We have become a society of NO. Just say no to drugs campaign began this. And then there was say no to sex before marriage which is something that did not work for a Palin child and thousands of others. Now we are wondering if the Republicans are the party of NO and how is that working for them?
Hecklers at the ND graduation ceremonies tried to say NO to Obama's right to freedom of speech. It was all about his stance to not say NO to abortion.
Everyone is in an uproar because five states and the District of Columbia have now said yes to gay marriage while the other 45 states still say no.
This all brought to mind one of my favorite bumper stickers: Against Abortion: Don't have one. I think this can be used on a number of various issues today. Against Gay Marriage: Don't say I do. Against teen sex: Just say NO after the first kiss. Against pornography: Don't go there.
Why is it we seem to demand that all people subscribe to our set of morals? Rowe vs. Wade was not anti-abortion but pro the rights of privacy of women. Two men or two women entering into a sanctioned union does not hurt the institution of marriage. The rampant rate of divorces among heterosexuals does that all by itself.
Some argue that prostitution can be legalized and managed and therefore not harmful to the participants. It is the illegal aspect that allows pimps to abuse their stable. Or allow STD's to run untreated through the streets. It is men wanting privacy about their acts that prevents them informing their wives. How a husband and wife deal with this is their business.
We get into some gray areas with pornography. It is not a totally victimless crime and especially if it involves children younger than the age of consent. And some argue that the ready availability of violent porn creates serial killers. I happen to think they are born and not made. I think adults have the right to engage in pornographic acts if they chose.
We also have the right to not be of a Christian faith if we choose. And we should not be abused with e-mails that slander our choice of faith or political position or moral stance. We all have the right to freedom of speech without being heckled even if we are not president of the United States. And the graduates of ND had the right to not attend or protest outside. But when they interrupt they not only infringe upon the speakers right to free speech but the audience's right to listen to what is being said.
Your right to not have an abortion should not infringe upon my right to have one (well past that point now). Your right to freedom of religion should not infringe upon my right to worship as I choose or not worship for that matter. Your right to call 900 sex talk numbers should not infringe on my right to not do that. Your right to listen to Rush should not stop me from turning him off.
We need to shut up with this JUST SAY NO crap and listen for a change. Maybe we should start with really listening to ourselves. When did we start being so narrow-minded? Didn't our forefathers come here so they could worship as they chose? Isn't the Declaration of Independence all about freedoms?
Jacqui,
ReplyDeleteThis is such a good post. I've thought the same things myself. I think the Republican party has gotten itself trapped into having to support these 'moral' issues because they courted the Christian right voting block. They need the Christians, but the religious folks then have demands of their own. I think this is why only 20% of the country now identify themselves as Republicans. I believe most people believe as you do, that the government should stay out of certain decisions we face.
Jacqui,
ReplyDeleteI think that was what he also tried to point out... that we should be more tolerant of other peoples ideologies.
I've always been one of the "let others do as they choose" types. And leave me alone to do, or better yet *not* do what I choose.
Have to disagree with you about violent movies not motivating some vulnerable people to acts of violence.
I don't think they've yet, done studies on, what affect violence has on children who grow up with it.
I believe that all of those old "Dirty Harry" and other violent movies have caused the "Road Rage" that people now display. They want to be able to strike back, just like their onscreen heroes. (imho ;)
Our age group grew up with Donald Duck and Bambi, and strictly (G) rated movies for the general public.
take care,
~Raenie
I am unsure about the violent movies. Like which came first the chicken or the egg. Do violent movies beget violence or because we live in an increasingly violent world do our movies just reflect that.
ReplyDeleteIt has also gotten a great deal more crowded and fast paced too. Last night I watched the original In Cold Blood which was a true story of a multiple murder in Kansas in the before there were violent movies or even color TV.
As for the benign fare we watched there was Brutus and Popeye. God those fights upset me. And Tarzan with jungle tribes shrinking people. And Coyote and Roadrunner. I think I learned about a 1000 ways to effectively kill someone.
And one of those G movies (no ratings back then) that I took my little brother to was about a vicious western gang that raped a woman and tortured her and when her husband returned he set about to catch and kill every single last one of them.
Is this what inspired Ted Bundy? Or John Wayne Gacy?
I remember Cold Blood! Absolutely hated the fact that they wrote the book/made the movie. Cruelty and killing just for the sake of itself.
ReplyDeleteI know there was no rating system back then. It wasn't needed.
At least the Indians were a part of history. They didn't go into detail back then (50's or early 60's) either. Now they show every smidgeon of blood and gore.
And it's amazing how peoples have always raped and pillaged. Yes, there has always been cruelty.
But we were all hoping (during the 60's) that mankind would outgrow it...weren't we? Or maybe it was just because I was young and naive?
Great post. very intelligently written
ReplyDeleteAmen Lady J...I completely agree, although I do think it's more to do with a party actually being in power rather than their politcal stance.
ReplyDeleteHere it is our 'new' Labour government who have assumed the roll of the 'nanny state'.