SUPREME COURT DECISION PROP 8, MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN - WOMAN

4/7/2013
I agree with Victor and Me....

Cheers..Joe..

and I agree with me.

Annie

4/7/2013
As I said " I AGREE WITH ME !"
Cheers..Joe...

I agree with Me, Myself and I.

I just finished watching Lincoln - my first time. I guess I was a little afraid. I thought it might change my mind about what I considered to be the best film of the year: Les Miserables.

It did and it didn't. The two films are very different, in style, tone, and execution - different, but to my way of thinking, equally good. Equally relevant for this modern world, even though both were set in the past.

I still haven't seen Zero-Dark 30, Life of Pi, or Django Unchained. I eventually will, but I have a feeling that I will feel about them sort of like I felt about Argo, which I believe won the best picture Oscar this year because many people could not choose between Lincoln or Les Mis, so they copped out and voted for Argo instead, which was a well-done movie, but without the richness and depth of the first two.

The thing that I am learning from these two fine films is that change is very hard and terribly costly. At the same time, the fact that we are so inexorably drawn into it, whether we want to be or not, means that the force behind it is very likely working for our own good. I see hope for the future when I look at the past, and the changes that have come about. I believe that we are evolving, and doing so in a movement toward more freedom, compassion and acceptance, and away from judgement and self-righteousness.

As I said recently on another thread. I have to stay true to what I believe, and I have to speak that truth.

At the same time, I do not see a point to endless discussion, especially when it brings resentment, rancor, and defensiveness.

I say what I think. I try to express my reasons as clearly as I can, but once I've said it, I don't see a point to repeating it over and over.

We all come at these controversies from different places, and our perspectives are all valid pieces of the whole picture.

The book that I was reading last night and most of today was Margaret Starbird's Magdalene's Lost Legacy: Symbolic Numbers and the Sacred Union in Christianity. I first came across Starbird's work when I started writing essays and blogs in the concept of the Sacred Marriage of masculine and feminine forces as being the best way out of the polarities that are keeping us from finding a center and moving forward.

One of the many things I'm learning is that our Souls have no gender. Inside our deepest center, we are all both male and female. It is only our physical bodies that have to choose. I, for one, have always been grateful for those external differences, but over time, I have come to realize that there are people who do not see the world the way I do. There was a time when that made me very uncomfortable. sometimes, it still does, but who am I to judge another's perspective?

I don't think we don't have to choose one extreme or the other. We can broaden our perspectives to a view that includes both in a complementary whole.

Just Annie again.

Night all.

WELL SAID!

Change is not intrinsically a good thing. Chaos followed Pax Romana and the Dark Age is what ensued after the fall of Rome. The French Revolution brought us the Reign of Terror and Napoleon, exchanging detached legitimate rulers for bloody illegitimate ones. (At least the barbarians who rampaged throughout Europe erasing any remnants of the empire they replaced had no pretensions about what they were about.) The same is true of the Russian Revolution or the degenerate rule and unbridled oppression of Chairman Mao. "Progressive" regimes piling death, destruction and chaos upon the proletariat. Cuba, Venezuela and Iran show how change brings more of the same even when replacing less than legitimate regimes in more modern times--only worse and bloodier than what came before.

Having said all of that, I very much respect your point of view, Ann. We simply disagree and will continue to do so with good humor, respect and no animosity as we both represent valid points of view, albeit opposing ones.

On a more critical issue of equity on which we may both well agree, Les Mis was ROBBED. I loved Lincoln. I hate musicals as a rule. There were problems for me with Les Miserables in the choice of having absolutely every line sung. But les Mis was a better, more compelling film with performances of the leading and supporting cast that was simply unforgettable all around. Think of it as an honest olive branch extended in the most earnest way possible. I prefer to find common ground with my friends on the really important issues that keep me up at night.

4/8/2013
I guess Ann is on the touchy side tonight ?
Oh well we all have our moments....
Cheers..Joe...

Ann is not touchy--just passionate in her perfectly valid point of view as are we all, Joe. It would be a mighty dull world if we agreed on everything. (And a mighty short Academy Award ceremony.)

alj wrote:

I say what I think. I try to express my reasons as clearly as I can, but once I've said it, I don't see a point to repeating it over and over.

Apart from crowing, that is.

P.S. I didn't disagree with you; I agreed with Victor. Your biblical comment on the issue would have taken the discussion into areas where I have no expertise (there are many of those areas!). Victor expressed my own thoughts about not caring in the least what people do in privacy, but find the modern day penchant for minority groups trying to force change on majority groups irritating to say the least, especially when they want to reverse what the majority deem to be acceptable behaviour. The sportsman I mentioned earlier received a great deal of public sympathy because it had been difficult for him to stay true to his sexual preferences. He was an adulterer! He deserved no sympathy. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. His wife was the one who deserved sympathy. She did nothing wrong, but he gets all the "Poor Gareth" treatment. Now they are making a film about "Poor Gareth" -- pass me the sick bag.

"Crowing," Too funny! While Ann Crows, I will Major.

Shelagh wrote:

alj wrote:

I say what I think. I try to express my reasons as clearly as I can, but once I've said it, I don't see a point to repeating it over and over.

Apart from crowing, that is.

P.S. I didn't disagree with you; I agreed with Victor. Your biblical comment on the issue would have taken the discussion into areas where I have no expertise (there are many of those areas!). Victor expressed my own thoughts about not caring in the least what people do in privacy, but find the modern day penchant for minority groups trying to force change on majority groups irritating to say the least, especially when they want to reverse what the majority deem to be acceptable behaviour. The sportsman I mentioned earlier received a great deal of public sympathy because it had been difficult for him to stay true to his sexual preferences. He was an adulterer! He deserved no sympathy. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. His wife was the one who deserved sympathy. She did nothing wrong, but he gets all the "Poor Gareth" treatment. Now they are making a film about "Poor Gareth" -- pass me the sick bag.

I won't go see it and hope it flops miserably.