Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,662,111 times
Reputation: 1411
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Progressivism (Cultural Marxism) had it's origin in Germany, at The Frankfurt School. This is an article about how this philosophy came to America, through the University system, and how it ties in to Gay Marriage and the current debate surrounding it.
"Efforts to fundamentally transform family and marriage have been long at work, but never (until now) accepted and pushed by the mainstream. In the past, these efforts were spearheaded by the most dangerous leftists. For two centuries, leftist extremists made their arguments, from the 1800s to the 1960s, beginning with the Communist Manifesto, where Marx and Engels wrote of the “abolition of the family!” Efforts to revolutionize family and marriage continued from socialist utopians like Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Albert Brisbane, to cultural Marxists in the Frankfurt School such as Herbert Marcuse and Freudian-Marxist Wilhelm Reich, to 20th-century leftists and progressives ranging from the Bolsheviks -- Lenin, Trotsky, Alexandra Kollontai -- to Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, and ‘60s radicals like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Mark Rudd."
Um, the author that the OP quotes is using an extremely broad brush to somehow coax Marx and Engels, Sanger, Freidan (!), and Bernardine Dorhn, of all people, to co-exist under the same ideological umbrella.
A previous poster made the crucial point that Marx and Engels objected to the bourgeoisie family in terms of its relationship to capital, but even that is a gross oversimplification of their point. Sanger, while a believer in eugenics, also advocated for clear birth control information for all people. While all three of them may have been progressive by some measures, it's pretty clear in the historical sense that all of them had some effed up views about the proletariat; M&E advocated for them, and Sanger thought their rate of birth was a problem.
Further, the Frankfurt School, which includes not only people like Marcuse that the OP's article references, but also thinkers like Adorno and Benjamin among many, many, others, to some extent emerged in between WW1 and WWII as a critique of Marxism as well as Hegelianism, not as an endorsement of either. It's like the author the OP linked to took a hit of acid and then read a few Wikipedia articles to come up with his essay, and, ahem, book.
But, goodbye to all that. Betty Friedan has never been a Marxist, and I would be really interested to read an argument asserting that she was. She was not a radical, but rather a reformist, and her founding of NOW plus The Feminist Mystique both confirm that. She actively disliked the young feminists in the 1960s who endorsed and led consciousness-raising groups, wanting instead to focus on issues involving women's civil (read: government-issued rights) as opposed to those in interpersonal relationships.
The dude making the argument that the OP quotes has found several bugaboos to throw mud at; if people believe him, good for him. There's a sucker born every minute.
Progressivism (Cultural Marxism) had it's origin in Germany, at The Frankfurt School. This is an article about how this philosophy came to America, through the University system, and how it ties in to Gay Marriage and the current debate surrounding it.
"Efforts to fundamentally transform family and marriage have been long at work, but never (until now) accepted and pushed by the mainstream. In the past, these efforts were spearheaded by the most dangerous leftists. For two centuries, leftist extremists made their arguments, from the 1800s to the 1960s, beginning with the Communist Manifesto, where Marx and Engels wrote of the “abolition of the family!” Efforts to revolutionize family and marriage continued from socialist utopians like Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Albert Brisbane, to cultural Marxists in the Frankfurt School such as Herbert Marcuse and Freudian-Marxist Wilhelm Reich, to 20th-century leftists and progressives ranging from the Bolsheviks -- Lenin, Trotsky, Alexandra Kollontai -- to Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, and ‘60s radicals like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Mark Rudd."
I've read the following books by Frankfurt School authors:
Marcuse: Eros and Civilization, One Dimensional Man
Horkheimer: Critique of Instrumental Reason, Eclipse of Reason
Adorno: Hegel: Three Essays, Negative Dialectics
In addition, I've read the following books about the Frankfurt School:
Martin Jay: The Dialectical Imagination
David Held: Introduction to Critical Theory
I've also read widely in Western philosophy.
First, I have to say that the article ""From Communists to Progressives, the Left's Takedown of Family and Marriage" does not accurately reflect the thought of the Frankfurt School. It is not completely false, but it is an oversimplification and it mixes the Frankfurt School in with other movements in an indiscriminate way likely to mislead people.
The leading the thinkers of the school -- Adorno and Horkheimer in particular -- would have been appalled by the lack of education and crude formulations of today's radical left.
In fact, Adorno -- when he returned to Germany -- was so angered by the thoughtless radicals he encountered that he called the police to clear demonstrators from the Institute for Social Research. His intellectual successor Jurgen Habermas prophetically referred to "left fascism" -- which we see today in this country.
It might interest some to learn that -- not just in spite of, but largely because of, my reading of the Frankfurt School -- I am now a conservative strongly opposed to the political correctness and anti-intellectual twaddle that constitutes leftist and liberal thought in this country.
Whatever else the Franfurt School was, it was firmly grounded in the basic values of Western Civilization that are under attack today. It was also critical of those values -- hence, the misunderstandings by those who do not fully know the School.
44 years. Good for you as well! Divorce sucks! I love my stepdad and even though I don't call him dad, for all intents and purposes he has been more of a father than my biological father. Having said that I would never put my son through a divorce where he has another “dad”! Not as long as I'm alive and kicking!
Same old clap-trap as always. "Some old books ..." I have no reason to engage in an argument with someone who thinks the Bible is just "some old book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Nature's God is against gay marriage, despite the fact that gay people exist as a result of nature running it's course.
Really? How q u e e r? Please don't try to explain that. I doubt you could, but don't try. I can't suffer such absurdities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
And marriage? While some animals are monogamous, even those animals are still not sexually exclusive. Many engage is 'polygamous' sex, but still have a favorite partner, a spouse if you will. So this God, which a capital 'G' to signify the author's obvious bias, sucks at running nature.
I'm trying not to laugh. You seriously believe that?
Obviously you are part of this school of thought and the movement that has been trying for centuries to destroy religion. I'm certainly not surprised at your response. I have been reading your posts for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
And yeah, the concept of same sex marriage is a new one, and maybe even radical. But when did radical become a bad thing? The idea of overthrowing kings was radical, but it was also the morally right thing to do.
Interesting analogy. Strange, but interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Yeah, France may have overdone it with the insane number of public executions, but it doesn't mean the American revolution was any less radical.
The American Revolution cannot be compared to the French Revolution in any way. The causes were different, and the American Revolution wasn't even a 'revolution' in the same way. We declared our independence. England declared war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Just because it's a new idea, doesn't mean it's bad. Yeah, Western Civilization has only had opposite sex marriages (though to suggest marriage hasn't changed at all is moronic, and that's the nicest way I'm willing to put it), it also had slavery for millennia or treated women as inferior, as your holy Bible says, despite basically everyone in the modern world seeing that as absence because it is. It's a baseless claim, as is any marital claim, which is nothing but a social construct. It can be changed if we change the terms of the contract, since that's all a marriage has ever been.
The Bible does not say that women are inferior.
Slavery did not have it's origin in Western civilization. Slavery is as old as man. You may remember that Moses led the Jews out Egypt and slavery. Slavery still exists today; but, America ended slavery in the U.S.
Marriage has not changed heretofore in terms of it being defined as between one man and one woman for mellenia. God himself ordained marriage. It is not an invention of man.
That's as far as I got with your other post. I don't have time for such B.S., and it's a waste of energy, because people like you are brainwashed beyond hope.
Exactly how is your marriage cheapened by the marriages of people you don't even know? Is your marriage cheapened by cheaters or abusers? Is your marriage cheapened by people who marry for financial or social advantage? Do you love or esteem your wife and daughters less because some Hollywood sleaze is on his/her third marriage by age 27?
How does (supposed) homosexual marriage edify society?
I've read the following books by Frankfurt School authors:
Marcuse: Eros and Civilization, One Dimensional Man
Horkheimer: Critique of Instrumental Reason, Eclipse of Reason
Adorno: Hegel: Three Essays, Negative Dialectics
In addition, I've read the following books about the Frankfurt School:
Martin Jay: The Dialectical Imagination
David Held: Introduction to Critical Theory
I've also read widely in Western philosophy.
First, I have to say that the article ""From Communists to Progressives, the Left's Takedown of Family and Marriage" does not accurately reflect the thought of the Frankfurt School. It is not completely false, but it is an oversimplification and it mixes the Frankfurt School in with other movements in an indiscriminate way likely to mislead people.
The leading the thinkers of the school -- Adorno and Horkheimer in particular -- would have been appalled by the lack of education and crude formulations of today's radical left.
In fact, Adorno -- when he returned to Germany -- was so angered by the thoughtless radicals he encountered that he called the police to clear demonstrators from the Institute for Social Research. His intellectual successor Jurgen Habermas prophetically referred to "left fascism" -- which we see today in this country.
It might interest some to learn that -- not just in spite of, but largely because of, my reading of the Frankfurt School -- I am now a conservative strongly opposed to the political correctness and anti-intellectual twaddle that constitutes leftist and liberal thought in this country.
Whatever else the Franfurt School was, it was firmly grounded in the basic values of Western Civilization that are under attack today. It was also critical of those values -- hence, the misunderstandings by those who do not fully know the School.
Thanks for posting this. I appreciate your thoughts and comments.
I have been with my spouse for 36 years, same sex couple, divorce cheapens marriage, infidelity cheapens marriage, but I do not see how my marriage cheapens yours. I do not care if you think my marriage is a joke, I know my marriage is real and you do not matter in my marriage and my marriage or anyones should not matter to yours. Straight people cheapen their own marriages.
"Straight people cheapen their own marriages". You were on a roll till you summarized with that. Its as if you're staying that same sex marriages are immune from infidelity, divorces, and all the other things, great and small, that can plauge opposite sex unions. Gay and lesbian couples, married or not, break up and partners step out on each other, just like evil "straight people"() do. Someone close to me, who is a lesbian, has had two, long term, partners step out on her. This, despite the fact they were "married".* Since same sex marriage was not recognized at the time, "commitment ceremony" took place in each case. It was my understanding that in the LG community, these ceremonies are supposed to carry the same, moral, weight as a marriage.
Apparently, gays and lesbians are human as well, and temptation leads to ruined relationships, just like with us evil "straight people". I could accept an argument regarding same sex union as being ,basically, the same as opposite sex, minus certain dynamics. However, you are claiming superiority and moral high ground, and denegrating " straight people" . Perhaps, that was not your intent, but the tone of the post suggests otherwise.
"Straight people cheapen their own marriages". You were on a roll till you summarized with that. Its as if you're staying that same sex marriages are immune from infidelity, divorces, and all the other things, great and small, that can plauge opposite sex unions. Gay and lesbian couples, married or not, break up and partners step out on each other, just like evil "straight people"() do. Someone close to me, who is a lesbian, has had two, long term, partners step out on her. This, despite the fact they were "married".* Since same sex marriage was not recognized at the time, "commitment ceremony" took place in each case. It was my understanding that in the LG community, these ceremonies are supposed to carry the same, moral, weight as a marriage.
Apparently, gays and lesbians are human as well, and temptation leads to ruined relationships, just like with us evil "straight people". I could accept an argument regarding same sex union as being ,basically, the same as opposite sex, minus certain dynamics. However, you are claiming superiority and moral high ground, and denegrating " straight people" . Perhaps, that was not your intent, but the tone of the post suggests otherwise.
Yes, gays and lesbians are human as well, and as you point out our relationships are subject to infidelity, divorce and all the other things that opposite sex unions are subject to. However, I did not get that the intent was to denigrate straight people.
I cannot say the same about the OP of this topic, as he spends a lot of time denigrating gay people, yet is that okay in your opinion?
Married 44 years and counting. Two beautiful conservative daughters, and three grand children.
"Gay" "marriage" cheapens marriage. It's a sham. You aren't "married" in God's eyes, though you probably don't care. You aren't married in my eyes either. It's a joke.
You still haven't explained how gay marriage cheapens marriage. Time after time you conveniently fail to explain that.
That my friend is the joke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) do. Someone close to me, who is a lesbian, has had two, long term, partners step out on her. This, despite the fact they were "married".* Since same sex marriage was not recognized at the time, "commitment ceremony" took place in each case. It was my understanding that in the LG community, these ceremonies are supposed to carry the same, moral, weight as a marriage. 
