My friend and roommate, Ryan, send me this email:
From: ryan kiwala
To: jamin@pubcrawler.org
Subject: What is a liberal?
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 01:18:37 +0000I ran across this article in the Post-Dispatch the other day.
I consider myself to be a Democrat. I do not agree with every plank in the party platform, but I find myself agreeing with Democrats more than Republicans most of the time. And, leading up to the election I felt that if the majority of working class Americans could see that the Democratic Party was looking out to protect their interests (both economic and social), the election would be won handily by Kerry. Obviously, that did not happen. So, I, along with many others who could be labelled Democrat or liberal, have been doing a lot of thinking over the past week. What does it all mean? Why do I consider myself to be a Democrat in the first place? Am I out of touch with the rest of the country? Should I move to Canada? How could the American people choose a party (Republican) that, in my opinion, does not promote the best interests of the majority of Americans.
The linked article gets to the heart of what the Democratic party and liberals have traditionally have stood for, and I think that it is still relevant today. I have sent this to you in the hope that you might post the link on your website. I think that for too long Democrats (as Bill McLellan argues) have let others define what they stand for (bleeding hearts, tax and spenders, in favor of handouts and entitlement rather than responsibility), and I think that posting the link to the article could generate some interesting and honest discussion on Pubcrawler.
In contrast, check out this article and the wikipedia entry for some background on conservativism. The reason I’m posting this is not to start a flamewar. The country seems extremely divided right now. I’m posting this in the hope that we can learn to understand each other. I found the article Ryan sent me interesting and I can definitely understand where the author and Ryan are coming from. Personally, I tend to lean more towards the conservative end of things, though I would not label myself a “Republican” or Bush supporter.
So the idea is, post your comments on my blog about what you think it means to be a conservative or liberal (for lack of better terms). Let’s make this a reasonable and not reactionary dialogue. Please exercise some humility and show respect for others. All of us are human and none of us have a monopoly on the Truth. And last time I checked none of us were omniscient. I don’t think anyone who posts on my blog is an “idiot” so please don’t label anyone thus. Having said that, come on in and talk about what you believe politically and why. If I get some good material, at some point I’ll write up an essay summarizing the views of both sides (if indeed it is as black-and-white as it’s made out to be, of which I’m not convinced).
Tags: Personal
November 11th, 2004 at 1:17 pm
One exit poll after the election suggested that the key issue on voters minds wasn’t taxes, healthcare and the war in Iraq but rather moral issues.
The average American appears to not support the recognition of gay marriages. Referendums held in 11 states confirm this to be a majority-held view.
It’s easy to brush this aside as extreme right-wing religion-based ideology, but changing what society has recognised as the family unit over the past many thousands of years won’t happen overnight.
Talking to people around here at work confirms this - it is fundamental issues (including gay marriage, abortion, euthenasia etc) that decided who they voted for, not the issues that the candidates concentrated on (like taxation, healthcare and Iraq).
These barriers will be hard to overcome because they are pretty foundational to the view points of both sides.
November 11th, 2004 at 1:49 pm
There may have been a time when the Democrats and Republicans stood for the content in these links, today however successful Democrats stand for placating the polls, thus they stand for nothing, and successful Republicans stand for NeoConservative.
I find it scary/amusing how far removed from traditional Republican values the last few administrations are. You can see the schism by looking at politics from the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s. Currently, xenophobia, large government, aggresive foreign policy seem to define thier platform.
Just as frightening to me, is the lack of conviction shown by Democrats. Listening to Kerry talk about supporting civil unions and not gay rights (which should have been a non-issue) made me want to puke. So did the mish mash that was his position on Iraq.
This isn’t directly on topic but… I saw this the other day. It was a very interesting take on the politics of day.
November 11th, 2004 at 1:52 pm
My thought process tends to stay away from the small details but on the larger picture. That being said, consider this as the difference between liberals and conservatives “generally.”
Liberals = Equality
Conservatives = Liberty
Thoe on the left wish for everyone to be equal, equal in opportunity, income, intelligence, etc.
Those on the right wish for individuals to be free to accomplish their goals free from government rescrition.
Feel free to flame.
./out and peace.
November 11th, 2004 at 1:54 pm
Speaking in terms of finances over the last 20 years or so, “conservative” presidents tend towards being fiscally irresposible, whereas “liberal” presidents tend to be fiscally responsible.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm.....e=0#table1
Below is shown the budget surplus or deficit (negative numbers) in billions of dollars.
Reagan
1981 -73
1982 -120
1983 -208
1984 -185
1985 -221
1986 -237
1987 -169
1988 -194
GHW Bush
1989 -205
1990 -277
1991 -321
1992 -340
Clinton
1993 -300
1994 -258
1995 -226
1996 -174
1997 -103
1998 -30
1999 2
2000 87
GW Bush
2001 -33
2002 -317
2003 -536
2004 -500*
*estimated
Seriously, that is some scary stuff. As a percentage of GDP, 2003 hit 5%. A deficit at or above 5% hasn’t been seen since… well, George’s father was president.
November 11th, 2004 at 2:08 pm
I think that it is somewhat irresponsible to blame or praise presidents as the sources of budget surpluses and deficits. The blame/praise should also go to Congress. The President typically proposes the budget, but this is just the beginning. All revenue bills, if you check your copy of the Constitution, must start in the House of Representatives, and then must also be approved by the Senate. I believe in fiscal responsibility, and I believe that Democrats believe in it as well. But I think that JPL’s numbers have a tendency to mislead one into thinking that the President is solely responsible for the budget.
November 11th, 2004 at 2:09 pm
Quote from the linked article - “I believe that society - that’s us - has a responsibility to take care of the less fortunate and those who can no longer provide for themselves.”
This is a huge difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals feel like governement (”society”) shoud take care of the poor. This is where the word “hand out” comes from.
Conservatives feel that government should provide an environement where people can take care of themeselves (education, hard work, civil rights, competitive and fair market, etc.). This is where strong families and morality come into play. A family should be the first source of help for the needy. Liberals seek to tear down morality and as a result tear apart families, so naturally the poor need to go to the government for help. Conservatives believe in self-reliance, thrift, hard work, etc.
-Max
November 11th, 2004 at 2:32 pm
“Liberals seek to tear down morality”… Max, where do you get that from? Change morals pehaps? Different people have different sets of moral values, or are you saying liberals are amoral?
November 11th, 2004 at 2:36 pm
In response to Max:
I think that you misunderstand the quote. Does Social Security have a tendency to destroy the family. Should we end the program, so that the elderly and disabled with no incomes will have to their families? Families that may be poor themselves? A charity that is totally reliant on voluntary donations that may not come in? Is this “compassionate conservatism”?
Conservatives today (and I’m sure many liberals) want to reform Social Security, but nobody would even think of abanoning it. This liberal “handout” is the safety net that keeps many of our nations elderly and disabled housed and fed, not an attempt by liberals to destroy families. That is the kind of inflammatory talk that tends to divide and mislead.
November 11th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
I agree with Ryan on the issue of Social Security. Republicans may want to reform it, but I haven’t heard anyone really arguing that we should eliminate it. It’s a program that I think is pretty important even if it could use some reform.
However, I do think conservatives tend to, as Max said, want smaller government and less money spent on such programs. A conservative argument might be something like this: take less taxes from the people, have smaller government with less spending, stimulate the economy and empower the people. Meanwhile advocating family/moral values and creating an environment where faith-based organizations and charities can thrive.
I tend to lean towards this view, though it’s a spectrum, not a binary switch. You can have smaller government with less spending and still spend on education, social security, welfare, etc. I think some of these programs are very important.
I also don’t think that all liberals “tear down moral values”, Max. There are a lot of democrats who are very religious and moral. I know where you’re coming from because there is a large, extremely vocal portion of the Left that plays fast and loose with morality and ethics.
If you read the first article I linked to on conservativism you’ll see in the second half of the article a list of liberal -isms that conservatives reject. But not all democrats or liberals adhere to those.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:05 pm
As a self-described liberal, I would like people to all have a reasonablly equal chance at success in their lifetimes. Children shouldn’t be unduly penalized because their parents made stupid decisions, or because they are poor.
Because of years of inequality, just saying that the same opportunities exist for everyone does not level the playing field. When somebody has to try twice as hard just to accomplish the same thing as someone else, that person is not on equal ground. If there is no help for the lower end of the spectrum, the playing field will never level itself out. This is not because of lack of hard work or determination, but because people putting in the same amount of effort on average will accomplish different levels of success based on their starting point.
I believe that being born into a family that is wealthy should not make you any more likely to succeed in life, except in the respect that your wealthy, hard-working parents might instill in you some decent values and determination to succeed.
Similar to how many conservatives pushed for foreign contries to just forgive debt to Iraq so they could rebuild and become an equal player in the Middle East (a big handout to the country who’s people are not really at fault for their impoverished condition), liberals want to see the poor and underpriveleged given some extra help when it comes to things like education, housing, and job training. Just to try to actually level the playing field.
That being said, I think this whole gay marriage debacle is just stupid and out of control. We should do like several other countries in the world. The State should only recognize “civil unions” for everybody. COMPLETELY SEPERATELY, you are free to get married in a church of your choosing. This church wedding is not recognized by the State, and offers you no state benefits. The state civil union is not recognized by the church. Then, only people married in a church are “Married,” and most churches don’t marry gay people, so the “sanctity of marriage” will not be ruined.
PS - Liberals do not “seek to tear down morality.” Liberals seek to not impose their morals on other people who may have different morals. Similarly, they are strong proponents of separation of church and state, and strong opponents of legislation restricting people’s rights based on morals.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:07 pm
Buck, I really like what you said about liberals and morals. It’s not that they don’t have morals, its that the morals are different. So when liberals tell the conservative freaks, “You shouldn’t legeslate morality” they mean, “You shouldn’t legeslate your morality, only I (a liberal) can do that.”
Sure, John Kerry won’t let his Catholic morality get in way of governing but he will let the secularist/materialist morality govern all that he does.
Well, in this election a conservative seems to be someone who votes upon their own morals, and a liberal is someone who doesn’t. Conservatives came out in droves because some long standing moral norms are changing and they feel threatened.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:09 pm
OK, I admit, I didn’t proofread.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:20 pm
Very interesting topic, legislating morality. I agree that all legislation tends to support certain values. For instance, Missouri just amended its constitution so that fuel tax must be used to build and maintain roads. Pretty mundane, but value neutral? Maybe not. Good roads encourage commerce in a market economy. So the amendment shows underying values of a believe in a free market. You can make this connection with any piece of legislation.
However, the 1st Amendment forbids the establishment of any particular church as a national religion. Congress, or any state government for that matter, cannot pass laws compelling church attendance, or punishing those who do not adhere to specific religious beliefs or customs. I think people can generally agree that those kinds of laws are repugnant to a sense of individual freedom.
The interesting, and tough, question is where is the line to be drawn between “normal legislation” and unconstitutional laws that favor one set of religious beliefs over another?
November 11th, 2004 at 3:28 pm
Social Security is a problem that neither the Democrats or Republicans can “fix”… it’s a ponzi scheme. Once it stops running a surplus (DC slush fund), then the powers in office will simply take more out of your paycheck… if it needs more severe changes, eventually severe action will be taken. That’s US politics, and it’s the way we’ve been doing things for a few centuries now.
As far as the liberal/conservative divide, it’ll stay regional and economic, not really ethical. Social programs get more bang for the buck by targeting dense populations, so those areas get the most money. Yankees will vote for people who bring in more money, hicks will vote to keep the spending under control.
It’s far simpler than the mainstream media, hollywood, slashdot, and sometimes even p.g.o would have you believe (or believe themselves), but the agendas run deep.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:35 pm
rahga, I agree. I always thought that for long-term programs there should be an equivalent of the Supreme Court making the decisions about them. People that don’t have to worry about getting elected. People that can do the right thing for life and only be removed on bad behavior. I mean, if the decision that has to be made is either screw people now or screw people later, nobody that wants to get elected is going to screw people later. That sets us up to get to the point where we only change the plan when the public gets upset enough at how we’re going to be screwed in the future. And people always weight the present more than the future, so that’s not necessarily a good course to be on.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:38 pm
I meant “nobody that wants to get elected is going to screw people now,” of course.
November 11th, 2004 at 3:48 pm
Actually, the Supreme Court and lower courts have looked and ruled on Social Security plenty of times. Since the scheme is known and understood, it’s been allowed to run its course… It’s just the “promise of Social Security” into the future that’s in question….
November 11th, 2004 at 3:57 pm
Right. I meant that longer term programs should be completely administered by longer-term bodies of government in general. I didn’t mean ruling on their constitutionality, but rather creating plans for sustainability of these programs. Perhaps congress could vote to keep or get rid of a program, but this other body would run the program. They would say things like, “The goals of the program state clearly X. The best way to do that is Y. Either do that, get rid of the program, or change the goals of the program.” I dunno. I’m just thinking out loud at this point. I think that the goals (short and long term) should be clearly stated, and then the program should work towards that. If it’s clear that it’s going to fall down without intervention, then either intervene or get rid of or redefine the program. None of this limping along for decades business where we know there’s a problem and not doing anything about it.
November 11th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
What you are describing already exists. It is called the Social Security Administration, and it works just like any other governmental administrative agency. Within the realm of Social Security, the administration has the power to create rules, execute them, and hear cases that come up from them.
November 11th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
But when the people making the rules and administering the program are not setting the funding for the program, and when they can lose their jobs at the whim of the administration, they are less likely to make unpopular decisions. The commissioner is appointed by the president, not serving for life.
November 11th, 2004 at 4:20 pm
I think that it’s fair to say that Democrats and Republicans alike are completely clueless.
Nearly everyone has completely forgotten or worse, has never learned, what America is supposed to be all about.
These days, not enough people question the reasons why we have a standing army. Not enough people question why year after year, there needs to be more laws. Not enough people ask why there needs to be government oversight on so many things that the public is perfectly capable of dealing with on their own.
Most importantly, not enough people are questioning why the government inherently doesn’t trust its citizens and yet expects its citizens to place full trust and support in it.
I believe that everyone needs to take some time out to read the Federalist papers, and the letters written by all the founders of this country.
It’s time people were reminded of what the truly important issues are.
November 11th, 2004 at 4:21 pm
To be conservative is to not be able to see things from anyone’s perspective but your own.
November 11th, 2004 at 4:35 pm
More and more, I’ve come to wonder if The Right uses “moral values” as a code for “traditional gender roles”. While I don’t think The Right sees oppressing women as a goal, I think they women’s rights as lower priority than strong families, while The Left values them oppositely.
I finally wrote up a post on the subject…
November 11th, 2004 at 4:43 pm
“To be conservative is to not be able to see things from anyone’s perspective but your own.”
That’s not a fair statement, anonymous.
1.) I am a conservative
2.) I am capable of seeing other people’s perspectives.
QED
November 11th, 2004 at 5:03 pm
Thanks for the article link, Ducky. That is by far the most thoughtful and intelligent comment that has been made.
November 11th, 2004 at 7:21 pm
Ducky:
Unless you know something I don’t, the marriage issue isn’t about women’s rights at all. As far as government is concerned, a marriage license grants the recognizition and protection of a relationship that creation and development of families. Around this recognition, then all the other laws come into play, such as those dealing with taxes, estates, parental duties. Not to disappoint anyone, but women’s rights issues, men’s rights issues, happiness, etc. don’t come into play… that’s not what marriage is about.
The hurdle of homosexual marriage is that, by nature (btw, natural law is the foundation of the constitution), such a relationship could not produce a child. That obstacle is big enough to keep even Kerry (a lawyer) from touching it.
I am curious about your definition of “women’s rights” though… is there something lacking in the legal realm, or is it just a social problem where there’s not currently equal results?
November 11th, 2004 at 8:54 pm
Rahga: If the whole purpose of marriage is for the creation and development of families, should we outlaw marriages of the elderly; or the sterile? Of course not. So, the point of marriage, what makes it special, and the reason so many of our laws encourage it, must not be from the ability of married people to bear and raise children. What makes marriage special is the commitment made by those who enter into it.
Further, I think that you misunderstand Ducky’s point. If I understand the comment correctly, (and if you bothered to read the article she linked,) Ducky sees the gay marriage issue as another manifestation of the Right’s feelings about gender roles in our society. In that sense, gay marriage does have something to do with women’s rights, which have traditionally not been equal with men’s due to traditional societal gender roles.
November 11th, 2004 at 9:43 pm
Interesting:
The wikipedia article description of compassionate conservatism mentions “it may be that compassionate conservativism is simply the synthesis of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism”. Earlier in the article someone wrote, “Economic liberalism coupled with social conservatism is typically referred to as populism or fascism”. So, the next time you want to call Bush a fascist, please refer to the wikipedia.
November 11th, 2004 at 11:20 pm
Anon: Pretty flawed argument re: fascism. Fascism involves several things (also from Wikipedia):
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
* espouses nationalism and sometimes racism or ethnic nationalism.
November 12th, 2004 at 12:00 am
I hear a lot of talk of “coming together”…what does that mean? Liberals are supposed to make happy with plans to roll back civil liberties, repeal a woman’s right to choose, and the elimination of a sane distance between consentual relationships and the government? The administration talk is concilliatory, the actions are radical. Asking liberals to “unite” is asking them to surrender. Its not time to unite, its time to split this place in half with a rusty wedge.
November 12th, 2004 at 12:09 am
Since everyone seems to want to weigh in on the same sex marriage issue, I’ll give my two cents. Most conservatives and a great many liberals are against same-sex marriage because it denigrates the sanctity of marriage. Conservatives believe that the traditional family unit (husband, wife, and children) is optimal for society. Marriage has been declining over the years. Divorce rate is at an all-time high. The number of single parents is on the rise. Marriage is becoming less and less sacred as it is and it is leading to great decline in our society. If you add gay marriage to the mix you’re taking yet another chip out it’s sacredness. If any two people regardless of sex can get married and get divorced regardless of the reasons, what is the point of marriage? Marriage is becoming marginalized. If marriage is everything, it becomes nothing. It’s trivialized and cheapened. And Ryan, I have to say, that yes, the family unit IS at the heart of society. If we allow same-sex marriages, then why not polygamy or incestual marriages? Seriously. Why discriminate against those who want to marry more than one person or their sibling? What if someone wants to marry his cow? You might find this funny, but serious, why not? Why should we discriminate against someone who genuinely loves an animal and feels the animal has the same rights as a human. This would be a direct result of the combination of atheism, materialism, and animal-rights, all common worldviews. Where do you draw the line and why? And what if someone wants to draw that line in a different place from where you want to draw it? Why is your view more valid than theirs?
Bottom line. Our creator (and/or evolution if you prefer) has designed men and women to be together sexually, procreate and raise the children together as “one flesh,” male and female. Marriage is meant to protect this union.
All of my arguments so far have been purely based on sociological and pragmatic issues. But I also believe in the sanctity of marriage for philosophical reasons. I believe in God. I reject moral relativism. I reject what C.S. Lewis called “chronological bigotry,” that is the view that we’re “more right” because we’re more current and the views of our ancestors are “less right” on moral issues. I believe that what is right and wrong today is the same as it was a thousand years ago because God is unchanging and the souls of men and women have not changed in character. And I believe that God created men and women for each other, to come together and form a union for life, procreate and raise their children together.
This view is held by many, many religions. If you are not religious you are perfectly free to disagree and think I’m incorrect. But I’m simply stating my beliefs for the purpose of helping each other understand where we’re coming from and why we vote the way we do.
November 12th, 2004 at 9:50 am
Wow this is a huge discussion and took much to read through. I find everyone’s views quite interesting. Regarding gay marriage I never quite had a stance because I don’t believe it is my place to decide what is right for someone else. Having said that, however, I was refreshed to read what Jamin wrote regarding the subject and it made a heck of a lot of sense to me.
As for Social Security, I personally am worried about the program, not that I can say that I know the details and intricacies of the problem or have a solution. I, like many of my friends, think of it as taking care of our families (grandparents). It is unlikely that I will even receive Social Security when it comes my time, not only because of the laws surrounding it being that I am a teacher and therefore somewhat a government/ institutional employee, but because from what I understand there is a deficit and there will be nothing left by the time I am of age. I believe that if most of us had the option, we would cease the removal of these funds from our checks. Not because we want to ‘hurt’ anyone else but because the economy is so low and quality jobs/careers are so hard to acquire to begin with, we need every penny we can get at this point.
From what I understand the parents of my generation (baby boomers), had much better economical circumstances than Generation X (?) me, do today. I know people who have their college degree and make $9-10 and are “happy” to have these jobs just because they offer some basic health and vacation benefits. There are individuals with whom I worked at a part-time job I once held (and may return to) who have degrees and are barely eeking by because all they could find was an hourly job once traditionally held by high school students or college students needing money. It is extreamly scary. I consider myself fortunate because there is a tremendous need in my field, however, there is definitely lacking the sense of job security I think my parents held more during their 20-30 something years.
Basically I try to handle my own personal daily living, and hope for the best. But I think I can say this for a good majority of the 20-30 something populations that we are scared to death about what is happening in the country. There is a great need for change, and I think that something huge is just going to ‘blow up’ hopefully positively but based on the general directions of ‘things’ it will probably get worse before it gets better.
November 12th, 2004 at 10:14 am
Jamin, do you believe that people can be born gay? Or at least born with a tendency to be gay? If so, then why did God create these people? Are they not meant to find a mate? Why do they then have the desire to find one? If people can’t be born gay, then why would anyone “choose” to be gay? I was once speaking with a conservative that admitted both “You can be born gay” and “being gay is morally wrong.” That seemed counterintuitive to me, and he really couldn’t explain logically how someone could hold both of those statements to be true - only that he believed them.
And (this is for Ducky, mostly) liberals don’t necessarily believe in rights for everyone at the detriment to the traditional family unit or gender roles. Is the divorce rate higher because of increased women’s rights, or because marriage just isn’t as valued as it used to be? Does popular culture and the media play a role in how people growing up evaluate the sanctity of marriage? Does the materialism that leads both parents to work so they can have “the best things” while the TV and schools raise their children take away from the sanctity of the family unit? How can you assign a causal relationship between “increased women’s rights” or “the right for gays to get married” and a decline in the sanctity of marriage? Are there studies by neutral parties that I haven’t seen? Seriously.
And how does allowing gay people to be married alter the sanctity of marriage, anyway? Nothing that other people do can alter the sanctity of my marriage to my wife. It’s not like the church is marrying these gay people. I assume when people talk about the “sanctity” of marriage, they are talking about the sanctity before god, the holiness, the religious sacredness of marriage. Is this not the case? Is marriage somehow sacred in a bigger sense than religious?
I think all this “decline of society” talk is slightly overblown. Just because it isn’t like it used to be doesn’t mean it’s worse. I agree that a higher divorce rate is usually worse for children, and that’s where liberals and conservatives can come together. Why not study the actual reasons for higher divorce rate and try to combat that? Can’t we agree that that would be a good plan? And if studies show that spending less time with your children and eachother is the leading cause of children growing up not valuing the sanctity of marriage, we can agree to focus our efforts there. If studies show that children growing up not valuing marriage is somehow related to gay people, we can address that issue. I personally don’t believe this is the case, however. Maybe you do?
If people are allowed to be happy and not feel persecuted, and allowed the freedom to become successful, then I believe they will raise better children. Raising good children is not contingent upon having a traditional family unit or traditional gender roles. Sure, if it ain’t broke (traditional family unit), don’t fix it. But allowing other types of families doesn’t mean altering the idea of the traditional family unit. I traditionally celebrate Christmas with my family. Allowing other families to celebrate Hanukkah or Kwanza doesn’t alter my views on Christmas. I think all these people screaming about gay marriage are just afraid of anything different, that’s all. Different does not equal better or worse. If those people can be happy with each other being different than you, who are you to say your way is better?
November 12th, 2004 at 10:53 am
Ryan: While I mention the marriage and it’s relation to nature, I didn’t talk about outlawing anything. Just for fun… Yes, the elderly marry, but without the capability to create a family, is it in fact marriage? This is also a new problem, thanks to changing life expectancies… Anyway, the natural law argument is if USA decides to redefine the “universal” definition of marriage, then what we call marriage would not be recognized as such in the rest of the world. More or less.
November 12th, 2004 at 10:56 am
“Jamin, do you believe that people can be born gay? Or at least born with a tendency to be gay? If so, then why did God create these people? Are they not meant to find a mate? Why do they then have the desire to find one? If people can’t be born gay, then why would anyone “choose” to be gay?”
I honestly don’t feel qualified to answer your first question. I just don’t know. And I don’t really think anyone does. I do know that what a person becomes as they grow up is based on genetics and the cultural in which they were raised. It’s both nature and nurture. A person may become an English teacher, a policeman, or a serial killer. I don’t think you can point to just how they were raised or just genetics as being the sole reason for what they became.
I want to stress that I have said nothing about whether or not homosexuality is morally wrong. My only argument is that homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed, for the reasons outlined in my previous comment. I don’t think it should be allowed any more than incestuous marriage, polygamy, or beastial marriage.
November 12th, 2004 at 11:36 am
I know that Jamin is definately not a homophob. I may not agree with all of his view points, I’d be very interested if he can compile an essay from all of this! Are you really going to this, Jamin?
November 12th, 2004 at 11:49 am
Laura: I definitely want to compile all this into an essay or article. My goal is to summarize the viewpoints on both sides of issues in a fair way.
November 12th, 2004 at 1:08 pm
Jamin said, “My only argument is that homosexual marriage shouldn’t be allowed, for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.”
and in the previous comment Jamin said, “If you add gay marriage to the mix you’re taking yet another chip out it’s sacredness.”
Again, are you talking about sacred as in religion, or as in some higher sacredness? Show me how gay marriage actually reduces the sacredness of other non-gay marriage. I don’t see it. Surely you’re not suggesting that every marriage must be identical. Are you saying every marriage must be sufficiently similar? Why does a state civil union also have to be this way? A state civil union has nothing to do with religion or sacredness.
Jamin said, “If any two people regardless of sex can get married and get divorced regardless of the reasons, what is the point of marriage?”
I don’t understand. I am saying that civil marriage (call it union) and religious marriage are 2 different things. People can form a civil union in the eyes of the state and cancel that union at will. It basically just says, “I want my significant other to have property rights, visitation rights, insurance rights, etc.” It has nothing to do with religion. God does not come into play. Then there’s religious marriage. Gay people generally don’t do this. Most churches prohibit it. If you want to annul a religious wedding, that is a religious issue and is between the parties involved and their God. So the point of state marriage is to say, “I want this other person to have certain rights when it comes to my property, and certain benefits because we are so close to each other personally.” The point of religious marriage is certifying some kind of religious bond for life in the eyes of God. I think these are two completely different things, and can validly be separated. Allowing gay people to get a civil marriage in no way affects the definition or sanctity of a religious marriage.
Jamin said, “Marriage is becoming marginalized. If marriage is everything, it becomes nothing. It’s trivialized and cheapened. And Ryan, I have to say, that yes, the family unit IS at the heart of society. If we allow same-sex marriages, then why not polygamy or incestual marriages? Seriously. Why discriminate against those who want to marry more than one person or their sibling? What if someone wants to marry his cow? You might find this funny, but serious, why not? Why should we discriminate against someone who genuinely loves an animal and feels the animal has the same rights as a human. This would be a direct result of the combination of atheism, materialism, and animal-rights, all common worldviews. Where do you draw the line and why? And what if someone wants to draw that line in a different place from where you want to draw it? Why is your view more valid than theirs?”
Most of this argument is silly in my mind, because of the separation in my mind between civil and religious marriage. Most churches don’t allow polygamy, incestual marriages, or marriage to animals, therefore these can never affect the sanctity of religious marriage. Civil marriage to an animal is pointless because animals don’t have property rights, don’t visit people in hospitals, aren’t generally covered by health insurance, etc. I don’t see a problem with a civil marriage between two relatives, as long as they’re both adults. This doesn’t have to involve sex, of course. That means it doesn’t have to be “incestuous.” You might just love your sister very much and decide to spend the rest of your life living with her, rather than being a reclusive hermit. In that case, it seems natural to want her to have all the rights a civil marriage would confer. Polygamy is a little different because the laws right now aren’t set up to deal with more than one partner. But if a group of people feel they would like to give each other the benefits of a civil marriage, why not? It has nothing to do with religious marriage!
And why all the focus on gay marriage ruining the family anyway? Do people honestly think it’s a major contributor? Jamin, you think it’s “another chip,” but is it a major chip? Maybe we should focus on things like poverty and college-educated parents having to both work to make ends meet for the family. Taking rights away from other people just because they don’t fit your idea of the family unit isn’t the first thing to start working on.
November 12th, 2004 at 1:08 pm
Jamin: I think I understand your argument, and I would I like to respond. First, that conservatives believe that the traditional family unit is optimal for society. Perhaps they truly believe that, but I have a sneaking suspicion that many conservatives have more of an anti-gay agenda than a pro-family agenda. For instance, when Lawrence v. Texas (Supreme Court 2003) made state laws prohibiting homosexual intercourse unconstitutional, conservatives across the country were in an uproar. The case was not about gay marriage, but about gay sex. Now, I don’t think you must engage in homosexual conduct to be a homosexual, or vice versa, it does make it pretty difficult to be homosexual if the law prohibits you from even having sex. I’m not very sure what outlawing sodomy has to do with protecting the sanctity of marriage, so please enlighten me if you do. I don’t think you are against homosexuality (you have said so yourself, I belieive) but I do think many conservatives are anti-gay. Second, I think that your comparison of homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and sexual relations with animals is a bit unfair, and I ask if you would say those things to a homosexual. You ask why one’s worldview (supporting homosexual marriage) more valid than another’s (supporting, e.g., incestuous marriage). Unfortunately, that logic works both ways: What makes your worldview (supporting only heterosexual marriage) more valid than all others to the extent that no other type of marriage should be legal? Third, neither you nor rahga have answered this question to any reasonable satisfaction: If marriage is meant to protect the relationship of those who are able to bear and raise children, and if allowing marriage people other than those who are able to bear and raise children cheapens the value of marriage, why we do sanction the marriage of heterosexual couples who are physically incapable of having children. Rahga, if you happen to read this, I think that your comment that elderly people who get married don’t really have a marriage cheapens the institution of marriage more than allowing homosesuals to be married. I think the reason that we have marriage is less about having children (although I will admit that the child-bearing aspect of marriage is an important one) and more about society recognizing the certain commitments of love and fidelity to each other by those who enter into it.
November 12th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
ryan said:
“First, that conservatives believe that the traditional family unit is optimal for society. Perhaps they truly believe that, but I have a sneaking suspicion that many conservatives have more of an anti-gay agenda than a pro-family agenda.”
I cannot speak for the “many conservatives” you are referring to. I can only speak for myself, which I have done.
ryan said:
“Second, I think that your comparison of homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and sexual relations with animals is a bit unfair, and I ask if you would say those things to a homosexual.”
I was not comparing homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and beastiality. I was saying that if you make homosexual marriage legal why not other forms of marriage? If someone loves his sister, why should he not be allowed to marry her? Or what if he wants to marry more than one woman? Or a dog? Isn’t that discrimination against them to now allow them to marry? This is a philosophical question. If we’re going to change the definition of marriage, if we’re going to be discouraged from using terms like “husband and wife” in favour of “married partners” or whatever, why should we just look at same-sex marriage? Why not other alternatives? In other words, I am asking you to define marriage. Is it a commitment between any two people? Is it a commitment between any two people as long as they aren’t related biologically? Is it a commitment between any two animals (including humans)? Is it a commitment between any group of two or more individuals? If you’re going to change the definition of marriage, what are you going to change it to and why?
ryan said:
“You ask why one’s worldview (supporting homosexual marriage) more valid than another’s (supporting, e.g., incestuous marriage). Unfortunately, that logic works both ways: What makes your worldview (supporting only heterosexual marriage) more valid than all others to the extent that no other type of marriage should be legal?”
When I asked that question I was playing devil’s advocate and trying to show the problem with the argument for homosexual marriage. I personally do think there such a thing as Natural Law or Absolute Truth, if you prefer. As a conservative I reject moral relativism. And since we can’t all agree, we vote.
I’ve enjoyed the posts everyone has made on this discussion. I kind of suspected that it would turn into a “debate” which it has, but that’s okay. People are passionate about their views and beliefs, and that’s a good thing. My main purpose in posting was to get people to explain why they believe what they do. I’m hoping to take all of these comments and piece them together in an essay of sorts. I’ll be sure to let someone from the Left edit it before I publish and I’ll try to be as fair as possible.
peace,
jamin
November 12th, 2004 at 1:36 pm
anonymous: yes, I agree that civil unions and marriage are two pretty different things.
November 12th, 2004 at 2:23 pm
Quoth anonymous (and it would be really handy if you at least adopted a pseudonym so you could be quoted handily):
And that is exactly what many Conservatives disagree with, and exactly what they mean by cheapening, or destroying the sanctity of marriage. Where marriage was once largely considered a union in the eyes of God, and incidentally also recognized by the state, it’s now considered mostly a civil contract, and oh yeah, if you want a priest to notarize it that works too. That’s why there’s such a difference of opinion between civil unions and marriages, because almost no one sees them as the same thing.
Anyway, I haven’t posted my views here yet, but that’s mostly because so many of them aren’t that well developed. I do believe that we have an obligation to make sure people aren’t starving in the streets (social security), but I don’t have know enough economics to know how to get the country to afford it. Anyway, I’m sure there’s more, but I’ve rambled enough for the moment.
November 12th, 2004 at 2:26 pm
**The following will address the issue of God and Christianity in society. If you do not agree with either of these ideas, you will most likely not agree with the conclusions, but feel free to read as a philosophical exercise.**
“Jamin, do you believe that people can be born gay? Or at least born with a tendency to be gay? If so, then why did God create these people? Are they not meant to find a mate? Why do they then have the desire to find one? If people can’t be born gay, then why would anyone “choose” to be gay?”
In response:
Do you believe people can be born as pedophiles? Or at least the tendancy to be pedophiles? If so, then why did God create these people? Are they not meant to find a mate? Why do they then desire to find one? If people can’t be born pedophiles, then why would anyone “choose” to be one?
The same questions can be asked replacing pedophile with murderer, animophile, thief, etc.
I was born with eyesight that has gradually worsened over time. Does that mean God made me that way? Did He, with His mighty hands, specifically form my eyes poorly? When bringing God into the equation, the mistake comes in believing that He actively builds every single aspect of our psyche. If He did that, we would not have free will and would be robots. Again, when bringing God into the equation, one must also acknowledge the existance of Sin in the world, knowing full well that Sin has an effect on people from the moment they are conceived.
Science has begun to show that some people have a genetic predisposition to being alcoholics. Does this make alcoholism OK? No, it just means that some people have different personal problems they need to overcome to live their Christian life.
November 12th, 2004 at 2:56 pm
Jim (yes, the comments you were replying to were mine; I forgot to type in my name earlier), the major difference is that gay adults are 2 consenting adults. A minor is not in the position to give consent, so your changing “gay” into “pedophile” is not an apples to apples comparison. Nor are any of the other examples you gave.
Adam, why does having two separate things cheapen one or the other? I was saying that everyone, including the usual heterosexual couple, should be required to have a civil union in the eyes of the state. This is a piece of paper that you sign to get the civil benefits. In addition to or instead of this, you are free to get religiously married in the eyes of your God if you want. These are two different things, and one does not change or cheapen the other.
November 12th, 2004 at 3:06 pm
“Jim (yes, the comments you were replying to were mine; I forgot to type in my name earlier), the major difference is that gay adults are 2 consenting adults. A minor is not in the position to give consent, so your changing “gay” into “pedophile” is not an apples to apples comparison. Nor are any of the other examples you gave”
Sorry, no, you don’t get away with that argument. You asked “do you believe that people can be born gay? Or at least born with a tendency to be gay? If so, then why did God create these people? Are they not meant to find a mate? Why do they then have the desire to find one? If people can’t be born gay, then why would anyone “choose” to be gay?”
The inherent question involves *being born* a certain way, and using the genetics argument to justify a persons actions. The questions asked how God could make someone that way. This implies “How could God make someone a way that is sinful.” Therefore, the other examples are perfectly relevant to the discussion, showing that just because someone is “born that way” does NOT automatically justify their actions. You wish to discount all other arguments on the grounds of “non-consent” of another party. This ignores the (strong) possibility that there often IS consent and the fact that consent does NOT mean something is right.
November 12th, 2004 at 3:14 pm
What about this case in which a man desired to be castrated, killed, slaughtered and eaten? Consent was given.
November 12th, 2004 at 3:22 pm
I happen to come across this article from the New York Times (yes! I know a “liberal” newspaper). Anyways, it’s a good article, Ryan, Jamin, and whoever else would like to read it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11.....563fec3273
-Laura
November 12th, 2004 at 3:33 pm
I guess I think anything that happens between 2 consenting adults that does not affect other people is “okay by me.” That doesn’t mean I think it’s right, but it means I don’t have the right to tell them it’s wrong. If they’re both consenting adults, then they gave their consent, and it’s “right” for them. This means I don’t care about gay sex, beastiality, assisted suicide, etc. And why should you be meddling in the private lives of these people to tell them what they’re doing is wrong?
Sure, the question involves being born a certain way. And as long as you’re born a certain way, and you want to act that way, and it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, that should be okay.
Heh! the word “beastiality” is spelled as it is above because my original post got rejected due to questionable content!
November 12th, 2004 at 4:06 pm
Jamin, thank you for the rebuttal. You make some very good points. I’m not entirely sure that I agree, but I definitely see where you are coming from. Actually, in the whole scheme of issues that were debated during this year’s election, gay marriage is pretty low on the list for me. But, somehow, it just ends up being a lightning rod for argument. One thing I do not understand, and hopefully someone can help me, is why is there all the fuss about gay “marriage” if we are willing to concede civil unions to gay couples. If we allow civil unions for gay couples, and those unions entail all the same benefits that a married heterosexual couple would have under the law, isn’t that the same as having gay marriage? To me, it’s like having two apples (that are the same in taste, size, etc.) and calling one of the apples an orange. We want everybody to know that when we say “apple” we mean the first apple and not the second. However, it is plain to everybody that the “orange” is just another apple called by a different name.
November 12th, 2004 at 4:18 pm
“What makes your beliefs any more valid and stronger than mine?” is a value question, not a policy question. Just understand that most nations vote for representatives that value marriage (man-and-woman) and families over unmarried and alternative lifestyles, and have passed laws accordingly. On a factual level, that doesn’t make anyone more or less “wrong” in their beliefs… though it may put them on the shorter end of the stick. (Usually from this sort of thing, we get the grounds for accusations of government or political leanings being against rights of gays/women/minorities, etc.)
November 12th, 2004 at 4:20 pm
In addition to my last comment, I need to add: I don’t think this distinction about church marriages and state civil unions is helpful. Yes people get married in the church, and yes people who do not get married in the church can still get a marriage legally recognized by the state. But it is still called a marriage, not a civil union. When you go your local county courthouse, you don’t get a civil union license, you get a marriage license. Also, what about churches that do recognize homosexual relationships? Are those marriages in that church? Would they be recognized a marriage or a civil union at law?
November 12th, 2004 at 9:48 pm
Let me throw in a fairly libertarian idea here. What if the government was not involved in marriage - of any kind - at all? In other words, no marriage tax penalty, no governmental recognition of marriage, no government benefits due to marriage, etc. Now, obviously, there are a lot of unresolved practical issues (what will the divorce lawyers do?), but it’s an interesting idea. It doesn’t exactly encourage the institution, which both sides of the gay marriage issue seem to think is beneficial, but it certainly levels the field.
November 17th, 2004 at 10:23 pm
Read yet another opinion at http://www.pubcrawler.org/stephanie/. I’ll post my response to the same-sex marriage issue soon.