Geezy Peezy,..will the gays and liberals EVER be happy?!

>>Oh really?

Please tell me which group does NOT want supremacy.

LOL It's like.. I'm not racist... I hate everyone equally.

"LOL It's like.. I'm not racist... I hate everyone equally."

>>I have stated as such many times over.

Ya know I luv ya right?

If I can personally change things so that all can enjoy on equal levels the misery and beauty of marriage, I personally would. But unfortunately it is still up to the populace to decide what is acceptable and what isn't...and this is where the problem lies. When one groups position out numbers the other the battle is a bit unfair.

Do I think the goverment needs to get involved? Absolutely not. I think the biggest reason why we have this kind of turmoil and division is BECAUSE the gov. gets too involved!

Yep!!!


"When one groups position out numbers the other the battle is a bit unfair."

Yep! Again, Constitutional Republic, not Democracy/rule of the majority OR minority.

"Do I think the goverment needs to get involved? Absolutely not. I think the biggest reason why we have this kind of turmoil and division is BECAUSE the gov. gets too involved!"

Completely AGREE!!!

So it would appear that some of the past injustices which were perpetuated by this institution have been addressed, but in a way which has perhaps "thrown the baby out with the bathwater"?

I think many would agree many "lifestyle" choices are not ideal and even harmful, but that it is just to allow people to make these choices. Further, none can honesty claim to live up to every "ideal" they could imagine.

There is another question. To what extent should individual choices be limited? The common is of course, they should be limited only in cases where the individual infringes the right of others to do as they please.

Now at one time, if woman "chose" to give birth out of wedlock she would be ostracized and excluded socially, so would the child. Though harsh, such treatment was meant to instill an overall "good". Because it was believed children should only be conceived in wedlock, for the good of not only individuals but also communities, the course of action was to punish and set an example for others.

Now from the mother's perspective, this is clearly unjust. The "choices" of others have certainly impacted her life negatively. From the perspective of the community the woman's individual choice had a much larger societal impact - one that if left unpunished or promoted would destablize that social structure.

Ergo, we have two side who in their own mind are just making "individual choices" but who are viewed by each other as over-stepping the limits of choice. So we have a paradox, Americans must be given the freedom to do anything they so desire so long as it doesn't affect others, but in reality there are very few instances where one's choices can remain "localized".

Pro same-sex views contend that just because they get married they affect no one else. Any action to prevent them from doing so is seen as infringing on their freedom of choice. Anti-same-sex views contend the opposite, that the individual choices made destabilize an existing social order. Any action which allows same-sex marriage is an infringement of their cultural rights.

The question is not "does gay marriage threaten the institution of marriage as we imagine it?" because it does. The question is whether or not marriage as conventionally imagined is desirable to retain at the expense of all other modes and forms of kinship?

Excellent post....so let me ask this question...

would life and society be much better if we ALL had the right to live true to ourselves and our choices without the populace influence?

And how would that effect accountibility if your choice harms you or someone else?

See many people want the right to choose their own life's path, but when things go awry and someone is hurt...they want the blame placed on someone or something else...they want outside intervention, they want anything else that would eliminate their personal responsibility for where they are at.

"The question is not "does gay marriage threaten the institution of marriage as we imagine it?" because it does. The question is whether or not marriage as conventionally imagined is desirable to retain at the expense of all other modes and forms of kinship?"

>>Philosophically, yes.. that is the question.

HOWEVER, this is not philosophy 101. This is more like Civics 101.

CURRENTLY, we are very damned close to being a democracy.. so therefore, the majority rules. Either become the majority and change the law or change the mind of the majority and get them to change the law.

Good luck with either proposition.

Well stated.

"The question is not "does gay marriage threaten the institution of marriage as we imagine it?" because it does. The question is whether or not marriage as conventionally imagined is desirable to retain at the expense of all other modes and forms of kinship?"


Good question.

I would often like to ask those who say gay marriage is destabilizing to society why they are not fighting divorce, domestic abuse, molestation and incest among heterosexuals (including those in the church) with the same fervor.

Excellent point!!

The majority once thought that women shouldn't vote. Does that make it right? I don't feel that because the majority feels a certain way, that it is either right or that is the way it should be. Black people were segregated until they made huge protests and FORCED people to give them the rights entitled to them by being a human being. Currently we are starting to see the same from homosexuals. No minority group wants special rights, they just want equal rights. Those that opposite such things consider it 'superior' rights.

I think the gays damaged their chances in California because they weren't satisfied with just obtaining legal status to marry. They made it very clear that they also wanted gay rights to be taught in our schools. They seemed to get a little pushy and demand too much. By doing this I think they lost Prop 8.

Many liberals I talked to about Prop 8 voted yes because of the fear of gay rights (including marriage) being taught in the schools. If that danger had not been present I know of many who would have voted against Prop 8.

I feel controversial subjects should be kept out of our K-12 schools. And that goes for things such as Al Gore's version of global warming also. It should be up to parents to teach moral issues and unproven issues at home as they see fit. The schools need to concentrate on the three R's!

So it is my opinion, that yes, the gay rights activists were trying to infringe on the lives of families with children in school.

These types of issues do not belong in our schools other than as part of history but without taking sides.

And Obama should be able to choose whomever he wants as the pastor at his inauguration. No other group is questioning his choice of his pastor and other groups that could are in much larger numbers than gays in this country such as some of the various church demoninations. It is just downright petty!

If the gays are whining this much about such a small item I hate to think of what they would have whined about if McCain/Palin had gotten elected.

I think this is a very important question, because it lies very close to the heart of animosity felt between "liberals" and "conservatives".

I am no fan of the dominant "neo-liberal" framework - which I do believe can be cruel and quite inhumane in many instances. However, I am loathe reject the merit of the basic argument that citizens (individual and collective) should assume more responsibility for their own quality of life, rather than relying on state-government (of course problems do arise when government vacates areas of life where it is indeed necessary and useful)

I don't see how people can become empowered in any sense of the word without accepting responsibility for their actions - which includes not only how their actions affect themselves, but also how they affect others.

Satre once wrote "Hell is Other People".

I think the major difference between liberal and conservative explanations is that liberals look toward "social conditions" and conservatives toward "individuals". However, its more complicated than that, because liberals often make arguments in favour of the individual as well, as do conservatives often rely on social explanations and justifications.

The liberal "fantasy" is the society absolutely determines existence. In extreme forms some even claim the very idea of an authentic human being is mistake. The conservative "fantasy" is that society does not exist. That there are only individuals who can do whatever they want in spite of all obstacles. And that individuals can only affect other individuals in a directly causal way.
Again, this does not change the fact that both hold self-contradictory beliefs within them.

What liberals often fail to realize is that even given "equal opportunity" not all people are going to come out "equal" to one another - that there are huge differences in quality of life that are absolutely affected by individual choice and character. All the fine tuning of social systems in the world will never eliminate failure and suffering.

What conservatives often fail to realize is that even with the strictest of discipline and self-control, larger forces (structural and natural) do exist as barriers to the "good life" and many of these can absolutely negate some very fine and admirable personal qualities. Further, those who achieve the "good life" did not so do own their own, but within a society. Indeed without society there is no "good life" to be had.

While liberals must struggle to understand that unfair social systems are not evil inherent, so must conservatives struggle to understand that social systems are not neutral either.

Historically, "society" or "culture" has been around a lot longer than " individuals" - indeed the individual is a very recent political invention, only a couple of hundred years old. Individualists of all flavors tend to forget and so downplay the effect of their actions on society and vice-versa.

That's the paradox. You can't express yourself without a community to express it in, and it's that very community that limits your self expression.

Bugger, no?

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 372008

Fantastic break-down of our society as it stands now! The thing is, you cannot please everyone, no matter what we do or don't do, accept or don't accept. One person's actions or choices will always find it's enemy counterpart.

It's how we deal with that 'enemy' that will and does make the difference.

If I were a prick, I might say something dumb like "Everything is Philosophy" but I take your point.

For clarity's sake, you are saying you can have constitutionalism or democracy but not both? Or that there is something afoot which makes the idea of a "democratic republic" no longer tenable? Or something else?

"For clarity's sake, you are saying you can have constitutionalism or democracy but not both? Or that there is something afoot which makes the idea of a "democratic republic" no longer tenable? Or something else?"

>>I am saying that the men who founded this country hated the concept of democracy but due to many factors over many decades.. we are now closer to a democracy than a republic.

A "tyranny of the majority" type situation?

"A "tyranny of the majority" type situation?"

>>Yes, exactly.

The word 'democrat' used to be an insult meaning something akin to 'one who panders to the mindless masses'.

Dayum...I like that!

Me fuckin too!!!! That rocks sinanju

"Me fuckin too!!!! That rocks sinanju"

>>It's amazing how history provides, isn't it!

The founding fathers HATED democracy with a passion. In my opinion, moving from state legislatures appointing Senators to direct election of Senators was the straw that broke freedom's back.

AGREED COMPLETELY!!!! I can't even believe how many people have no idea what a senator really was meant to be and that they were appointed!!!

Hell they don't teach that in school anymore! There are so many important moments in our history and country's purpose they no longer teach in school. :-(

My daughter was the only one out of a group of friends that even knew what The Constitution is.....and that's because I taught her!

Yeah, in the Fed. Papers Jackson or Hamilton or one of 'em tries to console suspicious minds by claiming there is nothing to fear from "real democracy" as the people will be too "factionalized" to reach anything like consensus.

interesting how today it appears there is no less conflict of interest between "factions" than before (hell, there is probably more today) yet somehow most insist on maintaining that there's a "popular consensus" that rules.

PERFECT! I was homeschooled; we studied the Constitution and early US history all year every year. :-)

We have to teach others the truth and why its so important.

372008,

Please name one "social system" in the United States which is "unfair".

That's what bothers me most about the debate. I am all for letting gays do whatever they want - government shouldn't interfere at all in people's personal lives - but this disgusting, archaic, outdated romantic notion is just so absurd. Why do gay people even want to get married? I don't get it. I respect that they have risen about the primitive desire to breed (procreation is the most perverted, depraved type of sexuality imaginable), but then they turn around and go for something so backwards as marriage... when are these queers gonna have the balls to just live their lives and create new, unique kinds of relationships? The whole monogamy, ring-on-the-finger thing is holding our society back. We need to look beyond and rise above it.

But this is America we are talking about not Iran. America is a Constitutional Republic and the Constitution guarantees both equality and freedom of expression. You can't extend rights to some people and not to others this is the point these rights are you universal. The problem with marriage is that although it is a religious institution it confers certain legal rights and you can't deny those rights to people. The way I see it there needs to be some form of Civil Union as opposed to Marriage available to Gay couples so that their relationship can be recognized by the state. It is completely unfair for instance that gays cannot visit their partners in hospital.

I appreciate the fact that marriage is at least considered a religious concept and if the dominant religion doesn't deem gay marriage to be 'marriage' then fair enough it's not but while this infringes peoples rights then an alternative like civil unions must be established.

Penal System.