Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Krauthammer vs. Tucker

Interesting to me that as we "celebrate" the third anniversary of our war in Iraq, that the best column Charles Krauthammer could come up with had to do with polygamy and comparing it to gay marriage. Gay marriage, polygamy, abortion, them conservatives love them "moral issues." Notorious liberal Cynthia Tucker, by contrast, actually ran a very intersting peace exploring the real reasons - that ones no one wants to talk about - for the our presence in Iraq. Tucker's reasons are intriguing. It's that damn "oil stuff" that we can't quit using. I remember discussing this with several people when the war kicked off, and oil was almost a dirty word - much like abortion, polygamy, and gay marriage. Leave it to those conservatives to keep everything above the board like that.

Ralph

2 comments:

Jennifer said...

What an insightful article. Thanks for sharing :)

Stan Langerhaus said...

As always Ralph, you have asked a seemingly simple and straightforward question for which an answer could easily take pages and hours to write. I was actually thinking the same thing last night while I was channel surfing and came to the great and venerable Fox News network. Guess what was being "investigated." Natalie Holloway's continued disappearance. Nevermind that our country is now $9 Trillion in debt. Nevermind that our country is engaged in a pointless war that is bankrupting us financially and morally. Nevermind damn near everything. Fox News will not rest until this American vacationer's killer is brought before justice (or perhaps more conveniently, locked away forever in Gitmo).

But anyway, I can see some logic to the argument that if society were to allow man/man or woman/woman marriages, why not allow polygamy (or human/animal unions, for that matter) since we are now venturing into the land of "non-traditional"? So in a sense I agree with Krauthammer's conclusions that the proponents of same sex marriage do have a somewhat tricky logical argument to put forth as to why allowing such marriages to go forward will not in essence be "opening up the floodgates" to all sorts of unanticipated results. If I were advocating for the same-sexers I would simply say that "we agree with the one to one (human) ratio for marriages and anything else is abhorrent to us as well." At some point even the discriminated must discriminate to get their rights. Call it the American Caste System at work.