I pissed off my liberal friends last week with my brief rant against gun control, so I figured I’d go ahead and piss of my friends on the other side of the aisle this week with this much longer rant in support of gay marriage!
I thought of this a while ago when DOMA was not yet even under judicial review. I was still digesting the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (which will be the subject of its own rant, shortly), and I realized that if homosexuals were going to serve openly, it would be fair and necessary to recognize their spouses for both moral and administrative purposes. I did my whole walk around in circles and talk to myself for a bit, and today I’ve written the results of my internal dialogue.
So, issues with homosexual marriage.
I’m going to ignore bigotry and any variation of, “it’s icky!” Really, if you’re still arguing from there then no one on either side of the issue should care what you think. Don’t get me wrong, I still have my own visceral reactions at open physical displays of homosexuality. That’s not a moral compass, though, folks, that’s just biology and cultural conditioning talking. My glands tell me that two guys doing sexy things are kinda gross and that two girls doing sexy things are kinda hot (sorry, honey!). I am not displaying sound moral or intellectual judgment by appreciating one over the other; I’m experiencing a primitive hormonal reaction. So let’s just ignore “it feels wrong” arguments.
“Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and shouldn’t be encouraged because it’s akin to pedophilia.” Oh, brother. You know what? Forget this one as too close to bigotry. Fellow Christians, the minute you compare consensual homosexuality to child-rape, you just lost the argument in the eyes of any civilized person. Don’t do it. Just. Don’t.
“Allowing homosexual marriage will damage the American ideal of the traditional family unit.” Really? How? “Hey, Michele, I noticed Jim and Steve moved in together and it made me think, ‘why don’t I go try sex with men?’ I’m leaving you and the kids to discover myself! Bye!”
Seriously, I don’t know about you, but no matter how many gay dudes I see in committed relationships, I’m not going to be tempted to abandon my smoking hot wife and wonderful kids for a life of knitting sweaters with Larry in Vermont, even if he looks like Daniel Craig (yes… considerably). Besides, gay people aren’t ruining the family unit- we’re doing that all by ourselves. After all, they can’t reproduce kids by accident and then treat them like inconveniences or a means to get a bigger welfare check. Only we can do that. Well, they could, but not with their preferred… oh, you get what I mean.
That’s two common arguments down. So, how about an argument that can hold water? Is there an argument that speaks to my own beliefs and which I cannot dismiss with pithy sarcasm?
“The Bible (and therefore God) condemns homosexuality.” You see what I did there? I ignored the one-man, one-woman variations and everything because they are too easy to shred given the old notables of Judah and Israel were known to have harems that would make Hugh Hefner jealous (you know, accounting for historical differences in hygiene standards that is).
So, the bible condemns homosexuality.
Yes. It does. Unquestionably, in multiple verses of multiple books of the Torah and in Paul’s Letter to the Romans (maybe a couple other places, others with more experience as biblical scholars can probably find a few more citations), there are clear proscriptions against homosexual conduct, no matter how I try to spin it. You got me.
But, and I say this without sarcasm, Brothers and Sisters in Christ, does that make any damn sense?
I mean, really. This is the scenario you’re purporting: God creates one of his children hormonally swayed so that he will be attracted to the same gender, and then tells him that his (or her, whatever) sexual and romantic feelings for another consenting adult are inherently sinful while ours are one of the foundational elements of His plan for us.
“Oh, no,” you say, “It’s not natural, it’s a choice. They could choose not to be gay.”
Deep breath.
Okay, since we’re on this uncomfortable topic, I’m going to make it even more uncomfortable by using first person while talking about sexuality. You brought this on yourself, invisible straw man who lives inside my computer (and sometimes my head).
I don’t know about you, but when I turned the corner from childhood into adolescence I noticed that the girl sitting across from me in home room was filling out and that it made me into a stammering idiot because the birds and the bees were screwing up my whole universe with all kinds of inappropriate thoughts and daydreams. Oddly, my friends, Joey, Jake and Anthony inspired no such fantasies. No, my pimply faced young companions inspired only camaraderie and competition. It wasn’t as if I looked at them, looked at the girls and DECIDED I was heterosexual. So, you see, I NEVER GOT A VOTE ON WHO I WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH. I’m just guessing that you didn’t either. And if you didn’t, and I didn’t, what are the odds Liberace or Elton John did, just because they like dudes?
So, I reiterate, some poor schmuck who is born gay but wants to obey God is left either trying to pretend he’s straight when the idea is as physically repulsive to him as his idea of a good time is to me, or simply alone.
HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT!? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE THE GOD WE WORSHIP?!?!
Does that sound like the God who takes any paper thin excuse he can to forgive us and accept us into his Kingdom? Does that sound like the God who sent his only Begotten Son, who became mortal and, took on the guilt of all our sins, who humbled himself to Death when he didn’t have to, all to save us? Does that sound like the God who commanded us to love our neighbor as ourselves and pray for our enemies and, and, I mean REALLY? Does it?
Isn’t it, JUST possible that when Jesus fulfilled the Law, freeing us from Kosher restrictions, the absolute necessity of circumcision, etc, that was one more cultural meme that just didn’t apply anymore? And isn’t at least possible that Paul, who is kind of a misogynist amongst other things, let’s face it, inserted some of his own ideas on morality when he was writing down the inspiration God had given him? I mean, this is the dude who said it is better not to marry, but better to marry than burn. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for what most other parts of the bible portray as the fundamental human relationship. Paul was a great man of faith, but he was not Jesus. And Jesus has not a damn thing to say about homosexuality in any of the gospels.
But Paul, you say, did take pains to separate his opinion from divine guidance in many places, so, no. Paul’s strictures against homosexuality are divinely inspired.
And maybe you’re right. I am a Christian, and I don’t get to shake scripture like a magic eight ball to make it give the answer I want, so maybe you’re right and same-sex romance is a sin in the truly eternal and cosmic sense of the word. I don’t like it, I hope it’s not, but I have to admit that is a valid and more legalistically correct interpretation of the scripture than I can offer.
So what?
You heard me, so what? What does our shared religious trepidation with regard to homosexuality have to do with US law? Oh, I’m not questioning your right to believe that two men or two women do not constitute a marriage in the eyes of God, I’m questioning your right to say it doesn’t constitute a marriage in the eyes of the United States. We are a Christian nation only in the sense that Christianity is the predominant religion of the population, not that we are allowed to use our own religious beliefs as basis for legislation, you know who does that? Places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, basically all those Islamic radicals whom I’ve made it a career and an obsession to resist. Yeah, I’ve no interest in being like them.
Yes, most of the Founding Fathers were either Christians or deists with Christian traditions, and they referenced God frequently in their work. They did not, however, use scripture to justify law- the declaration and the constitution, in their mechanics, were inspired by enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Voltaire, Hobbes and Montesquieu, not by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (none of which say anything about being gay, anyway). I’m not saying the faith of the founders didn’t play an important role in their motivations for creating a liberal (classical liberal, not left/right liberal) republic. I’m saying that even those, often very religious, men did not see fit to impose law from scripture on those who might not believe, or even on those who did believe. So why are you trying?
Because you don’t want people to think it’s okay. If gay marriage is legalized, it will be society signaling its acceptance of homosexuality. And if it is a sin, then people shouldn’t think it’s perfectly acceptable.
Ever downloaded something from pirate bay? Ever watched porn, used profanity, overeaten, drank too much, smoked a cigar or cigarette, been angry at God, or put your own desire for financial comfort over his command to be generous with the poor? Yeah? Me too. Guess what, brother? We’re all freaking serial sinners. You can recognize it and reproof it, but if you don’t legislate against me for my frequent use of the F word and tendency to overindulge in both chocolate and scotch (keeping in mind that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I AM supposed to know better), why in God’s name would you allow yourselves to oppress some poor sap because he likes dudes?
Seriously, if we’re going to get all self-righteous, let’s go after human traffickers, or the terrorists, or, for Christ’s sake, somebody who is actually hurting another human being. Because THAT we have authority over here on Earth. This kind of sin? That’s between a person and God.
If you liked this piece, please tune in next week so I can piss you off by telling you how gender integration in the military is a big failure (and it’s all the Left’s fault) and the unilateral unphased repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a giant, criminal blunder (and it’s all the Left’s fault).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Worth a Look
About Me
- Justin
- Enamored Husband, Proud Papa, Retired Artillery Officer, And Fledgling Author.
Followers
Labels
- Babylon 5 (1)
- Bad Poetry (2)
- Badassery (1)
- Beer (1)
- Books (1)
- BSG (1)
- BYSR (1)
- Christmas (4)
- Corny Humor (2)
- damn it (2)
- dark days ahead (1)
- deployment (3)
- Dorking Out (1)
- Europe (1)
- Fantasy (2)
- faux-arrogance (1)
- Field Artillery (1)
- Geeking Out (1)
- getting shafted (2)
- Heinlein (2)
- introduction (1)
- JL&UO (3)
- JMLO (1)
- Lists (1)
- Michele (1)
- Military Theory (1)
- Movies (1)
- Parenting (1)
- politics (4)
- Propaganda (1)
- Quotation (1)
- race (1)
- Re-Post (1)
- Religion (2)
- Reviews (1)
- Science Fiction (8)
- Social Theory (3)
- Star Trek (1)
- The War (3)
- Urban Fantasy (1)
- writing (5)
Copyright © 2009 www.dantearaujo.net. Designed by Dante Araujo.
27 comments:
To start, you got major points for using me in an example and for actually using a logical argument on this one.
My response in two questions:
1) Where do we draw the line on what is recognized as a marriage? I'm not talking about making this a "people might as well marry their dogs" or "if we erode the definition of marriage, old men will start marrying middle school girls" argument because those are slippery slopes and not likely in the near future. A line that I think becomes blurry is when dealing with polygamy. You brought it up, so I think it's fair to ask what your thoughts are on the subject. Personally, keeping one wife happy is enough work for me - I couldn't imagine trying to juggle more than one marriage. But, if we start to broaden the definition of marriage, doesn't this question become fair game?
2) If we're wired to sin, does that make that sin ok? I'll submit that same-sex attraction could be a built in thing. Makes total sense. I, like you, never fantasized about Joey or Jake. The girl who lived in our neighborhood? I'm pretty sure that was common knowledge. Ok, back to the issue of wiring: some of us are wired to be susceptible to addictions that are unhealthy for us; does that mean that the government should take a laissez-faire approach to legislating the use of controlled substances? Real question. Feels related to me, though I might be the only one drawing the lines between what others might think are unrelated dots. If that's the case, I'm really trying not to offend. Just asking a question.
I, like you, am well aware that our founding fathers didn't cite the Bible to justify law. In a country built on the ideal of religious freedom, that makes sense. So, Bible aside (which, for some of us, is harder/easier to do than others), I think this conversation is fair game. And, as I said earlier, it's fantastic to see someone who's willing to take things on with logic and reason. Bonus points for being open to ticking off both sides of the aisle, btw.
I'm pleased you're trying to think openly, but less pleased that you're not trying to think _thoroughly_. It's as if you decided "I want to be a decent, fair minded person," and then looked for things that you could use for that. But it's not that simple.
Item 1: Who, besides gays (obviously self interested) wants this? The left. But consider the left's uncanny and unfailing instinct for societal destruction. Doesn't much matter what it is, historically, if they want it, we ought not want it. Even when they're right, Brown v. Board of Education, say, those same instincts lead them to execute their solutions in the most societally destructive way possible. That's their metier and we'd be foolish not to account for that. Or to give them _anything_ that they want because, even if we can't see quite how, we can see historically that it's going to be a mistake.
Secondly, the tax implications (used to be a tax lawyer, remember) are staggering and will be generally bad for the fisc.
Thirdly, once you decide man and woman are just genders, what principled reason is there to balk at two, which is just a number, after all, in every way less significant than man and woman? Yes, I mean that the argument against polygamy (which leads to fucked up societies, by the way, even if families are often quite strong) goes away with gay marriage.
Fourthly, while the major argment between left and right, at their extremes, is nature-nuture, it's preposterous to assign absolute power to either. They both have an effect. It's equally preposterous to deny that a kid being raised by gays is going to be under some unusual stresses and influences. What is the principled reason for denying married gays the right to adopt? What effect do we _know_ those adoptions will have on kids? We can't just assume away that there will be no negative consequences with this, for the youngest, least able to defend themselves, portion of our population.
Fifthly, this is going to lead to clerics being forced either to marry gays, against their conscience, or to them being punished. Yes, it will. It will start with the chaplaincy, already employees of the state, and already serving two masters. And once chaplains are forced into it, every other cleric - tax free, remember, hence already wards of the government - will also be punished for not performing gay marriages. We have separation of church and state because religion acts as a brake on the state. This will become a tool for the state to break religion. (Nice play on words, you'll agree.)
In a way, it's a pity you're not a Catholic. It's much the most intellectually entertaining denomination and has one foot firmly in both Heaven and on Earth. The Church's (I only ever capitalize the Catholic church, btw) position is not, generally speaking, that something is wrong because God said so. Rather, if you think about it and the way they go about it, it's that God has condemned certain things as wrong because their effect here on Earth is bad. That's different and not something arising from mere superstition.
You can still be in favor of gay marriage, by the way. Anyone can. But these problems - and I doubt they're exhaustive - are still problems and still need to be addressed.
Tom Kratman
My take on this, as a generally very (perhaps even shockingly) liberal and born-again, long time, pentecostal (!!!) Christian is something along the lines of: I don't get to judge whether someone's sexual orientation is right or wrong, because I'm not in charge of that judging stuff. The Bible DOES appear to contradict itself sometimes (especially from the perspective of people who are not familiar with it, or who lack faith in it), and I do not get to insist that my interpretation (or the interpretation that suits my agenda) is the right one. We can do our best to use our limited human wisdom to seek God's heart, but that does not mean that we are necessarily RIGHT. (I know, Justin, that this probably skims uncomfortably close to moral relativism for you. To be clear: There are some things that are quite lucid based on scripture, e.g., love other people, don't kill them, be faithful, read the Bible, pray, ask forgiveness for your sins. Same sex relationships and/or marriages, in my humble opinion, are not one of those black and white things).
In addition to my belief that I, with my tiny human brain, don't know the Truth with a capital T about how God views same sex relationships, I believe that the fundamental basis of the Christian worldview is that every single person on earth deserves love, respect, and equality, by virtue solely of the fact that we are all precious human beings created by a God who treasures us. I can't explain *why* someone is gay and I'm not gay. I can't say how right or wrong, or punishable that is according to God's heart. (My guess is that it's no more right or wrong or punishable than stealing, lying, drunkenness, sex outside marriage, etc). What I can say is that I agree with you, Justin, wholeheartedly that all of that sin/not sin stuff is irrelevant when it comes to U.S. law. Gay people are human beings with the right to be in a legally recognized (can't comment on God's degree of acknowledgement...again, not in charge of that) marital partnership that contains within it all of the worldly privilege associated with any legally recognized marital partnership. Just like black people deserve to have the same access to a college education as white people, and women deserve the same right to vote as men. These issues may seem indisputable (uh...hopefully) to us now, but at one time, upstanding Christian folk thought it was justifiable in God's eyes to OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS AND TREAT THEM AS PROPERTY WITH NO RIGHTS OF THEIR OWN. So there's that. Christians (imperfect, sinful Christians) are not a perfect barometer of God's truth, or of the way laws should reflect that. Even beyond that, as Christians, if we collectively stand up for laws that discriminate against a whole group of people, guess what? We're not showing them how loving and nonjudgmental we are, you know, like how Christ was. We're not showing them that we care for and value them, even if they're a prostitute or have leprosy or are mere children (all metaphorically speaking). And, I think THAT actually might be a sin. At the very least it's a shame.
I'm not a Bible scholar, but I do know that loving someone unconditionally does not include marginalizing, persecuting, or even passively endorsing discrimination against them. (And Tom, I don't know you, but justifying the continued oppression of a group because to give them rights would be financially bad for the rest of us seems to me a selfish and very un-Christian argument. Even if it's practically true, there's no way it's morally defensible.)
I'm aware, BTW, that this touchy-feely liberal opinion is not particularly well-received in churchy people circles. But I have to be accountable to God if I misinterpret His stuff and do/say/think the wrong things, not churchy people.
You need to read with more care, Stacy. I didn't say we shouldn't permit it for that reason. I said it is a factor to consider.
Since you didn't address the others, does that mean you concede them?
First: Anthony,
You're welcome for the shout out. Yes, that was common knowledge and we spent hours as pathetic twelve year olds bemoaning our complete lack of a chance. I wish we could comfort our younger selves with how little it would matter eighteen years later :)
1) Excellent question. The logical conclusion is that polyandry, polygamy, bigamy, all the andrys and amys would be kosher. I'm not sure I like that either, but I can't come up with a defensible reason NOT to allow all the different possible configurations of a marriage if we allow same sex marriage. After all, monogamy is a moral preference too. Perhaps, from a pragmatic view point, we could place some limit on the number of people in a marriage, two, or more, to limit the tax problems. Or perhaps we could consider an entirely different criteria for benefits entirely. More on that when I respond to LTC Kratman.
2) You're absolutely correct that a natural urge can be, often is, sinful. After all, the state of nature is violence. The disconnect I see is that you can't prove that homosexuality has negative effects as a drug addiction does unless you accept our religious dogma as self justifying. We only have seeming divine fiat to prove that homosexuality between consenting adults is actually harmful, what hard evidence is there that it is in reality? I don't dismiss scripture, but while I see plenty of support for most of the rules implied and explicit that remain after the New Testament, I don't see much evidence that two adults engaging in homosexual behavior is damaging in and of itself.
Good talk, Anthony. I welcome your discourse.
Okay, got to go to bed, I'll respond to LTC Kratman and Stacy tomorrow morning.
'Night.
Tom: I read it correctly. I think even suggesting that's it's legitimate to consider financial repercussions for the privileged when the denial of rights to the underprivileged is at stake, is wrong. Human rights trump money. Period.
And I mentioned it only because it stood out to me as an opinion of someone with the power and privilege in a situation, and as particularly insensitive to the experience of those without privilege. I'm not in a debate with you, I've no obligation to systematically address each of your points. I think I stated my opinion clearly in my comment. So, I suppose it's up to you to decide if you think I "concede" all your other points.
What bothers me, Stacy, is that it's sheer intellectual dishonesty to key on a minor factor and ignore the major ones. Of course, if you can see _me_ as the one with power and privilege, then it's entirely possible that you're just flat insane, hence not being dishonest at all.
Tom,
A great way to lose people from reading and agreeing with your thoughts is to suggest that someone who opposes your line of thinking is "flat insane".
I'd imagine that, in the back of your mind, you are aware of that... maybe you simply got caught up in the back-and-forth of sharing opinions and didn't consider that name calling, even if the tone is meant to be sarcastic, doesn't translate well in online forums / comment threads.
Here's to hoping that the sarcasm lessens and that, after Justin replies to your post, we're able to watch the dialogue continue in a way that might make us consider and reconsider our stances.
I'm actually looking forward to his reply and for the conversation to continue.
-Ap
There are many wonderful articles that discuss the meaning of privilege written by Peggy McIntosh, Ph. D. (among others). The classic, and a good starting point, is her Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. I highly recommend it if anyone is interested in learning more about the subject of privilege and how it is virtually invisible in many ways, particularly to the people who have it. Good reading, and I think important for those with privilege (myself included) to understand. Difficult to confront, as a privileged person, but certainly valuable reflection material about the way our culture distributes power, and what one's personal responsibility is or is not in dealing with it.
As far as the insane comment...well, I'd say I'm about as sane or not as the average person. As a clinical psychologist (currently working in an inpatient state psychiatric hospital), I've got some stories that could perhaps bring perspective to the relative in/sanity of my disagreeing with one of your points on a blog comment. :)
Won't be able to comment in depth until I get home from work tonight, so please keep it civil in the mean time. Sir, Stacy is my oldest friend, and while I don't agree with just about any of her political views, honesty forces me to vouch that she is one of the sanest people I know. Stacy, don't think that means I agree with your race/class/gender obssession. I understand the theory, and acknowledge that those factors affect everything, but they are not the root of either my or LTC Kratman's motivation.
Obsession? That's pretty unfair and patronizing, even for you in an argument, Justin. You of all people know I have a good head on my shoulders and I'm not just ignorantly spouting rhetoric I've heard somewhere. I bring it up if I believe it's a relevant PART of a discussion, and it just has happened to be in a couple of conversations we've had recently. When it's not relevant, I don't talk or think about it.
Furthermore, I don't think either you or your friend are motivated by a desire to oppress. That's generally the opposite of what privilege means, and if you had a more complete understanding of it, you would know that. I actually don't think issues of privilege are the major concern with ANYone's opinion here. If anything, I was pleasantly surprised by your generally well-balanced and logical argument that considered privilege among other (more important, actually) factors. I do think Tom's response to my comment reflected a certain lack of awareness of his own privilege, and I'm allowed to point that out in a discourse. Which, by the way, I think I did in a relatively even-handed, if blunt, manner. If he then denies that he has privilege or power as a (I'm assuming here) white, middle class (at least), educated, straight male (or, really, any combination of the above), well, you know I'm not going to agree with that. And neither would any person educated about the nature of privilege. Because it's simply inaccurate.
Just to be crystal clear about this: I don't think anyone here is purposefully aiming to oppress anyone else, and I'm not accusing anyone of that. All of us who've commented so far, however, do possess some amount of privilege in this world (as a result of things we largely have no control over). That's not an opinion or a judgment or a criticism, it's reality. Even if we're blind to it, or in denial, or don't understand it, or have guilt about it, or don't like it, it's reality. I'm not illogical, off-base, or wrong for pointing that out in a discussion of whether a minority group should get rights.
The comment in my original post about the money thing was a minor aside, but the underlying issue has apparently struck a nerve with you guys. I've now been called insane and obsessed (which imply that I'm an irrational crazy person who just rants about privilege whenever I possibly can. Not accurate. Also, disrespectful). I shared my thoughts on the topic of gay marriage and pointed out an opinion that I found unjust. Both with the intent of providing a perhaps slightly different perspective than that of the other commenters here, and expressing what I believe is right, kind, and Christ-like.
I'm doing my best to remain civil and I recognize that not everyone thinks or cares about the things I do. However, I'm pretty sure I've not said anything unreasonable here. Nor anything to warrant name-calling and insults. I certainly haven't insulted anyone personally, called any names, or belittled anyone's intellectual functioning or reasons for holding their opinions. If you find yourself so defensive about the issue of privilege that you feel the need to question my sanity and reason for bringing it up in a discussion about rights, perhaps some reflection on your own feelings and thoughts is appropriate.
AP:
Actually the charge of insanity, or more accurately, potential insanity, is providing a gracious way out. Better to be a loon than a liar, and keying on a minor point while ignoring the major ones is intellectually dishonest. I see this _all_the_time_: "Here, Mr. Writer, I've refuted this argument you didn't make, attributed as central to your thesis this point you actually rebutted, and so you have to concede to me all the arguments you did make or that I might attribute to you because I'm a grrrllll."
Stacy:
No, there are many preposterous intellectual fantasies aimed at the already convinced, the mindless, the fools. I'm just not interested in feminist or gay fantasy; I've see so much of it in a military vein that my tolerance meter is pegged.
Stacy, wasn't trying to be patronizing. I'm sorry the word obsessed offended you. Your opinion is welcome here, and up until you just got really mad at me you were being really civil. I apologize but what I meant to communicate in its essentials was something like this: "Dont call one of my best friends insane, Best Friend, I reserve the right to disagree with you about the relevance of privilege in this matter when I get back to this topic." I really do apologize for the hurt feelings, such was not my intent.
Okay, back for round two. Sorry to duck out last night, had to get some sleep, my platoon leaders and I hauled ass up the side of a mountain starting at 0500 this morning. It's getting more and more difficult to catch those little bastards, especially when the grade is 16%.
So, LTC Kratman, you were next:
First of all, this is my real position on the subject. Which is not to say I don't take a little perverse pleasure in arguing against people with whom I normally agree on almost everything. I mean you and I will argue over the value of Ranger School, but, ideologically, there's not that much I'm going to dispute with you. But I've been thinking about this since the repeal of DADT (which is, as I stated at the end of this entry, a criminal blunder). Now, by item.
Item 1: This is a tempting argument. While I know many patriotic individuals with liberal leanings, as do you, I bet, I agree that modern Leftist policy is pretty disastrous to a civilization. That being said, there are some times when waging a political scorched earth campaign isn't appropriate. The Civil Rights movement was a net positive. Oh, sure, there are hangovers today which are absolutely negative, Affirmative Action, in my opinion, promotes tokenism, and when it doesn't cause tokenism, it creates the appearance of it. Both are harmful to society. But overall, it is a good thing that racial bigotry is less sociably acceptable than it was in 1964. So, SOMEtimes, even if your opponent suggests doing the right thing, you should do the right thing.
Item 2: I am actually very glad you brought this up! I didn't include my theory on this because I was already well over a thousand words for a blog rant and it was slightly off topic. It occurred to me that we allow special tax status to married couples because of the benefits marriage conveys upon society. In the past, marriage was often economically based, with division of land and property being much more important than compatibility of personality. Since most marriages are personal choices nowadays, and aren't the primary method of peaceably passing property from generation to generation, what function should society reward them for in terms of special tax status?
Well the other function, the one that is still valid, is raising children in a stable environment. So why don't we re-target the benefits appropriately? I mean, it's nice that you love your wife, and I love mine, but what do I actually care, in terms of cold hard cash, if you've got a nice romantic relationship with another adult or not, no matter how significant it is to you? Conversely, raising your children effectively IS of benefit not just to you and them, but to me and everyone else living in this civilization.
Therefore, the average gay couple NOT interested in adopting would not change their tax status at all. Any couple interested in adopting would have to keep their kids healthy, educated, at home, public or private school, and out of serious trouble to enjoy any financial gain- as would any heterosexual couple.
I don't have the nuts and bolts of this plan, I'm most certainly not an accountant or a tax lawyer, but it makes sense to me from a stand point that it links reward directly to desirable behavior rather than irrelevant behavior and would only require retargeting existing bureaucracy rather than creating new. Since our birth rate is going down in the middle and upper classes (not saying that's a good thing), and those who have children simply to up their welfare benefits wouldn't qualify (and don't pay taxes anyway), I can't imagine it would cost more than our current system.
Item 3: I already kinda answered this in my response to Anthony. You're right, but I would be comfortable, from a legal standpoint, on limiting numbers for tax benefits while allowing the de facto practice as a private matter. I mean, people live in hippy communes as it is, I don't know that the legalization of gay marriage would all of a sudden make group marriage more appealing to a bunch of people who weren't kinda weird to begin with. It might be legal, but societal pressure would keep it rare. I think. I admit I could be wrong on this one.
Item 4: You provided me with a hypothetical answer yourself. Franco and Garcia could do a far better job raising a child than many of the heterosexual couples I've seen in my short time in the Army and you know it. And gay people can and do adopt children in real life right now. It hasn't been happening (at least openly and in large numbers) long enough to have significant data on the psychological outcomes for the children involved, but it is already happening. The most vulnerable among us are already suffering from massive neglect and generally shitty parenting. I see no reason to believe that homosexual couples would do a worse job per capita than we do. I think with the modified tax benefits I described above, we might actually see an improvement in the minimum standard of child rearing across the board. Folks, gay or straight, who were going to be good parents anyway will still be good parents, but some parents who were going to straight suck might at least give their kids enough attention to get them to adulthood with a fighting chance of being productive members of society, if not the most emotionally content members of society.
Item 5: While I think some liberal officials would certainly try to make this happen using civil rights cases as precedent, I would pass, as part of the law, a recognition of the clergy's right to conscience. Hell, we can't make fundamentalist Imams recognize Jews as human beings, why would we require Catholic Priests or Southern Baptist ministers to recognize same sex marriage? I agree there's a danger of this, but I also think you could mitigate it, if you become a part of the process instead of waiting until popular sentiment so favors the recognition of homosexual marriage that they can pass it without conservative cooperation at all.
Conclusion: I'm not Roman Catholic, but I do believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting. If memory serves, we Methodists are even in communion with ya'll Papists, as are Anglicans and Episcopalians. Catholic itself means universal, after all. :)
I do have an issue with the level of pragmatism with which the Holy See operates in some cases and their dogmatic inflexibility in others. I also don't believe in Apostolic succession. I see no scriptural basis for it.
You 've actually gotten to the heart of my issue with the proscription against homosexuality. I don't see that, in and of itself, homosexuality between consenting adults has a negative effect. Most of God's laws (after Jesus relieves us from dietary restrictions and such), implicit and explicit, make sense to me, even if I don't do the best job keeping them. The restriction against homosexuality doesn't. Which does not mean I deny its place in the bible, it just means I wrestle with it. My relationship with God is a difficult one, like many father-son relationships, but I am committed to it.
Stacy,
Wow, we pretty much agree on the base issue. Which makes this a much easier and boring response to write :)
Essentially, I place more emphasis on trying to figure out God's intent. I struggle and wrestle and worry about this particular issue, because most of the others I've settled to my satisfaction. Might I be wrong? Oh, sure. But this is the one spiritual issue within which scripture really does indicate one thing is true while my own conscience positively screams that it is not for reasons I've already elaborated upon at great length above.
My other quibble doesn't really deal with the base issue but with a fine point of logic. You see, the pragmatic effects of a decision do affect its moral status. In this case, I don't think the financial consequences are likely to be that dire (if confronted with hard evidence to the contrary, I might have to yield, once again I'm no accountant), especially with the reforms I'm talking about. So, we're still in agreement on the base issue. Going forward, though, there is a wisdom to, “not killing the patient with the treatment.”
Take for instance the Kyoto treaty banning land mines- the intent behind it for people like Princess Di and some other supporters was to protect those poor children in Cambodia from getting blown up by mines left over from the war. It's a laudable goal. I don't like to see children getting hurt anywhere, but think of the second and third order effects (and perhaps the actual intent of many of the treaty's supporters). Land mines are, fundamentally, a defensive area denial weapon. They are a great equalizer between nations with smaller armies and nations with bigger ones. The treaty forbids the use of them, even in well marked preplanned areas. So, in effect, that treaty doesn't dig up the mines in Southeast Asia that are maiming children, but it does make it easier for a larger aggressive country to bully a smaller, less militarily powerful neighbor. Therefore, even though the treaty seems moral because of its publicly stated ideals, it is, in effect, immoral because of what it can allow a country bent on conquest to do to a victim.
Come to think of it, the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is another example of that pragmatic/moral tension. But I'll cover that in my next opinion piece.
Overall, Stacy, I agree with just about everything you said. We should both record this somewhere, it's unlikely to happen again any time soon ;-)
Having just read this article today (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7048/), I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Quoting another study/article/book, this article makes a claim about marriage that seems significant:
"Marriage has its characteristic structure largely because of its orientation to procreation; it involves developing and sharing one’s body and whole self in the way best suited for honorable parenthood—among other things, permanently and exclusively."
There's a feeling in my gut that the erosion of marriage (as defined above) isn't going to be good for the generations who come after us.
The author of this article (http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Future-of-Marriage) seems to say that the line of thought you're using makes a case that marriage should be simply whatever sort of interpersonal relationship consenting adults—whether there's two or 10 —want it to be. It could be sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent... and that that idea sounds like the abolition of marriage. In this scenario, marriage is left with no essential features, no fixed core as a social reality—it is simply whatever consenting adults want it to be.
From what you initially stated, and then backed up in response to my questions about the number of people joined together in a marriage, it sounds like you (Justin) would be open to the conversation of "marriage" being abolished altogether and that you'd favor the creation of a more open contract that people could join in to, for a season, that would grant them benefits of a family unit in our society (the right to adopt, share bank accounts, be listed on wills, have power of attorney, etc.). Is that a fair read?
1. I am by no means convinced that the civil rights campaign was a net positive, as executed and in its results. For one thing, we don't know if some other approach might have worked better. We do know, though, because we can see it, that the rapid integration of the most capable blacks into mainstream, more or less white society, had a _disastrous_ effect on the much larger numbers of blacks left behind and deprived of their previous capable and moral leadership. So I stand by the original claim: If liblepers want it, or want it in some particular way, either what they want or the way in which they intend to get it, or both, are going to be disasters.
2. I was. The big problem isn't the minor deductions for children, or joint filing, though those aren't trivial. The big problem is going to be major transfers as incidents of pre-nup agreements and divorce settlements among people who are not gay but will use the provision for non-taxable events incident to marriage and divorce to avoid tax. There is also an estate tax issue, which will impact gay couples - or, rather, series of gay couples - more beneficially than straights.
Skip 3, since we seem to agree it's going to happen. Do, though, look in on cultures with widespread polygamy. Maybe polygamy has nothing to do with how fucked up they are, but I would bet that the shortage of women it causes has something to do with it.
4. Garcia and Franco are fictional characters, specifically idealized for a literary purpose. No doubt such couples exist, though. How do we reliably find them for purposes of permitting adoption? How do we prevent less suitable gay couples from adopting. How does any of that change that, given the nature-nurture mix, kids adopted into gay couples are going to come out of it kind of stressed? These are not mere matters of care giving and love, but any numbers of problems that a straight kid is going to have if raised by a gay couple. Maybe there won't be any (my ass, but even so...) but we ought to know and not just assume them away. As we are doing.
5. Pass any law you want. That law will not stand. See, for an example, Bob Jones University v, US. When public policy intervenes, no mere religious scruple will save anything...and neither will a mere law. And, by the way, the Supreme Court will twist and turn and pervert everything imaginable to get the public policy result they want. (Personally, I don't care for BJU or its policy of barring interracial dating, but the decision is absolute bullshit, legally putrescent and logically shit, and absolute proof that in things like this the supreme court is lawless.)
Anthony and LTC Kratman,
I appreciate your thoughts and have every intention of replying to both of you, but it's probably going to be a few days before I can do it in detail. Two quick thoughts, and I apologize for cherry picking rather than addressing your arguments holistically, I will have a more comprehensive response before New Year's.
Anthony: Don't really buy the porn-to-support of gay marriage bit. The study itself says there is a correlational rather than causal relationship and maybe there is, but just anecdotally, I watched a ton of pornography in college and I didn't support gay marriage, I kicked the habit shortly after Jesus hit me upside my metaphysical head and have been clean since (and if you think that's easy to do with twelve month deployments every other year, you'd be dead wrong). My stance on gay marriage is recently solidified within the last two years.
LTC Kratman: Point 4: I admit I cannot possibly predict all the social effects of being raised by a same sex couple and it would definitely be worthwhile to collect that data. I also know that any such study is almost certainly going to be skewed to reflect positive results because academia is basically owned by the Left (outside of places like BYU, the Academies, etc).
By your logic, though, I don't see why we shouldn't be screening heterosexual couples for the right to have children. Just because you were born with the appropriate plumbing doesn't mean you are qualified to be a parent. We don't because that would be some despotic shit, and like you, I think leaving a law lying around for someone to misuse is a lot more dangerous than leaving a weapon lying around for someone to use as they please. If we introduce criteria to have children it is a possible lever for a future government to pick who they want to inherit the Earth.
Again, sorry to cherry pick my arguments, you both deserve more thorough replies but I wanted to get those thoughts down.
Merry Christmas to both of you.
Post a Comment