fucking prop 8

[playbynumbers]

Kcinsu has already pointed out differences between the rights afforded married couples and the rights afforded couple with the status of civil union. Way back on page one.

 

sure, the rights CURRENTLY AFFORDED are different; but that can be changed through congress.

 

 

 

I'm not quite sure how the teen-pregnancy rate increasing is the result of "left-wing" ideas, I think the whole "don't teach them about safe sex, but only about abstinence" method of sex ed is the reason for that.

 

no, it's not the abstinence thing (this is trying to close the barn door like 30 years after the horse has escaped; culture has changed). the point is that the sexual revolution in the 1960s, despite various salutary aspects (like i think tim leary had a lot of important things to say), really did break down basic aspects of society. it took me a while to accept that this was actually true, as my under-35 instinct was to assume that anything which rebelled against 1950s uptight republicans must be good. but actually, no.

 

 

 

I'd be interested to see how the increased divorce rate is a result of "left-wing" ideas as opposed to women realising that they don't have to stick around with their husbands who have antiquated views on a woman's position (which is certainly the case in South Korea).

 

dude, come on; the increase in divorce is not in any way solely attributable to "now men can't oppress women and keep them in unhappy marriages!" i guess this is just the reflexive liberal response? somehow blame it on oppressive males? the increase in divorce is due slightly to that, sure, but also to a decline in reverence for tradition and morality, especially sexual morals; a decline in focusing on the family, due to various factors (both parents needing to work, upward mobility, mobility in general; the detachment of sex from the family; birth control; and an increasingly strong culture of permissiveness and pleasure-seeking.

 

 

 

 

1. Equality in society allows for an increase in the stability and productivity of society.

When gays aren't busy worrying about if their rights are the same as heterosexuals, they will able to contribute more to society in terms of work, spending and arts. All of those are beneficial to society as a whole.

 

this can be done with civil unions.

 

 

 

2. A society where homosexual marriage is legal is one where the society will work to promote equal treatment for all people, be they women, blacks, homosexuals, Christians, Scientologists etc.

 

calling a consentual sexual relationship between two men "marriage" isn't a right, it's a category mistake. the definition of "marriage" really isn't just some arbitrary decision of society (this would be the basic assumption of postmodernity); in a sense this is the real point.

 

there REALLY ARE consequences to messing with basic human institutions; this is why wacky 20th century political ideologies tended to go very badly, for example.

 

 

 

The only thing I'm pro- is pro-human. I want humans to propogate and flourish, and the only way I can see that happening is through the promotion of equality for humans. Not the promotion of cultures where things are oppressed (like fundamental muslims or nazis (not trying to invoke godwin's law here...)or right-wing nutjobs) or the promotion of culture where anything goes. Rather the promotion of a framework or a set of laws which leads to understanding and equality for all humans.

 

it is not in any way oppression to say that gays shouldn't call their sexual relationships "marriages." this is pro-human institutions, and anti-radical activism.

 

at first glance it sounds silly to say, "well, if gays get married, then we'll call anything marriage! soon my neighbor will be marrying his horse! my son might decide to marry all 17 of his fraternity brothers!" but actually, if you change the definition of marriage, there will be legal precedent and there really will be no taboos left, on that front; any human being can 'marry' any number of other human beings, and the law has to recognize it as equally valid. there will be untold problematic consequences for all segments of society, and probably plenty of things we can't even foresee yet; many people have written on this, i don't feel the need to repeat it all here.

 

and again, remember, this is all just so 0.3% of the population can call themselves "married", in the eyes of civil law (they can call it marriage all they want, of course; the point is that they're demanding the government RECOGNIZE it as marriage).

 

(2) my belief in the sacrament of marriage. there are many arguments that are anti-gay marriage that can be made from nature, society, tradition, conservatism, etc., and i think they're good ones, but i'm probably a bit biased as well. yet as i've said the whole time; i'm not against gay marriage exactly, i'm just uneasy about tinkering with marriage.

 

why?

 

 

for reasons explained in the two articles i posted, and by myself, earlier.

[encey]

i understand, but the whole argument here is whether or not moral value exists independent of the human mind. we have no choice but to look at things other than human action as a way to determine that.

 

whether the analogy is perfect or not the intent is to show that our entire concept of what morality is is based on the idea that there is a way things should be - a right way and a wrong way and i'm saying there is no right way or wrong way because positive and negative are both categories that we create based on our own reading of the universe. destruction/death is not inherently negative as categorizing it as such is only taking into consideration a small piece of a bigger puzzle. does that mean that it makes no difference if you go around killing people? not at all...murder has consequences in human society, it has ripple effects, it makes people sad, so we try not to do it out of respect, but the fact still remains that all of those things are in our heads. they're feelings we have, not things that float around in the universe regardless of whether we're here or not.

I'm trying to point out that you are actually bringing up two different questions:

 

(1) Do moral values exist independently of our beliefs about them?

(2) Can we conceive/think about/understand/know about moral values from a standpoint independent of our beliefs and other attitudes (praising, blaming, valuing, desiring, commanding, etc.)?

 

These can have different answers; and here, the analogy to the natural world is apt. So, for instance, consider the molecular structure of water. It exists independently of our beliefs about it. Water either is H2O or it isn't, regardless of whether we believe it's H2O -- so here, the answer to (1) is 'yes.' At the same time, we can only come to know such a fact by doing chemistry, observing the properties of water and theorizing about its underlying structure, which we model and represent using the concepts of atoms, molecules, molecular structure, hydrogen bonding, or whatever. That is the only possible way we could come to know such a fact; we can't just grasp it immediately in thought without doing any kind of empirical inquiry or observation -- so here, the answer to (2) is 'no.'

 

You are suggesting that, in the moral case, just because the answer to (2) is 'no,' the answer to (1) must be 'no'; I'm suggesting that the case of natural science/empirical beliefs gives us a reason to resist your suggestion and opens up room for the possibility that moral facts are, indeed, true or false independently of what we believe about them, even if the way we come to know such facts must make reference to particular beliefs, concepts or theories we have constructed in order to gain access to those facts.

 

Excellent post. Let me add an additional complication: it can be the case that the truth of some claim depends on the existence and activities of humans even though that claim is objectively true and not relative to anything. (So, I was being a bit sloppy earlier). For instance, "Most people have ten toes" or "Many North Americans are able to speak English" are examples of claims whose truth depends on the existence, beliefs or activities of people, but they are objectively true -- whether they are true is not relative to anyone's beliefs or whatever. If people didn't exist they would be false, but given that people do exist (and behave in the way the described), then they are true regardless of what anyone believes about them (they would be true even if everyone thought they were false).

 

The moral case might be similar. People need to exist in order for intentional actions -- morally evaluable actions -- to exist, so the existence of value might depend on the existence and activities of rational agents in that sense, but that doesn't show that the truth about morality is relative to anything, in the same way as above. Intentional action as such might have, objectively speaking, a nature which brings with it certain moral values and imperatives. So that is another way in which looking at purely physical events, or a universe totally devoid of intentional action, might not be the best way to discover whether there are objective moral facts.

Thanks, that addendum is helpful to me. I always have students in class who raise points similar to catsonearth's, and I think that's the case because it's an appealing claim to make. But I always struggle to figure out how to cleanly sort out the different questions and issues that are sometimes run together in that line of thought; so this thread has helped me practice that some more.

 

Another friend of mine suggested introducing them to the sense/reference distinction, to show that the way facts are 'presented to' or thought about or conceived by us can depend on facts relative to our culture, history, biology, psychology or whatever, while it still being an 'objective' matter (that is, independent of those ways I just mentioned) whether the facts we're thinking about or conceiving exist and are the way we think or conceive them to be. ... That wasn't very clear ... fuck.

[playbynumbers]

well, you might feel uneasy about it but as always, the tinkering will continue

 

nothing is sacred!

 

 

 

right, i actually already said, my opinion means absolutely nothing; the argument has been lost, all 50 states will have legalized gay marriage in my lifetime.

[Guest boo]

marriage is kinda gay

[chenGOD]

I love it. The under 35 canard. I'm actually 35, but thanks for playing.

Abstinence only education does not work:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041301003.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/health/p...es-it-work.html

http://www.parttimepundit.com/archives/2559

Divorce rates have actually never been at 50% in America:

http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html

And yes, women started to earn more and realised that they were not just fucking chattel. This is not about oppresive white men, rather about men oppressing women in general (which is why I noted South Korea).

 

All that shit you posted about marrying horses and marrying brothers is not beneficial to society.

And if a civil union afforded homosexuals the same rights as a married couple, i think they would go for it, but it doesn't, as Kcinsu has pointed out.

 

[Guest theSun]

lol at people who think gay marriage = marrying horses.

[SCONES TO DIE FOR]

lol at people who think gay marriage = marrying horses.

I bet this was the same argument when they were legalizing interracial marriage.

 

Way to bring back some ignorant fallacies.

[playbynumbers]

Abstinence only education does not work:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041301003.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/01/health/p...es-it-work.html

http://www.parttimepundit.com/archives/2559

 

huh? abstinence has nothing to do with what i wrote, did you not read my response?

 

"no, it's not the abstinence thing (this is trying to close the barn door like 30 years after the horse has escaped; culture has changed)."

 

 

 

 

Divorce rates have actually never been at 50% in America:

 

this misses the point; divorce rates are WAY UP, if not at precisely 50%.

 

 

 

And yes, women started to earn more and realised that they were not just fucking chattel. This is not about oppresive white men, rather about men oppressing women in general (which is why I noted South Korea).

 

All that shit you posted about marrying horses and marrying brothers is not beneficial to society.

And if a civil union afforded homosexuals the same rights as a married couple, i think they would go for it, but it doesn't, as Kcinsu has pointed out.

 

 

right, i guess i'll just consider the discussion closed then

[SCONES TO DIE FOR]

I want to hear more about your raised by two gay dads story.

[Guest catsonearth]

shit, there's way too many different threads in here that i want to respond to...obviously i won't be able to address everything, but here goes:

 

sure, the rights CURRENTLY AFFORDED are different; but that can be changed through congress.

---

no, it's not the abstinence thing (this is trying to close the barn door like 30 years after the horse has escaped; culture has changed). the point is that the sexual revolution in the 1960s, despite various salutary aspects (like i think tim leary had a lot of important things to say), really did break down basic aspects of society. it took me a while to accept that this was actually true, as my under-35 instinct was to assume that anything which rebelled against 1950s uptight republicans must be good. but actually, no.

---

dude, come on; the increase in divorce is not in any way solely attributable to "now men can't oppress women and keep them in unhappy marriages!" i guess this is just the reflexive liberal response? somehow blame it on oppressive males? the increase in divorce is due slightly to that, sure, but also to a decline in reverence for tradition and morality, especially sexual morals; a decline in focusing on the family, due to various factors (both parents needing to work, upward mobility, mobility in general; the detachment of sex from the family; birth control; and an increasingly strong culture of permissiveness and pleasure-seeking.

----

calling a consentual sexual relationship between two men "marriage" isn't a right, it's a category mistake. the definition of "marriage" really isn't just some arbitrary decision of society (this would be the basic assumption of postmodernity); in a sense this is the real point.

 

there REALLY ARE consequences to messing with basic human institutions; this is why wacky 20th century political ideologies tended to go very badly, for example.

---

it is not in any way oppression to say that gays shouldn't call their sexual relationships "marriages." this is pro-human institutions, and anti-radical activism.

 

at first glance it sounds silly to say, "well, if gays get married, then we'll call anything marriage! soon my neighbor will be marrying his horse! my son might decide to marry all 17 of his fraternity brothers!" but actually, if you change the definition of marriage, there will be legal precedent and there really will be no taboos left, on that front; any human being can 'marry' any number of other human beings, and the law has to recognize it as equally valid. there will be untold problematic consequences for all segments of society, and probably plenty of things we can't even foresee yet; many people have written on this, i don't feel the need to repeat it all here.

 

and again, remember, this is all just so 0.3% of the population can call themselves "married", in the eyes of civil law (they can call it marriage all they want, of course; the point is that they're demanding the government RECOGNIZE it as marriage).

 

first of all, you're lumping two separate issues together under the same banner. no one is trying to force any religious institutions to change their definitions of marriage and no one is trying to force those institutions to marry gays. the issue at hand lies solely with the government. the government issues "marriage licenses", which in effect is taking a religious tradition and making it a part of government policy. if the government simply changed their wording for ALL licenses given and labeled everything as a "civil union" instead of a "marriage", whether it has anything to do with a sacred religious contract or not, then i don't think we'd be in this heated battle. as it is, the issue is that the government is using religious terminology to describe a secular governmental contract that rewards a contribution to the stability of a society, not that a minority desperately wants acceptance and validation. so again, no one is asking churches to change their definition of marriage, only that the government give equal protection to all "unions", whether they're based in religion or not, as long as they serve the same general function in terms of benefit to the country. if you want to make the argument that gay unions wouldn't contribute the same things to society as straight unions, then by all means, go ahead and speak your mind. i personally can't see any difference in the contribution. your analogy to "marrying a tree" or whatever, as chen already pointed out, as well as me earlier in the thread, is moot because a man marrying a tree or a pig or a broom offers nothing to the stability of society and thus is not in the same category and only serves to muddy the issue at hand with propaganda.

 

second, your continual assertion that gay marriages are simply "sexual arrangements" implies that heterosexual marriages are something other than that. by the points made in the articles you posted, the roots of marriage lie ultimately in sexual arrangements and control (or protection, if that makes you feel less dirty) of women. explain to me how heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships differ on this front.

 

third, you share the opinion that gay marriages will lead to the degradation of society in untold, unforeseeable ways and you hold up other supposed "left-wing" actions like birth control, the sexual revolution and feminism as examples and attribute several "problems" in society to these actions - high divorce rate, teen pregnancy, etc. i've always had a real problem with this line of thinking for several reasons that relate to the other topic of relativism and whatnot. you attribute "change" with "degradation" because in your line of belief there is a way that things "should be" and by implication there was once a way that "worked" that has now been degraded, leading us to the bad situation we're in today. the fact of the matter is that it's easy to take two things and draw a connection to them and say "this caused this" and while the sexual revolution may have played a part in the rise in teen pregnancy to say that one inevitably leads to the other is over simplifying the issue. the real problem here is the lack of course correction by our society when inevitable change occurs. the sexual revolution did not cause a rise in teen pregnancy, our inability to adjust our own actions in light of a new set of circumstances caused a rise in teen pregnancy. the reactionary response would of course be to say that the sexual revolution is to be blamed, but to me that's just as i said, a reactionary response. if you walk out into a rainstorm and get wet it's not the rainstorms fault for existing, it's your own fault for not being prepared and bringing an umbrella. change is inevitable and if people feel oppressed it's human nature to fight against that oppression, if unseen changes in paradigm occur as a result of the oppressed attempting to fight their oppression it does not mean that things were better off when they were oppressed, just that circumstances have changed and we should be prepared to adapt to those changes, not simply attempt to carry on business as usual.

 

you've mentioned post-60s reaction to pre-60s norms as having had detrimental effects on society and my argument against this is the same as above - you're implying that before we had a system where we didn't have A problem and B problem that we now have (or that A and B have now become more problematic) and because of A change and B change, we're now left in a more questionable position than we were in before. this is a typical conservative view point that coincidentally enough is mostly held by people who weren't really effected by the problems that existed before A and B changes occurred. the fact is, pre-60s we had a set of problems that we attempted to correct that led to a different set of problems. to say that one set of problems was preferable to another simply because you believe that previous problems were easier to deal with completely negates the pain and hardship that countless individuals experienced under the previous paradigm. should some be forced into oppression simply because another group wants to be able to maintain their traditions that contributed to that oppression in the first place?

 

 

i understand, but the whole argument here is whether or not moral value exists independent of the human mind. we have no choice but to look at things other than human action as a way to determine that.

 

whether the analogy is perfect or not the intent is to show that our entire concept of what morality is is based on the idea that there is a way things should be - a right way and a wrong way and i'm saying there is no right way or wrong way because positive and negative are both categories that we create based on our own reading of the universe. destruction/death is not inherently negative as categorizing it as such is only taking into consideration a small piece of a bigger puzzle. does that mean that it makes no difference if you go around killing people? not at all...murder has consequences in human society, it has ripple effects, it makes people sad, so we try not to do it out of respect, but the fact still remains that all of those things are in our heads. they're feelings we have, not things that float around in the universe regardless of whether we're here or not.

I'm trying to point out that you are actually bringing up two different questions:

 

(1) Do moral values exist independently of our beliefs about them?

(2) Can we conceive/think about/understand/know about moral values from a standpoint independent of our beliefs and other attitudes (praising, blaming, valuing, desiring, commanding, etc.)?

 

These can have different answers; and here, the analogy to the natural world is apt. So, for instance, consider the molecular structure of water. It exists independently of our beliefs about it. Water either is H2O or it isn't, regardless of whether we believe it's H2O -- so here, the answer to (1) is 'yes.' At the same time, we can only come to know such a fact by doing chemistry, observing the properties of water and theorizing about its underlying structure, which we model and represent using the concepts of atoms, molecules, molecular structure, hydrogen bonding, or whatever. That is the only possible way we could come to know such a fact; we can't just grasp it immediately in thought without doing any kind of empirical inquiry or observation -- so here, the answer to (2) is 'no.'

 

You are suggesting that, in the moral case, just because the answer to (2) is 'no,' the answer to (1) must be 'no'; I'm suggesting that the case of natural science/empirical beliefs gives us a reason to resist your suggestion and opens up room for the possibility that moral facts are, indeed, true or false independently of what we believe about them, even if the way we come to know such facts must make reference to particular beliefs, concepts or theories we have constructed in order to gain access to those facts.

 

your example goes into semantics that i don't think have any baring on the issue. yes, we've used the human construct of science to investigate the underlying chemistry of objects, substances, etc. around us, but our ability to perceive those objects does not rely on that construct - it's enhanced by them, but they aren't required. whether you know the molecular bonds that exists to create water or not, you can still conceptualize, recognize and categorize water, you can see it, feel it and verify that other creatures and objects feel it and see it as well.

 

1. does water exist independently of human beliefs? yes.

2. can we conceive/think about/understand/know about water independent to our beliefs that water is the bonding of hydrogen and oxygen? yes. we did for millions of years before chemistry was invented.

 

in order for your logic to hold true in terms of absolute morality, there would need to be some sort of "element" (for lack of a better word) or "force" of "right" and "wrong" out there that would separate it from human thought processes, something that has an effect on more than just us, something that would exist whether or not we were here to observe it. just as water exists and is verifiable even without our knowledge of what makes it work, so should morality. there are a plethora of examples of absolute morality not existing outside of the human mind - the fact that many animals and insects don't subscribe to the same morality as we do being the most glaringly obvious, but i've yet to hear anyone propose any instances where morality does exist independent to human societal agreements. you can say "well, maybe we just haven't found it yet", but that's simply wild speculation and you can't really base any sound argument on that. most of the evidence leans in the direction of morality being purely perception based, which means that it is, by definition, not absolute. if it were absolute, you couldn't contradict it. no one can contradict the existence of water. they can call it different things and speculate on different ways it might be structured, but they'd be hard pressed to prove the substance didn't exist at all. perhaps a better phenomenon for the analogy is gravity, which we can't perceive with our eyes, nose or ears, but we can verify it's existence and it's absoluteness by observing that we are effected by it in the same way that other things are. we can see plants are effected by it, animals, atmosphere, gases, planets, moons, asteroids, etc.

 

Excellent post. Let me add an additional complication: it can be the case that the truth of some claim depends on the existence and activities of humans even though that claim is objectively true and not relative to anything. (So, I was being a bit sloppy earlier). For instance, "Most people have ten toes" or "Many North Americans are able to speak English" are examples of claims whose truth depends on the existence, beliefs or activities of people, but they are objectively true -- whether they are true is not relative to anyone's beliefs or whatever. If people didn't exist they would be false, but given that people do exist (and behave in the way the described), then they are true regardless of what anyone believes about them (they would be true even if everyone thought they were false).

 

you're talking about something different - factual right and wrong, not moral right and wrong. morality is based on value judgment whereas fact is based on observation and common agreement on the prevalence of the observed. "most people have ten toes" is not absolutely true, but we all agree that it's the case more often than not, so we can safely call it true for the sake of simplicity in communication. if humans didn't exist, then yea, it would cease to be true, but that's a tough analogy. a more apt one would be "if we didn't have the ability to count, would it still be true more often than not?" so the fact holds true independent of our ability to perceive it.

 

The moral case might be similar. People need to exist in order for intentional actions -- morally evaluable actions -- to exist, so the existence of value might depend on the existence and activities of rational agents in that sense, but that doesn't show that the truth about morality is relative to anything, in the same way as above. Intentional action as such might have, objectively speaking, a nature which brings with it certain moral values and imperatives. So that is another way in which looking at purely physical events, or a universe totally devoid of intentional action, might not be the best way to discover whether there are objective moral facts.

 

i agree, it's not a perfect analogy, but my point in using it wasn't to offer proof against objective morality, but to offer an example of the limited and selfish way in which our value judgments are founded. our concepts of good and bad are based solely on how things relate to us, which is only a tiny fraction of a much larger picture.

 

i'll have to elaborate at another time...i've already spent way too much time avoiding work in order to write this and my brain is starting to fry.

 

 

 

 

[Guest boo]

whoa

[doorjamb]

It's not "mainstreaming it" to allow gays to marry.

 

lol, what else would 'mainstreaming' it mean, exactly? when the majority of a society votes to allow a previously taboo state of affairs ... what else would you call this

 

hmm well in this case how about calling it PROGRESS?

 

PBN, I'm really trying to see where you're coming from, but your argument simply does not hold any water.

but I did make you a meme:

 

[lumpenprol]

1) author of first article is clearly a closet case who is angry at the latest generation of liberated gay men who won't have to "sacrifice" for the institution of marriage like he did

 

2) married gay men will be less likely to assault you in an alley whilst hopped up on amyl, pbn

 

3) i was born out of wedlock and am perfectly sound

 

 

 

*shuffles down street on the prowl for new ways to subvert traditional values*

[Guest maoam]

the turd doesn't fall far from the faggots ass

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

ban-worthy comment but pubbin is a sopranos fan so hope he sees the lol

[lumpenprol]

Incidentally my pet theory behind the post-WWII decline in traditional values/rise in "relativism" has to do mainly with an increase in our material well being and a lack of clear threats to our existence. I think the 60's-70's was a symptom not a cause (though the pill, prophylactics, and penicillin clearly contributed by removing the penalties for promiscuity). People won't take marriage seriously if there are no challenges in their lives to convince them of the benefit of having a long-term partner to console them and help share the burden.

 

Challenges really do build "character" - without real challenges to physical and financial well-being, people throw their energies into identity politics, differentiating themselves by fashion, the subgenre of music they listen to (lol), etc.

 

I do believe that a separation from the real mechanics of what should constitute "normal" life is what leads to many current psychological and social issues. That's the pet theory I like to flog - that man's drive for his own security has become antithetical to his humanity on some level.

[kcinsu]

Incidentally my pet theory behind the post-WWII decline in traditional values/rise in "relativism" has to do mainly with an increase in our material well being and a lack of clear threats to our existence. I think the 60's-70's was a symptom not a cause (though the pill, prophylactics, and penicillin clearly contributed by removing the penalties for promiscuity). People won't take marriage seriously if there are no challenges in their lives to convince them of the benefit of having a long-term partner to console them and help share the burden.

 

Challenges really do build "character" - without real challenges to physical and financial well-being, people throw their energies into identity politics, differentiating themselves by fashion, the subgenre of music they listen to (lol), etc.

 

I do believe that a separation from the real mechanics of what should constitute "normal" life is what leads to many current psychological and social issues. That's the pet theory I like to flog - that man's drive for his own security has become antithetical to his humanity on some level.

 

this pretty accurately sums up how I feel on it...

 

oh oh, this is like a free internet quiz... so, which stereotype am I?

[Guest zaphod]

pbn could probably get a part time job posting in this thread

[Guest tronicphace]

our concepts of good and bad are based solely on how things relate to us, which is only a tiny fraction of a much larger picture.

 

what your describing is a type of relativism and is not true for all people. good and bad are not always, as you say, "based solely on how things relate to us". The plague of relativism in modern society has blinded people's eyes to this very simple fact.

 

 

[Guest zaphod]

yeah i'm a little surprised how many people here don't seem to think that an inherently right thing to do in a given situation exists, and the world is some kind of subjective free for all.

having said that i still don't see a valid argument from pbn, or at least, i don't see valid supporting arguments to back his thesis. i guess they're in these articles? which i'm not reading.

but, then, the responses in this thread have been hilarious, as if he hadn't thought about any of this until now. also lumpenprol needs to stop playing pop psychologist. it doesn't suit him.

[lumpenprol]

well some of pbn's responses did strike me as rather ill-considered, given his chosen field. I don't think I was the only one thinking he was halfway taking the piss; he even said that some of what he said was in "bad faith"...which is why I was asking if he had just gone through a breakup or something...seemed like he was saying deliberately provocative things out of a craving for attention, ie. trolling.

 

edit: lol, didn't see your edit. Ok, I'll keep that in mind. I think there must be some meat there, but it's not like it's going to come to light in the full glare of watmm.

[playbynumbers]

pbn could probably get a part time job posting in this thread

 

you know, it's funny, it's like an ideal break from my job; edit for two hours, and then post for ten minutes

[playbynumbers]

well some of pbn's responses did strike me as rather ill-considered, given his chosen field. I don't think I was the only one thinking he was halfway taking the piss; he even said that some of what he said was in "bad faith"...which is why I was asking if he had just gone through a breakup or something...seemed like he was saying deliberately provocative things out of a craving for attention, ie. trolling.

 

edit: lol, didn't see your edit. Ok, I'll keep that in mind. I think there must be some meat there, but it's not like it's going to come to light in the full glare of watmm.

 

 

 

dude, come on, i wasn't trolling. i did admit that i was being a little hasty on page two or three of this thread, but i've been quite rational since then, i think.

 

Incidentally my pet theory behind the post-WWII decline in traditional values/rise in "relativism" has to do mainly with an increase in our material well being and a lack of clear threats to our existence. I think the 60's-70's was a symptom not a cause (though the pill, prophylactics, and penicillin clearly contributed by removing the penalties for promiscuity). People won't take marriage seriously if there are no challenges in their lives to convince them of the benefit of having a long-term partner to console them and help share the burden.

 

Challenges really do build "character" - without real challenges to physical and financial well-being, people throw their energies into identity politics, differentiating themselves by fashion, the subgenre of music they listen to (lol), etc.

 

I do believe that a separation from the real mechanics of what should constitute "normal" life is what leads to many current psychological and social issues. That's the pet theory I like to flog - that man's drive for his own security has become antithetical to his humanity on some level.

 

 

this is 100% correct, sure. it's one of the downsides of capitalism (perhaps THE downside); you're in good company, as nietzsche and heidegger have both pointed this out (i'm sorry to keep mentioning 19th-20th century philosophers, it's just that i'm writing my dissertation on them).

[playbynumbers]

the turd doesn't fall far from the faggots ass

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

ban-worthy comment but pubbin is a sopranos fan so hope he sees the lol

 

 

 

damn, i forgot that line ... which season?

[Guest zaphod]

well, like i said, i don't actually agree with his first posts in this thread, although i would agree with the overall idea that the "under 30" generation is stuck in some kind of moral ditch. although that isn't really the fault of this generation, if anything the previous baby boomer gen was just as bad.

i guess i just don't like trying to deconstruct someone online, their personality, based on a few opinionated posts. it seems a little ridiculous and, in this case, obvious. like, "he must be gay because he disagrees with this", as if that's some novel take on things.

 

edit: at lumpenprol

[playbynumbers]

1) author of first article is clearly a closet case who is angry at the latest generation of liberated gay men who won't have to "sacrifice" for the institution of marriage like he did

 

yeah, the guy is like 40% goofball, but what do you expect, it's a magazine article, not a scholarly essay ... he still makes a lot of very valid points

 

 

 

2) married gay men will be less likely to assault you in an alley whilst hopped up on amyl, pbn

 

*strokes chin thoughtfully* ... true! marriage will definitely cut down, at least a little bit, on the rampant promiscuity, drug use, and aids among certain aspects of gay subcultures. which is good.