text:
Sunday, November 23, 2008
SdB was already arguing for this in the 40s -- that women were the same as men, and that gender was a social construction. LANGUAGE itself -- as a poetic movement -- was on the side of social construction, and was an attempt to investigate the ways in which language constructed reality -- the fascination with Jacques Lacan was part of that denial of biological reality and part of the interest in "the imaginary." Lacan argued that the imaginary was everything. Nothing at all fell outside of this domain. Even the psychiatric hour was flexible, so that if he got his work done in a few seconds, the patient went home. Time held not objective reality to Lacan, in spite of his many references to Kant -- who argued that place and time do exist for humanity.
I tend to see immutable laws that lie outside of us as very real. I see time as real, and clocks as measuring something that we have in common, and I think a mountain is a mountain and not a social construct.
I didn't mind Larry Summers bringing up the possibility that there is a gender difference in regards to the ability to learn math. I don't think that women have less ability in that area. Perhaps there is less interest. That could still be a social construction. There are social constructions, but not everything is a social construction.
Strict social constructionists argued implicitly that gender difference or race difference is a taboo that can't be looked into -- Summers lost his job the way Galileo was shut down for looking at the sun incorrectly and displacing humanity as the center of God's creation.
There are all kinds of hilarious shibboliths in the new secularism.
They take the notion that all humans are created equally as a biological statement, rather than a legal statement, which raises interesting questions.
Biological reality is something that can't be socially reconstructed -- death for instance, has a biological aspect that the children of the sixties haven't been able to wish away -- AIDS, herpes, chlamydia, and other diseases have not boded well for the sexual revolution. We remember Erica Jong and her Fear of Flying, and the notion of the zipless F. An F that would just happen, without any preliminaries, or any sense of responsibility. Viral opportunists loved the sixties.
It turns out that there is an objective reality. What then is the role for poetry, or religion?
Midgley writes that some proponents of positivism attempted to oust anything unscientific "as a way of cutting out the metaphysical extravagances of religion. The only question then was how to spell out these simplifying, reductive explanations in detail across the full range of the humanities -- across, for instance, geography, history, logic, law, musicology, linguistics and ethics as well as nascent social sciences" (116-117).
"early in the twentieth century, then, serious supporters of the reductive project turned from imperialistic conquest to isolationism. Rather than try to turn history, poetry, ethics and the rest into parts of science, they worked to restore scientific purity by shutting these strangers out. Finally, following Popper, they narrowed the definition of science so far that it excluded, not just Marx and Spengler and Freud, but much of the social sciences as well. (By an unlucky oversight they also shut out Darwinian evolutionary theory, which had to be brought back as an awkward exception" (117).
"On the one hand, they hold that science is the only reputable form of thought, everything else being either religion or 'pseudo-science.' On the other hand, they now define science so narrowly that this story cannot possibly be true" (117).
All quotes from Poetry and Science, pp. 116-117, by Mary Midgley.
Along with the rise of science as the only valid form of thinking, there has been a renewed emphasis on what she calls "moral minimalism" (159). Concern for those outside of our social contract are difficult to articulate. Our responsibility to the Iraqi people, for instance, is thought to be almost impossible to articulate by many on the left. One feels that we ought to care about animals, but on what basis? The notion of St. Francis preaching to the birds, and talking to them of God's creation, and having them as a respectful audience, would seem laughable to a bunch of men in white coats, who would probably put St. Francis in the nut bin.
"Contract thinking sought to abolish the ideas towards anyone or anything outside that society. Of course the more subtle contract theorists, such as Kant and John Rawls, have not treated these duties simply as flowing from self-interest, as Hobbes did. But the original point of the model was to limit the scope of the duties within a definite society, not to enlarge that scope... The real target of contract thinking was a distorted notion of duties towards God, and towards earthly rulers who claimed to be God's regent. But this move had an unintended side-effect. It now makes it quite hard for us to make sense of our responsibility towards humans outside of our own society, and almost impossible to explain our responsibilities toward non-human nature" (Midgley 159).
159 comments:
- Carl Sachs said...
One way of seeing the matter, perhaps, is to regard "objective" and "subjective" as interdependent concepts. One is the contrast-class with the other. (As with "up" and "down," etc.)
If nothing is truly objective, then nothing would be truly subjective, either. The two stand or fall together.
On the other hand, I, like Midgley, would resist the attempt to make natural science the sole arbiter of objectivity. As Midgley points out, doing that makes ethics a purely subjective matter, and that's a disaster. (The same should be said for logic and for mathematics, which cannot be reduced to natural phenomena either.)
(I also cannot stress loudly enough how central it is to my thinking that the objectivity of ethics must be taken back by the left.)
So I think we should be not only insist on the subjective/objective distinction, but also be pluralists about the objective: science, logic, mathematics, and ethics all have a place at the table.
But what about poetry? Or theology? - Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 4:18:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Midgley is insisting that they too have a place at the table. Perhaps not the grand place that Shelley allotted for them ("the unacknowledged legislator of the world"), but something along those lines.
She writes, "What, then, about poetry and the arts generally? They too play a central part in our intellectual life because they supply the language in which our imaginative visions are most immediately articulated, the medium through which we usually get our first impression of them..." (38)...
She is equally against going through literary texts with a political axe to grind in which literature should be "viewed simply as a set of rather primitive political documents which must be reproved for failing to reach the most recently invented moral standards. ('Shakespeare was a racist'...) (38).
She argues that science was originally envisioned by a poet -- Lucretius -- whose atomistic version of the world was meant to Occam off the gods, but not to do anything else but show that the world was "determined" by materialism...
She argues instead for an active search into morality...
I'm not sure she would reverse engines and declare the subjective to have an objective side.
My pastor did that ... he argued that the Ten commandments were WRITTEN ON THE HEART, and were there for everyone who really looked into his or her conscience, and thus, that they were not socially constructed, as most of the left seems to argue (including Rorty).
She argues instead "New ideas are new imaginative visions, not just in the sense that they involve particular new images (Kekule's image fo the serpent eating its tail) but in the sense that they involve changes in our larger world-pictures, in the general way in which we conceive life" (24).
So Midgely seems to argue at least to some extent that our world-view is a matter of a free-ranging imagination.
Some scientists and mathematicians (admittedly few) such as Einstein and Godel argue instead that the world CAN BE UNDERSTOOD -- that is, that it has an actual shape and substance -- much like Plato argued that it did.
I think perhaps Midgley lays too much emphasis on the imagination for my taste, and therefore on the notino that we are creating a world out of our imagination.
I like better the idea of an objective set of values that are WRITTEN ON THE HEART, as my pastor insistently put it. Godel also agrees with that notion -- that when he was doing math, he was discovering, rather than inventing.
Einstein also put a spin on his ideas so that his findings ought to accord with what God had intended, and that through theory we are discovering the truth, not just inventing something (the way tha tLacan insists that everything is imaginary).
Against Hazard Adams, who argues that Blake thought science and poetry could co-exist, Midgley quotes Dawkins as saying that "Blake did not love science, even feared and despised it:
'For Bacon and Newton, sheath'd in dismal steel, their terrors hang/
Like iron scourges over Albion"
She also quotes some really nasty lines from Bacon -- he wanted to torture nature into giving up her secrets, and wrote that we should subdue "Nature with all her children, to bind her to your service and make her your slave'" (41).
Midgley argues that objective is about the external world, and subjective about the internal.
So she really does separate the two.
I'm not certain that she argues for an objective morality. I'll have to see if I can catch her at it, if so. But I think she's arguing that morality is an imaginative projection, and that the world itself is blank, but that without these imaginative projections, we haven't got much to go on as a civil society.
I'd sure much rather have an objective morality based on the Ten Cs.
Would you go there?? - Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 5:54:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
I don't understand what the heck you're talking about. You're constantly building these strawmen, and I don't see a point in it.
Who is arguing against there being an objective reality? I mean, really. Who? Not most social constructivists.
In fact, I don't think that most social constructivists believe that equality is a "biological" condition. Rather, they understand the power of social mores, and believe that this power should be redirected toward creating equality where biology has either denied it outright, or worked in concert with previous social mores to deny it (say, for example, a person with a mental disability, or in the latter case, the historical mistreatment of women).
And I mean, the claim that X race or Y gender is biologically better or worse at Math or whatever else, is just insanely stupid, whether you're a social constructivist or not. It's quite obvious to anybody who's gone to school in America that certain demographics tend traditionally to be pushed in one direction or another. To blame biological difference for this imbalance is to assume that everybody is already being treated equally and getting the same educations, in the same learning environments, which is not the case at all.
And since when is science considered to be the only valid way of thinking? By Dawkins? Since when is he representative of anybody else?
This is a really shoddy predicate to an argument about poetry. - Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 7:01:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
You have a parochial perspective, Max.
Just read Midgley a bit. She's a Social Democrat, dude.
She quotes many contemporary scientists who are much more violently dismissive toward poetry than Dawkins. - Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 7:30:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Cult-cracking the left is very hard, like taking the denizens of Plato's Cave out into the light.
But this is a free community service.
I only wish it was easier! - Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 8:18:00 PM EST
now you are an expert on
Mary Midgley! and "the One true God"
you are a fucking Nazi Moron! - Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 8:23:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
This is not 4chan, digg, reddit, or whatever silly place you frequent. The level of discourse is quite higher. Also, get a handle.
Who is arguing against there being an objective reality? I mean, really. Who? Not most social constructivists.
Wasn't there that philosopher who said the only way to prove you were alive was to beat to death the one you loved?
I mean, I'm pretty sure he was arguing against an objective reality. Really, Max, you should pay more attention. Perhaps you went to two very conservative schools, never talked to anyone outside of your school, and then moved to South Korea, which is, as you say, a Capitalist's wet dream.
Or the rest of us are entirely insane.
You know, one or the other. - Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 10:41:00 PM EST
- Carl Sachs said...
I don't know if anyone here is "insane," but I have to say, I appreciated Max's point. I don't know what that says about me, if anything.
- Sunday, November 23, 2008 at 11:36:00 PM EST
- Max said...
The point isn't that nobody has ever argued such things. The point is that these are, by no means, arguments that prevail within the very communities that Kirby is railing on. Please prove to me that your average person who believes some things are socially constructed also believes that biology itself is a social construction, or that an objective reality (like stones, and mountains, and dirt, and cities, and REAL STUFF) doesn't exist. Please prove to me that your average science, or science enthusiast, believes that science comprises the only valid way of thinking.
Or, as they say on the interwebs, "STFU and GTFO." - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 3:42:00 AM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
I dunno, Max. Why don't you try talking to them and asking them these questions.
"Those people" have certainly answered in the positive before.
But, whatever, you won't agree with or believe me so I might as well be talking to someone watching shadows on a cave wall. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:33:00 AM EST
more hocus-pocus re"Religion and Politics! - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 7:53:00 AM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Patrizia apparently thinks the world might just be a big ol hallucination -- and that we don't see the world but its reflection, etc. etc.
It's all a bunch of solipsism. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 8:15:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Max, I just said I didn't care if someone brought up the idea that perhaps women are less good at math. It doesn't bother me. Perhaps it's true. Women's brains are slightly different than men's. Boys learn math easier at an earlier age. Girls learn to speak easier and at an earlier age. Perhaps this results in a lifetime advantage. I don't think it does, but I don't mind if someone brings the idea up. Anything's possible.
There is the cultural aspect to triumph, but there is probably also a biological component that offers some segments of the population an advantage in certain areas.
I don't see why this is so harrowing to confront.
Some people really are smarter than others.
Some people really are stronger, and faster.
Some people really don't have much emotional intelligence.
Perhaps to some degree this accords with race, gender, and class.
I wouldn't know.
But it probably does, to some degree.
It can't all be culture. But those who think that it is are social constructionists.
If you come from a bookish culture that prizes book learning, then those who are good at it will excel, and get the best pick of mates.
If you come from a warrior culture that prizes great strength, then those who are good at it will get the best pick of mates.
Factor in two millenia of such a choice, and you will begin to produce a race of people that is stronger in the selected ability.
People in that respect are no different from dogs. You can breed dogs.
Obviously you can breed people for specific skills as well.
You can't make a poodle into a greyhound that wins against other greyhounds at the track.
This just seems quite obvious, except that it flies in the face of social construction theory and is therefore something that a lot of people wouldn't like to hear. And of course it reminds them of Nazi eugenics.
And so they begin to froth at the mouth.
I find that quite normal.
But then I like to make social constructionists froth at the mouth.
Because they make me froth at the mouth. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 9:53:00 AM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Hey, don't forget, the Social Constructionists like Eugenics, too -- they're all for abortions.
- Monday, November 24, 2008 at 9:56:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
There are now many controversies swirling -- many brought up by Max. He uses a social constructionist argument to argue that we don't know whether some are better at math than others, because we have never had ideally equal conditions.
The equals sign is a fascinating one, but I think we ought to be begin there.
No two people are alike, so no two people are equal.
If you had everyone built by the same exact manufacturer on the same exact day according to the same exact design, using the exact same materials, and then putting them in the exact same conditions, even then there would be inequality of performance, I think.
But taking specific people (each of whom can be identified by a fingerprint) and then asking them to performn identically (and when they don't arguing that this is because of some oppression or another), seems "insanely stupid" to quote Max.
There is always going to be a certain amount of inequality, because no things will ever be exactly alike, therefore there can never be perfect equality.
This isn't that.
Even two Eberhard No. 2 pencils, from the same factory, are not identical because they occupy different points in space and time.
Equality is not a possibility, and I don't see why it should be such an important thing.
But it really is for one huge portion of the electorate -- the idea that anyone can be anything is part of the American dream.
But I think if I started training when I was three to beat Mike Tyson in a championship boxing match and had the best trainers, and bulked up, and lifted weights, and perhaps even cheated with steroids, I still wouldn't last a round.
I could complain.
I could say, this isn't fair.
But I just deal with it.
There is a whole school of gender theory having to do with performance. That women can perform as men.
Maybe. But they would never beat men in the Olympics games, which is why they have separate categories for women.
Women can get close, but they can't win.
Women aren't men.
Men aren't women.
The equality sign doesn't really fit.
To point this out seems to create huge bolts of electricity -- electrons just flashing along a defensive perimeter -- it's the sort of thing that -- if you say it -- can get you into a heap of trouble -- rather like saying that the earth circulates around the sun.
That the sun really is the center of the solar system is now obvious.
I think eventually we will grant that people are not identical.
That we are born with different talents.
I could dream that I am the greatest boxer the world has ever known, but it doesn't make it true.
I'm a wimp, and I don't like pain. I would never make it as a boxer.
Because I am not biologically fitted for that.
No one in my background was ever a fighter.
But heck, I can live with it. I still love to watch the fights on TV. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
- Carl Sachs said...
It's too bad that no one ever bothered to distinguish between different kinds of equality, such as equality of sovereignty, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality of resources.
Well, no one except for political philosophers like Rawls and Dworkin. But who reads them? It's so much easier to make it up as you go along than to sit down and follow some silly old argument! - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 11:13:00 AM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Actually, Carl, what is too bad is that the framers thought it unnecessary to complete the phrase "equal before the law" since they knew that any other construction was simply silly.
- Monday, November 24, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
They have a token leftist on Fox from Temple University who talks about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. He says he just wants equality of opportunity.
I don't think this is possible.
I realize that -- Rorty brings up this distinction and thanks to you, I did read one of his books, and have another one lined up to peruse shortly. However, I still don't see why or how this huge proportion of a society's resources will be expended trying to create conditions that Cosby (for one) says would be better ameliorated by dads staying in families.
Fifty percent divorce rates and up definitely do lead to a shortage in parents in a house, which means that kids will not do as well. Some studies show that it results in an IQ loss of approximately ten points.
Should there be greater penalties for divorce? Would that create the equality of opportunity that children need?
Abortion of course means that a kid never gets to the starting gate. That's not equality of opportunity!
But Carl is right that I am mixing different kinds of opportunity around, and different notions of equality.
Smith argued that we should let an economy sort itself out.
I still think this is the best way to deal with the economy rather than to try to socially reconstruct it towards a Soviet style equality of poverty.
But heck, that's why people keep screaming at me that I'm a neo-con.
I wonder how things went in the Rorty clan. Many of these top liberals have a strange side in which they are seen -- even by their own families -- as elitist pricks. The stories you hear! I guess I'd better not repeat them in public. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 12:54:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
I think the best solution to divorce with kids (besides not to have one) is to require the parents to maintain new, separate part-time residences while the children are allowed to remain in the home.
M - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 1:02:00 PM EST
In response to Carl Sachs, I believe we've discussed equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of result on several occasions, especially when the political blogging here was particularly spirited. Kirby and GM alluded to it yet again. Enthusiasts for equality of results policies seem to me the most dangerous and sinister of the egalitarian tribe.
Midgely seems to exemplify that hallowed British tradition of the marvelous philosophical muddler who rejects the default-position social constructionism of egalitarians like Rorty (all is socially or linguistically-engendered nurture) and the reductionism of the Dawkins-Dennett axis (all is genetically or materially-determined nature). Her positions seem consistent with the Seven Sages' adage "meden agan" ("ne quid nimis" or "nothing too much"). I took her point about the self-limiting dangers of contract thinking contracting the thinking of some thinkers who think it. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 1:10:00 PM EST
For the record, I really stink at maths.
I've got a fantastic memory and fairly well-evolved verbal skills, (typically female, I suppose) but mathematics has always been beyond me (except geometry, oddly).
I wonder how much one's real-world intelligence (not IQ) is related to one's memory. I know many people whose powerful memory allows them to remember the name of a waitress at a cafe they went to 8 years ago (Jeannie, in case you were wondering).
A male relative of mine can remember a list of thirty random objects in order years after they were selected--in addition, he remembers almost verbatim every conversation he has ever had, which is a bit disconcerting. He also has a positively enormous head. I must have inherited that from him.
A female relative of mine is a bit of an idiot savant. She has limited emotional and social intelligence, but she remembers the phone number, zip code, birth date, height, weight, favorite color, favorite song, and favorite food, of everyone she knows. She is a human database. When we lose our phone books, we call her to get Great Aunt Frances' phone number.
Memory is valuable in its own right but it also gives one the ability to draw connections between prior knowledge and present experience, or knowledge of different subjects. This is how new ideas are born.
Would you rather be better in math, or have a better memory? - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 1:42:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Emma, I am also good at geometry -- the only math I could ace. Gregory Corso loved geometry, and I love Corso.
Is there a link?
I think it may be the strong visual aspect of geometry. I can picture it.
In high school I just loved it from the moment it was introduced but also instantly hated algebra. I'm told that all equations can be put down as a regular sentence.
That might help.
I like things a little down to earth, or at least I like to be able to imagine the thing visually.
I think in images.
My dad apparently dreams in words. He says that it's like reading the headlines in Times Square.
But my dad is a joker, so you can never be sure. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 2:10:00 PM EST
I felt exactly the same way! I had no problem working through proofs (and I liked it, too!), but sit me down with a multiple variable algebra problem, and I'm screwed.
Jacques doesn't understand this, because geography incorporates a lot of algebra.
I can't explain it, but I'm just good at geometry.
You think in images? How incredibly entertaining that would be! I think in words and sentences--except for when I've had TONS of coffee, at which point the ideas don't translate into words until they hit the paper. I love it when that happens. I just bi-pass the "ideas into words" part of my brain so that it becomes "ideas into sentences and paragraphs" without hearing the words in my head. Does that make sense?
I guess we all have our bizarrities! - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 2:22:00 PM EST
- jh said...
i defy the readers of this blog to tell me what science is doing these days
doing in matters of importance
the only thing i can come up with is the ecological response to the failures of science
other than that it's just tweeking and probing and manifesting the various layers of science fiction as a way of life
there must've been a mid century reaction to the popper doctrine of legitmate academics
for in the 70's and d80's the most popular major in all colleges across the land was psychology
most of these people went into commercial marketing and law
but science reigns on top of the academic pyramid
even though we see young people struggling against it
the case has been made that our culture depends on more R&D and applied science
that man was ever considered a poetic animal looks like a girl rejected from the cheerleaders dressed in a business suit reciting HOWL on the 50 yrd line during the game
i recall losing some trust in bill clinton when he said he wanted to put a computer in every classroom around the world...i thought my god what better way to railroad young minds into utilitarian fantasy and delusion ultimately
the machine replacing human transferance of knowldedge and wisdom
20th century poetry was intesely confessional and ultimately a tad suicidal
for poets had by then truly lost much if not all of their significance
we can argue for a revival of the significance of poetry
yet it can be nought but an epistemological commercial
the cleverest poets of today seem to be giving some expression to the gaps in knowledge and the lack of coherence that a preoccupation with science has brought about
the arrogance of humanology displays itself in the proclamations of visual and audible exaggeration colored by a penchant for the grotesque
the document HUMANAE VITAE spelled out the consequences of sexual interaction sans moral or ethic
aided by scientific control of womens' bodies which in the end is simply a form of gnostic doubt parading today as disgust for femininity in a clowns' mask
the optimism which posits: if given the chance people will use reason and good will to work together for a better world seems only to work in the military...perhaps some of the churches function this way at the local level
people get to decide who and what can teach them anything
is there a hierarchy of knowledge??
they are led to forget quickly
does the human mind desire freedom
and when cnostructing the domains in which an imagined freedom might flourish do we them imprison
italian poets (and musicians) gave full and elaborate expression to the realm of human emotion before the 18th century
psychology merely put tags on it all and tampered with belief that it is all manageable
we are tortured with the presumptions of the feminine takeover of cultural power
and it will not return to meaningful balance until we smell again the stink of men
heideggers dying plea for a return of the gods is heard and they come forth apparent everywhere
ours is a pandemonium of idolatries
i recite ancient hebrew poetry everyday translated into adequate english
i am an alien
i am infected with the irrationality of faith and nothing i mean nothing can cure me
nothing short of the object of my faith
and for this i am subject to peril
man has no business no duty no right to explore the nucleus of the cell (paraphrase of wes jackson)
we no longer need knowledge for doing but only knowledge for being
live as if birth control is science fiction
the only sport that makes any sense to me anymore is women's boxing
that and hackey sack
who are the designers of the new rhetoric of "appropriate"?
everyone wants to get their hands on something
said the mouse to the cockroach
"care to scurry"
burdens of thought like
embers in a fire
glow and turn to ashen grey
the saline tears fall and fall
but nothing meaningful comes to mind
now i hear they want to revive the mastadon with genetic coding engineering
at least science still has some common sense
the rest of the day
is a prelude to winter
i'll travel in the sad land
of our shared and ignored deprivations - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 2:33:00 PM EST
I've no quarrel with science, whether theoretical or applied, only scientism promoted in the aggressive manner of Dawkins and Dennett. What seems dangerous about scientific thinking is when it is claimed as proof for some Utopian, or catastrophic, or instrumentalist theory that seems to have our collective future confidently mapped out. But I don't see any inherent quarrel between science and poetry.
As jh says, psychology was a popular area of study for many some decades ago. Its scientific status was and is problematic except in the broadest sense of any area of study with pretensions to learning. For its claims of scientific rigor the mostly pseudo-science of psychology (experimental methods and conceptual confusion, as Wittgenstein has it) often relies on the science of biology, which relies on chemistry, which relies on physics, which requires theoretical mathematics. Traditional insightful human psychology as an exploration of the soul, intelligence, will, and emotions seems to have been banished to philosophy and great novels. And poetry. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 3:52:00 PM EST
- Logan Lamech said...
It seems that time alters science to no end so we shouldn't be scorned for questioning the currently excepted theories.
Logan Lamech
www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 5:51:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Midgley also says on p. 55, "All the great Romantics made this effort to bring both sides together, which is just what makes them great. Wordsworth and Coleridge in particular went to great lengths to stress that the antithesis between thought and feeling was a false one. They insisted that both were aspects of a single whole that might best be understood by attending closely to its middle term, imagination."
A poet has a strong sensibility, but has also "thought long and deeply" (55) [she's quoting Wordsworth].
I think where I thought that she had dissed science among the Romantics, she's actually quoting Dawkins quoting Blake, who quotes Blake, on Bacon and Newton, "sheath'd in dismal steel" as elements of what I think he calls Urizen (Your Reason).
But Hazard Adams points out that Urizen is never the whole take in Blake -- it's only one of four aspects -- so all these people seem to be slightly misreading each other, and I think I am slightly misreading all of them in turn, which is why it helps to have this discussion because it allows me to focus my mind through comparison as I go through them all.
Midgley also quotes a knockout poem by GM Hopkins who I'd never ead. What a power punch Hopkins wrote on rainbows --
"and many standing around a waterfall/
See one bow each, yet not the same for all,/
But each a handsbreadth further than the next./
The sun on falling waters writes the text/
Which yet is in the eye or in the thought/
It was a hard thing to undo this knot/
Number 91 in the Poems of GMH
At any rate, it is in fact hard to undo the knot -- between poetry and science, or between thought and thing.
The theory that you have drives your truth, and meanwhile the truth of things comes back to buffalo your theory.
Or in JH's case -- to deliver a Woolly Mammoth by UPS to your door straight from the Pleistocene.
"Your new pet has arrived, m'am." - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 5:54:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I deleted an earlier post due to typos.
- Monday, November 24, 2008 at 5:56:00 PM EST
As you know, the mighty Harold Bloom developed a whole theory out of the practice of misreading (all original poets were supposedly strong mis-readers of their strong poetic predecessors) to add to his misguided Freudian "anxiety of influence" theory about younger poets supposedly wishing to supplant their older poetic "fathers."
The New Critics were right to emphasize close reading as a poetic methodology (as did the historical school they all but supplanted), but I think they erred in trying to sever work from author after contriving a whole literary epistemology based primarily on examples of notoriously ambiguous lyric poems. But the New Critics were preferable to the nihilistic mis-readers of post-structuralism and deconstruction who came into fashion after them. And even Bloom eventually had to protest the misreading of literary works as stylistically variant versions of Marx. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 9:29:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Who misreads literature as a stylistically variant version of Marx? Can you prove this?
In what institutions is this done? Why are you so anti-Marx? Harold Bloom should not be warped to your pro-capitalist ends. - Monday, November 24, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
dark matter
string theory
These are fascinating conjectures of smoke and mathmatics invented by scientists to explain something they don't understand.
Now, folks keep saying that it's okay for Scientists to make up this stuff because when something better-made-up comes along, they embrace that.
Not only that, but that Science is GOOD and Religion is BAD because Science is so readily changeable.
Except, of course, that it's not. Folks get fired for not "believing in" string theory. They got killed for not believing in epicycles.
Religion, of course, is the same way -- not only do new religions spring from old ones but new interpretations of scripture come along and influence behavior, dogma, and doctrine.
I think it may be more useful, instead of throwing Religion and Science (or science and poetry) against each other, to think of Midgley's subjective/objective divisions and to further understand that, while there is obviously an objective, physical world around us, our subjective experience of it is bound to both unique and incommunicable and similar and the-impetus-for-communication.
Science, religion, poetry, art, etc. are all ways of communicating the ineffible and understanding the incomprehensible -- a way of connecting the part of ourselves that is impossibly lonely to the part that is impossible to disconnect from existence. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 7:57:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Marx tried to read power relations of society in his texts.
Many contemporary critics think that this is what literature does, or should do. Jacques and I protest this, because it's too simplistic a format.
If you pick up PMLA (Publication of the Modern Language Association) which is the flagship of the field of English literature study, you will see that this is the style of reading of every piece that they publish.
I keep hoping there will be a shift in that journal. It's like waiting for Glasnost, or like waiting for Solzhenitsyn.
It has to happen.
Or so you'd think.
PMLA is a very widespread journal in libraries. It was one of the few American journals on the shelves of my library in Finland. All the national universities of every country in the world will have it.
South Korea included.
Florida will have it stocked even in the smaller college libraries.
There are a few people who protest the rigid simplicity (smothered under post-structuralist jargon) that most people think of as literary criticism today -- Hazard Adams is one of the few to really do this in an important way from the inside.
Race, gender, class is the rock, paper, scissors of this style of reading.
So what they do is inquisition a text as to how it treats people of color, women, and the poor. And usually the idea is to impugn a credited author (could be Balzac, could be Shakespeare) for presenting negative depictions of women or people of color.
And then of course they find sub-altern individuals (women and people of color) and argue that their writing is superior because they present positive depictions of the people in question.
Then of course there is a whole publishing industry that is devoted to this game. Almost all the books published by Duke university press play this game.
But almost every press is engaged in it.
A particularly hilarious book is called South of Our Selves, by a gay professor in Toledo Ohio who studies the vision of Mexico in the works of contemporary poets. There is a black guy who loves Mexico, so he's great. There are a couple of others, gay, or in some way cool, who are great. This man's partner is a Mexican man.
But then Corso comes up -- and he's straight, white, and (although he grew up very poor, that doesn't really count -- since class is the least of the three markers). Corso is simply trashed. And not even remotely correctly -- he's accused of making fun of a Puerto Rican named Ulanova in his poem Puma in Chapultepec Zoo.
Corso compares the cat to the famous Russian ballerina from the Bolshoi ballet:
I think of Ulanova
locked in some small furnished room
in New York, on East 17th Street
in the Puerto Rican section.
Corso is complaining that the cat is locked up in a room too small for it (Corso has an eco-critical side).
He is however lambasted for making fun of a Puerto Rican.
The critic (Glenn Sheldon) didn't even know that Ulanova was a famous ballerina (she was the star of the Bolshoi ballet for two decades or more).
There's almost nothing that's being published that isn't at least this bad, and at least this egregious, but if you want to start somewhere, start with that.
Not only is the criticism a Marxist style criticism of power relations, but it's also a show trial of the most obvious sort. Corso is de facto guilty because he's white and male and heterosexual. It almost doesn't matter after that. The critic throws everything they've got at the poet under examination, and the inquisition continues until a death sentence is pronounced.
There are hundreds of books published like this every year.
It's quite appalling. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Kirby -- I was being sarcastic (and playing the part of Max)
- Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
It took me a while to dig out the Glenn Sheldon volume so I could quote from it directly. Sheldon's book is published by McFarland Press, the same press that published Hazard Adams' book, Academic Child. They also published my book on Andrei Codrescu. It's for that reason that I've mostly kept my mouth shut in terms of the Sheldon reading of Corso's poem. But Sheldon is so vicious toward Corso that it makes me wince. It's just a non-stop lashing -- the kind of whipping that you can't believe is happening. It's too bad, because Sheldon is an intelligent guy, but I think the critical paradigms of our time almost force untenured scholars into destroying straight white males and praising others, in order to achieve tenure. That's what the pipeline demands. Doing this is something like doing it in the Soviet Union under Stalin. If you want to be a critic, it's seemingly the only game in town. I don't know of anybody under 60 (aside from myself) who isn't playing this game, and who has yet gotten tenure in an American college.
"Puma in Chapultepec Zoo," like "Mexican Impressions," becomes a way for Corso to write himself back home, to that which is not alien and foreign, and to a place where he does not feel helpless and resigned. As a poet Corso can control the image of the caged, if not the forces behind the caging. Corso achieves this insight through a most circuitous path; namely, he realizes that the puma in the cage in Chapultepec Zoo reminds him of a friend back in New York:
How sad you seem; looking at you
I think of Ulanova
locked in some small furnished room
in New York, on East 17th Street
in the Puerto Rican section
ll. 8-12
Note that even as he records a profound connection between the confined puma in Mexico and a Puerto Rican friend who evidently finds New York less than habitable, Corso writes himself and his readers back to New York" (80).
Glenn Sheldon deplores the fact that Corso can't let go of his American orientation. But he is misreading the poem. First, Ulanova is not a male friend back in the Puerto Rican section of NYC. He is (or rather, she is) the star of the Bolshoi Ballet, which was performing at the time in Mexico City. Corso had been to the ballet, as he mentions in his letters (published after Sheldon's piece was published, so Sheldon isn't responsible for not having known that).
but he could have looked up Ulanova.
Corso seems to me instead to be doing a rather simple lament about prisons (Corso was a prisoner in his teens for several years), and also relating to an animal, and finding it beautiful (he's often relating to animals in his early poetry since he has a kind of St. Francis thing going on throughout the early poems).
Sheldon indicts Corso for being Americo-centrist, and not being able to be Mexico-centric, and hence for being ethnocentric.
Corso was only in Mexico a few months I seem to remember. Corso lived off mooching, and Mexico was poor, and he couldn't find anyone to mooch off of. He was actually being hit up for money, something he wasn't used to, and soon enough he went back to Europe.
Corso was not only never wealthy, he had no family of any kind that he could fall back on -- Burroughs had his pension from the adding machine co., and Ginsberg had a functioning and kindly father, and most of the others who did anything had something to rely on. Corso had only his wits.
I think that's why he related to wild things.
Sheldon does a rather unsympathetic reading of Corso to close out his very mean chapter on the dude:
"More important than his apparent inability to escape from the culture's bifurcated system of conformity or opposition is Corso's underlying desire to be at the center of its dominant discourses, partly because this position provides him with an identity that insulates him, however falsely, from the rest of the world..." (89).
There is so little Corso criticism (three books and about 25 articles) that this is interesting enough to me nevertheless because at least it opens the question of Corso's Mexico poems (there are three or four of these in the early collection GASOLINE).
Most of the major publishers won't publish on contemporary poetry, and it's neat to see any book on contemporary poetry. Poetry is not considered to be important enough by the PC elite that it's worth writing about. There are almost no jobs ever for those who specialize in contemporary American poetry (unless you happen to also be a very well-published poet in which case you can get hired in a creative writing department).
So it's amazing when anything gets published. But so often I find that when something is published, the critic has a rigorously political viewpoint and seeks to police the poet, and charge them with all kinds of crimes against the People's State.
Unless of course they happen to be a poet of color, or a woman poet, in which case they can write anything they want, and it's always good. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
G.M., I didn't realize that you were being sarcastic. I took you seriously, and wrote something out for you. I don't think Max is seriously interested in learning anything so I don't respond to his questions very often, but since I know you are interested, and open-minded on this topic, I decided to write out something at length.
You often complain about the state of poetry.
The state of poetic criticism is in even worse shape. It almost doesn't exist, and where it does, it's generally a disservice. Glenn Sheldon's book opens interesting questions, but answers them in such a forcefully one-sided way -- but this is very very common in poetic criticism.
The state of Marianne Moore criticism is in such a shambles that it would take a Herculean effort to even think about cleaning up such an Augean stable.
It's just crap -- and there are now dozens of volumes of it.
It is as if the theory that is being used (generally leftist) prevents anyone from seeing outside of their myopic viewpoint. I think this generation of critics will simply be laughed at thirty years from now.
It will be like Soviet literary criticism of the 1950s, but with less excuse. History repeats itself as farce, as Marx sorta said. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
Thanks for a detailed example of race-class-gender criticism in action. You mentioned Duke U's Press. You probably know they also publish a journal of distinguished PMLA-style muck called "Social Text." It was when Stanley Fish was its editor in the mid-90s that he published Sokal's bogus article. Fish didn't take kindly to being hoaxed. Perhaps he's since tried to mend his ways a bit.
Pretty good faux-max parody. Whatever their political views, both Fish and Bloom have proved themselves to be pretty successful lit-crit capitalists. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Sorry to lead you down a path. . .
I think the only way to short-circuit the literary insanity that is po-biz is to have a successful poetry project that is not fueled by celebrity (both Dead-pac and Jewel Kilcher's books sold well -- both were horrid) and is too good to be ignored. Harry Potter approaches this from the novel point of view -- but novelists/novel studies have never truly moved away from the market.
I think the only thing to do with poetry is be to successful to be ignored.
Arrogant ass that I am, I think I have the poem to do it (or at least the tools). Now if I can just find a publisher. . . (or stomach self-publishing).
M - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
I'm hoping that my new poetry project will do poetry criticism a service, but one can never tell.
You know, on the whole gender/race thing, I've considered, half-seriously, publishing under a pseudonym. I figure if posing as a man got women published in the 18th century, then publishing as say, a black lesbian would do wonders for me. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Right. Go ahead, why not? I In communist countries you had to pose as a member of the party. In Romania Codrescu couldn't use his Jewish name, and had to invent a name that sounded hard-line Iron Guard.
It's always been done. Why not do it again?
Just invent a name and get a photograph.
A lot of professors pretend to be American Indians when they apply for jobs. This works, because nobody checks.
Nobody's checking anything any longer. The borders are wide open.
The sixties have finally arrived.
I remember even then the bizarre notion of the cool people, and the notion that love was the answer.
I had no idea what the question was, or what they thought love was.
To love somebody, I've always felt, you ought to know them, know their families, know their history, and love them a couple generations back, and a couple generations forward.
But love for the hippies just meant sex in huge groups like at Woodstock.
The sense of time seemed to disappear, and now history itself has disappeared in favor of a very simplistic demographics.
So present yourself as cool, and see how far it takes you.
I think you should add a disability, just to be safe. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 2:02:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
You could be the Sokal Hoax of poetry. Write about your victimization. Write about the diseases you have, and how it's hard to get on busses with your diseases, and how you're discriminated against wherever you go.
Somebody will eat it up.
Quite fun.
I think you could whip together a hundred pages along those lines in about ten days, and you'd be in print within a year.
I would do it myself, but I prefer the dissident model. Just doing my own thing in the Samizdat way.
I don't mind operating in a small way while the culture goes wild with the r, g, c bit.
The culture is always going hogwild in some way or another.
Poetry should be antithetical to that, to use a term borrowed from Hazard Adams. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 2:05:00 PM EST
I highly approve of you publishing as a black lesbian. Who can prove that you are not a black lesbian? Who is to decide that your skin is not dark enough? And certainly no one can say that you are not a lesbian in a male's body! That would be judgmental. Perhaps the ACLU would help you sue the publisher if they make a fuss. After all, whatever you see yourself as, you have the right to force everyone else to see you in the same way, and treat you accordingly (i.e. give you the same bene's).
Bravo! - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 3:23:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
It would be neat if all the publishers suddenly were INUNDATED with that kind of thing.
I'm so QUASY.
But I wonder if you'd feel JUSTIFIED doing it.
You have to feel SELF-RIGHTEOUS when you're doing something, I think, these days.
You have to.
Because you have to!
Because you just HAVE TA!
Like, man, like, like. - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:18:00 PM EST
well take cre in what you wish for...
you might (eventually) "get it"!
also take care that you don't become
what you pretend to be... - Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:48:00 PM EST
- jh said...
david dwyer
now deceased
wrote a book of poems
under the pseudonym
of ARIANA OLISVOS
and he entered some of the
poems in a contest
for feminist literature
and he won
but then the editors discovered the prank
and were very upset
they wanted their money back
ours is an age much too critical - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 12:30:00 AM EST
- Max said...
I think GM certainly should do that. It would be amusing, mostly because it would only be of relevance to the PC strawman (What am I saying? Strawperson.) he, and others, are so certain reigns supreme over American intellectual culture.
I can't think of anything more boring to the general intellectual public, though, than this kind of disingenuous "belief" that something as misguided as a literary prize for best work by a black, feminist, lesbian, atheist, socialist, ditch-digger represents anything or anybody other than its incredibly limited constituency. Such things are obnoxious not because they're PC, but because they're just ... patently obnoxious on a superficial level. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 3:28:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Kirby, You asked that I visit your site and comment with respect to the controversy at Silliman's blog a couple of days ago.
I'm happy to do that, as long as the argument isn't shoved to the side in favor of a debate about Christian ethics and 19th Century German philosophy.
The one relevant part of your post for my purposes--and it's really tangential to what's being discussed here--is the notion of Determinism.
With the rise of sociology and psychology as inquiries into human behavior, a number of competing theories have grown up, which variously depend to a greater or lesser extent on contemporary science.
Society can be studied without much difficulty, since history is the record of the organization of mankind into groups, relationships, settlements, structures, etc.
Human psychology and cognition is another matter. Much more difficult to get inside of people's brains and figure out how people think, feel, react, dream, imagine, even how their neurological systems actually work.
The sciences too have been late to address the questions which have fascinated thinkers over time. Darwin, really, comes almost two thousand years after Plato, to describe--through genetics--how what Plato calls the "immortal soul" is passed from body to body at birth. Plato didn't know about DNA, and so he invented reincarnation, the "vapor" which enters at conception.
The trouble with using historical data upon which to base theoretical justifications of behavioral or even scientific formulations is that much of what passed for "knowledge" or "wisdom" was unscientific and bogus.
We think we know, apropos of the argument about Gay marriage, that Gays have been around since at least the time of recorded history. Homosexuality isn't a social construct, but a tendency or behavior which occurs with some reliability in a minority of all populations.
But psychology is still in its infancy. We don't know what causes one person to be monosexual, and another to be straight. Psychologists used to think that early conditioning had something to do with it, that people with weak or absent parent figures would compensate by reverse modeling, taking the same sex as focal points. But this flies in the face of the notion of predisposition, which some psychologist-researchers believe is a genetic-glandular phenomenon, acquired as a kind of inherited variation (or mutation).
As far as is known, no society in history has ever had an institutionalized system embodying same sex marriage or family rituals or contracts. Is this an accident, or does it establish the existence of a confirming body of sentiment which legislates against such systems?
I have read some of the theory regarding child psychology, and the process of maturation. If we acknowledge that there are viable role models for children to emulate--that they aren't, in fact, simply fluid, expedient, random templates--then it follows that children raised in households in which there is only one archetype--i.e., two males or two females (accompanied, often, with highly developed defense mechanisms resistant to the opposite sex)--will probably end up without adequate examples of the predominant behavioral modes of the population/society at large.
Children may become confused and skewed by such eccentric regimes--by partners who are unable to beget children themselves, and whose personalities have been formed through a repudiation of the dominant models of sexual styles--and may come to believe that they themselves are eccentric and "different" and may gravitate towards a different sexual archetype, out of mere imitation, guilt, or habitual assumption.
In addition, the presence of same sex "family units" within a social setting, such as neighborhood, school, church, may have the effect of offering a competing image of respectability or even of an attractive ideal to those otherwise unable to easily adapt to the prevailing stereotypes in the heterosexual culture.
The notion of a celebration of "difference" applied to Gays, in the same way that current society indulges minorities with celebrations of racial, ethnic, or national identities, also tends to set up models of behavior that could have the effect of confusing children.
At the very least, given the relative novelty of the idea of institutionalized same sex family prototypes, it would seem prudent, to say the least, to give some patient and tolerant thought, and perhaps a little scientific attention (study), to the probable effects of such structures on society in general, and children in particular.
Personally, I would like to see sex education and contraception discussed in schools, to address the growing problem of unwanted pregnancy among school age girls. On the other hand, I think it would be a mistake to permit, or to encourage, the teaching of "variant" sexual examples as valid options. Sexual behavior cannot simply be delineated as a course choice like machine shop or home economics.
Finally, all children need to be protected from the exploitation of predatory adults, of whatever sexual persuasion: "Indoctrination" via de-facto rape or subtle persuasion (seduction).
Society's unwillingness to address these issues is guaranteed to cause hardship and problems in the future. Those who wish to grant rights and privileges without considering first what effects and consequences may follow, need to slow down, ask questions, talk freely. Secrecy and silence are not helpful. Neither is shrieking and name-calling. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM EST
Glad to know that someone--Ma(r)x--has come around to seeing PC as obnoxious. Join the club, you're in good company!
I just wanted to post a news item I found today. As a result of a "women's movement" in South Korea, there is a law on the books there which requires an adulterer spend time in jail (12-18 mos). This law was originally meant to protect women, but now one of the country's biggest film stars finds herself on the wrong side of the law. Her husband is pushing for punishment to the full extent of the law.
Can two partners be truly equal if one of them stays faithful only out of fear of possible jail time?
It is all well and good to stick it to the men, but when the law we've demanded be enacted comes back to apply to us WOMEN, we want the law repealed. It is just so typical.
I don't mean to be severe on any of my sex, but it seems to me that this is a case in which a double-standard is just fine as long as it favors us.
Interesting post, Curtis Faville. It gives us much to ponder. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
- jh said...
i don't know what transpired over on sillimans blog but the discussion here is both interesting and to some extent troubling
just now i finished a discussion with a tanzanian priest who states to me that sexual education becomes the responsibility of aunts and uncles and it is very formal..men teach the boy/men and women teach the girl/women
and the teaching is not simply biological there is a heavy dose of "virtue" in it all
i this context the behaviour of homosexuality is almost nonexistent
he also states that there is mandatory testing for disease before a marriage can take place
the marriage is in effect conducted by the community...the church enters in only to bless a marriage that the people have already endorsed
in the context out of which i work i maintain a rather strict application of thomistic ethics
in this system there is no room for the "category" or "labelling" of persons based on their behavioural inclinations
the morality no doubt seems rather narrow in the modern american context,,,but the fundamental criteria for discussing sexuality is the biological reality of reproduction...and here the basis is what we refer to as "natural law"
i am constantly amazed when catholics come forth and argue that the teaching authority of the church is somehow deficient...i attempt to argue that the church does not acknowledge the philosophical presumptions of humanism and the human sciences....all of which seem to have been adopted without much thought into mainstream american rhetoric
the other principle which we seem to ignore is the discussion of virtue...the transcendental values stemming from aristotle (and to a lesser degree plato) and having been worked out meticulously by the medieval scholastics...particularly thomas aquinas
in a culture saturated with graphic sexual display and the working assumption of the innocence of it all...if we can just manage the more horrifying aspects...it would appear that without some referecnce to moral imperative the "sages" of hollywood will rule the day
the social ethos of individual fulfillment seems to negate the broader discussion of familial and communal obligation
thus i have taken the position of a complete disregard for social categories based on behaviour
i don't even recognized the popular label of "alcoholic" i can only refer to a person who may struggle with the pleasure and ultimately the sickness of drinking too much liqour
i reject the clinical ease with which we tend to box people in...even if in this case it is a place of worldy salvation for some
the whole question of "gay" marriage is nothing but comedy to me
i read this morning that diane feinstein is working to legitimize the unions given legal sanction already in califronia...but to me it is comical and nothing else
for a person to state up front that their preference and thus their identity is detrmined by same sex union and then to state well then it must be OK also for me to have and raise children is the ultimate in social hypocricy...if that can happen i can't see why any sort of arrangement might not be socially sanctioned....in the not too distant past girls of 13 could be married...so why not same sex unions with that age group as well?
and will it be only th state to weigh in on all this
for roman catholics the FAMILY is the basic social institution and the health and strength of the family determines the possibilities for a person at least for the first 20 yrs or so...and even then the family connection is everything
great to have curtis weigh in here
great to read his wisdom in a context different than POETIX
here's a nod to PRUDENCE
jh - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 5:00:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
What I can't understand with gay marriage are the insurance issues. Gay women are neat and clean, so that won't be a problem. But gay men have higher disease rates in many cases, so I think this will cause insurance rates to triple.
But that's only the beginning. Muslims and Mormons will want to have multiple partners in their marriages, with as many as fifty wives and all their children. How are employers going to accommodate that? Because as soon as you allow new definitions of marriage they will proliferate and every state will have different definitions.
The insurance issues will be so hard to understand.
Then, of course, there are people who say I love my dog. Then of course we will have to discriminate against animals, or between people and animals, and there will be people who say, I love my dog, and I go everywhere with my dog.
And so on. Veterinarians cost a lot more. Plus, there are serial marriages with dogs and cats, because they don't live as long, and will probably die even more swiftly if they are married to humans.
Edward Albee has a play about a man who is in love with a goat.
He's the avant-garde, and I think that that means what he's writing is just the beginning.
At any rate, I don't have much of an imagination, but that's at least one of the ramifications I see.
I don't have anything against it in itself, it's the ramifications. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:32:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Emmy -
I haven't "come around" to anything. I think where people go wrong is in looking at the most extreme, obnoxious examples of political correctness, and then taking this reactionary stance against it, even though it contains, I think, a useful framework for how we should engage our society intellectually. I think the PC movement is useful because, at its core, it is about nothing more than considering the possibility that words and ideas can create and perpetuate negative social scenarios. Does this mean that "sanitizing" culture is a valid (or even viable) pursuit? Of course not. But I mean, I'm fairly proud that we no longer call black people "negroes" in common parlance, something which came about specifically because of the PC movement. And I'm glad there's a heightened awareness of how words and actions may affect other people. As with any movement, it can be taken to pointless extremes, but I think it is generally good to consider others, to be conscientious individuals. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 7:49:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
The argument that allowing homosexuals to marry instantly opens the door to things like polygamy is so specious. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation, it is a social grouping. Fundamentalist Mormons aren't doing it because it "makes them hot." They're doing it because they feel that it is a religious proscription. If it were going to be legalized, it would not be on the grounds of sexual orientation, but on the grounds of freedom of religion, so legalizing gay marriage does not open that door. And even if polygamy were a proclivity, it seems to me that there are procedural reasons for not recognizing plural marriage, since people could easily abuse it for tax reasons. It seems to me that there are perfectly reasonable policy reasons for the government to limit marriage to two consenting human beings (animals and plants, alas, are incapable of entering into contractual agreements, so that takes them out of contention). I honestly can't believe that anybody, in this day and age, actually takes these supposed "slippery slope" arguments seriously. Gay marriage doesn't create any kind of troubling precedent in this regard, and to argue that it does is either an act of clear stupidity or clear disingenuousness.
Curtis -
Since when is homosexuality presented as a valid option? Since when is any sexuality preferred in your average sex ed course? I don't remember there being any preference at all in mine. I don't remember anybody ever saying "you can be straight, or you can be gay, and we're going to give you the information you need in order to make the informed choice!" ...
I do remember them talking about the sex organs, about how babies are made, about various forms of contraception, and about all the different crazy types of sexually transmitted diseases. I believe that, at some point, they acknowledged the fact that homosexuality exists! But they never said "here are your options, make a choice."
What would you propose, Curtis? That sex ed courses be built around kind of ignoring the fact that homosexuality exists? That it just never be mentioned at all? That children be told "you should be heterosexual, and you are strange and bound to die early if you aren't"? Acknowledging of the existence of homosexuality, something that your average sex ed course does (no more and no less than that), does not present it as an option to choose from. Nor does talking about the reproductive process imply that children should take heterosexuality as one of many sexualities to choose from. It is descriptive. That's all. This overwhelming fear of the "social normative" folks, that children are being told to choose, as if that's even how sexual orientation works, is always absurd, and is usually never backed up with anything like adequate evidence that such a thing is happening in the first place. They'll pick out some extreme individual example, and act like that's now the rule for sex ed classes, because it suits their purpose of working to completely sanitize the cultural atmosphere of any and all discussion of homosexuality (or whatever else they hold up as morally reprehensible), but they will never examine the average classroom, because they know their efforts will be confounded by such examination. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:09:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Curtis, Max lived in Alabama.
Max, Curtis lives in San Francisco.
Max, If I'm either being disingenuous or just plain stupid, why would you bother to write? I can only think that you are being either disingenuous or just plain stupid.
However, it's so nice of you to write in. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:22:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
I'm bothering to write because I'm sick of seeing the same tired-ass argument that gay marriage is a "slippery slope" which would force us to legalize polygamy and marrying animals and marrying trees and crap like that. This is obviously not true. And if you believe it is true, then you are either incredibly, incalculably stupid, or you are making such silly statements knowing full well that what you're saying is stupid.
In other words, I'm just writing because I wanted you to know this. You are either stupid or disingenuous. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:26:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Also, Kirby -
So what if Curtis lives in San Francisco? That would still mean that he's only using the most extreme outlying example in order to comment on the overall state of sex education (if indeed the average San Francisco school even DOES what he accuses them of doing, which I highly doubt). - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 8:29:00 PM EST
In spite of your talk about PC as a "useful" intellectual framework, PC is not primarily about promoting gentle tolerance through reason, but securing forced assent or silence through intimidation (often with the "muscle" supplied by institutional and legal pressures and penalties) of those who disagree. It specifically targets those who adhere to traditional values or virtues, orthodox religion, and conservative ideas, rarely those who adhere to progressive or "advanced" ideas.
max the Conscientious seems to have a curiously revealing way of expressing or exemplifying his own PC advocacy in habitually reaching for labels like idiotic, moronic, and stupid to label his opponents.
Interesting that max should mention the civil rights movement (not PC) that later promoted terms like "Black" for the earlier accepted term (by most blacks themselves) "Negro" (often used by Martin Luther King Jr), for Blacks made up the one ethnic group that voted in greatest proportional numbers for the California amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman (even between one gay man and one gay woman). I don't think max will be reaching for his usual labels for them. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 9:47:00 PM EST
I think max is being disingenuous about "average" sex ed teachers not becoming more and more pressured to provide children with sympathetic treatments of practicing homosexuality--that's what progressives support and now even demand. And will they also point out the much greater susceptibility of gay men for spreading AIDS? And then how to manage the issue of abortion in sex ed classes?
It's probably best to leave human reproductive anatomy and physiology issues (and STDs) to biology teachers and sex ed to parents or their privately-chosen representatives. - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 10:09:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Jacques -
You're not reading what I wrote. What I said was that PC has, at its core, the fundamental belief that the things we say and do can potentially create and perpetuate negative social outcomes, and that therefore, it is of value to examine the things we say and do in hopes that we can better understand and control, if necessary, these outcomes.
That PC rhetoric often spins out of control and reaches the heights of absurdity is no big surprise, but to dismiss PC-ness offhand is to ignore the fundamental value of considering how our words and actions potentially affect others, and of being generally conscientious individuals. This doesn't mean that we have to censor every single thing we do or say, but rather that we at least consider, when necessary, what we say/do before we say/do it.
That is all I ever said, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop putting words down my throat.
I wasn't aware that we were even talking about the Prop 8 vote right now. Anybody who ever thought that black and latino support for democrats implied that blacks and latinos were socially liberal doesn't understand anything about those cultures. Blacks and latinos tend to be religious and socially conservative. I certainly wasn't surprised to hear that they came out in droves in favor of Prop 8. I'm guessing they've supported similar measures all across the country, where they've been put on ballots. And I still maintain that this is a stupid, moronic position for anybody to take. The common strand here is religiosity and social conservatism, not skin color. Why would I hold black people up to a different standard? The skin color of the perpetrators of bigotry has nothing to do with my stance against them.
And how am I being disingenuous about sex ed? You're the one(s) who constantly declare that homosexuality is being "taught" in sex ed classrooms, but provide essentially zero evidence to mark such a "dramatic shift" in sex education. I'm more inclined to agree with your argument that sex education should simply be removed from schools altogether than to even entertain the notion that schools be prevented from even acknowledging the existence of homosexuality, or from teaching about contraception, or whatever else. I'd rather have it not exist at all than be a pack of lies and glaring omissions.
Also, about the "gays spreaind AIDS" thing ... the idea that this kind of information would prove of any use is simply absurd. Let's say it were true that, statistically speaking, straight people spread AIDS at a greater rate than homosexuals. Would this be an argument for engaging in only homosexual relations? Or would it simply be yet another argument for people to protect themselves, at all times, against the threat of STDs? Gays aren't spreading AIDS, if indeed this claim is true, simply because they're gay, and gayness makes AIDS spread more quickly. It's likely because of subcultural stigmas regarding contraception, or things of that nature. Again, if this claim is even true to begin with. The reason why spreading this particular statistic is misleading is because what you seem to be implying is that homosexuality somehow, by its very nature, spreads AIDS more quickly, or more certainly, than other sexual orientations. Shouldn't the lesson always be that, if you're gonna do it, if nothing will deter you from engaging in the act, then at the very least protect yourself, regardless of your sexual orientation? Pointing out that a larger proportion of gays have HIV than do heterosexuals seems intended to spread the falsehood that being gay means you have a greater likelihood of getting AIDS, even if you protect yourself better than the average person. It's just an empty tactic to shame homosexuals and scare straight folks into thinking that all gays are diseased (or disease-bound). - Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 11:34:00 PM EST
Political Correctness ought to be replaced by personal courtesy (meaning one-on-one kindness, not kowtowing to group identity) and common sense.
That said, demanding that someone change his way of speaking does nothing to change that person's underlying prejudice (if indeed, they have such prejudice). One must work to change attitudes, not words. Hateful words are a symptom, not a cause.
Take for example, a war vet from WWII who still calls Germans Krauts out of habit. He may say it very matter-of-factly, with no malice in his heart. Is he racist? A bigot? If in using Kraut he shows no anger or malice, is Kraut still offensive? Possibly.
If I were to call a black person a nonsense word like "pickle," but I said it with malice and hatred in my heart, that word is more vicious than 10 casual uses of the word "negro". That is not to say that it would be more offensive to an African-American than use of the word "negro," but freedom of speech requires a certain level of tolerance from all quarters. The First Amendment isn't there to protect just polite speech.
What I like the least about PC is that if someone is offended in any way by my speech, whether I say pickle, go'l darnit, or the Redskins football club, it becomes my responsibility. I cannot be held responsible for how others "feel" about what I say and write. PC puts an unfair burden on those of the majority to censor their remarks--often at the expense of truth and insight (case in point, the former president of Harvard, whom I thought was on to something)--to protect the "feelings" of the minority.
But PC probably makes people LESS sensitive to the feelings of others. When we are told what we can and cannot say and when we can and cannot say it, there is bound to be some resentment. Often, this resentment is directed at the very groups of people which PC was meant to protect.
Those who are truly interested in changing hearts and minds would do better to focus on attitudes than vocabulary. The mandatory outward show of respect and tolerance (and the consequences which must follow a lack of these behaviors--public ridicule, blackballing, and being fired [as one African American woman dean was recently for voicing her opinion on homosexuality in an op-ed piece]) does little to change the hearts of people who really do have prejudices, and may even make them less tolerant.
If the PC crowd's interests lie, rather, in the desire to purge free speech of anything objectionable, and to demand respect (read fear) through coercion then "speech codes" will suit them fine, but let us not pretend that it is democratic. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 11:41:00 AM EST
- jh said...
who has the power who has the knowledge and what are we doing with it
read a little editorial by george will this morning extolling the insights of stanley fish who appears to suggest that it is the obligation of the professor to remain objective about all knowledge and to refrain from any sort of overt influence in forming the political consciousness of students...does this mean no political bumber stickers?
and have been paging through the wealth and poverty of nations
i sense a bit of anticatholic skepticism in it but then he admits in the end even while quoting deuteronomy "choose life" that it is imperative for the future to maintain skepticism especially in matters of faith...optimism will rule the world optimism and reson and economic daring and unfettered policies of attaining to wealth and well being for all with of course the wealthy and the energetic entrepeneurs leading the way
( i think it safe to say that the events of 9/11 2001 may well suggest that this sort of thinking runds up against some severe limitations at times)
the human behaviour problem and the social implications of ideological treatment in the education of people seems to me more rooted in the presuppositions of pragmatism in this country- the notion that all ideas are useful and practical as long as they have the strength to survive and are "profitable" - it never seemed to me that dewey or william james were afraid of anything coming over from europe as long as it could be put to practical use in the classroom or even better in the development of a more lucrative social economy
i suppose the marxist leaning folks will always be inclined to point out the flaws in the best ideas and argue on behalf of the oppressed or potentially oppressed
the most overused but somehow important word spoken in catholic teaching since the second vatican council is "community"...this contrasts with what has been criticized as and overly individualistic approach to piety and faith fostered by a body of doctrine that was defined by "counter-reformation" doctrine
(while Landes seems to be aware of this he doesn't delve too far into the substance and reason for the church teaching this way)
but for the most part catholics have assimilated into the individualism of american culture
there are some impressive examples of prophetic witness to the value of cummunity emerging out of the tendency since the the first vatican council to preach and live out the social dimensions of the gospel
but by and large even where there is strong catholic family foundation the young adults step into a world of individual effort and survival and work things out for themselves...life's hassles and tragedies often bring people back to a sense of belonging in the church
and the practices of human awareness handed down through the experiments in psychology with groups and self awareness merge with the gospel at these points
the culture of "feeling" has taken hold in the parishes
when i consider the problems for a society stemming from the insistence of rights for race class gender sexual inclination etc. i cannot help but think the illusions are too manifest to ignore...however most people are accepting the social rhetoric of the right for anyone to identify him/herself in any way they want and to vie for what rights are gauranteed...even if it means bending the rights to agree with their particular predisposition (although now that i've written this i acknowledge some fairly well defined limits...there are some social definitions that are not accepted at all)
the pursuit of happiness does not gaurantee adequate assessment of the illusions and
misrepresentations people invariably entertain
as to the AIDS issue and sexual rights (even to say that startles my mind...c'est absurde) i cannot fathom the line of thinking that insists that the state must gaurantee people the right to do and to be things that are either formulated by selfjustification in the human sciences or put forth as agendas for social change
i would encourage some reading around the insights of dr. peter duesberg who ultimately maintains the AIDS predicament and the eventual funding of research toward dealing with it is based on false presuppositions...and that the distortion emerged from a fear of "gay bashing"...he maintains that the problem of people dying from this disease is fundamentally linked to unsanitary sexual practices and is a form of delayed septic shock...an overload of the immune system due to repeated bacterial infections...his research has been rejected on the basis that it carries the potential to "blame" people who practice homosexual activity...i however think he's come to the most honest assessment
much like the word "gay" and "homophobic" which literally translates as fear of men..the concept of "community" has become the social byword for people of similar identity be it sexual or race or age...the notion of "gay" community strikes me as comical when i hear of it
to me the idea of grouping people thus has more in keeping with the language of logic and "set theory"
one could apply this to religious community as well...however there is the implicit and explicit effort in all religious (at least catholic) communities to promote identities which are defined by principles way beyond personal satisfaction or "rights"...the commonality of life style does not preclude the reality of extraordinary differences in the people who live the life
evelyn waugh once stated
i paraphrase
the business of the church is to bring people to sainthood
would suggest and "otherworldly" agenda
but in fact the insistence is always that the medium for all this is in the real world with real human problems and the constant recognition of the inability of all of us to attain to the grace we crave on our own
there is no insight into god's grace without humility
happy day of american eucharist (thanksgiving)
j - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Your objections and questions are fair and pertinent.
I think the first thing to address is whether or not legitimating an expansion of a definition of an institution, like marriage, has effects at all. Advocates of the legalization of Gay marriage tell us that letting Gay people legitimate their vows is not a significant change, that it is simply the inclusion of individuals who wish to make legally binding and public their devotion and commitment to each other. But civil unions carry a great many ancillary implications. When, for instance, we entitle someone to the privilage of driving an automobile, we know that that opens up a host of dangers and possibilities that must be addressed. Driving gives one extraordinary powers: One has the power of life and death, great freedom of movement, the ability to conduct illicit liaisons, etc. It isn't just a person driving a car on a closed course--it's the whole world of danger and freedom.
This, it seems to me, is a much more valid comparison. Perhaps on a par with--with some similarities to--the issue of abortion. Extremists on both sides of the issue believe fervently in the correctness of their position, but there's one thing they do agree on, and that's the extraordinary importance and implications of the outcome of the rule.
All I'm trying to do is shed some light on a basic condition of complex issue-deciding. People who want something done want it done as fast as possible, with as little discussion as possible, and they fashion simplistic arguments to gloss over the potential effects, because they're afraid of what people might think after considering the consequences. The debate over Gay rights has been going on for some years, but very little clear-eyed, calm discussion has been conducted in the public arenas about what this may mean. It isn't a small thing, it's a very big thing, and a very big change. It is true that some advocates of traditional marriage are reactionary and irrational, but that's true of any important, disputed issue. But the vast majority of people are usually somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, and it's that group that needs and wants to have a reasonable debate about whether we need and/or want to change our society and its laws in a way that effects everyone.
People who defend an expansion of marriage definition tend to think of traditional marriage as a fixed condition that's always more or less existed in history, but that's not true.
Marriage has been around in different forms for thousands of years, but its civil and religious variations are much more numerous than you might have suspected. Our country was founded by immigrants from Western Europe, for whom classic, traditional marital law and custom had a long, established history. Nowhere in this history was there anything remotely resembling same-sex marital arrangements. It's a very novel idea, one that we're basically inventing out of whole cloth for the first time in history.
Science and law really don't provide us with any ready guides to how we should treat the problem. Science doesn't tell us why people are Gay, or what the causes of it are--yet. We have no tradition of an alternative form of traditional marriage or civil union--it's brand-new. Those who fashioned the laws we live under in this country never imagined that such an issue could arise, hence they didn't address it. We're being asked now, for the first time, to inquire about the possibility of this new definition, and we're being pressured to make the decision with little or no thought or speculation about its particular effects. That doesn't make sense.
Deliberately plowing ahead, not knowing what objects may lie under the drifts of snow directly in your path, is really stupid. How, for instance, does growing up in a household where there are two women, instead of different sexed couples, affect the psychological condition of children? Here are two people who are unable to conceive children together, whose sex organs are designed to be one half of a biological equation, but who have chosen, against the nature of their genetic birthright, to reject that function, in favor of another kind of interaction, which is basically a trivialization of their identity. Notice, I don't say "god-given" because I'm not religious. But whatever you call it, one's sex isn't something one "chooses," ; it is a consequence of the lottery of genetic descent. Children growing up in a traditional household see that the natural relationship between parents produces offspring through a combination that is built into their genes, and that they are the product of a process that is natural, so they are the natural issue of that combination. Altering this relationship by subtracting one sex from the arrangement has profound implications for childhood development. Notice I don't say "healthy" or "correct" because those are loaded with ethical ambiguity. But we need to acknowledge that new hybrid family arrangements do create new problems, problems which deserve to be considered and studied, before we open the gates.
Obviously, Max, I'm not saying that the question of what children may be taught in sex education is somehow the most important problem, or consequence. But it is fair to ask, given the likelihood of the growth of a new class of children--children now growing up in a legal household of same sex "parents"--how these children will be treated with respect to their instruction. Do some of the kids bring same sex partners to the school dance? Will Gay couples "go steady" at the high school, stand against wall between classes in intimate display? Will Gay gym teachers be openly, and amusedly, attracted to their students in the shower room? These are not extreme situations, but typical ones. If a child goes to see the class psychologist to complain about feeling sexual confusion, does the psychologist suggest that "if it feels right, do it"--even if that "it" is anal intercourse? Or does the psychologist simply refer the child back to his/her parents, who may themselves be Gay? What does a Gay couple tell their young teenage son or daughter--"whatever you think you feel is fine, you can be anything you want." Clearly the line between prescription and proscription is not a clear one to youth, and anyone who claims that it is, is not being honest.
How far are we willing to go along the road to tolerance? We can build ramps and flatten curbs and redesign bathrooms to accommodate wheelchair bound individuals, but how do we accommodate those who wish to change completely the traditions and assumptions upon which 95% of the population bases its most crucial and intimate reliance?
Max, I think Kirby's examples of marrying animals and trees is just silly. Don't lose your temper over this stuff. The crux of the argument is basically over the consequences of Gay marriage.
One aspect of Kirby's inquiry however is apt: What about insurance? We keep expanding and expanding the web of possible legal relationships, causing the exponential growth of entitlement to pensions, health care, "affirmative action," etc. In a time in our society in which there is seemingly less and less resource to spare, this is aserious issue, one which the advocates of expansion seem unwilling to address. Obviously, they WANT these privileges, but don't want anyone to consider what the consequences could be.
Regarding PC labels: Language is a fluid construct. If you doubt that, look into the development of dictionaries, and the development of language augmentation over time. What we call a person one day, may change the next, and the quality of implication in each instance is constantly in flux. When I was a boy, "Negro" as in "Negro American Literarure" or "Negro American College Fund" was perfectly acceptable usage. When people of African descent began to chafe at this word, "black" or "Black American" was used instead. Still later, "African American." Interestingly, all these terms referred to exactly the same thing! But PC declared that "Negro" was old hat, in fact it has now become something of a taboo word, which a lot of "Black Americans" are offended by, even though both whites and blacks once used it with perfect impunity. The word was literally changed over time, and the dictionaries had to follow.
Max, I think trying to define opponents of Gay marriage as "moronic, supid, bigoted, religious," etc., is precisely what makes your argument offensive. Do you really believe that anyone who might oppose Gay marriage, for whatever reason, is all of these things? Really?
Wouldn't you prefer that sex education--particularly that which is aimed at reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases--be a central part of all public education? Do you really want to sweep it back under the rug, to be left to parents and pastors and chance? That seems very backward, very reactionary. If that's what you think the consequence or effect of Gay parenting would bring, I think we'd have some serious objections to put in its way.
It has long been noted, with complete accuracy, that AIDS (as well as a host of other STD's) was rampant among the Gay population because that population was aggressively promiscuous. Haitians were also known to be a risk group, and migrating workers in South Africa. Why? Because those groups engaged in frequent, unprotected sex, and also sex that involved blood transmission. This is a problem that the Gay community shares with other social groups. It's neither an argument for, nor against, Gay marriage as such.
The larger question is: Would the open acknowledgment of Gay behavior, even of its "celebration" as a new form of declared pride, dignity and beauty, lead to an increase in the "voluntary" occurrence of homosexual activity among the young? Would this, in turn, have the effect of causing an increase in the incidence of all STD's among school age children? We know, for instance, that AIDS has been increasing among girls and young women in poor communities. If boys, for instance, in public schools, began having increasing--and authorized--interaction with the general Gay population, might this not increase the likelihood of infection across the youth spectrum?
Sorry about the length of this post, but didn't want to break it up into pieces. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 2:47:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
It was interesting to read through these remarks, esp. Curtis Faville's lengthy rejoinder to Max.
It may come down to Lyotard's notion of the differend -- different starting points.
But I am nevertheless reminded of the definition of a bigot when I think of Max --
"The state of mind of a narrow-minded person who is intolerant of beliefs other than his or her own."
Just as blacks (about half of African-Americans actually prefer this term) can be racist, so, I think, can leftists be bigots. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 4:25:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
The toxic shock theory that JH brings forward is also quite fascinating -- apparently in ancient Greece gay men practiced INTERCRURAL sex -- which meant no physical penetration of the anus by the penis, but rather, the older man (on top) sent his member between the thighs of the face-up younger man. I was told this by the poetry critic Robert Peters in a letter I received from him decades back.
With that as a model there would be no toxic shock.
Anal sex, it would seem, would cause (invariably) toxic shock.
At any rate, I still think the whole thing is fundamentally an insurance issue, and that it's the unspoken truth on everyone's mind.
I could be wrong. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 4:30:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I just googled Peter Duesberg, who is a professor of molecular and cell biology at UC-Berkeley. His argument is that toxic shock caused by use of recreational drugs is what causes HIV.
Back in the early 80s this was the anecdotal argument among gay men in New York city. I grew up just outside of NYC and many gay men in that area thought it was a disease caused by too frequent use of what they called poppers.
He doesn't say anything about anal sex, which is what I thought was causing the toxic shock. But at least this little blurb says it's recreational drugs:
I haven't closely followed the ins and outs of the various debates very well. I bought a book on the history of marriage within Christian tradition but never got around to reading it.
I read essays once in a while on what causes people to be gay. As of the mid-90s no genetic thesis had been clearly established, so I don't think anybody knows even now if it's got a genetic or a cultural basis (nature or nurture).
Max tries to slam the conversation shut in favor of the former, but there's no conclusive evidence for this.
I don't think anybody knows.
As for the closed monogamous relationship, that too has no clearly natural basis. The ancient Jewish higher-ups often had many wives.
Why it switches to a closed one-to-one is certain not clear.
Bachofen argues that it has to do with the rise of patriarchy, which has to do with symmetry and justice.
But no one reads Bachofen except me.
(could it really be that a book was published for me alone to read?)
In Finland a man was put in prison for deliberately spreading AIDS. He got a seven-year sentence (this is the longest sentence you can get in Finland unless you are considered crazy and then you have to go to the asylum, from which you might never get out).
The issues around gay marriage are myriad. I think neither science nor traditional theology has any answers that will hold for all sides.
So it's just a question of votes, at this point.
If a judge slams it through, it will still cause a backlash of votes, and propositions, until there is a clear argument one way or another.
I don't know if I will ever know what I really think about anything, but I do think that "love" is not a criterion of anything.
I'm more interested in insurance rates. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 4:46:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Love is a kind of hippy term. As is hate. They just seem too simple.
Those words were good enough for the hippy left at Woodstock, but what became of that movement?
Gone with the wind.
A group has to be around for at least 400 years before I'm willing to think that they have any ideas worth listening to. at that point, they have a track record.
Before that, I always think I may be drinking cool aid.
That's what the Marxists drank.
I'm not having any of it. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 4:49:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Emmy -
You seem to be arguing that people could somehow magically come around to "individual" conscientiousness. It doesn't work like that. You don't simply "become" a conscientious individual unless there is some sort of social value to it.
I, as well, don't believe that sanitizing speech and behavior necessarily has positive outcomes. All I'm arguing is that the impulse at the heart of PC-ness is valuable and good. All it is is self-examination. I think it's of inherent value to examine our interactions so, at the very least, we aren't blind to their effects (whether we change anything about them or not).
Curtis -
The big problem I have is how most of the people who speak of "shedding light on the implications" of gay marriage, are usually not shedding light on implications that can reasonably be thought to occur should gay marriage be legalized (like people engaging in plural marriage--something that would, quite ironically, be fought for on religious, not sexual orientation, grounds--or marrying animals, or marrying trees, or other entities that cannot enter into legally binding contracts, which is what a public marriage is).
I think that many people who are against gay marriage, these days, call for "calm," "rational" discussion, preferring the method of clouding up the issue in hopes that it will become bogged down in some bureaucro-philosophical debate, and be deferred due to the difficulty of its solution.
The bottom line is that legal marriage extends certain rights to individuals. If a state has equal protections laws that cover sexual orientation, as does California for example, then sexual orientation should not bar one from entering into a legal marriage and attaining those rights that are allowed to heterosexuals. That was the entire basis for gay marriage being legalized there in the first place, and I'm fairly certain it's going to be the basis when a judge eventually overturns Prop 8. You can cloud up the issue as much as you want to with discussions of the "implications" of gay marriage, but there is a fairly clear legal argument already in existence that vindicates gay people in claiming equal rights under the law. If we defer this claim in order to discuss the cloudy issues, then we are openly engaging in injustice, because the issue, from a legal standpoint, is not actually up for debate. Equal rights are equal rights. Homosexuals deserve them, regardless of any supposed "implications." - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 5:39:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Max sees the issue as one of "conscientiousness," and being on the right side of things.
I see it as a structural issue.
What can the system take before it collapses?
Insurance is one way to think about it.
Even in terms of the southern border, I am certain that human rights would indicate that we ought to let all poor people the world over live in America and escape from their crummy countries.
However, I don't think the system can stand such stress.
The interpenetration of ethics between mingling cultural groups does require a certain common set of universal standards.
But the standards can't apply to individuals.
They have to be system-wide, and have to protect the system, not individuals.
Individuals don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
What matters is the survival of the system itself.
If America's insurance system collapses, or if its banking system collapses, we are all going down the tubes.
If an individual bank goes out of business, I don't care. Other banks can take up its niche.
If a car company or two go out of business, other companies can profit from its niche.
If it is no longer profitable to cover married people, or if premiums have to triple because of a huge new insertion of people with risky behavior, and we all have to soak that up, then many companies will go out of business, or release many of their workers because they can no longer afford them.
No one ever talks about larger systems.
They squeak on and on about individual rights.
But in the long run the system matters but individuals really don't. Individuals can and must be thrown under the bus if they are not living by group norms.
Even monkeys apparently refuse to allow a lazy monkey to eat if they are not helping in the gathering process.
It's partially a question of economics, and maintaining a system through group norms.
It's probably difficult for some people to think like that, since they are focussed on individual rights.
But there is a point at which you have to think about the system. I think that's Curtis' point. I think it's JH's point. I think it's Emma's point. I think it's my point.
Nations and peoples have to protect themselves, especially against decadence. It's decadence that killed Rome.
Interracial tolerance is easy as long as there's a certain set of standards that they share.
Different actuarial lifestyles are what creates inequality, and hence, intolerance. I don't know why nobody is talking about this.
It's just obvious that that's what drove the vote in California.
A judge might overturn it, but judges are wealthy, and won't be affected by their judgement.
The poor and the middle-class are most affected by the poor judgement of the elites.
I think it's easy to accept lesbian couples as married because the actuarial rates would be similar to the norms of heterosexual married couples. But the actuarial norms of gay men -- who are very often indulging in risky behavior, is what drives the distinction voters are making.
Interpretations differ, but I claim that people are voting so that the insurance rates won't skyrocket, and break what's already a terribly shaky system, and likely to get shakier.
Sweden and I think Finland does now have gay marriage. But there are only about a 100 cases of AIDS in Finland, and there is already a universal health care policy in place.
Because the basic structure of the Finnish ethos is Lutheran there is a powerful work ethic, and most of the population is incredibly monogamous.
So they can afford a few outliers.
Because of the sexual revolution in America and because of enormous countercultures who practice risky sex, this will be a lot harder for American medical culture to absorb.
It may be pushed through anyway.
But I think that if it is the system will collapse, and those able to survive will be those who can afford private doctors.
In Finland they had universal health care, but you couldn't get an appointment for years.
So people just went to private doctors. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 6:21:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I took heart in seeing that in S. Korea there are still issues about sexual norms. This lady has to sit in prison for two years because she had an affair.
In america, thanks to JS Mill, the idea is that there is this huge sphere of privacy, and so in fact people are free to act out just about anything without reference to group norms.
I think the S. Koreans have it right. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 7:15:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
Well, in terms of what the "structure" requires, I think that our selfish individualist attitudes are a large part of the reason why we have such a high crime rate in America compared to other "highly developed" countries. I'm not going to rehash the argument here, since I exhausted it already in another comments section. I think that being considerate of others, and thinking of society as something in which we all share partial responsibility, has obvious benefits. We can see direct evidence of these benefits in places like South Korea and Japan. (I also think it's a mistake to believe that criminal punishment is what keeps Koreans and the Japanese in line. If we look at punishments for high crimes like murder, they are virtually the same as in most places in America, yet America has a much higher murder rate than either of these countries. Thus, we cannot simply explain away the crime rate as a function of criminal punishment, which many are quick to do. There has to be something else to it.)
Also, wouldn't allowing gay couples to marry support monogamy within that subculture? The bottom line is that, even if they are spreading disease amongst one another at higher rates (I'd really like for somebody to produce conclusive, up-to-date evidence of this? Because I feel that it's being bandied about too freely as "common knowledge" without being explicitly substantiated), that is happening even if they're not allowed to marry. Exactly how allowing them to marry would exacerbate the problem is beyond me. If anything, it seems that it would newly enshrine monogamy. It goes back to the old idea that, if society is gonna pin you down in a certain way, then hell, why not live down to that standard? If you're going to be considered a thief or a vagabond or a creep or an outcast, then you might as well embrace it, because at least then you'll know what you are, and you won't be in existential anguish. For the longest time, homosexuals have been told that they are promiscuous, diseased, destined for such lives of private anguish. It isn't a condition, after all, of homosexuality that one must be promiscuous, or that one must be disease-prone. But if you're constantly told that this is your destiny, then hell, why not live that life? Why not embrace it? At least you'll know who you are if you do. I think that legalizing gay marriage would actually counteract this defeatist mentality.
Of course, that isn't why we should legalize gay marriage. We should legalize gay marriage because public marriage is a contract which confers certain rights, and currently, in most states, those rights are being denied to homosexuals. This is especially the case in states where sexual orientation is clearly protected in the state constitution. Of course, I would argue that in states where such protection is not yet offered, it should be. You're kidding yourself if you think government is in the business of recognizing marriages because it seeks to support a certain moral structure. The only reason why government sticks its head in is so the rule structure can account for the communal nature of individuals operating as a family. The government recognizes that people in families do not handle their finances and other such things as individuals, but rather as a group. They share incomes and debts and need to know that their assets will be passed to next of kin, and things of that nature. There is no moral argument in legal code regarding legal marriages. It is simply a legal designation that respects the communal aspect of family life, and provides a ruleset for families to be treated as such, so that the governance of individuals doesn't need to be jury-rigged to fit family life. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 7:55:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
We would have to say that the Gay marriage advocates have become opportunistic in their strategy. Unable to win in the polls, they have thrown their lot in with the judicial system.
Had Prop 8 been defeated, the opponents would doubtless be celebrating "the will of the people, and the rights of the majority" to have their way, but since they were unable to prevail, they now condemn the majority as naive, bigoted and evil.
Any interest group which displays this kind of pragmatism, obviously doesn't have a real commitment to society, and is always ready to provide an excuse for failure, and a way of interpreting bad news which preserves their selfish interest.
If the court were to turn them down, then they would cry "judicial activism" which is always the charge when the courts disagree with you. If the court turns down their appeal, then they'll come right back with another initiative, and they'll start all over trying to convince the populace that they were wrong the last time, and they'll try to run another seductive campaign focusing on rights, love, equality, justice, etc. But right now, all we hear is hate and frustration and indignation.
Am I surprised?
Those in a hurry to effect a rapid turnover of traditional institutions, can't wait to discuss anything. The Gay community has suffered embarrassment after embarrassment since the AIDS era began. Despite this, they have the audacity to assume that a majority of the American populace, which is traditionally conservative in its sentiment, can be persuaded to grant rights and privileges and entitlements--revolutionary changes, really--at the ballot box. It's astonishing.
Is the desire to discuss and consider the effects of sweeping new legislation a stalling tactic? Absolutely! The Bush Administration may use stalling and bureaucratic roadblocks, for instance, to prevent the adoption of environmental controls, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and widespread public support, but don't confuse this strategic methodology with the Gay marriage issue. The fact is, we don't know what effect Gay marriage would have on the mental health of children raised in Gay households; we don't know what the effect will be on insurance and benefit entitlements; we don't know what effect it will have on the primacy of heterosexual unions. Gay advocates scornfully sweep all these aside as trivial persiflage, but simply dismissing concerns does not constitute an argument.
The issue isn't whether society has "the right" to decide to define or clarify the meaning of marriage under the law. Marriage isn't a "right" defined until or unless we embody it ourselves. The courts can even say, with some justice, that individuals technically have a "right" to marry their own sex (a right which already exists), but that this right does not require that any jurisdiction actually grants licenses. State laws, for the most part, are not in the business of marrying people; they're generally aimed at "accepting" a marital contract or ceremony as having legitimacy once it's been performed. This isn't splitting hairs. All states have different laws regarding recognition of legal marriage, and the rights that pertain thereto.
It is NOT a matter of deciding "sexual orientation" either. If, for instance, the law allowed same sex couples to marry, so-called "marriages of convenience" could take place between relative strangers or friends, as a way of securing inheritance, adoption, benefit entitlement, or ownership of property. We've all heard of gold-diggers, but think of the proliferation of these under a same sex provision! If sexual orientation is not a condition that effects the application of potential marital partners, what other conditions are also therefore irrelevant? Could a father "marry" his son? A brother marry a brother? Supposing you discovered you were coming down with kidney failure, and needed dialysis--if you had a good friend with excellent health coverage, who was single, you could simply "marry" this person to be taken on as an eligible spouse entitled to full coverage to ESRD under Medicare, even if you had never worked a day in your life! You think this unlikely? Guess again.
Laws protecting sexual orientation are designed to protect individuals from persecution and discrimination. They were not addressed to the issue of Gay marriage. The attempt to apply the equal protection provision of the law was simply used as convenience, a wedge strategy to attach a different agenda. Rights exist insofar as society defines them. We have a right to bear arms, but we have a lot of regulation and procedure involved in acquiring and possessing and carrying and using firearms. And the definitions of weapons are also complex. The simple existence of the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect my right, for instance, to walk around with a loaded .45 revolver in my coat pocket. That "right" has been significantly abridged and redifined (fine-tuned) over the decades.
The electorate DOES have the authority to regulate the contracts it recognizes, and those it does not. Presently, under Social Security, same sex "partners" or spouses can't qualify for entitlement based on relationship. If Gay marriage were to be legalized in some of the major states, or in a majority of them, the Federal government would almost certainly be influenced to expand the definitions of spousal entitlement under the relationship provision. This could increase the number of potential beneficiaries by many millions, by a stroke of the HRH secretary's pen, and would provide a new class of potential fraudulent abusers.
If issues that are put to the electorate are not, as you state, "up for debate" then the democratic process has no meaning whatsoever. If everyone is entitled to everything under the equal protections principle, then I'm entitled to everything my fellow citizens are entitled to, without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, or sex. But this principle doesn't trump all other laws and regulations, it only defines a principle of equal access based on the "denial" of rights as embodied in an existing regulation as defined in the law, or otherwise not prohibited or covered under the law.
And what about group marriages? Group marriages take place right now in several states where Mormons have a presence. What prevents three wives of the same husband all to apply for and collect benefits on that man's account? This has actually happened in Britain in the case of a practicing Muslim man's four wives.
Who would be so naive as to argue that creating new forms of entitlement does not in fact ENCOURAGE different brands of relationships? You'd have to be very dumb, or simply obtuse, not to see this simple fact.
Legitimating these mostly non-Western religious and ethnic traditions also encourages the spread of, and influence of non-Christian sects and faiths, by giving hospitality to their chosen customs, even where those customs conflict squarely with other aspects of individual freedoms. Muslim tradition severely restricts the freedom of women by making them chattels of their husbands, but once a Muslim marriage is solemnized and RECOGNIZED as a binding contract, a whole host of problems arises.
So, it's easy to see how expanding the definition of marriage has much wider implications than simple "individual rights." - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 8:58:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
The murder rate in American is linked to a long standing tradition. The American expansion into the untamed West strengthened the bond between individual freedom, self-reliance, and the possession of weapons, not only for securing sustenance, but for self-defense. Our nation was born out of populist revolution manned mostly by non-military civilians whose possession of arms was a hotly contested issue in Revolutionary times. Americans have jealously guarded this right.
There is no question that a culture of criminal violence has been accompanied by the ready access to firearms, and that this is largely accountable for the high murder rates seen here. But what about present-day Africa? Seems like there's a pretty widespread resort to wholesale killing there.
Disease rates for STD's among homosexuals remain much higher than among the general population. You can easily verify this by googling any of the relevant informational sites. Infection rates came down encouragingly in the 1990's, but in the last 10 years they've begun to climb back up, and other populations than Gays have been increasingly implicated. Prostitution has been linked to it, here, as elsewhere (Africa, India, China etc.).
My position regarding Gay marriage is that we need a new form of "civil union" that is similar to traditional marriage, but limits the condition, excluding parentage, and limits certain kinds of "convenience" relationships. That would go a long way, I think, towards frustrating the promiscuousness among Gay populations, which has been interpreted as a reaction against persecution, or a "hookey" mentality. Stability, as an ideal state, should apply equally to Gays, and it is in society's interest to promote this. All of which is not to deny the existence of straight promiscuity, which is equally problematic, which is one of key reasons for the long-standing custom of fidelity in marriage.
Underlying every civil law and regulation is a set of principles which have moral meaning. "It is the proper right..." for instance, is a moral statement. Our whole Constitution is a thoroughly ethical document, based upon a set of principles which derive from ideas and theories first espoused in the 17th and 18th Centuries. They were intended to overturn the class system, religious oppression, and the various tyrannies they had perpetrated, and replace them with new concepts of individuality, private interest and property, and the common good.
I'm not sure, Max, I understand your last paragraph about family law:
"There is no moral argument in legal code regarding legal marriages. It is simply a legal designation that respects the communal aspect of family life, and provides a ruleset for families to be treated as such, so that the governance of individuals doesn't need to be jury-rigged to fit family life."
It doesn't really matter, you see, whether or not you address the underlying moral basis of law, but how that law shall be interpreted, and/or how it may be changed with the consent of the governed. We can only have a discussion about morals apart from existing laws, because disagreeing on moral grounds doesn't constitute a basis for disobeying them--you have to change them first. Otherwise, you're simply breaking laws in order to challenge them. Your "communal aspect" is pretty vague--would this include communes, or cults, or gangs, or what? It seems vague. A "ruleset to be treated as such" is just reflexive--you're saying they're treated as what they are, but our discussion is about what that "as such" will be called, and how it will be treated. Law doesn't blindly follow custom, it defines limits and privileges, and provides ways of enforcing them. You may recall that there were cries of illegality when Mayor Newsom in San Francisco declared that the City would be willing to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. Before that point, there had only been a discussion, not a direct challenge. Those marriages are now thrown into question, since the court may decide they were not conducted legally, and will have to be treated separately, possibly as "putative" or "de-facto" instead of regular marriages, and it's anyone's guess how far their legality could be stretched. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 9:31:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
Gay rights activists have always thrown in their lot with the legal system. Since when has this not been the case? Why should voters get to decide the fate of gay rights? They can't just arbitrarily decide the fate of racial rights. They can't just arbitrarily decide the fate of gender rights. They can't just arbitrarily decide the fate of religious rights. Well, actually, the case with Prop 8 actually proves that voters can deny peoples' rights based on race, sex, or religion. If they can put a proposition on the ballot that constitutionally defines marriage as between a man and a woman, then they can also put propositions on the ballot that constitutionally define marriage as between a Christian man and a Christian woman, or as between a white man and a white woman. The proposition system is nothing more than tyranny of the masses if it can be used in such a way, and Prop 8 proves that it can be. The very idea that such a thing should be up for public referendum, when the law clearly states that sexual orientation is a protected by equal rights laws, is absurd. It's like saying we should be able to propose that the constitution be changed to say that Jews can only be moneylenders, or that black people can't vote. One shouldn't be able to make a proposition that causes the constitution to become a contradiction of itself. And certainly Prop 8 will be overturned in several months, and social conservatives will scream "judicial activism!" and things will, in other words, be back to normal.
If Prop 8 had failed, its challengers would be championing the fact that, for once, public sentiment is finally in line with the rule of law, and that it's a happy day when the law doesn't exist as a thin provision of safety for people of classes traditionally discriminated against. It's a good thing if people come around to the idea that everybody deserves equal rights, but in the case that this doesn't happen, the law provides a completely valid tool for making sure that equality prevails either way, regardless of the rabble's biases.
Curtis, the social conservatives are the ones who decry "judicial activism." Social liberals don't even believe in that term, and I've never once heard the term used by one. "Judicial activism" is what social conservatives scream when the constitution is upheld, when they aren't able to put liberty (for some) up to a popular vote.
We don't know what the effect of heterosexual marriage has on the mental status of children growing up in such households! We don't know what the effect of a 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples will do to the children of such couples! Fortunately, legal marriage doesn't exist to make a judgment on what is or isn't mentally beneficial to anybody. It exists to allow for the fact that governance of individuals is incompatible, at times, with the circumstances of those living together as families. So we allow people to form legal marriages. These marriages come with certain rights and allow various options for the handling of family affairs vis a vis government institutions. That is the beginning and end of legal marriage. It does not prefer only families containing mentally stable individuals, just as it does not prefer families containing only Christian individuals, or religious individuals, or individuals of a particular race (though it used to prefer only members of the white race, and then it only preferred that members of the same race be married ... these things were done away with in the same way that we are now trying to do away with discrimination against homosexuals, but perhaps we should have had "calm," "rational" discussions about the outcome of such liberal social policy beforehand ... after all, it may have a significant mental toll on children if they had black fathers and white mothers or vice versa! Who knows what the consequences might be? One of them might even become president someday!").
The battle for legal polygamy would, ironically, not occur on the grounds of sexual orientation, but on the grounds of religion (the same grounds upon which many seek to deny marriage to members of the same sex). Y'all need to figure out your religious issues. Seriously, people.
You're right, all states do things differently. The California constitution did, and still does, guarantee equal rights to people regardless of sexual orientation. Can you tell me, then, why people were allowed to introduce a ballot proposition that contradicted, and still does contradict, this constitutional measure? It makes absolutely no sense. Show me a state where sexual orientation isn't protected (there are many to choose from) and I'll show you a state where it may be quite difficult to enact same sex marriage. I'll still argue until the day I die that that state should not be able to deny equal rights on the basis of sexual orientation, that all states should have to treat people equally, across the board, as a matter of federal authority, but I'll just be pissing in the wind on that one. As for California, however, I am correct, as are all of the challengers of Prop 8. And I'd be very surprised if the overturning of this flawed, abusive proposition isn't already in the works on the judicial level. These things take time, but I'd imagine that even the Prop 8 supporters know that all their money and effort was spent on a fool's errand.
But anyway, I live in Korea and am currently at work right now, so I can't respond to every aspect of your posts right this moment. - Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 10:45:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Excellent post, Max. Many of your points gave me pause to reconsider.
Let me do some interlinear replies--
"Why should voters get to decide the fate of gay rights?"
Well, the State decides whether an initiative can be placed on the ballot. The people petitioned to have this proposition, and it was put to a vote. I suppose what you're suggesting is that to have allowed this vote was illegal to begin with? I'm unclear, not knowing the law governing the tendering of initiatives. But I presume that the State decided the people had the right to bring this initiative, just as they did for Proposition 13, the tax initiative which has had so many controversial effects here over the years.
"They can't just arbitrarily decide the fate of racial rights. They can't just arbitrarily decide the fate of gender rights. They can't just arbitrarily decide the fate of religious rights."
I don't think our discussion is about these kinds of rights, is it?
"Well, actually, the case with Prop 8 actually proves that voters can deny peoples' rights based on race, sex, or religion."
I don't think Prop 8 addressed race or religion, did it? I thought it merely limited the definition of the parties to a marriage. It didn't change any other part of the law regarding marriage, at all.
I think the principle of the separation of church and state would probably prevent the application of a marriage law based on religious sect. As has been observed, there are now no laws that I know of restricting relationships between races, is there?
Regarding tyranny of the masses, the majority was not asked whether it wished to discriminate against sexual orientation. Present day law permits sexual acts between consenting adults, in private. I know there are refinements to this, regarding minors and certain bestial acts, but basically Gay sex is perfectly legal. Discrimination against Gays in the workplace, in public, access to public services, and so forth, is all protected. This proposition did nothing to disturb any of the protections Gays have under current law. Attempts to challenge existing provisions of law and entitlement always result in controversy.
"...the law clearly states that sexual orientation is protected by equal rights laws..."
How does Prop 8 change this? I guess your wording here is imprecise. Does "protect" mean necessarily "can now be defined, for the first time, as"...?
"It's like saying we should be able to propose that the constitution be changed to say that Jews can only be moneylenders."
No, that's a racial issue. Racial discrimination is illegal in this country. Interracial marriage is legal. That's not the issue we're dealing with.
"One shouldn't be able to make a proposition that causes the constitution to become a contradiction of itself."
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's as simple as that. The Constitution doesn't define marriage as such, because that's left up to the States. It's a state jurisdiction. The Federal Government stays out of it.
Is it likely that the supporters of Prop 8 will claim judicial activism if the Prop 8 is determined to be unconstitutional? Quite likely.
"If Prop 8 had failed, its challengers would be championing the fact that, for once, public sentiment is finally in line with the rule of law."
I sincerely doubt that this would describe their sentiment. My guess is they hardly care whether the majority either understands or appreciates what they (Gays) desire or what the consequences of a change in law might mean. They simply want what they want, and they're not particular about how they get it. They want a piece of the pie that is presently restricted to heterosexuals, and they really don't care what distress this might cause to anyone else. I think it's a kind of selfishness, irresponsibility. Just give us anything we want, and leave us alone.
"'Judicial activism' is what social conservatives scream when the constitution is upheld."
Strict constructionists would probably say that the right to abortion is in direct conflict with the Constitution's definition of the right to life, and technically they'd be right. But the Court has so far allowed Roe v. Wade to stand. And the majority of Americans are in favor of the right to abortion. Does this then amount to a tyranny of the majority? If so, then the Court should have the right to strike down Roe v. Wade, which should it happen would have tragic consequences. I think you're description of the American majority as a biased "rabble" is pretty gratuitous.
Psychology and psychiatry is in its infancy, as a "science." Your sarcasm about the implications of competing methods of child-rearing and education is naive. Muslim children go to school to learn one thing, and one thing only: The Koran. Catholic parents send their children, when they can afford to, to parochial schools where religion is uppermost in the curriculum. How people raise their children is a private matter, but we have laws governing what parents may or may not do to or with or even on behalf of their children.
Divorce is an unfortunate trend in our society, which almost everyone agrees is injurious, especially to the children. Is the prevalence of divorce, then, to be used as an argument in FAVOR of hybrid families? That's negative capability at its worst. And government DOES in fact oversee the suitability of marriage every time a couple enters divorce court, or undertakes child custody resolutions, or decides inheritance disputes.
I fail to see how the marriage issue--which isn't really about the legality of Gay sex--should be comparable to racial equality. This argument wasn't pertinent to the freeing of the American slave class. Negroes were simply declared free, and that was that. Except, as we all know, that wasn't that at all. Because you can't legislate morality and you can't change people's habits overnight. It took well over a hundred years to do away with Jim Crow, and it will take at least that long to eliminate the lingering vestiges of that prejudice.
But race isn't the same as sex. And so-called miscegenation isn't the same as same-sex.
This is, really, a brand new thing. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, but Gay marriage hasn't ever EVER existed before. Americans in the colonies had a century and a half to ponder the consequences of slavery before they fought a war to settle the issue. And now we're supposed to have Gay marriage, an idea about which there was no writing or discussion or debate at all until well after World War II!
I am not religious, but I suspect that polygamy really has little to do with religion as such, and is just a way for men to subjugate women, under the guise of custom and tradition and habit. It is frequently not voluntary, and occurs under a regime of de-facto bondage.
"Y'all need to figure out your religious issues."
Me? Nah. I ain't religious at all.
It's late here, so I'll shut off the light on this discussion for the moment.
Does "equal rights" require the state to accept same sex marriages? I doubt. Does it prohibit same sex marriage? Not at all. Gays can marry any day including Sunday, and they can mean anything they want by it, but they shouldn't raise children. It's bad karma. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 1:27:00 AM EST
- sally said...
Over the past couple of years I have watched a Christian friend of mine whom I have known for 6 or 8 years come to terms with being gay. After decades of self-hatred he came to believe that God loves him as he is. In my humble opinion, he has been happier since coming to that realization. I don't know if it is a matter of identity as much as simply accepting what is.
Two weeks before the election in which Prop 8 passed, I stood as a witness at his marriage to another man. For me, the choice to support him in this was a matter of friendship, not of politics. After watching him struggle with loneliness, I am happy that he has someone with whom to share his life. Who am I to say that he shouldn't want to have this relationship publicly and legally recognized?
I voted against Prop 8, but have not yet joined the campaign to repeal it, in part I guess, because of the argument Curtis makes that legally recognizing gay marriage is really something new that requires careful thought. To actively campaign for or against something requires, I think, more knowledge about the issue on my part.
I don't think the insurance issue is a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage. Homosexuals who want to marry are not the promiscuous type who would be likely to contract AIDS. And if people are going to take advantage of the system by marrying someone solely for their health benefits, they don't need legalized same-sex marriage in order to do so. If polygamy ever becomes legal in this country, insurance companies are free to charge additional premiums for additional spouses just as couples with children pay higher premiums than couples without children.
Ironically, the Mormon church was apparently one of the biggest supporters of Prop 8, which defines marriage as being between a (one) man and a(one) woman, so I don't think that repeal of prop 8 is likely to lead to legally recognized polygamy, at least not as a result of the efforts of the mainline Mormon church.
Surely we must know something about how children who are raised by same-sex parents fare. Such families have existed for a number of years already, haven't they? What have we learned?
With the possible exception of this issue regarding children (on which I remain undecided, pending further information), I'm not sure that I can think of any convincing reason why same-sex couples who have committed to a life-long, monogamous relationship should not be granted the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.
Am I missing something? - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 3:53:00 AM EST
- Max said...
1) Well, at some point, somebody or some system determined that it was a-okay for Prop 8 to be put on the ballot. I'm not sure what the process is in California. My guess is that it requires probably a lengthy paper petition and a fee of some sort to have it put on the ballot. In any case, it begs the question: why was a ballot initiative that, if passed, would put the constitution in contraction with itself, allowed to even make it onto a ballot? As I understand it, the very reason why gay marriage was made legal in CA is because orientation is protected under law, and it was decided in the courts that the withholding of marriage rights violated these equal protections. Well, it seems to me that, even if you change to the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, marriage is still the conferral of rights, so that would still be in violation of equal protections. You'd either have to get rid of "sexual orientation" on the list of protected groups or get rid of the entire system of legal marriage.
2) Prop 8 demonstrates that ANY protected status, including religion, can be the direct target of discrimination via ballot initiatives. If you can do it on the basis of sexual orientation, when sexual orientation is listed as protected under equal rights laws in the state in question, then you can do it for race or gender or religion as well. In fact, I would suggest that the gay rights groups in California and all over the country immediately put in place plans to introduce ballot initiatives changing the definition of marriage as being "between a non-Mormon man and a non-Mormon woman." If the rabble could get Prop 8 on the ballot, then theoretically, the rabble (if it were big/well-funded enough) could get this proposition on a future ballot as well. Of course, this would be considered obviously bigoted if it actually occurred. Nobody would see the equivalence between these two things, even though it is a direct, 1:1 equivalence, and a possibility made very real by the precedent of Prop 8.
3) The passage of Prop 8 denies rights (the rights conferred via legal marriage) to a group that is guaranteed equal rights under the law in the California state constitution. Defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" does not change the fact that legal marriage is still a conferral of rights.
4) Prop 8 demonstrates that any group with enough willpower and financial clout could put any kind of discriminatory measure on a ballot. My reasoning for believing this is because it was possible, even previous to its passage, to see that Prop 8, if passed, would put the constitution in contradiction of itself (guaranteeing rights on the basis of sexual orientation, but denying them at the same time), yet it was still allowed to go on ballots. By this reasoning, one could put all sorts of insane bullshit on the ballot, like changing the constitution to say that "the only profession in which Jews may legally participate is moneylending" or other such outlandish stuff. Such measures, if passed, would also put the constitution in contradiction with itself, just like with Prop 8. I don't see why these measures would never make it to ballot, if people put enough support and cash behind it.
5) Are you listening to yourself? You're sitting here saying that a group which has been told, "you may partake freely in all the rights granted to others" and has just had those rights stripped of them, in contradiction with the very constitution which supposedly confers them these rights, should stop being "selfish" by asking for their rights to be returned to them? Did you forget that gays could marry in California before Prop 8 passed? They had the rights, and then the rights were taken away from them. Who ever stopped to ask the homosexuals how they felt before they stripped them of the rights they already had? Why aren't the supporters of Prop 8 characterized as "selfish" in this regard? The mindset you're inhabiting right now is so convoluted and backwards, that it should be considered "selfish" to demand rights that are already guaranteed you under law, and which have been unjustly stripped from you by the bigoted rabble. Only somebody who possesses all his rights with absolute certainty and takes them for granted could ask something so silly of others in less socially flush standing.
6) I'm really not going to get into Roe v. Wade in this discussion. That's just asking to get off topic. But the bottom line is that Roe v. Wade is a court decision made on constitutional grounds, whether the majority agrees with it or not. The court could have decide otherwise as well, and that would have been a decision made on constitutional grounds, whether the majority agreed with it or not. In either case, that the majority agrees with it or not is completely tangential to the decision. In the case of Prop 8, the rabble got to make a decision about peoples' rights, based on direct contradiction of what the constitution says. In other words, they got to make a decision based on bigotry, even though the constitution says, quite clearly, that bigotry ain't allowed. With Roe v. Wade, one might well make the argument that the supreme court could have found constitutional justification for or against on the issue. With Prop 8, one cannot make such an argument. The constitution clearly says "these people, among others, are protected" and a 6% margin (or some such percentage) of voters said "we don't give a crap."
7) My point is that the government doesn't take inventory of how your household looks to bear on the mental wellbeing of your (present or future) children before it grants you a marriage license. They don't require people to undergo psychiatric evaluations. They don't require people to profess religious faith of any type. They don't require people to be spiritual, or well-balanced, or well-off financially, or to be virtuous or particularly loving or patriotic or anything else. Legal marriage has nothing to do with a judgment of the health of your household. And while most people end up, well, pretty normal in married households, certainly there are quite a few people who find themselves fucked up on the other end of the experience. People such as yourself are terribly worried about the implications of homosexual married households, but you so casually brush off any criticisms of the types of people currently produced by heterosexual married households. You feign worry over this terrible problem, and act like that's the perfect reason why we should take caution with homosexuals while we have the opportunity. We may have missed the train on heterosexual marriage, but hell, let's not give up the opportunity to have our due diligence with the gays! It's just such a transparently bigoted maneuver, but you know, without coming right out and saying "being gay is immoral, will certainly screw up the young ones, and should not be allowed."
8) The marriage issue is related to the race issue because they both are cases of denial of rights. That we're talking about the denial of marriage rights and not about the denial of personhood is a pointless distinction. The anti-gay marriage crowd will and does do everything in its power to distance gay rights initiatives from classic civil rights initiatives because they know that fighting on that territory is a losing battle, but they are directly related, because at the end of the day, we're talking about the denial of rights in both cases.
9) Okay, your argument about polygamy is all fine and well. But what I'm saying is this: polygamy is always trotted out when people talk about the ramifications of gay marriage, but "polygamist" is not a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not "what gets you hot" but "which physical sex you are attracted to." As I understand it, "polygamists" are not their own distinct sex. So even if they were granted legal marriage rights, it would not be on the grounds of sexual orientation. Polygamy, as it is practiced in most cases in the United States, would likely be granted legal marriage status on religious grounds. It is, fundamentally, a social grouping, but as practiced in the United States, it is primarily religious in nature. In other places around the world, it might be just for kinky purposes. I really don't know. All I know is that sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
10) You say that race isn't the same as sex, which is obviously true, but they are both protected under equal rights laws. In that sense, they are the same, in that they are protected statuses. If you can fuck with one, then theoretically you can fuck with all of them.
11) The protecting of sexual orientation under equal rights clauses was the fundamental reasoning behind legalizing gay marriage in California in the first place. And I believe that, where same sex marriage has been legalized in the U.S., it has been won on similar legal arguments, so there is a clear and proven precedent in place. If you want to argue that equal rights protections don't apply, feel free, but if you're not a constitutional lawyer, you may find yourself neck deep in arguments to the contrary. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 5:26:00 AM EST
- Max said...
Sally -
The only thing I would say in response to your hesitance to take up the banner on repealing Prop 8 is that I think, in hesitating, you're falling right into the social conservatives' most recently devised trap. Instead of coming out in the open with direct and hateful bigotry, something which draws a ton of bad PR, they are more prone these days to advance the narrative of "collective contemplation and debate," to argue that we must "calmly" and "rationally" "discuss" these contentious issues and consider all of the potential ramifications, even though the constitution guarantees equality, and while we're sitting here slowly, calmly, and rationally discussing the future of these rights, they are not actually being upheld. They also tend to spread this narrative of legal marriage as a moral imperative. Of course, what they fail to point out is that this is a horrendous double standard, since the government doesn't ask heterosexuals any questions about morality before they're granted legal marriages, yet the opposite should, of course, be required of the discourse surrounding gay marriage. What are the moral implications for the children raised in such households? Well crap, the government doesn't ask about any of that for straight couples seeking legal marriages, and plenty of screwed up kids result from those marriages too. Of course, it is immediately assumed that homosexual marriages will spawn completely dysfunctional individuals, even though such marriages can barely be said to have been tested adequately in that regard. The double standard is almost unbearably absurd. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 5:35:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
This debate goes on and on, proving that there are thorny issues, which intelligent and prudent people can't easily agree on.
If the Constitution had been faithfully followed all along, we'd have had no problems of the kind which led to the Civil War, or Gay rights. But the mere existence of seemingly straightforward law doesn't get us out of the woods. Why weren't Negroes, or African Americans freed the day our Constitution was adopted? Because it was interpreted differently then. This idea that "equality" may be adapted to mean an entitlement of the kind not envisioned by the framers is not an open and shut case matter. People can have honest disagreement about interpretations without necessarily being bigots or madmen.
This is the point of raising the example of Roe v. Wade: There are two valid positions, neither of which can claim to have a perfected solution to a problem. I personally am in favor of abortion, but I do understand that, technically perhaps, the Constitution can be shown to support my opponents' position regarding the inviolability of life (in the womb). But I'm not willing to take away a woman's right to terminate that fetus, because I see too many practical reasons not to do it. In other words, I'm willing to stretch the limit of the law, even to contradict it technically, in order to have my preference.
In a similar sense, one can "justify" a position of support for Gay marriage based on the equality principle, even while having misgivings about some of its probable effects of doing so. I am technically in favor of Gay marriage, but on limited grounds. I think of Gay-ness as a sort of "third rail"--it's been with us forever, and will continue to be. It's probably in some cases a genetic predisposition, and in others a response to conditioning. Classic psychology would define such a difference as "abnormal" though that only has meaning in a moral sense when considered in context.
The problem arises when we move from a position of tolerance--I don't bother you, you don't bother me--to one of enshrinement, celebration, and the authorization of wider entitlement. The history of the expansion of rights has always involved the installation of some previously despised aspect to a position of favor. "Black is beautiful" was once promulgated as a way of building dignity and pride back into minority consciousness. This had a relatively harmless effect, since white people weren't likely to be offended by someone else wanting to be thought of as beautiful and valued for what they were. The problem comes in when you want to celebrate something about which we cannot agree. Anti-abortionists still see physicians who perform that procedure, and the women who choose it, as murderers. To my ears, that seems like an extreme position, but technically I can see precisely what they mean, and I might have trouble arguing that away in a debate. But I'm still convinced the world is overpopulated, and individual women and families need a way to deal with unwanted pregnancies. It's a tool we absolutely must have, just like contraception, to control our reproduction.
Homosexuality, whether it is a predisposition, or a life-style choice, only accounts for a small minority of any given population. Is it fair to demand that the rest of society, which may regard it as a poorly defined behavioral alternative, honor it with privileges and entitlements, on the grounds that it had these potential benefits all along? If Gay marriage was such a good idea, why wasn't it advocated 100 years ago? The fact is, it didn't become an issue until someone decided it was a worthy goal with juicy fruits, and would constitute another expansion of acknowledgment, granting legitimacy. But that legitimacy is not something the general population agrees about. Is it mere backwardness and bigotry to believe that raising the standard of esteem and reputation of Gays in communities and institutions might be something we'd want to limit? As a white child growing up in an integrated community, I would be quite likely to accept the idea of marrying someone of color. By the same token, growing up in a community "integrated" with Gays, I might very well think, with perfect justice, that fucking men is perfectly normal. Kids will do things out of simple rebellion and contrariness.
In other words, I may invest in a concept of tolerance, without at all being willing to believe in the tolerated behavior or identity in question, or its affect on me and my family or neighborhood or school or whatever. If we grant marriage and parental rights to same sex couples, we have crossed a line that a lot of people would rather not have to suffer the consequences of.
A Gay friend of mine asked me what the chances were that the Gay marital right would be overturned in California were, and I replied: "The door has been forced upon a crack, and it is my belief that it is an unstoppable trend." He interpreted this to mean that I supported him and his partner in their campaign to be a legally married couple. But that was only partly true. Simply because I see this trend as having a momentum, even a legally defensible one, I'm still not in favor of it.
Though I am behind my Gay friends in their cause, I don't support their whole agenda. I've seen the effects of Gay parentage first-hand, and I don't like what I'm seeing. Those kids are at least twice as likely, probably more so, to become Gay, or different in another way, than kids of straight households.
It may be inappropriate for the government to ask about or intervene to determine the suitability of straight individuals to marry, but that isn't because it presumes everyone is; it just doesn't have a part to play there, it's an impossible task. The argument isn't whether there should be a "test" for married couples to qualify for marital status; it's that by legitimating Gay marriage, we have indeed said, de facto, Gay marriage is okay, they can raise kids, they can have a presence in your neighborhood, openly and proudly. They can meet your son in the restroom, and you have nothing to say about it. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM EST
If California had voted to support gay marriage, I would respect their decision. In matters like these, I put my faith in the will of the people.
Twice, Californians have had the opportunity to vote on the issue and twice they have turned it down.
That should settle it, in California at least.
I have nothing against gay people. In fact, I find them to be rather colorful! In general, I enjoy the company of gay men more than their heterosexual counterparts.
I sympathize with their desire to marry and form life-long partnerships. I'm certain many who voted against Proposition 8 in California do too. Surely a majority of Californians cannot be bigot homophobes? I suppose its possible, but in California? Really?
And now the Governator is determined to circumvent the people's will. Lawyers, senators, congresspeople, and others are all determined to use taxpayer money to circumvent a taxpayer voted on and approved change to the state Constitution.
Something similar happened here in Michigan when we passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and the president of U of M vowed to continue using skin color as a means of discrimination. She used taxpayer money to attempt to circumvent the letter of the law, and to reject the spirit in which it was written.
I say, let the people's will stand.
There's one thing I don't understand, just in terms of strategy, and maybe one of you could help me here.
Why, when all gays claim to want is to be treated equally since they are just like everyone else, they just want to fall in love, get married, have children, go to church, serve in the military, bake pies, etc. Why the riots in the streets, in Mormon temples, in Catholic churches?
In the name of greater tolerance they storm churches and throw condoms at the faces of the congregation, making out at the altar, tearing a cross from the fingers of a little old lady and stomping upon it.
This doesn't sound like a great strategy to me, if their objective is to show people that they are just like heterosexuals, nonthreatening, loving, tolerant.
I don't recall Catholics rioting and storming medical research facilities, throwing crosses at lab technicians after the passage of the Michigan Proposal 2 expanding, without regulation or oversight of any kind, the experimentation with human embryos. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 2:06:00 PM EST
- sally said...
I'm finding Max's arguments regarding gay marriage to be pretty convincing.
Curtis--what is it that makes you think the children you know who are being raised by same-sex couples are twice as likely to become gay "or otherwise different"?
Is "otherwise different" supposed to be a bad thing? Is being gay a bad thing?
I've heard that in most species about 10% of the population exhibits same-sex attractions or pairings. I've also heard that in penguin communities same-sex couples fulfill a valuable role by adopting and raising orphaned young penguins who would not be taken in by heterosexual penguins who are busy raising their own offspring.
I really haven't done much reading on what is known and not known about the origins of homosexuality. What I've heard is that while it may or may not be genetic, it seems to be determined very early in life, in some cases while the fetus is still in the uterus. If sexual orientation really is determined that early, then it seems unlikely to me that being raised by same-sex parents would tend to make a child become gay. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 2:13:00 PM EST
- sally said...
Emmy Bee,
I agree with you about the strategy issue. I haven't seen any of the hostile acts that you describe, but I agree that they would represent a poor strategy. What I have seen on TV has been peaceful protests, but then I don't watch much TV news, so I may well have missed the condom-throwing and crucifix-smashing.
One thing that surprised me is that in California it apparently only requires a simple majority vote (50% plus 1 vote) to change the constitution.
I agree that we need to have respect for the will of the people. That's why I think discussions like the ones that occur here are important, so that the people's will can be as well-informed as possible. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 2:23:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
There is no honest interpretation for the Prop 8 rabble, which is why they voted to change the document itself. But even the change they made to the document doesn't remove the guarantee of rights for homosexuals. I love how people fling the term "entitlement" around only when it comes to the rights that are due marginalized groups. You know, assuming that you're a straight white dude, you're "entitled" to a hell of a lot, as well. Stop being disingenuous about what the guarantee of rights actually is. It's not giving homosexuals and marginalized groups "something special." It's giving them what everybody else already has.
Legal marriage has never been some kind of "reward" for being straight and normal. I think this is the biggest misconception anti-gay marriage folks make (or people, such as yourself, who express intellectual doubt about whether gays should be able to marry) about legal marriage. The only reason why it exists is as an adapter kit so families can interface with government institutions as "families," and not as some jury-rigged collection of "individuals." Families handle matters differently than individuals do, and without the conferral of a set of marital rights, it makes it kind of hard to operate as a "family" vis a vis the government sometimes. As I said before, that is the beginning and end of legal marriage. It performs absolutely zero commentary/judgment on the quality or health of a family. So this argument that suddenly legal marriage should become a matter of commentary/judgment on the morality of sexual orientation, or of homosexuals raising children, is absurd. It's never been a moral inventory, so there's no reason for it to be now.
Curtis, at the end of the day, people are their own agents. All sorts of messages--"good" and "bad," to our liking or not--are broadcast daily. Are you suggesting that an entire class of people should continue living their lives on the margins simply because for it to be otherwise would offend a lot of people? That seems to be what you're saying. A lot of people don't like gays, so gays should continue to be marginalized.
Also, you really need to stop with the first-hand analysis bullcrap. The two people I've known with gay parents are straight as arrows. Of course, this anecdotal evidence proves thing, nor does yours, so just stop with all the fearmongering. The fact of the matter is that children of perfectly "straight," often very socially conservative folks, sometimes end up homosexual. It happens all the time. The only thing we can rightly say is that sexual orientation is nigh uncontrollable, no matter what atmosphere children grow up in.
And your last paragraph is pretty silly. Of course if we legalized gay marriage we would be saying that "gay marriage" is okay. That would be kind of the point. You would be allowed to marry even if you were gay. About homosexuals living openly in neighborhoods, or "meeting your son in the rest room," ummm, I really don't know what to say to that one. I mean, they can kind of already do that, gay marriage or no. You don't currently have any say over that, regardless. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 7:42:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Emmy -
So because Prop 8 passed, it should be forever enshrined, never even potentially subject to change? Wow, that would make it pretty singular among constitutional measures. I'm not aware of any other part of the constitution that absolutely cannot ever be changed once it has been put in place. Prop 8 must be of grave importance.
This entire narrative of "let the people's will stand!" as though Prop 8, now that it's in place, should never be allowed to face usurpation, is just absurd. I see it on all the conservative blogs, this idea that somehow because it was voted on, that means it's to be forever ensconced as some unchangeable dictum, held in a secret impenetrable vault where absolutely no other laws or constitutional measures can be found.
The bottom line is that, soon enough, a judge will overturn Prop 8 on the basis that marriage, even if defined as "between a man and a woman," still confers rights, and that Prop 8 seeks to deny those rights on the basis of sexual orientation, which is protected by the state constitution. It will happen, and Schwartzeneggar will be ideologically stoned by the rabble, and the judges will be called "activists" even though they are merely upholding the constitution, and that will be that. I don't have a shred of doubt about any of this.
Anyway, the reason why gays are revolting is because they had rights taken away from them. They weren't simply denied rights from the outset. They possessed the rights and were stripped of them, throwing something like 20,000 marriages into legal limbo. You seem to think that acting out over such a thing is an overreaction, but all this does is betray your lack of understanding about what a giant leap backwards this represents for gays in California. If you had similar rights removed from you overnight, you might be pissed off as well. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 7:57:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Sally -
Of course the Prop 8 rabble (or those who sympathize with them) are going to focus on homosexuals invading churches and tossing condoms on Christ or whatever else, and act as though that constitutes the vast majority of dissent against Prop 8's passing, even though it obviously doesn't. It suits their purposes to make their opponents look like "irrational individuals" trying to subvert the "calm," "rational" "debate" about this "delicate" social issue. As though any of the vile pro-Prop 8 propaganda on television ever constituted "rational" discussion of the issue either.
If the protesters, in the act of protesting, break the law, arrest them and throw them in jail. But I don't need ideologues asking me to buy some line about how these lawbreakers, if indeed they are actually breaking the law, represent anywhere near the majority of protesters on the issue. And honestly, if the ideologues can't even understand why homosexuals would be angry about the passage of Prop 8, their very capacity for sympathy is in question. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 8:05:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
Just to extend one of my arguments a bit ...
Legal marriage has never been a moral inventory, even though it could well have been had people wanted it to be. I am against it being a moral inventory, but if we're going to make it that way for homosexuals looking to marry, then we should make it that way for heterosexuals looking to marry as well.
You could very well make such an argument, and I wouldn't be surprised if you did, but if you do, you should at least be consistent about how the system is exercised. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 8:08:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I realized that one of the great differences between left and right is that the right is basing its thinking on the dictates of a LIVING GOD, who speaks out against homosexuality in Leviticus (in the first person) among other places.
The left takes its ideas from what the will of its constituency wants.
The left traces itself back to Athens.
The right to Jerusalem.
Together they make an alloy -- America.
Which has strong intertwining strands from both cultures.
The right would like to secede, and the left would like to secede, but we are more or less stuck with each other, and have to work this out somehow. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 8:34:00 PM EST
Proposition 8 proponents deserve praise for their diligence in persisting in the face of quibbling legal challenges from the petition stage to the passage of the amendment as well as of the heavy contributions to the campaign to defeat the proposed amendment after the referendum was injudiciously struck down. And I expect that if the California Supreme Court interferes with the state's constitutional amendment process, those judges rescinding a duly passed amendment will rightly face impeachment or recall proceedings against them.
max tries to argue a good game on this and other issues, but when confronted with sound arguments to the contrary, he reverts back to his customary practice of angry invective, windy bluster, and ad hominem attacks. I was impressed with Curtis Faville's contributions to the argument, and hung back in deference. On the other hand, Sally contributed several interesting points in a thoughtful and considerate manner. I also think max's omnibus equal protection claims far too expansive when it comes to gay marriage; I expect he'd retract analogous claims in arguing against restrictions on abortion and protecting the rights of the unborn. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 8:40:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
The problem is that the law doesn't and cannot invoke Leviticus as the basis for policy decisions.
Jacques -
You haven't demonstrated how any of my arguments here have been defeated by those of Curtis or Emmy or anybody else. Did you even read anything I wrote? Doubtful. So why are you speaking about the things I wrote as though you had?
Proposition 8 puts the California state constitution in direct contradiction of itself. Some further change, in either direction (favoring Prop 8 supporters, opponents, or otherwise), will need to be made in order for the document not to be a mockery. One can't define legal marriage as "between a man and a woman" and then ignore the fact that legal marriage still constitutes a conferral of rights, rights that are now being denied on the basis of sexual orientation, which is protected by the same constitution in question.
A judge will likely overturn Prop 8 because the precedent has already been set in other states (and had already been set in the state of California, before the passage of Prop 8) that equal protections clauses apply to legal marriage institutions. That has been how every single gay marriage con-law case has been fought and won in America. No judges are going to "rightly face impeachment" for following these precedents, just as no judges have "rightly faced impeachment" anywhere else for following these precedents. Take pride while you can, Jacques, but you know just as well as I that the Mormons and other ideologues wasted millions of dollars on a fool's errand here. California will be marrying gays again soon enough. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 9:08:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Also, do you really think you can catch me in a contradiction on abortion, Jacques? I'd love to see the argument.
In the case of abortion, if you'd read my posts, you would have seen the part where I argued against any equivalence between Roe v. Wade and Prop 8.
It can be argued that the Supreme Court might have found constitutional justification for falling on either side of abortion. They happened to have found a stronger justification, in their views at the time, for falling on the pro-choice side.
Exactly how this has any bearing on what happened with Prop 8 is beyond me. According to the California constitution, there was absolutely no argument for disallowing gay marriage. In fact, as had already been decided before in other states, equal protections apply to legal marriage, so if sexual orientation is protected by the constitution, then gay marriage must be allowed. There was no constitutional basis for barring gays from legally marrying, so a bunch of ideologues got together and put forth a ballot proposition in order to usurp justice via the force of the majority.
Don't you see the difference, Jacques? In Roe v. Wade, the justices could have interpreted the law to find for either side of the issue. Because nobody could have interpreted the California constitution to find in any other way than FOR gay marriage, ideologues sought to (and have temporarily succeeded at) subverting the law.
There is no equivalence to be found here. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 9:20:00 PM EST
Licensing bureaus of the states rightly place certain stipulations on those granted licenses, and stipulating that a state marriage license can only be granted to one man and one woman (even to a gay man marrying a gay woman) is within the purview of the state constitution and that state's voters to decide, provided that that state's laws do not conflict with federal law. Your expansive interpretation of equal protection laws is what I contested in the gay marriage issue. I don't keep a record of your rants, so I don't know where you argued your case against the expansive equal protection rights you decree gay marriage advocates must have and are not to be accorded to the unborn, or in the case of president-elect Obama, to infants born of unsuccessful abortions. That "nobody" could have found in the referendum duly passed against gay marriage, it remains that three of the seven justices did. But in any case you completely dodged the issue of whether your expansive interpretation of equal protection laws should apply to the unborn.
That you characterize Mormons in general (and presumably all orthodox Christians as well) as ideologues not only reveals your bigotry, but your lack of understanding of the term itself. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
If the people of California change their minds, they are free, of course, to seek that the amendment be repealed.
In fact, I might encourage them to do so at some point in the future if it turns out that this amendment was all a big mistake, fueled by the "ideologue Mormons" that some people love to demonize. If my thoughts tended in that direction, it might seem to me like some Mormons would enjoy the prospect of gay marriage as it puts polygamy back on the table. Why only one man and one man? Why not two women and one man, or two women and two men? You have to admit, polygamists have just as much a "right" to marry as you or I, or Bert and Ernie.
By the way, I never said I was against gay marriage, though I can see how some might find it oh so tempting to assume that about me. I just think that in matters like these the only reasonable way to proceed is to let the decision rest with the people who must live with the law.
For the same reason, I do not approve of a federal law defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, but you would never bother to ask me about that, would you?
The states have rights to determine policy within their borders, and their power to do so comes from the citizens of those sovereign states.
The point is that it is the people who are governed who have that decision to make, not some unelected, unaccountable judge who allows her ideology to get in the way of doing her job and enforcing the law as it stands; a law which was voted on and approved by the majority of Californians. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Jacques -
My "expansive interpretation" is the same "expansive interpretation" used by every other state (including California, before Prop 8 passed) that has legalized gay marriage. I don't believe it would be constitutional, either, for a state to determine that homosexuals couldn't qualify for driver's licenses simply because some group of bigoted ideologues put a proposition on the ballot changing the definition of driver to "any of age, straight individual."
The fact that they changed the legal definition of marriage to reflect that it is "between a man and a woman" does not change the fact that legal marriage confers rights, and that all protected statuses are still guaranteed equal access to those rights under the law. All Prop 8 does is put the California state constitution is in direct conflict with itself on this matter.
I didn't dodge the abortion issue, Jacques, and you know it. I merely made the claim that it shares no equivalence with this discussion. Re-read my statements and you'll know where I stand on it. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Emmy -
Gay marriage doesn't put polygamy on the table. Last time I checked, polygamist wasn't a sexual preference (as in "I prefer men" or "I prefer women") and therefore legal marriage for polygamists would not be enacted on the basis of sexual orientation. Furthermore, it seems to me that the government would have a clear prerogative in limiting marriage to two consenting adults, since "polygamists" (or groups of people conveniently designating themselves as such) could use marital rights to game the tax system and other such things. It would certainly require that marital rights, which are designed for single marriage, be overhauled in order to make sure that such a thing doesn't occur. Though, at the same time, maybe people like Jacques would be in favor of legal polygamy, since it would allow them to manipulate the tax system and other such "socialist" bureaucratic nuisances.
In any case, if plural marriage could be squared with the marital rights designed for single marriage, and it was enforced to be between consenting adults, I don't see why it would constitute a problem for the state or for anybody else. That said, it's still not a "slippery slope" created by gay marriage. Polygamy has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Emmy, I think it's easy to sit back and say "well, personally, I am okay with all of this, but hell, if those people don't like it, let them withhold the rights of others, even though those rights are clearly guaranteed them by the constitution of the state they live in." The reason why I lump you in is because you're not actually taking a stance. You're deferring to others who are obviously acting in an unjust manner, and acting like it's all good. Gays in California had their right to marry stripped of them. There are something like 20,000 marriages in legal limbo. This wasn't a matter of taking something completely off the table before it ever got on the table in the first place. Gays could marry before Prop 8 passed, and now they can't. And this measure appears to be in direct contradiction with the constitution of California. Why is it so difficult for you to take a position? I'd actually prefer it if you sided with the Prop 8 rabble, because at least a moral opposition to gay marriage wouldn't absolutely defy reason (though it would, I think, absolutely defy justice). I can understand if somebody is morally opposed, but I can't understand somebody who sits back and says "hell, if we're talking about my personal view, I'm okay with it, but let's just sit back and see what the rabble comes up with over there." You get to sit back and say that you prefer something, but at the same time argue that, in actuality, you don't prefer it. It's too easy, and I don't quite believe it. I think you're just lending quiet support to Prop 8 by playing the "I personally don't care, but it ain't up to me" card. Yeah, we know it ain't up to you. It ain't up to me, either. But where the hell do you actually stand?
A judge has a perfectly clear duty to make sure that the constitution is being upheld. If the system defies rights guaranteed by the constitution, then the system must be changed so that is no longer the case. This is why gay marriage was permitted in California in the first place. Judges are necessary in order to ensure that the constitution takes precedence over the rabble.
The problem now is that Prop 8 leaves the constitution in direct contradiction of itself. Something is going to have to be changed, either way, to make the document work again (whether they remove sexual orientation from the list of protected status, or overturn Prop 8 entirely). What I'm arguing for, on this count, is that the document not be placed in direct contradiction with itself. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 11:00:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Jacques -
Here are the bounds of the argument between us, as I see it:
If you believe that this "expansive interpretation" of equality is wrongheaded, then the argument is essentially over. You and I will agree to disagree. At the same time, I will ask you to please consider the fact that, in states where gay marriage has been legalized, this "expansive interpretation" has been embraced as the basis for legalization. So the case for this "expansive interpretation" is growing, and your belief that it is wrongheaded grows less and less convincing to the legal experts fighting in these court battles as time wears on. Appeal all you want to your idea of what should or shouldn't be included under equal rights laws. It's not your idea up against mine. It's your idea up against the mounting legal precedent. Fair enough. Argument over, as that is concerned. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 11:19:00 PM EST
It's a shame, but I don't respond to people who swear at me.
There could have been an interesting discussion.
I'm sure everyone here now knows where I stand on the issue, and why I approach it from the perspective of federalism.
I've got very little to say to someone who resorts to vulgarities.
Consider yourself, from now on, ignored. That is, until you learn to conduct yourself in a way befitting the tone of discussion on Kirby's blog. - Friday, November 28, 2008 at 11:49:00 PM EST
Yes, I suppose we've reached an impasse here on the gay marriage issue. We side with the "rabble" max repeatedly refers to, and he sides with what we might call the racaille, or "scum." Then the issue is just reduced to an exchange of sad epithets.
- Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM EST
- Max said...
Oh quiet, Emmy. If you don't dignify my arguments with a response, it will be because you don't have any adequate response at hand.
You're just living by Jacques's example: argue when it's a simple matter of opinion and emotion rules the day, and feign indignance when matters become technical, bound by logic and reason.
If that's how you want to be, then that is how you will be, whether my word choice offends you or not. You and Jacques have proven yourselves, time and time again, to be this way, and I wasn't expecting this would change any time soon. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 12:12:00 AM EST
- Max said...
Oh, and news update:
"Hell" Still a Swearword
Whodathunkit? - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 12:16:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
A lot of verbiage has passed under the bridge, but I'll post some interlinears anyway--
"I love how people fling the term "entitlement" around only when it comes to the rights that are due marginalized groups. You know, assuming that you're a straight white dude, you're "entitled" to a hell of a lot, as well. Stop being disingenuous about what the guarantee of rights actually is. It's not giving homosexuals and marginalized groups "something special." It's giving them what everybody else already has.?
Yes, I am a straight white dude, but not a typical one. In thinking about the history of the extension of rights and privileges, it's good to remember that African Americans were still slaves for quite a while after they were, in retrospect, literally and legally free under our Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by the States in 1788, but it wasn't until 1862 that President Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Similar, there wasn't universal suffrage in America until 1920 when the 19th Amendment passed.
Isn't it rational to observe that the concept of "equality," which is a cornerstone of our Constitution, has been subject to different interpretations over time? This kind of fine tuning is precisely what enables us in our system to adapt to changes in society over time. How we treat the principles embodied in our original documents is the subject of most judicial debates, how they are applied, enforced and extended or curtailed, is the constant business of government.
Your argument seems to be based on the notion that there has never been any disagreement about what these principles might actually mean, in practice, as opposed to the abstract.
How "Equality" should be achieved, for instance, continues to be a very controversial topic. Minority interest groups are always intent on finding ways to overcome disadvantages through special pleading, set-asides, "affirmative action," or the application of "reparations" for past abuses and deficits. The application of the concept of "special" privilege is not one I would apply to the Gay issue. Marriage, however, is a specific condition, which carries specific rights and privileges. The INTERPRETATION of what that word means, how it shall be applied in practice, and what its implied benefits and ENTITLEMENTS might be, IS SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION.
The issue isn't whether "legal marriage has never been some kind of "reward" for being straight and normal." Marriage is a contract, and a set of commitments and responsibilities. Law defines who may enter into such contracts (the parties), what the limit and extent of the contract is.
"The only reason why it exists is as an adapter kit so families can interface with government institutions as "families," and not as some jury-rigged collection of "individuals." Families handle matters differently than individuals do, and without the conferral of a set of marital rights, it makes it kind of hard to operate as a "family" vis a vis the government sometimes."
This all seems kind of cloudy. I don't know what you mean by an "adapter kit so families can interface with government." Government creates civil union and recognition of privately conducted marital ceremonies for the purpose of conferring legality upon marital unions. This is not an accommodation, but a granting of status. There are requirements for the parties to a legal marriage, which differ from state to state. If you aren't aware of what these requirements and limits are, you might want to look them up. Marriage law can get fairly complex. You can't, for instance, be legally married to two women at the same time.
Historically, there was tacit acceptance of the concept of heterosexual marriage, and that hadn't been challenged, until very recently. Historically speaking, Gay marriage is a brand new, and quite novel concept, one without either legal or social precedents. The first Gay marriage occurred in Denmark in 1989. That's like yesterday.
"Are you suggesting that an entire class of people should continue living their lives on the margins simply because for it to be otherwise would offend a lot of people?"
Not at all. I think that Gays should be entitled to carry on their lives in all respects that straight people do, and that they should follow the law in the same way. However, society does place restrictions on behavior where it considers that necessary. The issue of Prop 8 isn't whether or not anyone should be "marginalized" but whether or not men should marry men and women should marry women legally, under the law. Anyone is free to undergo any private ceremony as they see fit, and to live their lives according to the guidelines they agree upon. However, with respect to the birthing of children, their custody, and how they shall be raised, etc., are questions which ARE controlled by the state. The clear connection between the legalization of marriage, and the consequent RIGHT to conceive, adopt and raise children obliges society to examine the implications of any redefinition or extension of the concept of marriage. Since children are not considered fully competent and empowered to fend for themselves, society recognizes that it bears a responsibility to protect and defend them against exploitation, abuse and neglect etc.
"Also, you really need to stop with the first-hand analysis bullcrap."
This is a pretty abusive. Do you regard all first-hand knowledge as irrelevant? If you yourself have had no experience of Gay marriage or Gay parentage, can you say with any certainty that you trust all claims without proof? The argument usually foregrounded is that Gay-ness, as a persuasion, occurs DESPITE circumstances and conditions; and the issue is usually the obstacles which society throws in the way of incipient Gays which prevent them from pursuing their own innocent happiness in their own way. The fear among opponents of Gay parentage is that by facilitating, even encouraging alternative family unit models based on competing visions of marriage, we are setting up confusing alternatives for children and youth.
You claim that "sexual orientation is nigh uncontrollable, no matter what atmosphere children grow up in." But I don't think scientific studies bear this out. Actually, how individuals react under different circumstances controls to a large degree how they themselves behave. We know, for instance, that the sexual habits of teenagers differ markedly from society to society, from class to class, group to group. It is widely acknowledged that teen sex in America has been on a steep rise trend for decades, as has been the use of illicit drugs. Add to this mix the additional permission implied to the public acknowledgement of homosexual behavior, and you have a recipe for disaster. I suppose that sounds a little extreme, but ask any principle of a ghetto school about it, and see what they say.
With respect to rape and the exploitation of minors by adults, we do, in fact, "have [a] say over that." The concern is that, having fully outed and celebrated the emancipation of Gays, and the life-style and sexual practices they follow, how might we claim to our children that society expects and wishes them to grow up to create harmonious nuclear families. I do, myself, in fact, believe in the superiority of the heterosexual nuclear family. It's the single most viable and productive institution ever invented by civilized mankind to foster its own perpetuation. Challenges to its priority deserve to be regarded with skepticism.
"The bottom line is that, soon enough, a judge will overturn Prop 8 on the basis that marriage, even if defined as "between a man and a woman," still confers rights, and that Prop 8 seeks to deny those rights on the basis of sexual orientation, which is protected by the state constitution."
Max, I think you might not want to be so confident about your assertion. It's by no means a foregone conclusion. The challenge presented to court isn't merely one of private parties bringing a test case, but an attempt by interest groups to overturn the majority vote of the whole electorate. Your contemptuous regard for which notwithstanding, altering or striking down a majority vote provision is not a light matter at all.
"The reason why gays are revolting is because they had rights taken away from them. They weren't simply denied rights from the outset."
I disagree here. Remember that the interpretation of provisions in law has always been a source of disagreement. The history of "rights" is the history of legal disputes followed by alterations achieved through vote, proclamation or judicial order, not simply by minorities fighting in the streets. The marriages conducted recently in San Francisco were all done under a cloud of doubt about their legality. If, for instance, I were Gay and had participated in this process, I doubt I'd be very surprised about the possibility of later disappointment. Many of those so-called marriages were really just challenges and statements, anyway, like people signing a petition.
"Legal marriage has never been a moral inventory, even though it could well have been had people wanted it to be."
Actually, I disagree here too. I think that, implicit in society's desire to grant formal civil approval to traditional marriage, it wishes to encourage and enhance that institution. Marriage is a good thing. We could inventory its advantages and values, but I doubt that would have any influence on our attitude. By the way, I have been married for 39 years to the same woman. Have you ever been married? Are you Gay? Divorced? Those are pertinent questions. People usually vote their self-interest.
Kirby says: "I realized that one of the great differences between left and right is that the right is basing its thinking on the dictates of a LIVING GOD."
I'm not religious, Kirby, so I don't think it's fair either to characterize me as conservative, or as a believer. My principles are based on pragmatism, on empirical knowledge, and on practical applications. Difficult choices may involve the lesser of evils, rather than clear moral choices. It would be better to have abstinence than abortion, but we're sexual beings, and we need safety nets such as contraception and abortion to spare us the hardships of bad behavior, accidents, and changing circumstances. I have no doubt, for instance, that it would be theoretically possible for same sex couples to responsibly raise heterosexual children, but I think the jury's still out on that; it's asking a lot of a determined minority to ignore their own difference, or ask their children to, in the interests of fairness and unselfish duty. From what I've seen of Gays, how they relate to the heterosexual world, their bitterness and contempt for it, I'd be very surprised to see them act magnanimously or generously with their own charges.
Max says "One can't define legal marriage as "between a man and a woman." No? Why not? The definition contained in any law may be explicit, or not. In cases where a distinction is not explicit, then either the courts or the majority are entitled to clarify it. Also "California will be marrying gays again soon enough." But it is quite likely that, even if the judges overturn Prop 8, there will be further elaborations of the law. People may reluctantly accept Gay unions, but may move to limit their applicability, especially if, over time, difficult problems arise.
Max, I think the point of bringing up Roe v. Wade is to show that INTERPRETATION is the fulcrum upon which the law actually operates or is applied. A strict constructionist could with complete justice claim that "killing" fetuses is against the law, whereas the INTERPRETATION went against this. By a similar stroke, California voters decided, perhaps even against the implied meaning of their own constitution, that they wished to limit a presumed equality as that concept applied to the recognition of civil unions under law. That isn't subverting law, it's augmenting it with greater specificity. This is the function of comparing the two issues--a demonstration of differing ways of interpretation.
"What I'm arguing for, on this count, is that the document not be placed in direct contradiction with itself."
Max, you've made this statement so many times in your posts that it's like a refrain in a ballad. But the question of whether or not one law contradicts another isn't as simple as you seem to think. There are thousands of laws which overlap or have vague degrees of contradiction. It is up to judges to resolve these discrepancies, it is true. But how they are likely to be resolved is never certain. You should read the wording on judgments to see how tortuous and convoluted such decisions sometimes are! Judges are just as likely to make complex rationalizations for personal prejudices and biases as they are to defend liberty and the public good. Balancing the interests of the majority against those of minorities is only one function of statute challenge.
Max: I think you need to step back and be a bit more circumspect. You're very rigid in your wordings, as if you could only see one way of saying something. The history of legislation and the progress of law proves that nothing is set in stone, even principles which stand as the pillars of freedom. It's one of the highlights of our system, that it can bend, but not break. Those of us who value what the institution of the family in its present form has brought mankind, have the full weight of history and tradition behind us, whereas you only have this notion of the inviolability of equality as applied to a separate provision of a state Constitution, written before such issues as Gay marriage were never anticipated.
Be patient, and see what happens. You might be surprised by the outcome. Or, none of us may ever live long enough to see all the eventualities. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Pls excuse my typos and grammatical oversights--I didn't proof my last post before hitting the publish button. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST
- jh said...
perhaps we're at an apex of social change
perhaps we need a new bill of rights
if there is no sin involved then let us wrangle
perhaps as a culture we need to recognize more options for people with aberrant inclinations...places...social categories..occupations...things people can do that won't entail the fate of same sex union
and then make all initial relationships be they of the baby makin sort or the truly neutral out of the question sort and allow them to happen and to exist but with absolutely no social rights or comforts no insurance no gaurantees the first two years are complete survival complete legal protection but no expected rights of any sort the only option would be to work hard somewhere find acceptance in a community and a community that would somehow see the value of such a union....take the personaal preference element right out of it...nope it's just survival...no social obligations no protection against bigotry no protection against hatred...all legal protection would be based on the humanity of the person...if any two people can make it through the first two years they are granted immediate social status and all benefits then are provided
and perhaps there should be a mandatory 6 month period of mutual celibacy where two people have to live together and agree to abstain form sexual contact
i've got this all figured out people
just you listen
j - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 10:34:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I enjoyed Curtis' long pieces. Curtis is very much on the Democratic side of things, and yet is against gay marriage. Emmy is very much on the Republican side of things, and yet is open to gay marriage.
I'm on the fence with this topic.
I'm still looking for a suitable criterion.
I think "love" is a poor notion, because first of all, it rarely lasts. Even within a lengthy marriage, there are lots of emotions. Love is only one of them.
I think it's a flimsy and sentimental notion.
Rights are also bizarre, since they emerge out of a specifically Christian context -- I don't see how you can talk about rights (which don't exist in nature) without accepting their "God-given" aspect. Locke calls them "God-given." The Constitution makes specific reference to our creator.
If God is a fiction, then we can't talk about rights as having an ontologically natural status.
Max argues that you can't bring Christianity into legal thought. But of course our entire history of legal thought comes out of Christianity. Law is based on the Ten Commandments in the European west.
Now we're moving toward a Rorty-esque notion of law as a social contract, or set of social contracts. I find this hilarious.
In Christian communities (some 80% of Americans still claim to be Christian -- with Muslims, Jews, and others making it up to 97% religious).
Only about 3% of America is atheist.
Should they be the ones to set the laws?
Why should this be so?
Isn't atheism also a religion of a kind? Why should it be the established religion.
The first amendment says only that there should be no one established church.
And yet all four of our presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the last round claimed Christianity as the basis of their thinking.
We may have a purely secular candidate at some point in our history from one of the major parties.
McCain is probably the closest we've had. (I think he's a crypto-atheist, based on stories of his youth, in which he tossed his first wife under the bus.)
But it's for that reason that he didn't win. Many Christians couldn't bring themselves to vote for him.
In Christian tradition, marriage is the only superlapsarian institution. It is the only institution that existed before the Fall.
It is therefore the very center of society in Christian thought.
Many hold to that idea -- probably as many as 80%, including 70% of African Americans.
Contract theory isn't yet the reigning legal paradigm.
The paradigm of law in America derives from the Bible. Even Lincoln made reference to it.
It's still our guiding body of knowledge. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
The problem for gay marriage is that it doesn't have any Biblical precedent. That Booke is still the center of American thought, and the source of all righteousness. And in many places -- Leviticus -- in particular, and in St. Paul's letters, and even in some of the wording of Jesus -- marriage comes out very clearly as a relationship between a man and a woman.
If you want to ground gay marriage in some other text it will not have the authority of the Christian texts, or the OT.
At least not in American thought.
Pragmatically, therefore, I don't think it's going to be accepted unless you de-Christianize America. Which is what many will attempt to do by throwing condoms in churches, however, you won't succeed.
The Muslims are just as dead set against gay marriage.
It's only a tiny percentage of people -- atheists -- who are open to listneing to contract theory.
And to the bizarre notion that what PEOPLE want is what they should have. People want all kinds of things that they can't have, including a redistribution of wealth.
It's hard to find justification for what we want, and we have to found it on texts that have a legitimate authority.
There is an option of throwing out the baby Jesus with the bathwater of Christianity, but that option leaves us without any foundation for moral thinking whatsoever, and just says, whatever comes naturally (what the penguins do) is all we've got as illustrations of authority.
If we start looking to the animals for a source of moral authority, I can see the wealthy arguing well, lions rip off the heads of gazelles -- that's all I did. This is what the Marquis de Sade used. He argued that his impulses to murder women were just as natural as the impulse of a wolf to slaughter sheep.
I, personally, am not willing to go to the animals for moral instruction. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Well, jh, I think all those suggestions are made in the spirit of good will (or is it irony?), but I doubt any of them would be viable.
William Faulkner said once, about integration, that the weight of law and justice certainly went with emancipation and equality, but that realizing these things would take a lot of time. He was heavily vilified for that remark, but I think it was very wise. Science, for instance, may tell us that microwaves and power line waves are all very safe, as safe as gas heaters and wood fires, but until they've been around awhile, we really aren't in a position to agree with complete certainty.
Homosexuality has been around a long time, and will continue to be. But Gay marriage is a completely novel experiment, and I'm not sure what the ramifications of adopting it may be. I'm hesitant, even suspicious, based on what I know and what I've experienced. It's risky.
Heterosexual monogamy certainly isn't perfect. Fidelity is a constant problem. Hard-wired into our genes, supposedly, is a sexual aggression that is more powerful than most of our normal drives. Keeping it in check is not always easy. Anthropologists tell us that primitive man procreated from the inception of fertility--age 12 or 13 in girls--and dominant males often had exclusive access to "eligible" females in primitive societies; in some surviving primitive cultures, this is still the case.
The "Lolita" syndrome we tend to regard as an abomination, yet we know that it was probably once mostly the norm in tribal societies.
Homosexual culture is by its very nature, since it doesn't carry the responsibility or inconvenience of conception, a promiscuous business, a "recreational" indulgence. Same sex individuals may enter into "relationships" the way dating straights do, but these tend to be temporary. Gays frequently have not only numerous sexual partners, but many extended "lover" cohabitations and partnerships over a lifetime. Given the well-documented traditional instability of same sex relationships, who can say with any certainty how secure and stable such "marriages" of convenience would be in providing a setting for settled child rearing? The increasing instability of the traditional nuclear family, may be an accompanying trend of equal concern, but does not directly affect the relevance of the separate marriage issue.
Adopting same sex marriages MAY or MAY NOT have the beneficial result of encouraging stability among Gay relationships. But that is not by any means the same thing as apathetically presuming that the Gay lifestyle would naturally lead to healthy child-rearing by same sex couples. Would we naturally assume that, given the alternative to marry, Gays would suddenly abandon their previous promiscuity and settle into staid, permanent relationships?
Classic psychology tells us that every child needs to be given adequate ALTERNATIVE models of behavior, appropriate to its sex, and that to deny those models, causes difficulties. Women only households tend to cause problems for boys who have no male model to emulate; the same holds true for girls without present mothers. These are not trivial problems but profound ones. There is also positive reinforcement for children who are the NATURAL issue of their parents, and not merely adopted or "taken in" or created artificially through insemination. Identity and behavioral issues are primary in all developmental scenarios. Every child needs to see the predominant mode, in order to be given the opportunity to follow it. Depriving children by subjecting them to an eccentric variation of the norm influences them to ignore or challenge that norm, in concert with their available model.
It is probably preferable for children with Gay tendencies to "overcome" the resistance of the prevailing stereotype in order to become what is, after all, an unusual and unlikely eventuality, than it is to demand that straight children overcome their immediate family difference just to be normal.
In homogenous societies, all kinds of difference stand out. When my son was playing Summer baseball, one boy was the child of practicing Muslims, and he was forbidden from removing his turban, so had one fitted out that as closely resembled the ordinary baseball hat as possible. But this boy was so clearly in an exclusionary status, inside the larger Western (American) culture of which he was only provisionally a part, that his chances for eventual complete healthy psychological adjustment within it were clearly in doubt.
Asking children to account for the sexual eccentricity of their same sex parents is a tall order, one which is fraught with complexity. Children are known to be adaptable, but requiring them to accept a challenge of this magnitude is not a small thing. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
Curtis, Great post! You're taking your place amongst the brightest bloggers on L.S. (of which I am not a member :) )
"Judges are just as likely to make complex rationalizations for personal prejudices and biases as they are to defend liberty and the public good."
Yes, absolutely. Being related to many in the legal community (a judge, two lawyers, a court reporter, and two court guards,) and considering possibly entering the field myself, I have found that to be the case more often than I would wish.
". . .altering or striking down a majority vote provision is not a light matter at all." No, it is not. It reminds me vaguely of the EU Constitution. Country after country voted it down, then Gordon Brown tries to ram it down the Brits' throats without putting it up for a vote (as he promised he would) because he knew that he (and the EU) would lose. That is repugnant to me; "I know what the people demand, but they're wrong, so I'm going to go over their heads."
And I do believe that family is the cornerstone of society. Whether that arrangement is flexible enough to allow for same-sex individuals, multiple individuals, or an "open" understanding between partners, without damage being done to society as a whole, I don't know.
I also wonder if some day a man might be able to marry his human-like robot if the being had created intelligence that allowed it to "think" and "feel" in a roughly human way. And what if they got a divorce? What would be "her" rights? Surely he couldn't just reboot her and re-program her to be nicer?
And jh,
I agree that people ought to test their relationship before they marry through periods of reflection, celibacy (if they are not already saving themselves for marriage), and times of hardship before they can say with confidence for better or for worse.
Jacques and I had some rather hard times with regards to his family which lasted for two years. We came out of the situation knowing that he and I could handle almost anything.
But how would you have the state enforce these trials? Or would they be conducted by private entities such as churches? Not to mention the rather embarrassing checks to make sure that one is being "celibate!" - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 12:36:00 PM EST
- jh said...
i hate to say this curtis
i really do
but your reasoning sounds how should i say
"tres catholique"
the logic you manifest here sounds
much like that of jacques maritain
or gabriel marcel or yves simon
all would agree with your assessment and the glaring illogic of it all...maritain might be a bit more disgusted...marcel would like the social experimentation....simon would send it all to church
when the mind stops to think that perhaps this illogic is the basis for social change social adaptation whatever it gets a bit boggling
i confess
i look out sometimes and now return to my monastic cell
with some profound existential solace...i have little or no desire to work out of the typical social scene these days
in the community pattern there is intrinsic knowledge
people know people and know what people are doing
transparency is expected
the luxury of intimate privacy is afforded those who can earn it through the practice of outrageous virtue
yes that's what i'll call it
i've been thinking lately as well if the demands of religious celibacy prove too difficult for some then there should be a mandatory month of only and i mean only heterosexual "vacation"...every year...and even if the person is not at all inclined to relish in the company of the concubine (now made a superior social class ) he at least must make the best of it...a rather forced encounter i admit but one with gauranteed charitable overtones
and the same would hold for women's communities
the superiors would be the folks who through ardent ascetical practice transcend the need for physical intimacy alltogether
(one test for that status would be a full week of continual exposure to modern rock music)
probably a good thing i'm not on a religious superior track
kirby is amazing he's found the perfect set of themes for discussion sex religion and politics
who'd a thunk it
silliman's got nothin you you dude
all hail the blogmeister
j - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 3:05:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
What makes this work right now is the readers, who found there way here as if by miracle. I knew exactly one of the commenters before we began here -- Tom of SF, and he rarely shows now because someone sat him at the kiddie table, and he's playing Achilles refusing to come out of his tent.
I like the way various sides are playing out, and cross-hatching.
I also think in some way right now Max is driving this with his hostility. It puts a lot of steam into the board, which turns into energy for others to respond.
I think if this is a social club I'd have gone home because I can't stand conflict. But in cyberspace conflict dissipates, or you can turn the thing off and go for a walk, and think it out.
There was a great sale at the Bibliobarn today -- a great bookstore in the middle of nowhere, on a road that doesn't even have a single other commercial enterprise in the shadow of a mountain. I picked up Isaiah Berlin, The Roots of Romanticism, and many books on math (a mathematician died suddenly in Virginia and the owner thinks Cheney killed him but his books are going for a song including a book on the mathematical likelihood of Christ returning before 3146 AD [nil], and some neat books by Denise Levertov, who in her last turn as a poet became quite a profound Christian in the book called Sands of the Well where she argues that we are shards of time that God had left over from when he made the universe, and she argues that Christ did in fact physically resurrect, and will return (but she doesn't say that it will be before 3146).
I love these days in these dark mountains -- wisps of snow on the rounded barren peaks and a crow flying through it, as the fields stretch out into barns and now homes with Christmas lights at a mile or so apart, with children inside playing at UNO and parcheesi. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 6:16:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
I am honestly not going to get into a debate with you about whether all issues upon which equality can be decided are "up for debate" simply because people were enslaved hundreds of years ago much longer than the constitution would have allowed had they been considered "human beings" under slavery. In my mind, that's a perfect reason to work against these cherry-picking levels of equality, where "equality" covers this status on this issue, but doesn't cover it on that issue, and blah blah blah. That's not "equality," Curtis. And in any case, every state that has enacted gay marriage thus far has set a precedent against that line of argument by reaffirming that equal rights legislation actually does cover legal marriage.
Gay marriage is not "reparations." That isn't germane at all to our conversation. To try and put that in there, as if gay people are asking or have ever asked for reparations, is simply absurd.
As for my "adapter kit" argument: Marital rights allow people to do certain things that they wouldn't be able to do as individuals, but which families quite often do or need to do as part of how they run their lives. For example, people often share incomes when married, but if they weren't legally married, they would still only be able to file taxes as individuals. Being married allows them to file jointly. In other words, legal marriage makes it easier for families, which operate differently than do individuals most of the time, to interface with the government, where and when such interfacing is necessary.
Legal marriage does not confer the right to conceive and raise children, Curtis, though it may in some cases have an effect on the ability to adopt. Unmarried people can conceive children, and certainly there have been gay couples who have "conceived" children through surrogates and raised them perfectly legally in America. Your idea that the government controls reproductive rights through legal marriage is simply absurd.
I think your first-hand analysis is bullcrap inasmuch as it can even possibly shed the slightest bit of light on anything resembling the truth of an accusation that gay parents raise screwed-up children, which is essentially what you were trying to argue with your anecdote. Even if it were the case that gay parents raised crackpot children at a rate double that of straight parents, the government wouldn't have any prerogative in limiting that, since it makes no attempts either to limit it in straight marriages.
If the heterosexual nuclear family is superior, then it doesn't need preference by any government in order to succeed. You're assuming that the high-level coding of government is essential to the success of what we all know are low-level, primal directives. Do you think that government could ever program the biological imperative out of us? That is an insane concept. People would be screwing and having children all day long, even if it were illegal. Do you honestly believe that, if gays are allowed to marry, the entire world will eventually end up homosexual? How could this possibly be? If they don't reproduce, then they are the dying breed. That they would overwhelm the population is an absurd notion.
As for the Roe v. Wade thing: there is a clear distinction between there existing two or more possible interpretations and justices deciding on one of them (in the case of Roe v. Wade) and there being one interpretation and the rabble introducing a bigoted amendment that flouts the law, in order that their moral will be done (Prop 8).
I think it's pretty clear that this is going to be overturned, because it creates a clear "legal limbo" scenario. Those of the Prop 8 mob who think the language they introduced to the constitution actually seals the deal must be out of their minds. It merely changes the constitution to say that marriage, a rights-granting institution, is now only "between a man and a woman," even though equal rights are guaranteed on the basis of sexual orientation. If that's not a court battle waiting to happen--specifically because of sloppy constitutional language--then I don't know what is. What I love is how a lot of the people who got behind Prop 8 are all about small government and cutting out bureaucracy, but they seem to be just fine with throwing wrenches like Prop 8 into our constitutions in order to muddy the waters for homosexuals. That's some small government, anti-bureaucracy thinking right there. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 8:44:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis, you wrote --
"Asking children to account for the sexual eccentricity of their same sex parents is a tall order, one which is fraught with complexity. Children are known to be adaptable, but requiring them to accept a challenge of this magnitude is not a small thing."
You could easily switch out "sexual eccentricity" with any potentially problematic aspect of a parent's life, gay or straight. Certainly, it will be tough for some children to explain to their friends that they have gay parents. But it would be tough, I think, for some children to explain to their friends that they have parents of different races, or that mommy is an alcoholic so I can't have you come home to play, or that my family is very poor so I am embarrassed for you to see where I live, or that Daddy is a paraplegic and I have to help take care of him every day after school and have no time to go to the mall with you.
Lots of families have things that are difficult to discuss with others. Since when should the government be involved in mitigating this? I wasn't aware that the government was our paternal therapist, working on our collective behalf so that we wouldn't have to feel mental anguish in our lives. And I submit to you, yet again, since you seem not to have taken this point seriously, that straight people are allowed to marry, regardless of the potentially screwed up children they may or may not raise. The government doesn't take an inventory of just how likely such a thing might be for straight couples. That it should be a basis for denying marriage to homosexual couples, therefore, doesn't really make much sense. Either overhaul the system so it becomes a moral inventory for everybody, or leave everybody the hell alone about it. Get my meaning? - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 8:56:00 PM EST
"he rarely shows now because someone sat him at the kiddie table."
Aww, Kirby. I's just having a bit of a laugh--didn't mean to break your heart. Anyway, the discussion here is very lively and your blog is one of the best of my acquaintance. - Saturday, November 29, 2008 at 9:58:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Thanks, Emma. Tom may have just been taking a rest, which is fine, too. He was our resident secular leftist until Max stepped in. I worry that Max will visit a church while in S. Korea in order to get the company of Americans while he's in Seoul and find his soul, and then where would we be?
I assume there are English-speaking Lutheran churches there, although most churches there are no doubt Presbyterian. Marianne Moore's Lafayette Ave. Church in Brooklyn has some kind of affiliate in Seoul. That church is very very liberal unfortunately at least in its Brooklyn Branch. You only rarely hear about God in the pews. You mostly hear about housing projects, and -- in fact, gay marriage and gay ordination and AIDS in Africa, and so on and so forth, and how you can help.
I assume that it's Seoul Sister would have a different orientation: a less horizontal and more vertical inclination.
I wish Max would visit a few churches in Seoul and report on them. They must have enough of an English speaking population there to support a congregation.
It's the beginning of Advent!
At any rate, I too welcome Curtis Faville's new intervention and enjoy reading his posts. He's clearly thought long and hard about these issues.
I will simply add that I only know one child who's been adopted by gay parents. The child seems ok to me. She's a girl, and her parents are lesbians, so perhaps it's not so odd. She's dating a boy, I believe.
I think when Curtis is talking about promiscuity he's talking about gay MEN. I don't think that gay women are notoriously promiscuous, but I could be wrong.
We had a neat sermon this morning about a Senator Chambers out of Nebraska who sued God for earthquakes. The court threw it out because they couldn't find an address to issue the writ. - Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
This is a tiresome point, but one I'm going to have to raise: You tend to take a talking point and deliberately misinterpret it to turn it around on the speaker. This occurs with regularity in each of your posts, and makes debate more difficult.
Let me try to explain (again):
"I am honestly not going to get into a debate with you about whether all issues upon which equality can be decided are "up for debate" simply because people were enslaved hundreds of years ago much longer than the constitution would have allowed had they been considered "human beings" under slavery."
The point of bringing up the history of African American rights in America was to point out that how we INTERPRET the legal fabric of our government CHANGES. Obviously it isn't an argument in favor of delaying or postponing an action that deserves to be taken. Homosexuals aren't slaves, and never have been. The emancipation proclamation can be seen, in retrospect, to have constituted an enforcement of an augmented interpretation, one that changed over time.
No one for instance, would have argued in 1862 that African Americans weren't being treated as slaves. In other words, we can have legitimate--if ethically ambiguous--differences of opinion about issues.
You base your position, a priori, on the notion that Gay identity is a matter of privacy, and that neither the people, nor the government, has any business dictating any aspect of their lives, including their desire to participate in child-rearing.
I did not claim that Gay marriage is "reparations." That was simply part of a litany of things I mentioned that certain minorities have in the past demanded. Will Gays demand reparations? I have no idea.
I don't think anyone else would be so naive as to claim, as you do, that our federal and state governments have not acted on the presumption that marital contracts will occur between people of opposite sexes. The challenge to that presumption has only very recently been mounted. The government's position regarding the legality of marital contracts is not, as you state, an "accommodation" to the necessity of "interface." Tax laws have traditionally favored families over individuals, as an acknowledgment +and encouragement of their financial health, and the special needs of raising children. That favoritism was based on the likelihood--the presumption--that people marry and have children; it wasn't based on some "accommodation"--it was proactive.
"Legal marriage does not confer the right to conceive and raise children, Curtis, though it may in some cases have an effect on the ability to adopt. Unmarried people can conceive children, and certainly there have been gay couples who have "conceived" children through surrogates and raised them perfectly legally in America. Your idea that the government controls reproductive rights through legal marriage is simply absurd."
You miss some important aspects here. The government IS in the business of assigning legitimacy with respect to children. It cannot control sexual interaction between legally free adults, but it does have something to say about whose child will legally be whose, and under what conditions. The issue of whether Gay couples may be entitled to adopt is also not a closed case.
"Even if it were the case that gay parents raised crackpot children at a rate double that of straight parents, the government wouldn't have any prerogative in limiting that, since it makes no attempts either to limit it in straight marriages."
The government does in fact foster the health of heterosexual families, by providing free public schools, welfare support when needed, and intervenes on behalf of children when abuse or neglect has occurred. This has a long history. And it is based on a traditional presumption that the nuclear family is, when it is intact as intended, a beneficial institution which deserves our public support and encouragement.
The issue before us is whether society wishes to permit the expanded definition and applicability of a historical presumption about the meaning of civil marriage contracts: Does it have that power, and can it exercise it through the initiative process?
"If the heterosexual nuclear family is superior, then it doesn't need preference by any government in order to succeed."
The institution of marriage is not indestructible. I don't think anyone would make the claim that it is. In a free society, we have the privilege of deciding what institutions we desire, and which ones we don't, and of deciding through our elected representatives, and through the ballot box, how our wishes are to be realized.
You can argue about the tyranny of majorities, but that's really a fine distinction: The point about Gay marriage is that society isn't yet ready to accept the idea; it may be in future.
Your attitude seems to be: If the will of the people is to limit the definition of marriage, they're full of bull-bleep. Shove it down their throats.
The conferring of marital privileges upon a heretofore unrecognized so-called class is not simply a delayed acknowledgment of something already determined, but a NEW interpretation of an existing presumption in the law, which had not, until very recently, been up for challenge. Yes?
"As for the Roe v. Wade thing: there is a clear distinction between there existing two or more possible interpretations and justices deciding on one of them (in the case of Roe v. Wade) and there being one interpretation and the rabble introducing a bigoted amendment that flouts the law, in order that their moral will be done (Prop 8)."
This paragraph is gibberish. What are you trying to say? Again, the point of comparison between the Roe v. Wade case, and the present challenge which has been presented to California State Supreme Court, is the occurrence of DIFFERENCES in interpretation. It can always be argued that a principle in existing law favors a particular position. That's why your position about "equality" is not a self-evidently persuasive argument: Opponants of Prop 8 position will undoubtedly attempt to make that argument, among others, but there's no certainty that the Court will take that position. You've apparently already made up your mind about what you expect them to do. If you're a betting man, good luck!
Max, I did indeed grow up in a poor household, with somewhat eccentric parents. I was indeed uncomfortable about bringing friends home, but I did so anyway. How might I have fared if they had been Gays or Lesbians? I have no idea.
"I wasn't aware that the government was our paternal therapist, working on our collective behalf so that we wouldn't have to feel mental anguish in our lives."
Max, in America the government is US. We legislate for and against everything under the sun. None of us likes to pay taxes, but we do tax ourselves. We don't like to drive under the speed limit, but we know we should or risk citations.
Does society "want" Gay couples to marry and raise children by authorizing same sex marriage? Apparently not, at least in most states. Do most people "want" abortions to be illegal? Apparently not. If that were put to a vote in this country, it would undoubtedly fail.
Oh, I forgot, that's the heathen rabble crawling around on all fours, eating off the ground and voting to curtail same sex marriage contracts. How gauche of them! What fools they be! - Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I find it interesting that people on the left think African Americans are backwards because they voted against Gay Marriage in overwhelming numbers in California.
It's like there is a goal line, and everybody everywhere is supposed to have the same progressive agenda.
My agenda dates from about 1520. - Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 4:47:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Yes, we can have differing, if ethically ambiguous, opinions about these things, but I would argue that slavery is one such issue that argues against taking a differing, if ethically ambiguous, stance right now. We can learn from the past. We don't have to (and shouldn't) start from square one on every single civil rights issue that comes to our attention. We can quibble about the equivalence between slavery and gay marriage. Perhaps there is an equivalence. Such an equivalence would compel us to take what we learned from slavery and apply it now, not start all over again as though we'd never learned anything about civil rights before. And if there is no equivalence between the two things, none whatsoever, then why even use slavery as an example that can teach us something about gay marriage? Why even bring it up?
Legal marriage has nothing to do with child-rearing, Curtis. Straight people can procreate and raise children outside of marriage. There are already homosexuals raising children in states where gay marriage is not yet legal. Gay marriage, as an issue, is completely independent of child-rearing, and therefore the latter should have no bearing on the former in this argument.
"The government does in fact foster the health of heterosexual families, by providing free public schools, welfare support when needed, and intervenes on behalf of children when abuse or neglect has occurred."
This doesn't change the fact that nobody takes a moral inventory of your life before they grant you a marriage license. In fact, none of the services you mentioned above demonstrates any moral preference on the part of the government. Of course, you will argue that this moral preference is "tacit," in which case we'll just agree to disagree because there's no way we can really bear that one out.
The institution of marriage, as a moral practice, has nothing to do with legal marriage. Religious groups can still form and recognize their own marriages, and they do. Exactly how would allowing gays to get legally married in city halls take away from the marriages that occur in churches, synagogues, and temples? They are two separate things. One is moral and religious, the other is legal. You could make the same argument about heterosexual non-believers who get married in city halls all the time. Those non-believers are taking away from the sacred institutional of religious and moral marriage, aren't they? Should they not be allowed to marry?
Yes. You've got my attitude entirely correct. If the will of the people is to limit the guaranteed rights of individuals, then yeah, they should have it shoved down their throats. Why shouldn't it be this way? Same thing happened to George Wallace in Alabama, and I'll argue it was a good thing until the day I die, regardless of what the state sovereignty folks say.
About the Roe v. Wade thing (and this is the last statement I'll make about it, since it's obviously just meant to mire the debate in the impossibility of that argument): every state that has legalized gay marriage has done so on the grounds that sexual orientation is covered on the issue of legal marriage. So you can blather all you want about how there are "different interpretations," but in states where sexual orientation is protected, the precedent is clearly to allow legal marriage. We'll see how it goes, but I wouldn't bet with the Prop 8 folks if you gave me the money to do it. End of discussion on that one. It's just an agree to disagree situation.
Curtis, you are calling for the assessment of the morality of gay marriage and the psychological impact of gay marriage on children. This is something that we do not do for heterosexual couples. This makes our government, for all intents and purposes, a big paternal therapist. The argument stands. It doesn't matter if the government is "us" or a bunch of guys in Washington, DC. You are arguing that we should evaluate the effects of homosexual marriage, even though we don't seem, on a governmental level, to give two craps about the effects of heterosexual marriages, which may produce completely screwed up children. There is a clear double standard here, and you really need to address that our admit that you're wrong. No pussyfooting around the issue, please. - Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 7:03:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Actually, nix that last point. I think you're probably just fine with this double standard, since you admittedly believe that heterosexuality is "superior" to homosexuality. In fact, why am I even arguing with you? The entire basis for your beliefs is incompatible with mine. We aren't arguing on the same grounds here. You believe in the superiority of heterosexuality, and that heterosexuality is susceptible to being wiped out in a culture that acknowledges homosexuals and treats them equally under the law. You believe that this acknowledgement signifies an open endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle, over a heterosexual lifestyle. I don't believe these things, and can never be made to believe these things, because they are not based on any demonstrable evidence, but rather just very thin, ill-thought-out, knee-jerk opinions.
If you can point out to me exactly how the grounds we're arguing on are compatible in any way, I'll continue the debate. But without such an analysis, I see no other option but to just disagree and move on. I really don't see how I would ever convince you of anything, or how you would ever convince me of anything, in this discussion.
Here's the relevant quote:
"I do, myself, in fact, believe in the superiority of the heterosexual nuclear family. It's the single most viable and productive institution ever invented by civilized mankind to foster its own perpetuation. Challenges to its priority deserve to be regarded with skepticism."
Now, the only part of this quote that I don't believe you actually are earnest about is the part about "skepticism." I think what you actually mean is that "challenges to its priority deserve to be regarded with absolute derision." You will never be convinced that homosexuals aren't dangerous, disease-spreading child molesters, along with everything else you've chosen to intimate about them based on their orientation so far in these comments. If that's your basis for supposed "skepticism" (which I actually feel to be more of a deep-seated derision, since the possibility of you ever amending your opinion doesn't seem to exist), then we can absolutely never agree. You will never be able to provide adequate support to these fear-mongering claims about homosexuals, and they seem to be what you base your entire argument on. The superiority of heterosexual nuclear family, and fear of what the homosexuals might do to it. I'm sorry, there's just nothing that will ever convince me to agree with you on that count. - Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 7:19:00 PM EST
Teaching of the Day:
What is the sound of one thin ill-thought-out knee jerking?
Here endeth the lesson, grasshopper. - Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
- Max said...
I guess "ignoring" me doesn't preclude you from engaging in your normal, passive-aggressive behavior. I'm glad you've retained some of your sweetness despite our recent animosity. - Sunday, November 30, 2008 at 11:00:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Max, I think it would be helpful for me to know from what position you are arguing.
I am a late middle-aged white male married to the same woman for 39 years. We had a son who died in a terrible automobile accident 12 years ago, so we're childless.
As a child, I grew up in a wholly segregated small town in California, but among our family friends was a Gay man who eventually went through a straight marriage before finally, after 10 years, divorcing and choosing to take informal vows as a couple with another man. They've been together now for about 15 years, happily.
I have had a number of close Gay friends, and our degree of intimacy has allowed me a window on the Gay world, particularly in San Francisco, one of the havens of the subculture for the last 75 years.
In my job of 27 years for the U.S. Government, I worked with thousands of AIDS victims--98% of whom were Gay--and never felt the least hostility or condemnation for any of them. Honestly. We (I) did a lot of good for that community--beyond the call of duty, really.
"You will never be convinced that homosexuals aren't dangerous, disease-spreading child molesters, along with everything else you've chosen to intimate about them based on their orientation so far in these comments."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Bottom line, my position is that homosexuals are of two kinds: Born or bred. Those whom genetic predisposition causes to be attracted to their own gender either will "find themselves" or perhaps struggle against their innate tendency. I leave to others how we should judge such dilemmas. Then there are others who are "seduced" into homosexuality by having been led into it at a very impressionable age. Many of these end up never knowing what they are, but pursue a Gay lifestyle because that's really all, because of this experience, that they know. This is tragic, especially if you believe that the choice involves a whole set of problems, some of which are the result of prejudice and condemnation, but others of which are personal regret and remorse for having followed the wrong path into a dead end.
I think it should be society's place to tolerate this kind of difference, without on the other hand encouraging it. If a man or woman wants or needs to be Gay, it is probably useful that they be tested to some extent, in order to prove--to themselves, ultimately--that they aren't simply toying with difference, but are really committed to being different sexually.
In making this choice, which is, after all, against nature (no religious sense intended here), they need to understand that they have a responsibility to the rest of society.
I think we need to preserve the basic framework of heterosexual mating and co-habitation (and marriage) as the predominant model for ALL CHILDREN. Monosexual identity should preclude the right to mimic heterosexual parenting, and monosexuals should not be encouraged to hold positions of trust or intimacy with children or teenagers.
Most straight parents don't want their children to be subject to the seductions of eccentric sexuality. Crowning monosexuality with privilege and entitlement moves society much closer to altering the conditions under which this WILL happen. Homogenous societies inevitably will segregate as a reaction to unwelcome difference, as has happened throughout history. Simply proceeding along the road to liberalization of all behavior, and all our institutions, without regard to consequences, is a recipe for disaster.
I believe in Gay marriage as long as it is limited to this extent. - Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:09:00 AM EST
- Max said...
Well, our bases for argument are completely different if what you've written above is correct. You are never going to be able to convince me with what is essentially an emotional, "common wisdom" (by which I mean you seem to weave a lot of popular, yet flawed, ideas about homosexuality into your view without really seeming to question them) argument.
"Bottom line, my position is that homosexuals are of two kinds: Born or bred."
If this argument is true, then they are born and bred of heterosexuals, too. Hence, simply making the argument that homosexuals are any more apt to raise homosexual children is immediately problematic. If it's biological, then only heterosexuals, oddly enough, can make homosexuals. And if it's bred, then a good many homosexuals have already been created out of heterosexual marriages. That homosexual couples should be assumed special in the regard that they would rear homosexual children is absurd. Heterosexuals do it all the time. And this is completely aside from the idea that a kid becoming homosexual is even an inherently bad thing in the first place. You think it is, because you seem to see the doom of heterosexual relations in the emergence of a homosexual individual. I don't see the same doomed scenario. I see somebody who happens to be different, is likely to face discrimination for being different, and should be guaranteed the same rights as everybody else. For me, this doesn't represent a doomsday scenario. Heterosexuality ain't going anywhere. So we have to agree to disagree on this point, because I'm apparently not going to convince you and you're certainly not going to convince me.
"I think it should be society's place to tolerate this kind of difference, without on the other hand encouraging it."
You believe that legalizing gay marriage is a tacit endorsement of homosexuality. I don't think it is, because I can't find any positive assurance in the legal language that points to the preference of heterosexuality either. I think that, if and when gay marriage is enacted, the government will be taking a neutral stance, as it does for heterosexual relations. You think that the government is tacitly preferring heterosexual relations by only allowing marriage between a man and a woman. I don't see it. I think that's a flimsy argument that anti-gay-marriage folks make because they want to believe that their specific views are reflected by the government. We have to agree to disagree here as well.
"In making this choice, which is, after all, against nature..."
Last time I checked, the government didn't care if anybody was "against nature." Just because a person's sexual relations doesn't result in a child doesn't mean that society should control what he/she does in any way or otherwise restrict his/her rights. By this measure, people who use condoms or birth control pills are engaging in "unnatural" activities and should therefore have their rights curtailed. Why should we give a crap if people are engaging in sex that cannot result in children? How does that have any effect on sex that can result in children?
"I think we need to preserve the basic framework of heterosexual mating and co-habitation (and marriage) as the predominant model for ALL CHILDREN. Monosexual identity should preclude the right to mimic heterosexual parenting, and monosexuals should not be encouraged to hold positions of trust or intimacy with children or teenagers."
So you're proposing that we roll back far more than just gay marriage initiatives. Okay, well this argument is no longer even about gay marriage. Why is it that you even pretended for this long that you could be swayed in our discussion? This is some amazing dishonesty we're witnessing here. By the logic you use above, gays would need to have all sorts of rights rolled back, including in the areas of equal hiring practices, the reinstatement of sodomy laws, of illicit co-habitation laws, and other such things. How disingenuous of you to even intimate that you found some of my arguments "convincing" earlier in these comments. Why even waste the time replying? And you know what's still funny in all this? Homosexuals are currently raising children outside of wedlock perfectly legally in plenty of states. The enactment of gay marriage has little to nothing to do with child-rearing in most cases, just as it has nothing to do with legal marriages between heterosexuals. Anybody can have a child, as long as they secure a method for conceiving one, whether they're married or not. Entirely beside the point, but interesting nonetheless, since you continue to hammer this absurd point about marriage going hand-in-hand with child-rearing.
"Most straight parents don't want their children to be subject to the seductions of eccentric sexuality."
You can't even be consistent in your views, either. If homosexuality is granted by birth, then "seductions" would make very little difference to children born of straight parents. The kid would be what he/she would be, regardless of whatever illusory "seductions" were thrown his/her way. If children are "bred" to be homosexual, then a child of straight parents would have to be receiving these "seductions" day and night in order for them to take hold. Going back to your idea that homosexual teachers, for example, could influence children to become homosexual, this would assume that homosexuality is some sort of airborne or otherwise proximity-based effect, that one could be transmitted "gay-waves" just by being nearby a homosexual. Your position here is completely absurd. Another agree to disagree scenario, certainly, though I think that's putting it lightly, because I also think this belief of yours makes you a maniac.
"Crowning monosexuality with privilege and entitlement moves society much closer to altering the conditions under which this WILL happen."
Once again, you're tossing out the terms "privilege" and "entitlement" in order to make it sound like gay marriage proponents are asking for something that nobody else has. Stop being absurd. This is yet another reason why we can't have a discussion on the same terms, because you insist on parroting this illogical drivel.
"I believe in Gay marriage as long as it is limited to this extent."
Umm ... is this last line your idea of a joke or something? In a nutshell you basically said "Gays should not be able to act like regular families, should not be able to work around children, or raise children of their own, or otherwise exist in anything like the way your ordinary 'nuclear family' does, and as long as these conditions are met, I'm okay with gay marriage."
What the hell is wrong with your brain, Curtis? You are absolutely convinced that you're just fine with the gay folks, despite all the bigoted nonsense you believe about them. If you are in earnest in what you've just said, then I believe you are one of the most despicable, disgusting people with whom I've ever been acquainted. Please, please tell me that I missed some hidden linchpin to a big joke. - Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:48:00 AM EST
- Max said...
Actually, nevermind that last post, Curtis. The only thing I am willing to discuss with you at this point is the last issue I discussed in it.
1) "This is tragic, especially if you believe that the choice involves a whole set of problems, some of which are the result of prejudice and condemnation, but others of which are personal regret and remorse for having followed the wrong path into a dead end."
2) "If a man or woman wants or needs to be Gay, it is probably useful that they be tested to some extent, in order to prove--to themselves, ultimately--that they aren't simply toying with difference, but are really committed to being different sexually."
3) "they need to understand that they have a responsibility to the rest of society."
4) Monosexual identity should preclude the right to mimic heterosexual parenting, and monosexuals should not be encouraged to hold positions of trust or intimacy with children or teenagers.
5) "Most straight parents don't want their children to be subject to the seductions of eccentric sexuality."
6) "I believe in Gay marriage as long as it is limited to this extent."
You don't get to say 1-5 and then conclude 6. It doesn't work that way. And quite frankly, I'm sick of anti-gay folks who claim to be alright with gay people, and then pretty much every anti-gay rights argument that comes out of their mouth betrays otherwise, yet they continue to say "but I LIKE gay people, I have NOTHING against them." At some point, these words are just meaningless. You have to actually respect a group of people before you can claim to respect them. That's how it works. Unfortunately, there have always existed people like you, who say one thing and claim another. I'm sure you've actually tricked yourself into believing that you're just fine with gay people despite your actual opinions about their lifestyle, and so this is likely going to come as a big shock to you that I think your last post sounds like a big joke, with a clear set-up and punchline. But it's true. Your last post really is a complete mystery of rhetoric, how you imply that such despicable behavior goes hand-in-hand with merely being a homosexual, yet you so effortlessly claim to have total tolerance for them as a group of people. Yours is the saddest, most tragic kind of contradiction, because you believe every single word you're saying. - Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:12:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I wonder if this is like saying, I support the troops, but am against the war in Iraq.
I find that tiresome in about the same way as Max finds it tiresome that people argue that they like gay people but are against gay marriage.
I think it probably is possible to support individuals, but be against a larger idea.
Structurally, those two ideas appear to offer a close parallel.
But Max, as usual, won't see the parallel. - Monday, December 1, 2008 at 10:20:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Max, we were tooling along there for a few exchanges, and then you got upset again and started the name-calling. But that doesn't bother me.
It does bother me a little bit that you won't come clean on your predispositions. I suspect you are a Gay man defending a position that you consider is vital to your existence; you've lost your objectivity. Anything that contradicts your position makes you feel more insecure and defensive. When the discussion turns specific, you respond with rigidity and abstract logic, rather than being concrete and specific.
I don't believe in "common sense." I remember, growing up, how often I used to chastise my stepfather for referring to "common sense" in heated arguments, believing that that somehow trumped all other doctrine(s). Actually, I think a lot of my ideas are neither common, nor popular. You won't hear my opinions from other people, because I'm not following a religion, or an interest group. I try to make up my own mind about things.
Obviously, all homosexuals are born of heterosexuals. Hard to disagree with you on this. I never said that homosexuals are "more apt to raise homosexual children." That sounds like something you wish I had said, but I didn't say it.
"That homosexual couples should be assumed special in the regard that they would rear homosexual children is absurd."
Is it? Doesn't all behavioral psychology acknowledge the paramount importance of conditioning in the formation of character and identity? I believe it does. It makes a great deal of difference how people are raised. Using your defensive position, I could as well make the assertion that even "feral children, raised by wolves" would be no more likely to be Gay than those raised by humans. LOL
"And this is completely aside from the idea that a kid becoming homosexual is even an inherently bad thing in the first place. You think it is."
No, and please don't try to tell me what I think. Just read my words, and address the argument. I never said, and would never say, apart from specific contextual conditions, that "becoming homosexual" is prima facie a bad thing. I actually presume, as an acknowledgment, a given, that a certain percentage of the population has always had those tendencies, and it's folly to try to dissuade these individuals through re-conditioning or laws from choosing their path, unless they voluntarily make that decision.
Marriage has come under increasing pressure over the last 100 years, at least. There are a lot of stresses on it. I don't think anyone would argue with the assertion that it's harder today to raise children in a secure household, than at any time since the turn of the last century, and for reasons that have nothing to do with mere subsistence. I don't see "the doom of heterosexual relations in the emergence of a homosexual individual" but I do see it as another challenge, another diversion of attention and focus. It's hard growing up in the modern world; all serious inquiry into the matter say this over and over. Families are under pressure. I'm not particularly "moral," but it does seem that in an atmosphere of total permissiveness, kids can become very myopic, and not know where to turn. This vulnerability is a fertile breeding-ground for every kind of distraction. Increasingly, parents are being asked to choose between rigid order and absolute tolerance, as if there were no middle ground whatsoever.
"You believe that legalizing gay marriage is a tacit endorsement of homosexuality. I don't think it is."
I do indeed. For the first time in history--in History!--we are considering institutionalizing same sex marriage, AND same sex child rearing. Not just a toleration of exceptional situations, but making it a part of our laws. An enforced tolerance with all the power of government behind it. There is nothing neutral about that--it's an endorsement, plain and simple.
"You think that the government is tacitly preferring heterosexual relations by only allowing marriage between a man and a woman. I don't see it."
I do indeed. And that "tacit" acknowledgment now is being challenged by those who wish to eliminate that presumption in favor of an expanded definition. That's really what the hoopla is all about.
Your assertion is that Gay marriage has really been legal all along, it's just that no one ever thought of doing it, until 25 years ago. But that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gay marriage is a contemporary invention, a radical experiment with little or no precedent either legally or in practice.
"By this measure, people who use condoms or birth control pills are engaging in "unnatural" activities and should therefore have their rights curtailed."
I'm in favor of contraception. There are religionists who will argue against contraception. As I've stated before, I'm a pragmatist, and an empiricist.
"So you're proposing that we roll back far more than just gay marriage initiatives."
Not that I recall having said.
Actually, if you stop to think and recall, I've already said I'm in favor of a limited version of Gay marriage, one which permits Gays to conduct civil unions with most of the rights a privileges we associate with it. But I draw the line at parentage, and allowing Gays to use educational or religious institutions to promulgate their agenda, either officially, or privately. This has become a big issue in churches around the world. I don't much care about that, but it's of extreme importance to a considerable percentage of the world's population.
"By the logic you use above, gays would need to have all sorts of rights rolled back, including in the areas of equal hiring practices, the reinstatement of sodomy laws, of illicit co-habitation laws, and other such things."
Nope. Didn't say that, and never would.
You miss the point. The right to privacy, to association, to private ceremony, etc., that's all fine. I haven't said a word about that.
"Homosexuals are currently raising children outside of wedlock perfectly legally in plenty of states. The enactment of gay marriage has little to nothing to do with child-rearing in most cases."
That may be, especially if they aren't aware of it. The difference is in legitimating Gay unions, and then using that as a stepping-stone to authorizing Gay parentage. The enactment of Gay marriage has EVERYTHING to do with child-rearing, since it gives it an equal footing with heterosexual child-rearing in law, rather than just informally.
"If homosexuality is granted by birth, then "seductions" would make very little difference to children born of straight parents. The kid would be what he/she would be, regardless of whatever illusory "seductions" were thrown his/her way."
This is really the weakest part of your defense. "Seductions" may occur under different situations. The difference is in telling children and youth that Gay parentage is just another variation, and that what Gay parents "do" is not only legal, but authorized by society at large, through government law and regulation. I maintain that forcing children, conceived literally "out of wedlock" through surrogates or artificial insemination, to be given only parents of one sex is psychologically unhealthy, even if the ambient culture is supremely tolerant and free of bias.
In addition, one should point out that everyone is biased to some degree. In my experience, the great majority of Gays harbor extreme prejudices and fears and suspicions toward so-called straight culture. Some do not, but in my experience they tend to be very reactionary and belligerent. They resent traditional heterosexuality, and heterosexual marriage, and would use marriage as a vehicle for transforming society in ways that would enable their interests and preoccupations.
"Going back to your idea that homosexual teachers, for example, could influence children to become homosexual, this would assume that homosexuality is some sort of airborne or otherwise proximity-based effect, that one could be transmitted "gay-waves" just by being nearby a homosexual. Your position here is completely absurd. Another agree to disagree scenario, certainly, though I think that's putting it lightly, because I also think this belief of yours makes you a maniac."
Well, teachers are VERY influential over the lives of students, don't you agree? Teaching carries a great responsibility. We put the lives of our children in their hands, a very big deal. Obviously, homosexuality isn't some sort of transmitted "infection"--the point is that people standing in a position of authority, openly acting and advocating for this alternative sexual and life-style mode of behavior, is one society feels very uncomfortable with.
The Gay advocacy has chosen to argue the case from a technical position, using the concept of equal rights to trump every other consideration, as if pragmatic and empirical data were of no importance whatsoever. Like the anti-abortionists, they argue from the document to the case, because they think that's there best chance.
I'm a pragmatist. Yes, life is sacred, very sacred, but not THAT sacred. LIttle bits of DNA and protoplasm aren't THAT sacred. We need to have abortion, just as we need to have contraception, even surgical interventions like vasectomies, to curtail reproduction and unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies. I'm not an absolutist.
With respect to homosexuality, it deserves to be tolerated, and in America we've come a long way towards making that a reality. Good thing. But I'm not willing to go all the way down the road. I'm not willing to let teachers advise students that anal intercourse is fine "as long as it feels right." I don't feel comfortable having Gay couples in my neighborhood whose children may play with my children, or who may be going to the same school (or church). Because this tells all the children in the neighborhood that heterosexuality and straight marriage is just another choice.
Unless you are Gay, which I suspect, you probably haven't had as much first-hand experience of Gays as I have, and don't have a clue about their hopes and dreams and beliefs. The more I know about Gays, the less inclined I am to think they can make good parents, and the less inclined I am to regard that as a healthy thing for our society. We really have more than enough problems in society today, without instituting a brand new one.
Max, please keep your temper. Name-calling and vituperation aren't convincing techniques. - Monday, December 1, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Kirby, I think your analogy is brilliant. Wish I'd thought of it!
Yes, supporting the troops, but not the war.
Gays advocate for a "perfect world" that would regard Gay identity and behavior as a superior alternative. It's a natural thing, to be reactive and want to celebrate and encourage what you are ("black is beautiful" etc.), "Gay is beautiful"--even at the expense of relegating "normal" sexuality to just another product off the shelf.
I think if Max knew a little bit more about some of the more radical Gay agenda points, he might not be so sanguine. On the other hand, if Max himself is Gay, that might explain his earnestness somewhat.
All his accusations and name-calling begin to look like desperation, instead of secure belief. - Monday, December 1, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Curtis, Max seems to be a party line leftist on every topic. All we know about him is that he lived in Alabama and has an MFA in poetry, and lives in Seoul, where he is teaching English.
He doesn't know about homosexual militancy as it is practiced on the west coast in particular. Very harsh in Seattle. In San Francisco, Codrescu says that he left that city because of the harsh looks toward his children when the militancy began (70s), as the flower children left the city for the back to the land movement.
What came in, Codrescu says (it's in the book In America's Shoes) can indeed be an extremely harsh thing, where outsiders to that culture are sneered at and called "breeders," reducing you to a farm animal.
I think whenever any group attains dominance they develop standards that cream outsiders. I have known other people with families who tried to live in SF. There's almost no tolerance. A Christian couple that I knew were stared at when they brought children into an apartment building. A single cry at night from the children and the childless couples around them would call the police and and try to get the family on noise violations.
They finally left, and live here in this village now. Codrescu's family left and moved to Baltimore.
"When I thought back to the hostility of our San Francisco neighbors, I found myself enjoying the family feeling of the town more and more" (America's Shoes 192).
I just think that Max is a young man who has been pretty much brain-washed by the left to think that there are groovy multiculturals and then mean square Christian heteronormal conservatives who have to be wiped out, and neutered, if there is to be any peace.
As such he is a bot programmed by the left.
He's not easy to de-program.
Perhaps only experience, rather than theory, or argument, can change a person's mind.
At any rate, he's young and his anger is out of idealism, I think.
Which is perfectly normal for younger people. Angry idealism, that is. Especially if they've spent most of their life in universities and haven't really hit reality yet.
his anger comes on every shibboleth of the left, it's not noticeably more intense on this issue than on any other.
If he was gay he wouldn't even bother with us, I should think. He just thinks we have to be programmed differently, and that we are moral reprobates for not seeing things his way.
He's part of a new generation of bigots who don't have any concept of intellectual variety and therefore can't believe that blogs like this continue to persist in calling us back to that momentous day in October 1519, when three was a certain tap tap tap. - Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:57:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Or was it 1517?
- Monday, December 1, 2008 at 5:58:00 PM EST
- Max said...
"With respect to homosexuality, it deserves to be tolerated, and in America we've come a long way towards making that a reality. Good thing. But I'm not willing to go all the way down the road. I'm not willing to let teachers advise students that anal intercourse is fine "as long as it feels right." I don't feel comfortable having Gay couples in my neighborhood whose children may play with my children, or who may be going to the same school (or church). Because this tells all the children in the neighborhood that heterosexuality and straight marriage is just another choice."
See, you don't get to make the statements you made in previous posts and then claim that you are tolerant. That is my major problem with you. Kirby says I'm brainwashed, but what we're witnessing in your explanations is true brainwashing, because you believe that you are tolerant even as you spread the most vile generalizations about an entire group of people. That is not tolerance, Curtis. You don't get to sit there and act compassionate while making hateful implications that homosexuals are somehow inherently prone to child molestation and that they wish to "seduce" children into homosexual lifestyles.
Also, to even act as though you were arguing in good faith (by claiming to find several of my arguments "convincing," when it's patently clear that no argument anybody might make about gay marriage could possibly convince you to change your mind about anything) is just really intellectually dishonest. I don't discuss matters with people who think empty flattery will tempt me to lend my ear to their vile logic. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 12:12:00 AM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
How is it invalid to say that you support the troops but are against the war in Iraq?
Obviously, this means that you're okay with the fact that troops exist for legitimate use, but believe that they are being misused in the Iraq war.
Are you honestly puzzled by this distinction? Why would these two things have to be mutually exclusive? It's possible to respect the troops, who are in no position to decide where and when they go to fight, and disagree with the war they're fighting in.
Conservatives who pretend that this is some kind of paradox are the ones who puzzle me. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 12:16:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Max, I was using this as a parallel. I wasn't saying that I didn't understand it.
But if you can understand this, then you can understand why someone can like gay people, and support them, and yet not want gay marriage (or in my case, be uncertain as to the whole slippery thing in which marriage between all kinds of entities becomes thinkable as soon as you jettison the inflexible standard that is currently in place).
I knew you weren't going to get this, but I don't know why.
I also knew that Curtis would instantly get it.
Oy vey.
Have you actually published a poem somewhere, Max?
Could we read it, please?
I keep arguing with you because you're a poet, so I think -- these has to be something here at the end of all this.
Who did you study with? What poets do you like? Are there any poets who you've read all the way through, read the biography, read anything you can find.
I can't find a healthy part of your mind, in order to place you, and find some kind of common ground. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 11:02:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
You've turned Kirby's post on its head.
He wasn't saying you had to support one if you supported the other; he was saying just the opposite, that it was perfectly possible to "support" the troops, while disagreeing upon how they might be used (i.e., to "support" the Iraq war).
You think that anyone who's against Gay marriage must believe that homosexuality is wrong, and if they don't, it's a logical contradiction.
Why must this be so?
If Gay people wish to pursue their life-style in private, they are entitled to be tolerated. But toleration has limits.
What have I said in any of my posts that constitutes "vile brainwashing"?
Did I say, anywhere, that "homosexuals are somehow inherently prone to child molestation and that they wish to "seduce" children into homosexual lifestyles"? Again, those are your words.
Statutory rape laws apply equally to straight and Gay individuals. The problem arises when Gays attempt to seduce young, impressionable children. It's a much different ballgame if society has publicly and officially granted Gays the status of legal parents, and they live openly right in the neighborhood. That's something that does bother many people. How do you present a normal model to children, when competing archetypes are setting up shop right across the street? - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
Can you please explain the direct equivalence between the "respect the soldiers, but not the war" thing and what we're talking about here? - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 5:40:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
What I'm arguing is that you are not actually the tolerant individual that you think you are, primarily because you've spent most of your time arguing against gay marriage on the grounds that homosexuals are inherently "dangerous" to children, that they will "seduce" children into immoral lifestyles.
You can't go around arguing that you're tolerant of homosexuals and then characterize homosexuals as sexual vampires who seek to feed on and transform children into gays. It doesn't work like that. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 5:44:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
Also, those are not my words. Read over your posts again. You said that homosexuals should not be allowed to be in any position of responsibility over children. The implication here is that homosexuals will either molest them or "seduce" them over to homosexuality. You've even directly used the language of "seduction" in describing what homosexuals may or will do to children. Stop mincing words. You claim to tolerate homosexuals, but you obviously don't. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 5:46:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Max, I can't explain it. I think Curtis tried to do it.
It's a structural parallel which at least to Curtis seemed spot on.
I'm not sure I could explain it any further any more than I can explain a joke, or do anything more than point to something yellow, and say, this is yellow.
It is just a structural parallel.
You support the individuals involved in something, but not the larger structure. (In my case I don't know if I support either the war in Iraq OR gay marriage -- as I can't make up my mind on either front -- they are both seemingly too big to process -- and I am waiting for some kind of criteria by which to understand better them both --
At this juncture I see Iraq and Afghanistan as attempts to dislocate monopolies on power and instantiate democratic multiplication of factions, however, both states remain Islamic (a mistake), and this is actually a drawback in Iraq as the V.P. before the war was a Christian (ostensibly), and now you have to be a Muslim to be part of the Iraqi government, which in fact is a step BACKWARD, if you ask me.
As far as gay marriage goes, I'm afraid it will lead to chaos. Ostensibly, however, I am against monopolies.
Curtis is probably also against monopolies, but in this case, he doesn't want any competing ideologies, or models.
I'm not convinced that gay marriage is the best thing for kids.
I'm not convinced it's not.
I just don't understand the issue.
At this point I'm not for gay marriage (I'm neutral, and awaiting illumination from some quarter), but I like many individual gay people (I support them, in a sense that some Democrat might like or support individual members of the American army, but may not be certain about their mission in Iraq, or may even be against it).
I don't think that's any clearer than the prior explication, but perhaps simply by hearing it twice, it is now more clear?
Maybe someone else could explain what I mean better than I can, or in terms that Max can understand.
The government has the right and the duty to protect us from things that are bad for us, or bad for the society. For instance, right now the state demands that all restaurants be healthy ones, and good for the diners who are in them. Diners full of rats and roaches and so on, must be closed.
If it could be proved that the nuclear family with one father and one mother is invariably better than all variants, then it would seem that the government would have to support that kind of family.
Because we don't know at this point (limited experience with other kinds of families) I feel reluctant.
But I don't know.
The proof is in the pudding, I guess.
Curtis has more experience of this.
I just don't know. I only know of one gay couple who would like to be married. They seem fine to me.
But I'm always nervous about the unknown.
And the church says it's bad.
I don't know what I'm supposed to think, so I'm just letting everybody yack away until I find my bearings.
It might take years! - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 6:46:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
Well, then again, the "structural parallel" would seem spot on to Curtis, now wouldn't it, being that you two basically agree and all?
It seems that the key elements are "the troops" and "the war" in the first case. Who are "the troops" and what is "the war" in the case of gay marriage?
If I say that I support the troops, who have no hand in whether/where they fight, but that I denounce the war on the grounds that it is a misuse of our troops, is that the same thing as saying that I support homosexuals, who [... please fill this in], but I denounce gay marriage on the grounds [... please fill this in]?
It seems to me that supporting troops doesn't ever require that I support the war they fight in, because the troops and the war are two completely separate, distinguishable things. On the other hand, homosexuals are not so indistinguishable from the rights they have, deserve, or claim from themselves. To argue that some rights may be or are out of bounds for them does, I think, require something less than what one might call "tolerance" or "respect" for homosexuals. In the case of troops/Iraq, we're talking about separating a tool from what it's being used on, and I don't think there is a real parallel with the homosexuals/gay marriage issue.
The bottom line is that the government doesn't ask, when heterosexuals marry, if that will be the "best thing for kids," because in essence legal marriage has nothing to do with child-bearing or child-rearing. Unmarried people, gay or straight, can raise children already! The only restriction placed on gays in this regard is, in some states, they cannot adopt. But if they can find some way to conceive of a child (through a surrogate, or through a previous heterosexual relationship), then they are free to raise children as it is. The government doesn't regulate that. To argue that gay marriage is tied up with child-bearing and child-rearing is just the most disingenuous thing on Curtis's part. He knows the two things have nothing to do with one another, yet he continues to act like there's a slippery slope.
Anyway, I have to work now, so I can't answer everything you bring up in your post. I'm becoming uncivil because I think that Curtis is waging his argument from completely disingenuous grounds, claiming that he can be persuaded/convinced, when it is patently clear that he cannot be, not even theoretically. I find this terribly insulting, to be flattered by him just so he can keep spouting his nonsense at me for more posts. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 7:32:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
I've known Curtis for years and years. We've been at each other's throats for most of that time because he's a die-hard secularist, and I, obviously, am not. I am a Committed Lutheran.
He doesn't just goof around, and he can be moved by arguments, but he's 65, or so, and it's hard to get him to read something new because he's read it all by now, so he has handy counter-arguments.
But Curtis is quite open-minded.
I've budged him on a few issues.
Albeit not much.
He likes to argue, is all. As do I. But I think we're both hoping to learn something. What else is there?
Do you have a family with you in Korea? Will you get to come home for Christmas?
I'm worried that you will suffer there over Christmas.
I hope you won't spend the holidays alone over there. I remember how tough it was in Finland before I got married.
Lonely lonely lonely, and everybody jabbering in Finnish, or speaking a very bad English. The worst were the few Americans who made me feel even less at home, since they were the kinds of Americans I wouldn't have known back home.
So I felt doubly homesick somehow in their presence.
At any rate, once the holidays are over, everything gets better, as there isn't so much to remind you of home.
You should take a nice Korean girl to the zoo or something.
And tell her that you're in favor of gay marriage. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 8:31:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Wow, this is one of the longest short-term threads I've ever been a part of.
Kirby, your magnanimous posture regarding Gay marriage and Gay parenthood is really admirable. If I had not had any experience of Gay life, I'd probably be very close to your position.
Max: Kirby and I don't agree about very much, to tell the truth. Over on Silliman's blog, we generally are opposed, so don't make the mistake of lumping us together.
I'm really a good deal more "tolerant" than most Americans when it comes to Gay rights, Gay marriage, etc. I think it's unfair to blame me for having a compromised position, when in fact I've been willing to discuss (in detail), and weigh positions, in public, which most Americans merely scoff at. My assumptions regarding Gay identity and Gay lifestyle are informed by first-hand experience. Are yours? I mean, aside from appearing to support Gay marriage on technical grounds, do you have any stake in the argument, except innocent bystander? Do you have, or have you had, children? Did you grow up with adult Gay individuals around? Were any of your teachers Gay?
"Sexual vampires."
Well, come on. Now you're getting sarcastic and over-dramatic again. It's not helpful.
My best friend in San Francisco during the 1970's was a Gay man. He'd grown up in Connecticut, gone to a prep school back east, then taken his Bachelor's degree at Stanford before going to law school. He told me a typical story of having been sexually "ambiguous" during adolescence, until a prep school master took him aside one day in his office and seduced him. My friend, let's call him Peter, was immediately "relieved" as he now felt he could "relate" to others on an intimate level, something he'd felt unable to do growing up in a fairly strict family setting. He "fell into" Gay relationships after college, and never thought much about the alternative. As a lawyer, he's fought for Gay rights against discrimination etc. My impression is that he would simply have followed any pied-piper who happened to snatch him up off the street. Was Peter "Gay" or was he "seduced" into it? Damned if I know.
Am I "intolerant" in thinking that this kind of opportunistic influence is not particularly defensible as a way of growing up? Would Peter feel happier if he had "become" straight, married and had children as an adult? I have no idea.
So, Max, unfortunately it "does work like that." People can be influenced to "believe" they are monosexual simply through the accident of fate. Since 90% of the population is straight--if we accept prevalent statistics--then any Gay person has a one in ten chance of meeting a possible, or potential, partner.
Unfortunately, as you would know if you were familiar with the Gay profile, many Gays devoutly lust after "straights"--sexual conquest of attractive straights is considered a valuable bounty, a notch in one's pistol handle. Indeed, routinely for many Gays, other Gays are not nearly as attractive as straights. It has a parallel among straight men, many of whom find "dumb young chicks" much more attractive than intelligent, sensible adult women.
Max, it is perfectly obvious that closeted Gays are in positions of responsibility across the spectrum. That's because they don't make an issue of their identity. They don't flaunt it, don't presume upon their impressionable charges under their supervision. In general, I'd say that many Gays "want" to "come out" to their respective publics, they want to "express" their feelings towards others--they want to flirt in public, they want recognition that they're "okay," etc. I'm sorry, you may be under the delusion that what I'm saying is grossly prejudiced or a grand fantasy, but that only shows your lack of experience. Or, maybe you're just in denial.
Under a normal regime, I believe "true" homosexuals will seek out their kind. Shading over into the straight world, "cheating" and "playing both sides" are favorite pastimes, but they shouldn't be encouraged.
Many Gays--actually most that I've talked with about it--tend to believe that sexuality is a broad spectrum with no clear demarcations. For them, sex is an adventure. They tend to objectify the sex act, to separate it from its primary function as procreation. It's a form of recreation, rather than the demonstration of a deeper level of commitment preparatory to marriage and parentage. There are exceptional situations--Gays who pair off and stay committed for most of their lives, but this is relatively rare. Since there are no "adultery" laws or consequences to such relationships, most Gays tend to cheat on their partners with some regularity.
Are Gays, as a class, more likely to attempt "seduction" of young boys, than men are of young girls? I have no statistics to show, but I'd surmise the incidence is about the same. But given the overwhelming disparity of sexual types, one would have to believe that the risk of unwanted exploitation of adolescent or pre-adolescent monosexual victims is many times greater than for their counterparts.
"In essence legal marriage has nothing to do with child-bearing or child-rearing."
Wow, Max, here's where we really part company. I think child-rearing is a greater responsibility than "mere" marriage. A couple can generally only hurt themselves, but parents can hurt their kids, as well as themselves. Much bigger risk.
"To argue that gay marriage is tied up with child-bearing and child-rearing is just the most disingenuous thing on Curtis's part. He knows the two things have nothing to do with one another, yet he continues to act like there's a slippery slope."
I agree that there's a slippery slope. It's like greased lightning! Marriage and child-rearing are intimately connected, especially in our laws.
Max, I think we're really arguing honestly from separate positions which we both believe in. I'm obviously not in a position to deny the power of the principle of equality in American jurisprudence and law. It's very persuasive. But I don't equate sexual difference and uncontrolled sexual behavior with race, ethnicity, emancipation, enfranchisement, etc.
My argument is not as consistent as I'd like it to be. Perhaps, it's impossible to argue from both a legalistic and pragmatic point of view at the same time. I tend to see consequences which are the result of irresponsible behavior, both on the part of a minority, and as a result of excess permissiveness on the part of the majority. I see these problems in terms of facilitation.
Why do Gays suddenly, near the close of the 20th Century in Western Society, think they need to start being formally married and to raise kids? Based on my familiarity with Gay people, I think this is opportunistic, experimental, and dishonest.
If, as you say, they already have these privileges--can raise kids, live together, inherit, etc.--then why all the fuss about legality? I think it's just a wedge issue, to get benefits, advantages, and to push their agenda into parts of society that are grossly inappropriate, i.e., school, etc.
Max, I suppose I must seem argumentative. But it really isn't that. What most unsettles me is your misinterpreting what I say. I don't mind disagreement. The best way to turn someone like me off is to keep saying "oh, okay, this is what you think, um-hum, yeah, I get it, okay, fine, did you ever consider this other thing?" But every time you mischaracterize or "translate" something I said into a sarcastic exaggeration, I hit the keyboard.
OK? - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 8:47:00 PM EST
- Max said...
"I'm really a good deal more "tolerant" than most Americans when it comes to Gay rights, Gay marriage, etc. I think it's unfair to blame me for having a compromised position, when in fact I've been willing to discuss (in detail), and weigh positions, in public, which most Americans merely scoff at."
I think that where I have a problem is in this assumption that, just because you're willing to discuss these issues rather than dismiss them outright, this means you are a tolerant individual. The fact that you can bear to sit through a discussion on the issue doesn't make your position any better, and it certainly doesn't mean you tolerate homosexuals. In fact, I think that this is one of the most pernicious trends in anti-gay discourse these days ... this idea that if bigots just phrase their deep-seated feelings as "honest skepticism" and their discourses as "rational debates," that makes anything they say or imply perfectly fine and valid. It seems that you just have a thirst for argument, even if the terms of argument are such that no change can ever potentially occur in either of the participants. I don't appreciate you saying that you find several of my arguments "convincing" and then basically betraying in later posts that we aren't even arguing on reconcilable bases. That is dishonest, and quite frankly, lame, as argument tactics go.
Please tell me how your depiction of homosexuals does not position them, essentially, as "sexual vampires." Please explain it to me if this is such a mischaracterization. You have said time and time again that homosexuals should not be in any position of responsibility over children. You have said that homosexuals will "seduce" children into their lifestyles. When you've said this, you have made a blanket statement about all homosexuals. Vampires feed on their victims (the equivalent of molestation) and change them into vampires (the equivalent of homosexuals turning others into homosexuals). Exactly how is my depiction of your position off-base here, Curtis?
Your friend's case, even if true, doesn't prove the generalization you make about all homosexuals. What's disgusting is not that you imply that it is possible for a homosexual to do such a thing, as could anybody. What's disgusting is how you imply that all homosexuals somehow tend to act in such a way.
"Unfortunately, as you would know if you were familiar with the Gay profile, many Gays devoutly lust after "straights"--sexual conquest of attractive straights is considered a valuable bounty, a notch in one's pistol handle. Indeed, routinely for many Gays, other Gays are not nearly as attractive as straights. It has a parallel among straight men, many of whom find "dumb young chicks" much more attractive than intelligent, sensible adult women."
God, this is patently absurd, Curtis. Do you even think about what you write before you write it? So homosexuals all lust after "straights" and hope to "turn them homosexual"? For gay people, other gays are "not nearly as attractive as straights"? Jesus. You are delusional. Again, not because you believe such a trait can occur in an individual homosexual, but because you think it is a trait inherent to homosexuality.
Curtis, sex is a broad spectrum with no clear demarcations. People have all sorts of desires that they never act on, for any number of reasons, or that they aren't even aware of consciously. To say that all there is to sexual orientation is "what you do" is absurd. What you do is conditioned by any number of things (social conventions, law, the extent to which you are conscious of your desires, etc, etc, etc). If what we found desirable were clearly demarcated, were biological fact (either you like men, or you like women), then there would be no accounting for taste or cultural differences re: beauty. There would also be no accounting for bisexuality, though I'm sure you have some absurd line of reasoning about how bisexuality is just "confusion" about which hard-set category you fall into. I can tell that's probably where this is going to go, and if it does, then there you go, we'll just have to agree to disagree yet again. There are a lot of "straight" folks, too, such as myself, who feel this way. To characterize this conception as one that only gays can have is absurd. In fact, a good chunk of the gay population feels it was "born this way" and that sexuality is not a fluid spectrum of desires. This is actually the most vocal portion of the gay community.
"I agree that there's a slippery slope. It's like greased lightning! Marriage and child-rearing are intimately connected, especially in our laws."
Curtis, no they aren't. That is an objective fact. Anybody can raise their own child in this country, whether they are married or not, or gay or straight or whatever else. If you have conceived a child, you can raise it. The law has nothing to say about that. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is an objective fact, not subject to what you "believe" to be true. Legal marriage has nothing to do with child-bearing or child-rearing.
"If, as you say, they already have these privileges--can raise kids, live together, inherit, etc.--then why all the fuss about legality? I think it's just a wedge issue, to get benefits, advantages, and to push their agenda into parts of society that are grossly inappropriate, i.e., school, etc."
No, it's not a question of whether they can raise children or not. They can. That is an objective fact. In some states, they can't adopt children, but that's really the only regulation. If you can conceive a child, then you can raise it, whether you're gay/straight, married/unmarried. That is not in question here.
The reason why gay people seek the right to legal marriage is because, even though they can raise families and co-habitate if they please while unmarried, being legally married makes it easier to interface with the government as a family unit, rather than having to jury-rig status as individuals in order to fit their family lives. Straight people don't have to jury-rig if they don't want to ... why should homosexuals? Also, I think there is some value to merely claiming the rights, whether you seek to use them personally or not, in case you want to use them some day, or others in your position wish to use them.
I think that the portrayal of homosexuals as "opportunists" who seek "entitlements" and "special privileges" is totally weak, and is a claim that, if made against any other demographic, would sound absolutely bigoted and unacceptable. The homosexuals really are kind of the last group which it is openly acceptable, in most circles, to criticize for demanding equal rights. I believe that, in the future, this late-era bigotry will go down as particularly detestable, since it came on the heels of a widespread, and well-accepted civil rights movement. - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 9:57:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
The only reason Curtis is over here is because Ron Silliman won't allow him to express his thinking on Ron's board. I like Curtis' thinking. It's interesting, and generally cuts against trends in unpredictable ways.
The circulation of opinions is held up by prevalent notions.
At Evergreen State College in the 70s there were pseudo-lesbian students who were lesbian for the duration of their college career since it was the in-thing to be there. After graduation, most of these became straight, and married, and had children. One of th eprofs at Evergreen went through dozens of young women, but nobody cared, since she was a woman. She had written the harassment laws, but claimed they only pertained to men.
Lots of circulation of pseudo-victims in academia. Ward Churchill is perhaps the most salient pseudo-Native American. How? I'm not sure, but it's just obviously another mode of passing. I worked for a woman in the dance program at the UW who had claimed to be an Indian on her application and had gotten a job as professor. She put up a big picture of Chief Seattle on her wall. But she was a fraud, and talked to me about how she had done it in desperation, since it was the only way she could find a job. She also got a preferable mortgate rate.
It's just passing, I suppose.
There were gay men in the english department who actually slept with women.
It was a very funny time.
I think it's mostly a crock.
Now people have to position themselves as victims in order to be victors.
It's just gross to me that the Democrats wouldn't even consider Edwards because, as his wife said, he had the wrong race and gender.
It's just a question of the circulation scheme.
As a Lutheran, I'm pretty sure not to circulate. Which I'm glad about. As I want my movement restricted to what I earn. - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 9:57:00 AM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Max, I feel like a fighter in the 14th round of the bout. Last two guys standing.
You twisted a couple of my points again, so I'll try to clarify--though it's getting a little monotonous--I'm repeating myself here....
With respect to debating this issue, what would you suggest--that we deny the possibility of any common ground, and simply place everyone in two groups--those who tolerate all of the implications of Gay marriage, and those who don't (and then label all those who don't as "homophobes" and pernicious bigots)? That hardly seems fair, or constructive.
I resist being placed in this cockeyed position of having to defend radical reactionary sentiments. This is a classic political maneuver: Paint your opponents as extremists, wild-eyed and rabid, and turn up the fear button.
I think of my skepticism as a measured response to a radical proposition, based on some knowledge of psychology, sociology, and personal experience. My situation isn't unique, but it's quite atypical of most Americans. I grew up knowing several homosexuals intimately, and had close homosexual associates in adulthood. I explored the topic intellectually in the aesthetic and political spheres, because I wanted to understand it better.
You seem to have been offended that I haven't been influenced by your posts to change my mind. That should not surprise you. Do you believe your words are self-evidently true? Actually, it's possible to be technically correct, as people often are, but empirically wrong. I think that's the case here, with your strenuously persistent argument. I think debate is useful, as a way of clarifying issues, or of defining one's own thoughts.
And it isn't a "tactic." My only tactic is in finding the right words to define what I believe, and why. It isn't easy. From my point of view, you're merely "rationalizing" because you don't see, or are not willing to acknowledge, the consequences of your belief.
I'm merely trying to call a spade a spade, instead of speaking in vague, benighted generalities. Based on your apparent misconceptions, Gays are exactly like straight people in every way, except they like to have sex with each other, instead of with women.
But the archetype--its vagaries and variations--is much more complex than this, with many, and many more kinds of effects.
The law doesn't--and perhaps can't--address these complexities in a fair way, so, just as obviously, authorizing total permission will undoubtedly result in unforeseen and unwanted consequences.
We part company in our willingness to tolerate various consequences--some of which you're willing to acknowledge as real, others of which you regard as myths. But Gay promiscuity isn't a myth, it's a well-documented stereotype. No one "made this up" as a way of persecuting Gays. That's like saying the whole justice system is rigged against young black men, because our prisons are filled with young black felons. After a certain amount of politically correct special pleading, you have to face facts.
"You have said time and time again that homosexuals should not be in any position of responsibility over children. You have said that homosexuals will "seduce" children into their lifestyles. When you've said this, you have made a blanket statement about all homosexuals. Vampires feed on their victims (the equivalent of molestation) and change them into vampires (the equivalent of homosexuals turning others into homosexuals)."
I can't dignify your use of the term "sexual vampires." It's a stupid comparison, based on a fiction (there is no such thing as human vampires--duh!). I would never say such a thing, and it's a million miles away from what I've been trying to say. Nowhere did I say that "all" homosexuals "seduce" children into their life-styles. Actually I said it was no more likely than straights seducing straights.
What I did say was that it was wrong to act as if, and legislate that it is "okay" (i.e., discriminatory to deny) to openly hire Gay teachers and child-care workers. Put people in positions of power over young minds, and you give them enormous responsibility. Having openly Gay individuals "outed" in public, married and raising children in the community sends a message that homosexuality is a legally protected "normal" choice. For Gay kids--those who would have been homosexual with or without any encouragement--this is fine. For all the other 90% or more, it creates an enormous confusion, and is likely to cause many more otherwise "straight" or conflicted children and youths to "play" with their sex in much the same way that homosexuals do--as a recreational indulgence having no more significance or importance to their lives than taking a shower or drinking a cocktail. In my moral universe, this is big-time trouble.
"Your friend's case, even if true, doesn't prove the generalization you make about all homosexuals. What's disgusting is not that you imply that it is possible for a homosexual to do such a thing, as could anybody. What's disgusting is how you imply that all homosexuals somehow tend to act in such a way."
It is true that one example doesn't prove a thing. I mentioned this in order to illustrate a well-known phenomenon. Do you disagree that this happens, or are you simply rationalizing? Do you really believe that people are not seduced into sexual deviance by predators? Are you really that naive?
"Do you even think about what you write before you write it? So homosexuals all lust after "straights" and hope to "turn them homosexual"? For gay people, other gays are "not nearly as attractive as straights"? Jesus. You are delusional. Again, not because you believe such a trait can occur in an individual homosexual, but because you think it is a trait inherent to homosexuality."
More mischaracterization again. Let's try to be concrete: Do you disagree, specifically, with the assertion that many (not all) Gays do lust after straights? Can you back that objection up? You say this is being "delusional." Can you back that up? I never said it was a "trait inherent to homosexuality." I said it was a tendency expressed by many of them, a common trait, not an inherent one. Given the opportunity, it is very likely, very likely that Gays will proposition straights. If you believe this is a myth, I think you need to back that up.
"Sex is a broad spectrum with no clear demarcations. People have all sorts of desires that they never act on, for any number of reasons, or that they aren't even aware of consciously. To say that all there is to sexual orientation is "what you do" is absurd. What you do is conditioned by any number of things (social conventions, law, the extent to which you are conscious of your desires, etc, etc, etc). If what we found desirable were clearly demarcated, were biological fact (either you like men, or you like women), then there would be no accounting for taste or cultural differences re: beauty. There would also be no accounting for bisexuality, though I'm sure you have some absurd line of reasoning about how bisexuality is just "confusion" about which hard-set category you fall into. I can tell that's probably where this is going to go, and if it does, then there you go, we'll just have to agree to disagree yet again. There are a lot of "straight" folks, too, such as myself, who feel this way. To characterize this conception as one that only gays can have is absurd. In fact, a good chunk of the gay population feels it was "born this way" and that sexuality is not a fluid spectrum of desires. This is actually the most vocal portion of the gay community."
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. If homosexuality is just another kind of sexual behavior, then all kinds are equal under the law, and all deserve minority status, and all of the rights and privileges which we accord under every custom, contract, and relationship in existence. Sexual behavior does indeed vary across the spectrum of individuals, but we don't explicitly acknowledge all of these variations. We don't, for instance, explicitly acknowledge the legality of bi-sexuality. Supposing I say I want to be married to a man in one state, and a woman in another; since I'm a confirmed "bi-sexual" and can't be discriminated against--after all, all sex is equal and free of responsibility--it should certainly be possible for me to have the kind of relationship appropriate to my type, right? If all sexual variation is somehow "equal" under the law, then all variations should get the same benefits, and the same acknowledgment. Why discriminate against polygamy or polyandry? Aren't these just other versions of the great inviolable freedom of sexual options?
"Anybody can raise their own child in this country, whether they are married or not, or gay or straight or whatever else. If you have conceived a child, you can raise it. The law has nothing to say about that."
Sorry, Max, wrong again. Not everyone can raise any child. The states have many laws governing parentage. More to the point: From a moral perspective, such exceptions to the nuclear family formula of natural parents being responsible for their children, constitute a flagrant challenge to the norm. Does the mere fact that options to the nuclear family mean that these variations are either desirable, or deserving of our unqualified approval? Does the invention of so-called "test tube" babies and artificial insemination, of babies bought and sold on the market, mean that the natural condition of parentage is now to be relegated to an equal footing?
"No, it's not a question of whether they can raise children or not. They can. That is an objective fact. In some states, they can't adopt children, but that's really the only regulation. If you can conceive a child, then you can raise it, whether you're gay/straight, married/unmarried. That is not in question here."
In fact, none of the laws currently under challenge was enacted in anticipation of such hybridized forms of conception, or of same sex arrangements. Their arrival on the scene does not change the fundamental character of the homosexual model, or of its predominant characteristics.
"Interface"--the word you keep using--puts a very nice face on what is, in fact, nothing more than Gays' desire to acquire benefits and a special minority status that they did not heretofore possess. No matter how you word it--"jury-rig" or whatever--it's a neat trick for two women to conceive a child, or two men. Can't happen. They have to "use" nature as it exists.
"I think that the portrayal of homosexuals as "opportunists" who seek "entitlements" and "special privileges" is totally weak, and is a claim that, if made against any other demographic, would sound absolutely bigoted and unacceptable. The homosexuals really are kind of the last group which it is openly acceptable, in most circles, to criticize for demanding equal rights. I believe that, in the future, this late-era bigotry will go down as particularly detestable, since it came on the heels of a widespread, and well-accepted civil rights movement."
You're confused here. The issue isn't whether a minority group may "want" or "desire" benefits; all of them would. That's self-evident. The issue is whether Gays constitute an entitled minority, authorized to qualify as such. Does society wish to provide this status?
At the present time, it doesn't. Does it have that right, that power? You think not.
The court will decide, I guess. But whatever they say, that won't be the end of it. Because what we know, scientifically, about Gay identity is still clouded in confusion and mystery. Is it an aberration of nature? A pointless and impotent mutation? Or is it just an irresponsible form of sexual play, augmented with its own habits and customs? - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Another way to go about supporting the individuals, but not the larger structure of an event:
the people next door got a divorce. I am against their divorce because there were little children involved, but whenever I see either of the parents, I'm always supportive.
I dno't support divorce, but I try to support those who've gotten the divorce. - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 2:34:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 2:34:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis --
what would you suggest--that we deny the possibility of any common ground, and simply place everyone in two groups--those who tolerate all of the implications of Gay marriage, and those who don't (and then label all those who don't as "homophobes" and pernicious bigots)? That hardly seems fair, or constructive.
You're presenting a false choice. What I've said all along is that the law explicitly doesn't consider the implications of heterosexual marriages before they occur, so considering the implications for homosexuals is a severe double standard. You insist that legal marriage constitutes a tacit moral preference for marriage between a man and a woman. I don't buy it. But we can never agree on this because my understanding is based on what the law says and yours is based on some deep-seated, unsubstantiated "belief" about what the law actually "means."
I think of my skepticism as a measured response to a radical proposition, based on some knowledge of psychology, sociology, and personal experience.
And, as I've stated before, I think this is clearly BS. I wholly resist this bogus language of "measured response" and "skepticism." You have portrayed homosexuals, in general, as child molesters and overall sexual predators. Exactly how I'm supposed to let that pass as simple "skepticism" is beyond me, though I'm sure you have some "measured response" as to why I should.
You seem to have been offended that I haven't been influenced by your posts to change my mind.
No, I'm offended that you portrayed yourself as being in a position to be influenced, when you knew that was obviously not the case. There's a difference between being influenced and being in the position to be influenced. Two people can argue on the same basis and keep butting heads, knowing that they're doing so because the potential exists for one to change the other's mind (even if that doesn't ever happen). In this case, I spent time butting heads with you, even though there was absolutely no possibility that either of us could change the other's mind, because we were arguing from completely different bases, a fact that was revealed the more I found out about your actual reasons for being against gay marriage.
I'm merely trying to call a spade a spade, instead of speaking in vague, benighted generalities.
But can't you see? You are speaking in generalities.
Having openly Gay individuals "outed" in public, married and raising children in the community sends a message that homosexuality is a legally protected "normal" choice.
So by that logic, heterosexuality needs the law in order to survive? That seems kind of silly, doesn't it, seeing as how heterosexuality existed and persisted without codified laws for thousands of years?
Sorry, Max, wrong again. Not everyone can raise any child. The states have many laws governing parentage.
Wow. All I can say is, prove it. I'm sorry, but if you have a child from a heterosexual relationship, and then you realize you're gay, you are allowed to raise that child in the event that it goes to you. I'm not aware of any state where this wouldn't be the case. Adoption is one thing. But if you have a biological child, you can raise it whether you're married/single or gay/straight. MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILD-BEARING OR CHILD-REARING. That's the last time I'm going to say it, Curtis. You are objectively in the wrong on this count.
"Interface"--the word you keep using--puts a very nice face on what is, in fact, nothing more than Gays' desire to acquire benefits and a special minority status that they did not heretofore possess.
They're not acquiring benefits that everybody else doesn't already possess, so that's why I take exception to you using the term "entitlement." That word, as it is commonly used by culture warriors, tends to imply that people are seeking something more than others have, when in fact they are often only seeking the same thing that others already have. That's all homosexuals are asking for in this case. So the language is patently misleading. That's all I'm saying. They are seeking no status that is not already possessed by others.
The issue is whether Gays constitute an entitled minority, authorized to qualify as such. Does society wish to provide this status?
Actually, in the state of California, and many states across the country (though not all of them), gays have already been provided this status under the law. And in each state where gay marriage has been won, it has been won on the basis that legal marriage is covered by equal rights clauses protecting sexual orientation. So really, you're not going to have an argument from many legal experts on this issue. There is a pretty clear precedent already. Now, in states that don't have equal protections on the basis of sexual orientation, you may be right. There may be no way for gay marriage to be enacted unless such protections are put in place. And maybe those people want to spend more time "considering" the addition of such language to their constitutions, and be on the tail end--as many of the states in question always have been--of equality. That's up to them.
Because what we know, scientifically, about Gay identity is still clouded in confusion and mystery. Is it an aberration of nature? A pointless and impotent mutation? Or is it just an irresponsible form of sexual play, augmented with its own habits and customs?
Man, it's so funny to me that you only pose 3 negative questions at the end of your screed. I find it hard to believe that even if we could put the morality and ethics of homosexuality up to scientific scrutiny, if it turned out that it wasn't all that bad a thing, you wouldn't buy it. You claim to be a "skeptic," just trying to engage in a "measured response," but you're just a garden variety bigot. Even if the psychologists found that it was of no danger to your way of life, or the lives of others--which it almost certainly isn't, in any case--you'd find some reason, any reason, to doubt the findings and prolong your "skepticism." So sad. - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 5:43:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Max, you're the bigot. You're the world's biggest bigot! It's hilarious.
- Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 7:13:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
You obviously have no idea what the word "bigot" means, then. - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 7:29:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
I don't feel threatened in the least, at this point in my life.
I probably felt threatened as an adolescent, and probably with good reason. I was persistently propositioned by Gays, and it made me very uncomfortable. When you're 16, or 18, or 20, and virgin, you're very vulnerable. But I could tell that this kind of predation had absolutely nothing to do with love, or affection, or any positive regard for me. It was simple lust. These men had no interest in me, they just wanted a hour's diversion.
But I had been raised with romantic notions of affection and thrall, and I idolized women, put them on pedestals and worshipped them. (Hah! little did I know women!)
In any case, once I was secure in my sexuality, I could meet Gays on their own turf and speak openly about things. Without preconceptions, without prejudice.
Most of the Gays I knew were intelligent, educated, decent people. But in their sexuality they were frankly undisciplined and "adventurers." They liked risk. They liked breaking rules. They liked the freedom of not having to make long-term commitments.
No, I'm not worried for myself. I'm worried for the children and adolescents who are just growing up, just learning to be people, learning about what it means to engage sexually, and what the complex implications and consequences of sexual activity are. What being married really means. What the responsibilities of having children entails.
Not sex as fun. Not sex as indulgent recreation. Not being tethered to an older "master" in an "apprentice" relationship, but learning with others, side by side, in mutually unfolding, natural circumstances, what being adult really means, for MOST people. Not being asked to submit to anal intercourse before you really know or understand what normal sex means, and how it can feel.
Max, I could call you, in response, a "garden variety" apologist, but where does that kind of name-calling get us?
I think I win this match just by keeping my cool, while you kept losing patience and resorting to smears.
Toot-a-loo. This is my last post on the thread. - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 at 10:48:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis --
"They liked risk. They liked breaking rules."
Haven't you ever stopped to imagine that, perhaps the reason why these people you know acted like this, is because for so long being a homosexual was "risky" and constituted the "breaking of rules"? You can't pin somebody down for "liking" something just because they live as society dictates they must live (if they want to keep their jobs or their social standing, or whatever else).
Anyway, certainly there are plenty of straight folks who like risky sexual behavior, who like to "break the rules" when it comes to such things. I think there are a lot of straight people for whom, if their particular proclivities were known, life would not be very happy.
"Not sex as fun. Not sex as indulgent recreation. Not being tethered to an older "master" in an "apprentice" relationship, but learning with others, side by side, in mutually unfolding, natural circumstances, what being adult really means, for MOST people. Not being asked to submit to anal intercourse before you really know or understand what normal sex means, and how it can feel."
I think that you perhaps have some horrible things that happened in your past. At least that's how it sounds when you write things like this. I think that, if such things happened to you, that's something you need to deal with, and I feel sorry for you. But others should not have to cope with your problems for you, or bear out the special manias that you harbor toward the gay community. It sounds like everything you believe comes from an extremely personal place, and I respect that. But we don't govern based on what the private concerns of Curtis Faville happen to be on any given day. That's just not how things works, and it's not how they should work, either.
"Max, I could call you, in response, a "garden variety" apologist, but where does that kind of name-calling get us?"
Umm, well, you could call me that if you wanted to. But it doesn't mean that that's what I am. Suit yourself if you feel so inclined, bigot.
"I think I win this match just by keeping my cool, while you kept losing patience and resorting to smears."
Nope. I won this match by calling you on your bigotry and being the last guy standing. That's normally how such battles are won.
"Toot-a-loo. This is my last post on the thread."
Good riddance to your bigotry, Curtis. It has been my great displeasure to speak with you. - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 12:02:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Max, a bigot is someone who thinks that their viewpoint is the only possible one.
Just as women can be sexist, and minorities can be racist, leftists have to get used to the fact that they, too, can be bigots.
If you have a dictionary, look up the word.
It's not a unidirectional term that can only be applied to one side of the aisle. Leftists are profoundly bigoted because they are so used to thinking of themselves as holier than everyone else. They are the most bigoted people around.
Curtis is very open-minded and trying to have a conversation with you. All you're doing is calling him names. That's in fact your only move.
I'm a rat fink.
GM is an ant.
Curtis is a bigot.
You don't know what you're talking about on any topic, and haven't thought anything at all through, and are profoundly uninteresting. It's unfortunate.
I had hoped for more. - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 11:21:00 AM EST
- Max said...
Kirby -
No, I pretty clearly argued against much of the vile BS that Curtis slung in these comments. At first, I was arguing with him in good faith, but once I learned that his basis for argument was that homosexuals, as a group, aim to "seduce" children into homosexuality, I quite rightly called BS on that. Also, I reasonably argued against his point--which he simply wouldn't stop hammering away at--that legal marriage and child-bearing/rearing are connected, which they aren't. What you saw at the tail end was a dismissal of his arguments, not bigotry. If you read the comments, you will see that I attempted to have a real argument with him. However, his arguments were not based on anything other than his own childhood fear of homosexuals. To be categorically opposed to that kind of argument is not bigotry. It was a reasonable dismissal.
You are the bigot, Kirby. - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 5:48:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Bigotry used as a descriptive term doesn't have any political weight. It's merely used in the negative sense--as a derogation to a foe or enemy. As such it can be used with equal validity against anyone espousing any opinion.
All prejudice is relative.
In its modern sense, it's usually used by those on the political Left to characterize any discriminatory attitude or position which is supposed to be irrational, or motivated by hatred or malice.
But in this second sense, it's of little use. People throw the term around with such alacrity that it's lost its threat.
Black people will accuse Whites of bigotry. But Blacks usually harbor a parallel attitude which is equally racial in its basis.
Almost everyone is bigoted, under this definition, to some degree. I don't like the word, because of its associations, and because it tends to squelch discourse and push people into corners, from whence they become stubborn and defensive.
Use of the word "bigotry" is a waste of time. It's like kids going "nyah, nyah, nyah, my bike's better than your bike."
It should be retired. - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 8:38:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
Your opinion is unassailable by any other terms. You spent comment after comment pretending that we could possibly agree on these issues, that we could possibly come to some kind of understanding, when in fact we never could, because your opinion was based on personal, anecdotal, emotional bigotry. In my view, it is not bigoted to refer to a bigoted opinion as "bigotry" when those literally are the only terms one can have for it unless they explicitly agree with it already. Calling the proper placement of the term "bigotry" itself a form of bigotry is just a convenient way of throwing it back in my face, but at the end of the day, it's illogical. By that reasoning, if somebody is shouting racial epithets in the street, and I condemn that person as a bigot, he could rightly yell "bigot" back in my face for not regarding his blabberings as valid and worthy of measured consideration. I'm sorry, Curtis, if you are offended by the fact that I don't give any weight to your personal, anecdotal, emotional arguments about how homosexuals, as a group, seek to "seduce" children into homosexual lifestyles, or how homosexuals, as a group, seek to "convert" straight people over to homosexuality because, as a group, homosexuals find straight people "more attractive" than other homosexuals. This kind of rambling may pass muster for Kirby and GM and Emmy and Jacques, who likely already agree with your sentiments or are brainwashed into believing that all opinions must be held in equal regard, no matter what those opinions are or what their grounds are, but they hold absolutely zero weight with me. Where I come from, those things you've said are called "bigotry." Yes, yes, I know. I am a "bigot" for calling you on your "bigotry." Yes, indeed. But if that's how it's got to be, then that's how it's got to be. And I take solace in the fact that very few people outside this tiny virtual space on the internet are likely to see eye to eye with you on that accusation. - Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 9:54:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Also, gotta love how you guys are the types who rail against cultural relativism all day long--the idea that we can raise equivalencies between beliefs and see all customs and behaviors as valid even when they differ wildly from one another--yet you expect your despicable viewpoints to be seen as equally valid simply because they're your opinions, and become enraged when people fail to follow this standard.
You can shout "bigot" at the guy who just called you a "bigot" all day long, but if, after attempting to reason with you, the only way he could contextualize your views was either by agreeing with them outright or categorizing them as "bigotry," then I would say determining that those views indeed constituted "bigotry" was a fairly well-reasoned response. I'm sorry, but we can't really have a debate when I would literally have to either BE YOU, previously share your precise sentiments, or believe that all ideas are completely and equally valid, in order for their to be any chance of coming to an understanding. You didn't really give me a reasonable amount of space to operate here, Curtis, whereas I gave you the entire construct of reason, logic, the law, etc. within which you could stretch your legs, relax, and argue against me, with me, or both at the same time. At least my basis for argument wasn't doomed, from the get-go, to end at a complete and total impasse, as was yours. - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 1:06:00 AM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
There's an asymmetry to making oneself vulnerable in thinking out politically incorrect ideas, because you're uncomfortable with the politically correct ones, and then having somebody hiding under a nom de plume, calling you a bigot.
I don't think Curtis should play into this. I'm not going to. - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
I would like to have discussions--or debates--take your pick--where we could simply exchange different views without resorting to name-calling.
I don't dispute that a gulf yawns between how we view the same set of issues. I do dispute the value of mischaracterizing other peoples' opinions and assertions and attempting to demonize them as extreme or reactionary.
If my instincts are correct, you have read very little in the literature of "Gay Liberation," have very little direct experience of Gay society. Your opinions are mostly second-hand. Well-meaning. Deliberately beneficent and bland. This is all fine. It's better to be generous and trusting and "fair" in dealing with human foibles and fads, than it is to (at least appear to) be skeptical and cynical and censorious.
I get all that, and I take your point about deducing from limited knowledge or experience. All of us must form opinions based on what we know, have heard, read, seen.
By that standard, as voters, as citizens, we come to different conclusions. My old teacher's training advisor used to point to the psychological roots of disagreement, as the source for much dissent and irreconcilable difference. Understanding why people think a certain way is probably as useful as deconstructing their argument per se.
Which is why I try to inject a little three-dimensional solidity into the discussion by furnishing anecdote and live experience. If you have no personal stake in an issue, you're likely to fall back on generalities to support what is, in effect, an irrelevancy for you.
If you've never had children, the possible implications of raising children probably don't concern you. Fair enough.
If you've never known Gays, or studied their literature, you have no first-hand information to refer to, so you form an opinion based on third or fourth-hand abstract rubric.
As a child, I routinely name-called and shouted expletives in arguments with other kids. But we do grow up, and learn that that just leads to stalemated controversy, or offended natures.
Honi soit qu mal y pense. - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 1:11:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Many Gays--actually most that I've talked with about it--tend to believe that sexuality is a broad spectrum with no clear demarcations. For them, sex is an adventure. They tend to objectify the sex act, to separate it from its primary function as procreation. It's a form of recreation, rather than the demonstration of a deeper level of commitment preparatory to marriage and parentage.
Yes. A thousand times yes. For those who this is not true, they are the ones CF was referring to as closeted.
Also, marriage and childrearing are related in American law. In Texas, for one state, you cannot have a minority child stay in your house if you are "living in sin." Divorce laws are grossly different when a child is involved.
M - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 2:12:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Curtis -
I never mischaracterized your views, though you claimed far and wide that I did so, without actually explaining why you'd come to that conclusion. Taking umbrage at my characterization of your views is, unfortunately, not enough to demonstrate that I've treated them unfairly.
If my instincts are correct, you have read very little in the literature of "Gay Liberation," have very little direct experience of Gay society. Your opinions are mostly second-hand. Well-meaning. Deliberately beneficent and bland. This is all fine. It's better to be generous and trusting and "fair" in dealing with human foibles and fads, than it is to (at least appear to) be skeptical and cynical and censorious.
Yes, homosexuality is a "fad." See, Curtis? It's stuff like this that makes me feel justified in dismissing you outright, because you make outrageous statements like this without backing them up whatsoever. Exactly how does homosexuality, something which has existed, by most accounts, at least since we began writing history, qualify as a "fad"? And the thing is, now we're going to get into a little tangential dispute about what the word "fad" means and blah blah blah, which is exactly your tactic. To break the conversation down into nonsensical, tangential arguments that can never be resolved, and ergo (by your logic), this will mean that the larger argument can never be resolved. Ergo, you always win. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy into those kinds of arguments, Curtis. They are of inherently lower quality than reasonable arguments that can actually lead to some kind of understanding or resolution.
Which is why I try to inject a little three-dimensional solidity into the discussion by furnishing anecdote and live experience.
It's one thing to "furnish anecdote and experience," but this is a mischaracterization of what you actually did in this discussion. Your entire argument, at its foundation, seems to be based on anecdote and experience. That's my gripe, Curtis. Not that you bring these things up in the first place.
If you've never had children, the possible implications of raising children probably don't concern you. Fair enough.
How can you say this and possibly believe that you're uttering a fair argument? You claim that you're merely "furnishing anecdote and experience," but at the same time, you are essentially saying that, if I don't have a certain set of experiences, I can't possibly be concerned in a legitimate way about this issue. In fact, you are playing the kind of identity game that Kirby/GM/Jacques/Emmy/and perhaps yourself would be jumping all over if we were talking about race, for example, and you were to say something like "You can't understand because you aren't black." The very notion that the only possible reason why I wouldn't agree 100% with you is because I don't have children is patently absurd. Yet another reason why I feel justified in dismissing you outright.
Also, marriage and childrearing are related in American law. In Texas, for one state, you cannot have a minority child stay in your house if you are "living in sin." Divorce laws are grossly different when a child is involved.
Let me guess, it's yet another remnant law that never actually gets enforced? My guess is that, if anybody ever tried to enforce that law, it would be struck down instantly in legal proceedings, if only due to the jury's surprise that it's actually on the books. - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 7:51:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Gets enforced quite often. My father-in-law was required to marry his mistress/girlfriend because he and my mother-in-law got divorced and he wanted my little brothers-in-law to be able to come visit him and stay the night. - Friday, December 5, 2008 at 10:01:00 PM EST
- Curtis Faville said...
Max, I think, like a lot of timid Liberals, is uncomfortable talking about sex. Heck, that's even true of reactionary Conservatives!
Max, have you ever sat down and had a conversation with an out Gay man? I mean, with someone who was willing to be frank about what being Gay is about?
During the 1960's and 1970's, Gays from all over America flocked to San Francisco to experience the sexual revolution taking place here. What did that mean to a Gay person? It meant a social milieu devoted almost exclusively with Gay subculture, where sexual interaction was concentrated. Gays now in their sixties, seventies speak wistfully about those halcyon days, when the baths were flourishing, there were big orgies in the country where dozens of men paired off repeatedly in a single afternoon. Nights in the baths when 3, 5 or 10 contacts might occur in succession. The AIDS epidemic changed all that, of course, but that's not the point.*
The point was that Gay "Liberation" meant the right and freedom to treat sex as an unlicensed pastime. Marriage and parenthood and civil rights had very little to do with it. That liberation was primarily devoted to eliminating prejudice against Gay sex, Gay association, and anti-Gay propaganda. So that laws against sodomy, Gay-bashing, police raids on Gay bars, etc., could be beaten back.
For most reasonable people, these were perfectly sensible demands, seen from a comfortable distance. In the 1970's and 1980's, no one ever suggested that Gays should be entitled to marital and parental rights. As the campaign against Gay prejudice progressed in the 1980's and 1990's, many in the Gay community realized that the only way to achieve full acceptance, and to integrate, into the larger community, was to assume the roles traditionally held by straights. Then, as now, few in the Gay community had much real interest in forming traditional families, or in taking on the responsibilities of permanent relationships. Most wanted the freedom to engage without any of the trappings of the straight culture; that's still true. It's largely seen within the Gay community as a "rights" issue; it would be truer to say that they have a much more subversive view of the ideal cultural paradigm. Many in the Gay community subscribe to the more radical ideas of the "Greek model"--a society in which men routinely "indoctrinate" boys into manhood through sexual initiation. Viz NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, "a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the liberalisation of laws against sexual relations between adult and minor males - resolving to 'end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships'. NAMBLA also calls for 'the adoption of laws that both protect children from unwanted sexual experiences and at the same time leave them free to determine the content of their own sexual experiences.'"
It is these kinds of spearhead avatars within the Gay community, which has many in the religious community, as well as others, concerned about the long-term goals and consequences of a wholesale legitimation of the Gay cause.
It is by no means an exaggeration to say that though there are many disagreements, splinters, divisions, and so forth, within the Gay community, there are strong tendencies within it towards a breaking down of sexual stereotypes per se, aimed at a disenfranchisement of the predominant societal institutions, facilitating a depersonalization of all historical roles based on sex, and a complete declassification of the roles classically assigned to sexual prototypes. Hence, all sexual proclivities are equal, and none--including procreative sex--deserve to be given any greater weight.
The existing Gay parental relationships currently in existence must be seen against the background of, within the context of, the straight culture. Most present "children" of Gay couples are really refugees from failed straight marriages, one member dragging the product of a broken union into a new household rife with contradiction and strangeness. There is no existing tradition of such hybridized experimental openly same sex groupings; it's all new, without precedent. Gays are now in the position of asking themselves, for the first time, why they might want to form families, and how they might wish to go about that. Since most of them have conflicted emotions about the straight families, and the straight culture, they grew up in, it is natural for them to view with ambiguity the adoption of normal formulae. The number of Gays who aggressively seek to "create" new hybrid families is relatively small, because this isn't their natural proclivity: Nearly everything in their lifestyle mitigates against a traditional familial model. Whether this constitutes merely a transitional passage, or could morph into unforeseen, and even more troubling variations, remains to be seen. In the Lesbian community, particularly, much of the prevailing tendency towards monosexuality only functions within a context of conflict against the straight world, in which feminine rights, and distrust and fear of, and alienation from, male culture, form the basis for a new counterpart based on hatred of male models, and a repudiation of traditional marital forms as "exploitation," "abuse," "suppression," etc. It isn't difficult to see how such reactive and distorted elements within this subculture are leading to highly divisive new "family" models. Nor would it be far-fetched to see how such (intellectual) interpretations of traditional culture would be handled by openly Gay teachers and administrators empowered to inculcate with new versions.
I think, Max, you need to acknowledge that your version of what you take to be the Gay agenda needs to be fine-tuned, to say the least. Your opinions are the product of a benighted and gullible acceptance of some of the more laughable fake stereotypes currently promulgated by the PC press and advocates of the Gay and Lesbian political agendas.
Not long ago there was a notorious controversy in San Francisco about the use of public school facilities to conduct invitational NAMBLA meetings with "interested students."
The much-heralded American Gay poet Allen Ginsberg went public "in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA, stat[ing] "'I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech...'" In "Thoughts on NAMBLA", published in Deliberate Prose, Ginsberg elaborated, stating "NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, (it is) a discussion society not a sex club."
Ginsberg expressed the opinion that the appreciation of youthful bodies and "the human form divine" has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, "from Rome's Vatican, to Florence's Uffizi galleries, to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art", and that laws regarding the issue needed to be more openly discussed.
What many worried citizens now realize is that the real subterranean agenda of Gay liberation involves not just the legitimation of once-taboo behaviors among committed members, but the deliberate and open promulgation of the life-style as a preferred alternative to the archetypical sexual roles upon which our society is based. The entertainment of homosexual themes in intellectual discourse is regarded by many as an attempt to de-mystify it in conceptual terms--such as in the post-Structural writing of Foucault, for instance--a thinly disguised attempt to conceptually de-couple sex from procreation, making all behavior sexually neutral, and all sex morally ambiguous.
My guess is that what Kirby probably believes is that sex, like marriage and child-rearing, are highly moral/ethical matters; that the attempt to "de-mystify" or "de-construct" them is an attempt to undermine their sacredness and value, in favor of an atmosphere of amoral tolerance, in which all kinds of sexual exploitation are enjoyed, but in which responsibility and duty are treated as if they were annoyances standing in the way of unfettered pleasure and indulgence.
* Conservatives would use the AIDS crisis as a "proof" of the evil of homosexuality, if not least as a cautionary warning about the danger of "bad sex" then as a religious imprecation symbolizing the "evil" of wayward behavior--all of which is of course nonsense. - Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 1:05:00 PM EST
- Kirby Olson said...
Curtis, this is part of what I think. I wonder how many gays are on the gay floats, though. I think that gay WOMEN are likely to belong to closed couples.
And there are probably SOME men who really want closed couples, too.
For them, I think marriage is the right idea.
For the others who are subverting the traditional format in order to get a NAMBLA-esque agenda across: I have no sympathy for that group AT ALL. - Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 5:19:00 PM EST
- Max said...
You're clouding up the issue. Even if that silly law gets enforced, it has nothing to do with the fact that, when they went over to the courthouse and got their marriage license, the clerk didn't ask them what their religion was, or if they were "good" people, or according to what morals would they raise the children, or what was their favorite sex position. In other words, the government takes no moral inventory of people when they marry, which means that people are able to raise their children in all sorts of ways, and carry out their married lives in all sorts of ways (not just according to some strict moral dictate set out by the state), and produce all sorts of results, and the government doesn't really give a crap, unless of course something patently illegal is occurring (like beating/abusing your kids or your spouse, which still falls under a completely amoral set of laws against such behaviors--assault, battery, etc).
The bottom line is that, in the case of your brother, or whomever, his girlfriend could raise her biological children outside a marriage. The fact that the state of Texas could bring charges on her for having the children stay overnight at a boyfriend's house while outside of wedlock doesn't change the fact that she doesn't need to be married in order to raise her children, as their biological parent. Hence, where biological parentage is concerned, the parent can raise the child out of wedlock, which totally negates your argument that marriage and child-rearing/bearing are inherently connected. If a lesbian woman conceived a child through in vitro fertilization, she could raise her child legally outside of marriage, as its biological parent. In the state of Texas, she might have trouble if she wanted the children to stay overnight with her at her lover's house, but that doesn't change the fact that she can birth and raise biological children outside of marriage with no legal penalty.
So, sorry man. But you're still wrong on this one. Your point doesn't muddy the waters for me at all. - Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 8:12:00 PM EST
- G. M. Palmer said...
Dear Fuckhead,
At least I read your posts.
Fuck off and die,
Ass clown. - Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 10:17:00 PM EST
- Max said...
Wow, and now we see the depths of your anger when you are proven wrong. Good stuff! I like that fire! - Monday, December 8, 2008 at 7:26:00 AM EST