>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:11:21 -0400 Yoshie Furuhashi
><furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > The Christian Right won't be happy with the obsolescence of categories of
>gender, sexual orientation, etc.
>
>Not at one of the last Pentacostal serivce I attended - lamenting
>the fact that
>these cateogies had achieved some sort of political legitimacy. The lovely
>pastor noted that there was only one truth: heterosexual monogamy - practiced
>within the institition of marriage. Sexuality, outside of this, does
>not exist.
When folks begin to utter such words as "heterosexual marriage," "heterosexual monogamy," etc., the days of heterosexism are numbered:
***** Philly climbs off a canvas of cliches
...[Republican Platform] Committee members reaffirmed support for the Defence of Marriage Act recognising heterosexual marriage, and added to it: "We do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law."...
Los Angeles Times
<http://www.smh.com.au/news/0007/31/world/world12.html> *****
***** 10th February 2000
"Homosexuality not the same as heterosexual marriage" - Church leaders tell Prime Minister
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not morally equivalent - that was the message to the Prime Minister Tony Blair today from the Evangelical Alliance UK Council of Management....
<http://www.eauk.org/press/releases/00/000210a.htm> *****
Norms, when they are virtually universally accepted as norms, do not have to be specified like above (a Google search with the key words "heterosexual marriage" returns 5,130 results).
>Before delcaring anything dead, past, post, over, obsolete, moot or ending...
>we should consider the *existing* socio-political atmosphere...
>
> > Jim, you overestimate Ken's political intelligence. :)
>
>Yeah Jim, you're just as stupid as Ken!
As far as I know, Jim has not invested in the psychoanalytic stock. I encourage everyone to short it. There is no future for psychoanalysis beyond the nuclear family, heterosexism, & capitalism.
Yoshie