Althouse: "While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads."

May 10, 2012

"While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads."

"In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that — as great as her friends may be — we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview."

Said Bristol Palin.

225 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225

Ralph L said...: So there are still generations, property, and children to be raised. If I were a lesbian, and I helped raise and finance my girlfriend's children, I would want some legal protection for visitation/joint custody if she takes them away. I wouldn't want to risk half my assets, however, so there would have to be a prenip.

I'm not in favor of SSM because it isn't a marriage, but the state ought to have some mechanism to enforce financial responsibility & joint custody if SS people are foolish enough to use them.; 5/11/12, 12:24 AM
Quaestor said...: Another point about fidelity and marriage, the one great concern among males of most species is that they don't like to be cuckolded. That is, they don't want to contribute to the welfare of offspring that are not their own. Among the great apes this concern usually manifests itself by an alpha male establishing exclusive access to the estrous females in the group, the size of that group being proportional to his ability to assert his dominance. Whenever sex between occurs between a fertile female and a lower-ranking male it usually results in a violent attack by the alpha on the offenders. The exceptions to this rule are the orangutans and the bonobos. Orang females raise their offspring in isolation and therefore mate with their choice of males who are less concerned with the paternity of the offspring since they make no contribution to their rearing. Female bonobos mate indiscriminately with the males of the troop whether in and out of estrous. Therefore nobody knows who is sired by whom. This does cut down on stress in the group -- bonobo troops are unusually tranquil compared to chimpanzees. (However, it also means that the genes of the fittest males are no more favored than the genes of the less fit, which has mitigated against the success of the P. paniscus as a species.) Monogamous marriage in humans has a similar function.; 5/11/12, 12:31 AM
Ralph L said...: Without such laws infidelity can only be restrained by violence, bondage or abandonment -- absent the law you can either beat up your cheating wife, chain her to the bed, or leave her and her brood to their own devices
Now you have to give your cheating wife half your stuff and your kids--try those other remedies and YOU go to jail.

Seven, you have a weird view of history. Some societies, like some persons, are looser than others--see Gomorrah and that other place. Some early Christians wanted everyone to be celibate to precipitate the Second Coming by ending the human population. Hornier heads prevailed.; 5/11/12, 12:38 AM
Kirk Parker said...: 7m,

You might try reading E.E. Evans-Pritchard on gender relations among the Azande right around the turn of the 20th century. Very, very different from ours, in quite a few ways: but monogamy was absolutely expected of females, yes indeed.; 5/11/12, 12:44 AM
Carnifex said...: The institute of marriage evolved to make men have skin in the game of rearing children. If you didn't honor your commitment to your spouse you paid a penalty. You progeny was not left for the tribe to feed or to fend for itself.

What it morphed into afterwards depended on the society you lived in. It's evolving still, but to include homosexuals is redundant. They have no "skin" in the game of reproduction, and child raising. If they want to adopt children, fine, but it's still not marriage. Make a civil contract that X will provide for child Y if X and Z split. End of crisis.

Ps. That's why married couples get tax breaks. Child rearing is a bonus for society, and expensive.

Deal with it.; 5/11/12, 12:48 AM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Synova-

Yeah, a lot of the SSM opponents are really concerned about marriage. I was asking them to put their money where their mouth is.

People are too scared to do anything that addresses the problem they identify. The proposed solution does not have any chance of solving the stated problem. Banning gay marriage solves nothing but makes some people feel good about defending an institution that's already fallen apart. Feeling is not the same as doing.

A real solution would limit womens' rights (and mens' rights, too, but that wouldn't be a deal breaker.) That's why it's politically impossible. It's a measure of how far we've fallen that we can't even talk about the real problems in the political arena in anything but general terms. "Family values," is all very nice, but what are you going to DO about it?

As for gays being sincere about the institution of marriage, we'll see. I think marriage is the building block of civilization, and when it fails things go very badly. It seems to me having as many building blocks as possible is a good thing. Why exclude people when we don't have to? And we don't have to.; 5/11/12, 12:57 AM
Seven Machos said...: Gomorrah was about hospitality issues. It primarily involved a mob's threat to anally rape visiting men and Lot's offer to the mob to rape his virgin daughter instead. No marriage involved in the plot whatsoever.

You embarrass yourself. Please read the books of the Bible before you try to talk about them. The particular story you cite is merely a couple pages.; 5/11/12, 1:05 AM
Seven Machos said...: Kirk -- If monogamy is expected of females but not of males, we do not have monogamy as it is understood in our current set of values.; 5/11/12, 1:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Of course she meant her dad, or the idealized father, not her baby's dad.

The smart thing, as a parent, is also to win elections which will provide for your children and their children and so on for many, many generations.; 5/11/12, 1:08 AM
Ralph L said...: As usual, Seven, you miss my point while continuing to win friends and influence people.

Nighty night.; 5/11/12, 1:18 AM
Revenant said...: Since the goodness of traditional marriage hasn't been established by you then your assertion that same-sex marriage is good for the same reason (that reason being unestablished) does not follow.

I'm comfortable leaving "marriage is a good thing" as an axiom.

You're welcome to disingenuously state that the goodness of marriage remains unproven, of course -- but we all know you don't really believe that.; 5/11/12, 2:06 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Would somebody please explain to me why same-sex marriage is a good thing."

Can somebody please explain why same-sex marriage is a bad thing?

It seems the burden of proof falls on those who oppose gay marriage to provide compelling arguments and evidence that same-sex marriage is demonstrably a bad thing.

And, the point is really not whether same-sex marriage is a "good" or "bad" thing but that it is a necessary thing to protect the property rights and other legal rights of those involved in same-sex relationships.; 5/11/12, 7:03 AM
SGT Ted said...: I'm still getting used to the notion that children bullying children has been going on for decades and the victims for all sorts of stupid reasons and no one really gave a shit.

Until some gay kids got bullied and made a movie. THEN its a National Crisis.

I expect the left to use this "anti-bullying" crusade to practice even more civility bullshit in trying to marginalize those who don't support Obama. They will do this by bullying them in the press.; 5/11/12, 8:04 AM
chickelit said...: It seems the burden of proof falls on those who oppose gay marriage to provide compelling arguments and evidence that same-sex marriage is demonstrably a bad thing.

Objection! The burden of proof traditionally falls on the party asserting the charge, asserting the change, fighting convention, etc., etc.; 5/11/12, 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/11/12, 8:26 AM
MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...: Bristol lives in the real world so she understands nature and reality. The President lives in an ideological progressive fantasy world where people like him pretend that homosexuality is normal.; 5/11/12, 9:00 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Objection! The burden of proof traditionally falls on the party asserting the charge, asserting the change, fighting convention, etc., etc."

Well, fuck "tradition." That's just another way of saying "we never thought of it before."

(My favorite quote from the Church of the SubGenius is: "Orthodoxy is the only Heresy!")

Unless those who object to a change in convention can provide compelling arguments and evidence that the change will be materially harmful in some way, why would it be anyone's business to impede a change in convention? Why does any heterosexual person give a damn whether gay people can marry or not?

Absent sound arguments and evidence, it's all boils down to that evergreen of humanity throughout history: ignorance and prejudice!; 5/11/12, 9:08 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The President lives in an ideological progressive fantasy world where people like him pretend that homosexuality is normal."

Given that homosexuality appears throughout human history, (and among animal populations, too), one must assert that it is normal.

That homosexuals may be a minority of the population as a whole--as left-handers and redheads are, for example--does not mean it is abnormal.

That aside, why do you presume something that is "abnormal" is bad, or to be scorned, or not to be respected or embraced? Why do you presume that that which is deemed "normal", (such as human slavery throughout the ages) is therefore "good?"; 5/11/12, 9:14 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Bristol Palin is a Native-American. That alone makes here qualified to teach at Harvard.

I obviously don't read Census forms all that closely (despite having worked as a programmer on the 1980 Census). I thought that Native Alaskan and American Indian were distinct. But, they have been combined for at least the last couple of Censuses. It makes sense though, since some of the tribes in the SW, such as Navajo, look more like, and are closer genetically to Native Alaskan than they are to Native Americans of earlier migrations from Asia (and, yes, that means that Native Americans and Native Alaskans are genetically east Asian - i.e. "Oriental")

Interestingly though, in getting diverted here, it appears that "Native Americans" would prefer to be called "American Indians".

So, why are American Indians and Native Alaskans separated at times? Partly, it is due to their slightly different legal status, based on their different histories. Native Alaskans seem to be legally treated somewhere between how American Indians and the indigenous peoples of Canada are treated.

In any case, Bristol has a lot more "American Indian or Native Alaskan" blood than Warren does (8x?), and Bristol's ancestry is well documented and accepted, esp. since Warren's "Indian" ancestress does not appear to have been listed on the Dawes list for the Cherokee and was listed in at least one place as "white".

But, from that, I would suggest that while genetically, Native Alaskans are essentially the same as "Native-American(s)", you really need to do as the Census bureau does, and call them "American Indian(s) and Alaska Native(s)".; 5/11/12, 9:38 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: It is going to be interesting to see what happens with Bristol Palin. It is almost as if her mother is grooming her for politics, at this young age. She is being given a chance to speak out, and is doing so very well, for someone of her tender years. With that Native Alaskan blood, I don't see her ever being as good looking as her mother (at least to my sensibilities), but she is starting out at a much younger age. Should be interesting.; 5/11/12, 9:43 AM
MaggotAtBroad&Wall said...: >>That aside, why do you presume something that is "abnormal" is bad, or to be scorned, or not to be respected or embraced? Why do you presume that that which is deemed "normal", (such as human slavery throughout the ages) is therefore "good?"<<

I did not say or presume any of that. You did.

My beef is with opinion shapers who want society to accept homosexuality as normal. It's not.

Mental retardation is an abnormality. Physical disability is an abnormality. And homosexuality is an abnormality. To deny that is to deny reality.; 5/11/12, 10:13 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...homosexuality is an abnormality. To deny that is to deny reality."

No...to assert that is to deny reality.; 5/11/12, 10:19 AM
traditionalguy said...: Just to add some perspective, the ideal/law of a faithful wife over a family of dutiful sons and daughters is not exclusively Judeo-Christian.

The Romans new god, Tiberius/Augustus re-initiated that rule of public sexual morality in 30 BC to create respect for Rome's new Imperium.

The underlying concept in both traditions was that God favors and rewards the nation/tribe that keeps public morality in sexual exclusivity of faithful wives, but God curses and defeats those that do not do so.

Remember why the Moses/Joshua generation were allowed to steal Canaan and slaughter its inhabitants. Because of sexual immorality and child sacrifices made to Molech and Baal.

And ask why the Utah guys had to come into line with the sexual public morality of the other states to get their own state.

Ergo: the States should be picking their own path of more restrictive morality or more license in these areas.

The SCOTUS needs to quit passing Amendments against sexual morality issues, and the States need forgo passing an Amendment of their own.; 5/11/12, 10:23 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Seven,

But the point is, contra you: it wasn't just "whateva", and never has been anywhere.; 5/11/12, 12:09 PM
Quaestor said...: Revenant wrote:
You're welcome to disingenuously state that the goodness of marriage remains unproven, of course -- but we all know you don't really believe that.

A) You cannot know what I think. If you wish to persist in a metaphysical absurdity, that's fine by me, but it does nothing to advance your argument or your reputation.

B) Even if I agree that traditional marriage is an axiomatic good, and for the record I do not, it is still irrelevant to my challenge.

I'm comfortable leaving "marriage is a good thing" as an axiom.

You claim traditional marriage is an axiomatic good, and same-sex marriage is good for the same reason, consequently you have effectively given up reason as means to defend your position. Formally this is a tautology, and implies any conclusion you wish, no matter how absurd. Your position amounts to "I believe what I believe because I believe it." Welcome to the Dark Ages, Revenant.

Nobody as even has come close to an argument in favor of the proposition that has a leg to stand on. I'm very disappointed in the pro-gay marriage lobby. I'd have thought you people would have worked out your position better than that.; 5/11/12, 6:28 PM