posted
Hum. This thread is moving fast. I'm going to give it a rest for some minutes to give everyone a chance to catch up. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: It doesn't Claudia. But since you bring it up, my argument is based on a Creator. Monotheism, Polytheism, Buddhism, they all believe this came from somewhere. The void in Buddhism isn't quite as purposeless as us westerners believe. The only true alternative to the ultimate basis for belief in the divine (Purpose) is Darwinism.
Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
"This came from somewhere" does not equal "there is a God"
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And speaking of divine morality, how do you decide whose divine morality is correct? If you're going to try to force everyone else to follow a divine morality, what laws do you pick? There are plenty of religiously-based beliefs that would sound pretty ridiculous when applied as law, such as deciding that it is immoral and wrong for women to wear pants.
posted
Resh, are you asserting that the ultimate basis for belief in the divine is a desire to understand where humanity came from? Because while I don't disagree, it's rare to hear someone who doesn't share my worldview come out and say it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
"This came from somewhere" does not equal "there is a God"
The only reason why I can make claims about things I don't know about is because if I couldn't I would not have anything to say. And neither would anyone else. I doubt you, as nice as you are (thanks by the way, you've been making this much more pleasant for me than some others have been) know everything there is to know about Christianity, but it is still okay for you to talk about it. I mean, in the great scheme of things, I don't know nothin about nothin. But I'm human, and I want to talk about these things I know nothing about. Maybe one day I'll know something. And some people learn by absorbing, but I learn best by talking about them. Contrary to Hatrack popular belief, I actually do try to understand what people are saying to me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what you CAN do is determine whether an illusionary morality is worth basing anything on. Beliefs, laws, whatever.
What would you use to determine this worth? Are we measuring the success of a given moral code by certain objective standards? Which metrics would you choose to benchmark?
More importantly, does this mean that the results of a belief are more important than the rationale behind it, or even the belief itself?
----------
quote:The only reason why I can make claims about things I don't know about is because if I couldn't I would not have anything to say. And neither would anyone else.
Resh, not EVERYTHING is an either/or situation. For example, I know a little bit about sports; I am capable of intelligently conversing about sports on a limited variety of topics. When we move to a topic about which I know little, I have a choice to make: I can pretend to know something about this topic, and make grand, sweeping, absolute statements about something I have very little knowledge of (like you've been doing about philosophy in this thread); or I can speak from the limits of my knowledge and then, once they're reached, ask questions or just listen as the conversation moves around me.
You could, for example, say something like "I'm not aware of any argument for morality that doesn't require a God, but then I'm not that familiar with the last two hundred years of philosophy." And that would be absolutely unimpeachable, and someone might well step up and fill in the blanks for you -- probably in a MUCH less hostile way than if you just said "there is no morality that doesn't require God."
Your familiarity with philosophical thought seems completely limited to apologia. This limits your perspective on these topics to the point that you simply don't have the knowledge base necessary to make sweeping assertions with any sort of credibility or authority.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: And speaking of divine morality, how do you decide whose divine morality is correct? If you're going to try to force everyone else to follow a divine morality, what laws do you pick? There are plenty of religiously-based beliefs that would sound pretty ridiculous when applied as law, such as deciding that it is immoral and wrong for women to wear pants.
-pH
This, despite some very loud protests, is where democracy comes in. We gotta make a decision about these things somehow, and contrary to what progressives seem to believe, atheism is not the default position.
And I just realized that I just took my natural tone, so to speak. Is that sort of writing what pisses people off? Because I've been making a real effort to soften everything I've written, but not with the above paragraph.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what you CAN do is determine whether an illusionary morality is worth basing anything on. Beliefs, laws, whatever.
What would you use to determine this worth? Are we measuring the success of a given moral code by certain objective standards? Which metrics would you choose to benchmark?
More importantly, does this mean that the results of a belief are more important than the rationale behind it, or even the belief itself?
These questions, Tom, I believe are for the individual to answer.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What pisses people off is when they try to engage you in discussion and you directly insult their intelligence.
But that's the thing. Democracy shouldn't really be about God because everyone has different ideas of if there's a God, how many gods there are, what he/she/it/they are like, and what said God entit(y/ies) want. And more people believing X does not make X correct or moral. The early Christians were in the minority and were persecuted terribly. I think when it comes to legislation, the focus should be on allowing people the freedom to choose what is moral and what isn't, insofar as it doesn't interfere with the well-being of others.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Resh, are you asserting that the ultimate basis for belief in the divine is a desire to understand where humanity came from? Because while I don't disagree, it's rare to hear someone who doesn't share my worldview come out and say it.
Missed this one; moving so fast.
I think that that is a possibility. I think most people believe what they believe because that is what they are taught. But for the most skeptical of us all, this would probably be it. C.S. Lewis, Descartes, and Socrates comes to mind.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The only reason why I can make claims about things I don't know about is because if I couldn't I would not have anything to say.
You can ask questions about them instead, or you can make provisional statements. Making declarations of fact (or claims of truth) isn't the only option. [or, what TomD said. ]
quote:And neither would anyone else. I doubt you, as nice as you are (thanks by the way, you've been making this much more pleasant for me than some others have been) know everything there is to know about Christianity, but it is still okay for you to talk about it.
For sure (and thanks). I don't make sweeping statements about it, though. At least, I try not to, as it isn't helpful to me or others.
quote: I mean, in the great scheme of things, I don't know nothin about nothin. But I'm human, and I want to talk about these things I know nothing about. Maybe one day I'll know something. And some people learn by absorbing, but I learn best by talking about them. Contrary to Hatrack popular belief, I actually do try to understand what people are saying to me.
That's great. Really, it is. And I like the RPB I've seen here much much more than who I'd seen previously, for what it's worth. These are some important topics, and they are worth puzzling through together with people you trust to work with you, to try to understand you as you try to understand them.
Anyway, it is past my bedtime. I'll look forward to catching up on this thread later. My sweetie and I have an early departure time tomorrow, so it'll be awhile.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:These questions, Tom, I believe are for the individual to answer.
Then they're meaningless questions from a broader perspective. Because if big-M Morality and little-m morality ARE equivalent except in their results, and those results are up to each individual to measure, what you're really saying is that morality itself is relative.
I don't disagree, but I just want to point out that you have just rediscovered moral relativism AND the second important observation of existentialism. Based on what you've said about those philosophies, I suspect this was not a desired outcome.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: What pisses people off is when they try to engage you in discussion and you directly insult their intelligence.
But that's the thing. Democracy shouldn't really be about God because everyone has different ideas of if there's a God, how many gods there are, what he/she/it/they are like, and what said God entit(y/ies) want. And more people believing X does not make X correct or moral. The early Christians were in the minority and were persecuted terribly. I think when it comes to legislation, the focus should be on allowing people the freedom to choose what is moral and what isn't, insofar as it doesn't interfere with the well-being of others.
-pH
I don't think that about the majority opinion makes it right. I am specifically talking about goverment. And in that regards, what is required is the best system possible. The best possible is probably not what we have, or have had, but it's the best so far. Or at least it was. The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
This, by the way, is an example of a sweeping statement made in a thuddingly ignorant way.
If you're going to make this sort of assertion, you need to explain WHY you think a) secularism is "creeping" into our system rather than built directly into it; and b) why you think atheism erodes the strength of a democratic government.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
Why? Because of your Morality vs. morality? Then you go right back to the problem of different people having different interpretations of what morality is.
quote:These questions, Tom, I believe are for the individual to answer.
Then they're meaningless questions from a broader perspective. Because if big-M Morality and little-m morality ARE equivalent except in their results, and those results are up to each individual to measure, what you're really saying is that morality itself is relative.
I don't disagree, but I just want to point out that you have just rediscovered moral relativism AND the second important observation of existentialism. Based on what you've said about those philosophies, I suspect this was not a desired outcome.
Don't get ahead of me. Just because i think everyone has to make their own decisions at some point doesn't mean I don't think that sometimes they are wrong. Confusing...
What I mean to say is that I don't think someone can come to accept moral relativism without screwing up in their thinking somewhere along the way. The reason why I leave it wide open is because I don't think I'm exempt from screwing it up myself.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because i think everyone has to make their own decisions at some point doesn't mean I don't think that sometimes they are wrong.
Then you failed to answer my earlier question. What system should be used to determine the effectiveness of a moral code, and should moral codes be judged on their effectiveness alone? If there are right answers to those questions, what's your take on them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
This, by the way, is an example of a sweeping statement made in a thuddingly ignorant way.
If you're going to make this sort of assertion, you need to explain WHY you think a) secularism is "creeping" into our system rather than built directly into it; and b) why you think atheism erodes the strength of a democratic government.
Come on now, I know that. I get criticized for insulting peoples' intellegence but it happens to me all the time. The thing is, I'm sure you didn't mean it, because I know I do it without meaning to all the time.
Honestly, I'm just tired of saying "I think.. or I believe.." before every statement I make. It should be a given that eeeeverything I say is a statement of my opinion UNLESS it's an obvious fact. I BELIEVE that the creeping influence of atheism is eroding our nation's strength, and I could really make a strong argument for it. But how many topics do we need to cover in this thread?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because i think everyone has to make their own decisions at some point doesn't mean I don't think that sometimes they are wrong.
Then you failed to answer my earlier question. What system should be used to determine the effectiveness of a moral code, and should moral codes be judged on their effectiveness alone? If there are right answers to those questions, what's your take on them?
I counter your hypothetical with another: Who should we let determine the effectiveness of a moral system, and who do we have determine whether the person assigned to make that determination is the most qualified to do so?
And how do we determine if what is determined to be the most effective moral code are to be determined on their moral effectiveness alone, or if we should instead determine their effectiveness on something other than how effective they are?
quote:Originally posted by pH: What is your "strong argument?" Why is atheism harmful in the first place?
-pH
pH, if you remeber to start a thread on this subject sometime on Monday, I promise I will present an argument to you (as soon as I think of one). But I'm simply unable to continue, and I got some snowboarding to do tomorrow morning. And then Christmassy things.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who should we let determine the effectiveness of a moral system, and who do we have determine whether the person assigned to make that determination is the most qualified to do so?
And how do we determine if what is determined to be the most effective moral code are to be determined on their moral effectiveness alone, or if we should instead determine their effectiveness on something other than how effective they are?
And here's where I answer: we don't. Morality is relative, and these questions are up to the individual. Because individuals have to exist in societies, individuals can use mechanisms ranging from democratic votes to armed warfare to reconcile their moral codes with those with which they do not agree. Hell is, after all, other people.
I can say this because I believe morality is a polite but necessary fiction, like our sense of self and our belief in free will. Someone who believes otherwise, however, actually needs to come up with an answer to those questions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
RPB, just a note before you go (or for when you return): It is so much easier to be pleasant with you when one is not being told to go back to playing with dolls, or that one is not an adult, or being called a "stupid-head." There are some things in this thread which really should be apologized for, and you would show yourself a better man for doing it. I'd like to see that happen.
Merry Christmas to you ,as well, and I wish you some of the peace you said eludes you. Or at least good egg nog. *smile
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, pausing my posts doesn't seem to have done any good. I'd still like an answer to this one, which appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sorry, Claudia, I'm not qualified to engage you here. Hitoshi, King of Men, I may be missing your guys point, but I think you guys are definitely missing mine. I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality. So Hitoshi, I'm not saying that we need our morality dictated to us by God. I'm saying that there is no Morality without him. I believe we are imbued with it in our being. And it comes from somewhere, and not evolutions un-purpose of self-preservation.
Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
posted
Just a side note: CT, thanks. I wasn't aware you were paying attention to that particular bit of info over on Sake, but--thank you for helping clarify the discussion while I wasn't around to do it myself. And yes, you have it nailed--I don't know if they suspect my orientation, but it's plain for anyone with an eye open to see that it's easy to needle me on my masculinity, and they do it. Constantly.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: RPB, just a note before you go (or for when you return): It is so much easier to be pleasant with you when one is not being told to go back to playing with dolls, or that one is not an adult, or being called a "stupid-head." There are some things in this thread which really should be apologized for, and you would show yourself a better man for doing it. I'd like to see that happen.
Actually, CT, that is excellent advice. So good, that I took it many hours ago on a different thread. pH was the only one I was being like that toward, and I would like to say I was being that way toward her because I thought it was what she wanted. I'd like to say that, but it wouldn't be true. So she showed up and I think I apologized, thought it might have been convoluted, since I'm always trying to make a point (if you haven't noticed).* In case it wasn't clear, I'm sorry pH.
*I just realized as I was writing that I may have an unhealthy level of narcissism. It never occurred to me so clearly before. No one's ever accused me of of being narcissistic, but I'm gonna have a look into it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
KoM, did you intend this question to be serious? I'm assuming now you must have, since you've repeated it. But frankly, it's a cheap rhetorical trick and I suspect you know that.
Clearly, biggle doesn't believe that "[his] god does not exist." This is simply "Do you still beat your wife" transposed into metaphysics.
For the record, I agree that all morality comes from God. Asking me if there would be no morality without God is like asking what we would be like if we didn't exist or what a circle would be like if it weren't round - a meaningless question.*
It is immoral to kill other humans (in general) not because "God said so" but because God made the universe and us in such a way that killing is immoral - that is, that killing a human being creates a specific type of harm. Had God made the universe in another way - say, for example, it had respawn zones like Quake - then killing humans might not be as generally wrong as it is, although it probably would be wrong in some or many circumstances. Ultimately, yes, God did "say so" when he chose to create the world this way. But it's very different than thinking morality is just a decree.
*My now standard disclaimer that while I believe all morality comes from God, atheists can be moral with respect to those aspects of morality that do not arise from one's direct duties toward God. In this case, direct is meant to exclude those duties that act or omit actions with respect to individual people but that are really duties to God (i.e., what you do to the least of your brothers, etc.). In some sense, all morality is a duty to God so atheists fulfill many duties to God when they fulfill their duties towards others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for that Dagonee. It was well worded, strong, and at the same time about as non-confrontational as a statement of belief can be.
If anyone on either side of the aisle of any of our contentious discussions wants to really teach (as opposed to preach or harrangue) and/or to learn, they'd do well to follow Dag's example (here and elsewhere) of calm, precise languange couched in an attitude of really trying to understand and be understood.
Happy Holidays Dag. You're part of what makes Hatrack worth the effort.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is an excellent post, Dagonee. Your reputation is well-deserved.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Actually, CT, that is excellent advice. So good, that I took it many hours ago on a different thread.
That's great, and it speaks well of you. Especially your willingness to repeat the apology again here. Well done.
quote:pH was the only one I was being like that toward,
Beg to differ. The Pixiest and Olivet were also caught in the crossfire, and in my decided opinion, deserve the same grace and acknowledgment of wrong from you. That is hard to do, even when merited. I think you can do it.
(I can also quote here the posts I am referring to, but I don't think that's necessary. If it is, I'm happy to come back and do so, and we can discuss it, should you like.)
quote:*I just realized as I was writing that I may have an unhealthy level of narcissism. It never occurred to me so clearly before. No one's ever accused me of of being narcissistic, but I'm gonna have a look into it.
I, too, have been figuring out things about myself lately that I do not like. *wryly
For me, this involves narcissism, unwarranted assumptions, deep-seated fears, suppressed self-loathing, not-so-suppressed hubris, and an unhealthy dose of willful ignorance. Go, me! *sigh
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: For me, this involves narcissism, unwarranted assumptions, deep-seated fears, suppressed self-loathing, not-so-suppressed hubris, and an unhealthy dose of willful ignorance. Go, me! *sigh
Welcome to the club, CT. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
KoM, did you intend this question to be serious? I'm assuming now you must have, since you've repeated it. But frankly, it's a cheap rhetorical trick and I suspect you know that.
Yes, I would like to know what Resh thinks of the question; as for the rhetoric, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
quote:It is immoral to kill other humans (in general) not because "God said so" but because God made the universe and us in such a way that killing is immoral - that is, that killing a human being creates a specific type of harm.
Hang on, hang on. That just puts the question at one further remove: Could your god have created a universe such that causing harm is a good thing?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A more apt question, I think, is: Could God have created a universe in which everything we did, including killing other people, was a good thing?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could your god have created a universe such that causing harm is a good thing?
I actually have little interest in this question, mainly for the reason given in response to Tom's. If it were a good thing, then either "harm" or "good thing" would be so different as to be another thing altogether.
quote:Could God have created a universe in which everything we did, including killing other people, was a good thing?
Yes, but only if the nature of "killing" and/or "people" was very different.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could your god have created a universe such that causing harm is a good thing?
I actually have little interest in this question, mainly for the reason given in response to Tom's. If it were a good thing, then either "harm" or "good thing" would be so different as to be another thing altogether.
Are you saying, then, that 'harm' is that which by definition is bad? If so, aren't you saying that there exists a morality which your god cannot touch; that it may define what things are harmful, but is powerless to decree that harm be a good thing?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
CT, are you or your mom from the South?
I love it when women I don't really know say that to me, but so few do that these days. About the only place left where I can get a good 'Sugar' is at the Waffle House.
(Note, this is not my backhanded way of asking to be addressed as such on this forum. I'm just making an observation.)
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If so, aren't you saying that there exists a morality which your god cannot touch; that it may define what things are harmful, but is powerless to decree that harm be a good thing?
posted
Here are a "few" more thoughts, just to add one more viewpoint into the mix in hopes of getting somewhere useful in this discussion:
First off, because the environment surrounding this issue is so heated as to render a few clarifications and disclaimers necessary, let me try to preemptively counter a few of the more common arguments put forth against people who share my view, or similar views. Not all of the arguments I'm trying to counter have been put forth here, and some might even seem to be strawmen or include false dichotomies, but I find them prevalent enough (and taken very seriously often enough) in meatspace to warrant the inclusion of my rebuttals when I'm going for a general precis-type thingy here:
1. I am not an old fat white man who is in a position of power trying to keep them Damn Queers (TM) down so as not to disturb my tenuous hold on the reigns of my oppressive, patriarchal, and smugly bigoted system of monopolistic corruption. I am fifty percent Caucasian, but the other fifty is Hispanic/Native South American. I have at least as much "right" to feeling "oppressed" by the "old fat white man" (which is in fact a deeply racist stereotype) as any other group (and more, if anything, than some). I am also pretty young; twenty-one this past September does not an aged dictator make. I am, however, fairly cherubic, if that helps to build a case against me. *grin*
2. I have utterly no animosity towards homosexuals as a group. If an individual homosexual intentionally behaves violently, cruelly, or impolitely, then of course I would indeed look down on him or her, but only in the same way I'd look down at any other member of any other group who behaved the same way; it would have nothing to do with their orientation. I'm wary of the patronizing "but some of my best friends are black!" attitude, but for what it's worth, one of my very best friends for nearly a decade is a semi-outed bisexual, and while I have not gotten along particularly well (though never particularly badly, either) with a few of the other gay people I've known, it was for reasons that had everything to do with the difference between their personalities and mine, not whatever they did in their bedrooms. I have no wish to see good people like my friend hurt for my differing viewpoint, but I do feel an obligation to spell out my reasoning when I honestly disagree with someone's position for what might be seen as somewhat unusual or uncommon reasons.
3. I believe that if I had a compelling reason to, I could be attracted to a member of the same sex myself. This does nothing to prove or disprove that sexuality is a spectrum and I'm merely revealing my own core bisexuality, for I am in fact deeply straight. The difference between me and some other males might be that I am also a visual artist, and I don't seem to have the same odd loathing for the male form that many of my peers (including many, if not most, of my female friends) have, or at least profess to have. I can't even count the number of people I've heard claim that the male body is somehow less aesthetically pleasing than the female form. People who refer to the female genitals in derogatory ways are hounded out of the room, but people who refer to the male organs sneeringly as being just so obviously disgusting are quite often awarded knowing chuckles. Males and females have an equal potential to be beautiful; there is grace and power and, yes, beauty in both the masculine and feminine examples of humanity. The forms of our bodies are lovely in their brilliantly-evolved functionality.
4. I am not a Fundamentalist Christian trying to force-feed my religion down poor heathen throats. I am agnostic lately bordering on atheistic, and while I have a deep respect for many religions and was raised in an (at best nominally) "Christian" household, I do not currently subscribe to any organized religious dogma or ideology (though I'm quite unafraid to keep from ruling out the possibility for conversion in the future, and I do recognize that most, if not all, humans do in fact act upon at the very least an unorganized "religion" or "faith" of whatever they hold to be foundationally, axiomatically "true"). Whatever conclusions I reach have, like all my views, inevitably been shaped, however subconsciously, by what scant religious ideas I was taught in childhood (though I must add that I was a member of a Church that was quite readily in favor of homosexual marriage, and if anything, this should predispose me towards the "supporting" end of the spectrum, as indeed my position was for many years), but I believe I've overcome to the best of my ability those early influences, and I'm confident that my position can be adduced from empirical evidence rather than a nonexisting faith, however pious.
5. I am not angry, spiteful, or vindictive for any reason. I'm perfectly calm as I write this, aside from the normal intensity I get when in the midst of composing. In other words, if anything I say comes out as harsh due to the incompatibility of our beliefs, know that it is my lack of effective rhetorical ability, not malice. I don't think "offense" is a useful emotion anyway, and I try not to indulge in it myself; I view it as a natural storytelling-primate's cautious evolutionary response to exposure to a different community's epic and therefore often irreconcilable causal self-story. I think that the metaphorical road to heaven, not hell, is paved in good intentions; no one group or individual or viewpoint has a monopoly on offense-taking -- and to say anything worth saying will inevitably step on someone's toes -- so I believe that people should be considered on the basis of what their intentions are, as far as we can reasonably ascertain them.
(Tragically, of course, these disclaimers have the effect of weakening me rhetorically, since I've basically started out apologizing for my beliefs even though I do not believe such an apology should, ideally, be necessary -- but I do think that my position is strong enough to take it.)
In other words, if someone can still call my position "homophobic", or based on misplaced faith, misguided naivete, or insecure paranoia, or "biased" (as if every view held by every single person who ever existed wasn't already hopelessly biased), then the words have lost all meaning and are merely being used as bludgeons to silence dissenting viewpoints in such a way as to render the bludgeon-er innocent of the very intolerance of opposing perspectives they're accusing me of. I'm sure there are many rational arguments and counter-worldviews to any position I might take, but I really think this can be a fair discussion of ideas, not a useless round of offense-taking in which people get offended at each other's offense and nothing ever gets solved because we're too busy defending our wounded dignity. Neither do I think we have to go for the obvious "it's easy to anticipate -- and counter for -- the fact that others will accuse you of being bigoted because you really are" position that people on both sides seem to take. It's cool if we disagree, but let's all get over ourselves and be grownups about it for a spell, eh? I think we're gradually getting better at it.
Of course, in expressing my particular views, I'm usually hampered by all the baggage that traditionally comes with the people who share similar conclusions but came to them through and support them with different reasoning. The subcommunities of people who hold that all those God-forsaken gays are evil hellspawn whose emotions are deserving of ridicule or disgust (well, except for lesbian sex, the thought of which is actually kinda hawt) are far more abhorrent to me than most of the homosexuals I'm disagreeing with. I do think, however, that the number of bigots of this mob-leading variety are vastly over-exaggerated.
Both sides of the conflict are thus, in my view, demonizing the other side based not on any actual reasoned discourse but rather through the assumed evilness of all the irrelevant ancillary issues which are purportedly part of a package deal, and so people like me, after arriving at a conclusion which happens to coincide with the majority of one political party are often hounded as if we believed in all the tenets of that team, whether or not the majority of our actual stated opinions have anything to do with the team's stances at all. Apparently, if someone who doesn't conform to the stereotypical "ignorant conservative redneck cowboy" image doesn't support homosexual marriage, their alleged "moderate" position must obviously be a weird rhetorical pose cynically adopted in order to persuade those few who can be convinced that they're unbiased that they're in the right. Thankfully, I think we see on Hatrack that the number of people who take this view of things might be less common than some might suppose.
But it's still pretty messy. Let me say that no matter what your views, violence against someone in retaliation to anything other than immediate physical threat is utterly and wholly unjustified. Whether you want to beat up homosexuals and those who support them or give a smack down to those who would deny you your right to marry someone of the same sex, you're still engaged in a far more uncivilized and anti-communitarian action than anything your supposed "aggressors" ever did. So let's get control of ourselves and just talk for a minute (though the following, like most of our anthropological musings, ain't exactly reproducible science):
"Marriage", conventionally defined for now as being the socially-recognized monogamous reproductive union between a man and woman, has been going on for centuries. Long before there were churches or governments to interfere with our love lives, even before languages, people were gettin' it on with each other. Of course, in the reproductive free-for-all that is natural selection, early primates obviously tried every possible combination of sexual unions in their attempts to pass on their genetic material. Polygamy, for instance, with either female or male harems was undoubtedly practiced. There were countless possible combinations of amorous entanglements, countless social forms for them to function within, countless societies that experimented with the best ways to get everyone good and laid. Have you read about the mating and social customs of some of those little tribes in faraway jungles? Believe me, people have tried everything, no matter how weird it might seem to another culture.The question of whether or not humans are "naturally" monogamous is an interesting one, but not particularly relevant to this particular issue; I believe that we have no true "natural" tendency exclusively one way or another, and even if we did have a predilection towards one system over the other (as I believe many of us do towards serial monogomy), lifelong monogamy would still be a better form -- but that's just me, and smart people on opposite sides disagree. In any case, the male-female unit evolved at some point, and I am currently writing from within a culture where that tradition continued and is still considered to be the norm for many, perhaps most of the people in it.
I believe that the single-male to a single-female unit is the most efficient system possible; it has to do with the underlying reproductive stability that every civilization absolutely must maintain in order to thrive. Can you imagine the chaos if the reproductive free-for-all of those newly-evolved humans was still practiced today? We'd never be able to get anything important done if we all had to worry constantly that our mates might find a different partner, or worse, be kidnapped or raped by whatever hungry-to-pass-their-genes-on passerby came along. Polygamy results in a useless surplus of reproductively irrelevant people with no biological stake in peaceful civil society, other social forms deprive females of protection when they're in the deeply vulnerable late stages of pregnancy, or promote alpha-male violence and tribal reproductive instability, etc. etc. This system has the most chance for everyone to mate and everyone to have protection in vulnerable times, thereby keeping the gene pool fresh and expanding, meaning a larger and healthier human population more suited to adaptation, meaning better species survival.
Because of the differences between male and female physiology and psychology, however, it is very hard for most people to remain in monogamous relationships. The "best" approach for males to produce offspring would be to mate with anything that looked healthy, whereas the "best" approach for females would be to find the strongest male, most able to provide food, protection, etc. during her vulnerable periods, inevitably leading to more than one female per suitable male with leftover male rejects with no opportunity to reproduce. But with this system (or similar ones), the community is always in flux, with an "every man and woman for him or herself" mentality that would rapidly lead to the disintegration or at least instability of the tribe's social cohesion. No way to be friends with another male if there's no extremely powerful social story (usually underlying society unconsciously) reassuring the members of the community that their friends won't try to steal their mates. No way to be friends with another female if there's always a chance that she'll try to mate with your husband and thereby compete for his attentions at providing. Of course, in our utterly specialized society, the necessity of having someone to provide for the mother is often decreased, since with such specialized employment a single mother might still be able to provide for a child. But I don't think it's a trivial struggle; my mom was a single parent for a fair number of years, and she was often worn to the bone when me and my brother were growing up -- and we had it vastly better than many others I observed.
In other words, in order to reap the enormous benefits of a stable community, both males and females must subsume their "natural" strategies for reproduction into a community-sustaining social story that has integrity enough for people to trust and act on. There is, of course, room for a covert number of exceptions to this rule of monogamy, but if the rule set is not actively perceived to have full cooperation of the vast majority of the populace, the people begin to lose faith that their reproductive future in such a society is safe and transfer their allegiance to a community with a rule-set that upholds their values. The surface veneer of consensual civil society lingers on for awhile, as the covert exceptions use it as cover, but things gradually return to the natural free-for-all.
Note that my position does not involve "tricking" or "coercing" people to behave in socially-constructive ways, as I've seen some critics of this view assert. Instead, the only way it has a chance of functioning is, by necessity, when it is adhered to absolutely wholly voluntarily; social sanctions are often the only necessary force to reprimand people who violate the rules; "What a rake," or "that slut", etc. (Such sanctions can obviously be used for malicious purposes, with the intent usually being to secure one's own stake in reproductive society at the expense of someone else's, but that's another essay) People freely choose to enter into these relationships because they are so vastly beneficial as a continuation of peaceful civil society's norms, whether they're consciously thinking about the benefits or not. (Think of how many people say that they have anything but children on their mind and yet still long for someone who understands them, someone that will be as intimate as only a lover can be with them. Mating to reproduce may not be what they consciously have in mind, but our bodies aren't always necessarily in tune with our minds; there's a definite reason that our deepest longings and fears and hopes are often inextricably bound with our relationships with members of whatever sex we're attracted to; what is the biological purpose of such feelings, if not to urge us to find a suitable mate?)
I find it amusingly ironic, by the way, that religious people are very often looked down on with patronizing pity at their sad little existences in which having children is the grand purpose of life, the poor dears, whereas what is often perceived as the more educated atheistic stance is to tout "higher callings" or "more important issues and ideas" or whathaveyou and condemn views like mine as being "zoological" or "mechanistic" or merely "animalistic" as if these are inherently bad or untrue things. In fact, what is often touted as being an intrinsically and inseparably "religious" purpose to life is really the only view that seems to have the only actual scientific justification we have found yet: the sole "purpose" in nature (if something as un-anthropomorphic as nature can be said to have a "purpose"), as far as we can see, is to grow and reproduce, whereas the supposedly more elevated stance of "making my own purpose in life" and not worrying about reproduction at all seems to me to be in fact an utterly faithful religion with no empirical evidence that it is even likely to be possible to be true beyond the sheer sincerity of the believer's beliefs. Many of us in the Western world have become so used to sneering at people who choose to center their lives on children that we forget some of the most basic things: although yes, there are obviously other essential jobs for people in societies to do besides raise children, it is foundationally necessary that children be raised so as to learn and believe that those jobs need doing in the first place, that they really are a part of the community. In other words, good child-rearing is what civilization depends on; a tribe composed wholly of homosexuals who only acted on their sexual predilections (who weren't artificially inseminated, in other words) would die out in a generation. Their existence is utterly dependant upon the vast majority of heterosexual civilization, which in turn is utterly dependant on the fundamental rules governing sexual behaviour that must be utterly adhered to for the safety of the future stability of the community. And yet it is actually regarded as a political or moral statement to admit that reproduction influences the vast majority of human activity, just as it does any successful species.
This cultural transmission, in which adults actively teach children to uphold and conserve the benefits they themselves have reaped of a reproductively stable community is most efficiently disseminated through male and female parents. Because the constant balancing act of monogamy between males and females must be learned, then in a successful marriage, children whether they are male or female grow up with their earliest memories so deep that they're not even consciously aware of them knowing how to act because there was both a mother and a father in their family. They learn what is needed to navigate the intersexual oceans through observing both of their monogamous parents from earliest memory on up continually compromising and reaching consensual agreements.
I do not believe that this is trivial information, and it is indeed important that it be learned early on. Again, the whole basis for community is overcoming seemingly irreconcilable feelings and urges and beliefs between communities of individuals, tribes, nations. Hard enough when in groups of the same sex, with the accompanying understanding of the same anatomy and similar life-experiences and patterns. How much harder, then, is it to bridge all the various differences between males and females, with all their conflicting desires and emotional ups and downs? In a successful marriage, children will have a pre-reconciled world, in which they are shown how to communicate effectively and surmount the vast gulf that separates the sexes -- the farthest, largest physical and mental divide possible among human beings. It is the basis for all further compromise and understanding in their lives, this good example in the formative years of communicating with people who are as different as it is possible for humans to be, in everything from anatomy to the very way that their brains are wired.
This is especially important to me; my parents were divorced as I was growing up, and for years I pretended not to be affected because I was surrounded by adults who assured me that nothing was wrong, it wasn't my fault, etc. etc. Well duh, of course it wasn't my fault for their divorce -- it was absolutely needed, and that wasn't what I was thinking about. But I pretended that it didn't affect me even though it did; it was more on a fundamental level, that I never really got to see a healthy relationship between men and women when I was most able to be genuinely viscerally (as opposed to intellectually) influenced. Add to this the fact that my parents come from utterly different geographical locations, cultures, even languages, and it really drove home to me the idea that society is built from marriages on up, with the process for everything from political negotiations to cooperative scientific experimentation being learned most effectively when one is a tiny little kid. Indeed, if any "revolution" has ever been needed, it wasn't to get women into the workforce, it was to get men back in the home. The compromises needed on a fundamental level to maintain a marriage provide the basis for all other compromises to be understood. I have friends who are just naturals at relationships. I look at them and how they act when they're around their significant others, and I think "How in the world do they know how to do that, act so kindly, be so committed?" Like most things, it had to be learned, but they learned it so early that they don't even think that what they're doing is unusual or noteworthy at all. For them, that's just the way they're supposed to act in order to remain honorable in their eyes. But it's not easy, and I know it certainly doesn't come naturally to me. It's a real achievement.
I'm still pretty messed up. I don't think I've ever had a truly healthy relationship (almost always because of me), and I think it's because I have no idea how to, I have no idea what is expected of me. I go to fast or too slow, I give too much or not enough, I'm too arrogant or too malleable, too rigid or too flexible, too possessively clingy or too coldly aloof, and on and on and on. I think it's a mirror of the free-for-all that would occur if everyone had grown up the same way I did, with no particular directions for how to act correctly. Naturally, of course, kids are tough. If someone can survive growing up some godforsaken thirdworld country long enough to find their way to America and become a doctor or something, then I'm sure that in general most kids won't be torturously scarred for life by being raised by Adam and Steve, or having divorced parents, or any of the countless "hurdles" that are placed in their way. If anything, I think gay marriage is far less harmful than divorce, which is far less harmful than an abusive home. But it doesn't mean that it's a trivial struggle of willpower.
Similarly, I don't agree with the comparisons made between homosexual marriage and the absolutely essential quest for equal civil rights for women and racial minorities; homosexuality, no matter how strong the physical genetic component (and I believe that there is a very strong genetic component of predisposition to it, though such predisposition may be exacerbated by social forces found in a community environment) is still a behaviour acted out in a community; whether or not someone has a genetic predisposition to behave in these ways within a community is quite irrelevant, for we constantly regulate social behaviour no matter what the cause. Many more males have a genetic propensity towards violence than to homosexuality, after all, but we regard only those who have mastered those tendencies as adults. It seems to me to be infantalizing and in fact downright insulting to suggest that because homosexuals are "born that way" that they are incapable of controlling their actions and acting on willpower alone. Someone's race or gender, on the other hand, is a physical attribute which is utterly undetermined by the actions and behaviour of the person (except through artificial physical modification, though of course this begs the question of whether or not using willpower to alter the physical manifestations of your sexual orientation might not also be considered "artificial") and thus unrelated.
I think there's a fundamental disconnect between those on the traditional marriage side and those on the gay marriage side, and that is this: those of the traditional marriage side are more directly cognizant of the reproductive processes involved in a way that homosexual couples or couples not planning on having children are obviously not privy to. In this sense, the traditionalists hold gender and sexuality to be entwined with birth and the raising of children in a way that homosexuals don't. Instead, gay people are in it entirely for the love. They're attempting to redefine the traditional meaning of the physical and emotional acts they perform in their relationship to gain the social recognition and legitimacy as having equal standing as the physical and emotional acts performed in a heterosexual marriage. Because they see marriage to mean the union of any two people (and thus equal in form to traditional marriage), regardless of sex, into a committed, loving relationship, a "meeting of the minds" so to speak, then they're obviously frustrated that they shouldn't be allowed to. It's fundamentally unfair and irrelevant, in this view, when people say to them: "Look, you have the exact same rights that anyone else does, no one is barring you from anything; no one is stopping you from forming a union with a member of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is defined as being. No one is asking you to prove your heterosexuality; there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of you getting a marriage except your ability to find someone of the opposite sex willing to marry you." (this point is widely derided as being self-refutingly inaccurate, but it is in fact a legitimate argument; it merely depends on a definition that not everyone subscribes to) This is unfair from the homosexual point of view because it seemingly does not apply to anyone except, in effect, to exclude them; they've defined marriage as being completely about love, and not about what gender the person is. In the end, I think it really does come down to an argument over the definition: a union based wholly on love or love with gender and/or the goal of reproduction in the future entwined.
In effect, the gay marriage supporters are lobbying to change the traditional meaning of the word marriage from the relationship of the reproductive unit that the sexual security civil society is based upon to mean any two people based on how much they love each other. I hear talk of how giving people the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples will encourage more commitment in society in general, as homosexuals are given societal approval of their relationship, but I think this is merely confusing the issue. People talk as if the opponents of same-sex marriage are opposed to this commitment itself, when that is rather what they are trying to uphold -- though their opinion differs in what their view of the socially-responsible expression of that value is. I've heard people ask honest questions (or sometimes sneeringly rhetorical ones) to the effect of: "Why don't you think our relationship, our commitment, is beautiful and worthy of praise and honor?" but this is throwing the actual criticism aside (though of course we must allow for those few people who genuinely are homophobic bigots). The fact that the two states that allow homosexual marriage are those with the lowest divorce rates is unrelated, because of course true commitment is beautiful, of course the love between homosexuals is a huge bonding force between them, of course seeing the actual peaceful commitment between two people would be a positive force, just as seeing examples of true friendship among heterosexuals is beneficial for children to observe and practice in peaceful civil society. Of course the adult emotions and intricately complex relationships homosexuals develop are at least as important to them as heterosexual relationships are to straight people. Everyone is human and everyone's emotions should be taken into account. That is not the issue, and people (on both sides) who try to argue from this tack are misdirecting the argument away from the main thrust, which is or should be this: does society have anything to gain by giving exactly equivalent treatment to a group of people with absolutely no possible reproductive stake in civil society, who do not even conform to the same gender-distribution (and consequent rule-set conceptual support) that infertile or otherwise non-reproductive couples do? The argument is not (or should not) be about whether or not homosexuals are, as a group, "evil"; they're quite obviously not. The real question is: why do homosexuals believe they have the right to equivalent benefits, when their relationship is not the one we have defined as being of the type eligible for receiving those benefits and social approbation in the first place? It's like a person who is not handicapped feeling short-shrifted because they're not allowed to park in a handicapped space. Personally, I think a rather large number of the benefits that are given to married people should not be twined in the legality of marriage at all; visiting sickbeds, for instance -- it seems to me that there are many tweaks that need to be made in the system to individualize it in better ways than we have in the past (though that in itself is a hugely hairy problem; the question of who "automatically" gets certain rights is almost debilitatingly complex); there are too many horror stories of homosexuals whose partners -- sometimes the only ones they'd actually want to see in an emergency situation -- are denied access to hospital rooms, etc. However, there is a core of usefulness: society has a definite incentive to providing some special core benefits solely to the successfully stable reproductive unit, since it is only through successful cultural dissemination that stable, generationally-continuous society exists at all, and heterosexual marriage is arguably the most effective form of transmitting those learned gender roles (which are far more necessary and subtle than those who argue against such "stifling" or "oppressive" ideas might claim). Society has a huge stake in marriage, which is why I've veered away from the "government should give civil unions to whomever" view I've held in the past.
Why should society change the definition of marriage in order to include a group of people who simply don't fit it? For I believe it is in fact a change of definition, a renaming; just as we've seen the word "family" come to mean any group of people who love each other rather than the actual blood relationships of people....what, in the end, is the point? What is gained? People have a longing for the intimacy, the closeness that should come from the blood relationship (not to mention the biological drive inherent in any successful animal species towards having a strong bloodline and kin), and so they have their "families of choice", etc. but I don't think that renaming other types of relationships actually fulfills that deeper longing. What is wrong with simply naming these people as we have traditionally named them, "deeply close friends", in other words, "members of the community with whom I am tightly bonded through shared experiences of important life events"? Why are these terms less important, less worthy? What is lost by not calling these people by the "family" name, except the ability to not have to come to terms with one's hardships? I believe that nothing is gained except a muddling of terms, as well as a devaluing of close friendships (or, as I argue similarly, marriage) because of the blurred terms (however well- or un- intended it might be). If a term can mean anything, then it means nothing.
Anyway. That was, as usual for me, very very long, so I'm sorry for any narcoleptic effects that might have resulted from reading it. I do hope, however, that it was taken in the spirit it was intended, and that it contributes a little something to the civil discussion going on.
quote: Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
CT, are you or your mom from the South?
I love it when women I don't really know say that to me, but so few do that these days. About the only place left where I can get a good 'Sugar' is at the Waffle House.
(Note, this is not my backhanded way of asking to be addressed as such on this forum. I'm just making an observation.)
I think it's the persisting flavor of 4 years in the Heart of Dixie (Birmingham, AL) that comes out at times. Since that was where I first studied philosophy, perhaps there is a connection to context as well.
It could come across as condescending, though (and perhaps objectively is), so I'll try to watch it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real question is: why do homosexuals believe they have the right to equivalent benefits, when their relationship is not the one we have defined as being of the type eligible for receiving those benefits and social approbation in the first place?
The answer lies in the fundamental difference between how gays view marriage and how you view marriage, in that, as you said, it's viewed as a union of love and not one made solely for reproduction.
If we went simply by making marriage about reproduction, wouldn't it then be prudent to bar heterosexual people too from marrying if they do so only for love and don't wish to have a child? (If you already answered this question, forgive me; I couldn't read all of your post, my brain's too tired to take it all in.)
The answer to your question will vary from person to person. I see us heading down a road to a split, in which homosexuals either gain a lot of ground and gain civil unions, or loose a lot of ground and become treated like second-class human beings. Most probably don't share my dismal view of the future, but I feel that no good can come from denying rights to a worthy minority. When has that ever been good in the long run? I just want to be treated like a human. You can call it whatever the heck you want: I just want the basic rights to make life possible.
Besides, with the world hurtling towards an unsustainable amount of people, we will have to begin rethinking the archaic encouragement of vast reproduction.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for starters, I don't agree that anything I said implied that I was in favor of hurtling towards an unsustainable amount of people by encouraging vast reproduction. *grin*
I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been in my post, so I should make it explicit and mention that I don't think it's a fair summation of my position to describe it as being solely about reproduction. Rather, to my mind, love can be and usually is just as important in a kind of intertwined and inextricable way as having children is to the reproductively active couple.
I mean, I doubt when I'm feeling romantic I'm going to go up to my wife and say "Heya sweetcheeks, let's do the nasty and replicate us some DNA!" (Well, I might, but it'd probably be as a joke. Obviously, this hypothetical spouse of mine is a woman of great tolerance for unromantic weirdness. *grin*)
Basically, what I'm trying to get as is...well, let me try an analogy. Say we have an activity, painting, that many people do for very different reasons. Some people enjoy the colors, some enjoy the feel of the brush in their hands, some hate the process but love the finished results, etc. Now, no matter what their reasons are for painting, no matter how they actually go about putting ink on paper, no matter if they're even aware that they're making art or intend anything artistic by it, we can still group their activities as being within the 'painting' category.
Now, say someone else enjoys, oh, building their own computers out of spare parts they have lying around from other projects. Now, this activity might very well be exactly as or even more fulfilling, more meaningful, and more important in their lives than painting ever could be.
We would still be incorrect to call it painting, because if we did so, we'd be so far from the definition of "applying ink to paper" that the term would become meaningless and we'd need to find another way to denote the differences between the two activities. For people who share my view, the possibility for reproduction is an essential and indeed intrinsic aspect of what "marriage" means; redefining it would remove what makes it different from other types of relationships, no matter how similar and worthy they might be in terms of loyalty or romance, etc. It would be like calling "building a computer" "painting".
In other words, many aspects of your objections stem from the fact that you've already defined marriage a certain way, and are criticizing the opposite side's views as if they subscribed to that same definition. "Gaining ground" and "losing ground" both depend on the idea that their is ground to be gained or lost. Saying that homosexuals who are unable to be married are therefore being treated as inhuman "second-class citizens" who are being "denied rights" in a "dismal future" depends on the definition of marriage as being something other than a man and woman.
Thing is, I don't know how to reconcile the two views, the different definitions. I'll think about it. We need to hit some sort of workable compromise, because I see so many people becoming deeply divided about this issue.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zotto!, I read your entire post (the long one). To me, you do an awful lot of talking around the pro-SSM points, but don't really address them at all. The most salient part of your post seems to be the following:
quote:Why should society change the definition of marriage in order to include a group of people who simply don't fit it? For I believe it is in fact a change of definition, a renaming;
You basically reiterate this in your post immediately above with your "painting" metaphor. The problem with this metaphor is that you place far too much difference between gay and straight relationships than is warranted. You're arguing that "painting" is "straight marriage" therefore anything that isn't strictly "straight marriage" is "building a computer" or "something else". That's a semantic game with very little illustrative value. To me the metaphor is much more like this: People for thousands of years have been putting paint on surfaces and calling it painting. Painting was mostly used to create representations of universally identifiable objects. From cave paintings of animals to human figures in the Sistine Chapel to still-lifes and landscapes of all types still painted today, "painting" served the purpose of representing all manner of visuably recognizable objects. However, along comes Pollock, Modrian, and Rothko (et. al.) and suddenly to the traditionalists the definition of "painting" now necessarily requires that the result be a recognizable object. What these newcomers do isn't "painting" at all because the result isn't identifiable as anything concrete. They want to call it "abstract painting" but that's a misnomer because "painting" necessarily forbids the end result to be "abstract". "But we're putting paint on canvass, just like the great painters of the past", the abstractionists claim, "so clearly we are 'painting'". But this logic doesn't allow the traditionalists to maintain whatever motives they have - collectively called "protection of 'painting'" - so it is summarily rejected in a semantic game.
The reality of the situation is that "marriage" already includes the simple concept of the "joining of two otherwise separate things". It is used this way all the time. We talk of the "marriage of religion and politics", or even being "married to one's work". Now, I'm not arguing that "marriage" doesn't usually imply "man and woman", only that it has seldom, if ever, exclusively meant that.
As far as legal rights go, part of the reason same-sex marriage has gotten as far as it has is that the legal definition of "marriage" has not been uniform and unambiguous in regards to the gender of the participants. At least a few states never explicitly required the participants to be of opposite gender until this very decade, when many of them passed laws enshrining the more narrow legal definition.
While Chris and I are not legally married, what we have is a "marriage" nonetheless. And I object to the generality that to gays "marriage" is "only about love". To most gays, it's much more about commitment and protection. See, we already have the love. Stamping "marriage" on it doesn't make love appear, nor does withholding the stamp make it go away. What legal "marriage" does do is help strengthen the relationship, and require that it be recognized by other parties. And that's the real crux of the arguement. Certain people simply don't want to have to recognize homosexual unions as "marriage". Some recognize the legitimate claims of homosexual couples and thus are willing to allow "civil unions". Others aren't willing to allow for either. I'm not going speculate here why these camps feel this way since much of this has been addressed elsewhere in this thread. But I will be glad to address any that they care to articulate.
I will say this, though: There are gay couples today with children, and denying them the legal protections of marriage does very real and demonstrable harm*. The opposition has yet to come up with anything remotely as concrete as this fact to support their denial of these protections, although many will offer the "solution" of denying parenting rights to gays altogether.
*this harm being largely the same as would happen if denying the protections of legal marriage to straight couples with children.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least a few states never explicitly required the participants to be of opposite gender until this very decade
I think this actually weakens your point. The law is replete with examples of a single word conveying much meaning that is not explicitly stated. There is little doubt that the consensus opinion of the law was that marriage involved a husband and a wife.
Explicitness is needed when the single word is no longer descriptive enough. It was the attempt to change the understood meaning of the word that led to the explicitness.
quote:The reality of the situation is that "marriage" already includes the simple concept of the "joining of two otherwise separate things". It is used this way all the time. We talk of the "marriage of religion and politics", or even being "married to one's work". Now, I'm not arguing that "marriage" doesn't usually imply "man and woman", only that it has seldom, if ever, exclusively meant that.
Metaphorical meaning - and that's what "marriage of religion and politics" and "married to one's work" are - is not really a valid way to demonstrate the actual meaning of a word. For example, we say someone who overgeneralizes about a population "paints with a broad brush." But we don't think that the description of common attributes of a population is actually painting.
Now, that doesn't answer the question "Is gender an inherent part of marriage?" But it does mean that the use of "marriage" metaphorically in other situations doesn't actually demonstrate that a marriage is simply the joining of two different things. It means we've used the word metaphorically to emphasize one central concept of marriage - joining - in situations where the literal meaning of the word doesn't apply.
You're not trying to assert that you and Chris are married in the same way that religion and politics are married in the Christian Coalition or workaholics are married to their work. You are asserting that you and Chris are married in the same way (ignoring legalities) that any husband and wife are married.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
