Walter In Denver

Ahem, and we certainly don't need any northern yankee tyrants coming out our states, and forcing us to eliminate a basic social institution, and a way of life that has sustained the south for generations!

Technically, the statement isn't fallacious. It doesn't REQUIRE the redefinition. That we have redefined some basic social institutions does not mean we are obligated to redefine them all. Furthermore, are we sure those redefinitions have been all that wise? For reference, please check statistics on drug addiction, violent crimes, single parenthood, illegitimacy, adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases prior to and since the late 1960s.

Sean, that's a cheap (and oh-so-predictable) shot. Ah, those idiot southerners. This right-wing conservative policy of keeping marriage between a man and a woman is uniquely shameful!

Seven questions:
1) The greeks openly practiced homosexuality and man/boy love. They institutionalized orgies as ritual practice. Their culture was inherited by the Romans who gave us Caligula and Nero. Yet they didn't have gay marriage. Why not? Are we to believe that the culture that gave us Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, Euclid, Demosthenes, Heraclitus and Homer were not as sophisticated as us to have thought of it?

2) Why is it still ok to make stereotypes about southerners? Given that the south (and southern midwest) have given us Faulkner, Williams, Elliot, Twain, Hemingway and others, is this such a wise position?

3) You say that this "way of life... has sustained the south for generations". Please, tell me exactly what way of life was not sustained by marriage and which cultures in all of human history, on all continents and all islands practiced gay marriage. Can you explain?

4) If this institution has existed longer than any culture -- and indeed may be what civilized humanity -- might it be an act of unparalleled hubris to mock it and do away with what 300 generations of human culture put into place? Are you so wise, so smart, so enlightened that you would throw all that aside as mere primitive numbskullery?

5) Are you sure? If so, are you also prepared to do whatever is necessary to repair any damage done to society if the effects of what you advocate are harmful? that is, are you going to wash your hands of what happens next as the baby boomers did with what they wrought in the 60s and 70s, or will you take responsibility for the effects of the policy you advocate?

6) For those who love to throw the logic of incremental evolution in the faces of the religious, how do you explain your position on species and its apparent contrast to your revolutionary position on human culture?

7) Arguing from first principles, if gay marriage is a simple matter of human choice, then will you also advocate polygamy? If not, why not? Given our increasing tendency to advocate allowing pre-adult girls to have abortions on demand without parental consent, will you also consent to pre-adult polygamy? After all, you can undo a marriage. You can't undo a fetus -- you can only destroy it. If not, why not? Again, please argue from first principles.

A commitment to freedom certainly does require reforming or eliminating some institutions, slavery being the most prominent example. No one argues that all must be reformed. At various other times this society redifined basic institutions to allow all people to own property, for women to vote, and for everyone to have equal access to the law. Any of those were necessary for our 'commitment to freedom.'

Having said that, one doesn't have to like gay marriage or defend the practice in any way in order to be against the proposed constitutional amendment. All you have to have is a view that government isn't the authority best suited to decide such matters. More on that in a later post.

Bush’s first misstatement was that America is a free society. We are not, we may be freer than some societies in some aspects, but there is no way to claim we are free with any kind of intellectual honesty.
On the gay marriage thing I don’t believe government should be involved in marriage at all. I don’t need my big brothers permission to get married and don’t care if he acknowledges it either. I find it hard to really support the gay movement in this, as they are not advocating freedom as a principle, they are just asking for government approval for their particular lifestyle. A free person doesn’t need or desire the approval of government to live their life however they see fit.

TO: Walter
RE: Okay....

"Having said that, one doesn't have to like gay marriage or defend the practice in any way in order to be against the proposed constitutional amendment." -- Walter

...what do you suggest as an alternative to this situation?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It's easy to carp about something. It's more difficult to propose a good solution.]

Get government out of marriage altogether, and along with that get government out of our personal lives on every level. That's a solution that makes the gay marriage issue irrelevant.