Sometimes I seem to best express myself when I just start typing, Today I don't have time to do anything else, so I'll hope this comes out ok and try to smooth out a finished product later.
This is a sort of mini- Chautauqua demonstration using a string of postings that Koshersalaami and I did over the weekend.
The theme is Decision Making- I would say it is a very good primer for beginning to understand the process by which a “Quantum of Free Will” comes to a Reasonable Decision
Kosher starts out with a contemplation of whether a congressman is dishonorable in accepting a deal which gives him what he wants, seemingly at no price.
at: Dirty Hands
since the “deal” concerns trading a vote he would not make otherwise for a vote on “gay rights”, you may find some background for the position at Gay Marriage
I did separate posts ( Authority and Morality and Authority and Morality II ) tangential to Kosher's main thrust about the Ethics and Morality of congressional dealing, in order to introduce the way a person of Logic would view the deal vs a person of intuition, without sidetracking Kosher's post.
Kosher posted The Gift
as a more narrative way of explaining his exploration of what the correct response would be when the congressman is offered a seemingly no strings attached gift of his Gay Rights legislation, which otherwise would not pass.
I further posted :Datum (latin for "gift") of information, which contained what I thought was an interesting sidelight to possible motives for the “Gift” of a “gay rights” bill
and later Chautauqua- a continued discussion of Gay Marriage to point out the way that these postings were evolving, and also to point out the evolution, production, and abduction of what words mean, and how they subvert meaning and hide agendas.
Which brings me here.
I invite you to explore these posts as a “tributary System”, much like a river with it's creeks and streams and lakes. I invite you to post and comment , and if you are inspired to make a related post, reference it in the comments. Pleases feel free to comment wherever possible, but I ask, if you would that you please comment at this post on any feedback you might have as to the form of this as a Chautauqua, and any suggestions for improvement you might have.
I would add as a “Bon Voyage” for the trip the thought that words are magic-- and that the “True” hidden agenda of getting the State out of the Marriage business has nothing whatever to do with “Gay Marriage”, but rather in forcing the State to acknowledge that it doesn't have the authority to legislate things of the spirit. The spiritual people are taking back a term that has meaning to them. Much as if they wanted to assert the theological meaning of the term “Damned”- (You do understand that just because you order your dog out of the room by yelling “OUT Damned Spot” that you are not actually condemning him as destined for the fires of Hell?.)
I alluded to that with a tongue in cheek reference to a supposed campaign by the KKK to “rehabilitate” the meaning of the term N*****R, - but think, correspondingly, could you picture a Redneck taking offense at being called a “Redneck”?
In the end , that's the point of my Chautauqua on the ART of Reason- I believe that originally the term “To Reason” meant to make decisions by weighing both Logic and Intuition- and that is what it means to be “reasonable”, but the term has lately been abducted by people who insist it means merely “Logical”- It is my intent to steal it back.
On a somewhat related note, Little Ms Deeds is waging a campaign to be the poster child for Prosecutorial Misconduct in Fairborn.
The Parable of Little Ms Deeds
Please check it out, and Like it on Facebook and Reddit, if you want to support her nomination
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Robert Fuller
Darla Carmichael
Michael E. Ross
Inverted Interrobang
Doc Vega
mistylee<3
Salon.com
Comments
It runs counter to accepted rules of manufactured, sausage like news delivery system. (And I feel bad here because I LOVE sausage. But never mind)
The fact that you give the tributaries substance by discouraging the narrow minded thinking that results in the shrill blaring rants of "I know everything and you know nothing" also gives shape and color to the art of reasoning and conversation---real conversation--in the virtual medium.
You got an uphill battle. But I believe its worth it.
Which, inevitably, leads me to a question:
If anyone has anything further to contribute to any of these discussions, do you want them contributed here or in the appropriate pidgeonhole? If they go to the appropriate pidgeonhole, how will the person whose post it isn't know it continued? Does it matter if they do? For those reasons, here might be the best bet, at the summation post.
A minor point about the narrative:
In "Dirty Hands," I was asking a pair of questions. The other question was "Can the Congressman be seen as being dishonorable (by his/her constituents) for refusing the deal?" That question was one that most of my audience had a whole lot more trouble grasping, but there was zero facetiousness to it - I absolutely meant it. The dilemma I postulated is based on the tension between the two questions.
If the state gets out of the business of marriage, it won't really get out, because chances are that the vernacular for having gone through a civil union will still be "married," which in essence puts us back at Square One.
The perceived threat postulated here - that the ultimate aim of the State is to regulate the religious side of marriage - is illusory. No one that I know of is contemplating forcing clergy to marry couples they don't want to marry. That forcing is NOT part of a liberal agenda. It may look like the sort of threat that liberals or progressives might pose but, in reality, we're not interested. Religious rites such as that are left alone, except perhaps where there are public health concerns (such as burial regulations). There are many reasons why clergy can currently refuse to marry couples, including in every State that has legalized gay marriage. In that respect, the spiritual aspect of marriage is NOT under attack. If marriage were taken out of the State's jurisdiction, churches that recognized gay marriage would use it, so the "marriage" label would end up applied to gay couples.
But not through churches that don't want to marry them? True, but that's true now, has always been true, and I see no reason for that to change.