>marriage tailored towards heterosexuals is more keen in aesthetic
How so? Supposing someone mandated that all art galleries should be carry the theme developed by Jackson Pollock, you’d probably say his aesthetics were shit. Art 100 says beauty is subjective, and frequently culturally defined. Here’s to those elongated Thai necks, African piercings, genitalia mutilation, and Chinese foot-binding.
>Marriage shifts from championing a man and woman who have chosen each other over to
championing two people that have chosen each other.
Fixed that for you.
>I don’t see anything to gain by handing it out to everybody for the sake of equality.
Happiness for certain individuals, and the reduction of conflict and stress in the larger society. It means encountering fewer pissed off gay neighbors, friends, and keyboard warriors. And if you ever develop an attraction to a gay friend, you have the same liberties.
>Will straight kids, teens and college students be instilled with a conception of these notions in which their feelings are just another beast in the jungle?
Once mankind can take an honest look in the mirror and compare the face to a chimpanzee we’ll be better off. We can’t progress if we keep telling ourselves we are better than the beasts in the jungle that fuck on instinct (via lordosis behavior). We have to look at objective reality, and we evolved from animals, and have similar processes, and our attractions and morality are often driven by very flawed biology.
Unfortunately, we are still insecure about the idea that we are not in full control of our thoughts and because of our animal origins. Contemporary Puritans therefore try to mask our attraction to super stimulus with fancy terms. “Classical art,” or “classical aesthetics” often describes the paintings of nympos, virgins, prostitutes, and other nudes with come hither expressions. The adolescents who skip the still lifes to gawk in lewd admiration at risque paintings and statues, freely share honest vulgar jokes with one another. Euphemism throwing adults use their intelligence to confuse themselves over the purpose of the first pornographic paintings.
The more your rely on feelings, the more you enter your own little world of make believe. (It’s an alternate reality where adolescents learn about perfect couples, and unconditional everlasting love. These ideals also create painfully unrealistic expectations for teenagers, that result in harsh breakups.)
>back when I used to be a libertarian years ago, I had cohorts who didn’t like the idea that gays might come to qualify as marriageable, yet felt compelled to support it against their liking due to “liberty” and all that junk. This issue wasn’t what made me stop being a libertarian, but it was certainly the first chink in the armor.
You stopped being a libertarian (right-wing) because you didn’t like gay marriage? Or rather, you didn’t like that your libertarian friends supported gay rights? Then I don’t see how you could ever call yourself a libertarian to begin with? You do know that both liberal and libertarian are etymologically derived from the word “liberty?” and their parties often have similar positions? Perhaps you should have just called yourself a traditional conservative from the beginning, because your position doesn’t appear to have ever shifted. Only your affiliation has shifted and that was due to a misunderstanding of a certain word.
For the record, here’s what the (once growing) Libertarian party supported in the USA. They were pro-gay, and pro-prostitution until the Republicans co-opted the Libertarians, and assimilated their most popular positions. The Republicans effectively killed the Libertarian party and their more controversial positions. Republicans have little leeway on gay marriage because the actual Libertarians are outnumbered by a voting base of religious nuts who prefer to pat themselves on the back and call themselves sexy Libertarians rather than learning what the word actually means. It’s ironic that the Liberals and Libertarians actually had a lot of common ground, when you use a stricter definition.
You should be careful not to be swept up into identity politics. If you find a party that perfectly represents all of your values, that’s a warning that you’re a partisan hack. Parties (especially large ones) make compromises all the time to entice new voters.
>I really believe that the state recognition of gay marriage will serve to reduce heteros feeling of belonging at some deeper level in the long term.
How so? Because a partner can leave you and become a bisexual? Then let’s pull in the arguments used for divorce. Any child of a divorce can tell you that forcing people who don’t get along to remain together doesn’t work. Presuming people belong together is the problem. Marriage can just make people complacent, until they take each other for granted. An unhappy marriage is also a tumultuous environment for the parents, their kids, and their friends and neighbors who have to put up with the shouting.
Or is this a variant of the argument the “white power” arguments, that certain privileges shouldn’t be extended to the colored, or that a boy’s club shouldn’t allow girls? I left that that “tribal” tree house mentality in primary school after my friend locked out my crush because of “cooties.” If you mean something else, you’ll have to rephrase it because I’m not following the reasoning.
All I’ve gotten from what you’ve said is that gays make you feel icky on a gut level. It’s a conclusion that doesn’t come from logic or any ideology and it rests on a foundation of thin ice that could melt tomorrow. The day might come that you go to the cinema and are inspired by a heartwarming Academy Award winning film that glorified gay love. If that doesn’t happen, your views could evolve if you happen to take some psychedelic drugs at a party, and discover the next morning you find yourself in a smelly bed with someone of the same sex, with a memory of a fun night.
>”I stood among them, but not of them.”
How does remaining apart from a popular consensus, like a party-pooper loner in a crowd imply Lord Bryon’s thoughts are more worthy than any others?
>I was intrigued by the concept that the libertarian/anarchist goals they supported could at the same time undermine their idea of community.
In what manner do libertarian goals undermine a community? I don’t think most libertarians go far enough to advocate anarchy, in the same way most liberals/socialists do not go so far as to advocate Communism.
>I saw that their advocacy of individual liberty was more of an abstract and self-induced obligation rather than sheer expression of concern for themselves and those that they cared about.
I think I know where you’re coming from, and the hypocrisy of charity is a big part of why I can’t consider myself a Republican. I don’t believe in voluntary charity for those that can afford it anymore than I would believe in voluntary taxes. I’m uncomfortable with only caring about your closest neighbors, or the people that are nice to you. I don’t like living like a caveman with a bird brain that only gives because giving pleases him, or because it maximize his chances of survival by protecting his genes and allies. It’s an even more terrible fate to be surrounded by the spoiled offspring of those cavemen. Humanity has to evolve beyond merely preserving survival of the fittest, if we are to create a great society we can take pride in.
(Inb4 someone calls me a Communist and derails this thread, I think a balance of cooperation and friendly competition offers the best of both worlds.)
> It made me question why I supported liberty for all
I don’t follow. If you were talking about economics I might agree as I have hinted above. I’m for reducing the liberties of the bourgeoisie, and sharing their wealth to reduce the power imbalances. I favor controls that will create a more egalitarian society. But I don’t see a correlation between a desire to provide opportunities and second chances to more people, and wanting to restrict gay liberties.
>and, as you can tell, I’ve actually abandoned a number of the causes I used to identify with and have taken up the adversarial positions instead.
I think you’re in danger of yo-yoing between extremes.
>you urged me not to rely on my feelings
That’s for objectivity, but I haven’t discouraged empathy.
Thrown away text:
Here’s an example of what I mean. You can stroll with your family through a city and pass dozens of needy strangers without knowing their problems, and even if they spoke up, some of them are too ugly, suspicious looking, or anti-social to be blessed. So your selfish family ignores them, saying they’d probably blow it on booze anyway, and instead give $50/100 bucks to the spoiled nephew with the pretty face, even though he already has a few dozen new video games on his next generation console. It’s natural to spoil your loved ones, but it wastes money, and makes for lazy degenerates. It’s frankly, an automatic process to favor one’s genes, and we shouldn’t be proud about giving to unsavory spoiled brats. There’s no honor in it.
This is where faceless income redistribution and the well-fare state are supposed to step in, to combat municipal apathy when personal charity does not suffice. (Some people prefer to throw money at private charities, but they do that only to feel better about themselves. Those charities are also wasteful because they combine the inefficiency of a bureaucracy with playing favorites. Christian charities love to attach strings to their handouts, and guilt trip people into joining their religion, or are like Mooseheart and have rules that only allow members to give money to Christians for charities, but not Atheists.)
I like the idea of society working together to create a fair and faceless mediator (or “God”) that can moderate the chaos of unequal opportunity and happiness. (I guess that makes me more of a liberal.) Regulation can improve human evolution….
If people continue to choose favor isolationist hobbies over communal ones like bowling, and stop going to church, there will be less empathy, less communication, and less random support for the needy. It’s just easier on the conscience to know a faceless authority is there to provide for anyone. I guess I like the idea of designing our own God. I don’t think an anarchist has given serious thought to what happens afterward.