I can't help but feel a weird, smirking detachment from current events in the US. We get our dose of news out here. I mean, let's look over the recent months
( Read more... )
I just wanted to address your view on gay marriages. It is not a religious issue. The reason that the institution of marriage can not be extended to homosexuals, is because it will begin to undermine the family. The family is the basic structure of society, and when the family is undermined, then society is undermined. when society is undermined, eventually that society and government will collapse. you can go back in history and see what i mean. it is the case with every fall of a great nation. the root is the undermining of the family institute, which is the very foundation of society.
the family is already under attack from all sorts of directions. violence and sex is pervasive on television and video games. marriage is no longer held as a sacred institution, thus it becomes easy to violate that institution. so, divorce is rampant. children are growing up in single parent homes, often neglected or abused. they grow up, are more likely to become criminals or at the very least, repeat what their parents did to them.
there needs to be a radical shift in our society on how we view the family. if we continue down this slippery slope that we are on, America will cease to be great. it pains me to think of it, but it is true.
i know i did not go over there to defend only the 2% of Americans who are gay. I went over to Iraq to defend the liberty of all Americans. I swore to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those that seek to undermine the family, in the end, whether they know it or not, are the enemies of all Americans.
I agree with much of what you said. Yes, the media is way out of line. Yes, video games are too violent. Yes, it is up to parents to raise children to be decent, ethical human beings. But that is not the purpose of the state.
I find nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. As a heterosexual male, I find the concept of sleeping with another male distasteful, but that's different from finding it wrong. I'll agree with you about the violence, though: the glorification of pointless violence in the media is disturbing. (Though not all violence is to be wiped out of our art. Consider the difference between violence in works like Schindler's List and works like Pulp Fiction. Ban Schindler's List? Hell no.)
One of the state's purposes is to defend the rights of all people, even those we personally abhor. We as citizens are responsible for policing our societial values. This is far different from having the state impose ethics from the top-down. Historically, every example of state-imposed ethics and morals I can think of in the 20th century was a disaster. (Cambodia, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, Mao's China, everything in Russia from 1917-present, the Taliban, the Ayatollah, pre-WWII Japan, and, in our own country, McCarthyism are just a few examples.)
We cannot expect our laws to teach children good values. That is for parents to do. We cannot deny rights to a group just because we don't like them or their message. The KKK and the Neo-Nazis, sadly, have every right to hold rallies promoting their view provided they stay within the law. I believe that gay marriage is an issue of civil rights conflicting with our older morals, and that the civil rights of an individual trump a part of society's dislike of what he does.
I'm not convinced gay marriages threaten the concept of the family. I've heard the belief that such unions undermine the family but have never seen any actual evidence. And while I certainly agree that our standards of behavior have fallen into questionable times, I cannot just out-of-hand believe that Fred and John's marriage has some method of making little Jonny into a killer.
Re: hey Docthe_marineFebruary 25 2004, 14:21:11 UTC
I've heard the argument that the family is the basic structure of society before. However, since it is the basic structure of society, a society shouldn't be undermined unless the idea of family is. Yet, great societies have fallen because of things like warfare, corruption, over-extension, a ruler's death (and subsequent bickering over who gets to lead) and so on. Also, the idea of what constitutes a family changes over time and space. Some cultures have marriages which last only a specific period of time, some have polygamous marriages, some expect adultery. Families have been built for bloodlines, money, or political ties. There have been/are families where children are nursed and/or raised by others (e.g. nursing maids, nannies) and families where the children were expected to be adults. Which of these types of family is right? Or is only our nuclear family with a love-marriage and the stages of childhood and adolescence (both recent 'inventions'; the idea of adolescence was created only in the early 1900's, childhood started about 300 years ago and became what we know it as in the 1800's) right?
The idea of what a family is changes, as does the idea of what a marriage is. In current, Western civilization, it is the norm to marry another person for love, while that idea is uncommon in the rest of the world (interestingly enough, arranged marriages tend to be happier over time than love-matches). As well, though it is certainly rare in human societies, homosexual marriage is not an entirely new phenomenon. In warrior societies, same-sex marriages between males wasn't uncommon. For the Azande, young men would become 'brides' to older warriors. For the Nuer, same-sex marriages between women were not uncommon and the same goes for the Nandi (in the 70's, 3% of marriages in Kenya were between women). There are other examples as well (including among some Native American/First Nations groups, whose societies were demolished more by disease, forced assimilation and marginalization than undermining of the family), but I haven't taken a course on the history of marriage, so I won't go on. However, I will say that other countries allowing homosexual marriages have yet to fall apart.
Personally, I believe that the drive towards individualization undermines marriage most, because people want to be the happiest they can be so when they are unhappy in a relationship, they leave. This is just made worse by the disposable nature of current, Western societies (especially North American). People think that if something's very hard to keep up, which a relationship is, especially once kids are involved (relationship satisfaction and happiness plummets once children are added), that it's better to go for something easier. As well, people tend to expect too much from their relationships and idealize their partners. Once they see their partners and relationships don't meet their expectations, they're out the door. It's this individualistic drive which threatens marriage more than anything else (in comparison, communalistic societies have, in general, lower divorce rates). [Note to Doc_Caro: heh, can you tell I'm taking a relationships course? :P]
In the end, the threat makes itself known with quicky marriages, with people getting married for a "joke" or because they "wanted to know what it felt like" (5 points to whomever gets this reference). The threat is in people who marry without the slightest idea or care about what kind of work a marriage takes. Any kind of threat that homosexuals would bring to the institution of marriage was already brought there by heterosexuals. The sex of the two people involved has no bearing on the institution, nor on "family" (studies show that kids in homosexual families are no different than those in heterosexual ones).
On top of that, the issue of homosexual marriage -is- a religious one. Even though church and state are separate in Western societies, religion is still present in the values and morals that the people in a society have.
Personally, I do not believe homosexual marriage on its own will undermine anything and, as a last point, I find it kind of insulting that you say that anyone who supports homosexual marriage is the enemy of all Americans, especially since I know that isn't true.
Re: hey Docthe_marineFebruary 26 2004, 15:08:20 UTC
you have many valid points..i am afraid that i can not respond to any of them until i have done more research in that area.
i am sorry i insulted you. i did not say what i meant very clearly. what i was trying to say was that sometimes we are our own worst enemy. those Americans who support gay marriages are still Americans. Gay Americans are still Americans. what i was trying to point out is, i have a duty to protect the liberty of ALL Americans. I believe that what the gay agenda is pushing for, will undermine the liberties of ALL Americans, both homosexual and heteralsexual. By taking the position that i do, I am trying to protect us from ourselves, our own worst enemy in this case.
i do not have time to my position. i have a paper that is more pressing. but when i get the chance, i would love to continue this discussion.
Insulted? Nah. I think it's essential that people disagree. When everyone's on the same wavelength, I get nervous, because it means we're not examining something. Another poster posted the part about homosexuals being enemies, Kenya, etc. and so on. I never post except logged on.
I had a weird revelation. When you're defending liberty, you're defending the right to fly in the face of society and be offensive. In other words, you're not only defending the right of the occasional visionary with a genuine improvement, but the rights of the vast horde of really messed up whackos. Strange, huh?
Re: hey Docthe_marineFebruary 28 2004, 13:13:15 UTC
Hey, no worries about that insult bit, then :)
I can see where you're coming from, though I don't agree that gay marriage on its own will undermine the rights of anyone). Personally, I would see things like the Patriot Act as a far greater, and far more immediate concern when it comes to liberties being undermined. That act honestly scares the bejeezus out of me, and I don't even live in America. (Though it's kind of comforting to know that as of Feb 5., 247 communities in the States have approved measures condemning it, New York City being the latest; http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ )
Big Brother... (ooo...)doc_caroFebruary 29 2004, 05:45:07 UTC
I believe that George Carlin said it best: "Americans (lately) always seem to be willing to give up a little more of their freedom for the appearance - for the illusion - of safety." Expanding federal powers without an act of legislation and careful consideration of the Tenth Ammendment as well as Article I, Section VIII is a bad precedent.
Bwa. One day when I'm completely blitzed we'll dive into the deep end of this. But I've got a serious caffeine crave going and no morale to do so.
the family is already under attack from all sorts of directions. violence and sex is pervasive on television and video games. marriage is no longer held as a sacred institution, thus it becomes easy to violate that institution. so, divorce is rampant. children are growing up in single parent homes, often neglected or abused. they grow up, are more likely to become criminals or at the very least, repeat what their parents did to them.
there needs to be a radical shift in our society on how we view the family. if we continue down this slippery slope that we are on, America will cease to be great. it pains me to think of it, but it is true.
i know i did not go over there to defend only the 2% of Americans who are gay. I went over to Iraq to defend the liberty of all Americans. I swore to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those that seek to undermine the family, in the end, whether they know it or not, are the enemies of all Americans.
Reply
I find nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. As a heterosexual male, I find the concept of sleeping with another male distasteful, but that's different from finding it wrong. I'll agree with you about the violence, though: the glorification of pointless violence in the media is disturbing. (Though not all violence is to be wiped out of our art. Consider the difference between violence in works like Schindler's List and works like Pulp Fiction. Ban Schindler's List? Hell no.)
One of the state's purposes is to defend the rights of all people, even those we personally abhor. We as citizens are responsible for policing our societial values. This is far different from having the state impose ethics from the top-down. Historically, every example of state-imposed ethics and morals I can think of in the 20th century was a disaster. (Cambodia, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, Mao's China, everything in Russia from 1917-present, the Taliban, the Ayatollah, pre-WWII Japan, and, in our own country, McCarthyism are just a few examples.)
We cannot expect our laws to teach children good values. That is for parents to do. We cannot deny rights to a group just because we don't like them or their message. The KKK and the Neo-Nazis, sadly, have every right to hold rallies promoting their view provided they stay within the law. I believe that gay marriage is an issue of civil rights conflicting with our older morals, and that the civil rights of an individual trump a part of society's dislike of what he does.
I'm not convinced gay marriages threaten the concept of the family. I've heard the belief that such unions undermine the family but have never seen any actual evidence. And while I certainly agree that our standards of behavior have fallen into questionable times, I cannot just out-of-hand believe that Fred and John's marriage has some method of making little Jonny into a killer.
/rant
Reply
The idea of what a family is changes, as does the idea of what a marriage is. In current, Western civilization, it is the norm to marry another person for love, while that idea is uncommon in the rest of the world (interestingly enough, arranged marriages tend to be happier over time than love-matches). As well, though it is certainly rare in human societies, homosexual marriage is not an entirely new phenomenon. In warrior societies, same-sex marriages between males wasn't uncommon. For the Azande, young men would become 'brides' to older warriors. For the Nuer, same-sex marriages between women were not uncommon and the same goes for the Nandi (in the 70's, 3% of marriages in Kenya were between women). There are other examples as well (including among some Native American/First Nations groups, whose societies were demolished more by disease, forced assimilation and marginalization than undermining of the family), but I haven't taken a course on the history of marriage, so I won't go on. However, I will say that other countries allowing homosexual marriages have yet to fall apart.
Personally, I believe that the drive towards individualization undermines marriage most, because people want to be the happiest they can be so when they are unhappy in a relationship, they leave. This is just made worse by the disposable nature of current, Western societies (especially North American). People think that if something's very hard to keep up, which a relationship is, especially once kids are involved (relationship satisfaction and happiness plummets once children are added), that it's better to go for something easier. As well, people tend to expect too much from their relationships and idealize their partners. Once they see their partners and relationships don't meet their expectations, they're out the door. It's this individualistic drive which threatens marriage more than anything else (in comparison, communalistic societies have, in general, lower divorce rates). [Note to Doc_Caro: heh, can you tell I'm taking a relationships course? :P]
In the end, the threat makes itself known with quicky marriages, with people getting married for a "joke" or because they "wanted to know what it felt like" (5 points to whomever gets this reference). The threat is in people who marry without the slightest idea or care about what kind of work a marriage takes. Any kind of threat that homosexuals would bring to the institution of marriage was already brought there by heterosexuals. The sex of the two people involved has no bearing on the institution, nor on "family" (studies show that kids in homosexual families are no different than those in heterosexual ones).
On top of that, the issue of homosexual marriage -is- a religious one. Even though church and state are separate in Western societies, religion is still present in the values and morals that the people in a society have.
Personally, I do not believe homosexual marriage on its own will undermine anything and, as a last point, I find it kind of insulting that you say that anyone who supports homosexual marriage is the enemy of all Americans, especially since I know that isn't true.
Reply
i am sorry i insulted you. i did not say what i meant very clearly. what i was trying to say was that sometimes we are our own worst enemy. those Americans who support gay marriages are still Americans. Gay Americans are still Americans. what i was trying to point out is, i have a duty to protect the liberty of ALL Americans. I believe that what the gay agenda is pushing for, will undermine the liberties of ALL Americans, both homosexual and heteralsexual. By taking the position that i do, I am trying to protect us from ourselves, our own worst enemy in this case.
i do not have time to my position. i have a paper that is more pressing. but when i get the chance, i would love to continue this discussion.
Reply
I had a weird revelation. When you're defending liberty, you're defending the right to fly in the face of society and be offensive. In other words, you're not only defending the right of the occasional visionary with a genuine improvement, but the rights of the vast horde of really messed up whackos. Strange, huh?
Reply
I can see where you're coming from, though I don't agree that gay marriage on its own will undermine the rights of anyone). Personally, I would see things like the Patriot Act as a far greater, and far more immediate concern when it comes to liberties being undermined. That act honestly scares the bejeezus out of me, and I don't even live in America. (Though it's kind of comforting to know that as of Feb 5., 247 communities in the States have approved measures condemning it, New York City being the latest; http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ )
Reply
Bwa. One day when I'm completely blitzed we'll dive into the deep end of this. But I've got a serious caffeine crave going and no morale to do so.
Reply
Leave a comment