|
July 19, 2010
Moral Authority
In condemning homosexuality Robert Knight, makes an interesting point. This is no small disagreement. Conservatism, if it means anything, reflects the understanding that, as Russell Kirk said, "there exists a transcendent moral order, to which we ought to try to conform the ways of society ... such convictions may take the form of belief in 'natural law' or may assume some other expression; but with few exceptions conservatives recognize the need for enduring moral authority."Assume for a minute that fighting homosexuality has some useful purpose (I don't think so) where is this moral authority to be found? In government? The most corruptible and corrupt of our institutions? I don't think so. And yet my conservative friends are quick to wield the fasces (the power of government) against what ever violates their rigid sense of order. Forgetting altogether that Liberty is a rather disorderly place to live. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson H/T Eric of Classical Values via e-mail. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 07.19.10 at 11:34 AM
Comments
Eric has further comments on Mr. Knight at: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/07/a_preference_in.html M. Simon · July 19, 2010 12:07 PM This is pretty much the classic Kirkean/"trad" modus operandi. Don't offer any logical argument (that would be "defecated reason"!) but invoke some mystical "enduring moral authority." Bilwick · July 19, 2010 02:52 PM
The rules themselves are actually objective, Religion is needed to make people take the rules seriously by scaring them into following them. Another aspect of this conflict is philosophy and principle. You can in principle have no lines, or you can draw lines at natural and well defined boundaries. As nature draws the actual lines, those that disagree are weeded out through attrition, and the majority shifts to the natural boundaries. Diogenes · July 19, 2010 03:44 PM I get it. Life itself is not enough to teach people to do right. We need to apply the fasces to the malefactors so they do the right thing. Laws will surely solve any social problem known to man if there are sufficient guns backing it. That works pretty good until you run out of guns. Which like other people's money is not in infinite supply. Once upon a time we had Peace Officers. Now a days we mostly get Enforcers. Different job. The lines are changing. Social liberalism gains ground every day. As does Economic Conservatism. I applaud both trends. M. Simon · July 19, 2010 04:13 PM You're responses never resemble replies to what I write. They seem to be just a bunch of slogans you wish to cite. You seem to think it is of me you are making light, But I say that nature will always force things back to right.
Economics has it's invisible hand, Morality has another. You are foolish to think you can heed the one without heeding the other. Diogenes · July 19, 2010 04:53 PM Assume for a minute that fighting homosexuality has some useful purpose Well, not just Western morality - continuing Diogenes' point, we can talk of natural sexual morality. There has never been a mainstream, successful human culture that treated exclusive homosexuals as anything but deviants. Ben David · July 19, 2010 07:09 PM The legitimizing of homosexuality is one lynchpin in a program to undercut Western sexual morality, and to disrupt the legal and social constraints that give weight, strength, and stability to the family unit. Dude, You are not going to get that toothpaste back into the tube. The horse has left the barn. The culture has changed. Western sexual morality as you think you remember it (I saw a study once that in the US in the 1700s about 1/3 of the brides were already knocked up - true? I haven't cross checked) is gone. You want to do something about Western morality? Forget gays. The bigger hole is adultery and divorce. If we could bring back stoning for adultery and 40 lashes for fornication we might get somewhere. M. Simon · July 19, 2010 09:56 PM There has never been a mainstream, successful human culture I think as quoted above I have fashioned a true statement. All cultures are temporary. BTW I think Sparta was pretty mainstream for the time. And Julius Caesar was known as every woman's husband and every man's wife. Does it get any more mainstream than the Roman Empire? M. Simon · July 19, 2010 10:01 PM Let me add that Iranians and Palestinians hang homosexuals. Is that enough intolerance for deviancy for you? America could learn a thing or two from sharia, eh? M. Simon · July 19, 2010 10:05 PM You have your fasces facing the wrong way. The problem with homosexuality is not tolerance, but rather the need of homosexual extremists to wield the full weight of government against all who disapprove. In 1957 and again in 1964, we made an exception, and put racial equality ahead of the right of association. Probably necessary to end finally the evils of slavery and subsequent Jim Crow. But by opening "protected status" to a whole host of follow on special pleaders, we have embedded several terrible problems. First is the reduction of the nation to brute tribalism. Second, we lose forever the right of association. Third and most crippling is the fact that if government is involved, then it's all or nothing. If homosexuality is not forbidden, then it is necessary. Necessary with the full weight of government. Not just tolerance, but 3% of all kindergarten storybook characters, and 3% of all show and tell... Not just tolerance, but stifling and suppression of all criticism and dissent. Out with the right of association. And now out with the First Amendment part A (the part about freedom of religion, which actually precedes the bit about free speech). There is no slippery slope, just a precipice. Robert Arvanitis · July 19, 2010 10:55 PM Robert, Generally you don't get these over reactions unless something was bad wrong in the first place. You know how it goes: we spent decades chasing them and now they are chasing us. It is the normal course of events. In time we will find a workable balance. Which is another way of saying we are being punished for our sins and the sins of our fathers. I dunno. I think I read something about that in the Bible. So this would not be the first time. M. Simon · July 20, 2010 12:30 AM You might also like my latest on the subject: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/07/a_decline_in_mo.html M. Simon · July 20, 2010 12:31 AM Diogenes: The 1980's Republican leader of the California State Senate, Jim Nielsen, lost an election saying: "Aids is God's revenge for the sin of homosexuality". After 20 years wandering in the wilderness, 10 of which he served as chairman of the state prison and parole board, he parked a trailer in the 2nd Assembly District pretending it was his home, and got re-elected to state government where he now presides as elder statesman in the Republican caucus. He is a shirt-tail relative that I had the pleasure of not shaking hands with at a family wedding - wouldn't want the bastard contaminated by his queer cousin. Frank · July 20, 2010 01:31 AM Simon: You talk about redress and pendulums swinging. That works for things like National League pitching versus American League batting. BUT once we shift the ground out from unders fundamental rights, they are lost forever. AND once we set an arguably justifiable exception on race, the floodgates are opened for all sorts of specious follow-ons and the embedding of special-interests groups, which subsume the individual. That is not a pendulum, but the one way ratchet of the leftist agenda. Robert Arvanitis · July 20, 2010 08:22 AM
You are not going to get that toothpaste back into the tube. The horse has left the barn. The culture has changed. Western sexual morality as you think you remember it (I saw a study once that in the US in the 1700s about 1/3 of the brides were already knocked up - true? I haven't cross checked) is gone. You want to do something about Western morality? Forget gays. The bigger hole is adultery and divorce. If we could bring back stoning for adultery and 40 lashes for fornication we might get somewhere.
Diogenes · July 20, 2010 09:40 AM
There has never been a mainstream, successful human culture I think as quoted above I have fashioned a true statement. All cultures are temporary. BTW I think Sparta was pretty mainstream for the time. And Julius Caesar was known as every woman's husband and every man's wife. Does it get any more mainstream than the Roman Empire?
Diogenes · July 20, 2010 09:43 AM Diogenes: The 1980's Republican leader of the California State Senate, Jim Nielsen, lost an election saying: "Aids is God's revenge for the sin of homosexuality". After 20 years wandering in the wilderness, 10 of which he served as chairman of the state prison and parole board, he parked a trailer in the 2nd Assembly District pretending it was his home, and got re-elected to state government where he now presides as elder statesman in the Republican caucus. He is a shirt-tail relative that I had the pleasure of not shaking hands with at a family wedding - wouldn't want the bastard contaminated by his queer cousin. What passed for conventional wisdom at the time, is of course controversial in California. When the first cases of AIDS became known to medical people in California, they initially dubbed it WOGS. (Wrath of God Syndrome. Stupid Bigoted trained medical people.) The homosexuals resented this term, and demanded something less judgmental. The new term was AIDS. The fact of the matter is, for those people who believe in God, it certainly looked like God's punishment for forbidden behavior. (Widely taught for 3000 years or so.) Naturally, the majority of voters in freewheeling California couldn't tolerate someone questioning their behavior, so they shouted down the man who would tell them something unpleasant. Your story is merely proof that voters are much like spoiled little children, but there is already ample evidence for that.
To repeat, AIDS would have wiped them out, but for modern medicine and modern communications. In years past, it or something like it, probably did. Now you can tell me this artificially created state of affairs is natural and normal and permanent, but i'm pretty sure you don't even believe that yourself. Not if you understand what I have written anyway. Diogenes · July 20, 2010 09:59 AM People will have to separate their comments from mine. Apparently the Itallics HTML tags only work till the next whitespace. I'll remember that in the future, but for the previous messages it's too late. Diogenes · July 20, 2010 10:04 AM AIDS would have wiped them out, but for modern medicine and modern communications. Really? Not only are there number of people who are immune to the AIDS virus, but AIDS is overwhelmingly caused by unprotected passive anal intercourse -- something that a minority of gay men do. While "modern medicine and modern communications" has certainly prolonged the lives of those who contracted HIV that way, to say that AIDS would have wiped out all homosexuals is errant nonsense. And if homosexuality includes lesbianism, the argument becomes even more ridiculous, for that population has one of the lowest HIV infection rates in the world. (BTW, I'd love to see the evidence for the claim that the Roman Empire fell because of homosexuality. Who knew?) Eric Scheie · July 20, 2010 10:15 AM
You would know this how? (that this is something a minority of gay men do.) Even if true, why would it be the case? Is there something wrong with it? (I bet you don't answer THAT question.)
Just how much do you know about this subject? I'm beginning to think I am discussing this with someone who hasn't done due diligence in informing themselves. Extreme promiscuity is the norm. (and why not? What's wrong with breaking another social taboo if you've already broken a bigger one?) According to one study at San Francisco bath houses prior to the development of the AIDS epidemic, it was determined that the Average Homosexual male participated in 10 sexual encounters per night. Even at the lower incidence of transmission through oral sex, ten sexual encounters in one night greatly enhances the odds. (of AIDS and other diseases as well.) And I didn't say "All" I said most. If the genetic argument is correct, there will always be homosexuals. And if homosexuality includes lesbianism, the argument becomes even more ridiculous, for that population has one of the lowest HIV infection rates in the world.
(BTW, I'd love to see the evidence for the claim that the Roman Empire fell because of homosexuality. Who knew?)
Diogenes · July 20, 2010 11:49 AM Just how much do you know about this subject? I'm beginning to think I am discussing this with someone who hasn't done due diligence in informing themselves. Diogenes, you don't have a clue. I can't speak for Eric, but I can tell you that gay men who lived through the epidemic of the '80s & '90s like I did, informed themselves. We read everything, from Randy Shilts And The Band Played On to Peter Duesbergs Inventing The Aids Virus. We lived the nightmare. Please don't question our knowledge of either Aids or gay sex. As to your facile explanations which seem to come from Natural Law theory, I would only point out that in the history of epidemics sex is a minor contributor. Care to discuss the Black Plague? How about Small Pox? Lesbianism is a distinctly different condition than is male homosexuality. It has different causes and different manifestations, and it is far less common than is male homosexuality. It is also far less bent on pushing it's agenda in your face. (emphasis added) Do you actually KNOW any lesbians? Frank · July 20, 2010 03:35 PM The #1 decadence of the Roman Empire was buying off the lower classes with taxes. Bread and circuses. Now I do believe our modern day equivalents will kill our system faster than 10 million gay guys having sex in the streets from noon to 12:30 PM every day. (need some time for lunch and to get back to work.) Let me put it to you simple like: If we are going to defeat the tax and spend crooks we are going to need every body we can get. Including all the "deviants" willing to join in. I welcome all deviants into the cause. Including the deviants who are convinced they are normal. What ever that is. M. Simon · July 20, 2010 05:04 PM Diogenes, you don't have a clue. I can't speak for Eric, but I can tell you that gay men who lived through the epidemic of the '80s & '90s like I did, informed themselves.
Do you actually KNOW any lesbians?
Diogenes · July 21, 2010 04:07 PM The #1 decadence of the Roman Empire was buying off the lower classes with taxes. Bread and circuses.
I welcome all deviants into the cause. Including the deviants who are convinced they are normal. What ever that is.
Diogenes · July 21, 2010 04:20 PM Diogenes: Frank · July 21, 2010 08:23 PM That appears to be the case, but what breakdown in morality led those doing this to believe it was acceptable? That is simple and had nothing to do with sex. It was the idea that theft by government was different. It had nothing to do with where Caesar was putting his wang or whose wang was going into him. Now if we could just get our conservative friends to spend less time thinking about drugs and sex and more time thinking about money we might actually have a viable system. We got into this mess by this kind of thinking: "He is OK on gays, abortion, and the drug war. [anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro drug war] So what if his economics is a little shoddy?" But this sort of thinking is not unusual in people ruled by emotion. Left and right. i.e. as long as my hot buttons are covered economics takes a back seat. That is backwards. M. Simon · July 21, 2010 09:43 PM That is simple and had nothing to do with sex. It was the idea that theft by government was different. It had nothing to do with where Caesar was putting his wang or whose wang was going into him. Now if we could just get our conservative friends to spend less time thinking about drugs and sex and more time thinking about money we might actually have a viable system. We got into this mess by this kind of thinking: "He is OK on gays, abortion, and the drug war. [anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro drug war] So what if his economics is a little shoddy?" But this sort of thinking is not unusual in people ruled by emotion. Left and right. i.e. as long as my hot buttons are covered economics takes a back seat. That is backwards.
A functional long term economic system disconnected from a moral foundation is a false idea. The people who are arguing from emotion are the ones who want to believe that they can have their cake and eat it to. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Reality will trump whatever either of us think. It does me no good whatsoever to be correct when the time comes to tell you "I told you so." The moral issues are the canary in the coal mine. You're solution is to kill the canary before the gas does. Diogenes · July 22, 2010 09:08 PM Oh, by the way MSimon, Do you know what "Felching" is? (Without looking it up.) See, this is the thing I find irritating. We never get to the details in these sort of discussions, and especially the part where someone is put face to face with them and is willing to say, "There is nothing wrong with that." I am not squeamish about the details, but apparently the people who are arguing that there is nothing wrong with that seem to insist on not talking about the details. Same thing with partial birth abortion. There's nothing wrong with it, but we don't want to talk about that thing that there is nothing wrong with. Interesting dichotomy no? Diogenes · July 22, 2010 09:17 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Obama Turns On Key Voting Bloc
Burglar? Or underground bartender? It's The Carbon Footprint What California most needs right now -- a defrocking campaign! In protest, I quote your words! Where's The Party, Man? The Problem Is Self Induced This I-dosing thing is giving me heavy flashbacks, man! We still have the First Amendment, right? The horse has left the barn, and the barn is gone! And we long since threw away the toothpaste tubes!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Damn! You beat me by 23 minutes! And you talked about an issue I decided to keep in the closet!