Email This to a Friend
There Will Be Blood: Conservative in Liberal’s Clothing
It's one of the cleverest left-wing films made in a long time. But apart from its trenchant critiques of capitalism and religion, there's also an underlying theme you wouldn't suspect in a liberal movie.
There Will Be Blood, which arrives on DVD today
As such, it is one of the cleverest left-wing films of recent years, its oblique approach via historical fable being both more subtle and more shocking than such recent works about the evils of petroleum as Shooter and Syriana, movies in which oil interests are so absurdly evil they’re practically Satan’s cheerleaders.
Syriana, for instance, contains an impassioned speech in which an oil man crows, “Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why we win.” It’s typical of the George Clooney school of filmmaking — Clooney co-starred in Syriana, not to mention last year’s corporate-corruption thriller Michael Clayton — that political statements must be delivered in neon. In a Clooney-ized rendering of the Enron saga, there would be a scene in which the firm’s executives robbed the piggybanks of their shareholders’ kids.
There Will Be Blood’s allegory was at the heart of the worldview of Upton Sinclair, the Socialist muckracker who wrote the book, OIL! on which the film is loosely based (and also wrote such titles as The Profits of Religion). But God vs. Mammon is only half of the film. An equally central theme, one that has received much less attention, is that a man is nothing without family.
This essay is for those who have seen There Will Be Blood, so I will give away plot details. Read no further if you don’t want to learn the film’s storyline before you see it.
Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis, in his second Oscar-winning performance) is a man for whom work is life; as the film begins, in 1898, he’s a silver miner who breaks his leg and drags himself out of a shaft with immense and excruciating effort. The camera leaps back to show us a bleak, terrifyingly empty landscape: Plainview is completely alone, seemingly many miles from any kind of help.
Plainview first shows some humanity when he cradles his infant son while a mine turns into a gushing oil well before our eyes. Without a word being spoken, it’s clear that Daniel’s painful sacrifices are partly driven by his love for his son, whose mother never appears and whom Daniel never voluntarily discusses (although he will later claim she died in childbirth — his wavering glance tells us this is a lie — to a housewife whose property he needs for oil exploration).
Daniel’s rocky climb to the top is forced to a violent halt when a well he builds in the town of Little Boston uncorks so much oil that the treasure itself sows chaos, causing an explosion that turns the rig into a plume of hellfire and nearly kills Daniel’s now nine-year-old son, leaving him deaf.
Shortly after that, a man calling himself Daniel’s half-brother Henry appears on the scene, talking about the family’s home and background in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Never before has the film given us a hint about where Daniel came from or to whom, other than his son, he has a bond; to this point, Daniel has been more machine than man, a human drill.
Despite the serious setback with his son, who has become withdrawn and erratic since the accident, perhaps blaming his father for leaving him in harm’s way, Daniel changes. It’s as if the brother has replaced the son as a reason for his existence. Daniel speaks for the first time in the film about non-business matters, and his soul comes gushing out. Unprompted by Henry, he confesses there is a competition in him that makes him want to see other men fail, and that he hates most people.
Feeling comfortable with Henry is what enables Daniel to send his son away to school; he casts off the memory of his failure as a father and tries to rebuild a kind of family with his newfound kin. When Daniel finds out that his “brother” is an impostor, though, he kills him in a rage. The man has done nothing to Daniel except learn his feelings, but that is enough.
It is the despair about lacking family that destroys Daniel; from the moment he finds out his brother is a fake, he is essentially beyond reason. Being reminded of his son causes him to act churlishly, and (this is more important) in a manner contrary to his own business interests, in a roomful of Standard Oil executives. And in the psychotic episode that concludes the film, he will beat to death Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), the corrupt and fraudulent preacher who has been dogging his every step.
In their final meeting, Daniel at first merely teases and humiliates his old adversary; the dispute between them, bitter as it is, is essentially about business. What brings on Daniel’s final rage is family.
Daniel has just suffered the loss of his son for a third time, following the accident and the banishment to school. The boy, now grown, has gotten married and wants to start his own business, in Mexico. This Daniel sees, inevitably, as competition and therefore betrayal, but not just in a material sense; he shows that he is deeply wounded by his son’s plan to move away from him by replying that his son is an orphan whom Daniel found in a basket and used for business purposes, to make him seem like more of a family man when selling his services to wary townsfolk. This is almost certainly a lie; we’ve seen Daniel’s devotion to his son in his eyes.
This loss has left Daniel drunk, lonely, and sour, but not muderous. What sends Daniel into his second homicidal rage is when Eli calls Daniel his “brother by marriage” — Eli’s sister has married Daniel’s son. Daniel can abide a false prophet; selling salvation is merely smart business. What really strikes Daniel as sacrilege is a false brother.
Smith is a film critic for the New York Post. He blogs at http://www.kylesmithonline.com
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
69 Comments
1. David Thomson:Thank you for the fine review. I plan on renting this DVD later today. It will be interesting to see if Hollywood inadvertently released a somewhat conservative film. I have never been disappointed in anything staring Daniel Day-Lewis. He has the ability to singlehandedly save a movie.
Apr 8, 2008 - 2:46 am 2. Anthony:Mr Smith,
Apr 8, 2008 - 2:51 am 3. Anthony:DId you sleep through the first part of the movie? The movie showed DANIELS SONS REAL FATHER GET KILLED IN THE WELL. I loved the movie and thought of Daniel as a true American spirt. I thought it showed what it means to be a man who prides himself on work. The bond between man and child is formed by time not blood. I can’t believe you are a film critic and missed the death of his real father! Your an idot!
They showed his real father get killed in a well at the begining of the film. What? Did you have to take a piss or something? I can’t believe you are a film critic and missed that basic fact. The bond between child and man is due to time not blood. ITS NOT HIS REAL SON! If you watched the movie you would have seen this.
Apr 8, 2008 - 2:56 am 4. btesh:Saw the movie, hated it, no let say that correctly, It was the to date, the worst movie I’ve seen. The music, sirens! I kid you not.
Apr 8, 2008 - 5:42 am 5. warren:This movie had no redeeming qualities, unless you think showing man at his absolute worst, some how
is entertaining, Oh that right, we are just sheep and need to enlightened. A large percent of the audience was verbally upset and didn’t mind saying so!
Thanks for the review.Even if you missed the main plot details.
Apr 8, 2008 - 7:50 am 6. hikeup yourhijab:Now I don’t have to waste my time watching this piece of garbage.
Thanks, Cleverest review Ive read this morning.
Apr 8, 2008 - 8:27 am 7. Joe Buzz:If the hollywood elites donated half of the profits from anti petroleum/capitalism/americanism films to R&D for alternative energy, I would be impressed. Better yet, why not divert the funds and resources used to produce such “art” towards something a bit more solution oriented?
Apr 8, 2008 - 8:43 am 8. “There Will Be Blood”: Conservative Propaganda? | KyleSmithOnline.com:[...] at Pajamas Media I take a second look at “There Will Be Blood,” which arrives on DVD today. Thematically, the film is a [...]
Apr 8, 2008 - 9:15 am 9. austin:Yeah, if Capitalism is evil, then so are we all for just wanting to get together and trade and work together as a group for a common cause.
If you want to read a book about what real men do under enormous pressure, go read the “The Time it Never Rained” by Elmer Kelton.
Apr 8, 2008 - 9:20 am 10. Anonymous:To those who suppose the boy (seen at the beginning being cradled by another man) is not Plainview’s son, obviously I don’t see it the same way. One man can of course hold another man’s boy.
Apr 8, 2008 - 9:29 am 11. P. Ami:I sometimes find it difficult to enjoy films whose world view are antithical to my own. This difficulty is mitigated sometimes by the quality of film making or entertainment value. I enjoyed “Enemy of the State” for instance. While “There Will Be Blood” wasn’t as entertaining as I would have liked it was beautifully filmed and acted. The characters were disturbing but one need not take this film as an endictment on all capitalists or preachers. That would be like taking the above professional critic’s review as an endictment of all critics. Most critics, I gather, would have seen the first 20 minutes of a film they planned to pan.
Apr 8, 2008 - 9:35 am 12. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“But God vs. Mammon is only half of the film. An equally central theme, one that has received much less attention, is that a man is nothing without family.”
I haven’t seen the film, but I wanted to comment on this section of the review.
How have conservatives managed to steal the American family from liberals, as if we now grow on trees? Why are so many people convinced that a “family” is a conservative value?
Conservatives don’t value families – they only value straight and Christian families. They want to keep gay people from forming families – from getting married and from adopting children. That’s why liberals value families more than conservatives – conservatives are only open to a specific definition of “family”. Conservatives are using “family” as a weapon against gay people. That is not valuing it.
Apr 8, 2008 - 10:11 am 13. blackhawk12151:As much of a jerk as Anthony is he is correct about H.W.’s father dying in the beginning of the film. However, it seems from his assessment that HE is the one who slept through the rest of the film.
Also, Anthony, if you want to say YOU ARE, it’s “you’re”. The word “your” implies possession.
Apr 8, 2008 - 10:35 am 14. Irish Cicero:Thanks much for the timely review. “[The] loss has left Daniel drunk, lonely, and sour, but not muderous” describes the Left, for now. They’ll be murderous enough when they finally figure out what we’ve been telling them about the War on Terror.
Apr 8, 2008 - 10:46 am 15. Catalonia:“Conservatives don’t value families – they only value straight and Christian families.”
Whatever dude. You’re obviously somebody who thinks that ‘conservative’, ‘Christian’,
‘Republican’, and ‘heterosexual people who disagree with me politically’ are synonymous terms. Since that is so monumentally obtuse as to be beyond comment, I’d say your powers of discernment are decidedly lacking. In short, you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.
“They want to keep gay people from forming families – from getting married and from adopting children. That’s why liberals value families more than conservatives – conservatives are only open to a specific definition of “family”.”
Whatever dude. Seems to me you’re the one stuck on definitions. Since you’re obviously a veritable juggernaut of intellectual perspicacity, why, pray tell, don’t you tell us why marriage is even required to form a family? Can’t two people stay together and love each other without institutions such as marriage? You sound pretty backwards and regressive and stuck on definitions to me — thinking something as ancient as marriage is cutting edge and necessary to the formation of family. Pshaw!
“Conservatives are using “family” as a weapon against gay people. That is not valuing it.”
Whatever dude. Seems to me that it is gays who are using marriage as a weapon against society, or in more simple psychological terms, against heterosexuals for the original sin of being normal. It’s not like anybody is keeping gays from living together, and in most cases the legal benefits of marriage can be arranged already, albeit in a buffet fashion. Seems more likely that gays are trying to impose same-sex marriage not because it actually makes a lot of sense (marriage is about children and the establishment of paternity, not love, even if you do marry the person you love) — it’s more like an elaborate exercise in psycho-therapy, of forcing others not just to tolerate gayness but to accept it as perfectly normal instead of just the strange, peripheral sexual tendencies of a tiny 3% of the population that it is. Marriage is a stamp of approval, and that is the ONLY thing the same-sex marriage movement is about.
Apr 8, 2008 - 11:02 am 16. P. Ami:Onlyconservativeshavefamilies,
Apr 8, 2008 - 11:05 am 17. James Lewis:For one to have stolen anything the item will have to have been previously owned by someone else. When did homosexuals ever constitute the heads of families? Don’t go accusing those who wish to retain their property as thieves.
Plainview’s “son” is not his son. The child is the orphan of one of his employees who dies in the mine.
Apr 8, 2008 - 12:34 pm 18. Achillea:So, if capitalism is bad, then this film’s makers accepted no money for it and have, in fact, been showing it for free?
Apr 8, 2008 - 12:49 pm 19. Rubicon:Clooney & company have openly demonstrated their hatred of anyone who happens to have another view. They attack so they can force others to believe as they do.
Apr 8, 2008 - 3:09 pm 20. P. Ami:Its pathetic at best! Clooney’s latest films are an attempt to push his socialist nonsense and to make some money to keep pushing his socialist nonsense!
He is the perfect example of pretty & shallow! He attacks others for what he describes as their lack of compassion as he celebrates the disease that killed another whose opinions he disagrees with. How sad!
Achillean,
Apr 8, 2008 - 3:14 pm 21. kbl911:The son in the film growns up to be a capitalist and is not portrayed as bad or evil. In fact he is shown to be a sympathetic character who overcame deafness and an alcoholic, single parent to lead a loving life with his wife and with opportunities to enrich himself. All the other capitalists in the film are shown to be complex and interesting personalities. There is a character who plays, if I remember correctly, a Standard Oil representative. He tries to negotiate with Plainview and when he suggested that with the money made from this deal Plainview could spend time with his deaf son, Plainview’s guilt leads him to a breakdown in which he threatens to kill this businessman. This Standard Oil man is shown to be very reasonable and decent in his attempt to diffuse Plainview. Ultimately it is Plainview the individual who is indicted by the film, not capitalists.
Catalonia,
Oh, dear…
What a deviation from the central topic. Admittedly, you did not start the discourse but have done little to end it, either. Instead, you’ve made a broadsword argument refuting some of the rather contentious points made by “Onlyconservativeshavefamilies” through the use of some dicey points of your own.
Here I go, deviating further.
Clearly, you are of the mind that marriage is not a requirement for a “family.” I agree. Moreover, you are certainly accurate in your evaluation of the common association between “Conservative” and “Christian” and “Republican.” I don’t buy into that, either. It is an intellectually lazy position, to be sure.
My point to you is that, while marriage is an antiquated institution of questionable inherent value, there is realistically no political argument against same-sex marriage. Certainly, one could be fabricated, but I would bet that it would be a theological position thinly veiled by a political secularism and sense of pragmatism. It is fundamentally a social argument informed by core religious values. I think that, even if you agree with this, you have deviated in your statements that homosexual people use the issue of marriage as a socio-political weapon. Perhaps, but certainly not because of a psychological frailty brought on by “abnormality” and certainly not as a general rule. You know better than that.
Even if homosexuals can establish an informal union and (as you accurately put it) receive the same benefits buffet-style, there is simply no reason to stop them from doing it through the institution of marriage.
Apr 8, 2008 - 3:28 pm 22. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@Catalonia
“Whatever dude. You’re obviously somebody who thinks that ‘conservative’, ‘Christian’,
‘Republican’, and ‘heterosexual people who disagree with me politically’ are synonymous terms. Since that is so monumentally obtuse as to be beyond comment, I’d say your powers of discernment are decidedly lacking. In short, you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.”
Who is running the Republican party right now, eh? It’s been the Conservative Christians for the past 8 years. The whole party is in a constant battle to “out-God” each other, and so they pick on the gays.
I admit it was a broad brush statement, but if you can’t see that most Republicans are Christian and are against gay marriage, you are the one who is obtuse. My issue was with the fact that conservatives have attempted to define the family as belonging solely to them – and the fact that many of those same conservatives won’t allow gay people to have families is a hypocrisy. Perhaps I should have said “anyone against gay marriage does not value families”.
“Whatever dude. Seems to me you’re the one stuck on definitions.
“Since you’re obviously a veritable juggernaut of intellectual perspicacity, why, pray tell”
You are so pretentious. Listen to yourself! This is not the language of someone trying to communicate clearly – it’s the language of someone trying to show off how smart they are by using obscure words – in order to be condescending to the opponent. The goal of debate is clarity, not to show off. Whether you use this word commonly or not, you make no attempt to communicate in a way that everyone reading will understand.
“Why don’t you tell us why marriage is even required to form a family? Can’t two people stay together and love each other without institutions such as marriage? You sound pretty backwards and regressive and stuck on definitions to me — thinking something as ancient as marriage is cutting edge and necessary to the formation of family. Pshaw!”
You don’t need marriage to have a family, that is true…but it helps. Certain tax and medical benefits are conferred by marriage. If you oppose gay marriage, you oppose giving gays equal rights. In this context, it makes no sense to argue that gays “don’t need” to get married to have a family – they want to get married, they should be allowed, and your narrow-minded religious views (which are coming up in the next paragraph, I see) should have no say in the matter whatsoever.
“Whatever dude.”
What are you, a surfer? Get a new phrase – that one is annoying. By the way, how do you know I’m not a woman? You call me dude – why?
“Seems to me that it is gays who are using marriage as a weapon against society, or in more simple psychological terms, against heterosexuals for the original sin of being normal.”
“Normal”, ha ha ha. Normal just means common. It doesn’t mean anything else. There is no merit or demerit in being normal. Gays just want to have the same right to get married, and the rights that go with that.
“It’s not like anybody is keeping gays from living together, and in most cases the legal benefits of marriage can be arranged already, albeit in a buffet fashion.”
Why should they have to go to all that extra effort to get the same rights? Again, you’re making them second-class citizens for no good reason.
“Seems more likely that gays are trying to impose same-sex marriage not because it actually makes a lot of sense (marriage is about children and the establishment of paternity, not love, even if you do marry the person you love)”
[sarcasm]Well, thank you for clarifying that. I was under the impression that marriage could be about whatever the people getting married want it to be about. Now I see the light – your definition of marriage is the TRUE defintion and we must all abide by it.[/sarcasm]
You are the one imposing your religious rules on society. Don’t pretend it is otherwise.
“— it’s more like an elaborate exercise in psycho-therapy, of forcing others not just to tolerate gayness but to accept it as perfectly normal instead of just the strange, peripheral sexual tendencies of a tiny 3% of the population that it is.”
It is about equality under the law in a secular nation and nothing more. You are a bigot, just as I suspected.
“Marriage is a stamp of approval, and that is the ONLY thing the same-sex marriage movement is about.”
No, it is about having equality under the law. You have no good reason to deny them the right to marry. None whatsoever. Your religious values should not be imposed on everyone else, and that is what you are doing when you deny gays the right to marry.
You are exactly the kind of conservative Christian bigot I was referring to. Thank you for proving my point exactly.
Apr 8, 2008 - 5:06 pm 23. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@P. Ami
“Onlyconservativeshavefamilies,
For one to have stolen anything the item will have to have been previously owned by someone else. When did homosexuals ever constitute the heads of families? Don’t go accusing those who wish to retain their property as thieves.”
My point was that conservatives have stolen the idea of families from liberals. Liberals have been heads of families for just as long as conservatives.
True, homosexuals have never been the heads of families before (unless they were closeted), but that doesn’t mean it only belongs to heterosexuals. It does not damage your family in any way to allow two gay people to get married. They aren’t trying to take anything away from you.
Apr 8, 2008 - 5:06 pm 24. Fat Man:I hated the movie. It was an accurate reflection of Hollywood’s contempt for and hatred of America and Americans. Mr. Day-Lewis was very good but the movie was soulless and hollow. I am sorry I bought a ticket to it. And won’t compound the error by buying a DVD.
Apr 8, 2008 - 6:02 pm 25. P. Ami:Onlyconservativeshavefamilies,
I am not a Christian, I am not a bigot, I am a conservative and in this general election I will vote Republican.
Gays are not disallowed from marriage. A gay man can marry any kind of woman who will have him. The same holds true for gay women marrying any man who will join her in this sort of union. Heck, even a straight man couldn’t marry another straight man if they wanted. So, lets not get too caught up in thinking that this is a gay issue. The issue is whether the state and society should view the union of same-sex partners (whatever their sexual preference) as they do the union between the opposite sexes. I don’t think they should.
There is no such thing as a homosexual head of a family. A family is a unit of people in which couples produces offspring. This production of offspring gives rise to primary, secondary and tertiary (often time more distant relationships are observed as well) relationships between the members of the family. Gay sex does not produce offspring and so leads to a genetic dead end with no primary, secondary or tertiary relationships for future generations. The head of a family may participate in gay sexual practices but that would make them bi-sexual and these same sex partners have never been given family status on the basis of their sexual relationship.
Equality under the law does not equate to the same benefits given to everyone. Not everyone has the benefits provided by affirmative action. Not everyone pays the same taxes. Equality under the law is primarily meant to keep the judiciary branch from assigning special privileges to competing members during a trial.
The tax breaks given to families was and is meant to ease the tax burden on those who are bringing new people to the society and thus offering an avenue for the continuation of the nation. Homosexuals do not procreate and do not bring new people to function in society. Marriage is a union whose purpose is the making of a family. Why should people who will not make a family be given these benefits?
One can argue that homosexual couples can adopt and thus make a family. I think it much better for children who have no family to get one. If a gay couple wishes to adopt, I think they are providing a great service to society by giving love to children who need it. That said, they can be given the same benefits as any other family. I just don’t see the point of calling it marriage. Call it a civil union.
It seems to be you who is insisting on divorcing the meaning of marriage from its historical purpose. Marriage is a binding obligation of a society to give relative status to those who are of a family. Marriage contracts define inheritance, who will care for orphaned children, who will be responsible for anti-social behavior by the children, and who will be respected for producing offspring that contribute to society. No one on the right wishes to stop folks on the left from marrying. We just don’t see why the left should be allowed to redefine an ancient and universal system for the sake of a small portion of the population. You can dress it up in platitudes of civil liberties but in truth your movement is about changing the meaning of marriage and causing harm to society, so a small part of the population can fluff up their chest and say they have made us all change for them.
Apr 9, 2008 - 1:02 am 26. Richard Kinkead:So . . . this year’s Oscars® were a replay of last year’s. (”Ladies and gentlemen, this year the part of Al Gore will be played by . . .”) I had a little itch that I wanted to see this one anyway, but now I don’t need to. Nonsarcastic thanks, Kyle.
BTW, have you addressed somewhere the claim that the kid’s real dad died in the mine? Seems like only one reader made that claim, though.
I need to figure out how to fit “hikeupyourhijab” onto a vanity tag that permits only seven characters . . .
Apr 9, 2008 - 3:53 am 27. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@ P.Ami
“I am not a Christian, I am not a bigot, I am a conservative and in this general election I will vote Republican.”
What is McCain’s position on gay marriage? I expect he is soundly against it, right? Then he is a bigot and you are a bigot for voting for him.
“Gays are not disallowed from marriage. A gay man can marry any kind of woman who will have him. The same holds true for gay women marrying any man who will join her in this sort of union.”
You know, different races also used to not be allowed to marry. The anti-miscenegation crowd would have said “A black man can marry any black woman he wants! He’s not being denied any rights!”
They are being denied the right to marry the people they want to marry. That is the issue. The gay people want to marry other gay people of the same sex, not straight people (or gay people) of the opposite sex. They want the freedom to marry who they choose. Why do you think you have a right to deny them that.
“Heck, even a straight man couldn’t marry another straight man if they wanted. So, lets not get too caught up in thinking that this is a gay issue. The issue is whether the state and society should view the union of same-sex partners (whatever their sexual preference) as they do the union between the opposite sexes. I don’t think they should.”
This is ridiculous. Straight men don’t want to marry other straight men. That is completely beside the point.
And why don’t you agree? Is there some sort of religious belief behind it? Is their any good reason at all behind it? Or are you just disgusted by the thought of it? Until you can provide a good reason to support your position, you are a bigot.
“There is no such thing as a homosexual head of a family. A family is a unit of people in which couples produces offspring. This production of offspring gives rise to primary, secondary and tertiary (often time more distant relationships are observed as well) relationships between the members of the family.”
This is only according to your narrow definition of family.
“Gay sex does not produce offspring and so leads to a genetic dead end with no primary, secondary or tertiary relationships for future generations.”
Neither does the marriage of infertile people. So, to be consistent using that logic, you ought to believe they are also not allowed to be married. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.
Gay people can adopt, just like infertile people. Lesbians can even have surrogate fathers. Gay men can impregnate surrogate mothers – not by sex but by in vitro fertilization.
“The head of a family may participate in gay sexual practices but that would make them bi-sexual and these same sex partners have never been given family status on the basis of their sexual relationship.”
“They never have before” – again, up until 1967 in this country (the United States), people of different races were never allowed to marry before. Your position against gay marriage has a lot in common with the people who were against interracial marriage – it is arbitrary, and it denies people their happiness and their rights.
“Equality under the law does not equate to the same benefits given to everyone. Not everyone has the benefits provided by affirmative action. Not everyone pays the same taxes. Equality under the law is primarily meant to keep the judiciary branch from assigning special privileges to competing members during a trial.”
It should extend to gay people being allowed to marry the people they love. Why are you so hell-bent on denying love?
“The tax breaks given to families was and is meant to ease the tax burden on those who are bringing new people to the society and thus offering an avenue for the continuation of the nation. Homosexuals do not procreate and do not bring new people to function in society. Marriage is a union whose purpose is the making of a family. Why should people who will not make a family be given these benefits?”
Well, you answer your own question with the next paragraph. They should be given these benefits because they may have children. But it goes beyond that. Look up the benefits conferred by marriage. One is the right to visit your spouse in the hospital.
“One can argue that homosexual couples can adopt and thus make a family. I think it much better for children who have no family to get one. If a gay couple wishes to adopt, I think they are providing a great service to society by giving love to children who need it. That said, they can be given the same benefits as any other family. I just don’t see the point of calling it marriage. Call it a civil union.”
Why not call it marriage? Give me one good reason! The only thing you have is that it offends your religious sensibilities – and that should have no role in governing the people.
“It seems to be you who is insisting on divorcing the meaning of marriage from its historical purpose. Marriage is a binding obligation of a society to give relative status to those who are of a family. Marriage contracts define inheritance, who will care for orphaned children, who will be responsible for anti-social behavior by the children, and who will be respected for producing offspring that contribute to society. No one on the right wishes to stop folks on the left from marrying.”
No, I am not. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. They are not obligated to have children, so that can’t count as the “purpose of marriage”. All the stuff you have called “the purpose of marriage” is your personal definition.
People on the right do want to stop gay people from marrying, and you are one of them. You are against their happiness.
“We just don’t see why the left should be allowed to redefine an ancient and universal system for the sake of a small portion of the population.”
We don’t understand why you got to define it in the first place. Unfortunately, you defined it in a very exclusive way that leads to less happiness overall. We want to define it in a more egalitarian way.
“You can dress it up in platitudes of civil liberties but in truth your movement is about changing the meaning of marriage and causing harm to society, so a small part of the population can fluff up their chest and say they have made us all change for them.”
Civil liberties are just platitudes to you? You disgust me.
Give me one tangible example of the harm that is caused to society by gay people being allowed to marry. Because it sure causes them a lot of harm not to be allowed to marry – it is an arbitrary obstruction to their happiness.
You put these malevolent motivations on gay people, like they are Satan’s agents out to destroy your marriage – like they want to make you all get divorced. It is not going to hurt your marriage at all to let them get married. You are standing in the way of their happiness – essentially, you are stepping on their faces and making them submit to your religion. You want them to have a separate set of rights so that your rights are not “contaminated”.
Apr 9, 2008 - 8:05 am 28. Catalonia:“Who is running the Republican party right now, eh? It’s been the Conservative Christians for the past 8 years. The whole party is in a constant battle to “out-God” each other, and so they pick on the gays.”
Er, let’s see … George Bush is a very mild born-again Methodist, and therefore the entire GOP, from the federal to the state to the local, is automatically transmogrified into fundamentalists endlessly goofing on Jesus while chasing down gays with pitchforks and a length of rope. Egads, George Bush is just one politician, not the entire GOP. I think perhaps you should stop getting all your information from TV and Hollywood movies — they are absolutely the worst sources.
“I admit it was a broad brush statement, but if you can’t see that most Republicans are Christian and are against gay marriage, you are the one who is obtuse.”
Republicans make up only 33% of the population, but approximately 80+% of people in this country describe themselves as Christian, and most people generally, Christian or not, oppose same-sex marriage. And that includes most Democrats. Geez, just what insulated environment did you grow up in that you have these bizarre notions about the demographic make-up of the United States?
“My issue was with the fact that conservatives have attempted to define the family as belonging solely to them – and the fact that many of those same conservatives won’t allow gay people to have families is a hypocrisy.”
What a strange little narrative you’ve constructed. You must be at the university … or in high school. It sounds to me that your caricatures are more tantrum that careful consideration of the facts. You also seem to confuse the Washington DC shenanigans with the country at large. Again, you need to stop watching so much TV … and look up the word ‘hypocrisy’, since you don’t seem to understand what it means.
“Perhaps I should have said “anyone against gay marriage does not value families”. ”
Whatever dude. Try to remember that most of the adults to whom you’re speaking are actually married. Do you really think you’re in a position to lecture them about what does and does not constitute marriage and family?
“You are so pretentious … This is not the language of someone trying to communicate clearly – it’s the language of someone trying to show off how smart they are by using obscure words – in order to be condescending to the opponent.”
I condescend because you deserve condescension. This is a political discussion, and politics is rough. If you don’t like it then stop jumping on discussion boards accusing half the country of being bigots and troglodytes. Sheesh. Put more simply: Stop whining.
“If you oppose gay marriage, you oppose giving gays equal rights.”
Actually, gays have exactly the same rights as I do. I’m a heterosexual male, and I cannot marry a man, which means I’m in exactly the same position as a gay man. Our rights are EXACTLY the same. If you haven’t figured that out yet you’re way behind the curve on this issue.
“In this context, it makes no sense to argue that gays “don’t need” to get married to have a family – they want to get married, they should be allowed, and your narrow-minded religious views (which are coming up in the next paragraph, I see) should have no say in the matter whatsoever.”
When did I suddenly become religious? It’s very interesting that you think the arguments against same-sex marriage are religion-based. Some people approach the issue from that angle, of course, but in point of fact religion’s got nothing to do with it. I’m starting to think that you’re anti-Christian bigot. That might be understandable if you’re a baby boomer, but if you’re young, as I suspect, you might want to reconsider. Anti-Christian bigotry is a failing of older liberal generations. Try to get with the program.
“What are you, a surfer? Get a new phrase – that one is annoying. By the way, how do you know I’m not a woman? You call me dude – why?”
I knew you were female before you bothered to ‘reveal’ it. The language you use is heavy with emotionalism. Thus the phrase, which is meant to be annoying. It’s also meant to convey that I know you’re young, and therefore in over your head.
“Normal”, ha ha ha. Normal just means common. It doesn’t mean anything else.”
Wow. That really, er, destroyed my point. Thanks, sweetie, for, um, making such a … powerful argument. Maybe you should start thinking about the difference between describing a single characteristic of someone as normal or abnormal, and ascribing the individual as a whole as normal or abnormal based on this one characteristic. Now re-read what I posted and try to get a handle on what I actually said.
“There is no merit or demerit in being normal. Gays just want to have the same right to get married, and the rights that go with that.”
A gay man can marry a lesbian. This is called gay marriage. Since we are talking about same-sex marriage, I really don’t see understand why you keep heading off into weird tangents like this.
“Why should they have to go to all that extra effort to get the same rights? Again, you’re making them second-class citizens for no good reason.”
Again, gays have the same rights re:marriage as I do. I can’t marry a man, either. Seems to me you’re the one intent on making gays second-class citizens, even when they’re obviously nothing of the sort. Why are you so insistent on disrespecting them, of believing they need special treatment, like they’re children or something?
“Well, thank you for clarifying that. I was under the impression that marriage could be about whatever the people getting married want it to be about. Now I see the light – your definition of marriage is the TRUE defintion and we must all abide by it.”
If marriage is anything you want it to be, then my definition is as valid as any other. This is probably a little advanced for you to understand, but something that can be anything is actually nothing. How can you define that which cannot be have any characteristics defined (since it can be anything), and then carry on about how something that is nothing is a great and grand issue of the day? Now before you respond, I want you take another deep draught of your chocolate milk and think for a moment about what I’ve written.
“You are the one imposing your religious rules on society. Don’t pretend it is otherwise.”
I’m agnostic. The only ‘religious rules’ I have are that people should be able to practice whatever religion they desire, free from government interference or anti-religious bigotry.
“It is about equality under the law in a secular nation and nothing more. You are a bigot, just as I suspected. “
Oh please. When only 3-4% of the population engages in anything sexual, whether it’s men wearing women’s underwear or homosexuality, it pretty much meets the definition of peripheral. That is not bigotry, it’s just a statement of fact. Unusual sexual proclivities are really nothing to get worked up about. Why do you?
“No, it is about having equality under the law.”
Again, gays are equal under the law. I’d like to remind you that if same-sex marriage is implemented, two hetereosexual men, for instance, can get married. The gay thing is neither here nor there. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but the reality is that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the arguments for or against same-sex marriage. I realize you’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but at least try to understand this point.
“You have no good reason to deny them the right to marry. None whatsoever.”
Whatever dude.
“You are exactly the kind of conservative Christian bigot I was referring to. Thank you for proving my point exactly.”
And here I thought I was an agnostic libertarian who lived for many years in San Francisco, the gay mecca. Like I said, you conflate ‘Christian’, ‘Republican’, ‘conservative’, and ‘people who disagree with you politically’. Perhaps you need to look up the word bigot, as well, because bigotry extends far beyond the mere Holy Trinity of gender, race, and sexual orientation.
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:36 am 29. Dave:Geez, this movie had nothing to do with gay rights. Get over yourselves.
My thought after watching the various human manifestations in this character was that this was probably a lot more like a 20th century dictator, Stalin or Pol Pot or Mao, than an oilman. The guy wants to vaporize all competitors in all aspects of life, to punish people for seeing his humanity and weakness… he’s the kind of person who ends up not trusting anyone, setting people against each other, and flaming out for an end that takes somebody else with him to hell.
Kim Jong Il, ten years from now? Stalin in 1945? The same narrow field of vision, the same ruthlessness and manipulativeness, the same paranoia.
Apr 9, 2008 - 10:31 am 30. Dave:Oh, btw, I want to marry two women. No, TWENTY. Why can’t I? Why should I limit my understanding of ‘marriage’ to the stodgy antiquated definition “one man and one woman”? That’s so YESTERDAY.
I want to marry my dog.. AND my cat. They both love me and we already sleep together. What difference does it make that they are not of my species? That’s just prejudice talking. Open your mind.
I want to marry my BMW. I think that sweet wonderful car deserves to inherit my wealth and use my health care policy to get her oil changed. And I know she’d want to visit me in the hospital.
This is no more nutty than ‘marrying’ somebody the same sex you are. It is like saying I want to eat a Budweiser. It is incoherent. The word ‘eat’ is not used to describe comsumption of a liquid. There’s a different word for that. The word “marriage” is not used to describe a relationship between two people of the same sex. If it is, the word has lost its meaning.
Whatever a formal relationship between two men might be, it is not marriage. Not unless the sky is green, the grass is blue, and words have simply no meaning at all.
Apr 9, 2008 - 10:40 am 31. Phil:“Oh, btw, I want to marry two women. No, TWENTY. Why can’t I? Why should I limit my understanding of ‘marriage’ to the stodgy antiquated definition “one man and one woman”? That’s so YESTERDAY”
Say, how many simultaneous wives did some of the Biblical patriarchs have? Can you help me out with that?
Also, when a writer describes, say, a merger between two corporations, or the melding of two different forms of art, or the intersection of two facets of culture, as a “marriage,” wtf is that writer talking about?
Apr 9, 2008 - 11:17 am 32. P. Ami:I’m still giggling over the image of being in the maternity ward after my wife has given birth to a child. I get to the elevator room where a vending machine has just pooped me a late night Twinky. I hear the elevator ding and there’s a BMW carrying flowers to Dave it’s wife.
Catalonia has covered most of my problems with OnlyConservatives…. Boy, girl, man or woman, this person’s posts are an expression of a mind like muddy waters. One hopes they may one day settle down and gain clarity of thought.
Oh, and I agree with Dave’s take on the Plainview character. There are too many folk in this film who are successful capitalists and seem like decent, hard-working people, rather then manipulative tyrants. The Eli character is the same sort of man as Plainview with one key difference. Plainview baits his prey with sustenance. He promises people a living by which they can improve their life-style, build themselves schools, improve roads etc… and he largely follows through with his promises. Eli, on the other hand, baits his victims with salvation. He provides them with entertainment and a sense of purpose beyond themselves. One wonders if Eli is capable of providing anything more then eternal illusion. We certainly know that Plainview’s promise of transitory self-betterment is often met.
One of the questions one asks of Plainview’s character is, does he love his adopted son? He clearly does. His temper tantrums, directed at the Standard Oil guy, all stem from that man innocently touching upon the guilt Plainview feels over what has happened to his son and how he has chosen to care for him. Then again, during Plainview’s “rebirth” as a Christian, his emotional investment in the event is brought about by his confession of poor parenting. Right after the ceremony, Plainview brings the boy back to live with him on the oil fields.
I think it unfair to characterize PT Andersen as a typical Hollywood Lefty. Everyone of his films, “Boogie Nights, “Punch Drunk Love”, “Magnolia”, and this one discuss in one form or another the ways in which selfishness in individuals have led to the debasement of their offspring or close family members. Those that redeem themselves are those lucky enough to have found a partner with whom a healthy family unit will be created based, not on fantasy, but on acknowledgment of the frailties within each person.
In Punch Drunk Love, a man-child’s sisters have passive-aggressively abused and manipulated their sensitive brother. His hurt is healed and his anger directed towards good by a woman who has seen his gawky manners and his temper and will love him none the less. The scene, when they are in Hawaii, in which they whisper strange nothings into each others’ ear is much more meaningful then any sweet nothing has ever been.
Magnolia is so complicated a film, and this comment already has run so long, but in the end the frogs are falling and the genius child has come to accept “This happens”. What else is the vow which binds us in sickness and health, richer or poorer, and until death other then an acceptance that these things happen. The boy in that moment has become committed to the world he lives in, not to a world he wishes would be. The boy goes home and tells his father, “You should treat me better”. The father sleeps through this message but the boy understands that even his father is a frog falling from the sky. The son has accepted his father.
Boogie Nights, well, here is a young man whose parents are busy with their lives and in their lack of attention haven’t noticed their son’s special needs. The parents are incapable of directing their son’s needs in a constructive manner so a father-like businessman uses this boy’s needs, his “talent”, to make money. The environment in which these talents are used have actually debased everyone involved. The hedonism of the porn scene is a product of the needs porn fulfills. It directs the act that makes a family away from the family. An objects on the screen become the subject of lust rather then the woman in your bed. Sex become a pure pleasure with no other purpose. Lacking in any purpose, other then in creating more pleasure, all the members of this artificial family are totally debased and eventually self-destruct. This film points out that the boy’s real family never acted like one, while his pretend family could never have the healthy attachments that a caring family creates and fosters as family is not defined by pleasure but by mutual care-taking.
PT Anderson, whatever his political leanings (and I don’t know what they are. I don’t really care), is a great filmmaker with a profound gift for discussing the human condition. His films most certainly show the value of caring families and I think it entirely too simplistic for those of you who have not seen his films to discredit their maker’s values out of personal political frustration.
Apr 9, 2008 - 12:07 pm 33. P. Ami:Phil, its called metaphor, not definition. Writing, “the orange sun”, does not make citrus of a star.
Every one of the Patriarch’s wives were female. The principle of marriage in the Bible was, as it has always been, based on begotting. Since we are on the subjects of the Patriarchs, only Israel (Jacob) had more then one wife. He was tricked into marrying his first wife Leah. If you look at the prophets, judges and other major Biblical figures then you will find that only the Israelite kings had more then one wife. Are you trying to use one specific Biblical example, with its own mitigating circumstances, to negate a societal norm?
A marriage creates a relationship we call husband and wife. Look up husbandry. What is a midwife? Notice that all these relationships have their root in child making and child rearing.
Apr 9, 2008 - 12:23 pm 34. Rob:Yes, the boy isn’t his natural son. But the film clearly shows he loves him and becomes his family; there’s a tension throughout between the boy being used as a prop and the feelings between them. I thought it wasn’t a bad film, although the ending was poor.
Apr 9, 2008 - 1:14 pm 35. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@Catalonia
“Er, let’s see … George Bush is a very mild born-again Methodist, and therefore the entire GOP, from the federal to the state to the local, is automatically transmogrified into fundamentalists endlessly goofing on Jesus while chasing down gays with pitchforks and a length of rope. Egads, George Bush is just one politician, not the entire GOP. I think perhaps you should stop getting all your information from TV and Hollywood movies — they are absolutely the worst sources.”
He wants to ban gay marriage. That turns him into a little more than a religious moderate in my book. He has done everything he can to prop up religion using the government, and has no respect for the separation of church and state. And you know he rode to the White House on a wave of religious fervor.
“Republicans make up only 33% of the population, but approximately 80+% of people in this country describe themselves as Christian, and most people generally, Christian or not, oppose same-sex marriage. And that includes most Democrats. Geez, just what insulated environment did you grow up in that you have these bizarre notions about the demographic make-up of the United States?”
I know that 80% of the country opposes gay marriage, and that is largely because they are Christian and their religion opposes it – but you may notice in that quote that I said “if you can’t see that most Republicans are Christian”. I’m not even trying to say all Christians are Republicans, all Republicans oppose gay marriage, or anything of that sort. But the reason those Republicans both in Congress and around the country oppose gay marriage is because of religion. There are no other good reasons.
“What a strange little narrative you’ve constructed. You must be at the university … or in high school. It sounds to me that your caricatures are more tantrum that careful consideration of the facts. You also seem to confuse the Washington DC shenanigans with the country at large. Again, you need to stop watching so much TV … and look up the word ‘hypocrisy’, since you don’t seem to understand what it means.”
The people in Washington DC have all the power. Their opinion on gay marriage is most important. But really, the people in DC and around the country are united against it. Where is my error here? Most people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for religious reasons. You, on the other hand, being agnostic, have no reason at all.
“Whatever dude. Try to remember that most of the adults to whom you’re speaking are actually married. Do you really think you’re in a position to lecture them about what does and does not constitute marriage and family?”
Yes, I am, because if they are attempting to deny another person the right to marry who they want and have a family like their own, then they are hypocrites.
“I condescend because you deserve condescension. This is a political discussion, and politics is rough.”
All right, then go fuck yourself. Politics is rough, and you deserved to hear that. Do you not see the problem with that? You still haven’t given me one good reason why gay people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry each other.
“If you don’t like it then stop jumping on discussion boards accusing half the country of being bigots and troglodytes. Sheesh. Put more simply: Stop whining.”
If I don’t like it, I can shut up. That’s what you’ve said to me. Again, go fuck yourself. I’ll voice my opinion if I want to, and if you don’t like it, you don’t have to respond.
“Actually, gays have exactly the same rights as I do.”
Bullshit. They don’t have the right to marry the people they want.
“I’m a heterosexual male, and I cannot marry a man, which means I’m in exactly the same position as a gay man. Our rights are EXACTLY the same. If you haven’t figured that out yet you’re way behind the curve on this issue.”
That is such a pathetic argument. They are denied full autonomy in pursuit of happiness – you are not, because you don’t want to marry a man. They are denied the right to marry who they want to marry.
“In this context, it makes no sense to argue that gays “don’t need” to get married to have a family – they want to get married, they should be allowed, and your narrow-minded religious views (which are coming up in the next paragraph, I see) should have no say in the matter whatsoever.”
“When did I suddenly become religious? It’s very interesting that you think the arguments against same-sex marriage are religion-based.”
So give me one reason for your opposition to gay marriage that doesn’t stem from religion. And I remind you, “gays…yuck” is not a reason.
“Some people approach the issue from that angle, of course, but in point of fact religion’s got nothing to do with it.”
Then what in the world is your reason, Mr. Non-Religious Conservative?
“I’m starting to think that you’re anti-Christian bigot. That might be understandable if you’re a baby boomer, but if you’re young, as I suspect, you might want to reconsider. Anti-Christian bigotry is a failing of older liberal generations. Try to get with the program.”
Christians should be free to practice their religion – but NOT to force it on everyone else. When they stop doing that, I might stop hating their religion. Maybe. But I don’t hate Christians themselves.
Now, if I wanted to deny Christians the right to marry…well, then I’d be an anti-Christian bigot. Just like you are an anti-gay bigot.
I will admit, I’m an anti-bigot bigot.
“I knew you were female before you bothered to ‘reveal’ it. The language you use is heavy with emotionalism. Thus the phrase, which is meant to be annoying. It’s also meant to convey that I know you’re young, and therefore in over your head.”
Wow, you are good at making wrong assumptions, aren’t you? I’m a man. I never said I was a woman, either.
By the way, Catalonia is a girl’s name.
Add to that that you are a sexist as well as an anti-gay bigot. “Women are overly emotional” – listen to yourself! That’s a sexist stereotype. There are cool-headed women and emotional men, and for you to think otherwise shows even more firmly what an idiot you are.
A group of people being denied equality because of a religious view pisses me off. I guess that makes me a woman!
What next? Will you assume I’m a gay man because I’m defending gay marriage?
“Wow. That really, er, destroyed my point. Thanks, sweetie, for, um, making such a … powerful argument. Maybe you should start thinking about the difference between describing a single characteristic of someone as normal or abnormal, and ascribing the individual as a whole as normal or abnormal based on this one characteristic. Now re-read what I posted and try to get a handle on what I actually said.”
Your point implies that their “abnormal” is something to be looked down upon. I agree that gays aren’t normal; I was just pointing out that their “normality” is irrelevant. What was your point anyway – that they ought not to be allowed to marry because they are only 3% of the population and you 80% can force them not to? I think it’s time for another “go fuck yourself”!
“A gay man can marry a lesbian. This is called gay marriage. Since we are talking about same-sex marriage, I really don’t see understand why you keep heading off into weird tangents like this.”
I suspect that you are being purposefully obtuse and actually know what a pathetic argument this is. They have the same right to marry someone they don’t want to marry. Great. That’s equality. Can you not see my parallel to interracial marriage? It’s like you’re back in the 40’s saying black men have the same right to marry as you do, because they have the right to marry someone of their own race, just like you do.
“Again, gays have the same rights re:marriage as I do. I can’t marry a man, either. Seems to me you’re the one intent on making gays second-class citizens, even when they’re obviously nothing of the sort. Why are you so insistent on disrespecting them, of believing they need special treatment, like they’re children or something?”
What a load of nonsense. This is the only argument you’ve got, isn’t it? It sounds like a bad joke. “They have the same right to marry a woman as I do.” Well, pat yourself on the back! You completely missed the point.
“If marriage is anything you want it to be, then my definition is as valid as any other.”
Yes, as valid as any other and NO MORE VALID THAN ANY OTHER. You have no right to force your perspective, using the law, onto everyone else. What you are saying is that your definition should apply to all marriages. By not allowing gay marriage, you are saying your definition of marriage is better than a gay person’s definition.
“This is probably a little advanced for you to understand, but something that can be anything is actually nothing.”
You’re a regular Aristotle!
Marriage does have characteristics. It is a legal contract involving consenting adults, often but not always carried out for love. There are commonalities in our definitions. My definition is broader and more inclusive than yours.
“How can you define that which cannot be have any characteristics defined (since it can be anything), and then carry on about how something that is nothing is a great and grand issue of the day? Now before you respond, I want you take another deep draught of your chocolate milk and think for a moment about what I’ve written.”
See my response above. I never said it can be “anything” – you completely misrepresented my point, you disgraceful liar. Are these the tactics you resort to when you face someone you consider to be a mere child? Maybe you can see that I’m obviously smarter than you, and have given a lot more thought to my position.
I said “marriage can be about whatever the people want it to be about”, not that it can be “anything”. I meant that they can get married for whatever reasons they want. I’ll qualify that by saying “if they are consenting adults”. See, marriage is still “something” by my definition. It’s a legal contract between consenting adults.
“I’m agnostic. The only ‘religious rules’ I have are that people should be able to practice whatever religion they desire, free from government interference or anti-religious bigotry.”
Oh, then I see you are a total fool. You are imposing SOMEONE ELSE’S religious rules on all of society. Well played. That would be like if I, an atheist, went around telling people not to forget to take communion, or that all newborns ought to be baptised. It makes no sense whatsoever.
“Oh please. When only 3-4% of the population engages in anything sexual, whether it’s men wearing women’s underwear or homosexuality, it pretty much meets the definition of peripheral. That is not bigotry, it’s just a statement of fact.”
How can you have forgotten your point entirely? Let me remind you, you were arguing that because that sexual orientation is unusual, we ought not to allow gays to get married as a society, and that the only reason they want to get married is to stir up trouble and show off their power. Let’s rephrase that – because gays are a minority, we ought not to allow them to get married. Why not? Where is your reasoning here?
“Unusual sexual proclivities are really nothing to get worked up about. Why do you?”
You are the one who doesn’t want those unusual sexual proclivities to be expressed in a marriage. I’m worked up about equality – I have no idea why you are opposed to gay marriage. The only two possibilities I can imagine are that you, for some perverse reason, support a Christian definition of marriage, or because you just don’t like the idea of gays of the same sex getting married to each other (and I say “each other” so you know, in your stupidity, that I am not referring to the right of gay men to marry a woman or a gay woman to marry a man).
“Again, gays are equal under the law.”
No they are not. They are not allowed to marry the people they want to marry – they must marry someone they don’t want to marry, if they want to get married at all.
“I’d like to remind you that if same-sex marriage is implemented, two hetereosexual men, for instance, can get married.”
Then they have my blessing, but no one is clamoring for that right, are they? That is beside the point. The issue is whether or not gay people of the same sex can marry each other. It is a gay issue because it is gay people who want that right. Straight men do not want the right to marry each other, therefore, that is a side issue of little importance to the debate.
“The gay thing is neither here nor there. I know that sounds counterintuitive, but the reality is that sexual orientation is irrelevant to the arguments for or against same-sex marriage. I realize you’re not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but at least try to understand at this point.”
If I’m not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, then you are a bulb that is completely burnt out. You know that this is a gay issue – there are no straight men clamoring for the right to marry each other. Your argument is a kind of sophistry, really, a lawyer’s trick that attempts to distract from the relevant issues. Nothing in this debate is about the right of straight men to get married to each other.
Let’s broaden it, just so you can see how this foolish side argument leads nowhere – let’s say two straight men really do want to marry each other. Why do you oppose it?
“And here I thought I was an agnostic libertarian”
Maybe you are an economic libertarian, but you are not a social libertarian. Libertarians have been some of the loudest voices clamoring FOR the right to gay marriage. You know what you are? You are a Republican who calls himself a libertarian because it’s trendy…and probably an atheist who calls himself agnostic because “atheist” is too harsh.
“who lived for many years in San Francisco, the gay mecca.”
That’s like saying “I have a black friend so I’m not racist!” You lived in the gay mecca? Oh wow! I guess you must be a tolerant and open-minded person then! You’ve earned your badge, haven’t you? How dare anyone call you anti-gay?!
“Perhaps you need to look up the word bigot, as well, because bigotry extends far beyond the mere Holy Trinity of gender, race, and sexual orientation.”
It does? Are you going to try and slap me with that “political bigotry” bullshit? Maybe I am bigoted against certain belief systems – what, are the ideas hurt by my not liking them? What is the sin in that?
Once again, you have given no good reason why two gay people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry each other. No reason whatsoever. That is the heart of the issue, and you are avoiding it. It is fairly obvious that you have no reason.
Apr 9, 2008 - 5:24 pm 36. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@Dave
“Oh, btw, I want to marry two women. No, TWENTY. Why can’t I? Why should I limit my understanding of ‘marriage’ to the stodgy antiquated definition “one man and one woman”? That’s so YESTERDAY.”
Are they all consenting adults? Then go right ahead. Oops, you didn’t count on me having a principled reason for allowing polygamous marriages. You just wanted to appeal to people’s “yuck” factor to keep them from thinking.
“I want to marry my dog.. AND my cat. They both love me and we already sleep together. What difference does it make that they are not of my species? That’s just prejudice talking. Open your mind.”
Animals cannot consent and so cannot enter a legal contract. Period. The slippery slope does not reach there.
“I want to marry my BMW. I think that sweet wonderful car deserves to inherit my wealth and use my health care policy to get her oil changed. And I know she’d want to visit me in the hospital.”
Inanimate objects cannot consent and so cannot enter a legal contract. Period. The slippery slope does not lead there, either.
“This is no more nutty than ‘marrying’ somebody the same sex you are. It is like saying I want to eat a Budweiser. It is incoherent. The word ‘eat’ is not used to describe comsumption of a liquid. There’s a different word for that. The word “marriage” is not used to describe a relationship between two people of the same sex. If it is, the word has lost its meaning.”
You are emotionally struck by the idea of same-sex marriage as being nutty. Therefore, you declare it must simply be insane. What a convincing argument.
“Whatever a formal relationship between two men might be, it is not marriage. Not unless the sky is green, the grass is blue, and words have simply no meaning at all.”
Does that confuse your tiny little brain that much?
Apr 9, 2008 - 5:25 pm 37. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@P. Ami
“Catalonia has covered most of my problems with OnlyConservatives…. Boy, girl, man or woman, this person’s posts are an expression of a mind like muddy waters. One hopes they may one day settle down and gain clarity of thought.”
Ah, the more intelligent Catalonia has taken the fight up for you, therefore you can stop thinking and have no further need to respond to me. You’ve got support from your group – so you must be right. I’m sure that’s actually how you came to the conclusion that gay marriage is wrong.
“Every one of the Patriarch’s wives were female. The principle of marriage in the Bible was, as it has always been, based on begotting. Since we are on the subjects of the Patriarchs, only Israel (Jacob) had more then one wife. He was tricked into marrying his first wife Leah. If you look at the prophets, judges and other major Biblical figures then you will find that only the Israelite kings had more then one wife. Are you trying to use one specific Biblical example, with its own mitigating circumstances, to negate a societal norm?”
Solomon had a harem, if I remember correctly. That means concubines. WHORES. Are you going to say “well, it’s okay because he was using them to have children!”
Apr 9, 2008 - 5:26 pm 38. Catalonia:I think we’ve run into somebody who has genuine psychological problems, and I don’t mean that as a cheap shot — I really think our little adolescent has very serious issues related to her sexuality.
Look, OCHF, you should get some help. And I’m not saying this out of spite, I’m talking to you as a full-fledged adult who has seen people twist themselves into emotional pathologies when they try to use aggression as a form of psycho-therapy. It simply doesn’t work. In the end you’re only going to hurt yourself (if not others) and turn yourself into a basketcase in the process. And you sure as heck aren’t going to convince anybody of anything — you need to have a grip on reality in order to influence others.
Sorry kid. Right now you’re showing classic signs of paranoia in addition to a whole slew of other markers that indicate a disintegrating personality. Even if you’re oblivious to it yourself, right about now everybody knows that for you same-sex marriage is proxy for personal issues that actually have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and for that only a professional can help you work things out.
Good luck.
Apr 9, 2008 - 6:39 pm 39. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“I think we’ve run into somebody who has genuine psychological problems, and I don’t mean that as a cheap shot — I really think our little adolescent has very serious issues related to her sexuality.”
Your pride won’t allow you to admit that you’ve made a bad assumption. I am a male.
“Look, OCHF, you should get some help. And I’m not saying this out of spite, I’m talking to you as a full-fledged adult who has seen people twist themselves into emotional pathologies when they try to use aggression as a form of psycho-therapy. It simply doesn’t work. In the end you’re only going to hurt yourself (if not others) and turn yourself into a basketcase in the process. And you sure as heck aren’t going to convince anybody of anything — you need to have a grip on reality in order to influence others.”
Your response to me, summed up: “I am going to dismiss you as crazy because I have no reply to your arguments. I will not admit defeat, therefore, you must be crazy.”
“Sorry kid. Right now you’re showing classic signs of paranoia in addition to a whole slew of other markers that indicate a disintegrating personality.”
You are exhibiting classic signs of being a total asshole who now fancies himself a psychologist.
Paranoia? How am I exhibiting signs of paranoia? Where is my mistrust of you? Where are my beliefs in schemes against me in particular? I’ve been trying to engage you in a rational debate on the issue, and instead you try to sidestep it by bringing up irrelevant matters and finally accusing me of being insane. Maybe I put a little too much faith in you – I thought we were having an honest discussion!
“Even if you’re oblivious to it yourself, right about now everybody knows that for you same-sex marriage is proxy for personal issues that actually have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and for that only a professional can help you work things out.”
Well, that certainly allows you to wriggle out of your own bigotry without facing it. You are the one with submerged psychological problems – that is why you are opposed to same sex marriage.
Please, give me a real reason for your opposition to same-sex marriage. You have failed to do so, and from this point onward, I am only going to take you to task for this, so that you cannot bury the real issue under an avalanche of unrelated issues.
Apr 9, 2008 - 7:16 pm 40. P. Ami:Listen son, people have provided you with reasons for not applying the word marriage to the coupling of gays. When we present our reasons you dismiss them as being Christian in basis and so irrelevant. When we have told you that we are not Christians you dismiss that on the grounds that we only think as we do because we have been fed the belief to us by Christians. The fact is that we have our moral code and our code does not mesh well with yours. We think words have meanings. We believe that institutions have their purpose. We think that the extension of ancient and universal institutions beyond their purpose would demean the institution and unleash the chaos this institution was meant to hold back. The prevalence of divorce, also argued by the Left and made popular with similar rational as those you present have gone a long way towards confusing our culture and raising nihilistic, fatalistic and narcissistic youth.
I am presuming to speak for a number of people on this thread, so you all should correct me if I am wrong, but we think you are immature, inexperienced and are taking this conversation a little too personally. You need to read a bit about the meaning of the separation of church and state. It does not mean that folk cannot or should not get their moral code from religion. It means that the government cannot sponsor or be sponsored by churches or other religious communities. Elected officials, on the other hand, can be sponsored by any American who would like to contribute.
Catalonia may or may not be more intelligent them myself. What is definitely true is that they posted pretty much what I was thinking before I had time to do so myself. It is this precise sort of wasteful, melodramatic and inaccurate thrust at our character which makes a conversation with you tedious. To be frank, I would rather have the option of deferring to more intelligent, more talented and more energetic folk then myself. It seems that all three of us who are bothering to argue with you are of about similar quality in mind, give or take. You can use that opening at your discretion.
You are like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail and there is nothing to be gained from hacking off any other idea you have presented. Others have made your points before and it didn’t convince me then. You have obviously heard our points before and they seem like non-points to you. Let it be.
Apr 9, 2008 - 9:26 pm 41. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@P. Ami
“Listen son, people have provided you with reasons for not applying the word marriage to the coupling of gays. When we present our reasons you dismiss them as being Christian in basis and so irrelevant. When we have told you that we are not Christians you dismiss that on the grounds that we only think as we do because we have been fed the belief to us by Christians.”
You listen, old man/lady…I do not call them specifically Christian in basis and so irrelevant – I call them religious in basis and so irrelevant. The Separation of Church and State does not only apply to Christianity. No one is allowed to force their religious laws onto others.
“The fact is that we have our moral code and our code does not mesh well with yours. We think words have meanings. We believe that institutions have their purpose. We think that the extension of ancient and universal institutions beyond their purpose would demean the institution and unleash the chaos this institution was meant to hold back.”
You have a moral code that stems from your religion and has no place in government.
All this talk about “holding back chaos” is ridiculous. I have no idea what you mean by that – what societal chaos does marriage stop from happening? And how will that societal chaos somehow erupt if gay people of the same sex are allowed to marry each other?
I have heard people saying that gay marriage is a threat to our very civilization. It’s absurd.
“The prevalence of divorce, also argued by the Left and made popular with similar rational as those you present have gone a long way towards confusing our culture and raising nihilistic, fatalistic and narcissistic youth.”
It is not the Left’s fault if, when given the freedom to get divorced, people often choose to do so. You know what the divorce rate really shows? That marriage is a hit or miss institution that isn’t for everybody. Some people just can’t maintain a lifelong relationship.
You also should not pin the prevalence of “nihilistic, fatalistic, and narcississtic youth” (whatever you are referring to by that) on the Left. What, now the Left raised all the children?
But you know the standard answer to this argument about divorce, don’t you? If you want to reduce divorce rates, allow gay people to get married.
“I am presuming to speak for a number of people on this thread, so you all should correct me if I am wrong, but we think you are immature, inexperienced and are taking this conversation a little too personally.”
Why would you presume to speak for a number of people on this thread? I understand that Catalonia and Dave probably share the same opinion as you do, but is there some invisible mob beyond that nodding their heads in agreement when you call me immature? And why appeal to some sort of consensus at all? Does the fact that a bunch of people think I’m immature make me immature? Do we all just vote on it?
“In the realm of thought, majorities do not determine. Each mind is a kingdom, each brain is a sovereign.” –Robert Green Ingersoll
Am I immature because I started swearing when Catalonia told me I deserve to be condescended to? How was that not personal and rude? How is Catalonia insisting, beyond my protestations, that I am actually a woman not personal and rude? How is it not a personal attack to call me insane and confused, as both you and Catalonia have done?
“You need to read a bit about the meaning of the separation of church and state. It does not mean that folk cannot or should not get their moral code from religion. It means that the government cannot sponsor or be sponsored by churches or other religious communities. Elected officials, on the other hand, can be sponsored by any American who would like to contribute.”
Actually, it says “Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. When Congress decides that the definition of marriage that stems from a few religions in this country is legally binding, they are RESPECTING the establishment of religion.
I never said that it meant people “cannot or should not get their moral code from religion” (although I do ultimately believe that, as a personal matter, they shouldn’t). You have misinterpreted what I said. I said that their religion should not be a part of government, ESPECIALLY when the particular religious doctrine (”marriage is between a man and a woman”) has no rational justification outside of the religion. It does not stand on its own merits. It is a solely religious belief.
It also reduces the amount of liberty homosexuals have. You’re telling me I am “taking this too personally”. But when one group of people takes away the freedoms of another group for no good reason, that pisses me off. It is immoral and discriminatory to do such a thing. I don’t like seeing freedom reduced without a good reason.
“Catalonia may or may not be more intelligent them myself. What is definitely true is that they posted pretty much what I was thinking before I had time to do so myself. It is this precise sort of wasteful, melodramatic and inaccurate thrust at our character which makes a conversation with you tedious. To be frank, I would rather have the option of deferring to more intelligent, more talented and more energetic folk then myself. It seems that all three of us who are bothering to argue with you are of about similar quality in mind, give or take. You can use that opening at your discretion.”
I apologize for stating such a thing. I stepped out of line there. I was trying to provoke you to respond to my post that was directed at you, because the argument between you and I has taken a different course than the one between Catalonia and I. It was rude.
“You are like the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail and there is nothing to be gained from hacking off any other idea you have presented.”
I love that movie (it is actually titled “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”). But I am not like him. He is irrational. My points are logically sound. Your points against gay marriage all rest on a religious conviction (and I’m not saying it’s Christianity).
Neither you nor Catalonia have been able to “hack off” any of the ideas I have presented.
You can have your traditional view of marriage. That is fine. No one is trying to take that away from you – no one is attacking the free exercise of your religion, whatever it may be, we are just trying to correct a wrong. Your traditional view of marriage should not be forced onto everyone else by the law.
You do realize that the power to grant marriage liscenses comes from the state and not the churches, right? This is a critical point in my argument that marriage is a secular and not a religious institution. I’m not interested in forcing the churches, synagogues, and mosques to marry gay people when they are opposed to it – that would be an abridgement on their religion. I want the courts to allow gay people to get married legally, from a judge or a church that is not opposed to gay marriage.
I admit there is little ground for opposing the idea of a “civil union” that confers all the same rights and priveleges that a marriage confers. If the terminology is what you object to, then there’s no reason to have the argument. So, are you against civil unions that confer all the same rights and benefits as marriage?
“Others have made your points before and it didn’t convince me then. You have obviously heard our points before and they seem like non-points to you. Let it be.”
I can’t do that. I cannot give up trying to convince you. This is because your opinion is currently in the majority. Nothing will change if I can’t get you to change your opinion.
Apr 10, 2008 - 8:34 am 42. P. Ami:@ OCHF
I appreciate your recognition of the poor premise regarding my letting another speak for me. You introduced this issue of gay marriage to this threat and you will find in your initial post that you attacked Conservatives, called us thieves, and presented a poorly expressed and poorly thought out notion of our hijacking the institution of marriage from the Left. The spirit of your post is what called up the various arguments against your views and I think you should consider your role in initiating the form the dialog has taken. I would argue that many other of your ideas were expressed with similar shortness of thought and depth of understanding as the point you tried to make regarding my intelligence. You assumption that we are all sheep is just one more instance of irrational prejudice.
As Conservatives we are prone to maintaining tradition. We respect the wisdom of our elders. We realize that the institutions they created were based on lessons learned in their time. We find that many of those lessons still apply today and radical changes to said institutions should have an extremely important, even critical reason for changing them. We are talking cost-benefit.
It is our argument that gay marriage nullifies the meaning of marriage. Marriage is a universal tradition. Cannibal-primitives, Communist-Chinese, Hindu-Indians and ancient Egyptians all consider marriage to be a vow between the families of one man and one woman to consider each other responsible for certain aspects of the care of that couple and their children. That couple is also bound to care for each other, their children and for members of each other’s family. Each culture defines for itself what care is taken by whom and for who. Each culture defines for itself the degree of care given to various members of the family. These will reflect the values of each culture. But, every culture defines marriage as between man and woman, not just religious ones. Marriage is such a primary institution that it reaches to the core of cultural, civic and religious aspects of the human condition.
Divorce has been made very easy in the last 20 to 30 years. I remember when being divorcées was a stigma of sorts. Being the child of a divorced couple was a stigma as well. I argue there is good reason for this. A couple who has taken a vow such as marriage and then breaks this vow has shown itself to be irresponsible, selfish and lacking in principled commitment. The example of the parents will not be long in being emulated by the children. A divorced family is far less likely to provide personal care for the children. The father will often be busy working to pay of alimony. He will often have a new family he needs to care for. This new family will inevitably be more important to him as they are living in his home and seeing him everyday. Keeping peace in his home will come before the care taking of his children from a previous marriage. Take the position of the wife in the initial marriage. She will probably have to work. She will be leaving her children to her parents or siblings, maybe an aunt, all of whom, if they too are divorced, will have various other children and step-children to help care for, all of whom are living in various parts of the country, none of whom have an easy time coming together as a family should. So, what was once a family that took care of each other is now a splintered crystal that needs help in caring and raising the next generation. Lacking a clear and consistent source of support the children will be sent to daycare and then school. This is expensive for a single parent. Who should take on this task? The government, of course. This will then cost us more in taxes. The budget already spread too thin must be given to a government who, as we see in the public school system, never has enough money to properly care for, educate or protect children. We put 30-60 kids in a room with one or two adults. I wonder how it is that ignorant people (which is what a child is. You are born not even knowing how to suckle) outnumber what we suppose are the knowledgeable, to at best, 15-1 and they are supposed to come out of the experience as well developed and knowledgeable adults? The worst people to learn from are your peers. The best teachers are those who know allot, behave well, and are honorable. I don’t see that in our school system.
How does this apply to gay marriage? I will start by saying that gays can and should have the right to commit themselves to a life together. If this commitment is desired then the state should recognize this commitment with a civil union which confers the rights married couples have. The traditional right of inheritance (next of kin) should be maintained unless stipulated in a contract, in which the couple designate each other as the sole heirs and beneficiaries of each other’s estate. If the couple wishes to adopt, one more form they will have to fill out will be some sort of marriage license which establishes all the rights of care and inheritance on the partner and children upon the taking of custody for the child. If the parents give up their rights to the child then the child will continue to receive compensation from the couple and will have inalienable inheritance rights. This aught to keep vanity adoptions down to a minimum. The key point here is that the child requires parents who are both committed to the family and will commit fully to raising a decent human-being.
This is a much more complicated issue then the simple rights of an individual to do what they please at all and any time. Marriage is not an activity that two people decide to participate in. It is the assignment of family status upon a couple, by society, not for the happiness of the couple but so that society knows what to expect from the couple and what the couple is responsible for as regards the care of their family. Family is about reproduction. Gay sexual relationships are not. It is contra the purpose of marriage to confer that status to couples who cannot naturally create new members of the family. I think a fair compromise to individual freedom is civil union and special marriage status to homosexual couple who are adopting.
“I can’t do that. I cannot give up trying to convince you. This is because your opinion is currently in the majority. Nothing will change if I can’t get you to change your opinion.”
Somtimes the majority understands the point better then you do. It could very well be that you can’t change my mind because my ideas are more sound then yours. You are free to engage anyone in your conversation but at some point you might want to learn to concede to wisdom.
Before you jump down my throat on all this, read it, think it over, read it again, make sure you’ve put aside a fair portion of your prejudice, read it perhaps once more and then rip me a new one. Also, go back and read your posts. See if you can make a list of all the things which you wrote but meant something different then what was written. You did keep beating on the Christian bongo. How were we to know you meant any set of beliefs which you disagree with? Your posts are filled with poorly articulated ideas. How are we too know if its the idea or the articulation which you’ve poorly drafted?
Let me make one more point. Nazis were anti-Semitic. They hated Jews and I have no real problem with that. We should be free to hate whom we wish. Sometimes hate is justified. Calling an anti-Semite a Nazi is foolish as what differentiates a Nazi from a typical anti-Semite is what they were allowed to do with their hatred. Intelligence is better gleaned in the distinctions we can make rather then how well we recognize the similarities. I have actual reasons for being against gay marriage. That does not make me a bigot and frankly, your form of communication and ideas do not imply any innate or nurtured talent at naming phenomenon and judging the tones of anyone’s heart.
Apr 10, 2008 - 1:07 pm 43. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“You introduced this issue of gay marriage to this threat and you will find in your initial post that you attacked Conservatives, called us thieves, and presented a poorly expressed and poorly thought out notion of our hijacking the institution of marriage from the Left.”
What else do you call it when it is assumed that valuing family is a conservative principle, as in this article? The fact that he is a family man is supposedly the “conservative core” of the film. I view “the institution of family” as politically neutral. Most people have one, and conservatives and liberals are equally capable of living a family-oriented life. What I meant by “stealing” the family institution was that, in the cultural mainstream, it is now assumed that “family” is a political value. The fact that Daniel Day Lewis in this film is a family man somehow makes him “conservative”. I disagreed with that.
I was sloppy with my words in the initial post – when I said “stealing it from liberals” I did not mean that liberals were the sole possessors of family, but that liberals have been defined as being “anti-family values”. That is what I meant.
“The spirit of your post is what called up the various arguments against your views and I think you should consider your role in initiating the form the dialog has taken. I would argue that many other of your ideas were expressed with similar shortness of thought and depth of understanding as the point you tried to make regarding my intelligence. You assumption that we are all sheep is just one more instance of irrational prejudice.”
These points only address the harsh and abrasive tone of my argument. My hositility to conservatives does not occur in a vacuum – it occurs against a backdrop of one of the worst conservative presidencies this nation has ever seen. As Catalonia said, politics is rough.
“As Conservatives we are prone to maintaining tradition. We respect the wisdom of our elders. We realize that the institutions they created were based on lessons learned in their time. We find that many of those lessons still apply today and radical changes to said institutions should have an extremely important, even critical reason for changing them. We are talking cost-benefit.”
I disagree. For one, tradition itself is not a reason to maintain a practice. Slavery was once tradition. Traditions must be evaluated on their own merits. This is a problem I have with conservatism in general – there is no merit that stems from tradition.
As far as cost-benefit, please provide me with some explanation of what it would cost to change the institution.
“It is our argument that gay marriage nullifies the meaning of marriage. Marriage is a universal tradition. Cannibal-primitives, Communist-Chinese, Hindu-Indians and ancient Egyptians all consider marriage to be a vow between the families of one man and one woman to consider each other responsible for certain aspects of the care of that couple and their children.”
Marriage is not in all of those cultures between one man and one woman and hasn’t always been so. It is not universal. There are plenty of polygamous tribes all over the world, not to mention Islamic polygamy. To claim marriage as a universal value is inaccurate. It already has a plastic definition. To allow for gay people of the same sex to get married is one small change to the definition of marriage that will ultimately have little to no impact on the lives of everyone else. The only impact it will have is positive – on the lives of gay people.
“That couple is also bound to care for each other, their children and for members of each other’s family. Each culture defines for itself what care is taken by whom and for who. Each culture defines for itself the degree of care given to various members of the family. These will reflect the values of each culture. But, every culture defines marriage as between man and woman, not just religious ones. Marriage is such a primary institution that it reaches to the core of cultural, civic and religious aspects of the human condition.”
Marriage does not entail those things for everyone. That is obvious. Plenty of married people choose never to have children. Plenty of cultures utilize communal rearing of children.
Also, when you say “each culture defines marriage as between a man and a woman”, you are incorrect. Plenty of European countries have allowed same-sex marriage without collapsing. Canada has, for instance.
“Divorce has been made very easy in the last 20 to 30 years. I remember when being divorcées was a stigma of sorts. Being the child of a divorced couple was a stigma as well. I argue there is good reason for this. A couple who has taken a vow such as marriage and then breaks this vow has shown itself to be irresponsible, selfish and lacking in principled commitment.”
I fully disagree with this attitude. A good reason for a couple to be stigmatized? A good reason for a child of that couple to be stigmatized? No. That’s absurd. People are more free to govern their lives how they like – why do you object to that?
If marriage needs that kind of stimatization to prop it up, maybe it isn’t such a great institution in the first place. The way I see it, though, divorce being stigmatized simply meant that there were a lot more unhappy married couples, men having affairs, women being able to leave abusive husbands. You know, it used to be that only men could divorce women. I welcome the fact that partners in a marriage have the power to leave that marriage without being ashamed of themselves.
“The example of the parents will not be long in being emulated by the children.”
Because the children will also have the freedom to leave a marriage once the love that the marriage is built on has died.
“A divorced family is far less likely to provide personal care for the children. The father will often be busy working to pay of alimony. He will often have a new family he needs to care for. This new family will inevitably be more important to him as they are living in his home and seeing him everyday. Keeping peace in his home will come before the care taking of his children from a previous marriage. Take the position of the wife in the initial marriage. She will probably have to work. She will be leaving her children to her parents or siblings, maybe an aunt, all of whom, if they too are divorced, will have various other children and step-children to help care for, all of whom are living in various parts of the country, none of whom have an easy time coming together as a family should. So, what was once a family that took care of each other is now a splintered crystal that needs help in caring and raising the next generation. Lacking a clear and consistent source of support the children will be sent to daycare and then school. This is expensive for a single parent.”
I get it, divorce is an unpleasant thing. But I argue that people should have the freedom to govern their own lives. It is almost as rough to live in a divorced family as it is to live with a mother and father who hate each other. Consider that.
“Who should take on this task? The government, of course. This will then cost us more in taxes.”
The other option is to just lead them high and dry – certainly that is a worse consequence than “high taxes”. My position is that, since so few people at the top in our society have so much of the wealth (the top 10% of society has 90% of the wealth), they ought to pay most or all of the taxes. They will still be left with so much more than they need, and so much more than everyone else. But that’s a different issue. I’m just pointing that out to show you my solution to that problem.
Another answer to the “taxes are too high” problem are that we need to not go wasting trillions of dollars in places like Iraq. Again, that’s a different issue, but it would make no sense to complain that taxes are too high, and then support a war that is like flushing our money down the toilet.
I’m not even going to talk about the distracting school issue (really, the school issue has no relevance whatsoever to gay marriage), except to say that infants do know how to suckle. It is called the rooting reflex.
“How does this apply to gay marriage? I will start by saying that gays can and should have the right to commit themselves to a life together. If this commitment is desired then the state should recognize this commitment with a civil union which confers the rights married couples have. The traditional right of inheritance (next of kin) should be maintained unless stipulated in a contract, in which the couple designate each other as the sole heirs and beneficiaries of each other’s estate. If the couple wishes to adopt, one more form they will have to fill out will be some sort of marriage license which establishes all the rights of care and inheritance on the partner and children upon the taking of custody for the child. If the parents give up their rights to the child then the child will continue to receive compensation from the couple and will have inalienable inheritance rights. This aught to keep vanity adoptions down to a minimum. The key point here is that the child requires parents who are both committed to the family and will commit fully to raising a decent human-being.”
Then we are in relative agreement. As long as gays get all the rights and freedoms that straight people have in unions, I’m fine with it. I want to clarify, though, that adoption standards for gay people should be no more stringent than those for straight people. I don’t think you were saying that. The adoption process should always be closely monitored.
“Family is about reproduction. Gay sexual relationships are not.”
Your first claim cannot be supported. A married couple that does not plan to have children is still a family.
Your second claim makes perfect sense, of course, gay people cannot reproduce by having sex. However, they can have children by using a sperm donor in the case of lesbians or using a surrogate mother in the case of gay men.
“It is contra the purpose of marriage to confer that status to couples who cannot naturally create new members of the family. I think a fair compromise to individual freedom is civil union and special marriage status to homosexual couple who are adopting.”
Ah, so you are saying they should only call it marriage once the gay couple adopts? I find that confusing. To me, it honestly doesn’t matter if it is called “marriage” or a “civil union” as long as they have the same rights. I think civil unions ought to confer the right to adopt, just as marriage does for straight people, provided they pass adoption screening programs.
“Somtimes the majority understands the point better then you do. It could very well be that you can’t change my mind because my ideas are more sound then yours. You are free to engage anyone in your conversation but at some point you might want to learn to concede to wisdom.”
I don’t think that’s the case at all. The fact that the majority holds a view does not prove it wise, nor does it prove them right. What they understand better than I do is that they have an objection to calling it “marriage.” To me, that makes no difference. Call it a civil union if you are uncomfortable calling it a marriage, but give the gay people all the same rights.
I trust in my own mind and not traditions. Just because something is old does not mean it’s good.
“You did keep beating on the Christian bongo.”
I did, and gradually I dropped that when I realized I was not talking to two Christians. However, in America, the group most strongly opposed to gay marriage is the Religious Right – for the most part, the Christian Right. I made the assumption that my opponents were Christian – unfairly, I admit.
“How were we to know you meant any set of beliefs which you disagree with? Your posts are filled with poorly articulated ideas. How are we too know if its the idea or the articulation which you’ve poorly drafted?”
Please, give me some examples. As of now, you are the one pointing something out to me that I was unaware of. If I look over my own writings, I’m not going to see where you misunderstood me and why.
“Nazis were anti-Semitic. They hated Jews and I have no real problem with that. We should be free to hate whom we wish. Sometimes hate is justified. Calling an anti-Semite a Nazi is foolish as what differentiates a Nazi from a typical anti-Semite is what they were allowed to do with their hatred.”
So, what you are saying is that it was okay for anti-Semites to hate Jews, just so long as they never acted out that hatred? I see what you mean, kind of.
While I agree that people have the right to hate whoever they want, I still have a problem with the fact that the Nazis hated the Jews, the fact that some religious and non-religious folks alike hate gays, etc. In these cases, hate is not justified. The hate is a character failing, and while they are free to hate whoever they want, that doesn’t make it morally right to hate that person/group of people.
There are people who hate gays – and they don’t act on it. There are people who hate gays and want to deny them both civil unions and marriage. There are people who hate gays and attack them physically. And there are people that don’t hate gays, and yet they support the political power of people that do.
You don’t hate gays, but you are a conservative. Fine. You also oppose gay marriage. Fine. But are you voting for Republican candidates? Because almost all of the Republican party wants to ban both gay marriage and gay civil unions. If you vote for them, you are supporting bigoted actions.
Such a case is like voting for a racist candidate (just as an example, not to be inflammatory), and then saying you’ll vote against all the racist legislation they propose. Some of that legislation is going to pass anyway, and if you helped the person who proposed it get power, then in a way, you are indirectly responsible for the passing of the legislation, even if you opposed it and voted against it. In this case, there is a high risk a large enough majority in the country supports a ban on both gay marriage and civil unions. So voting for a candidate who would support those things is just like voting for it yourself – the practical consequences will be the same.
Anyway, I think we are mostly in agreement on the subject of gay marriage/civil unions. I have no problem with civil unions that confer all the rights of marriage being available for same-sex couples.
Apr 10, 2008 - 4:51 pm 44. P. Ami:There are bigger issues to me then gay marriage. The will to win our war on terror is more important to me then gay marriage. Keeping the government from taking over our health care is more important to me then gay marriage. Securing our borders, controlling who enters our country and making sure that visitors return when their visa runs out is more important to me then gay marriage. Pork barrel spending is more important to me then gay marriage. The list of things more important to me then gay marriage is quite long. While Republicans are not perfect they are closer to my views then most Democrats’ and certainly closer to my view then either of current Democratic candidates for President. Ditto Gore vs Bush or Kerry vs Bush.
A marriage is of one man to one woman. Some cultures allow one married man to join with a second or third woman and beyond. Some cultures allow one married woman to marry a second man and beyond. Each individual marriage is between two individuals. There is no culture that allows men to marry men or women to marry women. The situations in Europe and Canada are very recent and we have yet to see the sustainability of these changes and their full effect on the society. Let them experiment with these changes and wait a few generations before we start thinking to change our own institution. I think the current European model of most everything is a poor one and your bringing up their acceptance of same-sex marriage lowers the appeal of this change for me.
You tickle a newborns cheek and it will root whether a nipple is in the vicinity or not. Rooting is a response to stimulation on the cheek. We quickly learn to associate this rooting with a nipple and then the nipple with milk. That is called learning to nurse.
“I disagree. For one, tradition itself is not a reason to maintain a practice. Slavery was once tradition. Traditions must be evaluated on their own merits. This is a problem I have with conservatism in general – there is no merit that stems from tradition.”
That is pure cant. The strength of a culture gives merit to their traditions. When a culture weakens you might want to look at what traditions may have been scuffed off between the pinnacle and the current condition. It seems to me that we no longer teach our history and culture in a positive light, that we accept such things as family to be fluid things subject more the whims of the married couple rather then to the commitment of the vows, and that we have created a cultural environment in which children are rarely cared for by those who should care and know them best. These are major factor influencing us to decline. We avoid teaching critical thought (hense your straight faced comparison of the institute of marriage to slavery). We avoid learning the sciences. We waste time teaching children that people are killing Mother Earth. What I see is that the more we accept the Leftist principles (distinct from liberal) the less strong our nation becomes, the lower the quality of our children’s education, and the less meaningful our contributions to mankind.
I never said that anti-semitism was morally right. I just said that I don’t care if you hate Jews so long as you don’t use that as an excuse to physically harm or steal their property. The government should not consider ones religion, race or creed when judging a case in court, offering work to the public or accepting the candidacy of a public servant. I think private companies should have that right.
I might have more to say but I have to bring food to my family and spend some time with them. I might have time later to flesh these thoughts out more.
Apr 10, 2008 - 6:44 pm 45. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“There are bigger issues to me then gay marriage. The will to win our war on terror is more important to me then gay marriage. Keeping the government from taking over our health care is more important to me then gay marriage. Securing our borders, controlling who enters our country and making sure that visitors return when their visa runs out is more important to me then gay marriage. Pork barrel spending is more important to me then gay marriage. The list of things more important to me then gay marriage is quite long.”
None of those issues are incompatible with gay marriage/gay civil unions. Admittedly, I’m more concerned about the Iraq war and the health care system, too, although I suspect we have differing opinions there.
“While Republicans are not perfect they are closer to my views then most Democrats’ and certainly closer to my view then either of current Democratic candidates for President. Ditto Gore vs Bush or Kerry vs Bush.”
So you support a bigot, then. Bush is a bigot, and a big part of his 2004 campaign especially was based on that. Plus, he is absolutely incompetent in everything he has attempted. He’s awful.
“A marriage is of one man to one woman. Some cultures allow one married man to join with a second or third woman and beyond. Some cultures allow one married woman to marry a second man and beyond. Each individual marriage is between two individuals.”
Um, you just contradicted yourself. A marriage is between one man and one woman or women in many cultures. Other cultures allow men to marry.
“There is no culture that allows men to marry men or women to marry women. The situations in Europe and Canada are very recent and we have yet to see the sustainability of these changes and their full effect on the society.”
What do you honestly think is going to happen? Why do you have this idea that there is going to be some big disaster?
“Let them experiment with these changes and wait a few generations before we start thinking to change our own institution. I think the current European model of most everything is a poor one and your bringing up their acceptance of same-sex marriage lowers the appeal of this change for me.”
We disagree here. I think Europe is a lot more free than our nation, and they do a lot of things better than us. And before you jump on me with “America, love it or leave it” – if I could afford to move there, I would.
“You tickle a newborns cheek and it will root whether a nipple is in the vicinity or not. Rooting is a response to stimulation on the cheek. We quickly learn to associate this rooting with a nipple and then the nipple with milk. That is called learning to nurse.”
But my point is, if you put a nipple there, it will begin to suck that nipple. It doesn’t exactly “know” what it is doing, true. It’s an instinct. But it knows the motions it should do with a nipple from birth.
“That is pure cant.”
Pure cant? What? Is it beggars talk, hypocritcal piety, or platitudes? I firmly believe traditions are nothing to base morality on.
“The strength of a culture gives merit to their traditions.”
What kind of strength? What are you talking about? Strength as in economic power, military power? I honestly don’t see how any of that means that not allowing gay marriage is a good thing.
“When a culture weakens you might want to look at what traditions may have been scuffed off between the pinnacle and the current condition.”
Traditions may weaken when a culture is on its way out, but that doesn’t mean the setting aside of traditions made the culture weak. I think it has a lot more to do with economic and military forces.
“It seems to me that we no longer teach our history and culture in a positive light, that we accept such things as family to be fluid things subject more the whims of the married couple rather then to the commitment of the vows, and that we have created a cultural environment in which children are rarely cared for by those who should care and know them best.”
I think we should strive for neutrality. The fact that we don’t teach your particular political view of family in a classroom simply means we aren’t indoctrinating kids into your worldview.
“We avoid teaching critical thought (hense your straight faced comparison of the institute of marriage to slavery).”
Once again, you have shown a remarkable ability to misrepresent and misunderstand me. The only thing I was comparing was the fact that you see “tradition” as a justification for an institution. So, I provided you with a counter-example, as is commonly done in philosophy, of slavery. Slavery was also an institution that was justified by people by the fact that it was “tradition”. That was as far as the comparison went. “Tradition” does not make something right or moral – it must be evaluated on its own merits.
For you to say I’m not familiar with critical thought is ridiculous. You’re the one who comes to their moral convictions by having them handed down through tradition – as if that is good enough. You are the uncritical one.
“We avoid learning the sciences. We waste time teaching children that people are killing Mother Earth.”
In all my years of schooling, no teacher ever told me “we are killing Mother Earth”
You mean we don’t teach your conservative agenda in spite of environmental science. We are really screwing up this planet. I’m going to guess you also believe global warming is just a fad. Well, I don’t want to get to that debate right now, either. That is even more off the point of gay marriage.
“What I see is that the more we accept the Leftist principles (distinct from liberal) the less strong our nation becomes, the lower the quality of our children’s education, and the less meaningful our contributions to mankind.”
One of the key Leftist principles is equal rights for all citizens. That does not make us weaker.
“I just said that I don’t care if you hate Jews so long as you don’t use that as an excuse to physically harm or steal their property.”
Really? You have no reaction whatsoever? Anti-Semitic propaganda doesn’t bother you, doesn’t make you uncomfortable?
“The government should not consider ones religion, race or creed when judging a case in court, offering work to the public or accepting the candidacy of a public servant.”
The government shouldn’t, I agree. The people can do that.
“I think private companies should have that right.”
Which right? I think private companies ought to be obligated NOT to consider those things. Are you arguing you think private companies ought to be able to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, etc.?
Apr 10, 2008 - 8:18 pm 46. P. Ami:“None of those issues are incompatible with gay marriage/gay civil unions. Admittedly, I’m more concerned about the Iraq war and the health care system, too, although I suspect we have differing opinions there.”
—No, but lets suppose McCain was for gay marriage or gay civil unions while Obama and Clinton were against them, I would vote McCain because I consider his position in other, more important, issues to be more sound then theirs. Not perfect but good enough considering the options.
“So you support a bigot, then. Bush is a bigot, and a big part of his 2004 campaign especially was based on that. Plus, he is absolutely incompetent in everything he has attempted. He’s awful.”
— He was still the better choice in 2000 and in 2004. Like I said, I don’t find the gay issues to be important. Gays are not being “repressed” enough for it to seem inhumane. I just don’t care as much about gay rights as I do about the institution of marriage, as I see it.
“Um, you just contradicted yourself. A marriage is between one man and one woman or women in many cultures. Other cultures allow men to marry.”
No, I didn’t contradict myself. If a man is married to 6 women, how many marriage ceremonies did he go through? He went through 6 ceremonies and in each one he married one she. The point is he, in >99.999999999999999999% of all marriages in the history of mankind, married a she. That is pretty definitive in helping us come to understand what it means to get married. The fact that this tradition was put in place with a purpose, to keep society stable, is not obvious to you. Oh well. It is to me and most other Americans.
“We disagree here. I think Europe is a lot more free than our nation, and they do a lot of things better than us. And before you jump on me with “America, love it or leave it” – if I could afford to move there, I would.”
You show your colors here. Not only do you not love your country enough to want to live in it, if you had the choice, you simply have no clue about what Europe is about. You know that in Europe, if you defend your family in your home and you injure the robber, you can be jailed and will be fined and made responsible for their injuries (freedom of self defense)? Do you know that in Europe, if you are critical of a minority group, even if the facts and figures, obtained from disinterested sources, all point to your conclusion, and you have the gall to publish your ideas you will be brought up on charges of racism (freedom of the press)? Do you know that if you research events, gather material, and study facts that lead you to strongly believe that reports in the news are manufactured and distorting the narrative of certain events, you can be (and people have been) put on trial for defaming the character of the reporter(I’m blanking on the legal term for this but again, freedom of the press)? Did you know that, in Europe, if you had written about Muslims what it is you wrote about Christians on this post you could be brought up on charges of religious defamation (again, freedom of self expression)? Did you know that the Healthcare system in England is falling apart? Did you know that the Tax rates in Sweden, coupled with all the care-taking provided by the state has led to Swedes not having enough children to replenish the job market who could then be taxed at over 50% in order to pay for the pensions, healthcare and various other benefits owed to what would have been their parents? Did you know that this phenomenon, which we experience to a relatively minor degree in Social Security, is becoming more and more prevalent in the Welfare States of Europe? Do you know how expensive it is to live in Europe. I know you can’t afford to go right now. I’ve spent a decent amount of time in England, some time in Germany, have been to France and Spain, Holland and Switzerland, and know people from other parts of that continent and Europeans, those paid in Euros and Pound Sterling, are paying quite a bit for their daily living on top of the high taxes. Europe is a beautiful continent. The architecture is amazing. I know you find tradition to be a bit overblown but that is certainly one place with quite an interesting tradition. Its just too bad the Europeans are doing so little to preserve it.
Yes, I think that if I don’t want to hire a Jew because he is a Jew then I should be allowed not to hire them. I also think that my customers then have the right to stop patronizing my store because I refuse to hire Jews. I could then decide to hire Jews because of the marketplace or I could go out of business. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are codes for government conduct, not the conduct of citizens. The government is not allowed to discriminate according to race color or creed. I am allowed my prejudices. The government is responsible for keeping the streets safe, the country secure and the marketplace transparent. Once you get the government involved in anything else you are asking for trouble. One doesn’t see the trouble for a number of years or generations even but it’ll come.
Apr 10, 2008 - 11:13 pm 47. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“No, but lets suppose McCain was for gay marriage or gay civil unions while Obama and Clinton were against them, I would vote McCain because I consider his position in other, more important, issues to be more sound then theirs. Not perfect but good enough considering the options.”
I understand that. You have overriding concerns.
I don’t know what McCain’s position on civil unions is…but I imagine he is against them. Let me do some research…confirmed. He is against civil unions for gays, but he wants to leave it up to the states to decide, which is better than supporting a federal ban.
To me, though, leaving things up to the states, especially on this issue, is incoherent. Does that mean that when a couple who is married or has a civil union in Massachussets will be unmarried in Texas? I should think the state of Texas would have to recognize their marriage. I just think a more coherent solution is to either ban it or enforce it across the country. It’s an issue of people’s rights, and I don’t think that should be left up to the states to decide (nor do I think it should be up to the legislature – it is a matter for the Supreme Court). On the other hand, I don’t want to push it to the Supreme Court at this time, because this Supreme Court has a majority of conservative justices.
“He was still the better choice in 2000 and in 2004.”
I totally disagree, and I think it is absurd to even say it now. You honestly don’t know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry had been president, but I would bet my life it is better than what Bush has done. My very life.
“Like I said, I don’t find the gay issues to be important. Gays are not being “repressed” enough for it to seem inhumane.”
Oh really? There’s a certain level of repression that has to be occuring before you care about it? If someone denied you the right to marriage and civil unions, you would be clamoring for your rights, too. You would feel differently about it.
So, were blacks being repressed enough for it to seem inhumane when they could not marry whites? Does that pass your standard of repression, or would you have not cared about that, as well? How much repression does there have to be, exactly, for it to seem inhumane to you.
For me, any injustice is too much injustice.
“I just don’t care as much about gay rights as I do about the institution of marriage, as I see it.”
However, we have agreed that civil unions do not threaten that institution, right? You support them at least in principle (if not in practice), right?
“No, I didn’t contradict myself. If a man is married to 6 women, how many marriage ceremonies did he go through? He went through 6 ceremonies and in each one he married one she.”
I’m not sure that’s necessarily true. He could have married multiple women in one ceremony.
“The point is he, in >99.999999999999999999% of all marriages in the history of mankind, married a she. That is pretty definitive in helping us come to understand what it means to get married.”
It helps us understand what it has historically meant to get married. Chaos is not going to ensue if we tweak that definition a little bit.
But again, why are we arguing about “marriage” at all? We’ve agreed that civil unions and marriages are two different things, and that civil unions are acceptable.
“The fact that this tradition was put in place with a purpose, to keep society stable, is not obvious to you. Oh well. It is to me and most other Americans.”
Please explain exactly how society is going to collapse if gay people are allowed to get married. Just come up with some practical reasoning behind it. What I see here is a lot of voodoo reasoning, like “this rock keeps away tigers – you don’t see any tigers, do you?” Just like the rock is not really keeping away tigers, not allowing gay people to get married is not upholding order in society. I can understand how marriage makes society more stable – but gay marriage will not negatively impact that stability.
“You show your colors here. Not only do you not love your country enough to want to live in it, if you had the choice, you simply have no clue about what Europe is about.”
I admit I have no sense of patriotism. I’ve learned the lessons of the 20th century. Patriotism, when left unchecked, is a destructive force. I don’t see any point in all this symbolism, all this saluting of the flag, and being proud of the place I was born in. Like many people throughout history, I’m more of an “international citizen”. I don’t have a strong connection to my country, and to do so strikes me as a type of tribalism.
“You know that in Europe, if you defend your family in your home and you injure the robber, you can be jailed and will be fined and made responsible for their injuries (freedom of self defense)?”
Well, I disagree with that policy. It should be changed, but at least Europe has less crime.
“Do you know that in Europe, if you are critical of a minority group, even if the facts and figures, obtained from disinterested sources, all point to your conclusion, and you have the gall to publish your ideas you will be brought up on charges of racism (freedom of the press)?”
That should be changed, too, but at least all their media isn’t owned by 5 corporations that have about the same opinion on every issue.
“Do you know that if you research events, gather material, and study facts that lead you to strongly believe that reports in the news are manufactured and distorting the narrative of certain events, you can be (and people have been) put on trial for defaming the character of the reporter(I’m blanking on the legal term for this but again, freedom of the press)?”
That’s called libel, right? We have the same problem here – the company that doesn’t like your story can sue you for libel, and they can outspend you.
Europe’s press is far more free than ours.
“Did you know that, in Europe, if you had written about Muslims what it is you wrote about Christians on this post you could be brought up on charges of religious defamation (again, freedom of self expression)?”
Yes, Europe has a problem with too much political correctness. That’s a problem they have to fix.
“Did you know that the Healthcare system in England is falling apart?”
Never said I wanted to move to England.
Europe has problems to fix. I never said it was perfect. I said that, on the whole of it, the average European is wealthier, has more access to health care, etc., than the average American. We have worse problems, and we are less free.
“Yes, I think that if I don’t want to hire a Jew because he is a Jew then I should be allowed not to hire them. I also think that my customers then have the right to stop patronizing my store because I refuse to hire Jews. I could then decide to hire Jews because of the marketplace or I could go out of business.”
I disagree, and I honestly don’t see why anyone would stand up for such a bankrupt principle. All it means is that anti-Semites will find a niche market and be supported and kept in business by other anti-Semites – or travelers who don’t know the history of the business. When someone is discriminated against in hiring practices, it is done with subtlety. The employer would never say “we don’t want to hire you because you are a Jew”, they would come up with some other reason. That’s why we need those laws – so we can bust their asses when we catch them discriminating. Otherwise it is just underground and no one knows about it.
This idea that the market will work out all our problems is a fantasy. The whole reason we had to pass such a law was because the market WASN’T working out that problem.
“I am allowed my prejudices.”
You can have them. Don’t express them in hiring practices.
“The government is responsible for keeping the streets safe, the country secure and the marketplace transparent. Once you get the government involved in anything else you are asking for trouble.”
I notice that civil rights are conspicuously absent from that list of things the government is responsible for doing. You know, we once had a right to privacy in this country. Now, the government can monitor millions of phone calls without just cause and no one can stop them. If they believe you have ties to terrorism, they can ship you off to Syria for torture. The executive branch and the military are more out of control than any other part of our government.
Also, nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about making sure that trade is “free trade”. Why do so many people have this unshakable faith in free trade? It’s a race to the bottom. Our manufacturing workers can’t compete with kids in Asia who are getting $3.00 a week (that may be high).
Apr 11, 2008 - 8:03 am 48. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:Also, again, on the idea of letting companies discriminate…very few companies would discriminate against white people. It would just be another way of further entrenching white privileges, covertly, into our society. I’m white, and pretty much anywhere I go to look for work or to buy goods, I would never have to worry that someone was discriminating against me. But black people, Mexicans, Asians, Arabs, and Jews would be faced with that discrimination. That principle is really just a way to roll back the racial progress we have made in society without it looking like that is what you are doing.
Apr 11, 2008 - 8:11 am 49. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:Finally, on that issue (and I wish I had thought of all this when I was making my response), the practice of punishing businesses that discriminate has a chilling effect on it. It is very likely that there are businesses and business owners who would discriminate if they knew they wouldn’t be punished, who won’t do it now. Regardless, even if you stop the government from monitoring and punishing discrimination in the private sector, it will remain a secretive practice because the public is largely against it in mindset.
Apr 11, 2008 - 8:23 am 50. Money Faced Liberal:I know what you are thinking. How could someone write a serious political analysis of the family dynamics in an Oscar winning movie and get one of the key plot points — the fact that Plainview’s son is not his natural son, but the son of one of his dead coworkers — completely wrong.
One might call it idiotic. Stupid. Humiliating. Embarrassing. Even that it is clear evidence of the right’s tendency to “make-up” facts that prove their point, rather than carefully look at the facts and then try to understand what they really mean.
However, before you condemn Mr. Smith as a worthless hack, a lazy thinker, and a poor excuse for a writer, I would like to remind you that he is stepping out of his natural habitat here. We should cut him a little slack.
He is a political writer. While we might expect a film reviewer at one of the nation’s top 20 newspapers to understand the basic plot of one of the year’s most acclaimed movies before he goes off and writes a long treatise on its political implications, we should not hold a mere political blogger to such standards.
It is not like he watches and writes about movies for a living people! Give him a break!
What? Check this website out? http://kylesmithonline.com/
Oh.
Oops. My bad.
Nevermind.
Peace,
Monkey Faced liberal.
Apr 11, 2008 - 10:38 am 51. P. Ami:“Oh really? There’s a certain level of repression that has to be occuring before you care about it?”
— Yes, I care about the oppression if it takes people’s right to empower themselves. If they can’t express their grievances, if they can’t amass support, if they cannot defend themselves, if they cannot vote, then I think they are being oppressed. They might be capable to do all those things and still fail in their attempts and fail to convince enough people to vote for whatever it is they are striving for but they should be free to try.
Marriage between whites and blacks was not illegal. Society broke laws to enforce what the government could not make into law and the government failed to prosecute the criminals who took “justice” into their own hands. So, people were murdered in response to black-white couplings and no one enforced the law against murder. Its quite a different situation then the current one regarding gay marriage.
“I totally disagree, and I think it is absurd to even say it now. You honestly don’t know what would have happened if Gore or Kerry had been president, but I would bet my life it is better than what Bush has done. My very life.”
— Thats why I vote for me and you vote for you.
“I’m not sure that’s necessarily true. He could have married multiple women in one ceremony.”
— Now you are being argumentative for no good reason. You get my point.
“That should be changed, too, but at least all their media isn’t owned by 5 corporations that have about the same opinion on every issue.”
— Except most of the TV news in Europe is owned by the various governments and the newspapers owned by the parties in government. But that has little to suggest their freedom. The fact that the governments of Europe will fine you for expressing certain opinions is an infringement of the freedom of the press.
— So you admit that FOX is not very different from CNN or MSNBC? Freedom of the press means that anyone who can get a hold of a means to expression can use it at their own discretion. We have that in this country to a far higher degree then Europe. Just because most people choose to get their news from only a couple of sources, and that is changing to a very large degree, does not mean the government limiting our freedom of the press. This conversation is one example. We are publishing our opinions and it is open to anyone to read, if they choose.
“That’s called libel, right? We have the same problem here – the company that doesn’t like your story can sue you for libel, and they can outspend you.”
— Not true. In the US, a pretrial hearing usually leads to the dismissal of the case. It is only if there is some possibility that one is making up information to libel the plaintiff then it might go to trial. Otherwise you are free to criticize anyone. It just has to be backed by facts. That is not true of Europe.
“Never said I wanted to move to England.”
— I used England as an example because I lived it. The failure of national health care is nearly universal. Austria is the only country that I have heard of whose system is not headed to bankruptcy.
“We have worse problems, and we are less free.”
— I have been to Europe many times. I speak to many Europeans. I read allot of things coming out of Europe. My opinion is that the above quoted sentence is incorrect.
“I disagree, and I honestly don’t see why anyone would stand up for such a bankrupt principle.”
— I thought you were into freedom. What about the freedom of a business owner to hire and fire whom he chooses? What about the business owners right to buy and sell from and to whom he chooses? seems to me you only like the “feedom” talking points the Left has fed you. Its okay to repress the freedom of business people, those who make this country the opportunity filled place that it has been, while gays, whose gayness produces nothing and gives nothing to society, need freedom.
— When a boss or manager uses their position to make an employee do something, say have sex with them or others, which they do not wish to do, that is a justifiably criminal situation. But, if the boss doesn’t want to hire the woman because he does not want to deal with the temptation, I think that is fair. If the boss does not want blacks in his workplace because he hates them then why should he have deal with a black, day in and day out. I don’t think there is a problem when a businessman decides to fill a niche.
“I notice that civil rights are conspicuously absent from that list of things the government is responsible for doing. You know, we once had a right to privacy in this country. Now, the government can monitor millions of phone calls without just cause and no one can stop them. If they believe you have ties to terrorism, they can ship you off to Syria for torture. The executive branch and the military are more out of control than any other part of our government.”
— Must have been a Freudian slip of the inner recesses of my fascistic mind. Yes, keeping itself from infringing on our civil rights is another role of government.
— You seem not to understand the wire-tapping issue. First off, the Government is allowed to tap into calls made by a Syrian, in Syria, to a Iraqi in Afghanistan if the call is being carried over lines owned by American telecommunications companies. They cannot whisk an American away, while at home, and take him or her to Cuba or where ever and then hold them there indefinitely. A German in Yemen is not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I think we need more civilian oversight over what is happening under the wire-tapping system but its not so far from the right mix of oversight to protection. BTW, none of the evidence gleaned by wire-tapping can be used in an American court of law. You are safe.
— Look, you are not a patriot. You don’t care about your tribe, as you say. Family doesn’t mean much to you. What you care about is yourself and being free to do anything you feel like. You project this desire into your politics whose basic premise is, “insist on your right to crap the bed”. I have given you reasons and example enough of my views and they do not suite you. Fine. Its not a problem. Hopefully, for you, you’ll find a skill which earns you enough money to go somewhere where you’ll have all the freedoms you need. Maybe we’ll even elect one of the leftist-fascists the Democrats want to throw at us this election cycle and then the country will get all fixed up and set to be the environment you like.
Apr 11, 2008 - 2:43 pm 52. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“Yes, I care about the oppression if it takes people’s right to empower themselves. If they can’t express their grievances, if they can’t amass support, if they cannot defend themselves, if they cannot vote, then I think they are being oppressed. They might be capable to do all those things and still fail in their attempts and fail to convince enough people to vote for whatever it is they are striving for but they should be free to try.”
I don’t understand that at all. Homosexuals, of course, can do all of the things you listed with regards to gay marriage. They are still being treated unequally based on religious tradition, and that is an injustice.
“Marriage between whites and blacks was not illegal.”
That is incorrect. Many states had made laws against interracial marriage, therefore it was illegal. Most of the South had similar laws up until a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1967 made all of those laws invalid.
Here’s the wikipedia article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
“So, people were murdered in response to black-white couplings and no one enforced the law against murder. Its quite a different situation then the current one regarding gay marriage.”
That particular aspect youy focused on, of vigilante violence not being punished, is different from the gay marriage issue. The other issue, of both types of marriage at one point being against the law, is exactly the same.
“Now you are being argumentative for no good reason. You get my point.”
No, I’m not being argumentative for no reason (although that sounds like a line straight out of the argument room in Monty Python). But your point was that historically, in every culture, marriage has always meant “one man, one woman”. I disputed that because it’s not true – it has also in times and cultures meant “one man, many women”.
“Except most of the TV news in Europe is owned by the various governments and the newspapers owned by the parties in government. But that has little to suggest their freedom. The fact that the governments of Europe will fine you for expressing certain opinions is an infringement of the freedom of the press.”
Most? I’m not sure about that. Sure, most European countries have a government news service – but there is also the AP, and plenty of private European news organizations. The point is, there isn’t that consolidatino.
Which opinions are being fined in Europe? How often does this occur, and what is the result?
“So you admit that FOX is not very different from CNN or MSNBC?”
There aren’t many substantive differences. They all distort stories to protect certain corporations they have ties to. Fox packages all their news with a heavily right-wing ideology, and often their editorialists distort facts, but there are certain issues they won’t cover that the other organizations also won’t cover.
“Freedom of the press means that anyone who can get a hold of a means to expression can use it at their own discretion. We have that in this country to a far higher degree then Europe. Just because most people choose to get their news from only a couple of sources, and that is changing to a very large degree, does not mean the government limiting our freedom of the press.”
They have the right to give it a shot, sure, but I doubt they will be able to compete with FOX or any of the other major news networks. It’s structured to shut out competition.
“This conversation is one example. We are publishing our opinions and it is open to anyone to read, if they choose.”
Yeah, but we aren’t competing as news media. We are one some tiny blog in the middle of internet nowhere. The author of the blog also has complete control of whose comments get posted and whose don’t. It’s not as free as it seems.
“In the US, a pretrial hearing usually leads to the dismissal of the case. It is only if there is some possibility that one is making up information to libel the plaintiff then it might go to trial. Otherwise you are free to criticize anyone. It just has to be backed by facts. That is not true of Europe.”
It’s not true of Europe? Libel cases don’t get dismissed?
“What about the freedom of a business owner to hire and fire whom he chooses?”
There are good freedoms and bad freedoms. The freedom to discriminate in hiring practices is a bad freedom – like stealing. It’s unjust and leads to a worse-off society. I don’t favor that freedom.
“What about the business owners right to buy and sell from and to whom he chooses? seems to me you only like the “feedom” talking points the Left has fed you. Its okay to repress the freedom of business people, those who make this country the opportunity filled place that it has been”
The freedom to lock people out of jobs because of the color of their skin, sexual orientation, religon, etc., will ultimately be a harmful freedom. Who is clamoring for the right to discriminate? No one but bigots. Fuck ‘em.
“while gays, whose gayness produces nothing and gives nothing to society, need freedom.”
That’s a pretty strong blanket statement, there – homosexuality has contributed absolutely nothing to the culture?
But whether their gayness is productive or not, they deserve freedom.
“But, if the boss doesn’t want to hire the woman because he does not want to deal with the temptation, I think that is fair.”
I think that a man who is such an animal that he can’t control himself around a woman and would use coercion to get sex from her is a scumbag with no place in adult society.
“If the boss does not want blacks in his workplace because he hates them then why should he have deal with a black, day in and day out.”
Because it might help him overcome his predjudice, for one. But I don’t really care what Mr. KKK wants – he can go fuck himself. I don’t want blacks to be shut out of economic oppurtunity any more than they already are.
“I don’t think there is a problem when a businessman decides to fill a niche.”
Racism is a niche we don’t want around in society. Most people are trying to overcome racism, and it’s like you want to hang on to it. We should make absolutely no special effort to protect the feelings of “poor widdle wacists”.
“You seem not to understand the wire-tapping issue. First off, the Government is allowed to tap into calls made by a Syrian, in Syria, to a Iraqi in Afghanistan if the call is being carried over lines owned by American telecommunications companies.”
No, they are tapping into calls made by Americans outside of the US. The phone companies allowed them to listen to millions of calls. That was the scandal.
More importantly, we have no idea who they are actually listening to. We only have their word that they aren’t abusing this power.
“They cannot whisk an American away, while at home, and take him or her to Cuba or where ever and then hold them there indefinitely.”
Noted. They can’t legally send an American. A Canadian, yes – and they did. They sent a Canadian to Syria, where he was tortured. Though it isn’t a violation of American civil rights, it is a violation of human rights.
“A German in Yemen is not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.”
They should be protected by decency and a true belief in freedom and human rights – not just for Americans, but for everyone.
“BTW, none of the evidence gleaned by wire-tapping can be used in an American court of law. You are safe.”
Well, I doubt there is much of interest to them in my phone conversations. I haven’t called anyone outside the country. But I’m not only concerned about my rights.
“Look, you are not a patriot. You don’t care about your tribe, as you say.”
I don’t care about my tribe – I care about rights. I care about humanity in general.
“Family doesn’t mean much to you.”
That’s utter bullshit. Your particular concept of family that excludes gay people doesn’t mean anything to me. I have a very strong connection to my family.
“What you care about is yourself and being free to do anything you feel like.”
Your analysis of my character is quite inaccurate. I have principles that are stronger than self-interest. That’s what I have been talking about this whole time – that is what my whole argument is founded on. I have no personal stake in the gay marriage issue – I’m not gay, and I doubt I’ll ever get married (or really want to).
“You project this desire into your politics whose basic premise is, “insist on your right to crap the bed”.”
How do I insist on such a thing in any of my posts?
Piss off. I understand real, practical liberty, for all people – you only believe in sham liberty. I’m Captain Fucking America compared to you.
“I have given you reasons and example enough of my views and they do not suite you.”
You’ve given me a few reasons with regards to the gay marriage issue. For you, it’s all about this word “marriage” and what will happen if we slightly alter the meaning of it. And you seem to think America is going to collapse and the world will end. It is a very irrational and superstitious fear.
Once again, I want to remind you that we agree on civil unions.
“Hopefully, for you, you’ll find a skill which earns you enough money to go somewhere where you’ll have all the freedoms you need.”
You’re making an assumption about my life, here, based on your stereotype of the “lazy, leechy Leftist”. you had the gall to call me a political bigot?
“Maybe we’ll even elect one of the leftist-fascists”
Careful with that word “fascist”. I don’t even think it describes Bush and Cheney – and I think you’ve gotten a sense of what I think about them. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton are even close to fascist, and your precious Bush Administration is probably as close as we’ve come to it.
Fascist has become an empty word that gets thrown around improperly.
“and then the country will get all fixed up and set to be the environment you like.”
Hey, maybe they will pull us out of the middle of the civil war we uncorked in Iraq – you know, the one that Dick Cheney predicted back in 1994 when asked why they didn’t overthrow Saddam in the Gulf War.
Apr 12, 2008 - 3:28 pm 53. P. Ami:This…”Hopefully, for you, you’ll find a skill which earns you enough money to go somewhere where you’ll have all the freedoms you need”
was a response to ….”if I could afford to move there, I would.”
not..“lazy, leechy Leftist”.
“They are still being treated unequally based on religious tradition, and that is an injustice.”
— No, we covered this already. They are being treated equally. Any man (even a gay one), can marry any woman (even a gay one). You don’t like the argument but it is a valid one. It is not a religious tradition it is human tradition. We covered this in talking about every other culture (until the Europeans and Canadians of the last few years) having this very definitive understanding about what marriage means. You don’t like that argument either so you got us caught up in the polygamy issue. Even polygamists marry only the opposite sex.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution only protect Americans. You don’t like that. I don’t really care.
“I don’t care about my tribe – I care about rights. I care about humanity in general.”
— You don’t care about the real people who contribute to making the environment you spawned from. You care about ethereal notions like humanity in general and issues with such broad dimension as rights. Self-interest doesn’t mean as much to you but you have principles. You understand real principles like freedom and rights and civil rights and human rights and dignity. See, you only have issues with other people’s religion. Your religion, the Church of Humanity, is perfectly valid. Bigots, “screw em”. Misogynists, “screw em”. The lustful, “screw em”. Real people, “screw em”. They are not worthy of freedom. The pure of heart, the oppressed, the poor, the ignorant, the lame, they deserve the freedom you’ll not give the lecher who avoids the temptation to hurt another human being by avoiding them. He should have the strength to overcome that lust or “screw em”. Thats what I mean by crapping the bed.
It doesn’t take long to scratch the surface of a militant freedom writer before you find the intolerance they’ve projected onto others.
I know what fascist means. Fascist is a term used to describe a system where the state controls just about every aspect of a person’s life, like education, healthcare, pensions, business practices, speech, what is written, what is on stage, what is on film. To my mind, the propensity towards fascism is much more a feature of the left today then on the right.
“Because it might help him overcome his predjudice, for one.”
Or not.
“Piss off. I understand real, practical liberty, for all people – you only believe in sham liberty. I’m Captain Fucking America compared to you.”
Or not.
“They should be protected by decency and a true belief in freedom and human rights – not just for Americans, but for everyone.”
Or not.
“They have the right to give it a shot, sure, but I doubt they will be able to compete with FOX or any of the other major news networks. It’s structured to shut out competition.”
Or not.
All those pent up assumptions have driven you to a tedious form of sensitivity. Your superior sensitivity to freedom is your religion mate. I was you once. I don’t miss that bigot one bit. I much prefer the bigot my son will become if we don’t let idealistic fools like yourself ruin his chances.
Apr 13, 2008 - 12:35 am 54. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“This…”Hopefully, for you, you’ll find a skill which earns you enough money to go somewhere where you’ll have all the freedoms you need”
was a response to ….”if I could afford to move there, I would.”
not..“lazy, leechy Leftist”.”
Point taken. I see your comment made sense in context. My mistake.
“No, we covered this already. They are being treated equally. Any man (even a gay one), can marry any woman (even a gay one). You don’t like the argument but it is a valid one.”
Yes, we did cover that – that argument is ridiculous. It totally misses the point – they are not allowed to marry who they want to marry. That’s the issue, that is where they are being denied freedom and equality. Perhaps it is a structurally valid argument if it were put in syllogism form, but it misses the point entirely.
Gay people are denied the right to marry who they want to marry, straight people are not.
Again, as a parallel example, you could just as easily argue that blacks before 1967 were not being treated unequally in marriage because they had every right to marry someone of their own race, just like white people. It is the exact same stupid argument, and I have soundly refuted it several times. They were not allowed to marry who they wanted to marry. Can you not understand this reasoning, or do you just deny it?
“It is not a religious tradition it is human tradition. We covered this in talking about every other culture (until the Europeans and Canadians of the last few years) having this very definitive understanding about what marriage means.”
It is human religious tradition at this time, in this country. Perhaps it served some purpose to only marry that way in the past, but there is no purpose served by it now. It is like clinging to a vestigial organ.
Just because a practice is old, doesn’t mean it is good.
“You don’t like that argument either so you got us caught up in the polygamy issue.”
I don’t like that argument, and I explained why. The comparison to slavery was an apt comparison, in that slavery was also once a tradition. Tradition, by itself, is not a reason to justify a practice – there needs to be some merit in the practice that stems from its own nature. I don’t see any merit in defining marriage in this particular way.
“The Bill of Rights and the Constitution only protect Americans. You don’t like that. I don’t really care.”
But don’t you understand that, as supposed freedom lovers, we are supposed to value freedom and human rights for all people? There is the letter of the law, and there is the spirit of the law. The things the Bush administration have done are against the spirit (and some of them are against the letter as well) – they are against human liberty. If we only want liberty and rights for ourselves, then our love of liberty is a sham.
“You don’t care about the real people who contribute to making the environment you spawned from. You care about ethereal notions like humanity in general and issues with such broad dimension as rights.”
But I do care about real people. I care about my family and people I know. I am grateful for a lot of things built into the environment of this country. I just don’t happen to value the lives of my fellow citizens over the lives of foreigners simply on the basis of what chunk of land we are born on. That’s what I mean when I say patriotism – the assumption that Americans, simply by being Americans, are better than people in other countries – without knowing anything else about them.
If I had the choice to save the life of either an American or a foreigner, without knowing anything about either of them, I would not be able to choose on the basis of that alone.
“See, you only have issues with other people’s religion. Your religion, the Church of Humanity, is perfectly valid.”
I don’t have a religion – but almost all religions are intolerant of other religions. Hinduism is supposedly open to all religions – but Hindus sure don’t get along with the Muslim way of living.
“Bigots, “screw em”. Misogynists, “screw em”. The lustful, “screw em”. Real people, “screw em”.”
I have no problem with the lustful. But I do have a problem when the lustful cannot control their impulses so much that they rape another person or coerce another person into sex. If their sexual urges are that out of control, they need therapy. I will not excuse their behavior as something they can’t help.
Also, as for “real people”, not all people are bigots and misogynists.
As for why bigots and misogynists do not deserve the freedom to discriminate against people of different races and sexes in business practices, it is because allowing them to do that causes real economic harm to minority groups and women. I will not allow one group of people (the bigots and misogynists) to cause real economic harm to another group of people (minorities, gays, women) to protect their feeling of not wanting to interact with those people on the basis of their hate.
“The pure of heart, the oppressed, the poor, the ignorant, the lame, they deserve the freedom you’ll not give the lecher who avoids the temptation to hurt another human being by avoiding them. He should have the strength to overcome that lust or “screw em”. Thats what I mean by crapping the bed.”
He is the one with the problem. He has the freedom to seek therapy. He is responsible for his own actions, and an innocent person (the woman who wants to work there) should not be denied employment because he can’t control himself. I thought you valued responsibility, yet you are making excuses for this irresponsible type of person.
“It doesn’t take long to scratch the surface of a militant freedom writer before you find the intolerance they’ve projected onto others.”
It is not intolerance to demand that people who have such urges control their urges to rape and coerce others – nor is it intolerant to demand that a person resist the temptation to enter an illicit relationship with an employee who is attempting to seduce them. I value freedom and responsibility.
“To my mind, the propensity towards fascism is much more a feature of the left today then on the right.”
You completely excluded one of the most important aspects of fascism – a rabid, fanatical nationalism and excessive aggression and militarism. That belongs to the right, not the left.
As far as controlling speech – it is the right, for the most part, that favors censorship. There is the libertarian right, and there is the libertarian left, who are against censorship. There are people on the left who favor censorship as well – certain radical feminists, etc., in the form of political correctness. But the people who favor censorship in the name of “decency” are much more common on the right.
The right is the side that favors secret prisons for our enemies and is not abiding by human rights.
The Left wants the option of affordable health care for everyone – not forced state health care for everyone.
The Left wants the option of affordable and decent public schools for everyone – they are not trying to shut down private schools.
“(in response to why people should not be allowed to discriminate in hiring and business practices) Or not.”
Yeah, you could have responded to the rest of my point there…or not.
“(in response to Captain Fucking America) Or not.”
I’ve explained why I value liberty for more people than you. You value the freedom of bigots to discriminate in business practices, and the freedom and civil rights of Americans. While I don’t value the former, I value the latter and I value freedom and human rights for people all over the world. You don’t. I am more consistent in my belief in liberty.
““They should be protected by decency and a true belief in freedom and human rights – not just for Americans, but for everyone.”
Or not.”
Um…okay, freedom and human rights are only good for Americans. You got me there, buddy. Man, fuck the Geneva Conventions – we should be allowed to do whatever we want to them foreigners!
“(in response to media consolidation) Or not.”
My, you’ve gotten lazy. A proper rebuttal? No.
“Your superior sensitivity to freedom is your religion mate.”
Nope. “Ideology” is a much more accurate and appropriate word there. Stop abusing language.
“I was you once. I don’t miss that bigot one bit.”
I’m not a bigot. It is not bigotry to value freedom and responsibility, and it is not bigotry to dislike certain ideas.
“I much prefer the bigot my son will become if we don’t let idealistic fools like yourself ruin his chances.”
Huh? You want your son to become a bigot? Why would you want that? You’re not a bigot, are you?
Well, I hope he rebels and turns out to be as liberal as me. That would piss you off. But I suspect you did a good job indoctrinating him, so we will likely have to contend with a new generation of tradition-oriented followers. Do you tell him what to believe instead of letting him choose for himself?
Apr 13, 2008 - 12:19 pm 55. Neshobanakni:To OCHF:
We get it; you hate us. Our institutions suck, We need to tailor our laws to make you happy. Millenium of experience mean nothing
Apr 13, 2008 - 4:35 pm 56. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:’cause you’ve had a revelation. Through you genitals. Get over yourself and your sexual preferences. The rest of us have children to rear and a society to sustain.
Dearest Neshobanakni,
You could not be more wrong. I never said I hate you.
“Our institutions suck, We need to tailor our laws to make you happy. Through you genitals. Get over yourself and your sexual preferences.”
You need to tailor your laws to be equal to all citizens. My personal interests have nothing to do with it – I’m straight and I never plan to get married. You assume I must be gay because you can’t imagine standing up for another person’s rights – you’re far too self-absorbed in your precious traditions for that.
“The rest of us have children to rear and a society to sustain.”
And gay marriage has exactly zero to do with any of that. Thanks for playing, you lose.
Apr 13, 2008 - 7:16 pm 57. P. Ami:@OCHF
I made an error a few posts back. In that post I expressed the damage done to society by divorce. I know you disagree but that is besides the point. I think the serial formation of family units, the common destruction of this unit by choice rather then by real hardship, and the inattentiveness to the larger family is damaging to society. It is why we are undereducated, no matter how much money is thrown at the school system. It is why we are so crime ridden, no matter how many criminals we put away and money we spend on keeping them jailed. It is why our children are seeking peer approval through trivial and self-destructive means. It is why immigrants who maintain their traditional care-taking methods (their children work in the mom and pop store, they know the people who their children associate with, they keep pressuring their children to do well in school etc…) raise much more successful progeny then those who take up the generation-centered version of popular family culture. The family which maintains the marriage vows and stays together no matter how bored, no matter how poor, no matter how ill, no matter how much better you think you can do, is the more substantial form of family. This is no religion. It is pragmatism. As Ron Burgandy would say, “Its science”.
I brought this up with the intention of connecting it the fact that homosexual couplings can contribute virtually nothing to make to marriage work. I failed to follow through with my argument then, but intend to do so now.
A gay couple cannot raise a child that is equally linked to both unless it is not genetically linked to either. One of the aspects to family life is that we recognize our grandparents and parents in our children and grandchildren. We see ourselves in our progeny and we can impart lessons which the general culture cannot. We have specific experiences with various innate qualities of our personality and physical form which we help cultivate in our children. Again, this is coming from someone who sees more good then harm in tradition. A gay couple will only have one simpatico parent, at best. No matter how attached the other parent is to that child, they are raising someone else’s child. That is a disadvantage but this is not enough to disqualify gay marriage from being an accepted norm. Frankly, any family, be they homosexual or straight, will have this problem if one parent is infertile and doubly so if they have decided to adopt.
You meet someone, her hair launches pheromones in the sun. You find a matching smile. There are late nights of moving lips, heavy lids, sometimes dreaming of common grandchildren, barely awake, realizing it was spoken. Many days, many nights, little sleep and lots of plans. Then the plans become your friend. Her hair changes. Different parallels, same sunbeam, different angels. She’s not the smell I remember. Thank G-d there were no kids.
Most of the people I know have had many sexual partners. Most of these couplings were for the pleasure of the act and to stave off boredom and/or loneliness. Eventually most found partners they wanted to start a family with. It is only at the point that one feels they want a family that they begin to interact within the relationship differently then they had until then. Marriage is not a function of loving the partner but rather the function of loving the family you become. You commit, not the individual, but to the unit. The most compelling reason that gay marriage is damaging to society is that homosexual relationships are not rooted in the task of family rearing. Most gay couples are not looking to have children, even those who are seeking marriage. Those that do aught to have avenues by which they can contribute to society in the same way most other married couples do, by children who need a family. Gay couples who are getting married because of a commitment to an individual, which you admit is fleeting, have confused the meaning of marriage and the meaning of the family unit with what is commonly known as Romantic love. Many heterosexual couples are confused in the same manner. This is why we have so many divorces and this is why even a small percentage of people (gays included) see any sense in gay marriage. Seeing that most gay couples who want to marry are confused in this manner, considering the damage done to society (as I expressed in my discussion of divorce vs traditional family units) by these kinds of marriages there is no sense in allowing this amendment to the definition of marriage which only serves to affirm the self serving family. Just because we have become a society so preoccupied with getting what we want does not mean that we should continue down that line if the fulfillment of those desires hurt society. I think divorce should be much more challenging then it is and reasons much more compelling then those used today should be given. You go so far as to say that divorce aught to be granted for the sake of freedom to choose whether you want to be married at that moment. This is why gay marriage makes sense to you. To you marriage is simply a fulfilled desire or, in your case, something not to desire.
There are many points at which our opinions differ. I don’t expect you to see the sense in my reasoning as you have already, many times, denigrating my reasoning. Thats the bitch of diversity. You think you are a champion of freedom. I think you are prejudiced towards certain kinds of freedom. I think you are short sighted. I think you are inexperienced. When ideology is based on idealism it is indistinguishable from faith. It is bigotry to dislike what you do not understand and you do not understand Conservatism.
“Huh? You want your son to become a bigot? Why would you want that? You’re not a bigot, are you?”
— I fully expect my son to be idealistic and foolish. One hopes he will be less so then I was as I will help him see reality at a much higher degree and more rapidly then I did. If idealists like you have their way I fear he won’t have a chance to be even a little idealistic as reality will be much harsher and his opportunities more limited by mistakes made in the name of Leftism.
I don’t expect to make a patriot of you. I just find it funny that you would want to pay for my healthcare seeing as you could just as well pay for the healthcare of some Chinese person, or a Latvian. It seems strange that you would pay to have my children educated rather then pay for a Mexican child in Tecate learn his three R’s. Why not just pay your taxes directly to the UN and then you can have some aid for Africa siphoned off by a bureaucrat from Ghana. I understand that there is a clique or type of person you relate to and this type can be from anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, the many types that make up any population are difficult to accept as compatriots. They are a vague hillbilly oddity or maybe a corporate type. To be fair, I don’t know the exact sort which makes you feel at home and which type is your foreigner. Myself, my first loyalty is to my family. Then I have the friends I am bless to know. From there I am committed to my community, my city and more specifically the Jews of my community and city. After that I am loyal to the US and Israel and if there is any way to meet in partnership or friendship with folk from other places, then I will love people for their humanity. You think of this sort of tribalism as primitive and leads to fascism (which with your attachment of militarism tells me you do not understand fascism but only Hitler). You error on many counts in this instance.
Okay, its late, I don’t have time to go back and see if I addressed every issue I thought of interest. I need to head home to my wife and not yet indoctrinated son. Its hard to be indoctrinated at 2 years old. It will begin with the letter P and the numeral 4. Before you know it he will see the stupidity of Al Gore.
Apr 13, 2008 - 11:18 pm 58. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:“I made an error a few posts back. In that post I expressed the damage done to society by divorce. I know you disagree but that is besides the point.”
I don’t fully disagree – certainly there are cases where a couple ought not to get divorced, but do anyway – where perhaps they didn’t try hard enough to make it work. I just think the freedom to get a divorce is worth the consequences it causes. I also think we can’t turn the clock back on that freedom.
“I think the serial formation of family units, the common destruction of this unit by choice rather then by real hardship, and the inattentiveness to the larger family is damaging to society.”
I agree with that general principle.
I would say one way to stop the serial marriages is to stop pressuring our kids to get married young and have grandchildren for us.
“It is why we are undereducated, no matter how much money is thrown at the school system.”
I think it is more complicated than that. Think about how much education goes on within most families. Certainly, there is a lot in early childhood – teaching to read, write, do math, etc. But that tends to taper off, and instead of parents spending time helping their children learn, they are often parking them in front of the TV, the internet, or video games (the holy trinity). The proliferation and irresponsible consumption of endless amounts of entertainment media is one aspect of society that is harming the family and the education of the kids.
The fact that mom and dad have to work so much cuts into family life as well. We need to push for a reduction in the average workweek to make room for family time – as well as personal freedom in general.
And then there are the economic conditions – education in inner cities receives much less funding than that in suburbs and more wealthy areas – largely because suburbs can raise the income tax to support decent schools. Money isn’t the only solution for our impoverished public schools, but it is part of the solution.
What I noticed in school, also, even in the middle class school I went to, was that there was a tendency to “teach the test”. They would teach us a lot of things, we would absorb it, be tested on it, forget it and never use it again. The ridiculous amount of homework they assigned us every night often snuffed out the children’s enthusiasm for learning, as well. The education system has a lot of problems.
“It is why we are so crime ridden, no matter how many criminals we put away and money we spend on keeping them jailed.”
Once again, I would say the collapse of the family is only part of the explanation. A lot of crime-prone youth have poor family relationships. A lot of the time, Dad is in jail, Mom is working two jobs, and they still don’t have enough money to pay the bills. No one is spending time with the children – because they don’t have time. The kids join gangs, a lot of the time to bring in money for the family and themselves. Poverty increases crime. If we worked to decrease poverty, instead of persisting in our blind assertion that individuals are totally responsible for their own lives, that everyone can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps (a physically impossible act in metaphor), we could gradually reduce crime. Instead, we take our middle class values, which carry with them privileges we don’t realize, and use them to judge the ghetto.
There is also the locking up of nonviolent potheads and pot sellers. I think this has a tendency to turn them into hardened criminals. A nonviolent criminal should never be put in with violent criminals – they should always be kept separate.
“It is why our children are seeking peer approval through trivial and self-destructive means.”
Certainly the fact that they aren’t getting enough attention and approval from parents can explain that.
“The family which maintains the marriage vows and stays together no matter how bored, no matter how poor, no matter how ill, no matter how much better you think you can do, is the more substantial form of family.”
Once again, I agree with your general principle, but not all families should stay together. Sometimes they can’t make it work.
What it seems you are hitting on is this notion of “marrying for love” – that it is a harmful notion. Marriage didn’t used to be about love so much as economics. It was about building legacies and having descendants to pass on wealth to. That has changed in the American psyche – now, people largely get married out of love – the love and passion burns out and the marriage ends.
“I brought this up with the intention of connecting it the fact that homosexual couplings can contribute virtually nothing to make to marriage work. I failed to follow through with my argument then, but intend to do so now.”
I’m all ears.
“A gay couple cannot raise a child that is equally linked to both unless it is not genetically linked to either. One of the aspects to family life is that we recognize our grandparents and parents in our children and grandchildren. We see ourselves in our progeny and we can impart lessons which the general culture cannot. We have specific experiences with various innate qualities of our personality and physical form which we help cultivate in our children. Again, this is coming from someone who sees more good then harm in tradition. A gay couple will only have one simpatico parent, at best. No matter how attached the other parent is to that child, they are raising someone else’s child. That is a disadvantage but this is not enough to disqualify gay marriage from being an accepted norm. Frankly, any family, be they homosexual or straight, will have this problem if one parent is infertile and doubly so if they have decided to adopt.”
Yes, that is an obstacle, but, as you pointed out, adoptive parents face the same problem. It can be overcome.
“You meet someone, her hair launches pheromones in the sun. You find a matching smile. There are late nights of moving lips, heavy lids, sometimes dreaming of common grandchildren, barely awake, realizing it was spoken. Many days, many nights, little sleep and lots of plans. Then the plans become your friend. Her hair changes. Different parallels, same sunbeam, different angels. She’s not the smell I remember. Thank G-d there were no kids.”
Passion dies, yes. Sounds like what you are saying here is for couple not to have kids too soon, to see if their love for each other lasts. A problem is that it seems to be instinctual to have the children at the height of love.
“Most of the people I know have had many sexual partners. Most of these couplings were for the pleasure of the act and to stave off boredom and/or loneliness. Eventually most found partners they wanted to start a family with. It is only at the point that one feels they want a family that they begin to interact within the relationship differently then they had until then. Marriage is not a function of loving the partner but rather the function of loving the family you become.”
What I fail to see, I guess, is how it is a problem when the couple decides not to have children. Their marriage might end, but the harm caused by that marriage ending seems to be limited to the couple. It’s only when people bring a child into a loveless marriage or a family that doesn’t have enough time for the child that there is a problem with child-rearing.
“You commit, not the individual, but to the unit. The most compelling reason that gay marriage is damaging to society is that homosexual relationships are not rooted in the task of family rearing. Most gay couples are not looking to have children, even those who are seeking marriage. Those that do aught to have avenues by which they can contribute to society in the same way most other married couples do, by children who need a family.”
What I don’t understand, again, is why it is a problem if two gay people get married, don’t have children or adopt children, and then that marriage ends. It is only a harm to them.
“Gay couples who are getting married because of a commitment to an individual, which you admit is fleeting, have confused the meaning of marriage and the meaning of the family unit with what is commonly known as Romantic love. Many heterosexual couples are confused in the same manner. This is why we have so many divorces and this is why even a small percentage of people (gays included) see any sense in gay marriage.”
I understand that. It seems to be a problem for societal norms rather than the law. What should be done is to encourage an attitude of responsible marriage and responsible child rearing – not keeping certain people from being married in the first place.
“Seeing that most gay couples who want to marry are confused in this manner, considering the damage done to society (as I expressed in my discussion of divorce vs traditional family units) by these kinds of marriages there is no sense in allowing this amendment to the definition of marriage which only serves to affirm the self serving family. Just because we have become a society so preoccupied with getting what we want does not mean that we should continue down that line if the fulfillment of those desires hurt society.”
My question is: where is the harm to society if a childless gay couple gets divorced? And would not allowing civil unions entail the same harm, if there is any?
“I think divorce should be much more challenging then it is and reasons much more compelling then those used today should be given. You go so far as to say that divorce aught to be granted for the sake of freedom to choose whether you want to be married at that moment. This is why gay marriage makes sense to you. To you marriage is simply a fulfilled desire or, in your case, something not to desire.”
I see increasing the standards for divorce as problematic because of the question of “Who gets to decide the standards?”. What amount of trouble in the family justifies a divorce?
“It is bigotry to dislike what you do not understand and you do not understand Conservatism.”
Perhaps I don’t understand it well enough. Your reasoning in this post is beginning to make more sense to me. The way I had thought of conservatism before was basically as inseparable from religion, and I see that is not the case now. Some Conservative principles can make sense aside from religion.
“I don’t expect to make a patriot of you. I just find it funny that you would want to pay for my health care seeing as you could just as well pay for the health care of some Chinese person, or a Latvian. It seems strange that you would pay to have my children educated rather then pay for a Mexican child in Tecate learn his three R’s.”
As far as I understand it, government doesn’t work that way at this time. I must, by law, pay all of my taxes to the U.S. government, not the Mexican government or the Chinese government. Certainly, I would favor an end to borders and a world government (and try not to freak out and call me the Antichrist here). That way we could have a more equitable distribution of resources, less warfare, less genocide, etc. It would also be difficult, I think, for a world government to oppress 7 billion people.
It is idealistic to think that humanity can cooperate on such a large scale – but should a case like that ever come to pass, I would support it.
“Why not just pay your taxes directly to the UN and then you can have some aid for Africa siphoned off by a bureaucrat from Ghana.”
I’m not sure this is legal. However, there is also the fact that paying my own taxes to the government for programs like health care and welfare will help me if I ever fall on hard times.
“I understand that there is a clique or type of person you relate to and this type can be from anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, the many types that make up any population are difficult to accept as compatriots. They are a vague hillbilly oddity or maybe a corporate type. To be fair, I don’t know the exact sort which makes you feel at home and which type is your foreigner.”
I suppose the religious right, all over the world, would be considered my foreigner. For instance, the extremist Muslims. They are about as foreign as it gets from me.
But we should still give captured terrorists fair trials – not hold them indefinitely. We are unable, using the current system of detainment, enemy combatants, etc., to know who is guilty and who is innocent. We are likely holding some innocent people in Guantanamo Bay.
“Myself, my first loyalty is to my family. Then I have the friends I am bless to know. From there I am committed to my community, my city and more specifically the Jews of my community and city. After that I am loyal to the US and Israel and if there is any way to meet in partnership or friendship with folk from other places, then I will love people for their humanity.”
I see nothing wrong with that, it’s just the attitude that we have no duties to people outside our borders that I take issue with – that our principles of freedom and liberty do not and should not extend to them.
“You think of this sort of tribalism as primitive and leads to fascism (which with your attachment of militarism tells me you do not understand fascism but only Hitler). You error on many counts in this instance.”
Mussolini and the Japanese fascists were also very militaristic. They did not respect any rights for people from other countries – nor for their own citizens, which is in large part where I draw the distinction between our country and fascism.
I would say a connection to a place, a community, etc., can lead to fascist thinking. Even in the benevolent desire to protect the Jewish community from outside threats, a certain Jewish extremist who I can’t remember the name of right now, uttered the words “One Jewish fingernail is worth 1,000 Arab lives” (or Palestinian lives, not sure which). That is what I mean when I say that the tribal impulse leads to fascism. I ought to have qualified it by saying that it “can” lead to fascism.
“Okay, its late, I don’t have time to go back and see if I addressed every issue I thought of interest. I need to head home to my wife and not yet indoctrinated son. Its hard to be indoctrinated at 2 years old. It will begin with the letter P and the numeral 4. Before you know it he will see the stupidity of Al Gore.”
Ah, your son is only 2. How much older do you think you are than me, by the way? I’m curious about that.
P and IV? Can you explain what you mean by that?
Anyway, I’m more satisfied with your answers to my question here. You explained how the collapse of the family harms society, and why that particular tradition is valuable. I’m still not convinced as to why gay people getting married threatens the family – either devoted gay people who are going to raise children, or lovestruck gay people who will eventually get divorced. What I do see is that no one should have children in a marriage if they do not have a proper environment for having children.
Apr 14, 2008 - 11:51 am 59. P. Ami:“Once again, I agree with your general principle, but not all families should stay together. Sometimes they can’t make it work.”
— If one is dangerous to the other and/or to the family then I can understand divorce. That is about it. Again, richer or poorer, sickness or health. So long as one is not physically in danger from the other then work it out. Its not a question of being capable of working it out it is a question of what avenues are available to allow people under emotional stress to make very bad decisions. The stress of daily life effects us all and we take it out on one another. Again, only physical harm is a fair reason to destroy a family.
“What it seems you are hitting on is this notion of “marrying for love” – that it is a harmful notion. Marriage didn’t used to be about love so much as economics. It was about building legacies and having descendants to pass on wealth to. That has changed in the American psyche – now, people largely get married out of love – the love and passion burns out and the marriage ends.”
— Marriage is still about economics in the sense you mean. Once the idea that romantic love was attached to marriage then the society began to reflect the selfishness of this idealized understanding. Marriage is about helping take care of one another. This is economics.
“Passion dies, yes. Sounds like what you are saying here is for couple not to have kids too soon, to see if their love for each other lasts. A problem is that it seems to be instinctual to have the children at the height of love.”
— Love, romantic love, always goes away and sometimes returns. Once you have kids you change, the relationship changes, what stays the same is the commitment.
“What I don’t understand, again, is why it is a problem if two gay people get married, don’t have children or adopt children, and then that marriage ends. It is only a harm to them.”
— Because it harms the child who was adopted. It brings unnecessary confusion and uprooting. You have enough confused and uprooted people in society, that society becomes confused and uprooted. A part of the definition of marriage is that it only ends at death. When as many people get divorced as do in this environment then we can see that the concept of marriage has been undermined. I am not even sure it was done through a plan to undermine it (although one can argue that the early communists, and various other modernists argued for communal living, property and wives. They tended to get quite a few divorces at a time when this was very uncommon, so perhaps their ideas spread and the same sort of chaos their “artistic” lives exhibited has now spread to the rest of society. Its one idea anyway). I think it was done shortsightedly, in the same manner in which you would accept the next undermining, gay marriage.
“I understand that. It seems to be a problem for societal norms rather than the law. What should be done is to encourage an attitude of responsible marriage and responsible child rearing – not keeping certain people from being married in the first place.”
— You are correct in the first part of this statement. Continuing on, pragmatically speaking, the people who do encourage this attitude of familial responsibility, even the hypocrites, are playing the traditional marriage game while those who are discouraging responsibility, think divorce is not such a bad option, are the ones pushing for another diminutument of the institution. They do so in the name of what traditional concepts have always been attacked “individual freedom”. In some cases it is true. Slavery removes from the enslaved any sense of individual right or power to influence their environment. They cannot vote, they cannot gather wealth, they cannot gather influence. This is oppression.
— The freedom to define for yourself what marriage means to you, is non-sensible. Marriage is not an individual institution. It is a status given by the community. While certain government agents have the authority to marry a couple, marriages are still the prerogative of community leaders. A person alone could provide themselves food, shelter, clothes and so be self-sufficient. A person alone, or even a couple, cannot confer onto themselves the status of married couple as marriage is a state within a community.
— One might argue that if various races, nationalities and religions can empower leaders to marry members of their community then why not leaders of the gay community? Going back to previous logic, leaders of the gay community do have the power to marry. They can marry any gay man or gay woman to one another. You argue that this bypasses the intention of the gay community, which is to have same sex marriage. True. But, disallowing same sex marriage is consistent with the reason that society created marriage in the first place. Is consistent with every known community and this distinction is not made in order to subjugate the gay community to the whims of the hetero-centric world. It is done to stave of the social chaos that marriage was meant to keep at bay and which is already partly loosened by our endorsement of divorce.
“I see increasing the standards for divorce as problematic because of the question of “Who gets to decide the standards?”. What amount of trouble in the family justifies a divorce?”
— Meanwhile you don’t see the problem in increasing the standards of bigotry. Who gets to decide what is bigoted? I have already answered the last question regarding the standards for why a couple should divorce, violence.
“As far as I understand it, government doesn’t work that way at this time. I must, by law, pay all of my taxes to the U.S. government, not the Mexican government or the Chinese government. Certainly, I would favor an end to borders and a world government (and try not to freak out and call me the Antichrist here). That way we could have a more equitable distribution of resources, less warfare, less genocide, etc. It would also be difficult, I think, for a world government to oppress 7 billion people.”
— I would not favor an end to borders anymore then I would favor an end to property rights. I don’t agree that equal resources bring about human equality. Some people work harder then others. Some people are more skilled then others (often a function of hard work). Some people are more talented then others. Some people are kinder then others. Some people are more responsible then others. Some people are more selfish then others.
— There is equality under the law. While men, according to population ratio, commit more crimes then women a judge cannot rule that the murder case before her must have been committed by the man before the court, rather then the woman, solely based on that statistic. One needs to bring real evidence regarding that particular crime and that particular suspect/defendant. The government cannot favor one race, color or creed of American. Nature often does. While justice must be blind, the community cannot be.
— Culture, especially Western culture, is a social tool by which people can maintain accountability with each other, and for each other, while minimizing oppression. Rather then law we generally have tradition. If we simply went with nature’s methods, older parents would be left to die when injured because the younger adults feel like eating a bunch of bananas rather then care for their parents. We have developed cultural habits which indicate and reinforce caring; gift-giving, the awareness of special events in people’s lives, caring for the sick and injured, participating in common tasks, participation in special holidays and assemblies of the group. These common practices are bonding agents for people. In some cultures the birthday celebrant gives gifts on their birthdays. In some cultures gifts are received by the birthday celebrant. Some cultures consider the new year to be the day when one adds a year to their age. Some do so on the anniversary of the individual’s birth. What this indicates of the value one culture holds to the individual relative to the group is beyond our conversation. The point is that a group that survives maintains some very regular habits to reinforce a bond. It is not often that the tradition of one culture is so antithetical to another that they are willing to be killed at the borders where these two cultures meet.
— For those rare times when this does happen, you think the solution is to be rid of communal responsibility. This is a simplified version of the ethics you speak from, I know, but this is what you have been saying in your writing. Lets continue. Generally wars happen when one group is incapable of maintaining itself and requires resources that another controls and won’t give up at a price the first group is willing to pay. The price is so damaging to the first group that they would rather risk the lives of those boys they have been giving gifts to, participating in special events with and attributed merit to, then pay the price that group has demanded. While you might think that nothing is ever worth the loss of lives, and that may be true, there will always be someone who thinks otherwise. Unless you are Ghandi, who had the advantage of believing in reincarnation, those who think otherwise are the controlling agents in the equation between a peaceful people and a warlike one. So you either give your head to the jackboot or you accept the need to put one on yourself. No amount of idealism will change that.
— Faith in the possibility of world peace has as little proof in its favor as faith in a deity does. I would suggest that only a deity can bring peace on Earth and so the existence of One is required for the possibility of the other.
— As for oppressing 6 billion people, who would have thought that 300 million people could be oppressed? Many suggest we are being oppressed in our own country and it shouldn’t be possible to accomplish that considering our numbers.
“I see nothing wrong with that, it’s just the attitude that we have no duties to people outside our borders that I take issue with – that our principles of freedom and liberty do not and should not extend to them.”
— Perhaps you, as an individual, can treat everyone equally but the Constitution does not have this duty, nor do the Bill of Rights. The American system of government is meant to favor Americans. These documents define the American government and protect the American people. One does not think that these principles should extend only to Americans. The American system, though, is meant to serve only Americans. If we wish to extend this to foreigners, fine, but it is foolish to extend them to enemies. Foreign combatants are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Geneva Conventions have been given the authority to govern combat. One of the principles of the Geneva Conventions is that if one side breaks them then the other side is free to do as they please. The other side broke the Geneva Conventions long before we did. Case closed.
— I went slightly off point in the last bit of the last paragraph. To finish the point, traditions and culture are meant to create some level of understanding between members of the same culture. Did that burp mean they liked their meal or did it mean they are crude? Did that hug mean we are friends or was it just some way for him to press up against me? Does that ring mean that person is sexually off limits or is it simply decoration? Can I count on my father to raise me, care for my needs, pass on his property to me and my siblings, or is he going to run off, raise someone else’s children and waste his resources on some other family? Can I count on my caring for my children to mean they will care for my grandchildren. Has our culture become so undefined, so “multi-cultural”, and so self involved that we need to give our earnings to the most wasteful sort of institution that man can invent, the government, so that it will take care of us?
“Mussolini and the Japanese fascists were also very militaristic. They did not respect any rights for people from other countries – nor for their own citizens, which is in large part where I draw the distinction between our country and fascism.”
— Not at first. Mussolini did not favor militarism until Hitler’s example. He just thought that the best government is the government that controls and cares for every aspect of the national need. One of those needs happened to be martial. Fascism is a kind of Socialism specific to national or racial identity. Communism is Socialism that desires a one world order. Sort of like what you think looks like a nice idea. All of us unified by our common station, common ability, lack of borders, lack of property, lack of responsibility and personal accountability. One is the nation serving the State. The other is the whole world serving the State. Everything must be offered up to a World Government where the bureaucrats will follow regulations and maintain peace, the environment, health, hearth and all the things we human cattle require. These bureaucrats will not be loyal to any one person, group, identity or station. They will be loyal to an ideal, to Utopia. Its the Left that reads Huxley and thinks it grand. Gore used the phrase “Brave New World” as an ideal, not a warning. His tone in that speech lacked irony. I am not saying the Left can accomplish this feat. I just think that if this is their goal it is a sign of their wrong-headedness. Read “It Takes A Village” and you will find ideas filched directly from Fahrenheit 451.
“Anyway, I’m more satisfied with your answers to my question here. You explained how the collapse of the family harms society, and why that particular tradition is valuable. I’m still not convinced as to why gay people getting married threatens the family – either devoted gay people who are going to raise children, or lovestruck gay people who will eventually get divorced. What I do see is that no one should have children in a marriage if they do not have a proper environment for having children.”
— No one should get married if they aren’t sure they will commit to raising children. Keep your options open for as long as you like. Once you have kids, all other options are closed. Since we cannot look into another’s heart and our culture has so confused the meaning of marriage, there is not much we can do to keep uncommitted couple’s from marrying. They get the benefit of the doubt. As you said, we can’t turn back the clock on this (we could but it will be a long process).On the other hand, gay couples do not get this benefit of the doubt as it is so minority a position that the coupling of gays would produce a marriage (a couple committed to making a family) that allowing it makes an open and declared statement that marriage simply means, these two people are dating really, really, really seriously.
“I would say a connection to a place, a community, etc., can lead to fascist thinking. Even in the benevolent desire to protect the Jewish community from outside threats, a certain Jewish extremist who I can’t remember the name of right now, uttered the words “One Jewish fingernail is worth 1,000 Arab lives” (or Palestinian lives, not sure which). That is what I mean when I say that the tribal impulse leads to fascism. I ought to have qualified it by saying that it “can” lead to fascism.”
— That wasn’t an Israeli extremist who said that. He was a freely elected member of the Knesset, Rabbi Meir Kahane, who said it. This quote was a very serious and well principled utterance. It was spoken by a person who felt responsible for the safety of the Jewish State and it’s people. He was voted into the Knesset whose purpose is to represent the interests of the Jewish People. So a Jewish fingernail should be more important then an Arab life, seeing as the Arabs are enemies of the State of Israel and their people. The care a representative of a nation should take in the lives of foreign nationals is proportional to how where that foreign national is on the ally-enemy scale. If Bush took the interests of a Canadian living in Quebec with the same care as he does my interests then he is not acting as President of the United States. Worse yet, if a leader of a country protects an enemy of his people while harming his own, I consider that a severe betrayal. I suppose you have found a way to be connected to nothing and no one, everything and everyone? You wouldn’t be having this conversation with me if that were true.
“Ah, your son is only 2. How much older do you think you are than me, by the way? I’m curious about that.”
— I assumed you are in your middle twenties. That would make you 10 years younger then me.
“P and IV? Can you explain what you mean by that?”
— My son is learning numbers and letters. Politics, not so much.
Apr 15, 2008 - 11:52 am 60. Tom:A beautiful and insightful review that is, sad to say, ruined by the fact the the author makes a claim that is 100% false. It is revealed point blank in the begining of the movie that H.W. is NOT Plainview’s son. He was the son of one of Daniel’s mine workers. Daniel took him in upon the death of the boy’s father. The fact that the author bungeled this is a huge error that ruins the rest of the article.
Get your facts straight next time bud, this was great otherwise.
Apr 15, 2008 - 3:49 pm 61. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:@ P. Ami
“If one is dangerous to the other and/or to the family then I can understand divorce. That is about it. Again, richer or poorer, sickness or health. So long as one is not physically in danger from the other then work it out. Its not a question of being capable of working it out it is a question of what avenues are available to allow people under emotional stress to make very bad decisions. The stress of daily life effects us all and we take it out on one another. Again, only physical harm is a fair reason to destroy a family.”
Again, I think I’d include the case where they truly hate each other – the kind of couple where each partner wants the other to die but is not doing anything to facilitate that.
“Marriage is about helping take care of one another. This is economics.”
But the hook, the initial motive to get married, for most people today, is love. In the older days, women could not support themselves economically. They weren’t allowed to get jobs – instead, they were married off like property – the father would “give” his daughter away. Those days have ended, and so there needed to be another reason for people to get married. Love was connected to marriage for that reason. Otherwise, people would have no need of getting married – if they can support themselves economically, there is no econonmic reason for marriage. Marriage is now largely pursued out of a desire for a lasting companionship.
“Love, romantic love, always goes away and sometimes returns. Once you have kids you change, the relationship changes, what stays the same is the commitment.”
If all goes well, yes.
“Because it harms the child who was adopted. It brings unnecessary confusion and uprooting. You have enough confused and uprooted people in society, that society becomes confused and uprooted.”
I want to point out that I was talking specifically about gay couples who do not adopt. Why can’t they get married?
“A part of the definition of marriage is that it only ends at death. When as many people get divorced as do in this environment then we can see that the concept of marriage has been undermined.”
I would argue that “til death do us part” is no longer a real part of the definition of marriage. With a 50% divorce rate, it is flipping a coin. It’s lip service.
“I am not even sure it was done through a plan to undermine it (although one can argue that the early communists, and various other modernists argued for communal living, property and wives. They tended to get quite a few divorces at a time when this was very uncommon, so perhaps their ideas spread and the same sort of chaos their “artistic” lives exhibited has now spread to the rest of society. Its one idea anyway).”
I’d say it probably has a lot more to do with the success of the women’s rights movement in this country. They can now support themselves economically, so they don’t have an economic incentive to marriage unless they desire children. I think a lot of women have the attitude that they can have children later in life anyway, after they accomplish all their career goals. Perhaps we are just in a transition to a new paradigm where women don’t get married until their 30’s – after giving it more thought, and having more finances. I think that is a good strategy in a (relatively) new world, and perhaps there will come a day when we view two 18 year olds getting married and having their children within two years as a couple of idiots. That’s certainly what I think of it, now.
“I think it was done shortsightedly, in the same manner in which you would accept the next undermining, gay marriage.”
Again, I don’t see how one connects to the other. I imagine that the divorce rate among gay people will be 50%, just like the rest of the population. It’s not going to make marriage as an institution any weaker.
“A person alone, or even a couple, cannot confer onto themselves the status of married couple as marriage is a state within a community.”
However, the only power they must get approval from is the state, not the community. A person cannot stop a marriage by protesting when the pastor says “Speak now or forever hold your peace”. I see what you’re saying though – the reason that gay marriage is illegal is because society has defined marriage to exclude it.
“Going back to previous logic, leaders of the gay community do have the power to marry. They can marry any gay man or gay woman to one another. You argue that this bypasses the intention of the gay community, which is to have same sex marriage. True.”
Thank you for finally admitting that (that it bypasses the intentions of the gay community). It completely misses the intention of the gay community – completely ignores what the argument is all about – and that is why it is an irrelevant and ridiculous argument.
“But, disallowing same sex marriage is consistent with the reason that society created marriage in the first place. Is consistent with every known community and this distinction is not made in order to subjugate the gay community to the whims of the hetero-centric world.”
It is consistent, but with changing social norms, the role of marriage in society is changing. Frankly, I doubt it can be stopped. The economic conditions of society are different.
The fear that allowing gays to get married is going to ruin the institution of marriage is what is motivating the push against it. I still don’t see the connection – I doubt gay people will be any more likely to get divorced than straight people.
“Meanwhile you don’t see the problem in increasing the standards of bigotry. Who gets to decide what is bigoted?”
It’s the community that decides in both cases. But you were talking about the right of business owners to discriminate on the basis or race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc – the right of them to put bigotry into practice. I think we can both agree that it is bigoted to hang a sign that says “we don’t serve (insert ethnic/racial/sex orientation slur here)”.
As far as your standard for divorce goes, I don’t think even a majority of Americans would support that standard – they would want something a little looser than that.
“I would not favor an end to borders anymore then I would favor an end to property rights. I don’t agree that equal resources bring about human equality. Some people work harder then others. Some people are more skilled then others (often a function of hard work). Some people are more talented then others. Some people are kinder then others. Some people are more responsible then others.”
I’m not shooting for total equality of the kind advocated in communism – what I would like to see is a more equitable distribution of resources, so that we could end famine. I would also like to see an end to wars, that a global government might bring about.
Some people are more intelligent than others. Some people are healthier than others. Some people can afford a better education than others. Some people are born into a war-torn and starving part of the world. Nature, as you say in a few sentences, favors some people over others (although I don’t agree that nature favors some groups of people over others – along racial lines, at least).
I probably lean a little more towards determinism than you do when it comes to the issue of human character. Our environment can have disastrous effects on our character development, and I think, often, the obstacles are insurmountable. I don’t think people should be allowed to starve for being lazy, dumb, or ignorant, either. That’s the extent to which I would utilize and redistribute the world’s resources. And certainly children, whose characters are not even formed yet, ought not to be allowed to starve by having the misfortune of being born into a bad situation.
“Some people are more selfish then others.”
We Amercans (and I include myself here) are the most selfish nation on the planet. We use way more resources than anyone else. We do way more damage to the environment – and those in the Third World will be the first ones to pay the price for it.
“There is equality under the law. While men, according to population ratio, commit more crimes then women a judge cannot rule that the murder case before her must have been committed by the man before the court, rather then the woman, solely based on that statistic. One needs to bring real evidence regarding that particular crime and that particular suspect/defendant.”
While there is equality under the law (gay marriage and civil unions notwithstanding), equality under the law does not equal equality in practice.
For example, although segregation is illegal, de facto segregation still occurs. I do think that is a problem for politics rather than the law – changing people’s attitudes. But certain social policies can reduce segregation indirectly – by reducing crime and poverty (because they go hand in hand), I believe we could gradually integrate our society.
“The government cannot favor one race, color or creed of American. Nature often does. While justice must be blind, the community cannot be.”
Nature does not favor certain races over others. Society does. Society as in, the citizens outside the government.
“Rather then law we generally have tradition.”
We have a lot of laws, though.
“If we simply went with nature’s methods, older parents would be left to die when injured because the younger adults feel like eating a bunch of bananas rather then care for their parents.”
I’m not sure that’s the case, either. In a lot of more primitive societies, elders occupy a central role in the society – they are in positions of power, and they remain the head of the family. A lot of third world cultures treat their elders better than we treat our own. It is perfectly natural to care for elders.
In contrast, we largely shut our elders away into nursing homes and hospitals in a futile effort to prolong life. We tend to think of them as foolish and senile rather than wise.
“We have developed cultural habits which indicate and reinforce caring; gift-giving, the awareness of special events in people’s lives, caring for the sick and injured, participating in common tasks, participation in special holidays and assemblies of the group. These common practices are bonding agents for people. In some cultures the birthday celebrant gives gifts on their birthdays. In some cultures gifts are received by the birthday celebrant. Some cultures consider the new year to be the day when one adds a year to their age. Some do so on the anniversary of the individual’s birth. What this indicates of the value one culture holds to the individual relative to the group is beyond our conversation.”
Some of these practices are natural, others are learned.
“The point is that a group that survives maintains some very regular habits to reinforce a bond. It is not often that the tradition of one culture is so antithetical to another that they are willing to be killed at the borders where these two cultures meet.”
We have developed a much more individualistic culture than most others. It may be a sign that our culture won’t last.
I still don’t see how changing this one tradition, the definition of marriage, will cause the collapse of our culture. You are placing too much emphasis on the institution of marriage as you know it.
“Unless you are Ghandi, who had the advantage of believing in reincarnation, those who think otherwise are the controlling agents in the equation between a peaceful people and a warlike one. So you either give your head to the jackboot or you accept the need to put one on yourself. No amount of idealism will change that.”
You put one on in self-defense, not to take resources from someone else when they won’t sell the resources to you. Obviously, that’s not how it works out in reality, though. Nations don’t really operate in moral terms.
You either strive for an ideal or you don’t. The ideal world is very difficult to achieve – but at this time, very few people are truly striving for it. Everyone believes it is impossible, so no one tries. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Faith in the possibility of world peace has as little proof in its favor as faith in a deity does. I would suggest that only a deity can bring peace on Earth and so the existence of One is required for the possibility of the other.”
The belief in deities leads to more war than it prevents.
“As for oppressing 6 billion people, who would have thought that 300 million people could be oppressed? Many suggest we are being oppressed in our own country and it shouldn’t be possible to accomplish that considering our numbers.”
Many suggest that – wrongly. We aren’t seriously being oppressed, not in any sort of dictatorial way. Our rights are being impinged upon, but it is no police state.
However, there is a vast difference between 300 million people and 6 billion people. Even if it is possible to build a police state in America, that is still orders of magnitude away from building a police state over the entire world.
“Perhaps you, as an individual, can treat everyone equally but the Constitution does not have this duty, nor do the Bill of Rights. The American system of government is meant to favor Americans. These documents define the American government and protect the American people. One does not think that these principles should extend only to Americans. The American system, though, is meant to serve only Americans.”
This is the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law – between actually believing in freedom and human rights, and just paying lip service to them.
“If we wish to extend this to foreigners, fine, but it is foolish to extend them to enemies.”
No, it is not foolish. During World War II, we extended POW protections to Nazi and Japanese soldiers we captured. They were a very formidable enemy – much more dangerous than Al Qaeda is today. That is why we had such a clear-cut and obvious moral authority in the eyes of the world. The German and Japanese forces treated our soldiers, in contrast, absolutely horribly – yet we never sunk to their level. It wouldn’t have made much sense to do so – to abuse the average German or Japanese footsoldier, who may have been coerced into fighting, anyway. It’s a case of letting your anger at the enemy get the better of you.
Treating the “enemy combatants” in the way we are treating them, by indefinitely detaining them, not applying due process to them, and torturing them (and I believe we do torture our enemies, in those CIA black sites in other countries), undermines our moral authority. Add to that the serious risk of detaining and torturing an innocent person and, we have seriously jeaopardized our moral authority in the eyes of the world. That’s why we have no allies now. If we want to win (whatever that means in the war on terror), we need allies.
“Foreign combatants are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Geneva Conventions have been given the authority to govern combat. One of the principles of the Geneva Conventions is that if one side breaks them then the other side is free to do as they please.”
I am unable to find such a principle. Please tell me which Convention it is from, and which part of it. What I find says that under all circumstances, detained prisoners are to be treated humanely, including unlawful combatants. Read about the Third Geneva Convention for that. This kind of lawyer’s loophole in morality, where a person somehow loses their status as human because they don’t fit a certain legal definition of “lawful combatant” is obviously just bullshit.
“The other side broke the Geneva Conventions long before we did. Case closed.”
Nope, the Geneva Conventions does not operate in this emotional, tit-for-tat manner. Think about Kosovo, Bosnia, and Serbia when you say “anything goes” when the other side is not abiding by international law. That opens the door to vicious ethnic conflicts where both sides are commiting war crimes. If it were as you say, only the side that initiated the atrocities against civilians first could be prosecuted for war crimes.
“Communism is Socialism that desires a one world order. Sort of like what you think looks like a nice idea.”
Sort of, but that is not all there is to communism. It involves the abolition of classes, violent overthrow of governments, a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, and a lot of other things I don’t agree with.
“Read “It Takes A Village” and you will find ideas filched directly from Fahrenheit 451.”
I will do that, although I tend to disagree with a lot of Hilary’s ideas anyway.
“On the other hand, gay couples do not get this benefit of the doubt as it is so minority a position that the coupling of gays would produce a marriage (a couple committed to making a family) that allowing it makes an open and declared statement that marriage simply means, these two people are dating really, really, really seriously.”
I have just as much confidence in gay people to create a devoted relationship as I have in heterosexuals. Why don’t you? Do you believe gays are inherently fickle, of a lesser moral fiber, or more promiscuous?
“That wasn’t an Israeli extremist who said that. He was a freely elected member of the Knesset, Rabbi Meir Kahane, who said it. This quote was a very serious and well principled utterance. It was spoken by a person who felt responsible for the safety of the Jewish State and it’s people. He was voted into the Knesset whose purpose is to represent the interests of the Jewish People. So a Jewish fingernail should be more important then an Arab life, seeing as the Arabs are enemies of the State of Israel and their people.”
Absolutely not, and the fact that he was elected is disgusting. He was indeed an extremist – a maniac, I would say. 1,000 Arab lives for a FINGERNAIL? That is pure lunacy and naked racism.
“The care a representative of a nation should take in the lives of foreign nationals is proportional to how where that foreign national is on the ally-enemy scale.”
I disagree, and if this way of thinking – that Arab lives are worthless – is very common, it helps explain why the Palestinians hate Israel so much – in part. Nazis would have said the exact same thing about Jews, and it would have been just as horrible.
“If Bush took the interests of a Canadian living in Quebec with the same care as he does my interests then he is not acting as President of the United States.”
If he so devalued the lives of Canadians that he is more willing to kill 1,000 of them rather than clip off an American fingernail, he is a maniac and a tyrant.
“Worse yet, if a leader of a country protects an enemy of his people while harming his own, I consider that a severe betrayal.”
There is a difference between protecting your people from an enemy and saying the enemy (and let’s make this clear – to say “Arab” is not the same as saying “Palestinian terrorist” – an Arab is anyone from a Muslim culture, basically) is less than human and deserves no consideration in the matter, is disgusting, fascist thinking.
It is no surprise he was assassinated. He was evil.
Some more things he said:
“… Western democracy has to be ruled out. For me that’s cut and dried: there’s no question of setting up democracy in Israel, because democracy means equal rights for all, irrespective of racial or religious origins.”
“Democracy and Judaism are two opposite things. One absolutely cannot confuse them. The objective of a democratic state is to allow a person to do exactly as he wishes. The objective of Judaism is to serve God and to make people better. These are two totally opposite conceptions of life.”
Advocating Jewish terrorism in response to Arab terrorism:
“I want to scare them and I want to make them realize that, contrary to what they have believed for fifteen years, time is not on their side… And I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I don’t think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab bus.”
So, a bomb thrown at a Jewish school bus will be a bomb thrown at an Arab school bus, then. That is evil.
“I suppose you have found a way to be connected to nothing and no one, everything and everyone? You wouldn’t be having this conversation with me if that were true.”
I have never advocated such disconnection.
“I assumed you are in your middle twenties. That would make you 10 years younger then me.”
Close enough. I’m 22.
“My son is learning numbers and letters. Politics, not so much.”
Ah, I thought there might be a hidden meaning.
Apr 15, 2008 - 5:40 pm 62. sean birmingham:I always find it interesting when conservatives decide to opine on the content and character of a movie/play/TV show. They usually have their antenna up for anything involving Homosexuality, Welfare, Minorities, and what they perceive to be “creeping socialism.” But to equate a movie about one man’s descent into hell, which was self-created and encouraged, hardly qualifies as a clever left-wing plot.
Apr 16, 2008 - 8:22 am 63. P. Ami:Can the writer honestly miss the entire premise of the film based on his/her political inclinations? If so, then they are missing a grand epic that encompasses all that is right and all that is wrong with American business today and yesterday. The events of 1898, 1911, and 1927 depicted in the film can very easily be 1998, 2001, and 2008. The boom of business encouraged by the discovery of a natural resource (oil) versus the boom of American business during the dot.com era. The subsequent economic downturn as the 1920’s closed, versus the economic “recession” of 2008 as two distinct milestones in the history of America. As far as the “left-wing” leaning intent of the film.. I find none!
I may be wrong, but it looks to me like you respond to what I have written as you read it rather then finishing the whole post. If that is the case, you really should read the whole response from beginning to end so you get the full argument I am making. I tend to space my points throughout my responses and questions that may arise early on may have been answered later. Seeing that you tend to react quite viscerally to some of my ideas, you may want to take time to calm yourself before responding. You’ll then give yourself the opportunity to comprehend my positions.
“Again, I think I’d include the case where they truly hate each other – the kind of couple where each partner wants the other to die but is not doing anything to facilitate that.”
— Why? How does one prove unexpressed hate?
“In the older days, women could not support themselves economically. They weren’t allowed to get jobs – instead, they were married off like property – the father would “give” his daughter away.”
— You need to do quite a bit more reading of history.
“I want to point out that I was talking specifically about gay couples who do not adopt. Why can’t they get married?”
— I have addressed this ad nauseum. Marriage is about the children.
“I would argue that “til death do us part” is no longer a real part of the definition of marriage. With a 50% divorce rate, it is flipping a coin. It’s lip service.”
— Because the vow to be committed to the marriage, the most important part of the institution, was for many people, removed from the cultural understanding of marriage. It would be better if divorce were made more difficult, rather then further diminishing the meaning of the institution by allowing gay marriage. If half the people who eat chicken die from it, should we add chicken eggs to their diet since they are dying anyway?
“It is consistent, but with changing social norms, the role of marriage in society is changing. Frankly, I doubt it can be stopped. The economic conditions of society are different.”
— You mean like how Americans today need two incomes rather then one in order to live well. You mean like how the costs of doing the things the mother usually cared for is being done at far higher expense, with far less care, then it used to be because she is out working rather then watching the kids. Before you get on me for my sexism, it doesn’t make a difference to me if its the man who stays with the kids or its the woman, the grandparents, whomever. It should be the family but remember, half of all families are divorced. The point is that very few Americans can afford to maintain a family on one income. I suppose your solution would be to get the government to cover the costs of having a family so that people would be free to divorce as often as they like?
“The fear that allowing gays to get married is going to ruin the institution of marriage is what is motivating the push against it. I still don’t see the connection – I doubt gay people will be any more likely to get divorced than straight people.”
— That is pure bs. Are you telling me that gays only thought of getting married once they realized that the rest of us were afraid of the idea?
“I think we can both agree that it is bigoted to hang a sign that says “we don’t serve (insert ethnic/racial/sex orientation slur here)”.”
— Yes, it is bigoted. I wouldn’t do it. I think business owners who are bigoted should have the right to hang that sign.
“As far as your standard for divorce goes, I don’t think even a majority of Americans would support that standard – they would want something a little looser than that.”
— So now the desires of a majority of Americans is a worthy argument against a moral argument. When it was 80% of Americans being against same sex marriage….
“I’m not sure that’s the case, either. In a lot of more primitive societies, elders occupy a central role in the society – they are in positions of power, and they remain the head of the family. A lot of third world cultures treat their elders better than we treat our own. It is perfectly natural to care for elders.”
— Primitives, third-world folk, all these people have a culture which reinforce what may be a naturally positive trait in many folk. The culture teaches us how to treat one another. Some are more prone to caring for our elders then others. But, culture defines the acceptable spectrum and most people try to fit into it. Obviously, given the choice, many people choose not to pay that sort of respect to their elders and are poorer for it.
“We have developed a much more individualistic culture than most others. It may be a sign that our culture won’t last.”
— I have quite a bit of thinking to do over that idea. I already have many angles to consider it from but I have put no order to it. I’m not sure you’ll ever get a proper response to that point from me. I think the problem is that it is too non-specific and, in many ways, contra the position you have consistently taken in the past. Up to now you seemed to be coming from the position that individualism, freedom and liberty are interchangeable in some way and you have been a proponent of them all.
— The thing is, I think we should be more individualistic then we are but every trait has its place. In terms of marriage, it is a specific institution and the will to mold it to any intimate relationship is degrading to the role marriage aught to be playing. In terms of business, art, friendly human interaction and some other endeavors, there is something to be said about individuality. Perhaps the culture’s ill-health is due to us having too much individuality in the some things and not enough in others. I believe that this culture is great enough to correct itself and do not think the Left is currently the corrective ideology.
“You put one on in self-defense, not to take resources from someone else when they won’t sell the resources to you. Obviously, that’s not how it works out in reality, though. Nations don’t really operate in moral terms.”
— There is more to it then that. Iraq is just one example. A nation, such as our own, will wage war when morality and self interest intersect, as they did, and do, in Iraq.
“You either strive for an ideal or you don’t. The ideal world is very difficult to achieve – but at this time, very few people are truly striving for it. Everyone believes it is impossible, so no one tries. Self-fulfilling prophecy.”
— BS. Different people have different ideas of what an ideal world looks like. Reality is sometimes the imperfect meeting of perfect ideas. Plenty of people strove for ideals and failed so horribly that the world was a worse place for it; Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot. It is the acceptance of imperfection that allows for tolerance, variety, opportunity. This too has its limits. You can’t be too jaded nor too idealistic. Striking the balance is tied into the Chinese concept of “correct touch”. This is what Jews found in the Oral Torah and was later codified in the Talmud, Mishna and other rabbinical works of genius. You are too idealistic and inexperienced for your ideas to be pragmatic and substantial. I know I am condescending to you but I have had some positive experiences with telling people what I see. I think you are even aware of your condition. As a limited man you cannot truly comprehend the ideal. One day you might realize that the ideal should be left fate, or G-d, or whatever you feel comfortable thinking of as an infinitely wiser and smarter being then yourself. Maybe that is why we don’t see eye to eye. Maybe you can’t imagine anything being that much wiser or smarter then you. Perhaps you don’t imagine that the Universe could actually be beyond your comprehension.
“Treating the “enemy combatants” in the way we are treating them, by indefinitely detaining them, not applying due process to them, and torturing them (and I believe we do torture our enemies, in those CIA black sites in other countries), undermines our moral authority. Add to that the serious risk of detaining and torturing an innocent person and, we have seriously jeaopardized our moral authority in the eyes of the world. That’s why we have no allies now. If we want to win (whatever that means in the war on terror), we need allies.”
— We treat our prisoners in this war much better then we treated our enemies in any other war. While our wars were in progress we did not and have not released enemy combatants or applied due process to them. I, unlike John McCain, do not think that water-boarding constitutes torture and I, unlike you, do not think we are torturing people in secret sites. So, our moral authority is just fine. In fact, the Iraqis have been joining in the counter-insurgency and put Al-Qaeda on the run, in no small part, because the Iragis now see us as morally better then our enemy. We have turned the corner in Iraq because the Iraqis are realizing they can trust us.
— We do have allies. The Iraqis, the Israelis, the NATO nations, Colombia has been working very hard to ally themselves with us. Unfortunately the Saudis are officially our ally although they behave, in many ways, as a belligerent. We have dubious allies in the Gulf States. India is an ally. Our list of allies is pretty long. The Poles and Czechs are allies with us. The list goes on.
— I will be skipping the Geneva Convention issues as it is so against what I know about them that I feel I need to reread them to properly dress you down.
“I have just as much confidence in gay people to create a devoted relationship as I have in heterosexuals. Why don’t you? Do you believe gays are inherently fickle, of a lesser moral fiber, or more promiscuous?”
— See, you want to frame my argument in bigoted terms. Most gays I know do not want children. I know one gay couple where one just gave birth to a daughter. I know another whose girlfriend left her while they were in the process of trying to adopt a child. All the rest of the homosexuals I know are happy to be free of the responsibility of childrearing. The few polls I have ever read that discuss the desires of gay couples, it is nearly universally true that they do not want children. The movement for same sex marriage does not express their desire for gay marriage in terms of the right of gays to raise children. I have no more or less an issue with heterosexuals who go through a series of relationships then I do with gays who do. I don’t think the commitments between heterosexuals who do not marry are inherently any more meaningful then those of committed, unmarried gays. I have a problem with anyone who is getting married as a statement that, again, amounts to “we are dating, really, really, really seriously”.
“I disagree, and if this way of thinking – that Arab lives are worthless – is very common, it helps explain why the Palestinians hate Israel so much – in part. Nazis would have said the exact same thing about Jews, and it would have been just as horrible.”
— You don’t know how much value Rabbi Kahane put in a Jewish fingernail. If Kahane put as much value in a Jewish fingernail as you do in your mother, would you not allow the death of 1000 people before your mother’s? Okay, that is a but silly but I hope you get one point from my response, don’t be so quick in thinking you understand what someone is saying, means and feels as most of us find it difficult to align the three.
— Here is the problem with your absolutist line of moral thinking. Once you decide something is immoral then it is immoral to the nth degree and they deserve being assassinated for their words. Meanwhile, if you are currently blind to the cultural disintegration our deep, human need for familial order, that committed marriage helps to instil, you figure, being for that institution is backwards, cannot be recreated today or in the future, so we who actively propose to maintain that institution need to just get over our primitive ideas and move on.
— You have no idea what Kahane’s actions were. You are reacting simply to his words. I’m guessing you think Jeremiah Wright deserves to be assassinated seeing as how his words are incendiary, hateful and, unlike Rabbi Kahane’s words, based on lies. Does Wright require an understanding of context while the Jewish plight for a Jewish Homeland is racist, evil, extremist, pure lunacy? Is the struggle to maintain the Jewish identity also backwards? How about the Arab identity? What if the Jewish identity is strongly tied tot he Jewish Homeland? What if the Arab identity is strongly tied to Muslim supremecy? What if the reason the Palestinians don’t have a second homeland (are you aware that 90% of Jordanians are Palestinian?) is because the Arabs are so stuck to the idea that the Jews cannot have a homeland that they insist on maintaining a refugee population rather then let them settle in permanent homes as permanent members of Arab countries?
“I disagree, and if this way of thinking – that Arab lives are worthless – is very common, it helps explain why the Palestinians hate Israel so much – in part. Nazis would have said the exact same thing about Jews, and it would have been just as horrible.”
— First off, this way of thinking is not common at all. Even if it were, perhaps the Arabs did something to the Jews that helps explain why the Israelis, in this hypothetical world, consider the Arabs worthless? History does not begin with a grievance. Since this way of thinking is not common, what then is the Arab excuse for hating the Jewish State?
— Palestine was nothing before the Jewish migrations in the late 19th century. the Ottoman’s controlled that territory and let it fall away to swampland, pestilence, plague, malaria and Bedouin/bandits. Westerners who visited found depression, stagnation, crime, disorder and many died while visiting. Even the Jews who lived there, and there have always been Jews living there, were a backwards lot living in Jerusalem, Hebron and Safed. They were poor, lazy and crude. European Jews began to buy land from the lawful landholders who were mostly Turks and Arabs. They sometimes succeeded in getting Arabs to work with them in the fields which had once been swampland (they drained them by importing Eucalyptus trees). Many Jews died from disease but the will for a Jewish homeland was strong and the Jewish situation in Europe was so dismal that they stayed and more joined them. The Arab leaders began to notice and saw that these Jews were not like the Jews who had been living there for the last many hundred years. Those Jews had been broken by Muslim supremacy and had accepted their dhimi status. These new Jews were hard working, self-sufficient and proud. These Jews needed to learn a lesson about what its like to be an infidel in Muslim countries. So, the Arabs attacked the Jews in the cities. They attacked the Jewish settlements. They raped, they destroyed, they stole. History begins with an attempt at bettering one’s self. That bettering of one’s self is often not at the expense of another. The Jews who came to Palestine, in those days, came with the idea that they could make the region bloom and better the lives of every person living there.
“… Western democracy has to be ruled out. For me that’s cut and dried: there’s no question of setting up democracy in Israel, because democracy means equal rights for all, irrespective of racial or religious origins.”
— Whats the problem here. A Jewish homeland is a Jewish homeland. I don’t have a problem with the Arabs living their lives as Arab Muslims in their country. I don’t have a problem that the laws of Catholicism be the ruling principle of the Vatican. Why shouldn’t the Jewish homeland follow Jewish principles and Jewish laws?
““I want to scare them and I want to make them realize that, contrary to what they have believed for fifteen years, time is not on their side… And I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I don’t think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab bus.”
— I disagree with that specific statement made by Rabbi Kahane. If you dig a little into the context of the statement, you’ll find it came under a heading we might consider the conditions under which the State of Israel has become lax in its duty of protecting its citizens. It should be the Jewish State, not individual vigilantes, that inflict the bombing and to some limited sense it does. I think that if people attack any sovereign nation, it is the responsibility of that nation to defend itself and go after the leaders who justify, train and plan these attacks. An attack from another State is an attack by that State, unless they do something to punish those individuals who attacked and keep others individuals form finding it easy to do the same.
“So, a bomb thrown at a Jewish school bus will be a bomb thrown at an Arab school bus, then. That is evil.”
— What then is the appropriate response to someone attacking your children with bombs? I’ll tell you, someone threatens my son’s life, I will end them. A fingernail on my son means more to me then 1000 of any other life.
— Now, I wouldn’t want the death of 1000 people for the sake of my son’s fingernail. The point is, in the question between my son and anyone else, or even 1000 anyone elses, there is no question. Still, I would be proud if when my son grew up he would see the value in joining the military and contribute to our communal safety in a disciplined, principled and well trained manner. If there came a day when someone hijacked a plane and flew it into a building, I would want my son to be out there hunting and killing those responsible and those working to echo that attack. When I read about Iraqi people finally coming to understand the goodness of the American fighting forces, that they see how hard they are willing to work, that Iraqis see we are working with and for their betterment, that our men and women are risking their lives (rather then quoting party line platitudes from the safety of the University) to make that country work and that they recognize we are better then Al-Qaeda, my pride chokes me up. We are a great country on a great mission. This is why I resent people like Obama who point only to the negatives of the present so they can sell us an idealized future that only they can help us realize. To some it seems every struggle is a tragedy and every success a crime.
“I have never advocated such disconnection.”
— Every idea, every common bond, every word we speak is a tribal sort of “connection to a place, a community, etc., (that) can lead to fascist thinking.”
Apr 16, 2008 - 2:13 pm 64. Anonymous:@ P. Ami:
I’m going to take another day to look over my reply before posting, to make sure I don’t post too hastily.
Apr 16, 2008 - 10:38 pm 65. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:Whoops, I didn’t post that under my user name.
Apr 17, 2008 - 12:54 pm 66. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:Well, my full reply was never posted. I tried, though. I’ve lost the file now.
I’ll post a little bit, just to sum up.
- We agree on gay civil unions.
Apr 20, 2008 - 4:02 pm 67. OnlyConservativesHaveFamilies:- We on almost everything else.
Ha, I omitted a word – we disagree on almost everything but civil unions.
Apr 21, 2008 - 8:23 am 68. Cesareo:Excellent review; fresh point of view.
My only disagreement is about the conservative-family link – I am focusing my comment on the wife & husband relationship.
I have seen many marriages start over the last years. However, it seems to me that conservatives do not value or respect their wives as much as liberals. I am under the impression that they value tradition and the stereotype of what a partner should be, yet not suffer from any guilt from going to bachelor parties and table dances (of course, its a generalization that I would never suggest applies to all).
It might be just me personal experience, but I am under the impression that liberals, in general, respect women as equals and therefore value more having a thrutful wife-husband relationship, which is, in my oppoinion, the base of a solid family.
So I ask… why should the idea of family be linked to conservativism? I think that while a family based on tradition is a conservative value, a family based on love is a liberal one.
Thanks
CFS
Apr 26, 2008 - 11:52 pm 69. jenny:i liked this film alot, it kinda reminded me of the dark realistic western atmosphere seen in “Unforgiven”. it is an awesome movie. BUT the score is totally overrated, it does set a chilling mood and it works fine, but just because jonny greenwood did it trying to imitate modernist composers, doesn’t mean it’s a musical masterpiece.
Oct 30, 2008 - 5:06 am