Values.... Ugh
The word "values" really gets under my skin. When it's used singularly, as in, I value my kitty, it's fine. But when people claim to have better "values" than others, it just becomes scary. I just watched the interview with Senator Rick Sentorum and Jon Stewart, compliments of Jobetta's fancy blog. I normally try not to post something on a subject another has posted on, but in this case, I wish to address Mr. Sentorum's utterance of the word "values" five-thousand-one-hundred-and-seventy-two times during the conversation.
Before I begin, let me first say what I mean by "values". According to dictionary.com, the definition of value (one of the many, and the one that most pertains to my argument) is as follows "A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable". Easy enough to understand. I have values. So do you. We all share some, we all disagree on some. That's totally cool, because we live in a diverse society made up of people and furry animals and plants. Though I'm not going to bring the furry animals and plants into this conversation, we must admit to the fact that no matter what you believe, you have things that you value on an ideological level.
When forming groups of laws based on what is "best for society" (as Mr. Sentorum put it), it is inevitable that certain ideological issues must be decided upon. Abortion, land use and capital punishment are a few. However, it is inconceivable that any law should be made which places a certain set of values above another. Of course, this happens time and time again, but what is "best for society" is not usually the case. Perhaps it is just my opinion, but what is best for society, the only "value" we should all share, is that of (can you guess?) EQUALITY.
Mr. Sentorum didn't disagree with this point when Jon Stewart mentioned it. Although, he really side-stepped the issue when Jon politely informed him that he is the product of a single-parent family and therefore, not part of Mr. Sentorum's... how did he put it? oh yeah... "ideal valued family structure". I digress.
Looking at history, what is valued most by a society is how that society will construct their laws and lives. Our existence is predicated on not knowing what is the absolute best thing all the time, but dammit we're gonna try anyway. One thing that will always the best thing is (I'm sure you see where I'm going) EQUALITY.
Equality is a value. It doesn't exist and it only holds meaning if people believe in it. But I guarantee you, anyone on either side of the issue of gay marriage would pronounce with fervent dedication that they "value" equality. I really don't want to go into it right now, but you all probably know how much research I've done into the "gay family". I've done so very much (not nearly as much as other, though) and I can't find where two gay parents who are in a committed relationship do any more harm to their children that straight people. You can find isolates cases, sure, but they're almost always linked to emotional issues the parent has anyway, not that they're gay. What Mr. Sentorum doesn't seem to realize is that though kids tease each other, there is a new idea of gayness being forged in America. With all the media attention and dedication they've shown to being American and upholding it's "values", gay people are well on their way towards legal equality.
What one values, another may not. Fine. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think the democrats have got any "better" values than the republicans and vice versa. Really, I don't. Values are relative and only certain ones can both sides agree upon (equality being one of them). That being said, there are A LOT of republicans (I would argue the majority) giving their party a bad name right now and Mr. Sentorum is obviously one of them. Essentially, he's claiming that his structure of values is paramount to other people, their families and lives. I try not to wish ill-will on our legislative body (oh who am I kidding?) but I can't wait for one of his kids to do drugs, have premarital sex, or *gasp* "decide" to be gay.
Hopelessly utopian? Am I completely crazy to think actual equality could exist? Could we learn to value gay relationships as we (seemingly) value them as people? Mr. Sentorum brilliantly stated that he values gay people, he values them as much as anyone else. COUGH COUGH COUGH. SPUTTER SPUTTER SPUTTER. PUKE PUKE PUKE. As I've stated in many other posts, cultural equality comes long after legal equality. It is one thing to give minorities equal protection under the laws, it is quite another for the society in general to quit shitting on them for as long as they want to. However, we absolutely must start somewhere. I don't think Mr. Sentorum understands what equality is. Finally, in conclusion, not to keep you further, he's a smelly nut-sack with a mouth.
Before I begin, let me first say what I mean by "values". According to dictionary.com, the definition of value (one of the many, and the one that most pertains to my argument) is as follows "A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable". Easy enough to understand. I have values. So do you. We all share some, we all disagree on some. That's totally cool, because we live in a diverse society made up of people and furry animals and plants. Though I'm not going to bring the furry animals and plants into this conversation, we must admit to the fact that no matter what you believe, you have things that you value on an ideological level.
When forming groups of laws based on what is "best for society" (as Mr. Sentorum put it), it is inevitable that certain ideological issues must be decided upon. Abortion, land use and capital punishment are a few. However, it is inconceivable that any law should be made which places a certain set of values above another. Of course, this happens time and time again, but what is "best for society" is not usually the case. Perhaps it is just my opinion, but what is best for society, the only "value" we should all share, is that of (can you guess?) EQUALITY.
Mr. Sentorum didn't disagree with this point when Jon Stewart mentioned it. Although, he really side-stepped the issue when Jon politely informed him that he is the product of a single-parent family and therefore, not part of Mr. Sentorum's... how did he put it? oh yeah... "ideal valued family structure". I digress.
Looking at history, what is valued most by a society is how that society will construct their laws and lives. Our existence is predicated on not knowing what is the absolute best thing all the time, but dammit we're gonna try anyway. One thing that will always the best thing is (I'm sure you see where I'm going) EQUALITY.
Equality is a value. It doesn't exist and it only holds meaning if people believe in it. But I guarantee you, anyone on either side of the issue of gay marriage would pronounce with fervent dedication that they "value" equality. I really don't want to go into it right now, but you all probably know how much research I've done into the "gay family". I've done so very much (not nearly as much as other, though) and I can't find where two gay parents who are in a committed relationship do any more harm to their children that straight people. You can find isolates cases, sure, but they're almost always linked to emotional issues the parent has anyway, not that they're gay. What Mr. Sentorum doesn't seem to realize is that though kids tease each other, there is a new idea of gayness being forged in America. With all the media attention and dedication they've shown to being American and upholding it's "values", gay people are well on their way towards legal equality.
What one values, another may not. Fine. Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think the democrats have got any "better" values than the republicans and vice versa. Really, I don't. Values are relative and only certain ones can both sides agree upon (equality being one of them). That being said, there are A LOT of republicans (I would argue the majority) giving their party a bad name right now and Mr. Sentorum is obviously one of them. Essentially, he's claiming that his structure of values is paramount to other people, their families and lives. I try not to wish ill-will on our legislative body (oh who am I kidding?) but I can't wait for one of his kids to do drugs, have premarital sex, or *gasp* "decide" to be gay.
Hopelessly utopian? Am I completely crazy to think actual equality could exist? Could we learn to value gay relationships as we (seemingly) value them as people? Mr. Sentorum brilliantly stated that he values gay people, he values them as much as anyone else. COUGH COUGH COUGH. SPUTTER SPUTTER SPUTTER. PUKE PUKE PUKE. As I've stated in many other posts, cultural equality comes long after legal equality. It is one thing to give minorities equal protection under the laws, it is quite another for the society in general to quit shitting on them for as long as they want to. However, we absolutely must start somewhere. I don't think Mr. Sentorum understands what equality is. Finally, in conclusion, not to keep you further, he's a smelly nut-sack with a mouth.
posted by Infused Confusion at
4:46 PM
7 Comments:
Hey, my blog inspired someone to write something! Sweet.
Extremely well said, Patrick. It's interesting that I read this post today. I'm auditing a Psych 101 class at the Community College down here because 1) My dad's teaching it and it's free 2) it sounded interesting and 3) what else is there to do here?
Anyway, today in Psych class we discussed "values" and did little surveys on what values we find important in ourselves and in potential mates. I could have printed this out to show the class. It would have fit our discussion very well.
Did Santorum say kids from gay families would be teased? I didn't catch that part. If he said that, he's an idiot. Kids raised by two gay parents aren't any more likely to be teased than other kids (unless they go to a religious school that continually says "your parents are going to hell" or tries to expell the kids because they are rasied by a same-sex couple *cough cough O'Hara Catholic School in Eugene cough cough*). They used to say the same thing about mixed-race kids. "Uh oh. You CAN'T get married because your kids will be teased." It's interesting how many aspects of the gay-rights debate parallel racial equality issues.
Anyway, this is a very good post, Patrick. I enjoyed it.
By
Copy Editor, At
8:53 PM
I would like to agree with you, but there are some nagging questions in this arguement that I have.
I have always believed that equality, in it's true meaning, will never and can never exist in any society. People are equal, but then again they are not. I am assuming that fairness would be considered synonomous with equality here. Michael Jordan and I are both human beings born on planet earth. In that sense, we are equals. However, he has athletic prowess that I could never even dream. In that sense, we are not equal. In my view, equality is a nice ideal to strive for, the possibility of a society such as ours obtaining absolute equality does not seem attainable.
By
cmo, At
8:34 AM
Sorry, I attained a level of redundancy in that last sentence that I did not think was attainable. I apologize.
By
cmo, At
8:36 AM
I think Patrick is intending to discuss equity more than equality, in that people, however various, should recieve equitable treatment on a basic level, both under the law and in society. One, two, three, four commas. Wow.
By
Sara, At
8:56 AM
Yeah! What she said. I understand where you're coming from, Chris, but I think you're mixing what one is physically or mentally gifted from rather than the issue of them being equally protected under the law. You're much better at understanding the in's and out's of sports than I am, and I would struggle to say that we aren't equal.
By
Infused Confusion, At
12:31 PM
Yay Patrick! You are so smart - I couldn't have said it better(i probably wouldn't have been able to say it as good) And with that some pertinent wisdom from the blues brothers:
"Please remember people, that no matter who you are, and what you do to live, thrive and survive, there are still some things that make us all the same. you, me them, everybody, everybody.
Everybody needs somebody
Everybody needs somebody to love (someone to love)
Sweetheart to miss (sweetheart to miss)
Sugar to kiss (sugar to kiss)"
By
Anonymous, At
12:39 PM
I need you..you..you!
By
Sara, At
8:57 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home