Whatever you may think about marriage--of any variety--you'll definitely get a more intelligent discussion of it on Ricochet than at the 2012 College Convention in Concord.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
- Comment (174)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
It's interesting how incapable those students are of mustering a coherent counterargument to what might be termed the "argument from polygamy." If they are arguing "marriage is love," as so many bumper stickers claim, they are obligated to endorse polygamy. If they endorse same-sex marriage but ban polygamy, they have to present a coherent reason why we can exclude three people who all love each other from the institution.
The only counterargument I can think of would be the claim that "well, traditional marriage is no less arbitrary than our 'traditional + same-sex' proposal." But, at minimum, I guess, a strong Burkean case exists for traditional marriage, which has served society well for ages.
It's no surprise the best those Santorum hecklers can muster is "um, that's not what we're talking about!" While gay marriage has powerful intuitive appeal (for me included, I might add), it is definitely the burden of those demanding a particular change to present a coherent argument on its behalf.
Edited on Jan 6 at 12:16amDec '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
I have always been torn about gay marriage, I have gay friends who are essentially married and they are both fabulous people. I would definitely have a strong preference of not stoning them outside of the villiage. But I have this implicit conviction in my core being that "different things are different." So in the end, I guess if the government gets an opinion on a matter than it is up to the legislature to come up with that opinion, and right now we have a social-religious institution which is probably only managed by our courts because of the history of the various churchs acting as judiciaries in england for a few hundred years or so. So its just as wrong to demand and appropriate social sanction via violence as to deny it.
I will never be a member of the social institution called motherhood, and all the creamy social benefits with being a mom. So yes sometimes by accidents of birth and biologies there will be social and physical doors that are closed to us.
May '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
The level of brainlessness and ignorance combined with complacent assurance of personal enlightenment and arrogant condescension is too depressing.
We are far, far gone in decadence.
Apr '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Until we as a society come up with another definition accepted by 90% as the true definitions we might as well have government stay out of defining who or what can get married. I would just stop issuing marriage licences, or switch them all to civil unions. It seems like the simplest solution that will make everyone unhappy.
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
katievs: The level of brainlessness and ignorance combined with complacent assurance of personal enlightenment and arrogant condescension is too depressing.
We are far, far gone in decadence. · Jan 6 at 5:30am
I look at those kids and wonder--whatever happened to the fear of sounding stupid?
May '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Note the slug on the thumbnail of this clip. "Rick Santorum booed in contentious gay marriage exchange."
That is not what I saw watching it. The exchange was lively but I heard as many cheers for Santorum's view as against. The only boos were at the end after he had finished speaking.
As for Santorum himself, I was impressed. I do not think Mittens could have given such a viable answer to the marriage question. I also think he handled the crowd very well and might have taught them something about civility. (or not.)
May '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
katievs: The level of brainlessness and ignorance combined with complacent assurance of personal enlightenment and arrogant condescension is too depressing.
We are far, far gone in decadence. · Jan 6 at 5:30am
I look at those kids and wonder--whatever happened to the fear of sounding stupid? · Jan 6 at 5:46am
Claire, they don't know they sound stupid. They just think they are acting "activist"...not that they really are.
Dec '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
katievs: The level of brainlessness and ignorance combined with complacent assurance of personal enlightenment and arrogant condescension is too depressing.
We are far, far gone in decadence. · Jan 6 at 5:30am
I look at those kids and wonder--whatever happened to the fear of sounding stupid? · Jan 6 at 5:46am
There is no stupid for these kids. Ever since they could speak, they've been taught that everything they say is an unarguable pearl of wisdom. As far as they are concerned, stupid is just for the old folks who very likely sacrificed mightily to get their children to this point, and couldn't possibly know anything, or have anything useful to say.
Dec '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
It wont make them happy. The activists would still be in people's faces and trolling real life demanding that you not only permit, but APPROVE. To a certain extent the other side is the same as well.
Edited on Jan 6 at 6:05amMay '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
That ship has sailed. And there are plenty of one-issue voters out there. So trying to finesse some complicated legal argument or tautological point about polygamy is a fool's game -- especially for someone whose job it is to get people to like him.
The reason it's not like polygamy is because the people in that audience know and love lots of gay people of all ages that want the right to marry and they don't know any polygamists. Voters are not obliged to be logical.
Best he can do while being true to himself is to say, lots of strong feelings out there -- my church doesn't condone it -- it's up to the states to sort out and we have too much important work to do at the federal level to get bogged down with the issue... next question.
Feb '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
katievs: The level of brainlessness and ignorance combined with complacent assurance of personal enlightenment and arrogant condescension is too depressing.
We are far, far gone in decadence. · Jan 6 at 5:30am
Note, though, that there seemed to be applause in close to equal measure to the boos, give or take. Rick took the questions and confronted them calmly and rationally; this won't even scratch the surface of many of the brains in that room, but let's not count all of them out.
EDIT: It appears I'm parroting what Pilli said far better than I could. Please forgive the repeat.
Edited on Jan 6 at 6:54amMar '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Surely there is plenty of self-righteousness among the students in this clip, but I wonder how much of that is due to the impertinence and cocksureness that goes along with youth. Additionally, college itself tends to enforce a certain conformity in culture. I don't think it is particular to this issue.
Meanwhile, their attitude is revelatory of the generation gap on this question. Their knee-jerk prejudice (and I use that in the Burkean/precise sense, not in the primarily pejorative one) is to support gay marriage, even in the absence of argument (and, arguments have been made, they are just evidently unaware of them).
But there is also a larger problem here, which is that their education has largely been emptied of the content that would help them distinguish between "argument" and "attitude". This isn't to say that it is impossible for them to learn this difference, but that it requires a greater effort on their part, and inertia is moving in the opposite direction. It is not only on this issue that you see this inability to distinguish between informed and uniformed opinion manifest itself.
Jun '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Half of their political problem is their insistence on calling it marriage. Call it a civil union, call it a domestic partnership, or whatever.... Just don't call it what it's not. To change the definition of a word that's thousands of years old you'd better have a damn good reason, and they don't.
May '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
That ship has not sailed. There are millions of us out here still determined to fight--not because we're "one issue" voters, but because we see and grasp at a deep level that this issue is inextricably bound up with all the others.
The radical, activist left intuits this too. Best way to get the command and control economy they want is to undermine the institutions that inculcate independence: the family and the church.
Okay, but those who want to lead our society ought to be concerned with persuasion, no? If we perceive that, according to the logic of the thing, the legalization of gay marriage will lead inexorably to the legalization of polygamy and polyamory, then we do well to try to help others see it.
We don't cede the argument to ignorance and illogic.
Edited on Jan 6 at 6:41amMay '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Rather, activists should stop trying to re-define it.
Jul '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Trace Urdan:
Best he can do while being true to himself is to say, lots of strong feelings out there -- my church doesn't condone it -- it's up to the states to sort out and we have too much important work to do at the federal level to get bogged down with the issue... next question. · Jan 6 at 6:06am
He didn't exactly say that, did he?
His speaking style reminded me why he was in the single digits before Romney spent more than the sitting governor did on his campaign in order to destroy Gingrich.
May '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
accidental double post
Edited on Jan 6 at 7:24amMay '10
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Michael Tee
Trace Urdan:
Best he can do while being true to himself is to say, lots of strong feelings out there -- my church doesn't condone it -- it's up to the states to sort out and we have too much important work to do at the federal level to get bogged down with the issue... next question. · Jan 6 at 6:06am
He didn't exactly say that, did he?
No, he didn't, because that's not what he holds. He's not opposed to gay marriage because his Church doesn't condone it. He's opposed to gay marriage because he perceives that it will lead to the dissolution of society. He doesn't think it's "up to the states" to decide what marriage is and isn't. Marriage is what it is. The state lacks the authority to change it. What it has is the power to support or undermine it.
I think his speaking style far, far better than any of the other Republican candidates.
He knows what he believes; he knows why he believes it; he can articulate; and he's willing to engage the argument.
Thank God. FINALLY.
Feb '11
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
It's not just the word. It's a fundamental public good (in my opinion) that's at stake. Therefore, I don't understand civil unions. What would be the public purpose served by them that isn't already served by existing institutions or that can't be better served by something wholly unrelated to sex or emotional attachments? It seems to me civil unions are only vehicles for increasing benefits paid by the government (or paid by private parties under government coercion), that will have the effect of eroding basic individual liberties such as freedom of association, freedom of religion, and property rights. If one doesn't think there is any public purpose served by either marriage or civil unions, then I don't understand support for any of it - there should be downright hostility to the whole structure as an assault on liberty on many levels, no?
Re: Note to Santorum: If You Want a Civilized, Rational Discussion, Join Ricochet
Imagine how good the Yankees would look playing against the Little League. Those were undergraduate students.
I'll donate $10,000.00 to Rick Santorum's campaign if he films a 1 hour discussion with me on the issue.
Set it up, Ricochet.
Edited on Jan 6 at 7:25am