David Brooks has an insightful article in yesterday's New York Times about the supremacy of relationships for happiness in life. Here's the intro:
"Two things happened to Sandra Bullock this month. First, she won an Academy Award for best actress. Then came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?"
The rest goes on to give what is, hopefully, the obvious answer to the question.
1 comment:
Ah, but the flaw in the illustration is that it wouldn't seem that she made the choice. It is coincidence, but... tis the season of adulterer'itis. Tis the season of revealing the flaws of man + woman marriages for the sake of paving the way for same sex marriages. In the case for same sex marriage, it has been proposed that after the census somehow we will be able to determine how many same sex marriages currently exist. I don't think I saw a same sex marriage or gay/homosexual bubble to fill in on the census form... how will they figure it out by the census forms? There have been a few figures (source KWAV........................) representing the gay community to reveal or shine light on the negative outcomes of opposite sex marriage to compare the morality to same sex marriages. Again... KWAV... its thin, but tis the season.
Post a Comment