Comments on: An alternate defense of marriage for Hank Erwin http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/ The Unpredictable Union of Pragmatism, Idealism, and Cynicism Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:12:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Brian http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4320 Brian Wed, 30 May 2007 10:33:15 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4320 I'm not going to dedicate much effort to defending bestiality, which I consider to be an abhorrent act. I like playing devil's advocate, but even I have standards. I'll concede this round to you. I’m not going to dedicate much effort to defending bestiality, which I consider to be an abhorrent act. I like playing devil’s advocate, but even I have standards. I’ll concede this round to you.

]]> By: Reactionary http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4313 Reactionary Wed, 30 May 2007 04:44:24 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4313 Animals already have some rights, in some cases it seems more than children (judging by the penalties for animal cruelty vs child abuse). Since there are problems arguing that an animal has capacity to consent, what about the argument that it's an act against the will of society? Isn't this a bright line if ever there was one? I think if you agree then I've got you; and if you disagree I'll go 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' on you (paraphrasing the van scene with Sean William Scott - 'Brian says he has an absence of judgment on mammal to mammal love!'). BTW, did you see this NRO article (IMO pretty fair) about Rep. Paul (and just what would he say about bestiality? - I know he opposes gay marriage): http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODIyYzRiMWZiZjg4NWRmNGRjYzg1YmZlNjFlYWU0OTg= Animals already have some rights, in some cases it seems more than children (judging by the penalties for animal cruelty vs child abuse).

Since there are problems arguing that an animal has capacity to consent, what about the argument that it’s an act against the will of society? Isn’t this a bright line if ever there was one?

I think if you agree then I’ve got you; and if you disagree I’ll go ‘Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back’ on you (paraphrasing the van scene with Sean William Scott - ‘Brian says he has an absence of judgment on mammal to mammal love!’).

BTW, did you see this NRO article (IMO pretty fair) about Rep. Paul (and just what would he say about bestiality? - I know he opposes gay marriage):

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODIyYzRiMWZiZjg4NWRmNGRjYzg1YmZlNjFlYWU0OTg=

]]> By: Brian http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4310 Brian Wed, 30 May 2007 01:48:39 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4310 Svaha, it sounds like your experience(s) with marriage has been significantly less enjoyable than mine. BTW, no one really likes it when you just lift one of your own posts and drop it in as a comment on a barely related post. Svaha, it sounds like your experience(s) with marriage has been significantly less enjoyable than mine. BTW, no one really likes it when you just lift one of your own posts and drop it in as a comment on a barely related post.

]]> By: Brian http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4308 Brian Wed, 30 May 2007 01:45:15 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4308 Reactionary, Your question about bestiality is a salient one. I think some level of "rights" should be conveyed to animals, although I admit this is a very perilous concept (I am a proud and unapologetic carnivore). I'll also admit that it is oxymoronic to say "bestiality is wrong because it is an act against the will of the animal" while simultaneously saying "it is acceptable to kill an animal (which is most certainly against their will) for purposes of consumption." While going down this path, I don't personally have a problem with polygamy as long as all involved do so under their own volition. I don't see how one man could psychologically and physically pleasure (or afford) more than one woman, but that doesn't mean that option should be off limits. I would argue that there are any number of perfectly legal actions (such as alcohol consumption) that, although enjoyable, don't "promote the general welfare of the people." Reactionary,

Your question about bestiality is a salient one. I think some level of “rights” should be conveyed to animals, although I admit this is a very perilous concept (I am a proud and unapologetic carnivore). I’ll also admit that it is oxymoronic to say “bestiality is wrong because it is an act against the will of the animal” while simultaneously saying “it is acceptable to kill an animal (which is most certainly against their will) for purposes of consumption.”

While going down this path, I don’t personally have a problem with polygamy as long as all involved do so under their own volition. I don’t see how one man could psychologically and physically pleasure (or afford) more than one woman, but that doesn’t mean that option should be off limits.

I would argue that there are any number of perfectly legal actions (such as alcohol consumption) that, although enjoyable, don’t “promote the general welfare of the people.”

]]> By: Svaha http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4302 Svaha Tue, 29 May 2007 21:12:18 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4302 Love and Marriage Love has very little to do with marriage, although I am surprised at how many people -- even "educated" youngsters in places like India that were culturally mature in the past -- think otherwise. Married life, first with a partner, and then potentially with other genetically allied human beings, is essentially a lesson in the recognition of limitations on individual freedom. It has to do with tolerating and appreciating different points of view in a sequence of very prolonged and intimate interactions, where politeness may fade with time. So the initial flush of physical infatuation soon ceases to be a "decoupling" interruption in the reality of married life. Hence those marriages are likely to be long-tenured and successful that have been socially organized or arranged. In all societies, marriages are arranged to more or less degree, although the rituals/brokerage mechanisms may be very divergent and appear disguised, particularly in societies where the mythology of individual freedom is widely accepted. The idea of individual choice in marriage is of course a mental construct that reinforces the acceptance of what is primarily a social and socially enforced institution. What is fascinating in "new" European societies such as the US, is the strong idealized belief that love is a necessary prerequisite in marriage, when there is dramatic empirical evidence to suggest that marriages fail for a variety of more mundane reasons such as wealth tolerance, brand preference, work-sharing, etc. It appears that despite marriages being based on "love", there is an ex ante probability of greater than 70% that love cannot overcome individual differences on the mundane criteria stated above. So marriages are more likely to succeed where they are arranged and where there is a consistent connection between deep social networks, cultural celebration of social institutions including marriage, a clear/pragmatic recognition of gender differences, and a recognition of the balance between social intrusion and private space. Love and Marriage
Love has very little to do with marriage, although I am surprised at how many people — even “educated” youngsters in places like India that were culturally mature in the past — think otherwise. Married life, first with a partner, and then potentially with other genetically allied human beings, is essentially a lesson in the recognition of limitations on individual freedom. It has to do with tolerating and appreciating different points of view in a sequence of very prolonged and intimate interactions, where politeness may fade with time. So the initial flush of physical infatuation soon ceases to be a “decoupling” interruption in the reality of married life. Hence those marriages are likely to be long-tenured and successful that have been socially organized or arranged.
In all societies, marriages are arranged to more or less degree, although the rituals/brokerage mechanisms may be very divergent and appear disguised, particularly in societies where the mythology of individual freedom is widely accepted. The idea of individual choice in marriage is of course a mental construct that reinforces the acceptance of what is primarily a social and socially enforced institution. What is fascinating in “new” European societies such as the US, is the strong idealized belief that love is a necessary prerequisite in marriage, when there is dramatic empirical evidence to suggest that marriages fail for a variety of more mundane reasons such as wealth tolerance, brand preference, work-sharing, etc. It appears that despite marriages being based on “love”, there is an ex ante probability of greater than 70% that love cannot overcome individual differences on the mundane criteria stated above.
So marriages are more likely to succeed where they are arranged and where there is a consistent connection between deep social networks, cultural celebration of social institutions including marriage, a clear/pragmatic recognition of gender differences, and a recognition of the balance between social intrusion and private space.

]]> By: Reactionary http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4299 Reactionary Tue, 29 May 2007 18:18:15 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4299 Brian, good point - we're probably in total agreement about number one. However, using your 'simply offensive' model, one could argue for bestiality. After all, wasn't Mr. Hands pursuing happiness (having sex) with his own property (horse) - Zoo movie? I'm sure that didn't impact your marriage either (or your relationship with your pets :-P Again, where's the line? I think it's more complex than 'simply offensive'. I think that our laws must be informed by our cultural norms, history, and traditions. For example, the legislatures of the State of Alabama and the USA believe that gay marriage does not promote the general welfare of the people. Brian, good point - we’re probably in total agreement about number one. However, using your ’simply offensive’ model, one could argue for bestiality. After all, wasn’t Mr. Hands pursuing happiness (having sex) with his own property (horse) - Zoo movie?

I’m sure that didn’t impact your marriage either (or your relationship with your pets :-P

Again, where’s the line? I think it’s more complex than ’simply offensive’. I think that our laws must be informed by our cultural norms, history, and traditions. For example, the legislatures of the State of Alabama and the USA believe that gay marriage does not promote the general welfare of the people.

]]> By: Brian http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4297 Brian Tue, 29 May 2007 17:17:10 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4297 AL Mod - This is the first time in months that one of your comments wasn't trapped by the spam filter. Wahoo! I agree that all laws are merely an imposition of morality, but I feel there are two kinds of immoral behavior: those that rob another of life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness and those that simply offend another group. For example, if two gay men got married it would not harm me and would not cheapen the value of my relationship with my wife so why should the government restrict them from being married? I have bigger things to worry about than the personal lives of others. AL Mod - This is the first time in months that one of your comments wasn’t trapped by the spam filter. Wahoo!

I agree that all laws are merely an imposition of morality, but I feel there are two kinds of immoral behavior: those that rob another of life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness and those that simply offend another group. For example, if two gay men got married it would not harm me and would not cheapen the value of my relationship with my wife so why should the government restrict them from being married? I have bigger things to worry about than the personal lives of others.

]]> By: Reactionary http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4295 Reactionary Tue, 29 May 2007 16:35:52 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4295 Marry in haste, repent at leisure. Marry in haste, repent at leisure.

]]> By: Reactionary http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4294 Reactionary Tue, 29 May 2007 15:54:43 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4294 Brian, I like your idea better than Sen. Erwin's (remember that Sen. Erwin's bill is 'for the children!' - but I think that his bill may harm children). Most churches require counseling in order to marry at their facility, so obviously somebody thinks your idea has merit. And somebody probably has data that would illuminate the idea's effectiveness. IIRC Judge Bell (D - here) has a thirty day waiting period for divorce. I agree with you that the potential for spousal abuse exists during a waiting period, plus if there are children then there may be nasty temporary custody issues. I think if someone wants a divorce, it should be easy and fast and cheap. Generally, I agree with the Government imposing beliefs (because that's what laws do - to me the discussion is what and where is the line). Willie Nelson in Dukes of Hazzard: why is divorce so expensive? Cause it's worth it. Brian, I like your idea better than Sen. Erwin’s (remember that Sen. Erwin’s bill is ‘for the children!’ - but I think that his bill may harm children).

Most churches require counseling in order to marry at their facility, so obviously somebody thinks your idea has merit. And somebody probably has data that would illuminate the idea’s effectiveness.

IIRC Judge Bell (D - here) has a thirty day waiting period for divorce. I agree with you that the potential for spousal abuse exists during a waiting period, plus if there are children then there may be nasty temporary custody issues. I think if someone wants a divorce, it should be easy and fast and cheap.

Generally, I agree with the Government imposing beliefs (because that’s what laws do - to me the discussion is what and where is the line).

Willie Nelson in Dukes of Hazzard: why is divorce so expensive? Cause it’s worth it.

]]> By: Alabama Moderate http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4293 Alabama Moderate Tue, 29 May 2007 15:45:23 +0000 http://www.flashpointblog.com/2007/05/29/an-alternate-defense-of-marriage-for-hank-erwin/#comment-4293 To be honest, it's not a bad idea. I know you're being sarcastic, but the liberal in me just went, "I could get behind it." To be honest, it’s not a bad idea. I know you’re being sarcastic, but the liberal in me just went, “I could get behind it.”

]]>