Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The DREAM Dies | Main | Holiday Week Open Thread »

December 19, 2010

Comments

Cecil Turner

"When I came into the Navy, homosexuality was illegal, today, with DADT it is optional, I am glad to be retiring before it becomes mandatory!"

Heh. I'm sure one of the first casualties of the upcoming sensitivity campaign will be statements like this. And on that note I'd like to share my all-time favorite (told me by a Navy guy approaching retirement): "You're only queer if you do it in port."

sbw

Rick: A tiny fraction will have the ability to discriminate between good and evil. . .

Confucius pointed that out 2500 years ago, dividing people into three groups:
- The saints, who intuitively knew The Way,
- Those, like Confucius, who could learn The Way, and
- Those who needed ritual -- rules to follow, because the process of how to decide was beyond them.

More people fit in the third group than need to be there, but it is hard to set laws for every case.

Understanding the process by which to decide how to behave is the second group toward which teachers should nudge students.

caro

If you all think Janet in words is great,which she is,you should really come to a DC Tea Party and meet her in person.

Ditto daddy's words.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Jim Hlavac,

I was having dinner a few years back with my niece (in college at the time) and her friend, and my tenant at the time who is a lesbian. The friend in particular was pretty anti-gay. She was going on about loving the sinner and hating the sin.

My friend stopped everyone in their tracks with a simple question:

Were you born heterosexual or did you choose to be that way?

(I'm not sure repeating that story now has the same impact, but it was pretty potent at the time.

Rick Ballard

SBW,

Right now I'd settle for teachers nudging students away from the process RSE has been describing. The embrace of 'tolerance and diversity' is a scam, the objective of which is to destroy the ability to discriminate. If the putrescent "progressive" commies are successful, the idiots who have fallen for the lie will receive the same reward garnered by Russian and Chinese peasants under Stalin and Mao. Tens of millions of them achieved the uniform equality assured by the embrace of romantic scientism, as have tens of million of babies since murder became a matter of simple "choice".

We happen to be in conflict with two death cults at the same time and (IMO) energy is better directed toward their defeat and destruction.

sbw

The embrace of 'tolerance and diversity' is a scam, the objective of which is to destroy the ability to discriminate.

We have an editorial on that running tomorrow -- on the grinches in Washington that want to crush a bank's Merry Christmas buttons.

Clarice

newsbusters catches NPR's Nina Totenberg saying she was at an "excuse the expression Christmas party" which has set the IT awhirl.

narciso

I put that in the Holiday thread, since my LUN
seems to be broken, Clarice

boris

"Understanding the process by which to decide how to behave is the second group toward which teachers should nudge students"

Pretty sure the teachers union would claim that's exactly what they are doing only the saints of their "Way" are Marx, Castro, etc.

How to behave = multiculturalism, redistribution, and equality of result.


sbw

Boris, that's why I emphasize the need for individuals to test for themselves what the credentialeds teach. Check the track record for "multiculturalism, redistribution, and equality of result" over history and it doesn't work -- so laugh at it. . . and them.

Janet

Makes me mindful of this quote - "Armavirumque would therefore like to offer up another source text for adjudicating Western law in the face of foreign customs. It comes by way of Sir Charles Napier (1782-1853) and his famous response to colonial Indian who were seeking to pursue their native ritual of suttee, the live immolation of a wife after the death of her husband, while under British authority:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

Today it seems as though we are being taught to hate our own culture & customs.

sbw

Excellent quote. Worth retelling forever, Janet.

Ignatz

--Were you born heterosexual or did you choose to be that way?--

Assumes a fact not in evidence, namely that heterosexuality and homosexuality are identical in their natures.
If homosexuality can be proved to be entirely genetic in nature then the comment has resonance.
If heterosexuality is the gentic norm and homosexuality has some component of environmental factors then the comment does not.
And moreover if homosexuality is in some way a product of early childhood developmental issues then it might very well still involve very little "choice" on the part of the subject but still be very different in kind from heterosexuality.

Ignatz

Ah fudge

sbw

Ignatz, we shall have no science before its time. Goes for global warming, too.

Rick Ballard

Janet,

Watch Candle In The Dark if you get a chance (Netflix has it). William Carey provided the moral clarity for Napier's action in the same manner that William Wilberforce did for the British anti-slavery movement.

Janet

okay, thanks Rick.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Assumes a fact not in evidence, namely that heterosexuality and homosexuality are identical in their natures.

Actually I screwed it up, I think the question was "when did you choose to be a heterosexual?"

Aren't you also assuming facts not in evidence by taking the opposite position? And given the culture in the world, who in their right mind would choose to be gay?

My own personal belief is that everyone has a trigger to their sexuality that happens at some point in childhood. Figure out where someone's mind goes 5 seconds before orgasm and you will find your answer.

boris

"involve very little "choice" on the part of the subject but still be very different in kind from heterosexuality"

OTOH if gay sex had an exclusive reproductive advantage the population difference would reverse in a few generations. Of course we know that can't happen but nature doesn't.

sbw

Jane, the canard that people are rational goes up in flames the instant one contemplates sexuality...

Except for progressives, who won't consider the possibility that what they think might not be rational.

glasater

Echoing the lovely comments regarding our friend Janet. She is just the best and funny too!! A superb combination.

squaredance

Apropos of Janet's quote, I have a story:

There is a quite wealthy Quaker family that has lived for generations on a quite large estate--a ranch really--in California. They were once bedeviled by poachers. One day the grandfather, the patriarch of the clan, caught a poacher on the property.

To scare him off, he leveled his shotgun at him and said:

"Brother, I do not mean to harm thee, but thee are standing where I am about to shoot".


(True story)

Janet

A poacher. That was as low as one could go in South Texas. 'He was caught poaching' brought gasps of horror from neighbors.

squaredance

Actually, in going through the thread this AM, I was going to post the Wiki link that andruil did. For once, Wikipedia (and, curiously, andruil) is not too bad.

One might add their link on Mores, a human phenomena that some here are conflating with morality.

Here is another link that very clearly lays out the basic historical Christian take on Natural Law, from The Catholic Encyclopedia, which is to say the Catholic view, for the Church has the longest and deepest scholarship and thought on the issue. (It is perhaps not all that different than the Protestant view as expressed by Luther and Calvin.)

To simplify: as regards natural law, The Church considers it "the law written in mens' hearts by God".

(BTW, browsing the hyperlink here provides a more focused exposure to relevant matter than does the wiki link. In particular, the distinction between ethics and morality.).

There is some confusion (and no small naivete) in this thread about some of these issues, as well as a misunderstanding of the Christian (and Jewish) tradition here among non believers.

The Cliff Notes edition as germane to this thread: We have here a "contest" between on one hand a legal order, informed by materialism, determinism and utilitarianism (and the all the moral relevance and moral equivalence there implied), and, on the other, a transcendent and absolute moral order, established not by man but consciously known to him by revelation of its essentials and further clarified by reason, reflection, observation and meditation. This order may or may not be codified into legal codes, but it transcends them. Positive Law vs. Natural Law; Crime vs. Sin.

The former case is, of course, the position of the various Communist moments of the last 200 years. It is, however, erroneously positioned as moral order rather than a legal one. Not unsurprisingly, it comes with several glaring fallacies.

Perhaps one of the larger ones is the idea that there are "Secular Societies" that "establish moral laws" which formally articulates the "rational collective interests" by means of reason, adjudication and political-economic insight. This is the hobgoblin of "Scientific Socialism". But, contrary to their claims, virtually no "moral tradition" coded into law does not originally stem from a "religious tradition" that posits a faith based one way or the other on a formalization of "natural law". (One might also point out that likewise there is no civlization that does not rise from a religious tradition).

Thus, they take along with them a "tacit metaphysics", as it were. They inherit Natural Law, with all its attendant concepts and language, ontology and epistemology, from those religious traditions,and this is true even of the odd "pseudo-religious" traditions such as Confucianism. These confusions about the foundations and methods of Communist "morality" is what is meant by when I once said the they (and our secularists) are "running of the fumes of Christianity".) In fact, Communism itself can be seen as a sort of Christian heresy with it roots in the Reformation (and no, I am not blaming Communism on Protestants).

Thus the collectivist moral position is at once fallacious, dishonest and hypocritical.

Their position is also logically absurd for they present politically derived Positive Law as a sort of "Collective Natural Law" while at the same time rejecting actual Natural Law and all its implications.

Those arguing "collective morality", and/or utilitarianism without the notion of Natural Law, are really arguing for some sort of more or less deterministic, materialistic form of "Positive Law", which is not mortality at all. It is more a case of the codification of mores, rules, political impulses and impressions, and superstitions, and reflect no transcendent, supernatural (meaning here simply "above nature") moral order or notion of the human as having a similar transcendent, supernatural moral aspect receptive to that order (e.g., "free will", a "soul", "conscience", etc.).

In the former case, all things are possible; in the latter, there are absolute limits.

LouP

I'm certainly no philosopher or philosophy student. I, nevertheless, find it kind of amazing that nowhere - I think, or can easily find -in this thread (or the previous one) that deals with morals is there ever the use of the word "rationalize" or "rationalization."

We humans, without some well-grounded moral code imposed upon us, are marvelously agile in rationalizing what we think based on what we want (and as far as I know there is only one bedrock, primal law that we all adhere to - that of self-survival). The process of rationalization, I think, tends for the most part to consider only contemporaneous issues and consequences. I.e., "wisdom of the ages," whatever its source(s), tends to be neglected when the rationalization process kicks in.

Liberals are terribly adept at rationalization to argue the changes they want. DADT Repeal arguments (mostly "for," but some "against") are IMO full of such rationalization.

... Just an observation, for whatever it might be worth...

sbw

LouP, I constantly represent rationality as not how we think, but how we check our work.

We have to "ground" our moral code in each succeeding generation. That takes more than feelings and less than rationalization. It takes re-validating the processes by which we reach our conclusions -- those conclusions are what we call virtues.

So teaching virtues is not enough; we have to teach how to check that what we call a virtue actually is one. If we don't, some wag is going to promote voluptuousness as a virtue by which one uses all one's assets to advantage. ;-)

Can't propagate with them, can't live without them.

Sexuality is a unity. Differentiating the homo from the hetero is the distinction of the exuberant, and luxurious.
============

Thomas Collins

James V. Schall, S.J., expresses the point about seemingly secular modes and orders having their basis in a religious tradition in the following manner:

"Indeed, this "Is it worth having?" theme is why Benedict XVI's encyclical, Spe Salvi, is so fundamental for understanding the nature of political philosophy. We have had intimations all along from Nietzsche to Bury to Voegelin that the modern world is not nearly as "secular" in inspiration as it pretends to be. Rather it is an effort to accomplish the lofty goals that were found in the revelational tradition by means other than suggested there. Without this elevated background, our political ideologies and enthusiasms would simply never have happened."

See LUN for the entire interview.

squaredance

TC: Exactly.

Though I would hardly call them "untimations".

Seems to me to fairly scream.

Curious how that 19th and early 20th hijacking of (classical liberal) culture by the collectivists was met with either ham-fists or timidity by those who might have headed it off. All they had to do was call things by their proper names and place them in their proper histories.

squaredance

Though I would hardly call them "Intimations".

laura

TC,

Schall is a marvel and gracious to boot. I remember my better half called him at the outset of the Iraq war for clarification on Just War Theory etc. Fr Schall gave him over an hour of his time. This was a call out of the clear blue from a stranger, not even a former student.
Wish there were more like him.

Ignatz

--Aren't you also assuming facts not in evidence by taking the opposite position?--

I didn't, Jane. I stated at least three alternative explanations without endorsing any of them.

--And given the culture in the world, who in their right mind would choose to be gay?--

Does that mean that adultery, embezzlement, rape, wife beating and criminality in general do not involve any choice because they are, for the time being anyway, still generally frowned upon?

sbw

19th and early 20th hijacking of (classical liberal) culture by the collectivists was met with either ham-fists or timidity

Were I to teach a class on "Today" I would immediately draw students into the complexity of 1848 and the 1920s. Such fun!

1848 produced the works of Karl Marx and the 1920s saw the good ideas of Dewey perverted by populists ... but both echoed in the reemergence of Romanticism as an attempt, destined to fail, to recover from technological upheaval. In 1848 it was from urban industrialization and in the 1920s it was from the ravages of technological war.

rse

sbw-

What good ideas of Dewey?

His idea of deemphasizing knowledge so that language would be used for communicating and not thought?

His idea of using the schools to socialize the kids to only think of themselves as part of a cooperative group and never as individuals?

His idea of participatory democracy that became the basis for the Port Huron Statement and those charmers-Students for a Democratic Society?

Those gleeful laudatory descriptions of 1928 USSR that helped dupe too many of the American public and played right into the hands of CPUSA?

Dewey is truly one of the most destructive figures of the 20th century.

His idea that the US schools could be quietly radicalized and become the method for creating the perfect socialist human who would welcome a communitarian ideal is literally being used now through the Common Core national standards to change the political and economic structure of American society without a shot being fired.

It is painful to read the actual documents I've seen in the last few months. There really has been a cabal operating in the US and now internationally to use education to destroy this country.

I really do not understand why you are giving someone so destructive the benefit of the doubt.

What am I missing?

matt

DADT is just another victory for the Great American Litigation Machine.

sbw

rse, I'm interested in learning more. The John Dewey I have read about was interested in developing in students pure curiosity, process oriented thinking, and feedback systems to check one's work.

That which you are speaking about I associate with the progressives that used Dewey to promote populism.

I have only listened to courses on early 20th century thought so I can't immediately point to a source to back up my case. I'll dig. I'd love some references on your points.

sbw

rse, from the course notes: Dewey was skeptical of truth, believing what we call "truth" is simply what works best for us at the time. [Now that's not good enough. It needs to be fleshed out by Karl Popper in the 1940s, pruning away what is demonstrably false.]

Dewey's ends were progressive and democratic suggesting that the test of success was how it contributed to the growth of all individuals in a given society. [Dewey's 1920s were naively democrat socialist. There were darn few college kids in the 1930s who weren't. Dewey did believe in checking results, but dying in 1952, he hardly had a chance to repudiate the practical results of democratic socialism.

He did believe in an honestly informed electorate -- not one that was propagandized. His view of democaracy was typical of his time, trusting the majority that ruled. [I don't. I trust democracy as the opportunity to be humble enough to listen to the smallest voice of reason]

I guess, in the end, I evaluate Dewey in his time as a man of his time and not ours, abused by followers and successors like Rorty. That he valued process and continuous rechecking of results is still worthwhile even if his results don't stand up to our experience.

rse, thanks for listing your concerns about Dewey. He was no god.

rse

That is the sanitized version because his "learning by doing" that was designed to move from academics to socialization was so useful later that in the classic appeal to authority they would tell alarmed parents "it's Dewey's philosophy".

Dewey literally saw the schools as "incubators for peaceful social revolution". He opposed using myths and fairy tales in primers because they stimulated the imagination rather than the social spirit.

Here's a link that is a short synopsis with quotes Called "Was Dewey a Marxist"

http://www.stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol13brk.html . Notice the date of the article. This was when we that this mindset was over, not that it went underground and changed tactics.

The new Paul Kengor book Dupes has several chapters on Dewey's activities.

There's also Robert B Westbrook's John Dewey and American Democracy. This is from an admirer with extensive documentation and also dates to the early 90s.

Rick Ballard

"You can't make Socialists out of individualists - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent"

That's John Dewey, Fabian Socialist and biggest worm in the apple of American education.

He was also a great liar concerning his objectives.

sbw

Thanks, rse, for the pointers. Dewey was Hegelian. Marx was Hegelian. That doesn't necessarily make Dewey a Marxist. Nor is it significant.

What Dewey did do was deconstruct Plato and Aristotle, much to the chagrin of traditional secular and religious philosophers. But contemporary philosophy was already in disarray when Charles Sanders Pierce and William James tried to patch it together. Add Freud to the mix and everything seemed to be coming apart.

Despite our particular nit-picking, I suspect that you and I will agree that during most of the 20th century the institutions (philosophy, history, political science, and education) were falling apart, and Dewey wasn't the answer.

I don't mind discarding almost everything that Karl Marx ever presumed, I'll recommend his dialectic materialism rightly used as a useful tool. Similarly, I'm willing to discard much of Dewey, but save his emphasis on process and feedback as useful tools.

Where active minds in the past were wrong deserves to be labeled, but where they helped deserves to be recognized.

sbw

Rick, I should have added that Hegel longed for central government for security to protect individuals. That's wrongheaded but understandable insofar as he lied invasion as Napoleon march past his window. That colored Hegel's views. Marx saw the economic abuse of individuals of the 1840s. He looked to the collective for protection of the abuses of his society.

We have the advantage over Hegel and Marx of 200 and 150 years more experience respectively. Part of our job is to confront a generation for whom history begins at dawn that outdated and recycled bromides don't work. That's hard when education is dumbed down the way it is. I simply deride educationists more than Dewey. Reading rse, I may have underestimated Dewey's progressivism. I never underestimated his misguided faith in the rule of the majority.

sbw

"as he lied invasion" s/b "as he lived invasion"

Preview is your friend. I never learn.

Frau Schweigsam

Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad." (Wiki)

Pops

The fact is that this will not make gays be able to serve openly, they will be housed and cared for as if they were heterosexuals.

Gates is planning to house gays and heterosexuals in the same dormitories, even the same rooms, something he would never do with a man and a women.

Why is it acceptable to have someones 18 year old daughter room with a gay women, but not with a heterosexual man?

Don't they trust heterosexual men?

One also wonders about the homosexuals that prefer to remain in the closet. Now it will be a violation of the UCMJ to claim your not gay if you are. You will essentially be lying, and will be forced to admit your preferences.

Just wait for the first law suit when some man or women is raped by a homosexual and Gates, etc. has to answer the question, why are you housing people who are sexually attracted to their roomates?

Janet

Anyway, the deed is done. We won't hear much about it in the MFM anymore. They tend to go silent for awhile after they've gotten what they want.
Our leaders are so manipulated by the MFM.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Does that mean that adultery, embezzlement, rape, wife beating and criminality in general do not involve any choice because they are, for the time being anyway, still generally frowned upon?

So is your point that you believe being gay is a choice? We know that having sex is a choice (as is wife beating I guess but I really don't see the correlation). But I'm not sure sexuality is. In support of the choice argument, Amy once told me she could have chosen to not have sex but she had no interest in celibacy so it really would have been a punishment. Choosing to have sex with men was probably as likely as you choosing to have sex with men.

Pops,

I think a lot of gays in the military will choose not to announce it for their own safety. I'm pretty sure it is not a requirement altho that means I assume rationality on the part of Congress.

boris

"don't see the correlation"

My guess it's reference to your question "why would anyone choose to be" something considered bad by society.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Ahhh, it was aligning being gay with being a rapist that threw me. I do think people have irresistible urges, and I thank God my only one is chocolate. I knew a big DC lawyer who was a cross dresser. He'd been doing it since he was 3 when he used to get into his mother's lingerie drawer. My comment to him was to thank God he wasn't born a pedophile.

(I'm actually having nearly the opposite conversation with someone over at You Too. I've never felt quite so moderate. )

Ignatz

--So is your point that you believe being gay is a choice?--

No, my point was that your anecdote supporting homosexuality as not being by choice because they face cultural hostility is pretty suspect when we look at other behaviors which I believe most people would consider made by choice that face considerably more cultural hostility and in some cases lengthy prison sentences.


Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

No, my point was that your anecdote supporting homosexuality as not being by choice because they face cultural hostility

So you think being gay is a choice? Did you make the choice to not be gay at some point? Were you tempted and managed to foist it off? I never had that experience because I'm not attracted to women.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Iggy,

Doesn't our conversation come down to this: You think a person who is attracted to the same sex should fight the urge because it is wrong, and I don't think it is wrong.

I have another theory - you know all those pedophile priest of a few years ago? I think these were guys who at some young age realized they were attracted to males and thought it was wrong so they joined the priesthood rather than play it out. And I think that people get stuck at the age of denial, which is why it manifested with young boys. So these men who started out so well intentioned became predators of the first order. Sex is a pretty powerful thing.


squaredance

Janet: Only if you are talking about the RINO's. In fact, the MFM is the propaganda arm of the Establishment Left. At the higher levels it is the MFM that takes marching orders for "our leaders". So it is with international tranzis governments the world over.

It is just less obvious in the States because there is that tiny crack opened up by alternate media here--and it is only a tiny crack as the election of Obama firmly proves. In the EU, for example, it is glaringly--and oppressively--obvious just who controls whom.

All totalitarian governments must control the media, but those who disguise their tyranny behind the mantle of "The Common Good" have particularly tight control, especially before raw power is overtly wielded. Lies are really all they have at their beginnings.

Judging from the direction of the FCC and the UN, "our leaders" see the danger to their power and are taking steps to fix it.

Given the appalling quisling response of the GOP to DADT, the new ag bill outrage and the almost certain approval of START, which alone constitutes high treason, and the corruption of the judiciary, I would not be to sanguine about the notion of these alternative media finally taking the day.

We can talk about samizdat in the Cold War and such all we want, but the information war in the USSR was ultimately won by a massive effort of the West across generations.

We are at the crossroads now. So far, it appears that the GOP wants to take us in a direction altogether different from the one we imagined.

Imagine that.

Ignatz

Jane,
I don't know if being gay is a choice. Obviously the sexual act itself is a choice just as it is for heterosexuals.
On a private, personal level I believe they should resist the urge for their own good, just as someone contemplating some other sexual sin should.
On a public policy level I couldn't care less what they do privately. My only concern is what is best for society and I am especially concerned when the government decides to compel and coerce society into accepting a particular behavior.
I think our society is pretty good at regulating behavior on its own for the greatest good and it is also pretty good at working things out on its own. And just as most of our economic problems have been distorted and worsened by government intervention, most of our social pathologies have been exacerbated by the government entering the arena.
It can't comprehend somehing as simple as an economy well enough to tinker with it without causing catastrophes so I have zero confidence it can grab the levers of something as infinitely complex as human society without making a total hash of it.

Janet

"You think a person who is attracted to the same sex should fight the urge because it is wrong, and I don't think it is wrong."

...I think that IS what it comes down to. That is why I asked...what are the secular world's moral boundaries, who decides, & by what authority?

We are all born with a sin nature....my strong temptations will differ from the next persons (maybe a mix of genetic, upbringing, life events - things that happened & things that didn't happen,...). I do not have to act on my every urge. If not for Christ in me, I am positive I would be an alcoholic/drug addict that slept with anyone that would provide for me. Would that be wrong, or sinful? Would society have a responsibility to accept my behavior as a good choice?
I was born wanting to indulge my every desire. Are we just slaves to our basest nature?

squaredance

"our society is once was pretty good at regulating behavior on its own for the greatest good and it is once was also pretty good at working things out on its own. Obviously this is no longer the case for we so stupefied to imagine that foisting sodomites on the USMC is somehow a good thing and the highest reach of decency and morality--the most pressing of moral imperatives, in fact. We are so committed to this that we allow our school teacher instruct our own children in the merits of sodomy. We have now so far gone as a nation and a culture that we consider depravity as virtuous and actual and real virtue as depravity. We know longer can recognize the Good, let alone "the greatest good". This is because we collectively are morally either cripples or morons"

There, Ig, FIFY.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

I believe they should resist the urge for their own good, just as someone contemplating some other sexual sin should.

I get that, but I'm not sure that wouldn't manifest itself in very different ways. You should read Roger's comments over at YOU TOO, he is at the complete other end of the spectrum. And he makes some good points altho I'm not into the whole justification thing.

I was born wanting to indulge my every desire. Are we just slaves to our basest nature?

I just don't think sexuality is like 'every desire". It's pretty intrinsic. But you are right, it all boils down to if you think it is right or wrong. I think if we knew what every straight person does in his or her bedroom, there would be things we think are wrong there too. It's just we don't have to think about that with straight people.

Janet, if someone declared that sex was wrong, and you believed it, would you give it up? How about when you were 25?

squaredance

Janet, the point being here is that you do not come to the threshold that you have come to, acknowledge the inevitability of sin and the search for release from it, by was of "socialization" or "good upbringing" or "social norms" or "social constructs", all of which are quite arbitrary and ultimately morally ambiguous. You have crossed into the truly human. You can now look face evil inside you and make a choice.

Some, you know, come to this threshold and see it as clearly as you and then reject repentance and change.

Ignatz

--There, Ig, FIFY.--

squaredance,
I believe our society is still largely capable of self regulation that is by and large fair to the greatest number of people possible and allows the greatest freedom possible while still maintaining standards which contain the baser aspects of human nature which inevitably ruin civil society.

Every instance you mention is not society itself losing its ability to self regulate or lowering its standards. It's a case of an interest group using some arm of government power to coerce the rest of society into accepting new norms.

--Janet, if someone declared that sex was wrong, and you believed it, would you give it up?--

Answering for myself not Janet here but, the first point is a believer doesn't accept what "someone" says, we believe what God says.
Secondly, beyond the personal aspect of it, which is a question of an individual's relationship to God or whomever or whatever he is following, it is largely irrelevant to the functioning of society what an individual person does or believes in private. What is relevant is what are the accepted norms and standards of behavior and what others may do in reaction to behaviors outside those norms. When government becomes involved what others may do almost always becomes a question of force and coercion.
Lots of things are in the closet besides homosexuality and they should remain there because, while it may be correct to allow them it is not correct to endorse them for the good of a functioning orderly society.

That's largely what conservatism and sensible libertarianism are; a belief in limited government and the regulation of behavior not by bureaucrats, but by a free society built up over thousands of years of trial and error and and founded on certain eternal truths.
Either we acknowledge we stand on the shoulders of giants and only very slowly and carefully change what they've created to correct perceived faults or we believe in a society created by fiat, fashion and the unconstrained heart of man, which Isaiah warns us is decietful above all things and desperately wicked.
I say 'no thanks' to the latter.

squaredance

Every instance you mention is not society itself losing its ability to self regulate or lowering its standards. It's a case of an interest group using some arm of government power to coerce the rest of society into accepting new norms.

Given that we get the government we elect. This is a distinction without a difference.

Actually it is worse than that: If on one hand you assert that a "special interest group" can use the power of government to "coerce the rest of society into accepting new norms", which is certainly part of what has happened here, and at the same time maintain that society has not lost "its ability to self regulate or lowering its standards" than you have made such a baldly contradictory statement that it renders it nonsensical

Moreover, concerning the notion of "Special interests, and here I assume you mean "the gay activist community", given the 1) ubiquity of the Left in all our core institutions (other that the Armed Services), 2) The GOP went across the aisle to get it through, even after the Nov. vote and 3) The repeal of DADT is really just a Trojan horse used by the Left and has more to do with a much broader (and sinister) agenda than "gay rights" or "the gay community", your assertion, even if we ignore the obvious contradiction, is also untrue. If not, after such an election as we just had, why would the GOP do such a thing? They too hanker for the gay lobby's cash? No, their moral compass is askew.


As far as the repeal of DADT goes, where the nation is not sanguine about it, it is supine.

I stand by my original "correction" and see no compelling evidence or argument which would cause me to change it. The rot is far along, you just have not noticed its advance.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

Iggy,

You didn't answer the question. If you grew up believing God said sex was wrong would you have strayed? How strong are your instincts?

When government becomes involved what others may do almost always becomes a question of force and coercion.

If the government was not involved in gay marriage or gays in the military would you think being gay was okay? I agree with the government involvement issue, but I also think government should not be involved in marriage of anyone regardless of their orientation.

squaredance

"Marriage" is a legal condition granted by the state and which carriers with it rights, obligations and responsibilities. One need only consider divorce or family courts to understand this. Of course, so long this is the case, the state has a say in it.

Furthermore, marriage is much more than an legal condition, it is a core institution of of the nation, its society, civlization and culture. In a representat5ive system, that civlization, nation, society and culture has broad interests and requirements--indeed duties--regarding the institution, and these will be expressed politically and thus legally. This is not only inevitable, it is desirable. The notion that laws exist in some abstract moral vacuum and do not reflect underlying moral principles of the civilization that generates them is spurious and fallacious.

Prohibitions against incestuous marriage, child bride, marriage between two minors, bestiality, and polygamy are the obvious examples of this case.

Ignatz

--If on one hand you assert that a "special interest group" can use the power of government to "coerce the rest of society into accepting new norms", which is certainly part of what has happened here, and at the same time maintain that society has not lost "its ability to self regulate or lowering its standards" than you have made such a baldly contradictory statement that it renders it nonsensical.--

No. I'm not saying society can't be destroyed by governmental intervention or the use of its powers by interest groups to promote their values. Obviously it can be and is and that's exactly what I'm warning against.
I'm saying, absent the government's illegitimate intervention in areas outside of its proper role, society is still sufficiently grounded in traditional moral values that it would at least stabilize and possibly return to a better era.
And absent illegitmate FEDERAL governmental intervention in societal roles, at the very least most areas could maintain Judeo Christian values while the prog hells follow the ruler of this world.

--If you grew up believing God said sex was wrong would you have strayed? How strong are your instincts?--

You're misstating or misunderstanding Christianity. I am not a Christian because by being so I am able to never sin, but precisely because I do sin.
Christ didn't come here to enable me never to sin, I'm still a human after all, but to pay the penalty for it that I was unable to pay on my own.
But because I still do sin doesn't mean I celebrate my sins nor expect others to accept them as proper or benefical behaviors. I celebrate that I'm forgiven for them.

--If the government was not involved in gay marriage or gays in the military would you think being gay was okay?--

Of course not, if by 'OK' you mean 'not a sin'.
If I first posit there is a transcendant, omniscient God whom I serve then what is OK is determined by Him not human institutions.
If I don't begin with that position, then I would do what is right in my own eyes, to quote the book of Judges.

Janet

Jane, You said somebody, not God. So I agree with Ignatz's answer -
"Answering for myself not Janet here but, the first point is a believer doesn't accept what "someone" says, we believe what God says."

and the Bible does not say sex is wrong. God created sex. Within the boundaries of marriage, sex is a wonderful gift.

Janet

Lovely post Ignatz.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

But because I still do sin doesn't mean I celebrate my sins nor expect others to accept them as proper or benefical behaviors. I celebrate that I'm forgiven for them.

I guess I will never think homosexuality is a sin. I just don't see the point. And since I don't see the point it alienates me from the God that you and Janet believe in, because I think of God as rational.

BTW I appreciate this conversation very much even if we didn't find a lot of common ground.

boris

"I think of God as rational"

An omniscient being would probably not seem rational to us. For one thing rationality would be unnecessary.

Ever seen the bumper sticker "What Would Jesus Drive?"

People who think they know the answer probably don't.

Ignatz

--And since I don't see the point it alienates me from the God that you and Janet believe in, because I think of God as rational.--

Isaiah 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

I Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. There are words which man's wisdom teaches, but they are not the pure words of God.

I Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

I Corinthians 1:20 Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

I quote all those, and there are many others, only to demonstrate God has considered this issue from the start with man.

squaredance

ig, you are missing the point:

If society is so supine as to allow a group that comprises 2% of the population to push this through then it is not a case of "special interests" using government "illegitimately".

In fact, there is nothing "illegitimate" about it, strictly speak, however immoral it may be.

It is rather a case of moral breakdown in the electorate resulting in either agreement with this or moral lassitude. A special interest group that is that small simply cannot push something like this through by themselves.

If either is the case then, no, it is not true that "society is still sufficiently grounded in traditional moral values".

You keep saying that absent the government's illegitimate intervention in areas outside of its proper role...

But that is just the point: That "illegitimate role" is not absent it is there with a vengeance and growing. The society at large seems not to mind. I hear no broad outcry about this--nothing outside of conservative circles and even there there is all too much mincing about on this

If that is the case then your assertion in nonsensical, and twice over. There is not the morality or the will to return government to is legitimate role, and the notion of accommodating sodomites in the military seem to not matter much at all.

Your position amounts to saying "It would be a nice day of it was not raining".

Again, the rot is more advanced then you imagine.

squaredance

It is not debatable the homosexuality is a sin in the Christian confession: Not historically, not theologically, not doctrinally. It is also most signally not irrational or the sign of an "irrational god". It is also most certain that your inability to comprehend this is not a sign of irrationality in anything or anyone but yourself. That assertion of yours is preposterous and it is unfounded and unsubstantiated .

Above and beyond that, your view is nonsensical: Few things could be more irrational than homosexuality. That you do not see this is risible.

One can debate if there is such a thing as sin, one can debate the existence of God, one can reject Christianity, but one cannot debate that in the Christian faith this is not sin. It is clearly laid out, and multitudinous and highly rational scripture, doctrine and exegesis address it, and they span the centuries. You may chose to be not regard it as a sin, but then you are making up your own religion here, and depart from Christianity when you do so. It is clearly a heretical view, as is the notion that sin is a matter of opinion.

There is no moral equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality in the Christian faith for homosexuality is a sinful perversion of procreation and the sexual principle. It violated God's determination and dispensation of the sexes.

Clearly, it is quite intellectually dishonest of you in the extreme to maintain that some doctrine is "irrational" merely because you either do not agree with it or do not understand it.

It is also insulting for you to suggest that a decent, educated and knowledgeable Christian who actually knows the historical, theological and doctrinal underpinning thier faith's judgment here somehow believes in an "irrational god" and, by implication is irrational themselves.

Donna

"Captain Hate, I think the most likely manner in which each state would be forced to recognize a homosexual marriage recognized in another state would be a SCOTUS decision that DOMA is unconstitutional. I have no idea how SCOTUS would come out on that issue, but I don't think DOMA is going to be repealed."

In the short term, yes. In the long term it will be harder to maintain that gays can serve openly in the military but still be denied rights X,Y, and Z. In this sense the repeal of DADT was a sort of Trojan horse. It's going to be interesting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame