you ever started something and then wished you hadn't, but couldn't just drop it in mid-stream because if you did you'd leave everybody with the impression you were a raving, reactionary loon?
if so, then you know what it feels like to be me right now.
* * * * *
in part two, i talked at some length about what western civilization has lost over the course of the last 50 years as we abandoned the ideals of responsibility and sacrifice that were the norm back then.
this time, i meant to flip the coin--talk about what we've gained as a result of casting off the shame, repression, patriarchy and segregation that were the dark legacy of that "father knows best" era.
and after that, having thus explored the subject from both angles, i was gonna pose the following question: if i, mkf, could snap my fingers and choose for western civilization either (a) the familial and societal stability of yesteryear, or (b) the individual and collective freedoms we enjoy today [because we can't have both, which is the real point of all this], which way would i go?
and then, having made my choice, i was gonna extrapolate the consequences of that choice a couple generations into the future; i.e., show--given the clear-cut evidence that's out there for anybody who chooses to look at it--where we're headed.
but, you know what? i'm not gonna do any of those things tonight, because i've suddenly grown tired of pissing into the wind.
the sad fact is, most people are content to accept whatever's in front of their faces now as proof of what will forever be; it's left to pessimists like me to think three moves ahead--and nobody listens to us anyway.
sober update: hmm, looks like i never made it past stage 4 last night.
4 comments:
Guttermorality appears to mourn the decline of Western civilization that has occurred over the last 1000 or so years.
Civilization has always been declining. The pessimist sees things are always getting worst. But, like preachers declaring the second coming of Christ, imminent predictions of catastrophe are usually met with a loss of a lot of followers.
Civilization has evolved.
I think guttermorality would say that people are not any more moral or big hearted or less selfish than they were 100 years ago or 1000 years ago (in fact, I think you said precisely that a week or two ago).
But, the reverse is also fallacious. Human beings are no more feckless than they were 50 years ago...or 100 years ago or a 1000 years ago.
Guttermorality seems to think that we are...and that human beings are significantly less moralistic than they were in the 1950s.
Well, noblesavage thinks that is just as big a crock.
Back to gay marriage: it may be true that many gay men think of marriage differently and are just not so keen on the monogamy business. But nowhere in the marriage contract does it say you must be sexually faithful to your married partner.
Marriage is a legal contract. With it, you get certain rights and responsibilities.
The concept of what marriage is has also evolved over time. As noted earlier, it was only in the Victorian era did "love marriages" come to pass. Before that, your mate was generally chosen for you and it had little to do with whether you thought that other person was physically attractive or not.
The thing about this topic is that it appears to coincide with a lot of guttermorality's idiosyncratic views of the world: an acutely moralistic world view (generally; an acutely licentious worldview (personally); some cognitive dissonance between the two; and a generally pessimism about the world and where we are headed.
'Nough said.
you *are* a raving, reactionary loon.
it's part of why i absolutely adore you (that and your curmudgeonly drunkenness).
love ya.
mean it!
noblesavage: did you even read this?
judi: thanks, babe--i've been feeling a little unloved lately.
Did I read your post? Yes, of course I did. I think you are trying to say that I did not understand it. I disagree.
You are taking a pessimistic view (as usual) about life and gay marriage.
What I think you are doing is seeking to impose a lot of moral meaning to marriage that it may have among some (but not all) people now.
What I was suggesting is that marriage has evolved over time. It has changed dramatically and there is no reason why it should remain static.
You single gay men out as promiscuous and not suitable for marriage. You spend not a second talking about lesbians (presumably, you would think they are even better suited for marriage than a straight couple).
Well, I am suggesting that your moralistic view of marriage and judgmental view of promiscuity is just plain odd coming from you (a topic for another time), but most importantly assumes that marriage is this paragon of virtue in the first place. Between heterosexual divorce, promiscuity, irresponsible parenting, and all of the other problems that exist in our society, I find it hard to believe that marriage between two men or two women (that will most likely account for less than 5 percent of all marriages) threatens much.
Post a Comment