Dec. 23rd, 2008

fajrdrako: ([Torchwood] - 02)


Title: Femme Fatale
Author: [livejournal.com profile] fajrdrako
Fandom: Torchwood
Characters: Ianto, Lisa
Challenge: [livejournal.com profile] tw100, challenge: 100 drabble challenge, challenge: R.E.M. Titles
Rating: G
Disclaimer: Not mine, no claims, all property of the BBC.
Notes: Spoilers for 1x04, "Cybwerwoman". Cross-posted to my LJ and to tw100.

ExpandFemme Fatale )

Angel...

Dec. 23rd, 2008 08:46 am
fajrdrako: (Default)


I said the other day that the song "Angel" on the new John Barrowman CD was the song I liked least.

So why is that the one that is stuck interminably in my head?

fajrdrako: (Default)


There are two interesting links to essays about Rick Warren on [livejournal.com profile] lilithlotr's LJ today.

The second is written by Melissa Etheridge and it impressed me no end. Gave me a sense of hope: a reminder that things aren't always as black and white as they appear. There is so much sensationalism and polemicizing, it's refreshing to see an essay that looks at other possibilities. And yet, and yet... being of a peacemaking, see-both-sides-of-an-issue temperament myself, I find it difficult to be optimistic for the hopes of peace or progress in this particular battleground.

The first essay is by Alan Cumming, whom I love as an actor.

I found the two essays an interesting case of cultural comparison. Against stereotype, American Melissa Etheridge is the voice of peace and conciliation. The British Alan Cumming talks as if the UK has torn down all barriers with the legalization of 'civil partnerships', gving him all the human rights a gay person could need or want. John Barrowman would agree with him. What's in a word?

As a Canadian - happily accustomed to gay marriage being legal, and being called such - I find myself baffled. How can it be equality, when one group of person gets one thing legally (civil partnership), and another group of persons gets another (marriage)? Something from which the first group is barred? If marriage is a desirable state, shouldn't it be accessible to those who want it? How can it be said that 'marriage' has meant a certain thing for thousands of years when the word didn't actually enter the English language (such as it was) till the 13th century? And since definitions of words are arbitrary and change with time anyway, why are we letting this be a stumbling block to human rights? Is there any reason to remain governed by the same laws as 500 years ago, or a thousand, or two thousand?1

Seems to me that partial equality is not equality at all. And it also seems to me that the olive branch of compassion is a little demeaning when equality is denied. Which is why I like Alan Cummings' statement: "It is about human decency and respect." Acceptance is the word I'd use. I don't think I can demand respect - that has to be earned, individually - but I can demand equality, and each and every one of us has a right to that.

Has Barak Obama made any statement to the press (or to gay rights groups) about his thoughts on the matter - why he chose Rick Warren to speak?

Gay rights aside, regardless of what Rick Warren believes about anything, I am philosophically more troubled that the USA is thought to need a public and ceremonial Christian invocation to start off a Presidency. Long tradition, I know, but it seems to me that the basic conflict is between religious doctrine and secular change. A spiritual speaker with no religious affiliation - ah, well, I can dream, right?


~ ~ ~

1 And those laws were not what people think they were, either, but that's yet another issue.

Profile

fajrdrako: (Default)
fajrdrako

October 2023

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
151617181920 21
22 232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

Expand All Cut TagsCollapse All Cut Tags
Page generated Jul. 3rd, 2025 10:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios