May 17, 2012

"On The Glenn Show, Glenn [Loury] and Ann discuss the politics of President Obama's recent endorsement of gay marriage."

"The two professors, both of whom have gay sons, defend the religious opponents of gay marriage against the charge of 'bigotry.' They argue that religion can be a force for positive social change, such as during the civil rights movement. Ann laments that politicians so often feel they must demonize their opponents, and Glenn defends Mitt Romney's background in private equity. Ann and Glenn compare the Occupy movement with the Tea Party and find the former lacking. Finally, they celebrate 'the leisure of the theory class' and compare their different approaches to vacationing." (Hyperlinks to the specific items here.)

22 comments:

ndspinelli said...

I like Loury, he is sharp, laid back and has a real world view. As I've said, I love travelling this beautiful country by car. Southern Utah is a treasure that maybe only 2-4% of the country has seen. But it's a big world and there is so much more. However, you have to fly to see it. There are classes for those afraid to fly and of course, there is valium.

America's Politico said...

Just came from the pow-wow at the Caribou across the WH. Every-thing is going as planned. Even fed the Drudge a wrong story about Kenya to rile up the GOP. Yes, we are inching towards a total and complete victory against GOP and Romney.

See, all liberals, progressives, concerned mothers, single women, etc. etc. will vote for us.

We win. GOP and MItt: You are nothing. You are finished.

Econophile said...

Major eye rolling here prompted by Glenn's "Never left the country?!" reaction during the travel segment. This is and should be common for people in this huge, kick-ass country of ours. (But, alas, my spouse is from abroad so we do travel a bit for that and other reasons...) I'm with you, Ann: I delight in good road trips and staycations.

edutcher said...

That you can defend those with whom you disagree on a subject about which you are so passionate says some very good things about you, Madame.

And, yes, if you've never driven through AZ and NM, go. The Blonde and I can both recommend it highly.

PS I thought Bloggingheads was kaput.

MadisonMan said...

I say it every time. Glenn: GET A HEADSET.

ndspinelli said...

Yeah, he should get a headset. And Althouse should sit still. My speech teacher would throw stuff @ you if you moved around like that or kept saying, "Ahh". The latter would have meant Bob Uecker would have been pelted to death. Actually, he would have broke both of those bad speech habits.

Chip Ahoy said...

What do you say to the ones who are slow? I suggest asking this. Would you buy a car without brakes? Having a car with brakes would you prefer mediocre brakes or excellent brakes?

But this is not a car and not brakes and you are not driving forward you are flying ahead and not necessarily ahead either you are flying around and condemning your brakes while you're flying.

And while you are condemning your brakes are you so certain your own evolution is not atavistic? Instead of saying goddamnit these brakes are mean-spirited bigoted fuckers you could be saying, "my what marvelous punchy brakes this vehicle has. Here let's adjust them."

rhhardin said...

On bailouts, equity holders were pretty much wiped out. It's the creditors that were bailed out.

That continues as a moral hazard. The creditors are supposed to be the ones taking a hard look at businesses, not the equity holders.

Equity holders take risk because there's an up-side as well as a down-side and they take their chances.

Creditors have no up-side, only a down-side, and they ought to own the down-side they walk into if they're not looking.

Chip Ahoy said...

I thought saying marriage is an institution was ridiculous. Institution. Ha!

So I went over to Wikipedia to see what they say about marriage. What could they possibly say? Right off they say it's an institution and apparently it means everything all at once to everybody and also nearly so evanescent as to be nothing at all. It is a different institution to different people for different purposes involving various agencies at different places throughout history. Every shade of arrangement possible seems played out. Marriage can do almost anything. It's awesome. Reading the Wikipedia entry was inspiring. That is I took a breath and went, whoa.

Nomadic100 said...

Ann, I could only listen to half the video. I just couldn't take Loury's pomposity, though he seemed to be a reasonable guy otherwise. You were far more economical in your verbiage, i.e., a higher ratio of ideas to words, and I appreciated that.

Personally, I'm Catholic - and also a psychiatrist - and recognize that my Church is not yet "evolved" in its view of homosexuality. My belief is that homosexuality is a biological anomaly and that, eventually, the genetics/biochemistry of the phenomenon will be understood. Hence, in my view, those who are homosexual cannot be blamed for their sexual orientation. I have no issue whether homosexuals are accorded "civil union" or "marriage" designations. If they want to be "married," fine! The tighter the legal bonds, the more profits to the lawyers when things unravel. The symbolic victory for those gays who want to be "married" costs me nothing, though I understand that that symbolic change may disturb some.

rhhardin said...

On moral progress, it's nice that somebody thinks that opponents of gay marriage ought not to be demonized, even if only as a political strategy.

The opponents are not the ones on the wrong side, though.

You have to add some listening-to.

Marriage is tied up with a difference between men and women, expressed in a convention that it names.

The opponents are defending the word against destruction.

Religions, insofar as they poeticize this, have poetic statements of the principle; which is what is worth listening to as a lit crit exercise.

What aspect of marriage is expressed in this and that religious dogma.

If you get in that habit of listening and translating, you will evolve into not favoring gay marriage.

While being, as most people are, in favor of civil unions.

That's a simple defense of the word marriage, not a paradox.

Lyle said...

Great discussion. I'm grateful you guys choose to put yourselves and your thoughts out there like this. Thanks.

rhhardin said...

Travel: no further than you go in a bike.

I travelled, propellor propelled, across the Pacific one too many times in the 60s.

Motels are the same everywhere.

That was when stewardesses were good tempered, too.

deborah said...

"That you can defend those with whom you disagree on a subject about which you are so passionate says some very good things about you, Madame."

Yes, and she doesn't get stuck in one corner. She tends to see both sides of an issue, and question both sides of the question.

deborah said...

"That was when stewardesses were good tempered, too."

Did they like your bermudas?

LarsPorsena said...

rhhardin:
'I travelled, propellor propelled, across the Pacific one too many times in the 60s.

Motels are the same everywhere.

That was when stewardesses were good tempered, too'....and a whole lot better looking.

Saint Croix said...

they must demonize their opponents

One of the weird things about the fight over homosexuality is how many liberals seem to relish hating conservatives (ironically, as "haters"). And they seem to do this far more than they actually like homosexuality.

For instance, people on the left routinely mock former Senator Larry Craig. Why? Because he's a Republican and he's secretly gay.

If you actually liked gay people, you wouldn't mock him. You'd feel sympathy for him, right? But they mock him without mercy.

It's quite common for an opponent of homosexuality to be labeled as secretly gay. For instance, here in Charlotte, Franklin Graham (Billy's son) and Bill James (county commissioner) are two vocal opponents of homosexuality. So our political cartoonist put the two of them together on a gay wedding cake.

The idea, of course, is that these two people are homophobes, and they would really hate and be offended about being portrayed as gay.

But this cartoon is actually an insult to gay marriage. You're supposed to laugh at them. You're supposed to mock them. It's like the artist is saying, "ha ha, you're gay!"

In other words, this liberal cartoonist is not really interested in gay rights, or fighting for gay marriage. What he really wants to do is use homosexuality to bash Republicans.

Which of course is similar to how liberals love to call Republicans racist. In fact I think the whole argument that homosexuality is genetic is not a scientific argument at all, but a political one. It's made so that gay rights advocates can recreate the success of the civil rights movement. The idea is to portray anybody who objects to gay rights as a vile person, a hater, akin to a klansman.

Beldar said...

I applaud this method for presenting video clips like this one; I'm more likely to view at least some parts as a result.

YoungHegelian said...

Lurking beneath Loury's hypothetical question about comparing religious opposition to black/gay civil rights (which I thought he phrased very well) are two very dangerous assumptions.

1) Black Civil rights = Gay Civil Rights

No, gays are not the same as blacks. It's not an equivalence, it's an ANALOGY. Big difference.

2) The place of secular reason is to stand in judgement of revelation.

No. There is no Archimedean point where Reason stands, untainted by prejudice & unproven assumptions. Even Logic cannot validate its own axioms, so much less can the rest of human thought. How Revelation & Reason can support or contradict each other is truly one complicated, messy issue in the history of Theology/Philosophy. The boundary between them should be treated with the utmost deference by any sane polity.

I'm sorry to wax so pompous here, but drives me apeshit how folks who get so self-righteous in their condemnation of religious dicta often seem to think that social morality just seems to appear out of nowhere.

Lyle said...

Lying, BS, and Obama... and on the day the born in Kenya story breaks no less. Ha.

deborah said...

What I've never understood about the born in Kenya story was how Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr. could have afforded the air fare to Kenya.

greenlantern said...

It's late and I didn't have the energy for Mr. Loury who seems like a jolly fellow but not too interesting. I did, however, have time to notice that Ann Althouse is more that a little cute!