Socratic Wisdom

Post on September 4, 2007 by Andrea Verykoukis 19 Comments »

I know there are more than a few boob men around here, but I wonder if we could step back and focus on something – anything – else for a moment. Let's talk toe-tappers. It may be a shock for you to know that I appreciate an off-color joke more than the next girl, particularly if it's crude ("Superbad" anyone?). Thus, I've needed a little time to get all the Idahomo humor out of my system before writing this. There's been a lot written about the unfortunate Larry Craig in the last week, but none of it was written by me, so here goes: It's the closet, stupid.

We could focus on Mike Rogers, the gay blogger who's out to out Washington's heterosexist hypocrites. Big job, Mike, more power to you. Aren't you running the risk that using private information to humiliate people, lowly may they be, just perpetuates the notion that it's shameful to be gay? Food for thought. Rogers is all about standing up to people who say one thing and do another, but at what cost? He thinks it's unfair that Craig had so much say over military affairs when gays and lesbians can be ruined if they're found out. He's probably right about that, but then maybe Craig figured if he couldn't live openly, why should they? Makes you wonder about those who oppose gays in the military, hmmm? (As an aside, let me say that I'm from a Navy town, the Navy town actually, and always wondered why people were nattering on about "letting" gays in the military. Friends, they've been there all along and had the nightlife to prove it. That's another story though.)

Next, we could wax sociological about the ritualism of gay sex in public places. The NYT piece has some great points. I read "And The Band Played On" at a young age, so I pretend to myself that I know all about it. Was it fair for Craig, or any restroom trawler to be targeted? Was he entrapped in the sense that the cop could have refused to respond to Craig's feelers (sorry I couldn't resist)? I'm a little less sympathetic to this argument as the mother of some little people who are old enough to use the men's room but waaaaay too young to walk in on the love that dare not speak its name.

The biggest thing about the whole affair is the sickness of life in the shadows. When you live in the closet, there can be no integrity. I'm not calling Craig gay, he was pretty clear about that, wasn't he? But clearly there are urges there that he's not honest about, least of all to himself. How can your words and deeds match when you can't even face yourself? Getting entangled in lies and self-loathing is tragic for anyone, even a politician. Isn't all this really a lesson to the youth of America. As Socrates, no stranger to the pleasures of the flesh, put it, "Know thyself." Shakespeare took it to this logical conclusion: "This above all, to thine own self be true, for it must follow as dost the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Not That Anyone Had Any Doubts…

NC Near Bottom in Infant Mortality

Comments (Closed):19

krm0517
September 5, 2007 at 9:22 am
I agree with your overall sentiment. I would like to add, however, that it is possible to be gay or lesbian and not support the homosexual political agenda without being a hypocrite. It is possible to be homosexual and be opposed to the federalization of marriage laws at the same time. It is also possible for gay people to be politically conservative and even libertarian.
sturner
September 5, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Andrea, thanks for the provocative post.
We agree that the need to be “in the closet” is the problem. And the reason that “the closet” exists is that there is widespread prejudice towards gays. Consequently, I believe there are many legitimate reasons to keep your sexual preferences private.

Having said that, whether or not the hypocrites should be “outed” is a tough call. What is shameful here is not whether someone is gay, but the demonization of gays. In the end, I believe outing Larry Craig was the right thing to do. Here’s why: public servants in charge of making laws and public policy should be held to a higher standard. Particularly when it involves our civil liberties. What krm calls the homosexual political agenda…progressives should call equal rights. So, when someone’s civil liberties are being violated (ie. gays denied the right to marry and the legal rights that are a product of such unions) we should all feel threatened. Larry Craig was fair game in my opinion.

For me an analagous situation regards civil rights. If it had been known in the 1950′s that Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond had a black mistress who bore their child…I would have outed him…no question about it.

Lastly, can’t we all agree that sex in public places…hetero- or homosexual…is inappropriate? I have no idea if Sen. Craig was entrapped, but I have no problem with the sting operation.
Jim Stegall
September 6, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Gays aren’t denied the right to marry, and we need to stop misleading people into thinking that’s the case. The same rules apply to them as apply to anyone, just as the Constitution requires.

Our laws grant special legal status to couples that meet the criteria established by law (one man, one woman, both over a certain age, not related by blood, etc.) and who purchase a license and follow the proscribed proceedures for having their union recognized. Several thousand years of human civilization has proven that societies generally benefit from such arrangements, so there is a compelling public interest in granting legal recognition to them.

The rules work pretty well as they are, and unless there is some evidence of a greater societal benefit to be derived from recognition of homosexual marriages, I don’t see any need to change them.
Jim Stegall
September 6, 2007 at 6:37 pm
“prescribed,” not “proscribed.”
sturner
September 6, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Jim, your bigotry is showing. You are denying for others a right which you enjoy, based purely on your discomfort with their sexual orientation.

Also, you contradict yourself. Of course gays are not allowed to marry and enjoy the same legal status that heterosexual couples do. Otherwise, what in the Hell is all the fuss about that rises to the need for a constitutional amendment?

Finally, there is nothing about gays marrying that would change your statement that “Several thousand years of human civilization has proven that societies generally benefit from such arrangements, so there is a compelling public interest in granting legal recognition to them.”
Jim Stegall
September 6, 2007 at 10:51 pm
“You are denying for others a right which you enjoy…”

Who said I’m enjoying it?

But seriously, what makes you think I’m uncomfortable with homosexuals? If that were true, my life would be far more complicated than it is. I wonder what I’ve written that would lead an objective reader to believe that I harbor bigotry towards homosexuals?

Also, I don’t get your point about a contradiction. I said gays are allowed to marry and that is undeniably true. You can find any number of kooky internet preachers, shamans, or New Age would-be-warlocks who are happy to perform the service for you if you like. I know, because I’ve seen such “ceremonies.” No one is being denied any rights here.

I never said that they could enjoy official recognition of their unions–I actually wrote quite the opposite. My whole point was that the state has good reasons, well founded in history, for affording recognition (and the accompanying special legal status) to ‘traditional’ married couples, just as the state has good reasons for affording special tax status to homeowners vs. renters, for example, or for exempting women and old folks from the draft, when there is one.

If gays really believe that they would be better off having their relationships regulated by the state perhaps they should try convincing the body politic of the potential benefits to society of such regulation, rather than waste their efforts on specious arguements about ficticious rights. It might also help, from a public relations standpoint, if they came up with another name for the arrangement they seek than “marriage.” That word is already taken.
sturner
September 7, 2007 at 8:07 am
You admit, then, that the word “marriage” is useless as a legal term since “New-Age warlocks” can perform the ceremony. I presume we agree that the state should not be sanctioning “marriages.” Leave that ceremonial designation to others.

That gets us back to whether a same-sex couple should have the same legal rights (call it what you want…civil union…whatever) as heterosexual couples. Would you deny same-sex couples the same legal status you enjoy? I understand what the law says so don’t hide behind that…does Jim Stegall believe that same-sex couples should have equal status under the law?
Jim Stegall
September 7, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Equal status as compared to traditional “married” couples? No, I don’t see any reason why the state should do that. There are valid reasons (benefits to society, which I discussed above) for extending that recognition to traditional pairings. Can you argue that there are any similar benefits to society of doing the same for homosexual couples?
sturner
September 7, 2007 at 6:16 pm
You didn’t actually list the “benefits to society” that are “well founded in history.” I assume you mean that society has determined that stable, long-term relationships make for better citizens, so government has an interest in promoting them. Why wouldn’t supporting long-term gay relationships be just as beneficial to the state? The benefits of legalized marriage (including medical decision making, social security benefits, taxes, inheritance, insurance, etc.) would promote gay relationships equally as well as heterosexual relationships. If there are societal benefits to be accrued they would be equivalent for both gay and hetero- couples.

Face it, Jim, you are prejudiced on this issue. You are willing to deny others legally sanctioned benefits solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. That’s bigotry. Don’t judge yourself too harshly though, most of us are prejudiced in one way or another. For instance, I’m not too fond of supply-side economists.
Jim Stegall
September 7, 2007 at 10:52 pm
“I assume you mean that society has determined that stable, long-term relationships make for better citizens, so government has an interest in promoting them.”

Well, you’re almost there. History has proven that stable long-term heterosexual relationships do make for better and more prosperous citizens. Even more important, they provide the basis for the care and upbringing of children. That’s a benefit that society is wise to recognize and reward.

There is not one iota of evidence that providing the same level of government recognition to homosexual couples would bring similar benefits to society (point it out to me if it exists). The idea strikes me as something people on the left accept out of faith, rather than reason, sort of like your knee-jerk assertion that anyone who questions the wisdom of legally recognizing homosexual marriages must be prejudiced.
sturner
September 8, 2007 at 12:38 pm
This is the last time I am going to say this. It is not equal justice to deny legally sanctioned benefits to an entire group based solely on their sexual orientation. Recognition that gays have unequal status under the law is all the motivation we should need to correct this injustice. It is not necessary to “provide evidence” that society benefits.

Besides, (not that they should have to justify their existence to anyone else) how would gay couples “prove their benefit to society” when people like you would deny them that opportunity? Frankly, the thought of having to “prove” anything is insulting.
Jim Stegall
September 8, 2007 at 3:16 pm
No one can make you see what you don’t want to look at. I’m surprised that you’ve opted not to even attempt an arguement in favor of your stated position. Saying that the state of affairs you seek to bring about is already a right, and calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot is not an argument. It does, however, seem to be the default position for many leftists who cannot otherwise defend their beliefs.
sturner
September 9, 2007 at 8:57 am
Jim…the fact that a right has not yet been legally recognized does not mean it is nonexistent.

Let’s look at interracial marriage. It wasn’t until 1967 that the US Supreme Court unanimously declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional, thereby ending race-based restrictions on marriage. Of course these “rights” always existed, it just took an appallingly long time for them to be recognized legally.

People who opposed interracial marriage in the 1960′s were prejudiced. People who oppose gay marriage today have similarly prejudiced views.

By the way, the Supreme Court in 1967 did not ask for anyone to “provide evidence” that interracial marriage would provide “benefits to society.”
Jim Stegall
September 9, 2007 at 7:03 pm
That’s because the Supreme Court was striking down a law that punished people (with jail terms, I believe) for engaging in what ought to be purely private behavior, i.e: marrying outside their racial group. Is there a law nowadays that punishes homosexuals who live as a couple? If there is, the court should strike it down as well. Of course, there is no such law. Homosexuals may play house to their hearts’ content, and many do so, without the slightest official interference. Your argument is classic apples to oranges.

The argument is still over what the state should be bound to recognize. When establishing special status for any entity, the state has the responsibility to pick and choose what the criteria for that status ought to be. That’s why the state sets criteria for establishing differing tax brackets, or eligibility for food stamps, or determining who can get a driver’s license, or be drafted (or exempt from the draft), or take money out of an IRA without a penalty. The state ‘discriminates’ like this all the time, and for good reason.

If the state is going to be in the marraige business at all I see no reason why it shouldn’t select the criteria for defining marriage that best serve the objective interests of society. Perhaps one of these days advocates for homosexuals will advance a coherent argument for establishing special status for their particular couplings.
Jim Stegall
September 10, 2007 at 9:24 am
A friend of mine has opined that the real reason gay advocates want the state to recognize homosexual marriages is that having the state do so would afford an added measure of social acceptability to gay relationships. Is this true? Is this really what gay activists are after, and if so, is this an element of the “gay agenda” social conservatives are always complaining about (and that many leftists deny exists)?
sturner
September 10, 2007 at 10:25 am
Jim…you’re crazier than I thought. Of course it should be “socially acceptable” (whatever you mean by that) to be gay. The fact that you have to ask the question says quite a bit about you. All this time I thought we were talking about legal rights.

As seems overwhelmingly likely, the vast majority of gay people are born with their gender orientation (Ted Haggard’s therapeutic conversion notwithstanding). Just like you were, Jim. Do you wonder about the social acceptability of people born with with red hair, or blue eyes, or brown skin?
Jim Stegall
September 10, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Can you really do no better than to hurl insults? I shared with you an observation that was presented to me by a third party; you respond by calling me names.

In fact, the person who gave me the information I shared with you is gay, is very committed to having the state recognize gay marriages, and has been very frank with me about what she sees as the long-term social benefits for gays of state recognition. In her view there is still a lot of hostility towards gays in our society, and having the state legally recognize gay marriage on a par with traditional marriage would go a long way towards forcing people to confront, and perhaps rethink, their prejudices.

Frankly, her argument beats yours all to hell. It has some weaknesses, but at least it’s both plausible and coherent.
sturner
September 11, 2007 at 8:04 am
Your friend and I are in 100% agreement, so there is no argument. We agree that legal recognition of gay marriage would go a long way towards helping Americans confront their prejudice on this issue, and that this would be a good thing.

Do you agree?
Jim Stegall
September 11, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Man I don’t get you at all. You call me crazy for airing an argument that it turns out you’re in complete agreement with. I’ll never understand how you guys think.

As I implied above, I think her argument has some merit, but I also see why social conservatives have serious heartburn over the government seeming to take over the social (as opposed to legal) definition of what a marriage ought to be. It’s always dangerous for our government to get into the social engineering business (governments historically render disasterous results when they venture into this field), especially since the governed have not consented for it to do so. Remember, the government that forces people “to confront, and perhaps rethink, their prejudices” today can force them, at the point of a gun, to rethink their values tomorrow. And I mean your values too.