• comment on a post How To Buy A Mansion You Can't Afford over 6 years ago

    "Even if he is completely innocent, it looks terrible."

    No it doesn't - it looks very bad for the person who concocted that lie, but a lie is a lie is a lie. Shame on the one who repeats it to his imagined profit.

    If you guys think that you doing your candidate a favor - you're greatly mistaken. She's probably screaming "OMG! Save me from my supporters!"

  • on a comment on What Is Liberalism?--Part 2A over 9 years ago
    Wow, easy!  

    All I was trying to point out was that your example was ...well, unfortunate as it does not describe what you wanted it to describe (it IS the object of "liberals" to redefine and destroy the traditionally defined marriage, and that's not a bad thing).  And if I got too wordy, well, I was trying to avoid your response which would get me to respond and then... you'd have a true claim to the attempt at hijacking.  No need to get militant...  That is very un-liberal.  

    Continue writing, I like your work even if you trip from time to time - this is a enormous attempt and I applaud you for it.  I will continue reading...

  • comment on a post What Is Liberalism?--Part 2A over 9 years ago
    Hi, another newcomer here...  Hopefully you won't have to blame me for hijacking the conversation, although what I came to say has little to do with liberalism per se...

    Firstly, it's a very interesting series (I've been reading it here and at dKos) and my congratulations to you on your daring...  Although, I don't see the development of liberalism in the same colors as you (which I'm not afraid to admit because you are a liberal and therefore you cherish the pluralism of views ;^)) I definitely applaud your efforts and find myself a little jealous as I would not dare it myself.  This is a humongous undertaking that, I do not doubt, will only benefit me and other readers.  Bravo!

    The issue I came to speak to is the issue of the institution of marriage.  While I cannot and would not argue with the underlying theory you present I would argue that the liberals, me in particular, are in fact out to destroy the traditional institution of marriage the same way we were out to destroy the institution of slavery.    

    The left finds the patriarchal model of marriage not only insufficient, we find it evil.  The marriage, to us, must be a partnership or it does not make sense and therefore should not exist in its traditional form.  The new model of marriage cannot abide by the rules of the traditional marriage where the man IS the head of the family.  This is not an argument where liberals allow (or should allow) for plurality of views.  

    The argument against the institution of traditional marriage started in the 19th century.  George Sand was the first to call the institution of marriage the institution for enslavement of women.  Yes, she equated women with slaves (rightfully so) and men with slave owners.  The arguments - some brilliant like Ibsen's - continued thru the turmoil of history and finally, after WWII, the critics of the institution of traditional marriage had their day.  A compromise was made:  the word partnership was added to the description of the marriage essentials.  It was a bad compromise.

    The fight over the gay marriage today is just the latest battle in the same war we've been fighting since the 19th century.  And the traditionalist Christians must fail.  The basic tenant of their religion states that one must treat another as his/her equal.  How does it agree with the basic rule of the traditional marriage, in which one MUST BE a subordinate to the other (even if both are very respectful of each other)?  Imagine how scary it must be for the religious right to argue their position:  if the gay marriage is a successful affair in the real world how will they justify the very concept of "the head of the family"?  (Please note that they aren't threatened by divorce rates at all.)  This is where their strong support for conservatism sits, they don't have to define what they stand for - and this is what they have been trying to avoid all along.  

    What I am trying to say is this:  the new institution of marriage will change our civilization in ways we cannot imagine.  And while it is a very much needed change, it must be acknowledged that it will also obliterate the old-fashioned way of living.  The argument was designed that way in the 19th century by George Sand and her opponents.  It still stands today, only the accidentals changed.  This is what we fight for!  And we should not keep to the illusion that the gay marriage proposal is a proposal for just another of many forms of marriage and the conservatists will be allowed to keep their way of living.  They are right to be affraid that their way of life will die.  It will.  I, btw, will shed no tears...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads