Friday, May 18, 2012

Mandy Redux: No, opposition to same-sex marriage isn't exclusively religious

I began responding last week to some of the arguments being commended to her listeners by Mandy Connell, the ostensibly conservative host of WHAS's morning talk show in Louisville, in regard to same-sex marriage. In going back to check on several things that were said, I listed to the podcasts of a couple of shows last week and was reminded of two maxims I voiced to myself many times which I repeatedly (to my own woe) fail to heed :

1. Never listen to radio talk shows. Just don't do it. You either have to listen to people who disagree with you on an issue who you just want to reach into the studio from your car radio and strangle or you have to listen to people who agree with you on an issue who you want to reach out and strangle even worse. Do something more enjoyable with your time. I suggest having your skin slowly peeled from your body.

2. If the talk turns to religion, turn the channel. As fast as you can. Forever. And don't come back. Whenever a conversation turns to religion on a talk radio show, you have the faux theological experts showing up: the Biblical revisionists who think they know what they are talking about but don't, and the Biblical fundamentalists who think they know what they are talking about but don't. When the show is over the Bible is in complete tatters and no listener in his right mind wants anything to do with it. The only thing that prevents a resulting mass exodus from Christianity is some even more insipid atheist calling up and proving that he is even more narrow-minded and ignorant than the religious people he called to insult.

Mandy is not to blame for this. In fact, she is victimized by the nature of her format as much as her listeners. I used to think it was just their implicit secularity that caused talk radio hosts to avoid talking about religion. But now I see the wisdom of the policy.

Mandy herself is clearly not well-versed in the Bible or in theological topics, but she's cognizant of the fact. Some of the people who call in do seem to have a familiarity with Biblical texts, but even then they falter in articulating it because what they have in the way of Biblical knowledge they lack in the rhetorical arts.

But the chief problem is that Mandy seems to have bought in to the idea unfortunately propagated by both sides of most of her audience on this, which is that current marriage laws are premised on a religious objection to same-sex marriage, and that, because such a restriction is irrelevant to the secular purpose of the law, the default position on the issue is that it shouldn't exclude same-sex relationships.

Well, first off, this isn't even close to being correct. Current laws don't even contemplate the issue of same-sex marriage because same-sex relationships have never been thought to have anything to do with marriage. The historic definition of marriage by its very nature excluded anything like it.

Marriage excludes same-sex relationships not because they are wrong according to religious moral traditions but because it is not and never has been a part of the definition of marriage. I know people have a short attention span anymore, but nobody even thought to suggest same-sex relationships could even contemplated in a marriage context until about five years ago.

No one. Including non-religious people.

20 comments:

KyCobb said...

"Marriage excludes same-sex relationships not because they are wrong according to religious moral traditions but because it is not and never has been a part of the definition of marriage."

That's not an argument against same-sex marriage, Martin. In regards to the past, its merely a statement of fact. In regards to the present, it is false in regards to several states where marriage is defined as including same-sex relationships.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You're confusing definition with redefinition.

KyCobb said...

Words are constantly redefined by statute Martin. The false notion that the meaning of a word can never be changed by statute is a lame argument.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

A statute can define a word to mean whatever it wants to. Where have I ever disputed that?

But if a law was passed saying black was white and white was black, would it make it so?

Singring said...

'But if a law was passed saying black was white and white was black, would it make it so?'

It would in the eyes of the law. That is all we are talking about here, Martin. Marriage laws. You are free to stomp your foot on the ground and insist that marriage is what you think it is while the rest of the nation moves along and decides it is something else and puts that change in attitude into law.

Laws are simply the expression of the will of the people: rules society decides to set for itself by popular vote - filtered through multiple layers of democratic safeguards against too revolutionary, too arbitrary and too impulsive changes in public opinion.

You are free to disagree with the laws, as any member of society is free to disagree with the laws it deems unfair or just wrong by definition. But to keep pretending that somehow gay marriage cannot or must not be enshrined in law because somewhere, sometime the word 'marriage' didn't have that meaning is just plain silly.

KyCobb said...

" if a law was passed saying black was white and white was black, would it make it so?"

Colors are facts of nature, though the language could evolve so that the color we now call "white" could be called "black" (just as "He's bad" can now be a compliment). The word "marriage" refers to both religious arrangements defined by sects and legal contracts defined by laws. So, for example, the leader of the fundamentalist LDS is "married" to many women in accordance with the traditions of his sect, but is not considered married to them by the state of Arizona. So a "marriage" can be whatever your sect or state law defines it to be.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't Martin define "Darwinism" in a way that biologists wouldn't agree with?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

So if definitions of marriage are arbitrary, then a law allowing polygamy is just as rational as one prohibiting it?

And what about interracial marriage? If the definition is arbitrary, then anti-miscegenation laws are no less rational than marriage laws that do not prohibit it?

I just love liberalism.

Singring said...

'So if definitions of marriage are arbitrary, then a law allowing polygamy is just as rational as one prohibiting it?'

You are confusing word definitions with the rational behind passing certain laws. Two completely different subjects.

Just because we can define marriage in verious different ways as a society doesn't mean all of the laws we pass with marriage meaning a certain thing or another are all equally rational. Again, I am rather disheartened that this needs to be explained to a logician.

Say for example we pass a new law, the 'interplanetary love and marriage act' (ILAMA). In it, we state that we consider commited unions between humans and aliens from other planets as marriages in the same sense as heterosexual marriages between two humans and that 200 billion dollars will be set aside to develop interplanetary travel and thereby accomodate the long-distance issues such marriages might entail.

Now you can see, this law would clearly 'redefine' marriage in the sense that it would change the meaning of the word in a legal sense. No problem with that at all.

But would ILAMA be a rational law? Well, I think you will agree with me that as long as we haven't even figured out if aliens exist, if they even want to marry humans (and vice-versa) and if fostering such unions is in the best interest of society, I doubt anyone would call this law rational, especilly if we were about to toss 200 billion at a problem that doesn't exist.

So the ratinality of a law and the definitions of the words in that law are seperate issues.

If you want to make an argument against a same-sex marriage law and the change in the legal definition of marriage it would bring, then you should make rational, empirically founded arguments as to why passing such a law would be either a) of no benefit to anyone or b) even harmful to society as a whole.

I look forward to hearing such arguments, because last time a court heard people trying to make them (the Prop 8 appeal in California), they were laughed out of court.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"So if definitions of marriage are arbitrary, then a law allowing polygamy is just as rational as one prohibiting it?"

Yes. There are good reasons to ban polygamy, but it has also been practiced for thousands of years. If God's moral laws are immutable, you can't even argue its immoral, since God blessed the polygamous unions of the Patriarchs.

"And what about interracial marriage? If the definition is arbitrary, then anti-miscegenation laws are no less rational than marriage laws that do not prohibit it?"

Its unconstitutional, though conservatives such as Jerry Falwell 50 years ago and Bob Jones University right up to 12 years ago argued that miscegenation was unbiblical and immoral. If it wasn't for us liberals, you conservatives would still be segregating society by race.

Lee said...

> If it wasn't for us liberals, you conservatives would still be segregating society by race.

Nonsense. But even so, that's a better fate than the one Margaret Sanger had in mind. Liberals should never be allowed to forget that the crazy old Progressive aunt in their own attic was in favor of breeding minority folks out of existence.

Lee said...

...and abort the remainder.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Sanger was a eugenicist, which today is only popular on the Right, but its just another right-wing lie that she wanted to exterminate african-americans. Sanger died nearly fifty years ago, but Segregation is still popular with large portions of the GOP base. Nearly half the Mississippi GOP thinks interracial marriage should be illegal.

One Brow said...

Lee said...
...and abort the remainder.

Sanger opposed abortion. She advocated birth control only.

Lee said...

KyCobb,

Sanger was in fact in favor of encouraging blacks not to breed.

From Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism": "As editor of the Birth Control Review, Sanger regularly published the sort of hard racism we normally associate with Goebbels or Himmler... In 1926 Sanger proudly gave a speech to a KKK rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey"

Goldberg: "One of Sanger's closest friends and influential colleagues was the white supremacist Lothrop Stoddard, author of _The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy_. In the book he offered his solution for the threat posed by the darker races: 'Just as we isolate bacterial invasions, and starve out the bacteria, by limiting the area and amount of their food supply, so we can compel an inferior race to remain in its native habitat.' When the book came out, Sanger was sufficiently impressed to invite him to join the board of directors of the American Birth Control League."

Goldberg: "In 1939 Sanger created the previously mentioned 'Negro Project', which aimed at getting blacks to adopt birth control. Through the Birth Control Federation, she hired black ministers...doctors, and other leaders to help pare down the supposedly surplus black population. The project's racist intent is beyond doubt. 'The mass of significant Negroes,' read the project's report, 'still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes... is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.' Sanger's intent is shocking today, but she recognized its extreme radicalism even then. 'We do not want word to go out,' she wrote to a colleague, 'that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.'"

> Sanger opposed abortion. She advocated birth control only.

The organization to which she gave birth is quite at home with abortion, and makes much of its money committing them.

In which neighborhoods are Planned Parenthood offices and clinics generally maintained?

One Brow said...

Lee said...
The organization to which she gave birth is quite at home with abortion,

You have a curious way of saying "I was wrong".

and makes much of its money committing them.

Actually, it makes no money on abortions. The expenses for abortions outstrip revenue for abortions.

In which neighborhoods are Planned Parenthood offices and clinics generally maintained?

The ones where poor people live, of any race. If you thought that neighborhoods of a specific race were more likely, you have confused the cause.

One Brow said...

Lee,

Were you most impressed by Goldberg's character assasination, his attempt to smear by association, or his quote-mining of Sanger's intent against her actual goals? Which of these tactics do y9ou see as an honest discussion of issues?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

What is interesting to me is that in the thread below you have articulated moral grounds for being pro-choice. You believe that if the state enforces parents' obligation to support their children, it is slavery. So if the state forces a woman to support a child in her womb for nine months, she is a slave. Ergo, in order for women to be free, they must have the choice to terminate their pregnancy.

PAJohn said...

Martin:

I'm a novice at exchanging thoughts in the blogosphere; am not terribly familiar with your ethos (which, I presume, I might come to better misunderstand should I have the time to visit more than once or twice); and, am less likely than not to argue expansively lest I awaken one morning to discover that I spent the best, last, years of my life lost in an electronic cloud.

That said, my substantive reflection about your post on this particular subject is to hope that it is a better representation of your command of logic and language that some of the others which I have read.

It matters not whether I agree with your position on "same-sex marriage." In some respects, perhaps, I do. At the very least, it would serve us all well to appreciate that the notion and, thus, the definition of marriage evolved as ecclesiastical institutions. Having become a civil institution as well, however, some folks now jump to a conclusion that the debate over "same-sex marriage" is exclusively informed by religious objection. Don't take it too personally; it's in the nature of group-think for those kinds of errors to propagate. But, I digress ...

On this subject, you appear to have avoided the many - many - instances in your posts in which you commit the very sin of presumption for which you excoriate others. Mandy Connell "bought in to [an] idea...?"

It is not creditable to abet those re-defining "liberals" and "liberalism" by anecdotal association with particular people and particular ideas you dislike. Examples? Sure:

"According to liberal dogma, sex is for pleasure. Period. And anyone who dissents from this view is to be hauled before the politically correct tribunal and charged with Intolerance. Secular liberals don't like the Bible too much, but they consider the Kama Sutra to be holy writ." (from your June 6 post re: Maureen Dowd).

Doggone. I must not have gotten the memo ... or I missed those pages in "The Godless Liberal Commie Pinko Handbook."

Well, maybe I'll get a better misunderstanding of Conservative (not to be confused with conservative) presumption and pretentiousness in due time. Or, if you wouldn't mind, you could send me a copy of "The Holy Conservative Fascist Armageddon Handbook?"

Send the one with pictures.

Oh, and BTW ... everybody gets a little po'd w/ Maureen Dowd from time to time. She's like that.

Lee said...

Let me clarify: if the only reason we should be good is because there is something called "enlightened self-interest" in which you place your faith, where is it written that it is enlighted at all, or even self-interest for that matter, to behave in ways that earn your approval?

What if you're wrong about what constitutes enlightened self-interest?

Or what if someone else disagrees with what you think it is and makes up his own mind, that it is in his enlightened self-interest to do the opposite?

All you're really saying here is, "This is behavior that earns my disapproval, and we'll punish anyone who earns my disapproval in this manner." It's not wrong in any cosmic sense. It's just wrong in the sense that it upsets people with your mindset.

Your target could comply with your demands and hope you're not going to contradict yourself in the future about what you say is right today. Those are long odds, in my opinion.

Or he could say, well, it's okay to do those things, but just don't get caught.

You could define either one of those actions as enlightened self-interest. You just have to know how the story turns out before you can say for certain.