debitage

16.8.07

The Catholic Definition of Fairness

This article, by a bigwig from the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, normally wouldn't be worth commenting on. It's the usual list of specious arguments against same-sex marriage, like "only opposite-sex biological parents can properly raise children," the implicit claim that most people are bisexual (so changing society's level of support for various household arrangements will cause large numbers of people to opt for an opposite-sex relationship rather than a same-sex one or vice-versa), and various slippery slopes. But then I came across this supposed benefit of heterosexuality:

and also for ensuring a fairer distribution of the parenting burden.

Considering that gender inequality is the biggest contributor to unfair distribution of parenting (and other household tasks), the only sense I can make out of this is that it's a version of the "but which one of you is the husband, hurr hurr" argument. I presume in Mr. Meney's mind, a "fair distribution" of parenting duties is not equal burden sharing (as you'd expect after looking at what the dictionary says about "fair"), but rather a deeply gender-skewed assignment of tasks. So a two-woman household wouldn't know who is supposed to do all the diaper-changing because they both have vaginas.

The article also claims that opposite-sex marriage ensures "intergenerational connectivity." This is also strange, since last I checked gay people have parents who care about their grandchildren (just ask Lynne Cheney). But perhaps that's not true in Meney's circle of acquaintances, because the parents he knows have disowned their LGBT offspring -- but in that case, he might want to think a little harder about whose fault the resulting lack of "intergenerational connectivity" is.

These arguments are always tough when different sides frame the issue in different ways, because that tends to lead to a lot of talking past each other. So I was pleased to see, in one of his slippery slope warnings, that the Catholic Church and the Beyond Marriage crowd are framing the marriage question the same way (albeit choosing diametrically opposed positions):

There is no need to move down the path of providing unimpeded access to a range of benefits to any two or more people who say they are in a relationship. Simple co-dependency is not enough.

As I see it, dependency (whether co- or one-way) is exactly the basis on which society should recognize and support relationships.

Stentor Danielson, 01:59, |

13.8.07

Letting Detainees Die

A number of stories have come out recently about people dying in US immigration detention due to a lack of adequate medical attention. The most heart-wrenching is the case of Victoria Arellano:

The handful of prescription drugs Victor[ia] Arellano* took each morning kept h[er] alive.

But Arellano, in the throes of full-blown AIDS, was denied that medicine when immigration officials locked h[er] up at the San Pedro detention center, other detainees said.

Two months later Arellano, 23, died in custody - too weak to walk to the bathroom alone, but shackled to a hospital bed.

... Arellano's care fell to fellow detainees, who soaked their bath towels in water to cool her fever and used a cardboard box as a makeshift trash can to gather her vomit.

"We all asked the guards for help, to take Victoria to the infirmary but no one did anything," said Oscar Santander, a fellow detainee.

I'm impressed by the other detainees, who saw Arellano as a person and rallied to help her, while the authorities looked the other way until it was too late. The response of the government spokeswoman only makes the moral gulf more clear. The spokeswoman lists off the number of dollars spent on immigrant health care and the number of inmates treated. But those numbers don't tell us anything. What matters is the adequacy of the care recieved. The fact that numerous people are dying easily preventable deaths (both Arellano and Edmar Alves Araujo would have been fine if they had been allowed to stay on their current drugs -- hardly incidents demanding complex and expensive medical attention) demonstrates that the care is not adequate. It's unfortunate that the people who made these decisions can only be sued (probably unsuccessfully) for wrongful death, rather than charged with manslaughter.

*The article does this weird thing where it refers to Arellano as "he" up until the paragraph that mentions she's transgender, and then after that uses "she."

Stentor Danielson, 23:07, |

12.8.07

Cereal Sexism

It occurs to me that pretty much every breakfast cereal mascot is male -- Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, Cap'n Crunch, Lucky the Leprechaun, Count Chocula, Snap, Crackle and Pop, etc (and those that are human or humanoid are white). Even the few that are androgynous on the box, like the Honey Nut Cheerios bee, are IIRC male in commercials. The only exception I can think of is an off-brand shredded wheat I sometimes buy that features a mother kangaroo. Or am I not eating the right cereals?

Stentor Danielson, 16:53, |