Heather N. wonders if it’s better to place ideology over family, or family over ideology.
When I came across an article about Newt Gingrich’s lesbian half-sister and her play, “Accidental Activist” about their family, it got me thinking about another Republican politician who has an out lesbian in his family: Dick Cheney. Their very different positions on same-sex marriage could very easily be explained by playing politics. It’s difficult to believe much of what a politician says, particularly during an election year. But let’s assume, for the moment, that both Cheney and Gingrich are sincere in their respective positions. Dick Cheney is for same-sex marriage and Newt Gingrich is against it.
This begs the question, are they both good men? I don’t ask this because of their position on same-sex marriage, exactly. Rather, I’m more interested in the following: is it better to place ideology over family, or family over ideology? How do you balance the two when they are seemingly at odds with each other?
Watch a video of Candace Gingrich-Jones speaking about her brother and their clashing politics:
Orgies: fine
Incest: humankind at its lowest most debased ebb.
Ideologies are closely associated with moral values; so for the most part, I don’t think anyone should be giving away values. They should stand behind them. My ideology happens to coincide with human rights – supporting gay family member (I am neither a lesbian or know of any gays/lesbians) — so I don’t think you would have an issue with my ideology here. It’s unfortunate New Gingrich’s heart and policies are not inclusive of his lesbian half-sister…he did not attend her wedding either. I believe absolute truths lies in being a moral truth…the highest truth — the Golden Standard, even… Read more »
I don’t think incest or orgies are morally, wrong, actually. With regards to procreation between incestuous couples…well then there’s a potential problem due to the higher possibility of birth defects. But other then that, no I don’t have a problem with it. You are totally allowed to think that orgies and incest are bad, but that still doesn’t make it an absolute truth. It’s a culturally informed ideology/morality. How is your position with regards to orgies different than Gingrich’s position on same-sex marriage? What if you had a family member/close friend who had a fully consensual incestuous relationship? How would… Read more »
Here we go again with relativism. Orgies is an alternative sexual lifestyle, whereas same-sex marriage is a human rights issue. People are discriminated, killed, and have committed suicides because of their sexual orientation — that is wrong; every life has a value (unless you’re a murderer). And we’re looking at things in such a microcosm and individualistic views. Look at the bigger picture: orgies harms societal values…similar to porn. Orgies is an obsession with sex, while porn can lead to that as well. They both disintegrate people’s ability to form honest/committed relationships with one another. It’s proven single families have… Read more »
“wonders if it’s better to place ideology over family, or family over ideology.” This question is only specific and pertains to the Newt Gingrich sister’s case and doesn’t take into the account the key issue as to why this question is posed in the first place — gay/lesbian issue. A person’s ideology CAN in fact support family or go against it — moral relativism again (but you’re strictly putting ideology into a context that goes against family – rigid and inflexible). So the above question, to me, is a trick question. We are to assume here, and ask ourselves, if… Read more »
“A person’s ideology CAN in fact support family or go against it” Yes of course it can. I’m not saying a person’s ideology necessarily has to be opposed to a person’s family. I’m just asking the question…what do you do when it is? “Ideology isn’t rigid or inflexible.” – no, not everyone’s ideologies are rigid. However, as I think some of these comments indicate, some people do consider their own ideologies to be inflexible. Which is why I asked the question…when they come into conflict with your family, what should give way first? And what do you consider absolute truths?… Read more »
It is natural that we muster support for loved ones based on changing experiences. We may soften our stance against abortion because a daughter got one. Or we may convince ourselves that the War in Afghanistan has been worth the fight because a son or daughter was injured. But you’ve got to consult and confront and not emotionally jettison your core belief even when your own kith and kin is factored. If you deeply believe abortion is wrong or that the aforementioned war was not worth the effort, you must honor that belief no matter the events in your real… Read more »
“Or until an earnest and meaningful change of heart occurs based on life experiences.”
But couldn’t one of those life experiences be that something now directly affects your family/close friends?
When Diane Sawyer asked Rick Santorum in one of the debates what he would do if he found out his son was gay, Rick said, “Love him just as much as the minute before I found out.” Hyper-partisans, please, I’m just using this as an example. But don’t look for Rick to endorse SSM anytime soon. I agree with Eric here; it would be hypocritical of Santorum to all of a sudden embrace SSM just because he found out his son was gay. Voters would ask “what else is he willing to vacillate on based on family allegiance.” That’s not… Read more »
Exactly. Its just a shame that said stance is so damaging to other people 🙁
Can’t say I agree. Most things in life are neither completely wrong nor right – they take a much more nuanced judgment and insight to determine. I would put forth that in any North American city, that if one performed a poll showing 55% for and 45% against SSM (for example) – followed by a similar poll of parents with gay son and daughters, you would see support among that sample rise well above the 55% mark. The above would tell us that our ideas of wrong or right are modulated by facts and experiences that go beyond an ideological… Read more »
Some people don’t live according to principles. They just end up doing and believing whatever seems right at the moment based on the opinions of others. Others’ views become theirs. If the masses say that something is good, that’s their view. If the masses say something is wrong ,that’s thier view. They have no core, unyielding principles, just malleable opinions that shift with the tide of public or friends’ opinions. This is how wives, husbands, and parents (it is later discovered through investigation) manage to look the other way or even support and defend family members when they have done… Read more »
That’s an odd assumption to make Eric – that more information means not living to principles.
Consider that your pre-knowledge principles were biased and incorrect to begin with…
Principles don’t sprout from ether. They should be grounded in comprehensive knowledge.
You don’t understand the concept of what a principle is. Principles are fixed, consistent, regardless of a given situation. They don’t change based on the news or an innovation.
“To be honest” is an example of a principle. There are many new ways a person’s honesty could be tested with the advent of the Internet and social media, with even newer ways arising all the time. However, if a person sticks to their principle of honesty, it doesn’t matter that they can now be dishonest in new and innovative ways. The principle remains no matter what new information is presented
Except Eric, there are times when being honest is actually more harmful than lying (or at least omitting the truth) would be. And sometimes two principles can clash. For example, I try to be as compassionate as I can, and yet I also value honesty. So what did I do when I would see my dying great-grandmother and she’d ask me whether I had a husband yet? I completely lied and I told her I was just too busy at university for that it. In that moment compassion won out over honesty…I didn’t need to freak her out (and probably… Read more »
Heather, being honest doesn’t mean that you must provide detailed answers to any question you get. You could have just told your g-grandmother that you didn’t have a husband, which would have been true. You probably went further than you absolutely had to in order to answer her with all good intentions – not criticizing, just sayin. I agree that there is a difference between principles and ideology. One can change their ideology at any time, for any or no reason at all. By contrast, the whole point of having principles is that they serve as fixed guides which do… Read more »
My point with that example was to indicate that sometimes the principles you live your life by are at odds with each other, that’s all.
And principles can change too…I’m not saying people should just change their morals/principles/ideologies etc with the wind…but they can and do change. Again I think we just see the world very differently. You seem to view it in very black and white terms, whereas I see a million shades of gray.
I beg to differ – I don’t think you understand what a principle is – Note the descriptive qualifiers. ====================================== A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system’s designed purpose, and the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any… Read more »
prin·ci·ple (pr n s -p l) 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency. As I said, you don’t understand. This is regarding human behavior not nature or a system, as the primary dictionary definitions bear. Further, even accepting your definition, “the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored.” That’s the bottom… Read more »
And human behavior is divorced from nature or systems how exactly?
You are employing sophomoric explanations to complex systems.
The “earth is flat” was once a principle Eric. Human behavior followed that principle – humans were afraid to navigate beyond the horizon.
More intelligent humans questioned that principle, and here we are..
“And human behavior is divorced from nature or systems how exactly?”
Who said it was divorced? I cited the top three dictionary definitions, which all apply to human behavior. How hard is that to understand? That is what I am referring to when I use the word principle as it relates to this issue. Like, the basic, standard, dictionary definition.
“The “earth is flat” was once a principle Eric.”
Uh, that was a belief, not a principle.
Remember, principles don’t change. See the definition
I’m curious…would you expect (or rather hope) that a politician stuck to his/her guns more than an average person? When you’re having conversations with friends/whatever do you expect them to remain completely consistent or do you allow for more shifts in their opinions? (Those aren’t snarky questions…I’m just curious). Personally, I see no problem in changing your ideology or opinions (political or otherwise), so long as the reason you’re doing it is because you’ve acquired new information on a topic. My problem with Romney’s flip-flopping, for example, isn’t that he changes his mind…but that it’s so transparently about pandering. But… Read more »
and what if you had no real direct family, would then friends come before ideology?
I think they would for me, and if we held/could hold the context still, we could ask the question for which would you kill more for: family (…friends…neighbor) or ideology? I believe family/friends would be in the majority hands-down. Any ideology worth its salt must tap into that force to stay relevant, even if to provoke fears of harm against our families and friends.
Family first and always is for societies which make Hatfields and McCoys look like Quaker meetings. You know. Somalia. The wilder parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The rule of law is meaningless.
Violence, corruption.
Other than that…no problema.
And yet violence and corruption exist in areas where ideology is considered most important. How many wars have been started in the name of a religious ideology? Not to mention, the issues in places like Somalia and Afghanistan do not stem from placing family first. That is a gross oversimplification of the issues. Anyway, I’m curious, what do you do when a family member breaks a law you don’t agree with. Laws are, after all, made by people and are therefore imperfect. If you were in the 1970s and you had a gay family member, for example, when sodomy laws… Read more »
Good question. For me, simple answer. Wrong does not become right just because a family member does it.
If I believe stealing (for example) to be wrong it does not / can not become right just because my brother does it as opposed to a stranger.
By contrast, if there is something that I simply dislike (rather than believe it to be wrong), the person who does it may/probably does matter. If I love the person, I would likely be able to be more tolerant.
What does “someone” do? Who knows? You need to know who the “someone” is.
I might say that I utterly reject the family/clan versus the rest of the world, right or wrong. In matters of right or wrong, the issue of family does not arise.
In fact, Aubreys being Aubreys, I’d hold us to a higher standard.
I got a pretty good result, raising our kids by saying, about one thing or another, “This family doesn’t do that.”
But, standards notwithstanding, right vs. wrong comes first, family last.
And this is why I think it’s so interesting, you and Anthony (for example) seem to have very different opinions on this. He said family first, always…and you are saying ideology first (when that ideology is with regards to right and wrong). So I suppose my next question would be why? (Again I’m not disagreeing with you here…just discussing). Like…what’s your rationale behind choosing your moral ideologies before family?
Heather. I don’t know if incest is actually illegal. Every time I’ve seen scandal on it, the scandal has overpowered the crime, if any. Can’t say. But if it’s not illegal, I can’t very well turn them in. But I might decide that it was sufficiently obnoxious that I’d want to avoid them. As to not having a baby, we’ve just been treated to the assertion that if the local bishop isn’t handing out free BC pills, every woman is going to start firing out babies like an assembly line. They can’t help it. So to dress this up by… Read more »
“So to dress this up by saying they’re not going to have kids does not follow other, recent discussions.” I am talking about a lot of hypotheticals, Richard. I’m asking you to think about what-ifs and so on. The ‘they aren’t going to have kids,’ comment was to indicate that there is no practical reason to be against the hypothetical situation I mentioned. I’m saying, use your imagination, think outside the box…and consider what you might do in these sorts of situations. You don’t have to tell me, obviously…but the point of this was to foster a discussion about what… Read more »
Crap. What is it with this thing? I have some friends who are big in conservancy issues and want to assemble some land to return it to its natural state. Pre-columbian, or pre-human, I asked. Guy laughed, called me a redneck. I’m not supposed to know some of that stuff. See Mann, “1491”
But I don’t shun him. Just pull his chain once in a while. For fun.
Heather Shunning is for doing something bad. I don’t shun liberal family members. I just try to keep the conversation light and irrational. So they’ll be comfortable. I don’t even mention facts. It really upsets them. But if one had done something actually wrong–evil–I would shun them. I would turn in my own kids if it happened that way. For example, I happened to mention to a liberal relation the amount of oil discovered in the Bakken field and how it would improve our energy situation. Her instant response was, “It’s not enough”. She had no clue, of course, but… Read more »
“I just try to keep the conversation light and irrational. So they’ll be comfortable. I don’t even mention facts. It really upsets them.” Richard let’s try to have this conversation without being insulting, please. Thank you. Right, so…the example you gave about gas prices sort of doesn’t quite fit…because your opposing ideologies don’t directly affect your lives in a substantial way. I’m not talking about just having differing opinions…I’m asking about what you do when your ideology directly conflicts with the lives of members of your family? “But if one had done something actually wrong–evil–I would shun them. I would… Read more »
Heather. SSM is an issue with many ramifications. For example, some years ago on another blog I had asserted that there are people who wish to destroy marriage and are using SSM as a tool. Some demanded cites. I don’t keep piles of cites at hand, and much of what I know isn’t necessarily on the web. I was wondering whether it was worth it to round up the cites. Somebody else did. Amazing. Nobody’s mind was changed, and one guy asked if I’d known all this stuff beforehand. IOW, I probably made it up and…presto…turned out to be true.… Read more »
I’d like to move beyond same-sex marriage, specifically…as I said in the article, I was trying to focus on the marriage issue to discuss a larger paradigm. I’m curious as to how we balance ideologies and families, particularly when our ideologies can directly affect our family members. So for you, personally, I guess it’d be like…what if someone in your family (or an extremely close friend) was a feminist, or anti-military, or something. Or like, what if someone in your family did something or was something that you strongly oppose? What do you do? Do your ideologies shift in order… Read more »
Possibly, to make it less contentious, we could view it as the difference between micro and macro decisions and how the risk/benefit equations are either dispersed or localized based on the level of direct & tangible participation in that decision making process.
There exists a mathematical equation for this but I’ll refrain from talking about it 🙂
“He wants to cut off gas supplies to Iran and sabotage its one refinery”” Just for grins: The above is offered completely without context. So completely without context that it is effectively dishonest. Like most of the comment. The reason to act toward Iran’s petroleum industry is to pressure Iran to stop working toward nuclear weapons. Now, I know this. And Kirsten knows this. And Julie knows this. So, it should be asked, who on Earth does not know this? How on earth does Kirsten think she’s going to find anybody who doesn’t know this? IOW, fool as many as… Read more »
Hi, Richard. I don’t want to stop any good debate…but at the same time I’d really like to keep this a bit more on topic. So in that line of thought:
Would you perhaps suggest that before deciding on how to balance someone’s ideology and family we need to know the context. When might ideology win out? When might family win out?
I’d say it should be possible to disagree with your family on political issues.
Of course I think good men should advocate for gay rights, but I recognise that he disagrees.
True, but what if those different political issues directly affect the lives of people in your family?
Like, what if you were against welfare of any kind – but you had a sister/brother/etc who was on welfare? Simply someone who had just fallen on really rough economic times, who was trying to find a job but couldn’t…etc. And let’s pretend that you (and no one else in your family) had the financial means to help your family member through this rough patch. So do you continue to oppose welfare even though you know that it’s directly benefiting your family member?
One’s political views should be informed by the events around you. If, through the experiences of a friend or family member, you come to realise that gay is ok, then the moral thing to do is to act on that realisation. But it’s no different from gaining insight through research or any other method of learning. In the case you mentioned I would say the politician is hypocritical as they acknowledge their own family’s need for support beyond what the state provides, but were willing to deny that support to other families. If, on the other hand, someone concluded that… Read more »
“But, as above, I don’t personally understand how someone could genuinely maintain a homophobic stance even after such close exposure to its effects.”
Same…but then that’s because I view lgbt rights as civil rights, and I don’t see how anyone could be for denying a family member civil rights.
Anyway…yeah I see what you’re saying. Though I think the emotional impact of gaining insight through a family/friend’s experiences can make a bigger impact than the intellectual impact of gaining insight through facts & figures.
I think it is more important to place basic human decency above family and ideology. On that basis, neither is a particularly good person. Dick Cheney was twice convicted of drunk driving offenses, but has sponsored many bills implementing harsher penalties victimless drug offenses. He supported waterboarding of detainees convicted of no crimes and without a shred of due process, and reported that he felt good about it. He did not want Guantanamo detainees brought to the United States so that there would be no excuse by which their equal human rights with Americans might be recognized. He pushed for… Read more »
Well said.
Very well said…though I was hoping to discuss more in general rather than about these two people in particular. I probably should have framed that question better.
Family before ideology. If I had two daughters, instead of two sons, I would not be an MRA. I would know that feminism is wrong, but I would not oppose it. I know that “family before ideology” can lead to great harm. I worry that one day the same moral hazard that swallowed feminism may twist the MRM into cruelty and repression. Feminism started as an egalitarian movement with noble goals — there is no reason to believe that the MRM will be immune from the corrupting influence of power. Not every MRA agrees that this is a danger. For… Read more »
“Family before ideology. In the end, “us vs. them” is a more powerful human motivator than abstract ideas and values.” I’m assuming you’re talking about the ‘us vs. them’ mentality of a family. That’s interesting because I think there’s a much stronger ‘us vs. them’ mentality in ideologies than family. An ideology is necessarily opposed to something else, or at the very least becomes exclusionary to anyone who doesn’t agree with it. Christians vs Non-Christians. Democrat vs Republican. MRA vs Feminism. etc. etc. Family, on the other hand, can be quite inclusive…especially if you include not just immediate or extended… Read more »
By values, I mean the best effort that a human can make at objective application of his or her moral principles. When I apply this standard to the MRM, I find no evidence of harm … but I find evidence of some individuals who I believe would like to do harm (if they had the power). Turning a blind eye to this is the human weakness that causes good ideologies to go bad. This is the mechanism by which man-hate consumed the once beautiful and principled “equity feminism”, twisting it into the reckless hate movement that now goes by the… Read more »
I’m not talking about the MRM, specifically, here. I was just saying that it sounded like you were saying families illicit a strong us vs. them mentality with that statement, and I’ve found that ideologies illicit a stronger us. vs them attitude than families do.