Get PJ Media on your Apple

Klavan On The Culture

The Great Debates We’re Not Having

April 7th, 2014 - 7:45 am

2. Guns. No one is against people carrying guns. You can buy a bumper sticker that says “arms are for hugging,” but you live in a world of guns and they’re not going away so stop buying stupid dishonest bumper stickers; they make you look like an idiot. Police are going to carry guns and so will other security officers. The debate is solely over whether private citizens should be able to own and carry guns. Conservatives say yes because they feel this is still a revolutionary country in which the common man should be able to fight back if cops become instruments of tyranny.  The left feels those revolutionary days are done and only licensed officials should go armed. We can go back and forth over whether guns cause or prevent crime, but if bearing arms is necessary to preserving freedom and freedom is a human right, the crime stats don’t really matter.

3. Gay “marriage.” The debate here is not about homosexuality per se. Some religious people think being gay is a sin, but so what? Gluttony is also a sin, but that doesn’t give the government the right to regulate what you eat. Likewise, the debate is not about gay “rights.” There are still some rights issues on the table regarding homosexuality, but “marriage” isn’t one of them. This debate is about marriage itself. Marriage has been traditionally and all-but-universally defined as a relationship between men and women. Giambattista Vico, the great 18th century genius who more or less invented Sociology, classed marriage as one of the three founding institutions of any nation (along with religion and ceremonial disposal of the dead). Almost all ancient literature sets the institution of marriage at the beginning of civilization, possibly because it elevates contract and therefore rule of law over family honor and endless vengeance. But the definition of marriage differs in different cultures. The debate we’re having now is about whether its age-old meaning in western culture has changed (because of technology, enlightenment or both) to the point where it can include committed same sex relationships. Those opposed say making such a change would be to remove a load-bearing wall of our civilization. Those in favor would say the change has already happened, it’s an improvement and it should be recognized in law. I would love to hear the two sides debate this, the only issue that matters.

Of course, there are haters everywhere and there are those, like the people who hounded Eich, who mistake their hatred for righteousness. But in all three of these issues, there actually are two sides worth arguing about. It would be almost miraculous to hear those arguments made intelligently and with good will. But I’m not holding my breath.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Andrew Klavan writes:

"But the definition of marriage differs in different cultures."

Andrew, can you please list those nations throughout all of human history and up until the year 2000 that DID NOT view marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman?
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Time for a mass re-reading of Hofer's 'The True Believer'.
To parse it down, these leftist Haters, hate because they are Haters. Not because they actually believe in anything. They flock to the Left because the left welcomes them with open arms. They could just as easily become Rightist Haters except on the Right they would be expected to justify their beliefs and pay the price of admission while always with the understanding that wrongdoing even in the name of Righteousness is grounds for expulsion.
Morals and Ethics do work. The second we forget that we are lost.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
No Andrew. Granted, to those who like the idea of having our government redefine marriage would see great benefit in limiting the debate to how you have framed it, not least your assertion that no other framing is reasonable ("the only issue that matters"). But your framing turns marriage into a utilitarian enterprise.

If men and women did not reproduce sexually we would not have the word marriage. We would not have the word family. We would not have the word civilization.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (113)
All Comments   (113)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail

✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒ www.workbarr.com

✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's particularly ironic because what does the left have to sell besides resentment and hatred? Their supposed opposition to hatred is a mask, because hatred is their raison d'être.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is no possibility of having focused debates with these people. Most of them associate with those who share their views and never critically examine them. Their standard arguing technique with others is character assassination blaming Bush, etc.

As Johnathan Swift said, "You cannot reason someone out of a position he has not been reasoned into."

28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "right to privacy" exists as a matter of common sense, but not as a constitutional right. There is also a common sense right to self defense, but not a constitutional right to self defense, and the difference is important; it means that the states and the people can define what it is and where it begins and ends by law. As a result, the definition of legal "self defense" differs from state to state --- Connecticut's definition isn't the same as the definition in Florida --- and these differences reflect the differing moral consensus's of those respective states.

If Roe vs Wade were repealed tomorrow nothing would change immediately except that states would then be free to make changes in abortion laws and regulate in ways that reflected the differing views on the subject held by the different and diverse populations of those states.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "right to privacy" exists as a matter of common sense, but not as a constitutional right. There is also a common sense right to self defense, but not a constitutional right to self defense, and the difference is important; it means that the states and the people can define what it is and where it begins and ends by law. As a result, the definition of legal "self defense" differs from state to state --- Connecticut's definition isn't the same as the definition in Florida --- and these differences reflect the differing moral consensus's of those respective states.

If Roe vs Wade were repealed tomorrow nothing would change immediately except that states would then be free to make changes in abortion laws and regulate in ways that reflected the differing views on the subject held by the different and diverse populations of those states.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sure. But isn't a crucial element lacking in the "debate we're not having"?

How is it the people of the Left make the rules In The USA?

How is it that others obey their rules? How is that other people follow as "the way to go", AS agreed sociall contract or even law?

Examples their "Political Correctness" AND "Affirmative Action". Both abrogations, i.e. unlawful repeal or nullification, of legally protected rights of citizens.

Review the Constitution, the FUNDAMENTAL AND Supreme Law of the USA. Note the means and methods for CHANGE, alteration, amendment, transformation of legally protected rights of American citizens.

Rights which include "Equality Before the Law", and "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW ... ABRIDGING the freedom of speech...

And then there's that Amendment IX generally overlooked but the essence of the rights of citizens of USA : "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the People".(emphases added)

Are American citizens no longer Americans? You remember, those "exceptionial" peoples of the world.

Isn't it a FACT that the dead white males who created the Constitiutional Republic of the United States from the materails available to them at the time bequeathed to their progeny the desired rights of INDEPENDENCE?

Independence from ANY self-appointed, self propagating incestuous and yes hereditary monarchy. Even when such monarchy is one or several political parties.

With legal protections of those rights of independence from any encroachment by any such monarchy.

Legal protections to be administered by "Representatives of the People". Elected BY the People as guardians of those protections. OATH that EACH representative swears / affirms to "Uphold AND Defend" citizens protections in Law. Representatives in 1. Legialature, 2. Judiciary and 3 Executive in ALL the governments of the Federated States of the Union.

WHO holds them to account if and when they refuse to "do their bounden duty"? OR discount their duty AS duty? OR interpret their duty as expedient to their goals for ever more power over "The Lives of Others".

HOW are THEY held to account? Seems the general accountability is to elect them again, again and again even knowing them remiss in their boudned duty. Incumbency their insurance for perpetual possession of the sinecure of "representative of the People".

Who is responsible and thus enjoined to correct the errors made, the restrictions on the rights of citizens in obeyng the UNLAWFUL rules, the
customs, the NEW AGE social contract imposed by "The Left?
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Back to the subject: how leftists convert more leftists and how they become rabid on issues...solely because of the way the wording is parsed.

This article is on point and very important. If you counter any leftist argument based on their wording of the cause, you will lose. They will not listen and your points, however well said, will be lost.

You must rephrase the issue as demonstrated in the article. Then present the facts.

When I debate abortion, Leftists are unable to name who and what bills.
I ask whether they approve of 8th month abortions and they say no. Roe vs Wade is not going away: it comes down to what month and how. Don't they agree a gurney should be able to fit in the hallways to get a patient out to a hospital? They say yes. Should a doctor run a sonogram before surgery to check for complications? They say yes.

You must break the bumper sticker into real phrases real world and real issues. Faced with details and facts, leftists are unable to defend their bumper stickers. Same goes with equality, eco Green, spending, obamacare, etc.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
Evan Sayet lays out how the thought process goes...

There is their opinion and everything else is “Hate.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
On abortion, there's nothing really to discuss. Science and reason are unequivocally pro-life; everything on the pro-choice side is nonsense. there is no such thing as gay marriage. You can't have my guns.

Now get off my lawn!
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
"2. Guns. No one is against people carrying guns."

Huh? Lots of Dims support that.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think he meant that nobody is advocating for "a world without guns"; that everyone agrees that it's necessary for SOME people to carry guns, like police and soldiers. Though I think he's selling the Left short; I too believe that there are neurotics on the Left who believe in disarming *everyone*.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All