From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 31 2005 - 16:28:06 BST
Upfront: Platt asked if we were getting a little of MOQ. Yeah, we probably are.
So anyone not wishing to read can just "delete" now.
[Arlo previously]
In Canada, for example, they outlawed (going on his words here) assault weapons
and hollowtip bullets and all that, but still have a unrestricted, and
culturally supported, hunting culture that has not "disappeared down any
slope". His words, "the slippery slope argument is nothing more than a
manipulation of fear." Amen.
[Platt]
I'll keep your anti-slippery slope argument in mind next time somebody
tries to convince me that by fighting criminals we encourage more criminal
behavior.
[Arlo]
What the slope-argument says is that "any concession or change to the way things
are will result in absolute and total degeneracy, loss of freedom, or even the
complete destruction of society".
As I've said, there are laws (in some states) allowing cousins to marry.
Presumably, this has not sloped into sibling marriages. There are laws against
drinking beer in public, and this has not sloped into another prohibition. My
point is not that these laws are moral, but that they were implemented without
any sloping into complete societal collapse or totalitarian rule.
This is all just to say that allowing same-sex unions will not ipso facto mean
that people can marry animals, or rape children, or sodomize their sisters, as
the conservatives want everyone to believe. Nor will it "threaten the sancity"
of heterosexual wedlock. The Great Governor of Minnesota (former) Jesse the
Body said it best: How is my marriage under attack if two gays or lesbians down
the street want to make a lifelong commitment to themselves?
[Arlo previously]
And I know you, Platt, well enough to guess that the love she received was not a
product of "wedlock", but a product of your heart.
[Platt]
I see your point. But it's my belief that the love and caring you speak of
was a direct result of making a a prior marriage commitment to love, honor
and cherish until death us do part, and from that public promise arose a
commitment to bear children and be responsible for their care and
upbringing until ready as adults to assume similar responsibilities.
[Arlo]
And I know you are a good person that would've treated your daughter the same
way if she had happened to be a out-of-marriage "oops".
I understand what you're saying. That a predetermination to conceive a child
into a loving relationship often is a precursor to providing that child with
love. Don't think I am blind to the reality that many out-of-wedlock children
are born into. Many times they are unwanted, interruptions, and generally bear
the burden of blame for their own existence. But I've also seen many "oops"
babies receive more tender love and nuturing than many planned babies.
In other words, I think all the stuff you mention is symbolic of what was
already in your heart, it was not causal for it. In some bizarre hypothetical
world, were you and your wife denied "marriage", your daughter would have
received the same love.
[Platt]
To me, raising children to become all they can be is the most important role
parents can play, and the chances of that being accomplished in a family with a
mother and father are better than in any other arrangement IMO.
[Arlo]
Your first point I am in complete agreement with. I think, however, your second
point arises out of your heterosexuality. That is, a triad of male, female,
child seems best because its hard to imagine two men or two women loving each
other (and making the same love-commitments) the same way you love your wife.
[Platt]
I know you like to emphasize compassion, caring, loving, sharing and all
that good stuff, Arlo. But there's the matter of individual responsibility
that's equally important in a free society, or more accurately, in a
society that want's to stay free. Perhaps if we can agree that the
concept of "tough love" has a place when compassion threatens to become
"enabling," our differences might abate, even though you hate such
dichotomies. :-)
[Arlo]
I agree there has to be tough love, sure. If you mean in discipling my daughter,
I don't let her run rampant. I set restrictions, as any parent should, and I
enfore those when needed (which thankfully is not often) with discipline. But
just like Pirsig pointed out with the term "good time" (when you place the
emphasis on "good" the meaning changes), I emphasize "love" in "tough love"
rather than "tough". Example, even in moments when I am disciplining my
daughter, I know she never forgets that I love her. Deeper than my need to my
discipline is my need to ensure that she never for one moment thinks I do not
love her, thus there are some things in discipling I won't do (like belittling
her), and I always make sure she understands my rationale.
But as to your point, as you state it here, I don't disagree.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 31 2005 - 16:56:52 BST