9:00 a.m. Friday: The discussion has been wide-ranging, so I'm leaving this posting on the marquee until later this evening. Please feel free to join in, subject to our usual rules pertaining to disclosure.
---
Never underestimate the ability of politicians to disappoint. It’s Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football all over again … and I’m lying on the wet ground, looking up at the sky, and vowing not to fall for it another time.
Having grudgingly accepted the painful notion of casting my ballot for Democratic challenger Baron Hill as the least harmful of three suited annoyances in the 9th District Congressional race, he’s once again publicly hurrying to express agreement with the practical consequences of the incumbent’s right-wing cultural bias, while insisting that subtle differences in reasoning somehow constitute an viable alternative.
In a letter to the editor of the Tribune – one presumably published in newspapers throughout the district – candidate Hill hastens to assure us that his position on marriage is precisely the same as Mike “Hot Wheels” Sodrel’s:
Simply put, I believe that marriage is sacred and is a right only between a man and a woman. In the Indiana legislature, I sponsored the law to define marriage as existing between one man and one woman, and I would support a federal law to do the same. The people of the 9th District know that I am a man of my word, and they know that I will work to return strong Hoosier family values to Washington — values such as honesty, integrity and faith.
But we must look elsewhere for the specific reason why Hill expects us to believe that this shameless pandering on the topic of marriage is dissimilar to Sodrel’s. In Sunday’s Courier-Journal, Hill explained:
"I could support a federal law defining marriage as that of a man and a woman," Hill said. "But I don't want to use the Constitution as an instrument to ban gay marriage. That's not what the document is about."
Groundbreaking stuff, eh?
Baron Hill is opposed to Mike Sodrel and others of his reactionary ilk in their evangelical quest to “use” the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage, but Hill supports the “use” of federal law to achieve exactly the same outcome.
Such a federal law would ban gay marriage, wouldn’t it? Now, let’s think hard; is that really an alternative?
Somehow I’m reminded of the medieval practice of dunking criminals in nearby streams to determine innocence or guilt. Survive the attempted drowning and be guilty (and subject to immediate execution), or conversely, be proven innocent by dying in agonizing fashion (and, well, be just as dead as before … but blameless in the eyes of God).
Once again, something (gay marriage) that should be one of the great non-issues in the history of American moral and political skullduggery is being deployed – this time by a Democrat – as a convenient straw man suitable for a good, sound thrashing. I can hear the applause of the fundamentalist yokels, and imagine Hill’s pulse racing as he calculates the number of votes to be gleaned from stooping to this rank level of prejudice.
How does any of this constitute a choice come election time?
When it comes to the reigning GOP political and governmental philosophy of “fright makes right”, particularly the contrived chimera of “family values” as a magic wand to frighten the populace, what can possibly be the benefit of a Democratic challenger seeking so transparently to emulate a repugnant Republican incumbent – and deploying regrettably vapid sophistry to espouse look-alike principles that differ only in the realm of semantics, not the everyday world of reality?
For those so inclined, why not vote for the more authentic of the two bearers of conservative hoo-hah, the unalloyed internal combustion mogul Sodrel, whose famously incorrect thinking has the sole merit of being absent the degradation implied by Hill’s cynical electoral calculation?
Here’s the skinny: I want very much to be for candidates like Baron Hill, but just as our local Democratic Party seems institutionally incapable of providing the barest minimum of succor to a thinking man, Hill’s recent pieties are a reminder that the two-party system and the mechanics of power sharing that it has spawned simply may not be capable of redemption.
As always, we’re left to hold our noses and vote against the greater of the two threats.
Which I’ll still do, but not gladly … and with a good measure of resentment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
The whole congressional campaign thus far has been embarrasing and insulting. At what point does it become unacceptable to simply hold one's nose and participate in the charade?
Don't be surprised if Roger Baylor gets at least one vote as a write-in candidate. NAC has consistently put forth more reasoned, issues-based commentary than any of the candidates running for the House seat or any local office, for that matter.
I certainly don’t disagree that all of you have done an excellent job reporting, commenting, and holding people accountable. We still disagree on some key issues but feel confident we disagree agreeably and respect the differing opinions. I certainly respect each of your viewpoints and passion towards the varying topics even when we don’t see eye-to-eye.
I asked once before what your platform would look like and now with today’s posting, I would like to know what you believe the purpose of marriage is?
What would you like to see happen with marriage and why?
What would the long-term consequences be if you could change the definition of marriage?
As for governments, marriage is legal contract. I don't mean to be glib, but in a marriage ceremony you can read the entire bible, in the biggest church, with the biggest organ, the biggest choir, and presided over by the Pope and still not be married in the eyes of the government. You need a civil license. Conversely, you can be married with nary a mention of a supernatural being or any kind of beliefs.
I was just back in Massachusetts and still no crumbling of civilization?! More respect and tolerance maybe...
thanks NAC for putting a point to what has screwed up my ability to grab hold of the elections here. I couldn't figure out how Hill was so different than Sodrel and why that passes for choice? Guess I'm not the only one wishing for a real contest with real issues. Save the kooky family values stuff for church....pleaseeeee!
I'm personally inclined to agree with Iamhoosier, HB. For the purposes of a civil society and its government, marriage is the legal manifestation of a personal, hopefully loving, commitment of one consenting adult to another. With that commitment comes a range of both advantages and responsibilities.
My aim as a citizen is to ensure that every consenting adult whom so wishes can participate in those legal agreements. My argument, in essence, is one of fairness.
Whether or not a certain church or religion holds an individual relationship as holy or sacred based on their own constructs is of no consequence to that fairness concept. I don't think a denomination should be forced to recocnize a particular relationship in purely religious terms nor should they be allowed to deny one on legal grounds.
On a more personal note, I married who I married because I think she's a wonderful person and I love, respect, and trust her. While her gender admittedly plays a role in my sexual attraction to her based on my own orientation (and I didn't decide to be heterosexual anymore than anyone else decides to be homosexual), it played no role outside of that in my decision making process to make a commitment to her.
If I were a woman or she were a man, it wouldn't change the relationship we have together one jot and I still would have made and continue to honor that commitment. It's not always easy but it's the most educational, meaningful and rewarding experience I've ever had in my life. I'm a better human being because of it.
That, I suppose, is the purpose of marriage and under a general guise of human rights and an appreciation of life, I don't see that I or anyone has the moral authority to suggest that others shouldn't be allowed the same opportunity. In fact, I think morality is on the side of those relationships, regardless of the genders involved.
Bluegill has written exactly what I was feeling but was unable to communicate adequately myself. Thanks Jeff.
Mark
Amen to young Mr.Gillenwater about a write in vote for RAB. I will not vote for either Hill or Sodrel because of the same old story and song'n dance by each.
With Lee Hamilton you at least had some idea of where he stood on the issues and why, with these two knuckleheads it is "whatever it takes to get elected." That is the same with position of Sheriff in Floyd County.
I will vote in November, but for only a small part of the ballot. Same names and no change politically has gotten to be a bad taste in my mouth.
Until some other people with creative ideas run for many of these elected offices, I WILL NOT waste my vote trying to place people in positions just because of party alliance either way.
As has been the case on so many occasions since I first made Bluegill's acquaintance, I find that his explanation is succinct, eloquent, and fully worthy of citing as commensurate with my own thoughts.
At the heart of the matter is the notion of secular versus religious. To me, the legal basis of marriage is secular. Those of a religious persuasion are free to excommunicate heathens to their hearts' content -- but this is not the job of the secular authority.
Why is it that when infidels like me question Christians, their faith seems to grow stronger in response, but when gays wish to marry, suddenly faith is under mortal assault and must be defended with increased expenditures of intolerance ... and cash?
Whatever became of usury, anyway?
That's fair.
By the way ... congratulations!
None of you have answered my question. I agree with iamhoosier. Marriage is a legal entity separate and distinct from religious. They may or may not be recognized by one or the other or both.
BUT:
Every society has laws that govern different aspects of the society. These may be written or implied and understood by the people of that society. But laws do not create things that already exist, but rather define the boundaries of those things. Male-female relationships have been defined in every culture whether they be civilized or non-civilized. Laws regarding marriage help define and maintain the meanings of marriage in that particular society. The laws are not just a way to grant legal benefits as some have suggested.
Individuals in every society may freely choose to enter into a marriage relationship as defined by the laws and customs of their society. Society then upholds the marriage, formalizes its definition, and establishes standards to strengthen uphold and encourage the success of the relationship.
Without the society setting standards and sharing in the burden of maintaining these relationships, for the purpose of producing offspring that will contribute to the advancement and continuation of the society, marriage will continually erode into what critics already say it is: a simple contract between two individuals with no specific implications or content and one of a smorgasbord of sexual lifestyles and preferences that serve no fundamental purpose other than the gratification of the individuals involved.
The idea of Marriage or the male-female relationship in every society is that it needs babies to perpetuate the society and babies need both mothers and fathers; and the adults have the obligation to the society to shape their conduct and behaviors to sustain their families and provide for the children.
Communities in all societies governed by laws or standards of conduct, in which marriage is established as an institution, need both legal and social support. These same societies have laws and established norms that maintains an economic system that is both a reality and functional to the society. These societies also have rules that govern private property, intellectual property and business entities all for the benefit of the society and not necessarily for the individual directly. Government did not create these properties and entities nor did it create marriage. It did however establish the norms that people use to respect, acknowledge and maintain them. Laws define each of these things in order to reach a shared understanding of their meaning and purpose. Every society requires a system of laws in order to function and provide for the future needs of its citizens and to maximize their opportunities. Societies cannot allow individuals to define for themselves what these institutions should be; otherwise anarchy will develop.
When there is shared understanding in the meaning of these or any other government institution, they generally function with minimal input or thought. It is only when it is challenged, as with marriage, that we should stand firmly and state clearly what is evident and not be sidetracked by the rhetoric of radicals and special interest groups.
Even as a Floridian (by way of the Volunteer State (by way of the Sunshine State - I know, it's confusing), and long before I had any conception that I might become a Hoosier transplant, I found reason to admire Mr. Hill for taking a principled stand AGAINST forcing Christian prayer into schools. He did it, when the pandering choice would have been to vote WITH the dumbed-down Repugnant-ones for an ineffectual, but politically neutered vote.
I truly never considered that I might ever be able to vote for or against the man. And I have, in the personal realm, only ever been insulted by the man.
But from 14 driving hours away, I resolved to ROOT for Baron Hill. That hasn't changed, particularly after watching Mr. Sodrel pay sodden fealty to the Bush regime.
DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE. Don't play games with your vote and try to justify it as principle.
Vote HILL in November. The stakes are too high to sacrifice the good for the perfect. There is no dishonor in choosing between alternatives.
Courage is in too short supply, granted. I've found myself questioning the judgment of friends over the recent weeks, but one cannot expect the universe to comply with one's expectations.
Baron Hill, despite particularly insultng personal rebuffs, remains my candidate of choice. He paid in full for my loyalty by stepping out on a matter that, to me, was a matter of principle, and I, for one, will not waste my vote out of pique.
In a larger perspective, I will not denigrate those who share my own larger objectives because of pique. There is, demonstrably, too great a chance that "information" related to me is biased or flatly wrong, and I will continue to advocate the causes of those with whom I'm acquainted and for those who I have reason to believe are acting in good faith.
Make no mistake. There are D's in this election cycle that I do not credit with Democratic (or democratic) principles; and I WILL NOT vote for them.
But, Baron Hill has not given me reason to reject him. Marriage is NOT a sacrament. It is contractual. It is NOT my business to impose my beliefs on others in their love relationships. That Baron Hill does not choose to expose his neck to the "redneck" constituency (which, frankly, I can most clearly identify naturally as the grandson and great-grandson of Appalachian and Delta farmers), is not an impediment to my voting for him.
I admire and like Mr. Baylor. I trust him, implicitly. But I refuse to fritter away my vote in an excercise of puerile futility.
Rage, rage, against the dying of the light. But do not be petulant or petty and diminish your vote in a fit of pique.
As much as I admire our senior editor, I will not choose to defecate on my franchise to only make myself feel superior to others.
Mr. Hill, as explained above, earned my vote well before I was entitled to cast it. On that alone, I will give him my vote.
It is inevitable that marital rights will be granted to same-sex couples. Mr. Hill should not be condemned for seeking to refute lies, nor for seeking to win re-election. For everything there is a season; to take even the remotest chance that petulant and self-aggrandizing ballot choices would endorse the Bush regime is the height of personal egotism, and the opposite of communitarianism. I reject the suggestion that there is any symbolism in casting a write-in vote for my friend Roger. It is, in FACT, juvenile and irresponsible to the nth degree.
Were Jeff truly principled, he would have move to qualify Roger as a write-in candidate in August. LITERALLY, a write-in vote in November, at this point, is childishness. Any write-in now is an automatic discard.
If NAC readers wish to discard their votes, to abdicate their rights to participate, cast your votes away for my friend Roger.
I think I can safely say the my friend Roger won't be doing that. He'll use his maturity and cast his vote with reason. As will I. How will you vote? Perhaps you will be able to reconcile the consequences of your "noble" ballot. To my mind, it would be unforgiveably egotistic, but perhaps a salve to your self-image.
For the record, this correspondent will cast his vote for Congressman Hill without any qualms. This is not a matter of party loyalty, but of recompense for Mr. Hill's principled stand when he served the Ninth District.
I will not yield to anyone my support for the human right to choose with whom one will spend his or her life in a committed relationship. My own marriage is not, in the least, threatened by granting marital rights to any two other human beings.
At his core, I doubt seriously that Mr. Hill harbors any prejudice (pre-judgment or bias) against those rights. He may not expound that belief, but when it comes down to it, he will not vote to oppress those who seek those BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS>
Although I'm flattered by your notion that an offhand comment from me could somehow have dire electoral consequences, if you read what I actually wrote without bias you'll see that at no point did I state that I was going to vote for Roger nor did I suggest that others should. I merely stated that it wouldn't be surprising.
Given the obviously shared sense of exasperation felt about current political candidates (including those that you do seemingly support) and an appreciation of the community service that Roger provides, I truly believe that it wouldn't be surprising if he received a vote(s), whether it comes from me or anyone else. It's hardly the first time someone has suggested that Roger would be a better decision maker than the current crop of political hopefuls.
So you know rather than assume, I haven't decided how I'll handle my votes yet and, quite frankly, my vote comment had as much if not more to do with reciprocating praise with Roger than it did with communicating my intentions on Election Day. He was more than kind in his apprasial of my work while he was away and I've never been much good with that sort of thing.
I sometimes struggle to find words to adequately express my thoughts and have been known to labor for what are probably unhealthy periods of time over the most correct way to engage a reader. Conversely, I sometimes blurt the first thing that comes to mind. Though not perfect, I often find that an honest reaction leads to conversation that's much more refreshing than the more calculated, well-practiced prose that is all to common in the political arena.
If I remember correctly, you personally have encouraged me to engage in more of the latter rather than worrying about perfection. If there’s a legitimate misunderstanding as a result, I fully accept my half of that responsibility.
However, considering your expressed concern for biased or wrong information, it's somewhat surprising that you not only miscalculated both the intent and action of a fellow citizen, but then also chose, with no communication on the topic whatsoever, to so fervently present a public analysis based on those faulty assumptions. If choosing to do so is a sign of maturity and lack of ego, I readily admit to immaturity and egotism. Hell, I hope for it.
What you chose not to do is to answer the question I posed: At what point does it become unacceptable to simply hold one's nose and participate in the charade? To paraphrase your words, at what point does it become dishonorable to continue accepting the alternatives as presented?
While I don't always agree with your tactics, I admire the passion and outspokenness with which you approach public affairs. It’s truly unfortunate that you've been unsuccessful thus far in instilling those traits into the party you support.
But then, what does an unprincipled sort like me know?
But laws do not create things that already exist, but rather define the boundaries of those things.
It would seem that in all human societies and at all times, there has been homosexuality. It would seem fitting and proper to include homosexuality as fair game for boundary definition in this context, up to and including marriage.
The idea of Marriage or the male-female relationship in every society is that it needs babies to perpetuate the society and babies need both mothers and fathers; and the adults have the obligation to the society to shape their conduct and behaviors to sustain their families and provide for the children.
If so, why do we permit the old or infertile to marry?
Societies cannot allow individuals to define for themselves what these institutions should be; otherwise anarchy will develop.
So much for artistic expression and the history of individuals reshaping their societal institutions by means of revolt, revolution or even the ballot box.
History to suit the needs of preconceived notion? Sounds like another argument for the existence of God.
HB,
"Laws regarding marriage help define and maintain the meanings of marriage in that particular society. The laws are not just a way to grant legal benefits as some have suggested."
Fair enough. Remember you did put in the word "just". Which suggests that you do recognize the legal benefits of the equation.
If marriage is just about having and raising children, as you suggest, I am deeply offended. I have been married 26 years and have no children. What you are saying is that my marriage has no meaning--for me or society.
Procreating is act. Raising the children(or benefiting society in general)calls for commitment. Why do you want to limit that commitment and therefore limit the legal benefits to some? I would think that you would be in favor of commitment.
The conservative mantra of "it has been that way for years" is not enough. We grow, we learn, we change. Sometime for the better, sometimes not. I have yet to see the "not" in this matter. It is denying some American citizens a legal benefit because of any combination of the following:
1. Religion
2. Dislike of change
3. "Ick" factor
One last question. If this change were to happen, how would it lessen your own marriage?
I have several observations.
First, celebrity weddings or pseudo-weddings like Brittany Spears infamous 36 hour Vegas wedding probably have undermined marriage more than gay unions have. Heterosexual couples have severely undermined any concept of sacredness in marriage.
But that's not the issue.
Again, again, again these elections are being turned into statements about gay marriage and abortion. These seem to be what value based voting seems to be focused on. Frankly, we have far greater issues than these.
For one, something that is flying under the radar is that we have a growing problem with poverty in New Albany that is getting worse. Federal funding and state funding for programs for the impoverished have been slashed dramatically. In our community, and I suspect all across Indiana, and large portions of the country, more and more people are falling through the cracks than before because, to be blunt, the cracks have been widened. The economy is tanking.
Politicians, at least the ones who are in power, tend to chortle at how well the economy is doing and they look at profits of corporations and stock values. The reality is that the true measure of the economy is measured by taking the temperature at the bottom. I am sure that if you talked to pastors of downtown churches, Interfaith, and the Housing Authority folks, you'd find a consistent answer. The bottom of the economic ladder is growing.
At St. Marks we run a Clothes Closet where we give clothing and blankets to needy people. For free. Because of a grant from the Caesar's Foundation we were able to supply a large number of people with new underwear (we won't give used underwear away for obvious reasons) and blankets. To say that our Clothes Closet is swamped is an understatement.
Downtown, the churches provide a hot meal every day. For free. St. Marks holds its Soup Kitchen on Saturdays at noon. In the last six months the number of people coming to the Soup Kitchen has doubled. We are receiving predictions that it will double again.
Last I read in the New Testament, Jesus' main two teachings were on how we treated our brothers and sisters, and how we took care of the poor. If we base our value issues on Jesus' primary teachings, we are doing poorly. Poverty in New Albany is on the rise and I suspect we are just one of many instances.
Yet, instead of addressing this issue, our politicians on who hates gay people more and dressing this up as values.
So why is growing poverty NOT an issue in this election?
Secondly, why is not the war in Iraq an issue?
I keep hearing that there is 'potential' for civil war in Iraq. Potential?
At present, in Iraq Sunni and Shia are fighting and killing each other in alarming numbers. Our troops are in the middle of this. President George H. W. Bush chose not to topple Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War because he knew that this would happen if a strong, albeit tyrannical leader like Saddam was deposed from an outside nation. What is taking place now is certainly predictable.
There are miserable choices ahead. If we stay, our troops will continue to get killed and the unrest and violence will continue on with our soldiers beging caught in the middle. This will not end. We cannot solve a civil war in Iraq. Staying the course, doing what we are doing, will not work. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, isn't it?
On the other hand, if we withdraw, the civil war will escalate and the Shia will win and we will have a new version of Iran. Again, this is not a hopeful solution.
Huge issue in this election. Or it should be.
Yet, instead of addressing this issue, our politicians on who hates gay people more and dressing this up as values.
My fondest wish is that one of these days we would have someone running for office who had the testicular fortitude to speak truth to power and attempt to solve real problems instead of creating distractions.
iamhoosier,
No where did I say marriage was just for raising kids. But in every society, that has been the primary reason.
Some couples choose not to have children and others cannot have children. Neither makes their marriage less valuable.
These couples typically contribute to the betterment of society in many other ways, but if every marriage was like that, societies would be self-declining.
That is why laws are in place. It is for the betterment and propagation of societies and that is why it needs to be supported.
I have never said these other relationships impact my marriage. They can live with the same sex, multiple partners, animals or anything else. I really don't care what they do personally. Just don't call it marriage and expect society to uphold it in the same manner. It isn't the same, never has been, and if it were to stand on its own, would lead to societal decline.
John,
Does St. Marks or the other churches keep tabs on the number of people your programs serve? It would be interesting to see them. It would be even more interesting to publish them in the newspaper on a regular basis.
There are myriad reasons why neither local nor national politicians will broach the topic (and most of them are BS), but my guess is that a majority in the community have no idea what's occurring.
From an earlier post, HB noted:
Individuals in every society may freely choose to enter into a marriage relationship as defined by the laws and customs of their society.
Customs like slavery?
Then this:
The idea of Marriage or the male-female relationship in every society is that it needs babies to perpetuate the society …
He didn’t say “one” idea, but “the” idea. Then:
No where did I say marriage was just for raising kids.
Ah, yes. That’s different, isn’t it? HB closes:
Just don't call it marriage and expect society to uphold it in the same manner. It isn't the same, never has been, and if it were to stand on its own, would lead to societal decline.
HB previously conceded that childless marriages were to be tolerated even if such unions aren’t representative of the highest goal of marriage, procreation, but he objects to marriages that he views to be solely for the purpose of a “simple contract between two individuals with no specific implications or content and one of a smorgasbord of sexual lifestyles and preferences that serve no fundamental purpose other than the gratification of the individuals involved.”
Slowly the prejudices begin to leak out of the already tilting argumentation. Finally we arrive at IAH’s “ick” factor, albeit it sanctioned by one specific interpretation of “divine” texts, the “divinity” of which can be proven no more conclusively than the “existence” of the tooth fairy or, as Mencken might suggest, an “honest politician.”
Am I to conclude that there are certain sexual practices that are off-limits to heterosexual married couples with children, as these somehow thwart the intent of the deity? If so, I’m quite grateful to be childless.
Actually, we do keep records. I know both the Soup Kitchen does as well as the Clothes Closet. I'll have to put them together.
HB,
"It is for the betterment and propagation of societies and that is why it needs to be supported."
I still maintain that it is commitment that is needed to benefit society. A man and a woman can be married, have children and then totally ignore them. A man and a woman can commit to one another, not marry, have children and raise them to cure cancer. The only difference the piece of paper(license) makes is the legal benefit(s).
If you maintain that the license symbolizes and reinforces commitment, I agree. And it should apply to all who want to make that commitment. With all the rights and responsibilities. I see this as a strengthening of the term marriage, not a weakening.
NAC is mischaracterizing statements and once again trying to turn this into a religious argument.
Once again, NAC nor anyone else is answering the question of what is marriage for in society? I gave a very good response. No one else has even attempted. It is easier to critisize than to intellectually discuss the topic.
I never conceded that childless marriages were any less significant.
The statement reads:
The idea of Marriage or the male-female relationship in every society is that it needs babies to perpetuate the society.
That is the idea. There is no falsehood in the statement, no religious overtone and certainly no predjudice on my part related to marriages that choose to remain childless or cannot have kids.
It is a simple fact that the idea in societies has always been kids were a probable result in these relationships.
Your predjudice is showing in the fact you cannot deal with the issue without making it into a religious argument.
I don't think I mentioned religion in any of the entire response, yet you continually turn it into that discussion. Your anti-religion bias continues to thwart rational discussion
HB,
You asked, What is marriage for in society?
I responded, It's (a legally commited relationship, i.e., marriage) not always easy but it's the most educational, meaningful and rewarding experience I've ever had in my life. I'm a better human being because of it.
That, I suppose, is the purpose of marriage..., namely to encourage those commitments and relationships by offering legal recognition of and incentives for their continuance. Others have said largely the same thing.
How is that dodging your question?
I beg to differ.
It is HB who has failed to provide evidence for this assertion:
Just don't call it marriage and expect society to uphold it in the same manner. It isn't the same, never has been, and if it were to stand on its own, would lead to societal decline.
It would seem that the only reason HB can offer for rejecting the earnest answers to his marriage question thus far provided is that they do not include a reference to the sentiments HB voices in the above paragraph -- with which I personally take issue, and furthermore, view as ridiculuous.
HB,
Now I am confused or you are.
"I never conceded that childless marriages were any less significant."
Earlier you said:
"Some couples choose not to have children and others cannot have children. Neither makes their marriage less valuable."
Now what is the difference other than the word valuable and significant?
HB,
Before you come back at me, let me be clear. The following paragraph is probably the one I find most troubling.
"Without the society setting standards and sharing in the burden of maintaining these relationships, for the purpose of producing offspring that will contribute to the advancement and continuation of the society, marriage will continually erode into what critics already say it is: a simple contract between two individuals with no specific implications or content and one of a smorgasbord of sexual lifestyles and preferences that serve no fundamental purpose other than the gratification of the individuals involved.
You are flatly stating that marriage is for having and raising children. If I don't have children, I just married for the gratification. Is that it? The more I read that paragraph the more offended I get.
Yep, IAH, he's in a bit of a logical dead alley, isn't he?
Any concession on his part that the definition of marriage might include any component resembling the contractual (what is a dowry, anyway?), the sexual or any other state of human affairs not specifically pertaining to procreation, and suddenly he's sliding down the slippery slope of his own making toward the anything-goes state of gay marriage.
Shrug.
The hell of it is, if my wife ever finds out that she only married me for the "gratification" she is going to demand a refund!!
you are witnessing the most expensive game of "liar liar pants on fire" game! well, maybe the one on the other side of the river is more expensive, but is this what politics have boiled down to?
as for gay marriage, it's no big deal to me. i don't think anyone hetero or homosexual should be given any preference over the other. it's just who you are. neither one makes you good or bad. there are plenty of jerks that are hetero or homosexual and it's not because of their sexuality, it's just because their dill holes, plain and simple.
Ricky L. Jones wrote a nice piece on politics in reference to Barack Obama this week in LEO. I think it captures what many are feeling.
bluegill said:
It's (a legally commited relationship, i.e., marriage) not always easy but it's the most educational, meaningful and rewarding experience I've ever had in my life. I'm a better human being because of it.
That does not answer the question of what marriage is for in society. You are just describing your definition of what marriage is and not what it is for.
Why even define or give preference to marriage. There must be a reason as it is done in every known society in some form?
I'll reiterate one more time. In EVERY society in history, male-female relationships have been give special distinction (recognition, legal authority, etc.) and for what reason?
I have given the answer, none of you have even tried to address it or give an alternative explanation.
We can take individual cases and say they don't choose kids or cannot have kids but that does not change the underlying philosophy of marriage now or in history in any of these societies.
Contractual issues are part of marriage in societies and once again, why was this the case. It has always been to ensure the propagation and stability of the society.
I have had 2 patients today and 3 emails wanting me to post more on this. I will post this and more next thursday for more open discussion on nahealth.
There are lots of people reading who feel intimidated on this particular site. I'll give them an opportunity for further discussion.
This gives everyone fair warning and the ability to intellectually prepare. Surely that is fair!
HB. you totally skipped the second paragraph:
That, I suppose, is the purpose of marriage..., namely to encourage those commitments and relationships by offering legal recognition of and incentives for their continuance.
How in the heck did you miss that?
Doc,
Following your logic or, according to you, society's definition, no one should get married if they can't or won't have children. It does not count for anything.
Sir, I am just a dumb country bumpkin compared to you, Roger and Jeff but intellectual ain't gonna cut it on this one. I think you are struggling so hard to keep "religion" out of this, that you are falling all over yourself with "civilian" arguments that just keep collapsing of their own weight.
See you on the blogs,
Mark
This is a great discussion, and I think that it (and others like it) will probably help to open many eyes. I must confess that my opinions pertaining to the idea of gay marriage have evolved completely in recent years, thanks largely to the pervasive discussions about the issue and my own willingness to re-examine my views.
I was initially against the idea of gay marriage because it went against my preconceived notions. When I began listening to the views of thoughtful people around me, however, I realized that my objections were not logically sound, and that many of the arguments against gay marriage were based upon prejudice and bigotry. I now see no merit to the argument that the right to marry should be denied to mature, responsible adults.
I don't think that I am unique in having changed my opinion on this issue. I believe that, as the debate about gay marriage continues, more and more people will become open to the idea.
Why should anyone feel intimidated to post on here? If you are a "nut" I guess that would qualify. There is more legitimate give and take on this blog than any I have seen. Roger is a man of his word. I never knew who HB was until he outed himself. Roger and I had several discussions over his posts and Roger never revealed HB's name.
Want proof? Go back in HB's archives to January and see the hell I gave him after he came out of anonymity.
This has been an interesting discussion and I think I can take away that we all want to have healthy children grow up in a healthy society. So let me interject one more idea into the dialogue. Science, tilted admittedly toward socio-biology. Nature, in "her" wisdom, seeks to expand our survival through genetic variation. Cultural and regilious notions aside. Male - Female produces better genetic material. Bonds of committment, kindness, and sacrifice defines society so we advance the idea of marriage. Therefore it undermines society in my opinion to predudice our support for the hard work of families. Good families are the back-bone of society, and a good family is any unit of committment, kindness, and sacrifice you want it to be.
Also John Manzo is right on when he says all this "family values" stuff is a calculated diversion from the true Christian issue of poverty.
There are lots of people reading who feel intimidated on this particular site. I'll give them an opportunity for further discussion.
Too bad, but I've long since gotten past the "you should use smaller words so more people would understand" phase.
The personal responsibility to learn what the words mean? Right up HB's alley. That said, I'll monitor NA Health in the coming days and see where the discussion goes there.
Isn't there a glaring hole in the discussion? Where's the talk about how the purpose of marriage, when it's all boiled down, has to do with the organized distribution of property?
We all know how women were once treated as property, how fathers traded their daughters, etc. We still have a lot of traditions that are based on this too. Taking the man's name, asking the father for the daughter's hand in marriage, etc.
And when HB mentions children, does he realize that also veers into property? We certainly needed a way to show who "owns" (nowadays who is "responsible for") the children. But children are just one of the products of a union between two people who commit their lives to each other.
Even today, with romantic love being the main reason for marriage, we still think of in terms of "I'm yours" and "Be mine" (just look at Valentines) We decide to reserve ourselves and voluntarily offer to "belong" to another person and for them to "belong" to us. Even so, that doesn't have to take the romance out of the whole thing. But for defining marriage in a discussion, it's important.
So with the gay aspect of the issue, don't they really want just the same property rights aspects of the relationships, i.e. certain monetary benefits and ways of distributing their property if something does happen to one or the other? I'm sure they would also like to have societal approval of their union, but they know they can't control people's minds. But they can ask for the same property benefits as any other two people who decide to commit to each other.
So to HB, the real purpose of marriage is to help us organize and figure out how to distribute property that results from a voluntary union of two people.
And that may or may not include children.
Post a Comment