diversity and tolerance

[rusmeister]

Rus, I gotta tell ya, I'm usually pretty good at sussing out GKC's meaning -- but after reading the first snippet in your last post, I am now more confused than ever. Is he talking about the Industrial Revolution? Is that why he says that capitalism is all about breaking up families -- because capitalists hire people away from the farm to live and work alone in the city?

And what does the government have to do with it? Is he saying the government is in league with the capitalists to tear down the family?

Is he glorifying our vaunted agrarian past, when everybody lived and worked on the farm together? Are *you* advocating that we all leave our jobs in the soulless city and go back to living off the land with our families?

And what does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Are you and GKC saying that if the government didn't encourage people to leave the farm, gay people wouldn't be attracted to each other?

As for marriage being a contract -- okay, *that* is the government's fault. When people swear out the marriage license and pay the state the fee, that's a legal contract. But couples still exchange vows before God -- that's what the church service is for.

Hi Ali!
A lot springs from context - and it's hard trying to share the text when people say they WON'T read the context.
You got the trajectory wrong, though, and so your speculation based on that also fails to hit the mark. It's not from the farms to the cities as the primary problem, but the pulling of the members of the family out of the home:

• the man - to work, not for himself, to raise his own crops or repair furniture for people in the town, but to sell his time working for somebody else, and generally get exploited in the process. (This applies to the majority, not a minority that can actually engage in self-realization as a career.)

• the woman - to pull her away from ruling her own home and raising her own children that she might serve in someone else's home and raise the children of others - or iow, see "the man", above)

• the child, that he might be compelled to spend the greater part of his day, and his formative years, in an abnormal society surrounded only by peers and be "educated" by a system designed to teach, not free thought, but conditioned obedience

It should be obvious that a weak family is to the advantage of non-benevolent despotism or other autocratic authority - just looking at slavery, it was the division of the family that helped, above all else, to keep the slaves abject and resigned to their fate, knowing nothing of their heritage, ancestry, or even their own birthdays, and deprived of that loyalty to blood and the family which could provide the most dangerous basis for rebellion against that authority.

Hope that helps make a little more sense of the text.

As to what I think, I think that making communities local - and ending urbanity, would indeed be best for the human condition. The widely distributed man, with widely distributed property, really is a worthy ideal. (I don't think it's really attainable without Christ - the Star Trekkian utopia without God, where man becomes his own god, cannot achieve that, but I do think it ideal.) IOW, "small is beautiful".

On vows vs contracts, I suggest considering what society was like when vows were held to be sacred, and the oath breaker a monster and social outcast. One needs to be able to expand their view beyond what people know and understand today - to see this in the sweep of history, and not merely be a child of one's own time. I'm not sure how to tell you the best way to do this - only that I know that I have done it, and it was by accepting instruction from things far older and wiser than me that this became possible. As long as all that we can refer to is what we see today - if modern practice is the only basis for understanding concepts, then we have not done that.

I'm saying that if the family (traditional, as I have defined it) is held to be sacred and not something to be tampered with or redefined, then there will be no talk of "gay marriage". It will be as illogical as speaking of "humorous rape", or "blue chemistry" or "Greek stars" (in the sense of 'balls of flaming gas').

[rusmeister]

The Bach quote sounds nice, but is BS. As long as nothing is at stake, you can talk like that - there are no consequences; but when life and death are on the line, blood is thicker than water.
Respect and joy, or dysfunction and bitterness, can be found in any relationship whatsoever, in or out of familial bonds. And families can - and very often DO give and get respect and joy out of each other's lives.

So nobody has ever given their life to save somebody that they weren't related to by blood? I doubt it.

And yes, of course families can find respect and joy in each others lives. But so can people who are not biologically related. Biology is not the sole determinent of family.

Indeed, since husbands and wives are not related to each other, family is created by unrelated people. So what creates it? Why...love. So how can it matter who that love is between?

--A

My own comment on respect and joy was merely meant to counter Bach's apparent suggestion that the blood family does not do this. Respect and joy certainly do not, on their own, hold a family together when the going gets rough. And the word "love" has become so diluted that what you mean by it is quite unclear. Popular imagination today sees "love" as a feeling - something that, by its nature, comes and goes.

Neither did I ever suggest that nobody ever gave their life to save a non-blood relation. I just didn't say that. I DO say that blood is thicker than water, and that the loyalty of blood is FAR more likely to go out on that limb than mere affection, or even friendship will. The government knows that still, even if the modern intellectual elite has forgotten that - they certainly watch the families of suspected "enemies" more closely than random friends and acquaintances. The first thing focused on in a criminal investigation is the family - for the same reason.

I've already laid out the history of the traditional family, which has been the general rule of humanity, and which we still find as the common understanding planet-wide. So saying that the emotions - "falling in love" and so on, while being the jump-start of the marriage, are not the thing that holds it together, should be unnecessary. It's like saying, "Let us take concrete and mix soil (or sand) in it. After all, soil is also an earthy material, and concrete should be whatever we want it to be." Your proposed cement of (undefined) love results in a 50% divorce rate - and the 50% is precisely the people who hold that vague, fuzzy definition of love who get divorced. The thing that has held marriages together, certainly in the civilization that gave birth to us, has been the vow, and the social insistence on upholding the vow, even when times get rough.
The blood ties that result from childbirth, together with this vow, are the thing that has held the family together throughout the history of Christendom. It is only now, in the post-Christian era, that this foundation of society is under attack by people who do not understand what it is, or even that they are attacking it.

[Fist and Faith]

I'll try to make it clear that I believe a word SHOULD mean what its roots imply, and that I know that usage, especially in a time like ours, varies enormously from that ideal. That other use - unclear use, the kind you want here, lead to falsehood, because they inaccurately describe whatever the concept is. If I use the root for"fire" to describe a water-based phenomenon, then obviously I am describing the phenomenon in a misleading way, to say the least. That people might eventually come to connect my "igneo-" for "acqua-" does not change the misleading origin of the term.

As to what you want, I refuse to debate if you can expand words to mean whatever you want. I say they have to mean something objective. I say that arachnophobia is NOT a vague dislike of spiders, but an actual pathology, and that applies to all other uses of "-phobia". I do not grant you an exception here, just because you "want" one. If that were accepted, I can start speaking of mass religiophobia and theophobia on this website, as well as partheniphobia, ierophobia, and itakoiophobia*, representing an irrational fear of chastity, holiness and obedience. While they might not be true, many believers would no doubt think it so, and so they would not be averse to "expanding the definition of fear" to cover it. That would be an unfair casting of your position - but if you don't care about objections to unfairly casting the position of rational, intelligent believers, why should they care about the objections of unbelievers?

You can think anything should be whatever you want, but it's not always so. You can bemoan the fact that words do not always mean exactly what the translation of their roots means. But it's as useful as railing against winter.

"Homophobia" does mean what I've been talking about. It's a range of negative, irrational emotions against homosexuality. It's what the word meant when it was first used, not terribly long ago. It doesn't mean anything else, and it never has. And no other word means what it means. I have not "expanded" anything. I am using a word according to the word's meaning; the way the word was intended to be used when it was coined fairly recently.

The vagueness is similar to vagueness of love. Love is a wide range of feelings, for a wide range of things. The love of a father for his daughter is far different from the love of the girl for her doll. Neither of which is very similar to my love of Bach. If I laugh at a funny joke, and say, "I love it!", it would be ridiculous for you to start telling me that the root of the word love is such-and-such, and that the use I am trying to make of it is invalid, and that I have therfore invalidated love in general.

This is exactly the same case with homophobia. You agree with homophobes' desire to end homosexuality, although not for the same reasons. Therefore, you use whatever tactics you can to try to invalidate homosexuality. But this one is silly, and isn't going to work with me.

Some forms of what you would attempt to describe as "phobia" are rational dislikes - logical to disapprove of and illogical to approve of. This can in no way, shape or form be cast as irrational fear. And we say that there IS an intelligent basis, that includes reason besides faith, for thinking the way we do. Again, you may disagree and say "wrong". But you may NOT say "irrational" in regards to my position, which is shared by millions of people in the US alone.

Yes, I can say "irrational" in this case. At least, I can until you, at the very least, present rational arguments for your position. "The traditional family is the only thing that can oppose the tyranny of the state" is not a rational argument against homosexuality. It's not even a rational argument for the traditional family. It's simply a statement. If you would care to make a case in support of this statement, I'm all ears. Or eyes.

It is also true that a great many believers can not consciously form those reasons, any more than defenders of homosexuality can go beyond accusing their opponents of "hate" and "fear". They trust their leadership, and the positions of their churches - but they are not irrational for doing so. They merely subscribe to the idea of obedience to good and wise authority as a virtue, just as wise and good children do.

How does one come to believe an authority is good and wise if one does not understand that authority's ideals?? And don't tell me "can not consciously form those reasons" means anything other than "doesn't understand". If you understand something, you can break it down; explain it; pass on that information. Step by step. When we try, we sometimes hit a roadblock, and realize we didn't understand it as well as we thought. So we examine the roadblock, and see if we still agree with the argument. If we do, that roadblock is gone, and we know how to explain that step. If we dont, if we can't get past that roadblock, it means we don't understand the argument. (Or, possibly, don't actually agree with it.) When a self-proclaimed linguist refuses to explain his position, a position that he has full understanding of, because he can't put it into words... Well, you explain the obvious problem with this scenario. Or explain why there has only been one person in history who can explain it, even though he wasn't even dealing with or talking about this specific issue, and nobody else has ever addressed it, and you can't find anyone else to help you explain this extremely important idea to me. Because, unlike ali, I'm not usually pretty good at sussing out GKC's meaning. I can't make head nor tail of him. My brain doesn't seem to grasp concepts presented in the way he presents them. That's the way it goes. I wish it wasn't. I've very much enjoyed many other writers who had strong religious beliefs, and hoped he would be another. But it just ain't so. However, it seems odd that he is the only person who ever lived who has given a rational argument against homosexuality. (Or whose ideas dealing with other things can easily include this idea.)

But in the end, you must defeat the best arguments of those you disagree with, not the worst, not the strawmen. You must take the very best positions - such as that of the Orthodox Church www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26 , and defeat THAT, and stop imagining that the basis of that position is hate and fear.
Only you can't, and I imagine you know that. That leaves you with defeating strawmen, and us at a permanent impasse. But your position in that case will certainly be no more rational than mine; rather, a good deal less.

That is your idea of one of the very best rational argument against homosexuality? Are you kidding? That is literally "God says so." It's even literally "God says to kill them." There is nothing there that approaches a rational, logical argument for or against anything at all.

You can attack the radicals who murder people, and we will agree with you. You can condemn beatings and violence by a tiny minority, and we will support you. But stop confusing them with us and start dealing with us instead of them!

I'm not dealing with them. They are but one group that opposes homosexuality. The other group is those who do so because God says to. Represented at the Watch by you. We don't need to discuss homophobia at all. If you drop it, I will. I merely mentioned it, and you tried to invalidate it with your ideas about how words should and should not be coined. If you want, we can ignore homophobia entirely, and discuss rational arguments against homosexuality. If there are any.

[aliantha]

Rus -- so GKC *is* talking about the ramifications of the Industrial Revolution. That's when people really began to work outside the home, for others. And it's also when the idea of compulsory schooling based on the Prussian model took off, isn't it? That was around the same timeframe, iirc.

I think we've trod this ground before. Before the Industrial Revolution, particularly in England, the vast majority of the population were serfs. Serfs may have stayed down on the farm with their families, but they didn't have any more control over their destinies than today's wage slaves do -- and possibly less. Altho I guess I agree with you that in pre-industrial times, the family unit was the serf's only defense against his overlord (tho "defense" is probably the wrong word, as there was very little the serf could do to mitigate his lot -- essentially his family helped him cope and that was it).

Regardless, thanks for the elucidation.

[rusmeister]

Rus -- so GKC *is* talking about the ramifications of the Industrial Revolution. That's when people really began to work outside the home, for others. And it's also when the idea of compulsory schooling based on the Prussian model took off, isn't it? That was around the same timeframe, iirc.

I think we've trod this ground before. Before the Industrial Revolution, particularly in England, the vast majority of the population were serfs. Serfs may have stayed down on the farm with their families, but they didn't have any more control over their destinies than today's wage slaves do -- and possibly less. Altho I guess I agree with you that in pre-industrial times, the family unit was the serf's only defense against his overlord (tho "defense" is probably the wrong word, as there was very little the serf could do to mitigate his lot -- essentially his family helped him cope and that was it).

Regardless, thanks for the elucidation.

Your view of history seems just slightly off. Serfdom ended long before the Industrial Revolution. Peasants lasted longer, of course, but that's already not serfdom.

But at least we see something in common on my main point. (Given how rare that is around here, it seems like a feat! )

[Avatar]

Yes, I can say "irrational" in this case. At least, I can until you, at the very least, present rational arguments for your position. "The traditional family is the only thing that can oppose the tyranny of the state" is not a rational argument against homosexuality. It's not even a rational argument for the traditional family. It's simply a statement. If you would care to make a case in support of this statement, I'm all ears. Or eyes.

Good post Fist.

--A

[rusmeister]

I'll try to make it clear that I believe a word SHOULD mean what its roots imply, and that I know that usage, especially in a time like ours, varies enormously from that ideal. That other use - unclear use, the kind you want here, lead to falsehood, because they inaccurately describe whatever the concept is. If I use the root for"fire" to describe a water-based phenomenon, then obviously I am describing the phenomenon in a misleading way, to say the least. That people might eventually come to connect my "igneo-" for "acqua-" does not change the misleading origin of the term.

As to what you want, I refuse to debate if you can expand words to mean whatever you want. I say they have to mean something objective. I say that arachnophobia is NOT a vague dislike of spiders, but an actual pathology, and that applies to all other uses of "-phobia". I do not grant you an exception here, just because you "want" one. If that were accepted, I can start speaking of mass religiophobia and theophobia on this website, as well as partheniphobia, ierophobia, and itakoiophobia*, representing an irrational fear of chastity, holiness and obedience. While they might not be true, many believers would no doubt think it so, and so they would not be averse to "expanding the definition of fear" to cover it. That would be an unfair casting of your position - but if you don't care about objections to unfairly casting the position of rational, intelligent believers, why should they care about the objections of unbelievers?

You can think anything should be whatever you want, but it's not always so. You can bemoan the fact that words do not always mean exactly what the translation of their roots means. But it's as useful as railing against winter.

"Homophobia" does mean what I've been talking about. It's a range of negative, irrational emotions against homosexuality. It's what the word meant when it was first used, not terribly long ago. It doesn't mean anything else, and it never has. And no other word means what it means. I have not "expanded" anything. I am using a word according to the word's meaning; the way the word was intended to be used when it was coined fairly recently.

The vagueness is similar to vagueness of love. Love is a wide range of feelings, for a wide range of things. The love of a father for his daughter is far different from the love of the girl for her doll. Neither of which is very similar to my love of Bach. If I laugh at a funny joke, and say, "I love it!", it would be ridiculous for you to start telling me that the root of the word love is such-and-such, and that the use I am trying to make of it is invalid, and that I have therfore invalidated love in general.

This is exactly the same case with homophobia. You agree with homophobes' desire to end homosexuality, although not for the same reasons. Therefore, you use whatever tactics you can to try to invalidate homosexuality. But this one is silly, and isn't going to work with me.

Some forms of what you would attempt to describe as "phobia" are rational dislikes - logical to disapprove of and illogical to approve of. This can in no way, shape or form be cast as irrational fear. And we say that there IS an intelligent basis, that includes reason besides faith, for thinking the way we do. Again, you may disagree and say "wrong". But you may NOT say "irrational" in regards to my position, which is shared by millions of people in the US alone.

Yes, I can say "irrational" in this case. At least, I can until you, at the very least, present rational arguments for your position. "The traditional family is the only thing that can oppose the tyranny of the state" is not a rational argument against homosexuality. It's not even a rational argument for the traditional family. It's simply a statement. If you would care to make a case in support of this statement, I'm all ears. Or eyes.

It is also true that a great many believers can not consciously form those reasons, any more than defenders of homosexuality can go beyond accusing their opponents of "hate" and "fear". They trust their leadership, and the positions of their churches - but they are not irrational for doing so. They merely subscribe to the idea of obedience to good and wise authority as a virtue, just as wise and good children do.

How does one come to believe an authority is good and wise if one does not understand that authority's ideals?? And don't tell me "can not consciously form those reasons" means anything other than "doesn't understand". If you understand something, you can break it down; explain it; pass on that information. Step by step. When we try, we sometimes hit a roadblock, and realize we didn't understand it as well as we thought. So we examine the roadblock, and see if we still agree with the argument. If we do, that roadblock is gone, and we know how to explain that step. If we dont, if we can't get past that roadblock, it means we don't understand the argument. (Or, possibly, don't actually agree with it.) When a self-proclaimed linguist refuses to explain his position, a position that he has full understanding of, because he can't put it into words... Well, you explain the obvious problem with this scenario. Or explain why there has only been one person in history who can explain it, even though he wasn't even dealing with or talking about this specific issue, and nobody else has ever addressed it, and you can't find anyone else to help you explain this extremely important idea to me. Because, unlike ali, I'm not usually pretty good at sussing out GKC's meaning. I can't make head nor tail of him. My brain doesn't seem to grasp concepts presented in the way he presents them. That's the way it goes. I wish it wasn't. I've very much enjoyed many other writers who had strong religious beliefs, and hoped he would be another. But it just ain't so. However, it seems odd that he is the only person who ever lived who has given a rational argument against homosexuality. (Or whose ideas dealing with other things can easily include this idea.)

But in the end, you must defeat the best arguments of those you disagree with, not the worst, not the strawmen. You must take the very best positions - such as that of the Orthodox Church www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?SID=12&ID=26 , and defeat THAT, and stop imagining that the basis of that position is hate and fear.
Only you can't, and I imagine you know that. That leaves you with defeating strawmen, and us at a permanent impasse. But your position in that case will certainly be no more rational than mine; rather, a good deal less.

That is your idea of one of the very best rational argument against homosexuality? Are you kidding? That is literally "God says so." It's even literally "God says to kill them." There is nothing there that approaches a rational, logical argument for or against anything at all.

You can attack the radicals who murder people, and we will agree with you. You can condemn beatings and violence by a tiny minority, and we will support you. But stop confusing them with us and start dealing with us instead of them!

I'm not dealing with them. They are but one group that opposes homosexuality. The other group is those who do so because God says to. Represented at the Watch by you. We don't need to discuss homophobia at all. If you drop it, I will. I merely mentioned it, and you tried to invalidate it with your ideas about how words should and should not be coined. If you want, we can ignore homophobia entirely, and discuss rational arguments against homosexuality. If there are any.

Hey Fist,
Not sure what there is left to say.
One thing is that I hold that maybe 0.1% of opposition could even remotely be considered to have a pathological fear of homosexuals, yet all of the attacks on opposition focus on that 0.1% and ignore the 99.9% that do not come from fear or hate. As long as we see eye-to-eye on that, I agree - there's nothing to say. As far as I'm concerned, it's not part of the discussion at all, and if you understand how often we get labeled as "homophobes" you might appreciate some sensitivity to hearing the insinuation. But we cannot have vague terms between us - if we do, you will understand them as you see fit, I will understand them as I see fit, and we will simply misunderstand each other. If you say "love", you must define what you mean (at least as soon as one of us figures out that there is a malfunction in understanding a word).

AS to the statement of the OC, no I did not mean it to represent rational argument. I meant it to be a direct denial of accusations of fear and hate. If you admit that hate and fear are not the basis on which most people oppose legitimization of homosexuality, then it is irrelevant. Oh, and that "God says to kill them" is explicitly pointed out to be the old covenant. And yes, mercy for the individual in this life was not the prime basis for that covenant, so you can't shock Christians by telling them that.

People can come to faith as children, or like children. They may not be able to form complex intellectual arguments, but they do see that the authority is wise and good and don't need to understand a lot of theology or apologetics to see that. So they do understand the authority's ideals, even though they'll express the understandings in simpler terms.

I don't claim GKC is an exclusive source. I happen to think he nailed a great many things much better than nearly everybody else.
(If you read Young's essay, you should already not be suggesting that Chesterton is the only person to speak out rationally against homosexuality, never mind that GKC did not address the issue as such.) It is something, though, which was a non-issue for most Christian writers throughout history, and so there was no need to write anything about it. What you evidently want is modern authors who do apologetics specifically regarding the Christian stand on homosexuality. (Maybe I'm supposed to become one of those writers. I don't see how I can do it with the load I have in my life, but maybe that will change.)
I could search for them for you - or you could search for them yourself. It is something that interests me so I'd be happy to read such works - but I'm limited to what I can find free online (one reason why I read mostly old books - something I think, by and large, a great advantage, as it is (really) old books that help free one's mind and see that people of other times did not take for granted what is taken for granted in our time - leading one to stop taking those ideas for granted, but it's a nuisance when copyright makes acquisition of an interesting modern text difficult.

As to my "refusing" to explain my position...
The things that are the most obvious (especially the ones that are true) are the most difficult to explain to those to whom it is not obvious. Explaining color to a blind man, or love to a computer. I was unable to see these things as recently as eight years ago.

I have severe doubts that any explanation would ever suffice, given your inability to see (what to me is obvious) even based on what I have laid out - that the family is necessary for the freedom you would have and that it must be something sacred, not subject to redefinition based on desire. To me it is obvious that if it is not held as a defined thing - and the same thing that it has been held by humanity throughout history - then the society that so disdains it (ie, treats it as a re-definable thing) must collapse. This would take a few generations and would not happen overnight. - my guess is 4-5, but anarchy is certain to develop; with anarchy in the family, anarchy in the state is inevitable.

Not understanding an argument does not make that argument irrational - in fact, it is the greatest complement you can pay to an opponent, for it leaves wide-open the possibility that he is right.

MOST people either say that they agree with Bernard Shaw or that they
do not understand him. I am the only person who understands him,
and I do not agree with him.

GKC "George Bernard Shaw", 1908

[Avatar]

Why is the family necessary for freedom?

--A

[rusmeister]

Why is the family necessary for freedom?

--A

If the family is not the basis of society, then there is no competing loyalty to oppose whatever a government wants to impose.
Did you check out the link to Pavlik Morozov which I posted several posts back?

I think it's a paradoxical situation. The family is essential to form a real society, and thence, government, so it would seem that government cannot dispense with the family. However, individual greed (which we call "sin") results in individuals attempting to incrementally expand government powers even though they infringe on the status of the family, resulting in a hostile element between the two.

One practical example of this is compulsory education. If parents may NOT choose to forgo government education; or even if they must merely "ask permission" to opt out and home-school, then the family is being subordinated to the government, and not vice-versa.
Another is Child Protective Services. While we all admit that there are extraordinary (meaning completely exceptional) cases where parents might actually pose a danger to their children, few of us consider the implications when this arm of the state applies its force to cases where it is quite dubious that they actually do.

I see the particular danger of our time being that of treating exceptions as the rule (that has applications in probably every sphere of public life), and thus, abuse of these powers becomes more harmful than the benefits that they provide.

[Fist and Faith]

rus, the irony is that it is not the government who is trying to keep homosexuals from enjoying the freedom and equality that heterosexuals have. It is you. While saying those of your values are the only weapon against taking away freedom and equality, you are pushing to take away freedom and equality.

[aliantha]

Why is the family necessary for freedom?

--A

If the family is not the basis of society, then there is no competing loyalty to oppose whatever a government wants to impose.
Did you check out the link to Pavlik Morozov which I posted several posts back?

I'll be upfront about it: no, I didn't.

But I'd like to examine your thesis, which I've put in italics. If you go far enough back, family and government are the same thing. Humans all lived in tribes at some point. Some peoples called them clans. But they were all blood relatives of some sort. Extended family. At that point, at least in theory, loyalty to government and loyalty to family is the same thing -- there is no opposition. At that point, the only opposition would be between the desires of the individual and the clan/tribe/state. Loyalty to government or loyalty to oneself.

The concept of the nuclear family -- mom, dad, kids -- is really fairly recent. Even until (okay!) peasant times, extended families lived together and formed a cohesive unit. That's one of the things that has been lost, and mourned over by some, in our highly mobile society of today. Family used to mean not just mom/dad/kids, but grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins as well. The clan. The tribe. And again, if you disagreed with the clan's government, it was loyalty to the clan against loyalty to oneself.

The smallest unit of government, if you will, has never been the family. The smallest unit of government has always been the individual.

[Avatar]

Sorry Rus, no I probably didn't. I prefer to hear it from you though.

I'll agree that the family was the...founding unit of society. The connection between the family and government seems more tenuous to me. I can see the reasoning, but I don't think that the family itself is a causitive source of government.

The family led to society, but that doesn't that family leads to government. Society leads to government, if you see the distinction I'm drawing.

(As I said, I understand the reasoning that, without family, there would be no society, and therefore no government, but I don't think it's strictly accurate.)

As for competing loyalties against the government's imposition of things...I think almost anything can serve. Religion, ideology, individualism, all those things can counteract governments pull.

Finally, I don't think there is any attempt going on to destroy the family. Yes, family is "subsumed" by government. That is the nature of government...all things become subject to it.

--A

[rusmeister]

rus, the irony is that it is not the government who is trying to keep homosexuals from enjoying the freedom and equality that heterosexuals have. It is you. While saying those of your values are the only weapon against taking away freedom and equality, you are pushing to take away freedom and equality.

This is something where all we can hope to do is understand each other's position. I see no freedom to require me to acknowledge that fire is water, 2+2 is 5, or that people of the same sex can "be married", and therefore it is not an issue of equality to begin with. Once you understand that we don't see it as an issue of "equal rights", that it is not at all the same as race issues, to which it is wrongly compared all the time, you'll at least not think that we are somehow simply 'not seeing' an infringement of equality.

The sum is, I plead innocent to the claim of "homophobia", 'guilty' to "intolerance", and insist that the intolerance is the virtue, and your tolerance the vice.

[rusmeister]

Why is the family necessary for freedom?

--A

If the family is not the basis of society, then there is no competing loyalty to oppose whatever a government wants to impose.
Did you check out the link to Pavlik Morozov which I posted several posts back?

I'll be upfront about it: no, I didn't.

But I'd like to examine your thesis, which I've put in italics. If you go far enough back, family and government are the same thing. Humans all lived in tribes at some point. Some peoples called them clans. But they were all blood relatives of some sort. Extended family. At that point, at least in theory, loyalty to government and loyalty to family is the same thing -- there is no opposition. At that point, the only opposition would be between the desires of the individual and the clan/tribe/state. Loyalty to government or loyalty to oneself.

The concept of the nuclear family -- mom, dad, kids -- is really fairly recent. Even until (okay!) peasant times, extended families lived together and formed a cohesive unit. That's one of the things that has been lost, and mourned over by some, in our highly mobile society of today. Family used to mean not just mom/dad/kids, but grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins as well. The clan. The tribe. And again, if you disagreed with the clan's government, it was loyalty to the clan against loyalty to oneself.

The smallest unit of government, if you will, has never been the family. The smallest unit of government has always been the individual.

Here I am actually largely in agreement with you. Except for the last part. Government has always been formed on the basis of society. Without families, no society can self-perpetuate. Individuals just can't do it. We're not asexual flowers.

But at least you seem to admit the essential aspect in history of blood relation, which is a primary point for the family and against "same-sex marriage" (not in isolation of course).

[Avatar]

I see no freedom to require me to acknowledge that fire is water, 2+2 is 5, or that people of the same sex can "be married", and therefore it is not an issue of equality to begin with.

Fire is demonstrably not water, 2+2 demonstrably does not equal 5. But people of the same sex can be married. Demonstrably, since they have been. I just don't see any impediment to it.

--A

[rusmeister]

Sorry Rus, no I probably didn't. I prefer to hear it from you though.

I'll agree that the family was the...founding unit of society. The connection between the family and government seems more tenuous to me. I can see the reasoning, but I don't think that the family itself is a causitive source of government.

The family led to society, but that doesn't that family leads to government. Society leads to government, if you see the distinction I'm drawing.

(As I said, I understand the reasoning that, without family, there would be no society, and therefore no government, but I don't think it's strictly accurate.)

As for competing loyalties against the government's imposition of things...I think almost anything can serve. Religion, ideology, individualism, all those things can counteract governments pull.

Finally, I don't think there is any attempt going on to destroy the family. Yes, family is "subsumed" by government. That is the nature of government...all things become subject to it.

--A

It takes me at least ten minutes to type out what you could read in two. The link is short and sweet. Pavlik Morozov was a child made into a legend, largely a false one by the Soviets, the base idea of which is that the government should be held as supreme over the family.

I do get your distinction, but it is rather causative, if not directly.
On competing loyalties, none have ever held the importance or absolute value in history as that of the family. As I said, government and law enforcement certainly act on that presumption.

I don't say that there is any deliberate plot to destroy the family. Rather that there is a movement to end the sacredness of the family, which will make it something insignificant and something perceived to be unnecessary in society, which will eventually bring an end to society itself.

And it may be a tendency of government to subject all things to it, but that is generally recognized as tyranny, and so it must be stood up to. And the individual, without the family, has in the long run, no chance.

[Avatar]

Yes, but I understand it better when you explain it in your own words, and its easier to read.

Anyway, here we come up against another potential stumbling block...what does sacred mean?

--A

[aliantha]

Government has always been formed on the basis of society. Without families, no society can self-perpetuate. Individuals just can't do it. We're not asexual flowers.

If you're gonna go that route, let's call a spade a spade. It's the sex drive that causes society to self-perpetuate. "Family" is the result.

But I thought you were talking about standing up against tyranny (in the form of government). That has *always* been an individual decision and an individual act. Maybe one family member can inspire the rest of the family into standing firm against the government, but I think typically it's more the lone wolf who stands against tyranny, without even family support. It's always just one nut who starts the revolution, right?

I don't say that there is any deliberate plot to destroy the family. Rather that there is a movement to end the sacredness of the family, which will make it something insignificant and something perceived to be unnecessary in society, which will eventually bring an end to society itself.

I actually think gay marriage will be good for the family. Any committed relationship should strengthen the concept, not weaken it. It's not like heterosexual marriage is going away. And gay couples who want a family pretty much *have* to adopt, which can only be a good thing for all those unwanted kids in foster care.

I really don't see a downside to allowing gays to marry.

[rusmeister]

Government has always been formed on the basis of society. Without families, no society can self-perpetuate. Individuals just can't do it. We're not asexual flowers.

If you're gonna go that route, let's call a spade a spade. It's the sex drive that causes society to self-perpetuate. "Family" is the result.

But I thought you were talking about standing up against tyranny (in the form of government). That has *always* been an individual decision and an individual act. Maybe one family member can inspire the rest of the family into standing firm against the government, but I think typically it's more the lone wolf who stands against tyranny, without even family support. It's always just one nut who starts the revolution, right?

I don't say that there is any deliberate plot to destroy the family. Rather that there is a movement to end the sacredness of the family, which will make it something insignificant and something perceived to be unnecessary in society, which will eventually bring an end to society itself.

I actually think gay marriage will be good for the family. Any committed relationship should strengthen the concept, not weaken it. It's not like heterosexual marriage is going away. And gay couples who want a family pretty much *have* to adopt, which can only be a good thing for all those unwanted kids in foster care.

I really don't see a downside to allowing gays to marry.

I think you've got it almost right. If you like, the "sex drive", which includes the romantic as well as carnal aspects of eros, that results in the family. Families create society and enable it to self-perpetuate.

I think the whole aspect of the family as a thing that stands against government to be a side issue - it is not the ultimate raison d'etre of the family, but it IS an aspect that doesn't require religious belief to grasp.

As far as revolutions start, yes, agreed. But the individual cannot maintain the revolution or bring it to a desired conclusion. It is the society that must do that, which stands on the family. Without that, the individual will fail.

My counter point on whether gay marriage could be good for the family would be that you are proposing a major change to a definition which has stood for millenia (and of course, by all means include extended family and the tribe, but even they surround the so-called nuclear family). The change of definition is what is fatal. If I can change it at all, why could I not change it again? And again? And again? If I can expand a definition at all, then it could be expanded as far as anyone liked. It seems that you tacitly promise that this change will be the only one - that it won't expand further. I don't believe that for a minute. Once you set that precedent, it really will take a catastrophe to reverse it (I imagine an asteroid striking the earth a la "Lucifer's Hammer" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer%27s_Hammer might knock the nonsense out of people and force them back to the only thing that has ever preserved society when the going gets really rough.) I think people would be shocked and horrified if they really imagined where such definitions could be expanded to, and would go into denial - but with sufficient changes in social mores and morality it would not so shock a generation that had accepted them.

In other words, such proposed changes are tampering with something they do not understand.

That, by the way, is what I mean by "sacred" - treating it as something to not mess with, and better still, as something actually holy, a vow not to be broken when the going gets rough.

[Fist and Faith]

rus, the irony is that it is not the government who is trying to keep homosexuals from enjoying the freedom and equality that heterosexuals have. It is you. While saying those of your values are the only weapon against taking away freedom and equality, you are pushing to take away freedom and equality.

This is something where all we can hope to do is understand each other's position. I see no freedom to require me to acknowledge that fire is water, 2+2 is 5, or that people of the same sex can "be married", and therefore it is not an issue of equality to begin with. Once you understand that we don't see it as an issue of "equal rights", that it is not at all the same as race issues, to which it is wrongly compared all the time, you'll at least not think that we are somehow simply 'not seeing' an infringement of equality.

The sum is, I plead innocent to the claim of "homophobia", 'guilty' to "intolerance", and insist that the intolerance is the virtue, and your tolerance the vice.

Well, at least you're owning up to it!

But to expand on it a little... Heh. As far as your religion goes, there is not the slightest reason to demand, or even expect, the OC to bend even slightly. It is a matter of faith and belief. Men cannot marry men; women cannot marry women. End of story.

In the United States, where freedom and equality are supposed to be the founding principles and the rule of the day, there is nothing remotely wrong with any two consenting adults entering into a union that is legally identical in all ways to any union that any other two consenting adults can enter into.

A society cannot defend/strengthen/support/ensure freedom and equality by denying freedom or equality to any group. Or even any individual. It is a contradiction. It is not a paradox that actually does make sense. It's a contradiction. You cannot defend it by denying it. You cannot claim to have it if all do not have it; if all are not allowed to have it.

I'm feeling like Kirk talking to Cloud William.

"These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well!"

"The Kohms?!"

"They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing!"

But yes, I understand that, because of our different worldviews, we are working toward different goals.