Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
From the lede of a story at Politico today:
Former New York City Mayor and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday evening that he was concerned that Republican stances on social issues makes the GOP look “like it isn’t a modern party.”
“I think the biggest problem right now, I think abortion you can work out… but I think the gay rights issue is a more current one right now. I think beyond all the religious and social parts, it makes the party look like it isn’t a modern party, it doesn’t understand the modern world we live in,” Giuliani said on CNN’s “OutFront.”
“Absolutely,” Giuliani added, when host Erin Burnett asked if the Republican Party’s positions on social issues could lead to the rise of a third party.
As we've seen from any number of threads on Ricochet in the past, these questions are just as divisive here as anywhere else. So here's my challenge to the membership: put aside the normative questions for a moment. As a matter of sheer political calculation, is Giuliani right or wrong about the electoral wages of social conservatism?
- Comment (199)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
katievs
The reason I, personally, want state recognition of my marriage is because I want it to be publicly known and recognized that it is not just a passing liaison, but a permanent bond of love and commitment to my husband and our children.
Gay people only ask the same thing. · 0 minutes ago
No, what they demand is that their relations be recognized as the equivalent of marriage. They're not. Nor can they be. No force of law can make them so.
Jan '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
Tristan Abbey
Ultra -- what do you make of the argument that a) marriage underpins society; b) homosexual partnerships undermine the cogency of marriage; c) society suffers as a result; therefore, d) society should exclude homosexual partnerships from marriage? Can you isolate where the argument breaks down? · 53 minutes ago
B!
B is where it breaks down. You accept B as a given.
And D!
You'd deny people rights based on some communitarian notion of protecting "society." · 1 minute ago
There is no denying rights, but nobody has a right to something that cannot exist. The natural law theory asserts that there simply can be no such thing as a marriage between two members of the same sex. In order to assert that a right is being denied, one would first have to render the natural law argument null and void.
I realize that this latter issue cannot be resolved in this thread. I know that opinions remain divided, that in a democracy opinion, not absolute truth, wins elections. I'll only note that this country has come to a sorry pass when there can be so much cultivated confusion about the nature of marriage.
Oct '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
And must we have another debate on gay marriage? We all know the factions now:
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
And some gay activists are open in their intention not to enter marriage but to abolish all it.
First abolish the norm of sexual complementarily. Then abolish the norm of monogamy. Abolish the norm of permanence. Abolish the norm of two. Make marriage nothing more and nothing other than a private arrangement among consenting adults.
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Joseph Eagar: And must we have another debate on gay marriage? We all know the factions now: · 0 minutes ago
So you're saying we should close the thread down?
Jun '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
I think it probably will be. And 10 years from now I think Obamacare will still be on the books, Iran will have nuclear weapons, federal spending and the deficit will be even larger, and we'll be experiencing stagflation.
I'm not very optimistic any of these things can be prevented, but I still think I have a duty to do what I can to oppose them. As Mother Teresa said: "We are called upon not to be successful, but to be faithful."
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
Leporello
Even if we throw out state sanction of marriage (and I think your history is off), the main questions remain with us - e.g., should marriage and the rearing of children by married mothers and fathers receive any privileged status (for instance, in tax and property law, and in the educational curriculum)? · 2 minutes ago
I could care less what people do with themselves as long as they do it peacefully.
Well, Fred, your "I could care less" position doesn't get us very far. If everyone around you chooses to have no manners, you're going to have a tougher time being mannerly. If everyone around you thinks wearing wigs is great, you'll probably be wearing a wig before long. What others do and think changes what we do and think.
As for your idea that if people stay peaceful, it doesn't matter what marriage policy is, that's patently false. For example, as has been quoted for twenty years by many scholars and commentators, if you adjust for broken homes, the racial disparity in prison populations disappears almost entirely. A lack of marriage actually creates a larger criminal class.
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs: Andsome gay activists are open in their intention not to enter marriage but to abolish all it.
First abolish the norm of sexual complementarily. Then abolish the norm of monogamy. Abolish the norm of permanence. Abolish the norm of two. Make marriage nothing more and nothing other than a private arrangement among consenting adults. · 1 minute ago
But, of course, we wouldn't want private arrangements among consenting adults to be private, then people like yourself wouldn't be able to meddle in their affairs.
Oct '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
Joseph Eagar: And must we have another debate on gay marriage? We all know the factions now: · 0 minutes ago
So you're saying we should close the thread down? · 3 minutes ago
Of course not.
Jul '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
This is too superficial. Great moral questions always cause rifts.
More specifically, moral evil causes rifts. We can paper it over and pretend it's not happening, or we can fight it. · 3 minutes ago
Focusing on social issues to the extent that Santorum has is a losing strategy in this general election. Do you guys really want another 4 years of Obama? Would the damage that he and his liberal kin do to our country be superficial, katievs? Further encroachment of the entitlement state on our rights? Increasing international irrelevance? A left-ward swing of the Supreme Court as aging justices die and retire that would make impossible any of your social policy goals?
My point is that if we can put a few important but not urgent issues to the side until a conservative is in office and we have our economic house in order, we will be better off for it.
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
ultra vires
Noesis Noeseos
ultra vires
...Aristotle was the only one I know to have given a defense to the institution of slavery that is analogous to a defense of the institution of marriage.
Where did Aristotle say this?
This article critical of Aristotle explains his defense of the institution of marriage; and this piece at Stanford explains his defense of marriage. Aristotle defended both institutions by casting slave owner and slave into different roles - one proper to rule and the other proper to serve. He.. defended marriage by separating man and woman into two classes, “the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying.”
Edited 1 minute ago
We can throw out quotes we've picked up in five minutes of searching, and ensure that we will not understand Aristotle. Or we can try to learn something.
You should study that passage from The Politics carefully. What does he cite as an example of male intellect? Isn't it Ajax from the Iliad? But isn't that particular part of the Iliad about Ajax's madness? What is Aristotle suggesting by citing to a passage that goes directly counter to his argument?
Nov '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Leporello
Well, Fred, your "I could care less" position doesn't get us very far. If everyone around you chooses to have no manners, you're going to have a tougher time being mannerly. If everyone around you thinks wearing wigs is great, you'll probably be wearing a wig before long. What others do and think changes what we do and think.
As for your idea that if people stay peaceful, it doesn't matter what marriage policy is, that's patently false. For example, as has been quoted for twenty years by many scholars and commentators, if you adjust for broken homes, the racial disparity in prison populations disappears almost entirely. A lack of marriage actually creates a larger criminal class. · 1 minute ago
How do you know I don't already wear a wig!
If people aren't mannerly then I would simply not associate with them. Maybe you would, but I'm a picky and prickly person. Eventually they'll learn that manners are the thing they must accept to be able to associate with me.
I'll accept that there might be a correlation between marriage a crime rates, but correlation is not causation.
Oct '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs: Andsome gay activists are open in their intention not to enter marriage but to abolish all it.
First abolish the norm of sexual complementarily. Then abolish the norm of monogamy. Abolish the norm of permanence. Abolish the norm of two. Make marriage nothing more and nothing other than a private arrangement among consenting adults. · 5 minutes ago
I agree that people like that exist. My own theory is that if gay marriage happens through a legitimate political process, nihilists won't be able to use it as a vector to attack the family. Nihilism is not a political winner.
May '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
katievs: Andsome gay activists are open in their intention not to enter marriage but to abolish all it.
First abolish the norm of sexual complementarily. Then abolish the norm of monogamy. Abolish the norm of permanence. Abolish the norm of two. Make marriage nothing more and nothing other than a private arrangement among consenting adults. · 1 minute ago
But, of course, we wouldn't want private arrangements among consenting adults to be private, then people like yourself wouldn't be able to meddle in their affairs. · 5 minutes ago
Your letting your truculence loose again, Fred.
The whole point is that marriage is not "a private affair." It's a public institution that serves the common good.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 9:32pmMay '10
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Joseph Eagar
katievs: Andsome gay activists are open in their intention not to enter marriage but to abolish all it.
First abolish the norm of sexual complementarily. Then abolish the norm of monogamy. Abolish the norm of permanence. Abolish the norm of two. Make marriage nothing more and nothing other than a private arrangement among consenting adults. · 5 minutes ago
I agree that people like that exist. My own theory is that if gay marriage happens through a legitimate political process, nihilists won't be able to use it as a vector to attack the family. Nihilism is not a political winner. · 1 minute ago
I'm afraid it's not a well-founded hope. Once the norm of sexual complementarity is abolished by force of law, the other norms will not be long for this world.
Jan '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
ultra vires
Noesis Noeseos
Where did Aristotle say this? If so, what was the nature of the analogy? · 14 minutes ago
This article critical article explains his defense of the institution of marriage; and this piece at Stanford explains his defense of marriage. Aristotle defended both institutions by casting slave owner and slave into different roles - one proper to rule and the other proper to serve. He then defended marriage by separating man and woman into two classes, “the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying.” · 4 minutes ago
The analogy in Politics 1.13 is between ruler and ruled. That was a situation Aristotle observed in the society in which he lived and so was normatively conditioned. The division of the sexes, however, is natural, not conventional. That aspect of marriage is not like the relationship between master and slave. It was not the aspect of marriage Aristotle was defending when he spoke against the inference of pederasty, which, of course, is even more of a master-slave relationship.
Jan '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
B!
B is where it breaks down. You accept B as a given.
And D!
You'd deny people rights based on some communitarian notion of protecting "society." · 28 minutes ago
Just for the record, I'm not making the argument myself -- just asking ultra where it breaks down. ;-)
Apr '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Leporello
same-sex marriage threatens the very principle of marriage - bearing and properly rearing children. even if one member of a same-sex couple becomes pregnant, the child will never have more than one biological parent. the ill consequences from this are, statistically speaking, huge, even if not every child will suffer significantly from the arrangement. · 11 minutes ago
Those principles of marriage you mention are no longer held to be true by a majority of people. The primary reason for marriage now is to publicly express love...(right or wrong, this is where we are at.)
As to the devastating nature of lacking one of the biological parents, do you have proof that children raised by a homosexual couples, committed to raising the child to be a good member of society, will still be more at risk than if his parents where heterosexual. I can see how having only one parent to raise a child could lead to short falls more often, but I don't see the evidence for favoring one man and one woman over two men or two women.
Feb '12
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
Fred Cole
I'll accept that there might be a correlation between marriage a crime rates, but correlation is not causation. · 5 minutes ago
The "correlation is not causation" line is a throw-away line meant to dodge serious discussion. We always rely on correlation in order to make a judgment about causation. The question is how closely it correlates. In this case, the correlation is very high.
Countries with no armies are prone to be invaded by countries with big armies. But correlation is not causation. Let's disband the army.
Jan '11
Re: Open Discussion: Giuliani Decries the Pre-Modern GOP
katievs
Your letting your truculence lose again, Fred.
The whole point is that marriage is not "a private affair." It's a public institution that serves the common good.
What about same-sex civil unions? Preserves marriage as a public institution, easy way of facilitating rights and obligations for relationships that de facto exist already....