First off I wanted to say thanks sooo much for all the input on my last post regarding my Urban Nine Patch dilemma! Now I know I'm really confused! ;o) I got great advice (spelled right this time) though and am leaning towards doing up two patterns.
Again thanks so much for the advice, I wish I could thank each of you individually right now but my computer decided to freeze up on me today and I'm currently at my husbands work using his computer. ;o(
On a better note, I finished up this fun little Chevron Quilt for Lisa this morning!
Love how this turned out! Lot's of ruler work, but being small it didn't take to long, a couple of hours. I used double warm and white batting, off white thread for the white area's and I matched the thread for the colored areas.
~Jenny~
2 comments
Prateek
sorry, I’m not sure I explained that very well.What’s being areugd for in gay marriage is that a permanent faithful stable homosexual relationship cannot and should not be distinguished in any way from a permanent faithful stable heterosexual relationship. As you have pointed out, this comes largely from a desire by those involved (and championed by others) that their own relationships be valued and the assumption that if such equality is not recognised then their relationships (which are personally meaningful and rewarding) are not being valued in the same way and are therefore somehow diminished.What I’ve areugd in this post is that the argument of rights used to support this position doesn’t hold. Of course, there are other arguments being made as well most of all the right to equality . But when one pursues that line of thinking there is also an inconsistency the two relationships (independent of any statement about their moral value) are not actually equivalent in a number of ways. It is interesting, for example, to watch recent discussions in the British House of Lords over questions of consumation and adultery to demonstrate one aspect of this non-equivalence.So yes, I think you’re very right to point us towards the deep desires that lie at the heart of many proponents of the gay marriage case and they should be taken seriously and (even though some of my friends will disagree with me) protected by law (as they already, of course are). But to call them marriage is to so dilute the meaning of the word that, actually, no-one wins. More than that, it is to do our society a disservice by failing to allow for variety and difference and be happy with it.That’s obviously not an exhaustive answer but I hope it helps.
Sonia
It has an old feel to it like watching a sinlet picture. Kind of surreal in a way. A lot going on. The moving flakes against the static tree and playground. The vibrant and repetitive music that mocked the repeating snowflakes. Finally, the darkness middle of winter! All this is rattling and rambling from my head. :)Rick
Leave a comment
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.