Sorry that you saw Marley & Me. :(. I only go to the theater about 3 times a year now because that is all I can really say seems worth $7.50. Slumdog Millionaire (for adults) looks promising, though.

Cheers!
Steve

good for kids. good for adults. never stooping to the level of sneaky sexual innuendos.

great story lines. well-crafted. excellent, beautiful, creative.

in my mind, they’re the only ones still making true family films, aiming for good art over quick profits, while never being pretentious or elitist.

and it’s working! imagine that!

Hey, remember when we used to go to the movies and swindle the concessions guy for free pickles?

Suggestion for a future blog entry: your list of movies you have enjoyed watching with your kids. Of course, right now Israel does not watch much in the way of movies, but if his dad has any say in it, he will. And we already have seen how ugly some movies made for babies can be. (I will recommend the Classical Baby’s The Art Show to anyone, though, as we love to watch that calming sequence over and over as a family. Baby Einstein, on the other hand, is right out!)

I am not the sort of person prepared to commit to watching a movie unless it has been recommended by someone I trust. I realize this is not a trait of mine that can be universalized…SOMEONE has to have sat through the good and the bad to be able to make the recommendations. But I think you might be a person who has already done that and I would love to hear your recommendations! I’ll even give you bonus points (whatever they’re worth) if I can check the movies out for free at the library!

By ending your post with a request for feedback, I feel permitted to respond even though I won’t be adding much if any new content to this discussion, especially considering posts made by Xan and Clint. However, since I was unsatisfied by your responses to them, I will rephrase their shared objection.

The following three statements represent your position (though obviously not in its entirety):

(1) Heterosexual unions deserve special social recognition and sanction.

(2) Marriage can offer special recognition and sanction to heterosexual unions.

(3) Marriage can only make this offer truly special by excluding homosexual unions.

The third statement is true by definition. The second is more than adequately defended by centuries of people choosing to recognize heterosexual unions through marriage. And any criticism I might make of the first would be superfluous since, even with its inclusion, the above premises do not necessitate that marriage should exclude homosexual unions. They merely allow for the option of sanctioning heterosexual unions by means of an exclusive “heterosexuals-only” definition of marriage. If you want to argue that this available option is the only option, you must add a another premise (Excuse my presumption, but I’ll only discuss the one I think you’d prefer given your responses to reader comments):

(4) Marriage is unique in its ability to recognize and sanction heterosexual unions.

This statement, however, is not true by definition. Neither have you provided any evidence in its defense.

On Oct. 6 you wrote to Xan:
———————————————————–
I suppose [special civil recognition] could be achieved by establishing some “extra” civil recognition of heterosexual unions while allowing gays to marry. But its hard to imagine what meaningful form this could take. If it were merely formal without being substantive, then, given the special significance of the social good of heterosexual unions (procreation), this too would be unjust.
————————————————————

On Oct. 24 you wrote to Clint:
————————————————————
. . . from a practical standpoint, I don’t see how this sort of distinction could be implemented without trivializing the considerable social goods creditable to traditional marriage. Reserving a special category of marriage (e.g. “procreational marriage”) falls far short of providing the kind of recognition that it deserves, considering that the very existence of human society depends on heterosexual unions.
————————————————————-

So I must ask you, Dr. Spiegel, how can we distinguish straight marriage from gay marriage without trivializing the special social good of heterosexual unions (procreation)? This is not a rhetorical question. If your premises are valid, this is a question that merits serious discussion. So far, you’ve only told us that it’s hard to imagine an answer.

If you insist that this question is not merely difficult but, indeed, impossible to answer, please support this position in more detail. I understand that bloggers should be direct and succinct, but I would be interested in hearing your answers to the following questions if you find them pertinent to the objection under discussion:

1. What criteria can be used to separate “merely formal” civil sanctions from “substantive” ones?

2. Why, when responding to Xan, did you describe the sanction of heterosexual unions (that hitherto hypothisized method of civil sanction that is not marriage and would not be offered to homosexuals) as “extra” to marriage? I would have thought that your position should hold this very particular sanction as primary, and subsequently view the civil recognition of all the other non-procreational aspects of straight marriage as extra.

3. At what point does something of social value become trivialized? We can make some comparisons between gay couples and straight couples. At what point do these comparisons become a denial of the special social value of heterosexual unions?

(If I were nervy blogger, I would have only written this last question and let the rest of this comment be implied)

4. Why would reserving a special category for straight marriage fall far short of providing the kind of recognition that it deserves, even considering that the very existence of human society depends on heterosexual unions? It seems like a perfectly suitable option to me; in fact, it seems to be exactly what your argument calls for.

We (Pat and I) like reading your blog. (I’m sure the kids will, too, when they’re older.) Thanks for putting it together. It’s inspiring me to make a resolution akin to Amy’s about my own blog (though I don’t read a lot or watch a lot of movies). It’s been a good year on Wisdom and Folly.