|
|
|
July 20, 2010
The horse has left the barn, and the barn is gone!
And we long since threw away the toothpaste tubes! I think M. Simon got it right in his post about the decline in morality (which was already in steep decline before the homos are alleged to have destroyed it). A commenter in an earlier post about a subject I tried to keep in the closet yesterday called "the legitimizing of homosexuality" a "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." First off, I should say that whether homosexuality is "legitimate" is up to individuals themselves. This is supposed to be a free country, and I would hate to see anyone told what to think about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of homosexuality. I never stopped much to think about whether it was legitimate though; I believe in tolerance of other people's lifestyles as long as they don't harm me, but whether the lifestyles are legitimate or not does not especially interest me. Who would care whether I thought someone else's lifestyle was legitimate? And unless I knew and respected the person why would I care whether someone thought my lifestyle was legitimate? So I don't know how to answer the legitimacy question, other than to say that no one should be forced to believe in something he opposes. As to the "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" Simon pointed out that the toothpaste is out of the tube, and the horse has left the barn: Dude,I think he's right, but I don't mean to just rehash M. Simon's post. What he reminded me of was something I saw the other day, which took the form of a challenge to libertarians from Lionel Tiger: ...in the literature of libertarians (to the embarrassingly limited extent I know it) there is a failure to confront fully the fact that there are two sexes and that each has forms of interaction and contest with the other. In my The Decline of Males of 1999 (St Martin's) I produced the argument that the introduction of female control of reproduction, most dramatically in the form of the Pill as well as internal contraceptives, had the effect of "alienating males from the means of reproduction." Glib though this might seem, enormous changes in male/female ratios in education, increasingly in the economy, and in attitudes overall have in fact followed broadly these very parsimonious alterations in the sexual contract. Perhaps most profoundly, in the modern and modernizing world, about 40% of babies are born to unmarried women. While some may see this as an artifact of moral decline, irresponsible hedonism, or the alteration of welfare payments, it is a bedrock ethical matter. A new kinship system is emerging that I have called bureaugamy, the main players within which are a woman, a baby, and a bureaucrat. Sorting out the meaning of such a development is worthwhile challenge for worthwhile libertarians.Bureaugamy is a perfectly ugly word for a perfectly ugly phenomenon. Government in the procreation business. So much for that "privacy of our bedrooms" stuff.... And there is no question that the Pill has had considerable social costs. I also suspect that in many cases it changes the personalities of the women who take it, transforming them into sterile workers, and best of all for the world which uses them, they don't even realize it. So, Lionel Tiger's point is well taken. And while I oppose bureaugamy and agree that the effects of contraceptives have not been all positive, once again, that toothpaste is not going back in that tube. For better or for worse, the pill simply removed and delinked from the sex act the most serious consequence of it. But then, so did the cures for syphilis and gonorrhea. These things result not from giant plots against "the culture," nor were they intended to be linchpins in organized movements. They resulted from advances in science. Years of research. The invention of anesthesia changed the way humanity viewed pain, which is another vast cultural change. I think the important thing about these changes is acknowledging that they occur, because the more we understand these mechanisms, the less likely we are to be misled and manipulated by our ignorance, or by demagogues who rely on our ignorance. If we are alienated from pain and from the means of reproduction, it is good to know that, and to understand how to use that knowledge to our advantage, lest others (especially those who rule) use it to our disadvantage. posted by Eric on 07.20.10 at 03:41 PM
Comments
Dude, you know I don't care whether it's animal, vegetable or mineral (of legal age) what blows up your skirt. I object to subsidizing the costs of single motherhood in the name of empowering womyn. What bullshit. I object to bureaugamy, I do. dr kill · July 20, 2010 4:15 PM And as far as homos go, well, if it wasn't for childless gay dudes, my neighborhood would have lost any chance of stating intact. No one can send their kids to Miami public schools. dr kill · July 20, 2010 4:17 PM Thanks! M. Simon · July 20, 2010 5:23 PM I think "costs of single motherhood" is missing the point. The real societal costs is the "costs of lessened motherhood". As was pointed out, this is the large-scale downside to the strong positive of individual liberty, self-ownership, and the ability for women to choose to have life-long careers in the economy. But, again, the genie is not going back in the bottle. So our society has to figure out how to adapt to women having the freedom to not raise children. It seems to me that we need to either: Fritz · July 21, 2010 11:28 AM Toothpaste can be put back in the tube. It has happened before. Between 1800 and 1850, for example, there was a very noticeable improvement in public morality in Britain. (The change was less dramatic in America, because so many of our ancestors left Britain to get away from this depravity.) In 1800, "drunk as a lord" wasn't particularly shameful (even at the highest levels of the society). By 1850, it was considered vulgar and shameful to be visibly drunk in public. There were significant changes in attitudes about sexual morality, as well. Now, much of this change was a matter of setting aspirational goals. There was a lot of really horrible stuff being done in private. London police, for example, were heavily involved in looking the other way on child prostitution (and I mean five year olds, not 13 year olds). But a little dishonesty and hypocrisy in a society that sets decent aspirational goals is better than a society that is completely honest, and makes no attempt at encouraging self-discipline. Clayton E. Cramer · July 21, 2010 11:55 AM Legitimizing homosexuality isn't the lynchpin; it's the final indicator of the collapse of traditional morality. Homosexuality throughout the history of Christian Europe was short only of incest for horror and disgust. It is legitimizing now because there's little left except bestiality, incest, and pedophilia that remains outside the pale of modern sexual morality. (Those other three will be legitimized within the next 25-30 years.) Clayton E. Cramer · July 21, 2010 11:59 AM We have a disagreement there, as I don't believe homosexuality is immoral. Nor do a growing number of people. Nor do I believe breaking the Sabbath to be immoral or Jews to be Christ killers. I realize not everyone agrees with me, but the fact is that attitudes and minds do change over time -- religious texts notwithstanding. In fact, the argument that morality can be changed back recognizes its inherently fluid nature. I complain constantly about newly manufactured morality in the context of environmentalism. These things should be debated, but I fail to see how homosexuality is inherently immoral. Eric Scheie · July 21, 2010 12:16 PM I know that not everyone shares my view on this, Eric. (A majority do, although less so than used to be the case.) I'm just pointing out that notions of acceptable morality change with time, and not always in the direction of fewer rules. Clayton E. Cramer · July 21, 2010 12:56 PM But Clayton: America has never gone back to the Conservative morals that were once so common: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/07/a_decline_in_mo.html In a little over 100 year a conservative morality that served us so well was completely dispensed with and has never returned. In fact no one even dreams of returning to those tried and true social norms once enforced by government. What does that tell you? If the people won't willingly obey, the law is useless as a means of social control. M. Simon · July 21, 2010 2:10 PM Clayton, you certainly are free to strive to delegitimize practices you do not like within the culture. As long as you don't use government, the agency of legitimized force, well, I don't particularly care. But, honestly, dudes getting it on with dudes (or the much more charming chicks getting it on with chicks) is a sideshow. It really has no impact on the demographics of society (with the possible exception of improving theater and fashion). What does have an impact is "dudes getting it on with chicks, maybe getting married, maybe not, and then raising dogs". Fritz · July 21, 2010 2:25 PM Wow! Since I enjoy your original thoughts, it's a bit sad to see you resort to stuff like this: I should say that whether homosexuality is "legitimate" is up to individuals themselves. 1) The expectation that healthy, mature adults will express their sexuality in the context of committed, intimate relationships is almost universal throughout human history. The well-confirmed patterns of compulsive promiscuity that are the norm in the gay "community" are OUTSIDE those widely-held notions of healthy adult sexual behavior. 2) The Gramscian assault on sexual morality is also well-documented. The current effort to equate the compulsively promiscuous, open relationships of the gay world with the committed, monogomous defintion of marriage is clearly of a piece with the Gramscian agenda, and is being pushed by the same people who are pushing the other elements of the PC assault on traditional values. 3) The toothpaste most definitely can go back in the tube - we already see generation X (who bore the full brunt of their Boomer parents' narcissism) groping their way back to more traditional - and committed - relationships. The wantonness and corruption of the Renaissance (with its Papal orgies) gave way before a new era of Puritans and Jesuits. Later, Baroque-era looseness gave way to Bidermeier/Victorian propriety. Etc. The wheel of culture and morality turns. Ben David · July 21, 2010 4:41 PM Eric writes: So you are ambivalent about the issue. Are you ambivalent about child molestation, or do you have a moral threshold at which you draw a line? Let us plumb your philosophical depths. Necrophilia? Beastiality? Acrotomophilia? Is there some point at which you say "That's just sick, and the individual needs help"? If you do, they you have just destroyed your own argument that "whether "X" is "legitimate" is up to individuals themselves." In practice, I find even the most libertarian minded people will find some line where their tolerance disappears. Once that line is found, it is like the old joke about the woman who refuses to sleep with a man for a dollar, but would do it for a million. "We've already decided what KIND of woman you are, Now we're Just haggling over the price!"
Diogenes · July 21, 2010 4:52 PM Dude, you know I don't care whether it's animal, vegetable or mineral (of legal age) what blows up your skirt. I object to subsidizing the costs of single motherhood in the name of empowering womyn. What bullshit. I object to bureaugamy, I do.
Wow. But I agree with you about welfare for baby makers. Diogenes · July 21, 2010 5:00 PM I think "costs of single motherhood" is missing the point. The real societal costs is the "costs of lessened motherhood". As was pointed out, this is the large-scale downside to the strong positive of individual liberty, self-ownership, and the ability for women to choose to have life-long careers in the economy. 1. Pay women to breed. Pay men to be fathers. Yes, pay. From taxes. Sweden is having success with this. You left out one option. Die, and be replaced by people who didn't follow these evolutionarily suicidal ideas. Europe is following this plan, as are most urban areas of this nation. Diogenes · July 21, 2010 5:04 PM Legitimizing homosexuality isn't the lynchpin; it's the final indicator of the collapse of traditional morality. Homosexuality throughout the history of Christian Europe was short only of incest for horror and disgust. It is legitimizing now because there's little left except bestiality, incest, and pedophilia that remains outside the pale of modern sexual morality. (Those other three will be legitimized within the next 25-30 years.) In a manner of speaking, it is the "Gateway Drug" of sexual deviancy. Once that envelope gets pushed, demands for lowering the age of consent, etc. will be the next piece of the agenda. (already been happening.) Diogenes · July 21, 2010 5:08 PM Are you ambivalent about child molestation, or do you have a moral threshold at which you draw a line? Let us plumb your philosophical depths. Necrophilia? Beastiality? Acrotomophilia? Is there some point at which you say "That's just sick, and the individual needs help"? If you do, they you have just destroyed your own argument that "whether "X" is "legitimate" is up to individuals themselves." First, I didn't say "X" -- I said homosexuality. You're combining consensual with non-consensual activities. Second, whether I consider someone's homosexuality "legitimate" is not up to you, just as it is not up to me to tell you whether you think it's illegitimate. Most of the homosexuals I have known were entirely legitimate, BTW! FWIW, I've been over this stuff countless times and I think this debate is silly. Animals and children cannot consent; dog or child molestation is no more analogous to adult homosexual conduct than it is to adult heterosexual relations: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2007/10/callow_immature.html Your morality is not mine, and mine is not yours. We simply disagree. If you can't handle it, fine. It's still a free country. Eric Scheie · July 21, 2010 5:13 PM Clayton, you certainly are free to strive to delegitimize practices you do not like within the culture. As long as you don't use government, the agency of legitimized force, well, I don't particularly care. I think the more accurate statement would be that YOU don't seen any significant impact on society. We've already mentioned the diseases. Does anyone think Ryan White et al would have died had we given the initial WOGS cases the typhoid Mary treatment? Diogenes · July 21, 2010 5:13 PM The wheel of culture and morality turns. A point I am CONSTANTLY trying to get across. It's funny, people think they are open minded because they are tolerant, yet they only seem to be able to see the history and notions of their present. To be REALLY open minded you have to be able to perceive the larger cyclic history of human society , and how one phase drives the other. Diogenes · July 21, 2010 5:18 PM First, I didn't say "X" -- I said homosexuality. You're combining consensual with non-consensual activities. You draw the line already. That didn't take long. Now you are using the "Consent" excuse, as if the "legal" has any weight in a philosophical argument. Fine. I'll show you that your theory doesn't even work by YOUR rules. For Centuries, the law defined Homosexuality as a mental disorder and the participants were ruled "Non Compos Mentis." Since we are citing the "Consent" excuse, Homosexuals couldn't give legal consent. Are you saying it was okay anyway, or just nowadays since they changed the law to allow homosexuals to consent? Go either direction and your argument has fallen apart.
I believe you just said your opinion is not up to me, and my opinion is not up to you. That is self evident.
You are merely attempting to dodge the irritating dichotomy of your beliefs, by pretending there is a distinction between the one thing and the other. dog or child molestation is no more analogous to adult homosexual conduct than it is to adult heterosexual relations:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-3-2003-48200.asp Now you can argue "Society has LAWS against this!" Well, Society had laws against Homosexuality too, but you are arguing that those shouldn't count. Pretty much destroys your "The Law Says THUS!" argument.
Another self evident point. The fact that you disagree with me is just annoying, and that is because I can see the inconsistency with your philosophical thinking. (I also believe spreading bad memes is damaging to society.) It's like a picture on the wall which is askew. The natural impulse is to straighten it out. On the other hand, perhaps it is the room which is askew, and the picture is the only thing in it which is straight. If that be the case, then you are right and I am wrong, but from my perspective, it certainly doesn't look that way. Diogenes · July 21, 2010 5:53 PM Actually, Diogenes, the age of consent has normally been much lower than the current 18. (See Alabama or the fact that Juliet had just turned 14). Given that, why would a reduction in the age of consent be construed as demonstrating a further departure from traditional values? Would it not be closer to a return? Fritz · July 21, 2010 6:04 PM Gramsci on the march: A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders. "I think it's quite natural for men to want to continue to have an active and varied sex life," said 50-year-old technology consultant Dean Allemang from Oakland, who just ended a 13-year-open relationship and has begun another with a new boyfriend. "I don't own my lover, and I don't own his body," he said. "I think it's weird to ask someone you love to give up that part of their life. I would never do it." Having an open partnership is not incompatible with same-sex marriage, said Spears, 59. At least half those interviewed were married, having taken their vows during one of the two brief times when it was legally sanctioned in the city or the state. "It's a redefinition of marriage," Spears said. "The emotional commitment, the closeness, all of it is there." Read more: Ben David · July 21, 2010 7:55 PM Ben David, The only power Gramsci has is the power to shock. Once you don't care about tracking the genitals of other people or their private habits the Gramscians have nothing. And pretty much that is what is happening. The youngsters don't care. It is only some OFs grabbing their own crotches out of fear. The deal is simple. The government of a Free Country is not going to be very good at policing genitals. There are too many obstacles. BTW I do not favor Gay marriage. Also note: In Maine where Med pot and Gay Marriage were on the State ballot in the last election about 58% favored Med Pot and 53% were against gay marriage. D, Could you please explain why AIDS is a hetro disease in Africa? There is a whole continent that needs locking up. With that big a reservoir Mr. Shilts would not have been the only vector. M. Simon · July 21, 2010 9:14 PM Gramsci? How many homosexuals have even heard of Gramsci? They are simply doing what they want. Apparently that's a problem for some people. The issue here is freedom, and there is nothing inconsistent about my position. Not, at least, for those who are not trying to put words in my mouth. Speaking of putting the toothpaste back in the tube, and rolling back the clock, what are you proposing? Bringing back sodomy laws? I do agree with a couple of your points, though: The fact that you disagree with me is just annoying, and that is because I can see the inconsistency with your philosophical thinking. (I also believe spreading bad memes is damaging to society.) It's like a picture on the wall which is askew. The natural impulse is to straighten it out. I know how you feel there! Picture straightening is an impulse I try to resist, but I'm human. There is no pleasing everyone! On the other hand, perhaps it is the room which is askew, and the picture is the only thing in it which is straight. If that be the case, then you are right and I am wrong, but from my perspective, it certainly doesn't look that way. Yes! It never ceases to amaze me that on the one hand the country moves towards gay marriage, and on the other hand there are people who want to bring back sodomy laws. These arguments are not merely diametrically opposed; they not on the same page. Trying to approach this in an objective, comprehensive manner is hardly conducive to sanity. To be REALLY open minded you have to be able to perceive the larger cyclic history of human society, and how one phase drives the other. I agree, and I do try. (See the title of this blog for starters.) I often feel as if I am wasting time with these hopeless arguments, but I like to think that I am at least making the case for civility in disagreement. Perhaps I flatter myself, though. Eric Scheie · July 21, 2010 10:22 PM Ben David says: 1) The expectation that healthy, mature adults will express their sexuality in the context of committed, intimate relationships is almost universal throughout human history.] As a gay man who had a monogamous relationship with another gay may for 31 years, I totally agree with you. The well-confirmed patterns of compulsive promiscuity that are the norm in the gay "community" are OUTSIDE those widely-held notions of healthy adult sexual behavior. If this is so (and I question this blanket statement) then why the opposition to gay marriage? Because some gay men choose to have what they call an open relationship, how is this different than straight couples who swing? If promiscuity is the evil, both morally and because of disease, then it equally applies. You can't have it both ways. 2) The Gramscian assault on sexual morality is also well-documented. The current effort to equate the compulsively promiscuous, open relationships of the gay world with the committed, monogomous defintion of marriage is clearly of a piece with the Gramscian agenda, and is being pushed by the same people who are pushing the other elements of the PC assault on traditional values. I didn't know Ted Olson was a pawn & dupe of the Frankfurt School. But come to think of it, Michael Savage has been spewing this Gramscian/Frankfurt School crap for some time. And when old Barry Goldwater said: People like Ben David or Diogenes have every right to their opinion. But they are grasping at paranoid staws to explain the freedom they are so afraid of. I dare them to tell me that my 31 year relationship was immoral. In fact these people should read the following from Barry Goldwater and examine their own conscience: ""There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? Barry Goldwater, September 16, 1981 Frank · July 21, 2010 11:22 PM Something About Gramsci: In fact, shock is just the first step in the Gramscian technique laid out by Kirk and Madsen's After the Ball - the blueprint for the normalization of homosexuality: desensitization, jamming and conversion. As they put it: our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof... jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame... The approach can be quite useful and effective-if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends. Ben David · July 22, 2010 4:21 PM Yes, and racial integration was also "initiated, funded, and promoted by lefties with a Gramscian agenda." The logic seems to be that if some Marxists aided and abetted something, that makes it Marxist, and bad. So voila! Homosexuality is linked to Marxism! Wake up Oscar Wilde and let him know! By the way, I found some classically Gramscian artwork here! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Rowlandson Enjoy the toothpaste! :) Eric Scheie · July 22, 2010 4:40 PM Ben David, It would have been nice if I had been inspired by your comments. But alas. I have had these topics on my mind for a long time. And I have posted on them. One of my favorite things to do is to riff off of one of Eric's posts. As he does to some of mine. I also like to find topical stuff that illustrates my point. ========================================== So what is my point? If conservative could stick with fiscal responsibility they could not just deal the Ds a defeat, but a crushing defeat. Once they get all crazy on their social issues their coalition tends to evaporate. M. Simon · July 22, 2010 7:32 PM Ben David says: You yourself - and other gay libertarian/conservative bloggers - have posted about the my-way-or-the-highway, knee-jerk "progressive" slant of the mainstream gay movement. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that these folks are just "doing what they want" with no awareness of larger political trends or alliances. Winning elections means pealing away the other guy's support and adding it to your own if you can. So what if 90% of gays are lefties? Maybe with some work and a friendly attitude we can reduce that to 85%. That is how you win elections. But you can't do that if your base drifts away when the party goals are more limited. As if 2006 and 2008 were not enough of a lesson. See my: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/07/wheres_the_part.html for more. M. Simon · July 22, 2010 7:42 PM Here are some flaming gay lefties who just hate Obama. Wouldn't it be good to be friendly to them? Did I mention that they are Sarah Palin fans? Why give them grief with your broad brush? M. Simon · July 22, 2010 7:48 PM Here is a good story from Hill Buzz: M. Simon · July 22, 2010 7:51 PM Actually, Diogenes, the age of consent has normally been much lower than the current 18. (See Alabama or the fact that Juliet had just turned 14). Very good point. It further strengthens my contention that what the law says is not relevant to the philosophy being discussed. I have been told that the age of consent in Mexico is 12. (Yup, wikipedia confirms) I believe in some Muslim societies, there is no such thing as an age of consent. What that says is the age of consent is up to the people who live in a country to decide (as far as the LEGAL aspect of it is concerned, but we are not discussing the LEGAL aspect of it, at least i'm not, and people shouldn't be trying to hide behind that silly argument) In reality, nature sets the lower boundary at the start of menses, and all laws should require at least that much. Given that, why would a reduction in the age of consent be construed as demonstrating a further departure from traditional values? Would it not be closer to a return? Depends on which traditional values you wish to emulate. It is all an exercise in practical application. Our current society believes 16 is reasonable (the lowest age in any state.) Older societies had a severe difficulty in creating new people faster than they would die off, so the needs of society were somewhat different. They still set the boundary at Nature's minimum as the lower limit. Diogenes · July 22, 2010 9:51 PM Having an open partnership is not incompatible with same-sex marriage, said Spears, 59. Another good point. The rationale that justifies "gay" marriage, also justifies polygamy and polyandry. In other words, it completely destroys the IDEA of marriage. Doesn't the "It's nobody's business what two consenting adults do" extend to three or more?
Diogenes · July 22, 2010 9:59 PM The deal is simple. The government of a Free Country is not going to be very good at policing genitals. There are too many obstacles. Government and society is amorphous stuff with tenuous boundaries. This notion that Government is one thing, and society is another is the same false perception of boundaries when in reality there are none. I think you are having difficulty getting my points because you are trying to compartmentalize everything instead of viewing it more as a "fuzzy logic" state of affairs. Government, for awhile now, has been at cross purpose to society, and has been in fact encouraging genitals to touch far more than nature would allow, and that is one of the reasons there are so many fatherless children taking up a life of crime. But I suppose you only oppose government involvement on the prevention side, but you are ambivalent about it on the encouragement side? BTW I do not favor Gay marriage. An odd contradiction. Also note: In Maine where Med pot and Gay Marriage were on the State ballot in the last election about 58% favored Med Pot and 53% were against gay marriage. Argumentum ad Populum
Diogenes · July 22, 2010 10:18 PM M. Simon · July 21, 2010 09:14 PM Gramsci? How many homosexuals have even heard of Gramsci? They are simply doing what they want. Apparently that's a problem for some people. The issue here is freedom, and there is nothing inconsistent about my position. Not, at least, for those who are not trying to put words in my mouth.
In every discussion i've had about beastiality, people fall back on the "consent" argument, yet when I show them that if the "Law" is the authority, then they have to agree that it was proper for homosexuality to be illegal (when the law said it was) because the law "says" so. They quickly have to abandon citing the "Authority" of the "Law." (in fact, the fallacy of appeal to authority.) And then have to claim that "Animals can't consent." When it can be proven that Animals can consent, then their argument becomes [Change the subject.] or [Don't respond. Pretend you have become tired of the topic.] So how about it? Beastiality okay? If you say "no", then we work backwards to homosexuality. If you say "Yes" then we work forwards to incest and necrophilia etc. If we can't find a forward limit, then I will have to pronounce your philosophy "consistent" and question your sanity. :) My intent is to get you to pronounce a boundary and then use the difference quotient on it till we logically force it back to a natural boundary. :)
My methodology is to determining something is wrong first, and THEN figure out how to fix it If we don't have a consensus on the nature of the problem, what good is a theorized solution to fix a problem you can't agree on? I do agree with a couple of your points, though: We agree on a lot of stuff.
I often feel as if I am wasting time with these hopeless arguments, but I like to think that I am at least making the case for civility in disagreement. Perhaps I flatter myself, though. I try to be civil. What is that old saying? I am also perfectly willing to change my mind once someone makes a persuasive argument. Diogenes · July 22, 2010 10:51 PM If this is so (and I question this blanket statement) then why the opposition to gay marriage? Because some gay men choose to have what they call an open relationship, how is this different than straight couples who swing? If promiscuity is the evil, both morally and because of disease, then it equally applies. You can't have it both ways. Excellent point. I think the issue of adultery is also bothersome to people who argue against gay marriage, and is actually just a different symptom of the same problem. There was a time when the State government enforced laws against adultery. I personally believe it is better for society to prevent adultery, but it is just another case where benefits of adultery are easy to see while the detriments are hidden. An example. A local firefighter (Raymond Dye) two days ago shot his wife (who was divorcing him) and shot himself. From the gossip, she leaving him because she found out he was having an affair with another woman. I am constantly reading of events where this happens. I would rather see a man spend a few days in jail than end up with two dead bodies. You see, if you put the man in jail, he deters other men from following his conduct. It is the "deterrence" theory, and it is the very basis of the concept of laws.
Freedom without bound is no freedom at all. In order to have freedom, there must be some limit. The only person who could have unlimited freedom is a king. Citizens must be limited to some sort of agreed norms. You are saying the norms should be "here" and we are saying the norms should be "there." I dare them to tell me that my 31 year relationship was immoral. In fact these people should read the following from Barry Goldwater and examine their own conscience: I am not impressed by Barry Goldwater. I agreed with him on some things, and he was better than most national Democrats, but other than that, I never had much use for him or his opinions. In any case, I like this quote from him. "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." "And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Schmuck.
Diogenes · July 22, 2010 11:14 PM Yes, and racial integration was also "initiated, funded, and promoted by lefties with a Gramscian agenda." The logic seems to be that if some Marxists aided and abetted something, that makes it Marxist, and bad. Eric, i'm going to try to get through to you on this point. Sometimes there is a good benefit to a bad policy. Mussolini made the trains run on time was a common sentiment at one time. Racial tolerance is a noble goal, but it does indeed make a difference how it is/was reached. This one came at a high price (which has not yet been fully paid.) Do you know what freedom of Association is? It is considered to be a fundamental right. It's corralary is the freedom of "Disassociation." Meaning, if you have the freedom to associate with whom you wish, then you likewise have the freedom to NOT associate with people whom you do not wish to associate with. That ability to chose your associates has been destroyed. You cannot hire whom you please, you cannot rent to whom you please, you can be denied employment or college admission because you are an incorrect demographic, likewise we have affirmative action to thank for giving us our current Precedent. (Do you REALLY think he got into Harvard with his grades, which he admitted in his book were bad?) The power to deny the freedom of disassociation gets the government foot in the door to demand other concessions and results in such absurdities as males wanting to work at Hooters and then suing them for not being hired. Now they are trying to make homosexuality into another "protected" class, and i've read of instances where they are trying to force religious organizations to hire them, and threatening to punish them if they don't. The common theme in all of this is Government force and an encroachment deeper into everyone's affairs. You might think it's okay now, but this train hasn't stopped moving yet.
See above. Wake up Oscar Wilde and let him know! Enjoy the toothpaste!
Diogenes · July 22, 2010 11:52 PM M. Simon: I believe that 30% of gay men and lesbians vote Republican. The lefties are the ones who make all the noise. In my own circle of friends, it's about 50/50, and there is a great deal of unhappiness with Obama among those who championed him. They feel betrayed by his Justice Dept. defense of DOMA, and his halfhearted, too-little too-late, attempt at ending discrimination in the military. If the Republicans adopt a libertarian leaning candidate, I wouldn't be surprised to see a majority of gays, especially lesbians, vote for her. :) Frank · July 23, 2010 12:00 AM Post a comment |
|
April 2011
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2011
March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 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 Sarah Hoyt Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
• People Are Not Rational • No Biorobots For Japan • The Thorium Solution • Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera • Voter Fraud? • This war of attrition is driving me bananas! • Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry? • Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression? • Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
Links
 Alphecca (My Blogdaddy)   Puff the Protector 
Gays in Military Site 
Middle East Media Research Institute 
Gay Libertarian Site The Bitch Girls Join the NRA! 
 SECOND AMENDMENT VIDEO! Shooters' Carnival 
Tammy Bruce Gun Owners of America 
 
David Hackworth 
Hell In A Handbasket Matt Welch The Volokh Conspiracy Virginia Postrel PseudoPsalms The Light of Reason The Anger of Compassion Anger Management Dustbury.com Rachel Lucas Shadow Government reflections in d minor JustOneMinute Boone Country Catallarchy 
Agenda Bender Mike Silverman Steven Malcolm Anderson Walter in Denver Impearls Donald Sensing Howard Owens Loco Parentis 
Colby Cosh VodkaPundit Radley Balko Dean's World The Queen of All Evil baldilocks Joe Gandelman Dave Tepper Begging to Differ Kesher Talk Jeff Jarvis Doc Searls Little Green Footballs Captain Ed Oh, That Liberal Media! ICANNfocus.org God of the Machine Sandefur's Freespace Wizbang Robert Prather LawPundit  The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Amygdala bilious young fogey MadLab On the Fritz why dave bergman is neat Skiplog Clowning Glory Dispatches from the Culture Wars Where in Washington, D.C. is Sun Myung Moon? Anti-Socialist Tendencies Of Interest WICKED THOUGHTS Setting The World To Rights doubleplusgood infotainment It Can't Rain All The Time Scrutineer Nick Danger, International Man of Mystery seldom sober TRITICALE Random Jottings Graham Lester point2point Shark Blog Gene Healy Discount Blogger Six Foot Pole Dodgeblogium Across the Atlantic The Imperialist Dog Lex Talionis Mind Of Mog Say Uncle CAMPVS MAWRTIVS res gestae dionysii Annika's Journal & Poetry A :{FRUSTRATED}: ARTIST Yet another weird SF fan Lincoln Cat The Meatriarchy Who is Ronald? Short Daddy Punch Drunk Mookie Riffic On The Third Hand MatthewEdgar.net ZenPundit Jennifer's History and Stuff 
argghhh!!! Modulator D.C. Thornton Centerfield Asymmetrical Information Airline Pilots Security Assn Relapsed Catholic PAPADOC Abraca-Pocus The Pryhills Winds of Change Daily Pundit The Speculist Regnum Crucis The Elfin Ethicist Classics in Contemporary Culture elephant-rabbits A Perfectly Cromulent Blog allied Parableman Southern Musings CALIFORNIA YANKEE Allen's Arena Ex-Gay Watch Jonno Michael Moore doesn't love me! Eschaton Clayton Cramer Letters From a Strip of Dirt Oliver Willis Hesiod Theogeny Dr Zen JunkYardBlog Orcinus Andrew Sullivan Ideofact Letter from Gotham Oraculations INCITE Positive Liberty ALLAH IS IN THE HOUSE Tiny Little Lies My So-Called Penis Keith Devens Jason Holliston W(h)ine Country Straight White Guy Ken MacLeod Lawrence Lessig 
PaleoJudaica.com EdCone.com Common Sense and Wonder Who knew? Daily Howler James Landrith Chief Wiggles L.T. Smash damnum absque injuria Daniel W. Drezner OxBlog Reason of Voice Steven Den Beste Wonkette! Cranial Cavity Gibberish in Neutral DramaQueen vivalabloog Classics in Contemporary Culture The LLama Butchers 
HobbsOnLine ACIDMAN Sector 7-G Zogby Blog mtpolitics.net Horologium Civic Dialogues Practical Penumbra Right Wing News Stranger in a Strange Land Ambient Irony Tiger: Raggin' & Rantin' Read My Lips Jay Solo The Alliance The Smallest Minority Wrong Side of Happiness Wince and Nod One Little Victory Fishbucket suburban blight Sketches of Strain Boi from Troy Being American in T.O. Outside the Beltway One Fine Jay Bill and Kent's Place on the Web Burton Terrace This Book Stinks The Happy Carpenter Political Correctness Watch GREENIE WATCH Resource.full This Liberal" Brainville BLAMBLOG Ordinary Galoot QandO Josh Cohen Extra Ordinary Ideas brykMantra Croooow Blog Old Right commiewatch 
Proculian Meditations UggaBugga Dustin the No-Longer-Blogless Les Jones Blog Temporal Globe Postcards from Nowhere Tarazet Unfogged Synthstuff Riba Rambles Mitch Berg The National Debate scha-den-freu-de Ocean Guy Topic Exchange CELESTIAL OFFERINGS Texas Native Somewhere over the Rainbough Why read this? End NPR Bias Ace of Spades HQ Web Dawn GANGSTORIES Sheila Astray's Redheaded Ramblings Alan Sullivan (Seablogger) hobbyblog 
FuturePundit.com Tim Blair A Voyage To Arcturus HipperCritical BarlowFriendz Jihad Watch Kin's Kouch Bad Money The Campblog News Junkie Canada De Doc's Doings Bigwig Eject!Eject!Eject! Tom's Nap Room A Coon Cat's World The sexual adventures of Woodie and Peaches Crystalline Ceramics Web Resource Heh. Indeed. NakedVillainy.com Andrew David Chamberlain The Karmic Inquisition Adam Smith Institute Weblog Andrea Harris Hi. I'm Black Banana Oil Jim Miller on Politics Who Tends the Fires Ranck and File MOLOTOV COCKTAIL FRANK NOLI IRRITARE LEONES Miss O'Hara deadmaus Coffee With Rhoads robot guy Travelling Shoes Admiral Quixote's Roundtable danm.us The Argus Dissecting Leftism Dissecting Leftism -- OLD Site Aaron's cc Commentariat The Argus - Registan INDC Journal Pundit Ex Machina DeMythology Peppermint Tea Gilly's World Beyond the Black Hole La Shawn Barber" 
Perverse Access Memory Invisible Adjunct Photon Courier Intel Dump Junkscience.com The SmarterCop Laban Tall Banagor Peeve Farm Rand Simberg camedwards.com Kim du Toit Mrs. du Toit Dancing with Dogs Two--Four Heretical Ideas Astonished Head Outlandish Josh Central Oregon for Dean 
The White Peril 白禍 (Sean Kinsell) www.blktlr.com Subterranean Bungalo DFMoore Dave Halliday Well Versed Qoheleth 60: Joel Moody's Repository quo vado jonrowe.blogspot.com yellopad Sticks of Fire Dissecting Leftism ByteMagick Blogs of War PRESTOPUNDIT Of Interest The Meatriarchy Bernhardt Varenius The Forager Miller?s Time Blogs of War painting to stay (?) sane Blue Goldfish | Surface Clowning Glory House of Payne International Last Chance Caf馬t;/a> Psychology of Leftism a_sdf CONSERVATISM/RIGHTISM Taylor & Company The Vicious Circle Leftists as Elitists Eye of the Storm A scratch area Wicked Thoughts Filtrat The Bayou City Perspective The Belfry Blogger Setting The World To Rights Ljonn.com Oddly Normal Varifrank Jamie Jamison on Technology GayPatriot A New York Escorts Confessions jamescalvin.com The Eleven Day Empire Dr. Rusty Shackleford Eric's Grumles Before The Grave Belmont Club Gumbo Pie BeldarBlog MooreThoughts Blind Adherence Last One Speaks Logic Monkey Bird's Eye View DIRTY WATER Forgadring precision-guided cowboy Punditmania Minor Thoughts Just Askin' HispaLibertas Let's Try Freedom Megan McArdle Ann Althouse Beautiful Atrocities Sean Hackbarth Power and Control Professor Bainbridge Power Line Dialogic Darleen's Place I'm N.O. Pundit! Done With Mirrors AMERICAN FUTURE CodeBlueBlog Gay Orbit Urthshu Zacht Ei Interested-Participant blake taylor The Anchoress Freespeech.com Spiked Decision '08 (Mark Coffey) White Lightning Axiom: Redux The Big Picture Rachel Lucas BEI John Cole Haight Speech evolution: on the loose Moderates of all Nations, Unite! Jeff Gannon THE GLEESON BLOGLOMERATE Pajama Pundits Centerpiece The Radical Centrist Lab-Tested FreedomSight AmbivaBlog evolution Marx & Friends in their own words Elective Application Religion Research Islam Blog YOUNGPUNDIT.COM {finding peace in the chaos} IQ & PC -- By Chris Brand Classics in Contemporary Culture Morse's Code A&W Bench Marx Julie Neidlinger Shades of Gray The Daily Lion: NeoLibertarianism on a Stick Miller's Time Centerpiece This Liberal Coming Anarchy Lay Lines that'sRich the blog eclectic booklore Yankee Madmen Jesusland Expatriate Amazing Motor Girls Spiced Sass Decline and Fall of Western Civilization Modern Crusader MaroonBlog Skriblerier, etc. I am partially fused with infinity Eros Colored Glasses Bill Peschel: The man comes around The Twins Tell the Truth wickens.ca The War of Ideas ConsterNations EaglesUp Blog Vitriolics Anonymous DIRTY WATER Mean Mr. Mustard 2.0 EDUCATION WATCH THE RIGHT SCALE AIS Knight Hammer SOCIALIZED MEDICINE The Argus DON'T BE DUMB! Blue Goldfish | Surface GUN WATCH De Docs Institute for Memetic Engineering And Polymaths... Wordpress Test Weblog Kapowie Zone Political Theory: Weblogs You know, they say... all blogged down Harkonnendog Big Dirigible GeoPoliticalreview.com Coyote Blog Blog Retrofuturistic VietPundit JasonColeman.com Logical Meme Bloggledygook Discursive Recursions Bird's Eye View Right Wing Nut House ELEMENOHPEE Locusts and Honey Moonbattery The Everlasting Phelps Mythusmage Opines The Cassandra Page Of Arms & the Law The Daily Bork Strange Stuff Another Gay Republican Libertarian Man of Mystery Liberty Just In Case TalkLeft Joe's Dartblog Iowa Hawk The Common Room Darth Vader Gay Bipolar Republican Boxing Alcibiades Baby TrollBlog Strange Fictions Urban Hermit The Eye of Polyphemus Toe In The Water Bryan's Basement Fishkite Right on the Left Coast Beltway Buzz pike speak Scared Monkeys The Mudville Gazette Matt Sheffield Undercaffeinated Trey Jackson NashvilleFiles.com Moonbat Central Dust my Broom The Cliffs of Insanity Riding Sun The Modo Blog Philly Future philly Off In The Tall Weeds Doug Petch.Com Gays for Life the True Nature of Reality Spinning Clio Mike Huckabee President 2008 A.E.Brain that rogueclassicist guy A M㯠Invis�l Constantly Risking Absurdity Laurence Simon Notes & Musings A World of Speculation Weird Events Pit Bull Wars New World Man Mark in Mexico The Palmetto Pundit All Things Jen(nifer) Generic Confusion Justus for All iHillary Michael Totten Don Surber Maggie's Farm Unpaid Punditry Corps The Counter Hippie Kicking On Doors FunnyBusiness Restless Mania Mark Tapscott nobody sasses a girl in glasses Letters from the Bostonian Exile The Education Wonks Diana Hseih just muttering Right-Wing of the Gods Michelle Malkin Inside Larry's Head Ballpoint Wren A Blog For All The Liberal Wrong American Outlook Splog Reporter From the Grand Stand Tinabell Affordable Housing Institute mudphud Living In The Past Searchlight Crusade Gus Van Horn Ian Schwartz One Billion Red Chinese and a Dog Named Liberty Suburban Bourgeois The Metropolis Times DR. HELEN Philadelphia AIDS Thrift Sir Humphrey's Birth Story The Simplest Thing Blue Star Chronicles One Stack Mind Cathy Young Neocon Express A A R D V A R K World Climate Report Apartment 604 Yelling at the Windshield Kimdergarten/ ShrinkWrapped The Bear Cave X marks the blogspot CARRY ON AMERICA Jim Rose Kiril, The Mad Macedonian Signal 94 Pseudo-Polymath The International Libertarian Gates of Vienna California Sojourn The Liberty Papers Barcepundit A. Jacksonian Jon Swift Tim Maguire Three Sticks Asymmetric Dog Politics OregonGuy Little Miss Attila Buuuuurrrrning Hot AGENT BEDHEAD Tygrrrr Express David Harsanyi Snowflakes in Hell Earnest Iconoclast Eternity Road Musings of the GeekWithA.45 Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest Argue With Everyone Political Forum Nathan J. Winograd Assistant Village Idiot Parkway Rest Stop Grouchy Old Cripple Technicalities Coalition of the Swilling TigerHawk Mary Madigan Sad Old Goth Erica Sherman Joated Ezra Levant
 Pssst! Wanna get on the Classical Values blogroll?  Don?t bang your head!
Please send me an email and let me know, because although I try to keep up, sometimes I have trouble finding every last link.
Site Credits
  (Link buttons) 
|
|
"And there is no question that the Pill has had considerable social costs. I also suspect that in many cases it changes the personalities of the women who take it, transforming them into sterile workers, and best of all for the world which uses them, they don't even realize it."
As in 1984, "Freedom is slavery". Do you have any substantiating evidence for these claims. I'm fairly sure that women do indeed realize that the pill prevents them from becoming pregnant, in fact that is exactly what they want. Perhaps you need to realize that women may want to become "sterile workers" (or sterile non-workers) and that they don't all share your desire to have children.