From today’s In re the Petition of Theresa Goudeau to Adopt a Minor Child (Ga. Ct. App.), 2010 WL 3369363 (some paragraph breaks added) (opinion not yet on any free online site, to my knowledge). I should say that the trial court’s decision to take a child away from foster parents because they’re an unmarried couple — and to deny the foster mother’s adoption petition because she’s living with her boyfriend — appears to me to be not only against Georgia law but also cruel. Whatever might be the merits of a preference for married parents over unmarried parents in such matters, the court of appeals was surely right that “to remove [a nearly 3-year-old girl] from the only family she has ever known would be ‘devastating’ to the child.”
The trial court’s response that “It cannot be in a child’s best interest to be placed in a household which the courts of this state have condemned as immoral” strikes me as deeply inadequate. And any argument that a policy of barring unmarried couples from being foster parents (or barring unmarried people with live-in lovers from being adoptive parents) would be good for other children in the future also strikes me as unsound: It’s not like our system is so awash in would-be foster and adoptive parents who are willing to raise babies born with cocaine in their systems that we can afford to reject apparently eminently loving and effective parents. Again, the matter might be different if we were considering a preference for married parents over unmarried ones, when there was a choice to be made. But that does not seem to be the case here, or in many other situations.
In any case, here’s the appellate court’s discussion of the trial court’s reasoning:
In a written order issued a few weeks later on March 12, 2010, the superior court denied the petition for adoption and held that Goudeau and Lovett should not have physical custody of A.C. because of their relationship with each other. The court found no common law marriage existed between Goudeau and Lovett and found that clear and convincing evidence established they were “living in an immoral, meretricious relationship, … and that the adoption and their continued custody is inappropriate.” Quoting from cases involving illegal contracts, change of custody and visitation cases between divorced parents, and criminal statutes prohibiting sodomy, fornication, and adultery, the court held that allowing a child to be adopted by an unmarried person living with someone else violates Georgia’s “public policy,” which favors the institution of marriage. The court continued:
DFACS has adopted a policy, in contravention of Georgia law, that persons living in meretricious relationships may serve as foster parents and adoptive parents. DFACS’ Adoption Services Manual (March 2007) expressly confirms this policy by requiring “significant others” to attend [adoption orientation and training]. DFACS’ policy violates the established public policy and laws of this state favoring the institution of marriage, and declaring meretricious relationships as immoral. Georgia recognizes the legitimacy of married couples and single individuals. It does not recognize any other status, regardless of the mores of some members of society who have thrown off long-standing social, moral, ethical and religious constraints. DFACS’ policy offends the laws of this state, the sensibilities of this court, and the common conscious [sic] of the moral, ethical and religious citizens of this state. (Emphasis in original.)
And here is a longer excerpt from the appellate decision:
The superior court denied the petition of Theresa Goudeau to adopt her foster daughter and ordered the Department of Family and Children’s Services to remove the child from Goudeau’s foster care, finding that placing the child with Goudeau violated this state’s “public policy” because Goudeau was not married to the man with whom she lived….
DFACS took the child, A.C., into custody after she was born in July 2007 with cocaine in her system, and immediately placed her into foster care with Goudeau, where she has remained since she was 2 days old. Goudeau and Mortimer Lovett were approved as foster parents in 2001, after DFACS conducted an extensive background investigation, and Goudeau and Lovett fostered many children in their home over the next eight years. After A.C. remained in DFACS custody for more than a year, the Department’s permanent plan was for her to be adopted. In an order effective March 10, 2009, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of A.C.’s unknown biological father, found that no suitable relative existed with whom the child could be placed, and re-committed her to the custody of DFACS for adoption. The juvenile court also noted that the child’s guardian ad litem recommended that the rights of both parents be terminated, and that A.C.’s biological mother planned to surrender her parental rights and release A.C. to DFACS for adoption. The court specifically noted that the child had “been placed with foster parents who want to adopt and who have been investigated and approved. The child is doing well in current placement.”
A.C.’s mother surrendered her parental rights to DFACS and released the child for adoption on March 12, 2009. In November 2009, with DFACS’s consent, Goudeau petitioned the superior court to adopt A.C….
[T]he guardian ad litem appointed by the court testified that she had interviewed Goudeau, Lovett, and Goudeau’s adult daughter; that Goudeau had cared for Lovett’s children when they were young; and that 80 foster children had lived with the couple since they were approved as foster parents in 2001. She saw no problems with the family unit or family dynamics, which included aunts, uncles, and other extended family members. The court appointed guardian ad litem testified that removing A.C. from the only family she had ever known would have a negative impact on her.
Goudeau, 66, testified that she and Lovett, 46, were in a committed relationship and had been together 20 years, treating each other as husband and wife. He was a father figure to her son and she was a stepmother to his children. They attended the same training programs before being approved to foster children in their home, and had cared for A.C. since she was two days old. She further explained that she had been married twice before, both times to abusive men, and did not want to marry again, although later she clarified that she meant she did not want to marry “by going to a preacher [and] getting it on paper.”
The trial court had directed DFACS to present a witness regarding the requirements for adoption, apparently expressing its concern before the hearing about the fact that only Goudeau sought to adopt A.C. and that Goudeau and Lovett were living together but not married….
The court asked the specialist if he knew what the court was concerned about, and the specialist replied, “I’m honestly not sure except I think it’s the fact that they’re not married.” The court responded, “Absolutely,” and the specialist again noted that the adoption code did not address this situation. He further testified that to remove the child from the only stable family she had ever known “would be devastating to that child.” Further, the relationship between Goudeau and Lovett was stable and long-term.
The court expressed its opinion that it was “standing in the gap because there is nobody to protect this child in a DFACS adoption” once it got to the superior court, and while the relationship between Goudeau and Lovett was of 20 years, “the next week it’s 15, and the next year it’s 10, and before you know it, we’re down to short term meretricious relationships … and there is no commitment,” with the child “being bounced around” with different adults coming into and leaving her life. The court further expressed its concern that DFACS was allowing unmarried couples to become foster parents, which then allowed one of them to “boot strap” herself into being able to adopt after a year of fostering the child.
In a written order issued a few weeks later on March 12, 2010, the superior court denied the petition for adoption and held that Goudeau and Lovett should not have physical custody of A.C. because of their relationship with each other. The court found no common law marriage existed between Goudeau and Lovett and found that clear and convincing evidence established they were “living in an immoral, meretricious relationship, … and that the adoption and their continued custody is inappropriate.” Quoting from cases involving illegal contracts, change of custody and visitation cases between divorced parents, and criminal statutes prohibiting sodomy, fornication, and adultery, the court held that allowing a child to be adopted by an unmarried person living with someone else violates Georgia’s “public policy,” which favors the institution of marriage. The court continued:
DFACS has adopted a policy, in contravention of Georgia law, that persons living in meretricious relationships may serve as foster parents and adoptive parents. DFACS’ Adoption Services Manual (March 2007) expressly confirms this policy by requiring “significant others” to attend [adoption orientation and training]. DFACS’ policy violates the established public policy and laws of this state favoring the institution of marriage, and declaring meretricious relationships as immoral. Georgia recognizes the legitimacy of married couples and single individuals. It does not recognize any other status, regardless of the mores of some members of society who have thrown off long-standing social, moral, ethical and religious constraints. DFACS’ policy offends the laws of this state, the sensibilities of this court, and the common conscious [sic] of the moral, ethical and religious citizens of this state. (Emphasis in original.)The superior court then stated that it had to rely on DFACS to place a child with qualified adoptive parents, because once a DFACS adoption reached the court no one represents the child, but that in this case it would not rely on the Department’s recommendation. “The trial court must not only protect the child’s best interest, but it must also ensure that an adoption does not violate the public policy or laws of this state. It cannot be in a child’s best interest to be placed in a household which the courts of this state have condemned as immoral.” (Emphasis in original) …
The court made no other findings regarding whether adoption was in the best interest of the child, but concluded that Goudeau should not be permitted to adopt A.C., and that Goudeau and Lovett should not have custody of A.C….
[A Georgia statute] establishes the legal requirements for an adoptive parent. Among other things, the prospective parent must be at least 25 or married and living with his or her spouse, and must be “financially, physically, and mentally able to have permanent custody of the child.” If the prospective parent is married, the petition must be filed in the name of both spouses. Otherwise, “[a]ny adult person, including but not limited to a foster parent, meeting the requirements of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be eligible to apply to the department or a child-placing agency for consideration as an adoption applicant in accordance with the policies of the department or the agency.” (Emphasis supplied.) …
In this case, absolutely no evidence supports the denial of the petition to adopt. All of the witnesses, including the guardian ad litem appointed by the trial court to represent the child’s interests and the DFACS adoption specialist testified that this adoption was in the child’s best interest, and that to remove her from the only family she has ever known would be “devastating” to the child. The trial court in its order barely refers to the child’s interests, except to make the conclusory finding that her continued exposure to what the court describes as a “meretricious relationship” was not in the little girl’s best interest, and “would have an adverse effect on her moral character.” Nothing in the record supports this finding. Regardless of the trial court’s moral views about unmarried people living together and its conclusion that DFACS acts in contravention of the law by allowing unmarried people to adopt or serve as foster parents, the adoption statute clearly does not prohibit this adoption….
The General Assembly has not prohibited unmarried couples from adopting children. This court applies the law, not its personal viewpoint of social mores. No evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that adoption was not in this child’s best interest; in fact, all of the evidence was to the contrary….
Gabriel Malor says:
How common is the term “meretricious”? I consider myself pretty well-read, but this is the first time I can recall seeing it.
Also, I’m not sure the trial court’s use is entirely correct. Based on context, I thought it perhaps meant something to do with the indeterminacy of the couple’s commitment. But, upon looking it up, I found:
Whoa.
August 27, 2010, 6:20 pmAlessandra says:
I think this is the main issue: “Further, the relationship between Goudeau and Lovett was stable and long-term.”
That’s what the state needs to be concerned in finding out, along with the parents’ ability to care for the child. By the info provided, the couple didn’t get married because the woman was traumatized with the idea. But I can see other circumstances and couples where they are not married, there is no stability, it’s not long-term, and they won’t care well for the child or even harm the child. So, as much as the preoccupation with a legal marriage may seem overbearing, underneath it, there are some good underlying principles.
However, in this case, by the info provided, I think the child should stay and be adopted by the woman.
August 27, 2010, 6:20 pmChris Travers says:
What standard of review was this decided under?
August 27, 2010, 6:25 pmrtha says:
The court expressed its opinion that it was “standing in the gap because there is nobody to protect this child in a DFACS adoption” once it got to the superior court, and while the relationship between Goudeau and Lovett was of 20 years, “the next week it’s 15, and the next year it’s 10, and before you know it, we’re down to short term meretricious relationships … and there is no commitment,” with the child “being bounced around” with different adults coming into and leaving her life.
Yeah, because that never happens to kids in the foster care system who never get adopted.
If a stable marriage is really the best place for a child to be raised in, and the state’s interest is so vital, then shouldn’t kids living with a single parent be removed and placed with (heterosexual, of course!) married couples? Or perhaps divorce should be prohibited for married couples with minor children!
August 27, 2010, 6:36 pmPerpetua says:
I would think that if she really loved the child, she would get married, despite her previous bad experiences. But instead she is privileging her feelings over the best interests of the child. So, I think the refusal to get married is a big clue.
August 27, 2010, 6:41 pmTed says:
“I can see other circumstances and couple where they are [black, pink, gay, straight, tall, short, doctors, assembly line workers, right-handed, etc.], there is no stability, it’s not long-term, and they won’t care well for the child or even harm the child.”
As long as the inclusion of the term “unmarried” in your comment was as arbitrary as the above-suggested additions, and completely irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of stability and child rearing, I totally agree with you. I would agree with you even more if you just would just lists the facts that could make people unfit parents, undeserving of adoption. Personally, I think adoptive parents should be required to be just as fit to parent as biological parents are required to be. If adoptive parents are not doing anything that would mandate the removal of a child from biological parents, there should be no legal barrier to allowing them to acquire a child.
August 27, 2010, 6:55 pmBarb's Monkey's Uncle says:
I would think that if you read the 66-year-old woman’s reason *why* she refused to be married a *third* time, you might find that big clue you were looking for. And the fact that the family has cared for over 80 foster children since 2001, and the fact that the family has been a family for close to 20 years may also be useful and large clues about her commitment to raising a child in a caring home.
August 27, 2010, 6:56 pmTed says:
Big clue as to what? Don’t leave me hanging. I’m not so swift with these sorts of issues, having never been married. Oh, and in the course of your explanation, could you explain the causal relationship between marriage, stability, and child-rearing ability? I mean, if someone would finally give me a well-reasoned, easily understandable argument about how my 10-year monogamous relationship would be instantly improved by having a judge sanctify it, I’d run down the to court-house tomorrow…well, not tomorrow…tomorrow’s Saturday, but Monday for sure!
August 27, 2010, 7:03 pmAlessandra says:
Apparently you believe that marriage has nothing to do with the concept of a committed, loving, long-term relationship, mostly structured to raise a family.
Thus you equate it with minor physical characteristics (?!), having a homosexual problem, being a blue-collar worker, or whatever. Since marriage is meaningless to you, the reason why the state thinks it’s important escape you. That says more about you than the case at hand.
“Personally, I think adoptive parents should be required to be just as fit to parent as biological parents are required to be. ”
On a side note, it would be nice if only people who were capable of caring for children actually did.
“there should be no legal barrier to allowing them to acquire a child.”
Acquire a child? Like at Walmart?
August 27, 2010, 7:08 pmEugene Volokh says:
Ted: Why would being “unmarried” be “arbitrary” and “completely irrelevant and immaterial” “to the issue of stability”? Surely the willingness to make an official pledge of commitment to a long-term relationship — backed by extra legal hassle and perhaps some social sanction if one terminates the relationship — is of some relevance to the issue of stability (in a way race, height, handedness, etc. are not). Of course, the correlation between marriage and relationship length is far from 1, but I would think it’s not 0, either.
As you might gather from my original post, I don’t think is a reason to tear a child away from the only family she has never known, whether or not the mother is in a stable relationship. The likely stability of the prospective parent’s romantic relationship is a factor in deciding what’s best for the child, but far from the only (or even most important) factor. Moreover, I would think that for relationships that have survived long enough (as this one has), the length of the relationship is a better proxy for likely stability than is the official status of the relationship.
But this is no reason, I think, to overstate one’s case by asserting that marriage is of no relationship at all to stability.
August 27, 2010, 7:13 pmJohn Herbison says:
As best I can determine, the appellate court applied an abuse of discretion standard. The opinion states:
[Paragraph break eliminated and some citations omitted.]
August 27, 2010, 7:22 pmPaperNuncio says:
Actually, I think he meant it’s not a requirement. But really, it’s sort of a silly. I am married and yet in today’s culture, the importance still escapes me. My then-girlfriend an I had already bought a house, lived together for 5 years. We’re married now and literally haven’t changed a thing. Still own the house. My cars in my name. No joint accounts (excepting the house, which was purchased before). No name changes. Etc. Exactly what might that say about myself and my wife? Heck, I even know married couples that have committed relationships that still maintain separate homes.
August 27, 2010, 7:23 pmTed says:
Apparently you do. Could you explain why? It seems odd to me that the qualities you mention could be bestowed upon two people by a judge. Rather, those qualities seem to come about exclusively via the actions and feelings of the two people involved.
To me, commitment is a personal attribute, akin to loyalty. For a relationship to continue, both people must be committed to the relationship. This is a mutual decision that each person makes and can change at any time. What causes commitment? I suppose it depends on each case and what one is being committed to. Thus, fear, love, greed, guilt, happiness, etc. could all be causes and reasons for commitment to a relationship. I still don’t see how a judge can make two people commit to a relationship though.
Similarly, the length of a relationship also seems to be primarily based on the feelings of the people involved in the relationship. But I will admit, I can see how getting married may increase the length of any given relationship. Getting married involves the sharing of property and divorce results in the division of property. Unmarried people have complete control over the acquisition and division of property during and after a relationship. Married people do not. Thus, people who fear the prescribed division of property, may resist divorce and lengthen the life of their relationship. I dare say, however, that the added days/weeks/months would be neither committed nor loving.
I don’t know how to address the “loving” aspect of a relationship. It’s a fuzzy kind of word; one whose definition I doubt we will ever completely agree on. However, I am rather confident that a judge cannot cause a relationship to become more loving. So, please explain that too, if you would.
Agreed.
No. That’s kidnapping. I don’t recommend it. It’s a crime.
August 27, 2010, 7:25 pmarch1 says:
In the (alas British) National Corpus of 100M words,
meretricious occurs 26 times. A rough guess is that it’s about 85,000th most frequent. Below are its immediate neighbors.26 mid-table nn1 19
26 methile aj0-nn1 1
26 meted vvn 26
26 meridians nn2 11
26 meretricious aj0 23
26 mens np0 16
26 menelik np0 1
26 mendelian aj0 15
There are many nits to pick w/ the corpus but I suppose you’re free to create your own. I have prevailed upon myself to digress no further.
August 27, 2010, 7:28 pmChris Green says:
If it were a choice between the child living with no foster parents and foster parents who are not married (i.e. boyfriend and girlfriend, or, at most engaged) I suppose living with an unmarried couple would be better, and hopefully the unmarried couple wouldn’t split up.
On the other hand, if it is a difference between living with an unmarried couple, or, going back into the system and 6 months later being put with a married couple, I think being put with the married couple would be better. I would suggest that if the unmarried couple is unwilling to submit to the formality of marriage, even if that means losing a child they love, than there is probably something not right with the relationship. I’m not saying this is absolutely true, I’m saying it is probably true.
There is a big brother and sister program in most cities in the US. In there program unmarried couples (they don’t even have to be a couple, just a guy and a girl) can be mentors and friends to kids in trouble. They sign on for a year at a time. It is an interesting and fulfilling experience. However, raising a foster child should be nothing like that and the level of commitment should be way higher, both to their child and to each-other. The state should allow them to get married, and than keep the child. If they are unwilling to get married, then there is trouble in that couple’s future. I realize there are a whole lot of exceptions to this assertion (like some weird hippie religion that renounces government recognized unions), but I think common sense dictates that most of them are unlikely. The world isn’t fair and I think one has to realize that reality is often less pleasant than we would wish it.
August 27, 2010, 7:28 pmK. Chen says:
Any decision about foster children should be measured against the alternatives available in-fact, not what we would like to see society conform to. We need good foster parents. Lsat I checked, the system was not awash in a plethora of candidates that we can afford to be choosy about their marital status, sexual orientation, or most things that aren’t non-abusiveness and sufficient resources. Children are too important to be used for proxy warfare concerning cultural preferences.
August 27, 2010, 7:29 pmAlessandra says:
So, if it’s meaningless to you, why did you get married?
August 27, 2010, 7:35 pmAlessandra says:
you’re not that well-read…simply put.
August 27, 2010, 7:37 pmAlessandra says:
Barb’s Monkey’s Uncle says:
Perpetua: I would think that if she really loved the child, she would get married, despite her previous bad experiences. But instead she is privileging her feelings over the best interests of the child. So, I think the refusal to get married is a big clue.
I would think that if you read the 66-year-old woman’s reason *why* she refused to be married a *third* time, you might find that big clue you were looking for. And the fact that the family has cared for over 80 foster children since 2001, and the fact that the family has been a family for close to 20 years may also be useful and large clues about her commitment to raising a child in a caring home
================
Actually, I also found the “reason” the woman gave a bit fishy too. I mean, she has allegedly lived with the man for the past 20 years in what seems to be a stable family situation. And she still harbors some fear that he is going to become abusive if they get married?
That’s weird, but then again, maybe she is very traumatized with her previous experiences. On the other hand, the claim is a bit odd.
August 27, 2010, 7:53 pmTed says:
I’m going to clarify here and say that I interpret the term “stability” to mean more than just the length/duration of a relationship. I think termination of a relationship could be a result of an unstable relationship, but the overall duration of a relationship doesn’t necessarily correlate to the overall “stability” of that relationship. Very stable relationships may end abruptly and others may appear unstable and last forever.
Concerning marriage as an indicator of stability, my response to Alessandra shows one way marriage can lengthen a relationship — the fear of legal hassle and property division — but I don’t see how that makes a relationship more stable overall. If you limit the phrase “the willingness to make an official pledge of commitment to a long-term relationship” to legal marriage, then I fail to see any relevance to stability. Rather, it would seem that a “pledge of commitment” — in any context, including but not limited to legal marriage — would be no more or less relevant to stability than legal marriage. In this way, me saying I’m gonna be together with my girlfriend forever is exactly the same as getting married to her. It is the act of commitment between the people that matters, not the “officialness” of a statement, that correlates to stability. Saying is not doing, even under oath in front of a judge.
Further, I cannot understand why “extra legal hassle and perhaps some social sanction if one terminates the relationship” could possibly enhance stability. It certainly does not do so in any good or social valuable way. Why would external, negative consequences improve the stability of a relationship in such a way as to improve the environment for child rearing? Being coerced to be together does not, IMO, improve the conditions for child rearing.
Doesn’t this statement support my position? It seems to support my position that legal marriage — “the official status of the relationship” — doesn’t really make any difference in light of other factors that are more indicative and more correlative of a good parenting environment. People who freely choose — and who continue to freely choose — to be together are, IMO, more stable and offer a better child-rearing environment than people who are pressured by their church or the state to stay together.
So yeah, I still think height has as much relevance as marital status to indicating which homes are best for child rearing. Instead, people should focus on the things that actually cause the homes to be good for child rearing.
August 27, 2010, 8:00 pmnice strategy says:
Why must you be so nasty? Too many Volokh threads are being hijacked by your pride. I’ll let Paper speak for himself, but if some married people don’t think it is a big deal to be married, so what? The definition of marriage and the standards of the relationship are between the spouses.
About the post itself, I complete agree with the following, and wonder how much Eugene’s hierarchy of criteria would match up with yours when it was all said and done:
August 27, 2010, 8:01 pmPerseus says:
The legal and social (and religious where applicable) costs associated with divorce also tend to increase the incentive to reconcile differences (through marriage counseling, etc.) such that the marriage once again has those attributes (the significance of the effect is, of course, an empirical question).
August 27, 2010, 8:02 pmTed says:
It’s extremely odd and a terrible reason not to get married. Why? Because marriage doesn’t have anything to do with causing someone to because abusive. If you agree, why can’t you see that marriage has nothing to do with people loving each other and being stable. Loving and stable people might get married, but they don’t become more so after the fact.
August 27, 2010, 8:05 pmAlessandra says:
Well, Ted, if you want to play dumb about what marriage signifies in our culture and, as Eugene mentioned, all that it entails from personal, social, and legal spheres, go ahead.
If you want to construct a strawman that it’s a judge that will bestow the qualities I mentioned to a relationship, go ahead. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a silly strawman.
If this woman were having a different man over with her every two days, she would not get married with them every two days. In what way does getting married make a difference? I agree with you that two people can be married and have no quality at all in the relationship, but this goes counter to the very idea of what marriage should be (then again, there are some religious variances). So, if you want to play dumb about what marriage constitutes, you won’t be able to realistically answer this question.
First you devoid the idea of marriage of everything it represents, then you ask why is it important, because you can’t see any importance to it.
Really…
“What causes commitment? I suppose it depends on each case and what one is being committed to. ”
Exactly. So, traditionally and culturally speaking, what is the institution that ritualizes and formalizes a long-term, one man-one woman personal relationship, mostly geared towards raising a family? When you are committing to marriage, what are you committing to?
August 27, 2010, 8:12 pmArthur Kirkland says:
. . . and here I was thinking that the clue from this decision indicates that it is just a matter of time before the author of the opinion is arrested by state police at a truck stop for soliciting same-sex sodomy from someone asked to kneel on a Bible during that act.
August 27, 2010, 8:19 pmAlessandra says:
It’s a very valid question. Read his post. He says he can’t begin to see any importance in marriage, yet he got married. Why?
I don’t see marriage as trivial. I would like to know why someone for whom marriage has no meaning nor importance gets married.
August 27, 2010, 8:20 pmD.R.M. says:
You certain there’s a shortage of would-be adoptive parents for such children? And not, say, a case of would-be parents being actively chased off by a process where it takes twenty months to complete an uncontested parental rights termination inn a case where the father is unknown and the mother consumed cocaine while pregnant? Compounded by a bias against cross-racial adoption backed by the National Association of Black Social Workers?
August 27, 2010, 8:25 pmAlessandra says:
Hijacked? Any time a conservative continues to debate a subject in a way that exposes how liberals think in shoddy or circular ways, people like you start demonizing it, one way or another.
August 27, 2010, 8:28 pmAlessandra says:
I’ve seen some of Malor’s posts at Ace. They contain as much sense as how much he knew about the word “meretricious” one day ago. Well-read… lol
August 27, 2010, 8:36 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Be that as it may, your response to Gabriel Malor was quite nasty.
August 27, 2010, 8:36 pmHarry Eagar says:
That would be my assessment of roughly half the marriages I have observed.
August 27, 2010, 8:36 pmChris Travers says:
Wow, I suddenly feel very conservative…….. I can see why you think it’s irrelevant today, but I think that tells us more about what is wrong with prevalent social attitudes than anything else.
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Commitment is an action, not an attribute. You commit through action. You uphold that commitment through action. You can break a commitment through action. Whether marriage is the only way to commit, well, I’d say “no” today. However wedding ceremonies and marriage have ways of helping enforce that commitment, and ways of making it manifest.
I am going to say this completely bluntly. If you commit to a life-long relationship, there is NO honor in leaving the relationship simply because you are unhappy. Saying that commitment can change at any time is saying that honor and commitment are meaningless. Maybe you think that. I don’t know. I personally feel that duty and honor are very meaningful things.
(BTW, this is a great reason for not condemning premarital sex, btw. That sexual experience should be available without having to commit to building a family poses some problems, but on the whole it makes the commitment something which should be seen as more binding.)
If you look at marriage as about feelings, it’s going to fail. Feelings aren’t permanent. They change from time to time. Just as divorce due to being unhappy is, IMNSHO, dishonorable, I think nobody should get married just because of feelings. Either you commit in a way that should only be retractable with reason, or you don’t commit at all. Either marriage is about something greater than the couple involved or else it’s doomed.
I have no problem with a social message that people shouldn’t get married until they want to have or to adopt kids (this goes for same-sex couples too, btw).
People get married for the wrong reasons. The result is that many children are raised in broken homes. That’s not a good thing by any measure.
I further think that if peoples’ loyalty in a marriage is to something greater than just the other (a family unit is a good example) that will lead to a happier, more loving relationship.
Agreed. It’s one reason why I think that divorce law should be structured to maximize this effect. Maybe an 18-month waiting period on a contested divorce, but only 3 months if the parties agree on all terms, provide incentives to binding arbitration instead of court, etc. Keep people talking to eachother. Give them time to change their minds. Give them a chance to work out their differences and to rediscover eachother in the process.
So I see marriage as a set of legal support structures primarily aimed at helping people form family units (with children). I don’t buy the Disnified view of marriage— marriage isn’t happily ever after, but rather hard work. It’s like Gurjieff said about mysticism, that in the beginning it’s all roses, roses but later on it’s all thorns, thorns. We persist if the rewards are worth braving the thorns. Certainly in this sort of environment, saying that adoption by married couples would be preferred as a matter of law makes a lot of sense. Certainly there would be a lot of reasons to be concerned about unmarried couples adopting kids together in general including stability of the household and the fact that so many marriage benefits are essentially connected to this process.
Where I disagree with the trial court here is in the idea that the state should be the moral authority. Here you have a kid whose foster parents want to adopt her, and the only reason that the court can find to prohibit this is that it’s “immoral.” It goes back to the idea that our society should be pluralistic and the law should not make judgements of this sort. Instead morality should be demotically defined outside the power of the state. This is further one major reason why separation of church and state is so important.
Am I really agreeing at length with Alessandra? I bet she is as incredulous at that as I am.
August 27, 2010, 8:37 pmAnatid says:
This assumes that all caregivers are interchangeable to a three-year-old child. They’re not.
Somewhere around the age of 3-6 months, an infant will attach to its primary caregiver (usually the mother, but might be the father, grandmother, nanny, older sister, or other figure). Attachment is the basis of the emotional relationship between parent and child where a developing toddler learns how to solicit help in times of stress and how to use the parent as a secure base for exploring the environment. It’s one of the foundations of child development and it has lifelong effects on emotional makeup.
Once formed, severing this bond is badly damaging to the child. By six months of age, assuming the foster family took in the child as a newborn, attachment has already begun and disrupting it can be harmful. Removing a child from their attachment figure is one thing if that figure is abusive or neglectful, but it’s not a decision that should be made lightly, and definitely not for reasons as arbitrary as in this case.
Do you remember when you were three years old? If your mother went missing and a strange woman appeared in her place, would you have been satisfied?
August 27, 2010, 8:37 pmChris Travers says:
More’s the pity. That’s probably why about half of marriages end in divorce?
August 27, 2010, 8:43 pmNot My Leg says:
Meretricious occurs 47 times in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (~410M words).
August 27, 2010, 8:46 pmAlessandra says:
You must be a fan of Ace of Spades…
August 27, 2010, 9:12 pmOwen H. says:
My wife and I have been together for almost twelve years. We have had joint accounts for almost all of that time, owned several vehicles jointly, leases and now a house for two years. We have two children as well. We have also only been married a year.
The reality is, we were simply letting the government in on the secret. And the reason we chose to do so had nothing to do with stability, or how much we loved each other, or any of those things. It was financial security, given that people kept trying to change the law so unmarried couples couldn’t get rights and privileges, so hating same-sex couples they were willing to harm me at the same time. We wanted to make sure our kids didn’t have trouble, and also that we could get survivor benefits. We were already married, as far as our own lives were concerned. But society places such great store in the institution, it becomes hard to not be married.
Of course, all the reasons you and others stated as why this woman should have married; thank you for helping demonstrate why gays want to marry. And why they should be permitted to do so.
August 27, 2010, 9:21 pmAlessandra says:
Totally agree. What I don’t agree with is this: just because this group of people decides to make a fraud out of marriage, that marriage itself is a fraudulent concept.
These people you mention want the social respectability, while living a lie. And then there’s the issue of kids. I know several men who didn’t get divorced because they didn’t want to be away from their kids, but the marriage (couple-wise) was gone. Once the kids grow up, then it’s divorce. (I’m not against divorce, btw, as long as it’s not something done in a careless way). And a lot of these people, they still don’t want to work on their relationship issues, so they never marry again, after divorce. The relational part remains largely unsolved. Then there is liberal culture which tells them that hook-ups are just fine, so why work on all those deep-seated, complicated relationship problems with the opposite sex? And that’s bad for society.
August 27, 2010, 9:30 pmBob (from Ohio) says:
The woman is 66. She has no business adopting a toddler. In 10 years, she will be far too old to care for a tennager in puberty. The teenager will likely be caring for her.
DFACS should never have placed the child with a 63 year old in the first place. Then, no bonding would have occurred.
August 27, 2010, 9:33 pmAlessandra says:
We’ve gone over this in other recent threads, haven’t we? I mean, that 99% of people with a homosexual problem living in countries where homosexual marriage was legalized shun marriage… While 50% of heterosexuals want and do get married.
Homosexuals, in their overwhelming majority, do NOT want to get married, and do NOT get married, independently if you think they should.
August 27, 2010, 9:38 pmAnatid says:
Because when you become a liberal, the men in black suits come to your home, throw you into an unmarked van, and transport you to a secret underground facility. There, they chemically strip your cells of all their vasopressin and oxytocin receptors, making you incapable of pair-bonding ever again. You wake up in your home with a headache, a bad taste in your mouth, and some fuzzy memories of a dream about the Batcave. This is why no liberals have ever married or entered into committed, monogamous relationships.
Really, it’s the only reasonable explanation.
August 27, 2010, 9:49 pmOrenWithAnE says:
It has a lot to do with those things, much in the way that apple pie has a lot to do with dessert.
August 27, 2010, 9:59 pmElemenope says:
…99% of people with a homosexual problem…
Let it never be said that intellect correlates positively with a moral sense. Clearly, Alessandra is intelligent (so intelligent she knows the definitions of words that are so rarely used the chances of stumbling upon it before today, short of reading the OED unabridged, are essentially nil), and yet enough of a moral infant to denigrate an existential status with which she has no personal experience as if it were a disease to be treated.
Classy.
And for what it’s worth, one blindingly obvious possibility (out of many) for why a person who does not care for the institution of marriage would get married is if their partner to whom they are committed does care, and they wish to make them happy. Much like guys watching chick flicks or girls watching action movies (or even less stereotypical variants, depending on personal taste) with their partner, even though they do not enjoy those genres of film. Only, you know, with more serious stakes and a more important outcome.
August 27, 2010, 10:02 pmG.R. Mead says:
This is why this blog continues to draw and enlighten all comers.
Thanks again, Professor.
August 27, 2010, 10:07 pmPerpetua says:
There is another possible reason she resists getting married that they may have chosen not to mention in the filing. The age disparity had me thinking about this. She is of retirement age and her previous husband may have been as well. I would like to know if she is collecting Social Security based on her previous husband’s SS account. In that case, doesn’t she lose his benefits level and revert back to her own SS account level if she remarries?
August 27, 2010, 10:08 pmCockleCove says:
The foster father (Lovett) did not join the foster mother (Goudod) in petitioning the court for adoption. Is there anything in either court court decision which sheds light on that (e.g., some sort of legal impediment)?
Should Ms. Goudod die before Mr. Lovett and while A.C. is still in need of parental care, would the child be promptly whisked into DFACS’ custody until Mr. Lovett was deemed a fit foster parent — if he were then willing to accept that role and qualified for certification?
August 27, 2010, 10:13 pmtheobromophile says:
Whoa, Bob from Ohio was the only other person to pick up on what I saw: this woman is 66. Obviously, that the court didn’t seem to focus on that in its decision is an issue, but that bothers me. It also bothers me that she’s 66 and he’s 46; I could easily see a 50-year-old guy deciding that he doesn’t want to be tied down to an elderly, 70-year-old woman and taking off. Age differences matter when young and when old, not in the middle.
Second thought: I thought this place was frequented by lawyers. Even if you don’t want to dive into the issue of judicial activism (albeit in the more unusual, conservative direction), couldn’t one at least address the issues of having this child adopted by one parent and not the other, especially when they are not married to each other and one is twenty years older than the other? Am I the only one who can see the legal and ethical issues that would come from either him moving out or her dying?
To end this rant: I’m still waiting to meet someone who says that marriage isn’t important whose parents divorced during one’s childhood. It really, really sucks, even if your parents love you, even if your parents don’t wage custody wars, and even if child support is never an issue. To date, everyone I know who says that marriage is just a piece of paper has parents who are happily married to each other. To me, it’s either incredibly selfish, or just madness, to have grown up with all the advantages of married parents and then to deny that to your own children (or other people’s children).
August 27, 2010, 10:16 pmOrenWithAnE says:
That and they drive Red State couples apart with mind control so that blue States (and districts) like MA, DC, CT and NY have the lowest rate of divorce in the country.
August 27, 2010, 10:21 pmCockleCove says:
No, remarrying after you reach 60 does not disqualify you from receiving survivor benefits.
August 27, 2010, 10:24 pmhttp://www.ssa.gov/ww&os2.htm
Bill Poser says:
I don’t understand the trial court’s claim that the couple are not in a common-law marriage. It seems to me that they satisfy the requirements that I know of. They’ve lived together for over two years, acting as husband and wife to each other and as parents to each other’s children. Does Georgia have unusually strict requirements for common-law marriage?
August 27, 2010, 10:24 pmOrenWithAnE says:
If a parent leaves, it hurts. Whether that parent was a spouse married or merely a cohabitant matters not one whit to the child.
August 27, 2010, 10:26 pmAnatid says:
So they first met up when she was 46 and he was 26, and they’ve cared for 80 foster children in the last decade.
I feel like we already have ample reason to believe that this couple is unusual. Why not grant them the benefit of the doubt in human variation and see if these two individuals can pull it off?
August 27, 2010, 10:29 pmElemenope says:
To date, everyone I know who says that marriage is just a piece of paper has parents who are happily married to each other.
I have happily married parents, and think that marriage has some utility, but not nearly as much as the conservative encomiums to family values and the old imaginary world of nostalgia would assign. Most of that utility devolves, in my opinion, to legal convenience (as marriage is a great shorthand for a decked-out package of legal relationships which would otherwise be a nightmare to contract for, and some of which cannot be contracted for because they are privileges from the state, like spousal privilege from testimony). Beyond that there is little served by marriage that is not achieved through non-marriage partnerships.
My partner of six years, on the other hand, she comes from a family of bitterly divorced parents. Her view of marriage as an institution is much more negative than my lukewarm view. On good days she would say that marriage is just a piece of paper. On others she would say as a practical matter that the act of getting married is often wasteful and unnecessarily stressful for all involved, and the institution thereof reinforces social pressures that can easily produce or worsen bad outcomes.
August 27, 2010, 10:31 pmCockleCove says:
So you would deny a child a home with her/his grandmother?
August 27, 2010, 10:37 pmPaperNuncio says:
Nice rose colored lenses. Are you saying we are somehow more committed? Or were less so before? It seems you assume your reasons should be ours, and that maybe we are less fit because they differ?
Our commitment has not changed. We mostly got married to appease the great Mother in Law and my own Mother ( quite ill at the time which had a role).
Now answer the question.
August 27, 2010, 10:42 pmOwen H. says:
Perhaps it is because you are mistaken about how “common law marriage” works. To begin with, only 11 states and DC recognize the formation of new common law marriages, and Georgia isn’t one of them. And it isn’t simply a matter of living together long enough; the important bit is that you have to hold yourself out as married. You can’t be married unless you say you are married.
August 27, 2010, 10:44 pmGLAdetariba says:
UPDATE:can not avoid been sensuous
August 27, 2010, 10:51 pmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7960143/Italian-court-throws-out-topless-sunbathing-complaint.html
K. Chen says:
What is the alternative? And why is it exactly that people (as in, the commentators here) feel free to speculate on the loyalty and capacity to love of people they’ve never met solely on their marital status and ages?
There is a child here, who’s birth parents are either unwilling or unable to care for them. What are the options? Are you, the reader going to take care of that kid? I’m willing to admit I’m not going to, but then surely as a result I forfeit any right to deny or support the denial of another willing to care for that child without a very good reason.
August 27, 2010, 10:52 pmTeh Anonymous says:
theobromophile: interesting point in your last paragraph. I’ll have to keep an eye out for that correlation in my own pool of acquaintances.
As for me, my parents separated when I was 13 and divorced when I was 14. I guess in the abstract I am in the middle on whether or not marriage is an important thing or just a piece of paper. It probably depends on who you are.
Myself, if I were going to have children I’d want to be married. But that may stem more from the fact that I grew up in a setting where I absorbed the idea that having a child out of wedlock was a character flaw than a perception that marriage means stability. (Please note: if anything, I have reason to know that marriage doesn’t guarantee stability at all. And no, I don’t walk around judging unmarried people with children. I’m just as likely to make funny faces at and coo over their babies as anyone else’s. Personally though, I wouldn’t want to go there.)
August 27, 2010, 11:46 pmChris Travers says:
I look at this differently. One real danger in a conservative approach (and keep in mind I’m feeling way right of center on this thread) is that people get married because this is the socially respected way to have sex. I think this is one reason why divorce rates are higher in general in the Bible Belt than in the North-East for example.
One can make a case that allowing for relatively libertarian sex-lives before marriage allows one to treat the commitment as more real and more binding than the idea that marriage is all about sex. I’m not saying that liberal culture takes it that far (I don’t think it does), but many of these trends are tools we can use how we choose, so seeing how a trend might be valuable is the first step to getting more out of it.
August 27, 2010, 11:52 pmAdam Berkowicz says:
What an absolutely atrocious ruling by the Trial court.
Marriage (of which I am a member of the club) is merely a way of signifying one’s commitment to another person. However, it is far from the only way of signifying one’s dedication and love to another person.
This is a classic example of the law getting in the way of common sense. Never mind that the state is hardly a shining beacon exemplifying how we should live our lives. These two people are obviously committed not only to each other, but the welfare of the child.
Being married shouldn’t be a trump card for adoption. The qualifications should be finding a person, or persons, who are going to be able to raise the child in an environment conducive to safety and love. That is all.
August 28, 2010, 12:45 amTammy Cravit says:
I am a former foster parent, and my spouse and I adopted our daughter from foster care. I am also a paralegal with some significant experience in juvenile dependency law. I’ve seen the system work well, badly, and everything in between.
That said, a couple of comments:
1. There are tens of thousands of kids languishing in foster care nationwide. Those that are not white infants, in general, have lower odds than you’d think of being adopted, and the odds drop as the child gets older. There are far too few foster and adoptive parents out there willing to jump through the necessary hoops to adopt them. Adopting overseas is more costly, but often easier and faster, than adoption from foster care. Holding a kid’s stability hostage to express disapproval of her prospective adoptive parents is,in my considered opinion, nothing short of cruel.
August 28, 2010, 12:50 amTammy Cravit says:
Oops, clicked Submit before I got my second comment in:
2. The overarching goal of the foster care system is to always act in the best interests of the child. (How well that goal is effectuated varies, but that’s the theory). Irrespective of what one thinks of the prospective adoptive parent here, the fact remains that the child was bonded to her, and severing that bond could not be anything but severely detrimental. (Look up “reactive attachment disorder” for an extreme example of what can happen when parental attachments are disrupted.) Is it really rational to roll the dice on that, especially when the effect may not be measurable until (for the child) it’s far too late?
In a perfect world, children would never be removed from their parents’ custody, because everyone would always do the right thing and nobody would abuse their kids. As anyone who’s worked in the juvenile dependency system well knows, we live in a vastly imperfect world. But this child’s young life is ticking away while the court uses her as a token to express its social policy preferences. This child’s childhood is ticking away. The California Supreme Court once wrote that “[c]hildhood does not wait for the parent to become adequate” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 295, 310; 851 P.2d 826). Neither, however, does childhood wait while a court that’s vested with the responsibility to act in the best interests of that child, instead, acts to express its policy preferences over those of the Legislature which, one assumes, decided to allow unmarried people to become foster and adoptive parents.
August 28, 2010, 1:00 amArthur Kirkland says:
You prefer the conservative culture of John Ensign (hooking up with an employee who happened to be married to a friend), Rush Limbaugh (cavorting in the Caribbean with his big bag of contraband boner pills), Newt Gingrich (serial cad), Ted Haggard, George Rekers, David Vitter, Mike Duvall, John Fund, Mark Sanford, Dan Burton, J.C. Watts, Sue Myrick, dozens of others just like them . . . and a GOP closet that requires a revolving door?
The sole difference I see between liberals and conservatives on this issue is that conservatives are, in general, bigger hypocrites.
August 28, 2010, 1:01 amArthur Kirkland says:
You mean, a problem other than bigotry?
August 28, 2010, 1:05 amDavid Schwartz says:
You are absolutely right. However, this couple was never faced with that choice and never will be. So we’ll never know what they would have done.
August 28, 2010, 1:12 amHarry Eagar says:
You mean liberals write all those honkytonk songs that come out of Nashville? I am surprised.
August 28, 2010, 1:46 amTed says:
I think this issue is pretty much solved. I would like to add two observations and one more snipe.
Chris, you’re always a level-headed commenter on this blog. You are often uncannily accurate in your observations, interpretation of the law (really impressive for not being a lawyer) and your rather obscure historical references. But you’ve lost your way here. I don’t need to prove it to you. You know it already:
While you thoroughly express your view of what you think marriage should be, what it should mean, and what it means to you, you’ve completely ignored what marriage as a legal institution actually is and why it actually provides any information about a particular couple’s relationship. Think about what marriage really is and it what it tells you about two people. Can you honestly say that you know anything relevant or material about a couple’s ability to raise children if the only thing you know about them is that they are married? Assume that I am married, tell me something about my relationship relevant to child rearing and why it followed from knowing that I am married. Impress me again.
Great comment Owen. I hope it makes people realize that people marry for all kinds of reasons — good, bad, completely neutral. I hope it makes them realize that knowing two people are married tells you exactly nothing about their relationship or their ability to raise children.
EV, even if you don’t buy my explanation and reasons for disconnecting marriage from stability (and all other features of a relationship), I think your confidence must at least be shaken by the quality of the comments thus far. Look at the arguments presented, and tell me which side offers more reasoned analysis. One side argues about what marriage should really mean and what they think it should mean to other people. But they don’t explain — or even acknowledge — reality. The other side proves, though reason, analogy, and anecdote, that marriage is not really what you want it to be, but what the people who get married want it to be. Oh and the appeals court seems to agree with me:
“No evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that adoption was not in this child’s best interest; in fact, all of the evidence was to the contrary.”
Not a lack of substantial evidence, not an abuse of discretion…”no evidence” as in not any evidence at all.
August 28, 2010, 2:25 amBuck Turgidson says:
Yes, we’ve gone over this before. And, once again, you prove that you are the one with a problem. Your medieval moralizing does not belong in civilized society.
August 28, 2010, 2:40 amleo marvin says:
I figured that’s because liberals jump from one marriage to another without even bothering to divorce. No? Alessandra? :)
August 28, 2010, 2:54 amBuck Turgidson says:
Anyone who claims that “traditional marriage” has anything to do with procreation or “support for family structure”, then proceeds to connect it with religion ad morality has absolutely no clue about the history of the institution of marriage. In fact, the modern concept of marriage–both religious and civil–is anything but traditional. “Traditional” marriage is much closer to what we now refer as “common law marriage”. The official imprimatur had been added to it not to encourage procreation and stability, but to make inheritance paths much easier. It also provided a source of greater control for the Church–and the state (tithing, raising taxes, conscription, etc.)–over everyday lives of the subjects. A formal marriage bureaucracy provided a much stricter determination of inheritance that removed property and entitlements from “bastards”, thus providing potential extra income to the Church and the State. Some of the impediments could still be overcome with legal documents (e.g., a will), but this also involved extra effort and expense. Somehow, in the intervening 1200 years, we’ve put the cart before the horse.
The couple in question had a “marriage” in the most historical, “traditional” sense. It was a long-term, localized, committed relationship. The only thing that it was missing was a state sanction, a formality. Again, most bureaucratic artifacts of marriage–except federal and state taxation–can be recreated by means of legal documents. This is the main reason for passage of anti-same-sex marriage laws in most states that passed them–it was less to protect the formal heterosexual marriage than to stigmatize “outsiders” and to prevent them from enjoying the same benefits as everyone else. This is a barbarous medieval corruption of any rational notion of marriage. There are few social ills that are more destructive than moralizing preachings of self-pious Christians (doesn’t matter if they are evangelical or Catholic)–other than, perhaps, self-pious Muslims doing the same. A self-pious religious bigot can rationalize almost anything–witness, for example, several attempts by [Ultra-]Orthodox Jews to circumvent civil authority in cases of pedophilia. My favorite example of this kind of hypocrisy is Christian missionaries who get caught proselytizing in Muslim countries, where it is a capital offense. Once sentenced, they immediately appeal to civil libertarian standards that oppose capital punishment, in general.
August 28, 2010, 3:16 amAlessandra says:
Apparently you don’t know the difference between the word Republican and the term social conservative. A significant number of Republicans are NOT social conservatives. The former have liberal attitudes (and behaviors) concerning marriage, personal relationships and sexuality.
August 28, 2010, 4:08 amAlessandra says:
:-)
You know, Anatid, I still have not finished writing to you on the subject of hook-ups (and also to Travers). This blog alone raises three million interesting issues per day to reflect on. (One reason the blog owners are guilty of making people addicted to it ;-)
I have been thinking about some of the questions both of you raised in that other thread, and I’m currently drafting the answer in my mind. Actually, answering your points involves a lot more complex issues than what I first thought. Will get back to you as soon as I have my next “chapter” written on hook-up culture.
August 28, 2010, 4:27 amAlessandra says:
You bet. I was stunned, speechless. And you wrote some things better than I spontaneously ever could! lol
and this after having to read all that nonsense you wrote in both the abuse and the Friedman threads. I debated whether I’d jump in the latter, I’ve chosen not to so far. However, I was about to suggest you and Friedman go live in a desert island alone. The perfect match! ;-)
well, wadyonow?
August 28, 2010, 4:36 amAlessandra says:
Funny that what you call medieval “moralizing” entails not lying about significant attitudes and behaviors concerning marriage. Maybe if you had a case for normalizing homosexuality you wouldn’t need to lie so much about this reality?
August 28, 2010, 4:40 amAlessandra says:
That’s because if you read Perez Hilton all day, you don’t stumble upon words like meretricious, and you fool yourself into thinking you are some sexuality expert here to dictate what everyone should think or question about human sexuality.
Perez Hilton and his little liberal minions are the ones I would deem think and behave like moral infants as it concern human sexuality. Or maybe you’d like to talk about that revered sexuality expert of yours, Father Shanley?
August 28, 2010, 4:58 amAlessandra says:
Most people with a homosexual problem, along with others who also normalize homosexuality, have a serious problem with bigotry. So much so, that they are now moving to deprive anyone whom they are bigoted against from basic civil liberties, such as speech, research, education, or jobs.
August 28, 2010, 5:09 amBuck Turgidson says:
Just face it–you’re a bigot with no substantive argument. Do you have a case for normalizing bigotry? How about the case for normalizing stupidity? In all you posts on many threads you’ve made no case at all for a need to “normalize” anything you disapprove of. If you disapprove of or disagree with something, it’s “not normal”. This is not rationality–it only works in a religious sermon. It must be nice to be able to make two accusations of “lying” within a single sentence without producing any evidence whatsoever. Of course, it’s a function of the particular worldview–if facts don’t agree with your opinion, facts must be lies.
August 28, 2010, 5:14 amLitigator London says:
So far as the trial court was concerned, perhaps the standards of circa 1850?
August 28, 2010, 5:16 amAlessandra says:
There’s lots of issues concerning this claim. In a nut shell:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/opinion/10douthat.html
the Pew Research Center reported that in 2008, 41 percent of American births occurred outside of marriage, the highest figure yet recorded. And from divorce rates to teen births, nearly every indicator of family life now varies dramatically by education, race, geography and income.
================
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126780035
Basically this “intelligent” liberal analysis is saying that more poor, uneducated teenagers get pregnant in Red States, so being poor, uneducated, and pregnant during adolescence are now “socially conservative” values. Right.
From a quick glance at what was reported, and please note that there is no detailed information explaining the stats in these news stories, they did not compare middle-class, well-educated adults with socially conservative values to liberals, analyzing which one has most of the unwanted pregnancies, abortions, or divorce. (although see transcript blurb giving a clue to this further below)
Also, even before looking at the stories, what came to mind was the following:
the authors (Naomi Cahn and June Carbone) basically claim that (poor, uneducated) conservatives get married earlier, without being mature enough to marry for the right reasons. And that (well-off, educated) liberals get married later, thus they make better decisions about getting married. Aside from the aforementioned problem in the comparison, I believe the biggest problem lies in assuming that liberals don’t make mistakes concerning relationships simply because they aren’t married. Like you’ve never seen a date-rape problem on a liberal campus? Or wrecked relationships between unmarried, liberal couples? Or horrendously bitter divorces? Or bad parenting? Or domestic violence?
Furthermore, as the articles point out, the rates for abortions is higher in the liberal states populations. Right there is another contradiction to their glorification of liberal culture. Mature, responsible people do not have high rates of abortions, neither do they use abortion as a contraceptive device.
I’m not in favor of people marrying for irresponsible reasons, but they can be just as irresponsible or dysfunctional without being married. Simply claiming “there are less divorces,” therefore, obligatorily, “people are making less mistakes” is a false claim.
============
another point:
Ms. CARBONE: Yes. Indeed, one of the things we talked about that one of the exceptions to this is if you have two people where the husband and wife both share the same religious values in the same religion, that that’s a protective factor. And…
Ms. CARBONE: …if they’re able to make a go of it. That is, you know, one of the things we find – and again, there’s a real split in couples. Those who have traditional values, that live a traditional life, are actually quite happy. I mean, the wealthy are the happiest. Next to them, couples who share the same idea of what family life should be like and realize it are among the happiest married couples.
============
August 28, 2010, 6:06 amOverall, I think one of the problems with these news stories is that they are too abridged and condensed to really delve into a lot of the issues when calculating the stats, and the underlying, complex reasons for each particular result. They begin to function mostly as jingoistic political propaganda rather than insights into complex relationship problems. I haven’t read their book, btw.
Elemenope says:
Perez Hilton? Father Shanley? What the deuce are you on about?
…they are now moving to deprive anyone whom they are bigoted against from basic civil liberties, such as speech, research, education, or jobs.
No, no. I like it when you talk about the “homosexual problem”. Continue; it is a great marker for the content of your character. The research and education ones are *nonsense*; no idea what you’re on about there. Jobs, well geez, some people don’t like to work with bigots. Thankfully, employment law allows employers to choose employees who aren’t. Or would you prefer to force employers to hire and maintain the employment of bigots against their expressed preference?
I also really like the nebulous, scary “they”. It makes the comment precious.
August 28, 2010, 7:42 amdelmard says:
It’s rather bizarre that there is so little regard for marriage in the comments on this thread. You can intellectualize it all you want, but Marriage is the bedrock of society. It is not extraneous, it is not irrelevant, it is not optional, it is not a relic of the past. That is, unless we want to be a relic of the past.
What is troubling is that the “intelligent” class does not seem to understand this. What worries me is that we have created a wide and deep elite class that believes all the wrong things.
August 28, 2010, 7:56 amCockleCove says:
You apparently didn’t bother reading even the NPR article. Or else chose to present a distorted view of it. Cahn and Cardone do not characterize the less educated, poorer, younger marrieds as “conservatives” or those who are well-off, more educated and marry later as “liberals.” And, they most certainly do not state or even intimate that “poor, uneducated and pregnant during adolescence are now ‘socially conservative values’”; indeed, contrary to your representation, they acknowledge in the NPR interview, “the teen pregnancy rate is just about the same in red states and blue states”, although “for the groups that really have embraced blue [whatever that means; that is mushy], what you see is abortion rates have declined pretty dramatically.”
August 28, 2010, 8:06 amElemenope says:
It’s rather bizarre that there is so little regard for marriage in the comments on this thread. You can intellectualize it all you want, but Marriage is the bedrock of society. It is not extraneous, it is not irrelevant, it is not optional, it is not a relic of the past. That is, unless we want to be a relic of the past.
And your evidence for this is…? I mean, it’s all well and good to make assertions that seem self-evident, but the entire intellectual history of mankind has been one long train of showing how counterintuitive reality tends to be.
August 28, 2010, 8:14 amCockleCove says:
delmard, the comments in this thread are in response to a court decision granting an adoption petition so that a young child could remain in the nurturing care of an unmarried couple who have enjoyed a stable, long-term relationship and are part of a caring, extended family. Even Allessandro believes the court made the right decision.
In a different context, the tenor of comments might very well be different. I don’t know what has led you to conclude that “the ‘intelligent’ class” is indifferent to, even disdainful of, marriage, but I trust that, unlike Allessandra, you don’t view the gossip-mongering, enfant terrible Perez Hilton as representative of “liberals” or “an elite class”.
August 28, 2010, 9:22 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.
August 28, 2010, 9:32 amDebrah says:
Oh, G/d.
What fresh hell is this?
Not the old “shacking up” vs. “marrying up” battle again.
August 28, 2010, 10:02 amOrenWithAnE says:
I’m quite sure marriage is, in fact, optional. OTOH, that would be a fantastic campaign slogan: “Mandatory Marriages for All!”.
August 28, 2010, 10:16 amAlessandra says:
Like red states are associated with liberals and blue states with conservatives, right?
August 28, 2010, 10:25 amBeth M. says:
My “wife” of 11 years and I live in VA. We looked into being foster parents and were informed that no “co-habitating” couples were allowed to be foster parents. At least it applies to gays and straights. Except for the tiny fact that gays CAN’T just get married to avoid co-habitating. I was also eventually told by someone high within the system to just “lie” on the application because trying to change the system would be too hard and take too long.
August 28, 2010, 10:26 amAlessandra says:
Hey, the day you want to explain why different groups of people normalize canabalism, or pederasty, or human or animal sacrifices, or child marriages, or sexual attraction to morbidly obese women, or homosexuality, for example, be my guest.
Why do I think the only way you are capable of talking about any of these social phenomena is with screeching bigotry, absolutely no knowledge, and still think you’re not normalizing gobs of your own stupidity?
So hard to say after reading the rants you vomit on here. Really baffling.
August 28, 2010, 10:36 amElemenope says:
Hey, the day you want to explain why different groups of people normalize canabalism, or pederasty, or human or animal sacrifices, or child marriages, or sexual attraction to morbidly obese women, or homosexuality, for example, be my guest.
Wow, breaking out the greatest hits, are we? Do all social conservatives get an e-mail invite to an exclusive conventicle where they exchange and rehearse really bad, really tired arguments? If you can’t identify the feature that categorically separates homosexuality from the other items you listed (except for the random one about morbidly obese women), let me know, so I can spell it out for you. Go ahead and CC me that e-mail list, so I can explain it to them, too.
You’re right, by the way: conventicle is a damn fine word.
August 28, 2010, 10:50 amAlessandra says:
I’m actually interested in how people normalize attitudes and behaviors. So please, explain all of them to me, since you’re very clever on the subject (and everything else, I’m sure).
August 28, 2010, 11:18 amAlessandra says:
I bet there were at least a couple of other people who commented on this thread that had seen the word before and at least had an idea of what it meant, if not the exact meaning.
August 28, 2010, 11:22 amtom952 says:
Immoral in this case referring to biblical morality, isn’t this clearly a violation of separation of church and state required by the 1st amendment?
August 28, 2010, 11:48 amAlessandra says:
LOL picking on country music, that’s so low ;-)
What I really like about country music (all genres) is the sheer breadth of life experiences that are evoked in the lyrics. And I do agree that not all songs encourage good relationship values. But when the lyrics, the song, and the singer are good, c’mon, it just knocks your heart out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElF1UiL55O4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plvBR02wDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gV3g9LCvPc&feature=related
Saved the best for last:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2aeRg_yMSE
Check out the hairstyle, the clothes, and that virile last name…
Now, that’s hot ;-)
August 28, 2010, 12:13 pmElemenope says:
Normalization of practices is a complex dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanic between many factors, including but not limited to compatibility with already established norms, perceived externalities of the practice (positive and negative), perceived prevalence of the practice, law (in republics under the Rule of Law), rights (in republics with a limited government), history (in the Straussian social-intercourse-with-the-past sense), existing relevant social structures, and pressure from explicit supporters and detractors of normalization. The actual psychological process of normalization probably goes through several stages from disgust and/or total ignorance, through tolerance, to acceptance, to enthusiastic acceptance, which mirrors the social movement of the practice but probably lags generationally a bit.
Due to the myriad factors, the actual way normalization shakes out for any given practice given any given society tends to be highly idiosyncratic; there is no one meta-normative “path” for normalization of practices in general. Sometimes law preceded social normalization, and sometimes the opposite; sometimes rights and extant values trump perceived externalities, and sometimes they don’t.
What I was objecting to in your idle inquiry was the obvious distinction between the process (and likelihood) of normalization of homosexuality as compared to any of the other practices listed (except for that throw-it-in about morbidly obese women, and even there distinctions can be easily drawn), based on many of those factors listed above, such as minimal presence of negative externalities, normalized commitment to individual personal liberty, legal structures (such as consent), substantial prevalence and visibility, the history of campaigns of normalization of group practices in this country that are partially or mostly analogous, and the declining relevance of historical structures aligned in opposition to normalization. I imagine as a rather observant person you knew most of that already, and so I must think that in the context of this society right now, throwing homosexuality in among the other practices you mentioned is a somewhat faithless exercise of smear-by-coincidence.
August 28, 2010, 12:23 pmPerpetua says:
Clarification: Was the woman a “surviving spouse” in the sense that the previous husband died and left her a widow?
I asked whether the woman is collecting Social Security based on her previous husband’s SS account and if so, whether she loses his benefits level and reverts back to her own SS account level if she remarries?
Cocklecove answered for the case that the previous husband was deceased that remarrying after you reach 60 does not disqualify you from receiving survivor benefits, and gave the appropriate link:
http://www.ssa.gov/ww&os2.htm
But I was thinking she had divorced her previous husband as he was abusive. If that is the case, the answer is:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/gethelp1.htm
August 28, 2010, 12:37 pmMikeybackwards says:
Actually, Alessandra, what this demonstrates is that the state, trying to implement through legislation, and coservative pressure to deprive individuals of sex-education, meaningful access to contraception, and the whole litany of ‘liberal values’ and artifacts of a liberal culture may actually contribute to propogating or perpetuating these social ills. I believe it also has much to do with the obsessive fascination with tax cuts and governmental cuts among ‘Red’ states. This results in cuts to education. There are cuts to social services that might help families maintain economic stability, and allowing children to be able to make choices to stay in school rather than drop-out, even when negative things happen. This obsession also results in cut to training and intervention programs to treat a variety of personal ills (mental health, addiction, etc.) and thus break the cycle of gerneralational poverty, poor education, and the resultant poor outcomes for individuals and society.
Now, before you reach into your grab-bag of high dudgeon, I am not advocating that all ‘Red’ states embrace liberal values. But I do suggest that they consider that in trying to throw out the bath water of what they see as libertine; they have both literally and figuratively thrown out the baby, as the erroneous decision this judge handed down demonstrates.
Lockstep ideology, without attendant questioning and both individual and collective reflection, is a negative for both liberals and conservatives. Liberal culture is not perfect, but by the narrow metrics of unwed, unplanned pregnancy – liberals produce better outcomes than conservatives. By the narrow metric of producing economies that on the whole consume less tax dollars per tax dollar paid – liberals produce better outcomes than conservatives. By the narrow metric of more stable, longer lasting marriages, it would appear, based upon the limited evidence available – liberals produce better outcomes than conservatives.
Now you raise the bugbears of ‘date rape on a liberal campus’ without reference to the level of prevalence of such, or whether ‘conservative campuses are free or have a lower level of prevalence of date rape. Also, this seems to ignore the fact that Alaska is the # 1 state in the country for rape and has been for 23 out of the last 30 years, as reported in FBI’s Uniform Crime Report.
You talk about the ‘wrecked relationships between unmarried liberal couples’. Here, without citing statistics or evidence to back up your assumption that there exists some high level or off-setting level of problem ‘wrecked relationships between unmarried liberal couples’ that proves ‘Red State’ values actually are superior.
You make an appeal to a level of domestic violence. However you don’t provide evidence that domestic violence levels in ‘Blue States’ is higher than or as high as that in ‘Red States’.
You also make an appeal to the higher rate of abortion in ‘Blue States’ without addressing how many of those might be abortions obtained by individuals from ‘Red States’ traveling to where an abortion is available. You also seem to ignore that in some ‘Blue States’ the abortion rate is actually lower than such traditionally ‘Red States’ as Kansas, Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada. You posit that abortion is being used as contraception. Where is your support for this claim?
Now, I’m not arguing that liberal is always better than conservative, but even as you bash Cahn and Carbone for making assumptions, you go on to make assumptions that appear every bit as great. Further, by not having read their book, you are making an assumption that they don’t address these very matters in the book, as opposed to the article about the book not addressing these issues.
**Please note that I am deliberately not claiming anything about the prevalence of any of the cases I am addressing here, merely asking for support for the positions you have taken.
August 28, 2010, 12:40 pmElemenope says:
Liberal culture is not perfect, but by the narrow metrics of unwed, unplanned pregnancy — liberals produce better outcomes than conservatives. By the narrow metric of producing economies that on the whole consume less tax dollars per tax dollar paid — liberals produce better outcomes than conservatives. By the narrow metric of more stable, longer lasting marriages, it would appear, based upon the limited evidence available — liberals produce better outcomes than conservatives.
In a sense this might also be embedded in the structure of those dispositions; liberals and conservatives may differ strongly on whether fidelity to values or production of positive outcomes are the more important metric to analyze the efficacy of a policy.
August 28, 2010, 1:21 pmChris Travers says:
I thought I addressed this in my comment. In case you missed it, marriage ceremonies are one way of making commitment known, but today they are not the only way. Historically it was more than that, and I think we should be looking at how to bring some elements of that back (though we shouldn’t seek to “turn back the clock” there are things we have lost to the sands of time that we should search out and resurrect).
It’s not just the legal relationship and package of benefits, but it’s the social significance as well that you have to look to, and this varies in different parts of the country. For example, it tells you almost nothing about the Nevada couple except that at the moment they want to be married to eachother (since neither marriage nor divorce have any waiting periods in that state). It may say something about a couple in rural Massachusetts or Nebraska, but what it says about these people may be different.
But the question is: Do we see children raised in broken families as a bad thing? If we do, then we need to change how we as a society look at marriage, and see it less about happily ever after, and more about forming a family unit with dependants.
Does it say anything about a couple that is living together that is not married? Probably not.
Also marriage for a Catholic couple and a Hindu Couple may have some commonalities but may be different. Marriage for an LDS couple may be different yet. Context matters. There is no single right answer. But I agree the trial court was wrong here.
August 28, 2010, 1:31 pmOrenWithAnE says:
How is that at all the question? Marriage is not sine qua non of a healthy family any more than apple die is sqn of dessert. Sure apple pie usually makes for a fantastic dessert but that’s hardly the point.
August 28, 2010, 1:38 pmChris Travers says:
The word has been the subject of a previous VC post (as itself, not connected to any case), iirc. As long as you don’t use “meretricious” where you mean “meritorious” you should be good.
August 28, 2010, 1:39 pmAlessandra says:
And given that’s the only metric you choose to consider, you’re exhibit A of what I mentioned about people using such claims to make jingoistic ideological chest-beating.
Alessandra (maybe you won’t skip what I wrote this time): Overall, I think one of the problems with these news stories is that they are too abridged and condensed to really delve into a lot of the issues when calculating the stats, and the underlying, complex reasons for each particular result. They begin to function mostly as jingoistic political propaganda rather than insights into complex relationship problems. I haven’t read their book, btw.
August 28, 2010, 1:41 pmAlessandra says:
And can you tell me the prevalence in either type of campus? Or are you also making your claims and generalizations based on sheer ignorance of numbers and studies addressing this issue?
August 28, 2010, 1:43 pmAlessandra says:
Mikey:
I was addressing how many problems there exist in unmarried liberal couples. What can you tell me about the subject?
Are you aware or in denial that you’re the one who injected the “that proves ‘Red State’ values actually are superior.”
Are you aware or in denial that you’re the one who injected the “levels in ‘Blue States’ is higher than or as high as that in ‘Red States’”
What can you tell me about domestic violence problems in liberal couples?
August 28, 2010, 1:48 pmChris Travers says:
But marriage is a social and legal arrangement designed to lay a foundation for a family unit. Making divorce difficult is part of that arrangement. Certainly in the past it was the sqn of a healthy family. I wouldn’t quite call it the same today because I am not saying that other models aren’t possible within our current social framework and this current case is a good example. However, I don’t think it is remotely irrelevant either.
What I am saying is that preferring married couples to non-married couples as a matter of law makes a great deal of sense. I just think this present case is an exception rather than the rule.
August 28, 2010, 1:48 pmChris Travers says:
I think it’s worth noting that the North-east has a low divorce rate in part because their divorce laws are rather conservative. New York is finally approved no-fault divorce this year, and was the last state in the nation to do so.
August 28, 2010, 1:50 pmAlessandra says:
On the contrary, you’re the one claiming a distinction between homosexuality and anything else, a distinction claimed on the basis of your normalization process of homosexuality and your ideological dogmas on human sexuality.
August 28, 2010, 1:53 pmGeorgia Court: We Really Really Don’t Want People to Shack Up. | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] So much so, we’re willing to punish their children. [...]
August 28, 2010, 1:56 pmChris Travers says:
Actually, I think there are questions of which outcomes are positive. Conservatives and Liberals treat different outcomes as positive and weigh them differently. Also one of the flaws in this discussion is that people tend to think there are Liberals and there are Conservatives and the two are always distinct groups. When we look at marriage and divorce laws in this country, however, the North-East (the Liberal stronghold) has some of the most conservative laws on the books in this area. So different sub-groups are liberal in some ways and conservative in others. This is particularly true when it comes to family values.
August 28, 2010, 1:59 pmChris Travers says:
BTW, I agree with that point narrowly made.
However, I think it’s a mistake to assume that Liberal values are in all respects superior to Conservative ones just as I think it’s a mistake to assume the converse. People should be thinking about every issue for themselves, determine how they choose to weigh different negative and positive outcomes and so forth. I think that the ideas proposed by some liberals on this board that marriage is a state of commitment which can be withdrawn at any time (making the commitment itself entirely meaningless), that marriage is simply about personal happiness, etc. are equally pernicious concepts.
August 28, 2010, 2:25 pmK. Chen says:
Y’all seem to be committing the same error that the trial court did: using a child in need as a vehicle to air political and cultural disagreements.
August 28, 2010, 2:33 pmChris Travers says:
No. The trial court’s error was in assuming that if this was the best the judge could come up with as being against the best interests of the child that it was enough, despite substantial expert testimony to the contrary. Social disagreements are fine. However, I don’t see anyone on this thread who believes that this should be enough to take this child away from this home.
August 28, 2010, 2:45 pmElemenope says:
Also one of the flaws in this discussion is that people tend to think there are Liberals and there are Conservatives and the two are always distinct groups. [...] So different sub-groups are liberal in some ways and conservative in others. This is particularly true when it comes to family values.
This is an excellent point, and one in particular that comes up when liberalism and conservatism are talked about as two opposing sets of policy prescriptions. The reality is nearly universally that people who identify as liberal or conservative will on the micro level hold beliefs that are a veritable grab bag of policies from both columns.
I do think, though, that meaningful analysis can be had in talking about liberalism and conservatism as dispositions and/or attitudes, with liberals tending to be more concerned with direct outcomes and more heedless of unintended consequences, and conservatives the converse position in each area.
August 28, 2010, 2:50 pmAlessandra says:
Pew Research Center reported that in 2008, 41 percent of American births occurred outside of marriage, the highest figure yet recorded. And from divorce rates to teen births, nearly every indicator of family life now varies dramatically by education, race, geography and income.
Studies also show that there is no sweeping, “everybody is the same” life experience, or group experience, they vary dramatically, along multiple criteria.
Another current repetition in these discussions is that liberals will always frame any of these topics of social problems as a comparison between conservatives and liberals, and liberals, as a group, must necessarily be better or the same as conservatives in everything, a claim based on 99% lack of data.
Yawn.
August 28, 2010, 2:53 pmElemenope says:
On the contrary, you’re the one claiming a distinction between homosexuality and anything else…
No, simply a distinction between homosexuality and the particular other sexual practices/orientations you listed.
…a distinction claimed on the basis of your normalization process…
Yes, though it is a fairly generic account of such a process.
of homosexuality and your ideological dogmas on human sexuality.
Really the only part of the analysis of the normalization process that would differ depending on ideology would be an assessment of externalities. Other than that, things devolve unto objective facts. Such as, for example, the legal distinctions our society makes dependent upon the capacity to give consent to sexual activity; notably nearly all of your examples are not compatible with that firmly entrenched (and objectively explicable) legal structure, whereas homosexuality is.
August 28, 2010, 2:57 pmChris Travers says:
Meh….. “Conservatives” and “Liberals” are more like eachother than they care to admit. It leaves those of us who believe in real pluralism, small federal government, etc. entirely out in the cold.
August 28, 2010, 3:09 pmRandy says:
Chris: “People get married for the wrong reasons.”
And what are the right reasons? Arranged marriages are common in India, and quite successful. Indians living in the US still often practice this custom. The divorce rate is actually fairly low.
So perhaps we should have arranged marriages in the US? Would that satisfy your condition as a correct reason to marry? If not, why not?
August 28, 2010, 3:42 pmChris Travers says:
The right reasons involve commitment to create a family unit, ideally with appropriate dependants (by procreation or adoption). India, like most traditional cultures, does place a very strong link between marriage and procreation although this is somewhat attenuated among some groups of Brahmins. Among those groups, where marriage is seen as distinct from procreation (and even sex), such as the marriage of Sri Ramakrishna, marriage forms a sort of religious discipleship.
(Ramakrisha’s case is probably worthy of more than a sentence or two but it is of interest as a counterexample, but has always been seen as exceptional even in India. As far as counterexamples go, it’s also worth comparing with the story of St Magnus in the Orkneyinga Saga and the Life of St Aethelthryth, and similar celibate but married saints in early Merovingian etc, suggesting this celebate marriage theme may indeed be a pagan matter. In every one of these cases, however, this was seen as exceptional and unusual. However, that’s a subject for a long essay.)
Also it’s further worth pointing out that arranged marriage is one institution among many in India in terms of forms of marriage. The Rakshasa Marriage is an interesting one too.
One easy mistake to make is to say that what works for one group of people is universally appropriate for everyone. Fully arranged marriages would probably not work well for most of American society, but there may be things we can learn from them. Indeed most of the world has something like “semi-arranged” marriages where the parents have essentially veto power over the choice of spouse for their kids, and these have been the norm in parts of Europe for a very long time. I am certainly not opposed to that idea.
I think that meaning arises from structures in society, and that the interconnectedness of these things gives rise to their value. You can’t just pull out the engine of a Toyota Prius and put in the engine from a Ford Mustang and expect it to work, or vice versa. that doesn’t mean, however, if you are designing a new version of one of these cars you might not want to look carefully at the designs of other models and trends you might otherwise reject.
August 28, 2010, 4:07 pmElemenope says:
It is nearly a truism to say that society is an interconnected web of social structures and norms, of such complexity that it is ex ante impossible to predict with any sort of accuracy what the long-term effects of any essential change will be. This fact is humbling and recommends upon those who would seek to change social norms some humility and caution.
However, in the cold light of historical examples, every single time something was declared by a dominant cultural power “essential to the integrity of society” without which the vibrancy and stability of society would surely fail, the predicted consequences have failed to materialize. Every. Single. Time. From women voting to inter-racial marriages to public dancing to the invention of TV, this line of thought has produced more incorrect predictions than one might expect if one were instead to pick by blind chance.
It may be true that the naysayers only need to be correct once, but given the historical record, it seems more likely that healthy societies have a robust capacity to re-normalize around such changes and absorb most of the unintended impact, and that one would have to dig deeply indeed in order to come upon changeable structures that if changed could unravel society.
August 28, 2010, 4:37 pmChris Travers says:
First of all, society is fairly homeostatic. A single change is not going to so upset the equilibrium that a new one cannot be found. This is particularly true where government action is involved because society can and often does fill that gap (and I think in our society, it needs to be able to do so).
It’s worth noting that interracial marriage is still very much the exception to the rule and almost always has been (if you look across history and culture, you find that interracial and intercultural marriage is always occurring but at fairly slow rates). In fact I think that this is likely to be a major parallel to the way same-sex marriage will be treated, namely that it won’t erase social taboos against homosexual activity or same-sex marriage, but will simply be a state recognition of the “other.”
So in most of these cases, it is ignorance to history than anything else.
However this doesn’t mean that things don’t have unintended consequences. In particular I think TV has had a profoundly negative influence on society, esp. where it is a substitute for human interaction.
But I also think that the mangling of our cultural heritage of stories like Cinderella into whatever non-violent atrocities Disney thinks they can sell us also causes profound social damage (but it’s the consumer who is the real criminal here for buying that crap). The human experience is made up of stories. We relate to the world in stories, and we act out those stories in our lives, expecting the same results. Where those results fail to materialize disillusionment falls, and where marriages are involved divorce occurs. Instead of great lessons about personal virtue, humility, and honesty, we have specious stories which teach young girls to have unrealistic expectations regarding “true love.”
Society isn’t going to end. But that doesn’t mean we have to like where it’s headed.
August 28, 2010, 4:55 pmKen Arromdee says:
I wonder what you think about peak oil.
Or for that matter, concerns raised by environmentalists in general.
August 28, 2010, 5:01 pmElemenope says:
I wonder what you think about peak oil. Or for that matter, concerns raised by environmentalists in general.
Social problems and dislocations are, I think, in many important ways unlike problems of a more concrete nature, such as resource allocation and usage. That being said, I think it likely that if oil supplies start to dwindle, alternative sources of energy and petrochemical feedstocks will be developed, mostly driven by market forces; a process that may on the margins be nudged one way or another by government subsidy and/or other market interference, but will occur one way or another regardless. What government can do (maybe) is change the distribution of impact for the transition than how it might naturally fall otherwise. Whether that is wise to do (and what the policy goals of such interference ought to be if it were) is an open question.
I think that ecological systems are, like social systems, partially self-correcting, but too complex to accurately project what the true points of failure might be. I think environmentalists made a series of fairly damaging tactical errors by focusing on the macro climate change aspect of CO2 concentration changes, rather than focusing on problems generated from those activities that are more incontrovertible and/or less abstract, such as increases in asthma rates and declines in air quality due to air pollution, or the increasing acidification of the oceans (especially the Atlantic).
August 28, 2010, 5:21 pmleo marvin says:
If people were making that claim this would be a good argument, but they aren’t. The implicit claim they are making is that marrying to avoid social or religious stigma increases the rate of bad outcomes. In response to that claim your pointing out that a lot of liberals who shouldn’t be married aren’t seems to concede the point. And your implicit argument that conservatives have a higher divorce rate because more conservatives get married is like the proverbial business model of losing money on every sale, but making it up in volume.
August 28, 2010, 5:28 pmElemenope says:
Society isn’t going to end. But that doesn’t mean we have to like where it’s headed.
“Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.” — Marcus Tullius Cicero
One of my favorite quotes, because it reminds me that these concerns (and arguments) have persisted since pretty much the beginning of recorded history. I agree on an aesthetic note that what Disney, say, and Hollywood more generally, have done with old meaningful stories is nauseating, but I can’t help but think that I think this only because I was brought up reading the original stories. Is there something fundamentally superior about constructing the stories in the old way as opposed to the stories as they are deconstructed and rebuilt by Disney that a person not familiar with the original would be able to identify? Would people made familiar first with the Disney version not simply be learning a story of a different sort, to which they attach primacy and meaning and value?
August 28, 2010, 5:30 pmleo marvin says:
Not when people like you use it so meretriciously. :)
August 28, 2010, 5:30 pmElemenope says:
Not when people like you use it so meretriciously. :)
Conventicle is a whore, and I…well, I am its pimp.
August 28, 2010, 5:41 pmChris Travers says:
Gotta love Cicero. At least this means you and I can speak the same language :-)
To me it’s not an aesthetic issue. You ask if there is something fundamentally superior. I am not sure that is the right way to look at it. I think instead there are two fundamental questions:
1) In the realm of socially meaningful stories, does conservatism provide a better result than innovationism? (Referring to anthropological terms rather than political ones here)
and
2) What is the message of each story? If someone acts out this story in his/her life (modified of course for social boundaries), is that a good idea?
These aren’t easy questions to answer, and the first in particular has a profound impact on many questions of social policy from which stories we raise our kids on to lengths of copyright terms and the extent of copyright protections vs fair use. (Someone like me who sides heavily with the conservative traditions here would favor short copyright terms and expansive views on fair use, for example, because this allows incremental variations of works to be collaboratively developed and shifts focus away from innovative aspects.)
On the first:
It’s well established that conservatism leads to more complexity of art than innovationism. In particular, true epics (like Beowulf, the Iliad, or the Ramayana) develop solely in conservative literary and oral traditions. Of course these change over time, and on each performance (see Ong, “Orality and Literacy”), and so with a conservative framework, the stories are always changing, but they change incrementally and slowly. This is very different from the attempt to create a separate work of art loosely based on an older tale, which is what Disney has done. The result here is usually a minimalist reduction of the story in a form that the artist believes will sell.
I think the richness in complexity is one of the real strengths of conservative literary (and oral) traditions, however. This complexity allows a story to be meaningful as applied in a variety of ways, and if one application fails, more applications can be found.
As to the second question, the original story is one of a young girl who is humble, and devoted to the spirit of her deceased mother, who through honoring her deceased mother is granted supernatural help both in rising above her (bad) situation. Her step-sisters are so overcome by greed however, that they mutilate their feet and eventually have their eyes plucked out by this same supernatural force. The story tells us to honor the dead, to make the best of our lot, and to avoid dishonesty in the pursuit of honors, riches, and social advancement.
The new story cuts all of this out, and leaves it as simply a story of the triumph of love at first sight and happily ever afters. It instead turns the idea into one which if enacted leads not to personal virtue capable of overcoming personal hardship but rather of unrealistic expectations which are destructive by themselves.
So it’s not the aesthetics. It’s the nature of the cultural mythology that the new versions embody.
Sure they would. They’d probably see the old stories as dark, violent, and horribly disturbing. But is this a good thing? See questions above.
August 28, 2010, 6:11 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Great point. However, I think history shows that societies do operate on myriad wavelength-like (in this case, moral) trajectories – ups and downs are possible. Although it is true enough that the type of thinking you expose is quite often specious.
I do not think we can categorically say that Disney’s morals are or aren’t fundamentally inferior to the Brothers Grimm, but I have to side with Chris to the extent that we can favor the elevation of one set of morals over another – and that we probably should. This is so even if we are cresting or troughing irrespective of whatever minor moral point we’re arguing about – or whether we can really even consciously influence or change our trajectory.
Bringing it back to marriage, I think we’re all trying to elevate the same thing(s) – commitment, stability, etc.; it’s a question of the better method to doing that. I’m not overly tied to the formalism of marriage, myself…
August 28, 2010, 6:14 pmAltereggo says:
Can we please just ignore the Troll? Or at least get an “ignore this user” button for the comments system?
If I wanted to be lectured about the “homosexual problem” I’d… well, even Fox doesn’t talk like that anymore. Maybe I could read the Fred Phelps website?
I’m amazed how few people actually addressed the legal issues behind this case, rather than their personal feelings. Alessandra in particular sounds rather like a liberal celebrating a Supreme Court case whose outcome they agree with.
August 28, 2010, 6:19 pmAlessandra says:
On the contrary, you’re the one claiming a distinction between homosexuality and anything else I listed…
Does that spell it out better for you?
August 28, 2010, 6:26 pmAlessandra says:
Called circular thinking.
August 28, 2010, 6:28 pmAlessandra says:
I got the impression you didn’t really understand my point. If you have a significant number of people who have serious attitude and behavior problems concerning relationships, that is the problem, and it’s bad for society. Whether they are single, married or divorced doesn’t change the pervasiveness of the problem itself.
I didn’t see this addressed in the article. I just saw a measure of divorce as a measure of competency and quality in relationships. Thus, since conservatives apparently marry more, and some for not very good reasons, then follows divorce, there is a claim that liberals have less problems with their attitudes and behaviors concerning relationships or marriages, since they don’t marry until later.
Apparently you think that liberals, in general, have very little problems with anything in life, including relationships and sexuality, but I think it’s a different picture.
August 28, 2010, 6:56 pmChrisTS says:
Alessandra:
This is true in my case: I ‘normalize’ my lesbian daughter. And, I really do have a problem with bigotry.
I don’t often get a chance to agree with Alessandra.
August 28, 2010, 6:57 pmElemenope says:
I have to side with Chris to the extent that we can favor the elevation of one set of morals over another — and that we probably should. This is so even if we are cresting or troughing irrespective of whatever minor moral point we’re arguing about — or whether we can really even consciously influence or change our trajectory.
I actually concur with this. I see nothing wrong with attempting to shape adopted values so as to create (what we think will be) good social outcomes. Choosing stories means choosing values, an important task for any culture.
I’m just skeptical about the general case, about whether the values encouraged/discouraged by dislocations of social norms or media technologies generally lead to parallel dislocations of the embedded values in media content, at least not in any directed or sustainable sense.
I think the richness in complexity is one of the real strengths of conservative literary (and oral) traditions, however. This complexity allows a story to be meaningful as applied in a variety of ways, and if one application fails, more applications can be found.
But I think those stories have been shorn of most of their meaning for us in our context long before they were displaced by Disney versions and TV shows. Practically speaking, the Iliad et al. are better windows into what the ancient Greeks valued than into the values we possess even as we read it. Stories about Gods, monsters, and heroes don’t force an introspective moment or a revaluation of values the way they did during the days when people half suspected some factual truth behind the tales, nor are the models of behavior therein anywhere close to what we would find as acceptable, never mind practicable.
It’s well established that conservatism leads to more complexity of art than innovationism. In particular, true epics (like Beowulf, the Iliad, or the Ramayana) develop solely in conservative literary and oral traditions. Of course these change over time, and on each performance (see Ong, “Orality and Literacy”), and so with a conservative framework, the stories are always changing, but they change incrementally and slowly.
This is a fascinating point, and one I’ll have to think further about.
August 28, 2010, 6:59 pmAlessandra says:
I think the Perez Hilton site seems more on your level. Think of the benefits of spending your entire day reading Hilton, there’s so much similarity in how both of you think. And you could always enlighten yourself a bit more with George Michael’s fan site.
Curiously, people who were interested in discussing the legal issues, actually did. Except you, that is. Just a coincidence, of course.
August 28, 2010, 7:16 pmChris Travers says:
Probably because the legal outcome of this case is almost entirely uncontroversial. A few people have pointed to age differences and the like but I don’t think anyone here really thinks that should be enough to take a 3-year-old from the only family she has ever known.
In short, there is nothing to discuss there. We are all in agreement. So we find something interesting to talk about :-)
August 28, 2010, 7:31 pmAlessandra says:
Missed! LOL You are normalizing your daughter’s homosexual problem. I would think that out of your (ahem) many problems, bigotry concerning commenters who don’t agree with you is definitely not one of them. Anyone who says so is just being wicked and meretricious, be it remembered.
Point! On that one we agree… :-) But not completely, we are all mostly in agreement, but with some reservations about the apparent contradictions concerning the woman’s excuses about not wanting to get married, and, if she is the only person to adopt the child, there’s the very real issue of what would happen if the woman died, given her advanced age and her legal single status.
Now, about how many problems liberals have with attitudes and behaviors concerning relationships and sexuality…. :-D
Right, Leo?
August 28, 2010, 7:46 pmChris Travers says:
Just for clarity’s sake, I’m talking about the difference between a conservative approach to story-telling and an innovative one. I am not saying we all are going to be motivated upon reading the Iliad to go have sex in a mountain cave during a thunderstorm with our wife dressed up as Aphrodite (although that would be pretty cool). Indeed, aside from followers of Hellenismos, I can’t see the Iliad or the Odyssey having that sort of deep meaning anymore.
The first point is that these stories are qualitatively different. Complexity has been built up layer after layer. If one application fails, we still have other ways of finding meaning. The characters, while more stereotypical than deep, provide more variety in terms of how we can use them as proxies in our lives.
This doesn’t mean we should get rid of the movie or the novel, or other innovationist approaches to story-telling. It does mean we should try to keep alive the older myths, epics, and folk tales, and so forth, while being willing to adapt them on each performance to the time at hand. There are also, as I mentioned, questions of copyright policy. If we want a more conservative literary tradition, the best thing we can do is drastically shorten copyright lifespans and increase fair use protections.
August 28, 2010, 7:50 pmElemenope says:
Just for clarity’s sake, I’m talking about the difference between a conservative approach to story-telling and an innovative one. I am not saying we all are going to be motivated upon reading the Iliad to go have sex in a mountain cave during a thunderstorm with our wife dressed up as Aphrodite (although that would be pretty cool). Indeed, aside from followers of Hellenismos, I can’t see the Iliad or the Odyssey having that sort of deep meaning anymore.
No, I get that. But I think that a text’s obvious explicit meaning is an important factor in determining that text’s utility when it comes time to digging out more subtle messages. If the occurrent message is abhorrent (or at least morally dissonant), the dispositional content is diminished in effectiveness, even if the meaning that can be extracted after effort is not (as) baleful.
The first point is that these stories are qualitatively different. Complexity has been built up layer after layer. If one application fails, we still have other ways of finding meaning. The characters, while more stereotypical than deep, provide more variety in terms of how we can use them as proxies in our lives.
I agree that this is possible, and that utility can be recaptured from old texts through reinterpretation, but I have to question whether this is a feature of only conservative-approach texts, and not a basic feature of all texts generally.
There are also, as I mentioned, questions of copyright policy. If we want a more conservative literary tradition, the best thing we can do is drastically shorten copyright lifespans and increase fair use protections.
I was on board with extensive copyright reform long before this conversation (mostly on public policy and constitutional grounds), but this is the first new argument I’ve heard in a while, and I like it a great deal upon reflection.
August 28, 2010, 8:08 pmChrisTS says:
Alessandra:*
*Allie, if I may (arthritic fingers need nicknames): I admit to not knowing what to make of you. I find much of what you post, here, deeply ugly, despite the veneer of humor and the clear evidence of intelligence. I will say this once, and not directly address you again until I have a better sense of you:
My daughter does not have a ‘homosexual problem.’
My daughter is a lesbian – possibly bi-sexual. Your use of this phrase, ‘homosexual problem,’ is deeply offensive to me – especially attached, as it seems to be, to a generally nasty attitude towards gays and lesbians.
As my last comment addressed to you directly: I find you to be one of the commenters most likely to assume that disagreement equals bigotry. I do not; nor do most of the regulars, here.
Thanks for your time.
August 28, 2010, 8:12 pmElemenope says:
arthritic fingers need nicknames
Crinkly clackers.
I find you to be one of the commenters most likely to assume that disagreement equals bigotry. I do not; nor do most of the regulars, here.
I’ll admit to being confused by her monomaniacal obsession with Perez Hilton.
August 28, 2010, 8:19 pmJohn Herbison says:
Should we conclude that someone who obsesses over who sticks what into whom, constructs wild caricatures of the opinions and thought processes of those who disagree, imputes bad motives to others and makes a point of being obnoxious has an Alessandra problem?
If there is justice in the next life, I surmise that Alessandra and Perez Hilton will spend eternity chained to one another at the wrists.
August 28, 2010, 9:08 pmChrisTS says:
elemenope
That made me laugh: thank you. It seems arthritic fingers also need to skip syntax.:-)
August 28, 2010, 9:33 pmChrisTS says:
John Herbison:
Nicely done.
August 28, 2010, 9:34 pmOwen H. says:
Wow, you mean a huge number of straights are shunning marriage too?
August 28, 2010, 9:49 pmInahandbasket says:
Thread winner. Back to the sidelines, enjoying the other posters slice and dice Allie’s obsession w/ a ‘problem’ that simply does not exist in the real world.
August 28, 2010, 10:46 pmloader says:
Agreed! I’m not married yet, but going in with eyes wide open and expecting trouble (as well as some good things). One of the people I most respect in the world basically fell out of love with his wife for 2 or 3 years as she became depressed and bitter due to events that had nothing to do with him. It is not that he just fell out of love with her, I don’t think he even liked her personality during that whole time. Yet, he felt compassion for her and loyalty and stuck with her. She eventually got better and now he becomes unhappy and irritable when she’s gone for more than a day. She saved him when they were younger and he saved her when they were older. I hate to think what would have happened to me if they’d divorced.
August 29, 2010, 2:23 amBuck Turgidson says:
Oh, man! I knew this was coming… So “sexual attraction to morbidly obese women” is the moral equivalent of cannibalism and human sacrifice?? Is Sarah Palin blogging under a pseudonym? (At least, use a spellchecker not to look like a complete idiot when you write “canabolism”.)
Dick Morris has a toe fetish. He hires prostitutes to suck their toes–or, at least, he used to. Clearly this is not “normal”–generally, we talk about “fetish” as something that is unusual and repulsive for the majority of people within a particular culture. But is it in the same category as human sacrifice? Or is it a question of aesthetics and not of ethics?
At least “pederasty” and homosexuality have some superficial similarity–they both involve sexual relations. But this is where the similarities–both physical and moral–end. Homosexuality involves natural sexual attraction between two people who are generally capable of expressing consent and desire that often may lead to mutually consensual sexual acts (although it need not actually lead to such sexual acts). Alessandra has a problem with the natural part because she follows received morality. The explanation why it is considered unnatural is necessarily circular–there is no rational basis for it. Some people find it repulsive–but, of course, the fact that some people find the color yellow repulsive does not mean that wearing yellow clothing or driving yellow cars is immoral. Pederasty and pedophilia are in a different category entirely. While homosexual relations and acts are well documented both in animal behavior and throughout human history, pedophilia and pederasty are not in any way similar. In every human culture there is some fairly well defined age of ascension, prior to which children are not accessible to adults. Less aggressive, localized cultures tend to have this age to be lower, while the more aggressive–self-described as “more developed”–cultures generally recognize this age to be higher. But any potential relationship of this sort is necessarily asymmetric and non-consensual. To put it simply, prior to the age of ascension one is not capable–or is not allowed, in some cultures–of expressing consent.
Alessandra–just to be clear, I am not writing this for you. I am writing it for others who may be inclined to suspect your argument to be rational. They may yet be persuaded of their error on this account. You, on the other hand, are beyond repair. Unfortunately, it is not possible to exchange flawed models back at the factory–sometimes we get stuck with lemons. And these lemons are not merely sour–they are rancid and they infect everything they touch with stench and rot. Such is the fruit of bigotry.
August 29, 2010, 3:29 amBuck Turgidson says:
Actually, sexuality is the bedrock of society. Marriage, if you will, is the top soil or humus, at best. Just consider the Shakers…
August 29, 2010, 3:39 amBuck Turgidson says:
Feel free to add or elaborate on what I wrote–just make sure you know who your target audience is. I, for one, have no intention of responding to PigVomit any more. You just can’t change lead into gold.
August 29, 2010, 3:44 amAlessandra says:
ChrisTS,
First of all, I read your name too quickly. I thought it was another back and forth from Chris Travers, specially following his comment that we (him and I) agreed about some attitudes marriage. I read your comment as coming from Travers and, in fact, I was slightly puzzled, because as I remembered, Travers had previously said he had a small son. So I thought he was joking about having a daughter, and a “lesbian” daughter.
Travers does not have a bigotry problem about other people here, even when he mostly disagrees, you, on the other hand, apparently do.
=====================
My daughter does not have a ‘homosexual problem.’
My daughter is a lesbian — possibly bi-sexual.
=================
The above according to your dogmas and lack knowledge on human social psychology. A political ideology I do not share.
” Your use of this phrase, ‘homosexual problem,’ is deeply offensive to me — especially attached, as it seems to be, to a generally nasty attitude towards gays and lesbians.
As my last comment addressed to you directly: I find you to be one of the commenters most likely to assume that disagreement equals bigotry. I do not; nor do most of the regulars, here.”
And why should that be deeply offensive to you?
And what would that “nasty” attitude be? Is it any different than the nasty attitude you have about anyone who thinks like me?
“you to be one of the commenters most likely to assume that disagreement equals bigotry. I do not; nor do most of the regulars, here.”
An assumption made on the basis of the nasty tone, the bile, and the attacks I constantly receive here, for example? All of which, apparently, you choose to be blind to, not only showing a bigoted attitude, but severe double standards.
August 29, 2010, 3:45 amAlessandra says:
So “sexual attraction to morbidly obese women” is the moral equivalent of cannibalism and human sacrifice?
No, it is a question of normalization. I was thinking of a culture that force feeds its women so that they become morbidly obese, because this is what they have normalized as being moral, attractive, and the thing to do.
If you ask these people if they are wrong, or if they shouldn’t think and act this way, they will obviously say no, and think that you are bigoted against them.
They will all justify their concepts, practices, and attitudes, like you do for yours. This goes for all the practices in my abbreviated list, which are just an assortment, but obviously not limited to all practices ever normalized in human groups.
A group that practices cannibalism as a fundamental part of their culture does not believe there is a problem with it, and will be deeply upset if you suggest there is.
August 29, 2010, 4:05 amAlessandra says:
“Homosexuality involves natural sexual attraction between two people who are generally capable of expressing consent and desire that often may lead to mutually consensual sexual acts (although it need not actually lead to such sexual acts).”
So says your political propaganda. If you look at what Greek pederasts thought of their pederasty, curiously enough, they thought that pederasty, “involves natural sexual attraction between two people who are generally capable of expressing consent and desire that often may lead to mutually consensual sexual acts (although it need not actually lead to such sexual acts)”
Funny, isn’t it?
===================
Alessandra does have a problem with the “natural” as stated above, simply because Alessandra is not so clueless to gloss over the fact that every time a culture normalizes a certain practice, they claim it’s “natural.” Secondly, Alessandra does not think that any of the practices or accompanying ideologies she mentioned are unnatural, simply because Alessandra understands that humans are part of nature, therefore, every thing they do and think can only be natural. (In other words, don’t put words into my mouth that I didn’t say).
Once you have arrogated and imputed a framework of morality for the concept of “natural,” it is you who is operating from a normalized ideology perspective. An uninformed and very narrow-minded perspective, we could add, concerning the concept of “natural,” along with your puny views on human sexuality.
“Pederasty and pedophilia are in a different category entirely. ”
So says your ideology.
August 29, 2010, 4:28 amBuck Turgidson says:
The latter seems exactly right. But I would argue that there is a distinction between [small-l] liberals and [small-c] conservatives on this point–liberals would tend to argue that this represents their viewpoint already, while conservatives are more inclined to approach decision-making as a package. The distinction is between freedom of conscience and moral absolutism–the two are logically incompatible. Once you get to the party level of Conservatives and Liberals (or Republicans and Democrats), you are closer to the group-think level and the distinction evaporates.
August 29, 2010, 4:29 amReaderY says:
The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down fornication laws.
Obviously the state can require that one not commit crimes as a condition of being a foster parent.
People don’t describe racial discrimination laws as cruel, even though they doubtless destroyed some wonderful establishments. What’s the difference?
August 29, 2010, 4:40 amBuck Turgidson says:
All this talk about the “homosexual problem” made me wonder what opinion PigVomit has on the “Jewish question”. Not that the two are necessarily connected, but the logic that goes into the particular phrasing is the same.
Why not the hip?
August 29, 2010, 4:40 amAlessandra says:
tsk tsk, so much bile simply because I am pointing out how shoddy your dogmatic, sound-bite ideology framework for human sexuality is…
That is one nasty attitude you have going there.
“Alessandra–just to be clear, I am not writing this for you. I am writing it for others who may be inclined to suspect your argument to be rational. They may yet be persuaded of their error on this account. ”
Not to worry. I am sure the brilliance of your comments will shine right through, as was demonstrated in the comment where the above excerpt came from. Carry on…
August 29, 2010, 4:40 amAlessandra says:
If there is any difference between his sexuality ideology and yours, let me know, because I have seen no evidence of it. And I surmise that going to heaven for you would be to spend eternity chained to Hilton at the wrists. Imagine, he’d turn to you and say how intellectually endowed you are, and you would return by emphasizing how much you swoon over the complexity of his ideas on sexuality. Think of it, ad infinitum.
Or should we conclude that someone who obsesses in framing thinking about human sexuality as a slightly retarded “who sticks what into whom,” constructs wild caricatures of the opinions and thought processes of those who disagree, imputes bad motives to others and makes a point of being obnoxious has a Herbison problem?
August 29, 2010, 5:04 amAnatid says:
There’s a level of cause-and-effect here, and you’ve taken something that could be linear and made it circular.
Cause: You say something hateful about homosexuals
Effect: People react negatively to you
Effect of effect: You think it’s okay to keep saying hateful things about homosexuals because people treat you poorly when you do
Your logic is like a criminal justifying his antisocial behavior by saying hey, since I’m going to prison, I might as well break a few laws.
You may not have noticed, but in threads where you do not say anything hateful, people do not react negatively to you. You have the power to make the negative treatment stop; you can continue to express the same opinions but use polite language instead of hateful language. There are some posters here who agree with your thoughts, but not your tone, and they get treated fine because they remain polite. Every time I have seen you treated poorly here, it is because you have directly solicited it by using inflammatory language and then acting self-righteous when others read it and become inflamed.
You control this situation. As long as you choose to maintain it, the cycle will remain circular, but you can, at any point, decide to break the cycle into a line. You have all the power here that you need; by choosing to continue to solicit negative treatment, you are making a statement that you prefer this treatment. Maybe it validates some self-fulfilling prophecy you’ve built for yourself, I don’t know. But you’re hardy a victim in all this.
If you wish to end it, then do so.
August 29, 2010, 5:45 amOrenWithAnE says:
And apple pie is a culinary arrangement designed to be a delicious dessert. That doesn’t mean that it is the only possible recipe for a delicious dessert.
Most certainly not.
I’m not saying anything about marriage being irrelevant. It is quite relevant. It is just not exclusively relevant.
But here you confuse an indicator with the underlying property you seek to promote.
I should think there is a strong reason to prefer parents that own a Porsche to parents that own a Kia (and empirically, I’m sure if you do the regression, the kids of the former do better than the kids of the latter). That doesn’t mean that Porsches are themselves beneficial for children, it means that they are an indicator of an underlying property that is.
In this instance, the underlying property is a stable and healthy family. That is what the courts should inquire into. They may, of course, take a marriage license as evidence towards that end but it seems entirely foolish to confuse the license with the goal of the license.
August 29, 2010, 8:23 amElemenope says:
It must be a miserable experience, being an intelligent person on the wrong side of history, with one’s intellect thrashing about to justify a conclusion that is less and less tenable. When one’s pet theory has been filed on a shelf somewhere between phlogiston and lumeniferous aether, does one double down and ignore contrary evidence? Does one elide critical distinctions in order to advance knowingly flawed arguments? Does one attack the personal habits and intellectual associations of the victors?
Max Planck famously observed that science progresses only because old scientists, firmly as they are existentially attached to outdated theories, die. As the chance of being able to realize whatever atavistic stupidity one has latched on to slips slowly away, what recourse is there but to bitterness and creeping irrelevance?
August 29, 2010, 10:07 amrilkefan says:
You sure you’re not just reacting to an able troll?
Lot of confusion of correlation and causality above, far as I can tell. Anyway, if it were shown that having a higher-than-average SES is a significant factor in successful child raising, would that be relevant in the same way that marriage is per those above who care?
August 29, 2010, 11:32 amChris Travers says:
I dunno. I’ve run into some really thoughtful and principled conservatives who certainly didn’t do so, and indeed one of the most conservative influences on my thought was also one of the most liberal. Similarly I think liberals have a tendency to approach decision-making as a package in other areas (see the health care reform legislation process).
There are some fundamental differences though. I would suggest that there is a tremendous difference between how principled conservatives and principled liberals approach a solution to a problem. A principled liberal starts from his/her philosophical assumptions and works forward towards a solution. A principled conservative starts from the status quo, and an assumption that stability is a good thing and asks what the least disruptive next step would be and proposes it. IOW, there is a question of whether one values innovation or stability. Of course, none of these principled conservatives are in politics, and despite Thomas Sowell’s attempt (in “A Conflict of Visions”) to show that these are right vs left concepts, if you actually look at it, there are constrained vision conservatives spread across the ideological spectrum, as well as unconstrained vision liberals.
August 29, 2010, 11:33 amChris Travers says:
Yet capital punishment is done with a certain amount of ritual in this country. I have no problem with human sacrifice of serious criminals since it doesn’t seem far from what we have now. Indeed I would really like states to allow death-row inmates to be allowed to consent to be sacrificed in pagan ceremonies as a form of capital punishment.
And I am all for normalizing animal sacrifice at least where the animal is eaten afterwards (not entirely sure I like the idea of holocaust sacrifices, but that’s another question).
IIRC, the Agora sect of Hindus (no, they’re not mainstream) engages in cannibalism of the naturally deceased within certain ritual frameworks. But normalizing cannibalism would remove their need to do so because the point is to break social taboos in order to seek a state of natural law.
Pederasty may be problematic or not based on other social constructs. It’s not something to be universally condemned but that doesn’t make it entirely inappropriate in modern-day America.
August 29, 2010, 11:50 amChris Travers says:
Alessandra is very consistent in her rhetoric and gives me every reason to believe she is sincere.
August 29, 2010, 11:52 amrilkefan says:
How is your observation inconsistent with “able troll”? Anyway, aren’t you obliged to assume the more charitable interpretation?
August 29, 2010, 11:58 amChris Travers says:
Define and explain. We may be using “marriage” in two different senses. In the past, socially recognized marriages were the sqn of a healthy family where children were involved. You have to go back at least as far back as the Viking Age to find counterexamples, and I suspect that the Medieval Irish and Indian codes of marriage law were probably derived from the same root, placing many commonalities there back in the early Bronze Age (and making the Viking Age the sort of historical exception that contemporary America is).
It’s not simply that. It’s that marriage itself promotes stability by making divorce a hassle, and it also provides a package of rights and responsibilities that are helpful in jointly raising children. So it’s both an indicator and a factor in shaping those properties, unlike the Porche. A better example might be a family with two kids wanting to adopt a third, and favoring as a matter of law parents who had sufficient transportation to take them all places at once. It’s both an indicator of sufficient material stability and it’s helpful in making things work.
Hence my statement that I think it makes sense to prefer families with marriage licenses as a matter of law, but that this shouldn’t be a hard requirement.
I’m not even sure if you are arguing with what I am saying or if you are creating straw men to joust.
August 29, 2010, 12:04 pmElemenope says:
How is your observation inconsistent with “able troll”? Anyway, aren’t you obliged to assume the more charitable interpretation?
That she is sincere is the more charitable interpretation. I agree that on the net it is impossible to distinguish between an honest bigot and a troll doing it “for teh lulz”, but only one is being genuine, which is something. In my opinion, the best policy is to assume sincerity, and question it only when evidence presents. Even if she is not sincere, her arguments stand to either be confirmed or refuted independent of her intentions.
August 29, 2010, 12:11 pmChris Travers says:
*shrugs* What people seek, they find. What people idolize, they seek. If they seek a fight, they will find a fight. If they idolize martyrdom, they will find martyrdom. The interactions will change when Alessandra decides she doesn’t value what is happening.
August 29, 2010, 12:15 pmyankee says:
The Supreme Court of the United States has never spoken to that precise issue, but fortunately for the people of Georgia the Supreme Court of Georgia has. See In re J.M., 276 Ga. 88 (2003) (statute banning fornication violates state constitution).
Fornication isn’t a grounds for denying an adoption petition under Georgia’s adoption statute either.
August 29, 2010, 12:16 pmTed says:
Any reason they would have done differently had they not been married?
August 29, 2010, 12:21 pmTed says:
No need here. Only Chris Travers was on board, but I expect he’ll jump ship at any moment, if he hasn’t already.
August 29, 2010, 12:25 pmCJColucci says:
I’ve noticed that Alessandra has used the phrase “people with a homosexual problem” four times. I’m not sure what this means. In context, it appears to mean, simply, “homosexuals,” but that obviously can’t be right. The more natural reading of the phrase is “people who have problems with homosexuals,” but that doesn’t appear to refer to anyone on this thread except Alessandra herself. That more normal usage, however, does not appear to fit into the context of what Alessandra is saying. So I’m confused.
August 29, 2010, 12:28 pmyankee says:
Are you really confused or just using “I’m confused” as a way of saying “Alessandra’s position makes no sense”? Alessandra considers being gay to be a problem per se, hence “people with a homosexual problem” for “gays and lesbians.”
August 29, 2010, 12:32 pmElemenope says:
I’m not sure what this means. In context, it appears to mean, simply, “homosexuals,” but that obviously can’t be right.
No, I think that’s what she means. It’s an intentionally provocative way of expressing an opinion that homosexuality is a pathology instead of a normalized orientation. Disgusting, sure, but creative.
August 29, 2010, 12:37 pmyankee says:
I think rilkefan’s point is that Alessandra’s position is so abhorrent that it’s more charitable to assume she’s a troll than to assume she’s sincere.
August 29, 2010, 12:39 pmTed says:
This is an interesting point. One that has not been raised yet. I understand you as saying that some of the legal benefits of marriage promote stability. For example, if you receive better tax treatment due to marriage, then that extra net income promotes additional stability. I might actually accept this position, which I would agree could make marriage marginally relevant to determining the stability of a relationship. But I wonder what degree of increased stability that would offer.
Could you give me some examples of the “rights and responsibilities” attendant to marriage that you are thinking of?
August 29, 2010, 12:47 pmTed says:
Really? This is what passes as creative?
August 29, 2010, 12:49 pmChris Travers says:
The fact that marriage sets up a relationship of mutual custody between the spouses (durable power of attorney, etc) is one important element to this, as is tenancy by entirety.
August 29, 2010, 12:55 pmrilkefan says:
Presumably you also think that it makes sense to prefer families with above-average income, as do I in the abstract. What really makes sense in deciding among the many suitable families seeking to adopt the small pool of children is to prefer those that are stable and loving.
August 29, 2010, 1:06 pmTed says:
I believe my state has abolished tenancy by the entirety. We own our house as a tenants in common with rights of survivorship and that would not change were we to get married. I’m not certain, but I do not believe custody rights are affected by marriage. Here, parental rights are separate from marriage and depend on parental status, not marital status. You are correct that we do not have durable power of attorney, but we can contract for it, including advance medical directives, etc. So, I wonder if this is a right that is really attendant to marriage, and even if it is, I wonder if people really are more stable because they have automatic power of attorney.
Right now, you have have persuaded me that the legal benefits could be relevant to the stability of a relationship, but not to such an extent as to “prefer married couples over unmarried couples” in any legal decision.
Perhaps this illustrates my point: I could get married tomorrow (or how even long the paper work takes). I could divorce the next days (or however long the paper work takes). If I got married and divorced within the next week, and remained in loving and committed relationship with my girlfriend, how would our relationship become more or less stable?
To tie it to OP, do you think judge would have been satisfied if the mother would have gotten married to adopt the child and then divorced immediately thereafter? If so, why? How did it change the stability of her relationship or her ability to raise the child?
August 29, 2010, 1:16 pmChris Travers says:
I dunno. A stronger argument for that would be that such caustic rhetoric isn’t going to convince anyone so she’s either a competent troll or an incompetent footsoldier for a cause. I’m not entirely sure this is the right way to look at it however.
Income isn’t a major factor. Poverty can even be a good lesson in life. However, I’m fairly disillusioned with the “I know it when I see it” best interests of the child approach that family courts seem to use. The present case shows how easily this goes off the rails. Next up, we’ll probably find someone rejected as an adoptive parent because of advocacy of marijuana legalization (it might encourage drug use), Church of Satan membership (that can’t be good), or other Constitutionally protected criteria.
I’d rather see courts come up with a limited set of criteria to consider rather than the ink-blot test that currently governs the process.
August 29, 2010, 1:19 pmChris Travers says:
I meant that marriage essentially allows that spouses have some custody powers over eachother.
August 29, 2010, 1:20 pmElemenope says:
Really? This is what passes as creative?
I’d never heard it put the way she put it, so yes. Creative. And effective, considering how people including me reacted to it.
I could get married tomorrow (or how even long the paper work takes). I could divorce the next days (or however long the paper work takes). If I got married and divorced within the next week, and remained in loving and committed relationship with my girlfriend, how would our relationship become more or less stable?
(Outside of Vegas) People generally do not behave that way in regards to the institution of marriage, so it seems more reasonable to take the institution on the conditions in which it is normally implemented. I don’t think anyone is saying that it is *impossible* for marriage to be a false marker for the qualities sought in a child-rearing environment, but only that usually it is a more reliable marker than nothing. The efficacy of that marker is up for debate, but I think it probable that it is greater than zero, much like Porsches are an efficacious marker for wealth even though the mere possession of one does not *guarantee* that a person is wealthy.
August 29, 2010, 1:25 pmBuck Turgidson says:
You actually proving my point–”liberals” had a full range of opinions on the subject (and still do). The process was managed by Democrats over Republicans’ obstruction. This was the point of my distinction.
I am not saying that conservatives can’t be thoughtful, just that the ideology presupposes a certain degree of adherence.
August 29, 2010, 1:28 pmChris Travers says:
That’s not the totality my understanding of the process. There was GOP obstruction, but there were also Republicans, such as Olympia Snowe, who repeatedly approached Democrats about negotiating for her vote and were turned down because of her party affiliation. Indeed there was some speculation at the time that the real issue with allowing Snowe in on the process was that the House Democrats were unhappy with the Senate version as it was due to blue dog influence and certainly would have been even more hostile towards the Senate version of Snowe was involved. It was a complete adherence game on the part of the Democrats as even NPR suggested.
This is the sort of thing that’s far easier to see in other groups than in one’s own. We all have assumptions which shape our approach. Our values are often based on those assumption. Those assumptions are neither rational nor obvious, but they are indispensable nonetheless. It is easier to see these assumptions when you disagree with them than when you agree with them.
This is, IMO, an epistemological limitation and something that cannot be overcome. See my arguments with Dilan Esper about the continuing value of Yoder v. Wisconsin (which he argues was a “horrible” decision and I think was a fine decision), with OrenWithAnE over the role of local control over education and the value in self-segregation there, etc.
We can’t get away from our assumptions and we can only argue by assuming that those assumptions are adhered to. Maybe in the process of arguing, we find out what our unconscious assumptions are, can reconsider them, and push that back further, but that doesn’t really solve the underlying epistemological problem.
August 29, 2010, 2:04 pmChris Travers says:
Only works that way in Nevada. Otherwise it takes months or even more than a year to go through the divorce process, and this is usually a statutory minimum set up by the state.
However, if you were to separate in preparation for divorce within the next week, you wouldn’t be eligible to adopt under my reading of the Georgia law (though maybe there is some case law on this?), and if it was only for the legal status regarding the adoption, there’d be a case for seeing it as a matter of marriage fraud (and anulling the marriage–can you annul the adoption too if it was predicated on that?).
August 29, 2010, 2:08 pmAnatid says:
To specify, income above the poverty level isn’t a major factor. When a family is poor enough that they do not have regular access to electricity, healthy food, or other necessary basics in our society, there are poorer outcomes for children. Once basic needs are met, everything else is superfluous. Well, largely. Providing an enriched environment with books, travel, and other forms of education also correlates to better outcomes. Would it be wrong of an adoption agency to prefer to place a child with a family that reads instead of a family that watches TV?
On the issue of marriage as an indicator of stability in a family, I would argue that the stability is neutrally-valenced; difficulty of divorce might incentivize a struggling family to work harder to stay together, but it also incentivizes a broken, abusive family to work harder to stay together when they’d really be better off apart. It can work both ways. Much domestic abuse in history has hidden behind the umbrella of marriage.
In any event, Chris and Elemenope, I wanted to thank you in particular for your discussion here – reading it has been quite educational and interesting.
August 29, 2010, 2:37 pmrilkefan says:
I take it you have the literature on hand, so can tell us the relative p values for SES and marriage?
August 29, 2010, 2:54 pmThe Sanity Inspector says:
Yes, I guess the court did overstep its bounds. But google “Teghan Skiba”. That horrific crime, and so many others like it, usually seem to be committed by a live-in boyfriend, or this year’s babydaddy, rather than a husband and a father.
August 29, 2010, 2:54 pmChrisTS says:
Well, it’s an improvement over ‘homos.’
August 29, 2010, 3:12 pmAnatid says:
Marriage doesn’t solve this problem, though. Stepfathers are one of the largest abusive demographics; being married to a child’s mother doesn’t necessarily predict treatment of the child. Remarriage, in the case of abusive boyfriends-turned-stepfathers, just legitimizes the man’s role in the family and makes it more difficult for the child the escape.
Again, marriage just makes whatever traits are in the marriage, positive or negative, more likely to endure.
August 29, 2010, 3:26 pmOwen H. says:
Hello, Lawrence v. Texas? It would be ludicrous to claim that states can’t ban “sodomy”, yet can ban “normal” sex.
August 29, 2010, 3:57 pmChris Travers says:
Sodomy doesn’t lead to unplanned pregnancy?
August 29, 2010, 4:18 pmAnatid says:
It can, the mechanics are just a little more complicated.
August 29, 2010, 4:25 pmChris Travers says:
Still would the relative difference in such risk provide a rational basis for such a decision?
Granted it wouldn’t be what social conservatives would like…..
August 29, 2010, 5:13 pmOrenWithAnE says:
You work grave insult to the legions of non-traditional families that have raised children in environments no less meritorious than married couples — save, of course, for the imprimatur of whatever social body was in vogue at the time.
Just as apple pie is both an indicator that the cook intends a delicious dessert and a factor in making that dessert delicious.
To say this discounts the ideas that brownies are delicious makes no sense. If the family situation is a stable and healthy one, it is stable and healthy. If it isn’t, it isn’t. Slapping a ring on her and having a priest do a funny dance does not change this in either case.
It might symbolize it to the rest of the world, giving them a good heuristic shortcut rather than forcing them to actually learn the facts about each individual family. But a Family Court is not so constrained — they can take actual note of the pertinent underlying facts and have no need to rely on crude social cues.
I’m saying it shouldn’t enter it to at all except subsidiary to the issue of whether the family arrangement is stable and healthy for the child. I would much rather put a child with a cohabiting couple that have been together for 10 years than a recently-married one. In fact, I would much prefer an ambiguously poly-amorous group of individuals that have cohabited for 10 years than a recently married one, if only because they have proven by actual behavior what the newlyweds have only aspired to by vows.
Marriage is form, not substance. The court should look underneath the claims of the would-be parents and assess what is actually there.
August 29, 2010, 5:16 pmElemenope says:
It might symbolize it to the rest of the world, giving them a good heuristic shortcut rather than forcing them to actually learn the facts about each individual family. But a Family Court is not so constrained — they can take actual note of the pertinent underlying facts and have no need to rely on crude social cues. [...] Marriage is form, not substance. The court should look underneath the claims of the would-be parents and assess what is actually there.
I’m leery of the capacity of the courts to do this in a judicious manner, because it assumes that with an additional (perhaps more textured) constellation of facts, that it has enough of a better picture of the reality of the family situation than a person who knows only what is immediately socially accessible to outweigh the negative effects of what Chris identified: without decently firm criteria we invite the courts to act in a literally arbitrary fashion, with their own reasoning being fairly inscrutable or heavily tainted by extralegal moralizing, such as it was in this very case.
Marriage status is but one of many factors pertinent to the action of a family court in adjudicating such cases, and it is clearly not dispositive or otherwise singularly sufficient to render a judgment. But courts must rely upon social cues and equivalently signaled information more than I think you are letting on, especially since the quality of one’s relationship and capacity for child-rearing are fairly non-quantifiable things.
August 29, 2010, 5:30 pmAnatid says:
Not really … but then, we’ve already discussed to death the rationality of equating marriage with procreation capabilities.
August 29, 2010, 5:32 pmAlessandra says:
Oh Chris, I had meant to ask you something that got sidetracked. What type of animal sacrifice are modern Norse pagans engaging in?
August 29, 2010, 5:55 pmAlessandra says:
How interesting. So what do you deem inflammatory, hateful language in this thread, Anatid?
(from all participants)
August 29, 2010, 6:07 pmAlessandra says:
Isn’t it interesting? If an enormous number of people have sex outside marriage, we have as a result of a significant number of abortions and a significant number of births out of wedlock.
Oh, and an increase in several STDs as well, which have attained epidemic levels. Aside from proportionally having the most new cases of HIV, are you aware that homo- and bisexual men are also the most significant group for spreading syphilis?
A sign of how clever and lofty-minded they are, no doubt…
August 29, 2010, 6:30 pmAlessandra says:
There are several explanations to your question on recent threads that addressed sexuality on this blog about what I think concerning the factors which produce a sexualization of someone of the same sex and what leads someone to develop a homosexual psychology. Contrary to liberals, I think humans are a heterosexual species. Google away and read.
August 29, 2010, 6:38 pmAlessandra says:
we have as a result of a significant number of abortions and a significant number of births out of wedlock.
August 29, 2010, 6:39 pm============
we have as a result
ofa significant number of abortions and a significant number of births out of wedlock.Chris Travers says:
Not all Norse Neopagans do this but some groups have revived the process of the sacrificial feast. Historically this would have probably involved a horse sacrifice but most groups are too small (and not hungry enough collectively) to eat a horse, so to date pigs and sheep are mostly used instead.
The animal is (supposed to be*) humanely killed, then is cleaned and the entrails removed. The animal is then roasted over the fire, cut up, and served to the guests. The entrails, uneaten parts, bones, and such, are mixed with other offerings and cremated over the fire.
* Most groups which do this have a good track record. I have, however, heard stories of botched sacrifices and nobody likes to hear of those! At least one of the groups that does this has taken to using firearms in the process to ensure a quick and humane death.
No food is allowed to leave the premises. What cannot be consumed at the feast is burned.
It’s fairly similar to ancient Greek sacrifices, though the ceremonies are somewhat different. It’s basically a religious feast which starts by slaughtering the food, but where the gods are invited to come.
August 29, 2010, 6:47 pmElemenope says:
Contrary to liberals, I think humans are a heterosexual species.
Contrary to scientific evidence, too. Like many species, humans seem actually to be sexually pluralistic, with a heavy but not overwhelming bias towards heterosexuality. Homosexuality occurs at predictable rates in humans regardless of cultural or environmental factors, indicating that sexuality is a genetically or congenitally (or both) determined trait.
But you keep insisting this is a political thing, so there’s not much more that can be said.
August 29, 2010, 6:49 pmChris Travers says:
Ok. So suppose the case instead was denying someone an adoption because they belonged to a weird religion (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Church of Satan, some Wiccan group, or whatever), or even no religion and the court basically said they though that exposure to this religious group would be bad for the child. That’s really hard to challenge in terms of abuse of discretion, and taking these into account in divorce cases is almost routine in some states.
Or suppose the court said “You are a loudspoken advocate for drug legalization and hence I’m concerned your positions here might encourage your would-be adopted child to break drug laws, so I’m going to deny this adoption.” How easy would that be to challenge?
Do we give up our Constitutional rights when we seek to become parents through adoption, or when we have kids and then get divorced? The best interests of the child standard is an ink blot that encourages the judge to substitute his own moral views for the topic at hand. IMNSHO, it needs to be banished from our system.
August 29, 2010, 6:53 pmAlessandra says:
Chris Travers says: *shrugs* What people seek, they find. What people idolize, they seek.
“Our Leader, Comrade
NapoleonElemenope/Anatid/ChrisTS/Buck,” announced Squealer, speaking very slowly and firmly, “has stated categorically–categorically, comrade–that Snowball was Jones’s agent from the very beginning–yes, and from longbefore the Rebellion was ever thought of.”
“Ah, that is different!” said Boxer. “If Comrade
NapoleonElemenope/Anatid/ChrisTS/Buck says it, it must be right.”“That is the true spirit, comrade!” cried Squealer, but it was noticed he
August 29, 2010, 7:07 pmcast a very ugly look at Boxer with his little twinkling eyes. He turned
to go, then paused and added impressively: “I warn every animal on this
farm to keep his eyes very wide open. For we have reason to think that
some of Snowball’s secret agents are lurking among us at this moment!”
Alessandra says:
Right, because men have ovaries in their rectum. And your “science” has proven that, I’m sure.
Especially if you disregard every culture where there is no homosexuality as constructed by your modern definition, or where it occurs in the rates different than you claim it universally does.
There is nothing about sexuality ideology that is not political, including every comment in this thread. And that’s why there is so much more to be said on the subject.
August 29, 2010, 7:16 pmAlessandra says:
Not ‘homos,’ but homos.
August 29, 2010, 7:23 pmElemenope says:
Wow, an Animal Farm reference.
…followed immediately by one of the flat-out stupidest retorts I’ve ever read:
Right, because men have ovaries in their rectum.
August 29, 2010, 7:27 pmKen Arromdee says:
Capital punishment isn’t there for the benefit of the person being punished, so there’s no particular reason he should be allowed to benefit from it in any way. And if we’re willing to do a comparatively greater harm as punishment such as killing him at all, then there should be nothing wrong with doing a relatively lesser harm such as also choosing circumstances for his death that don’t please him.
Also, judicial punishment, capital or not, isn’t a trade. You aren’t allowed to commit murder as long as you get executed later. We may say we are making someone “pay for his crime” but it’s not a payment in the same way you can give someone some money to pay for a cup of coffee.
August 29, 2010, 7:31 pmAnatid says:
Anyone not interested in a basic analysis of Alessandra’s writing patterns, go ahead and skip this post. This reply is gonna be a long one. Apologies in advance. I attempted to collapse this so it’d only pop open if you clicked a link, but apparently the blog host doesn’t permit outside scripts, or use of the click-to-expand scripts by commentors.
Whew. Okay, to reread 207 posts …
Let’s see. We started off well. You made a solid contribution to the discussion. But then:
A pointless personal attack. This bears the signs of the insecure defensive pre-emptive attack. You can see this pattern in any chatroom. One poster compliments himself, which is subconsciously experienced as a threat by another poster, who in turn shoots down the first poster in order to counter the insecurity and bolster his own ego.
Then you keep at it, but so far, no one’s taking the bait:
Then comes the obligatory attack on homosexuals and liberals:
The singlemindedness with which you demonize those two groups suggests that you have some unreconciled conflict in your life experience which you have come to associate with liberal ideals or with homosexuals. If I had to guess, my first impulse would be that you suffered harm from a short-term sexual encounter, creating negative associations with promiscuity, and through that, with liberals. The homosexual bit, I’m not even going to speculate. But there are many stories that can lead to the writing patterns I’ve noted in you, so it’s likely something else entirely.
Whatever that conflict is, I wish you the very best in someday resolving it, but meanwhile your mistaken attribution of a specific negative experience to entire groups of people is causing you behave in antisocial ways towards all members of those groups. As you have noticed, I have gone to great lengths to get you to acknowledge me and my views as those of an individual, rather than attributing to me the typecast views you seem to think are true for all or most liberals. If you can do this for others – or better yet, give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they’ve demonstrated themselves to conform to your internal representation – then you’ll be making good progress.
It is our duty not to stigmatize whatever is the source of your unreconciled conflict. It is our duty to support, and forgive, and understand that you are working with limitations, as is every other human being. And in turn, it is your duty to keep the behavioral manifestations of this problem from harming others, to the best of your abilities.
Your language choices cause emotional distress to others. You believe this to be retaliatory, but so far as I can tell, the source of your own emotional distress is internal, and you are attributing it to external sources because it is far easier to look without than within.
Anyway, the word “fraud” is highly valenced, and using it to refer to same sex marriage associates that valence with SSM and its would-be practitioners. Standing alone, this word choice might merely raise an eyebrow, but it combines with other posts of yours into a healthy case that your internal representation of homosexuals is utterly intolerant.
Moving on. One other poster takes your bait and responds with similarly-hateful language:
Here we have another poster who obviously also has a horn to toot. Somewhere along the line, he had a negative experience he has associated with Christianity, and that experience is not yet reconciled, so he uses language like this to demonize Christians as a group. If he was doing this as often as you demonstrate your unreconciled conflict(s) relating to homosexuals and liberals, we’d come down on him just as hard.
Overgeneralizing hateful speech isn’t pleasant to read, doesn’t contribute to the conversation or mutual understanding, and is stressful for everyone involved. The only purpose this speech serves is as an outlet for the aforementioned unreconciled conflict, which since you cannot or will not confront and reconcile directly (likely due to its painful nature, which causes aversion and dismissiveness), instead manifests in the form of these antisocial writing patterns.
To be honest, I’ve made this case, and you’ve said yourself that you’re still in the process of evaluating the evidence I gave you. Personally, when I find that one of my views has been challenged by new evidence, I suspend advocacy of the view until I have had time to evaluate the evidence and determine whether my view ought to change or if the evidence does not undermine it; it’s a good way to avoid putting my foot in my mouth.
The exception, of course, being where the view circumscribes one of my own unresolved conflicts. On those topics, I try not to speak at all to others, because I’m perfectly aware that my views are not rational and could not be shared by others who do not also share the unresolved conflict.
Again with ad hominems. What did Perez Hilton say to piss you off so much? There is clearly a concrete reason that has caused you to associate him with liberals, in much the same way that I vaguely associate the Duggar family with fundamentalist Christians – I don’t know much about ‘em, so my internal representation is a gross and crude representation, with all the subtleties lost, and an extreme member of the group uses the representativeness heuristic to become representative of the group in my mind.
On this one though, didn’t you learn from last time? You accused me of having learned about human sexuality from Perez Hilton. I hadn’t even heard of the guy and had to look him up on Wikipedia to know what you were talking about. After enough posts in enough threads slinging seven-syllable words, you finally granted that maybe I had the slightest clue about what I was talking about, since claiming that I’d heard of congenital adrenal hyperplasia from MTV would make you sound silly. And I’m not the only one here who has a faint clue what they’re talking about. Evaluate before you judge.
And yeah, yeah, I know, trying to apply cognitive top-down inhibitory control to emotional impulse is hard as hell. It takes a long time to learn how, and longer still to master the practice. But you won’t start improving until you try.
This is just sheer and blatant projection of your own patterns onto others.
You are fully aware that use of this phrasing has offensive connotations. The take-home message from the homo-versus-bigot discussion in the other thread was the golden rule. To clarify, it’s “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” not “Do unto others before they do unto you.” By making pre-emptive strikes, expecting retaliation, not only do you confirm that the retaliation is in fact likely, but you also expose yourself as a person whose background has contained excessively critical authority or attachment figures, priming you for a combative approach to conversation.
The real beaut is that your aggression appears to be stress-activated, since when you are calm you show no signs of this behavior, and we can attempt to correlate your shifts in language to the topic to determine what topics are stressful to you. Why they are stressful, we don’t know. That they are stressful is obvious. You really might consider caution in inadvertently giving out this much personal information about yourself; since you have experienced situations in the past where you were unable to control your social environment, I would expect that control of personal information is important to you (you still haven’t told me what your education is, for example, for fear of being judged or dismissed). I am telling you now that you are giving us a great deal of information. If you care, act on this appropriately.
(Five bucks says that you’ve gotten some variant of “It’s like talking to two different people” or “you were a whole ‘nother person” from others in your life who have observed both your calm and stress-activated states. You really hafta read up on disorganized-dismissive attachment types, you’ll find it fascinating. We can smell our own.)
Again with the flame. He feels insecure, and he feels the need to shoot you down in order to make himself feel better, wrapping it all up in a self-righteous message about how he’s trying to help others. This is just as reprehensible as what you’ve been doing.
Do you genuinely not realize that the phrase “homosexual problem” carries negative valence, or do you not care?
Elemenope has surely earned, at a bare minimum, the benefit of the doubt, by demonstration of her education and intellect in her posts so far.
But I see that you’re using the tactic of taking a statement to an irrational, black-and-white extreme so it can be more easily refuted. You do this when you’re stress-activated. You were stress-activated when you wrote this, which inhibits your ability to let any of your internal representations of others exist in shades of dubious grey.
——————-
Since I deviated from my usual attempts to use conciliatory language with you in order to avoid stress activation, you are surely stress-activated after reading this, and may be likely to respond either with a dismissive “NO U” counterattack that overlooks and denies my claims. Before replying, I urge you to step away from the computer and engage in some other task for at least half an hour to permit the stress activation to reduce. I have had no intention of invading your privacy or of stigmatizing your situation. It is my dearest hope that we will be able to continue some kind of conversation on this topic, if you are able.
August 29, 2010, 7:43 pmElemenope says:
Elemenope has surely earned, at a bare minimum, the benefit of the doubt, by demonstration of her education and intellect in her posts so far.
I appreciate the compliment, but for the record I’m a guy, not a gal. :)
August 29, 2010, 7:55 pmAlessandra says:
Maybe you should re-read your comments to see flat-out stupid ideas. Does the human species have ovaries in male rectums? Or is the species a heterosexual species where only females have ovaries?
August 29, 2010, 7:57 pmAnatid says:
My mistake, sir!
August 29, 2010, 8:04 pmAlessandra says:
In your biased, completely blind viewpoint perhaps. It is not a personal attack, since it refers to how overall lacking in knowledge and, consequently reading, Gabriel’s posts are at Ace’s. After all that, he has the stupid arrogance to say here that he considers himself well-read.
As I could say that I find it a joke if Perez Hilton’s blog denotes a well-read person making commentaries. Is that a pointless personal attack? Just because my opinion of what constitutes “well-read” does not match yours?
You’re just plainly intent in tarnishing people who don’t agree with you.
August 29, 2010, 8:07 pmrilkefan says:
I’d consider the comment this is drawn from to be a great one, however I find the psychoanalyzation of anyone in a public context to be somewhere between highly distasteful and abusive. And anyway I think it’s likely that it is just another big mawful of troll food.
August 29, 2010, 8:08 pmAlessandra says:
I’m dumbfounded, but what do you know? It’s nice to see the proof in the writing. I underestimated just how fanatical you were. Oops.
So glad I asked you to tell what you thought was such horrible language.
I don’t think anyone used the word fraud to refer to SSM, and I certainly didn’t.
Just goes to show that when we have a written record of a discussion with liberals, the proof of their fanatical distortions and hypocritical attacks is there. Written.
August 29, 2010, 8:15 pmAlessandra says:
Alessandra:
Another current repetition in these discussions is that liberals will always frame any of these topics of social problems as a comparison between conservatives and liberals, and liberals, as a group, must necessarily be better or the same as conservatives in everything, a claim based on 99% lack of data.Yawn.
This is just sheer and blatant projection of your own patterns onto others.
August 29, 2010, 8:21 pm====================
As it’s just your sheer reverse ad hominem ignoring what has happened in at least three other recent threads.
Elemenope says:
My mistake, sir!
No problem. I’m pretty sure everywhere I’ve commented on the net with this particular nickname, the initial assumption is female; I guess it just strikes some people as a feminine construction (I’ve been told it reminds people at first glance of “Eleanor” or “antelope”), or perhaps it’s my writing style.
—————
FWIW on the “larger issue”, I sort of agree with rilkefan; not precisely that it is either distasteful or abusive, but simply pointless, mostly due to the epistemological situation. There isn’t even any real way to tell if Alessandra is sincere in her comments so far or not, nor any conceivable way to divine that information. It could be that your analysis of her is right on the money, or there could be wildly different reasons why she chooses to communicate as she does. Some people belittle others out of insecurity, while others are just jerks, while still others do so out of an earnest assessment of what they believe to be the relevant truth of the matter and a concomitant necessity to express that truth.
August 29, 2010, 8:26 pmOrenWithAnE says:
And the response is to replace it with arbitrary distinctions based on ancient incantation? I agree with the sentiment, but the remedy seems far worse!
Moreover, this is entirely non-responsive to the fundamental complaint here that in applying the BIOTCS (whatever the merits of that standard are, that’s what we got) in a completely ass-backwards way. He rejects an actual stable and healthy environment for lacking a particular and non-exclusive indicum.
August 29, 2010, 8:28 pmAlessandra says:
Just as I suppose that you are fully aware that saying “You are fully aware that use of this phrasing has offensive connotations.” is offensive to me?
There is nothing offensive about challenging the narrow-minded sexuality dogmas you adhere to. Not your dogmas, not anyone else’s, concerning any subject.
Are are you completely blind at the “offensive” double standards you employ? I guess not.
August 29, 2010, 8:31 pmrilkefan says:
“Ope” is an ending I associate with classical Greek names of women – Merope and Kalliope for example.
Right, hence my reference to trolling.
August 29, 2010, 8:34 pmAlessandra says:
Yes, but there is some benefit to it. It does show in the detail the deformed projections, the fanatical self-righteousness, and the glaring double-standards and biases that Anatid has going. Apparently, she is unaware of it any of it.
August 29, 2010, 8:35 pmElemenope says:
“Ope” is an ending I associate with classical Greek names of women — Merope and Kalliope for example.
Ooh, good point.
Right, hence my reference to trolling.
Fair enough, though the spectacular way Alessandra has been self-immolating and furiously casting about since Anatid made the post may indicate it struck a bit close to home despite it all.
August 29, 2010, 8:42 pmAlessandra says:
Alessandra:
And why should that be deeply offensive to you?And what would that “nasty” attitude be? Is it any different than the nasty attitude you have about anyone who thinks like me?
Do you genuinely not realize that the phrase “homosexual problem” carries negative valence, or do you not care?
==============
As much as saying “child abuser” carries negative valence when I talk to someone whose ideology characterizes being a child-abuser as “man-boy lover.” Does it mean I have to submit to their ideology and vocabulary? This is the extent of your fanaticism.
Negative valence is in its very core ideological and subjective. Or are you in denial about this fact?
There is no negative valence in talking about the problems of homosexuality unless you normalize homosexuality like you do. Another way that shows how you are bigoted and intolerant about anyone who does not submit to your dogma on what is homosexuality. This bigotry is manifested in discourse, attitudes, criticisms and vocabulary choices. Not to mention your glaring cognitive dissonance reading example on what kind of marriage the comment about “fraud” was referring to.
August 29, 2010, 8:47 pmAlessandra says:
Because every time someone you don’t agree with counter-argues, you must demonize it some way or another.
Not surprising why the reference to Animal Farm went over your head…
August 29, 2010, 8:50 pmrilkefan says:
Actually this seems more evidence of trolling to me (maybe confirmation bias of course) – a real person would be aware of how bad or dumb the reaction looks, but some species of troll think it’s more important to be always on the offensive than to present a consistent persona.
August 29, 2010, 8:58 pmAlessandra says:
Never let your dogmas and projects get in the way of my reality. I’m sure you’ve learned that at school.
Would knowing that you didn’t activate the gobs of stress you were so intent on producing in me, actually activate a lot of stress in you? I did wonder.
It certainly seems a problem common to both you and Elemenope. Whereas he is more prolific with put-downs and demonizing, you’re in the pathologizing vein.
Anyways, thanks for taking the time to answer. It gave me a window into what is going on your mind. As they say, ask John to tell you about Peter, and you will learn more about John than Peter.
I don’t see why not.
August 29, 2010, 9:03 pmElemenope says:
Not to mention your glaring cognitive dissonance reading example on what kind of marriage the comment about “fraud” was referring to.
So you don’t think it is possible that that misreading was merely an error? After all, the lion’s share of your comments in this thread have been about homosexuality or conversation spinning off from that subject.
August 29, 2010, 9:08 pmAlessandra says:
True enough. Concerning your belittling of myself, I think all three above apply to you, with an emphasis on 2 and 3. Your arrogant, dogmatic tone doesn’t seem to come from insecurity, just intense self-righteous attitudes concerning your own views.
August 29, 2010, 9:11 pmAuntiegrav says:
Marriage is a social contract with a quid pro quo. Society benefits from monogamy in many ways, but especially in the maintenance of families. By granting marriage license, families usually receive some compensation in taxes (even going back to the Hearth Taxes).
August 29, 2010, 9:16 pmI submit that all secular marriage should be replaced with something like a Family License, where any two people receive the benefits of paired social contract if they either raise children or adopt any other dependent who would otherwise be a ward of the state.
Religions would then be free to set whatever standards they like on Theological marriage, separate from state policy. This also adds a certain amount of Freedom of Religion respect to each belief system, where their customs remain unique from each other and from government. Something like “Certified Organic” used to.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: the Family License has a renewable time period..say 20 years, as appropriate for child rearing.
Anatid says:
Despite knowing it was somewhat irresponsible, I made that post out of sheer curiosity. It’s quite rare that I have an opportunity like this one and, well, I wanted to see what would happen.
The results have been most interesting. Thanks for the replies.
August 29, 2010, 9:19 pmElemenope says:
I did call you a moral infant, and that’s as far as the belittling went. FWIW, I apologize; I let my reaction to the offensive statement get the better of me. I did also call you intelligent and creative, so there’s that.
The anal ovaries comment is still just simply stupid. Not taking that one back.
Oddly enough, though, you are just about correct there. I *am* kind of a jerk, and I do think I’m right most of the time (and I do think anyone who doesn’t think that they’re right is engaging in perverse self-delusion). Not really self-righteous, though; just extremely arrogant. And it has never interfered with my being corrected by a well-constructed argument or intriguing point, which otherwise is I think the greatest danger to being arrogant. For example, before this thread I would have dismissed pretty much out of hand the notion that marriage was an effective token at all for determining effective capacity for parenting, but Chris Travers and others have given me much food for thought; not to mention the enlightening conversation about media, social dislocation, and copyright.
And I learned two new words, one of them from you. So there’s that.
August 29, 2010, 9:25 pmAlessandra says:
Let’s see. Every single comment I had made concerning marriage in this thread up to when I made the fraud comment at August 27, 2010, 9:30 pm referred to heterosexual marriage (or the state of a heterosexual couple living together without marriage) or to the discussion of the heterosexual case at hand. There was no mention or inference to homosexuality at all, anywhere. Furthermore, it was plain to see that Harry was also talking about all the failed (heterosexual) marriages he has observed, a clear reference to problems with marriages in society, and a problem I concur with.
As I said, having a written debate with liberals shows just how reading impaired they are, time and time again. Their false claims, the cognitive dissonance, their biases, their obsession to constantly tar and demonize people they don’t agree with.
August 29, 2010, 9:27 pmElemenope says:
I’ll take that as a no, then.
August 29, 2010, 9:41 pmElemenope says:
@Auntiegrav
An interesting idea. One of the major external benefits of marriage, though, is also that it eases (an an extreme way) the disposition of property and assets after death, especially through heirs; something that, if I’m understanding your idea correctly, would be more difficult to implement.
August 29, 2010, 9:43 pmleo marvin says:
It’s hard to believe you don’t know what’s offensive about telling someone her daughter’s sexuality is a “problem.” First, even you can’t believe “homosexual problem” is an established medical or psychological condition. Telling Chris her daughter has a “homosexual problem” isn’t like telling someone who goes into anaphylactic shock after eating a Snickers bar that they have a peanut allergy. And even that’s probably too categorical. The allergy could be to chocolate or your perfume. Or maybe listening to your reductionist stereotypes of gays and liberals has simply robbed them of the will to live. :)
But even if there was something accurately described as a “homosexual problem,” nobody could be so tactless as to describe someone else’s child with those words, and not know they’re being offensive. Someone as intelligent as you are could come with up dozens of tactful ways to say the same thing. Your decision not to is itself foreseeably offensive.
And before you respond with some tu quoque, or even worse, claim that homosexuals deserve it, remember this isn’t about who else deserves what. You denied it was offensive to call Chris’s daughter’s sexuality a “homosexual problem”. That’s the subject. Changing it won’t change that fact.
August 29, 2010, 9:53 pmAlessandra says:
and that’s as far as the belittling went.
That’s as far as your bias puts it, actually:
No, no. I like it when you talk about the “homosexual problem”. Continue; it is a great marker for the content of your character.
maligning character…
No, I think that’s what she means. It’s an intentionally provocative way of expressing an opinion that homosexuality is a pathology instead of a normalized orientation. Disgusting, sure, but creative.
maligning motives…
Fair enough, though the spectacular way Alessandra has been self-immolating and furiously casting about since Anatid made the post may indicate it struck a bit close to home despite it all.
already commented on that one…
“The anal ovaries comment is still just simply stupid”
I’ve already mentioned your reply was even more stupid, but then, after you have said all of the above, it’s in line. And, as a bonus, you clearly dodge discussing the issue.
“I did also call you intelligent and creative, so there’s that.”
In an overall demeaning way…
===========
So yeah, mostly put-downs and demonizing characterizations, either directly or obliquely.
Anyways, it was interesting to specifically review your comments in the thread.
August 29, 2010, 10:28 pmAlessandra says:
Apparently because you are here to tell me what I believe in.
So do you think that having a homosexual psychology is a problem or not? And do you think Chris has normalized his daughter’s homosexual problem or not?
I ‘normalize’ my inborn anorexic daughter – No, you are normalizing your daughter’s anorexic problem
I ‘normalize’ my inborn pedophile daughter – No, you are normalizing your daughter’s pedophilia problem
I ‘normalize’ my inborn cannibalistic daughter- No, you are normalizing your daughter’s cannibalism problem
Why are these responses offensive?
And, lastly, do you think that mentioning that someone has a problem is offensive? To save time, when you tell someone they have a problem, is that offensive?
So hard to imagine what your answer will be to that last question.
August 29, 2010, 10:48 pmleo marvin says:
I agree about the epistemological problems of reading hearts and minds on the internet, but in Alessandra’s case there’s a lot of data. In this thread alone, for example, she left more than 100 comments. I think it would take a rare genius to stay in character that long, that consistently, and at such a fine level of detail if hers was a false persona. Maybe more significantly, she sent me a gracious e-mail, apologizing for something she said about me which I found innocuous but she apparently thought was over the top. If she didn’t really believe all the other stuff, much of which I do find truly offensive, that would have been a good time to let me (presumably someone actually on her side), in on the joke. Anyway, FWIW, I’m more inclined to believe she’s blind or indifferent to the embarrassment she gives to her cause than that she’s making the whole thing up.
But I have a different question. I’d like a ruling on the definition of “troll.” Because more and more I’m seeing it used to mean something akin to a rude jerk, while I’ve always thought it only applied to a provocateur whose purpose was to derail the discussion.
August 29, 2010, 10:55 pmAlessandra says:
I am left to wonder if my opponents here are completely in denial about the fact that what is considered offensive (or innocuous) is subjectively determined. Offensiveness is neither absolute, nor universal. Furthermore, not only is it defined by group culture, it is further shaped by individual filters.
As I see from all the reactions in these threads, anything that questions the basis for your homosexuality ideology is deemed as incredibly, abhorrently, disgustingly, (and why not wicked, treacherously, rebelliously–be it remembered) offensive to you, while it’s just different questions to others.
(A line that is the exact repetition of the discourse of the Kings and Queens, or the Catholic Church, when it prosecuted heresy)
Any questioning of how you think about homosexuality is also always framed as having bad motives. First, most of you completely ignore 99% of what I write, then sit there puzzling as to your self-inflicted paradox of how a person you see as somewhat intelligent (meaning not completely stupid) does not conform to your views.
It all boils down to this, I guess.
August 29, 2010, 11:20 pmChris Travers says:
Sure. And in this case the appeals court can overturn it, but the standard is so deferential that “you are advocating drug legalization and that could well lead to drug use of the child” would be much, much harder to challenge. What is the solution? The problem is so bad that there is no solution which will immediately produce better results. Any change will take the courts some time to adjust to. But what’s the solution? Check your Constitutional Rights at the door of parenthood?
August 29, 2010, 11:28 pminahandbasket says:
From the sidelines: it may be best to consider just not responding to a poster who unabashedly continues to display a shocking bigotry and is eager to expand upon those views by using any challenge as an attack, and thus, attacks back with further vitriolic, more outlandish ‘theories’ of human sexuality.
She’s enjoying being the center of attention and hijacking post after post. You all are not going to change her mindset about anything, rather, she displays a digging in retrenchment/rehash of her warped perspective with the glee of a recalcitrant teenager.
Anatid, your long post was extremely benevolent toward someone who doesn’t have the strength to address and challenge whatever deep seated events caused her such hatred toward entire groups of people.
There will inevitably be more posts on VC regarding marriage equality and I daresay the troll will come out of the far reaches of Wingnutville (Topeka, KS? Phelps clan, maybe) again. We can choose to ignore her homosexual problem and really have a grown up discussion.
August 29, 2010, 11:29 pmAlessandra says:
Demonize and malign, in order to dismiss.
Isn’t there a group that eats little children for breakfast that you can associate me with? I’m surprised you only went for the shocking bigotry, vitriolic, warped, hatred, Phelps clan…
August 29, 2010, 11:45 pmAlessandra says:
So Anatid, what do you think about how you completely misinterpreted what I wrote in this “fraud” comment? How often do you think that happens when you read what I write?
I would say for you it’s about 30-50% of the total.
For Buck, about 90%. Make that 95%.
Leo, I can’t tell if he understands and vehemently disagrees or if he doesn’t even understand. He mostly just leaves these one liners that don’t say much, but which seem to indicate various degrees of negative stereotyping, when not misconstrued interpretations.
Elemenope has just joined the fray – can’t tell yet :-)
Travers – I’ve seen very little reactions that denote that he did not understand what I had written, independently if he agreed or not. Then either of us clarifies and the communication problem is resolved.
Basket-case: 110% distortion of everything.
August 30, 2010, 12:07 amyankee says:
I’m impressed that Alessandra has managed to turn a thread about the relevance of marriage to child custody determinations into a thread about the extent of her own personal bigotry. Good work!
August 30, 2010, 12:14 amleo marvin says:
I was crediting you with knowing the difference between an actual, recognized medical or psychological problem, which can accurately be referred to as such, and something you believe is a problem, which would be inaccurate and maybe offensive to call a “problem” without qualification. Was I wrong? Do you think homosexuality is a recognized medical or psychological problem like peanut allergy?
This is the sort of “changing the subject” I tried to steer you away from in my last comment. When you tell me what it has to do with the offensiveness of telling someone their child’s sexuality is a “problem,” I’ll be happy to answer it.
The question is what they have to do with homosexuality. And the answer is, “they don’t.” Anorexia, pedophilia, and cannibalism are serious, recognized problems. Homosexuality isn’t. The difference is made obvious by the fact that if you were talking about any of the former you wouldn’t have to say “problem.” You’d just say “you are normalizing your daughter’s anorexia,” or “normalizing your daughter’s pedophilia.” The “problem” speaks for itself. But “normalizing your daughter’s homosexuality” doesn’t imply a problem that speaks for itself. It implies a controversial value judgment. Adding “problem,” as if such a problem is recognized, is misleading and offensive.
Depends. If I say, “you have a problem — you’re trailing three feet of toilet paper” I’d say I’m doing them a favor. If I say, “you have a problem — your daughter’s politically motivated, immoral sexuality is destroying our culture and everything I hold decent and holy,” then yeah, I think that would be pretty offensive.
I thought you had a better imagination than that.
August 30, 2010, 12:38 amAlessandra says:
Read about Anatid’s reading distortions of my comments. It might give you a clue about what you do when reading what I write… oh wait… that’s asking too much, isn’t it?
August 30, 2010, 12:41 amrilkefan says:
But you have good reason to believe that “you” is a fictional construct. I advise you to try to NFTT.
August 30, 2010, 12:50 amElemenope says:
But I have a different question. I’d like a ruling on the definition of “troll.” Because more and more I’m seeing it used to mean something akin to a rude jerk, while I’ve always thought it only applied to a provocateur whose purpose was to derail the discussion.
I haven’t been around nearly long enough to approach a “ruling”, but from around the nets, the general standard is a person who deliberately derails a discussion, usually by arguing in bad faith and being intentionally provocative. Of course, the implicit weakness of this definition is clear, from the earlier comment about unprivileged epistemological positions and the Internet; it is impossible to determine intent, and so it is never clear whether a person is a troll or merely a bad debater.
Usually the difference is academic though, since in practice the determination is entirely up to how much apparently pointless and/or non-rigorous provocation is tolerated as the norm for the community.
If, as you say, Alessandra has been around for a while and has been consistent in her opinions, the likelihood of her meeting this definition are slim. So, not a troll.
————–
No, no. I like it when you talk about the “homosexual problem”. Continue; it is a great marker for the content of your character.
maligning character…
You would only take it that way if you think it indicates something *bad* about your character that you express what you do. Do you think that?
No, I think that’s what she means. It’s an intentionally provocative way of expressing an opinion that homosexuality is a pathology instead of a normalized orientation. Disgusting, sure, but creative.
maligning motives…
As several people have pointed out already, that is the more charitable assignment of motives. Either you understand that the mode of label you’re using is provocative, or you’re an idiot. I prefer to think you’re being intentionally provocative. In this case, I find this particular provocation disgusting; that’s just my personal opinion.
“I did also call you intelligent and creative, so there’s that.”
In an overall demeaning way…
Again, it’s only demeaning if you don’t actually believe what you say.
Also, FWIW, I haven’t self identified as a liberal in over a decade, and haven’t been called one in much longer…until you, today. So kudos on that unbelievably bad misread.
August 30, 2010, 12:59 amleo marvin says:
I’m flattered you think I may be misconstruing and stereotyping stuff I don’t even understand. I had no idea I was that good.
August 30, 2010, 1:03 amleo marvin says:
If I thought she was a “fictional construct,” I would agree. But as I just explained, I don’t. What evidence do you have that she isn’t expressing sincerely held beliefs.
August 30, 2010, 1:05 amChris Travers says:
You might not like to think of it as a trade, but often it works that way.
The point is though that many states already allow death row inmates a choice between a couple of execution methods. I see no reason not to let pagan priests be executioners in other methods if the inmate consents. It’s not for the benefit of the inmate, but for the benefit of the person. Granted that might mean a more public execution, but if the inmate is OK with it, why not?
Walter Burkert has suggested (in his book “Homo Necans”) that ritual killing has a pacifying influence on society. Why not take advantage of that? Why not let murderers pay society back by such a pacifying influence?
August 30, 2010, 1:50 amChris Travers says:
My comment wasn’t about being factually right or wrong. It was about seeking conflict. With due respect you are doing a stellar job of doing so. If it’s not consciously intentional, it must be unconsciously desired.
You know I agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others. I disagree with Anatid on some things and agree on others. This isn’t about that.
Look: I’m just bringing this to your attention so you can hopefully fix it before the Conspirators decide you are being too uncivil and that you are not welcome here. I’ve been around long enough to see it happen before. I’ve even gotten a warning myself. Heck, on other groups I have been banned because I did exactly what you are doing here— I came in looking for a fight.
Take the friendly notice for what it is. If I was hostile to you, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. However, it’s for you to figure it out. Take some time. Take a breather. As I say, I’ve been there too.
August 30, 2010, 1:57 amReaderY says:
In North Carolina, there’s a long history of the Court of Appeals regularly reversing conservative trial courts on these issues, and then the Supreme Court reversing the Court of Appeals.
August 30, 2010, 2:20 amElemenope says:
Walter Burkert has suggested (in his book “Homo Necans”) that ritual killing has a pacifying influence on society.
An interesting hypothesis. What did he propose was the mechanism behind this influence?
August 30, 2010, 2:53 amhtom says:
My first reaction to this is “insane”. That’s my second reaction, too.
My wife and I lived together for twenty-five years before we finally got married. We postponed our marriage because of the number of divorces we saw, and the nasty problems therein (partially but not exclusively due to the lawyers involved); it seemed to us that one of the primary causes of the divorces was the fact of being married changed the relationships — the two parties to the marriage began to not pay attention to each other, to treat each other as objects, rather than lovers. So, we thought, don’t get married, and keep paying attention.
Then other things happened, and we got married. Mostly due to the legal problems that accompany an unmarried couple. It’s like being a gay couple, only you’re not.
We’re still happily together, although the first year was very scary.
August 30, 2010, 11:28 amOrenWithAnE says:
I’m not inclined to thing adoption or foster care is a constitutional right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty any more than being a Peace Officer is. If the government can deny a drug legalization proponent a job as an LEO, they can deny him the right to adopter/foster parent.
For actual parents, of course, the standard ought to be much higher.
[ Now, I agree that it is utterly asinine policy to do so, given that there is a dearth of foster parents and that the alternative is quite grim. ]
August 30, 2010, 11:30 amChris Travers says:
What’s the difference between an adoption and a marriage license in this way? And why would parens patriae be more limited in dealing with adoptions than in dealing with removing kids from disfavored households or addressing custody in divorce?
August 30, 2010, 11:58 amChris Travers says:
The mechanism he proposes seems to be one of bonding of the community in the act of killing. He traces the beginning of it to Mesolithic hunting rituals, manifests in animal sacrifice, and he sees a continuation of it in modern warfare (which he argues is irrational but socially valuable for the same reason). He’s one of the foremost scholars on Greek religious practice. You can read the chapter at Google Books.
Others have suggested that ritual killing is essentially a matter of scapegoating and thus release of tensions that would otherwise be borne out on eachother and draw upon biblical studies to make this case (i.e. the myth of Cain and Abel is in part about this— Abel sacrificed animals, while Cain only gave plants, and this lead Cain to become violent because he did not have the same outlet for the urge to kill that Abel had– the actual theory is more complex than this and I’ll look up a cite for it later).
August 30, 2010, 12:05 pmJohn Herbison says:
The Supreme Court has recognized that the familial rights to marry, establish a home, and rear children are fundamental privacy interests entitled to constitutional protection. Once an adoption is in place, adoptive parents also have the right to rear their child without unwarranted governmental interference to the same extent as biological parents.
Adoption in the first instance, however, is a creature of statute. (The right of adoption did not exist at common law.) Statutes governing adoption are more concerned with protection of the interests of children whose parents are unable or unwilling to take care of them than with the privacy rights of prospective adoptive parents.
August 30, 2010, 1:09 pmAlessandra says:
Chris, your comment above makes no sense to me, so I can only assume you didn’t understand why I quoted you. If people want to distort what I say, they will. If they want to malign my character, my motives, my views, they will. That’s how I read your quote. I thought you had meant something completely different with your “what people seek, they will find” !!! Do you get it?
“If I was hostile to you, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. ”
I totally agree. Not only do I agree that you have not been hostile, but that if you had, we wouldn’t be conversing. So I don’t understand why you stated this, because there is not dispute. Could you clarify?
Not only that, as I mentioned, it was because of this thread that I realized something very interesting about you. It was exactly when I finished doing my estimated percentage analysis of how much of what I write gets completely distorted in the minds of other individual commenters here, without them even being conscious of it. I realized that I had almost never seen any reaction from you indicating this. This definitely indicates a superior emotional cognitive ability on your part than the average here. Not on an intellectual scale, but on a measure of being able to correctly read things you most deeply disagree with, with no emotional hijacking or deep layers of prejudiced filters getting in the way of your understanding of the text or the arguments laid out.
And that is very interesting, indeed. :-)
August 30, 2010, 1:27 pmADF Alliance Alert » Living in sin and judicial activism says:
[...] Volokh writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “From today’s In re the Petition of Theresa Goudeau to Adopt a Minor Child (Ga. Ct. [...]
August 30, 2010, 1:42 pmDay Break says:
August 30, 2010, 2:00 pmElemenope says:
The mechanism he proposes seems to be one of bonding of the community in the act of killing. He traces the beginning of it to Mesolithic hunting rituals, manifests in animal sacrifice, and he sees a continuation of it in modern warfare (which he argues is irrational but socially valuable for the same reason). He’s one of the foremost scholars on Greek religious practice. You can read the chapter at Google Books.
Others have suggested that ritual killing is essentially a matter of scapegoating and thus release of tensions that would otherwise be borne out on eachother and draw upon biblical studies to make this case (i.e. the myth of Cain and Abel is in part about this— Abel sacrificed animals, while Cain only gave plants, and this lead Cain to become violent because he did not have the same outlet for the urge to kill that Abel had– the actual theory is more complex than this and I’ll look up a cite for it later).
I’ve heard of the second idea before (kind of a psychological corollary to Kenneth Burke’s Dramatism re: grappling with the negative, sacrifice and scapegoating), but the first is new to me. It sort of reminds me of that 1990s satire The Last Supper, for some reason.
Thanks for the link. I shall read when I get a moment.
August 30, 2010, 2:28 pmTed says:
Care to explain why you think “marriage” was the trigger or cause of the deteriorating relationships? It is an interesting perspective that marriage affects the stability of a relationship negatively.
I don’t mean to pry, but why was it scary? Did the official act of marrying affect the stability of your relationship?
August 30, 2010, 2:31 pmChris Travers says:
Yet, siding with a religious parent over an atheistic one when deciding child custody during divorce seems perfectly constitutional and, as EV documents elsewhere, isn’t all that uncommon.
August 30, 2010, 2:49 pmChrisTS says:
Yeah. Kind of connects with Ted’s and htom’s discussion.
August 30, 2010, 2:52 pmTed says:
Yeah, but isn’t being an atheist a reliable social indicator of an utter lack of moral character? The correlation seems as sound as the correlation between marriage and stability…
August 30, 2010, 3:03 pmChrisTS says:
leo:
I think inahandbaskets’ comment illustrates how these might be connected:
One can derail discussion by being a jerk, would be the short way to put it, I suppose.
August 30, 2010, 3:08 pmAlessandra says:
===========
The question is what they have to do with homosexuality. And the answer is, “they don’t.” – TO YOU
Anorexia, pedophilia, and cannibalism are serious, recognized problems. Homosexuality isn’t. – BY YOU
You’d just say “you are normalizing your daughter’s anorexia,” or “normalizing your daughter’s pedophilia.” The “problem” speaks for itself. – NOT TO SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT THINK ANY OF THESE THINGS ARE PROBLEMS.
But “normalizing your daughter’s homosexuality” doesn’t imply a problem that speaks for itself. – TO YOU.
It implies a controversial value judgment. Adding “problem,” as if such a problem is recognized, is misleading and offensive. – TO YOU.
What I was trying to show you is that everything hinges on the different ways people conceptualize and understand human experience. Where you agree with me about what is a problem, you don’t find offensive my statement that it’s a problem, nor do you see it as a controversial value judgment. Because there is no controversy TO YOU. Where you don’t agree, you do.
So, if I were talking to an indigenous group which practices cannibalism and I said to them they have a cannibalism problem, they would react like, “No, we don’t, it’s you who has the problem.” How they read and interpret what I say is filtered through their framing of cannibalism as OK. It’s this paradigm that is the foundation and which shapes the subsequent interpretations of anyone or anything around them.
==============
Going back to the cannibalism group, if I told them I thought they had a problem, or that they were denying that their children had a cannibalism problem, in fact, they encouraged it, they would probably find that rude. But then, here we are at the question of who has the right to determine what problems one can talk about and to whom and in what way when there is a complete culture shock as to what is rude.
There is no doubt we have very different views on this. First, let me repeat again (or say it for the first time, can’t remember) that I was stunned to read about how our value systems are multi-dimensionally incongruous. I will tell you, in my view, imputing a horrible crime to someone, even when using sarcasm as a form of criticism, to exactly make a point, even when it is completely done in jest, is very offensive and not correct at all. I did go out of my way to apologize, because that is what I had to do, since the little 4 minutes were over, and I couldn’t edit it.
And what do I read in your one of your comments here? You found it innocuous. Innocuous? Good heavens. What does that tell me about the profound disparity with which we view so many issues (although we have on a certain number of discussions completely agreed on several other attitudes and analyses). Additionally, the way you express yourself, the intensity with which you object that I think that a homosexuality psychology is problematic, well, it makes that English Queen messuage conviction document seem mild.
You give me the impression that you are not even one bit aware that to me there is absolutely nothing wrong or offensive in indicating that homosexuality is problematic, just as I would not see anything wrong in saying that an anorexic psychology is problematic. There is nothing at all wrong with formulating the thought itself for the various reasons I have detailed in several threads. Although fragmented and disorganized, there is a good amount of my explanations in these recent VC threads why I think that homosexual psychologies are problematic. I am getting the impression that you didn’t read any of it, or that you can’t understand anything I write on sexuality.
I’ve tried putting the same dynamics of our interaction in a completely different context (such as cannibalism) to see if you can focus on the dynamics, and not the issue. But you give me the impression of not being able to grasp that it all hinges on different understandings of human sexuality phenomena. To summarize, if you agreed with me that homosexuality encompassed a multitude of problems, you wouldn’t object that I said it was problematic. Since you don’t agree, apparently you cannot tolerate anyone who does (and who obviously has as much of a right to expressing their views as you do yours–in a semblance of democracy, anyways).
That I also have the right to explain and discuss my views on sexuality is my opinion, but then, again, here I believe you adamantly disagree. You understand my viewpoint as inherently offensive, thus you criminalize it from a moral perspective–the viewpoint itself. Thinking something different than what you think is, according to you, an offense of highest degree, and if I understood you correctly, should not be allowed to be expressed.
As to your question whether I think homosexuality is like peanut allergy, no, I don’t. I’ve written on VC many of my questions and thoughts on several problems concerning homosexuality. If you had read and understood my views, even if you completely disagreed with every detail, you wouldn’t be asking if I thought it was like peanut allergy. (side note: I’m not sure though in what way you are employing “peanut allergy” here, since peanut allergy as far as I know, which is not much, is a physical reaction, not an considerably complex psychological phenomenom)
But as I said, since you interact very little in most of these threads, I can’t tell if you read my comments and don’t understand, or if you just ignore everything I explain because it’s not what you want to read, so you are, as a consequence, equally clueless about what I think. I’m beginning to think it’s a detrimental mixture of both.
It’s the impression I’ve developed more recently, anyways. But due to lack of any more information from you, that’s all it is.
August 30, 2010, 3:08 pmChris Travers says:
Elemenope: The scapegoating theory is described in detail in the first chapter of this book.
August 30, 2010, 3:17 pmTed says:
Isn’t this the point that all of the comments have been making? That your labeling another commenter’s daughter as having a “homosexual problem” is offensive to that commenter? No one thought that you should be offended by your use of that phrase. Rather, they said that you should be aware of, and sensitive to, the offense taken by the commenter whose daughter is a lesbian.
You appear to understand the difference:
Perhaps another analogy would make the distinction clearer. If I hit you, I would not find that offensive. Would you? If I choose not to hit you, it’s not because I find it offensive, it’s because I don’t want to offend you.
I suppose on a meta-level, I may offend myself by offending you. So, can I assume that you do not offend yourself when you offend others? If this is true, do you recognize this as a sociopathic problem you have? Or have you normalized it? Does it offend you when people explain to you that you have a sociopathic problem? If so, I apologize for offending you.
August 30, 2010, 3:39 pmJohn Herbison says:
I seem to have missed something here. Where has anyone on this comment board suggested that any other commenter’s expression of opinions or viewpoints should be “criminalized”?
I, for one, am pleased to see Alessandra express her opinions with such vituperation as she does. I am likewise pleased to see nutjobs like Fred Phelps proclaim that God hates fags, Pat Robertson blame hurricanes on gays in New Orleans and Jerry Falwell blame the events of September 11, 2001 on feminists, gays and lesbians. (Who would otherwise have known that Falwell perceived his deity as a terrorist?)
These bigots’ own words show their poisonous mindset and personality traits.
August 30, 2010, 3:53 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Because the freedoms to marry, establish a home and bring up children are among those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men (e.g. but not only: Meyer v. Nebraska).
That places them in a category well above the privilege of adoption or foster-parenthood.
August 30, 2010, 3:56 pmChris Travers says:
Whether or not people see homosexuality as a problem depends on a lot of factors. It comes down to a value judgement. My own thinking is that a lot (though probably not all) of it is fear of sexuality in general and that “homophobia” is the wrong way to look at it. The fear of sexuality is somewhat justified— think of how many marriages are torn apart by adultery for example, but it’s also something which can become very unbalanced. Sexuality then must be strictly controlled or it will destroy us. This could be contrasted to a more moderate view that Normal Vincent Peale put forth that we have freedom so we should develop discipline (despite Peale’s anti-homosexual rhetoric in places, I am not sure that his framework is necessarily incompatible with accepting homosexuality, and the social context has changed a great deal since he wrote “Sex, Sin, and Self-Control” including implementing many of Peale’s ideas in ways contrary to what he was expecting).
The fact is, sexuality is a dangerous thing. It is the most powerful biological drive that we have, and something we do have to control (I agree with Peale here). But I don’t think it is something to be afraid of. Fear gives things power over us. Cautious awareness is far superior.
August 30, 2010, 3:59 pmChris Travers says:
So do you have a problem with courts making custody decisions on the ideology of the parents who are divorcing? Should a Lutheran expect favorable treatment to the Atheist? Should the Tough-On-Crime Republican expect favorable treatment to the NORML member?
Obviously some decision has to be made in this case, and the right to rear children has to be abridged. Can the government punish people for views it holds as dangerous in this way?
August 30, 2010, 4:02 pmElemenope says:
Burkert’s description of the two-step of guilt and consolation as the essential emotional elements of the bond created by sacrificial rituals (if I’m understanding it correctly) reminds me today not so much of capital punishment as it does modern horror movies. I think a major consensual activity that has replaced the ritual of sacrifice is the vicarious but visceral viewing of similar procedures taking place to fictional constructs that are nonetheless present and real enough to evoke empathy, which is integral to feelings of guilt.
August 30, 2010, 4:04 pmChrisTS says:
I know I will regret this, but I am going to follow Leo’s, Anatid’s, and Chris Travers’ examples of graciousness and try to address Alessandra’s views one more time.
1.Cannibalism: Is it bad? It is bad if the person being eaten (a) was murdered and/or (b) did not wish to be eaten. Either way, it is an infringement on the freedom of another person: a harm to an unwilling victim.
2.Pedophilia: Is it bad? It is bad insofar as the child is not capable of giving consent. It is, thus, the imposition of something on one who cannot consent. It may also be harmful in other ways.
3. Anorexia: Indeed, a complex psycho-physical condition. Is it bad? It leads to physical deterioration and can be fatal. It’s also unlikely that it is ‘self-chosen.’
4.Homosexuality: Is it bad? Does it harm others who are unwilling victims? Does it impose on those who cannot consent? Does it lead to illness or death?
I gather that A. would like to say homosexuality is harmful to society in some way and/or to the person herself. So far, over several threads, any ‘evidence’ offered to support those claims has been either unraveled or seriously challenged.
A. of course can continue to think homosexuality is bad, but as she points out this is a subjective judgment on her part. Subjective in a way that the possible wrongness of cannibalism, the wrongness of pedophilia, and the dangerousness of anorexia are not. This is why, as Leo observed, we do not bother to speak of a cannibalism problem or a pedophilia problem or an anorexia problem. The jury is in on those ‘problems.’
But, the jury is not in on homosexuality, according to A. For that reason, to refer to my child’s sexuality as her ‘homosexual problem’ is offensive and ought to have been recognizable as such by any sensible person.
At this point I am more than done with this thread.
August 30, 2010, 4:07 pmChris Travers says:
As I said, I think his view is that this role is taken on by war, and the destruction and reconstruction of another country.
However could public capital punishment fill a similar role? Would the collective guilt over watching someone die followed by creating some sort of memorial relating to the individual’s crime fill a similar role?
In other words, procedurally it may not be that different from what we do, but could it be socially transformed into something which provides a great deal of more social good?
August 30, 2010, 4:09 pmChris Travers says:
Question: If someone decides to die and stops eating purposely to accomplish that, is that bad? Obviously that’s not the same thing as a body-image problem that leads to obsessive weight loss.
August 30, 2010, 4:12 pmElemenope says:
Obviously some decision has to be made in this case, and the right to rear children has to be abridged. Can the government punish people for views it holds as dangerous in this way?
It’s not so much a matter of abridging the general right to rear children as abridging the rather more narrow (right? privilege?) to rear a particular child. An adverse custody ruling does not foreclose the possibility of the person from being a parent, it just does so in regards to a specific child.
But the more problematic question is punishing for ideology. Given that many children hold views starkly different from their parents when they mature, it seems difficult to sustain an argument for significant government interest in preventing people with certain beliefs/ideas from child rearing. Having homophobic parents, for example, may bear a weak correlation to having homophobic children, but even if the state had a powerful interest in minimizing homophobia, does it follow that the interest is served efficiently in this way?
August 30, 2010, 4:13 pmChris Travers says:
Although this doesn’t apply to lesbians, homosexual men in this country are far more likely to contract HIV and other STD’s than heterosexual men. (Of course lesbians are far less than heterosexual women.)
Do we conclude from this that homosexuality is a problem for men but heterosexuality is a problem for women?
August 30, 2010, 4:14 pmElemenope says:
I think modern war (especially those involving the US) fail to provide this the way that wars even in the recent past may have, because the fighting is not only remote (and sanitized by media filters) but is done no longer by a reasonable facsimile of a cross-section of the society since the military is now a self-selecting group rather than conscripted. So, not enough of the visceral triggers are present, and those that are are only experienced by a stratified fraction of the social order.
While public capital punishment might serve some of the functions you describe, I have a suspicion that the practice wouldn’t survive very long, since being fairly unused to the catharsis of the guilt/consolation dyad at stakes this high (nor the cultural patience to experience it reflectively or completely) the practice would be quickly abandoned as discomfiting.
August 30, 2010, 4:23 pmChris Travers says:
One reason I am entirely in favor of the resurrection of animal sacrifice practices by Norse pagans.
August 30, 2010, 4:31 pmDay Break says:
–Nope, homosexual men are also a threat to women, because some men who have sex with men also have sex with women, meaning an HIV-infected man in this population could also spread the virus to a heterosexual woman.
August 30, 2010, 4:42 pmDay Break says:
–Yes, in both the U.S. and in British Columbia homosexual men account for nearly half of all new HIV infections.
August 30, 2010, 4:48 pmChris Travers says:
Hence heterosexuality is a problem for women?
August 30, 2010, 4:51 pmDay Break says:
So you consider men that sleep with both men and women to be heterosexual or exhibit the purely heterosexual behavior to be a “problem” to women? ok. Call them “bi-sexual”, “straight-curious” or another LGBT fad neologism, but heterosexual does not define them.
August 30, 2010, 4:59 pmElemenope says:
No, he’s saying that if women were strictly homosexual, HIV wouldn’t be much of a problem for them. Only when they act heterosexually are they exposed to the problem. Do women therefore have a heterosexuality problem?
August 30, 2010, 5:10 pmDay Break says:
No. While it stands that HIV would not be as much of a risk for women if they were strictly homosexual, but other STDs such as herpes, syphilis, and Bacterial vaginosis (BV) are fair game whether homo or hetero, so pick your poison. Obviously, when one considers the need/desire to procreate the question then becomes do homo women have a homosexual problem (sperm banks not withstanding)?
August 30, 2010, 5:24 pmAlessandra says:
The issue that you are completely blind to is that if I need to conform to someone else’s ideology, the rule should go for everyone, unless we were living in an Animal Farm. Oh wait, did I just quote that? Coincidence!
So, if I were talking to a man whose son promoted NAMBLA, and the father was encouraging it, by saying this was “man-boy love,” you would say to me I could not tell this father that he was normalizing his son’s pedophilia problem. Because otherwise he would be offended, and the fact that someone is offended gives them a right to dictate to others what they can say or do. What you are completely blind to is that, if I had to refer to homosexual child abuse as “man-boy love,” not only would I be 1)lying, according to my views, 2) having censorship enforced against my speech, 3) I would be having to submit to a kind of hypocritical political blackmail based on “offense” claims.
I’ll mention another example, although tiredly old, replicates this issue of offense. Not that long ago, saying anything, absolutely anything, that offended the Catholic Church could give them the excuse to torture you to death. Because they were offended. Period. And that certainly could not be tolerated. Over time the punishment has decreased and has become more in line with social sanctions, but the principle of arrogating to themselves the right to control thinking, speech, and behavior based on offense claims continues.
Another dandy example which you might have missed in the “burning Koran” thread refers to art that is made to offend. Or protests. Someone excavated the mention of the Piss-Christ “art” piece. That is hugely offensive to Christians. So, according to you, it should never exist. Any and all books, films, pornography, and artwork that offends someone must be suppressed, because, so you claim, offense is morally wrong, “it’s like if I hit you.” So I get to tell anyone else what they can say or not if I am offended.
You would agree to all of this, wouldn’t you? I mean, you are not a complete hypocrite who says just some people have the right not be offended by others.
I was also offended by how you distorted the problem at hand as a conceptual violence that I do his daughter and not a imposition of a shoddy, ignorant sexuality ideology on society. So, guess what? You should not say anything more to me on this matter. Or obliquely to anyone else, because I find that offensive too.
You see, everyone can play your shoddy offensive “game.” And claim they have the moral upper hand, which is even more disgusting.
Why wouldn’t you? Finding something offensive is a product of ideology, more than being the target of an action. If you said to ChrisTS that his daughter had a homosexual problem, would you consider this fine or offensive?
Lastly, I went back to see the sequence of comments on this thread. It’s interesting that, way early in the thread, Elem offended me by slinging on me a disparaging characterization simply because I mentioned a “homosexuality problem,” completely unrelated to ChrisTS or any specific person.
And yet, where were you with your concerns about people not offending others?
Practicing your usual mucky double standards, of course. Congrats!
August 30, 2010, 5:29 pmElemenope says:
While it stands that HIV would not be as much of a risk for women if they were strictly homosexual, but other STDs such as herpes, syphilis, and Bacterial vaginosis (BV) are fair game whether homo or hetero, so pick your poison. Obviously, when one considers the need/desire to procreate the question then becomes do homo women have a homosexual problem (sperm banks not withstanding)?
Exactly, which brings us to the underlying point of this exercise: appeals to consequences are rarely effective and never sufficient for determining moral rectitude. Both heterosexuality and homosexuality can lead to bad outcomes in both genders, and often do in many different ways.
August 30, 2010, 5:37 pmChris Travers says:
All of which are far less severe than HIV in terms of disease and death which was the original question.
The key issue though is that it is difficult to define “harm” in a way that doesn’t lead to absurd results in this discussion.
August 30, 2010, 5:56 pmAlessandra says:
Are we surprised you missed reading the statement correctly?
Just thought of you chained to Perez Hilton again–in heaven. Oh John, you’re such a dazzling brain power–intellectually-wise, says Perez for the 100 millionth time… Not compared to you, Perez, shugahboy, but tell me again what you think of me…
August 30, 2010, 5:56 pmDay Break says:
Nice try, I did not “appeal to consequences” I simply answered ChrisTS’s question on whether homosexuality leads to sickness or death. He was the one trying to set up the classic “it does not harm argument so it must be cool” argument of why homosexuality is o.k., I just pointed out the that that’s not the case. I think you missed that that part. Tis a fact that homosexual men in developing countries are far more dangerous sexually than heterosexual men as evidenced by the incident rates of HIV and syphilis.
Side comment to Chris Travers: A women or man with any STD is a biohazard. If you don’t think so your more than happy to sleep with any that have herpes, syphilis or other “surprises.”
August 30, 2010, 6:14 pmElemenope says:
What exactly is a “moral crime”? Surely you don’t simply mean the state of being criticized by the group because they don’t like what you say, do you?
August 30, 2010, 6:14 pmElemenope says:
He was the one trying to set up the classic “it does not harm argument so it must be cool” argument of why homosexuality is o.k., I just pointed out the that that’s not the case. I think you missed that that part.
Fair enough. I agree that it is a poor line of argumentation. I personally would rest the positive argument of the normalization of homosexuality on three prongs: personal liberty, compatibility with legal/moral notions of consent, and prevalence.
It should be mentioned that while STD-related consequences tend to be quantitatively higher in homosexual populations, pregnancy-related consequences are easily much higher in heterosexual populations. Lest you think of this as not a problem, the ever younger population of the self-same third world countries is part and parcel of such cheery things as child soldiers, institutional instability, and rampant poverty.
It also needs to be pointed out that most consequences for both heterosexual and homosexual activity can be easily mitigated prophylactically by technology (condoms, medicines) and education.
August 30, 2010, 6:24 pmAlessandra says:
I was making a distinction between something which is considered bad from a moral perspective, but which does not have a specific law condemning it (thus crime as in the judicial system).
August 30, 2010, 6:31 pmTed says:
No. I would not say that you could not. I do not think offensive comments should be prohibited. That was not my point or the issue I addressed. I would say that your words would be offensive to him and that, if you respected him as another person, you would morally decide against saying that. I addressed this issue because you seemed confused as to who was being offended and why. I hope I helped.
In practice, do you say such things to people? Do you know any gay people or, for that matter, anyone who practices anything you think is a problem? Do you feel compelled to tell them, or people close to them, that their actions are a “problem?” If so, do you qualify it by saying that it is your opinion or do you state categorically, as you have on this thread, that it is indeed a problem? Do you think they are interested in your subjective opinion, one which you know they disagree with? Why do you think giving your opinion is more important that avoiding offending someone? Do you care at all if your words offend a person? Do you engage in any ad hoc cost/benefit analysis before hand?
Do you think this is what I said? Where did I say you should be prohibited from saying anything? Please provide a quote, so I know where the miscommunication occurred. I merely said that offending people without any consideration of their feelings is a sociopathic tendency. I do not think that sociopathic tendencies should be prohibited; indeed, I have my fair share of such tendencies. I suggest that you consider how you speak to people, as well as what you say to them. You can convey your message in a much less offensive way, and be more persuasive at the same time, by offering well-reasoned arguments that your opposition — not only you — understands.
I have no doubt that you think homosexuality is a real problem in our society, but still I don’t understand why…
August 30, 2010, 6:32 pmAlessandra says:
So Elem, are you new to this blog, or were you on vacation? (just asking out of curiosity…)
August 30, 2010, 6:34 pmhtom says:
Ted — as I said, we observed that couples began treating each other differently soon after they got married. They started telling each other what they were going to do, what they would be doing, rather than asking and discussing. Each made decisions about what the couple would do and demanded that their spouse agree. When each had made such a decision and the decisions conflicted, there were royal battles. They acted as if they “owned” the power to make decisions for the spouse, and took great offense if the spouse did not — for lack of a better word — obey.
If it had been one couple, we might have not even noticed it. But we saw at least a half-dozen of these “beautiful couples” explode into divorces that were movie-worthy, and couldn’t figure out why we would not be among them; marriage created a bond that was supposed to work as if the two were one, but it was blindingly obvious that this was not true, and we (both of us being independent and stubborn and demanding) would be no exception. So we kept on asking and discussing and flirting and sending cards and gifts and … deciding on doing things, together, rather than having someone to drag along.
Psychology from sophomores, I’m sure. It worked, for us.
August 30, 2010, 6:41 pmElemenope says:
So Elem, are you new to this blog, or were you on vacation? (just asking out of curiosity…)
I’ve commented very sparingly in the past, but mostly up until a week or so ago I’ve merely lurked. I like hanging around for a while and getting the feel of the culture of a place before diving in with the talking.
August 30, 2010, 6:47 pmDay Break says:
On limiting the population of poor in developing countries I shall use a quote from G.K Cherston: “They never do say that we suffer from a too bountiful supply of bankers or that cosmopolitan financiers must not have such large families. They do not say that the fashionable throng at Ascot wants thinning, or that it is desirable to decimate the people dining at the Ritz or the Savoy.
But the Birth-Controllers have not the smallest desire to control that jungle. It is much too dangerous a jungle to touch. It contains tigers. They never do talk about a danger from the comfortable classes. The Gloomy Dean is not gloomy about there being too many Dukes; and naturally not about there being too many Deans. He is not primarily annoyed with a politician for having a whole population of poor relations, though places and public salaries have to found for all relations. Political Economy means that everybody except politicians must be economical.
The Birth-Controller does not bother about all these things, for the perfectly simple reason that it is not such people that he wants to control. What he wants to control is the populace, and he practically says so. He always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it produces so many children.”
As far as the consequences of heterosexual and homosexual activity being mitigated by more technology (condoms), more sex-positive education are not working. Going back to what I said before: “Plain and simple sex until marriage is THE BEST option, from a simple common sense, cost-benefit and heck even moral perspective. Meaning it’s the objectively superior way to go, as such other sex-positive behaviors should be ridiculed, but no, everyone has “a choice” as long as the sex is “safe”—all which is proving to be pure garbage. I invite you to empirically prove otherwise.”
August 30, 2010, 6:50 pmTed says: