Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week, beginning with an astute observation by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com, which also applies to abortion proponents…
by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
by John Deering at GoComics.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The first one makes no sense. If gay parents were necessary to produce gay people, there would be no gay people. I get that the point of the cartoon is that gay people can’t have children with each other but there’s just something off about the ‘punchline.’
The increasing support of same-sex rights has been due to an increase in visibility – everybody has a gay friend, a gay family member, etc, and knows it, these days – not an increase in numbers, and those numbers have held up pretty well with most children being born to straight parents.
The last one made me LOL. Perfect.
Alexandra, I get your point, but I read it as commentary on not only the absurdity of calling a union that can’t possibly produce children a ‘marriage’ but also drawing attention to the lie of a ‘gay gene’ or being ‘born that way’. What can not be passed on genetically can not be genetic.
Interesting perspective, Jespren! I didn’t think of it that way. I am not very intelligent about genetics but I don’t think that something has to be dominant/present in the parent to be passed on to the child. ie Children with Down’s Syndrome are born to parents who don’t have Down’s Syndrome; Tay-Sachs, etc. Also I thought that it was possible for chromosomal abnormalities to occur post-fertilization, as the embryo splits.
Note that I am not saying that there IS a “gay gene,” just that I don’t think that the simple fact that gay children don’t “come from” gay parents necessarily means that there ISN’T a genetic component.
Alexandra/Jespren the punchline of comic #1 hints at the fact they “recruit”. They of course can’t have children, the bible says its sinful ie they weren’t born that way etc. so they push their agenda on school age children/teens as some kind of cool accepted fad. It’s a well known thing homosexuals yell… “recruit, recruit, recruit”
Comic #1…ewwwwww look at the lamp, the lotion bottle and the black leather cap. Ewwww…
Wow, I have never heard a homosexual yell “recruit recruit recruit,” and I live and work in a pretty notoriously pro-gay community.
So far we’re at 2.
Any more “Obama nursing” adaptations for this site? Even though I started it with the Lunch Break, I don’t think I can handle any more.
LL ;)
Sigh. How many days in a row has there been some sort of anti-gay post on this blog.
Alexandra, have you ever heard a homosexual or a liberal push an agenda that discriminates against heterosexual couples and calls for our government to cease recognition of the union of a man and a woman as being any different than the union of two men?
Alexandra, is it discriminatory if a person refuses to call a woman a male?
I’m with JDC,enough with the anti-gay posts. It’s off-topic and you’re alienating people from the movement.
Also, the fact that same-sex couples cannot reproduce so therefore cannot pass on their sexual preferences to offspring does NOT mean that there is not a genetic basis for them. That’s ludicrous and unscientific. An even worse reason to think that genetics don’t play a role would be “because the bible says its a sin”. So… science MUST have it wrong? Interesting how some people are genetically predisposed to be serial murderers, but no one is arguing that because murder is a sin there’s no way this could be true. I would still be pro-life even if the bible said that fetuses are disposable. Why? Because a biologically distinct human being exists from conception, regardless of what one religion or another has to say about it. Blindly ignoring truth in the name of religion has caused so much harm in this world. Child sacrifice, brutal stonings, sex slavery, the list goes on.
Truthseeker, I originally liked your post because I HAVEN’T seen a homosexual do the things you stated, and I thought that was your point. Who is discriminating against heterosexual couples? Is there an “anti straight marriage” movement I’m unaware of?
Also, what do you anti-gay prolifers think of groups like PLAGAL? Do you embrace them as allies or shun them as sinners?
Alexandra, for whatever reason it seems far more common for females to be calling for active ‘recruitment’ than for males. I’ve only read/seen/heard of 1 homosexual male say that they should seek recruits and turn people towards the lifestyle, but I’ve read/seen/heard any number of female homosexuals say that they should recruit. Perhaps it goes along with the feminst ideal of not needing men.
And yes, recessive genes do not express themselces and can therefore be invisibly passed on, but they still require a genetic component to pass on. The holy grail of genetic studies is identical twins. They have identical genes so what is found genetically in one *must* be found in the other as well. But studies on identical twins show only about an 11% likelihood of one twin being homosexual if the other one is, it’s scientifically impossible to say homosexuality itself is genetically predetermined. it’s a choice, a choice that some *might* be biologically pressured towards, just like *some* drunks have a higher risk of becoming addicted due to their biology, but it’s neither predictive or predetermined, and it certainly isn’t an excuse. One can’t blame their genes for homosexual conduct anymore than an alcoholic can. We can surely sympathize that some may have to struggle more with it than others, but that is true of *any* behavior, and, by and large, it’s not looked at as an excuse to allow, much less celibrate, destructive behavior.
Hillary, actual ‘science’, that is something that is observable, repeatable, testable, and theoretically falsifyable agrees with the Bible, homosexual behavior is a chosen action that is destructive to the human body. It is not an inborn characteristic like skin tone, but rather a highly flexible expression of character that can and frequently does change greatly over a person’s life time. And, for the record, if you haven’t heard the same-sex marriage crowd calling for the disolusion of *all* “marriages” to be replaced with ‘civil unions’ or ‘legally recognized partnerships’, then you’re not listening very hard. Given, it’s not overly popular, but there is an outspoken element who want to see marriage itself disbanded as a legally recognized union and replaced with whatever version of government recognized unions they deem proper. Unfortunately I’m either friends (well peers anyway) with or related to some of these ‘anti-marriage’ people. I have to scroll through posts about how ‘marriage’ should not be legally exist at all on a semi regular basis.
The last cartoon pretty much sums up Obama’s thinking, in more ways then one.
First, as to the budget he has yet to garner a single vote in either the House or the Senate. Obama’s “Budget” was defeated 414-0 in the House and 99-0 in the Senate. His democrat colleagues in congress won’t even so much as give him a fig leaf by pretending to support him. And no wonder. They cannot abide by the extreme irresponsibility of a budget that is totallly divorced from reality. This is especially true for those who are hoping to be re-elected. From the standpoint of Obama’s own aspirations for another term this abandonment from his own party has to a sign that they have written him off, that they do not want to tie themselves to a sinking ship. All of you trolls and Obama supporters…your side is in real trouble.
This cartoon also reflects his overall approach to governing and the Alinskyite/collectivist political philosophy to which he subscribes. He essentially views the wealth of others as wealth for all. So sucking on the teat of the American public in order to fund his messianic dreams is in his mind a correct ordering of society and the distribution of wealth.
The kicker is that he tries to call on a higher authority as though his redistributionism is divinely ordained. Perhaps Reverend Jeremiah Wright preached from a different bible than what everyone else has, but as little as Obama goes to church now and in those 20 years in Wright’s assembly it is hard to say where he got his ideas. Maybe it was when he was blowing weed and doing cocaine. Coveting the goods of another is expressly prohibited by the 10th commandment but that does not stop Obama and his fellow leftist travelers from wratchting up class envy and class warfare as he sows discord among the very people he promised to bring together.
Is there an “anti straight marriage” movement I’m unaware of?
Hilary, the movement for “homosexual marriage” is an “anti-straight marriage” movement. For The homosexual marriage movement denies that the relationship between a man and a woman is ‘special” and/or deserving of it’s own definition. If they didn’t feel that way that wouldn’t feel the need to deny that relationships between men and women are different and they would quit attacking the institution of marriage.
truthseeker, I don’t really think that your questions have any bearing on what I said, since I am not arguing on behalf of same-sex marriage in this thread or even arguing that homosexuality is genetic. That said, I have never heard of an agenda that pushes to discriminate against heterosexuals, as I do not think that the push to same-sex marriage discriminates against heterosexuals. I do not think it is discrimination to refuse to call a man a woman.
Then it would follow that you would also not think it is discrimination to define the union of a man and another man as something other than marriage since marriage is the term we use to define the union of a man and woman.
Quick hits:
1) The number or percentage of people supporting gay marriage is growing – and growing rapidly. Though I don’t think that is the point of the cartoon – which is just a weird one if you ask me. Seems a bit more like 8th grade output…
2) The poll cited is an awful poll…Obama’s still up with women on the majority of polls.
3) It’s too bad that Julia isn’t a criminal, has bypassed routine care and now needs emergency care, is an oil executive, or is an Iraqi…then we’re willing to spend all it takes to deal with the situation!
4) Ron Paul, I believe, got the majority of delegates from Minnesota the other night just through better organization than Mitt. Funny stuff.
5) Under reagan, to fight the recessions – government employment rose over 3%. Under Obama, government employment has fallen almost 3%. And we’re surprised job figures and revenue continue to lag?
Ex-RINO.
The real unemployment numbers that include those who have used up their eligibility and/or those who have stopped looking for a job is well over 20% by every estimation. And most of the so-middle class that are supposedly doing so well under Obama are scraping just to get by (other than those in public employee unions). Obama uses our government to hand out tax-payer stimulus to his cronies. Socialism breeds the worst kind of corruption cause the handouts are done using tax-payer monies to pay-off poliyical allegiance. And the Democratic party sees no reason to stop reign in stimulus spending or any need at all for a budget. And they will have absolutely no reasin to budget in the next four years if Obama is re-elected.
Then it would follow that you would also not think it is discrimination to define the union of a man and another man as something other than marriage since marriage is the term we use to define the union of a man and woman.
No, I don’t think it is discrimination, really. I am something of a pragmatist and I think that focusing on linguistics and semantics when it comes to people’s lives and rights is kind of like worrying about feng shui on the Titanic.
Truth – maybe Obama should just pull a Scott Walker, find his own numbers are use those!
The rest of your post is essentially nonsense – like one of those occupy people, standing in their own filth, shouting crazy streams of words in hoping some of them make sense.
:-)
Alexandra wrote:
I am something of a pragmatist and I think that focusing on linguistics and semantics when it comes to people’s lives and rights is kind of like worrying about feng shui on the Titanic.
Forgive me, but this sort of talk (no offense to you, personally) exasperates me to no end. Is it really so difficult to believe that words actually mean things, and that if our words (which direct our thoughts, which direct our choices, which steer our early courses) are detached from reality, we will end up with utter ruin? To wit:
1) Is it a mere matter of “semantics” to say that a black man “has no rights which the white man is bound to respect” (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857, which ruled that black slaves were property, and not persons)?
2) Is it a mere matter of “semantics” to say that unborn children are mere “potential human persons”, “blobs of tissue”, “parasites”, and the like? Does it make no difference to you at all?
The greatest minds of our world knew that words control thought. (Have you read the book “1984”, by George Orwell? You may be in a generation in which it was not required reading; more’s the pity.) If you deny people certain words, it will shape their thoughts, and their minds, which will shape their behaviour… which will then shape teh world. Hitler did not conquer most of Europe with a pistol or by super-human physical strength; he did so by means of words and lies, cleverly crafted so as to resonate with the frustrations and prejudices of his day and culture… and millions of people died horribly, as a result. I beg of you, Alexandra: at very least, do not think that issues of life and death, or of our very identity as male/female/human, are mere “labels” or “semantics”; nothing could be further from the truth.
I realise that you have sentimental reasons for wanting to allow homosexuality to become normalised in society; but this is simply not reason enough to embrace it… or anything else, for that matter. The most frightening type of modern movement, in my mind, is the “new” idea of an individual “following his/her heart” to enact some sort of change, but who cannot be bothered even to wonder about whether their views, choices, and actions are RIGHT, or not! (Usually, such people are relativists, who have given up all thought of a “right” or “wrong” at all.)
EGV, you’re skating dangerously close to the point where I urge Truthseeker not to “feed the troll”; a sheer dodge, followed by a shot-gun-cluster insult, is hardly worth being dignified with a substantial reply.
maybe Obama should just pull a Scott Walker
Ex-RINO, That would require budgets and real solutions; both of which Obama has shown himself to be incapable of embracing.
Paladin – are you saying that this -
“And most of the so-middle class that are supposedly doing so well under Obama are scraping just to get by (other than those in public employee unions). Obama uses our government to hand out tax-payer stimulus to his cronies. Socialism breeds the worst kind of corruption cause the handouts are done using tax-payer monies to pay-off poliyical allegiance. And the Democratic party sees no reason to stop reign in stimulus spending or any need at all for a budget. And they will have absolutely no reasin to budget in the next four years if Obama is re-elected.”
is great, rational thinking that you wish to defend?
Come on…
Paladin, I apologize if I gave the impression that I don’t value words. I can definitely see how I didn’t articulate myself well. By that I mean that people who are very concerned with advocating same-sex marriage are often focusing on the language rather than the rights they claim to be seeking. Words absolutely mean things but what I meant was that I know many, many people who would not be satisfied with civil unions that granted all the same legal rights as marriage but were called something different, etc. To me, that is prioritizing semantics over rights. It’s like if someone said, “Well, we can enact legislation that says that you can’t terminate a fetus in utero, but we can’t call it a baby!” and pro-lifers said, “No, a baby is a baby, we insist on the language because language means things.” To them, I would say that there are things more important than language. Language does mean things. Language means a lot of very powerful things. Because of that, it is an intensely divisive aspect of debate and compromise, and it often becomes one that is more important than the actual things it purports to describe. To a same-sex marriage advocate who balks at the idea of civil unions that actually have the same legal rights (medical etc) as marriage, I would say that they do care more about forcing acceptance and approval, however symbolically, than about securing rights. Whether they are right or wrong to demand acceptance and approval is another subject, but they certainly demonstrate that they prioritize approval over actions, and I have little patience for people who don’t just want the freedom to do what they want – but who also demand widespread approval. Not everyone approves of my life, either. Big whoop. I don’t care about them – I care about having the right to live it.
Yes, I have read 1984, and I recognize the power of words more than most people, I think.
I realise that you have sentimental reasons for wanting to allow homosexuality to become normalised in society; but this is simply not reason enough to embrace it… or anything else, for that matter.
You don’t realize much about me, then. I don’t “want” homosexuality to become “normalized” in society. I don’t often discuss the issue on this blog because I have few strong political feelings on it. My feelings on the matter are personal and little else, and so I keep them to myself. I have many, many gay friends and colleagues and I care deeply about them, but that does not mean I agree with all their choices. I don’t agree with everything anybody does. I don’t get often get asked whether I would vote for or against my straight friends’ choices, though, and so I don’t really like talking about the subject.
Truth – we’re not talking about budgets are we. We’re talking about unemployment figures and, well, what I originally wrote.
Scott Walker is the representation that brought us balanced budgets for Wisconsin. And as far as unemployment goes do you disagree that the real number (including those who have used up their eligibility to collect unemployment) is something higher than 20%? Or is the part that you disgraee with is that you think Obama and Harry Reid will do a much better job of producing budgets if Obama they get a second chance?
Truth – the unemployment rate is higher than what is reported as people have left the job market and aren’t searching.
My original quote was ”maybe Obama should just pull a Scott Walker, find his own numbers are use those!” – because that is what Walker did. Wisconsin has pretty well held steady on jobs over the past 15 months (while everyone else grows) – so Walker went and found other numbers that he liked. I’m mocking Walker, saying maybe Obama ought to do that – just use his own numbers.
People who oppose gay marriage are losing because they haven’t made the right argument: the COMPENSATORY argument. Het sex leads to abortions and other horrors such as babies born only to be strangled or left by the wayside. It also leads to adoption which some see as a “good thing” although it is strongly associated with both serial murder and parricide.
No woman has ever waited in panic for a menstrual period because of a lesbian embrace.
Lesbianism can’t lead to abortion. What CAN it lead to? Orgasm. In fact, I’ve heard women are more likely to achieve sexual satisfaction this way than with men although lesbianism isn’t as likely to lead to orgasm as masturbation (the best way for men as well).
Men in gay relationships don’t end up supporting babies they WRONGLY believe are theirs.
Why should gay people have the advantages of marriage when they have the advantages of homosexuality itself?
Shouldn’t the sort of sex that leads to horrors like abortion be compensated for its drawbacks?
Ex-GOP, you might find this interesting. It was censored by TED, so not many have seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI&feature=youtu.be
I’ve never understood the idea that two men being able to get married would make my marriage to my husband any less valid. The bible actually urges Christians NOT to get married at all, because that takes their focus away from God and puts it on more earthly things. Does that mean we should cease getting married and procreating? No. Will my brother in law and his partner getting married (and my husband and his brother are identical twins, one gay and one straight) make my marriage any less than it is? No. I have no problem with them being just as, if not more, involved in my children’s lives than their straight relatives.
“Wow, I have never heard a homosexual yell “recruit recruit recruit,” and I live and work in a pretty notoriously pro-gay community.”
Gee. Harvey Milk used to chant that into a microphone regularly. But hey, what do I know? Besides the fact that Milk used to rent-a-mob in the form of busloads of Jim Jones followers. But what do I know? Besides the fact that gay couples have already begun lawsuits against churches and properties that won’t let them have their “weddings” on their properties. Guess what? As a Catholic, I can’t get married in a Jewish synagogue, so I guess that makes Jewish people big ole bigots, right?
My point is this: if gay people want “marriage” they should do it by democratic vote, not judicial activism. They should also respect the conscience rights of religious institutions. Respect isn’t only for people who agree with you, y’know. And everyone needs to get with reality: gay people are just as corrupt as anyone else and they’re not magically noble. Many gay men and lesbian women DO actively recruit among the young, including yes even minors. I’ve seen it plenty with my own eyes. And finally, many people “hide out” in gay relationships that were not BORN with any gene that makes them that way. A woman who is sexually assaulted and copes by turning to same sex relationships is not born with a gay gene. But many people refuse to see that. Many of my own friends think there is something enobling about being gay and enobling about supporting gay marriage.
On one hand, no one should be persecuted for being gay. On the other hand, stop treating it like a special thing that no one can discuss without being called a hater. Gay people are NOT in a special class. We are all equal, as galling as that is.
Alexandra wrote:
Paladin, I apologize if I gave the impression that I don’t value words.
Actually, the apology will have to be mine! I completely mis-read one or two key words of your original reply to Jespren (as well as one key word on Jespren’s own post), and that led me on an embarrassingly wrong path in which I assumed you mean almost the opposite of what you actually said! I do apologize, and I’m very sorry for the error and for any possible offense given! (Well… there’s my dose of humility for the week/month/year; how mortifying!)
I don’t often discuss the issue on this blog because I have few strong political feelings on it.
Well… just as a side-issue: “political feelings” are not the point (nor does the phrase make a great deal of sense, per se); this is a moral issue, not merely a political trifle.
My feelings on the matter are personal and little else, and so I keep them to myself.
All right.
I have many, many gay friends and colleagues and I care deeply about them,
As do I.
but that does not mean I agree with all their choices. I don’t agree with everything anybody does.
I’m afraid that’s too vague for me to know what you mean; I might, for example say that I disapprove of the educational choices (or some other incidental issue) of someone afflicted with same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD), but that says nothing about the main point; it’s a handsome-sounding way of evading the issue altogether, without saying anything of substance. I realise that the position is unpopular (which is why I cringe a bit when I broach the subject, myself… above and beyond the fact that it is not nearly so urgent a topic as abortion is), but: to those who complain about the number of posts on this blog which are critical about some aspect of homosexuality, I’d gently suggest that it is far from irrelevant or inappropriate. (The same is true of contraception, and of any distortion to sexuality.) All of these stem from the same disease: the tendency to reject God’s design for human sexuality in favour of human-chosen standards (which cannot help but lead to disaster).
I don’t get often get asked whether I would vote for or against my straight friends’ choices, though, and so I don’t really like talking about the subject.
I understand. But (at least in reference to an earlier comment of yours), the idea of “harmless recognition of so-called ‘same-sex marriage/partnership rights'”, per se, is an utter illusion. No one can entertain the idea of such a thing without causing an eventual collision with Christianity, at least. When “same-sex unions” are recognised fully in law, then the rights of religious objectors who (rightly) refuse to countenance support for such a distorted state of affairs will be impaired, or even removed (cf. successful lawsuits against photographers who refused to photograph ‘same-sex unions’, bed-and-breakfast businesses who refuse to house same-sex couples, and the like.). We don’t have the luxury of remaining quietly on the side-lines while this issue works itself out. Need we be belligerent, hateful or unloving? No… and Christ forbids us to use such evil means to achieve good ends; but allowing those with SSAD to “celebrate” their disease is a cowardice-ridden absence of love, at very least.
If an honorary doctorate counted just as much as an actual earned one on a resume, wouldn’t that diminish the latter’s worth? Just musing.
Ninek, are you talking to me throughout that entire comment or just ranting in general? Because your point about not being able to get married in a synagogue etc lines up pretty well with what I was saying. And I apologize if you think that I only respect those who agree with me. I had hoped that my years here might convince you otherwise, but regardless, I have to say that I think I have been more respectful in this discussion than you have been to me.
I’d like to know more about Harvey Milk but I’m on my phone now and it’s hard to type, and I also don’t really think you’re the person I should have this conversation with right now.
Paladin I’m not ignoring you – just on my phone as I said. :)
Alexandra,
:) No worries. Heavens, after the galactic-level goof that I just managed at your expense, I think I can spot you a few minutes for a phone call, at very least!
“same-sex attraction disorder”
The DSM IV does not recognize homosexuality as a disorder. Obviously, your Catholic Church does but then their view of sexuality is and continues to be very distorted. (It’s a man’s world!)
“When “same-sex unions” are recognised fully in law, then the rights of religious objectors who (rightly) refuse to countenance support for such a distorted state of affairs will be impaired.”
The same principals of the 14th Amendment will be applied to these situation as was applied to those who denied blacks the full measure of their civil rights.
“All of these stem from the same disease: the tendency to reject God’s design for human sexuality in favour of human-chosen standards (which cannot help but lead to disaster”
Catholic teachings – far from universal.
“No one can entertain the idea of such a thing without causing an eventual collision with Christianity, at least.”
So far, gay marriage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has had no impact on Christian marriages. In fact, Mass. has the lowest divorce rate in the country – far lower than the southern Christian states where same sex marriage is prohibited. (Mass. is also one of the most educated states.)
Don’t feed the troll, y’all.
“We are all equal, as galling as that is.”
Oh, that’s a curious appropriation of the equality argument. Yes, we’re all equal…but it’s still permissible to privilege one type of relationship over another? Very 1984. War=peace, good=bad.
I’m mocking Walker, saying maybe Obama ought to do that – just use his own numbers.
Ex-RINO, just what numbes are you talking about? TThere was a very large poll involved? It was a poll that is normally conducted and used by the Bureau of labor statistics. Why are you saying they are his own numbers? Your angst against Scott Walker has you living in fantasyland where you people can accuse Scott Walker of conducting his own polling. Put down the kool-aid and step back slowly.
I’m talking about how every single state uses the Establishment Payroll Survey from the DOL to produce job numbers.
Walker didn’t like those numbers, so for job numbers, he decided to use the Current Population Survey instead.
So when you see those commercials all of the sudden saying that there’s been X number of job growth in Wisconsin, it is because Walker is using numbers nobody else uses.
Thus, my mocking – that Obama should take numbers he doesn’t like, and find other numbers he likes, and then use those.
“My point is this: if gay people want “marriage” they should do it by democratic vote, not judicial activism.”
If interracial marriage were put to a ballot, in today’s South, it would probably be defeated. And that’s why the “Loving” decision was so important.
“ Many gay men and lesbian women DO actively recruit among the young, including yes even minors. I’ve seen it plenty with my own eyes.”
Once again, there should be no question as to why the pro-life movement is viewed as crazy town. Hey Ninek, other than your bizarre anecdotes, got anything actually substantive. And BTW, Harvey Milk was assassinated by a crazed, homophobic Catholic.
But as you say, religious groups can pick and choose which couple they marry. It’s when they rent their facilities to the public that the civil rights law comes in. The same would apply to groups that would refuse to accommodate minorities.
The idea that nefarious gays would force the Catholic Church, which hates them, to marry them is just so ludicrous.
Sara,
Do you not see anything in the relationship you have with your husband that would not be possible for your husbands brother to have in his relationship with his boyfriend? If this were just your feelings; OK; but leave the reference to scripture for the hetero side cause scripture is cahock full of guidance to God’s plan for man and woman and the relationships between them. You can’t seriously be saying scripture leads you to believe God intended man to marry man…or can you…is there no end to what a liberal mind can twist and turn upside down?
The idea that nefarious gays would force the Catholic Church, which hates them, to marry them is just so ludicrous.
Nefarious gays do mock the Catholic church every day CC. And many would insist on marriage just to mock our beliefs even harder if they could. We happen to be living in a reality where ludicrous is sometimes nurtured as diversity.
So when you see those commercials all of the sudden saying that there’s been X number of job growth in Wisconsin, it is because Walker is using numbers nobody else uses.,
Ex-RINO, those are the same numbers Wisconsin was due to give the federal government later in the year anyway and it is considered by pollsters to be more reliable then the survey you are referencing cause it has a much greater sampling size.
I’m talking about how every single state uses the Establishment Payroll Survey from the DOL to produce job numbers.
Walker didn’t like those numbers, so for job numbers, he decided to use the Current Population Survey instead.
The population survey is based on a much broader definition of employment and, unlike the establishment survey, has a much wider margin of error, approximately plus or minus 249,000 monthly versus approximately plus or minus 94,000 for the establishment survey.
So, Walker was able boast about something that wasn’t even statistically significant.
Ex-GOP, you’re wasting your time here. These folks don’t want facts, they want someone to echo their mad rants. They look for validation from someone of like mind, that’s all.
I suppose since so many straight men try to recruit young teen girls into sex it means that straight people have agenda too? Seriously, how hard is it to understand that there are some crappy people in every demographic? Most gay people simply wish to live their lives like anyone else and have the same rights as anyone else.
The establishment survey, Mr. “Truthseeker,” has a much larger sample size than the Household Survey.
Look it up.
mp – can you confirm as well that if somebody lives in a western Wisconsin city and works in Minnesota, that Walker’s Population Survey would count them as a gained Wisconsin job?
mp – can you confirm as well that if somebody lives in a western Wisconsin city and works in Minnesota, that Walker’s Population Survey would count them as a gained Wisconsin job?
No, I can’t, you’d have to go to the BLS site and look at the details of how they conduct the survey.
However, I can tell you that the Household Survey includes those who do not receive a paycheck. For example, people who work unpaid in family businesses and so forth. As I said, a much broader definition of employment.
The Establishment Survey counts only those who are on a payroll.
Also, please check out the video link that I provided for you. I think you’ll find it informative.
I should also point out that, because the Household Survey uses a broader definition of employment, the Household employment number is always higher than the number of employed in the Establishment Survey.
mp said, the “population survey is based on a much broader definition of employment”
Please expound upon that and give us a clue wether a ‘broader definition of employment’ is a good thing or a bad thing.
“The increasing support of same-sex rights has been due to an increase in visibility – ”
aka non-stop propaganda
The Establishment survey polled 3.5% of Wisconsin employers and the Houshold survey numbers Walker is using polled over 96% of all Wisconsin’s employers. It does sound like a much “broader” poll.
In order to understand “employment” in the macro economy, an understanding of both the household and establishment surveys are necesssary.
The establishment survey uses a narrow definition of employment, meaning that it counts only those who receive a paycheck.
The household survey uses a broader definition, which includes the self-employed (many of whom, like myself, do not receive regular paychecks) and those who aren’t paid at all, such as family members who work in a family business, but aren’t paid.
As I said earlier, the household survey always shows a higher employment number than the establishment survey. Further, the household survey uses a lower sample size than the establishment survey and, as a consequence, has a much high margin of error than the establishment survey.
The Establishment survey polled 3.5% of Wisconsin employers and the Houshold survey numbers Walker is using polled over 96% of all Wisconsin’s employers.
The Household Survey does not poll employers. It polls households.
Both the Household and Establishment Survey is conducted monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
”In fact, Mass. has the lowest divorce rate in the country – far lower than the southern Christian states where same sex marriage is prohibited.”
The divorce rate per 1000 is higher because the marriage rate per 1000 is higher.
For example, census bureau reports show Louisiana men married 20.6 per thousand per year and divorced 11.0 per thousand per year. 53.4 %
Massachusetts men married 15.8 per thousand per year and divorced 7.8 thousand per year. 49.4 %
So not a huge difference. It certainly isn’t “far lower.”
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13.pdf
You have to consider divorces relative to marriages because single people can’t get divorced. The divorce rate per thousand population in MA is about 25% lower because the marriage rate is about 25% lower. But the ratio of divorces to marriages is similar to other states.
Let me clarify; respondents to the Household survey included representatives from over 96% of Wisconsin’s employers.
I am going to try to post that link again. Not sure why it didn’t work.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13.pdf
“Hippie” is quoting from the American Community Survey, the source of the “unscientific” data that Congressman Webster (R-FL) wants to eliminate.
BWAHAHAHA!
Welcom to Tea Party America.
Okay, well it turns out that after you click the link it adds some numbers after the .pdf
If you want to look at it, you have to delete everything after .pdf and then refresh.
Why does he want to eliminate it?
Why does he want to eliminate it?
Because he’s ignorant.
The American Community Survey is based on random sampling, which he says is “unscientific.”
I guess he wants to sample only from the white Christian evangelical population?
No?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Let me clarify; respondents to the Household survey included representatives from over 96% of Wisconsin’s employers.
Sorry, but your statement makes no sense to me in the context of the two surveys.
You’ll have to be more precise.
I was looking at those stats and Texas’ divorce rate for men 46.5% is actually lower than Massachusetts.
New York looks like the lowest, but New York didn’t have no fault divorce till 2010, so that makes sense.
Have a good evening.
One final thought.
The American Community Survey is a valuable source of demographic information for both business people and policymakers.
It would be a tragedy if it was eliminated.
But, self-inflicted tragedies seem to abound.
testing 12
On May 9 the House voted to kill the American Community Survey, which collects data on some 3 million households each year and is the largest survey next to the decennial census. The ACS—which has a long bipartisan history, including its funding in the mid-1990s and full implementation in 2005—provides data that help determine how more than $400 billion in federal and state funds are spent annually. Businesses also rely heavily on it to do such things as decide where to build new stores, hire new employees, and get valuable insights on consumer spending habits.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/killing-the-american-community-survey-blinds-business
Ignorance is bliss, no?
“This is a program that intrudes on people’s lives, just like the Environmental Protection Agency or the bank regulators,” said Daniel Webster, a first-term Republican congressman from Florida who sponsored the relevant legislation.
“We’re spending $70 per person to fill this out. That’s just not cost effective,” he continued, “especially since in the end this is not a scientific survey. It’s a random survey.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/sunday-review/the-debate-over-the-american-community-survey.html?_r=1
Ignorant.
“Businesses also rely heavily on it to do such things as decide where to build new stores, hire new employees, and get valuable insights on consumer spending habits.”
Interesting. They should be able to sell it to marketers for x amount of time before releasing it to the public domain.
They should be able to sell it to marketers for x amount of time before releasing it to the public domain.
They’re way ahead of you. Businesses need microdata and that costs $.
It would be a tragedy if it was eliminated.
eh, most likely it won’t exactly be eliminated rather replicated as proprietary and sold. Gallup and the other pollsters already do that.
eh, most likely it won’t exactly be eliminated rather replicated as proprietary and sold. Gallup and the other pollsters already do that.
Excuses, excuses. Anything for the party, right? Do whatever it takes to rationalize it, right?
You clearly haven’t thought it through.
So, we make public policy decisions on the basis of purely privately produced data, right?
Yeah, that would really end well.
mp: “Section 221 of Title 13 U.S.C., makes it a misdemeanor to refuse or willfully neglect to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers and imposes a fine of not more than $100. This fine was changed by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 from $100 to not more than $5,000.”
What kind of government makes it a crime to refuse to divulge information that’s no freakin’ business of the government at all?
What kind of government makes it a crime to refuse to divulge information that’s no freakin’ business of the government at all?
Rasqual, I’m surprised at you. The Constitution specifically authorizes the decennial census. Compliance is required, not voluntary, because it applies to apportionment.
As to the ACS, they collect valuable information used to apportion state aid.
Goalposts, mp. Nice try.
The ACS is not the Census.
What periodicity does the Constitution specify? And what is the purpose of the census, per the Constitution? Apportionment. None of all this other B.S. that’s been encroaching with each successive intrusion into American privacy.
Pro-choicers are all for privacy — except when they’re not.
The ACS is not the Census. If it were, repealing it would be unconstitutional. And since it’s not, ergo, the ACS is not the Census.
D’oh!
The ACS is not the Census.
The ACS has–in various forms– been conducted by the Bureau of Census for about 200 years. So, if you’ve got a problem with it, take it up with The Founders, because they were there when it started.
B.S., mp.
“Continuous measurement has long been viewed as a possible alternative method for collecting detailed information on the characteristics of population and housing, but it was not considered a practical alternative for the decennial census long form until 15 years ago. At that time, federal, state, and local government, as well as private sector demands for current, nationally consistent data led policymakers in government to consider the feasibility of collecting social and economic data continuously throughout the decade, instead of only once every 10 years.”
Please cite your source to the contrary. The above comes from the US Census Bureau’s history of the ACS. Were they wrong that its premise — the practicality of continuous measurement — was a recent development?
“The American Community Survey is a valuable source of demographic information for both business people and policymakers.”
So let each state administer their own versions of it, if they wish. And implement what policies they may. The federal government’s Constitutional obligations include no policies that depend on such information. None. You’re welcome to consult the Constitution and demonstrate that I just misrepresented it. On the other hand, your own zeal for federal control over citizens (collectively considered as victims of policy) on the basis of private information is registered.
Divorce rates are low in states full of “evolved” people, aka spoiled rich white liberals, because they don’t bother to get married in the first place. After all, marriage is passé and archaic! What a crazy, stupid anti-woman institution it is. Evil, insane, invented by men to DOMINATE and CONTROL their wives! Oh wait, gays want legal recognition for their marriage ceremonies to the same sex?! Well then they must have it!! Anything to help tear society down!
/CC
Rasqual, how many free white women are in your household?
That was one of the questions in the 1790 census.
Considering the fact that women didn’t have the vote and all, tell me how that applies to apportionment.
Obama and the Democrats don’t seem to need any interest in real employment data or economic data; especially data that would track how they are spending the tax-payers money. Wisconsin will lead the way and I can’t wait to vote for Walker. The rest of the country is can enjoy watching us ride this Walker re-election wave to another November tsunami.
On the other hand, your own zeal for federal control over citizens (collectively considered as victims of policy) on the basis of private information is registered.
My zeal? Wow, you really are wetting the bed.
Have a good night.
Wisconsin will lead the way and I can’t wait to vote for Walker. The rest of the country is can enjoy watching us ride this Walker re-election wave to another November tsunami.
That’s fine. As a capitalist, I’ll profit regardless.
Have a good night.
mp, the census also counts children. And resident aliens. And these all count for apportionment purposes.
They always have.
What assumption were you operating under?
“Wow, you really are wetting the bed.”
So explain your defense of something that intrudes on citizens’ privacy for purposes of policy.
What assumption were you operating under?
You are correct. However, my original point, that demographic data was collected while The Founders were still around, still stands.
The Bureau of Census has this to say:
Expansion of the census began in 1810, when census-takers also asked questions related to the industrial pursuits of the nation’s inhabitants.
http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/
Well, rasqual, guess what? We survived as a nation, thrived even, despite those “personally invasive” questions in the 1810 Census.
Again, have a good night.
“but it’s still permissible to privilege one type of relationship over another”
What reason is there to privilege a sexual relationship over a non-sexual one? What reason is there to privilege the number two rather than people who prefer a polyamorous relationship? Why do we allow two unrelated people to marry while two related people cannot? What is marriage that it includes 2 unrelated heterosexual people in a sexual relationship, 2 homosexual people in a sexual relationship (do they have to be unrelated? Why?) but excludes everything else? What possible logical reason can you offer for such irrationality aside from “just because”. You can’t appeal to tradition (we’ve established that that is VERY VERY BAD – only bigots talk about that). You can’t appeal to the needs of children that result from the relationship (pfff….what does THAT have to do with marriage). So please, do explain this.
Marriage either means something or it means nothing. A system that privileges any amalgamation of people relating to each other as equally beneficial to society means nothing and the state has no interest in it. I do believe that marriage has an objective definition that is beneficial to privilege. That’s why I (and others) fight for it. Not because I hate gay people (I do not) or because I want to keep them out of some exclusive marriage club or because I want them to be unhappy.
mp: “We survived as a nation, thrived even, despite those “personally invasive” questions in the 1810 Census.”
And gee, mp, I guess we can survive if we eliminate ’em as well, since that’s how we started out.
Right?
So no big deal by your same logic, right?
Arguments from indifference cut both ways.
To me the family unit was meant to essentially protect the right to life of the un-born, the rights of women and men to be united in a sex-dependant union. I don’t consider sodomy or any other homo-sexual acts sex. Technically, hose acts are not sex, and cannot in thus not being, pro-create. Call those actions what you want, you can’t baste a turkey with another turkey.
Marriage is meant to facilitate the needs of each sex, two different but equally valuable contributors contractually bound in one single balanced union. You wouldn’t go into an autoworkers union and say, hey, I’m screen actors guild, and I deserve the same rights as you guys do! We’re EQUAL!
Uh, no.
Homosexuals are serving each other in a much different capacity than those contributing to the population outside of the petri-dish. I know gays are not just ‘playing house,’ but they are not mommy and daddy o any one. They are mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy, and those were roles they chose to dominate their own houses with. Not nature, not God, no-one, but them decided that was fitting. Contributing to the population was not on their list of ways to contribute to America-it was this IMAGE of having a family in their own invented sense of the word that had the most appeal, not the best interest of the community, whether they see that practicing homosexuality is unethical or not, they need to be put in their proper place-at the very minimum, by respecting other’s privacy, right to worship, and right to marry, without invading and altering any one else’s way of life. You simply cannot hijack the reputation of institutions like the Church and institutions like Marriage just because you don’t understand what they mean, how they function, and what they are all about to those who truly cherish them. Marriage is not a life-style, it is a way of life. You can only do it with a man and a woman, otherwise, in it’s essence it is already destroyed.
Is it just me or is the lamp on the nightstand of the gay couple a phallic symbol? It is one of the first things I noticed.
Joanne, its not just you. I’m sure it was intended that way.
Just because I answered your quote, alexandra, doesn’t mean my comments were directed solely at you. Unless of course you’re claiming credit for a certain magazine cover with a gay halo above the current president? Or unless you’re ghost writing my friends’ facebook posts? Your comments are as naive as anyone’s but worth addressing.
@Megan:Yes, we’re all equal…but it’s still permissible to privilege one type of relationship over another? Very 1984. War=peace, good=bad.
I’ll see your Orwellian speak and raise you 2: “Feticide” is “choice.” “Murder” = “health care”. You will always lose, because you laud death over life.
Just because I answered your quote, alexandra, doesn’t mean my comments were directed solely at you. Unless of course you’re claiming credit for a certain magazine cover with a gay halo above the current president? Or unless you’re ghost writing my friends’ facebook posts? Your comments are as naive as anyone’s but worth addressing.
Right, ninek, surely you can excuse me for thinking that a post that began with my comment was addressed to me? I’m not sure why you’re being so snippy all the sudden but if you ever feel like it, you’re welcome to tell me why you think my comments in this thread are naive.
Paladin –
I’m afraid that’s too vague for me to know what you mean; I might, for example say that I disapprove of the educational choices (or some other incidental issue) of someone afflicted with same-sex attraction disorder (SSAD), but that says nothing about the main point; it’s a handsome-sounding way of evading the issue altogether, without saying anything of substance.
I was speaking mostly sexually, in this instance, since we’re talking about sexual behavior. I think a lot of people who I care about make poor choices and I wish they didn’t. Personally I feel that some of my gay colleagues make “less poor” choices than some of my straight ones, but I understand that that is a point of view at odds with a more objective point of view. I don’t enjoy ranking the level to which I agree or disagree with the actions of one friend over another, which is why I tend to stay out of same-sex marriage discussions.
But (at least in reference to an earlier comment of yours), the idea of “harmless recognition of so-called ‘same-sex marriage/partnership rights’”, per se, is an utter illusion. No one can entertain the idea of such a thing without causing an eventual collision with Christianity, at least.
I suppose that this is probably where we stop sharing the same logical starting point, since I am not a Christian. :) I don’t really mind if something collides with a religion so long as that religion is not forced to endorse or promote that thing. I don’t think Christian churches should be required to perform same-sex unions, etc. I would expect any B&B that refuses to house a same-sex couple to also refuse to house an unmarried straight couple (which happened to my parents before they were married!).
Alexandra wrote:
I was speaking mostly sexually, in this instance, since we’re talking about sexual behavior.
All right.
I think a lot of people who I care about make poor choices and I wish they didn’t.
Certainly; no thinking and compassionate person could feel otherwise, in my view.
Personally I feel that some of my gay colleagues make “less poor” choices than some of my straight ones, but I understand that that is a point of view at odds with a more objective point of view.
I do not deny that some heterosexual people can (and often do) make sexually perverse choices which can put individual choices of individuals with SSAD to shame; but as you say, this really is irrelevant to the issue of “is homosexual activity good, evil, or indifferent?” It can’t simply be left to subjectivity and mere emotions.
I don’t enjoy ranking the level to which I agree or disagree with the actions of one friend over another, which is why I tend to stay out of same-sex marriage discussions.
I don’t see how you’d need to do that (i.e. rank the choices of one individual against those of another); the issue of SSAD (and actions springing from it) can be abstracted from the decisions and situations of individuals.
[Paladin]
But (at least in reference to an earlier comment of yours), the idea of “harmless recognition of so-called ‘same-sex marriage/partnership rights’”, per se, is an utter illusion. No one can entertain the idea of such a thing without causing an eventual collision with Christianity, at least.
[Alexandra]
I suppose that this is probably where we stop sharing the same logical starting point, since I am not a Christian. :) I don’t really mind if something collides with a religion so long as that religion is not forced to endorse or promote that thing.
Hm. Well… I can understand how you (as a non-Christian) might lack sympathies with Christianity per se; but surely there remains the issue (and the begged question) of “is Christianity actually TRUE? Is it actually RIGHT?” These are not questions which are left to mere personal taste; they can be answered. If someone were to prove to me (beyond all reasonable doubt) that Christianity was false… or even that Christianity was “no more valid than any other religion” (which is absurd, given that Christ claimed to be the ONLY Way, Truth and Life), I would jettison it immediately. Truth means infinitely more to me than do even my strongest emotions. (cf. Jeremiah 17:9)
I don’t think Christian churches should be required to perform same-sex unions, etc.
The “same-sex marriage” movement is not as generous as you are, I’m afraid.
I would expect any B&B that refuses to house a same-sex couple to also refuse to house an unmarried straight couple (which happened to my parents before they were married!).
You might expect so (and I’d agree); but would you feel secure in saying that, if a particular B&B were not consistent in that regard, they should be FORCED (under pain of lawsuit, criminal charges, etc.) to accommodate the same-sex couple? I would not.
Now that birth control has become ubiquitous, Catholics are expected to provide it. If the same were to happen with government recognition of gay “marriage”, I have no doubt that Catholics would be required to either acknowledge (if not perform) gay “marriages” or else face fines and/or jail from the tyrannical government which seems to have removed the First Amendment from existence.
Gays are free to live as they wish. They are not being persecuted. What they do not have the right to is our approval of their gay deathstyle. They are called to live chaste lives. If sodomy is so important to them that they can’t be chaste, then they are free to do what they want. Just don’t involve the rest of us. That is the truly libertarian point of view.
“gay deathstyle”
Really, John? You’re going to apply the term “deathstyle” to a type of relationship that doesn’t cause abortions, or harm anyone else for that matter? Honestly, this conversation is starting to get silly.
I’m not snippy; you ASKED me if I directed my response at you or in general. I answered. Narcissism fades with age. I know it myself ;>)!
Alright, ninek, I suppose we will have to disagree that responses like yours at 2:08am, quoted above once already, are sarcastic and snippy, but it is pretty ridiculous to imply that because I asked if a comment that began with my quote was addressed to me, I’m a narcissist. I feel kinda bad that you apparently think I’m a naive narcissist since we have had many kind and pleasant interactions in the past and since I have nowhere in this comment thread argued in favor of same-sex marriage or the movement in support of it, but I guess I will just wish you a nice day and be done with commenting.
Just wondering — has a gay gene ever been found? If not, how can science say gay people are “born that way?”
…”has a gay gene ever been found?”
Does Gene Robinson count?
Lol, Alexandra, I enjoy reading your comments, but seriously, re-read a bunch of your own and see how often you use words like “i think” “i feel” etc. I was deeply offended the first 3 times someone called me a narcissist when I was younger, but after hearing it again, I said, whoa? is there something to this? There is. And I think that our younger generation is not made less so by the social environment they’re growing up in (so many choices about food, clothing, music, television, etc., combined with divorced parents, combined with a statistical lack of siblings).
Let’s look at facts, all of them. A human being begins his or her life as a zygote, then we name the stages of development. A human isn’t disposable because he’s not big enough or cute enough.
Similarly, let’s look at same sex attraction. Might some people not have been born with any tendency toward same sex attraction? If it can have a socio-environmental onset, might it not be a symptom of a pathology? For example, the example I always use is my college classmate who was assaulted at a young age. Any psychologist would tell you that she is using same sex relationships as a coping mechanism. Is it any wonder that her relationships go very badly? Do they go badly because society is made up of a bunch of judgemental meanies? Or, could it be that she has never healed from the childhood assault? Now, my gay friends think that even asking the question is homophobic hate speech. How many people will go on with untreated mental illness because the gay community thinks that one must act one same sex attraction in order to “be one’s authentic self”?
See, we need to be more rational and less emotional. Why can’t we ask, is it really in Sam’s best interest to move in with Steve? Is it really in Suzie’s best interest to move in with Kate? It’s incredibly naive to think that same sex relationships are 100% the same as heterosexual. Just because we ought not to discriminate, doesn’t mean we should toss our brains in the trash and not use them.
Well, ninek, I suppose we should find three more people to call me a narcissist, then. As for being young – I’m not as young as you seem to think. I’m more than ten years out of school, for one, and I wore hand-me-downs until I had my own job, rarely watched TV, and shared bedrooms with my sisters in almost every house we moved to, so your thoughts about “kids these days” don’t really apply to me. And of course, I cared for my mother while she had cancer, which most people here already know – and which definitely ages you, particularly when you give up a lot of the things you initially believe you have earned, to do it (college etc) – but what most people don’t know is that I am currently in the early stages of caring for my father, who I strongly suspect is suffering from frontotemporal dementia. Believe me when I say that also adds years to your life. If I’m being perfectly honest, the cancer was easier to deal with.
The fact that I am not some college kid g-chatting all day about clothing brands and MTV hopefully now being established, I will briefly continue to note that I say “I think” because I in no way confuse facts with my own opinions, and I attempt to make that as clear as possible, particularly when being asked my opinions on things. In that vein, show me where in this thread I have shown any support for same-sex marriage, or homosexuality itself. Show me where I have said that homosexuality is genetic. I specifically said that I am NOT saying it’s genetic. I specifically said that I DO NOT advocate same-sex marriage. I specifically said that I DISAGREE with a lot of the things that the gay people I care about have done or continue to do. You call me naive, and you say it’s naive to think that same sex relationships are 100% the same as heterosexual relationships – but where did I ever say that? Your arguments don’t address the things I have been saying but you address them to me anyway, and then call me a narcissist when I ask if they were actually intended for me.
I appreciate your concern that I am too emotional and not rational enough, but did it ever occur to you that I decline to share my political opinions on this matter because I consider them more rational than emotional? Why do you think that my having, and loving, homosexual friends means that I support same-sex marriage? Do you think that everybody who opposes same-sex marriage does not love the gay people in their lives?
Hey Paladin -
I just wanted to say that of course the issue of whether Christianity is TRUE is of course always there! I have been around this carousel quite a bit; I don’t know if you ever got to know MK. She was a moderator here for a while and she Catholic and she is one of my favorite people in the world. We had an ongoing discussion that lasted nearly two years re: apologetics and everything. I am agnostic, not atheist. :)
Phillymiss -
I don’t know if you’ve struggled with same sex attraction – or others on this board – but speaking for me, I don’t remember ever choosing to be straight. From the get go in life, I’ve always been attracted to women, and am married to one and we have several kids.
I’ve heard gay people say the same thing – since they were little, they’ve always been who they are.
Again – I’ve struggled with lots of sins in my life – and again, maybe you’ve really had a long battle where you’ve had to decide to be straight and fight off other thoughts. So I don’t believe they’ve found a gay gene (or straight gene), but I feel that there seems to be a pretty reasonable chance that people are born the way they are.
From Sara:
I’ve never understood the idea that two men being able to get married would make my marriage to my husband any less valid.
From Truthseaker
Do you not see anything in the relationship you have with your husband that would not be possible for your husbands brother to have in his relationship with his boyfriend?
Truthseeker, that wasn’t what Sara was saying. I also cannot see how what anyone else decides to do in their marriage has even the slightest effect on how my husband and I decide to view our marriage. What kind of lemming argument is that? I find it pretty insulting to my intelligence as a not-even-that-smart human.
I actually do understand the Christian argument against same-sex marriage. I just don’t see how it’s pertinent outside of a church. And I don’t see why people are railing against this and not the total mockery us heterosexuals have turned marriage into over the past few decades.
But I’m also very much against people trying to force churches to sanctify their marriages if it’s against their policies. I remember the American church that got some press a few months ago for refusing to marry interracial couples. I’m very much of the “if they don’t want me, I don’t want them” school of thought. Churches, just like any other organizations, will eventually get the members they deserve. Their loss, but that’s just my opinion.
I’m in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005. Rivers aren’t exactly flowing backwards here, nor are there riots in the streets or cats marrying mops. There are, however, same-sex couples complaining about discrimination from churches, which I think is bogus.
I can’t help but wonder, if everyone’s unions were declared civil unions for legal purposes from the get-go, if there wouldn’t be less strife. Those who wanted a church ceremony to sanctify their union would be welcome to do so, based on the policies of the religious organization itself. The rest of us heathens who didn’t care would just not bother.
There you go: nobody insulting “marriage,” everybody happy.
Should also point out that after one year of cohabiting, Canadian tax (and other) laws give you the same rights as marriage.
I can kind of see what the fuss is about, but I think it would be unnecessary if both sides gave a little.
And for the record, I realize this is Jill’s blog, and she’s allowed to post about what she wants, But I wish there was less of the anti-gay in the pro-life community altogether, or at least that people wouldn’t feel it necessary to comment on it out of context.
I’m very strongly anti-abortion, and the anti-gay won’t change my mind, but I won’t be attending any more anti-abortion events around Toronto after my one and only horrible experience. I’ll continue to donate to Birthright.org, though, as they’re only concerned with helping mothers.
From Truthseaker
Do you not see anything in the relationship you have with your husband that would not be possible for your husbands brother to have in his relationship with his boyfriend?
Truthseeker, that wasn’t what Sara was saying. I also cannot see how what anyone else decides to do in their marriage has even the slightest effect on how my husband and I decide to view our marriage. What kind of lemming argument is that? I find it pretty insulting to my intelligence as a not-even-that-smart human.I also cannot see how what anyone else decides to do in their marriage has even the slightest effect on how my husband and I decide to view our marriage.
Roxy, If marriage is something other than that then what do we call a ceremony that celebrates all the beautiful things that make the relationship between a man and a woman “special”? Homosexual relationships are as different from heterosexual relationships as male is different than female. Why attack the institution of marriage which was always recognized for it’s unique husband and wife partnership. Canadian society is PC run amuck and they are left without even a word to represent all of those beautiful things that make up the unique union of a man and a woman. Ya hey dere…what a bunch of hosers ;)
Truthseeker, I can see why the word “marriage” is important to some people, even though I’m not one of them. I really do believe the government should only be involved in granting civil unions for everyone and that religious organizations can then sanctify those unions into whatever they want, at their discretion. I’d be fine with just the legal part, and calling my husband my “partner” since, as far as I’m concerned, our union is whatever we want it to be, not anything other people say it should be.
We had a church wedding, which made me feel kind of slimy, not because I’m anti-religion, but because my husband is atheist and I’m agnostic. We did it to keep the peace in his family, which I don’t think is a good enough reason to be a hypocrite, but I gave in. We agreed to a whole bunch of words we don’t believe, such as marriage being a covenant established by God. I don’t exactly see us as an asset to the institution of marriage as you see it.
At least our marriage has lasted longer than 72 days (a unit called The Kardashian) and we’re not on our 4th sacred marriage like that paragon of virtue Rush Limbaugh. As I said, I understand the procreation argument for why religious people are against same-sex unions, but I think heterosexuals have already made way worse of a mockery of the concept than the gays ever would, and that’s much more offensive to me.
Sara and Roxy,
Part of the difficulty with the “how does same-sex ‘marriage’ hurt my marriage?” idea (and similar slogans) is that it’s utterly question-begging (i.e. logical fallacy = invalid = worthless as a defense). For example: how does the murder of a skid-row bum harm the lives of your children? From a purely self-centered and moral-relativism point of view, it does not harm them at all; after all, unless your children are skid-row bums, why should it concern you? The same can be said for any and every crime and evil perpetrated against any other “stranger” in the world; if you’re willing to jettison all ideas of “objective morality” (in favour of [supposedly] doing as you please, while following the dictates of moral relativism) while cloaking it in a sweet-sounding mantle of “live and let live” (which is vacuous, and doesn’t even make a good bumper-sticker), then you’ve cut the ground out from under any of your future attempts to stand against any injustice at all.
It’s also a grave mistake to assume that the only type of harm is that which you (personally) can easily identify as a clear, grotesque and imminent threat to something to which you happen to be emotionally attached. This is as illogical as the assumption that, unless a poison causes one to die in screaming agony on the spot, it cannot possibly be a poison at all (e.g. slow-acting, gradual, painless, tasteless, crippling but non-fatal, etc.).
And Roxy: I do think that even you can recognise the problem with your last comment: if even 99% of the world does evil, this does not justify anyone else’s choice to do evil; if person [x] is a hypocrite, this does not excuse me from trying not to be one. Look up the “tu quoque” fallacy, when you get a moment, and you’ll see what I mean.
Roxy, whether people responsible for doing a thing well fail in that regard or not, has no bearing on whether what the thing itself is ought or ought not be redefined. And yes, the magnitude of failure is great.
But these are entirely separate issues. One is concerned with whether aspirants succeed. The other is what the thing is that they aspire to in the first place. One is how well one does, the other is what it is that one might do well at.
It’s no sound argument to pose that what we deem a thing may or ought to be changed on the grounds that aspirants to it fail. Perhaps with children and a game, we bring the goal closer to make attainment easier. But that’s still not changing a sack race into something else.
If the failures of heterosexuals in marriage bother you more than what you imagine gays might make of it, then you’d make a great activist on behalf of heterosexual marriage because that obviously concerns you. Perhaps you could contribute some ideas for bringing the actual goal closer, rather than selling out the game itself.
But I think your phrase indicates a clear bias: “I think heterosexuals have already made way worse of a mockery of the concept than the gays ever would.” How could you know how “gays ever would?” And yet you use the language of certainty — not “than gays might,” but “than the gays ever would.”
It sounds as if you’re engaging in a common failure of thought; it’s frequent and it ought to be named. It’s where a person enshrines a victim (or victim class) on a pedestal, wherein they cease possessing human frailties themselves on account of the thinker’s loathing for their morally frail oppressors (real or imagined). Thus, because heterosexuals are empirically known to have failed, and because gays as a class are oppressed, surely heterosexuals fail “worse…than the gays ever would.”
Ever would. Fascinating that the idea that gays would never do as badly depends on empirical data for judging the heterosexuals to be frequent failures (a matter we can grant), but discards any concern for empirical thought when auguring what gays “ever would” do in comparison.
But again, how well either do has no bearing on whether a thing ought to be this, or that.
Even me, huh, Paladin? Thanks for not being at all condescending. I should probably just believe everything you say because you sound smart!
Look, I see what you’re saying, but it still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me personally when discussing same-sex marriage.
I don’t believe God had any hand in “inventing” marriage. I don’t believe marriage is sacred in any way. I do believe that only the couple involved in the marriage have the right to decide what their marriage means to them. I don’t believe God deplores same-sex relationships. I think a lot of times religion is used to control your neighbours so their behaviour will be more acceptable to you (the general “you”) and validate your own beliefs.
I believe religion is man-made. What you believe may be entirely 100% right, or it may be complete idiocy. How do I know? How does anyone know? Someone with strong religious beliefs can talk until they’re blue in the face, but to me, it’s still fellow humans telling me what I should think. And quite frankly, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in the intelligence of humans. And being a human makes you or me just as likely to have the correct view of the universe. We’re all doing the best that we can with a variety of beliefs, and we’ve all got the same qualifications.
And it’s asinine to suggest that because I don’t believe in absolutism that I can’t effectively fight injustice. Live and let live is a great philosophy until you see something that you believe is wrong and is something you can try to change. Condemning the interactions between consenting adults is just being a meddling busybody.
Paladin, you are entirely welcome to have your opinions on things, and I will always support people’s rights to express their opinions. That doesn’t always mean I will find those opinions useful, though, just because lots of people believe them.
And to clarify, I’m really not anti-religion. It has its good and bad points, but it’s just not something that’s ever made sense to me personally. Many people I love do believe, and I’m genuinely happy when I see that their religions bring them joy. I do pray and I give thanks to God but none of the major religions do it for me. So I’m anti-abortion because abortion ends the life of someone who is presumably unwilling to die, and that’s not my right to decide. But I guess my opinion on that doesn’t mean anything, does it, Paladin?
Wait, where did Paladin bring up religion and God in his 2012/05/22 at 9:44 am post? I’m genuinely curious, Roxy, if you are convinced that your 2012/05/22 at 10:19 am post addresses the points that Paladin brought up in his 2012/05/22 at 9:44 am post…
Rasqual, thanks for a really interesting post, and I see your points regarding failure and idealism. You’re probably talking to the wrong person, though, as evidenced by my last post. Marriage, to me, is a legal union, and anything else you want to get out of it is up to you. That’s why I feel same-sex unions deserve to be legal.
I absolutely do not think churches should be required to perform marriage ceremonies if that goes against their beliefs, and I certainly wouldn’t think any church who refused to do so would be an oppressor. Maybe if everyone started off on a level playing ground (civil unions), then militant activists would make such a big deal of harassing churches (and that’s definitely something I don’t condone).
I agree when you said:
It’s no sound argument to pose that what we deem a thing may or ought to be changed on the grounds that aspirants to it fail
(I also agreed with Paladin when s/he said the same thing and wasn’t being snotty.)
As you can probably tell by now, heterosexual marriage is not something I find all that important, so my word choice was poor (“than the gays ever would”). I don’t actually believe they would necessarily be any better, but I’m just frustrated with both sides on this issue. And frankly, I’m very cynical about how we humans overrate ourselves extremely. Sure, there are examples of great and selfless actions, but there are just as many offensive ones. I try to look on the good side, but sometimes it’s really hard, especially when I see people praising someone like Rush Limbaugh.
I can’t help but think that God must be mighty ticked off when He sees people saying they’ve been made in His image. A being capable of creating a tree or a squirrel would probably not start pointless wars or produce The Kardashians.
Sorry, Bobby, I made an assumption since I’ve never met anyone who’s espoused that viewpoint who wasn’t taking it from a religion. Which isn’t to say they can’t exist. My mistake.
Also, I don’t know if I’m capable of addressing Paladin’s points exactly as you’d like since I’m really bad at philosophical arguing. I do think that I made my views on marriage and civil unions clear, though. I agree with Paladin in the abstract, but I can’t really speak to same-sex unions being poison because I think there’s nothing wrong with them.
Right, I understand. I would just add that while those who tend to oppose SSM also are religious, the arguments used (or at least arguments that CAN be used, especially by those like Paladin and Rasqual) tend not to appeal to religious dogma or even the concept of God but rather to standards that any human being can reasonably find compelling.
Condemning the interactions between consenting adults is just being a meddling busybody.
How about supporting the interactions between consenting adults? Does that make one a meddling busybody too?
I’m used to seeing a lot of intelligent discourse on this site, and these recent posts are no different. I do agree, Bobby, that these arguments can be reasonably compelling to many types of people. I’m just not one of them, that’s all.
What do you mean by supporting, Lrning? Everyone’s bound to have a different opinion on this, but I generally like to keep people out of my private life unless I’ve invited them in. Even if their intentions might be good.
That’s a fair admission, Roxy. I suppose then I would point out that, if I am understanding both you and Paladin correctly, that one major place where you differ is in your understanding of what should constitute what is good. I may be oversimplifying here, but I think Paladin’s point was that he would hold that there is more to something being evil/wrong/morally repugnant than a theory of doing direct and clear harm to an individual. You may disagree with that (again, I think I”m oversimplifying), but it is important to note that I think it is reasonable to hold to an ethic that says that what is wrong is more than just doing direct and clear harm to an individual. This does not need to appeal to religion or God, but simply says that one has different foundational understanding of what is good or bad. That is really the only point I would like to make.
Please oversimplify, Bobby! Just as my mind can’t really grasp religion, I also have trouble with a lot of philosophical debates and usually have to reach my conclusions in other ways. To be honest, I agreed with everything in Paladin’s post in the abstract (just didn’t like the condescending tone). It all falls apart for me on the same-sex issue, though, because of my own beliefs in what is good and bad.
What do you mean by supporting, Lrning?
Giving the legal stamp of approval on the relationship between consenting adults.
Roxy: “How do I know? How does anyone know? … we’ve all got the same qualifications.”
How do you know?
It’s kind of a serious question. Where we put our credence, and why we do so, is important. Believing that we all have the same qualifications (which I’m reading as “meriting similar credence”) seems to be privileging your particular view of the merit of qualifications, or deserved credence.
I appreciate your thoughtful remarks. You seem someone with an open mind, but your remarks also suggest (to me, anyway) someone who, as Chesterton (was it?) said, might like to close his mind on truth (were it evident as such to you) much as we close our open mouths on food when we’re as hungry.
I’m all for it. I remember reading somewhere that having a legal relationship with more than 2 people is problematic from a tax/other laws perspective.
The idea of an incestuous marriage producing children is disgusting to me because of what it would mean for the child. But otherwise, none of my business.
And by “consenting adults” I mean those who are legally capable of signing a contract.
But otherwise, none of my business.
But the state has made it its business. Why? Why does the state get involved in marriage at all? And if the state had reasons to regulate and privilege the committed union between one man/one woman and those reasons do not exist in other unions, why should the state regulate and privilege those relationships too?
Yeah, to echo Rasqual, I too appreciate Roxy’s kind and honest posts.
It’s been ages since I read any Chesterton, but I only read his Father Brown stories. I hope I’m not misreading that you’re suggesting I’m seeking knowledge or truth. That’s definitely true, although who knows if I’ll recognize it when I find it. Anyway, thanks for the kind words.
I’m not a religious studies scholar by any means, even though I took some courses at uni and have done some reading on my own. The way that the Bible books were chosen and translated seems to have been at least somewhat political, so I find it hard to believe it’s the literal word of God. Same general idea for the other religions I’ve studied.
This will probably open me up to insults by someone for not being logical, but my intuition tells me that parts of most religions are set up in a way that mimics our society more than an all-powerful Creator. Not that I have the capability to understand an all-powerful Creator.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure where I think we should lay our credence. I’ve read a lot of very intelligent stuff written by people defending various religious views, but I’ve also read a lot of what I’d call dreck. Lots of common beliefs from our past fall into both categories. But people used to believe the earth was flat and that all the celestial bodies revolved around us.
I guess what makes me a little skeptical about things that a great number of people believe is that they’re often so self-aggrandizing of us as a species and dismissive of the rest of the planet. I can’t help but feel that the best answer for a belief system for me is something that mimics nature more than any we’ve got right now. Yeah, that’s mighty vague, and even though I’ve thought about it for years, that’s the best I got.
“I don’t believe marriage is sacred in any way. I do believe that only the couple involved in the marriage have the right to decide what their marriage means to them”
Branching away from the other arguments, I think this is another area of disagreement. As I said in a comment a few days ago, a main way that “gay marriage” harms all marriage is that it further cements this notion that marriage is a meaningless state registry of the some amalgamation of adults relating to each other. You are at least consistent in your view: marriage is meaningless, so who cares who calls themselves married. But, in your opinion, what interest does the state have to privilege such meaninglessness? Also, would you limit marriage to two and if so, why?
“my intuition tells me that parts of most religions are set up in a way that mimics our society more than an all-powerful Creator.”
Well Roxy, I have to admit that this may very well be true of some faiths. Furthermore, one argument one hears from skeptics often is that religion was created by man to make him feel good about himself or to give him hope. But this skeptic argument is shallow (not your argument, Roxy, though the reason I mention this one is because a response to the skeptical critique is similar to a response to your concern). Let us take a look into Christianity and in particular (meaning no disrespect to my Christian non-Catholic brothers and sisters) Catholicism. Just for starters, look at the things that the Church says are wrong: homosexual actions, abortion, euthanasia, divorce and remarriage, contraception, masturbation, sex before marriage, human embryonic stem cell research, IVF. Just this short list is at enmity with the norms of our society. Why would anyone want to make up a religion (or join one frankly) that taught that all those things were wrong, totally against teh spirit of the world? Furthermore, Catholics are required to attend mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation. We are required to fast and abstain from meat on Fridays and certain days during lent. We are to go to another human being (a priest) and confess our sins to him, an extremely embarrassing task! And these are the BARE minimum. The Catholic church teaches the beauty of human suffering, to be willing to suffer injustices happily, to forget about “what is owed me,” to forgo love of material goods, to die to self completely. All of this is totally contrary to the spirit of teh world. So the idea that religion (or at least teh Catholic Church) mimics society, I would argue, is not at all the case. Rather, it goes against society.
It has been said many times, but it is worth repeating: the claims of the Catholic Church are worth considering. It is a matter of life and death eternally speaking, and it is worth it to see what the claims are, and what the reasons that they offer are. I am always here to discuss this as well as any other topic at anytime, as well as on email or facebook.
Lrning, my knowledge of government could fit in a thimble, but I do know that not everything governments do is fair or right, and sometimes they really get involved in things that shouldn’t be their jurisdiction (such as what consenting adults do in their bedrooms).
Homosexuality used to be illegal and has been highly stigmatized throughout Western society. That’s my guess for why nobody’s regulated gay marriage until recently.
Part of what my marriage means to me is that my spouse is my best friend and I want to spend the rest of my life with him. We have compatible goals for how we want to spend our lives and run our household. I enjoy sleeping next to him every night and how we make each other laugh a lot. We’re in our early ’40s and pretty busy, so quite honestly, we don’t have as much sex as we used to. But that’s not why we’re together anyway. In a word, it’s companionship.
Nobody has to wait until marriage to have sex these days, unless that is their personal choice. I suspect at least 99% of gays aren’t getting married for sex; they’re seeking something along the lines of what I described.
In all honesty, we probably wouldn’t have gotten married if it hadn’t been for his family having strong feelings. And I say this even though we have a 12-year-old daughter. I think it’s a bit of a Catch-22. If marriage as a concept is important to you, then marrying will be a weighty thing. For whatever reason, I never grew up with that idea, so getting married didn’t really feel like any more of a commitment than we already had.
Sorry, I’ve veered off your original question, and I don’t really have an answer. Your theories are more than welcome, though.
CT, I assume the state regulates marriage for the purpose of inheritance and to make society more orderly. That’s my theory, anyway. And knowing governments, there’s probably money in it too somewhere. ;)
Again, I believe there are two parts to the marriage equation: the legal and the spiritual. The government legislates the legal, but I don’t believe they have any business poking their noses into the spiritual side of it,
I don’t honestly know enough about law to say why it shouldn’t involve more than 2 people. I’d have to do a lot of digging around to give you an opinion on that.
Bobby, I know more than the average heathen about Catholicism, but I’ve never heard it argued for quite so beautifully. Thank you for the kind offer. I may take you up on it! (And thanks for the nice compliment too.)
I’m off for the rest of the afternoon, but it’s been very interesting talking with all of you!
“CT, I assume the state regulates marriage for the purpose of inheritance and to make society more orderly.”
Well it’s not just why does the state “regulate” marriage. The state regulates everything these days and the areas of regulation you mention above (orderly distribution of inheritence etc) applies to married and non married people alike. The question I asked is why does the state privilege marriage as a special relationship that is worthy of unique rights and accomodations? That is to say, if marriage (or civil unions) is just adults self defining some manner of companionship that they personally find fulfilling, what interest does society have in that?
I have to say also, that it’s been very nice to read your comments. A breath of fresh air from the usual tone of disagreement.
Roxy wrote, in reply to my comment:
Even me, huh, Paladin? Thanks for not being at all condescending. I should probably just believe everything you say because you sound smart!
(*sigh*) Roxy, you seemed to take my comment to mean that “even you [as one who is not very smart] can recognise [etc.]”… and that was not at all what I meant. I mean that “even you [who are using the argument yourself] can recognise the problem with your last comment”. I meant no slight to your intelligence; I was suggesting only that you hadn’t thought your comment quite through (which can happen to anyone, bright or dull–it’s happened to me on more than a few occasions!). Surely it was not wrong of me to point that out? I certainly never meant to offend or belittle you; and I do apologise if the comment came off that way.
Several others have addressed some of your points to me, already, but:
And it’s asinine to suggest that because I don’t believe in absolutism that I can’t effectively fight injustice.
But don’t you see that you cannot even settle your own mind solidly on what injustice IS, until you embrace “absolutism” (if, by that, you mean a rejection of moral relativism)? Otherwise, you’ll be “fighting” for your mere opinions, with no secure way to tell good from evil; you’ll be fighting against those things which do nothing more than violate your personal tastes… and that simply won’t do, as an ethical system.
Live and let live is a great philosophy until you see something that you believe is wrong and is something you can try to change.
This would allow a great many moral crimes, Roxy; if a KKK member sees an inter-racial marriage (which he “believed to be wrong”), I do not think that you would support him in his desire to stop it (or agree that he was right in making the attempt); right? If a new Hitler rose up to deny Jews the right to vote (because he truly and sincerely believed their free existence and influence in society to be a very great “wrong”), you would not support him (or stand idly by and “live and let live”), would you?
Condemning the interactions between consenting adults is just being a meddling busybody.
That begs several questions (and it is a raw opinion of your own, which is not at all enough to prove your main point) For instance: why do you assume that “consent = makes everything allowable”? If that belief is not absolute, then your beliefs are your mere impositions on others; surely you see that? Why should you impose your standard on those who do not wish to honour “consent” as any sort of sacrosanct principle (and who would like to do what they please to whomever they hate)? More on that, below.
Paladin, you are entirely welcome to have your opinions on things, and I will always support people’s rights to express their opinions.
That is admirable.
That doesn’t always mean I will find those opinions useful, though, just because lots of people believe them.
Nor should you… and nor do I. I do not believe what I do, simply because the idea is believed by many. That is why I assert that (what you call) “absolutism” is necessary; otherwise, one is left to one’s own whims, or following what happens to be popular, etc.
And to clarify, I’m really not anti-religion. It has its good and bad points, but it’s just not something that’s ever made sense to me personally.
Might I ask: how do you decide what points about religion are “good” or “bad”? What standards do you use, if you believe in no moral absolutes?
Many people I love do believe, and I’m genuinely happy when I see that their religions bring them joy.
I do not say the same, I’m afraid… since the word “joy” (whose full and true meaning is quite deep and certainly good) is mistaken for “what gives me pleasure” or “what intoxicates me”, etc.; these sorts of things can come from some of the gravest evils on earth (e.g. sadism, child sexual abuse, etc.).
I do pray and I give thanks to God but none of the major religions do it for me.
I understand. But may I gently suggest that you might not have considered all the arguments for Christianity (I cannot speak for all religions), or that you might possibly have some emotional bias agianst them (due to anger/suffering at the hands of those who happen to be Christian, etc.)? This is in addition to the (main) point about moral relativism vs. moral absolutes, mind you.
So I’m anti-abortion because abortion ends the life of someone who is presumably unwilling to die, and that’s not my right to decide.
I’m quite glad to hear that. But: consider the many arguments in favour of abortion; do they not appeal to the same sort of arguments as you’ve used, above, with the same disdain for “absolutes”? You’ve heard them (or something similar), I’m sure:
“Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one! Keep your laws off my body, and your opinions [about a fetus being a “person” or “child”] out of my uterus! Who are you not to ‘live and let live’, you hypocrite?”
Unless you can establish that you are RIGHT in considering a fetus to be “someONE” (rather than someTHING) who can have a “will” at ALL (mere “blobs of tissue” don’t have a “will” about anything, after all), then your conviction falls to ashes.
But I guess my opinion on that doesn’t mean anything, does it, Paladin?
I hope you understand, now, that I think nothing of the sort. Would it be possible to believe me, on that point, and please “hold your fire”? :)
Very nice talking with you, Roxy. You are a blessing to have at Jill’s, and I sincerely hope to “see” you here more and hope you become a “regular.” God love you.
Hey Paladin, sorry for flying off the handle. I’m glad to hear you weren’t meaning to insult my intelligence. As we all know, it can be hard to discern tone from just the written word. And it’s a good thing this story has dropped off the front page since I can’t even begin to imagine how long this will be once it posts.
Absolutism is just really hard for me to wrap my head around because I’ve never come across anything that fits every situation. Sure, it’s wrong to kill someone. But what if that person will kill you otherwise? We call it self-defence and justify it, but you’re still killing someone. Absolute zero? You can get close but can’t actually reach it. While I’m generally opposed to lying, it does nobody any good, when your hostess asks what you think of her decor, to tell her it makes you want to vomit. I believe in generalities, and many of them are right 99.9% of the time. Almost absolutisms?
Getting back to abortion, is it ever right to tell a woman what she can with her body? Of course not! However it’s the lesser of 2 evils if the alternative is a dead human. Many situations only make sense to me if I consider them from the “lesser of two evils” angle.
I do understand what you mean about how do you choose what’s good and what’s evil. I’m always genuinely curious as to how others do it, including you, Paladin. My ethics probably seem sloppy to some other people, but I generally don’t hurt other people, try to raise my daughter as best I can, don’t cheat on my taxes, etc.
The best I can come up with is that I try to follow the Golden Rule of “do onto others as you would have them do on to you.” Or maybe “my right to swing my fist ends where your body begins.” I’m kind of ornery and don’t like people up in my business, so I’m less inclined to get involved unless I see a situation where it’s obvious to me that a person or animal is being harmed. I agree that harm is not always obviously seen, as you said. But not everyone is going to agree on what is harmful. I’ve stepped in and given advice to friends when I think they can use a different perspective, but I try to do it really carefully and don’t get mad if it’s not wanted. And sometimes we all have to learn from our own mistakes.
How does anyone decide what’s right or wrong? Some of it is innate. Some of it is taught by your parents and teachers and clergy. Some you can learn by watching nature. Some of it you learn through observing the world and seeing what kinds of consequences result from different actions, both yours and others’. And hopefully you get better at that as you get older.
Many people I love do believe, and I’m genuinely happy when I see that their religions bring them joy.
– I meant this in a positive, good way. “Joy” has always been a positive word for me, but maybe I need to check the dictionary.
Might I ask: how do you decide what points about religion are “good” or “bad”? What standards do you use, if you believe in no moral absolutes?
– The Spanish Inquisition? Just about every war fought over religion? 99.9% of the time, killing people is Bad. One good thing is when religion brings peace or “joy” to people in ways that don’t infringe on others.
(Me) Live and let live is a great philosophy until you see something that you believe is wrong and is something you can try to change.
(Paladin) This would allow a great many moral crimes, Roxy; if a KKK member sees an inter-racial marriage (which he “believed to be wrong”), I do not think that you would support him in his desire to stop it (or agree that he was right in making the attempt); right? If a new Hitler rose up to deny Jews the right to vote (because he truly and sincerely believed their free existence and influence in society to be a very great “wrong”), you would not support him (or stand idly by and “live and let live”), would you?
– What you said is what I was trying to say, but I guess I didn’t bring my point across.
(Me) Condemning the interactions between consenting adults is just being a meddling busybody.
(Paladin) That begs several questions (and it is a raw opinion of your own, which is not at all enough to prove your main point) For instance: why do you assume that “consent = makes everything allowable”? If that belief is not absolute, then your beliefs are your mere impositions on others; surely you see that? Why should you impose your standard on those who do not wish to honour “consent” as any sort of sacrosanct principle (and who would like to do what they please to whomever they hate)?
– Hey, you may have found my first absolute! If someone is of right mind (i.e. could legally sign a contract), then consent does excuse anything, whether I find the action committed repugnant or not. I do believe very much in staying out other peoples’ space most of the time.
Unless you can establish that you are RIGHT in considering a fetus to be “someONE” (rather than someTHING) who can have a “will” at ALL (mere “blobs of tissue” don’t have a “will” about anything, after all), then your conviction falls to ashes.
– This isn’t really a question of subjective “truth.” It’s scientifically observable. Even though the fetus is pretty much a “blob of tissue” with no “will” in the very early stages, it’s still a human being who will be born in around 9 months, if all goes well. Thus abortion is murder. Legal personhood is a different story, but the “killing someone” aspect of abortion is about the only argument I favour. It should be enough, shouldn’t it?
I could get into the details of my own Living Will. Should I wind up in a vegetative state, or screaming all day long like my godfather’s neighbour at the long-term care facility, this will hopefully allow me to kick the bucket ASAP without anyone else having to take any direct action. That’s the flip side of abortion for me. I have no desire to make that decision for anyone else, but I don’t think anyone has the right to make it for me, either.
But this is way too long already.
Hi CT, I’m enjoying talking to you too!
The question I asked is why does the state privilege marriage as a special relationship that is worthy of unique rights and accomodations? That is to say, if marriage (or civil unions) is just adults self defining some manner of companionship that they personally find fulfilling, what interest does society have in that?
Are you getting at the subject of tax breaks for parents? Sure, I can understand why people would want that. I’d be willing to give them up for the gays, but I’m sure I’m in the minority there, and I can see why.
Maybe if tax breaks are based more on children than marriage, we could get around that. I didn’t really understand why my husband and I should have been entitled to tax breaks before our daughter was born. After all, 1 home was cheaper to maintain than 2.
Thanks, Bobby. That’s very welcoming! God love you too!
Hey Roxy – I agree with a lot of the things you say. Just wanted to say that. :)
Alexandra, you’ve read too much into my rants which were: a) responding to specific comments and b) addressing the issues in general and the media and social hullaballoo surrounding the issue. I have ranted to you and readers in general in lieu of specifically ranting at my friends personally one at a time. I wrote a great response to you but it didn’t post and now there’s a thread of other comments in between. I probably can’t be as articulate today, lol!, so I’ll just try to be more clear in my rants about who I’m addressing about what and why in the future. I wouldn’t pin the narcissism on a single comment but on a running theme in many comments. You shouldn’t lose any sleep over it, but it is something that many of us need to examine about ourselves. It’s merely my opinion, but I think because it stuck in your craw, I may have struck a nerve.
I’ve been wrong before, but if nobody was there to witness, I don’t have to own it, right? LOL!!
PS. I’ve been looking in anatomy books and can’t find the craw. Where the heck is it?
PPS. That’s supposed to be a joke directed at anyone in general. I think the craw is located behind the git-along but below the dander.
Thanks, Alexandra! I’ve been lurking here awhile, and I usually find myself “liking” your posts. Well, liking them too, but also “liking.”
And I forgot to say earlier, I’ve learned a lot from what I’ve read in these exchanges today. So thanks, people!
Roxy: with respect to self-aggrandizing and religion, to the diminishment of the remainder of what’s around us: I think “self-aggrandizing” is a poor choice of words. Biblically, humankind was created to manage the planet. We failed to manage matters outside our own front door, however. Created to be beneficent, wise lords over creation, we sinned and fell into it. The lords of creation became fearful, vulnerable, reactionary, scraping survivors.
Christians believe that the Jews came to understand this not because they were accomplished intuiters of divine intention but because God (despite a complete human incapacity to divine anything at all of the divine and a reliable penchant for getting spiritual things 100% wrong, 100% of the time) graciously revealed himself to them, in order to establish through them an unfolding of his redeeming purposes for humankind.
There’s always self-aggrandizement where humans are, but this would not be Christianity as such. It’s difficult to find self-aggrandizement in the person of Jesus, if we take him at his word.
You shouldn’t lose any sleep over it, but it is something that many of us need to examine about ourselves. It’s merely my opinion, but I think because it stuck in your craw, I may have struck a nerve.
Don’t worry about me losing sleep over it, ninek. It’s an irritating thing to be accused of because there is no defense, but I am nearly 100% certain that whatever my flaws are, narcissism isn’t one of them. If you ever feel like responding to a single thing I actually said in this discussion, let me know.
Roxy, stick around!
Rasqual, I agree that human nature is responsible for what I describe as the self-aggrandizement humans practise. (Hope I’m not putting words in your mouth.) But I do take exception to 2 things that Christianity (and possibly other religions) have to say in that regard.
First, as I mentioned earlier, I find it really, really hard to believe that we were made in the “image and likeness of God.” The story of the Fall, to me, seems like some convenient after-the-fact invention to explain how much we suck as a species (sometimes, anyway). And I do say this knowing that I may be entirely wrong and that the Bible had it right all along.
Secondly, I have a hard time with the notion of us having immortal souls and animals not. I can believe they’re not all capable of cognitive thought, but research is pretty much in its infancy on that. I also don’t believe the average human is necessarily more capable of love than a dog, for instance.
I’m with you on Jesus, though. I don’t know how much of his story I believe, but I do believe he likely said the things attributed to him and that he was very wise and not at all self-aggrandizing.
I think it goes without saying that I find Roxy much like Alexandra. That is a good thing, BTW. Rare birds indeed.
That’s very sweet, Bobby! Now I’m going to go to sleep with my head too swollen to fit on my pillow.
Roxy: “ I find it really, really hard to believe that we were made in the ‘image and likeness of God.'”
Why? We are neither angels nor apes. We are both and neither. We are above other animals (as spiritual animals) as God is above us (as pure spirit and, er…God). We are privileged with his favor in ways no other animal is — even if one is not a theist, our standing among other animals is unique. He created us for fellowship with him, and we create our offspring for fellowship with us (family). He wishes us to heed his wisdom, and we were created originally to wisely rule a rich and fecund order that was intended to be cooperative.
”The story of the Fall, to me, seems like some convenient after-the-fact invention to explain how much we suck as a species (sometimes, anyway).”
Fine. Posit that if God were understood to have communicated with us in the way [observant] Jews claim, it’s unlikely he would have offered an explanation for why things suck.
“Secondly, I have a hard time with the notion of us having immortal souls and animals not….I also don’t believe the average human is necessarily more capable of love than a dog, for instance.”
I can program a robot to sacrifice itself deterministically for others in a way not even the most loyal dog would (and I say that as an owner of an astonishingly perfect GSD whose qualities inform my theological reflections). But I understand what you’re saying. You’re thinking the same way those who contributed to the wisdom literature of the Old Testament were thinking; it’s the best way to think! “Go to the ant, o sluggard, and be wise!” God offers us general revelation in the “book of nature,” giving us food for thought. But it dogs do not go to the book of nature and learn from it. Variability among humans in what they can appreciate from all this is orders of magnitude more variable than what you’d find in any other species’ variability of wisdom.
Human personality is, from a naturalistic standpoint, emergent in qualitative terms so far beyond any other species that there’s really no comparison. This difference, Christians call “spiritual.”
C.S. Lewis once said something to the effect that if animals have any eternal life, they might find it through us — just as we find it through Christ. The stock point he was addressing isn’t as important as the insight he brings to it, though. We’re lords of creation because we have a Lord. Were it not for that, we would be limited to what, as fallen creatures, we indeed became — mere animals as stuck in it as any singular platypus. But worse, actually, because we’d be stuck with the high attribute of what we call personality or personhood — except in a world lacking a God this would be an evolutionary step downward, alienating us from an impersonal cosmos. Rocks falling under gravity’s sway are utterly in tune with the cosmos. Animals lamenting their pending demise as death approaches? These would be freaks of nature who really took a bad turn in their evolution, and hopefully will go the way of the dodo so that creatures whose expectations cohere with the finitude of eternally closed cycles of bang/collapse/multiple/parallel-but-always-impersonal-because-your-carbon-body-is-just-an-accident-of-stellar-nucleosynthesis-given-some-time — well, so that creatures without this idiotically alienating notion of hope for the future — even a finite one — can replace us. The dog is far superior to us in this regard — no delusions of ego, no stake in more than eating, pooping, and loyalty to the pack. Death is weird but so what, y’know?
Either that or we’re fallen gods. There’s really no middle ground.
Roxy,
Not to be rude but homosexuality is about sex between people of the same gender. So I guess the obvious question would be; “do you believe that a man’s poopchute can be as ‘complimentary’ to another man as a woman’s vagina is?”
Hi, Roxy!
Sorry for the delay in replying; I’m grading exams furiously, at the moment (which will be the norm for the next week-and-a-half, since the exams are staggered), but I’ll try to drop a reply when I can (perhaps in the next day or so).
Re: long posts… :) Oh, my friend, you’re in good company! I’m known for monoliths, myself… and for replying point-for-point (which magnifies the length of the original responder’s post, three-fold or more)!
Re: having this post slip off the front page: I’ve resorted to subscribing to threads such as this (with e-mail notifications), so that I don’t miss any of them.
(That reminds me: I owe EGV a reply to his comment on a very ancient thread about some tedious political thing or another…)
Rasqual wrote:
The dog is far superior to us in this regard — no delusions of ego, no stake in more than eating, pooping, and loyalty to the pack.
…and drooling. Do remember drooling.
Death is weird but so what, y’know?
:) Now, *that* statement is philosophical fodder for years, at least!
All right… back to exams I go; no more procrastination!
I can’t believe I actually have two germane remarks for such a succinct quip from you, P.
First, the drooling. I rarely use them when training Chief (he’s the GSD), but one particular treat I do occasionally use is what I’ve come to call the “nuclear option.” Lamb lung. It’s dehydrated stuff (slightly cooked, looks like), and its effect is stunning. I suspect its development as a dog treat was based on empirical science, because it works as much better than anything else as antibiotics do than voodoo. I never had, quite, envisioned Pavlov’s experiments. Now I understand. If Chief knows I’m deploying a couple of these things, his mouth begins to drool great streams of spit — out both sides of ‘is mouth, at that.
Just like when Jalapenos come to mind (my mouth literally filled with saliva as I typed that).
As for the death thing, in a much different context it’s kind of my view (take off the “so what” though). As a traducianist with a monadic anthropology, I have no explanation for death. I deem it absurd, a preposterous warping of what God created (Lewis: “a new species, never made by God, had sinned itself into existence”). As far as I know or care, my survival of death will consist of God remembering me, so to speak, until the resurrection.
I wonder whether anyone on the planet who shares my general outlook could possibly be pro-choice.
Thank you for that, Bobby! That made me smile. :) I remember back YEARS ago when I said that I used to sometimes bring a cup of coffee to the old pro-life protestor guy at the entrance to my community college, on my way to class in the morning, even though I was pro-choice – I just felt bad for him being all alone in the cold etc – and you said something very kind to me about it. It’s the first time I can remember feeling like an actual person, an appreciated person, in the context of a pro-life/pro-choice discussion. I have never forgotten that.
Hi Rasqual, I had to read your post 3 times to even begin to get a handle on what you were saying. That’s a compliment because I think you’ve got a very sophisticated way of arguing your views! I’ve thought a lot about these issues too, but my brain doesn’t work as well with that kind of logic — more with intuition. On a side, and unrelated, note, I’ve never been able to understand what mimes are doing or get through a game of charades figuring out anything that’s going on.
I don’t subscribe to the Bible’s view of The Fall and believe we were just made as we are. I don’t necessarily think that God has to be perfect, and I kind of hold that we’re something like an ant farm he invented for his own (mostly benign) entertainment/observation, and that he’s learning from his mistakes. Maybe he’ll create an even better species next time around. That would actually be quite a parallel between God and humans, now that I think about it. Is that what you meant by “lords of creation”? Humans sharing that quality with God, I mean — just at a lower level, obviously.
I guess I’ve been focusing more on behaviour than spiritual parallels. I understand what you’re saying in your first paragraph about the parallels between God and man, and I see how even those who don’t believe in the Bible could come to similar conclusions. Some of the more degrading human behaviour and the cruelties some of us inflict on each other, and on other animals, are the main reason I have trouble with the concept. I was bullied a lot as a child, which probably helps to explain why I have such a low opinion of my species, and why I can’t stop crying when I hear of people causing pain to animals or young children who don’t know what’s going on. I’m very anti-abortion, as I’ve mentioned, but oddly enough I’m not as emotionally troubled by descriptions of it until the baby is old enough to feel pain.
I’m sure God is capable of atrocities also, but would he take pleasure in them the same way some humans do? Does he cause a tsunami and then laugh when he sees people drowning? Most animals don’t display cruelty unless they’re killing for food. In that particular respect, I find them superior to us.
Variability among humans in what they can appreciate from all this is orders of magnitude more variable than what you’d find in any other species’ variability of wisdom.
True, I’ll agree with you there.
Human personality is, from a naturalistic standpoint, emergent in qualitative terms so far beyond any other species that there’s really no comparison. This difference, Christians call “spiritual.”
I agree with you for the most part, but I remember being moved by something I read in an old Anne Rice novel. (I know, I know.) This was where the intelligence of the soul was vastly changed depending on the brain it was filtered through. The vampires had superior brains, and when the hero inhabited a vampire body, he was capable of understanding so much more.
It’s just a silly fiction book, but it has made me observe people and wonder if there isn’t some truth in it. By my extremely unscientific calculations, your average rabbit has the intelligence of 1-1/2-year-old human child; a cat maybe 2-1/2? I haven’t been around enough dogs to hazard a guess. It’s true that the human child is going to continue growing and learning while the animal hits a brick wall much earlier.
But what happens to a severely mentally impaired human? If the brain is damaged either through a genetic defect or an accident, there is the possibility of the person having less cognitive ability than a cat. I have a friend who does support work for people with head injuries, and he says the saddest cases are when the person has enough cognitive ability left to know what they’ve lost. That reminds me a bit of your last paragraph, actually.
Re: death. I’d love to think there’s an afterlife of some sort, but I just don’t know where I stand on that. I’ve wondered more since my grandmothers died and have become somewhat more hopeful, but I can’t help but think that’s a self-serving comfort thing because I really want to see them again. Without a belief system more sophisticated than I can come up with myself, my gut tells me souls may get reused, possibly from a big melting pot? I’d be much happier if the Christians were right on this one, though. :)
I still have a lot of trouble believing in the Christian view of ideas we’ve been discussing here, but you’ve definitely given me much to think about!
And jalapenos make me and my husband salivate also. I’ll put them into almost anything shy of ice cream.
No worries, Paladin. I’ve been spending more time than I usually do on the Internet this week. And it takes me forever to write most posts.
For the record, posts get even longer when you try to import something to MS Word and then back again. Thank goodness for the 5-min. edit feature, though I ran out of time on my last one.
Good luck with the grading.
Not to be rude but homosexuality is about sex between people of the same gender. So I guess the obvious question would be; “do you believe that a man’s poopchute can be as ‘complimentary’ to another man as a woman’s vagina is?”
Rude about what, the language or the question? Because I’m not offended by either. I’m gonna be geeky and nit-picky and ask if you mean “complementary” or “complimentary”? Because to a gay man, I’d think he would feel much less complimentary to the woman’s vagina. :)
Okay, all kidding aside, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by complementary. Do you mean for a biological purpose? Because obviously that would be the woman, and, if that’s important to you, then it’s likely that you’d be against homosexuality. If you don’t really care (like me), then it’s not much of an issue.
Not everyone follows their biological instincts all the time. We’re meant to be omnivores, but I have lots of friends who are vegetarian. They can do it and stay healthy because they put the extra thought into it. We’re also supposed to sweat, but I love my antiperspirant. Ditto my hair dye, since I’m naturally going pretty grey.
I know the dictionary gives the definition that homosexuality is about sex, but, in practice, I haven’t found that’s necessarily true. I mean, if you wanted to have lots and lots of gay sex, why would you want to settle down with one person? I suspect the majority of the gay people wanting to settle down are doing it for the same reason most of us hets do it: for companionship. I know many people feel strongly about not having children out of wedlock, and that’s another important reason for them to get married, but there are lots of us who don’t care and get married for other reasons.
Anyway, I’ve known a male couple who chose not to have sex. I’m not sure why, but it might have been the HIV issue, because this was back in the late ’80s. I also know a male couple who don’t engage in anal sex because they just don’t like it.
I’m sure I don’t need to point out the hordes of straight people, tons of them Christian and tons married, who engage in more than just vaginal sex. I’m certainly not going to get graphic here, but to be honest, I’d get a little bored without some variety myself. And I’ve been monogamous for over 15 years. Maybe that’s why!
Hi, Roxy,
(Finally… a few moments between exams! Advance apologies for the length of this, by the way…)
You wrote:
Hey Paladin, sorry for flying off the handle.
:) No harm done. Thank you for being forgiving of my imperfect word-choice, as well!
And it’s a good thing this story has dropped off the front page since I can’t even begin to imagine how long this will be once it posts.
:) Oh, heavens… if there’s one thing of which I’m tolerant, it’s long posts! One need only read some of my own verbal monoliths (of which this is one), to determine that!
Absolutism is just really hard for me to wrap my head around because I’ve never come across anything that fits every situation.
At first glance, that’s quite true; our world seems to be saturated with things that are relative to one another; but if one uses a different set of “lenses” to view them, the absolutes become not only more obvious, but absolutely necessary. Not everything is absolute, of course… but a good many foundational things are (nay, they must be, or the universe would be utterly incoherent).
Sure, it’s wrong to kill someone. But what if that person will kill you otherwise? We call it self-defence and justify it, but you’re still killing someone.
Right… which means that the original premise (“it’s wrong to kill someone”) isn’t quite true, as stated; it needs qualifiers. In some cases, it is not wrong to kill someone (as you illustrate)… but those cases can be defined (though not exhaustively listed).
Absolute zero? You can get close but can’t actually reach it.
We cannot, under normal physical circumstances; that is true. But two things remain true: (1) absolute zero does, in fact, exist (or else there would be no “target” for which to “reach”), and (2) it remains theoretically possible to attain it… but not by any process which reduces its temperature by percentage multiples (we call that a “geometric series”, in math). My point is that there is a clear difference between a physical improbability (no matter how outrageously unlikely–some people call that a “physical impossibility”) and a logical impossibility. It is (so far as I know) physically impossible for me to lift a 10-ton vehicle over my head by my own power, but it is not logically impossible (in the sense of a whole number being even and odd at the same time); the first could theoretically happen if I were “super-charged” with strength by some extraordinary means, but the second cannot possibly happen, no matter how much “power” one is given.
While I’m generally opposed to lying, it does nobody any good, when your hostess asks what you think of her decor, to tell her it makes you want to vomit.
That’s true… though there are alternatives to lying, even then. When my wife models something (be it a dress, hat, etc.) which I think is hideous, I need not say that I like it (which would be a lie); I usually say something to the effect of “it doesn’t do you justice” (she uses that one frequently, with others), or [my personal favourite]: “Well, that proves it: you really DO look good in anything!” :)
I believe in generalities, and many of them are right 99.9% of the time. Almost absolutisms?
Perhaps you accept some absolutes (which are buried under your broader beliefs), but without knowing it? I rather suspect you mean “I accept some absolutes, but with qualifiers which narrow the definitions properly!”
Example:
“It’s wrong to kill anyone.” (This is, strictly speaking and as an absolute statement, false.)
“It’s wrong to kill anyone without just cause.” (This is absolutely true, and “just cause” is not merely an indefinable morass… it can be defined sufficiently for our purposes.)
“It’s morally blame-worthy to do something evil.” (This is technically not quite true, as in the case where the “evil” is an unintended side-effect of some otherwise non-evil action, etc.)
“It’s morally blame-worthy to choose [freely] to do evil.” (This is absolutely true; no one is ever morally free to will/choose an evil act.)
Getting back to abortion, is it ever right to tell a woman what she can with her body? Of course not!
Actually, I’d disagree: it *is* right to tell a woman (or a man) what she (or he) can (or cannot) do with her (or his) body, in at least some circumstances. Your own example sufficies: we’re free to say that she cannot (without just cause) use her fist to flatten my nose, for instance, or to use her fingers to pull a trigger and shoot me with a gun, etc.
However it’s the lesser of 2 evils if the alternative is a dead human. Many situations only make sense to me if I consider them from the “lesser of two evils” angle.
I understand the reflex; but since it’s always immoral to intend an evil, I’d suggest another way of looking at the matter: it’s known as the “principle of double-effect”… which describes the conditions under which an evil effect, though an unintended side-effect of some other choice, may still be permitted. I tried to summarise it here (not at all trying to promote my own dusty, neglected blog, but it’s where the data is all in one place):
http://paladinforchrist.blogspot.com/2008/11/cooperation-with-evil-part-ii.html
I do understand what you mean about how do you choose what’s good and what’s evil.
Right. My point is that there must necessarily be at least SOME absolute standards (though one might need to “dig” for them, intellectually, since they may be hidden), or else all attempts to say anything about ethics/morality (i.e. “shoulds” and “should nots”) would crumble into nonsense… just as measurements could never be made if the definition of a metre (or whatever unit of measure) keeps changing, or isn’t clearly defined in the first place (i.e. everyone has his own idea as to how long it should be, and uses that).
I’m always genuinely curious as to how others do it, including you, Paladin.
:) That, as they say, is a very long story. I’m quite willing to explore it with you, but the length is not for the faint of heart! (I wrote a bit about it on my extremely neglected and fossilising blog, in fact, if you browse about; it might save band-width on Jill’s blog! :) There aren’t terribly many entries to search, either.)
My ethics probably seem sloppy to some other people, but I generally don’t hurt other people, try to raise my daughter as best I can, don’t cheat on my taxes, etc.
Those things are excellent, so far as they go! The reason I assert that we need to do some “heavy lifting” and find the foundational (and objective) principles *behind* those actions is two-fold: (1) as rational beings, it behooves us to know WHY we do what we do, and to be as informed as possible when making such choices… so as not to leave all our actions to mere whim, chance, mood, etc.; and (2) as thinking beings who live in a society, we will inevitably hit “hard cases” where it is not as easy to tell right from wrong, good from evil, or even harm from non-harm (think of a child being compelled by parents to have a cavity drilled by a dentist, for example)… and while it’s nice to handle easy problems “in our head”, as it were (akin to finding an easy math problem), it’s also necessary to have the tools necessary for solving the “non-head” problems, as well.
The best I can come up with is that I try to follow the Golden Rule of “do onto others as you would have them do on to you.”
That’s an excellent standard… so long as the definitions are clear, and if our desires are in line with reality! A sado-masochist, for example, might be delighted to have tortures inflicted upon himself… but if he uses that standard to torment any given person off the street, that would be gravely immoral. (His very desire is also a derangement of his right mind and passions, but that’s another topic.)
Or maybe “my right to swing my fist ends where your body begins.”
True, in general… but the fact that even this admits of exceptions (e.g. if the one with the “body” is attacking me or someone else) does not mean that there are no absolutes, any more than my inability to crochet implies that crochet is impossible; it means simply that I do not yet have a handle on the true “objective basis” of the principle.
In short: the fact that there exist grey areas (even a majority of them!) does not at all mean that black and white cease to exist, or that there are no clear examples of either. Just so: the fact that some (or even many) cases are difficult to decide, morally speaking (for whatever reason–difficulty in predicting outcomes, lack of clear information, etc.), does not mean that “it’s all up for grabs”, as it were.
How does anyone decide what’s right or wrong?
I would argue that it is a combination of right reason (i.e. valid and sound logic) and accurate data which would lead us to such a decision. We’re not left completely in the dark, after all.
“Joy” has always been a positive word for me, but maybe I need to check the dictionary.
You’re quite right: it *should* be a positive word! I mean only that some people run away with odd and distorted meanings of “joy” (just as they do with the definitions of “love”, “faith”, and the like–those terms are particularly distorted, in our day).
[Paladin]
Might I ask: how do you decide what points about religion are “good” or “bad”? What standards do you use, if you believe in no moral absolutes?
[Roxy]
The Spanish Inquisition? Just about every war fought over religion?
:) I think you could guess my next question, if I were to be relentless in logic (which I try to be): what of these? Are you implying that these are wrong? And if so, to what extent (all wrong, partially wrong, etc.)? And aside from a primal emotional reaction (which can happen even against good things, if one has been badly formed by a dysfunctional home, or in a bad mood, etc.), how do you know that your judgment is, in fact, right? These are the types of (sometimes tiresome) questions which need, sooner or later, to be answered. They cannot be left to chance, personal taste, etc.; they are far too important for that.
99.9% of the time, killing people is Bad.
I would go further (just to be picky), and say that “killing people is bad 100% of the time”… but I’d qualify it by saying that “being culpable” [i.e. blame-worthy] is not at all the same as “doing something bad” [which might be necessary and unavoidable, and even praiseworthy]. While all killing of people is bad, not all killing of people is morally wrong.
One good thing is when religion brings peace or “joy” to people in ways that don’t infringe on others.
That’s true. The problem arises when religion, whose foundations and dynamics are vastly more complex than most people even guess (just as a simple wood table is vastly more complex than most people would guess, if studied at the microscopic or atomic level, etc.), points to objective truths which people happen not to like. Many people, for example, like to smoke tobacco, despite the rather compelling evidence that habitual use is addictive and carcinogenic; when doctors warn patients away from it, they are not trying to be “kill-joys” or “busy-bodies” by “trying to steal one’s fun”; they’re trying to point out a not-so-obvious source of harm which many might miss, and which could cause wide-spread suffering to many. Just so, with religion.
Hey, you may have found my first absolute! If someone is of right mind (i.e. could legally sign a contract), then consent does excuse anything, whether I find the action committed repugnant or not.
That’s a tempting idea… but it hides some rather dangerous fault-lines. For example: Jews in Nazi Germany could not legally sign a contract, since they were not recognised as persons; the same is true of blacks in 1800’s USA, and of the unborn children of our era. Heavens, even animals fall under that category! (The standard, without qualifiers, would render it morally licit to torture stray kittens to death, since all human parties “consented”. I’m an animal lover, by the way, and very little drives me closer to an irrational rage than a deliberate cruelty to animals–especially ones who are helpless to resist.) All one needs to do to inflict evil, while still obeying that standard, would be to “define” one’s “target” as “non-human” (and therefore incapable of consent of any stripe). As I say, it has been done before.
[Paladin]
Unless you can establish that you are RIGHT in considering a fetus to be “someONE” (rather than someTHING) who can have a “will” at ALL (mere “blobs of tissue” don’t have a “will” about anything, after all), then your conviction falls to ashes.
[Roxy]
This isn’t really a question of subjective “truth.” It’s scientifically observable.
Science can verify whether an organism is living or dead, yes; but it cannot verify the difference between a “someONE” (what we call a “subject”, in the sense of a “center of personality”, or “person”) and a “someTHING” (what we call a “mere object”, in the sense of a “non-person”).
Even though the fetus is pretty much a “blob of tissue” with no “will” in the very early stages, it’s still a human being who will be born in around 9 months, if all goes well.
That is true… though abortion-tolerant people might reject the title “human BEING” (which implies a coherent center of personhood).
Thus abortion is murder.
Without establishing personhood, that conclusion does not yet follow. Murder is the deliberate and wrongful killing of another person (as opposed to self-defense, even against one who is innocently insane, since that killing [if lethal force is the only realistic option for defense] is not wrongful); and many pro-abortion people would argue that: (1) the fetus is not a person (and thus cannot be “murdered” any more than a tumor or sperm cell can be “murdered”), and/or (2) such killing is justified [i.e. not wrongful], so long as certain conditions are met.
Legal personhood is a different story, but the “killing someone” aspect of abortion is about the only argument I favour. It should be enough, shouldn’t it?
It should. But we are not dealing with those who agree with our starting principles… ultimately because they do not accept moral absolutes.
I could get into the details of my own Living Will. […] That’s the flip side of abortion for me. I have no desire to make that decision for anyone else, but I don’t think anyone has the right to make it for me, either.
Hm. We must, unfortunately, be willing (though not “have the desire”, since that is a mere emotion) to “make the decision for others [in the case of abortion]”, if we seek to make abortion illegal (and therefore forbid it by law, and punish those who commit it). As for the end-of-life issues… I think I’ll leave that for another time, since, as you say, this is quite long enough.
But this is way too long already.
:) You were saying?
I know the dictionary gives the definition that homosexuality is about sex, but, in practice, I haven’t found that’s necessarily true. I mean, if you wanted to have lots and lots of gay sex, why would you want to settle down with one person?
Roxy,
Homosexuality has nothing to do with how often a peson wants sex or wether or not a person is in a monogamous relationship. If two males are companions but they not don’t engage in sex they are not homosexual; they are friends. If two males engage in sex with one another they are homosexual.
And if any man that believes a body part used daily for defecation is more compatibe with sticking his penis into then a body part that is designed to have a man’s penis stuck into it then he is lacking in more than just biological aptitude; he is also lacking in both physical and spiritual health aptitude.
Truthseeker, I understand you have strong feelings about homosexuality, but I’m not sure you actually know that much about male homosexuals.
Seriously, not all of them have anal sex. There ARE other ways to pleasure people. It’s entirely possible that some of your straight neighbours or friends are having anal sex as I write this.
You certainly have the right to speak out against something you don’t believe in, but maybe you should read around a little bit from a variety of statistical sources before you post so authoritatively.
Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about straight couples engaging in this activity as well?
Paladin, you should have kept up your site. I’m having trouble following some of the logic-style arguing (don’t know the proper term for it), but your writing is very engaging when you’re writing for us laypeople.
I’m looking forward to reading more later, but right now my head is about to explode from too much critical thinking in one day!
:) Roxy, you’re both generous (thank you for the kind words) and brave! Most people, when faced with my writing, have a reaction akin to: “Good heavens! Doesn’t the man know that electrons cost money? Look at all this verbiage!”
Seriously, not all of them have anal sex. There ARE other ways to pleasure people.Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about straight couples engaging in this activity as well?
Homosexuality has nothing to do with how often a peson wants sex or wether or not a person is in a monogamous relationship. If two males are companions but they not don’t engage in sex they are not homosexual; they are friends. If two males engage in ‘sex’ with one another they are homosexual. Any of a number of other ’activities’ besides anal sex could also qualify as sex and make one a homosexual.
Out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about straight couples engaging in this activity as well?
Yes. I think it goes without saying that it would not make them homosexual; but imo it would qualify them as lacking in both physical and spiritual health aptitude.
Men who are attracted to other men and think of them in romantic terms, to me, are not heterosexual, whether they’re actually having sex or not, but obviously there are differing viewpoints on that.
I’ll put it this way: I would not get romantically involved with a man who was seriously attracted to men, even if he’d never had sex with one.
Anyway, I can see where you’re coming from, truthseeker. And thanks for replying!
Hey Paladin,
To be honest, I’ll probably never end up specifically addressing everything we’ve been discussing because there’s just so much of it! But I’ve certainly been reading with care and finding it thought-provoking. Also, my extra fun “me” time is over after this week, and I want to at least address some of this before things get too hectic again. And I’ll apologize in advance for this being so self-centred, but I have to start somewhere, and all this dialogue has helped tremendously. (Thanks to Jill for the bandwidth and to Bobby for not shutting this down. I certainly wouldn’t ramble like this on a current topic!)
A lot of the time, my views are probably more closely aligned with Christianity than I’d thought. Some of it is terminology.
Perhaps you accept some absolutes (which are buried under your broader beliefs), but without knowing it? I rather suspect you mean “I accept some absolutes, but with qualifiers which narrow the definitions properly!”
Yes, this makes a lot of sense to me. What I’ve been saying up to now is that if there are exceptions, then it’s not an absolute. I think of them as “Good Practice” ways to act, but that there are always exceptions (hence nothing working that way 100% of the time). But “absolutes with qualifiers” is certainly a cleaner and more organized way of viewing it.
I do agree with the wisdom in what you’re saying about needing to have the mental tools to help solve the hard-case, or “heavy-lifting,” problems. It’s pretty rare for me personally to make decisions on chance or whims (at least not important decisions), but that certainly is something to guard against.
To sidetrack a little, I followed a link from one of your entries to the New Advent site section on virtues and was pleasantly surprised to see I’m not as far off from them as I assumed. I definitely fall down on the theological, but in my own way, I have the utmost respect and admiration for our creator; I just can’t decide what form I think that creator takes. I’m also not bad on fortitude and temperance toward others, though I fail abysmally on hope.
What probably keeps me making decisions that allow me to look at myself in the mirror without guilt (most of the time) is an overdeveloped sense of justice. That’s not always a good thing, I realize, without balance. And I actually don’t need New Advent to tell me that! My mind has always been more chaotic than orderly – and it probably works better that way — but it certainly wouldn’t hurt me to diversify.
What I read on the New Advent site about “intuition” is different than the way I’ve always thought of the word, which is probably more in the way Jungian psychologists might – seeing the forest instead of the trees.
For a frivolous example, I’ll mention that my husband and I are both really into furniture, books and design from the ‘50s and ‘60s. He’s actually got way more knowledge on the subject, but I’m often better at guessing what year something was made. Usually the number just comes into my head because I’m doing the processing in the back of my mind. He’ll start listing off various features of the object and then maybe revise his opinion. We’re both getting to the same conclusion in different ways.
My mind just works best that way, although I’m sure that has drawbacks when it comes to deciding right from wrong. Like I said, a little diversity wouldn’t be bad. But I was very interested to see how “intuition” was described as having for its object self-evident truths. Is that what you meant that when you spoke of the Golden Rule being good “so long as the definitions are clear, and if our desires are in line with reality”?
Some of my word choices were pretty sloppy also. Good points about those who are capable of signing contracts. I should have specified that it’s anyone who has, of free will, signed a contract and is considered capable, in our current American/Canadian society, of standing trial. There’s undoubtedly a better way to describe it than that, but at least it gets the idea across a little better now? I should also have said that these adults are only free to do things to each other, not to any other animal, including humans. (Glad to know you and Rasqual love animals, btw.)
Abortion is the most complex issue I’ve ever encountered, and I’m not 100% comfortable with opposing it. Despite what you said earlier, I still think of it as the lesser of two evils (although I understand how Catholics look at it differently), but I guess it all goes back to what I said earlier about my different way of looking at absolutes. I’m vehemently against people/government telling anyone else what they can do with their own bodies. The killing of a child through abortion is the only exception (or qualifier) I can think of.
Thus, in theory, I support assisted suicide, but I think it would too difficult to implement practically. I want to reserve the right for myself, though! And that’s why I call myself “anti-abortion” rather than “pro-life,” although I generally oppose the death penalty and war.
I sort of get what you’re saying about needing to establish personhood to argue against abortion supporters (sadly, I wouldn’t have thought it was that complicated), but I have a lot of trouble with the Personhood Movement as being presented these days. I’m no lawyer, but I can see potential in how it could be used to harm a woman’s rights. I also think it could be overturned too easily (for the same reason, basically), so I’m not happy with it from any perspective, either as a woman or an anti-abortion activist. Plus, the jury is still out on The Pill. (I understand the Catholic position on bc but don’t share it.)
I could get way more into it, but I’ve promised myself not to write any more novellas here. I’ll be happy to read anything anyone else wants to post, though, no matter how long, and I’ll answer. Just feel a little weird high-jacking all this space and making it all about me. Thanks again, everyone! I really appreciate it!
Thank you also Roxy for the conversation. Like you, I tend to look at things from an “intuitive” perspective. It is a lot easier for me too. Details can be so cumbersome and many times seem almost irrelevant to me whereas principles are so easy to follow.
It is funny how different people’s brains can work so differently. Having to think about details and being precise is generally tiring for me, especially in cases where, as you say, details can be “almost irrelevant.” But that’s probably a good reason for me to work at it sometimes.
Anyway, happy weekend!
Thank you, as well, Roxy! And please pray for the poor souls among us who are staggering under stacks of exams to grade… :)
I do’t want to hear about who the gays are sleeping wit anymore than they ant to know who I’m sleeping with. It’s an abomination! I don’t condone homosexuality and no Christian ever should sell out on the issue.
I’m vehemently against people/government telling anyone else what they can do with their own bodies. The killing of a child through abortion is the only exception (or qualifier) I can think of.
Just off the top of my head there are things the law says we cannot do with our bodies.
There are laws about what underage people can do with their bodies – sex, tattoos, piercings, cutting, alcohol consumption. There are laws regarding drugs, helmets, seat belts, tanning time-limits, exposing genitals, building/rock climbing, no swim/dive areas, no urinating/defecating/spitting in public, raping, bestiality, trespassing, necrophilia.
The government tells us all kinds of stuff we cannot do with our bodies. They don’t want us having any fun at all!
Praxedes, some of what you mentioned I agree with, and some not. Part of it is whether your actions affect other people. I was talking about what adults can do “with their own bodies.”
tanning time limits, exposing genitals, building/rock climbing, no swim/dive areas, no urinating/defecating/spitting in public, raping, bestiality, trespassing, necrophilia.
These affect others or are done on somebody else’s property. I know people who love to explore abandoned buildings, but I can understand why someone who owns one of these sites wouldn’t want people trespassing on them because of the liability issues. Urinating, etc., also affects others because of hygiene. And by the time you get into rape or bestiality, you’re completely doing something to someone else who is not consenting.
The laws regarding underage behaviour don’t have anything to do with adults.
Helmets and seatbelts are things I’d highly recommend, but I don’t think the government should be able to dictate them to adults. Most of what goes down with drugs is either the already-illegal organized crime involved in procuring them or the stupid, safety-compromising things that people do whilst consuming them, most of which are illegal anyway (ex.: driving under the influence). I’m a huge fan of Canada’s relaxed marijuana law, and if someone wants to grow their own for personal use on their land (which happens here a lot), so be it. Not the government’s business.
In Canada we’ve also got socialized medicine, and I can understand how that indirectly affects other people if you’re a huge loser who wants to do some extreme feat that requires rescuing by the Coast Guard, say. But if you’re going to start outlawing dangerous behaviours, where do you start? With the person who smokes 2 packs a day? The one eating Tater Tots and Twinkies all day? The person who consumes a case of beer every day? All legal, and at least 2 of those benefit the government pretty well tax-wise.
Don’t forget, just because a law exists doesn’t mean that it should. I’m not exactly pleased that abortion is illegal, but that doesn’t just affect the person having it. And I don’t understand why the “consenting adults and ONLY consenting adults” concept is so hard for people to see (not just you Praxedes — I encounter it all the time).
More than anything, I’m still flummoxed that the government used to have sodomy laws outlawing behaviour between consenting adults (and them only). But the ramifications certainly go far beyond that!
And I take it you were being facetious when implying that activities like spitting in the street are fun (something I’ll never understand). :)
heather, I realize plenty of Christians don’t compromise on this issue, as is certainly their right.
I also agree that I’m not particularly interested in hearing details about what ANYONE is doing in their sex lives, “abomination” or not. (Though I have to admit I’ve heard some pretty funny stories from friends over a few glasses of wine — no fair talking talking about the subject of the story by their real name.)