Love’s In Need of Love Today

Love can be virtuous, but also used for evil ends.

By
129
Gay marriage supporters carried balloons in front of White House to celebrate the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage, June 26, 2015. (Photo by Michael S. Williamson/Washington Post/Getty Images)

In an 1864 speech in Baltimore, Abraham Lincoln said that “the world has never had a good definition of liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in need of one.” Knowing the human condition as he did, Lincoln would surely not be surprised to find that we have the same need 159 years later.

“We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing,” he said. “And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names.” Those names are  “liberty” and “tyranny.”

But today, on the eve of Valentine’s Day and one day after the Great Emancipator’s birthday, I would like to add another word to Lincoln’s problematic political lexicon: love.

Love of country, love of our neighbors, love of, yes, liberty, can all be virtuous things, but can all be turned to evil ends. As Lincoln said, there are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same names: “love” and “hate.” 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
129
By
Comments (129)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Taylor L

    Thank you, sir.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    One act of love may not always be seen as hate by others. I just want to comment on marriage. Marriage as an institution has only recently become associated with love, the primary function being to join together the potential parents of offspring for the purpose of imparting the rules of society on those children. Love is a secondary emotion.

    Collapse
  3. James Morphew

    This article carefully avoids any discussion of right and wrong, which may be relevant, in that the avoidance allows any new idea (for instance, trans-genderism) the same credibility. Which is absurd.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    For conservatives, the answer always is or should be the same: who is forcing whom? If the transgender movement simply seeks equal protection under the law and for such people to live their lives in peace without harassment or discrimination, who can argue with that?

    Unfortunately, activists always devolve to the most extreme possible approach and much of the media and corporate boardrooms follow along like lapdogs. We are forced to perpetuate fictions that aren’t true: that men can compete in women’s sports without any impact, that men can give birth or menstruate simply because they believe in their hearts that they can, in some cases that women no longer exist at all in any meaningful way outside our own imaginations.

    If tampon makers want to market their products to the fictional men who claim to need them, I can’t see why I should care beyond being annoyed by it. If some individuals want to dictate to me what pronouns they prefer to be identified by, good manners require me to play along whether I agree or not. Forcing me to define my own pronouns is pushing it but again, not much to be roused about besides the silliness of the times in which we find ourselves. Even mixed bathrooms is an inane flashpoint unless the government is going to force private establishments to participate.

    But if my daughters are someday deprived of being able to compete fairly in sports or to change their clothes outside the home without the presence of ogling men? If their identity as women is erased in a sea of misplaced confusion in service to belligerent activists? If their schools insist on forcing fictions about their own gender or identity down their throats without my consent?

    I won’t be inclined to show any love to such a movement. Love is fine but it is not reciprocated here. Not to my daughters. This love is more akin to Winston Smith’s love for Big Brother at the end of 1984. That is a “love” extracted by force to avoid the consequences inflicted by bullies. That isn’t love at all. It’s fear.

    As McCartney and Lennon once noted:

    “Don’t you know that you can count me out.”

    Collapse
    1. Nordic_man

      The problem is that any attempt to get equal protection under the law, and to live free of harassment and discrimination is by definition going to abridge someone else’s freedom of association rights, which most conservatives would then turn around and say is a problem, so if everything is going to be a problem why not shoot for the moon and land among the stars?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        I don’t agree with this but maybe I don’t understand the point. What freedom of mine is being taken away to allow a transgender person to determine their own destiny free of harassment? When you say association, do you mean seeing a transgender person in a public place or having to do business with them?

        Collapse
        1. Nordic_man

          I mean the prototypical response to any sort of equal protection movement has always been some variation of “but you are stopping me from banning them from my space” weather that’s your buisness, or just a variation of “I can’t use my informal power to keep (insert people) out of sight/mind” the result is the same.

          We’ve seen this with the initial civil rights movement. I’ve seen it with “I’m fine with gay people but can’t they just not be gay in public” comments etc. if you know they’d the response you are going to get even to a pure equal protection move you almost have to overshoot on your ask to be brought back down to an equal protection position when the ink hits the paper

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            The Bell Tower

            Yes, I do think that’s a good point. Always ask for more than you want in a negotiation - especially when you aren’t holding all the cards. Maybe that’s the way here and we will settle, as we have on gay rights, somewhere in the sensible center. If they want fairly moderate individuals like me to support their movement, they will need to distance themselves from the crazy stuff.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        “… why not shoot for the moon and land among the stars?”
        A trajectory to reach the moon will not land you among the stars. Those are vastly different missions. And the planning for those different missions differs radically. Let Jack Phillips be a warning.

        Collapse
        1. Nordic_man

          While the metaphor is not scientifically accurate it lines up with the history of activism.

          Collapse
  5. Rbrafford17

    A fundamental problem in the debate over transgender rights (and one that I'm not sure can be reconciled) concerns the treatment of children. When it comes to what options should be available for children expressing signs of gender dysphoria, and what discretion parents should have in choosing not to pursue those options for their own child, each side believes that the "wrong" option is actual child abuse.

    Classical live-and-let-live pluralism can get us a long way with how adults can express themselves in a free society, but the most ardent activists on either side won't be satisfied with allowing the opposition to (from one side's perspective) deny a child's true identity and inflict psychological trauma resulting in mental illness and self-harm or (from the other side's perspective) subject a confused child to chemical and surgical procedures with unknown long-term effects and potentially permanent reduction or loss of sexual/reproductive function.

    No matter how much empathy or understanding people call for, how can an ideological gulf like that be resolved?

    Collapse
    1. Joe1776

      It can be resolved as it has always been resolved. The state gives deference to the parents. In the overwhelming majority of cases no one loves a child more than their parents. Especially when we have situations where Doctors and Hospitals are looking to make profits.

      In the overwhelming majority of cases when the state creates a general rule that they know better than the parents about how a child should be raised and tries to seperate children from their parents it goes horribly wrong. Yes in exceptional cases the state steps in but by and large parents raise their children and the state is not involved.

      Collapse
    2. Mike Nelson

      And yet, this is a relatively small piece of the whole. I cannot explain why the debate about this aspect must prevent recognition of the broader principle. I'd be interested in thoughts on the matter. Is there a way to move forward while this debate plays out?

      The other which tends to get in the way is sports competition, but I think that one will eventually be resolved (at least by people who look to evidence) once we know more about physiology.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        “… once we know more about physiology.”
        I’m pretty sure we know how to tell women from men.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ajax81613

    Well said

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Cthocas

    The fact English uses the single word "love" whereas other languages might use two, three, even four words (as Stirewalt indicates here, probably cribbing from Lewis's book on the same) is likely the cause of a great deal linguistic and cultural confusion.

    A simple demonstration would be to take a photograph of a gathering of families and circle random pairs. Any given pair could be reasonably be said to have a loving relationship: husband-wife, friend-friend, brother-sister, wife-son, wife-friend, etc. But nobody who is not obtuse or insane would say these were all "love" in the same way. Each has different dimensions, limits, demands, expectations, and norms, some legally enforceable.

    "Love is love is love" is a nice bumper sticker, but when regarded as a statement of fact, it is rather unnerving and contributes to a culture where we "advance" only via destroying complexity.

    And as far as transgender activists. Perhaps if they showed something besides contempt and hatred for women who believe women shouldn't be raped, they might someday succeed in making some headway.

    Collapse
    1. GregS

      "if they showed something besides contempt and hatred for women who believe women shouldn't be raped"

      1. Stipulate that women who oppose transgender rights believe that women shouldn't be raped
      2. If transgender activists show contempt and/or hatred for these women, it is not because of this belief that women should not be raped
      3. Therefore you might equally well say,
      "if they showed something besides contempt and hatred for women who believe breathing air is necessary for human survival"

      Collapse
      1. Radical Dreamer

        Actually Mr Stirewalt has a great chapter in his book I’m reading “Broken News”, available at your local bookstore now,about how people tend to view other’s failures as categorical failing while our own as as situational failing (I’m mangling the quote/sentiment a bit as I don’t have the book on hand).

        My view of this thought as it applies is viewing a trans activist as a person whose goal is solely the harm of women as a flawed categorical judgement and comes from a biased viewpoint.

        To be fair I haven’t really thought this through but was just looking for a place to plug the book!

        Collapse
        1. GregS

          Yep it's called fundamental attribution bias - https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/the-fundamental-attribution-error
          Certainly we all (including me) fall into it very easily and it takes a great deal of effort to fight our cognitive biases.

          Collapse
  8. Joe1776

    Aquinas and the Catholic view is “To love is to will the good of the other.”

    So if I think someone will not find the good by taking some action, I might or may not say so. But that is not the important thing. The important thing is if they do what I do not think will bring them the good despite my view, I also hope I was mistaken.

    So, for example, I may think and possibly even tell people I love, I do not think a transition will bring them the good and happiness. But if they do it anyway, I certainly hope I am wrong.

    Agape love, which is what Christian's should aspire to, puts others first.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      TerrBear

      My man! Any comment with a thoughtful Aquinas quote or Aristotelian distinction is always welcome in my book. We could use far more of it.

      Well said. Challenging and perceptive.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Pastorfbt

    Can we at least lose "hate" and "homophobia", which are, as KDW would tell us, advocacy posing as descriptive language.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    Not rebuttals per se, but I do see three additional points, though:

    1. As already mentioned by others, many trans activists do NOT see gender dysphoria as a medical condition or a disorder, any more than homosexuality is. They see being "trans" as part of the human condition, that is totally equivalent to bring "cis", and so demand not only that trans individuals not be discriminated against, but that society totally reorder itself to reflect this truth. And they have succeeded in many ways, at least in more progressive places.

    This morning, my local CBS radio news station, had a news story about a missing baby. The newscaster asked any listeners who "know anything about their whereabouts" to contact the police. All well and good, except ... nothing in the story referred to the actual gender of the baby. Something that I think would actually be helpful in finding the baby!

    2. One big difference between cis gay rights and trans rights debates, is that advocates of gay marriage could much more credibly say, "we're not hurting anyone by getting married". But advocates of trans women being treated exactly the same as cis women, can't actually say that.

    Now, they can say "you cis women who may not win as many medals in sports and may have to see a penis in a locker room once in a while, are still more privileged than trans women, you don't commit suicide at anywhere near the same rates, so you have to suck it up and cope with your transphobia, too bad so sad". Many cis women see this message, not as one of love towards trans women, but hate towards cis women. And so the message is a harder sell than the marriage equality one.

    3. As mentioned by some other comments, it is true that some nefarious actors are trying to co-opt the trans community and falsely claim to be trans, so they can be moved from a men's to a women's prison, for example. But it's also the case that there is a lot of sentiment that ALL transpeople are depraved sexual predators, and this sweeping generalization does strike me as transphobic. The "grooming" allegations and fears that children will be somehow "transed" is very reminiscent of fears that children would be "recruited into the gay lifestyle" in the 1990s. And yet, social contagion is a thing.

    I agree with the overall point Chris made that this situation can't be addressed with mere bumper sticker slogans, though.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

      I don't see much evidence of people claiming ALL transpeople are depraved sexual predators. I do hear concerns that some CIS men might pretend to be trans in order to have access to women and girls. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

      I've read several doctors ask if social contagion explain the large rise in girls identifying as boys. An awareness of social contagion can be dismissed as fearmongering, but I disagree with that.

      I watch the hate poured out on JK Rowling, which is sad.

      Collapse
Load More