fucking prop 8

[patternoverlap]

Yeah, sorry PBN, I read that entire article, and what I got from it was a bunch of antiquated concepts and (frankly) sexist bullshit. Just so you don't think I'm making sweeping generalizations, I'll even quote the parts I'm referring to:

 

This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)--these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers.

 

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined.

 

Additionally, I find it offensive that you would lump everyone that doesn't agree with your antiquated notion of how society should function together into one group of "relativism," "groupthink," "nihilism."

[Guest grue]

Additionally, I find it offensive that you would lump everyone that doesn't agree with your antiquated notion of how society should function together into one group of "relativism," "groupthink," "nihilism."

 

I don't want to get involved in the gay marriage stuff, but let me just point out that he never said that people who disagree with him are relativists or nihilists or whatever. If you look at what he said, he claimed that certain beliefs -- which might, with some accuracy, be called relativism or nihilism -- tend to be disproportionately prevalent among members of a certain age-(and cultural and socioeconomic) group. As someone who spends a lot of time interacting with and teaching members of that group, I think he is mostly right about that claim; people in that group do have a tendency to say that it is absurd to claim that certain ways of living, certain forms of social or economic arrangement, and so on, are objectively better than others -- that is, they endorse some version of relativism.

 

Now sometimes it is best not to take them at face value; a lot of them are just sliding between the uncontroversial claim that people should be entitled to hold whatever opinions they want and the relativist claim that all opinions are equally accurate or plausible. Similarly, a lot of them are just using relativist language as a way to express humility about a subject (which they really shouldn't do, but that is just a case of misused language), without actually holding relativist positions. But, on the whole, this kind of relativism is very common and in many cases it is very unreflective -- it is assumed as a kind of unquestionable starting point in their reasoning and challenges to it are dismissed without much consideration. Perhaps PBN is being unfair in accusing so many people of this, but I can understand his frustration and if you're not looking for it, it is easy to miss how prevalent it really is.

[awepittance]

it's rather egotistical and to act as if one is separate from any sort of relativistic beliefs. I find this particular line of discussion just a way of side tracking what was an inquiry into why PBN personally believes the way he does, not why an author of a weekly standard article believes what he does.

 

it just seems like an attempt to pour convoluted academic rationalization on top of what so far seems like a base emotional feeling. which i find often members of Watmm do when they emotionally react to something, ala PBN's reaction to the movie Antichrist. The movie offended him on an emotional level and as a result tried to rationalize academically why. and when i or others accused him of being too sensitive we were met with 'you are a typical young person relativist' (in so many words).

I think it's dishonest to hide behind this critique of 'relativism' in order to not express your own personal feelings on why you don't give a shit about gay marriage or not

I am personally very interested in hearing PBN talk about his own experiences being raised by gay men and why he may have come to the conclusion gay marriage doesnt work or should not exist.

[Guest grue]

it's rather egotistical and to act as if one is separate from any sort of relativistic beliefs. I find this particular line of discussion just a way of side tracking what was an inquiry into why PBN personally believes the way he does, not why an author of a weekly standard article believes what he does.

 

it just seems like an attempt to pour convoluted academic rationalization on top of what is a base emotional feeling. which i find often members of Watmm do when they emotionally react to something, ala PBN's reaction to the movie Antichrist. The movie offended him on an emotional level and as a result tried to rationalize academically why. and when i or others accused him of being too sensitive we were met with 'you are a typical young person relativist' (in so many words).

I think it's dishonest to hide behind this critique of 'relativism' in order to not express your own personal feelings on why you don't give a shit about gay marriage or not

I am personally very interested in hearing PBN talk about his own experiences being raised by gay men and why he may have come to the conclusion gay marriage doesnt work or should not exist.

 

I'm not going to speculate about why PBN holds the beliefs he does or why he brought up the topic of relativism, but let me respond to a few of your points.

 

I agree that everyone's beliefs are influenced by their culture, in the sense that what beliefs I, for instance, happen to hold and which claims I happen to find plausible depends, to some extent, on my upbringing. The mistake is to think that anything concerning the truth of those beliefs follows from that influence. What beliefs I hold is influenced by my culture, but whether they are true does not depend on my culture. It's the second claim that PBN (I think) and I are objecting to, and it's the second claim which is unusually prevalent among certain kinds of people (though I'm not claiming that you or anyone else in particular holds it).

 

So, although it might be egotistical to think that one's beliefs are in no way influenced by one's culture, I don't see how it is egotistical to think that the truth of one's beliefs does not depend on one's culture (or whatever). For instance, the fact that I believe that the Earth is round instead of flat depends in many ways on my culture, but whether that belief is true doesn't depend on my culture, or on what I or anyone else believes -- it would be true even if our culture unanimously held it to be false. What reason is there for thinking that the moral case is different? Why not think that there really are facts to be discovered about right and wrong?

 

Of course, given that people's beliefs are influenced by their culture it would be egotistical and shortsighted to hold onto one's beliefs without first examining them, in order to try and screen off whatever biases might be present in them, but we have various methods for doing this and at the end of the day all one can do is adopt those beliefs that seem most plausible in light of the evidence. At that point, I don't see what's wrong with thinking that one is objectively correct about whatever issue is at stake, so long as one isn't dogmatic about it and will respond to counterarguments and new evidence with an open mind.

 

In many ways, it is relativism that is more egotistical; it provides a rationale for ignoring all counterarguments and evidence; it gives one reason to retain whatever biased beliefs one holds because those beliefs are true relative to something or other; and so on.

[awepittance]

oing this and at the end of the day all one can do is adopt those beliefs that seem most plausible in light of the evidence. At that point, I don't see what's wrong with thinking that one is objectively correct about whatever issue is at stake, so long as one isn't dogmatic about it and will respond to counterarguments and new evidence with an open mind.

 

it just seems like a means of escape from a debate to all of the sudden take some sort of philosophical acamdeic high ground (imo this is what is done when immediately gravitating towards compartmentalizing someone's beliefs in a box without first arguing against them) and not really personally respond to counter arguments before doing so.

[Guest catsonearth]

What reason is there for thinking that the moral case is different? Why not think that there really are facts to be discovered about right and wrong?

 

because right and wrong are complete constructs of human culture whereas the shape of a planet is going to be the same for any creature with the ability to perceive space in 3-dimensions. there is no absolute right or wrong therefore there can be no facts discovered about them. they're abstract concepts created to maintain a social structure.

example, there are insects that consume their sexual partners as soon as they're done with them. in our human culture this is considered wrong, it's considered murder, but to the insect culture it's as natural a process as anything else. it's an accepted part of their culture. it's just what they do, so it can't possibly be wrong.

[Guest fox]

i don't really understand why the voters got to decide on this in the first place. why not ask them if we should sacrafice jews? to ask them and they say 'no'. to then turn around and say actually thats illegal seems bizarre (obv that didnt happen though)

 

exactly. it shouldn't have even been allowed to go to a vote. anyone with half a brain can see the implications and see straight away that it's unconstitutional. you can't single out groups and deny them access to certain rights because you don't like something innate about them. it's as simple as that.

 

wait a minute. if the voters don't get to decide then who does? just because you don't like or agree with the conclusion they came to doesn't mean democracy itself is the problem. if the voters don't get a voice then its a dictatorship.

 

yes, but we've already firmly established that it's against the constitution to strip any individual of their rights, so even proposing an amendment like this is by nature illegal according to the laws of this country.

 

a) the constitution can strip people of their rights, and has been used to do so - but only when it is legally amended to do so.

 

b) for rights to be stripped from someone, they have to have that right in the first place. so where did the right to gay marriage come from? who invested those individuals with that right, or did they assert it themselves? a constitution defines what rights are reserved to individuals, and what rights individuals give up to their government. if the people of the state of california say that they are not willing to invest homosexuals with the right to marry, that's their decision.

 

you say you are for more freedom (and i'm not trying to imply otherwise, really) but remember that the people of california have the right and the freedom to disagree with you, even if they are wrong by your moral standards.

 

people have the right to think whatever the hell they want to think, even if i don't agree with it, but there's a big difference between thinking and acting. people don't have the right to do whatever they think. there are laws that were created to protect you and i from being oppressed or discriminated against based on what other people think.

 

yes but these laws are unevenly applied, and in fact constitutional amendments (US) have been passed limits the rights of certain groups, and these are still in effect and are used actively by our government. people once had the right to 100% of the fruits of their labor in this country. now you can soak the rich and a whole host of class-warriors will cheer you. that right is no longer recognized for that minority. we have to be careful, as i sorta said above, when using the word "minority." in its technical sense everyone is part of some (in fact many) minority. when we start picking and choosing groups (even with the best intentions) to favor or invest with previously unheld rights we have to be very careful

 

it has nothing to do with denying people their right to vote on issues because it's not legal to even vote on something like this. just because someone hates black people and can recruit a substantial group of ignorant bastards to agree with them doesn't mean they have the right to then write discrimination against black people into our state constitution. it's just not the way things are supposed to work here.

 

my orignial post was in response to two posters who did think that an issue of this magnitude should not have been left to the voters, that's why i was mentioning it. i think that thread of conversation got lost by the time you posted your reply.

 

secondly, being able to recruit "a substantial group of ignorant bastards to agree" with you does, by california constitutional standards, give you the right to do whatever you want. you want a law mandating everyone to own a lemur with a fake mustache, if you can get enough californians to think its important enough for an amendment, you're in. your (or my) standards of right and wrong or decency do not define the limits of what is just under the constitution of the state of california

 

also someone said that no law has specifically said that it must be man-woman to be marriage, as if that proved that marriage was, until recently, open to anyone. the reason laws never said it is because the framers of those laws did not think it needed to be said, for the same reason they did not include the man-dog and woman-tree contingencies (and no, i am not equating homosexuality with bestiality or sex with trees, i'm just exaggerating to make a point)

[Guest grue]

What reason is there for thinking that the moral case is different? Why not think that there really are facts to be discovered about right and wrong?

 

because right and wrong are complete constructs of human culture ... there is no absolute right or wrong therefore there can be no facts discovered about them. they're abstract concepts created to maintain a social structure.

 

This isn't a reason to be a relativist, it is just a statement of the relativist's view. Why do you think right and wrong are constructs of human culture? Of course, the words "right" and "wrong," their meaning, and so on, are constructs of human culture, but the same is true of the word "round," of geometry as a science, and so on. Yet the facts about what is round, the properties of shapes, are not constructs of human culture. Something real in the world answers to our geometrical words and concepts; why not think that something real in the world answers to our moral concepts, and that some people might be correct (and others incorrect) about how?

 

The insect case is difficult because insects don't have beliefs about what is right and wrong (I assume), but that's beside the point. All the example shows is that different cultures hold different beliefs about what is right and wrong. No one is disputing that claim. What it doesn't show is that both of these conflicting opinions are equally correct. From the fact that people disagree about some claim x it doesn't follow that there are no objective facts about whether x, or about which of the people is right, or that their opinions are equally correct; some cultures have thought that the earth is flat (and they had what they thought was compelling evidence for their view and against ours), but that doesn't mean that their opinion is as plausible as ours on that matter.

[awepittance]

so does anyone know people who got married when gay marriage was legal in California ?

it must be weird to the segment of gays to be legally married and know a lot of people who can't do it now.

I have some friends who didn't bother to because they figured the law wouldn't stay, but in an odd way it did but only for those who got married in a certain time window. Sorry if this has already been mentioned in this thread, i don't remember anyone bringing up this aspect yet.

 

[Guest catsonearth]

yes but these laws are unevenly applied, and in fact constitutional amendments (US) have been passed limits the rights of certain groups, and these are still in effect and are used actively by our government. people once had the right to 100% of the fruits of their labor in this country. now you can soak the rich and a whole host of class-warriors will cheer you. that right is no longer recognized for that minority. we have to be careful, as i sorta said above, when using the word "minority." in its technical sense everyone is part of some (in fact many) minority. when we start picking and choosing groups (even with the best intentions) to favor or invest with previously unheld rights we have to be very careful.

 

i'm not really seeing the connection between civil rights (ie someone saying such and such person can't do this because of who they are) and your example of wage taxation (which doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, just imposes a fee for choosing to do certain things). imposing a wage tax doesn't prohibit anyone from working or earning money, it simply says that if you choose to do this, you'll also have to do this as a condition, which is no different than making someone apply for permits in order to open up a business or something like that.

 

my orignial post was in response to two posters who did think that an issue of this magnitude should not have been left to the voters, that's why i was mentioning it. i think that thread of conversation got lost by the time you posted your reply.

 

secondly, being able to recruit "a substantial group of ignorant bastards to agree" with you does, by california constitutional standards, give you the right to do whatever you want. you want a law mandating everyone to own a lemur with a fake mustache, if you can get enough californians to think its important enough for an amendment, you're in. your (or my) standards of right and wrong or decency do not define the limits of what is just under the constitution of the state of california

 

no, i was one of the people who originally said that people shouldn't have been allowed to vote on prop. 8. not because of the magnitude of the issue, but simply because it goes against the principles this country was founded on and shouldn't have been even allowed on the ballot. regardless of whether or not california's state constitution is able to be amended by vote does not mean that it can be amended to say anything that is popular enough, even if it goes against the constitution of the US. you can't amend the state constitution to outlaw free speech or to allow persecution of certain religions because those things are strictly outlined in the constitution of the US. it's a very different issue than something like drug laws, which are federal laws, not constitutional law and can therefore vary from state to state. the whole "everyone is created equal" thing isn't just a suggestion, it's across the board and no state can be allowed to go against it or else it means nothing.

 

also someone said that no law has specifically said that it must be man-woman to be marriage, as if that proved that marriage was, until recently, open to anyone. the reason laws never said it is because the framers of those laws did not think it needed to be said, for the same reason they did not include the man-dog and woman-tree contingencies (and no, i am not equating homosexuality with bestiality or sex with trees, i'm just exaggerating to make a point)

 

it doesn't imply that marriage was open to anyone, but that the benefits granted to a couple that decides to marry are based on a contribution to society (which benefits the government) and not based on anything religious or anything of a sexual nature. you're being rewarded (in a manner of speaking) for becoming a force of stabilization for the country and it's economy, not because you've agreed to exclusively put your penis into a single vagina. a man-dog cohabitation doesn't contribute to society in the same way, neither does a woman-tree, so this argument doesn't hold water.

[Guest petr]

i was out o f da country for dis vote on behalf of being frmo cali - i sorry

[Root5]

How the hell did a debate about prop 8 turn into a debate about moral relativism. This definitely DOES sound like an evasion technique. I agree with Awepittance.

 

Grue, do you have any idea what it is that makes statements "true" or "false"? A statement is true when the symbols of a sentence stand in the same relationship to one another as the objects in the nomonological world that they represent. So, to use your example, the statement "the earth revolves around the sun" is true if the earth (the object that is referred to by the symbol "the earth") stands in the relation of revolving around to the sun (the object that is referred to by the symbol "the sun"). That is pretty easy to understand. If anyone wants to know what the two objects are or what the given relation is, they can look them up.

 

But the statement "gay marriage is wrong" cannot be true or false until you can give some kind of explanation about what the relation "being wrong" means (or I suppose you could find another way for something to be right or wrong, but people have been trying for a long time buddy). This kind of moral objectivism is nothing but a blind assertion based on nothing but wishful thinking. Fuck G. E. Moore. Seriously.

 

Furthermore, what does that have to do with gay marriage. You can't come up with an explanation for how something can be objectively right or wrong, so you certainly can't come up with a reason why gay marriage is objectively right or wrong. The kinds of arguments people make for this kind of topic is to explain why gay marriage would be bad for us (society would fall apart, slippery slope, all of that). Calling people relativists is stupid because EVERYONE IN THE DEBATE IS A RELATIVIST.

 

Basically there are people out there who want to get married just as much as heterosexual couples, and they stand to gain as much from it as heterosexual couples, and there is no reason not to let them.

[Guest grue]

How the hell did a debate about prop 8 turn into a debate about moral relativism. This definitely DOES sound like an evasion technique. I agree with Awepittance.

 

Grue, do you have any idea what it is that makes statements "true" or "false"? A statement is true when the symbols of a sentence stand in the same relationship to one another as the objects in the nomonological world that they represent. So, to use your example, the statement "the earth revolves around the sun" is true if the earth (the object that is referred to by the symbol "the earth") stands in the relation of revolving around to the sun (the object that is referred to by the symbol "the sun"). That is pretty easy to understand. If anyone wants to know what the two objects are or what the given relation is, they can look them up.

 

But the statement "gay marriage is wrong" cannot be true or false until you can give some kind of explanation about what the relation "being wrong" means (or I suppose you could find another way for something to be right or wrong, but people have been trying for a long time buddy). This kind of moral objectivism is nothing but a blind assertion based on nothing but wishful thinking. Fuck G. E. Moore. Seriously.

 

Furthermore, what does that have to do with gay marriage. You can't come up with an explanation for how something can be objectively right or wrong, so you certainly can't come up with a reason why gay marriage is objectively right or wrong. The kinds of arguments people make for this kind of topic is to explain why gay marriage would be bad for us (society would fall apart, slippery slope, all of that). Calling people relativists is stupid because EVERYONE IN THE DEBATE IS A RELATIVIST.

 

Basically there are people out there who want to get married just as much as heterosexual couples, and they stand to gain as much from it as heterosexual couples, and there is no reason not to let them.

 

I'm not really here to give a defense of non-relativism about morality; rather, I was just backing up PBN's largely sociological claim about the prevalence of moral relativism in certain groups, and then I responded to a few misunderstandings about what one is committed to when one rejects relativism. I don't know why you're being so hostile, but let me say a few things in response.

 

First, yes, I have some rough idea for how to give a theory of truth or a formal semantics for natural language; it is a lot more difficult than you make it out to be, but despite the crudity of your model, you are on the right track I guess, so we can work with it. I agree that the sentence "Murder is wrong" is true just in case acts of a certain type exhibit a certain property (e.g. just in case murders are a subset of the wrong things). That doesn't mean that in order for me to think that "Murder is wrong" is true, or in order for it to in fact be true, I am committed to being able to explain what, exactly, makes something wrong. I can't say exactly what it is that makes something red (and I assume most people can't; perhaps some physicists have the beginnings of an explanation, though in that case we can pick a more difficult example), but I do think that "Fire hydrants are red" is true, and that its truth is determined, semantically speaking, by the fact that fire hydrants (the referents of "fire hydrants") are members of the set of red things. Furthermore, I think I'm perfectly justified in thinking that "fire hydrants are red" is true and objectively so (if you think colors are response dependent, use a different example, like "electrons are negatively charged.") So, I'm not really sure what your point is. Yes, the semantics for moral claims might be the same as the semantics for non-moral claims, according to certain versions of non-relativism, but no, I don't have to be able to explain the meaning of a predicate in order to use it competently. Furthermore, I don't have to be able to explain its meaning in order for sentences containing that predicate to express a truth. "Murder is wrong" is true just in case murders are members of the set of wrong acts; not just in case murders are members of the set of wrong acts and I can explain what that set consists in, or in virtue of what murders belong to it. The semantics makes no mention of what I can and can't explain.

 

Maybe your point is that I haven't really given an argument for non-relativism about morality, or haven't given an explanation of what right and wrong consist in, but I haven't really set out to do either of those things and don't really plan on doing it here (sorry, but I don't see the point; it's a difficult enough issue in settings more forgiving than internet forums). My claims have simply been that PBN is correct about the prevalence of certain kinds of relativism, that many people who adopt such relativism do so for little or no reason and then don't really question it later, and that some standard objections against non-relativism are not compelling. Whether I can formulate a compelling alternative to relativism is irrelevant.

 

Second, yes, people have been trying to give moral theories for a long time; the situation there is a lot like it is in science, except (and this is arguable) that progress has been slower or less pronounced in moral theorizing. I don't see what the relevance of this is. G.E. Moore is ok, but he certainly isn't the only non-relativist moral theorist (I could mention Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Rawls, Thomson, etc., but there isn't much point in arguing over names).

 

Third, maybe your fourth paragraph wasn't directed at me, but if it was, then let me be clear: I'm not against gay marriage, and I haven't said anything about gay marriage here (except that I didn't want to talk about it). So, I don't know why you think I should be explaining why gay marriage is morally wrong. Similarly, I haven't accused anyone in this thread of being a relativist (except maybe catsonearth, but that's because it looked like he was claiming to be one), so I'm certainly not using those accusations as a means to argue against someone who defends gay marriage. I just thought that what PBN said about relativism in general (setting aside his claim about watmm in particular) was mostly correct and I think it is an interesting issue, so I responded to some comments about it. I can stop responding if people would rather talk about prop 8; I'm certainly not trying to evade discussion on gay marriage or to distract people from other issues

[awepittance]

don't know why you're being so hostile

 

you came into a debate about a sensitive topic, proposition 8 and then proceeded to type several page long critiques on the idea of moral relativism, i think it's understandable to react with some irritability. If you interjected some points perhaps on you know the subject of the thread maybe people would react better

[marf]

if there was no poop on dicks this wouldn't be an issue

[Guest tronicphace]

also, guys, let me risk being patronizing here for a minute, and warn all of you that there's a completely ridiculous groupthink among 99% of people under 35, like all of my high school and college friends for example, that the highest and only virtue is 'tolerance' --- i.e. relativism, nihilism --- whether expressed as a reflexive support for absolutely anything that can be possibly construed as supporting a 'minority' or 'oppressed' group, or as instinctive empathy for the truth claims of 'formerly colonialized people' (i.e., anyone who isn't a white european male automatically gains some sort of magical insight into truth --- hence the contemporary obsession with, among other things, the gnostic gospels or native american spirituality). there actually are values other than 'tolerance', in the liberalistic sense of 'everyone can decide their own truth and their own vision of reality, no one is more right than anyone else.'

 

all of the people on watmm, and just young people generally, really do seem to hold this in an extremely dogmatic and unreflective way. i'd just like to point out that maybe there are things like truth, nature, etc.; that some cultures that are 'better' or higher than other cultures, etc. the idea that 'everyone is free to create their own truth' is PRECISELY as culturally biased and arbitrary and weirdly dogmatic as any other view.

 

Wow, I think this is the smartest commentary I've ever read on WATMM. Young people are so anti-religion nowadays. It's a shame -- agnostics and atheists arguing over the meaning of right and wrong. Most of the essays, rants, pseudo-philosophical discourses, etc., in this thread are complete B.S. I'm also surprised nobody has discussed the position of the majority of Californians. It's more sophisticated than that large body of people simply being bigoted.

 

[takeshi]

also, guys, let me risk being patronizing here for a minute, and warn all of you that there's a completely ridiculous groupthink among 99% of people under 35, like all of my high school and college friends for example, that the highest and only virtue is 'tolerance' --- i.e. relativism, nihilism --- whether expressed as a reflexive support for absolutely anything that can be possibly construed as supporting a 'minority' or 'oppressed' group, or as instinctive empathy for the truth claims of 'formerly colonialized people' (i.e., anyone who isn't a white european male automatically gains some sort of magical insight into truth --- hence the contemporary obsession with, among other things, the gnostic gospels or native american spirituality). there actually are values other than 'tolerance', in the liberalistic sense of 'everyone can decide their own truth and their own vision of reality, no one is more right than anyone else.'

 

all of the people on watmm, and just young people generally, really do seem to hold this in an extremely dogmatic and unreflective way. i'd just like to point out that maybe there are things like truth, nature, etc.; that some cultures that are 'better' or higher than other cultures, etc. the idea that 'everyone is free to create their own truth' is PRECISELY as culturally biased and arbitrary and weirdly dogmatic as any other view.

 

Wow, I think this is the smartest commentary I've ever read on WATMM. Young people are so anti-religion nowadays. It's a shame -- agnostics and atheists arguing over the meaning of right and wrong. Most of the essays, rants, pseudo-philosophical discourses, etc., in this thread are complete B.S. I'm also surprised nobody has discussed the position of the majority of Californians. It's more sophisticated than that large body of people simply being bigoted.

 

I was just reading a study the other day about how religious affiliation has gone down a small percentage in the last few years (maybe some people realized religion can be used to justify things they don't associate with religion) but you have to remember that the United States is one of the most religious nations on the planet. Also, you might not take the position that "young people are so anti-religion nowadays" if you live in a state other than California or most large (cities) population centers. I'm not seeing the correlation between, what a few people seem to think is, a moral relativism that a group of young people "suffer from". Seems like this is overly simplistic and condescending and as someone here has stated everyone in the debate is a relativist, so there isn't anything to talk about other than why you believe what you believe. Also, the belief that all cultures and points of view have equal value is not the same thing as the belief that, in theory, all people should have the same rights in a country where all men are supposed to be created equal. Mostly though, I'd like to hear arguments as to why "Most of the essays, rants, pseudo-philosophical discourses, etc., in this thread are complete B.S." and how the positions of the majority of Californians are more sophisticated than simple bigotry.

 

Also, when you write things like "anyone who isn't a white european male automatically gains some sort of magical insight into truth --- hence the contemporary obsession with, among other things, the gnostic gospels or native american spirituality" what I get from this is that you equate the opinions or insight that a group of people, other than white males with european ancestry, could bring to the American conversation as almost a passing fad, like pet rocks or fucking Pokemon.

[lumpenprol]

The entire conclusion is amazing:

 

"Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system--a system from which you have been spared. If gay men and women could see the price that humanity--particularly the women and children among us--will pay, simply in order that a gay person can say of someone she already loves with perfect competence, "Hey, meet the missus!"--no doubt they will think again. If not, we're about to see how well humanity will do without something as basic to our existence as gravity."

 

amazing because he has a point? that a small and vocal minority of gay people insist on having their mutual sexual arrangement called "marriage", and that this has consequences?

 

 

truth

 

Amazing because it's complete sentimental hyperbolic horse-shit. You really agree with his vision of masses of men heroically sacrificing their interests to the institution of marriage? Please. I don't suppose it's because they actually love their spouses. He sounds like a poncy twee flamer himself.

 

It's interesting that you say you had two gay dads as last night I was reflecting on this thread and wondering to myself if your Christian leanings arise in whole or in part from being conflicted about your own sexuality. I'm guessing you'll say this is reducing your well-considered beliefs to psychobabble, but I think Awepittance and others are on to something here - would be interesting to hear how you think your upbringing shaped your beliefs, if at all.

 

When it comes to drug use you've been very open about how a nitrous overdose led to a big shift in your consciousness; I wonder if you could draw as clear a line between your own experiences and your beliefs about sexuality and society.

 

[chenGOD]

"Fire hydrants are red" can be proven true by measuring the wavelength of the light reflecting off the fire hydrant.*

We can say "murder is wrong" or "genocide is evil" because it is demonstrably true that other people suffer (ie they're dead) as a result of those activities.

We cannot say that "gay marriages are wrong" because we cannot demonstrably prove that people suffer from them.

So I'm still waiting to hear why PBN thinks the author is correct even though he's had personal experience that argues otherwise.

 

 

*Not all fire hydrants are red though....lol

[Root5]

Notably, no one has really given a reason why gays SHOULDN'T marry.

 

There is the claim that only a few gays want to marry and they are the vocal minority, but I find that hard to believe. It is also irrelevant. Why not let the vocal minority marry?

 

There is also the accusation that anyone in favour of gay marriage is closed minded for not doubting that perhaps gay marriage is objectively wrong, even though there is no way to go about figuring out how it could be, or why anyone would have any reason to believe so.

[playbynumbers]

Oh yes that's right, we're all just a bunch of deluded moral relativists. Now define "better". ad hominem indeed.

 

this is the oldest postmodern trick in the book; the point is that the whole framework of relativism can be rejected, though of course this is technically done through rhetoric, but once you get there, it's no longer rhetoric

 

 

 

most, if not all of them, would hold true if it were a gay or heterosexual marriage.

 

no, because almost all of the aspects are based on female sexuality and the woman's role in society

 

 

 

 

You grew up in a gay community and you thought (and saw?) that gay marriages worked as well as heterosexual marriage, yet you agree with the author of the article that gay marriages won't work. Why?

 

gay marriages would work just fine, qua marriages; the point is what it does to society and to the institution of marriage if you mainstream/legalize it. i'm 10000% fine with calling them 'civil unions.'

[awepittance]

It's a shame -- agnostics and atheists arguing over the meaning of right and wrong.

 

this is a joke right? I don't consider myself agnostic or atheist but i honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not due to the the ridiculousness of this statement. I mean if you really mean what you say you really need to the humble the fuck out of yourself

[playbynumbers]

I too am still waiting for PBN's own personal explanation for his stance of 'not giving a shit either way'

 

the article didn't really help me find that out. You say you were raised by 2 gay men and i am very much interested to hear your own opinion on why you don't give a shit.

 

i don't give a shit in the sense that my opinion means absolutely nothing, will have no effect on anything, and because the west is dead; it's shifting deck chairs on the titanic, and i just really don't care. i don't care in the sense that civil society can call marriage whatever it wants, and i'm not trying to tell them differently. though i do think that this will have extremely problematic effects on society in general, i just really don't care about society in general very much; the political is very unimportant to me.

 

as for my upbringing; the point is that it doesn't matter if you call that a marriage or not in terms of the relationship itself, but in terms of wider impact on society, it does matter (though again, i find it hard to muster much sympathy for society)

 

 

 

 

but then you refuse to really back up your own statements and continually point to a singular article written by someone else.

 

 

there are many, many things i've read over the last three years on gay marriage ... anyway here's another extremely convincing article, by megan mcardle. (actually i'd say this most closely matches up with my opinion on the matter, more so than the article i cited earlier).

 

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

[awepittance]

i'm 10000% fine with calling them 'civil unions.'

 

why?

[playbynumbers]

Yeah, sorry PBN, I read that entire article, and what I got from it was a bunch of antiquated concepts and (frankly) sexist bullshit. Just so you don't think I'm making sweeping generalizations, I'll even quote the parts I'm referring to:

 

This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage. Virginity until marriage, arranged marriages, the special status of the sexuality of one partner but not the other (and her protection from the other sex)--these motivating forces for marriage do not apply to same-sex lovers.

 

The first is the most important: It is that marriage is concerned above all with female sexuality. The very existence of kinship depends on the protection of females from rape, degradation, and concubinage. This is why marriage between men and women has been necessary in virtually every society ever known. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined.

 

i don't see how these two passages are anything other than, essentially, factual statements. maybe you would disagree that this traditional understanding should be carried FORWARD, but that's another issue

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, I find it offensive that you would lump everyone that doesn't agree with your antiquated notion of how society should function together into one group of "relativism," "groupthink," "nihilism."

 

certainly not everyone; but many. i'll go ahead and totally admit that the groupthink of watmm has been annoying me more than usual, lately, and i'm letting that bleed into other topics