was "super-poor, unfortunate, outrageous," and proved it amply. He spoke of kinship systems and noted that homosexuals want "healthy relationships, humane, dignified." He is right. You can rest assured the right: of these unions that the Senate has secured tightly not leave a child or a girl fucking cake or by chance. Hopefully the Church and Television, who have done about the proliferation of bliss, keep providing.
/ /
Share:
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/suplementos/soy/1-1497-2010-07-16.html 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment