For one brief, shining moment…

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

…I respected the hëll out of George W. Bush.

Really. No kidding. When he stated in an interview “I don’t think we can win” the war on terror, I was staggered. Because he was right, and because he was honest, and because he was making a reasoned evaluation of something that anyone with two licks of sense could have told him.

The “let’s declare war on something” mentality reduces complex issues to stark black and white terms that can’t begin to encompass the reality of the situation. And when Bush fessed up that the war on terror was, in essence, no more “winnable” than the war on drugs or the war on poverty, I thought, Wow. Okay. Maybe he’s really learning. Maybe he really is capable of growth in a way that his fixed “stay the course” mentality would make you think he’s not.

And the Democrats went to town comparing terrorism to the Soviet Union which, by the way, self-destructed, and the fall of Communism which, last I checked, is still around. And I thought, “That’s just stupid. This is another of those embarrassed-to-be-a-Democrat moments. How can they pounce on him when he’s so indisputably RIGHT?”

So what happened? Bush flip flopped. Suddenly the war on terrorism IS winnable, yes siree, don’t you believe anything else.

Oh well. Back to status quo.

PAD

229 comments on “For one brief, shining moment…”

  1. One brief point, Mark L:

    A government may be responsible (let’s set that aside for now) for caring for the citizens who already exist. It should be neutral on the creation of new ones, which will happen anyway.

    Generally, if government involvement in something is not necessary, it’s a bad idea. Or so I believe.

  2. If the only legitimate reason to be married is to raise kids, then I guess my wife and I (12 years this Oct and no kids) have been living a lie. Thanks for letting me know I have no legitimate reason to be with my wife. I’ll file for divorce immediately. Too bad, we really are happy together, but since we don’t plan on having kids we have no right to be together.

    I really love the argument that legal recognition of gay unions is some kind of threat to heterosexual marriage. The fact is, marriage as institution has been in flux for at least the past 40 years as divorce has become more and more acceptable. There are many reasons for that, but since in 1964 no one was taking gay rights seriously at all, it really has nothing to do the acceptance of gay unions.

    I’ll tell you what, anyone care to make a wager? Can anyone find me one heterosexual couple in Vermont or Masschusetts who has decided to split up or not get married as a direct result of those states recognizing gay unions? C’mon. All it’ll take is just one. Any takers?

  3. Den W:

    >I’ll tell you what, anyone care to make a wager? Can anyone find me one heterosexual couple in Vermont or Masschusetts who has decided to split up or not get married as a direct result of those states recognizing gay unions? C’mon. All it’ll take is just one. Any takers?

    It would be interesting if someone did a study on the prevelance of successful, long-term, committed gay couples only to find that the percentage of those carried on successfully was higher than the 45% of marriages that are. It is fun to imagine someone doing so and using that info to argue how allowing homosexuals to marry would actually perserve the sanctity of marriage.

  4. “Can a gay couple raise a healthy child? Of course. But the studies show that they would be fighting the odds, just as a divorced couple or single parent would as well.”

    This seems to suggest that the odds are that a child of gay parents (as well as divorced or single parents) will be unhealthy. Absolutely untrue.

    All else being equal, the absolute best upbringing would be to have a mom and a dad who are geniuses in perfect health and with lots of money. While the average household probably misses this ideal, most kids end up ok.

    “Go look at the studies of Scandanavian countries where gay marriages are in basically in effect. Marriages in general have declined drastically. There is no point to them anymore.”

    Nonsense. If the number of marriages has declined it has NOTHING to do with whatever gays are doing. It’s because of things like domestic partnerships, civil unions and other choices for HERTEROSEXUALS. How letting two guys get married would make anyone think that there is no point to marriage is beyond me.

    “I am talking about changing the fundamental definition of marriage based on the objections of a few. Whether intentional or not (and I believe it is the intention), the result is that marriage loses its purpose.”

    So this is not about gays wanting to get married, it’s about them wanting to ruin things for the rest of us?

    “You can find an overwhelming number of examples throughout human history of interracial marriage. Yes, some many have opposed it, often to protect the integrity of their race.”

    There is no such thing as “the integrity of a race” but that’s a good discussion for another time. But take my word on it; the racial classification system we use is one of the sorriest bits of pseudoscience ever to make itself part of the human culture.

  5. Instead, focus on the fact that child-bearing and marriage need not be and are not related,

    I’m not going to disagree, except that (historically) marriage has provide the societal framework for it. That’s my point in a nutshell – societal needs vs. invidual needs and which should we hold higher in this case. Like I said, I don’t know that I have a good answer.

    and that our species is not in real danger of dying out.

    Actually, in the US, we are very close to a zero-growth society. I can’t find the source now, but I saw recently that the USA is at 2.13 births per woman (it was at 2.8 several decades ago). 2.1 is considered the minimum to sustain (due to illness, death, etc.). So, the possibility of our society shrinking is very real.

  6. >>Instead, focus on the fact that child-bearing and marriage need not be and are not related,

    >I’m not going to disagree, except that (historically) marriage has provide the societal framework for it. That’s my point in a nutshell – societal needs vs. invidual needs and which should we hold higher in this case. Like I said, I don’t know that I have a good answer.

    Well, again, I think we as a society need to test whether or not the historical linkage of the two is necessary, or merely the inevitable result of restrictive social frameworks.

    And no one really has a good answer. 🙂 That someone thinks so is the first sign of a poor debater on any topic.

    >>and that our species is not in real danger of dying out.

    >Actually, in the US, we are very close to a zero-growth society. I can’t find the source now, but I saw recently that the USA is at 2.13 births per woman (it was at 2.8 several decades ago). 2.1 is considered the minimum to sustain (due to illness, death, etc.). So, the possibility of our society shrinking is very real.

    I said “our species,” not our society. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2004 the U.S. estimate is actually below that threshold, at 2.07. The world estimate is at 2.62.

  7. Actually, in the US, we are very close to a zero-growth society.

    But, when you factor in immigration, the US population in fact continues to grow. In any event, the US isn’t the entire world. Worldwide, we’re past 6.5 billion and heading fast towards 7 billion. Not really any danger of there not being a replacement population being born.

  9. I didn’t say that. 🙂

    Besides, as Den W. pointed out, continuing immigration ups the population even when birth-rate declines.

    The survival of the U.S. matters to me, yes, but only as long as its ideals remain intact. What makes a nation worthwhile is not that it exists but how it conducts itself.

    And it is almost inevitable that the U.S. will cease to exist; it is what happens to nations. They rise, they grow, they peak, they fall.

  10. The US will survive fine. We’re not a zero-growth, as any glance at the census tables will immediately show you. The problem is, the question was about our species dying out and you turned it into a fear that America is going to suddenly not have a sustainable population.

    Are you saying that people from other countries are a different species? 🙂

    Let me ask you this: How many more gay couples do you think legalizing gay marriage will produce? Studies have indicated that homosexuals make up somewhere between one and ten percent of the population. Do you think that if two men are allowed to get married that hordes of currently straight men will leave their wives and shack up with their poker buddies?

    Please. Legalizing gay marriage will increase the number of gay couples by exactly zero.

  11. The US will survive fine. We’re not a zero-growth, as any glance at the census tables will immediately show you. The problem is, the question was about our species dying out and you turned it into a fear that America is going to suddenly not have a sustainable population.

    Are you saying that people from other countries are a different species? 🙂

    Well we are talking about US government policy, so I think it’s relevant, but I wouldn’t take it to that conclusion… 🙂

    Let me ask you this: How many more gay couples do you think legalizing gay marriage will produce? Studies have indicated that homosexuals make up somewhere between one and ten percent of the population. Do you think that if two men are allowed to get married that hordes of currently straight men will leave their wives and shack up with their poker buddies?

    I’m not trying to discuss the individual sexual preferences, just what benefits our society should have for their relationships. Please note that I’ve never once said homosexuality is wrong or a sin – I don’t think that way. This (to my mind) is all about what we choose to give as societal benefits. I think once you get rid of the religious extreme of people saying its a sin, this is what most people on the fence are unsure about.

  13. Well, I certainly don’t always agree with Bill Mulligan, but for once… I’m right there with ya, Bill, as far as I can tell.

  14. I’m not trying to discuss the individual sexual preferences, just what benefits our society should have for their relationships.

    And I’ll reiterate that the government’s issuing of marriage licenses can only be construed as a benefit if there are clear and defined ways one qualifies for it. And if those qualifications aren’t reasonable, then the whole thing falls apart.

    What I regret most is the prevailing belief among all concerned that government acknowledgment of a marriage even matters. Really, marriage is a state of mind.

  15. What I regret most is the prevailing belief among all concerned that government acknowledgment of a marriage even matters. Really, marriage is a state of mind.

    I agree. However, since we’re discussing legal rights, it has to be somehow acknowledged as a right by the government. Free speech doesn’t mean jacks*** if your government doesn’t support it.

    So, we’re left with an ugly issue for everyone.

  16. I agree. However, since we’re discussing legal rights, it has to be somehow acknowledged as a right by the government.

    Yeah, of course. I just regret the mingling of certain contractual decisions that a couple makes with the idea of being married. If not for that, civil unions would be enough.

  17. >>Ðámņ, how did this get from winning
    >>the war on terror to homosexual
    >>marriage rights?

    I am not sure myself. But when PAD weighed in on the issue, I decided to add my two cents worth.

    One point: You do not have to have kids to be married. That being said, it is absurd to not recognize that the institution of marriage has been in every culture of thousands of years not just to “bless” the union of a couple, but as a “home” for raising a family (i.e., having kids). It was only in this generation that there was a truly viable alternative to having kids without having actual sex. Another way of putting it, all things being equal, there should be dedicated parents who are committed to raising kids. Marriage, in part, is an instituion that provides this very framework. So while not having kids is now more than ever an option to a couple (with all of the forms of birth control at our disposal), a central purpose of marriage is to provide a place to raise a child. And I still argue that a home with a man and woman as parents is better than a single parent home, or a home with parents of the same gender.

    This should be obvious. Which is why I find the following argment absurd:

    >I’ll tell you what, anyone care to make a >wager? Can anyone find me one heterosexual >couple in Vermont or Masschusetts who has >decided to split up or not get married as a >direct result of those states recognizing gay >unions? C’mon. All it’ll take is just one. Any

    No one is claiming that allowing a gay marriage will cause a heterosexual marriage to break up (unless, of course, a spouse is a closet gay). To raise the question is to throw up a red herring. The point is that allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes the purpose of marriage in the first place (as argued above).

    Let me give you an example: Imagine you are a doctor. You have passed your medical exams. You can now put M.D. after your name. What if I suddenly decided to allow anyone who can spell their name on a piece of paper to call themself a doctor? What would your “M.D.” now mean? You are still skilled as a doctor, but the term has become meaningless.

    By marrying a gay couple, I believe you are making the very meaning of marriage meaningless. That does not mean my marriage will end, but it does have implications for others down the road (why bother going to school if you don’t need to?). As the posts about Scandanvian countries actually show, marriage has lost its meaning there, not just because of gay marriage, but that is certainly a part of it. Will some still get married? Yes. But I am confident that when we check in 30 years down the road, we will find a lot of damaged children, just as we now are finding after 30 years of no fault divorce (which I never said was because of gay marriage — my point was that anything that weakens marriage has an impact on kids).

    Jim in Iowa

  18. Jim in Iowa:

    >One point: You do not have to have kids to be married. That being said, it is absurd to not recognize that the institution of marriage has been in every culture of thousands of years not just to “bless” the union of a couple, but as a “home” for raising a family (i.e., having kids). It was only in this generation that there was a truly viable alternative to having kids without having actual sex. Another way of putting it, all things being equal, there should be dedicated parents who are committed to raising kids. Marriage, in part, is an instituion that provides this very framework. So while not having kids is now more than ever an option to a couple (with all of the forms of birth control at our disposal), a central purpose of marriage is to provide a place to raise a child.

    While I won’t argue this point, I would toss in that one of the earliest rationales for ceremonies of couples was a public acknowledgement/recognition of the couple’s union. This was not only a celebration worth noting, but also an official “hand’s off” notice to other tribe or community members, etc.

    >And I still argue that a home with a man and woman as parents is better than a single parent home, or a home with parents of the same gender.

    I’m still not fully able to grasp the basis of your argument. Is your point focused on the abilities of a same gender couple or on a society’s treatment towards said child? Are there actual longitudinal statistics for this?

    >Let me give you an example: Imagine you are a doctor. You have passed your medical exams. You can now put M.D. after your name. What if I suddenly decided to allow anyone who can spell their name on a piece of paper to call themself a doctor? What would your “M.D.” now mean? You are still skilled as a doctor, but the term has become meaningless.

    The main difference between gay marriage and your m.d. analogy is that the gay relationships require just as much, sometimes more, effort than straight relationships. The doctoral work is just that. A person either works towards gaining a certain level of knowledge or doesn’t. The degree is recognition of work completed. The marriage is legal recognition of a union, nothing more, nothing less.

  19. As the posts about Scandanvian countries actually show, marriage has lost its meaning there, not just because of gay marriage, but that is certainly a part of it.

    Er, the Scandinavian countries haven’t changed any faster than others, so in the absence of other evidence, it’s not part of it.

    And I still argue that a home with a man and woman as parents is better than a single parent home, or a home with parents of the same gender.

    And I still argue that it isn’t.

    That being said, it is absurd to not recognize that the institution of marriage has been in every culture of thousands of years not just to “bless” the union of a couple, but as a “home” for raising a family (i.e., having kids).

    Oh, I recognize that. It’s just immaterial.

    Another way of putting it, all things being equal, there should be dedicated parents who are committed to raising kids. Marriage, in part, is an instituion that provides this very framework.

    Very true. Which is why gay couples should be allowed to get married.

  20. It is about the continuation of the human race through having children

    Well šhìŧ, I guess I better go start the divorce proceedings tomorrow, as my wife and I have no intention of having kids.

    Thankfully, we don’t live in your idea of a perfect little world.

    Maybe you’ve lived in Iowa too long, where half a dozen kids to work on the farm is the norm. 😛

  21. Craig:

    >>It is about the continuation of the human race through having children

    >Well šhìŧ, I guess I better go start the divorce proceedings tomorrow, as my wife and I have no intention of having kids.

    Meanwhile, I’m going to go out and begin doing my part for the human race, without the hassle of that pesky marriage license. 😉

  22. No one is claiming that allowing a gay marriage will cause a heterosexual marriage to break up (unless, of course, a spouse is a closet gay).

    Then again, I don’t understand what the “threat” to marriage is that needs to be “defended.” If Adam and Steve down the block decide to get together and Steve wants to put Adam on his health insurance. That does nothing to weaken the bounds of my marriage or to make it meaningless.

    Or maybe I’m just more secure in my relationship that you are in yours.:)

  23. As the posts about Scandanvian countries actually show, marriage has lost its meaning there, not just because of gay marriage, but that is certainly a part of it.

    Actually, you have yet to provide any proof that gay marriage is a “part of it.” You’re using false logic. Saying that a) Sweden has gay marriage and b) straight couples in Sweden are cohabitating for a few years before deciding to get marriage is proof that a) causes b) without any correlation is bogus logic. Has anyone interviewed any of these straight couples to see why they are delaying marriage? Have any of them said that they feel marriage has “lost all meaning” since Sweden started recognizing gay couples?

    I can make just such as specious argument with comics: a) In the 1950s, a lot of kids read comics, b) In the 1950s juvenile delinquency was on the rise, therefore, comics caused juvenile delinquency.

  24. You’ll have to show me where in the Constitution the boy scouts have the right to free meeting space on public land and in public buildings. The boy scouts have the right to require a conformity of belief for their members and people who don’t agree with them have the right to refuse to associate with them.

    You already cited it. The First Amendment.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I know what you’re going to say, “separation of church and state”, but the Constitution doesn’t say that, nor does it cite an exception to the rule. The clause “separation of church and state” is by most accounts “legal fiction”. The clause comes from a letter Thomas Jeffersn wrote to a Danbury Church Baptist who was asking Jefferson to side with them in having public officials take religious oaths of office.

    Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).

    Jefferson would have considered the idea of prohibiting the Boy Scouts from meeting in public buildings as a form of government coerscion, as do I. It’s a blatant attempt to force the Boy Scouts to behave in a way contrary to their stated religious beliefs. while at the same time violating the First amendment not just once but twice.

    Therefore, the Boy Scouts have the same right to free use of public buildings that ANY group has.

    I find it rather frightening and somewhat hypocritical that groups like the ACLU find it MORE acceptable to allow a group of hate-filled nazis and KKK to march in Skokie, IL to ADVOCATE hate and discrimination on public lands but are against the idea of the Boy Scouts meeting in a school.

  25. I know what you’re going to say, “separation of church and state”.

    Actually, you don’t know what I’m going to say. 🙂

    I find it rather frightening and somewhat hypocritical that groups like the ACLU find it MORE acceptable to allow a group of hate-filled nazis and KKK to march in Skokie, IL to ADVOCATE hate and discrimination on public lands but are against the idea of the Boy Scouts meeting in a school.

    Really? So a group that openly advocates discrimination should not be allowed to meet on public lands? Great! Let’s kick the boy scouts out then.

  26. Actually, you don’t know what I’m going to say. 🙂

    See? I knew you were going to say that.

    Really? So a group that openly advocates discrimination should not be allowed to meet on public lands? Great! Let’s kick the boy scouts out then.

    Actually, I didn’t say either group should not be allowed. I merely called it hypocritical to support one group over the other when you claim they’re both doing the same thing.

    If you want to claim that the Boy Scouts are equal to the Nazis and KKK go right ahead. If you want to kick them out of public bulidings for expressing those beliefs then you’re being just as bad as you claim they are. You going to kick everybody out who doesn’t agree with you?

  28. Posted by: Den W.:
    “Really? So a group that openly advocates discrimination should not be allowed to meet on public lands? Great! Let’s kick the boy scouts out then.”

    Major league differences here. The KKK wants to discriminate against non-whites (and people that don’t follow their brand of religion) totally. The KKK wants these people dead.

    The Boy Scouts wants to keep out people that won’t agree with the established rules of that organization. Seriously folks, why would someone, anyone, want to join an organization they don’t agree with???

    And if full disclosure, I am not, nor have I ever been a member of the KKK. I was, however, a very active member of the Boy Scouts, and even an Eagle Scout. As I grew to adulthood, I lost many of my Christian beliefs and withdrew from the organization. This wasn’t the only reason I left the group, but it’s one of the major reasons I haven’t rejoined as an adult leader.

Comments are closed.