Hentor -post #348 was magnificent and says it all for me.
FRT, I am not against SSM and am in fact digusted by the majority of Americans who are against. I do not see how it demeans hetero marriage in any way. Like Maureen said, it’s human to human. Yeah, I’m probably missing the point, but it’s 0600 here and I’m off to work.
I see nothing demeaning in the term “pet” for any animal that a person has bonded with. There is no reason to draw the analogy, and like Hentor has said so very well, there is no analogy. Again, so that people don’t think I’m an unfeeling dog kicker–calling your dog your pet doesn’t mean that you don’t love your dog. I’m sure that everyone here is going to continue calling their pets whatever they damn well please–it’s just my 2 cents.
I think you are wrong, and here is why.
I think that the “my pet is my child” conversation tends to happen a bit like this.
Pet Owner: “My dog is unwell, I’ve just spent $1000 on an operation for him.”
Other Person: “A thousand dollars! jesus, why? It’s just a dog.”
Pet Owner: “He’s not “just a dog”, to me, he is one of my children.”
You see, in the above scenario, the Other Person really doesn’t understand the bond that the Pet Owner has with his dog. If you question how much money someone has spent or spends on their animal, then you don’t understand the bond. The word “pet” is insufficient because the Other Person already knows that word, but to them it doesn’t adequately describe the relationship. If it did, it would not have been necessary for them to question the expense. After having a few conversations like this the Pet Owner will anticipate the response from the Other Person and will state “he’s one of my children” from the outset.
If the conversation went like this:
Pet Owner: “My dog is unwell, I’ve just spent $1000 on an operation for him.”
Other Person: “A thousand dollars! jesus, why? It’s just a dog.”
Pet Owner: “He’s not “just a dog”, to me, he is a pet”
It is totally inadequate. The Other Person is left in the dark. By comparing your pet to a child though, the Other Person may get some idea that this is a pet that you care so much about that you will do anything to keep him happy and healthy.
I have a daughter and a dog. I have no problem thinking of my dog as one of my children, and I would spend what ever was necessary to keep him healthy. That’s not to say that I don’t love my daughter a whole lot more than my dog, but my dog is a part of the family. There is a pecking order, and he’s at the bottom, but he’s still part of the pecking order.
It’s important to note what is not being said. What is not being said is “my dog is like your child”, or “my dog is as important to the world as your child is.” We’re not saying that, we are saying “this animal fullfils the role of “child” in MY family group.”
That is why, IMO, it is sometimes necessary to draw the analogy.
A very well presented, thoughtful post, but I just can’t quite buy into it completely. Love is, at the very least, complicated and very difficult to quantify. The love I felt for my wife when I first met her is worlds apart from the love I feel for her now. The love a 12 year old girl has for Aaron Carter (or whoever is the hip crush these days) may be sincere and very deeply felt to that girl. But it is different from the love of a happily married couple of 50 years. A love of a car, a work of art, or your best friend is likewise different from all other kinds of love.
Part of making a judgment on “love” involves the object of affectioin. A collector’s love of his new '65 Mustang is just not as important as a person’s love for a pet. Although that '65 Mustang may have cost more, and the owner may consider it the most important thing in his life and would be willing to spend inordinate amount of money and attention to keep it pristine, it is still simply a car. The object of the love, whether a teen idol, a car, a pet, or a child, is important in talking about love. And, as a firm believer in the human soul, I value humans above cars, or even pets.
It’s not that the love is any less important to the person, but rather the value of the object being loved that, I think, is at the heart of this issue. I don’t see it as necessarily a determination of who’s love is better, but rather the value of what is being loved. And many people, rightly I believe, put children above pets. It is not a comment on the deepness or greatness of the love, but the relative importance of the object being loved. That’s where the same sex metaphor falls apart, humans are humans and pets… aren’t.
All of this is not to denigrate the love that a pet owner has for the pet. I just think, just as a car collector’s love has less value, a true love of a child is more important, more valuable, than that of a pet owner.
I really don’t think anyone is saying that pets, in general, are on a par with children, in general. That’s the thing, it is a metaphore, a comparison, it is not meant to be a statement of fact. And I bet you your house that there are people who think their car is more valuable, in every way, than a pet.
I can see why you might believe that a parent’s poor reaction to the comparison would be akin to the SSM argument, or that it would not respect their sacrifice, or that it would diminish their relationship if you had never experienced the feeling of being a parent to a child.
I can tell you that for most parents, your making the analogy will have no bearing on the way that they feel about their child. A parent’s definition of the parent-child relationship is defined by, well, experiencing a parent-to-child relationship, and is fairly immune to your consultation.
In my opinion, you can continue to make the comparison all the live-long day. I’m just trying to explain to you that you are likely evoking in response the mental equivalent of a pat on the head and an “Aw, isn’t that cute” kind of reaction, at best. If you don’t mind having others react that way and it serves some purpose for you to define your relationship with your pet by reference to someone else’s relationship with a child, go for it.
This is easy. The reason that I have to make the comparison is because when I go to eleanor’s house ([eleanore I’m not picking I’m just using you as an example) with my dog, she will insist I tie him in the backyard. I will say no, it’s not safe, and she will insist that not only is it safe, but that she does it all the time with her dog. I will say no, my dog is not the kind of dog that gets tied in a backyard, and she will insist that it’s ok, so I will resort to “would you tie your kid in the back yard?” She will the become incensed, post in the pit about what a nutcase I am, and the circle of pit life will continue.
Man, this thread moved fast! Even though I’m late, there are a couple of comments I want to make.
Why are you surprised about fathers? Individuals have different abilities to bond with children in general and with their children. I have two daughters and a step-son. mr.stetch loves the boy more than I do–I guess everyone assumes this is par for the course and natural. However, I’m pretty sure mr.stretch loves my daughters more than I do. He just bonds better than me, and loves more. He is definitely the better parent and my daughters are lucky that we found him.
Great post in whole, but this part does a good job of explaining how I feel. We have four dogs. Shane, the oldest at 12, has changed and grown everyday that I’ve had her. She is still learning. And I drop $600 a year in thyroid meds and pain relievers for her arthritis, in addition to regular checkups, vaccines, and bloodwork–money that could go toward all sorts of other things. The Goldens Retrievers, all femals under 18 months, have distinct personalities and learning curves. Jake is just a wonderful girl–quick to learn, eager to please, a little shy. Loki, our middle Golden is a slower learner, but the most tenacious of the three, and is just the happiest girl you’ll ever meet. Pi, the youngest, is so smart she’s dangerous and much more aggressive than the others–she will be our challenging girl.
There is a difference between the way I love my daughters, my stepson, and my dogs. My love for my children may be different than that for my dogs, but my dogs–and to a slightly lesser degree, my cats–are my part of my family and I love them. I take time off for them–when Loki had an infection, I spent my lunch hours coming home to give mid-day meds. My boss understands–he had to take time off to take care of his dog after she jumped off a bridge and broke both front legs.
See, that’s where the real crazieness laieth. It’s fucking obscene and sick for someone to value a piece of metal over a living thing.
We used to tie up our old dog, Lassie, when she was a puppy. We bought a stake for the front yard, and attached her leash to it so she could sit outside with us.
She ended up with a nastier than usual case of fleas. And we ended up with a yard full of holes. See, Lassie was a Westie. Westies are terriers, and thus, they dig holes for some reason. Ruined the grass.
I’m sure eleanor would be thrilled at that.
And then there’s the current Westie, Lexie. Lexie cannot be trusted tied up in the yard. She’s likely to pull out of her leash somehow, or howl constantly.
However, if we brought her inside, and kept her on a leash, she’d behave wonderfully. She’d have all these people around to occupy her, and she wouldn’t get into trouble.
Then do you love George Bush more than you love your children? His life (going by all the security he requires, costs paid to protect him and so forth) must be more important than any child’s, right? Importance does not equal greater love.
Why put a value on anything?
Why can’t parents acknowledge other people can also feel deeply about things? This is another way that those of us who have chosen to not have kids are made to feel inferior.
So not only are we missing out on the greatest joy ever, we are sadly lacking in the deep feelings department. :rolleyes:
Who isn’t acknowledging such? Despite light strand’s hypothetical, there still is not a reasonable explanation for why there is this need to refer to children in describing your deep feelings for pets. (And to light strand, do you really think that someone who is inconsiderate of your feelings as a guest regarding your pet is going to open up with understanding and compassion at the mere mention of a child? Is elanorigby like the white people on the bus with Eddie Murphy in that old Saturday Night Live bit, who pull out the champaign once the last apparent African American has gotten off the bus?) “I love it very, very, very, very much” does not make a pet like a child.
Let me say again - perhaps this comparison rings true for others, but just don’t expect a parent to hear it and agree that it is apt. I imagine it is a bit like Steve Carrell in The Office suggesting that he can understand Stanley’s experience of racism because he was also discriminated against this one time. Or that he understands the plight of a paraplegic person because he burned the sole of his foot and has to wear a cast for a day. It is more than quantity.
The good thing is that you are well-endowed in the overly melodramatic martyrdom department.
The point is not that the pet IS a child. The point is that the owners emotions towards the pet are exactly the same as yours towards a child. Why cannot people understand this?
Once again, all the fluff and circumstance =
My love is better than yours.
My God people, did you not read about the “one upping”… many of you are religious, henceforth, God is the one you love the most right? Is your love for God greater than your child? Will you sacrifice your child on an altar because God told you to? I think the resounding notion here is “no I would not”. SO you don’t love God then, or not the same as a child? Or, is it you made a rational decision when forced to in a difficult set of circumstances.
Love is an emotion. One object of love cannot be greater than another. There are varying types of love and degrees, but why is that parents have to assert some sense of “love” superiority when they refer to their children. I assure you, parents kill kids, they abuse kids, they neglect kids, they make fun of kids. Those of you who are good parents, don’t do these things because you… LOVE THEM. Same thing with a pet.
Your child is sick, it cost 500 dollars, you love them so you cure them. Your dog is sick, it cost 500 dollars, you love them so you cure them. What is the bloody difference?
Now, if we are getting into the hypothetical, I have $500. to cure one or the other, then the choice is the human. Not because of any difference in LOVE, because it is a difference in priority. There are social constructs that guide human interaction, including law, that stipulate the life of a human supercedes, in almost all cases, the life of another species. But, this does not change the amount of love. These animals are LIKE their children. They will treat them with the same endearment, same love, same care etc… However, if push comes to shove, most people would have to PRIORITIZE, but I assure you it will not be based on the amount of love.
To make the example more apt, you have $500., your spouse and your child is sick, who do you save? Ah, you chose the child… AHA, you don’t love your spouse as much huh? Oh, you do, you just had to make a difficult decision… Oh I see, the choices on how spend your money and resources are not a reflection of an emotional attachment rather a reflection of your rational thought processes.
You are all making love into a commodity that can only be handed out in quantities, based on various circumstances. This is not the case. I believe, firmly, that there are very few pet owners, who, when standing in front of a building burining, seeing a child, any human child, AND their own pet, would not rescue the human first. HOWEVER, many of them may go back in sacrificing their life also for the PET. THAT IS LOVE. You, none of you, are in no position to dictate for what a person is willing to sacrifice their life, or love, for.
If you are pitting anyone, who in the hypothetical, forgo saving the child for the pet in the burning house, then we can argue on a different level. However, I doubt, when posed with that hypothetical, any of the “pet as child” clan would take that position.
Yet, holding to the myth that one sense of love and devotion is greater than another, is the ultimate case of egoism that I find appalling.
Because it’s horseshit. I’ve had kids, I’ve had pets. I’ve loved them all. The love wasn’t the same. And if you don’t have the experience of having both, you have no frame of reference. Also, since love is subjective, you have no way of telling me that your feelings are the same as mine.
I’m not offended that you think it’s the same. I just think it’s wrong.
Oh, and as to this comment:
Nobody’s saying that. In fact, I specifically stated waaaaayyy the fuck upthread that I don’t even dispute that you love your pet as much as I love my kid. Why are you so pissy that people won’t accept your insistence that it’s the same? Do you love your brother the same way that you love your husband? Why not? They’re both men. You love them both as much, don’t you? So why isn’t it the same?
“Love” is a big word, and it means a lot of different things to everyone.
I think we are still waiting for our first parent to come in and say they love their pet as much as their children. Do anyone expect to see such a post?
Jim
Hell, I’m waiting for the first pet owner to come in and say that they love their pet as much as a parent loves their kid. I’m still waiting.
As I’ve said several times, and as you have apparently ignored, the feelings a parent has for a child are qualitatively different than those an owner feels for a pet. Qualitatively. Not merely quantitatively. The emotions that a parent feels are very much not “exactly the same” as a parent feels towards a child, and asserting as much is the very point of my objection. How can you even make such an assertion, assuming you are not a parent yourself?
Assuming you are a pet owner, what feelings do you have about the time when your pet will go on to live independently of you? Are you hopeful that your pet will be successful when it is time to strike out on its own? Do you fear that you are not doing everything you can now to ensure that they will go on to live a full life after you are dead? Do you wonder if your parents would be proud of your pet, or would be disappointed in the choices you’ve made for your pet? Do you wonder if you or your spouse is more likely to have contributed to your pet’s disease, worrying that you might be to blame and then feeling ashamed that you might be essentially blaming your spouse for something so out of control? Or do you spin your wheels trying to blame yourself for something environmentally that you were responsible for to bring it on? Do you worry that other pets are perhaps going to lead yours into life threatening circumstances or to engage in drug use? I’m only riffing off the top of my head - surely you get my point?
It is juvenile and foolish to claim that the feelings a parent has are exactly the same as a pet owner. Getting all puffed up with claims of egoism only compound your apparent ignorance.
Does this count?
Hence my drawing the difference between a human and an animal. I love dogs more than I love Bush, hell I love eating broken glass more than I love Bush. But if I had to choose between any animal alive and any human alive, 99.9% of the time, it’s going to be the human. Just as, in my post, had you read the entire thing, a pet is more important than a car. Societal import is not the only thing that matters.
To have priorities in situations of limited scarity. Why else?
I’ll be on the veranda, since you’re already on the cross. If you had read my entire post, you would have seen I never said that pet owners can’t feel deeply about things, or that you’re missing out on the greatest joy. Maybe you could use your strawman as a chew toy.
Hey, everyone! After 6 pages of worthless bandying about, let’s try rephrasing the entire OP!
Rephrasing: Newsflash, egotistical sadists: Unless your actually talking about something besides a human being, your kids ARE JUST FUCKING ANIMALS.
Rephrasing: They formed from your sperm cell merging with an egg. They contain your genes, which sucks for them, and for everyone with whom they will subsequently interact. Not one of your kids is worth more than a single animal on this entire planet
Rephrasing: In case you’re wondering, people actually consider their own children to be something special somehow. They would actually risk their house to pay for medical treatment to keep their own vile little wretches alive. Sometimes, anyway.
Rephrasing: Spending every cent you’ve ever earned, etc., for an animal’s medical treatment makes NO sense, but neither does it for the pile of filth that you and some other unutterably stupid human being have produced. If you do either, you are an egotistical, sadistic moron. Money has no meaning or value to anyone but humans, who in their chronic sickness created the stuff. Wasting it is a waste of nothing.
Rephrasing: Just because you’ve developed a completely out-of-whack emotional attachment to a kid who only likes you because you feed, clothe, and shelter it doesn’t make it any more than another fucking animal, and a treacherous and mean-spirited one at that, just like its parents, who have taught it so well by example.
Rephrasing: You could have saved your child from a burning building and you know what… it doesn’t give a fuck. All it knows is that if it looks at you in a certain way, and obeys your orders, you’ll feed, clothe, and shelter it.
Rephrasing: Sure, you might love your kid. It gives you companionship. It gives you something to laugh at and despise as you were despised by your own parents and most others in your life. Revenge is sweet! It gives you something to do, and concrete evidence to the rest of the world that the invariably damaging genetic structure of another human being will be passed on for another generation. It provides you with a certain legitimacy in normal society, and the ability to say to your boss when he threatens to fire you for your various acts of completely avoidable incompetence, “But I have a kid!”
It acts happy when you come through the door, but only because its deathly afraid of you and what you might do to it if it doesn’t comply with your odd wishes for its behavior. It’s easy to buy a kid’s affection (that’s what all are bred for). None of that makes it other than a FUCKING ANIMAL.
Rephrasing: I’m sorry that the circumstances of your life have actually got you to the point where you think your kid is other than an animal. If you’re doing that, then I suspect you have missed out on love, a predicament shared by about 6.5 billion other people, each individual’s own fault. So sorry about that. But hear this: it still doesn’t make your child anything but another animal.
Rephrasing: I don’t even have kids. To do so would be to commit the unconscionable act of inflicting life on another sentient being. I picked up a cat from a shelter a few years ago, and I am reasonably smug in considering that she has a better life in my house than in the dank, malodorous place from which I took her. But, she is worth neither more nor less than the actual kid across the street. At least she can nail a mouse when the opportunity arises.
So, everyone, have your pets, and consider them your kids, if you like. They aren’t really human children, but you can pretend. If you have human children, you can pretend that they aren’t just animals. If you do the former, you may have provided a more desirable life to some animal. If you do the latter, you have ensured the miserable existence of another person who, throughout their life, will know just how miserable they are.
Tune in next week for another exciting installment of:
DR. Mark 2000, Nihilist Obstetrician