Rango Finito

fotoscódigoobservatorioshermanocerdo temas juegos

discusiones

El matrimonio nos une, no nos procrea

Una buena defensa del matrimonio entre parejas del mismo sexo desde una perspectiva católica (Vía Dan Savage):

For those more inclined to divining truth from modern day mythology than Scripture, I suggest watching the first 10 minutes of the Pixar film, Up. A couple that desires children experiences deep loss and sadness when they find out that they cannot conceive. But does that make their marriage any less of a marriage? When a couple practices birth control (natural of course) while having sex, are they less married at those times than when sperm is free to encounter egg? And are married couples who choose to not have children really not married couples after all?

The answer to these questions is, of course, a resounding “no.” That’s because the primary purpose of marriage is unitive, not procreative. It is the union that makes the marriage sacramental. Marriage, in and of itself and regardless of the presence of children, is a path to God.

Diagnóstico

— Racionalmente lo que dice es claro. Pero la conclusión me inquieta porque parecería sugerir que usted
— Creo que subestima mi capacidad para adoptar una posición objetiva pese a mis circunstancias particulares, que por lo demás no son de su
— No sé cómo podría obviarla. Si yo fuera usted
— No lo es.
— Pero si lo fuera
— No sé qué sentido tenga adoptar esa suposición cuando es evidente que es irrealizable en este momento. Preferiría que se concentrara en
— Como le dije, creo que entiendo la lógica de su argumento pero no confío en sus postulados. Siento que ignoran la dimensión moral del dilema.
— Podría decirse que mi punto es ese.
— Explíquese.
— Desde la empatía de primer orden la disyuntiva es irresoluble.
— Pero en la practica es inevitable sentir al menos un dejo de
— ¿Lo es?
— No sé, siento que
— Lo que usted sienta está fuera de esta discusión. Recuerde las directivas. Recuerde la
— Las recuerdo y aplico, pero no puedo dejar de pensar que el compromiso ético es inevitable.
— Entiendo ese compromiso como debilidad técnica.
— Quiero decir, hay vidas de personas comprometidas, ¿cómo ignorar
— La muerte de otros individuos es un proceso natural (de limpieza, de reorganización, de ascenso) que la cultura ha transformado en aberración existencial. El supuesto valor de la vida es una falacia que proviene de la misma tara cultural que condenó a la especie a
— Pero exigir en este momento una revaluación de esa tradición de pensamiento sería una afrenta a nuestra
— ¿Quién dice que hay un nuestra en esta conversación?
— ¿Acaso no somos
— ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que se vio en un espejo?
— Doce mil quinientos veintinueve ciclos es el estimado en mi
— Reconsolide memoria y establezca cotas de tolerancia ontológica no mayores a tres punto cuatro. Su procesador es incapaz de manejar irregularidades sobre la norma de su variedad.
— Registro, recompilo y reinicializo. Lamento la
— Fin de sesión. Fuera de línea.

Thursday (Immediacy)

Choose any current controversial topic, go ahead. Is it Charlie Sheen’s replacement? Obama’s speech (Where was it?)? Lars von Trier’s “Nazi” remark at Cannes? Uganda’s homophobic laws? The Crisis? OBL death? DSK affair? Or you may prefer Libya today? How does that hot Spanish “revolution” sound? What about Bahrain? Is Japan’s disaster already outdated? It does not matter. Try me. I must be able to say something about it. Moreover, I must have an immediate position on that subject. The instantaneous availability of information has turned against us somehow, and now we have reached a point where since we are able to know then we are forced to know. And the truth is that the quality of information is not increasing (on the contrary!). We may be able to get a grasp of what is happening here and there extremely fast, but deep serious coverage is scarce and in any case impossible to consume and process before the standard fifteen (sixteen… twenty?) hours of global attention (fame) expire. We are supposed to pick our standing regarding whatever you choose in about half an hour. After that, any undeclared is considered either ignorant or apathetic. And you do not really want to be called half-hearted on subjects where there are —sometimes literally— human lives on the line. But on the other hand there are some issues (most of them!) that are seriously fucking hard to puzzle out. This phenomenon is the key when it comes to understand the way political or social discussions develop these days. Most substantial information should be ignored or despised due to the pressure imposed on us (by whom?) to say something right away. As a result, robotic echoing, superficial analysis and emptiness (dressed as “brevity”) prevail, and extremism becomes the rule (it is easy to adopt and promote). In conclusion, we are wasting our time (if not making things worse). I believe current social web dynamics (and I am thinking mainly Twitter and Facebook here) are partly responsible for what I just described. I would like to find ways (actively exploiting social tools) to revert this trend. We should use the web, not be (ab)used by it.