Word: mansfield
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...When Mansfield claims that "the way in which men and women civilize each other is by living with each other," he remains vague about how this mystical process occurs, and how it excludes homosexuals with parents, children, siblings or friends of the opposite sex. He also fails to explain what we should do with other threats to society like divorcees, widows and single people...
...Perhaps Mansfield's funniest contention is that "gays eventually undermine civilization." His wording leaves room for confusion as to whether he refers to homosexuals as a group or as individuals. Does Mansfield mean that every homosexual, even the well-intentioned ones, will (after making a youthful contribution to the arts) "eventually" turn in their old age to society-undermining subterfuge? Or does he mean that every civilization starts off with a certain number of homosexuals and that, "eventually," through and recruiting, that number surpasses a saturation point and the civilization topples? Whichever, it's clear that Mansfield doesn't really...
...people he's talking about possibly exist? Where are all these great artists who yet undermine civilization? Who are all these people who are so good for democracy and so bad for society? These are not the homosexuals that live next door. These homosexuals live in Harvey Mansfield's brain...
...easy--and entertaining--to take apart Mansfield's arguments. It's also precisely the type of dialogue Mansfield relishes. For that reason, we should look at how we got into this debate in the first place. Answering Mansfield's charges is necessary, but it's also important to realize how he has manipulated the discussion in this direction. Mansfield cleverly managed to distract attention from the real issue at hand--civil rights--and once again has students arguing over stereotypes that most thinking people have left behind...
...Mansfield's real objective is to convince us that homosexuals are not people worth protecting, that their identity is based on frivolity. He cleverly attacks a group's validity based on false claims about what makes that group a group. If one were to look only at Mansfield's remarks, the notion of civil rights for homosexuals would indeed sound laughable after all, why should a collection of irresponsible thespians, bon-mot formulators and civilization-haters demand legal protection because of an identity based on these very traits? They function usefully, Mansfield generously concedes, as society's sideshow freaks...