Why do Progressives have such contradictory views on marriage?

[Margaret3110]

Did I lie about anything? The truth is all that matters. If the truth offends you don’t blame me. But if I did lie or make a mistake please let me know. I love to be corrected when I am wrong, for the simple fact that I hate being wrong.

I'm not offended, I just think you are mistaken. Peace.

 

[Arcangl86]

Well it’s common knowledge in my generation, and before. Progressives used to say that a married woman was like a bird in a cage. G.K. Chesterton responded, “No, a married woman is like a bird on a nest.”

G.K. CHesterton has also been dead for almost 90 years. Both the legal reality of the institution of marriage and the way society views that institution has changed. So do you have a more recent example of progressives trying to convince women that marriage is a bad idea? Something from this century maybe?

 

[Daniel Peres]

G.K. CHesterton has also been dead for almost 90 years. Both the legal reality of the institution of marriage and the way society views that institution has changed. So do you have a more recent example of progressives trying to convince women that marriage is a bad idea? Something from this century maybe?

I did give the examples of Charlize Theron and January Jones, and they are just two examples. What about the Black Lives Matter organization. I don’t know if they still have it on their website but they are very clearly against women getting married. You can go to psychology today and read this article A Feminist Critique of Marriage

I could go on for hours. Have you really never heard of the Progressive hatred of the Patriarchy?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This really just a question of semantics. What Mr. Prager calls a leftist, I call a Progressive. It’s a fact that both are on the political left just like both capitalists and conservatives are on the right. G.K. Chesterton would agree with my definitions. But that’s ok, a rose by any other name would still smell sweet, and both progressives or leftists stink.

As for conservatives, I would point out there are two types. There is the one you described. However, I am another kind. A kind that I am tempted to call the real progressive. I want to conserve the morals Jesus and the Apostles gave the world in the first century. Those are fixed goals we have never truly reached. For example, Racism should have never existed in Christendom. It runs contrary to what we learned from Jesus and the Apostles. I want to conserve those first century Christian principles, and I want us to strive to follow those principles more faithfully. My goals are fixed, and therefore I can measure my progress in achieving my goals. Progressives, or as you call them Leftists, don’t really want to make progress. They want to go back to a sexual immoral society, a society that kills babies, a segregated society, a society without liberty.

Not by definition.

Even Pope Benedict XVI, in his book, "Values In A Time Of Upheaval" described progressivism and conservativism just as I explained it.
I didn't mention his book, because it would probably be blown off as being Catholic.

However, what Pope Benedict described is the classic definition of a progressive. It has nothing to do with the "leftism," we
see in society today and never did.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I feel like I'm the only one that notices this, so maybe I crazy. For over a hundred years progressives have been trying to convince women that marriage is a bad thing. So, why do these same progressives have an obsession with homosexual marriage? Could this be an example of Orwellian/1984 "Double Think?"

Frankly, I don't care what Progressives have done, are doing, or will be doing. I also don't care what either Conservatives or Liberals were doing, or were always doing since the Enlightenment anyway................ or will be doing.

As far as I'm concerned, I start with the fact that we're all human---red and yellow, black and white--- and most of us need to be understood in whatever mess of life we're in ...

And no, it's not Orwellian "double-think" if Progressives are inconsistent in their overall Praxis ...

 

[Daniel Peres]

Frankly, I don't care what Progressives have done, are doing, or will be doing. I also don't care what either Conservatives or Liberals were doing, or were always doing since the Enlightenment anyway................ or will be doing.

As far as I'm concerned, I start with the fact that we're all human---red and yellow, black and white--- and most of us need to be understood in whatever mess of life we're in ...

And no, it's not Orwellian "double-think" if Progressives are inconsistent in their overall Praxis ...

I agree with you we are one race.

As for doublethink, it is defined as a process of indoctrination which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality. That’s exactly what’s going on here.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Not by definition.

Even Pope Benedict XVI, in his book, "Values In A Time Of Upheaval" described progressivism and conservativism just as I explained it.
I didn't mention his book, because it would probably be blown off as being Catholic.

However, what Pope Benedict described is the classic definition of a progressive. It has nothing to do with the "leftism," we
see in society today and never did.

People use different definitions, that’s nothing new. I guess under Pope Benedict’s definition I am not a conservative because I don’t believe in maintaining the status quo. What am I then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree with you we are one race.

As for doublethink, it is defined as a process of indoctrination which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality. That’s exactly what’s going on here.

While strong Progressivism has its inconsistencies, it can't be equated in exact terms with Communism, the latter of which was Orwell's actual bogeyman and attached to his specific critique of Soviet style totalitarianism. American Progressivism isn't exactly the same thing.

So, you could just posit your gripe without the added touch of implying that it is "double think." No, just say that you perceive that Progressivism is inconsistent in some of the aspects of its Praxis. In other words, in their socialistically inclined view of the world, and while trying to balance things out and allow everyone to have their cake and eat it too by redefining this or that social concept, Progressives end up synthesizing too many aspects of social reality.

But, in the case of marriage, maybe you're right. Since it's been about 20 years since I've taken a look at how Progressives are handling topics like marriage, I'll have to do some further research on specifics in their social philosophy and reassess ...

 

[Daniel Peres]

While strong Progressivism has its inconsistencies, it can't be equated in exact terms with Communism, the latter of which was Orwell's actual bogeyman and attached to his specific critique of Soviet style totalitarianism. American Progressivism isn't exactly the same thing.

So, you could just posit your gripe without the added touch of implying that it is "double think." No, just say that you perceive that Progressivism is inconsistent in some of the aspects of its Praxis. In other words, in their socialistically inclined view of the world, and while trying to balance things out and allow everyone to have their cake and eat it too by redefining this or that social concept, Progressives end up synthesizing too many aspects of social reality.

But, in the case of marriage, maybe you're right. Since it's been about 20 years since I've taken a look at how Progressives are handling topics like marriage, I'll have to do some further research on specifics in their social philosophy and reassess ...

You makes some good points. However, Orwell’s problem was not with the Soviets. His problem was with the Spanish communists which he had fought along side with. Interestingly, whenever you hear a progressive talk about the Spanish Civil War, they always make it seem as if the Spanish communists were the good guys. I believe both sides were evil, but the communists turned into something far worse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You makes some good points. However, Orwell’s problem was not with the Soviets. His problem was with the Spanish communists which he had fought along side with. Interestingly, whenever you hear a progressive talk about the Spanish Civil War, they always make it seem as if the Spanish communists were the good guys. I believe both sides were evil, but the communists turned into something far worse.

I can agree with you on this on a general level. The only caveat in this, however small or seemingly insignificant it may seem to be be, is that I've read and studied Orwell and I married a woman who was subject to that kind of "doublethink" while growing up. There is a difference between what she encountered and what U.S. Progressives do in their thinking. Additionally, you might notice that even the Wikipedia definition you chose to utilize also, at the least, mentions what I said about 'Soviet style' applications of Doublethink.

"Like many aspects of the dystopian societies reflected in Orwell's writings, Orwell considered doublethink to be a feature of Soviet-style totalitarianism.[3]"​

Also, maybe take a look at the footnote in the Wikipedia definition you 'quoted':

(your quote) "Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.[1]"​

​

[1] McArthur, Tom, ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press. p. 321. ISBN 0-19-214183-X. The paradox is expressed most succinctly in the novel in the three Party slogans: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. The term is widely used to describe a capacity to engage in one line of thought in one situation (at work, in a certain group, in business, etc.) and another line in another situation (at home, in another group, in private life), without necessarily sensing any conflict between the two.​

Anyway, the upshot is that the world is full of Progressives and Liberals and Communists, and some Nihilists and even Anarchists, and they're not going to go away. They're here to stay and those of us who value Jesus Christ will just have to trudge through the political swamp until the day we die. That's just the way it is ...

 

[Daniel Peres]

I can agree with you on this on a general level. The only caveat in this, however small or seemingly insignificant it may seem to be be, is that I've read and studied Orwell and I married a woman who was subject to that kind of "doublethink. Additionally, you might notice that even the Wikipedia definition you chose to utilize also, at the least, mentions what I said about 'Soviet style' applications of Doublethink.

"Like many aspects of the dystopian societies reflected in Orwell's writings, Orwell considered doublethink to be a feature of Soviet-style totalitarianism.[3]"​

Also, maybe take a look at the footnote in the Wikipedia definition you 'quoted':

(your quote) "Doublethink is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality.[1]"​

​

[1] McArthur, Tom, ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press. p. 321. ISBN 0-19-214183-X. The paradox is expressed most succinctly in the novel in the three Party slogans: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. The term is widely used to describe a capacity to engage in one line of thought in one situation (at work, in a certain group, in business, etc.) and another line in another situation (at home, in another group, in private life), without necessarily sensing any conflict between the two.​

Anyway, the upshot is that the world is full of Progressives and Liberals and Communists, and some Nihilists and even Anarchists, and they're not going to go away. They're here to stay and we value Jesus Christ will just have to trudge through the political swamp until the day we die. That's just the way it is ...

That’s true. At least we know the how the story ends. Like I always say, “Everything will be fine in the end. If things are not fine it is not the end.” That said, “I personally will be like Paul, and “Fight the good fight” until the end, whether that evil is on the left, right, or even middle.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

People use different definitions, that’s nothing new. I guess under Pope Benedict’s definition I am not a conservative because I don’t believe in maintaining the status quo. What am I then?

Doesn't matter what you think you are, the definitions given by Pope Benedict are the classic definitions of liberalism(progressivism) and
conservativisms are.

US politics distorts the meanings, which is probably what you're trying to use, instead of the actual definitions as the world knows.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Doesn't matter what you think you are, the definitions given by Pope Benedict are the classic definitions of liberalism(progressivism) and
conservativisms are.

US politics distorts the meanings, which is probably what you're trying to use, instead of the actual definitions as the world knows.

Actually, the classical definition of a liberal is more like Ronald Regan. In the U. S. The definition has changed from the classic definition used by the world. Socialist became a dirty word in the US so progressives started calling themselves liberals. This is one of the first things I learned while earning my poli-sci degree.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, the classical definition of a liberal is more like Ronald Regan. In the U. S. The definition has changed from the classic definition used by the world. Socialist became a dirty word in the US so progressives started calling themselves liberals. This is one of the first things I learned while earning my poli-sci degree.

Ronald Reagan was addressing the term in political language, not the classic definition.

However, here is the classic definitions of the two terms, without US Politics being involved.

Definition

lib·er·al
[ˈlib(ə)rəl]

ADJECTIVE

1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   con·serv·a·tive
   [kənˈsərvədiv]
   
   ADJECTIVE
   1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values:
      "they were very conservative in their outlook"

 

[Daniel Peres]

Ronald Reagan was addressing the term in political language, not the classic definition.

However, here is the classic definitions of the two terms, without US Politics being involved.

Definition

lib·er·al
[ˈlib(ə)rəl]

ADJECTIVE

1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   con·serv·a·tive
   [kənˈsərvədiv]
   
   ADJECTIVE
   1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values:
      "they were very conservative in their outlook"

“According to James Reichley, the term liberalism took on its current meaning in the United States during the 1920s. In the 19th century and the early 20th century, the term had usually described classical liberalism, which emphasizes limited government, religious freedom, and support for the free market.”
If you want to learn more, go to Wikipedia and check out “Classical Liberalism.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

“According to James Reichley, the term liberalism took on its current meaning in the United States during the 1920s. In the 19th century and the early 20th century, the term had usually described classical liberalism, which emphasizes limited government, religious freedom, and support for the free market.”
If you want to learn more, go to Wikipedia and check out “Classical Liberalism.”

The point is, you're not using the classical definition, but the current US political definition.

However, as I stated originally, there is a difference between liberalism and leftism. The left
ideology is dangerous, while classical liberalism is not.

 

[Daniel Peres]

The point is, you're not using the classical definition, but the current US political definition.

However, as I stated originally, there is a difference between liberalism and leftism. The left
ideology is dangerous, while classical liberalism is not.

Well I would say the left is the most dangerous. I can think of many ways that liberals, as well as conservatives can be dangerous too, even though they might have good intentions. But as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I’m a little shocked with your question. After all, it is a matter of common knowledge. I guess you can start by going to Wikipedia and looking up “Criticism of marriage.” But you can find info all over the place going back to at least the 19th century.

Common knowledge is no women were ever told marriage is bad. Women are just told they personally should not get married,.

 

[Daniel Peres]

Common knowledge is no women were ever told marriage is bad. Women are just told they personally should not get married,.

I have already refuted this with facts, like one of BLM’s goals is to end marriage. It’s really not up for debate.

 

[Arcangl86]

I have already refuted this with facts, like one of BLM’s goals is to end marriage. It’s really not up for debate.

"“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”"

That was the goal. Nothing in there about ending marriage, just the expectation that the nuclear family is the only acceptable family structure.