Run, don't walk, and read Yuval Levin on the Haidt thesis.
« More Allies, More Problems | Main | Other People's Liberty » Our Unchosen Obligations21 Sep 2007 02:38 pm Comments (42)
When it comes to the (impending) redefinition of the foundational social institution of marriage to a new androgynized "pure relationship model" with no necessary connection t childbearing. Both conservatives and liberals alike know the momentous nature of this purposed change. I'm pretty sure Ross thinks social conservative emphasis on gays is misplaced and shortsighted. Interestingly enough, he suggested refocusing on life issues, which are centered in Harm and Fairness moral systems rather than Loyalty, Authority and Purity ones. 
Ross, I like your argument that the issue is the balance between the contract and the beehive. I see how the beehive metaphor captures loyalty and authority concerns, but I do not see how it covers purity concerns. Or are you, like most liberals (and in my view correctly), denying that purity concerns are a foundation for morality?
Haight's essay is really too simplistic in its basic assumptions to use for a really thorough exploration of the concepts of individuallity and social obligation (admit to paraphrasing the descriptions from social-speak). Yes, there is a need for the individual thoughts, desires, likes and needs to be expressed, explored and propounded. Likewise, without the reference the 'beehive' obligations society automatically sets on us, the type depending on who and where we're born into, are so obviously needed, its amazing we need to discuss it at all. However, with the way our culture has been rapidly morphing from a set of norms that made America what she was until 1965, the move towards ideas that say, 'my ideas are as good as any one else's,' and 'if I don't hurt anyone else, whatever I do must be okay,' are as sirens to the young who aren't known for remembering our culture, without being properly taught.
"I'm pretty sure Ross thinks social conservative emphasis on gays is misplaced and shortsighted." But of coarse the emphasis is not on gays. In fact Yuval Levin’s post never even mentions them. It does however properly identify the family and the institution of marriage as of primary concern.
It seems to me that this is precisely the handicap in leftist thought that both the Haidt thesis & Yuval Levin correctly identify.
Haidt thesis concerning the five moral impulses; and the two (beehive & contractual) moral systems they have developed that are now in contention seems a lucid and useful one. What strikes me as particularly important is the way the “beehive system” recognizes the moral veracity of the Harm and Fairness conceptions within the “contractual system”. At the same time however, the “contractual system” remains constitutionally incapable of recognizing the moral veracity of the Loyalty, Authority and Purity impulses contained within the deeper tapestry of the beehive system. In this manner it becomes fair to characterize the “contractual system” as significantly less sophisticated intellectually that the beehive model. It is also fair to recognize that the “contractual system”, in as much as it seeks to deny (or is incapable of recognizing) what science & evolution find legitimate within mans moral impulses – is also the less humane syatem. In support of this contention I offer (first) Yuval Levin quote that gets to the hart of the matter when he (correctly) notes.. “So modern liberalism has sought to deny the significance of unchosen obligations, inventing for itself a creation myth by which all human relations result from an original (contractual) choice in some state of nature, which would make only chosen obligations legitimate ones. This has done a lot of good, but it doesn’t change the fact that some of our most important obligations—particularly those in the family—remain unchosen yet binding and essential.” In support: I would offer thisfrom the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights And point out contemporary liberalisms inability (under the contractual system) to identify and defend those human goods that until quite recently it was capable of articulating. (To the point of enshrining them within international law.) Article 16 {this is further expanded in Article 7 & 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child} I believe this goes immediately to Mr. Haidt thesis & Yuval Levin critique. Illustrating the very real and practical ignorance the “contractual model” dictates when contemporary proponents of that model are confronted with a liberalism more amiable to all five of Haidt’s “moral impulses”.
Re: When it comes to the (impending) redefinition of the foundational social institution of marriage to a new androgynized "pure relationship model" with no necessary connection t childbearing. Marriage right now has no NECESSARY connection to childbearing as witness he fact that there are childless marriages (many by deliberate design) and children born outside of marriage. By the way it is not just liberals who have to deal with the issue of unchosen obligations. The libertarian strain of conservatism also argues that no such things exist, and this has been mainstreamed on the right into arguments against the welfare state.
My own experience might be coloring my judgment here (I was adopted as an infant), but in what way are families not chosen by all their members? Two people choose to marry, or not. Parents can choose to have children, or adopt, or not have children. After they're grown, children can choose to remain in a family, or they can cut off all contact, or something in-between. The obligation that people feel isn't necessarily a static, equal value for all relationships, either. The sense of obligation people feel to the other members of the family seems to me to be influenced a great deal by their experience of that family member. If a family member is abusive, if interactions are always stressful or anger-filled, is it really that odd for people to feel less of an obligation towards that family member? How many families can you think of, where at least two people aren't talking to each other? They've decided that some need is greater than the need to fulfill the family obligation (which isn't that great to begin with, in their case). The obligation does still exist; but its effect is minimal. On the other hand, if the family is filled with love and support, the sense of obligation would likely be much greater.
Yuval's philosophical thinking is pretty interesting here, but I'm afraid that she's not really getting _Haidt_ correct in all this. Maybe that's not a big deal -- it doesn't undermine her observations about unchosen obligations -- but it's worth seeing clearly how this does, or does not, connect up with the science itself. First here: This rather badly misses the way in which the evolutionary story is an important part of discerning what the _current_ maket-up of our psychology is. And although there are too many people out there doing evolutionary psychology poorly, Haidt is not one of them. Then this: She also seems to be running together Haidt's 'two systems' of moral intuition and social/linguistic cognition, with the two sets of moral rules. But these distinctions are not the same, and indeed they cross-cut each other: both liberals and conservatives will have both systems. The difference is all located within which aspects of the first, intuitive system liberals have active, and which aspects of that same system conservatives have active. She also raises a point as an objection to Haidt which is actually part of his theory. She writes, "The new liberal individualistic morality seems far more of a product of our political history than our biological history. I think, in other words, that the different moral emphases of liberals and conservatives have more to do with our assumptions about human nature and justice than with differently developed or evolved natural moral faculties...." But Haidt is not at all unaware of the importance of culture here! A quote from the NYT article: "The five moral systems, in Dr. Haidt’s view, are innate psychological mechanisms that predispose children to absorb certain virtues. Because these virtues are learned, morality may vary widely from culture to culture, while maintaining its central role of restraining selfishness." If one wants to explain why the liberal form of moral thought arose in the particular place and time it did, then Haidt will agree that you'll need to tell a story of our particular history. But Haidt is explaining something else. He's explaining how these different forms of moral psychology can exist in us _at all_; and how any given moral psychology gets its hold in us, once it does arise historically. So there's just no conflict here between Haidt's theory and what Yuval is saying.
I'm afraid you don’t understand what I am saying. It is the institution of marriage that will have no necessary connection to childbearing (after your purposed change) When I say necessary connection- I mean exactly that. Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not, or cannot produce a child; they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children. This is philosophically unassailable. It can be reduced to a formal logical proof.
They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children. Classes can intersect and be super-classes of one another. Some couples can produce children. Some couples can't. All couples are members of the class "human couples", a class which is capable of producing children. If having a necessary connection to marriage means we must rule out all the subclasses that can't produce children, you must rule out heterosexual couples that cannot produce children.
There's something altogether shady about the "unchosen obligations" being the ones we're prejudiced to put highest--up with our nation, up with our family, to the devil with everyone else. Compare to the Sermon on the Mount "Love they enemy" message. Now, one is free to think that Burke is right and Jesus is wrong, but it hardly seems fair to say that Burke is following "unchosen" obligations while Jesus apparently is just following arbitrary whim.
Yes- But the class that is being discussed is that of "marriage" quo marriage. Which indeed: separates marriage from any necessary connection to childbearing.
Re: It is the institution of marriage that will have no necessary connection to childbearing (after your purposed change) You are using "necessary" in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. There is not now, and never has been, any sort of logical and necessary relationship between having children and being married. That is, it has never been true that Marriage--> Children, nor that Children--> Marriage. Now, you can make a moral (as opposed to factual) claim that Children SHOULD BE born in a marriage; you could also make the moral statement that Marriages SHOULD have children. And by the way those two statements are logically independent of one another; you cannot derive one from the other. I will even agree solidly with the first, that children should be born (or adopted when necessary) into a married family. But gay marriage does not impact that moral statement one iota. It only becomes an issue if you insist on the second moral statement, that marriages should include children-- and even there the possibility of adoption would not exclude gays from the insitution just as infertile couple would not be excluded as long as they could adopt.
Am I the only one who doesn't like the beehive analogy as applied to conservatives? It was traditionally used to describe communists and is matriarchal as well. I comment here:
Am I the only one who doesn't like the beehive analogy as applied to conservatives? Even as a liberal I thought that was kind of weird--that's what I was hinting at noting that Ross tends toward Harm and Fairness arguments for his point of view. Compare to how the Progressive movement was rooted in Purity and the New Deal was rooted in Loyalty and Authority. Regarding your comments, you had some good points, but I find it weird to think that Europe would be more advanced in atomism than America. America has celebrated the individual's right to throw away the past ever since colonial and frontier days. The case about grandparent's visitation rights is a case in point--the public was absolutely outraged that a grandparent might still dictate the life of a child's parent--that seems like exactly the sort of thing many of our ancestors left Europe and elsewhere to escape from. Who knows how our family trees would be altered if such rules had always been in effect? To insist on such deference to the past is ironically to throw away our own past. Regarding unchosen obligations, I'll take Gibran over Burke: http://leb.net/~mira/works/prophet/prophet4.html
A perfect point. At some point, the parents must relinquish (willingly or unwillingly, it doesn't ultimately matter which) control and ability to direct their children's lives. Even if it has something to do with grandchildren. There is absolutely no logical reason why the grandparents could or should force their will when it comes to the grandkids. Just keep them tanked up on their choice of drug, and let them stay happy as life slips by.
"You are using "necessary" in a way that makes no sense whatsoever. There is not now, and never has been, any sort of logical and necessary relationship between having children and being married." I'm afraid you continue of obfuscate around the point. The logical and necessary connection between marriage qou "marriage" and childbearing IS: Marriage is made of the ONLY class of individuals (male & female) that is capable of childbearing. That’s the logical connection that necessarily connects marriage to childbearing. Once you sever this connection it can be factually asserted that logically their is not necessary connection between marriage & childbearing. This is philosophically unassailable. It can be reduced to a formal logical proof.
Consumpatopia, 1) Jesus talks about the chosen obligations more in part, presumably, (I do not wish to claim to read my Maker's mind) because the unchosen ones are so obvious to his audience, and have already been given quite a bit of attention in the Jewish Scriptures. Note that in other places Jesus assaults the Pharisees for their practice of allowing obligation to parents to be avoided by a technical appeal to a "higher" obligation to God (Mark 7:9-13). I don't think Yuval is attempting to reject chosen obligations. 2) The claim is that modern liberalism (and libertarianism) often largely reject the importance of these unchosen obligations. The matter of "choice" seems particularly critical to the case of abortion. The argument is usually framed by pro-life folks as one of a right to life, which is an individualistic object, not an obligation at all, in a sense. But some of the horror at abortion comes from the same natural and proper hatred we have for parents who abuse their children or children who harm their parents: the force of this unchosen bond, in this case between mother and child. We sever these bonds at our peril. 3) Burke vs. Gibran? I think this is one case where the quality of the writing is a sound guide to actual value.
Marriage is made of the ONLY class of individuals (male & female) that is capable of childbearing. The only class of individuals who are capable of childbearing is the subset of male/female pairs that are capable of permitting children. If you allow any male/female pairs to marry that cannot produce children, the necessary connection is broken.
I don't think Yuval is attempting to reject chosen obligations. I apologize if I suggested Yuval would do so. My point is not that "chosen" obligations are superior to "unchosen" ones--my point is that this terminology is completely broken. The obligations Jesus advised us to "choose" are precisely the most inconvenient ones that we would least like to choose--to foreigners, enemies, and strangers. Perhaps things like voluntary military service or contractual labor can be called "chosen obligations", but our moral attachment to our fellow human beings, to higher morality or to God cannot be called "chosen" with out engaging in some sort of relativism.
Weeeellll... I don't know about his phrasing, but Fitz has something here. I think it is reasonable to assume that the fact that biologically men and women can produce children is the central fact in understanding _why_ marriage has, heretofore, involved at least one man and one woman, anywhere there's any historically significant entity we might call marriage. Not all man + woman pairs (or moresomes) can or will produce children, true. But the definitions used prior to current challenges clearly derive from the biological nature of the sexes -- and in particular, its reproductive essence. That is, we do not imagine that the restriction to man + woman is a pure accident -- as contingent as if marriage were defined as between one white person and one black person, or one person who likes doing the dishes and one person who likes working with cars, or between one person who is left-handed and one who is right-handed.
"The only class of individuals who are capable of childbearing is the subset of male/female pairs that are capable of permitting children. If you allow any male/female pairs to marry that cannot produce children, the necessary connection is broken." I'm afraid not. As stated: “While any member of that class may not, or cannot produce a child; they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.” Even the infertile still remain a man & a woman: therefore reaming members of the class of couples that can produce children. (Even if that individual couple cannot) The addition of the class of same-sex couples necessarily separates marriage from childbearing because they are everywhere and always incapable of bearing children. Therefore: marriage then would have no necessarily connection to childbearing.
Fitz, same-sex couples people are still human couples, human couples can produce children (not all of them but some of them can). Therefore, same-sex couples are members of a class that can produce children. That's your logical proof right there. They are also members of a class that cannot produce children. Some heterosexual couples cannot produce children, and are therefore members also both members of a class that can produce children and a class that cannot produce children. The Marquis's version is more reasonable, but I dispute that child bearing is the central fact in understanding why marriage has been restricted to men and women. I think the real story is that it was just never accepted until the modern era that a same-sex pairing could be as stable, meaningful and conducive to raising of families (via adoption) as a heterosexual one. Ancients seemed to have a Larry Craig view of homosexuality in which it was just a kinky thing naughty guys will get up to when their wives aren't nearby. Of course we wouldn't need institutions to facilitate that. Even mere decades ago the ancient view would have looked plausible, but in retrospect we know that different people have different orientations. A self-fulfilling prophecy in which behavior labeled "deviant" will be disproportionately engaged in by the fringes of society. Like a simulated-annealing algorithm, the chaos of the mid-20th century sexual revolution allowed us to discover a new, more stable norm. It should be noted that the number of jurisdictions in which gay couples can adopt is way more than the number in which they can get married. So children don't really seem to be at the core of the gay marriage opposition. I blame the historical definition of homosexuality as perversion. Whatever caused this definition, we know today that it is wrong.
Even mere decades ago the ancient view would have looked plausible, but in retrospect we know that different people have different orientations. This was masked by a self-fulfilling prophecy in which behavior labeled "deviant" will be disproportionately engaged in by the fringes of society. I omitted a key phrase there, sorry.
I blame the historical definition of homosexuality as perversion. Whatever caused this definition, we know today that it is wrong. We _know_ this? By what epistemological process have we arrived at this knowledge? Is the morality of homosexual intercourse a scientific question? Perhaps we performed an experiment? What was the experiment? Is it merely a socionormative statistical question, in which case we merely analyzed the data and noted that a threshold percentage engage in the behavior --- in which case one might imagine quite a range of things we could "know" are not perversions? Perhaps it is a question of close textual analysis of scripture, for the religious. We re-read Harnack and went to our original Greek and Hebrew and found an unexpected declaration?
No, I think Luke Timothy Johnson seems to have found the way people who claim we "know" this know it -- we have friends who are homosexual, where the relationship has some real emotional content other than merely sexual content, and who seem like good folks. The personal-loyalty route to knowledge. It's a good route to knowing that homosexuals aren't some sort of sub-human species, absurd beings of un-natural lust to be avoided and feared, but it's not really very good on the other questions. History and personal acquaintance provide many of us with examples of quite decent folks who are also adulters, in relationships where the adulterous affair has more emotional substance than the marriage being violated.
That is, the complexity of human beings -- and, I would suggest, something of the very nature of being -- suggests to the religious at least that a thing can be a sin and yet its content not be entirely or even primarily "about" the sinful and harmful aspect of the thing. Friendships formed in vice and criminality may be truly loyal and deep (haven't we ever seen a good gangster movie?), adulterous affairs may be motivated by love and romance, and so forth. Homosexual sex may be perverse, and in some cases done by people motivated in large part by things worthy of respect and acknowledgement.
Re: Marriage is made of the ONLY class of individuals (male & female) that is capable of childbearing. The problem is that I do not believe in "classes" at all, except as linguistically useful abstractions. I believe only in individuals in terms of what is real and meaningful in the world. So your point is patent nonsense to me. There are no "classes"; there are just specific people (in this matter under discussion). Some of those people can mate and produce offspring, some can't. And even in your "class" analysis what you are really saying is that marriage should be reserved for the class of partners who can mate and produce offspring. OK, but that still doesn't resolve the contradiction of allowing infertile people to marry, since they do NOT belong to the procreative class of human beings. So your claim still reduces to what I already suggested: a moral claim that all marriages ought to include children. And if so, then what about adoption? why does that not fulfill the condition? Re: This is philosophically unassailable. I just assailed it, and quite successfully, because I do not accept your defintions out the gate.
Not neccessarily so....(sigh) Therefore, same-sex couples are members of a class that can produce children. That's your logical proof right there. No... I'm afraid not. "Human" "couples" cannot necessarily produce children, only the class of men & women can. "They are also members of a class that cannot produce children. Some heterosexual couples cannot produce children, and are therefore members also both members of a class that can produce children and a class that cannot produce children." As men & women they are members in the only class that can produce children. We could further reduce that class into fertile & unfertile. Marriage has never been restricted as to that subcategory. Same-sex couples are not infertile. They were never a fertile couple to begin with. "The Marquis's version is more reasonable" Your version fails. My version (as stated) does not, nor have you demonstrated its failure. This is elemental logic and does not require a value judgment as to if we should change the definition of the institution. It does however describe what the proposed change would in fact do to the words meaning & therefore the institutional structure. You can be for this change but please stop beating a dead hoarse and trying to change the categories of marriage (man + woman) post hoc, in the middle of a demonstration, while trying falsify a proof.
"I just assailed it, and quite successfully, because I do not accept your defintions out the gate." Its not "my" definition. Its the definition of marriage. (and what you seem to be requesting we change) I did not make up this definition, nor did i define the class that this defintion is limited to. This comes to us as a matter of,language, cultural history and legal tradition.
We _know_ this? By what epistemological process have we arrived at this knowledge? To be honest, I just assumed that was given. Indeed, Fitz's complicated and flawed logical hoop-jumping seem to be an effort to avoid premising his opposition to same-sex marriage on opposition to homosexuality. And that rhetorical approach is common to the movement, claiming to oppose a change in status in to straight marriages, when it really seems to be motivated by an opposition to the normalization of gay unions. Refocusing the debate on homosexuality's immorality moves it away from "redefining marriage" arguments, which I think is good because I find those arguments baseless. Moral facts cannot be deduced from natural facts alone, as we've known since Hume. But natural facts have a way of making some moral claims look unusual--or at least, unparsimonious. Given what has become apparent about homosexuality, any claim that formal, long-term, monogamous, two-person unions between men or between women are less moral or legitimate than those between a man and a woman looks odd and unparsimonious. IMHO, this is not true of, for example, polygamy. Some of it is the kind of experience you're talking about--decent people in gay marriages, society not falling apart with gay marriages, etc. Some of this is the changing view of homosexuality--from an illicit recreational act to a fundamental orientation of human beings. The difference between those is a matter of science and sociology. It seems reasonable to think that society should make more room for the latter than the former. I think that kind of analysis actually would apply to adultery during times in which divorce was not practically available, but now that it is adultery, like gangster crime, is an obvious no-no because of negative externalities. If scripture is one's argument, you've got less wiggle room, but those words were transcribed by imperfect humans for a different time, and current evidence might cast them in new light. Perhaps homosexuality is simply different as an institution today compared to Paul's time. As we learn more about the universe around us, it becomes unbelievable that God finds human genitals to be an extremely relevant part of the infinite cosmos. It seems more likely that God cares about love and family rather than anatomical topology--otherwise, He'd be a strange God indeed.
No... I'm afraid not. "Human" "couples" cannot necessarily produce children, only the class of men & women can. That's nonsense. A couple consistent of a man and woman doesn't fail to a be a couple--or fail to be a married couple--simply because they do not or cannot have children. That's what "necessarily" would mean--that it is necessary for them to be capable of producing children to be a member of the class of male/female couples. Some couples of men and women can produce children. Some can't. Some couples of humans can produce children. Some can't. Numerous people have tried to explain that to you from the beginning, but it violates one of your prime directives or something so you just refuse to see it. In fact, I'm kind of ashamed I keep replying, because all I'm really doing is enjoying how much smarter (or at least more coherent) we are than you. That's wrong, and I'll stop. Its not "my" definition. Its the definition of marriage. (and what you seem to be requesting we change) I think he was referring to your definition of "class" rather than your definition of "marriage". And I'll go further, and not that I see no definition of "class" that would make your argument valid. The argument for "marriage" definition would seem valid if there were marriage-like pairings of homosexuals that people made a point of calling something other than "marriage".
"In fact, I'm kind of ashamed I keep replying, because all I'm really doing is enjoying how much smarter (or at least more coherent) we are than you. That's wrong, and I'll stop."
"That's nonsense. A couple consistent of a man and woman doesn't fail to a be a couple--or fail to be a married couple--simply because they do not or cannot have children. That's what "necessarily" would mean-" No - I never state that. In fact I account for that quite expressly in my original statement: “While any member of that class may not, or cannot produce a child; they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.”
Here you have reversed it. Procreation ability is attached necessarily only to the class of male + female. The addition of same sex couples necessarily separates marriage from procreation. "Some couples of men and women can produce children. Some can't. Some couples of humans can produce children. Some can't." All true. The class of "Human beings" cannot produce children. Only a COUPLE of human beings can produce children. The only human "couples that can produce children is that of men + women. “I think he was referring to your definition of "class" rather than your definition of "marriage". And I'll go further, and not that I see no definition of "class" that would make your argument valid.” The very class he is referring to, men & women, is a irreducible part of what we are referring to as marriage. The attempted change requested requires identifying the very class you both seem (now) to refuse to admit even exists ( Strange – indeed ?????? ) "Numerous people have tried to explain that to you from the beginning, but it violates one of your prime directives or something so you just refuse to see it." Well...two people have tried (unsuccessfully) to "refute" this unassailable logical proof. It remains exactly that regardless. I only "refuse to see it" because it has not been falsified logically. I don’t think you really have any problem with the logic of my statement. Rather: (I believe) your problem is with its implication. It does in fact do those two things. Advocates for same-sex “marriage” don’t seem to want people to people to focus on what this change necessarily means. They seek to obfuscate how the change in definition has profound and definitive consequences for the historical understanding of marriage. Advocate for a change if you like. But you end up appearing ant-intellectual & illogical when you deny that the change you seek is indeed a change.
It seems more likely that God cares about love and family rather than anatomical topology--otherwise, He'd be a strange God indeed. In the end, it's this semi-Gnostic and anti-incarnational (how could God be interested in such shabby things as _bodies_! he's surely only interested in our _feelings_, like a great cosmic Oprah) view that bothers me. For one thing, the differences between men and women -- and the biology that allows them to produce new men and women -- are more than the mere topology of genitals. The anti-biology "angelism" of the rhetoric used to defend gay marriage may be appropriate to the more fluffy varieties of theistic liberalism, but they seem to me to have little to do with Christianity. I'm not completely satisfied with John Paul II's thoughts on these matters, but at least they attempt to address biology and nature (which are God's creations) rather than wave them away with a dismissive gesture. Moreover, this "well, it was a different time, you know" argument about scripture seems to me to be equivalent to the arguments of liberal theology that such ideas as a personal God and the literal resurrection are also merely relics of a "simpler" time. This whole line of thought is fine, but no-one who is interested in being an orthodox Christian, in the line of the apostles, can follow this path.
I also think that _both_ moral rejection of homosexuality AND prudent rejection of alteration of a fundamental insitution of society are fine reasons to oppose "gay marriage." What, precisely, anyway, has "become apparent" about homosexuality? For Christians, there's actually argument from scripture that in Old Testament days God did not completely oppose polygamy. The actual arguments against polygamy seem to boil down to "well, it's done by primitive people we don't much care for who have little money" while gay marriage is desired by well off rich white folks who live in the loft next to us. There are sociological points to be made against polygamy -- but there are possible ones against homosexual marriage as well, and if the issue is (as fans of "gay marriage" tend to make it) one of fundamental rights and the impropriety of society using tradition or religion to define an institution, then I fail to see how consensual polygamy is not also a matter of fundamental rights. You may dislike the backwoods pre-modernization Mormon and like the nice gay couple next door, but I'm not sure that who we like is a very liberal reason to withold "fundamental rights." Given the divorce between marriage and procreation, indeed, I don't see why a provably infertile brother and sister (certainly if raised apart) shouldn't be able to marry, under the liberal dispensation.
And yes, I know Hume's point about ought from is. I don't buy it, mind -- Aristotle and Aquinas and Alasdair MacIntyre's revisiting of this point etc. But that seems to make the argument that we now _know_ some new fact that makes it wise to overturn the definition of a fundamental human institution even more questionable.
"Fitz's complicated and flawed logical hoop-jumping seem to be an effort to avoid premising his opposition to same-sex marriage on opposition to homosexuality. And that rhetorical approach is common to the movement, claiming to oppose a change in status in to straight marriages, when it really seems to be motivated by an opposition to the normalization of gay unions. Refocusing the debate on homosexuality's immorality moves it away from "redefining marriage" arguments, which I think is good because I find those arguments baseless." Oh - really. I see, I'm a bigot. (& an "illogical" bigot) Yet the Supreme COurts of Washington New York, and most recently Maryland have held that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, that there is no scientific consensus that orientation is immutable, that marriage does not discriminate based on gender, that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, that laws defining marriage as a union of husband and wife are substantially different from those banning interracial marriage, and that the historic link between marriage and procreation justifies the state’s definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
Only the sexual relationships of men and women together produce children. Therefore, only the sexual relationships of men and women together require governmental regulation because of (1) THEIR CAPACITY TOGETHER TO CREATE SOCIAL DISORDER, and (2) that reproduction is a fact and does have important and inevitable consequences on society both good and bad if it is not regulated. Thus, it inevitably must implicate the political and public aspect insofar as the production of future citizens is not only vital to the survival of a nation, but that the REGULATION OF THIS PRODUCTION OF FUTURE CITIZENS IS JUST AS VITAL. Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient. It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not. Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”. We cant defend what we cant define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage, this will have a net effect. (leaving aside the already discernable effects in Europe) That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable. Of coarse I’m going further than that. Mine is not a defensive crouch. I find you to be deeply inhumane and narcissistic in your demands. 40 years of a ignoring family breakdown has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for family fragmentation and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment. For you to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption.
Okay, I lied, I'll post again: “While any member of that class may not, or cannot produce a child; they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children.” So are infertile couples--they are members of a class--infertile couples--who are by definition always and everywhere incapable of producing children. This is where all your logic falls apart.
I see, I'm a bigot. (& an "illogical" bigot) I never said that. I pointed out that you're logically incoherent, and the only explanation I can find for this is that you don't like homosexuality. If you want to call not liking homosexuality bigotry, that's up to you.
In the end, it's this semi-Gnostic and anti-incarnational (how could God be interested in such shabby things as _bodies_! he's surely only interested in our _feelings_, like a great cosmic Oprah) view that bothers me. In the great cosmic view, Oprah is pretty insignificant too. But in any event, if you're being honest, there's a huge gulf between thinking God doesn't think genitalia is the most important thing in the world, and thinking bodies don't matter at all. Surely there are more alternatives to gnosticism than the worship of sex organs. I also think that _both_ moral rejection of homosexuality AND prudent rejection of alteration of a fundamental insitution of society are fine reasons to oppose "gay marriage." And I think both are completely silly. The former turns our genitals into idols. The way you've phrased the latter is more to the point. "Prudence" as a concept doesn't give us so many problems with moral epistemology. We can talk about whether something will lead to social chaos or social order in sociological, scientific terms. Indeed, such predictions are completely falsifiable now that some countries have legalized gay marriage and others have not. To be frank, I think people who predict that legalized marriage will destroy society are completely divorced from reality. But we will see for sure a few decades from now. What, precisely, anyway, has "become apparent" about homosexuality? The homosexual relationships can be stable, monogamous, loving, etc, rather than just a form of recreation. This is something significant that we observe today that ancients did not realize--and I think is a misconception that underlies opposition to gay marriage today. To be clear, if I thought gay relationships didn't "work", I would oppose gay marriage too. How well these relationships function is a fact of reality--the moral implications of this fact are up to you, but you would have to have a strange moral system for this not to have moral implications to you. I think I made clear above that I am no relativist. If things are malfunctional and unhealthy and ultimately destructive, I have no trouble banning them. Polygamy and especially incest fall within this category. Both the moral case and the prudence case are far more solid against both of them--but way beyond the scope of any posts here. and if the issue is (as fans of "gay marriage" tend to make it) one of fundamental rights and the impropriety of society using tradition or religion to define an institution That phrasing is confused in numerous ways. For me, it's not about fundamental liberties but about equality under the law. And I think it imprudent to write laws based on religion in a plural society, but prudent to keep one eye on tradition. Different liberals hold different positions, but gay marriage is definitely driven more by pro-equality and pro-gay motives than libertarian motives. Social conservatives seem more interested in taking on the libertarians, though. And yes, I know Hume's point about ought from is. I don't buy it, mind -- I'm no moral relativist, but that you can't get ought from is is most definitely true. That doesn't mean that observations of the world won't lead us to moral intuitions, but they must do so in a way that is at least partly outside the rules of logic. I only brought up Hume because I think the way I spoke of it was completely consistent with the is/ought distinction.
Okay, I lied, I'll post again: {I has stated} {emphasis mine - Note: this is the very class marriage is limited to} {Your response} "This is where all your logic falls apart." I'm afraid not.
That’s what provides the necessary link to childbearing. Or you could redefine marriage to include a class (men & men/women& women) that is not infertile, but rather incapable of reproduction. Thus removing the necessarily connection between marriage and childbearing. This is not personal & my logic is philosophically unassailable.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"So modern liberalism has sought to deny the significance of unchosen obligations, inventing for itself a creation myth by which all human relations result from an original (contractual) choice in some state of nature, which would make only chosen obligations legitimate ones. This has done a lot of good, but it doesn’t change the fact that some of our most important obligations—particularly those in the family—remain unchosen yet binding and essential."
This is what makes this particular moment in history so exciting. The revolution of personal autonomy characterized in the sexual revolution has run into the norms of a pre-liberal, pre-political social institution.
When it comes to the (impending) redefinition of the foundational social institution of marriage to a new androgynized "pure relationship model" with no necessary connection t childbearing.
Both conservatives and liberals alike know the momentous nature of this purposed change.
The silence is defining.
Posted by Fitz | September 21, 2007 4:13 PM