Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Nobody Saw This Coming | Main | Sunday Morning »

April 04, 2009

Comments

Charlie (Colorado)

Dreher is an idiot.

Shit, Rod, try being a public Buddhist. Or Moslem.

Besides, what you mean is "try being a public Christian who holds a particular subset of beliefs not held by other believing Christians."

And besides that, you live in Dallas for God's sake. There aren't gonna be a lot of Texans who are going to give you hell about this.

Stealth Gay Academic Conservative

Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto Rod Dreher's sorrow.

A.L.

Or maybe Dreher should try being publicly gay. After a week of that I'm sure he'd be very happy to return to the burden of being a Christian in America. What a whining wanker.

Jane

Oh yeah, its really tough being a Muslim in America today with everyone bending over backwards to make sure you don't feel threatened or marginalized.

Anti Christian bigotry is one of the last acceptable forms of bigotry in the US.

And yes, its getting harder than being gay.

Dan Riehl

I think you really miss the larger point, as I recently posted linking a UK Telegraph item. Two hours of police questioning over a snarky comment about the transgendered?? It isn't about being Christian, or not - ultimately, it's about government deciding what one is allowed to think, or say without it being characterized as a hate crime, or some such. Such bravado while whistling your way down the path to a polically correct prison. Sorry if I can't applaud it ... but then, that isn't the law, for now.

boris

Rod may be a fool but it wasn't he that made the remark ...

Thus does seven men and women overturn the meaning of an ancient and fundamental social institution, in a single stroke.

They go on to say that forbidding gay marriage is like supporting slavery or the disfranchisement of women, and that the real reason people oppose it is because of religious belief, which is insufficient cause.

This morning, I had breakfast with some guys, including a lawyer. We weren't aware of this decision, but we talked about this issue. The lawyer said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then "it will be very hard to be a public Christian"

That the judges would use "religious belief" to discredit the traditional definition of marriage certainly gives the appearance of intolerance. One can hardly expect theologians or judges to correctly identify that definition as an inherited trait acquired by natural selection. Of course the religious will call it God's will. And so judges will say "by the separation of church and state we hereby rule ... GFY".

sulla

There was a time when I didn't mind Dreher so much.

Then he left NRO, fell in love with his "crunchy con" meme, and became insufferable.

matt

Since the Constitution was clearly founded on religious belief, I would think the Iowa justices missed the whole damned point.

boris

BTW is it really such a nitpick to draw distinction between (1) defending the traditional institution of marriage from being eliminated in favor of civil union (relabeled as marriage) and (2) opposition to gay rights?

If some prefer Coca Cola is that indistinguishable from opposition to Pepsi?

Waitress: Would you like something to drink while you wait?

Customer Yeah, a glass of Coke on ice would hit the spot

Waitress: Sorry, we only have Pepsi ...

Customer Well, water is fine then

Waitress: I could bring you Pepsi on ice in a glass with a label that says "Coke" on it ...

Customer No thanks, water is fine

Waitress: Why are you so against Pepsi?

Jane

Hey! That's a stealth Jane. My name is always highlighted,

daddy

Since we're mentioning foreign religions in Asia:

Yesterday had a fun tour day in Kyoto. Visited this famous Temple Sanjusangendo,">http://www.taleofgenji.org/sanjusangendo.html">Sanjusangendo, meaning "33 paces between each of the pillers". Dates from the 1160's。It has 1001 800 year old statues of the Buddha, but what surprised me was that the 28 statues of the Buddha's protector God's were all Hindu dieties; Brahma, Indra, manifestations of Kali etc. I had no idea that back in the 12th Century any Hindu god's had hitchhiked into medievil Japan on the back of the Buddha. I only expected either Shinto or Buddhist stuff, and by coincidence that Sakurajima volcano I mentioned going off 2 days back was in Kagoshima, where St Francis Xavier establised the first Catholic Church in the islands in I think 1551. Anyhow, if you scroll down thru the photos you will discover that 1000 of the 1001 Golden Buddha's are all ritually alligned and identical, whereas each of the 800 year old Hindu protector gods are wooden and not golden, yet are very individualistic and threatening looking. None of them looked gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, either in Seinfeld or in 21st Century Iowa; but in 12th Century Kyoto, well I'm not so sure.

Cherry blossems were blooming so it was very beautiful.

Thomas Collins

TM. I think you have departed from your usual practice of fairly summarizing the article on which you have commented. Most of Dreher's piece focuses on abridgment of free speech rights of opponents of gay marriage and others objecting to receiving materials concerning matters pertaining to homosexuality (which objection, by the way, was, according to Dreher, expressed by a Muslim, not a Christian). Your comment about giving witness and taking lumps is really not responsive to Dreher's point. In determining whether an American's free speech rights are abridged, the standard is not whether Jesus or Moses or Buddha would be deterred from expressing his views. Notwithstanding whether one agrees with Dreher, the point he raises is worthy of a more focused discussion than than dismissive tone of your post suggests.

But, notwithstanding my comment on your treatment of Dreher's piece, you are still my totally favorite blog perpetrator (not that you are staying up at nights worrying about whether you are my fave :-))).

Thomas Collins

Whoops! Looks as if I was too dismissive of proofing. Change that phrase at the end of the first paragraph to "than the dismissive tone of your post suggests."

clarice

daddy, I heart Kyoto and I heart that temple in particular. If you can the govt has a fabulous craft shop there where they sell the work of some of the finest artisans in Japan (which is to say, the world as far as I am concerned).

Uncle BigBad

I have read the Dreher piece twice now (along with the comments), and I'm having trouble figuring out what's objectionable about it.

Can someone explain to me, in simple language I can understand, what I'm missing?

sbw

I am an equal opportunity bigot when it comes to pushy people. I don't need no steenkin evangelists pushing my doorbell or feigning rapture during a church service. I don't even want a preacher to try to force a faux "Good morning!" out of me.

So, any gay couples, listen up! Don't push my doorbell. Don't feign rapture. Don't force a faux "Good morning!" on me.

daddy

Clarice,

Followed my Sanjusangendo visit with Kiyomizu">http://www.taleofgenji.org/kiyomizu.html">Kiyomizu then ended the day at the Silver Pavilion Ginkakuji.">http://www.taleofgenji.org/ginkakuji.html">Ginkakuji. By then I was templed out, but it is a wonderful place to go exploring isn't it. Blooming Cherry Blossoms rendered the sites simply amazing.

Uncle BigBad and TC, I share your puzzlement.

Gene H. Dreher

Rod sometimes says dumb things.

In the rest of his piece he says some righteous things.

Picking on this one line is a silly "straw man" sort of sophistry.

One day Rod will learn to walk on water, like the rest of the family.

 Ann

daddy,

You have such an interesting life. It's a real treat to read about your travels. Thanks for sharing them. I keep picturing you as Indiana Jones for some reason.

(By the way your second link is not working.)

daddy

Anyhow, have to leave quick before anybody posts the Basketball scores.

clarice

Daddy, it's all so beautiful. When my son was two we took him there . It was rare for American children to be there and he had curly blond hair which really made him stand out. He was mobbed by literally hundreds of children and adults. At one point he hit the gong outside a temple, looked at us and said,"I am the Buddha."

The last time I was there he was grown and completing a fellowship at the Univ of Tokyo law school. We were taking the bus from our hotel to some site..A Buddhist priest was at the other end of the bus, saw my son, walked all the way over to chat with him and gave him a valuable present. (The priest had that same open face of the Dali Lama. It was very mysterious.)

daddy

Ann, try this,">http://www.taleofgenji.org/ginkakuji.html">this, or this.">http://www.sacred-destinations.com/japan/kyoto-ginkakuji.htm">this. It is an old Samurai Lords villa from about 1480. Very Zen and extremely beautiful, especially the sculpted garden. The round sand mound in the photo's is a Zen inpression of Mount Fuji, and the raked sand is supposed to symbolize the ocean waves. You climb up a hill in the back and look down and it is a wonderful view. Sayonara.

jimmyk

the point he raises is worthy of a more focused discussion than than dismissive tone of your post suggests

I agree with TC here. We can acknowledge that we all have it pretty good here in the US of A compared to, say, the Sudan, but that does not mean that any concerns about abridgment of rights or free speech should be just dismissed as whining. Wasn't this the point in the discussion a couple of weeks back about Barney Frank calling Scalia a "homophobe"? Not only are people increasingly condemned for expressing mainstream religious views, they are condemned for suggesting that others are allowed to hold such views. This is a slippery slope we are on, and I see nothing wrong with pointing it out.

hit and run

Daddy:
Anyhow, have to leave quick before anybody posts the Basketball scores.

0-0!!!!!!!!

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

For heaven's sake. Harder than it was for Christ himself, whose crucifixion we will be commemorating shortly? Harder than for the early Christians who were tossed to lions, not just served with a harrassment summons from the HR Department?

Dreher often gives me a pain but I'm not sure saying Christians should stop whining about something short of crucifixion is to the point.
For a country settled and founded by Christians escaping persecution for their beliefs it seems to be turning history upside down when more and more Christian beliefs are marginalized as bigoted, intolerant, etc.

clarice

Daddy, I wish I were there again.

JWF

Well, duh, of course Yankee fans are still welcome in New York. Heck, even here in north Jersey they're all over the place. I take the family out shopping today and I see them crawling all over the place. Heck, it's even gone multicultural. I see white kids, black kids, Latino kids, Asians, you name it. All wearing the interlocking NY.

It's positively insidious.

But it warms my heart to no end.

Oh, BTW, the new Stadium looks magnificent.

boris

TM et al, Rod is quoting someone else: The lawyer said ... "it will be very hard to be a public Christian"

hit and run

JWF:
Well, duh, of course Yankee fans are still welcome in New York.

Misdirection. TM is really concerned with whether Yankee fans are still welcome in CT.

Which leads to the next question...is Dodd a Yankee fan?

PaulL

Isn't TM making the subtle point that smoking marijuana can impair one's reasoning?

gus

It's really quite simple if you use your head and stop paying attention to the mainstream media and those on the left who are ruining America.

Marriage has a definition. It always has.
Marriage is the sanctioned coupling of a ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, generally for the purposes of propogating the species in an orderly fashion. Govt. has adopted this reasonable definition in general, for reasons of order and stability. In general it works quite well.

Ergo, 2 men cannot be married.
I cannot have an abortion, nor can I have a period, menopause, or legally use the "ladies room". I cannot marry my Aunt Mable nor My 3 Uncles, Moe, Larry and Curly.
Even if I want to and I think it would be more "fair" and even if I stamp my feet and hire the ACLU.

Being "of" any given race is not in anyway possible for an individual to control.

Requesting a homosexual marriage license IS COMPLETELY within ones control.

I can request a govt funded Planned Parenthood a.k.a THE DEATH HUT abortion, but I cannot recieve one!!!
Same goes for the Homsexual marriage license as Homosexuals CANNOT be "MARRIED".

Thanks for listening and have a nice day!

I'm sorry to offend any homosexuals, and though I do not personally approve of homosexual "acts", I wish you the best and much happiness with your NON-MARRIED partners!

gus

Jane, you made a very good point when you spoke of people bending over backward to appease and suck up to Muslims here.

The aforementioned Muslims laugh all the way to the Mosque. They aren't children and pandering to them merely emboldens them to subvert those that are willing to be subverted.
Even the good ones.

MayBee

I am missing the beautiful sakura, daddy.
I used to walk my dog past one beautiful tree every day, just so the petals could fall down on me like snow. I loved to scoop up the petals and float them in a bowl of water, as they do with marigolds in India.

Oh boy. You are lucky to be in Japan right now. Eat some sakura ice cream while you are there.

daddy

Maybee-san,

It really is beautiful when the blossoms are blooming. Haven[t done Osaka Castle this trip, but that is another splendid park of amazing colors when the trees are going nuts.

Big news here in the papers is that Ichiro has a bleeding ulcer and will be on the Disabled List which should make TM happy. Yesterday (Saturday) on the train from Osaka to Kyoto it was terrific to see how many baseball fields were open and how many kids in uniforms were out playing organized baseball games. It seemed like the America of my youth 40-50 years ago, with the exception of cheerry blossoms and a couple hundred pagodas. Very cool. Food wise I cant off the top even think of something I normally eat that isn[t wonderful, and today in the Japan Times a top chef is trying to get the Emperors son, the Prince, to try to eat Puffer Fish Sushi (The sushi that kills folks every few years if its cut wrong) so as to break the Imperial tabboo against eating the stuff. Doubt itll work. Only thing I dont like about Japan is trying to figure out where the heck the proper punctuation marks are on their keyboards. I hit the shift key and everything turns kanji.

clarice

Night daddy-san

Lynn

Dreher's concerns are not at all far fetched:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/06/11/ezra-levant-on-the-human-rights-show-trial-of-christian-pastor-stephen-boissoin.aspx

Charlie (Colorado)

That the judges would use "religious belief" to discredit the traditional definition of marriage certainly gives the appearance of intolerance. One can hardly expect theologians or judges to correctly identify that definition as an inherited trait acquired by natural selection.

Boris, considering the number, variety, and flexibility of human marriage customs, the notion that Western monogamous pairwise marriage is the outcome of natural selection is laughable. There are successful human societies that have polygamy, polyandry, marriages as a legal contract with no religious basis, societies with no marriage whatsoever where men remain with their mothers' households and all property is matrilineal, societies where monogamy is selfish and insulting, societies (even in Europe) where marriage isn't considered even possible until a woman has proven herself to be fertile, and some really strange ones.

Given that variety, the notion that western marriage, derived from the customs of nomadic people barely out of the Stone Age in one part of the Middle East, is the form of marriage dictated by evolution is just not gonna wash.

Charlie (Colorado)

Marriage has a definition. It always has.
Marriage is the sanctioned coupling of a ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, generally for the purposes of propogating the species in an orderly fashion.

In a word, bullshit. See my comment to Boris. Hell, it doesn't even have that definition in much of the Bible. (How many wives did Abraham have?)

What you mean is "most of the people I know have marriages with one man and one woman. With occasional slips."

Charlie (Colorado)

It has 1001 800 year old statues of the Buddha, but what surprised me was that the 28 statues of the Buddha's protector God's were all Hindu dieties; Brahma, Indra, manifestations of Kali etc. I had no idea that back in the 12th Century any Hindu god's had hitchhiked into medievil Japan on the back of the Buddha.

Oh, hell, yeah. Remember that all of our traditions came through China in Sanskrit and in fact the traditional script of the old Sutras, Siddam, was more or less lost in India but still used in Tibet, China, and Japan. The deepest of the Sutras, Lankavatara ("Going to the Land of Lanka") has Hindu Gods all over it.

Hmmm. maybe I think the Prajnaparamitasutra is the deepest.

Anyway, the point is that by the 9th Century CE, japan was overrun with literature from india, having been through variously good translations, and also in something like the original written form.

I am, by the way, desperately jealous of you, Daddy.

David

As for the comment that gays have it worse than Christians, don't you all think they deserve the treatment they get. I mean, geez, boinking an average of 500 people in your lifetime and getting a disease for it seems like justice to me. And God did punish gays with AIDS. It's called reaping what you sow.

Charlie in Texas

I'm sorry, folks. I'm conservative, but if the plain meaning of "the pursuit of happiness" is not that you can sculpt the major milestones of your own life to suit your own purposes, then just what in hell does it amount to? If some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women, that's them taking hold of their own lives.

God bless 'em.

A.C. McCloud

From Charlie:
In a word, bullshit. See my comment to Boris. Hell, it doesn't even have that definition in much of the Bible. (How many wives did Abraham have?)

From Matthew:
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

That's pretty much a given in most of western civilization, at in least in the American version (even if it doesn't always work out). And it's served us pretty well all these many years.

JM Hanes

David:

"don't you all think they deserve the treatment they get"

Nope.

Rahmon

Charlie's observation about the variety of marriage practices overstates the point a bit.

For example, polyandry is extremely unusual and has been found in very specific historical/sociological circumstances.

Polygamy on the other hand is widespread and long-standing. It will be very difficult to avoid granting of polygamous marriage to Mormons and Muslims. Soon afterwards there might be some wealthy alpha males who find some willing women to form a modern-day secular harem.

Terry Gain

As foot baths and prayer rooms are installed in public buildings even as evidence of a once Christian nation is removed from the public square and the POTUS stoops from the waist and bends his right knee when meeting the leader of Saudi Arabia, I score this one:

Dreher 1 Maguire 0

syn

"It isn't about being Christian, or not - ultimately, it's about government deciding what one is allowed to think, or say without it being characterized as a hate crime, or some such."

Very soon the word 'marriage' will be a hate crime unless you're homosexual.

And the 'pursuit of happiness' will be determined by tyrants.


"by what justification would "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" be 'unalienable Rights' if there is no Natural Law, since reason alone cannot make the inviolable? What then is Natural Law if it's origin is unknown or rejected? It is nothing more than a human construct. An individual may benefit from the moral order and unalienable rights around which society functions while rejecting their Divine origin. But the civil society cannot organize itself that way. It would become unstable and vulnerable to anarchy and tyranny, impending all within it, especially the individual. The Abandonment of Natural Law is the adoption of tyranny in one form or another, because there is no humane or benevolent alternative to Natural Law. " (Levin from Liberty and Tyranny).

No free individual can deny the fact that in order to impose this thing called 'same-sex union between a man and a woman' there will be vicious, inhumane and violent tyranny in order to maintain such elite position.

Take a look at 'enlightened' Europe today , they are jumping up and down like Darwin's apes breaking, pillaging, looting, imposing Draconian laws upon every part of human life; the Darwinian apes are one their way towards an uncivilized society where the individual no longer exists.


Who really wants to follow Europe down the path to uncivilized 'banana republic' society.

I know the apes want to because they like bananas, what about everyone else?

syn

"if the plain meaning of "the pursuit of happiness" is not that you can sculpt the major milestones of your own life to suit your own purposes, then just what in hell does it amount to? "

This comment entirely misses a very important made in when the Founding Fathers drafted the United States Constitution, ie., anarchism is not a means to Happiness.

Extraneus

Thanks for the Kyoto links, daddy-san. I love that place. I went there a few years ago, just after finishing the book Geisha, and was surprised to find myself standing right at the book's exact setting in Gion, watching the shadows on the window shades of Geisha playing guitars or dancing for their guests. Koi ponds, pretty Geisha and Maiko clock-clock-clocking by on their clogs. Great food. Drunken businessmen smoking Cubans and singing in Kareoke bars. Ahhh, what a great place.

Did you get to Kinkakuji temple? Talk about artisans selling beautiful things.

Jane

Daddy,

You are simply amazing. I keep thinking you need a blog for your travels, and then I realize that I love seeing them right here.

Where to next?

Jane

In a word, bullshit. See my comment to Boris. Hell, it doesn't even have that definition in much of the Bible. (How many wives did Abraham have?)

Chaco,

The whole dictionary thing appears to be the canard of the year, along with "words have meaning". I almost got into a fist fight with a 20-something woman on the cruise because I discounted her protestations.

Marriage is a function of the state and it seems to me the state can define it any way it wants. The Feds have DOMA, so Bill Clinton already defined it on an federal level.

As for the slippery slope I think that is a valid and legitimate argument. Caro and I were talking about this last night and she sees Minnesota and Michigan headed toward legitimizing polygamy due to the large Muslim population. As long as it is done thru the legislature I don't particularly see a remedy.

OTOH I don't see the feds coming around any time soon. If you are a gay couple in MA you have to file your federal taxes as single and your state taxes as married - so it's weird but not prohibitive. I don't see that changing any time soon.

syn

"Where to next?"

If the Tyrants get their way, very soon good ole Daddy won't be able to go anywhere; he will no longer have to right to anything.

syn

"I almost got into a fist fight with a 20-something woman on the cruise because I discounted her protestations."

Actually Jane, it was A 47-something who addressed your irrational premise, thanks for the compliment.

On to 'pursuit of Happiness' and the meaning of words.

Who is stop the Tyrants from saying to traveling Daddy that he cannot pursue Happiness because his carbon footprint is too big and is destroying the planet?

Obviously not Jane since she does not believe words have any meaning; actually she believes herself smarter than the meaning which makes her ideas dangerous to those of us who respect the word Liberty.

Peace, Jane.

jimmyk

considering the number, variety, and flexibility of human marriage customs, the notion that Western monogamous pairwise marriage is the outcome of natural selection is laughable.

None of that number, variety, and flexibility has ever included two males or two females as a "marriage." But that's not the point anyway. The point is whether the political process is allowed to hash this out, or must we leave it to all-knowing judges and their penumbras.

syn

" The point is whether the political process is allowed to hash this out"

Exactly, using the monkey court to ration rights is not a reasonable path towards a maintaining civilized society.

For example, homosexuals are not denied marriage (ex. Gov McGreevy(sp?) married twice, divorced twice and even had children) however Darwin's apes running the monkey courts need their bananas.

Jane

Syn,

Wow you look very good for your age.

syn

Thanks, Jane

and you are so smart you can re-write Shakespeare.

sbw

What fun! After having a dialog a few threads back with Porch on virtue and where does it come from, to follow that with an exchange with Boris on the origins of his important concepts, and then to have this exchange... what more could one ask?

The only workable approach is to retreat from the range war -- not forever, just a timeout.

If such exchanges are paths that can never resolve themselves, what path is left from which to build society? What is society? What minimums are required to build it?

I probably bore some JOMers trying to find how to make the concepts accessible, and others find no traction in what I say.

Society is different than culture, and I know no one else who asserts that. Society is the edge where any two people (or groups) meet.

Since imposing one culture on the other at that edge is might over right, since proposing one's beliefs from religion or history is ineffective, and since attempt at resolution fail because of moral relativism, another way must be found to deduce the minimum behavior required at that edge.

We are obliged to deduce what is important to one individual, see if it is important to the other at that edge, and if we share common needs, build the minimums of society from that. I can show individual needs to be humility and reciprocity - not religion, not culture, not absolutes, not natural law -- and those two are quite enough to establish stability despite fear expressed by some that everything will collapse. Collapse is what you have under the current regimine; what I offer has the potential to work better.

The difficulty is that considering it, people easily slip into clichés instead of thought and become emothionally fearful instead of calmly critical.

But I don't expect to convince anyone now. I just plant the seed, and someday, someone will discover a tree alongside their path.

Jane

you are so smart you can re-write Shakespeare.

Since I have company I was trying to restrain myself, but the memory of you nearly jumping across the table to bash anyone who disagreed with you is far too reminiscent of a liberal.


Are you sure you aren't an Obama devotee.

Captain Hate

I'm sorry, folks. I'm conservative, but if the plain meaning of "the pursuit of happiness" is not that you can sculpt the major milestones of your own life to suit your own purposes, then just what in hell does it amount to?

You can pursue all you want but that doesn't mean you can attain it. I love my dog but if I expect the state to allow me to marry her I'd be as big an idiot as you apparently are.

boris

variety, and flexibility of human marriage customs, the notion that Western monogamous pairwise marriage is the outcome of natural selection is laughable

Considering the number and variety of hair colors, eye colors, and skin colors the notion that our skin, hair and eye colors are the outcome of natural selection is laughable.

Yup bio diversity is clear and umabigugous PROOF that that evolution thing is just a big crock. Obviously if something like that actually worked then plants and animals everyshere would be identical.

Chaco, your inner zombie is playing tricks on you again.

boris

* generally unambiguous spelling works better *

syn

Jane

It was a big table Jane, even I am not that powerful.

That said; the difference between you and I is that I would never assume myself so Divine as to re-define either the words 'homosexual' or 'marriage'


You, on the other, behave as Queen Bee and sweetie, I am not a part of your hive.

You wish for me to debate your own meaningless words, well, I am here to play you silly word game.

How about we change the meaning of 'homosexual' and be done with the marriage debate?

boris

In the other thread I mentioned language and wrote:

People are born with a built in definition of marriage the same way they are born knowing how to acquire language. There is a hardwired template for language that makes learning it instinctive.

Seems to me that presenting the diversity of world languages to discredit that idea misses the point. It was incidents of cultural destruction, where the culture and language of an invading group wipes out a native culture and language that enabled study of pidgins and creoles. Studies across several incidents revealed similarities in resulting pidgins and creoles. The similarities and common elements are the source of the language template theory.

syn

Speaking of the insanity of embracing meaningless words, here is the very hot and sexy Mark Steyn on this very subject:

"This subordinate clause from The Irish Independent gave me pause:

For those who can't afford even that, there are the food queues. All across the country, people struggle desperately to hang onto their jobs, their homes, their lives. Next Tuesday, having already decided to deprive Cystic Fibrosis patients of life-prolonging treatment units, the Government will announce new ways to help us "share the pain".

There'll be a lot more of that in our future. If you look at the math on which the developed world is betting the future, government health systems will have huge incentives to develop ever greater institutional biases against "life-prolonging"."

Up is Down
Cool is Creepy

Jane

That said; the difference between you and I is that I would never assume myself so Divine as to re-define either the words 'homosexual' or 'marriage'

Worshipping Webster - in a neighborhood near you!

syn

The other day I was watching the classic movie the "The Gay Divorcee" and thought, how it that possible there are no gay divorce laws.

syn

Well you won't find the word 'worshipping' in Websters.

syn

The Darwinian apes in black robes will re-define the meaning of 'life-prolonging' to mean 'kill sick people'.

The end result will be more bananas for the monkeys.

syn

A couple of years ago a friend of mine said to me "I not gay, I am a homosexual"

Now what does this mean?

He went on to elaborate to me that he is over the rainbow and wants his life back.

My other question is, does his life have any meaning to anyone? Or is he backward and bigoted and too reliant upon meaning?

boris

the form of marriage dictated by evolution

Charlie, I never have claimed that one man one woman was dictated by evolution. My claim is that definition is consistent with a hardwired template that culture accessorizes. Gay marriage is not excluded by the template, it's just not included.

Your argument seems to be along the lines that the template is consistent with polygamy. Okay.

Further It is not necessary that a marriage template is the same for every geographical population or that it is particulularly ancient or prehistorical. It may simply be the result of the last thousand years of some number of cultures where it provided the most successful method of having descendants today.

Marriage is a function of the state and it seems to me the state can define it any way it wants.

A little too statist for me Jane, even if true in practice. There used to be vast regions of stateless frontier. If the concept of marriage existed in those areas it seems to me that indicates the state provides the service rather than creates it.

Perhaps a better argument would be that in stateless regions polygamous and gay forms could live just as married as any traditional couple.

My response would be that the reproductive forms can wind up as an inherited template using a mechanism not generally available to the gay forms, at least historically.

syn

Boris

Even polygamists unite egg and sperm.

Secondly, homosexuals are not banned from marriage.

sbw

Wrestling over diversity and place, huh?

Someone at work had lost perspective, becoming overly emotionally involved in the tragedy of someone else, the personal want to do something for it, and to encourage others to contribute, too.

I asked, with so many somethings to be done, which of them were her priority? We googled the population of the Earth to see how unimaginably big it was and, along with it, estimated the number in dire need.

Then we talked about our place in the universe, in orders of magnitude going from us to the smallest small - the size of the proposed string waves that make up the smallest objects. Then we went in orders of magnitude from us to the size of the universe.

We talked of the the search for meaning. I googled Albert Schweitzer, Dr. Livingstone, and Mother Theresa, and explained that they found their bliss. No one demanded they become altruistic. And, in fact, they weren't altruistic. They did what they did as much for themselves as for the thousands whose life they bettered.

I explained one had to look at oneself, one's family, one's community and one's world to decide for oneself where one's own bliss was to be found. Then, in one's own brief existence, one discovers how to find happiness in what one does oneself, and that one should not impose on others.

boris

To say there is a template for marriage that is more consistant with traditional marriage (TM) than with civil union (CU) is not attributing any sort of sacrosanct immutable status to it.

Judges in Ca and Ct claim (1) side by side TM is accorded higher status than CU (2) that is unequal and unjust (3) requiring statist remedy.

The effect of their remedy is to eliminate TM and rename CU as marriage.

My claim is the difference in status is because TM fits the marriage template rather than because it excludes gays. There is no remedy for that. By misunderstanding (or not caring) the judges have visited greater injustice on traditional culture.

Gay couples still just have civil union, all they get is the offical word "marriage".

Traditional couples lose the instution they feel is the real marriage and get branded as bigots for feeling that way.

syn

Boris

The Natural Law of Life is egg+sperm; the human ego cannot take sperm+sperm or egg+egg and call either 'parents'.

It is scientifically proven that sperm+sperm or egg+egg cannot make a uniquely, distinct human being.


In order for the concept of sperm+sperm = parents to be made, tyrants in black robes running Darwin's court of apes will impose vicious laws in order to maintain this irrational order.

No matter how smart I think I am, I cannot change Natural Law with a few well-chosen words.

In fact, they only smart thing I know is what Burke stated long ago and upon which our Founding Fathers adopted into our constitution:

"There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equality-the law of nature and of nations."

Government is not our Creator.

PS: before people pile on with God, the constitution does not say 'rights endowed by God' that would be like living under Sharia law.

Cecil Turner

Seems to me the discussion has drifted to the politics of perversion rather than the perversion of the political process. Whatever we think of redefining "marriage" or "civil rights," hopefully we can agree the Constitution is silent on the issue. And that leads inexorably to Justice Scalia's job self-description:

"Whether it's good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution," he explained.
If so (and I'm having a hard time seeing why it isn't), it's obviously not a judicial function, but a legislative one. (And I admit my main concern is what else they might find in there, rather than this bit of social engineering.)

Jane

it's obviously not a judicial function, but a legislative one.

Exactly - and the real perversion (sorry) is taking it out of that venue.

boris

Any time a law is passed it's up to a judge to say if it complies with a constitutional equality standard.

If the law grants some advantage to men only, there would need to be sufficient reason to exclude women or else a judge would strike it down.

I think there is a real issue here that has been framed incorrectly causing real harm and injustice.

clarice

P.S. The Sakura in D.C. are quite beautiful, too. Those in front of the Japanese Embassy are particularly incredible.

pagar

IOM, there can be no doubt that being a Christian in public in America has gotten much harder over the past forty or so years.
That is particularly true with the US Military. We have had Generals, Colonels on down censored and/or removed from their positions because of some statement they made in reference to God. Query Col Boykin and God if one needs a refresher.

Here's a Chaplain who got in trouble:

Chaplain convicted of saying prayers 'in Jesus' name' Klingenschmitt jury to resume work in morning on punishment

I would not be at all surprised to learn that our military has people checking to make sure that US soldiers are not praying to a Christian God during battles with an enemy that prays 5 times a day to theirs.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

There are successful human societies that have polygamy, polyandry, marriages as a legal contract with no religious basis, societies with no marriage whatsoever where men remain with their mothers' households and all property is matrilineal, societies where monogamy is selfish and insulting, societies (even in Europe) where marriage isn't considered even possible until a woman has proven herself to be fertile, and some really strange ones.

'Successful' being the prime and undefined subjective term here.
IMO, that qualifier pretty much leaves out all of the Islamic world which may be prolific but is hardly successful in any economic or political liberties sense,and only leaves us with small isolated communities within larger traditional marriage cultures or utterly backwards ones.

Perhaps I am mistaken and someone can name a truly successful culture or society which practices widespread polyandry, etc. As I go through every major society none come readily to mind.

boris

Unless biodiversity discredits evolution it doesn't make sense to claim that marriage diversity discredits a natural template for marriage any more than language diversity discredits a natural template for language.

It's a bogus argument to begin with.

A more interesting argument would be that a polygamy includes at least one same sex couple ERGO any natural template consistent with polygamy is ALSO consistent with same sex marriage.

Funny nobody is pushing that argument huh.

Jane

Polyandry makes a lot more sense to me than polygamy.

Ho hum

boris

Sure but the historical disadvantage of it is males not knowing which offspring is theirs which reduces instinctive incentive to invest in the relationship.

Jane

I wasn't actually serious boris, I was just thinking it would be more fun for me that way.

clarice

Me, too, Jane ..

boris

I figured. It's just that the disparity between the two forms had been noted so clarification seemed appropriate.

matt

Charlie;

I would disagree. Throughout history it has primarily been between one man and one woman. Polygamy was an ancient response to the need to breed additional children to support the family or clan. It was also used as a political tool to cement alliances. Polyandry was rare in history, more of an anomaly.

As to the other malarkey, 3,000 years of history, whether Roman, Chinese, Judaeo Christian, or Indian limit marriage pretty much to the conventional norms we still (barely) observe. Concubines, harems, etc were tolerated as the province of the wealthy who could rise above the common folk.

Just because there are 30-40 men @ 55-65 years old named Erroll in Port Antonio, Jamaica doesn't mean that Mr. Flynn married their mothers, Nor do the Bin Ladens represent the mass of Muslims. These are exceptional rather than commonplace events.

matt

Daddy;

If the cherry blossoms are blooming, you have to go to the avenue near Gion/Kinkakuji Temple. There is an ancient cherry tree there which is one of the most famous in Japan. There are usually 2-3 photographers taking pictures. I also remember wandering through Gion amazed at the beauty of a single cherry tree in full blossom at the edge of one of the rivulets that run through the district. One day I hope to spend a year in Kyoto. It's a magical city.

transient beauty
a brief glimpse of heaven's plan
to walk in Kyoto

clarice

Worse for Christians in the UK where their tax dollars are used to portray them as Islamophobic villains:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1167509/Cartoon-strip-aimed-12s-depicts-Christian-boy-Islamaphobe-thug.html>Demonizing Christians

It's a regular fascist trick. Yesterday AT ran a brilliant piece on how Hitler's next target was to be Christians.

JM Hanes

syn:

"The Natural Law of Life is egg+sperm; the human ego cannot take sperm+sperm or egg+egg and call either 'parents'."

For someone who claims to be devoted to meaning, it's both amusing and telling that you put the word parents in quotation marks. Reproduction still requires egg and sperm, parenting does not. Human flexibility in that regard to is a material benefit in the critical realm of survivability. I find it hard to believe that anyone would misunderstand, or dispute, what I would mean by saying adoptive parents, although perhaps you'd be the exception that proves the rule.

"Well you won't find the word 'worshipping' in Websters."

Any yet, oddly enough, the word has meaning! Anyone who takes a Webster's Dictionary as dispositive on meaning, of course, has no business arguing etymology -- indeed, I could publish a Webster's of my own, as the name is in the public domain. Words and word forms do, in fact, change over time. There again, the particular flexibility of English is a real advantage.

"and you are so smart you can re-write Shakespeare."

That's a very funny choice, sweetie, in light of the argument you're apparently attempting to advance. Shakespeare made up more words than any other author in the English language -- by a long shot.

JM Hanes

boris:

"Sure but the historical disadvantage of it is males not knowing which offspring is theirs which reduces instinctive incentive to invest in the relationship."

The fact that women are most inclined to cheat on their spouses when they're ovulating suggests that the historical disadvantage is males thinking they don't know which offspring is theirs. Which is not to dispute the basic point you're making -- at least I think not.

boris

Perhaps the reason women's ovulation is not apparant as in other primates is to make it more difficult for the husband to actively prevent opportunities for cheating.

Another reason might be so female instinct can operate with less conscious oversight.

The study that supported the prediction that a significant number of wives dress up on their fertile days according to an inverse correlation with the social status of their mates might be responded to by:

So those wacky evo-psychos are claiming we women get up in the morning, look at the calendar and say to ourselves "oh look a fertile day, I should put on something fetching in case there's an oppotunity to get pregnant today." Poppycock! I don't think that way and nobody I know thinks that way!"
Yup just how instinct blindness might operate.

JM Hanes

"The study that supported the prediction that a significant number of wives dress up on their fertile days according to an inverse correlation with the social status of their mate..."

Interesting boris. I wasn't aware of that, although it would make sense. While I can't remember a source or details, I think I read somewhere recently that the men who do commit to pairing & parenting actually end up reproducing at a higher rate then the vaunted "alphas" who attract so much attention. That certainly suggests that short of corralling and isolating a harem, the alphas really don't, in fact, have an evolutionary advantage over faithful husbands and fathers. It's only just occurred to me, but that last bit would also seem to have real cultural implications in re monogamy & polygamy, don't you think?

boris

"alphas" who attract so much attention

So who do you expect are the beneficiaries of women who dress up to cheat on their fertile days?

I also read that strict monogamy produces larger number of offspring, but that doesn't necessarioy translate to greater reproductive advantage.

The strategeries for "spreading it around" seem well established in our instinct repertoire so there should be some other advantage. One that comes to mind is more rapid adaptation. The cheaters may have fewer offpring that are better adapted to take advantage of culture change.

boris

* necessarily *

boris

Inner zombies are such wicked creatures.

JM Hanes

"There used to be vast regions of stateless frontier. If the concept of marriage existed in those areas it seems to me that indicates the state provides the service rather than creates it."

I think you'd have to go pretty far back to find vast stateless frontiers, alas. In any case, I'd put it differently than either you or Jane did. What the state really does is recognize marriage as a legally binding contract, by which married partners become a single entity in law (hence wives/husbands cannot be required to incriminate themselves), and establish regulations for the legal dissolution of that contract.

If you're arguing that marriage exists in stateless regions, i.e. whether or not it is recognized by the state, then whether the state recognizes one and/or multiple forms of legal marriage would be equally irrelevant, wouldn't it? The state defines legal adulthood too, for example, without affecting the actual state of physical and mental adulthood in any way.

boris

My take is much simpler. Marriage became a selection advantage in humans by instinctively binding males to a social order. State involvement in marriage was probably a coevolved mechanism for males to enforce "ownership" of their offspring. Which enables the instincts to develop that bind them.

My inner engineer sees that relationship as a positive feedback system resulting in exponential growth. IMO it's how we got here so fast.

JM Hanes

"So who do you expect are the beneficiaries of women who dress up to cheat on their fertile days?....

The strategeries for "spreading it around" seem well established in our instinct repertoire so there should be some other advantage."

Offhand, I'd say the species as whole, as opposed to those who argue that the evolutionary advantage goes to one over the other. Betas (for want of less loaded terminology) produce more offspring, and alphas help mix up the gene pool? It's something that would probably be a factor of considerably more evolutionary importance the further back you go toward smaller and more isolated communities. All of which is speculation, of course -- which is how I regard most of what folks propose in the way of evolutionary explanations for human behavior. The role of grandparenting in prehistoric constructs, for instance, has only just begun to cross the evo-psyche radar.

boris

If you're arguing ...

Let me just say that's a huge non sequitur since one of the reasons to join a state is to benefit from offical reinforcement of social instincts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame