Johanan Raatz on May 05, 2008 at 09:38 AM:

Um actually gay marriage does and has undermined marriage. It did so in Scandinavia. We should learn from a failed experiment not do try the same experiment here.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Marriage needs to be kept special. If it is defined as just anything it will lose its credibility and will appear to be capricious. Then societal benefits that emerge from it will vanish. The cultural mystique around marriage must be maintained in order for the institution to continue doing what it is doing. If you lose that you break the spell and the system collapses:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/939pxiqa.asp?pg=2

This can be backed up by the experiment in Scandinavia (and much of Western Europe as well):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

In only America and Israel where the marriage spell has continued to hold some of its grip for cultural reasons has the replacment rate been sustainable. Unless we want to break the power of marriage to maintain healthy replacement levels we should try to maintain the spell not change its formula.

Joshua McCracken on May 05, 2008 at 11:00 AM:

Ahhhh Johanan... For someone who loves to wax poetic about how much better the U.S. is than any other nation on earth, you sure are eager to apply the problems of a country half a world away to us. Marriage is a legal contract these days, which is why the Church and any all reasons against gay marriage that have a basis in religion have absolutely NO place in this discussion. We are not a theocracy, regardless of how much Pat Robertson wishes that we were. "Just anything"? Is that what you said? So I suppose that two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender have absolutely no right to the legal protections that marriage offers because they fall outside of the realm of socially acceptable love? Please, that's a load of you-know-what and you know it. The basis for the argument against gay marriage is simple prejudice. Let me ask you this, on your wedding day, would you like it if someone in the congregation sprang up and objected because maybe your wife has an extra finger? Or possibly is a little obese? Nope, it's none of their business, what matters is how you feel about this person, and the same reasoning can be applied to two men or two women marrying. The cultural mystique? Try this on for size, our divorce rate is one of the highest in the world, there is no mystery or romance surrounding marriage for about 70% of people in this country. It is something that people do because a.) someone was knocked up, b.) money, c.) citizenship, and in those rare cases, d.) where two RESPONSIBLE adults think that they are capable of lasting for the long haul as a couple and would like the benefits of it. The system collapses? You sound like Pat Robertson, I suppose that Nazis on dinosaurs will take over if gay marriage is legalized? Get off of it man, you're all pizza and fairy tales. Until you, personally, are hurt by gay marriage, your basis for objection can only be grounded in simple prejudice. Maintain the spell you say? Your wording keeps reinforcing the belief that I've had of marriage for years: that it is only an illusion. Ozzie and Harriet have been in the grave for years, they're not in charge anymore,and the rules are different now. We are now very far behind the rest of the world in terms of every socially progressive way imaginable: health care, social justice, your everyday run of the mill justice, our uptight prudery regarding anything sexual, you name it. It's about time we stop acting like timid little Protestants and face up to the fact that the world is different now, and instead of fighting the future we should try to help shape it to make it better for everyone, not just the people who look at two men kissing and go 'EWWWWWW! GROSS! YUCKY!!!'

Chris Walker on May 05, 2008 at 11:00 AM:

Johanan,

I respect your disagreement, and applaud your use of sources in your arguments. However, you cannot blame the increasing rate of couples having children before marriage on gay marriage; the idea is laughable since gay couples in no way restrict straight couples from marrying.

What's more, in America, nearly two out of every five children are born out of wedlock. What can we blame that on? Certainly it is not gay marriage's fault since only one state recognizes the practice and a handful of others have civil unions, with most states banning either or both practices outright.

The increase in out-of-wedlock children is not due to the increase of gay marriages; it's not like there are a certain amount of marriages allowed per year, and since many European homosexuals are now marrying, straight couples cannot. Other societal factors are at work here.

If the institution of marriage is in danger, it is not due to homosexual marriages (which would actually HELP it, wouldn't it? more people getting married, right?). Straight couples would have the same rights they always enjoyed if gay marriage was allowed; their choice to wed or not to wed before their children are born is not affected by two guys or two gals deciding to marry.

"Marriage needs to be kept special. If it is defined as just anything it will lose its credibility and will appear to be capricious."

I agree with you here; I think our definitions of what "special" is, however, are different. Marriage should be a union of two people in love who want to spend the rest of their lives together, in both emotional and civil ways. With gay marriage, this "specialness" doesn't change...the couples remain together emotionally (their love) and bond together in a civil way (the legal benefits of marriage).

In addition, your wikipedia article about Sub-replacement fertility does not place the blame on homosexual marriages but rather on the "growth of wealth and human development" in the world. The word "gay" doesn't even appear in the article, and "marriage" appears only once. I understand that you're trying to make the connection that gay marriages in areas with low fertility rates only compounds the problem; what I'm saying is that gay marriage had nothing to do with the low fertility to begin with -- so why place the blame on it after the fact? If you want to combat low fertility, you have to combat the source of the problem.

Furthermore, it's not as though gay couples, due to gay marriage being banned, are suddenly going to "turn straight" -- they will remain gay even if the institutional benefits aren't granted to them! This really complicates your argument, that banning gay marriage will help foster an increase in fertility rates -- how can it if these couples would remain gay anyway?

Johanan Raatz on May 05, 2008 at 02:05 PM:

Ok Chris you make some nice points, but let me break through my Straussian esotericism for a second and explain this in more detail:

Let me explain what marriage "really" is:

Civil marriage is a social structure that is designed to be a social system that maintains a replacement level population.

Legal marriage is essentially a contract with the state to produce more future citizens for society in a sociobiologically ideal environment. This is necessary for the state to help maintain a healthy population of humans.

On this note I don't have a problem with domestic partnerships. Homosexuals should be allowed to contract with each other just like any other citizens. But having a marital contract with the state for marital benefits would be akin to paying a farmer for not raising pigs. It's economically counterproductive.

"I agree with you here; I think our definitions of what "special" is, however, are different."

Yes it is:

Now the reason I gave doesn't seem like a compeling reason for people to get married. (to produce future citizens for society) People get married out of love (hence the argument for gay marriage) however that is not the real reason to maintain marriage as an institution in society. The real reason however is likely to make people think of marriage as not as important (and thus drive of divorce rates and so forth).

So love is part of the equation but when people stop loving they often divorce and that puts the kids in a peculiar situation. This produces many of the social problems that we see today.

Something additional is required. A good analogy to this would be a magic spell. You create a mystique around marriage and make people view it as something that is mysterious and sacred (akin to a religious feeling if you will). This puts a sort of spell on their minds that helps them cement there marriage and thus allows for a healthy upbringing for their children.

Now part of formula of this "spell" the critical theorists would define as "patriarchy." By undermining it they have undermined much of the power of the "magic."

No insofar as gay marriage is concerned this is but one of a great many assaults on "patriarchy." Each one undermines the social order a little more. In America as in Israel this hasn't been undermined nearly as much as it has in Western Europe. So no gay marriage will not in itself undermine marriage (which is already somewhat undermined) but it will be one more assault.

Now we have a replacement rate of 2.1 children per family in America. If we weaken the "spell" more by further diluting the "patriarchy" that you use in the formula we may go under the 2.1 replacement rate. Now 2.1 is the lowest healthy replacement rate you can have. As such it is in the interests of the state to prevent any more dilutions of the "patriarchal" ingredients to the "magic spell." If you want gay marriage then fine but I will have to then insist that something equally powerful to increase the power of the "patriarchy" be substituted in place of it.

I fear the Western Europeans have foolishly diluted the power of traditional components in marriage and social life to the point that now their populations are imploding because of it.

If you discover the reasons for legal marriage it is best that you keep them to yourself. If you noise it abroad then it will defeat the purpose.

Johanan Raatz on May 05, 2008 at 02:32 PM:

"Marriage is a legal contract these days,"

Yes it is. It is a legal contract with the state for the production of future citizens in a sociobiologically optimal environment (ie a nuclear family). As such I'm ok with domestic partnerships as they are contracts between two people. However giving couples that can't produce children or raise them in the optimal environment the same contract as those who can is very much akin to giving farmers subsidies for not raising crops.

"which is why the Church and any all reasons against gay marriage that have a basis in religion have absolutely NO place in this discussion."

Almost. That is almost true. There is however a non-religious reason to include religion in the discussion. Including religious imagery and language in the marriage debate one provides a more powerful reason for people to maintain healthy families. (I go a great deal into this in my response to Chris)

We are not a theocracy but I also believe that wise statesmen should achieve a proper balance between religion and other considerations to keep society maintained in the best possible condition.

"So I suppose that two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender have absolutely no right to the legal protections that marriage offers because they fall outside of the realm of socially acceptable love?"

They can have the first set of marital rights that correspond to rights that they contract between each other. However despite being in love they can not produce citizens in sociobiologically optimal conditions and as such it would be useless for the state to give them extra benefits from the state for something they can't do. Additionally doing so might help dissolve the mystique around marriage which is necessary to maintain the optimal societal attitudes toward marriage. (as per my response to Chris above)

"The cultural mystique? Try this on for size, our divorce rate is one of the highest in the world, there is no mystery or romance surrounding marriage for about 70% of people in this country."

Yes because the traditional mystique as been already diminished by the insufferable critical theorists of the 60's. However that is all the more reason for it not to dissolve any further.

"Your wording keeps reinforcing the belief that I've had of marriage for years: that it is only an illusion."

Yes. Now shut up about it before you wake up the masses by accident.

Well sort of. Marriage is special from a standpoint of evolutionary psychology but the average person isn't wise enough to understand that it should be respected for these reasons.

Responsible intellectuals should be careful not to unveil things that could risk undermining societal institutions.

"We are now very far behind the rest of the world in terms of every socially progressive way imaginable: health care, social justice, your everyday run of the mill justice, our uptight prudery regarding anything sexual, you name it."

LMAO. You need to read about Plato and the sophists. The sophists thought they were the forces of progress as well. My what fools they have turned out to be. REAL progressives (ie. Plato Aristotle and the like) understand what foolishness this all was.

"Social justice" is a misnomer designed to make socialism appear just. And our "sexual prudery" is helping us maintain a replacement rate far above those of Western Europe. Western Europe is often presented as far more enlightened than us. What they forget is that ever since they have undermined traditional morality there population base has been subsequently imploding. Many of there cultures will be extinct by the mid 21st century, and ours will continue if we resist the existentialist creep just a little longer. Face it, if you look at the vast majority of civilizations, religious systems, and cultures throughout history our species optimal social conditions would be considered to be anathema to most who consider themselves to be 'socially progressive.'

"It's about time we stop acting like timid little Protestants and face up to the fact that the world is different now,"

Well yes. That is why I am neoconservative. I believe that government must adapt to properly impose universal principles in an ever changing world.

"and instead of fighting the future we should try to help shape it to make it better for everyone,"

We ARE the future. Sociobiology indicates that for all of Western Europes supposed enlightment they like the dodo bird will pass into history due to there dangerously low birth rates. Darwin once point out that the fit survive even if "fit" doesn't fit into peoples conceptions of it. We should define "fit" and "progress" according to the standards of sociobiology not some silly idea of "social progress" as defined by some foolish leftist critical theorists.

Joshua McCracken on May 05, 2008 at 03:31 PM:

There is little to nothing that is neo about your conservative viewpoints. First off, by your definition of marriage pertaining to the ability to add citizens to the population, how about men and women who are infertile? Should they not be allowed to marry because they can't reproduce? We have been over this whole argument before about whether more humans even need to be added to the equation in the first place, and as I have mentioned in the past, the last thing this world needs is more humans to keep using up non-renewable resources. Progressiveness is not holding onto old ideas of what the world should look like, it is embracing new ideas. I still do not understand what in the world you are trying to say about the mystique of marriage, you make it sound as if the whole business were something that only the most prepared for actually engage in. If people who actually were prepared for marriage outnumbered those who aren't, the divorce rate would be nowhere near what it is. By the way, as for the whole socialism bit, what in the world is with Americans and their obsessive fear of socialism? Cold war is over, and embracing some aspects of socialism is actually a very strongly desired thing to do in a country such as ours. If we were willing to inject more socialist ideas into our democracy we would come much closer to being a great country, at the moment, in terms of social progress, we're pretty far behind. You continually come back to sociobiology, but do you think that because I have no desire to breed, I should not be allowed to marry and get the same rights as a couple that does? That, my friend, sounds dangerously close to fascism.

Johanan Raatz on May 05, 2008 at 06:43 PM:

"There is little to nothing that is neo about your conservative viewpoints."

Interesting you should say that. When discussing my ideology with conservatives of other stripes they think that my mode of conservativism is in a sense revolutionary in ways that many of the other stripes of conservativism are not.

"First off, by your definition of marriage pertaining to the ability to add citizens to the population, how about men and women who are infertile? Should they not be allowed to marry because they can't reproduce?"

They should be allowed to marry in a civil setting off course just like gay people can and should be allowed to today, and I have no problem with this in either case. What I am concerned with is LEGAL marriage, and yes ideally I see no reason why a sterile couple should recieve benefits for not producing citizens.

In reality though after reading the arguments by people like Maggie Gallagher that I posted above as well as commentary I had read on it I discovered that it might be prudent to maintain the idea of marriage as a sort of "magical" thing by attaching the sort of quasi-religious significance to it. So the sterile couples are thrown in with the others to maintain the conception of the nuclear family as being a sort of sacrosanct thing. I hope this clears things up a bit.

"We have been over this whole argument before about whether more humans even need to be added to the equation in the first place,"

Yes but it is undeniable that a fertility rate of 2.1 is in the interests of the state to maintain. Japan recently has learned this lesson (Kudos to Japan for getting it right, although let me put a disclaimer on the health ministers comment it is humorous but in very poor taste):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6306685.stm

Much of Europe is behind the times on this though and as such will have an exceedingly hard time maintaining social programs and other necessary state functions.

"and as I have mentioned in the past, the last thing this world needs is more humans to keep using up non-renewable resources."

Then there is clearly no reason for the state to give benefits to marriages of any kind gay or straight.

However I take issue with this Malthusian disposition. Not everyone is using these resources. In fact the Western societies are in danger of imploding demographically. They have the opposite problem of the rest of the world. As for us our civilization has already mastered sustainability. So this is no longer a problem. With the exception of periodic economic squeezes we have been able to take care of our citizens fairly well.

"Progressiveness is not holding onto old ideas of what the world should look like, it is embracing new ideas."

But who says those new ideas are any good? You need older established ideas to determine if the newer ones are any good in the first place. I'm all for new ideas, but I'll discard them if they discover that the contradict valid principles. You need both ideas, but that doesn't mean you through out the old ones. It's like trying to build a skyscraper by continuously blowing out the foundation otherwise.

"I still do not understand what in the world you are trying to say about the mystique of marriage,"

You need to create a sort of "Wizard of Oz" effect around marriage to keep the institution healthy and thereby maintain a healthy social order.

"you make it sound as if the whole business were something that only the most prepared for actually engage in."

No anyone can engage in it but people need to be specially prepared to understand the social reasons for why traditional marriage and the traditional nuclear family is necessary. People get married out of love which is fine, but the particulars (traditional nuclear family, stigma on divorce etc.) need to be promoted in cultural attitudes by people who know the special reasons for these features. To do this shows exactly like the one you mention "Leave it to Beaver" should be promoted for the purposes of maintaining healthy social attitudes in society.

"By the way, as for the whole socialism bit, what in the world is with Americans and their obsessive fear of socialism?"

Because it undermines rights to private property. Now I'm all fine with social programs for those who really need them but allowing people to just vote away others wealth is the same as stealing.

"Cold war is over, and embracing some aspects of socialism is actually a very strongly desired thing to do in a country such as ours."

You do know there are other ways to acheive some of objectives of socialism without violating peoples rights to private property right? I mean a state capitalist command economy system provides much fertile ground for this kind of thing.

"at the moment, in terms of social progress, we're pretty far behind."

If you mean economic social progress then we have some troubles yes, but Western Europe isn't the rosy solution that it is sometimes presented as. They have far higher unemployment and far higher gas prices. Now yes they have free healthcare and the like but with their social liberalism like it is these programs will become increasingly top heavy as they undergo demographic implosion at some point they will simply fall apart altogether.

If you mean social issue social progress then I would have to say that I very much disagree. I would think that Europe's quasihedonism is not a hallmark of progress but the opposite. I actually have a pretty strong opinion on what is often defined to be "progress" in the social issues: http://uwmpost.com/article/52/11/2708-Audacity-vs-nihilism

"You continually come back to sociobiology, but do you think that because I have no desire to breed, I should not be allowed to marry and get the same rights as a couple that does?"

Why should you be subsidized for NOT producing citizens? Now yes you should be able to contract with your spouse for reciprocal rights(hospital visitation and inheritance rights and such) but it would waste taxpayers money to give people money to not produce children. There is the argument for giving these benefits to all heterosexual couples for the purposes of creating the atmosphere around the institution but that aside why should couples get tax breaks for example just for living together? There has to be an objective service that they provide for society to make any sense of giving them these special benefits.

"That, my friend, sounds dangerously close to fascism."

Well socialism comes close to communism but I don't see you raising any eyebrows with that. Yes it intentionally commoditizes social relationships as Marx would put it. That might make it scary to Marxists, but it would be no more fascist than socialism is communist.

Joshua McCracken on May 05, 2008 at 08:26 PM:

Your logic still continues to astound me. <br> <br> Now it seems like you will not let religion get out of this discussion and stay out, as I'm sure you are trying to invoke the whole be fruitful and multiply bit from Genesis. You do not see how the idea that only couples which produce children should recieve the full benefits of marriage does not reduce people to babymaking factories, in service of the state? That sounds like fascism, it essentially forces breeding by lack of goods. 'We'll give you this treat if you pop out another puppy, eh?' I may be twisting your words, but that is exactly how it sounds to me. Your explanation of sterile couples doesn't clear anything up, you make it sound like society will tolerate two people who can't have a kid, but they don't necessarily like it. And you have even admitted that our population is close to imploding, so why do you push this argument? <br> <br> More tradition! Such foolishness goes on in the name of fear of change. Tradition is the toxin that slows progress, you spend all of your time looking back on what was you will never be able to move forward. We cannot keep denying the rights of people to live their lives and have their families just because we didn't do it in the past. As I mentioned before, it was this mindset that kept interracial marriage illegal until about 40 some odd years ago in this country, the dolts back then viewed it in the same way. "But... it's tradition!" Once upon a time genocide, slavery and Jim Crow were traditions in this country too, it didn't stop people from pulling their heads from their posteriors and ending them. You can't sell me a dried up cow here, all of this discrimination crap has gone far enough in this country, we have taken it farther, faster than any other nation in the history of the world. I assume that you are aware that gays and lesbians are still not protected under the employment discrimination laws in most of the states in the U.S.? Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is only the tip of a very tall iceberg, and there is nothing ok about it. You can't tell me that the basis for denying them the right to marry is rooted in the fact that they can't breed. <br> <br> Your view of socialism is the extreme version that they tried to sell us in the 50's, if you can take what should be a straightforward version of marriage and turn it into a matter of degrees, then I can do the same with socialism. You socialize healthcare, you have a strong population. Everybody gets sick or hurt at some point in their lives, it's called taking care of one another. You take some parts of the income tax to buy old homes and then rent them out to poor families for a minimal price, have them restore and don't raise the rent, that's your basic right to shelter taken care of. The capitalists can still thrive, they just won't make as much money screwing people over. Is that such a bad thing? Because I personally think that those people have enough cash that they didn't earn. I stand by my original comment, you give incentives to people just for screwing, and deny certain things to those who may not want a kid, you are headed down a slippery slope to fascism.

Johanan Raatz on May 06, 2008 at 12:35 PM:

"Your view of socialism is the extreme version that they tried to sell us in the 50's,"

Look I'm all for social programs of the safety net type. I just don't think that people should be allowed to vote themselves other people's wealth though unless they really need to due to some kind of desperate life-threatening need.

"f you can take what should be a straightforward version of marriage and turn it into a matter of degrees, then I can do the same with socialism."

Well you already do it anyway.

"You socialize healthcare, you have a strong population."

Look I'm fine with a medicare safety net system that is used for emergency situations. I don't think people should have elective surgery on someone elses tab though. Now if you want to press it further I'm happy to oblige you as well (unlike many other conservatives you might met). However I'm going to have to insist it be done with a state capitalist command economy model because I don't think it's right to infringe on others rights to private property. In this system the whole society is roughly modeled as a sort of company. The equivalent to the objective of socialized medicine is still acheived here but it is no longer "socialist" in the proper use of the term. Instead the health insurance is viewed as a benefit of being an employees of the "company". Since all citizens are by definition employees of the company they all get health insurance benefits.

"Everybody gets sick or hurt at some point in their lives, it's called taking care of one another."

Look I'm fine with a safety net for emergencies. I may even view it as stealing but in this case I think it's justified. I think it's Ok to steal to save someones life. I just don't think it's right to steal for convenience."Now it seems like you will not let religion get out of this discussion and stay out, as I'm sure you are trying to invoke the whole be fruitful and multiply bit from Genesis."

No I'm not for wanton breeding either. What I am saying is that

"You do not see how the idea that only couples which produce children should recieve the full benefits of marriage does not reduce people to babymaking factories, in service of the state? That sounds like fascism,"

Look you can also view it as a moral obligation of a responsible citizen. Now does it sound sort of cold and reptilian? Perhaps, but that's what you get for gutting the idea of morality out of the debate. If you want to just dismiss moral rules or norms because they just get in the way of your agenda, but then you have no right to complain when I play the "fascist" card. I will keep playing it over and over again to until you decide to not simply just dismiss morality as relative like this. You see from what I can tell many on the left (not all) like to throw out arbitrarily throw out rule book because it gets in their way.

Let's look at another example. You probably don't like Bush very much right? In fact you probably hate the guy. Well fine to be perfectly honest he has been behaving like a jack-@$$ for sometime now. However after watching him I find him very funny. There's a method to his madness. Many on the left are right to crack on him for being uncivil. However when they do so they are being very hypocritical. You see after watching Bush for sometime I've noticed that everytime he acts out he is actually being a smart-alek and adopting an uncivil tactic or method frequently used on the left and adapting it for the right. The left can't stand their own medicine and I find this to be uproariously funny. But it comes back to a basic lesson you can't just dismiss the rule book and through out morality tradition or whatever because it suits your agenda. If the left keeps it up we'll just have to pull another Bush on them.

"but that is exactly how it sounds to me."

Well your all for new ideas right? This sound pretty new. I mean you can't just judge it based on your previous past conceptions of how things should be. That wouldn't be very progressive now would it?

"Your explanation of sterile couples doesn't clear anything up, you make it sound like society will tolerate two people who can't have a kid, but they don't necessarily like it."

Yeah. It's necessary though to keep the image of marriage as being of some sort of sanctified purpose. You don't like that? Well you said marriage is just a contract these days. So I'm just taking you at your word. You can't suddenly pull out of the deal after you realize what you've gotten yourself into.

Either traditional marriage is just an "old fashioned antequated tradition."

Or we turn it into a contract. But it looks like you've agreed to the idea of it being contract before first looking at the terms of the contract. Well to late you've already signed on.

"And you have even admitted that our population is close to imploding, so why do you push this argument?"

Well if it's close to imploding that would be all the more reason to shore it up with more marriage contracts now wouldn't it?

"tradition! Such foolishness goes on in the name of fear of change."

LMAO Don't you get it? I've already accepted the "change" (the idea of marriage as meerly a contract). Don't go whining to me just because you have now discovered the terms of that contract.

"Tradition is the toxin that slows progress,"

Oh sure! :) I agree! We should throw out old fashioned old notions and accept the NEW AND IMPROVED notion of marriage as merely a contract. A contract that bonds you to the state. Don't like it? To bad you've already signed on. (followed by maniacal laughter)

"you spend all of your time looking back on what was you will never be able to move forward."

You've got to be kidding me. My neoconservativism is very forward looking. Tell me I read you article on Iran awhile back. Now if I'm the one stuck in the past then why is it that you are stuck in the 60's while I'm living in the New American Century?

You should be careful what you wish for. "Change" is not always good for it's own sake.

"We cannot keep denying the rights of people to live their lives and have their families just because we didn't do it in the past."

What rights? Everyone has rights including homosexuals. These include rights to recieve benefits in exchange for producing children in the best possible environment as determined by sociobiology. Well the best possible enviroment has both a mommy and a daddy. It's not about discriminating against anyone it's about what's the best social construct for the children to live in. If a couple chooses not to produce that construct well I'm not stopping them. Unlike some others I'm not for cracking on gays just because they are gay as I find that to be a form of real discrimination. However they then shouldn't get paid for something that they are not doing.

"As I mentioned before, it was this mindset that kept interracial marriage illegal until about 40 some odd years ago in this country, the dolts back then viewed it in the same way. "But... it's tradition!""

Yes but look at human history for a second. The taboo against interracial marriage is a cultural peculiarity. It doesn't occur everywhere. This is different. You can find this basic formula for marriage rooted in virtually every culture or tradition for most of human history. If you look at the basis of it you'll discover it's biological in nature. The institution of marriage has roots that go far past the existence of the human species. In fact Maiasaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period had what could be roughly described as nuclear family units. You think you can change eons(quite litterally eons) of evolutionary psychology on a whim in a few decades? You are sadly mistaken.

"Once upon a time genocide, slavery and Jim Crow were traditions in this country too, it didn't stop people from pulling their heads from their posteriors and ending them."

Oh good grief non of these had roots in sociobiology. And as for slavery. Abolition was the result of long standing religious traditions.

When you are at sea you don't blow your boat up just because you think it was built wrong. That is the height of folly. I am all for change but you have to look at what you are changing before you proceed so you don't go ahead and do something stupid.

"You can't sell me a dried up cow here, all of this discrimination crap has gone far enough in this country, we have taken it farther, faster than any other nation in the history of the world."

"I assume that you are aware that gays and lesbians are still not protected under the employment discrimination laws in most of the states in the U.S.?"

What? I don't believe so. I'm pretty sure that they have federal equal employment laws that cover sexual orientation.

"Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is only the tip of a very tall iceberg, and there is nothing ok about it."

I assume you have injested critical theory here. If you mean discrimination against gays then no. There is no iceberg. If you are reffering to "patriarchy" as the critical theorists call it then yeah there's a really big iceberg. And it's a good thing to. If the critical theorists don't like well too bad. That shouldn't have been born into the human species then, because what they term "patriarchy" is just part of natural human sociology.

"You can't tell me that the basis for denying them the right to marry is rooted in the fact that they can't breed."

Yes I can. It may not be for other people. But it is for me and that is also its real sociobiological origin as well. And you can't argue with evo-psych.

The capitalists can still thrive, they just won't make as much money screwing people over. Is that such a bad thing?

Look you will find me much more moderate on capitalism than you probably first thought. I am really a two cheers for capitalism kind of guy. I wrote an article on capitalism and democracy were I mention that I don't think capitalism is necessarily perfect or should go completely unhindered.

"you give incentives to people just for screwing, and deny certain things to those who may not want a kid, you are headed down a slippery slope to fascism."

Look you are free to throw out tradition or conventional morality or "God" if you will. Just don't whine when you discover the price of contract you've just signed. My argument on gay marriage is completely compatible with your view of marriage as "just a contract" or a just a "cultural norm."

BTW why are you concerned about a slippery slope to fascism when others point out that socialism is often thought of as a slippery slope to communism?

B-A-N-A-N-A-S on May 06, 2008 at 01:22 PM:

This shit is bananas....

omfg I'm gonna go shoot myself in the face.

Terrence on May 06, 2008 at 06:48 PM:

Oh my God this is nuts.

McCracken is a typical liberal and Raatz is a typical neocon. They both deserve each other very richly.

Goofball no. 1 wants to throw morality out the window because he finds it oppressive. Goofball no. 2 justifies that oppression on the pretext that it is necessary to promote morality and/or the public good.

McCracken: you need to get over your childish disdain for authority and tradition.

Raatz: We are not your "pets." Not everyone needs to be treated as a child.

Everyone else: Notice how these two attitudes feed on each other.

Joshua McCracken on May 06, 2008 at 08:48 PM:

And that, I assume, would make you the know-it-all bloke who stands aside with crossed arms shaking his head? Back up your beliefs instead of hurling insults, at least Raatz and myself are capable of taking positions and defending them.

Mike on May 08, 2008 at 10:50 AM:

If you don't like marriage laws in the United States, then move somewhere where you like them, simple as that. In Iran a man fled the country because homosexual acts are a capital offense, and even the Liberals in the Netherlands denied him sanctuary, so what does that say about them. The people in many states have defined marriage as between a man and a woman, don't like it? Get a movement to change it, or move, I am sure Ted Kennedy will welcome you to MA. Like it or not this is a Nation founded on Christian Principles, to see this one need look no further than the Declaration of Independence.

Joshua McCracken on May 08, 2008 at 01:27 PM:

Christian principles perhaps, I'm pretty sure that phrases such as "Love thy brother" and "Turn the other cheek" can be found in your Christian principles too, and we aren't doing a very good job at that one now are we? I did find the decision of the Netherlands as well as the UK disheartening in relation to this young Iranian, and I do think it shows a callous lack of concern for the things that he will face when he is returned to Iran. Please though, give me a Christian reason why it should be kept illegal for two men or two women to marry. Give me any verse in the Bible, I've read them all and all of them have been taken out of context by the Christian Right. You want fairness and justice, you think for what is best for the people around you, you don't listen to a bunch of dead white guys from thousands of years ago who claimed to speak through God. I am pretty sure that when a book contradicts itself within the first chapter (there are two different creation stories in Genesis buddy), it is not the book to base a government on. Especially if that book advises you to kill children who are disobedient, enslave or murder people who do not agree with your religious beliefs, or of course my all time favorite, rape your drunken father while he sleeps (read the story of Noah again).

Joshua McCracken on May 08, 2008 at 02:34 PM:

Look, I'd rather not get dragged into a Biblical debate in regards to influence on government, because first off, the Bible has no place in government anyway. There is Biblical morality, and there is universal morality, which is the tool that people should use more often. So, I will say this. The world is changing, and we can't play by the old rules anymore. That is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place, we refused to change when we were not leading the charge. There is a time to lead, and there is a time to follow, and let's be honest, a lot of this clinging to the old ways is because we created them. This new world, where gays and lesbians can marry and adopt children, where healthcare is free to all citizens, is not of our making, so of course we don't like it. Ket us put egotism aside and give following a chance for a little bit, Americans have not always been right (Iraq, Vietnam, disco, the PATRIOT Act, the War on Terror, etc)

Mike on May 12, 2008 at 12:00 PM:

You forgot to mention the Sedition Act supported by the "Progrssive" Woodrow Wilson. Where he authorized the Postmaster General to stop delivering journals or magazines that spoke against the government. Then there's my favorite FDR, who threw all the Japanese into concentration camps, another "Progressive" idea. People forget that Facism is a left wing ideology, just look at the platform of the Nazi's and the Progrssives (today's Democrats). Old age welfare (social security), siezing assets of war industries (windfall tax on oil companies), freedom of religion as long as it agrees with what the state wants (abortion). The list goes on. Even when Bill Clinton was going to take office his advisor Ron Weddington told him to rush RU-486 to the market (abortion pill) because, and I quote:

"You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I'm not adovcating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies. There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it..."

Continued "Think of all the poverty, crime and misery...and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario (number of abortions since roe v wade in 1992). We lost a lot of ground during the Bush-Reagan religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."

Nice to see what the democrats really think about people. Maybe they wants us to pass a means test before having children. Or like Al Gore's Global Warming fringe, since humans produce carbon dioxide,a dding to climate change, we should pay a carbon tax per kid. Think not? It was proposed in Australia.

To deny religion in Government is to deny the very principles this nation was founded on. Why do you think that the Supreme Court, US Congress and Senate open each day asking God to help them making decisions. Why do you think the US Treasury pays for Chaplins and Chapels in the US Capitol building? The very right we give our lawmakers, we deny our children by not letting them pray in school. We change Easter to Spring Day, and Christams to Holiday Season. On our money it says "In GOD we trust", and even the Continental Congress bought 10,000 Bibles to send to the people. Not acts of people who would support separation of church and state. Everyday we ask God to Bless America, but I find it hard for Him to bless a nation that shuns him more each day.

Oh lord, here we go again on May 12, 2008 at 02:56 PM:

LIBERAL FASCISM!! SOMEBODY CALL ANN COULTER QUICK!!! You wanna talk about the Right's great human rights record? Wanna talk about the PATRIOT Act? Wanna talk about Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott??? Do you know anything about Nazi Germany? You dare to say that that was a leftist concept? No, Nazi Germany was about control, and the last time I checked, it was a.... oh my, it was a conservative president who passed the PATRIOT Act and actually referred to the Constitution as a goddamned piece of paper... How embarassing for you. You righties are all the same, mouthing off about how you're so persecuted and nobody likes you because you believe in tradition. Children are not supposed to pray in school, it's called separation of church and state, and the fact that government officials do such things proves just how diluded and perverted the idea of this United States has become. Our money did not start saying 'In God We Trust' until the 20th century, a long enough time where people didn't remember what this country was really supposed to be. Wanna talk about how it was a conservative president who decreed that citizens could not own gold nuggets? Come on, let's get into it, I'd love to tear you off your little tugboat.

Aaron Jeske on May 13, 2008 at 08:59 AM:

Strom Thurmond was a democrat until 1964, he switched because of his distaste for the democrats support for the civil rights act.

In other words, he was outside party politics. His support for the racist policies of the south was not because he was part of the republican party. His issue was a southern issue, not a conservative one.

You should know that during the Jim Crow era the entire south was democrat, they joined the republican party because they did not like the progressivism that democrats were starting to push.

Nice try at pinning the segregationist movement on conservatives. But it was democrats who were the leaders. Oh and by the way, the original civil rights activist, Abe Lincoln, was a republican.

Oh lord... on May 13, 2008 at 03:23 PM:

Ok. You just said it all Aaron. The south switches to Republican... because the Democrats are voting for civil rights? Meaning that apparently the Republicans were not doing so much to help the movement that the South was apprehensive about voting for them. Nice try buddy. Democrats, unlike Republicans, learned from their mistakes. And before you start getting too excited about Abe Lincoln, let's not forget that in 1860 the Republican party was what the modern Democratic party is. Oh, and most of Lincoln's own party hated his guts for his stance on abolition. Come on Jeske, if you're going to argue, don't prove my point in the process, it makes me look right, and I know how much Conservatives can't stand being wrong. Look at George W. Bush.

By the way on May 13, 2008 at 04:37 PM:

We should also remember that the Republican party attempted to impeach Andrew Johnson because they did not like his Reconstruction policies, which in fact were based on Lincoln's personal notes as to how he wanted it to go. Now, this is not a race issue and I'd rather that it not become one, I am trying to point out that Conservatives, be they democrat or republican, have never been much for time moving forward, they seem to want it stuffed in a bottle somewhere so they never need to be afraid of what is coming. However, when it comes to money, oooo boy they're always looking for new ways to exploit us!

Mike on May 13, 2008 at 05:31 PM:

As I recall the Patriot Act passed 99-1, with all but one Democrat voting for it. I seem to remember FDR opposing anti-lynching laws because he did not want to lose the Southern Democrat vote. I remember Southern Democrats opposing JFK more because he was Catholic!! Oh my God, what a sin! Even Hitler was impressed with the American Left, congratulating FDR on imposing his will on the people just like he did in Germany. Facism is a Left Wing policy, slightly to the right of Communism, but it is there. Stalin called Facists Right Wingers to get people to oppose them as being on the other side, but in the end they were vying for the same people.

I defy anyone to tell me where the Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution. It's not there, never has and never will. When the First Amendment was written it was the norm for states to have official religions, especially in New England. The "Wall od Separation" was written by Jefferson years after the fact, and when the First Amendment was written he was in France. To see what tje founders really wanted see what James Madison wrote. They were opposed to a national church, not to having kids pray in school; which there were no public schools back then. That is a 20th Century idea. Your lack of basic history knowledge is sad, but like they say, ignorrance is bliss.

Yo on May 13, 2008 at 06:31 PM:

The separation of church and state is implied in freedom of religion, see the first amendment. You say that they wanted to avoid a national church, but you think it is ok to have kids pray in school? And I assume you would want them to pray to a Christian god? Now, what about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc? THAT is a national church. You allow for group prayer in school, as opposed to the kid who didn't study silently praying before an exam, you create a state religion. Think before you speak.

Aaron Jeske on May 14, 2008 at 07:14 AM:

"Ok. You just said it all Aaron. The south switches to Republican... because the Democrats are voting for civil rights? Meaning that apparently the Republicans were not doing so much to help the movement that the South was apprehensive about voting for them."

You missed my point entirely, check your facts:

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1946 The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%) The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Well imagine that, Republicans favored the Civil rights Act more than Democrats...

Like I said, the southern democrats (8/107 voted for the civil rights act) switched parties not because the Republicans opposed the civil rights acts, but because they were opposed to the new democratic party. The only real reason they were Democrats in the first place was because of their hatred for Lincoln, who was Republican.

Lordy... on May 14, 2008 at 09:28 AM:

What part of 'once upon a time the Republican Party was essentially the Democratic party' was not made clear? That did not really change until Kennedy was elected and began to work for civil rights reform. Check your facts, and please read previous posts a little more carefully. "The only real reason they were Democrats in the first place was for their hatred of Lincoln, who was Republican". Nearly 80 years after Lincoln's death? And the fact that the South was Democrat territory before Lincoln was even born makes no nevermind to you eh?

Mike on May 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM:

First off, children may pray to whatever "God" they see fit to. If public institutions must allow Muslims to pray five times a day, why not allow christians to pay if they so choose at the start of the day. If they don't want to pray during a moment of silence, then so be it, but they should have that choice. Why is it that Democrats oppose all choice but that if a woman wants to kill her unborn child.

Further the Republican Party first put a person up for president in 1856, the Democrats were there already so of course there would be more democrats then in the South. After all it was the Democrats in the South that supported Slavery. It was Slavery that split that party in 1860, when the Southern Democrats supported Breckenridge (Buchanan's VP), and the Northern Democrats supported Douglas (D- IL US Senate). Douglas ran on Popular Sovereignty, and Breckenridge on keeping Slavery. Lincoln and the Republicans opposed Slavery, but wanted it to die a natural death, and not force it dead. The South then seceded despite the fact Lincoln said he would leave slavery as is. This is also seen by the rejection of the Cittenden (sp) Comprimise, which would have added 6 amendments to the Constitution oo keep slavery.

Lincoln's Reconstruction plan called for just forgiving the Southern States and letting them back in. The Radicals called for punishment and military occupation, which eventually won. The "Democrats" in the south were "Yellow Dogs", as many in the South would rather vote for a Yellow Dog than a Republican. So what you got was Conservative Democrats elected.

I suggest some of you take History 151 and 152 before you speak, you might learn something about US History.

Aaron Jeske on May 14, 2008 at 03:52 PM:

"And the fact that the South was Democrat territory before Lincoln was even born makes no nevermind to you eh?"

The Republican party was formed in 1854, Lincoln was elected in 1860. Democrats were around since the beginning of the nation. The modern Democratic party was founded in 1824.

In other words, there was little opposition to the democratic party before Republicans existed, so of course southern states were democrats before Lincoln was born.

It was more than hatred for Lincoln, but general distaste for the north in general. The south lost the war to a Republican led north, and you will see today that the American south still holds some resentments.

Johanan Raatz on May 21, 2008 at 12:53 PM:

"Christian principles perhaps, I'm pretty sure that phrases such as "Love thy brother" and "Turn the other cheek" can be found in your Christian principles too,"

Alright my whole point is that you can't throw out the traditions of Christian culture without throwing out its graces as well. I've noticed that many who reffer to themselves as secular humanists end frequently many leftists try to do this.

"and we aren't doing a very good job at that one now are we? I did find the decision of the Netherlands as well as the UK disheartening in relation to this young Iranian, and I do think it shows a callous lack of concern for the things that he will face when he is returned to Iran."

I'm not familiar with the situation. What is it about?

"Please though, give me a Christian reason why it should be kept illegal for two men or two women to marry. Give me any verse in the Bible, I've read them all and all of them have been taken out of context by the Christian Right."

Um there isn't anything in the Bible about gay marriage. There is about gay sex though. It's pretty much negative. The attitude it takes is that it's a no-no. So the issue of gay marriage needn't even come up to begin with.

And yes it say this. I've read the Bible too and these interpretations are not out of context. The ones who get really bent out of shape about homosexuality their interpretations may be out of context, but not the mainstream of the Christian right. If you take to the average individual on the Christian right I don't think they will be bent out of shape about gay people. They just don't want there the religious and cultural fabric of society undermined.

However I'm not arguing at the religious level here. I'm arguing about this at the structural level. My point is that if you tamper with this too much you undermine so-called "patriarchy." Now as much as the subversive critical theorists might like that I view "patriarchy" as a healthy thing for a society to have.

"You want fairness and justice, you think for what is best for the people around you, you don't listen to a bunch of dead white guys from thousands of years ago who claimed to speak through God."

Oh no you don't. "Dead white guys?" That sounds familiar. Talk about "justice" and "fairness" in the context of social consensus of society is also very familiar to me. I'ver read John Rawls' Justice is Fairness and know where this is coming from.

Let make several things clear here: 1.John Rawls is also a dead white male. 2.If you define justice as fairness and fairness as equality then all you have is a vaccuous tautology. A tautology that you can fill with whatever the consensus of the people happens to be whether or not it happens to be right. 3.Just because someone is a "dead white male" doesn't make him wrong. 4.Justice is found by examining Platonic ideals. Public consensus can be very unjust. Rawls was an airhead for trusting it. If you want just laws you go up in your ivory tower before there are any people in your civilization. You wrestle with the idea of what justice means. When you come up with an answer you make just laws based on that definition. Then you let people into your civilization and rule them by the laws you have determined to be just. That way the laws will be blind to the people they are ruling and therefore they will fulfill the requirements that justice be blind.

1. "Social justice" is not blind. It looks at the scenario and makes decisions based on outcomes. Justice is blind to those kinds of considerations. "Social justice" then is not really justice at all.

"I am pretty sure that when a book contradicts itself within the first chapter (there are two different creation stories in Genesis buddy),"

I wrote an article on the topic of creationism. I'm not a creationist if you remember. Besides these are only really inconsistent if you assume certain things about the time frame.

"it is not the book to base a government on."

I've been arguing on secular grounds this entire time. Why is this relevant now?

"Especially if that book advises you to kill children who are disobedient, enslave or murder people who do not agree with your religious beliefs, or of course my all time favorite,"

You sound a little like Richard Dawkins here. You seem to focus on these as though this is a way of discrediting religious traditions. You only forget that much of the civil manner of Western society comes as part of the traditions of these things. You can't throw them out and then complain about "fascism" once you discover compassion and civility have also been thrown out in the process.

I always chuckle when secular humanist sorts go on a tirade about religious values in the backdrop of society. I have a quote from founding father William Penn that they should keep in mind: "If a people will not be governed by God they shall be governed by tyrants."

You throw out the moral fabric of society (by extension this can be seen as "God" or "religion") and then you are liberated from others moral constraints but you are also liberated from the protections of tradition. A morally relative universe is Hobbesian in nature. Now if you really want to throw out tradition fine with me. Just don't start complaining when Leviathan is let out from behind his electric fence to reimpose order.

"rape your drunken father while he sleeps (read the story of Noah again)."

That was condemned in the Bible if I remember correctly. Noah cursed his son for doing this after he woke up.

Johanan Raatz on May 21, 2008 at 01:12 PM:

"Look, I'd rather not get dragged into a Biblical debate in regards to influence on government, because first off, the Bible has no place in government anyway."

You were the one who brought religion into this if I remember right.

"There is Biblical morality, and there is universal morality, which is the tool that people should use more often."

Yes I consider Kantian morality to be universal. However the morality that those on the New Left argue for does not fit into that mold. (yes there is sorts of neoKantianism that they use but that is post-modern in form and not rationalist)

"So, I will say this. The world is changing, and we can't play by the old rules anymore."

Yeah I know. Remember my article Cloning Leviathan? http://uwmpost.com/article/52/27/3420-Cloning-Leviathan

I agree we need to play by the new rules. Like the rules the unitary executive set out for us. Or the PATRIOT act perhaps.

You don't like these new rules now do you? Why don't you just obey the rules of the game as they were meant to be and we won't have to start playing like this.

I'm not saying that you have to. You're free to play by your new rules if you want. Just be apprised that if you are then so are we. We can make up new rules just like you. Only you won't like them any more than we like yours.

You guys have to learn a lesson in civility. The rules are there for a reason.

"That is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place, we refused to change when we were not leading the charge."

First of all, what mess? Secondly if you are reffering to what I think you are we refused because those leading the charge weren't leading correctly. If this is the Neocon internationalism vs. Liberal internationalism debate then the neocon side is correct or more correct than the liberal side. Liberalism by and large doesn't believe in moral absolutes so therefore it often isn't even wrong. It doesn't even have moral absolutes that could be thought of as right or wrong in the first place.

"This new world, where gays and lesbians can marry and adopt children, where healthcare is free to all citizens, is not of our making, so of course we don't like it."

It's not like this at all. It isn't this way here, and if you haven't noticed the fools in the European Union will soon be overrun. They undermined patriarchy long enough, and now there little moral piss pot will implode because no one is thinking to have any kids.

"Ket us put egotism aside and give following a chance for a little bit, Americans have not always been right (Iraq, Vietnam, disco, the PATRIOT Act, the War on Terror, etc)"

Oh no no, You are right about one thing though. The world has changed. However, Iraq, The PATRIOT Act, and the War on Terror are all part of the New American Century. That's the change. What's wrong you don't like change? :)

Let's get one thing straight. We got into this mess because certain people couldn't respect authority. Now things have changed because of this and we now need leviathan to cram authority down people's throats.

Johanan Raatz on May 21, 2008 at 01:17 PM:

So Josh tell me now. What is wrong with Bush throwing out the rule book if you yourself think it is fine to throw out the rule book?

If you look at the behavior of Bush there is a certain method to his madness. He doesn't just misbehave randomly. He almost always does it by reappropriating a mode of misbehavior the new left likes use for himself.

You can't complain. It's only your own medicine.

Johanan Raatz on May 21, 2008 at 01:17 PM:

So Josh tell me now. What is wrong with Bush throwing out the rule book if you yourself think it is fine to throw out the rule book?

If you look at the behavior of Bush there is a certain method to his madness. He doesn't just misbehave randomly. He almost always does it by reappropriating a mode of misbehavior the new left likes use for himself.

You can't complain. It's only your own medicine.