Gay Marriage - a Conservative Idea

[Doug69]

> In

>other words, his position is not that gay people are human

>beings who therefore deserve the right to marry if they so

>choose; it's that they must marry if they are to become full

>(or at least moral) human beings.

 

Brooks' position is that gay people should be treated exactly the same as straight people with regard to marriage, and that society has as much of an interest in having its gay citizens enter into stablizing, moral relationships as it does in having its straight citizens do so.

 

Isn't this the foundation - the principle - of the modern gay rights movement? To eliminate the way in which the government and the law treat gay and straight people differently? I always thought so.

 

I know you have a different agenda - to alter the concept of marriage, to make all sorts of alternative arrangements equally acceptable - but those are items on some leftist agenda, not on the gay rights agenda. Those two agendas are not the same.

 

The gay rights agenda, at its core, simply demands that - whatever institutions prevail - they not treat gay people less than straight people. That must be accepted as a first princple. Subsequent arguments over which institutions shall prevail - the arguments you're apparently interested in pursuing - are part of a different debate.

[AdamSmith]

>barney hath never thaid anything

>eloquently.

 

It'th the thought that counths. Thtill...

 

'Barney,' says former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, 'is brilliant. With Frank's prodigious memory, combined with a zest for cruelty, he is a fearsome opponent in debate, one of the few congressmen who can draw a crowd of tourists to the gallery overlooking the House floor.'

[giovoni]

barney hath never thaid anything

>eloquently.

 

What's that? are those the Oxford English Dictionary spellings of has and said that you are always so fond colouring your humour with?

[theDCeBOY]

no, i was just making fun of his speech impediment. i know i'm a horrid person for it, but THAT annoys me even more than his politics!

[theDCeBOY]

yes, they do flock to the gallery... that's the only place they're safe from the flying spittle!

[giovoni]

>The vast majority of psychologists and social scientists,

>using reams of empirical data, have concluded that children

>thrive much better in homes where they have 2 parents who live

>with them in a monogomous relationship.

>

I don't mean to be picky or start a fight.. but I really am dubious of the claim that there has ever been a study that says children are raised better in homes with monogomous couples.. I do believe they are raised very well in homes which are not broken.. that is when they don't have to adjust to the loss of a parent. I wonder how they would do in an economically, socially and emotionally stable household with one parent. One in which they could live out their childhood without a huge emotionally shattering event such as a divorce. I also wonder if there has been any research into if they live better in a house with an open relationship.. I'm certain no one has ever asked, and I doubt many couples would be honest about it to a survey anyway.

 

Gio in Denver

[AdamSmith]

But it seems to me that the gay

>marriage movement wants the law to lead, not follow, changes

>in how gay relationships actually work. As I've noted

>elsewhere in this thread, Brooks's case for gay marriage is

>that gays need marriage in order to domesticate them. In

>other words, his position is not that gay people are human

>beings who therefore deserve the right to marry if they so

>choose; it's that they must marry if they are to become full

>(or at least moral) human beings.

 

Haven't liberation movements in the U.S. always been a contredanse between public attitudes and the law? Public attitudes shift, courts and legislatures codify those shifts, and courts (especially) sense an opening to push the frontiers somewhat ahead of broad public readiness -- integration, interracial marriage, abortion...

 

As such, does it matter why elements of the right may be newly willing to accommodate gay marriage? Forgive the logical jump, but back to my previous point that perhaps the power of those in control of public social constructions is not as great as New Historicist interpretations would have it. Instead, is this a chance to leap inside the system, so as to subvert its authority from within? -- Almost always a more pragmatic strategem than assault from without. E.g., MLK over Malcolm X; or Renaissance ur-feminist literary examples; or the Provencal troubadours who invented the mythos of hetero courtly love, while coincidentally from their own personal experience originating the forms and rhetoric of 'gaie' life. But I digress.

[Doug69]

>I don't mean to be picky or start a fight.. but I really am

>dubious of the claim that there has ever been a study that

>says children are raised better in homes with monogomous

>couples.

 

The hazard of these sorts of discussions is that one is faced with the equally unattractive options of either spending lots of time finding these studies or continuing to make the statement without the studies. I doubt I will look for them - but let me ask you this: do you think that children are better off with parents who have sex only with one another, rather than with parents who either invite others into their home to have sex or leave their children and spouse at home and go meet others for sex?

 

I think the emphasis on monogomy - when it's meant as "do you fuck anyone else?" - is a little misplaced. The reason that children do best with both of their parents in a committed relationship is because it creates a strong family unit where the focus is on the family unit and not elsewhere. It also avoids jelaousy, strife, and competition issues which arise from "cheating" entering and corrupting the family environment.

 

I think the important thing is whether the spousal commitment is one of a monogomy of intimacy - i.e., is your spouse the only person with whom you're intimate? - which, ultimately, is a different question than the one of: "do you ever fuck anyone else?"

[giovoni]

When did Dennis Miller join the message center?

 

Gio in Denver

[Doug69]

Paging Bluenix

 

>A little earlier today a fuse blew in my kitchen and study. I

>tracked down the cause to this sentence:

>

>[blockquote]>Indeed, is it not conceivable that precisely by

>>removing conventional marriage from the realm of forbidden

>>fruit for gay couples, more energy, not less, will be freed

>up

>>to conceive and enact alternative structures?

>

>You're teach college, don't you.

 

If you had any doubt about this, check out his latest:

 

>Forgive the logical jump,

>but back to my previous point that perhaps the power of those

>in control of public social constructions is not as great as

>New Historicist interpretations would have it. Instead, is

>this a chance to leap inside the system, so as to subvert its

>authority from within? -- Almost always a more pragmatic

>strategem than assault from without. E.g., MLK over Malcolm X;

>or Renaissance ur-feminist literary examples; or the Provencal

>troubadours who invented the mythos of hetero courtly love,

>while coincidentally from their own personal experience

>originating the forms and rhetoric of 'gaie' life. But I

>digress.

 

I hope that didn't cause any regional power outtages. I know that you found that Christianity post of mine to be droning and rote - and, as you may have noticed, upon review, I didn't object - but you have to admit: This takes the fucking all-time cake!!!

[Guest gentle guy]

Unfamiliar with that research

 

>The vast majority of psychologists and social scientists,

>using reams of empirical data, have concluded that children

>thrive much better in homes where they have 2 parents who live

>with them in a monogomous relationship.

 

To my knowledge, what the research shows is that children raised in a stable, loving, one-parent family fare much better than children raised in a dysfunctional and/or argument-ridden two-parent family. I also believe that some studies show no significant difference between stable one-parent and stable two-parent families--when you control for income/financial stability. I know of no reams of empirical data that focuses specifically on a MONOGAMOUS relationship between parents.

 

For the record, I like the idea of gay marriage. :+

[giovoni]

RE: Unfamiliar with that research

 

>specifically on a MONOGAMOUS relationship between parents.

 

Dear god I really do spell that badly when I'm in a hurry don't I.

 

 

Gio in Denver

[giovoni]

>The hazard of these sorts of discussions is that one is faced

>with the equally unattractive options of either spending lots

>of time finding these studies or continuing to make the

>statement without the studies.

 

Believe me i know how much it sucks to look for literature in research journals.. I won't be looking either but it appears that you agree with what I was getting at anyway. It does get annoying though when people assume that stable = monogamous or that it means 2 parents. I think it can be said as gentle guy points out that neither is necessary for a child to develop well.

 

I doubt I will look for them -

>but let me ask you this: do you think that children are

>better off with parents who have sex only with one another,

>rather than with parents who either invite others into their

>home to have sex or leave their children and spouse at home

>and go meet others for sex?

 

If they invite others into their home to fuck in front of their kids or leave their kids alone to go get sex no. If you take anything into your home that children wouldn't be prepared to deal with or leave them alone unattended no matter what you're going out to do I think you're making a mistake with your children.

 

This is hardly a fair question and I'm sure one that certain groups would jump on. "studies show that children left unattended for hours so that their parents can go have sex with other people do better then those whose parents stay home with them." The more appropriate question would address whether children do better who are left for hours unattended while their parents go to the library do better then children who are left unattended while their parents go have sex. I'm sure there would be little difference.

 

>I think the important thing is whether the spousal commitment

>is one of a monogomy of intimacy - i.e., is your spouse the

>only person with whom you're intimate? - which, ultimately, is

>a different question than the one of: "do you ever fuck

>anyone else?"

 

Yes I think you're probably right.

 

Gio in Denver

[AdamSmith]

>If you have 2 candidates:

>

>Candidate A - advocates gay marriage but disagrees with

>you on EVERY other issue;

>

>Candidate B - opposes gay marriage but agrees with you

>on every other issue .. . .

>

>You would vote for Candidate A? That certainly brings

>"identity politics" to a whole new (lower) level.

 

Let me try again. If candidates existed and acted independently of their party (either party) and its enthrallment to its extreme wings, your argument would be eminently correct.

 

But this is the real world. From the days of John Adams until now, the earth suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away (apologies to Flannery O'Connor). Party members who act generally rationally across the board, such as McCain or Weld, are dealt a backhand blow by their party. Clinton's genius (flinch and bear with me) was to beguile his own party into passing things, such as NAFTA and budget-balancing spending cuts, that its own loyalists (read extremists) would never have countenanced under a less feline politician.

 

Here it is. Though you reviled me as a whiny liberal, if I recall, I detest the infinitely redistributive leanings of hard left-wing politics, most particularly as expressed in protectionist, old-Gephardt union-courting politics. It is vastly destructive of the creative potential of capital. (And a ridiculous pity that Bush is succumbing to the same blandishments.) But in the world we live in, the extremes of the Democratic party cause me somewhat less misery than those of the contemporary Republican party. If the Democrats deprive me of economic liberties, within their framework I can see how to claw my way back and even ahead. But if the Republicans deprive me of social liberties and enable a climate in which I can be tarred for who and what I am, I can do nothing about anything. You will protest that this is too extreme a depiction, but you know the social landscape, and you know what I mean.

 

(This is most particularly true of today's Rove school, for whom the end is simply raw ownership of power, without any principled philosophy for how it is to be wielded. The nihilism of that stance is arguably more appalling than the worst we have seen of either party until now.)

[AdamSmith]

>If you have 2 candidates:

>

>Candidate A - advocates gay marriage but disagrees with

>you on EVERY other issue;

>

>Candidate B - opposes gay marriage but agrees with you

>on every other issue .. . .

>

>You would vote for Candidate A? That certainly brings

>"identity politics" to a whole new (lower) level.

 

Let me try again. If candidates existed and acted independently of their party (either party) and its enthrallment to its extreme wings, your argument would be eminently correct.

 

But this is the real world. From the days of John Adams until now, the earth suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away (apologies to Flannery O'Connor). Party members who act generally rationally across the board, such as McCain or Weld, are dealt a backhand blow by their party. Clinton's genius (flinch and bear with me) was to beguile his own party into passing things, such as NAFTA and budget-balancing spending cuts, that its own loyalists (read extremists) would never have countenanced under a less feline politician.

 

Here it is. Though you reviled me as a whiny liberal, if I recall, I detest the infinitely redistributive leanings of hard left-wing politics, most particularly as expressed in protectionist, old-Gephardt union-courting politics. It is vastly destructive of the creative potential of capital. (And a ridiculous pity that Bush is succumbing to the same blandishments.) But in the world we live in, the extremes of the Democratic party cause me somewhat less misery than those of the contemporary Republican party. If the Democrats deprive me of economic liberties, within their framework I can see how to claw my way back and even ahead. But if the Republicans deprive me of social liberties and enable a climate in which I can be tarred for who and what I am, I can do nothing about anything. You will protest that this is too extreme a depiction, but you know the social landscape, and you know what I mean.

 

(This is most particularly true of today's Rove school, for whom the end is simply raw ownership of power, without any principled philosophy for how it is to be wielded. The nihilism of that stance is arguably more appalling than the worst we have seen of either party until now.)

[AdamSmith]

RE: Paging Bluenix

 

but you have to admit: This takes the fucking

>all-time cake!!!

 

Thank you. Too kind...

[AdamSmith]

RE: Paging Bluenix

 

but you have to admit: This takes the fucking

>all-time cake!!!

 

Thank you. Too kind...

[AdamSmith]

>yes, they do flock to the gallery...

>that's the only place they're safe from the flying spittle!

 

...and his popping waistcoat buttons. Still I wish more were like him.

[AdamSmith]

>yes, they do flock to the gallery...

>that's the only place they're safe from the flying spittle!

 

...and his popping waistcoat buttons. Still I wish more were like him.

[Flower]

Just as much as a conservative vs liberal argument, you have the well entrenched RELIGIOUS baggage that has to be contended with. Religion is paramount in making marriage an inviolate institution, with the words DON'T TREAD ON ME written so bold that politicians would rather eliminate social security than mess around with it.

[Flower]

Just as much as a conservative vs liberal argument, you have the well entrenched RELIGIOUS baggage that has to be contended with. Religion is paramount in making marriage an inviolate institution, with the words DON'T TREAD ON ME written so bold that politicians would rather eliminate social security than mess around with it.

[bluenix]

RE: Paging Bluenix

 

>I hope that didn't cause any regional power outtages. I know

>that you found that Christianity post of mine to be droning

>and rote - and, as you may have noticed, upon review, I didn't

>object - but you have to admit: This takes the fucking

>all-time cake!!!

>

 

Ah, so we see that AdamSmith is not just a Ph.D., he is an English Lit Ph.D. In my experience there is nothing to be done. He is lost.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I know you have a different agenda - to alter the concept of

>marriage, to make all sorts of alternative arrangements

>equally acceptable - but those are items on some leftist

>agenda, not on the gay rights agenda.

 

I'm not the one who wishes to alter the concept of marriage. It is you, who thinks the definition of marriage should be expanded in a way it hasn't before. I haven't proposed or expressed support for any change in the institution of marriage. But nor do I support continuing its state-sponsored monopoly on acceptable living/coupling relationships. And I don't see why, if others wish to pursue alternatives, that that should be such a threat to marriage, if it's really all it's cracked up to be.

[woodlawn]

>(1) You are conflating the term "conservatives" with "social

>conservatives," but I'm sure you know that they are not the

>same.

 

Yes. It reminds me of the way you conflate the term "liberal" with "social liberal," even though you know the two are not the same. When you accuse the mainstream media of being "liberal," for example, you are actually referring to organizations staffed by people who are liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues. That is why, of all the programs on business and the economy presented by CNN and other so-called "liberal" news channels, not a single one is presented from the point of view of labor rather than capital.

 

 

 

> Many conservatives -- such as those of the strain of

>David Brooks, or Andrew Sullivan, or even William Buckley --

 

>The conservatives who identify themselves as "social

>conservatives" constitute a small but vocal and active

>minority-subset of conservatives.

 

A minority they may or may not be, but Buckley is definitely one of them. I have seen him argue against the exclusion of religion from public schools on several occasions.

 

>What is dishonest is

>for you to pretend that all conservatives espouse the views of

>the "Christian Right." They do not, and I believe you know

>this.

 

 

Let us know when you plan to stop pretending that everyone who holds liberal positions on social issues but conservative positions on economic issues is a "liberal."

[woodlawn]

>The hazard of these sorts of discussions is that one is faced

>with the equally unattractive options of either spending lots

>of time finding these studies or continuing to make the

>statement without the studies.

 

Well, that's the problem that arises when you make shit up -- like referring to the opinions of "the vast majority" of social scientists when the truth is you haven't actually read the opinions of the vast majority or even of a sizable minority on this subject. If you had actually read any of the studies you claim exist, it wouldn't be any trouble for you to describe them. Instead, your habit is to claim your opinion is supported by lots of "studies" when in truth you have no idea whether it is or not. When someone calls you on it, you often cop out with the words "I won't do research for you." That's what you said when Miamilooker asked you to name a few of the "many" studies you claim prove that prostitution often does harm to young people who are involved in it.

 

If you want to imbue your opinions with a scholarly aura, FIRST find out whether there really is any scholarship that supports them and THEN state that they are supported by scholarship.

 

 

>I think the emphasis on monogomy - when it's meant as "do you

>fuck anyone else?" - is a little misplaced.

 

I'm not sure about that. The one study I have read about that would bear on the issue -- and I will go look it up if anyone wants me to -- is a multi-year study that focused on children whose parents were divorced early in their lives. If I remember correctly, the study's authors concluded that children who come from such homes find it much more difficult to believe that they will be able to have a committed relationship with another person.