Monday, February 10, 2014

defense of traditional marriage is a little like creation science...,


chicagotribune | In the battle over same-sex marriage, opponents are strongly in favor of deferring to the wisdom of our ancestors. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence uses the prevailing formula when he says, "I support traditional marriage." The Christian Coalition of America urges its friends to "Say 'I Do' to Traditional Marriage."

They have friends on the U.S. Supreme Court. In arguments over a California ban on gay marriage, Justice Samuel Alito expressed reservations about abandoning time-honored arrangements. "Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years," he said, while same-sex marriage is "newer than cellphones or the Internet."

Invoking age-old customs has not served to convince the American people, most of whom now favor letting gays wed. But then Americans have rarely rallied to the idea that we should do something just because that's what was done in the time of Henry VII or even George Washington.

Ronald Reagan was fond of quoting 18th century pamphleteer Thomas Paine's ringing declaration, "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." Beginning the world over again does not imply a slavish attachment to olden days and olden ways.

America has always been trailblazer of the future, not custodian of the past. So opposing same-sex marriage on grounds of tradition is a chancy proposition.

But this approach has another major flaw: What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It's radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago. And if you want to talk about "thousands of years," you'll find that almost everything about marriage has changed.

The Hebrew King Solomon, after all, was a dedicated polygamist, with 700 wives. Monogamy has always been the norm in Christianity, but not as part of a marriage of equals.

The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone explained, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law; that is, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything."

Women generally couldn't enter into contracts without permission from their husbands. In legal status, they were a notch above sheep and goats. In America, it was not until well into the 19th century that states began to grant married women something resembling full property rights.

Even then, marriage had attributes that traditionalists would like to forget. Husbands who forced themselves on their wives were not guilty of rape, since they were legally entitled to sexual access. Contraception was forbidden in many states. Only in 1965 did the Supreme Court decide that such laws "violate the right of marital privacy."

9 comments:

Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother CNu:

The grand flaw in the article from the Chicago Tribune is the notion that we are debating "Traditional Marriage" or "Gay Marriage". Most people get caught up in this misalignment.


We are battling over MACRO-CULTURE, in a debate over how to REGULATE THE PEOPLE using governance theories that Optimize favorable outcomes (ie: societal stability, education, economic prosperity) and suppresses dysfunctional behaviors (crime, disconnectedness from social norms, male/female relationships that are made casual).


MY argument is that the Progressive Fundamentalists who march upon perpetual 'Struggle Motions For Freedoms' in support of yet another member of their coalition - are, in fact INCOMPETENT at taking over these "Commanding Heights" of a society and produce these optimized outcomes. Worse yet - when they DO gain control they practice "Establishment Power Repudiation" - in which they summarily DENY to their loyal base their culpability in the outcomes that those in their base of supporters remain vulnerable members of "The Least Of These"


It is my belief that "MAN" goes through these millennial vacillations by which "the rules" that were laid down from the experiences of a previous generation of man are then CHALLENGED by a subsequent generation - this after RITUALS that had been constructed to enforce these "rules" grew increasingly distant from the original assignment.


The famous last words of "This won't happen to us THIS TIME, we are smarter than those in the past" - are sufficient to pacify the present group.


The real question that should be asked of those who advocate for gay marriage by forcing the opposition to PROVE that it is damaging - is to force all sides to define their priorities in society and then PROVE that their scheme produces the optimized outcomes.


The LEAST OF THESE, who need stability through structure - are harmed the most as "Gay Marriage" is a province of the elite.

CNu said...

Wrong. No one is harmed by gay marriage.

Like many another social conservative straw man miscast in the guise of identity politics, this is an issue of politicized economics. "Culture" and "morality" are in this instance, stylistic stumbling blocks set in the path of those who would enjoy the legal and economic benefits reserved for male/female partnerships.

"Elites" are already in possession of sufficient means to not require the fundamental legal and economic benefits accruing to marriage - except as these relate to powers of attorney and unencumbered inheritance.

Constructive_Feedback said...

Notice I DID NOT argue that "Someone is HARMED BY 'GAY MARRIAGE' "


While you agree with my observation of "The Black Racial Services Machine" - a loosely coupled conflagration of INTERDISCIPLINARY operatives seeking to advance their IDEOLOGICAL goals under the guise of 'Blackness' - you appear to miss the fact that their "Americanized Negro Consciousness Harvesting Effort" is ultimately for the purposes of creating BRAND LOYALTY for the "Post-Racial Progressive Fundamentalist Alliance".


IT is YOU who keeps making references to "Ideological Talking Point".
Above I just demonstrated IMPERIALISTIC CONSTRUCTS.


CONSERVATISM - in American political discourse is presented as WHITE EUROCENTRIC VALUES.


PROGRESSIVISM is presented as a MORE DIVERSE reimagination of America's social and economic contracts that promise to wipe away the SINS OF THE FOUNDING OF AMERICA.


I maintain that their efforts at "reform and progress" are no more "honorable" than what George Washington can claim. Instead ALL OF THEM will claim to be "heroes" in their CONTEXTUALIZED reality.


You want to debate on "WHO IS HARMED". (and certainly the "Black African" brought over in slave chains was harmed).


MY MEASUREMENT is a focus upon the entire bundle of beliefs and priorities and make note of each of their ability to DEVELOP PEOPLE THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS THAT THEY NOW CONTROL.


I have no desire to use the GOVERNMENT to enforce sexual and social order upon adult persons.
BUT INDEED IT IS "CULTURE" - that will afford the Asian/White/Black to achieve certain COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES as they ORDER THEMSELVES TOWARD A CERTAIN FUNCTIONAL DISCIPLINE - while other groups become INDULGENT CONSUMERS.


So you see, my dear friend, it NOT the INDIVIDUAL PLANK (ex: how OOW Births, Gay Relationships or the people's relationship with MONEY ) that proves DAMNING to me.
The ENTIRE BUNDLE of these viewpoints - assigned to the SPACE/TIME dynamic where one can WATCH how the people are impacted in their UPLIFT - as these theories are adopted OVER TIME - that compels me to make my assessment that CERTAIN BUNDLES OF BELIEFS - while successful at BUILDING LARGE CROWDS - is NOT synonymous with DEVELOPING A PEOPLE.


The power to compel the people to adopt a spirit of "DENIAL OF SELF" is FAR MORE POWERFUL of an agent of development than the spirit that promises them ALL FREE WILL to do as they damned will please.

CNu said...

The LEAST OF THESE, who need stability through structure - are harmed the most as "Gay Marriage" is a province of the elite.

You did say someone is harmed the most. I specified the harm. Whereupon you proceeded into a litany of pure-dee-pure crap having nothing to do with the question of extending the political economic franchise of marriage to currently disenfranchised parties.

Did the negroe conservative think tank distribute fresh, half-baked talking points to its membership this morning?

Cobb was off on some similarly half-baked nonsense about income inequality and I had to call him on his bullshit, as well. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/BWZR/~3/yiwqi5dWj7Y/inequality-and-the-celebrity-ratchet.html

Constructive_Feedback said...

[quote] as "Gay Marriage" is a province of the elite.[/quote]


Brother CNu - I will give you the benefit of the doubt in not ascribing malicious intent to your motivations.


Notice my quote above. Is the "Gay marriage" reference atomic?
OR is the SUBJECT "The ELITE"?


I added this reference to "The Elite" after reading a very convincing piece last week which pointed out that BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT minions are being manipulated by THE ELITE.


My post CLEARLY stated that "The Least Of These" (and the Black Community) is being actively harmed as their OVERLAY LEADERSHIP which purports to protect their interests are MERELY taking their grievances and packaging them into a larger scheme for POWER by running an "Establishment Power Repudiation Scheme" which has them focusing their congregation upon how OFFENSIVE the ENEMY is.


This is the very same scheme that I call out among the White Right-wing on "Stuff Black People Don't Like".


BOTH of them are FRAUDS.

CNu said...

So, are you trying to tell me that the elite is drumming up some artificial negativity, (2party/1ideology style) - and that the rubes are fully bought into it and playing the predictable divided and conquered roles preassigned to them?

Assuming that to be the case, doesn't the onus of the fraud fall squarely on the manipulated sector which is being artificially negative? IOW - aren't the people seeking to deny teh gay the marital franchise the primary agency through which the fraud is being perpetrated?

Just like, by analogy, the afrodemic sphere in higher-ed which keeps up a neverending public intellectual grievance campaign decades after full assignment of the franchise and civil rights under law, serves as a primary agency through with the fraud of perpetual racial grievance is being perpetrated?

CNu said...

First Principle: economics is an expression of political agendas that are hidden within known-false assumptions. If one accepts those false assumptions, then one accepts those hidden political agendas.

Constructive_Feedback said...

YOU ARE ARGUING MY POINT!!!

[quote]Assuming that to be the case, doesn't the onus of the fraud fall squarely on the manipulated sector which is being artificially negative?[/quote]



A good friend of mine told me the other day that my previous opposition to Noam Chomsky was misdirected as I told him that I agreed with Chomsky about how THE ELITE FROM BOTH SIDES are manipulating their respective minions.


I watched Chomsky's "Manufactured Consent" and I am open minded enough to LOOK PAST one's individual ideological biases in order to extract the CONSTRUCTS that they define for understanding "Power Relationships".


YOU ARE CORRECT when you talk about the "Onus Upon The Manipulated Masses".
I don't know how frequently you peek into my blog but the "AMERICANIZED NEGRO" reference is exactly that.


The Americanized Negro is first tricked into INVESTING the time that he should spend developing the "Governance Culture" within his community upon focusing upon the latest OFFENSE that the Right-Wing enemy has put forth, with the intention of distracting him.

Then the Post-Racial Progressive Fundamentalists comes along and offers the Americanized Negro PROTECTION from this threat and a CHANNEL for REVENGE..............as long as he DISARMS himself from Black community provincial goals and adopts wider PROGRESSIVE Fundamentalist goals.


This ONE-TWO sucker punch creates the "Manipulated Masses" that you speak of.


MARRIAGE, to me, is the SUBMISSION OF THE MALE AND THE WOMAN'S INDIVIDUAL WANTS AND NEEDS to the franchise of the INSTITUTION, through which their individual powers can be SYNERGIZED into something greater than its piece parts.


THUS FOR ME - I don't get TRICKED into having a debate on GAY MARRIAGE.
Instead I redirect the conversation to the BODY OF THOUGHTS that the people who bring this forth have.


A better debate is to force them to explain WHY, despite their expressed concern for 'The Least Of These' - they are so incompetent at setting forth a GOVERNANCE CULTURE that compels two individuals charged with incubating the NEXT GENERATION OF HUMAN BEINGS - to fuse their efforts into more stable, predictable means that have a FAR BETTER TRACK RECORD for success than "Making Sh#& Up As They Go Along" - as they are doing today.


THROW "CONSERVATIVISM" out of the window.
Lets talk about EFFECTIVE OUTCOMES!!


Or are you not yet tired of all of the RETAILERS and MARKETERS who are OBSERVING your community as it adopts such foolishness, as these outsiders position themselves to satisfy this INSATIABLE CONSUMER demand - strengthening their own position in the process?

Vic78 said...

I think after marriage equality, activists and scholars go in on gender norms. The goal's to redefine reality. It's been a long fight that's bearing fruit right now.