What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Some thoughts on the Prop 8 decision

Infinity%20cover.jpg

1. Judge Walker’s decision, he tells us, is based on the principle that the state ought not to “enforce ‘profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles’” or to “mandate [its] own moral code.” But that is, of course, precisely what Walker himself has done. His position rests on the question-begging assumption that “same-sex marriages” are no less true marriages than heterosexual ones are, and that the only remaining question is whether to allow them legally. But of course, whether “same-sex marriages” really can even in principle be “marriages” in the first place is part of what is at issue in the dispute. The traditional, natural law view is that marriage is heterosexual of metaphysical necessity. Rather than staying neutral between competing moral views, then, Walker has simply declared that the state should stop imposing one moral view – the one he doesn’t like – and should instead impose another, rival moral view – the one he does like.

What we’re seeing here is just one more application of the fraudulent principle of “liberal neutrality,” by which the conceit that liberal policy is neutral between the moral and metaphysical views competing within a pluralistic society provides a smokescreen for the imposition of a substantive liberal moral worldview, on all citizens, by force. (Of course, liberals typically qualify their position by saying that their conception of justice only claims to be neutral between “reasonable” competing moral and metaphysical views, but “reasonable” always ends up meaning something like “willing to submit to a liberal conception of justice.”)

That “liberal neutrality” is a fraud is blindingly obvious to everyone except (some) liberals themselves. (I say “some” because it is very hard to believe that many liberals are not perfectly well aware that the “neutrality” of their position is phony, but maintain the pretense of neutrality for cynical political reasons.) In any event, I have argued for its fraudulence in a number of places, most fully in my paper “Self-Ownership, Libertarianism, and Impartiality” (the arguments of which are aimed immediately at some libertarians’ application of the “neutrality” idea, but apply to liberalism generally).

All of this would be bad enough if the policy in question were a result of a popular vote, but Walker has essentially imposed his will on the people of California by sheer judicial fiat. Pope Benedict XVI has famously spoken of a “dictatorship of relativism.” But I think that that is not quite right. Most liberals are not the least bit relativistic about their own convictions. A more accurate epithet would have been “dictatorship of liberalism,” and in Judge Walker that dictatorship has taken on concrete form.

2. As with other issues, what will decide the “same-sex marriage” controversy in the long run are the attitudes that prevail in society at large, not this or that judicial decision, ballot measure, or piece of legislation. If a solid majority of citizens continue to oppose “same-sex marriage,” then it can be stopped and liberal advances can be turned back. If not, then conservative efforts will inevitably fail in the long run. So, if they are to have a chance of succeeding, conservatives must work to shore up popular opposition to the idea of “same-sex marriage.”

Social-scientific and pragmatic arguments have much intellectual value and some practical value in this connection. But where moral and social questions are concerned such arguments are never going to carry the day in a society whose moral and social trajectory is as firmly liberal as ours is. The advocates of “same-sex marriage” are motivated by a moralistic fervor, and their position rests (whether all of them realize this or not) on controversial metaphysical assumptions about human nature and the nature of value. If they are effectively to be rebutted, they must be met with equal and opposite moral and metaphysical force.

Unfortunately, too few conservatives are very effective in this regard. With some of them, this is because they more or less share the moral and metaphysical premises in question; their “conservatism” amounts to little more than a milder form of liberalism. With others, it is because an obsession with short-term electoral strategy and the nuts and bolts of policy has made them lose sight of the deeper questions of principle that were the focus of earlier generations of conservatives, and which ultimately give point to political strategizing and policy design. This is a general problem with contemporary conservatism that I have explored in detail in my essay “The Metaphysics of Conservatism.”

3. What this entails in the case at hand is that in order to challenge the legitimacy of “same-sex marriage,” conservatives have to be willing to challenge the moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior itself. To concede even for the sake of argument that such behavior is morally unobjectionable is effectively to concede the whole issue. Conservative moralists have always upheld the norm that sexual behavior and marriage ought to go together – both because sex naturally results in children and children need the stability of marriage, and because sexual passions are inherently unruly and need to be channeled in the socially constructive way marriage provides. To allow that sexual behavior need not be heterosexual is implicitly to allow that marriage too need not be heterosexual. Pragmatic social-scientific arguments about the possible negative long-range social effects of allowing “same-sex marriage” can only seem anticlimactic in the face of such a concession – heartless nitpicking at best, and the rationalization of prejudice at worst.

Moreover, challenging the moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior requires a moral theory grounded in a classical essentialist metaphysics, one in which what is good for us is determined by a fixed human nature or essence and in particular by the natural ends of our various faculties. As my regular readers know, the specific version of classical essentialism I favor is the one associated with the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, but one needn’t share that specific view for the purpose at hand; a broadly Platonic metaphysics would do, as would a non-Thomistic brand of Aristotelianism. (Divine command theory is, I think, not a plausible alternative, because it either takes God’s commands, and thus morality, to be arbitrary – not a plausible approach to ethics, in my view – or it holds that what God commands us to do is what it is good for us to do given our nature – in which case it isn’t really an alternative to a classical essentialist approach, but rather a supplement to it. See chapter 5 of my Aquinas for more on this issue.)

I hasten to add that this is nothing peculiar to traditional sexual morality, though. No morality whatsoever is defensible apart from a classical essentialist metaphysics. If there are no ends set for us by our nature, then there can in principle be no objective, non-arbitrary way of determining what it is good for us to do, and thus what we ought to do. Hence in the final analysis, and in the main if not in all details, traditional sexual morality and morality full stop stand or fall together. Though liberal advocates of “same-sex marriage” are fervently moralistic, they have no rational basis whatsoever for their moralism. Their position rests ultimately either on an appeal to something like Rawlsian “considered intuitions about justice” – academese for “groundless and parochial liberal prejudices my friends and I all have in common” – or on a neo-Hobbesian contractarianism, which is not really a moral position at all, but a non-aggression pact between the members of whichever group of “rationally self-interested individuals” can collectively convince the mob (or at least the judicial bureaucracy) to implement policies favorable to their interests. (See The Last Superstition for the full story on this, and on the justification of traditional sexual morality.)

For reasons already stated, though, too few conservatives with influence in politics or journalism are willing or able to make the moral or metaphysical case required. They are either too beholden themselves to the moral and metaphysical assumptions of liberalism, or too narrowly focused on questions of immediate political feasibility. Deference to the attitudes of their “socially liberal” “conservative” colleagues, of potential voters, and of their liberal fellow journalists, intellectuals, and politicians prevents even those conservatives who truly believe that “same-sex marriage” is wrong because homosexual behavior itself is wrong from ever voicing this opinion. Hence their emphasis on exclusively pragmatic social-scientific arguments, on respect for the will of the voters, etc. – arguments which cannot succeed in the long run.

4. There may be limits in practice, but there are no limits in principle, to what liberals might come to endorse, and be willing to impose on all by judicial fiat, in the name of “justice.” No doubt most liberals do not at present advocate infanticide, mandatory euthanasia, “group marriage,” incest, bestiality, mandatory vegetarianism, mandatory organ harvesting, and the like, but there is nothing whatsoever in the “logic” of liberal arguments for abortion, “same-sex marriage,” euthanasia, “animal rights” etc. to rule such things out. Indeed, there is nothing to rule out even more bizarre and as yet unimagined practices than these. The only barriers in practice are the “intuitions” liberals currently happen to have, but those intuitions are always subject to revision, and the trajectory of the revisions is invariably in a “liberationist” direction. If something seems beyond the pale now, just wait a decade or three.

The reason, again, is that if man has no essence and no natural end – that is to say, if we reject classical essentialist metaphysics and the natural law system of morality that derives from it, as the founders of liberal modernity did – then there can be no objective, non-arbitrary way of determining what is good for us. And the flip side of this is that there is no existing moral conviction, no matter how widespread, ancient, and venerable, that might not be dismissed as an arbitrary prejudice, something to be freed from rather than deferred to and shored up.

This is not a slippery slope argument. The point is not that liberalism will lead someday to something truly nasty. It has already done so many times over; indeed, it is itself truly nasty. As Alasdair MacIntyre put it in After Virtue, our choice is between Aristotle and Nietzsche, between submitting ourselves to the natural order or instead to the will to power of self-appointed “revaluators of all values.” In the person of Judge Walker, Nietzsche has spoken.

(cross-posted)

Comments (130)

A couple of notes you may find darkly amusing, Ed, given your point here about saying that homosexual behavior is morally wrong: Last summer during our fight in my town against a homosexual "rights" ordinance, we were continually warned by strategists to be careful what we said. At one point the argument was that we _should_ focus on behavior so as not to imply that we had an animus against homosexual _persons_, but even that turned out not to be really what was meant, as I discovered when a fellow soldier was lamenting to me over the phone that the local paper had achieved an interview with one of us who said (gasp!) that she was "opposed to the homosexual lifestyle." This, I was told, made us "sound like a bunch of homophobes." But? I thought we were supposed to focus on behavior. Wasn't that what she was doing? No satisfactory answer.

Second anecdote: I was on a small conservative talk radio show a while ago, and I was asked repeatedly about civil unions. Couldn't I support them? Wasn't that a good compromise? I said no, repeatedly, and explained some of the reasons. (In the short time available, I chose to focus on the Lisa Miller custody case, which arose out of a civil union.) I was later told that some other guests on the show were listening in to my interview. They were ostensibly conservative but apparently were rather shocked and told the host, during a commercial, "Wow, she's _really_ conservative." I think this was not really supposed to be a good thing, in their view.

On this:

As with other issues, what will decide the “same-sex marriage” controversy in the long run are the attitudes that prevail in society at large, not this or that judicial decision, ballot measure, or piece of legislation. If a solid majority of citizens continue to oppose “same-sex marriage,” then it can be stopped and liberal advances can be turned back.

I really wonder if, now, this is too optimistic. Public opinion is and has been _very_ strongly against homosexual "marriage." It has been again and again judicially imposed, as here. Our country is turning into a functional oligarchy on these most crucial moral issues. In that legal situation, I cannot help doubting that this can be turned back even if a solid majority of citizens continue to oppose it. After all, that solid majority of citizens may not oppose it *to the point of being willing to oppose its legal consequences and suffer for doing so*. Very few people are prepared to be martyrs for what they oppose.

We have not been able to turn back the tide on Roe v. Wade partly because Roe v. Wade was itself a teacher. It changed the succeeding generations and eroded popular opposition to itself.

This is why I no longer find it possible to really be polite to you, Ed. Your views are not merely false, but evil.

Your views are not merely false, but evil.

That's hilarious. "You say that we need to hold to some sense of the ultimate good? You're no good!"

Aaron,

What horrible thought to think that it is not possible to respectfully discuss evil views. This would destroy one of the most powerful weapons one has against evil.

You're right, of course, James, so I do try. I suppose I should try harder.

No, Aaron, your views are false and evil. So nyah-nyah.

Really, that's the best you can do? (Having read your "criticisms" of my stuff before, I know that it pretty much is.)

Aaron,
I assume what you mean by 'evil' is something like "I really really do not like what Ed wrote." In which case, why should you be able to express your opinion, but Ed should not be allowed to express his?

If you believe that his views are objectively evil, that would would require some type of metaphysical analysis, since the distinction between good and evil is a metaphysical distinction. Perhaps you can share it with us?

As far as I can tell, all the homosexual activists have rejected the natural law as well as every other form of objective metaphysics. So how can you claim that anything is objectively evil?

Truth is not found by playing language games, nor through power politics. If you just want to impose your views on everyone else, that is totalitarianism. And that is objectively evil.

The answer, Lamont, is that Aaron and his ilk have, given their metaphysical assumptions, no rational basis whatsoever to describe my views, or anyone else's, as "evil." One piece of evidence for this is that they never try to offer any such basis. They just say "evil, evil, evil" over and over, as if saying it will make it true.

Or not true, really; the point rather is rhetorical, to use moralistic language as a political weapon, not as a way of describing objective reality. It's a matter of tactics -- in this case, Aaron's tiny little will to power chirping up and expressing itself in what I imagine he takes to be a frightening roar. All I hear is a squeak.

Of course that's another frustrating feature of dealing with Ed, it's hard to even start the discussion, as his metaphysics are wrong at such a deep level. In order to dispute his claim that my position has no rational basis, or that I don't and can't mean evil when I say "evil," I need to engage in extremely complex ways with the countless misunderstandings involved in his idea of "rationality" and of "evil." It would be nice if he assessed rationality on the basis of quality of arguments rather than degree of agreement with his own assumptions, but it's clear that he does not, and so however rational the arguments I offer are, they'll never be "rational."

But since I've been accused of having no arguments at all, humans have far too much sex for human sex to have reproduction as its only natural purpose in any intelligible sense of "natural." Species that have sex for reproduction only have mating seasons so that they don't waste time and energy on having more sex than they need to. Humans don't have these mating seasons, and it seems most reasonable to think all this extra sex humans have has some purpose. I do not pretend to know what additional natural purposes sex has in humans (I'm less overconfident than Ed in making such judgments), but precisely because I do not know this, I see no basis for concluding that homosexual sex could not be performing one of the natural functions of sex in humans.

Of course, I also don't think that the "natural" in almost any sense is a particularly good guide to the moral, but even if I pretended that it were, it seems to me that I couldn't get to Ed's conclusions.

It would be nice if he assessed rationality on the basis of quality of arguments rather than degree of agreement with his own assumptions, but it's clear that he does not, and so however rational the arguments I offer are, they'll never be "rational."

Keep on callin' that kettle black, Aaron...

Anyway, as I have said over and over again in many places, I do not regard all those who disagree with my assumptions as irrational. Only those who never bother to offer anything but invective, attacking of obvious straw men, etc. are open to that charge. But of course, you know that -- this is just more of your usual rhetorical sleight of hand. Give it up, Aaron, everyone on this board already knows your little tricks.

humans have far too much sex for human sex to have reproduction as its only natural purpose in any intelligible sense of "natural."

First, no one ever said "only purpose"; procreation is rather the primary purpose, and the others (particularly that of fostering affection between the spouses) ultimately exist for the sake of that primary purpose (insofar as it facilitates the stability of marriage, and thereby the well-being of children). Second, the other reason we have lots of sex is that nature intends for us to have large families.

But you know all this, of course (as well as all the complications and qualifications that a natural law theorist would add to it), because I know you read The Last Superstition very carefully and dispassionately, keen as you are on "assessing rationality on the basis of quality of arguments rather than degree of agreement with your own assumptions."

The more pragmatic arguments might be the only ones that survive Supreme Court review after Lawrence v. Texas.

humans have far too much sex for human sex to have reproduction as its only natural purpose in any intelligible sense of "natural."

Good grief, I suspect that you've just re-written the anthropology books.

Look, most other animals are territorial and demand specific conditions to live. They have mating seasons because their living conditions are cyclic. Man is much more flexible in his habitation because he has a rational brain. As such, since he is called upon to exist in many diverse habitats, he has to have extra sex for two reasons: 1) the possibility of high infant mortality due to environmental conditions, and 2) because he has the ability to form long-lasting relationships within a deliberative society. These just happen to be the two reasons of natural law: procreative stress and societal stability.

In fact, homosexula unions are both anthropologically and evolutionarily de-selected for these very purposes.

The Chicken

Science, in my opinion, agrees with Ed's view.

The Chicken

Lydia,

Over the years, I've had editors who I know did not disagree with me edit out mild references to homosexuality, evidently because they didn't want the hassle.

Intimidation is all the activists have. But it's all they need if they can get a critical mass of decent people to cave in to it. And both sides know it.

BTW, Lydia, you're probably right that what I wrote was too optimistic. What I really meant to emphasize was that a permanent, sustainable majority opposed to "same-sex marriage" is an absolutely necessary condition of conservative success on this issue, not that it is a sufficient condition. Still, if the majority were large enough you could get around any victory the other side is likely to achieve, if only via a constitutional amendment. But that, of course, is increasingly unlikely as the years wear on.

So, what we'll probably end up with is "same-sex marriage" imposed, via the courts, as the law of the land everywhere -- well, everywhere except for those districts in which liberals allow sharia to prevail, of course.

Aaron, you think Ed is wrong. Fine. But if you look at the Prop 8 ruling, the judge would say that Ed's position is not only wrong but irrational. Now, as you know, philosophers disagree on a variety of matters. Concerning justification, some are internalists, others externalists. On human personhood, some argue that personhood begins at conception whereas others would defend the morality of infanticide prior to 18 months after birth. In jurisprudence, some philosophers are positivists, others are not. All these views have their champions and their critics. But even though I think some of them are wrong, I would be loathe to claim that any of them is irrational.

So, of all the possible issues, why do you single out a moral judgment on the nature of sexual intercourse that has a noble and sophisticated pedigree? The current view of human sexuality is not sophisticated at all; it just appeals to desire, autonomy, and choice. It is the posture of the adolescent. It does not even try to plumb the issue of human nature or whether our sexual powers--let alone the person as a whole--has a good to which he should strive. It was as if it were invented by Hugh Hefner in the mansion's grotto in 1968 after interviewing Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski. (Here's the evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqfeAIXuoss&feature=related )

You may disagree with Ed. But at least show some understanding about what precisely you are rejecting.

It is because I have read The Last Superstition that I know what your standards of rational argumentation are. And I suppose technically it is your view that according to my metaphysics there is no such thing as a rational argument, so that if my metaphysics were right I couldn't make one. This leaves open the possibility, which you must allude to here (though you never mention in your book) that I might make a rational argument anyway, since my metaphysics are, according to you, wrong. However, given the standards of rational argument you employ (which are mostly revealed by your claim that my metaphysics exclude such arguments, though you also say a little more than that about them), there could not be such a thing as a rational argument, so of course I don't make any, and you don't either. It is hard to know how best to describe our dialectical position, and of course I am somewhat inhibited by the knowledge that you will employ any remotely ambiguous phrasing to try to score rhetorical points rather than making any effort to understand it (again, based on reading The Last Superstition).

As you well know, Aaron, up until your unprovoked, out-of-the-blue attack on me as a "defender of bigotry and supersition" on your blog a few weeks ago, I was unfailingly civil to you in our many online exchanges, and always engaged you in a substantive way. For you now to pretend that you'd love to engage me substantively if only I were willing to reciprocate is either the height of cynicism, or shows a breathtaking lack of self-knowledge. Or maybe you've recently developed retrograde amnesia?

"But of course, whether “same-sex marriages” really can even in principle be 'marriages' in the first place is part of what is at issue in the dispute. The traditional, natural law view is that marriage is heterosexual of metaphysical necessity."

Ed, this seems besides the point for a decision that, by necessity, can't be based on tradition or natural law alone. The "marriage" at stake here is a creature of the state, something in which the roles of the state and religion are totally asymmetrical.

Original post:

conservatives have to be willing to challenge the moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior itself.

Phil adds: "The more pragmatic arguments might be the only ones that survive Supreme Court review after Lawrence v. Texas."

I do wonder how conservative challenges can survive the judicial usurpation of rationality. If we've been declared without "rational basis," what's the purpose of arguing?

We're caught in a bind: argue for the fullness of our position, or truncate our actual views for fear of being officially dismissed as having an "irrational animus." (Clue: truncation doesn't help avoid the charge either.)

But clearly it's the wider population that needs to be persuaded and reinforced. My concern is that the conservative leadership is more focused on passing SCOTUS muster or making room in academia (or in media) than in addressing the wider population.

On a related note, if progressives were forced to re-examine their own sexual vices, would they be more or less vigorous in their advocacy of homosexual politics? There is not much said about issues like co-habitation and pornography. What happens to the SSM debate if we try to reignite those battles too?

But enough about other people's vices. I've come to think one key debate changer would be a return to New Deal-like family policy.

The zero-sum nature of the marriage debate becomes more obvious if there is a movement which explicitly advocates the creation of a society for the working man who tries to support a wife and kids. The male-headed married household with children is a natural constituency for SSM opponents. But considering the Democrats' dedication to feminism and gender-neutral marriage, and considering the Republicans' aversion to thinking in terms of society, this kind of movement would be tough to jumpstart.

The "marriage" at stake here is a creature of the state,

Al, that's precisely and definitely NOT the case. The "marriage" at stake here is much, much more than simply a creature of the state. And you know it, if only you will reflect for a moment.

If the issue were only those benefits and privileges that the state grants or confers, that would be one thing. But it isn't. The state enforces contract law, but it neither creates contract rights ab nihilo, nor is the state the creator and grantor of the language in which contracts are written. (It couldn't, since the state's own authority derives in terms of laws written in the existing language.) There are many, many contracts that have a determinate meaning regardless of what benefits the state might want to confer on married people. One such contract is that in which an employer contracts to provide health benefits to an employee and spouse. Until recently, it was so obviously true as to defy the beginnings of argument that the word "marriage" and "spouse" meant something that only two of opposite sexes could undertake. Therefore, the contracts that conferred a benefit on spouses that were married conferred a benefit only on those of opposite sexes: that's what the contract MEANT . For the state to come along and re-write the contract by deciding to re-write the meaning of the term "marriage" and "spouse" is to destroy the contracts already written and to defy the state's inherent limit to override the social order that gives the state its particular authority.

Marriage is an already existing creature of society, (and of nature) prior to and more fundamental than the state. Any state action that claims the right to determine the meaning of marriage in defiance of that pre-existing social order is, perforce, in excess of state authority.

Ed, it may seem to you that saying extremely rude things about naturalists and liberals and libertines in your book does not constitute being rude to me personally, even though I am a naturalist and a liberal and a libertine. However, I'm afraid that I don't see it that way. I am surprised that my perspective seems so totally incomprehensible to you; you seem to get quite offended at some of the things said about Christians and conservatives even when they're not personally directed at you.

This is not a slippery slope argument.

After saying liberalism leads to incest, bestiality and polygamy, this is the least self-aware claim you've ever made.

But clearly it's the wider population that needs to be persuaded and reinforced. My concern is that the conservative leadership is more focused on passing SCOTUS muster or making room in academia (or in media) than in addressing the wider population.

But Kevin, on SS"M" the broader population has been solidly on the conservative side from the outset. That's why, again and again, the leftists have resorted to the courts.

Please, everyone, let's not start telling ourselves again that we need to win hearts and minds or we haven't done our job, etc. Let's say loud and clear that in this case, the hearts and minds are starting on our side. It doesn't make our position _true_ to say that most Americans agree with it (that is, that homosexual unions should not be treated as marriages), but it is true to make that sociological claim. Which is why acts of raw judicial tyranny like this one are the resort of the left in this battle. If they win this one, hearts and minds may be changed in the liberal direction more or less by brute force. Being forced to say "shibboleth" in order to keep one's livelihood and not be punished in numerous ways and being told insistently that this is a "constitutional right" over a decade or so, or even a few years, has a way of changing minds. Such is the nature of the political reality in the U.S. and especially of the power of the Supreme Court. But the leftists are doing it top-down, make no mistake.

"As a member of the libertine community, I find your remarks hurtful and insensitive..."

To paraphrase Kenny Bania: That's gold, Aaron. Gold!

Lydia:

Without intending to take us far from the topic, I would like to ask you, how you reconcile your support of contraception with your moral opposition to gay sex?

The problem seems fairly straightforward to me:
If the condemnation of sodomy is not due to its failing to be an act that is reproductive in type, on what grounds can it be condemned? And if contraception is not a means of denigrating the reproductive act by intentionally rendering it barren, what is it?

You have some 'splaining to do. :)

One simply can not argue with those who argue from different premises.

Has it not been said, one must argue on opponent's premises or kill him.

The Church carries the perfect Tao, other long-lasting human traditions (Hindus, Muslims etc) carry imperfect Tao while the Modern Errors (Left, and Libertarianism) is simply outside the Tao.

The criterion is essentially all long-lasting traditions make as end of Man the glorification and his enjoyment of God.

Step2: Dr. Feser is not making a prediction, but is making a point about logic -- nothing within the premises entails that a, b, c are not permissible. Whether someone will eventually follow that logic and argue that laws against a,b, and c should be struck down is not the point.

canid, when a contracepting couple enter into a sexual act, they use the sexual organs in a normal manner (having first prevented the normal manner having its normal fruit). Not so with sodomy: in addition to sodomy being a sexual act not of a reproductive type, it is, further, a type of act that is outside the natural use of the sexual organs. Indeed, it is also outside the physical parameters of the organs used - there is, sometimes, physical damage from such use.

I believe that both are wrong. But it is clear that sodomy is wrong in a more complete way than contraceptive intercourse. While it would be better for society to reject contraception, it is positively an outrage for society to treat sodomy as natural.

I think "homosexual" is a logically flawed and misleading designation.
Sex implies, in most direct way, male-female duality. If not for that duality the concept of sex would never even arise. Therefore all sexual acts must be, per definition, transsexual. Acts of sodomy may imitate sexual act by involving sexual organs, but they are not sexual as they occur within the same sex.

Well, I may add that calling sodomites "homosexual" is way more acceptable than referring to them as "gays".
"Homosexual" may be quite imprecise, but "gay" is, most blatantly, fraudulent.

Canid, I never said anything about "support" for contraception. And I think you're in the wrong thread, anyway. In the other thread I said that I think conservatives should not be telling other conservatives that it is "vain" and "pointless" to oppose homosexual so-called "marriage" since our country has accepted divorce and contraception (so the fight is all over anyway, or something to that effect). I instanced a hypothetical evangelical named Joe who supports (some) contraception and (some) divorce and said that someone like Joe knows that it is not "vain" and "pointless" for him to oppose the requirement that homosexual relationships be called "marriage."

I wrote above "...sexual acts must be, per definition, transsexual".
I meant, of course, inter-sexual.

I have wondered, puzzled, over the supposed argument for homosexual marriage based on the flaws, imperfections, of heterosexual marriage. Perhaps someone with a calmer disposition than mine can explain how one follows from the other, along cause & effect lines if you please.
Laying somewhere in the weeds of thought is the premise that SSM will be in some way better, true selfless love enduring for a lifetime, a beacon for us stained heteros.
Otherwise what is the point?
The other argument, about hate and prejudice and it's province within non-gays is similar in it's assumptions, and just as stupid and ugly.


Sadly, I think the pro-sodomy side wins the argument, but only because most of the other side has already rejected the reality of marriage and turned it into a pure pleasure contract, a form of long-term prostitution, and with easy divorce, marriage isn't even long-term anymore. Marriage as it stands in America is not worth defending. Pots who call the kettle black don't win many arguments.

Talk about marriage being a sacrament from God which creates an indissoluble union that can only be broken by death, for the purpose of begetting and educating children so that more souls are created to be with God in Heaven. Add to it the fact that all sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful and that even within a marriage all sexual acts engaged in for pleasure and not for the purpose of begetting children are also sinful. Then say that this is revealed by God and all who do not agree will be thrown into the eternal fire with the devil and his angels. Now you are among the few Americans who have a proper understanding of marriage, probably less than 1% of the population.

Good luck winning that argument in a secular society where the schools teach little children to defile themselves with masturbation and that it is okay to sodomize each other because it feels good.

Are there any anti-sodomites pushing for the criminalization of sodomy and throwing sodomites in prison so that all that perversion would be forced back into the closet and out of the public view? Or are they all just in defensive action destined to fail?

Someone posted this comment over at Ed's blog:

The idea that fundamental rights are predicated on what one can choose over what one cannot choose is asinine. People can choose their religions - in fact, religions are a paradigmatic "lifestyle choice." it is protected. So while I think sexual orientation is, for many or most, not a choice, I also think that has nothing to do with the right to choose whom we will enter into the legal concept of marriage.

Such is the liberal rubric of "choice": Your "choice" of religion is no different from your "choice" of sexual partners/practices. But I wonder: What do you say to this argument in a culture in which individual choice is sacrosanct? Doesn't it seem to miss entirely the idea of the common good and the place marriage has in it?

"The answer, Lamont, is that Aaron and his ilk have, given their metaphysical assumptions, no rational basis whatsoever to describe my views, or anyone else's, as "evil.""

Which is why contemporary philosophers are at such pains to make moral and political philosophy "autonomous" from metaphysics. Part of the reason for this is, I suspect, is that most of them are naturalists and they understand all too well that, if they let metaphysics dictate morals, they are going to end up exactly where Alex Rosenberg and all the other clear-heaeded nihilists say they are going to end up. Morals, values, treasured "intuitions" of "fairness"- all of them are going to get tossed in the rubbish bin because we can't justify their existence against the backdrop of our Quinean "best theory of the world." Its bizarre to behold. "Yes, natural science proves that nothing exists except for matter and various aggregates thereof, and that we are just machines made out of meat, but I just can't shake this "intuition" that they all have to be treated fairly." And they call us religious types "delusional."

Very true, Untenured. It's a form of denial about the metaphysics. Just look at what the more reasoned liberals are saying here and elsewhere: They're mostly arguing from the legal case. There's little desire to engage the larger metaphysical arguments because it presents such an unflattering picture of postmoderns. Better to say, "This is just one case at one point in time and you religious types needn't overreact. Oh, and by the way..." (they ominously add without a hint of irony) "...this is where society is headed, so get used to it."

That's why this is not a slippery slope argument: I don't pretend to know whether SSM is a "gateway drug" to the legalization of all sorts of taboos, but I do know that -- here and now -- the law of the land effectively says, "There's no rational basis for traditional sexual morality, so go pound rocks." As if there were no set of metaphysical assumptions being substituted for another!

Add to it the fact that all sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful and that even within a marriage all sexual acts engaged in for pleasure and not for the purpose of begetting children are also sinful.

Matthew,

I know what you mean to say, but it is not an either or problem. Sex can have both pleasure and procreation. If done purely for pleasure means, by definition, the intent to contracept, whether or not children are possible.

The Chicken

I would disagree with the concept that religion is a "choice" in the sense of a simple preference. Religion is something that is compelled based upon what you believe to be true. If you do not believe God exists, then you are compelled by conscience to be an atheist; even if externally you participate in a religion, internally you are atheist. Likewise, if you believe the RCC is the Church founded by Christ and the true Church, you are compelled by conscience to join it; if you don't so believe, then not.

Whether we like it or not, we are designed to live by what is true. That is what we seek. Some find the real truth; others are simply mistaken about what is true (but they follow that mistake nonetheless because they believe it to be true). But to say it is a "choice" in the sense of a mere preference, is inaccurate.

So to say religion is protected because it is a "lifestyle" choice is wrong - precisely because man is compelled to follow what he believes to be true, because it is not in reality a choice, but a submission to our innermost being - our conscience - not protecting religion would be the violation of the highest order.

but a submission to our innermost being - our conscience - not protecting religion would be the violation of the highest order.

Very true, c matt - as long as we protect conscience insofar as that conscience is being formed by a strict and pure embrace of the truth wherever the truth lies. A conscience being mis-formed by a disregard of reality and being de-formed by an embrace of conscience - deadening evil behavior should not have quite the same protection.

Point of information. France has already legalized incest. And they did so on the same principled basis as legalizing gay marriage.

It is not a slippery slope when it has already happaned.

It is not a slippery slope when it has already happened


Rather than say it's not a slippery slope, it seems that would prove the slippery slope in fact exists. Double Black Diamond.

I take a slippery slope argument to mean: A leads to B, and B leads to C. Whereas in this case, as T. Chan pointed out:

Dr. Feser is not making a prediction, but is making a point about logic -- nothing within the premises entails that a, b, c are not permissible. Whether someone will eventually follow that logic and argue that laws against a,b, and c should be struck down is not the point.

Some additional thoughts on Perry v. The Terminator:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490

Franck is good!

Just to piggyback on a point made by Dr. Feser with some plain Thomism:

First, no one ever said "only purpose"; procreation is rather the primary purpose, and the others (particularly that of fostering affection between the spouses) ultimately exist for the sake of that primary purpose (insofar as it facilitates the stability of marriage, and thereby the well-being of children). Second, the other reason we have lots of sex is that nature intends for us to have large families.

Putting aside the related problem of the equivocation of the word "natural" (which is possibly what is being done by Mr. Boyden), to say that people have sex for purposes other than procreation is very often linked to that form of moral reasoning which looks solely at the intentionality of an act as to what gives it its moral (and formal) character. The object of the external act is completely ignored as being irrelevant. (Those defending 'unnatural' sex acts do their best to pretend ignorance or to dismiss it, but there is an inherent teleology to the external act.)

Point of information. France has already legalized incest.

France decriminalized adult incest during the reign of Napoleon. If you want to gnash your teeth over Napoleon's modern presumption feel free. In fact, let me get some popcorn before you start.

...nothing within the premises entails that a, b, c are not permissible. Whether someone will eventually follow that logic and argue that laws against a,b, and c should be struck down is not the point.

Since Dr. Feser barely even described those premises, except to slander them as groundless prejudice, I would say it is impossible to determine what they logically entail.

Two points. First, re: "slippery slope" arguments, my point was that when I said that the liberal positions in question would lead to x, y, and z, I was not arguing "These policies are bad because they might lead to x, y, and z." They would be bad all by themselves, whether or not they led to x, y, and z. That's what I meant, Step2, when I said I wasn't giving a slippery slope argument -- no lack of self-awareness there at all.

Why bring up x, y, and z, then? To point out that though many liberals would claim to reject x, y, and z, they have no basis for doing so consistent with their defenses of abortion, "same-sex marriage," and the like. The point is to show that liberal arguments for these things are typocially ad hoc, arbitrary, and unprincipled. Any serious liberal argument for "same-sex marriage," for example, must explain, in a principled, non-ad hoc way (and no appeal to "intuitions") exactly why "same-sex marriage" is OK but marrying your father is not, or marrying 22 people is not, or marrying your goldfish is not, or marrying yourself is not, or marrying a corpse is not, or marrying a can of motor oil is not.

Second, re: "natural," contrary to Aaron's favorite dishonest insinuation, I do not deny that a rational person might understand and yet disagree with the classical natural law theorist's claim that what is good for us is defined by our nature. But I would deny that a rational person who understood the classical natural law theorist's position could dismiss it out of hand or pretend not to understand how what is "natural" could even possibly be relevant to ethics, the way Aaron and like-minded people often do. Typically these people show by their comments that they have neither the slightest understanding of what classical natural law theory actually says on this matter, nor the slightest interest in finding out. And the reason is that they have a vested interest in pretending that classical natural law arguments vis-a-vis sex are too silly even to be worth arguing about. It's rhetorical strategy -- the "horse laugh fallacy" -- and pure power politics, nothing more.

For any serious person who is interested in understand what classical natural law theory means by "natural," you might take a look at the first half of my article "Classical natural law theory, property rights, and taxation," which offers an overview of the classical natural law theory of the good:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayIssue?jid=SOY&volumeId=27&issueId=01

And of course, I deal with this issue at greater length in Aquinas (chapter 5) and The Last Superstition (especially chapter 4, which also contains a lengthy discussion of sexual morality).

Step2:

You seem to be logophobic. Ed, as others have pointed out, is not making a causal slippery slope argument. What he is doing is saying this, "You guys accept these premises, which seem to also allow this other stuff. But you don't seem to think that other stuff is good. What is grounds for that distinction?"

For example, suppose that Mr. Jones says,

"Whatever consenting adults choose to do is no one else's business as long as they don't hurt non-consenters." and
"A human fetus is not a person and thus has no rights until after it is full emerged from the womb at birth" and
"A pregnant woman has a right to kill the fetus in any stage of development and donate its body parts to help other citizens"

Now, here's my question to Mr. Jones:

Why can't the woman giver her dead fetus to a cannibal who is hungry?

I know it's gross, but I can't think of any principled reason why given the above points it is wrong and ought to be forbidden by law.

That's not a slippery slope question. It's a reasonable inquiry given the principles in play.

"Dr. Feser is not making a prediction, but is making a point about logic -- nothing within the premises entails that a, b, c are not permissible."

Precisely, and it is exactly the same argument made by Sen. Santorum a few years back for which he was much condemned. It's not about the necessity of those other things occurring based on the decision, it's about the fact that once you allow SSM on those particular grounds, then there remain no logical or legal grounds upon which to deny the right to those other things. That SSM defenders consistently miss the point of this (Step 2 is a perfect example) indicates to me that they are either extremely dense (logophobic, as Frank puts it) or are not debating in good faith and are purposely misstating the argument.

Another gross example: if a man wants to have sex with a sheep, and the sheep submits without coercion (say it's a ewe in heat, and we are granting that we know that sheep can't "consent") why should it be wrong to bonk the sheep? We do after all kill animals and eat them without their consent, and we do chain them in our yards without their consent, so why should it be immoral or illegal to have sex with them? If a man claims that he can only be happy and fulfilled if he has a sexual relationship with Bruce, and thus he should have the legal right to same, what logical or legal difference does it make if Bruce is human or ovine?

Step2,

The original article back in 2007 that I read didn't contain that information. Even so, the move to decrominalize and render it legitimate has been under way in Germany and other states over the last 30 years or so.

That said, if you find it morally and social acceptable, I really don't need an argument anymore. I only need to point to it and wait for those who endorse such views to die out. It in fact makes the apologetic for Christianity that much easier. You can live like this or that, but there is no middle ground. (Que Caprica) Producing sterile families and more deformed families leaves the next generation to conservatives. We will just out populate you or the Muslims will. Take your pick.

Now, where's that popcorn?

"That SSM defenders consistently miss the point..."

I have to disagree, Rob. I think they do get the point. But what they hope for by appealing to personal offense rather than critiquing the logic of the argument is to foment animus against people like Senator Santorum. It is the sort of meanness that one experiences shortly have correcting an obstinate adolescent. Here's my theory: if your adversary gives you bite when bark would have been better, he has no bite.

Rob, I now see that you did concede the "not in good faith" option. My apologies for implying otherwise.

"if your adversary gives you bite when bark would have been better, he has no bite"

True. And remember that it's all about ends with these people -- means are simply hinderances to results. "By whatever means necessary" and all that rot.

From the OP: I hasten to add that this is nothing peculiar to traditional sexual morality, though. No morality whatsoever is defensible apart from a classical essentialist metaphysics. If there are no ends set for us by our nature, then there can in principle be no objective, non-arbitrary way of determining what it is good for us to do, and thus what we ought to do. Hence in the final analysis, and in the main if not in all details, traditional sexual morality and morality full stop stand or fall together.

If I understand you correctly, this is obviously false.

First, "classical essentialism" as such doesn't entail that homosexual acts are impermissible; you need to add auxiliary premises to essentialism as such to reach that conclusion. Thus even if morality requires essentialism, it isn't true that morality stands only if traditional sexual morals stand.

Second, my opinion on what is good for one to do is whatever action satisfies one's preferences to a maximal degree. Sans God, the good of psychopaths is rape and murder; admitting such seems to me just honesty. If Christianity is true, however, then preference-satisfaction must take into account Heaven and Hell.

Notice that this is an objective prescription: no matter who you are, you *ought* to act in such a way as to satisfy your preferences, for to have your preferences fulfilled is your good. It is your good because it is suitably motivating - indeed, isn't the very definition of goodness that the thing or state which is good has motivational force?

It is true that on this view, there is no such thing as good simpliciter, only good for such-and-such. Essentialism, however, fares no better in that respect.

If Christianity is true, however, then preference-satisfaction must take into account Heaven and Hell.

"Better to rule in hell than to reign in heaven." Oops. Looks like some people prefer hell. Guess that must mean hell is good for Milton's Satan.

Ed Feser calls the idea of liberal neutrality a fraud, and I think he is right, though I am not sure of its relevance to a philosophically sound libertarianism, but what is ironically relevant here is that he claims "classical metaphysics and the natural law system of morality that derives from it" is an "objective non-arbitrary way of determining what is good for us". But this is also a fraud. Classical metaphysics, or the idea that man has a natural end, is an arbitrary idea that some of us call valid BECAUSE we choose to believe it and because we see some benefits in believing it. But this certainly does not make it non-arbitrary.

The real point is that some libertarianism uses natural law just as classical metaphysics does, and both positions have that exact problem - they rely on natural law because natural law gives them the ability to claim they rest on some final solid ground. "On the basis of my arbitrary beliefs about having the ultimate solid ground to rest upon, I declare my beliefs to be more solid than your beliefs." Ed Feser and the Catholics claim natural law emanates from God, Murray Rothbard and the libertarians claims it emanates from nature.

To continue the thought - my ultimate point is that if we put all our eggs in the basket labeled "God must exist for us to realize our natural good", then we are screwed as more people become aware that God may not exist.

A good question is this: is any significant percentage of humanity capable of behaving well in the absense of the idea of God? I know some people have whatever inner character is necessary for it. But maybe most simply don't. In that case, it is possible humanity's only hope lies in the eventual death of science and technology, and it a rebooting of civilization.

"Better to rule in hell than to reign in heaven." Oops. Looks like some people prefer hell. Guess that must mean hell is good for Milton's Satan.

In my opinion, Satan - indeed, all wrongdoing - embodies willful irrationality, given the axioms of rational choice theory. If Milton is actually claiming that Satan's preferences are better fulfilled in Hell than in Heaven, then I think Milton is just mistaken, just as he was about the divinity of Christ.

At any rate, if Satan *were* better fulfilled in Hell than Heaven, then what reason would he have not to sin? If morality isn't necessarily with motivation, I don't see why one should care whether they are doing what they ought.

*necessarily connected with motivation. I have stupid fingers.

eli fironzelle:
Classical metaphysics, or the idea that man has a natural end, is an arbitrary idea that some of us call valid BECAUSE we choose to believe it and because we see some benefits in believing it.

Wrong. Classical metaphysics is true philosophy. What you are doing is looking at metaphysics through the lens of modern philosophy, which claims that either essences do not exist, or that they can not be known. Therefore, assuming that were true, any metaphysics would be either self-serving or delusional. Now modern philosophy, since it denies essences, is delusional by its own judgment. In fact, it’s both self-serving and delusional. But that’s not true for all philosophy. There is one philosophy that is true -- but you have to have at least a modicum of integrity and humility to apply yourself to it.

What you are doing is looking at metaphysics through the lens of modern philosophy, which claims that either essences do not exist, or that they can not be known.

Also wrong. I was tweaking Ed a bit, because his basis for believing in classical metaphysics is that God exists, and he knows that is not knowable. There must be a more firm foundation than arbitrary belief.

Tell me, do you believe natural law is posssible without God?

What you are doing is looking at metaphysics through the lens of modern philosophy, which claims that either essences do not exist, or that they can not be known. Therefore, assuming that were true, any metaphysics would be either self-serving or delusional. Now modern philosophy, since it denies essences, is delusional by its own judgment.

And, by the way, this is exactly what I was talking about in my first comment. All you have to do is claim that there is some essence out there, and suddenly, the essense that you want to believe becomes true. This is really what I was getting at. I am not modern. I do have a problem with "Essences exist; my way is right", where my way is defined as any one of multiple competing and contradictory ways. Ahem, "you have to have at least a modicum of integrity and humility to apply yourself to it."

"Classical metaphysics, or the idea that man has a natural end, is an arbitrary idea that some of us call valid BECAUSE we choose to believe it and because we see some benefits in believing it."

So, those that disagree with this account are wrong and ought to abandon their point of view. But why? Is it inconsistent with what human beings qua human beings ought to do?

" All you have to do is claim that there is some essence out there, and suddenly, the essense that you want to believe becomes true."

So, are you suggesting that this is wrong? Again, why? Is the human mind such that arbitrary and capricious desires ought not to be the ground of one's views on civil society? If so, you are backing into the logic of the old natural law. If not, then why?

No matter what you say, you will have borrow from the old natural law. It is frustrating, to be sure. But it is only that way because that is the nature of reality.

John H. writes:

First, "classical essentialism" as such doesn't entail that homosexual acts are impermissible; you need to add auxiliary premises to essentialism as such to reach that conclusion. (etc.)

Where did I ever deny this? Keep in mind that I was in no way making the case for classical natural law theory or traditional sexual morality in the original post. I've done that at length in many other places. The point of the post is rather just to remark on how the current state of the "same-sex marriage" controversy looks from a classical natural law POV.

Eli writes:

I was tweaking Ed a bit, because his basis for believing in classical metaphysics is that God exists, and he knows that is not knowable.

my ultimate point is that if we put all our eggs in the basket labeled "God must exist for us to realize our natural good", then we are screwed as more people become aware that God may not exist.

(etc.)

Eli, some advice: Before characterizing someone's views, try to know what you are talking about. Where did I ever say that classical metaphysics presupposes the existence of God? Where did I ever say that morality presupposes the existence of God? If you had bothered to read the article of mine I linked to a few comments ago ("Classical natural law theory, property rights, and taxation") you would have found that it develops and defends classical metaphysics and classical natural law theory without once making reference to God. And I have done the same at greater length elsewhere.

All the same, I do not "know that God's existence is not knowable," because that simply isn't true. I have in several places argued that God's existence is knowable through purely philosophical arguments -- try Aquinas or The Last Superstition if you are interested. But again, it's irrelevant to the issues at hand, since the classical natural law defense of traditional sexual morality does not require any appeal to the existence of God.

So, stop thinking in cliches. Like so many people, what you "know" about natural law theory and theology just isn't so.

@eli.

"A good question is this: is any significant percentage of humanity capable of behaving well in the absense of the idea of God? I know some people have whatever inner character is necessary for it. But maybe most simply don't. In that case, it is possible humanity's only hope lies in the eventual death of science and technology, and it a rebooting of civilization."

Of course Atheists can behave well enough. The point is that they have absolutely *no reason* to given their view of human nature and the natural world order. And, of course, some of them will understand this and choose to be only as moral as they feel like being. I know that I frequently did this back when I was a physicalist and naturalist. I was *basically* a decent person, but I saw no reason to comply with moral demands that were inconvenient. I didn't steal large sums of money or kill anybody, but concretely, I saw no point in telling the truth over trivial matters when it would be embarassing, nor did I see any good reason not to illegally download music or get sloppy drunk on a semi-regular basis. If I'm just an inherently worthless aggregate of organic molecules, then none of those behaviors matter "from the standpoint of the universe". It's just a paltry trade off between my utility and society's utility, and since my utility still counts toward the aggregate, why should I bother with these 'moral' demands when I only get one shot at life anyway?

Where did I ever deny this? Keep in mind that I was in no way making the case for classical natural law theory or traditional sexual morality in the original post. I've done that at length in many other places. The point of the post is rather just to remark on how the current state of the "same-sex marriage" controversy looks from a classical natural law POV.

Your statement...

I hasten to add that this is nothing peculiar to traditional sexual morality, though. No morality whatsoever is defensible apart from a classical essentialist metaphysics. If there are no ends set for us by our nature, then there can in principle be no objective, non-arbitrary way of determining what it is good for us to do, and thus what we ought to do. Hence in the final analysis, and in the main if not in all details, traditional sexual morality and morality full stop stand or fall together.

Seems to suggest that morality stands if and only if traditional sexual morality stands. I can see how that would be the case when essentialism is conjoined with the right auxiliary premises; perhaps that is what you meant by "in the final analysis"?

I've often wondered what a Platonist atheist would look like--someone who did not believe in a personal God but believed in, and tried to live according to, the Good--the idea being that the Good exists independent of man's whims. Of course, such a Platonist atheist would also have to be some variety of dualist regarding the mind/soul of man or perhaps even an idealist.

Perhaps there were some of these birds around when Idealism was the rage?

eli:
Tell me, do you believe natural law is possible without God?

No, nothing is possible without God.

However, is it possible to perceive the natural law without believing in God? Yes, just as it is possible to perceive an effect without knowing its cause.


Now I have a question for you: You say that the existence of God is unknowable, but can you demonstrate this in an logical argument? My guess is that you can’t. “The existence of God is unknowable because it can’t be known, because, you know, it's not, like, you know, science. . .” is pretty much what passes for rational refutation with you guys. But I’m ready to be proven wrong.

No, nothing is possible without God.

However, is it possible to perceive the natural law without believing in God? Yes, just as it is possible to perceive an effect without knowing its cause.

Precisely. Glad we can agree now and again, George.

Any serious liberal argument for "same-sex marriage," for example, must explain, in a principled, non-ad hoc way (and no appeal to "intuitions") exactly why "same-sex marriage" is OK but marrying your father is not, or marrying 22 people is not, or marrying your goldfish is not, or marrying yourself is not, or marrying a corpse is not, or marrying a can of motor oil is not.

So, you can't think of any reasons concerning equality that would argue against a marriage to 22 people? How about adult consent for the goldfish, corpses, and motor oil? How about autonomy for not marrying your parents? You keep insisting that everyone give natural law theory a fair hearing, but you are blind to easy liberal obstacles to all of these "sky is falling" scenarios.

It's a reasonable inquiry given the principles in play.

No, it is an appeal to the Uncanny Valley and a pathetic version of a notoriously offensive joke. I don't even know what liberal principle you think encourages cannibalism, it seems completely paranoid. By the same "argument" I could say that anyone who doesn't incorporate consent and autonomy as primary factors in intimate relations is objectively pro-rape. Of course, you may not currently advocate rape, but I couldn't logically rule it out for those who dismiss consent and autonomy as irrelevant.

Rob G,
You started off saying that we know animals cannot give consent, then your examples treated them as if they could. If you are saying they give consent, you've been watching too many cartoons. If you are not, that alone invalidates the comparison.

Now, where's that popcorn?

You didn't write anything to deserve popcorn. Now I will probably have to save some to feed all the kids you want to use as soldiers.

I consider that when everyone has to say that two men whose claim to the term rests on the act of homosexual sodomy are "married," the sky has fallen. When people seriously suggest that something else has to happen before we have reached a "sky is falling" scenario, this tells me that our world has gone insane. Trying reductios with such people is probably futile. Their position is already absurd in and of itself.

Glad we can agree now and again, George.

We could agree all the time, Ed, if you really wanted to. :~)

" I don't even know what liberal principle you think encourages cannibalism,"

First, what liberal principle forbids it?

Second, here's an example ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/13/findlaw.analysis.leavitt.cannibalism/index.html ). It is liberalism devouring itself, so to speak:

By now, nearly everyone has heard of Armin Meiwes. Meiwes, a German citizen, has freely admitted to dismembering another German man and eating his flesh. (German charged with cannibalism)

Indeed, Meiwes carefully preserved the killing on videotape and still had pieces of the body in his freezer when he was arrested. During much of the process of dismemberment, the victim reportedly remained conscious.

At first glance, it would seem it should be easy for German authorities to prosecute Meiwes. In fact, however, as the New York Times reported on December 27, though the authorities want to prosecute Meiwes to the fullest extent of the law, they are having trouble finding any serious crimes with which to charge him.

The obstacle to a murder charge is the fact that the evidence incontrovertibly shows that Meiwes's victim wanted to be eaten. Indeed, he had agreed to the arrangement over the Internet, answering an ad placed by Meiwes that specifically sought a person who wanted to be slaughtered and cannibalized.

In the United States, the victim's consent is no defense to murder, and it would be easy to prosecute an American counterpart to Meiwes. But in Germany, the victim's consent renders the crime a "killing on request" -- that is, an instance of illegal euthanasia. Unfortunately, this offense is punishable by a very modest sentence of from six months to five years of incarceration.

Meanwhile, cannibalism itself is not illegal under German law. Accordingly, the lesser offense of "disturbing the peace of the dead" is all that prosecutors reportedly have come up with to address the fact that Meiwes not only killed his victim, but butchered his corpse.

Despite legal impediments, German prosecutors are still trying to go after Meiwes for murder. They are seeking life imprisonment on the murder charge -- the maximum sentence in Germany, which does not believe in sentencing criminals to death. But to prevail, they will likely to have to show the victim was of unsound mind -- and that Meiwes was aware of that fact. Because of some of the novel issues involved, the case is expected to reach Germany's highest court within the next few years.

But even if the murder charge fails under German law, there may be an option that would cause Meiwes to serve a sentence more commensurate with his crimes. As I will explain below, German prosecutors may want to draw upon European and international human rights agreements against torture when charging Meiwes -- including treaties such as the Convention Against Torture, as well as customary international law against inhuman or degrading treatment.

After all, if human rights law cannot be applied to instances of willful flaying, dismemberment, quasi-human sacrifice and cannibalism, when can it be applied?

Or, put another way, should Meiwes get off so easily simply because Germany does not have a crime specific to the atrocity committed here?

Step2, that should give you something to chew on.

This is what happens when a civilization abandons the idea of intrinsic dignity and replaces it willfulness and autonomy. And this is why, in a recent article, I explain why Steven Pinker's appeal to autonomy as an adequate replacement for dignity utterly fails: “Dignity Never Been Photographed: Scientific Materialism, Enlightenment Liberalism, and Steven Pinker.” Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics 26.2 (Summer 2010): 93-110. You can get it here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/EM2.pdf

So, you can't think of any reasons concerning equality that would argue against a marriage to 22 people? How about adult consent for the goldfish, corpses, and motor oil? How about autonomy for not marrying your parents? You keep insisting that everyone give natural law theory a fair hearing, but you are blind to easy liberal obstacles to all of these "sky is falling" scenarios.

Sure I can think of reasons. Just not any that aren't ad hoc, arbitrary, and unprincipled.

Take the "adult consent" suggestion. What if someone says "I respect your necrophilic orientation, and I consent to you marrying my corpse after I die"? What's wrong with that? What reason can you give to object to it in that case that doesn't merely reflect some "necrophobic" prejudice?

And what's so important about consent anyway? Surely, for a liberal, just that we don't want to "harm" someone, and thus must get his consent before we do anything to him. But neither the goldfish nor the can of motor oil is harmed, so consent drops out as irrelevant. Again, what's to object to in that case? Some people practice bestiality, after all. Others are eccentric, want to make artistic statements, and the like. Maybe some of them might want to "marry" one of these things. Who are we to stop them? You might say "But no one is pushing for this sort of thing." Ture enough, but that's irrelevant. The point is: IF you admit that these things are absurd, you need some principled way to explain why they are. It's no good just to say "Yes, they're absurd, and I can't explain why they are while same-sex marraige is not, but nobody is asking for them anyway, so it doesn't matter." It does matter, because what we need to know from the liberal is why his position is as rational as he claims it is -- and in particular more rational than that of a "corpse marriage" or "goldfish marriage" advocate -- rather than being nothing more a successful power play on the the part of a loud interest group.

Moreover, how does a marriage of 22 people violate a respect for "equality"? If they all consent, what's the problem? And re: marrying your parents, how does that violate autonomy? What if the parents agree to treat you as an equal, to allow you to make your own decisions, etc.?

More fundamentally, why exactly are consent, autonomy, equality, etc. even relevant in the first place? Historically, marriage has existed as an institution without these things. There is nothing in the nature of marriage itself that requires them; certainly you have not shown otherwise. But that's what you'd need to do in order to provide a criterion that is not ad hoc or arbitrary. The liberal needs to show that something about the institution of marriage qua marriage that allows "same-sex marriage" but not incestuous marriage, marrying a corpse, etc.

See, natural law theory does have a principled answer to these sorts of question, and it's the only approach that does have one. Sex is inherently procreative, romantic feelings and the like exist in us only because sex does, and marriage in turn exists only as a consequence of the existence of sex, its procreative end, and the feelings in question. (That much is just basic biology and anthropology, whether or not you buy classical metaphysics or natural law theory.) There's more to it than that, but those are the basic facts. Nature's purposes in all this -- certainly if we do now add to the story a classical essentialist metaphysics and theory of the good -- are reproductive. She wants us to enjoy sex so we'll have it often and thereby have lots of children. She puts romantic feelings into us to facilitate the formation of a lasting union of the partners for the sake of the needs of the children and of the mother (who, especially since she'll be pregnant frequently, needs to be provided for). Marriage in turn arises in rational, social institution-forming animals like us to provide a stable institutional structure for this end. Etc. etc. I'm not giving a detailed story here -- I've done that elsewhere -- just summarizing the big picture.

Now when we add the classical realist conception of the good as that which facilitates the ends nature has put into us, if follows that it is metaphysically impossible for it to be good for us to pursue sex, the emotions related to it, etc. in a way that positively frustrates the ends for which those things exist. Given the overall analysis, same-sex "sexual" relationships cannot be good for us any more than kleptomania is, or alcoholism, and the fact that some people think otherwise is as irrelevant as the fact that kleptomaniacs get some satisfaction from stealing, or alcoholics from overindulgence in drinking. Feelings can come to be as disordered and deformed as bodily organs can be. What we happen to feel must itself be judged in terms of nature's ends, not the other way around.

Again, there's more to the story, but the point is this: With this background in place, we can see why natural law theory says that there can be no such thing as "same-sex marriage." Given the natural ends for which sex, romantic and sexual feelings, and marriage exist, any prospective couple must naturally be capable at least in principle of procreating. Even a couple that is in fact sterile or beyond their fertile years qualifies, because their organs and the act thay are designed by nature for are for procreation even if in fact damage or age prevents them from fulfilling this end. Compare: Eyeballs have seeing as their natural function, and that remains as true of damaged or aged eyeballs as of young and healthy ones. That something can't fulfill it's function doesn't change what the function is. And what the function is (not whether it can in fact be fulfilled) is what matters in natural law theory.

By contrast, "sexual" acts that do not climax in ejaculation in the vagina are not capable even in principle of resulting in procreation in any natural way. (IVF is irrelevant, because we're talking about what happens naturally in the paradigm case.) Sexual feelings and romantic emotions too are inherently heterosexual. Nature put them in us for the purpose of engaging in heterosexual sex, falling in love with someone of the opposite sex and forming a lasting bond, etc. That some people's romantic and sexual feelings happen to be oriented in some other way is irrelevant to their natural end. From a natural law point of view, such feelings are like clubfoot or polydactyly -- deformations, irrelevant to what is in fact their function or end and thus the good for those who have them.

Now, it should go without saying -- though ufortunately these days it does not -- that dismissing all this as "homophobic" etc. is nothing more than question-begging ad hominem, intellectually worthless and contemptible even if sometimes politically effective. But whether the view I just sketched is true or not is not to the present point. What is to the present point is that it does clearly provide a non-arbitrary rationale for determining what can sensibly count as "marriage" and what cannot. You can quibble with the details, you can ultimately reject the whole approach, but I submit that what a reasonable person cannot do is deny that it does provide a non-arbitrary, principled way of demarcating what can and cannot intelligibly count as a "marriage." And I submit too that nothing offered by the liberal side provides any such criterion at all. That is why I say that the liberal position, though full of moralistic passion, is intellectually unserious.

More fundamentally, why exactly are consent, autonomy, equality, etc. even relevant in the first place? Historically, marriage has existed as an institution without these things. There is nothing in the nature of marriage itself that requires them; certainly you have not shown otherwise.

Marriage is only sacramentally valid with consent.

I think a general problem with your argument is that it fails to take into account that even if a faculty X is created for end E, X can still fulfill some other end Y. My stapler was created with the end of stapling, but if an assailant enters my room I can use it fulfill the end of self-defense by knocking the guy upside the head with it. Similarly, even granting that genital organs were created for the end of procreation, and that the unity of spouses is an end which is in service to that end (and I take it that the unity of spouses can legitimately be considered an end of sexuality in itself, given the value of self-giving embodied in the theology of the body), that doesn't mean the genital organs cannot be used to fulfill some other end, such as to enhance mutual love between same-gendered individuals. And love, on any Christianity worth considering, is an end of man.

Ed,

For what it's worth, for whose of us like me who are relatively new to the culture wars, your last post is just pitch perfect in its concision, intellect, well crafted argument (that will be useful with my liberal friends), etc. Thanks much for providing me some very useful intellectual ammunition.

John,

Keep in mind that I was not trying to provide a complete exposition of the theory, but merely trying to show how it provides a criterion for determining what can count as a marriage.

I was also not trying at all to give an exposition of Catholic moral theology, but only of (the relevent part of) classical natural law theory. So, re: consent, the point was that since arranged marriages and the like have in fact been very common historically -- and, I might add now, since such marriages are not obviously contrary to the natural ends of marriage -- it will not do for a "same-sex marriage" defender (or anyone else) merely to assert (as Step2 did) that consent must be present in order for a marriage to exist. Argument must be given, and argument that ties consent to what marriage is qua marriage. Furthermore, consent could, of course, at most be a necessary condition for something's being a marriage, not a sufficient condition.

Re: "other ends," sure, things can be used in all sorts of ways, and there is nothing in natural law theory that requires that a natural capacity has only a single end, or that it can never be used for something other than its natural end. What it does entail is that it cannot be good for us to direct a natural capacity to some purpose contrary to its natural end. "Other than" does not entail "contrary to." (Even here there are qualifications to be mae. I cannot mutilate myself to make some goth fashion statement or to make myself sterile, but I could do so if the point was to get rid of a cancerous body part so as to save my life. The reason is that the parts of the body exist for the sake of the whole. But that's another issue.)

Re: the unitive function, yes, the spouses themselves don't have to intend to procreate in every sexual act or even in any particular sexual act. They can do it simply because they're hot for each other at the moment. What I was talking about was nature's ends, and the point is that whatever their motive happens to be in any particular case, the act itself cannot be performed in a way that frustrates nature's ends. (Compare: We usually eat just because we feel like it, not because we're thinking "I must maintain my life and health, and for that reason I will now eat." But maintaining life and health is nature's reason for getting us to eat, and indeed the reason she's made us so that we want to eat.)

Furthermore, the unitive function exists only because the procreative one does. That's why, on standard Christian theology, no one marries in heaven -- no procreation any more, so no "unitive function" any more either. And in that sense the procreative function is more fundamental than the unitive one. The latter exists for the sake of the former, and thus cannot intelligibly be pursued except where the former is at least in principle possible.

But again, I've said more about all this elsewhere, and it is beside the point of the present issue.

Jeff,

Thanks!

Ed writes:

"Compare: Eyeballs have seeing as their natural function, and that remains as true of damaged or aged eyeballs as of young and healthy ones. That something can't fulfill it's function doesn't change what the function is. And what the function is (not whether it can in fact be fulfilled) is what matters in natural law theory."

I can squint, wear eye-liner, and even get surgery to improve my vision. But if I my remove my eyeball in order to provide another hole for my lover, that violates natural law, even if we both enjoy it.

Thomas,

You owe me lunch: I just lost mine.

Step2, that should give you something to chew on.

That was a dignified insinuation Frank. Unfortunately, it did nothing of the kind, since I asked for a principle that encourages cannibalism. You didn't offer any principle at all. From this lack of evidence you expect me to conclude that there is some great cannibalism conspiracy or something.

It does matter, because what we need to know from the liberal is why his position is as rational as he claims it is -- and in particular more rational than that of a "corpse marriage" or "goldfish marriage" advocate -- rather than being nothing more a successful power play on the the part of a loud interest group.

Part of the problem is that your notion of consent seems odd. I don't know how it is possible to say that you have consent from a corpse, or goldfish, or motor oil. A necrophiliac in the situation you described received consent from a person, not a corpse, but it is only a corpse and not a person that they are attempting to have relations with.

Moreover, how does a marriage of 22 people violate a respect for "equality"? If they all consent, what's the problem?

It seems a little ridiculous to claim that a man or woman with 22 spouses is in any way interested in an equal relationship with those spouses. By necessity his or her time and affection will be divided among those spouses, while theirs is exclusive.

Historically, marriage has existed as an institution without these things. There is nothing in the nature of marriage itself that requires them; certainly you have not shown otherwise. But that's what you'd need to do in order to provide a criterion that is not ad hoc or arbitrary.

Historically, the marriage of a man with multiple spouses, often serving the purpose of tribal alliances, has at least as strong a pedigree to being natural, including Old Testament approval, as our more egalitarian form of marriage. Because of that historical observation, I find it impossible to say that our current marriage tradition isn't arbitrary. Although if you want to argue against the notion of consent as a requirement for marriage, I don't know why you would try to bring romantic feelings into your paradigm case to begin with.

Step2 writes in response to FB:

"it did nothing of the kind, since I asked for a principle that encourages cannibalism. You didn't offer any principle at all. From this lack of evidence you expect me to conclude that there is some great cannibalism conspiracy or something."

It's in the story: adult consent with no third-party harms. Here it is:

"The obstacle to a murder charge is the fact that the evidence incontrovertibly shows that Meiwes's victim wanted to be eaten. Indeed, he had agreed to the arrangement over the Internet, answering an ad placed by Meiwes that specifically sought a person who wanted to be slaughtered and cannibalized."

Change "wanted to be eaten" to "wanted to be sodomized," Step2. According to liberalism, the second is allowed because of the principle of "adult consent with no third-party harms." The same principle allows the first. If you disagree, tell us why. if you can't, FB wins.

Polygamy is actually not as bad as same-sex marriage, in the same way that overeating is not as bad as eating a cement brick. Right order wrong amount is better than bad order in whatever amount.

Lydia writes:


Please, everyone, let's not start telling ourselves again that we need to win hearts and minds or we haven't done our job, etc. Let's say loud and clear that in this case, the hearts and minds are starting on our side.

Point taken. But it's pretty clear that SSM is very popular among the chattering classes, and that's who does most of the talking. The young are also in need of education.

As for the Prop. 8 decision itself, can anyone explain to me the consequences of the Judge's "finding of fact" that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”?

Does this "finding" create any legal precedent outside of the Prop. 8 case? The judge quoted the teachings of several religions, including documents by the present Pope, as evidence for his claim.

Can anyone cite this finding as evidence for further legal action unrelated to SSM? Imagine the lawsuits which could abuse such findings of "harmfulness"!

It's curious that a judge can declare some religious views to be harmful, but a public school teacher can't. Have federal judges ever condemned specific religious statements as "harmful" since the times of the Mormon polygamy trials?

Good point, Kevin.

I imagine this finding of "fact" will be used to ferret out and eradicate such beliefs in various academic programs with, now, a pretended "professional" justification. E.g. I was just sent a link that counseling programs will now apply _tests_ (how scientific) to screen counselors for "bias" against homosexuals.

“Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

This begs the question, since those who hold these beliefs maintain that homosexual acts are not good for the persons who engage in them, just as Judge Walker believes that these religious beliefs are not good for the persons who hold them. In both cases--in the case of the religious believers and Judge Walker--they hold beliefs about others that they think are accurate appraisals of those others whose good would be advanced by changing their beliefs and/or practices.

This is sort of situation--one in which citizens find themselves in disagreement with other citizens about the fundamental good of the human person--is a consequence of a free society. So, it is a free society to which Judge Walker objects. This is why this opinion, if it is allowed to stand, will be the beginning of the end of religious liberty.

What's more, the offense principle will not be applied equitably. If, for example, a parent claims that she and her husband are harmed because the public school teaches her children that their religious beliefs about human sexuality are "inferior," she will be told to sit in the back of the secular bus and speak only when spoken to. Her claim of "harm" will be called "intolerance." On the other hand, her judgment of the wrongness of homosexual acts will be declared a harm to gays and lesbians. In fact, it will, in some jurisdictions, be called "child abuse." This will allow the state to remove her children and give them to worthy gay couples. After all, it is the state that has the monopoly on defining marriage, family, children, etc. The fact that these kids may have come from her womb and are genetically related to her is "racist," since it connects maternity to genealogy and to do so implies that non-genealogical children are "inferior" and thus harms them.

The premises are all in place. It will take perhaps another decade or two to see their logical progression getting cashed out in reality.

According to liberalism, the second is allowed because of the principle of "adult consent with no third-party harms." The same principle allows the first. If you disagree, tell us why.

As mentioned before, autonomy and equality are also liberal values, such that someone who volunteers for chattel slavery is still opposed to those values. A person volunteering to be tortured or mutilated is inherently making themselves unequal to their attacker. In unusual enough circumstances, there can be reasons that mitigate such a decision, but not in the case mentioned above. Also previously mentioned, adult consent ends once the corpse begins, so that is irrelevant to the permissibility of postmortem cannibalism.

It was a bit interesting from a political view that Frank's story also mentioned the Convention Against Torture. One of the many reasons liberals are so demoralized by the Democrats is their cowardly refusal to prosecute with national and international law those responsible for the American torture program. I know the pragmatic reasons they avoided it, but it undermined their base in a devastating way.

"A person volunteering to be tortured or mutilated is inherently making themselves unequal to their attacker."

Not according to them, unless you are measuring their actions against some ideal understanding of human nature.

So, you are going to shut down all the S & M clubs in the Bay Area?

So, you are going to shut down all the S & M clubs in the Bay Area?

That seems reasonable, I can't think of any valid reason to keep them open.

A person volunteering to be tortured or mutilated is inherently making themselves unequal to their attacker

So equality, not consent, is your first principle? Re the 22 spouse marriage scenario (to which you are adverse on equality grounds), why does it have to be one guy with 22 women, or vice-versa? How about 11 men and 11 women who have all agreed to marry each other?

So equality, not consent, is your first principle?

I would say in general that consent has a lead over equality, but there are places where they overlap. Re: 22 bisexual marriages, it is very difficult to say if they could have equality within the group. It would also seem to make marriage more concerned with a lack of commitment rather than a vow to cherish, so what's the point of social approval?

Given that homosexuals often do not mean by "monogamy" or "committed relationship" what other people do, what's the point _there_ of social approval? Social approval is sought as an end in itself to affirm people in what they want to do. It is an attempt to exert power over others and to punish their wrongthought. That's all there is to it.

But I'm glad to see Step2 admit that homosexual "marriage" is about requiring social approval. You'd never think so to listen to some sophists--and perhaps Step2 will play the sophist some other time. "What? What? Nobody will be forcing anybody to do anything. This isn't about requiring anybody to approve of anything. What do you mean, requiring people to refer to homosexuals as married? How would that ever work? Oh. Well, if that's what you mean, then that's just going to be the law, and you should get over it. And it's just the same as Catholics referring to divorced and remarried people as married, so it must be okay. Let's move on."

Lydia, I'm glad you figured out what he was getting at because I couldn't follow this - It would also seem to make marriage more concerned with a lack of commitment rather than a vow to cherish, so what's the point of social approval? - at all.

Okay, Step2, so consent comes first. So why couldn't they all consent to this massive marriage?

And who said anything about bisexual? I was thinking that all the women are married to all the men. Every woman has 11 husbands and every man has 11 wives. We'll save the perversities for later.

Please, everyone, let's not start telling ourselves again that we need to win hearts and minds or we haven't done our job, etc. Let's say loud and clear that in this case, the hearts and minds are starting on our side. It doesn't make our position _true_ to say that most Americans agree with it (that is, that homosexual unions should not be treated as marriages), but it is true to make that sociological claim.

Lydia is right about current opinion. But again some friendly outsider advice: It might be wise to start the effort to win hearts & minds, and to start it fairly soon, because on controversial issues involving gays (including gay marriage), and in their attitudes towards gays, Americans are getting more gay-friendly at a fairly steady pace of about 1% per year. If you google this, inside of quotation marks, it should take you to web post by Kevin Drum in the Washington Monthly that explains this trend:
"It's almost certain that an initiative to ban same-sex marriage will be on the California ballot this November. How likely is it to pass?"
The very interested can then click through to a (2006, so a little dated by now) nice gathering of relevant statistics by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, in the form of a downloadable 50-page pdf document.

Turns out, there is a 2008 update of the AEI report. It's here:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080603-Homosexuality.pdf

"Rob G, You started off saying that we know animals cannot give consent, then your examples treated them as if they could."

I should have been clearer -- the fact is that for the sake of the argument it doesn't matter if animals can "consent" or not. If you say it's wrong for a person to have sex with an animal without its consent, then why is it ok to kill and eat them or tie them up in our yards without their consent?

But if an animal "allows" (i.e., doesn't resist or flee) a man to engage in coitus with it, the consent factor is taken out of the picture, right? Why then should it be immoral or illegal for the man to engage in the act? On what grounds, legal or logical, can you prohibit it? I'll repeat what I asked above: If a man claims that he can only be happy and fulfilled if he has a sexual relationship with Bruce, and thus he should have the legal right to same, what logical or legal difference does it make if Bruce is human or ovine?

But again some friendly outsider advice: It might be wise to start the effort to win hearts & minds

Why? The votes of all those hearts and minds won't count in the end, only the heart and mind of some judge.

Though "in the end" everything is in the hands of that judge, I was under the impression that He wanted us to take an interest in what goes on around here in the meantime.

Oh, we're interested. But the judge don't care.

"This is sort of situation--one in which citizens find themselves in disagreement with other citizens about the fundamental good of the human person--is a consequence of a free society. So, it is a free society to which Judge Walker objects. This is why this opinion, if it is allowed to stand, will be the beginning of the end of religious liberty."

This, of course, is nonsense unless one defines "liberty" as the right to be free from mere offense. People are free to disagree; they are not free to use that disagreement to deny others access to the law with reasons that are based solely on some religious doctrine. Losing a decision may only mean you didn't have a case and nothing more.

It is interesting how the folks who worry so about creeping Sharia are themselves so eager to impose on others their own religiously inspired dogma. Seems like it isn't only the Taliban and AQ, who choke on the sweet air of freedom.

BTW, how about we get real? Either their was a time when some civilization operated under this correct view or not. If there was such a time, when and where was it? Letting us know will give all of us an opportunity to compare then with now and come to the appropriate conclusions.

If not, then all you are giving us is so much speculation. How is that any different then those other speculations that made the twentieth century so wonderful?


It is interesting how the folks who worry so about creeping Sharia are themselves so eager to impose on others their own religiously inspired dogma. Seems like it isn't only the Taliban and AQ, who choke on the sweet air of freedom.

To be consistent, al, I take it you are also not against polygamy or prostitution, other religiously inspired dogmas imposed upon us freedom lovers?

c matt, it is clear from the context of my entire post as well as previous posts that in order for a belief to translate into a law we need more than dogma, we need reasons that relate to some legitimate purpose. Angels-on-the-heads-of-pins arguments won't cut it.

I'd like to see the briefs for your proposals.

Meanwhile, we've seen the briefs on opening marriage to same sex couples in Massachusetts, Iowa, and California. Opponents simply don't have a case outside of appeals to some combination of tradition, belief, and bigotry.

Worldwide, as well as in several states, we have several years of experience with marriage being open to gay folk and I don't see any problems.

This isn't the case with your proposed issues. There are real problems associated with some aspects of prostitution and polygamy; pimps and organized crime in one and children being forced into marriage and homeless teenage boys on the streets of St. George with the other.

Again, you all lost because you didn't have a case.

deny others access to the law

Just so we're clear: "Deny others access to the law" in Al-world (and in the world of liberals generally on this issue) means...

--not giving marriage benefits to homosexual couples as an employer

--creating a "hostile work environment" by not referring to your homosexual employees' partners as "spouses" or other similar words ("husband" or whatever similar term is required by the employee)

--not firing your _other_ employees or otherwise disciplining them if _they_ create a "hostile work environment" in the way indicated above

--if you are a Justice of the Peace, not administering marriage vows and a marriage certificate to two men or two women

--if you are a teacher in a school, refusing to refer to homosexual couples who are in loco parentis to students as married

--if you are a doctor who gives fertility treatments, refusing such treatments to lesbian patients

--if your business has to do with weddings (photography, cakes, etc.) refusing to treat homosexual ceremonies as "weddings" and devote your services, including artistic photographic services, to making such days special and to commemorating them for two men or two women who consider themselves to be getting "married"

and so on, through all the uncountable permutations of all the uncountable ways in which a combination of homosexual "marriage" and existing non-discrimination law will involve (and have already involved) requiring people actively to treat homosexual couples as "married" and homosexuality as normal. Al has called such things in other threads the "cost of doing business." I call them a totalitarian abomination. But regardless of what we call it, let's not disguise it with some bland and uninformative (not to mention unclear) phrase like "giving others access to the law."

And refusing to do the things above (or at least some significant subsection thereof) is also, in Al's view, supposed to bear some significant resemblance to something the Taliban does.

Does anyone wonder that our country is fragmented? I wonder on what basis someone who thinks like Al and someone who thinks like me can make a common civic life together. Because when he makes these comparisons, I think he's totally nuts.

Opponents simply don't have a case outside of appeals to some combination of tradition, belief, and bigotry.

Not true, and if you bothered even for one second to think more about it, you would realize your statement is false.

Opponents of marriage don't have a case outside of appeals to:
some combination of a tradition of libido liberalism,
fideism like belief (appeals to aspects of the natural law while denying its authority in pro-marriage argument) and;
anti-Christian bigotry.

Al,

It seems to me that homosexuals don't have a case outside of their philosophical and ethical views either. Any appeal to equality and such will be informed by their pressupositions. There simply is no philosophically and ethically non-theory laden or neutral approach to be had. This is why the SSM is switching out which morality gets imposed and why Beckwith is exactly right that this will lead to institutionalized religious discrimination.

So the homosexual view has nothing else to stand on at bottom than a combination of belief, their tradition, and bigotry.

As for not seeing any problems, as has been pointed out, that begs the question as to the morality of said behaviors. As Socrates points out, the worst way to harm a person is to make them immoral. If SSM is immoral, then creating an immoral society is a problem all by itself.

Follow-up with kinda-good news: the Prop. 8 "finding of fact" on the harmfulness of certain religious opinions doesn't set precedent but are limited to this case only. See here.

Keith:

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080603-Homosexuality.pdf

In the poll at the top of page 4, the results for the acceptability of homosexuality and marijuana are almost identical. Shocker.

"in Al-world" It does have a nice ring to it, no?

I'm friends with three couples who have each been together for several years. They are solidly middle class and all three have children from previous relationships who they are parenting. Their names are,

Francis and Francis,

Francis and Frances, and

Frances and Frances.

Now, folks in affectional, committed relationships that persist over time usually accumulate property, have dependent children, and unfortunately, eventually have to make critical, sometimes life or death, decisions concerning health care for their partner.

We have developed over many years a whole body of law and custom concerning these matters. Being married gives one clear and unambiguous access to that body of law. Recall the Schaivo case, in which marriage continually trumped other relationships. Outside of marriage wills and powers of attorney can be easily contested. Outside the legal status of "parent", issues can arise.

Anyway, I digress, so back to my friends. One of the couples (being lazy, I'll just use their initials) F and F were in an auto accident. F was uninjured but F received a life threatening injury and F has to make some decisions.

Now, assuming that F and F, F and F, and F and F have discussed things with their respective partners and come to an understanding, why should gender matter?

Rinse and repeat with all sorts of common situations.

Equal protection means that folks with similar problems are treated in a similar manner. There is no way that the bare bones description of the many situations that my friends may confront, and which might involve legal issues, tells you anything about their sexual orientation.

Religions have the absolute right define marriage within the scope of their authority. Under our Constitution that authority is internal and has no force of law.


"--not giving marriage benefits to homosexual couples as an employer"

Great way to create a cohesive, productive team - sit in judgment of your employees personal relationships. Your competitors will just love your principled moral stand.

"--creating a "hostile work environment" by not referring to your homosexual employees' partners as "spouses" or other similar words ("husband" or whatever similar term is required by the employee)"

"--not firing your _other_ employees or otherwise disciplining them if _they_ create a "hostile work environment" in the way indicated above"

No one can require another to use the terms in your example. Call them by their first name or don't refer to them. Question: What would you do with an employee who got in a co-worker's face about adultery, drinking, or any other person issue? I'd fire them. Why should a relationship be any different?

"--if you are a Justice of the Peace, not administering marriage vows and a marriage certificate to two men or two women"

And if it's Louisiana and a JP does the same with an interracial couple? A RC JP refusing to marry a couple in which one of the parties is divorced? Funny how the moral high horse comes trotting out when it's about Teh Gay.

Golly, a person accepting a job is actually expected to perform that job. What a concept. anyway, they can refuse in some jurisdictions, I believe. This is really simple - if you are not willing to do the job don't be surprized if you find yourself in need of another situation.

"--if you are a teacher in a school, refusing to refer to homosexual couples who are in loco parentis to students as married"

What ever happened to professionalism? If you can't leave personal issues at the door, get another job. Any teacher who can't get around the use of the term married without giving offense is likely too stupid to be entrusted with educating children.

"--if you are a doctor who gives fertility treatments, refusing such treatments to lesbian patients"

irrelevant. This has nothing to do with marriage as single women regardless of orientation can seek out the services of fertility specialists.

"--if your business has to do with weddings (photography, cakes, etc.) refusing to treat homosexual ceremonies as "weddings" and devote your services, including artistic photographic services, to making such days special and to commemorating them for two men or two women who consider themselves to be getting 'married'"

While granting that the New Mexico law may be overly broad, we should recall that Lydia opposes all public accommodation laws, I believe. This example then has nother to do with SSM as she would feel the same if the case involved race.

If it's possible to write public accommodation laws in a way that avoids trivial matters that should be done but the general principle that people who take advantage of the benefits of civil society should be open to all who peaceably seek their services is a valid one.

Again, in this particular case, the proprietor foolishly got in the potential customers face and got bitten. That high horse just won't stay in its stall.

In any case your examples are irrelevant to my point. It doesn't follow that because some laws (or private policies) are problematic we are justified in denying a class of folks access to OTHER laws.

The resemblance to the Taliban is, of course, the fact that there are no reasons for closing marriage to persons of the same sex that don't derive solely from religious dogma and/or obvious bigotry.

"Does anyone wonder that our country is fragmented? I wonder on what basis someone who thinks like Al and someone who thinks like me can make a common civic life together. Because when he makes these comparisons, I think he's totally nuts."

We can't and it is likely that the situation is fatal. A significant part of the nation has bought into an ideology that is as pernicious as Marxism at its worst. We have one of our major parties obsessed by power and in thrall to that ideology and the other unable to deal with that evil. Add to that a largely cowardly and incompetent media and we have a death spiral.

We were given a second chance because the Great Depression started in 1929 not 1931. Our luck ran out this time.

pimps and organized crime in one and children being forced into marriage and homeless teenage boys on the streets of St. George with the other.

But pimps and organized crime only exist because the illegality of prostitution forces it to go underground and black market. If it were no olonger illegal, organized rime and pimps would not have the monopoly on it (much like the arguments for legalizing marijuana).

Forced marriages and homeless boys occur whether you legalize polygamy or not - again, bringing it to the light of day, where a license would have to be obtained, at least gives the state a chance to intervene, rather than keeping it in the shadows where these things go unnoticed (again, reminds me of the arguemtns for legalizing abortion - bring it out of the shadows so it can be safer and regulated).

But again, at least in principle, you cannot object (at least not without being inconsistent), although you might object to certain instances where polygamy or prostitution is abused.

Al, I wonder if you ever _notice_ what it means when you brush off my examples with things like "what about professionalism?" "if you take that job you are expected to perform it," "cost of doing business," etc.? I really wonder if you even notice. But since you apparently don't, let me spell it out:

I think it's outrageous, heinous, even, that people should be able to be forced to act in those ways in those situations. For many of them, you don't. _Given_ that this is true, don't try to tell me that your preferred way for the world to go doesn't result in things that _I_ think are outrageous and even heinous. You can't go back and forth. You can't say, "What's the big deal?" and then, when I tell you what the big deal is from _my_ perspective, respond, "Well, I don't think that's a big deal." I mean, that's just kind of irrelevant.

Rob G,
If you say it's wrong for a person to have sex with an animal without its consent, then why is it ok to kill and eat them or tie them up in our yards without their consent?

Since I don't believe other animals have a moral capacity similar to ours, I don't grant that any relationship or interaction with them has a truly reciprocal component to it, although there may be superficial similarities. Therefore, there are no grounds for treating it as a morally intimate relationship, much less a happy, fulfilling or committed one.

I'll cut to the chase and admit that if marriage ought to be only for the purpose of procreation, there is a strong case for heterosexual monogamy or perhaps even a polygamous system. I just don't have a convincing reason to believe that procreation is the exclusive purpose for either marriage or sex, although it obviously can be a purpose. Yet I do find there are many reasons to believe marriage ought to be a committed personal relationship, which of course requires consent.


Worldwide, as well as in several states, we have several years of experience with marriage being open to gay folk and I don't see any problems.

As shown in court, legalization seems to be helpful to heterosexual marriages, but the data doesn't provide strong correlation.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

Al, you concede:

We can't and it is likely that the situation is fatal.

That's right. Americans just don't inhabit the same moral universe anymore. And if SS"M" becomes the law of the land, that may be the last nail in the coffin of our peaceful coexistence.

SS"M" is worse than abortion in terms of making common life impossible. Abortion may be legal, but it isn't mandatory, and it's still pretty easy to avoid moral complicity without suffering legal penalties. That will not be the case with SS"M". Many will be forced to approve, recognize and accommodate sodomite "marriages" in some public way under pain of losing jobs, paying fines, or suffering incarceration. At which point I just don't have the imagination to see how our Republic can hold it together ...

Many will be forced to approve, recognize and accommodate sodomite "marriages" in some public way under pain of losing jobs, paying fines, or suffering incarceration.

Many already approve, recognize and accommodate sodomite marriages in public, they just willingly choose to be ignorant of the fact that many heterosexuals engage in the practice.

Step2, if I'm a business owner and a prospective employee who is married to a woman chooses to give me "too much information" in the job interview to the effect that he engages in acts of sodomy with his wife, I reserve the right not to hire him, yea, verily, to _discriminate_ against him on that very basis. Meanwhile, since it is a metaphysical possibility for them to be married, I am entitled to assume that they do not engage in acts of sodomy.

Jeff Culbreath, I could not have said it better.

Lydia,
Maybe some brute statistics will overcome your denial. Among today’s heterosexual teens that are sexually active, oral sex and coital sex are frequently interchangeable. Over 80% of sexually active teens practice both. Because some teens limit themselves to oral for reasons like avoiding pregnancy and technical virginity, this means the overall percentage of teens that have engaged in oral sex (55%) exceeds those who have engaged in coitus (50%).

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/05/20/index.html

Excellent post!

Al, we Christians believe our moral theology is true. We do not believe it is on the same level as a preference or a matter of taste. That means that when you and your friends employ the power of the state to act in ways inconsistent with our moral theology you are asking us to violate our conscience. You are coercing us, which is in clear violation of religious liberty, which, unlike practicing sodomy, is in the Constitution.

If it's wrong for Ms. Wiesman to sit through her middle school graduation prayer, then it is wrong for the state to make her parents bless sodomy in their business and personal lives. If not, then the state values sodomy more than prayer.

Don't look back. May turn to salt.

Step2, when those teens get married, they will be capable of engaging in normal sex acts; their marriages will not be metaphysically impossible, their entire sexual nature based (of biological necessity) only on non-normal sexual acts. I get extremely tired of people's not getting this sort of thing. Marriage between two men is literally not possible. Marriage between a young man and a young woman is, whatever sexual acts they have been taught to do by others and have engaged in. It's that simple.

"Don't look back. May turn to salt."

Yikes!!!

"The end of a religious society (as has already been said) is the public worship of God and, by means thereof, the acquisition of eternal life. All discipline ought, therefore, to tend to that end, and all ecclesiastical laws to be thereunto confined. Nothing ought nor can be transacted in this society relating to the possession of civil and worldly goods. No force is here to be made use of upon any occasion whatsoever. For force belongs wholly to the civil magistrate, and the possession of all outward goods is subject to his jurisdiction."

"Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber — go!'"

"Al, I wonder if you ever _notice_ what it means when you brush off my examples..."

As I will assume that you (and Jeff, Thomas, et al) value the blessings of civil society, I guess it means that we have very different notions of what boundaries must be maintained in order to preserve and enhance that civil society.

The good doctor lived in the seventeenth century and saw first hand what happened when religious folk lacked the internal necessities to value and erect those boundaries. (Our history in these matters is largely a walking back of early sixteenth century notion of the roles of church and state.)

I understand that some of you are all upset and outraged. I just don't understand why your outrage should carry any weight in the public square. Defining religious liberty as being able to impose my theology on others seems rather special. I can confront both the Jihadist and Christianist with the demands (and obvious benefits) of the Enlightenment. All you guys have is an exchange of "I'm right, you're wrong", and then the shooting starts.

John Locke wrote in the latter part of the 17th century when the downside of too much religious enthusiasm was still fresh and Whittaker Chambers wrote his review of Atlas Shrugged
in 1957 after decades of firsthand experience with secular ideologies that also ignored the Enlightenment understanding.

"Marriage between two men is literally not possible." Lydia

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," Lord Kelvin

"Professor Goddard does not know the relationship between action and reaction," New York Times Editorial Page

And yet...

Millman has an apt column,

http://theamericanscene.com/2010/07/16/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-same-sex-marriage

Al, you wrote:

Defining religious liberty as being able to impose my theology on others seems rather special.

When "religious liberty" is taken in an absolute sense, it becomes an impossibility. In the SS"M" wars, one theology or the other will prevail. It's that simple. That is why religious liberty is a totally useless concept apart from an implicit, underlying framework of religious concord on some level. That framework is what sets the boundaries.

I can confront both the Jihadist and Christianist with the demands (and obvious benefits) of the Enlightenment.

You've had quite a lot of success with the Christians. How's it going with the Jihadists? I thought so. In the meantime, many of us are confronting the Liberals and the Jihadists with the demands and benefits of Christendom. Your side is winning, for now, but in the long run your victory will be pyrrhic.

The so-called "Enlightenment" - a mix of Christian heresies and authentic Christian sentiment - is a parasite on the back of Christendom. Without the host, the parasite won't last fifteen minutes. It isn't all bad, of course, but the good within it has the Church for its origin. In any case the "Enlightenment" and its progeny will die with the death of Christendom.

All you guys have is an exchange of "I'm right, you're wrong", and then the shooting starts.

Al, you've got to be the most thick-headed smart guy who haunts our comment boxes. We've been making the arguments for years. You - like most of your fellow liberals - have responded by placing your fingers in yours ears and looking for ways to discredit the messengers. Here's some review for you:

Anthony Esolen's Ten Arguments for Sanity
http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2006/08/ten_arguments_f_2.html

Hard Data Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples and Married Couples
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

The Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L46.pdf

Same Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/08/1490

But nevermind. If you cared, you might find another twenty-five similar studies and articles in one afternoon.

Marriage between two men is literally not possible. Marriage between a young man and a young woman is, whatever sexual acts they have been taught to do by others and have engaged in.

Lydia, your argument looks very inconsistent. Compare three simple scenarios:
1) An infertile heterosexual couple is unable to reproduce but can get married for unitive purpose.
2) A gay couple is acting contrary to their natural procreative function and cannot get married for unitive purpose.
3) A heterosexual couple is using contraception or engaged in sodomy, i.e. acting contrary to their natural procreative function, and can be married for the possibility of procreative purpose.

I think I've been sufficiently clear, Step2. You, like most apologists on the homosexual side of this issue, are being deliberately dense. There _is_ no unitive purpose in the acts that homosexual men engage in, the _only_ acts they _can_ engage in, and that's it. Marriage is literally, totally, entirely impossible between them. Yeah, that makes a _difference_.

Lydia,
If the mere possibility for procreative sex is strong enough to dismiss "unnatural" acts by heterosexuals, you shouldn't treat infertile heterosexuals as if they are entitled to marriage. Whatever unitive function they may or may not have, the impossibility of reproduction is by far a more important consideration for what counts as marriage.

you shouldn't treat infertile heterosexuals as if they are entitled to marriage.

1) Most couples don't realize this until after they're married; the same can't be said of a same sex couple.
2) From the perspective of the state's interests in legal recognition of marriage, an infertile couple certainly has less of a claim on recognition of their union. I say "less of" rather than "none" because the state still has a legitimate interest in the stable raising of children, which an infertile male-female couple can do in ways that a same sex couple cannot. (Yes, the sexes are different and bring different things to child-rearing. This is controversial? I suspect anyone who thinks so has never tried to raise children in a traditional marriage.)

Jeff, the articles are irrelevant to my point, which is strictly a legal one, and the one on molesting has been thoroughly debunked.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Herek teaches at Davis which is just down the road from you.

Al, is your point, then, that our side has made no legal arguments more substantive than "I'm right, you're wrong"? If so, I find it hard to believe that your ignorance is anything but willful.

The Herek piece is riddled with fallacies, debunks nothing, and isn't even a clever exercise in sophistry. Ultimately, he simply redefines adult-child sexual relations as neither heterosexual nor homosexual because, in his world, "pedophiles cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all". So when a grown man seduces a fourteen-year old boy, that counts as child sexual abuse but does not indicate homosexual tendencies in the abuser. Brilliant.

Step2, you are a sophist. You will say whatever sounds good to your ears. Understand that what sounds good to you sounds merely stupid to me. To call it childish would be to insult children. I spoke of the _metaphysical_ possibility of _marriage_, not of the _physical_ possibility of actual _childbirth_. Two men cannot be "married" any more than a man can be married to his desk. "Unitive function" doesn't mean "emotional connection." You have evidently willfully destroyed whatever abilities to perceive basic metaphysical truths and even the relevance of basic biological truths (hint: it has something to do with the way a man is made and the way a woman is made and the way they naturally fit together) you probably once possessed, and now you expect me or others to respond to your silly attempts at do-it-yourself metaphysics--e.g., "The [physical] possibility of reproduction is more important for marriage than..." what? The fact that man and woman were obviously made for each other, sexually?

No, sorry, won't fly. Please, drop it. You are wearying me. Takes me back to the bad old Right Reason days. Please understand: I have become significantly less suave and patient since then.

Al,

Just for giggles, I want you to read this (and all the links) and then come back here and comment in total intellctual honesty how you think Judge Walker came to a wise legal conclusion in the Prop 8 case:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243693/most-egregious-performance-ever-federal-district-judge-ed-whelan

It will be a delight to read the Supreme Court decision slapping down Judge Walker -- I can only hope Scalia writes it.

Kennedy will write this one, Jeff S. Count on it. One wonders just what it will take for neo-cons to reconsider their total blind faith in American institutions.

Looks like it may never go there, guys. Walker is trying to say that the defendants have no standing to appeal. That, in turn, is raising the possibility that the entire decision may be vacated by the 9th Circuit and sent back to Walker again, since if they lack standing Walker shouldn't have been ruling on the case at all. Or so I understand the article I just read. Oh, baby, it's a wild world when everything hangs on the rule of judges.

Lydia,
I have not forgotten biology, biological influence is unfavorable towards lifelong heterosexual monogamy, which means the conservative ideal goes against biological pressure. Too bad for biology in that case, so I'm not going to let it be determinative against homosexual marriage.
http://academicearth.org/lectures/what-motivates-us-sex

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.