Culture Wars: Real and Fake
I have said before that I believe that the definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” are incoherent. It is not that they have no principles. It is that the principles they claim to have are often not principles at all. At the level of the specific things they claim to support (or oppose) the relationship to “liberal” or “conservative” is often contrived and arbitrary.
Here is an article written in the American Prospect about one such contrivance. The American Prospect has the phrase ”Liberal Intelligence” on its masthead. But this article is a critique of a developing conservative meme and is written by Brink Lindsey, a vice-president of the Cato Institute.
“America faces a new culture war,” declares Arthur Brooks, president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in the opening sentence of his new book The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America’s Future. “This is not the culture war of the 1990s. This is not a fight over guns, abortions, religion, or gays. … Rather, it is a struggle between two competing visions of America’s future. In one, America will continue to be a unique and exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism.”
Well put? Consistent? Coherent? Lindsey notes:
But Brooks’ book isn’t about policy; it’s about ideology and how to engage in politics. And it is, I’m sorry to say, a thoroughly wrongheaded way to approach these questions. The attempt to turn economic policy disputes into a populist cultural crusade rests on deep-seated confusion about the nature of those disputes and how best to effect constructive policy change. Brooks’ key move is to cast our “free enterprise system” as an instance of American exceptionalism — in contrast to the social democracy of Europe and other advanced nations. Thus, economic policy becomes fodder for cultural politics: Supporters of free markets are defending a unique and precious American heritage, while members of the “30 percent coalition” have thrown in with the foreigners — worst of all, with effete, decadent Europeans.
When we fight what we think are the culture wars we often do not ask what the underlying principle we are defending really is. Nor whether a political position in its entirety can really be derived from it. Nor what the struggle for power (for that is what a culture war is) does to our arguments as we try to frame our positions to greatest advantage. The late political theorist Alan Bloom said in The Closing of the American Mind that one of the curses of the modern age, if not the curse, was what he called “moral indignation.” He of course was referring to what he thought of as the modern (or post modern) left. But the mud sticks to everyone, doesn’t it?
I have often wondered why those who consider themselves “liberal” become annoyed and even infuriated at the idea of the culture war (or wars). What is there about the conflict of cultural values that unsettles them? I have observed this more than once in the Commonweal blog and I can’t get my mind around it, so unagidon, perhaps you could dish a little wisdom my (our?) way on this subject.
No one is annoyed by diversity. Being liberal is about tolerance. The conflict rests in the conservative’s inability to allow equality and thus begins the “war”. Yes, I did just mention diversity, liberalism, tolerance, and equality using little in between words, but that is what it’s all about brother, simple as that.
I don’t agree that the culture war is primarily a struggle for power, except in a tautological sense. That seems like a pretty jaded view. There’s a professor from BC, can’t remember his name, who shares the view that there’s not really much of a culture war going on. I know Fr. Neuhaus had a running argument with him.
As for why it always seems to be those on liberal side who do not believe there’s culture war, my own self-serving observation is that in chess it is usually the player who feels himself in a position of weakness who will offer the draw, or so I hear.
“When we fight what we think are the culture wars we often do not ask what the underlying principle we are defending really is. ”
Interesting. What elicitis this conclusion.
“I don’t agree that the culture war is primarily a struggle for power, except in a tautological sense. That seems like a pretty jaded view.”
Also interesting. It seems to me that legislative respones to the culture war (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and the like) is certainly all about power–the power to force others to follow a particular code of morality or face fines/jail time.
Of course, there are other ways to fight in the culture wars, by living an exemplary life and trying to help those who are in error. But that’s a lot harder.
Bob Schwartz: Liberals hate the idea of “culture wars” because we are passive-aggressive, thin-skinned panywaist crybabies who hate being wrong but almost always are. No, I don’t really believe that, but I know hearing that will brighten your day.
“It seems to me that legislative responses to the culture war (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia and the like) is certainly all about power–the power to force others to follow a particular code of morality or face fines/jail time.”
By that logic, wouldn’t we have to conclude that the movement to outlaw slavery, and the struggle for civil rights in the ’60s was, in the end, really just about power? In a purely jaded sense, perhaps, but it seems to me unhelpfully dismissive to frame the argument that way.
I believe there is such a thing as culture wars. I can see the parade ground bluster posturing pics are on the nightly cable news. I also recall that in the last real battle in that war, on Nov. 2008, the Libs/left won going away. I would also say that if the right is depending on these generals in the next real battle, Palin, Rush, Beck, Hannity Mc Connell Boehner …. I see no Robert E Lee coming up on their side. Good wishes though.
I think the profesor at BC is Fr. Massaro, SJ.
I do think there are at least imagined leberal conservative splits as when several associates in the past few weeks have refered to me as a lover of that socialist Obama.
My rwejoinder has been to link them to the coalition of the brainless.
Once labels get pealed away, there is sometimes the hope of intelligent discussion.
What’s hard is to get past the easy labels.
I believe the term culture wars has various meanings. Those who invoke it on the right use it as a cri de guerre to rally whatever base needs shaking. On the left however it is used as a term of derision for the way those on the right try to rally their bases.
There’s a lot going on in this post. What struck me in re-reading it was the serious & lucid critique that economic paradigms are too often equated with ideology. That is to say, we should not let ourselves fall into a pattern of thinking free market = always/never good. Or, more specifically, we should avoid the temptation to say that to be American is to be a free-market enthusiast, and this is inherently a better thing to be than a socialist or a European.
That seems to me a different issue than whether or not we’re aware of the principles that gird our world-views, or whether the terms we use to describe those world views are coherent & consistent, both of which are interesting issues in their own right & worth contemplating.
It’s worth noting that neither economics nor politico-cultural perspective is free from assumptions of first principles. Laissez-faire capitalism assumes a modus operandi for the world that is not entirely consistent with reality (as does much heterodox economic thinking).
I might be reading too much into a short quotation, but Lindsey seems also to be saying that the policy choices you make to deal with, say, long-term budget deficits, should be based on the best available evidence. This would explain why most mainstream economists supported the initial stimulus package. The evidence from history suggested that we needed to “prime the pump.” Now, when the situation is both different and uncertain, there is more divergence of views because there is evidence that different courses of action could improve the situation. The crux of Lindsey’s critique would say that politicians have coopted this discussion and turned it into a referendum of sorts on the American spirit.
Moby Dick’s answer seems kind of murky (about why liberals get annoyed at the very idea of culture wars. Its not about who’s winning and who’s losing, its about the very existance of the war that, as I have observed, irritates liberals (and a few conservatives aqs it happens. That Jean Raber takes that as an implied dig at liberals is very interesting, but what does it mean? After all, there is nothing shameful about being irritated; God knows I get irritated all the time. It seems that it’s not the substance of the war that’s the issue, but that that there’s a war at all. I don’t get it.
Casting the issue as “The Free Market versus European-Style Statism” seems like a way of fanning the embers of the anti-communist, red-hunting crusades of the past. It’s great for those nostalgic for the cold war certitudes and slogans.
“Being liberal is about tolerance.”
… and yet this ‘liberal’-incited event, much in the news, seems to encompass neither tolerance nor principle.
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2482876,071110uofi.article
“By that logic, wouldn’t we have to conclude that the movement to outlaw slavery, and the struggle for civil rights in the ’60s was, in the end, really just about power? In a purely jaded sense, perhaps, but it seems to me unhelpfully dismissive to frame the argument that way.”
Mark, I see what you mean, and that analogy helps me see your POV. But I don’t find anything inherently evil about power. It’s what power does that’s good or evil.
“. . . that socialist Obama.”
Bob Nunz –
Well, maybe that “transformational Marxist”. In an article in Standpoint, it is pointed out that the method of social change of Saul Alinsky (a “transformational Marxist”) was used in Obama’s presidential election with great success. But not to chortle with glee, you conservatives, the article points out that both the new conservative Prime Minister of England and the Tea Partyiers are expressly using Alinsky’s techniques to sway the public .
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/overrated-july-10-saul-alinsky-melanie-phillips
Alinksky, a social reformer out of Chicago, was not your Leninist Marxist, however. He advocated, well, sneaky change. He was, by the way, one of Maritain’s closest friends. Hilary Clinton did her senior thesis on him.
“After all, there is nothing shameful about being irritated;”
Bob Schwartz –
According to Alinsky, the voters need to be led to the point of rage so they will take action (including voting a certain way), and there are a number of ways to get them into that state of mind. You can see the method working with the Tea Partiers.
It seems to me that if the liberals *can’t* get angry (too reasonable? too pro-peace? too non-violent?) they’ll not get the votes they need to maintain their majority in Congress.
About the “free enterprise v. socialism” slogan, according to Alinsky, simple slogans have to be part of the process.
Jim Pau1wels –
That Illinois case is about academic freedom, not simply free speech. The theory of the university (see AAUP and Newman) is that all sides of an issue *must* be taught AND a professor has the right, even duty to advocate a view, that is, to say that it is his/her own view and why. (I’m not so sure Newman was too big on the latter point, but it is there. See his “Idea of a University”.)
Academic freedom is, of course, one of the things that the academic “elite” hold most dear and the Tea Partier, et al, simply don’t get, so far as I can see. Many conservatives blame our educational system for the fixes we’re in, and aim their biggest rocks at tenure. They seem to have no conception that education is not just job training but it includes understanding all sides of issues, as least the important sides, and that teachers need to have academic freedom to protect the students right to hear all sides.
What some liberals don’t seem to see it that academic freedom requires *both* competence and teaching both sides *fairly*. Too often teachers in grammar and high schools aren’t competent, while many teachers in colleges don’t seem to understand that academic freedom *requires* teaching both sides fairly.
Oops — sorry, should be “Pauwels”.
Having gone to the link Jim provided above, it would appear Mr. Dick has been cut down to size.
I think it’s a stretch to say Howell’s lectures are “hate speech.” Explaining why a denomination teaches that someing is immoral and that you agree with that teaching as an adherent of that denomination, is hardly the same as, say, calling for the death of homosexuals like the Ugandan evangelical minister who supported the death penalty for homosexuality (but now only supports life in prison). Or, closer to home, the fine Christian folks at http://www.godhatesfags.com/
I’m not really sure when it became mandatory for professors to simply impart information in the most sterile manner possible, but I regularly get notes on my first day assignments, where I ask students to tell me about their hopes and fears for the course, that a) they aren’t interested in my political or religious viewpoints, b) they only want to know what’s relevant to passing the course, and, c) if at all possible, they would like to be able to leave class early b/c of their work or happy hour schedules.
What a shame.
I learned about Samuel Johnson from a liberal Episcopalian who believed that similarities between his and Johnson’s life gave him some sort of cosmic link with the author.
I learned about early American lit from an ex-Marine who thought draft dodgers were traitors to their country and that Natty Bumppo was the ideal American hero.
I learned Shakespeare from an evangelical Mason who believed Shakespeare was deeply committed to the Protestant Reformation, and wrote his plays specifically to further its cause.
I learned Victorian lit from a prof who provided a number of side notes about 19th century pornography in which spanking figured prominently.
I learned Greek drama from a conservative Presbyterian who regularly went off on side rants about the immorality of co-habitation (which might have been seen as hate speech by today’s standards by more than half the class at the time).
The side rants and spin the professors provided was always entertaining and part of the experience. The human vessels who pour forth their knowledge for us are hardly pure or pristine. Thank heavens!
Many liberals hate the idea of a culture war because they see it (rightly, in my opinion) as a scare mongering tactic by one side to gain votes by playing up a division and a threat that isn’t really there. The “Culture Wars” are about conservative strategists trying to convince the Republican base that people who are in favor of celebrating faithful gay relationships are trying to destroy heterosexual marriage, for example.
Well Mark, you at least got to the approximate location of my question. I believe you are wrong about “…a division and a threat that isn’t really there.”, but you have partially validated a hypothesis I have been considering, by independently stating part of t6hat hypothesis. Well said.
Mark –
Do you know just why some conservatives think that homosexual marriages will weaken or destroy heterosexual ones? JP II used to say the same thing. But I have never ever seen a *reason* given why this would happen. This is a bit off topic, but I’m still waiting for somebody to give a reason.
Ann–
I really do think there’s a lot of scare mongering going on. Now, scare mongering doesn’t work unless some people are actually scared, and it’s possible that JPII was a man more mongered against than mongering, but I don’t believe there is any reason that stands the basic tests of reason and charity.
Ann Olivier, just reading the Vatican’s “Considerations” on that topic, parrotted by bishops worldwide, I am amazed at the lack of any single reason. Just the same point repeated over and over again (along with scaremongering sideswipes at adoption and artificial insemination, as if to reinforce the nonexistent central argument).
Jean Raber wrote: “I’m not really sure when it became mandatory for professors to simply impart information in the most sterile manner possible, but I regularly get notes on my first day assignments, where I ask students to tell me about their hopes and fears for the course, that a) they aren’t interested in my political or religious viewpoints, b) they only want to know what’s relevant to passing the course, and, c) if at all possible, they would like to be able to leave class early b/c of their work or happy hour schedules.”
This is chilling (point (a)), and it suggests that any expression of opinion will be used against a prof. No one likes opiniated writing, but the aseptic nature of American lit crit journals has made them unreadable for a long time.
Is it Culture Wars or Moral Wars? Both sides claim the moral high ground — one side thinking guns and nukes and capital punishment are hunky-dory — the other side applauding the bishops’ bugbear abortionsamesexmarriage. Both sides come down on a ton of bricks on pedophiles (unlike Europe, where R Polanski is being rather feted). Perhaps this moral conviction is what explains the unremitting ferocity. But why do people rev up moral rage? What is the point of it? One recalls Macaulay: “We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.”
“Both sides claim the moral high ground”
My point is that there aren’t really two sides here: the bifurcation is what the culture warriors are selling. Here’s another example: I grew up in the midwest. I have some affection for hunting culture. I like the idea of traditions passed lovingly on from generation to generation, and of being out in nature. I wish I’d had the coming of age experience of being declared old enough to have my first .22 rifle and later going out on my first hunting trip with the grown ups. But I’m also in favor of reasonable gun control laws. I don’t think I’m unique in this — think of all those liberal listeners to Garrison Keillor’s affectionate hunting monologues every fall. But the culture warriors have people believing that anybody who’s in favor of gun control is an urban sophisticate trying to destroy rural culture by taking all guns out of everyone’s hands. Listen to Rush and Glenn if you don’t think so.
Which brings me to your question:
“What is the point of it?”
It gets votes, especially in primaries where “energizing the base” is more important. And it sells advertising time on talk radio (which is dominated by conservatives, which is why the culture wars are most often — but not always — being sold by the right).
Mark, thanks for trying to explain where Bob is going. I’m not sure I still get what he’s talking about, but I see a difference between my sincere conservative friends with whom I am able to converse without outrage and the shills like Frank Luntz and Karl Rove who help deepen those divisions by cleverly manipulating language and symbolic issues. Luntz, for instance, coined the term “death tax” and “climate change.” Rove galvanized crackers down south with that phony issue about removing the stars and bars from the Georgia state flag.
Fr. O’Leary, I have never had a student who complained about my expressing points of view in class, and I think Our Young People are less interested in monitoring polit-speak from their profs than they are desirous of not to be hectored by Aging Hippies to have to think too much.
However, I have gone off on side track rants occasionally, most recently about the “Twilight” phenom (we were discussing in my advert class entertainment hype and its ability to shape public opinion and taste). I asked what kind of sorry pass we’d come to when women (some as aged as me!) are yearning after impossible hunka hunka burning undead demons over regular nice guys. This started quite a heated exchange among class members (I stood by watching with great interest), and apparently there are legions of college me out there who refuse to take their girlfriends to these movies.
I’m not sure “Twilight” is part of the Culture Wars, but I see manipulation of opinion by money-makers and power-brokers as something to be concerned, perhaps even outraged about.
Jean and Fr. O’Leary –
I said nothing whatsoever about aseptice teaching. I said that the obligation is to teach all important sides fairly and said that a teach has the right/duty to express his/her own opinion. You have read into my post what isn’t there. Two more examples of the demise of accurate reading skills.
“Aseptic”, that is, and “a teacher”.
“…many teachers in colleges don’t seem to understand that academic freedom *requires* teaching both sides fairly.”
Here, here. My sense is that far too many college professors believe they exist to be served rather than to serve…perhaps they’re in training for the episcopacy, or at least a segment of it?
Re: The uses of rage.
Howard Beale (Broadcast News) ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’ I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell – ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad!… You’ve got to say, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Then we’ll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it:
[screaming at the top of his lungs] “I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!”
Sorry, Freudian slip — the quote was from “Network.”
Antonio –
I only wish we could form a posse and gather beneath the Pope’s window over-looking St. Peter’s Square and chant in unison: WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!!!
But it wouldn’t do a damn bit of good. Unless the laity and lower clergy get official ways of forcing Rome to listen directly to us, it’s going to stay that way. The laity and lower clergy of the RCC are utterly voiceless and therefore powerless. We’re kind of like newts and roaches and worms, etc. We’re not even metaphorical sheep, and Rome aims to keep us that way.
I read about the UofI fracas, including the emails in question. The assertion of hate speech by the complainant seems off base and it’s not clear whether the University bought into it as a reason for his dismissal. However, in a class intended to teach about Catholic doctrine and moral reasoning, the email, as I read it, went over the line into advocacy, going from “This is the official Catholic view of reality” to “this IS reality”. It’s not ‘hate speech’ but it is bad teaching.
FYI: the last paragraph of the email sent by Professor Howell to his students states:
I know this doesn’t answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don’t arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality.
A newapaper article and pointers to the emails can be found at:
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2010-07-09/e-mail-prompted-complaint-over-ui-religion-class-instructor.html
@Ann Oliver, 9:50 p.m. (“Do you know just why some conservatives think that homosexual marriages will weaken or destroy heterosexual ones?”)
One predictable course of future legislation on marriage goes like this: Suppose homosexual marriage is, at some point, made legal nationwide. This means homosexual “spouses” would be entitled to the really big benefits of marriage. For example, consider the rule that a wife is allowed to receive her deceased husband’s Social Security pension if it is larger than her own would be. These benefits are to some extent based on an obsolescent model of marriage, in which the wife earns nothing and relies instead on her husband’s earnings to see her through an often long widowhood. To some extent, these benefits is already questionable, but they’re extremely popular, so nobody questions them in fact.
Once homosexual “spouses” are eligible for them, those benefits will become very big, obvious targets for budget-cutting. For one thing, they’re expensive, and for another, most people will not understand the distinction between getting a deceased “male partner’s” Social Security income and getting, for example, a deceased brother’s or buddy’s Social Security income. The propriety of the benefits will be called into question and a not-unlikely outcome will be that nobody will have them anymore.
The big losers then will be families that DO conform to the traditional structure, especially widows and children orphaned before they grow up. That’s what some conservatives are worried about.
Social Security pensions are big money. So is the benefit of being able to inherit property tax-free from somebody you’re married to. Marriage not just about culture; it’s money.
Felapton –
As a single person who might want to leave my assets to my brother tax-free, I can understand the fairness of one of those arguments. (In fact, as I view the whole issue, marriage is for the sake of the children, and where a couple — gay or hetero – is childless I see no reason why the spouses should have preferential tax privileges. But that’s another story.)
The arguments you present are not concerned with natural law, which theoretically is equally applicable in everywhere. The arguments are applicable only in countries with laws like ours. In other words, they are not about what Rome is telling us — that homosexual marriages are intrinsically evil, therefore, wrong everywhere.
But thanks for the arguments anyway. I think one of them makes some sense.
My question was: why would homosexual marriages weaken herterosexual marriages everywhere?
“Two more examples of the demise of accurate reading skills.”
Apologies to all. It’s over 90, we have no a/c, I’ve taken two tearful phone calls from my widowed mother who wants me to “do something” about her brother’s ill-advised reverse mortgage, Raber is trying to explain Flannery O’Connor to me, and my kid is playing some kind of disorienting jazz tune on his damn trombone, so this is clearly not the day for me to be on here trying to follow a high-brow conversation.
“However, in a class intended to teach about Catholic doctrine and moral reasoning, the email, as I read it, went over the line into advocacy, going from “This is the official Catholic view of reality” to “this IS reality”
Antonio –
Academic freedom itself *guarantees* a professor’s right to advocate. The reasons for this are often not well-known.
Let’s start with tenure. The reason tenure takes so long to get, 7 years in most cases, is so that tenured faculty (who have already been established as competent, at least theoretically) can itself judge whether or not a new teacher is in fact competent to teach his/her field. Competence is the key to it all. Even the Ph.D., (which is theoretically supposed to guarantee competence in a particular field) is not enough to automatically justify tenure. Further, it is the tenured members of a department who vote on whether or not the new person is competent, though these days deans often arrogate that right to themselves, which they can do legally, even when they are not competent in the relevant field.
Competence is the key. The theory does NOT provide the teacher a right to advocate in a field other than his/her own. Thus an English teacher cannot claim competence in political science then tell his students how they ought to vote. Not in class, anway. Young teachers sometimes don’t realize this, but they are usually disabused of this notion eventually when, for instance, the political scientists jump all over them.
The theory of the university (this traditional one, anyway) is that truth is found by *the community* of scholars with individual professors presenting the truth as best they see it, and the other professors criticizing their thinking and coming up with new ideas and opinions. Since there is a mutuality of criticism, the truth is more likely to emerge than if some one person or group is allowed to define what the truth is. (This theory actually goes all the way back to Abelard, but, as you might imagine, he eventually got into dreadful trouble with Rome).
The theory was later reaffirmed by Newman, and last I heard the basic theory was the official theory of the AAUP, the American Association of University Professors. Some of AAUP’s principles and rules about these things are often made part of university teachers’ contracts.
The essential principles behind the theory are that no one knows everything and that many, even most, people resist changing ideas even in the face of evidence. In order to protect the right of the community to new and/or unpopular ideas, tenure is needed to protect the new/upopular ideas and opinions of teachers who have minority views. The tenure guarantee is *not* for the sake of the teachers but for the sake of the new/unpopular ideas and opinions which turn out to be true, even importantly true. Actually, it is sometimes the *old* ideas that need protection, but this doesn’t happen as often.
True, this also guarantees that the false is protected. But that is the cost of guaranteeing the expression of unpopular views. The mutual criticism by opposing professors is most likely, the theory goes, to eventually produce truth or at least a better approximation of it.
As to the Florida case, the teacher has a right to advocate his opinion on condition that he *also* presents the arguments on the other side fairly. If he doesn’t, then he can be fired. But if he presents both sides, the students have gotten their money’s worth. That some of them might be made angry hearing a view that conflicts with their own or what their liberal parents taught them, well, that’s OK. That’s one of the things college is for: to hear all sides, to re-think important issues, and to change your mind — or not — if evidence warrants it.
Either the Gallileos of this world will be assured a hearing, or truth will be stifled.
Trombone??? Jazz???? Dear Jean, this must be maddening indeed.
(Not that trombones don’t do Jazz. But all by themselves? Ouch.)
Ann – Setting aside for the moment your question about how gay marriage would effect traditional marriage, why should we change the definition of marriage so as to suit such a small portion of society?
All the cultures of the wrold have, for more than several thousand years, held that marriage is between and man and a woman. They have held this notion partly because ultimately, as the familiy goes, so goes society and accordingly they found that traditional marriage (i.e. between a man and woman) is the social arrangement that best serves the interests of families and society.
I amazed by those who seem to think that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman is wrong simply because so many cultures have held this view for so many thousands of years; that now is the time to abandon all that.
What makes you think we ought to simply abandon such a bit of wisdom like this that has been handed down to us through the ages?
Also Ann; in general – of course we all know about exceptions, but in general – traditional marriage mostly likely results in children who are subsequently rasied in a family.
And so how wise is it then, to more or less officially separate the instiutution of marriage from the idea of procreation?
“Once homosexual “spouses” are eligible for them, those benefits will become very big, obvious targets for budget-cutting. For one thing, they’re expensive, and for another, most people will not understand the distinction between getting a deceased “male partner’s” Social Security income and getting, for example, a deceased brother’s or buddy’s Social Security income. The propriety of the benefits will be called into question and a not-unlikely outcome will be that nobody will have them anymore.”
So you think the few should be denied in the odd chance that the many will lose out because benefits are EXPENSIVE? And what exactly IS the difference between a “deceased partner’s” SS benefits and those from a brother or a “buddy?” In fact, what is the difference between a deceased partner and (gasp — here it comes) a deceased heterosexual spouse?
Either treat our partners/spouses fairly — or eliminate these benefits for ALL spouses.
The last time I looked, no “traditional” marriages are required to agree to birth and raise children prior to entering into matrimony (marriage should be a secular thing; matrimony a religious thing). If they don’t then do they have grounds for annulment? How about enforced dissolution within X number of years?
These arguments have really become tiresome. They represent religious hegemony over SECULAR benefits, provided by ALL taxpayers, not just religious ones.
Ann: I only wish we could form a posse and gather beneath the Pope’s window over-looking St. Peter’s Square and chant in unison: WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!!!
Well, I should have made my tongue-in-cheek intent clearer. In “The Machiavellians”, James Burnham pointed out that after being used by the elite to attain power, the ‘mob’ is quickly crushed or discarded. In my opinion, the AEI’s attempt to incite a culture war is aimed at achieving a similar end, destined to culminate in a two-bit version of “the night of long knives”.
7-14-10
“why should we change the definition of marriage so as to suit such a small portion of society?
All the cultures of the wrold have, for more than several thousand years, held that marriage is between and man and a woman. They have held this notion partly because ultimately, as the familiy goes, so goes society and accordingly they found that traditional marriage (i.e. between a man and woman) is the social arrangement that best serves the interests of families and society’
Ken –
I think you’re confusing a semantic problem and a real problem First, “marriage” is only one English word with many meanings in the U.S. today. Although all cultures have some form of union of male and female (with words which express those diverse arrangements), their views of such unions are not the same. In some, there may be one man with many wives, and in so-called civilized Rome the female and their children were considered the property of the male and could be killed at his whim. In ancient Greece a man could have a wife and a boyfriend besides, etc., etc., etc.
So it seems humanity is still learning what is truly best for all involved.
As to homosexual unions, it seems to me that marriage in our sense is primarily for the sake of the children, so the question becomes: are homosexual parents good for children? In my opinion the evidence isn’t all in yet. There have simply been too few cases to justify generalizing yet. We do know that one parent is very bad for children, though obviously better than nothing. The question is: are two of the same sex also bad for the children? So far I haven’t seen any negative reports.
It also seems to me that the semantic issues in this problem are more important than usual. The word “marriage” in this culture, and many others, has attached to it a lot of values and rights, e.g., honor is due to married people for taking on the responsibility of parenthood, plus they get tax breaks for having kids. Gay parents would also like the honors and rights that go with parenting, and who can blame them. I also think it is important that should it be established that such unions are as good for kids as hetero ones that the kids can say their parents are married. In this culture, saying somebody’s parents are unmarried is usually a put-down (together with the related word “bastard”), so the kids *need* to be able to say, “My parents are responsible people”, i.e., “My parents are married”. This might sound like an irrational attachment to words, but verbal sticks and stones can break emotional bones no less for children than adults.
Sorry to go on at such length, but complexity, complexity, complexity.
Ann: Academic freedom itself *guarantees* a professor’s right to advocate. The reasons for this are often not well-known.
I agree, but asserting that the Natural Law claims on which Catholic dogma is based are absolute truths is preaching instead of teaching and therefore bad pedagogy. That said, unless I missed something, it’s not clear whether or not U of I bought into the hate speech charge per se.
“All the cultures of the world have, for more than several thousand years, held that marriage is between and man and a woman. What makes you think we ought to simply abandon such a bit of wisdom like this that has been handed down to us through the ages?”
All the cultures of the world have, for more than several thousand years, held that witches exist. And yet, through all those several thousand years, no evidence of one single witch’s existence was found in any of those world-encompassing cultures.
The Maiores should get a vote. But they should not get 51% of the vote.
Insert [snip] between “woman.” and “What” above. I edited the previous post, but the HTML parser took out my edit-indication.
Ann – Again, I realize not every culture down through the centuries has held the exact same view of marriage and yes, ancient Rome was cruel and ancient Greece was, well ancient Greece.
I simply maintain that no culture in history has sanctioned same-sex marriage. All cultures have found that some form of formal marriage between a man and a woman (or as you mention, in some cultures one man and several women) is the better way to meet the needs of the individuals involved, the children, and society at large.
Your point about whether or not same-sex ‘parents” are as good for kids as traditionally married couples is important, but I would caution against social experiments like this.
We Catholics have already experimented with gay men taking vows of celibacy, to bad results.
Now some suggest we experiment with gay couples raising children. While such experimentations might be interesting (emphasize might) it hardly seems fair to the kids involved.
All cultures have found that some form of formal marriage between a man and a woman (or as you mention, in some cultures one man and several women) is the better way to meet the needs of the individuals involved, the children, and society at large.
Not so. From “A History of Same-Sex Marriage”, a paper by William Eskridge Jr. published in the Virginia Law Revue (http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1073379.pdf )
W’E'WHwa As a key cultural and politicall leader in the Zuni community in the late nineteenth century, at one point serving as an emissary from that southwestern Native American nation to Washington, D.C. He was the strongest, wisest, and most esteemed
member of his community. And he was a berdache, a male who dressed in female garb. Such men were revered in Zuni circles for their supposed connection to the supernatural, the most gifted of them called lhamana, spiritual leader. We’wha was the most celebrated
Zuni lhamana of the nineteenth century. He was married to a man.
Ifeyinwa Olinke lived in the nineteenth century as well. She was a wealthy woman of the Igbo tribe, situated in what is now Eastern Nigeria. She was an industrious woman in a community where most of the entrepreneurial opportunities were seized by women, who
thereby came to control much of the Igbo tribe’s wealth. Ifeyinwa socially overshadowed her less prosperous male husband. As a sign of her prosperity and social standing, Ifeyinwa herself became a female husband to other women. Her epithet “Olinke” referred to the fact that she had nine wives.
Ken –
I’m not an anthropologist, so I really can’t generalize about the possibility of other cultures having gay parents, though I would be very surprised if in at least some of them there weren’t lesbian parents, e.g., when the male population of a group was decimated by war. But that is pure speculation.
At any rate, given the way there has been more and more approval in the U. S. of such unions, I’ll be very much surprised if we do not become an exception to your generalization.
As to what is best for children, given what I know of my homosexual friends, and given the huge numbers of orphans in this sad world, I cannot help but think that any orphan adopted by any of my friends would be immeasurably better off than in an orphanage or starving and neglected in some slum.
I do suspect that having a parent of each kind is probably — on average — better than having two of one. Evolution seems to have found it best that way. But since heterosexuals are allowed to be less than ideal parents, why shouldn’t homosexual ones also be allowed to be less than ideal?
Antonio –
I agree preaching is usually bad pedagogy, if by preaching you mean urging people to do or believe something without evidence. But emotional appeals shouldn’t always be ruled out — if, for instance, a Jew attempted to convince some exceptionally ignorant students that, contrary to what they had been taught, there really was a Holocaust and he appealed to his own experiences as a prisoner to convince them, I think that would probably be highly effective teaching.
As to “hate speech” generally, I think it’s a mistake to have laws against it unless the speech is explicitly an incitement to break laws. Such strictures only force the offenders to go underground. Better for the rest of us to defend the maligned. However, hate speech in the work-place might be a different matter. I probably need to do some more thinking about the issue.
“Jean and Fr. O’Leary – I said nothing whatsoever about aseptic teaching. I said that the obligation is to teach all important sides fairly and said that a teacher has the right/duty to express his/her own opinion. You have read into my post what isn’t there. Two more examples of the demise of accurate reading skills.”
Hmm, my comment was on Jean Raber’s post, and made no reference to any post of Ann Olivier’s. Nor did Jean Raber’s comment on “sterile” teaching refer to a previous post; it was a direct comment on the Howell affair.
Fr. O’Leary —
It seems that I misread your post, and I’m the one whose reading skills need improvement. I apologize.
It’s really hard to keep track of things in this combox format — let’s hope the medium will develop in a more discussion-friendly fashion some day.
Antonio – The exceptions you mention can hardly be used to say that same-sex marriage should be normalized. Also, the societies you cite cannot be considered to be very successful, certainly not something we should try to emulate.
And so removing the odd exceptions (one can find exceptions to every rule), one can safely say that 99 percent of all cultures throught history have found that some form of formal marriage between a man and a woman (or as Ann mentioned, in some cultures one man and several women) is the better way to meet the needs of the individuals involved, the children, and society at large.
As for some peoples willingness to run the social experiment of placing children under the charge of gay couples, I would again say that due to the risk involved (for the children), I do not think that sort of social experimentation is wise – at all. It seems these folks are too willing to risk (i.e. play with) the lives of these children, just so the small percentage of gay couples we have in our society can feel good.
And Ann – why do you think we should become as you say “an exception” to the history of civilized societies?
“It seems these folks are too willing to risk (i.e. play with) the lives of these children, just so the small percentage of gay couples we have in our society can feel good.”
Ken –
You obviously don’t know any generous, honorable, loving, intelligent, etc., etc., etc. gay people. If I were a widow about to die and I had children there are gay people I would ask to rear my children over many straight ones I have known. In fact, I wonder how many gay people you have even known, good or bad.
‘And Ann – why do you think we should become as you say “an exception” to the history of civilized societies?”
I didn’t say we *should* become an exception. I said it looks like we’re headed that way. In fact, I said that in my opinion the jury is still out on the issue. Please read what I say more carefully. You got it exactly wrong.
And so removing the odd exceptions (one can find exceptions to every rule), one can safely say that 99 percent of all cultures throught history have found that some form of formal marriage between a man and a woman (or as Ann mentioned, in some cultures one man and several women) is the better way to meet the needs of the individuals involved, the children, and society at large.
‘The better way’? 99% of all cultures throughout history? — please cite the basis for such certitude.
“We Catholics have already experimented with gay men taking vows of celibacy, to bad results.”
Ken – that is a disgusting statement! You owe all good faithful priests who happen to be gay an apology.
Antonio, consider that Card. Luciani (John Paul I) disagrees with you about gay adoption:
“He permitted the adoption of children from orphanages in his diocese by homosexual couples, reasoning in a letter to a colleague “that we have found that homosexuals will take handicapped and less than healthy and attractive children. Most importantly they will take bastards.” It was his lobbying in the Italian Parliament that made it legal for single persons to adopt children in Italy, directly accepting that this would include homosexuals. In a letter to his mother he bemoaned that “There is something terribly wrong with a society that thinks one’s sex is what makes one a good parent”.”
I’ve just been looking at Archbishop Joseph Kurtz on You-tube, who claims that God gave marriage with its specific structure and finality from the beginning, and that only a man and a woman can accomplish the total mutual selfgiving this entails. What a refreshing antidote to this is offered by Ann Olivier: “So it seems humanity is still learning what is truly best for all involved.”
On the cultural variability of marriage, consider also polyandry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet
Gay marriage is not such a revolutionary innovation — see John Boswell’s book on same-sex partnership ceremonies in the Christian West.
The president of Argentina gave an astonishing speech on the eve of the passing of the new law, telling the bishops not to drag her country back to the days of the inquisition and the crusades.
Jimmy Mac wrote (5:41 p.m. on Bastille Day)
“So you think the few should be denied in the odd chance that the many will lose out because benefits are EXPENSIVE? And what exactly IS the difference between a “deceased partner’s” SS benefits and those from a brother or a “buddy?” In fact, what is the difference between a deceased partner and (gasp — here it comes) a deceased heterosexual spouse?”
It is the nature of woman to make sacrifices for her children. Accordingly, many women abandon or reduce participation in professional life when their children are young. Men almost never do. It is the nature of woman never to abandon her children. Accordingly, one way or another, the woman almost always ends up in custody of the children after a divorce. The man, only rarely.
Marriage, as defined operationally by the laws of most modern American states, takes this complementarity into account by providing certain protections for the wife. This is because a woman who marries a man and has children with him places herself in a uniquely vulnerable position. This is generally not true of a woman in a relationship with a woman or a man with a man. Those benefits, designed to protect the woman, take the form of taxpayer money. The right to inherit tax-free is one. The right to inherit one’s spouse’s Social Security income is another. Alimony is another.
It appears to be the nature of American men to be generous on this point. As long as their money goes to women and children, they do not mind too much. As soon as they see it going to other men, and particularly to men who are already in possession of more wordly wealth than they have themselves, most will refuse. These protections will be removed from marriage.
Jimmy, you don’t really need those benefits and thousands of widows, divorcees and their children need them desperately. To you, this debate is about respectability, equality and acceptance. For them, it’s about rent, gas and blankets. You should stop quibbling about legalistic definitions and do the just, humane, Christian thing: let the Tighty-Righties win this one.
Ann – I stand corrected; in fact you did not say we “should” do this.
On the other hand, contrary to your inference, I did not say there are no responsible, trustworthy gay couples. Surely you can see that the fact that you know some decent people who happen to be gay cannot suffice to say that such a social experiment would be justified.
Antonio – You are asking for proof that most societies throughout history have held that marriage should be between heterosexual people. Please stop being obtuse and look around. Just look at the history of the many cultures and societies of the world for the last 8 thousand years or so. The few exceptions you cite will be greatly outnumbered by the norm to which I refer.
And no Jimmy, I do not owe an apology to anyone regarding this discusson.
The fact of the matter is that, ordaining gay men turned out to be a bad idea, and it is good that we try to no longer do that.
“Surely you can see that the fact that you know some decent people who happen to be gay cannot suffice to say that such a social experiment would be justified.”
Ken –
If that were all I knew, then I surely would say we should experiment. On the face of it, not to treat decent loving gay people the same way is inequitable.
Ya gotta start seeing the complexity of this world, Kenneth. Have you read that Boston Globe article about the way people typically resist truth that contradicts our cherished beliefs?
Ken – gay men have been ordained since ordination started. And it wasn’t an “experiement,” either. It was and remains a fact of Catholic life. I’ll let you in on a little secret: gay men are being ordained today, albeit those deeply in the closet who will live out their lives of fear in this Catholic version of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
And yes you DO owe those good priests who happen to be gay an apology for besmirching their voications with your broad, general, misguided, unCatholic statement. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Antonio – You are asking for proof that most societies throughout history have held that marriage should be between heterosexual people. Please stop being obtuse and look around. Just look at the history of the many cultures and societies of the world for the last 8 thousand years or so. The few exceptions you cite will be greatly outnumbered by the norm to which I refer.
Let me try this again. I am asking that you provide the source for your claims other than your own unsubstantiated opinion. Given your apparently complete knowlege of all the cultures and societies that have existed for ‘the past 8000 years or so’, that ought to be easy. And while you’re at it, you might also provide the basis your sweeping claim that each of these cultures and societies conformed to your ideas about what was ‘best for the child’.
“As soon as they see it going to other men, and particularly to men who are already in possession of more wordly wealth than they have themselves, most will refuse. These protections will be removed from marriage.
Jimmy, you don’t really need those benefits and thousands of widows, divorcees and their children need them desperately.”
Felapton: Unsupportable, unprovable assumptions about who has what and who needs what. Need is an individual case, not a categorical one. And, no, I will NOT let the T-R win this one so long as I have a say in the matter.
Either be fair to all parties, or to none.
Jimmy Mac –
Do you think that married folk with or without children should be given tax breaks? Why or why not? As a single, childless person I don’t see why *anybody* without children deserves such breaks.
Antonio, consider that Card. Luciani (John Paul I) disagrees with you about gay adoption:
Fr O’Leary — For the record, I’m in agreement with Card, Luciani. I’m not sure how I gave the opposite impression.
Oh well, once the Vatican says gay marriage and gay couples adopting children are Ok, then I will be on-board with it.
I grant that it is a difficult subject and that emotions run high sometimes.
Thanks for the good discussion and for your time – hope everyone enjoys the weekend.
Good for you for opening up your mind a crack, Ken :-) You have a good week-end too.
Ann – I already posted a response, but it doesn’t show now.
No, I don’t married people should be given tax breaks unless there is a comparable but not necessarily similar opportunity for single people to get tax breaks.
I also don’t support tax deductions for mortgage interest or charitable contributions.
Mortgage deductions are paid for by people who don’t have the opportunity (or choose not to) to have a mortgage. NOTE: mortgage holders in the UK and Canada cannot deduct mortgage interest and — believe it or not — they do buy houses in those countries.
Charitable deductions are paid for by people who, for whatever reason(s) don’t/can’t make charitable contributions. Why should they fund these?
I don’t know how I got that impression either — apologies.