posted
Orson Scott Card posted a thoughtful essay on the thread called “OSC – The cypher” thread,” and seems to despair that no one has given it a proper response or rebuttal. I would like to take up the challenge.
Since my response is a bit lengthy, I’m going to quote from his essay without reproducing it in its entirety. I will, however, begin by recapping some of his arguments and highlighting those that I think require the most attention
First, Mr. Card begins by laying out his epistemology, or at least some sense of it. He expresses his belief that both science and religion are means of apprehending the truth, but that both are fallible and that neither apprehends Truth in its entirety. However, a true statement will nonetheless have (or will eventually be shown to have) the demonstrable characteristic of being true according to both science and religion. He calls this a “convergence.”
This is an interesting idea, and it is notably different from many thinkers, especially scientists, who hold religious beliefs. For them, “scientific truth” and “religious truth” are different truths. Some draw this distinction as being between “inner” (spiritual) and “outer” (empirical) truth. In a recent thread on Ornery, I posted an essay by Karen Armstrong that distinguished between the Greek mythos and logos – logos being the outer logic by which we create science and technology, and mythos being the logic of fable and narrative, that which gives form to our emotional response to reality in all its due magnitude. There are many ways to draw this distinction – but that there is a distinction to be made is a constant.
But Mr. Card notes a more remarkable experience – while following these different lines and methods of inquiry in to the same problem, he finds that their evolution coincides with their eventual convergence. It is a little difficult to see what he means by this specifically, since he does not (yet) provide specific examples. Most religions, for instance, have very little to say on the subject of particle physics. However, I suspect that what Mr. Card has in mind are the social sciences, and perhaps to some extent biology and mind studies, since these pertain to social behaviors and experience – something about which religion has a great deal to say. In other words, he feels that there is strong empirical evidence to support certain religious views on the “right” and “wrong” for social behavior.
Next…
quote:
But at some point, despite the incompleteness of information, I find such a preponderance of evidence, or such an urgency of action, that I must proceed (as, ultimately, we all do, always), with a firm position that I might find myself forced to alter later. In other words, if I wait for absolute certainty, I will never speak or act at all, and my existence will be pointless.
We all act on incomplete information all the time - like the people here who post about how they think my mental processes work, despite the extreme incompleteness of their information. (In fact, in most such cases I suspect they may be describing their own mental process OR their fantasy of the mental processes of "stupid people" or "people who are not as correct as me.")
But this lack of certainty about anything is so obvious that I don't feel any need to say it every time. Certainly my opponents on major issues of the day have no such qualms - they speak in absolutes, then accuse me of absolutism when I answer them; just as the most powerful forces of intolerance in America today accuse their opponents of intolerance, which justifies their intolerant actions towards them.
OSC argues against dogmatism, of which the requirement of absolute certainty is one aspect. We must proceed with opinions that are rational, testable, and falsifiable (i.e., capable of adjustment in light of new information).
But this last paragraph contains a questionable statement. In the statement “just as the most powerful forces of intolerance in America today accuse their opponents of intolerance, which justifies their intolerant actions towards them.” I’m going to give OSC the benefit of the doubt here – that he is not saying something so trite as that “intolerance of intolerance is itself intolerant.” Instead, his claim here is that “the accusation of intolerance, whether true of not, whether demonstrated or not, is deemed sufficient excuse for the lack of toleration of the accused.” In other word, once one is accused of “intolerance”, on become guilty (by association) until proven innocent (and one is never given the forum to be proven innocent).
OSC then moves from the abstract to the more specific.
quote:
But let me give as brief a precis as I can of one such lens through which I view what I see: The human species is unique in the animal kingdom for having moved its survival away from the individual and onto the community, with the tribe as an intermediary step. Other animals have herds and packs, but within them, individuals still remain the repository of memory, and DNA the respository of instinct.
Humans, however, do not depend for their ability to propagate the species on the strengths or actions of the individuals. We instead depend on the community to offer protection and reproductive opportunity, and the pressure on our DNA is not so much toward the traits that promote individual survival as toward the traits that promote the stability, strength, and survivability of the community that successfully provides safety and reproductive opportunity.
So there are communities that provide rule sets (customs, rituals, normative stories) that lead to behaviors by their members that promote the physical and reproductive security of the whole, and communities that are not so good at this. There are communities that are more civilized and communities that are more tribal; and the choices of communities have consequences in the real world, which are often as predictable as the consequences of individual choices.
This is the first time I have encountered the notion that people survive by being less individualistic than animals. Nonetheless, he has a point. Our languages, customs, rituals, morals, etc. are all creations of the community, and these are precisely those traits which separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. He furthermore argues that some communities function much better than others, largely depending on the rules they adopt and live by – those most stable and successful communities have discovered the better ethical and moral systems.
The next distinction Card makes is one of the most exciting and controversial. He separates “tribal” society from “civilized” society, and then applies this distinction to the political arena. The distinction, here, between “civilized” and “tribal” is more or less equivalent to “rational” vs. “mystical,” “skeptical,” vs. “unquestioning,” “inclusive” vs. “exclusive”. A “tribal” mentality is only half-civilized – it is groupthink, i.e., one’s allegiance to a tribe is dictated by circumstantial expedience and nothing else, without reference to higher principles to which another “tribe” might ascribe. A “tribe” provides no common ground for discussion with other tribes – in fact, the denial of such common ground is essential for tribal warfare.
As OSC notes, both the “Left” and the “Right” – or what we call as such – are essentially assemblages of very disparate “tribes” with little in common, save their collective polarization against “the other side.” He disparages the fact that the “tribal” nature of present-day political discourse has left no room for intra-party discussion, nor any common ground upon which Left and Right may have a meaningful discussion. Political discussions devolve into discussions of strategy – the task of finding “truth” falls by the wayside.
Now, let’s assume for purposes of this discussion that I am largely in agreement with Mr. Card on most of these observations (except for his religious beliefs – I am an atheist). I, too, lament the polarization of today’s political culture. I, too, think that topics such as abortion, gay marriage, pre-emptive war, etc. are far too important to be left to the dictates of political expediency and opportunism. I, too, think John Kerry was a dangerous hack (though unlike Card, I think just the same of George W. Bush).
I would also like to make it clear that I do not think OSC is a religious fanatic, or a fascist, or an idiot.
Let’s take on one of the biggest bones of contention, one that he mentions at the end of this essay: the definition of marriage.
OSC’s position, and I’m using as my reference his controversial 2/15/04 article in “Civilization Watch” is that any court which decides to legalize or allow the marriage of two men or two women is, in essence, imposing a new set of morals on those who choose “traditional” marriages. It turns “marriage” into something it never was before, something which is at variance (supposedly) from every past society – whose purpose has always been “family.”
I think there are two crucial points to be made here. The first is that “traditional” marriage has not existed for nearly a century. In a “traditional” marriage, the woman is a second-class citizen, deprived of social freedom and political representation. She is property - the marriage ritual transfers the “property” from one family (hers) to another (her husbands) with the requisite change of name. The point at which women acquired equality under the law with men is a point at which traditional marriage ended forever. The man was no longer a patriarch, a first-in-command, but rather an equal collaborator in the family dynamic and a rival in the social-economic sphere.
The overall effect on the structure of society – our “civilization” – as result of gender equality cannot be overstated. Higher divorce rates are a direct consequence of women now having a the social means to appeal for an end to a ruinous marriage (I understand that this is not the only cause, but there is no doubt that it is a major one). Now some will object that the spike in divorce rates is historically more recent than women’s equality by a number of decades. I think it must be remembered that, with any major social change, there is inevitably a lag-time of at least one generation before new rights and privileges become internalized in the mindset of the general population.
It can be argued that the social instability brought on first by gender equality under the law, and later by the feminist movement’s assertion of those rights in the social sphere has had negative social consequences. In addition to the problems of divorce, one major consequence of the movement of women into the workplace had been the phenomenon of the “latchkey kid” – both of whose parents work and who, as a result, spends a lot of time unsupervised. Partly to blame for this scenario is the fact that the feminist era resulted in the masculine, independent woman, without any requisite feminine male. In this sense, a great opportunity has been missed – women have been able to explore new possibilities in themselves that men have not. Men are still bound by a social expectation of “manliness”, and are unable to seriously consider a life at home with the kids while being supported by a woman. Given that the feminist movement was, therefore, only half-realized (at best) it should come as no surprise that, in a world were people of both genders must be ever more competitive in the economic sphere to survive, that many women (who are now more than ever a subject of commercial fetish) feel exhausted, and are resorting to more “traditional” roles. (There are many scientists who have attempted to study the “hard-wired” differences between men and women, and who attribute these behavioral differences to biological and evolutionary imperatives. While this is not an irrational assumption per se – I am personally extremely cautious of giving credence to such studies. They often fail to properly account for social conditioning, which has been demonstrated to have a tremendous and measurable effect on neurological development).
The greater issue, of course, is what role the State (which I here define in its ideal state as being an expression of popular will, as mitigated by the “social contract” of ethical standards which we implicitly agree upon by our peaceful participation in society) has in rendering laws regarding marriage on the basis of social good. This is an incredibly complex question – so for now I’ll just briefly suggest that, whatever role we assign, the mere fact that we recognize the sanctity of the individual to make decisions freely, and to be personally responsible for those decision, means that certain structural allowances in the state definition of marriage must follow.
Gay marriage would have had no reason to exist under the old, pre-equality system. Leaving aside the obvious social prohibitions against homosexuality, such an arrangement would have been nonsensical – not because there was a lack of homosexual relationships (there were plenty), and not because it was deemed improper for two people of the same gender to raise children (a widow and her sister raising children would not have been deemed a recipe for sin), but because the marriage as a transaction of property to property-holder would have been impossible. A man would not have submitted to become another’s property, and a woman would have no means to hold such property. Only equality of the sexes makes gay marriage a possibility – precisely because, as regards their legal enfranchisement, there would be no difference in status between the two partners, gay or straight.
Now, at some point, I feel that the onus is on Mr. Card to demonstrate that the influence of the State actually extends beyond the realm of ethics and into morality. Ethics, just so were clear, are the rules that we all have agreed upon, by social contract, to enforce upon one another as individuals. Morality runs more deeply – it is a matter of personal conscience. We may consider something “immoral” that is not unethical, such as what two consenting adults do together in a bedroom.
I do not agree that gay marriage is any kind of a threat to civilization. But, even assuming that I do, I must prove that the role of the state extends as far as defining marriage (i.e. morality, beyond ethics). Let’s keep in mind that the reason for gays wanting to get married has to do with their wanting to have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities in the eyes of the state (not the church) of straight couples. If our government did not recognize marriage as a state institution, there would be no controversy – it would remain a religious ceremony only.
However, since the separation of church and state, there are truly two distinct kind of marriage – marriage by the church and marriage by the state. Some of us (myself included) are married by the state only. Many are married by both church and state. A very small minority are married in religious ceremonies not recognized by the state – and many of these people are gay.
If there were ever an attempt on the part of any organization to force a particular religious denomination to accept gay marriage against its own tenets, I would oppose it utterly. This would be, as Mr. Card says, an imposition of the highest order. But the gay marriage movement is not about forcing a value system on anybody – since it does not in principle require of any church the recognition of a marriage it deems immoral. Rather, it asks only that a gay marriage already recognized by a particular religious order or secular ceremony be recognized also by the state. This is about the relationship of one married couple to the state, NOT about the relationship of one married couple to other married couples.
The duplicity of modern marriage is really at the heart of the issue here. There are many religious people who might consider someone such as myself – whose marriage occurred only at the secular level - to not be married at all. My wife and I were married by the City of New York, in a ceremony that bound us legally to certain rights and responsibilities regarding one another. It did not, in any way, marry us in the “eyes of God.” For many Christians, this is a gaping and unacceptable shortcoming – for me, it is of no consequence whatsoever.
For a couple getting married in a religious ceremony, only one ceremony occurs – but this does not negate the fact that there are two “marriages.” For the sake of convenience, the priest/minister deemed qualified by a certain religious community to perform a marriage of the church is also licensed by the state to perform the civil functions of the marriage. Nonetheless, two different “kinds” of marriage have occurred.
No one is asking the Catholic church to recognize a Jewish marriage as concerns its spiritual dimensions – but because the state is the servant of all of us and ministers to our civic needs, we do expect a catholic to recognize the civic aspect of a Jewish marriage.
There are, now, religious denominations in which marriages between two men and two women are administered. Couples who have been married in such ceremonies consider themselves to be “spiritually” married. They are not, however, recognized at present by the state.
My personal belief is that the best possible way to reconcile this conflict is to cease attaching the word “marriage” to the civil ceremony in the first place. A “marriage” would be a religious ceremony, and a “civil union” would be a contract between two persons and the state regarding their rights and responsibilities to one another. But there must be absolute legal equality between gay and straight unions – Mr. Card’s contention that a homosexual has a right to marry someone of the opposite sex still denies him or her the right to marry the person whom they want to marry.
Unfortunately, here is where Mr. Card resorts to a kind of collectivized thinking that causes offense to so many. In his 2/15/04 essay:
quote:
What happens now if children grow up in a society that overtly teaches that homosexual partnering is not "just as good as" but actually is marriage? Once this is regarded as settled law, anyone who tries to teach children to aspire to create a child-centered family with a father and a mother will be labeled as a bigot and accused of hate speech. Can you doubt that the textbooks will be far behind? Any depictions of "families" in schoolbooks will have to include a certain proportion of homosexual "marriages" as positive role models. Television programs will start to show homosexual "marriages" as wonderful and happy (even as they continue to show heterosexual marriages as oppressive and conflict-ridden). The propaganda mill will pound our children with homosexual marriage as a role model. We know this will happen because we have seen the fanatical Left do it many times before. So when our children go through the normal adolescent period of sexual confusion and perplexity, which is precisely the time when parents have the least influence over their children and most depend on the rest of society to help their children grow through the last steps before adulthood, what will happen? Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back. Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.
This is where many, many people who might be sympathetic to Mr. Card’s right to express an informed opinion on this subject leave off. There are a tremendous number of unproven assumptions in the above statement, most notably and most unsettlingly that children will actually be coerced into a pattern of sexual behavior (rather than simply being allowed to decide for themselves – as anybody in a free society should be allowed to do), and that homosexuality itself is nothing more than an “adolescent phase” that some people inexplicably are unable to ”outgrow” (a most Victorian notion). But, rather than try to convince Mr. Card that he is wrong on the causes of homosexuality, I wish to ask a different question: on what basis does he believe that his views, be they scientific or religious, or both in a state of “convergence” should have any influence via the State on another person’s views – scientific or religious – regarding the subject marriage, and their subsequent decisions to live according to their own values? On what ethical basis does he claim an authority over another person’s decisions? He answers in the reverse:
quote: But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction. So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is. Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage. They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
Card seems to be conflating the issue of individual choice with (his) categorical definition of what marriage is for. That people, including gays, may wish to be married without ever intending to have children should not make them any less married. That marriage is a pre-requisite for having children is not equivalent to saying that the sole purpose of marriage is to have children – but he does not acknowledge that there is a distinction to be made here.
Furthermore, his contention that the legal status in the eyes of the state of certain persons who may have different beliefs and values from his own has any bearing on what he himself has created in his own marriage is presented as a self-evident fact, without any supporting evidence at all – other than our inference that he obviously would feel “less special” in a society that granted a homosexual couple the same civil status as he and his wife.
The interest and/or personal stake that any one individual has in the values and religious beliefs of another individual person extends only so far as our ethical responsibilities to one another. This is where the distinction between ethics and morals must be made – my own conscience, my sense of what I believe to be right and wrong, is not the same as Mr. Card’s – because we are different people with different values. I have no interest in telling him what to believe as regards religion, sexuality, etc., and I would rather die than support any legal action which would rob him - or anyone else - of the happiness and well-being he has cultivated with his own family. However, I have every right to say, of my ethical relationship to Mr. Card, that I not steal his property, that he not steal mine, that I not drive recklessly through his neighborhood, that he votes his conscience in a fair election, etc. Insofar as we have a common civil life, the state has a say in passing laws regarding how we interact.
However, Mr. Card’s feelings regarding the possible damage to society – even if a great many people happen to share them – that he claims would result from the legality of gay marriage, do not and must not have any legal standing beyond my own feelings to the contrary. My values and his must have equal legal protection – that is the essence of American, democratic civilization.
To see why this is the case, consider a different scenario. I might feel about Creation Science much the same way that Mr. Card feels about gay marriage (and, please note, I am NOT implying that Mr. Card is a creationist – I believe he is not, and at any rate, I use this simply to illustrate a point). I might feel parents who are teaching their children creationism are “stealing” from me any number of things – when I consider that these “children” may one day be my doctor, my representative in government, by own kid’s science teacher, etc. I may feel that this practice of allowing Creationists to raise children endangers by right to live in a society run by rational skeptics. I may feel that fundamentalists who teach their children to be alienated from their own bodies and to fear sexuality are a threat to the happiness and mental health of my children. Mr. Card might counter that these “feelings” on my part are based on little more than prejudice, ignorance, and stereotype, and he would be correct. Which is precisely why my ethical rights and responsibilities to Mr. Card, and his to mine, end at our respective religious and moral values – equality under the law requires of us that the state must not be an instrument of any one person’s or group’s values, fears, or prejudices. The point of “convergence” between religion and science – since it so clearly involves personal experience and “incomplete” systems of belief, as Mr. Card notes at the beginning - must be left in the realm of personal religious practice, and not in the realm of public ethics.
posted
Well, I did read it. I am now going to go back and read it again. I think some very interesting ideas are being put forth - and in a respectful, civilized manner. Let's keep it that way. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
And we all unloaded on the last guy who complained about something without bothering to read it, FYI.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
"My values and his must have equal legal protection - that is the essence of American, democratic civilization. "
Nonsense. Your thoughts and expression must have equal legal protection. NOT your values.
You quietly expect OSC to prove his contention that homosexual marriage will be used to push adolescents into adopting a sexuality they do not have. Fair enough. I happen to think he is correct, and furthermore, based on what I saw in high school and know of peer pressure I think he is probably understating the situation in the extreme. In fact, I think he's wasting his time. For the most part that war has already been lost. Ask a teen what really goes on, no penalties, I'm sure it will be enlightening. Well, maybe not, depending on where you live.
But if you want him to prove something which everybody and his pet dog Toto knows - namely, that high schoolers will be pressured into adopting whatever the hell the idiotic society at large stereotypes, well my friend, you'd better be prepared to prove that legally protecting your values, whatever they may be is the ESSENCE of American, democratic civilization.
I very much protest that. In fact, I defy you to your face that such is in fact NOT the case.
Neither your values NOR mine have any special protection in any way shape or form. Nor should they!
The only values that can and should be accepted are those that contribute or at the least do no irreperable harm to the functioning of society at large.
Can I walk around and hand out tabs of LSD to preschoolers - even if my values dictate that such is good? Of course not! Can I sell rape kits to people? Can I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if people are enjoying the movie?
All of these are things which you and I agree are disruptive to the functioning of society. And I am sure you would certainly agree that if someone held that doing such things was of value, then such a person could believe what they chose, but their values would most certainly not be protected.
On the other hand - the question is - is gay marriage disruptive to society as a whole? THAT is really what you should be sticking to. Not some gobbledeegook (sorry about the spelling) of "my values are just as good as yours".
Hah!
edit: And if you decide to do that, btw, keep in mind that horse hasn't just been beaten to death, it's been served as an entree' in a French restaurant.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You quietly expect OSC to prove his contention that homosexual marriage will be used to push adolescents into adopting a sexuality they do not have. Fair enough. I happen to think he is correct, and furthermore, based on what I saw in high school and know of peer pressure I think he is probably understating the situation in the extreme.
Studies of the children of gay parents have consistently shown that, while looking at homosexuality significantly more favorably than children of straight parents, these children are not significantly more likely to identify as homosexual themselves. To me, while not attacking the direct question, these findings still do a pretty good job of evaluating the feasibility of this claim.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoops, sorry, did I say "gay parents will force children to become gay"?
ummm, no, I didn't say that did I?
In fact, I said "homosexual marriage" (i.e. in the basic acceptance of homosexual marriage within media) will be used (via peer-pressure and MTV) to push adolescents into adopting a sexuality they do not (by nature) have.
If you dispute this, then explain to me why in a Vanity Fair poll 50% of girls from Australia claimed to have had sex with other girls. Or are you actually going to tell me that this has always been the society norm?
Think for yourself man, stop regurgitating what the establishment tells you. And if you think that homosexuality is A-OK, then grow a pair and argue the case on that merit. I won't agree, but at least I'll respect you.
But don't pass me some BS about "studies have shown". I'm sick of "studies" that show pretty much damn near anything the researcher at hand wanted to show.
posted
ball, err...I'm relatively sure I wasn't regurgitating what the establishment tells me. I'm a trained researcher and this is one of my minor fields of interest. The studies I'm talking about are all peer reivewed and published in reputable journals. I don't believe I nor they deserve the disrespect you answered me with.
Your contention was that saying that outside pressure would influence kids into adopting sexualities that they didn't have have was "probably understating the situation in the extreme". I offered up evidence that suggested that despite the external influences that come from having gay parents, the children of gay parents were no more likely to self-identify as gay than the children of straight parents. I think that is pretty relevant to what you said.
If we're arguing about the likelihood of people being psuhed into sexual orientations that they didn't have, I'd point to the pretty notable failure of the ex-gay movement to actually convert gay people into straight. If they, with their "therapy" methods that go far beyond accepted ethical boundaires cannot change people's sexual orientation short of Clockwork Oranging them, I don't find the contention that "social pressure" is going to have this enormous effect to be particularly tenable.
Also, I find your assertion that the acceptance of gay marriage is going to be met with a mass movement pushing the idea that being gay is cool to be more than a little bizarre. I can't really think of anything to say to that because I don't see where this idea is coming from.
---
edit: Incidentally, if you want to see for yourself whether or not I'm a mindless parrot for the establishment, you could check out pretty all of the gay marriage threads still existing on the Rack. It's likely that I'm a major participant in most of the ones you'll come across. It might be somewhat more work than just assuming I am because I disagree with you, but, I don't know, I feel like maybe you'd get a more accurate picture by actually looking at what I've said. Plus, in a couple of places, I think I might have said some kinda eloquent stuff, so I'm trying to get people to look at it. Then they'll all think I'm a cool guy.
posted
Why should pushing a particular set of sexual attractions work any better on straight teenagers than on gay ones? Especially in a culture where 'gay' is used as an insult. There is a huge, huge difference between 'Oh, I fooled around a bit with someone of the same sex once' and self-identifying as gay.
As for your 50% statistic, why shouldn't teenagers experiment with their own sex? Much safer than the terrifying world of Boys (or Girls, as the case might be) and with no risk of pregnancy at that. And yes, I might go so far as to claim that this would always have been the norm, except for the effect of what passed for morals in our parents' day.
EDIT : Gah, Squicky got there first and with a longer post at that. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to point out that Vanity Fair polls have an obvious selection bias, which is not present in the peer-reviewed journals comrade Squicky was referring to. I think someone needs to get their head out of the anti-intellectual mindset the mainstream media impose, and actually look at some evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Briefly (I can respond in greater depth tomorrow), I'm making a distinction between what one believes as a matter of personal conscience (which varies according to relgious upbringing) and what rights and responsibilities one has to all members of society at large.
quote: Neither your values NOR mine have any special protection in any way shape or form. Nor should they!
I agree. The operative word is "special."
quote: The only values that can and should be accepted are those that contribute or at the least do no irreperable harm to the functioning of society at large.
Wrong. We have a system of ethics which is derived from the notion that individuals are responsible for their own decisions. We expect our social relationships to occur in a state of non-coersion and legal equality. I cannot ethically shout fire in crowded theatre, give LSD to children, etc. due to the obvious danger this puts people in against their own wills.
That is why I said:
quote: Ethics, just so were clear, are the rules that we all have agreed upon, by social contract, to enforce upon one another as individuals. Morality runs more deeply – it is a matter of personal conscience. We may consider something “immoral” that is not unethical, such as what two consenting adults do together in a bedroom.
A couple that agrees to pre-marital sex enounters no ethical problem, even if their religions forbid it, because their decision is not coerced. What remains is a moral problem. Please try to keep this distinction in mind.
quote: On the other hand - the question is - is gay marriage disruptive to society as a whole? THAT is really what you should be sticking to. Not some gobbledeegook (sorry about the spelling) of "my values are just as good as yours".
I do not argue that my values are equal to someone else's. I do not believe that, nor do you. I argue that my values are not to be forced on others. Only our common ethical responsibilities should be coerced by the force of law - and these responsibilites are a matter of social and individual contract.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KidB, thanks for a very informative and interesting essay. One thing that caught my attention was your statements on traditional marriage. I agree for the most part on what you say about traditional marriages but mostly because of my understanding of modern day marriages. Do you have facts or references on some of the points you bring up like; why the wife is a second class citizen or it was tradition for her to take the name of the husband because the property had exchanged hands. And why, if this is true didn't the husband always pay the family of the wife a dowry instead of the husband getting a dowry? And with such a diverse population what was a "traditional marriage" in America?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have struggled with so many of the issues you have illustrated, that I am going to go back and read the essay again before responding. One point that you brought up that really caught my eye was the correlation of woman’s' independence and the disintegration of the social sanctity of marriage. I want to think about this idea a bit more.
Squick- I like the word "psuhed". Even if it is a mis-spelling, it says "psychologically pushed" to me.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: ball, I'm a trained researcher and this is one of my minor fields of interest.
Mea Culpa!
quote:The studies I'm talking about are all peer reivewed and published in reputable journals. I don't believe I nor they deserve the disrespect you answered me with.
I knew someone was going to assume I regarded the "studies" on gay child rearing as being bogus. Actually, I don't. I just find it utterly irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
As for disrespecting studies. I shall disrespect any statement which uses the word "studies" as proof of anything. You want to prove yourself, quote the study and point to it.
All the more so, since this is your field of interest! You have even less of an excuse for using the "studies have shown" line than the average person, who doesn't necessarily have the relevent study at his fingertips.
Lets be honest here. How many times have you yourself seen someone, who knows next to nothing, quote a "study", which you, as trained researcher knew damn well was utterly meaningless? Didn't you grit your teeth even once? Can't you understand how even a person of moderate education, who is not a trained researcher can be somewhat tired of being handed conflicting studies by people who are more out to prove whatever point they have then by the truth wherever it may lie?
Heh, I'm sure you must have had at least one tooth give a good grit when I quote that Vanity Fair article?
Anyway, it doesn't make a difference, since the effect of parenting by gay parents has nothing at all to do with my point. Which brings us to our next quote:
quote:Your contention was that saying that outside pressure would influence kids into adopting sexualities that they didn't have have was "probably understating the situation in the extreme". I offered up evidence that suggested that despite the external influences that come from having gay parents, the children of gay parents were no more likely to self-identify as gay than the children of straight parents. I think that is pretty relevant to what you said.
"peer-pressure" and "parents". Come on man, don't torture me like this! Have pity on me! You probably either have kids or know people who have had kids. Hell, you were probably even a kid yourself once. Can you really not see the difference between the pressures of fellow students and the pressures of a family environment? Are you actually going to tell me that all those thousands of teens who start smoking do so with the blessings and help of their parents? Do I really need to make this point to you?
quote:If we're arguing about the likelihood of people being psuhed into sexual orientations that they didn't have, I'd point to the pretty notable failure of the ex-gay movement to actually convert gay people into straight. etc. etc.
But what on earth does all the above have to do with a reality of people of many teens becoming far more sexually active in a greater variety of ways even than in previous decades? Yes yes, I know of "studies" that show that teens have all become born-again virgins. Sorry, but that doesn't seem to mesh with what I actually observe. It's that "reality" vs "theory" thing.
quote:Also, I find your assertion that the acceptance of gay marriage is going to be met with a mass movement pushing the idea that being gay is cool to be more than a little bizarre. I can't really think of anything to say to that because I don't see where this idea is coming from.
mr. squiky. I am going to say the same thing to you that I said to kid - that war, is already done and dead. You are fighting to convince me that something which has already happened won't happen. It's a waste of time, it's also boring to respond to. If you really don't see it, then ce' la vie my friend. I have better things to do then argue the sky is blue to someone who insists that it shall always be cyan.
quote:Then they'll all think I'm a cool guy.
Awwwww. I already think you're a cool guy. C'mere Squiks {{{{{{platonic hugs}}}}}}
edit: Actually, I have a question. Why do we call a non-sexual friendship "platonic"? Shouldn't it be the opposite? I'm basing this on what I generally got from his writings.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'd also like to point out that Vanity Fair polls have an obvious selection bias, which is not present in the peer-reviewed journals comrade Squicky was referring to. I think someone needs to get their head out of the anti-intellectual mindset the mainstream media impose, and actually look at some evidence.
LOL! That's the only thing you can see wrong with my using "Vanity Fair" poll? I'm not even sure if it was Vanity Fair which published that poll.
Anyway, the point wasn't that Vanity Fair is a good source of information. It isn't, it's a crappy source. I wouldn't have brought it up, except that this is something I believe which is obvious and pervasive. It isn't as though anybody who hangs out is unaware of the burgeoning, shall we say, open-mindedness of young women.
But again, I'm not even arguing that is wrong. Certainly I believe it to be so. But I know better than to make such an argument in this enlightened age. I am arguing (oh brother, why am I bothering?) that if certain forms of behavior are sanctioned then a certain segment of society will encourage it, and a particular segment of society will be susceptible to that encouragement. That's pretty much it. I don't see why that is a revelation, or why anyone even disagrees. If anything, I think most people on one side of the debate would be thrilled to know that things are going well for their cause.
<yawns>
It's four AM, and I have a lot of work to do today.
quote: The only values that can and should be accepted are those that contribute or at the least do no irreperable harm to the functioning of society at large.
Wrong. We have a system of ethics which is derived from the notion that individuals are responsible for their own decisions. We expect our social relationships to occur in a state of non-coersion and legal equality. I cannot ethically shout fire in crowded theatre, give LSD to children, etc. due to the obvious danger this puts people in against their own wills.
quote: I argue that my values are not to be forced on others. Only our common ethical responsibilities should be coerced by the force of law - and these responsibilites are a matter of social and individual contract.
No prob. So you believe that
1. The NY ciggarette tax should be repealed 2. Alcohol and Tobbacco companies should be allowed to target teens or even preschoolers in their ads
Personally, I believe that alcohol and tobacco ads should be simply banned, but for practical reasons the cig tax should probably be repealed since it will do more harm in illegal smuggling than good. (Heh. Actually if you really wanted to kill the tobacco industry, you'd force price controls on their cigs, say 3$ a pack.)
See, the way it seems to me is, that you would have no problem with an able bodied adult in buying a ciggarette, but you would have a problem with the cig and alcohol ads for children. Right?
That would parallel an able bodied adult choosing whatever sexual relationship they prefer.
However, when it comes to a state sanctioned "homosexual marriage", it is more than just about having financial rights, it is also about sending a societal message, otherwise, why would anyone care? If it is financial burdens that primarily concern people then one should stick to arguing tax cuts, not marriage.
Clearly, it is the aspect of marriage as a sanctioned activity by society that is most important. Therefore, if someone thinks it's OK to ban cig ads, then they should think it's OK to ban that societal message if they feel the message is harmful.
This is why I said that your values are not protected. We're in quirky ground here, so you have to forgive me if I don't express myself correctly. What I meant, and should have said is that your values are not protected as a societal institution. Which is not the same as saying that someone's expression is protected. I think you can undertand what I am trying to say, but I realize that you may want clarification, if so, ask and I'll give it.
On the other hand, if someone thinks that you cannot restrict a message to society that this union is sanctioned by the State, then how in the world can you ban the cig and alcohol ads? Remember, the teens are also a part of society, and if we can prohibit a particular message being sent to them, then we can prohibit another that also includes the rest of society.
Now, I just want to pre-empt any tangents. I am NOT arguing that homosexuality is wrong, or that a societal message sanctifying and recognizing such a relationship is wrong. Of course, that is what I believe, but that is not the arguement I am making.
What I am arguing is that society has the right to ban or prohibit a message that it deems harmful to society as a whole. Of course the issue as to whether or not this message is or isn't harmful is important! But that is a seperate arguement - at least on my end. I take issue with the concept that all values are protected as a societal institution.
It seems to me that your arguement is that society can not prohibit any such thing because it would get in the way of an individuals choice.
Now it could very well be that you don't believe that, and I have misunderstood you. In fact, I think there is a very good chance of that. Which is why I am bringing examples such as the cig and alcohol ads targeted to minors. I want to see where you draw your lines and how you get there. (I'm also doing it because I love trying to score points in a good debate )
I also realize that my argument is a bit off the cuff and very unpolished. It is a bit muddled, and for that I apologize. Normally I would never apologize for any such thing on a BB, but in your case, you obviously went out of your way to present a clear arguement that hit the point, so you really deserve the same in return.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. And I hate oranges!
I'll start at the beginning.
1. I have a problem with all "sin" taxes because the message of the state is usually hypocritical - "we believe you should not be using this product, but since you are, we'll reap gobs of revenue from your 'sin' and use it to fund services which then become dependant on your sinning." However, a sin tax does not prevent anyone from smoking - it just makes it more expensive.
2. I do not believe that advertising is protected speech, because I do not believe in the personhood of corporations. (That being said, I think marketing cigarrettes to teens is the mother-of-all-bogeymen. There is no better time to smoke than when you're young and healthy. I'm not kidding. Imagine a world where cigarrettes were marketed only to teens, in which smoking as an adult was a sign of immaturity. Perfect! I we could get everyone to quit by the time they were 30, we could stop 99% of the lung-cancer deaths caused by smoking.)
quote: Clearly, it is the aspect of marriage as a sanctioned activity by society that is most important. Therefore, if someone thinks it's OK to ban cig ads, then they should think it's OK to ban that societal message if they feel the message is harmful.
I really don't see a connection here. Marriage is not speech. I do not advertise my marriage to the public, and expect to profit by it. It is a private affair. Likewise, I might favor a ban on advertising cigarrettes in a public space, while still favoring the right of individuals to buy and sell them in the private sector.
quote: This is why I said that your values are not protected. We're in quirky ground here, so you have to forgive me if I don't express myself correctly. What I meant, and should have said is that your values are not protected as a societal institution. Which is not the same as saying that someone's expression is protected. I think you can undertand what I am trying to say, but I realize that you may want clarification, if so, ask and I'll give it.
I agree that values are not protected as a societal institution. That was my point as well. Rights are protected, not values.
Rights are defined in terms of action - the right to do or not do. Values are not actions, but rather characteristics of one individual or another. I have, certain values, but I act according to my rights.
quote: What I am arguing is that society has the right to ban or prohibit a message that it deems harmful to society as a whole. Of course the issue as to whether or not this message is or isn't harmful is important! But that is a seperate argument - at least on my end. I take issue with the concept that all values are protected as a societal institution.
I would argue that society has no such right. Now, lest you think I'm contradicting myself, let me clarify this point.
I believe we can regulate speech in the public sphere (billboards, daytime airwaves, etc.) because such speech often intrudes upon people who have not willingly submitted to it. However, I do not believe in the regulation of speech between voluntary private contract (cable TV, the internet, books, etc.).
Also, society is not an "it." There is never a consensus as to what is or is not harmful to "it." People need to decide for themselves what is or is not harmful to their own lives.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ballantrae, I think you may be misunderstanding that nature of our disagreement. Your assertion that peer pressure will push kids into taking on a sexuality that they don't actually have rests on the assumption that taking on a sexuality you don't have is something that happens. I've presented a bunch of evidence that suggests that this is not the case. If I can establish that sexuality is not really mutable, I don't need to directly test whether it would be mutable in situation X or Y or Z.
Incidentally, here's a survey of many of these studies about the effects of having gay parents, since you asked so nicely.
And again, I've no clue where you think this peer pressure is going to come from. If you look at environemnts in America where being gay is considered no problem and a large majority of people are pushing for gay marriage, such as certain cities and colleges, or other countries that have legalized same sex marriage, there doesn't seem to be this pushing of being gay as cool or being straight as bad. I don't see why you believe something that doesn't seem to me to have any logical reasoning nor empirical support behind it. Where are you getting this idea?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kidb - I read your post when it came out, and I've been considering it on and off through the afternoon. You raised some points that were pretty good, and I came up with some things in response. However, I need time to consider and formulate that response. So I'll probably post something tommorow evening.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Mea Culpa! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
