Point of View: Wishes and Likes

cthia wrote:CAUTION
YIELD
STOP

Or whichever traffic sign you pay more attention to. I am not intending to strike up a conversation about politics, but to give a little history leading up to this post.

It is time to consider our Presidential candidates. I'm simply thrilled that Hilary will run. I'm tickled pink at the opportunity to vote for a woman. It's icing on the cake that I also think she'll do a damn fine job.

One of the main issues that seem to threaten many candidates is the topic of gay marriage. On the one hand you have constituents who are Christians and see gay marriages as a threat to religious beliefs and the institution of marriage. On the other, you have those constituents who are concerned with separation of church and state and the issue of government insinuating itself into our personal affairs and bedrooms. It's a sticky subject better than any soap opera.

It is sad that America still has problems with turn of the century issues. And government, corporations, and individuals are frightened to tackle these taboo subjects. Interracial relationships are still a taboo subject on many tv programs, commercials, endorsements, etc. etc. etc. How can we discuss gay rights when we can't even tackle interracial issues?

But those entities that are willing to tackle those issues head on and stand by them come out as winners and leaders. There was a rather controversial Cheerios commercial, starring an interracial family. I cannot believe that that commercial and Cheerios representatives took so much negative flak. Cheerios was bombarded with requests to pull the commercial off the air. Cheerios basically told that segment of people to suck it! Bravo Cheerios.

America is so damn confused. At any rate, I praise writers, producers and authors who aren't afraid to tackle certain issues. I immediately praised Weber for not only placing black people in the Honorverse, but the Queen of Manticore is black! I didn't see that one coming.

So, I arrive at the exit marker of my post. Is it time for Weber to take on gay marriage? Will he lead the way? I can certainly understand why many corporations, writers, producers and leaders steer clear of such issues. Things can go into the crapper very quickly.

If Weber was to tackle the issue of gay marriage, it should be with a very visible character. Unsuspected. Abigail would do that quite well. And she would be believable, as far as her Grayson upbringing and women living so closely together. Abigail and Stacy Hauptman somehow meeting and falling in love would sell lots of tickets. It'd be a sell out. I'd buy them all. And it'd be a sure-fire way for Weber to snag another segment of readers.

She could even end up joining Honor, Emily and White Haven. At any rate, what do you think of Weber tackling this on-the-front-burner issue?

It'd be an awesome POV.


General Mill's original Cheerios commercial and its follow up Super Bowl counterpart.

https://youtu.be/pbWeH9cztHw

https://youtu.be/5qkJHgkUzDA

saber964 wrote:

cthia wrote:CAUTION
YIELD
STOP

Or whichever traffic sign you pay more attention to. I am not intending to strike up a conversation about politics, but to give a little history leading up to this post.

It is time to consider our Presidential candidates. I'm simply thrilled that Hilary will run. I'm tickled pink at the opportunity to vote for a woman. It's icing on the cake that I also think she'll do a damn fine job.

One of the main issues that seem to threaten many candidates is the topic of gay marriage. On the one hand you have constituents who are Christians and see gay marriages as a threat to religious beliefs and the institution of marriage. On the other, you have those constituents who are concerned with separation of church and state and the issue of government insinuating itself into our personal affairs and bedrooms. It's a sticky subject better than any soap opera.

It is sad that America still has problems with turn of the century issues. And government, corporations, and individuals are frightened to tackle these taboo subjects. Interracial relationships are still a taboo subject on many tv programs, commercials, endorsements, etc. etc. etc. How can we discuss gay rights when we can't even tackle interracial issues?

But those entities that are willing to tackle those issues head on and stand by them come out as winners and leaders. There was a rather controversial Cheerios commercial, starring an interracial family. I cannot believe that that commercial and Cheerios representatives took so much negative flak. Cheerios was bombarded with requests to pull the commercial off the air. Cheerios basically told that segment of people to suck it! Bravo Cheerios.

America is so damn confused. At any rate, I praise writers, producers and authors who aren't afraid to tackle certain issues. I immediately praised Weber for not only placing black people in the Honorverse, but the Queen of Manticore is black! I didn't see that one coming.

So, I arrive at the exit marker of my post. Is it time for Weber to take on gay marriage? Will he lead the way? I can certainly understand why many corporations, writers, producers and leaders steer clear of such issues. Things can go into the crapper very quickly.

If Weber was to tackle the issue of gay marriage, it should be with a very visible character. Unsuspected. Abigail would do that quite well. And she would be believable, as far as her Grayson upbringing and women living so closely together. Abigail and Stacy Hauptman somehow meeting and falling in love would sell lots of tickets. It'd be a sell out. I'd buy them all. And it'd be a sure-fire way for Weber to snag another segment of readers.

She could even end up joining Honor, Emily and White Haven. At any rate, what do you think of Weber tackling this on-the-front-burner issue?

It'd be an awesome POV.


General Mill's original Cheerios commercial and its follow up Super Bowl counterpart.

https://youtu.be/pbWeH9cztHw

https://youtu.be/5qkJHgkUzDA

America has been dealing with these questions a long long time the first inter-racial kiss took place on the TV Star Trek TOS in 1968 the first inter-racial married couple was the Wilson's on the TV show The Jefferson's and the first inter-racial dating couple was on the show All in the Family.

cthia wrote:CAUTION
YIELD
STOP

Or whichever traffic sign you pay more attention to. I am not intending to strike up a conversation about politics,

Relax wrote:

cthia wrote:CAUTION
YIELD
STOP

Or whichever traffic sign you pay more attention to. I am not intending to strike up a conversation about politics,

One you are: You just do not want anyone to reply while getting your own shovel full in.

Since you decided to run politics while claiming you are not(hypocrisy), why should we institutionalize perversion? Just because you are "married" does not mean you are allowed to dictate medical care for a loved one in a hospital. You see that requires Medical power of attorney. If your spouse has not put that in their will, you are SOL. Now the court may appoint the spouse as medical power of attorney, but it must be done THROUGH the courts. Same goes for power of attorney regarding $$$.

In short, the pervert "marriage" has nothing to do with
"rights", said "rights" already exist and have existed for a VERY LONG TIME, instead it is simply an attack on Religion so this segment of society with this form of perversion can feel good about their perversion.

Marriage is for raising of children acknowledging natural order that males and females are indeed different and learning how each interacts differently.

Perversion should not be glorified but treated as it is. Something we all deal with, but in different aspects of our lives.

I am a pervert. So is everyone else. I do not want my perverted nature to be "moralized" by society. It is wrong. Period. We should strive for optimum, not create laws to moralize perversion to make some group of peoples perversion "feel" good.

If DW glorifies perversion(any form), I will quit buying his books. Acknowledgment that perversion in many forms resides in all of us, causes us to negotiate our handicaps MUST be shown to mimic reality. But to glorify perversion? Hell no.

DETOUR
All traffic in this lane please keep right

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6996

Divided Highway Ends

SWM wrote:I will not get into the whole political thing. I'm afraid that the phrasing you used, Cthia, inherently made it a political statement.

But on the non-political side, I think you may have missed the fact that Admiral Sarnow has a male partner.

cthia wrote:

SWM wrote:But on the non-political side, I think you may have missed the fact that Admiral Sarnow has a male partner.

I know. It is why I said I wasn't trying to start a political discussion but just supplying some history leading to - and hopefully explaining the post.

Yes, I missed that about Sarnow! Uh oh, I hope DW doesn't lose readers for being realistic and accurate.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:I know. It is why I said I wasn't trying to start a political discussion but just supplying some history leading to - and hopefully explaining the post.

Yes, I missed that about Sarnow! Uh oh, I hope DW doesn't lose readers for being realistic and accurate.

I was going to mention Sarnow; if SWM hadn't beaten me to it.

But cthia, don't feel bad that you missed it. RFC mentioned it here on the board, and it's in his private honorverse "bible", but hasn't shown up "on screen" in the books. Sarnow just hasn't gotten much "screen time" and very few characters have had their spouse (if any) mentioned -- so his husband is just one of many unmentioned spouses. (Even the character mini-bios in HoS focus on career and are almost universally silent on family; and the marriages that are mentioned are mostly major ones that had novel "screen time" already)

My understanding is that that kind of detail will come up, for Sarnow or anyone else, only when RFC feels it's pertinent to the scene. (Hopefully we'll get a short story that covers, say, Sarnow's struggles managing Silesia and it'll will include a bit with his husband)