C! no comments for you because you don't blog enough! *pwaf! with a fish!*
of E's blog, ms. prolific when she's got my keyboard! (in either case, at least it stopped me blogging. if i'd blogged earlier, i'd still have a homework backlog now. and next week's finals!)
i am reminded why i am such a happy participant in flame wars, looking at the vast array of things to contradict and rant on on her blog. well, taking things, again, one at a time: (btw, should i just jump into the discussions? it's another case of not wanting to intrude on a private party)

on homosexual marriage:
yes! let people marry if they want! religion hasn't really been a major aspect of marriage for quite a while now. if it still was, then people of different religions wouldn't have to accept each other's marriages. moreover, we wouldn't have pre-nups and divorce courts and child custody cases if people stuck to their religion's definition of marriage. because marriage is now a largely social institutuion, and society seems to accept homosexuality, what's the problem with gay people marrying each other?
i realise that i don't want to read the rest of that rather heated discussion, or my poor engineer's brian might explode. so that's all the thought i have to offer on that matter.
on singaporean gay marriage:
consider the irony in the singaporean system: it's one of the only places in the world where the government can ignore the popular demand and legalise gay marriage (and being gay in general). they'd just use the "we need it to improve our competitiveness" slogan. after all, if people can accept a 10% pay cut, why not that? but then again, the government is too wise to make people angry for no reason at all - they're very pragmatic, after all.
On the sexuality quiz:
to a certain extent, i do not think that "homosexuality is not different from heterosexuality except in gender of the partner." i think that the nature of relationships are very much based on the dynamics between the individuals involved, and much as i hate to say this, i think that _in_general_ male and female mindsets are quite different. perhaps there will be some homosexual relationships where the dynamics are identical to a heterosexual one... but i guess i'm just saying that in general the relationships will have vastly different dynamics.
On homosexuality in general:
i find it amusing that ness and i are both bi and have, on occassion, discussed the attractiveness of our friends. maybe we often devolve into cuteseyness and/or "married with kids" behavior, but i'm glad our relationship is anything but typical.
and finally i'm down to the last point:
On America:
i've been doing my intro to cultures and the env class for a sem now, and what's been repeatedly driven home is that america's dominant white group has had a very long history of forced assimilation. this definitely includes religion (forced religious conversion for the Indians, etc...) . from where i'm sitting, in sunny california, in what is supposed to be most liberal campus in the world, the word "gay" is still a synonym for "weird" or "strange" (meant in a negative way, by the way). it is simply human nature to despise, fear and create illusions about what we don't know, americans in general are so banefully ill-informed, oblivious to the rest of the world (where else does "the world" only imply the continental united states?) and willing to accept whatever crap is presented to them (ie: george bush, wrestling, ABC coverage of the invasion of iraq) that it should not be surprising that they react badly to everything they don't consider normal. Warren Ellis wrote that america is a country of "conservative puritans" and he's right - because conservative puritanism is the default mode for everyone. and in a country where cultural mixing is rare ("we're all american" note, i said cultural, not racial...) and education is just poor (i feel this is largely because the tall poppy syndrome is so prevalent here. another example of american puritanism: "if you're not like me in every way, you must be evil"), this attitude is unlikely to change. (i need footnotes when writing. never been much of an essayist. )
it is also not surprising that the "land of the free" isn't. america's history is rife with hypocrisy. consider: what happened to the indian peoples? dragged off to reservations by government troops. when congressional leaders protested president jackson's "round -up", he laughed and said "you've got to stop me." by the way, it is a part of the constiution that all dealings with american indians are solely the province of congress, and that they must in all ways be treated and respected as sovereign powers. america never stuck to either spirit or letter of that law since they became significantly more powerful militarily than the indians.
the civil war: half the country decides to take america's holy of holies, the declaration of independence at it's word, decides to secede, and the central government fights them. why?
various prejudicial laws against new immigrant groups. "give me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" is a lie. mostly it's "let them come so long as we profit and they don't offer any competition and they'd better go back to where they came from, smelly foreigners"
but i guess i have digressed more than a little. what i am trying to say is that america still views itself as protestant christian, and isn't about to change that for any old reason.