Friday, July 05, 2013

First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes ... Hmmm

If you ever want to know what is happening to the culture and why, all you need do is consult James Kalb. Here he is on gay marriage:
Progressives had long recognized that the family was profoundly at odds with their project. The problem was what to do about something that was at once so recalcitrant and so deeply embedded in human nature. Communist regimes initially tried to do away with it, but failed because of their hurry and the crudity of their methods, and they soon gave up the effort. Liberal modernity has made much more progress, as it has in other aspects of life. Its strategy of radicalism by degrees has transformed religion more profoundly than communism ever did, cut our connection to the past more effectively, and is discovering how to control our thoughts and redefine our social relations under cover of what is thought to be freedom. 
Its mills grind slow but they grind exceeding fine. The attack on the family, less a conscious campaign than a natural consequence of liberal practices and understandings that have become ever more demanding, has proceeded in depth and on a broad front. Step by step it has chipped away at the functions, solidity, and legitimacy of the family. Divorce has been made easy, childcare professionalized, schooling extended, family meals replaced by fast food, and a combination of professional expertise and all-pervasive electronic entertainment become the universal guide and teacher. A feminism that denies all legitimate distinctions between the sexes, except those intended to counter assumed masculine privileges, has become official in government and all respectable institutions.
And here is the central insight:
What “gay marriage” does is bring the attack on the family to a new level by destroying the basis of marriage in human nature. It means that marriage is a creature not of nature or natural law or metaphysics but of what particular people want and law provides for them. It thereby puts the belief that marriage is a pure human construction at the heart of social life.
But liberalism is never permanent; it is always in a state of becoming. So what's next? Kalb knows that too:
However bad things are, they can always get worse. If marriage is a pure construction, then the family is simply a group of people who agree to associate with each other and have whatever status the law defines. If that’s so, it’s not obvious what’s special about the bond between parents and children. That too has been considered a matter of natural or metaphysical right, a view that is radically opposed to the ideal of individual choice on which liberalism is based. So why not view it instead as a creation of the state for public purposes, a sort of foster-parenting arrangement, to be administered as such in the interests of the child and the larger society?
Children's rights. Strap yourself in.

91 comments:

KyCobb said...

You can always tell when someone has lost an argument. If you can't argue against ssm on the merits, you resort to the slippery slope and argue against something else. Of course, we have to remember that in the Right's alternative universe, the government isn't run by politicians who have to win elections by getting the votes of ordinary people who overwhelmingly love their children. They are evil monsters secretly indoctrinated into islamo-facist-marxism and bent on the destruction of America. That level of paranoia must be exhausting. Dr. Evil would find the schemes that you conjure up utterly implausible.

Martin Cothran said...

So the same-sex marriage crowd has "won" the argument on the merits? You call Anthony Kennedy's argument a good argument? For that matter, literally every step of the progress (if you can call it that) has been built on little else but political machination.

Go ahead and give me the argument that is winning the same-sex marriage cause for its advocates.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I don't have to argue with you that homosexual relationships are of equal dignity and worth as heterosexual relationships and are entitled to treatment as such. First, you'll never accept that, and second, the fight is over and you lost. Something like 80% of young people fully accept homosexuals, so its just a matter of waiting for your generation to die off. Its not like you have anything new to use to try to convince them they should hate and fear homosexuals. The Right has used every argument it can think of, and has utterly failed. Homosexuals don't stay in the closet anymore, most people have homosexual friends, co-workers and/or family members, and they can see for themselves that homosexuals are just people who want to live their lives like everyone else. The Right can block ssm in rural states like Kentucky for awhile, but it won't be long before most Americans live in states that fully accept their homosexual citizens.

Old Rebel said...

Thanks for posting.

The leftist project is indeed at war with the family. As long as the basic unit of traditional society is intact, the individual has a refuge from the managerial state, and that just won't do.

Loyalties based on tradition and bloodlines will always supercede ideology. The left knows that, and that's exactly why the traditional family must be eliminated.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

the fight is over and you lost.

So it's not a matter of arguments, then, but just a matter of political popularity? So if the political popularity was going the other direction, then you would be on this blog doing an end zone dance too?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

The Right has used every argument it can think of, and has utterly failed.

Failed how? Politically? You're really into the is might makes right ideology, aren't you?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Even if I agreed with the theology that homosexual relationships are sinful, I wouldn't support imposing that theology on people who disagree. So even if you were right on the theology, what you support is wrong, so why keep fighting a losing battle?

Martin Cothran said...

My position on same-sex marriage is based on my metaphysics, which happens to be theological. Your position (and, for that matter, any moral position) is based on your metaphysics, which happens not to be theological.

Why are you trying to impose your metaphysics on me by asking me to abandon my position?

And, by the way, were you advising same-sex marriage proponents to give up their fight when they were losing?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I'm not asking you to abandon your position that homosexuality is sinful. I'm asking you to quit trying to impose your theology on people who don't agree with it. I would never advise people fighting for their civil rights to give up, but fighting for the right to discriminate against people just doesn't make much sense to me, and frankly, once the country has moved past its prejudices, I don't know how you think you can convince them to move back to anti-gay bigotry. Do you even have a campaign strategy in mind on how to get young people to hate and fear homosexuals? Everything you've tried so far has failed, and you've been at it for at least a decade.

Old Rebel said...

Ky Cobb,

Traditional marriage is based on biological reality, which is the reason it has persisted for so many generations.

The left always dismisses beliefs that counter its agenda as "prejudice." However, tossing epithets is not an argument.

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel,

As a racist, you know all about prejudice.

Old Rebel said...

Ky Cobb,

You're proving my point: tossing epithets is not an argument.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Your arbitrary view that secularist views are somehow privileged over theological views is completely unconvincing.

Also, can I take it (given your views on discrimination) that you are in favor of legalizing polygamy?

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel,

I've made an argument. To convince young people that their homosexual friends, co-workers and relatives should be denied the same rights they enjoy, the Right is going to have to convince them that homosexuals should be hated and feared. That is the whole point about this loopy conspiracy theory that ssm will result in the ebil gubmint takin yur chilluns. But if you go to a college campus and preach it to non-evangelical students, they'll look at you like you've grown a third eye. If Martin really wants to roll back civil rights for homosexuals, he is going to have to come up with a much more sophisticated campaign that sounds rational to young people who aren't fundamentalist Christians. The problem is the Right is used to preaching to the choir, and has lost the ability to reach out beyond its fundamentalist base.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Your whole argument (if that's what you call it) is that since same-sex marriage is now politically accepted, then it must be legitimate. You haven't offered a single argument other than that one.

Is that really the one you want to go with?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I know the Right loves to promote the trope that ssm = polygamy, but it doesn't. The polygamy ban doesn't prevent you from getting married to someone you are compatible with; you just can't be married to more than one at a time. And there are rational, secular reasons to outlaw polygamy, so there simply isn't a constitutional issue; its just a policy issue. If polygamists can win the debate and get a state to legalize it, more power to them; I'm not going to rend my shirt and predict the imminent collapse of civilization. On the other hand, I don't know why you would oppose polygamy; its both traditional and biblical.

P.S. My view that secular viewpoints are privileged over theological isn't arbitrary; its constitutional. The US government doesn't have a theology, and it has no business imposing one on people who don't share it.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I'll go with the equal protection argument, since the government doesn't have a rational basis for denying equal rights to homosexuals. I was just pointing out the political reality that you've lost this argument. The ultimate outcome is no longer in doubt; now its just a matter of time. But by all means, keep a death grip on the GOP, which even the College Republicans have reported is viewed by young people as close-minded, old-fashioned and rigid. Keeping the GOP from abandoning this fight isn't the same thing as actually having a strategy to win it, and as far as I can tell, you don't.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Here you go with your arbitrary reasoning again. Why is defining marriage as between man and woman any less discriminatory than defining as between one man and one woman?

Old Rebel said...

Ky Cobb,

As I said, the foundation of traditional marriage is biological. The perpetuation of society is best guaranteed by parents who have invested their genes in the children they raise. We are more interested in those related to us, so family bonds are the foundation of patriotism.

No doubt the ruling elite has done a good job of normalizing homosexuality. The purpose is to wreck natural human relations, thereby creating an artificial need for an all-powerful central government as the foundation of order.

But that doesn't change the fact that traditional marriage is based on human need, and will inevitably persist, while same-sex "marriage" will disappear. It's human nature.

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel,

Yes I read the crazy conspiracy theory about the ebil gubmint. It isn't any less crazy, no matter how often you repeat it.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"Here you go with your arbitrary reasoning again. Why is defining marriage as between man and woman any less discriminatory than defining as between one man and one woman?"

It isn't easy giving someone a legal education on a blog, but I'll try. As I already told you, if the government has a rational basis for a law, it is constitutional, unless it discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification, such as race, in which case the law is subject to heightened scrutiny. Laws against polygamy protect the interests of the original spouse and his/her children in the financial and emotional support of the other original spouse. It also prevents rich men from building large harems which can destabilize society by upsetting the ratio of single women to single men. In fact, we have observed fundamentalist Mormon communities drive out their young men so that they can't compete with the older men for wives. These reasons are more than enough to justify bans on polygamy. The opponents of ssm, on the other hand, have failed to identify any rational reason to prohibit it. Kennedy's past opinions have already established that people have a constitutional right to private, intimate relationships with other consenting adults, so as he wrote, mere moral disapproval of homosexuality is not a sufficient basis for discriminating against homosexuals, and that is exactly what the House Report on DOMA said was the basis for passing that law.

Old Rebel said...

Ky Cobb,

Yeah, I'm so crazy I believe the government thinks it can indefinitely detain or even assassinate its subjects -- and that it's illegally monitoring our phone and Internet communications.

I'm sure you're much too sophisticated to object to unconstitutional activities aimed at protecting us.

In fact, the government IS at war with traditional society in order to boost its power. ALL governments tend to aggregate power at its citizens' expense. That's why the Founders placed checks and balance into the Constitution. Too bad those balances have been neutered or bypassed.

That's why we're in the mess we're in.

Martin Cothran said...

Kennedy's past opinions have already established that people have a constitutional right to private, intimate relationships with other consenting adults,

Adults? Plural? A polygamous relationship involves private, intimate relationshsips between consenting adults.

So does incest unless it is coercive.

The fact that society may want to protect the original spouse is very noble, but why is it any different from Christians who try to persuade homosexuals not be homosexual on the ground that it is harmful to them?

Your reasoning here is entirely ad hoc.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"Adults? Plural? A polygamous relationship involves private, intimate relationshsips between consenting adults."

True enough, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are rational reasons to ban polygamy which don't apply to ssm.

"The fact that society may want to protect the original spouse is very noble, but why is it any different from Christians who try to persuade homosexuals not be homosexual on the ground that it is harmful to them?"

First, its undeniably harmful to original spouses if they lose financial and emotional commitment from their spouse to a third person. The harm you imagine from homosexuality is entirely a theological construct. The theology of a particular religious group cannot serve as a rational basis of a law. Jehovah's Witnesses think its harmful to people to give them blood transfusions, but you would hardly appreciate it if you couldn't have life-saving surgery based on JW theology.

Martin Cothran said...

True enough, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are rational reasons to ban polygamy which don't apply to ssm.

All "rational reasons" [sic] means in your lexicon is reasons you agree with. A reason having to do with traditional morality doesn't count, whereas reasons that correspond with progressive beliefs counts. The double standard is very evident.

And in regard to theology, there are plenty of people who believe in traditional morality for non-religious reasons.

In fact all moral beliefs in our culture stem from theological beliefs. The only reason you believe in tolerance and kindness and brotherly love is because you grew up in a Christian culture that values these things.

So, in terms of sheer cause and effect, your reasons are no less theological than mine.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"A reason having to do with traditional morality doesn't count, whereas reasons that correspond with progressive beliefs counts. The double standard is very evident."

Really, Martin? Providing financial and emotional support to your family is not a traditional moral value?

"In fact all moral beliefs in our culture stem from theological beliefs. The only reason you believe in tolerance and kindness and brotherly love is because you grew up in a Christian culture that values these things."

Actually those values preceded religion. Humans have always been social animals dependent upon each other for survival. If our ancestors hadn't loved and cared for each other before religion was invented, our species would've gone extinct before they had a chance to.

muhammad kumail said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lee said...

> Laws against polygamy protect the interests of the original spouse and his/her children in the financial and emotional support of the other original spouse.

Why should the law presume that the original spouse/children have more substantive rights than later additions or the other original partner?

And who said several people can't get married together at the same time?

And who said that this is a zero-sum game, that additional partners would necessarily dilute the financial and emotional support?

> It also prevents rich men from building large harems which can destabilize society by upsetting the ratio of single women to single men.

We have that already, only it's de facto, not de jure. Money makes older, ordinary men more attractive to younger women. Why shouldn't rich old men and young women get what they want too? Why do you have to be gay to get what you want?

> In fact, we have observed fundamentalist Mormon communities drive out their young men so that they can't compete with the older men for wives. These reasons are more than enough to justify bans on polygamy.

Can you get specific? When? Where?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

You are asking policy questions. Of course a state could decide to legalize polygamy, but none of the questions you asked rise to the level of a constitutional issue.

From the Wikipedia article on "The Lost Boys":

"FLDS men are each expected to marry at least three wives. Since birth rates for boys and girls are roughly equal, and women do not enter the community in large numbers, there are not enough women for all men to do this.

While some boys leave by their own choice, many are ostensibly banished for conduct such as watching a movie, watching television, playing football, or talking to a girl. Some boys are told not to return unless they can return with a wife. One estimate is that between 400 and 1,000 boys and young men have been pressured to leave for such reasons."

Lee said...

> You are asking policy questions. Of course a state could decide to legalize polygamy, but none of the questions you asked rise to the level of a constitutional issue.

Well, I might agree with that, but it isn't clear why you would. Why aren't polygamists entitled to equal protection under the law?

If arbitrariness with regard to sex is constitutionally protected, why not arbitrariness with regard to numbers?

We have three or more people, all in love with each other. Why would a homosexual relationship have more "dignity" -- your word -- than a polygamous one?

> While some boys leave by their own choice, many are ostensibly banished for conduct such as watching a movie, watching television, playing football, or talking to a girl. Some boys are told not to return unless they can return with a wife. One estimate is that between 400 and 1,000 boys and young men have been pressured to leave for such reasons."

If that's the way their culture works, who are we to question it?

I thought you liberals liked multi-culturalism.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Why aren't polygamists entitled to equal protection under the law?
If arbitrariness with regard to sex is constitutionally protected, why not arbitrariness with regard to numbers?"

Good question. The easy answer is that three or more isn't equal to two, so as a matter of basic math, there is no equal protection issue. Another point is that gender is a way we classify people, but number isn't. If a man can get a marriage license with a woman, but can't with another man, you have to have a rational reason for that gender discrimination. But limiting the number of people you can marry isn't class-based discrimination.

"If that's the way their culture works, who are we to question it?
I thought you liberals liked multi-culturalism."

Well, again, not everything is a constitutional issue. The constitutionality of a law isn't determined by my policy preferences. The vast majority of laws don't violate the constitution, and are simply policy issues to be debated and voted on. If polygamists can get a state to legalize polygamy through the political process, more power to them. Polygamy is both traditional and biblical, so that should make you happy.

Lee said...

> Good question. The easy answer is that three or more isn't equal to two, so as a matter of basic math, there is no equal protection issue.

So you're saying equal protection only applies to groups of two?

> Another point is that gender is a way we classify people, but number isn't.

I just searched for the word "group" in the Constitution. Couldn't find it. But you knew that.

Anyhow, I thought we were talking about dignity. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that enumerates the federal government's powers to determine how to define marriage, why stop there? Why not extend those same rights to people who, to be fulfulled, require more than one mate? It's about personal choices and dignity, after all. Maybe enough people just don't see it yet, but when they do, why, what's to stop it?

The divorce lawyers ought to love it.

Maybe if we were to require that any polygamous marriage must include a homosexual, would it then garner your support? Their dignity seems to be important enough.

> The constitutionality of a law isn't determined by my policy preferences.

Could have fooled me.

> Polygamy is both traditional and biblical, so that should make you happy.

But having more than one man in a polygamous marriage might be unconventional enough even to earn your respect.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Actually those values preceded religion.

Could you identify for me please the secular culture in antiquity that they came from?

But it doesn't really matter: you got them because you grew up in a culture that historically derives its values from Christianity, however, much it wants to discard the ones it doesn't like.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You still haven't told us why the arguments against polygamy are rational and the ones against ssm not, other than that you have deemed all arguments against ssm theological and the ones against polygamy are not.

There are, in fact, arguments against both that are both theological and non-theological. And even if they were theological, how does that mean they are not rational?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

My view that secular viewpoints are privileged over theological isn't arbitrary; its constitutional.

Where does the Constitution privilege secularism over religion?

Forman Family said...

rm welcu

KyCobb said...

Martin,

"You still haven't told us why the arguments against polygamy are rational and the ones against ssm not, other than that you have deemed all arguments against ssm theological and the ones against polygamy are not."

The supporters of Prop 8 couldn't come up with any when asked by the trial court, and I have yet to hear any that actually justified discrimination against homosexual couples.

"Where does the Constitution privilege secularism over religion?"

The 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion." Codifying the theology of a religion into law without any non-religious justification for it is a violation.

Lee said...

> The 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion." Codifying the theology of a religion into law without any non-religious justification for it is a violation.

I don't think that's an originalist view. I think the framers of the Constitution were concerned that there would be an official Church of the United States, similar to the Church of England. Since many in the U.S. were Christian, but not Anglicans, and many came to the U.S. to get away from persecution by state-sponsored denominations (e.g., Baptists, Puritans, Huguenots) that was the main concern.

Even so, your idea of constitutional interpretation seems to be that, if an idea has religious origins or is associated with religion, it cannot become policy.

So if someone makes something up out of the blue yesterday, with no experience to draw upon about its ramifications, that, in your mind, already gives it more credence than something that has withstood the test of time for ages.

Something like, I dunno, same-sex marriage.

In your worldview, it seems that experience counts for nothing.

But we'll remember you said this the next time some liberal judge wants to take his cues from sharia law.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Even so, your idea of constitutional interpretation seems to be that, if an idea has religious origins or is associated with religion, it cannot become policy."

Um, no. For example, religious holidays like Christmas can be recognized by government because they have been secularized. Ending slavery, providing for the poor and other public policy proscriptions have religious roots but can easily be justified without reference to religion. Its only laws which have no rational basis outside of a particular theological framework which are prohibited. If the government adopts a theology, that is basically the same thing as establishing an official state church. Why do you think the Constitution prohibits any religious test to hold public office?

Lee said...

> Ending slavery... have religious roots but can easily be justified without reference to religion.

Then why wasn't it? People often ask why it took Christians so long to advocate it. But Christianity is only 2,000 years old; we have at least three additional millennia of pre-Christian recorded history.

It seems that slavery is a secular view.

Therefore it takes precedence over the religious view that slavery is wrong.

Your logic, not mine.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Your post is nonsense, because there was virtually no secular view prior to Christianity during recorded history, there were only other religions.

Lee said...

So we had to wait until the first secular state existed before we can say that there was a secular idea?

When was that, exactly? And where?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Good question. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one prior to the U.S. But just because there were no secular states doesn't mean there were no secular ideas.

Lee said...

> Good question. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one prior to the U.S. But just because there were no secular states doesn't mean there were no secular ideas.

How do you get that the U.S. is a secular state when the Declaration of Independence tells us that our Creator endowed us with certain inalienable rights?

Did President Obama bestow those rights on us? Evan Thomas gushed that he was like a god. Maybe he's more like a god than I would care to admit...?

Certainly, somebody or something bestowed certain rights on the gay community. I think it was Justice Scalia who asked, at what point in the past two hundred years did the Constitution start requiring gay marriage?

If the Creator endowed those rights, well, then I guess they were there all along.

But if there is no Creator, then I guess those rights were really bestowed by other humans.

But then I would guess that those rights are perfectly alienable, because humans can change their minds.

That's what I always get when I discuss things with a liberal. Liberals are never more than a question away from a direct self-contradiction.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

The Declaration freed us from the King, but our current government is based on the Constitution, where there is no reference to God, anywhere. The preamble is very clear: We the People established the Constitution. So you are right, the right to equal protection of the law was established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution when it was ratified by the states, and not by God, and it could be repealed by a future amendment of the Constitution. In fact one of the planks of the GOP platform is to amendment the Constitution to prohibit marriage equality. While the words of the Declaration are stirring, the rights described as inalienable have always been alienable. In fact Jefferson himself alienated those rights himself as a slaveowner. Men, not God, liberated the slaves, decades later.

Lee said...

> The preamble is very clear: We the People established the Constitution.

So then explain how rights can be inalienable. What happens when enough of We the People hold a gun to the government's head and make them take away some of those inalienable rights?

Are the rights just gone, like that? The rights are dead. Long live the government's right to stamp them out?






Lee said...

And if that's true, how is your position on SSM anything more than simply an appeal to give you your personal preferences, and those of gays?

And if personal preferences are what rights are all about, why don't my personal preferences count?

You seem to live in a very arbitrary world.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"So then explain how rights can be inalienable."

I was pretty clear in my post that they aren't, and that the guy who wrote those words alienated the very rights he said were inalienable.

"And if that's true, how is your position on SSM anything more than simply an appeal to give you your personal preferences, and those of gays?"

Because its not just my personal preference; equal protection of the law was added to the Constitution by the 14th Amendment.

"And if personal preferences are what rights are all about, why don't my personal preferences count?"

Because there are not enough people who agree with you to get the marriage amendment establishing one man, one woman marriage in the Constitution ratified.

Lee said...

> I was pretty clear in my post that they aren't, and that the guy who wrote those words alienated the very rights he said were inalienable.

I trust you have a reason to have said that, but you are invited to explain how, if you're so inclined.

So, then, rights are completely and totally alienable.

Martin (assuming he's following this, and I have no reason to assume he would be) can correct me if I'm wrong... but I think that rights that are alienable are not rights at all. They are privileges, bestowed by someone in power.

I'd actually be surprised if liberals didn't already understand that, but continue to exploit the word "rights" because they know it means something to conservatives.

Obviously, it means nothing to liberals. You basically just admitted it.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I said in the previous post, "While the words of the Declaration are stirring, the rights described as inalienable have always been alienable. In fact Jefferson himself alienated those rights himself as a slaveowner."

Even when I was in law school back in the eighties, the whole "rights v. privileges" dichotomy was considered anachronistic. I'm not sure why you think you've had some great revelation. Is it not blindingly obvious that for nearly a century after the nation was founded, African-Americans had absolutely no rights at all, until the majority decided to grants right to them by amending the Constitution? How then can you imagine any rights are inalienable?

Lee said...

It's the difference between what rights we have vs what we ought to have. If that distinction means nothing, then you are right. Does 'ought' matter? Apparently not in your law classes. The only thing that seems to matter is what you want and can get.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

And why should homosexuals be satisfied with fewer rights than you or I have? Is there a right that everyone else has that you are willing to forego? Do you see any problem with your willingness to deny rights to other people that you think you yourself are entitled to?

Lee said...

> And why should homosexuals be satisfied with fewer rights than you or I have?

"Should" only means something in my ethical world. It means there's a higher standard than desire or power, greater than what we want or can have.

In yours, if you want it and can have it, then it's yours, no 'should' or 'should not' about it.

Don't appeal to a higher standard if you don't believe in one.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Its very convenient that your higher power gives you everything you want, and only denies it to lesser mortals than yourself.

Lee said...

> Its very convenient that your higher power gives you everything you want, and only denies it to lesser mortals than yourself.

Yes, it might be very pleasant if the Lord were to order His universe all for li'l ol' me.

If none of the things I enjoyed doing were sinful, I'd be able to have my cake and eat it too.

But part of the deal of having a higher moral standard is we're supposed to conform to it, not it to us.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"But part of the deal of having a higher moral standard is we're supposed to conform to it, not it to us."

Except of course in reality there is no higher moral standard, and there never has been. Christian morality is constantly changing to reflect the current values of society. Fifty years ago miscegenation was sinful. 200 years ago God approved of slavery, and 300 years ago Christians were executing witches. Now many Christians are already accepting homosexual relationships.

Lee said...

> Except of course in reality there is no higher moral standard, and there never has been.

If that's what you really believe, then I would hope never again to see you invoke rhetoric that suggests there is.

Words and phrases like "should", "ought to", "justice", "what's fair" are designed to capture the attention of folks who do in fact believe in a higher moral standard.

So save it for the rubes.

> Christian morality is constantly changing to reflect the current values of society.

Have you even considered the possibility that the standard itself is absolute, but it is our understanding of it that stumbles around looking for it?

That, as Paul said, now we see through a glass darkly?

Or maybe you've refuted that possibility and I must have missed your argument.

Lee said...

> Now many Christians are already accepting homosexual relationships.

Where you see, intellectually, only one possibility, I see three... that is, two basic ones, and the third being a corollary of one of them.

1. I am correct, there is a higher standard of morality, and with regard to homosexuality, we understood better what it is fifty years ago than we do today. I.e., homosexual relationships are wrong and always were, but today we don't see it or refuse to.

2. I am correct, there is a higher standard of morality, but with regard to homosexuality, we understand better today what it is than we did fifty years ago. I.e., homosexual relationships are fine and always were, but today I don't see it or refuse to.

3. You are correct, there is no higher standard of morality, so what we thought fifty years ago was fine then and what we think today is fine now. We may not like what we thought then, and then we might not have liked what we think now, but there is no higher standard by which to say which version of us was right.

In this ongoing discussion, you choose door number 3, but often argue as if door number 2 is the correct selection. That is, you don't believe in an absolute moral standard, but you know that many of those you argue against do, and so you tailor your presentation to appeal to their sense of higher morality.

You did it with me just a few short posts ago, when you wrote:

> "And why should homosexuals be satisfied with fewer rights than you or I have? Is there a right that everyone else has that you are willing to forego? Do you see any problem with your willingness to deny rights to other people that you think you yourself are entitled to?"

The short answer is, if I embraced your metaphysics, I could do exactly what you breathlessly suggested and be logically consistent and morally neutral.

The only way such an appeal would work is to try to make me feel guilty that there is some higher standard that I'm abrogating.

In other words, your entire argument is an intellectual swindle.

Singring said...

'Have you even considered the possibility that the standard itself is absolute, but it is our understanding of it that stumbles around looking for it?'

So how do you know your current understanding (e.g. homosexual marriage is suinful) is correct?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

There could be a problem beside a guilty conscience. If it's ok to discriminate against disfavored minorities, you may want to consider the possibility that you could be the disfavored minority that is discriminated against next. Enlightened self-interest suggests the surest way for everyone to protect their own rights is to live in a society in which everyone's rights are protected. That is what we achieved in the Constitution, though initially We the People only encompassed white men, as a result of the tragedy of the Civil War we incorporated equal protection of the law into our rights, and are making continued progress in making that promise a reality.

Lee said...

Do you have any evidence that being considerate of other people rights gives me a better chance of retaining my own rights?

Or is this an appeal to some sense of cosmic karma that doesn't exist, since there is no higher truth?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Do you have any evidence that being considerate of other people rights gives me a better chance of retaining my own rights?"

Yes, the success of the United States under the Constitution. The single major flaw was the failure to protect the rights of African-Americans, which nearly destroyed us, but that was corrected after the Civil War.

Lee said...

You're serious?

How considerate were we of the Indians?

How considerate were we of blacks before Brown and the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

How considerate were we of the rights of Japanese-Americans during World War II?

Japanese farmers couldn't even own their own property before the 1920s.

Chinese immigrants weren't allowed to compete directly against Americans in most professions, which led to the "stereotype" of working in restaurants and laundries. That's what we allowed them.

Before that, it was the Irish. "Help Wanted -- No Irish Need Apply" was a common sign hanging in businesses.

That's one side. The other side is, maybe the U.S. is seeing its decline today. A lot of people think so. If true, that would coincide quite well with what you would view to be the correction of these past injustices.

Almost as if cause and effect actually works in the opposite direction from what you're saying. Our country was getting stronger while we were doing all those things; it seems to be weaker now that we aren't.

Whether my response is closer to the truth than yours, who knows? All I'm pointing out is that your case seems flimsy.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"That's one side. The other side is, maybe the U.S. is seeing its decline today. A lot of people think so. If true, that would coincide quite well with what you would view to be the correction of these past injustices."

A lot of people have opinions unsupported by fact. By many metrics, great advances have been made over the course of my lifetime, and I don't see much reason to think the future isn't bright.

Lee said...

> A lot of people have opinions unsupported by fact.

You explained everything except explain how facts contradict that perspective.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

We live longer, we have more, technology has improved our lives and we are better educated than ever. The crime rate is as low as it has been in fifty years. Every generation has people claiming that things are going to Hell and the good old days were better, but very little has gotten worse compared to what has gotten better.

Lee said...

That's a lovely perspective. But it is a perspective. Cause and effect are much more easily articulated than proven.

Maybe our success is more due to other factors.

It might even be due to the fact that enough people, throughout American history, have believed ethical truths are eternal.

But my question was this:

> Do you have any evidence that being considerate of other people rights gives me a better chance of retaining my own rights?

It makes perfect rational sense for an individual to want to live in a society tolerant of *his* own "rights" -- privileges, in your moral universe. We should use your terminology, since we're exploring your world, and we wouldn't want to confuse any of this with an eternal moral truth.

It's the "extending them to others" part that's the crap shoot, viewed strictly as a personal incentives and motivation.

Especially in the political world, where it's mostly a zero-sum game. Where, when someone has more power, it means I have less.

And, again from a personal incentives perspective, if the entire country is worse off but I happen to be a little better off, what's the trade-off?

When enough people lose their faith and become convinced that moral truth is not eternal, gaming the system for their own benefit is not an irrational act.

As for America's future, I'm not as bullish on it as you are. The one thing that has distinguished Western civilization is that the average Joe has always had a stake in the outcome, aside from simple preservation of life. The welfare state has harnessed him like a mule, however, to support not just himself, but the State and all of its clients. Once enough people realize that working for a living is a sucker's game... Hello, Greece. We're well on our way.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Especially in the political world, where it's mostly a zero-sum game. Where, when someone has more power, it means I have less."

Well that is what the GOP pitches to its base, that those other, mostly dark-skinned, people are out to take what's yours. The reality is that its not a zero-sum game; by improving the lot of others we can grow the pie and make everyone better off. The US, the richest nation in the world, is not remotely like a tiny, poor country like Greece; we have one of the least generous welfare systems in the developed world and among the lowest tax rates. Fortunately the era of the GOP's fear based politics is coming to an end, gradually, since the people they have used to frighten southern white voters with are the fastest growing demographic. Then we will all be able to progress forward together.

Lee said...

> Well that is what the GOP pitches to its base, that those other, mostly dark-skinned, people are out to take what's yours.

For an intellectual exercise sometime, Ky, why don't you just try, one time, to argue your case without imputing evil (in this case, racist sentiments) to your opponent?

If you believe I'm evil and not discussing in good faith, please, just don't engage with me, just tell me to shut up and take it to the argumentum ad Hitleram sites, where apparently you believe I'd fit right in.

One can never have an honest disagreement with a liberal. Disagreement is evidence of bad character. It's just very, very rude, impolite, and just plain nasty.

My own assumption is that human nature is fallen and depraved, but that includes me, you, white-skinned, brown-skinned, you name it.

That's why we need our institutions to create a political and an economic playing field where we're treated the same by the government and it tries to stay out of our way as much as possible, lest it become a tool of oppression.

And besides, government programs do more to benefit middle-class and upper-class folks than poor folks. Namely, government employees and contractors and clients.

And yes, their hands are in my pocket.

> The reality is that its not a zero-sum game

That's a difference between a liberals and conservatives. Liberals see economics as zero-sum but not politics; conservatives see politics as zero-sum, but not economics.

On this issue, conservatives are closer to the truth. If someone has freedom of speech, I don't have the power to suppress it. If someone has the right to marry, I have the obligation to respect it. If someone has the right to a "living wage", someone else has the obligation of paying for it.

There is only but so much political power. In Soviet Russia, Stalin had it pretty well monopolized.

All you're pointing out is that most people are better off when that power is well-distributed. And I agree, which is why I don't like to see it collected in one place -- like Washington.

But Stalin was better off with the power in his hands, even if his countrymen weren't.

His henchmen were better off.

The Communist Party members were better off.

And that's the problem with your logic. You can't assume people will want to do what's good for everybody when something else is better for them personally.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"For an intellectual exercise sometime, Ky, why don't you just try, one time, to argue your case without imputing evil (in this case, racist sentiments) to your opponent?"

That's rich, coming from someone comparing liberals to Stalin. But I didn't say you were racist. I was pointing out the tactics of the GOP.

"That's a difference between a liberals and conservatives. Liberals see economics as zero-sum but not politics; conservatives see politics as zero-sum, but not economics."

Simply not true. Good policy grows the economy which is the primary way to make everyone's lives better. The GOP peddles the myth that the way to grow the economy is to redistribute wealth to the 1%, who will then invest it to create jobs: "trickle down." The way to grow the economy to benefit everyone is to get cash into the hands of as many people as possible, most of whom will spend it, increasing demand and thereby creating jobs to meet the demand.

"On this issue, conservatives are closer to the truth. If someone has freedom of speech, I don't have the power to suppress it. If someone has the right to marry, I have the obligation to respect it."

Why is it so important to conservatives to disrespect people? Doesn't this problem go away if you just mind your own business, live your life, and let other people live theirs?

"And that's the problem with your logic. You can't assume people will want to do what's good for everybody when something else is better for them personally."

That's why we have representative government, so that policy can be made with everyone's input. Stalin didn't have to answer to anyone.

Lee said...

> That's rich, coming from someone comparing liberals to Stalin.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I was using Stalin as the logical extreme. We don't want anarchy, and we don't want totalitarianism; I was trying to explain why I think politics is a zero-sum game by showing what happens to it when it's concentrated in one person.

> But I didn't say you were racist. I was pointing out the tactics of the GOP.

So nothing personal, but the people you tend to vote for are a bunch of bigots.

> Good policy grows the economy which is the primary way to make everyone's lives better.

Good policy makes everyone's life better, but bad policy can make particular individuals' lives better, particularly the ones who get to pull the levers.

Liberals understand human nature very well when it comes to thieving corporations and Jim Crow southerners. But they refuse to apply the lessons learned to government decision-makers. They're humans, too, and subject to the same temptations and failures of character.

> Why is it so important to conservatives to disrespect people?

There you go again.

I believe in giving as much respect to people as I possibly can.

But you're not asking me to respect a person. You're demanding that I respect someone's behavior and to change an eons-old institution in order to grant respect as you define it.

I was all for tolerance when tolerance was what was being asked.

Tolerance? Yes. Approval? No. Why can't you live with that?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"So nothing personal, but the people you tend to vote for are a bunch of bigots."

Its not like the Southern Strategy is a myth invented by Democrats. Lee Atwater talked about it openly.

"Tolerance? Yes. Approval? No. Why can't you live with that?"

Because there is no good reason for the government to discriminate against homosexual couples. Why should Newt Gingrich get approval for his marriages to his two mistresses but homosexuals not? Is not his conduct, and the similar conduct of millions of other heterosexual couples, just as sinful in your eyes? Is it just a matter of political power then, rather than principle, that the so-cons don't assault the marriages of previously divorced heterosexuals because they need their votes?

Lee said...

Talk about rich. Liberals were all for no-fault divorce. Only not when Newt exploits it, I guess.

I think Newt should still be married to his first wife. Marriage vows should be much, much harder to nullify.

FWIW, leaving one's wife without good cause is grounds for excommunication in my church. Good cause is not something like, "We just grew apart." Good cause means she's unfaithful or homicidal. And if she's unfaithful, we still counsel forgiveness and reconciliation.

> Because there is no good reason for the government to discriminate against homosexual couples.

It's only discrimination if we accept your definition of the purpose marriage, that essentially it's for long-term hooking up and sexual delight. That's part of it, of course, but that's not why society approves. Your quarrel, as is so often the case with liberals, is with biology.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

My point was, as you indicated, you don't approve of Newt's second and third marriages, yet according to you, society is forcing you to approve of them. But So-con's aren't pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit no-fault divorce or void Newt's marriage or the marriages of millions of other previously divorced heterosexuals. SSM isn't any more sinful, so this is a classic case of a disfavored minority being discriminated against in accordance with a double standard.

"Your quarrel, as is so often the case with liberals, is with biology."

No, because homosexuality is part of biology.

Lee said...

> No, because homosexuality is part of biology.

If you're going to argue that homosexuality is natural, then I'm going to respond that dislike of homosexuality is natural too.

Your argument is with biology because biology is what made marriage out of human sexuality.

I'm not an anthropologist, and it would be interesting to read an anthropological study of marriage.

But I'm reasonably sure I know how marriage as an institution evolved the way it did.

Let's go back to year one -- human society, the early years.

It starts with biology. Men and women tend to hook up sexually. When they do, they tend to produce children. Children bring an assortment of costs. Women pay a disproportionate amount of those costs. The families of those women pay too, though not as much.

Marriage evolved as a way to force men to pay a more proportionate cost. "The deal" was struck: you may have my daughter, but only if you agree to a list of stipulations.

In return, you become a respected member of the community; you are accepted as a man. And you get to have sex. If you have sex without these shackles, you will be shunned and stigmatized.

As an institution, it had until about fifty years ago withstood the test of time. Even today, growing up as a child, your best chance to grow up to adulthood and earn a decent income is to grow up in a family with a mom and a dad.

But trouble came to paradise in a number of forms. Contraception. Abortion. The 'free love' movement and growing societal acceptance of intercourse outside of marriage. Women's lib. Casual divorce. Women in the work force. Government welfare checks (which chase fathers out of the household). I'm sure there are others.

So the institution of marriage was already reeling even without SSM. Each new development that pulls us away from being a society of monogamous married folks, and toward becoming a society of hook-ups with the occasional inconvenient child, has trivialized marriage.

But the basic point of all this is, the subject of SSM never came up until recently because nobody thought it was worth extending "the deal" to homosexuals -- for the simple reason that homosexual relationships didn't produce children. The costs that marriage was designed to assuage were never an issue. That doesn't mean homosexuality is necessarily cost-free for society, only that whatever costs it brings (or doesn't), the cost of producing children is not one of them.

There's still a residual special respect for fathers and husbands. The demand for SSM is basically a demand to extend that respect to gays. But it's an honor -- for incurring, or being willing to incur, the costs of children.

I don't see the need to disrespect homosexuals, same as I don't see the need to disrespect heterosexual bachelors. But they haven't earned that particular honor.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Your argument fails, because homosexuals can and do have children, whether by adoption or medical assistance. So they both incur, and are willing to incur, the costs of children, the exact same way millions of heterosexual couples do.

Lee said...

They give birth, do they?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Lesbians do. And that has exactly zero relevance to adoption, which, by the way, is so old a practice its biblical.

Lee said...

"The deal" is an offer made to heterosexual men so that they don't knock up the daughters of fathers.

It's a recognition of the simple fact that the most restive and potentially violent and revolutionary segment of humankind happens to be single, young males. Getting them married is or should be a priority.

Not terribly worried about women, in that regard. They haven't shown the same propensity for violence. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, we know that mom and dad families tend to do a good job raising kids. The jury is still out on mom-mom families and dad-dad families.

For the record, single-mom families haven't been doing such a great job. Women have a hard time controlling adolescent boys. I doubt two mommies will do much better.

The fact that there are so many babies to adopt just shows what happens when marriage fails, or wasn't there in the first place, to rescue these kids. Further trivialization of the institution won't help.

If I wanted to entice young men back into the institution of marriage... well, I don't even know if that's possible. Is it like picking up disconnected Legos and putting them back together? Or is it more like un-frying an egg and putting it back in the shell?

Don't know, can't say. It may already be too late to fix this problem.

Ultimately, though, where you see it as refusal to bestow a new right, I see it as refusal to bestow an ancient honor. There is no dishonor to not winning the Medal of Honor; but you trivialize the honor by handing it to those who don't earn it.

If I thought it was possible to entice young men back into marriage, we'd have to make lots of changes. I don't think SSM will be helpful to that goal. More a sign, I think, of the institution's collapse.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

How does the fact that crime has dropped to the lowest rate in fifty years mesh with your hypothesis that the collapsing institution of marriage is failing to keep violent young men in line? My hypothesis is that if you want to keep marriage relevant so that it appeals to young people it will be helpful to make it more inclusive. Nothing is more toxic to young people than an institution that they find close-minded, rigid and old-fashioned, which, by the way, are the words the College Republicans said young people use to describe the GOP. And one major reason they perceive the GOP that way is its intolerant homophobia.

Lee said...

The second amendment and concealed carry might have a little something to do with it.

Also the fact that we incarcerate such an enormous percentage of our population. Mostly, guess what, single young men.

The failure of marriage as an institution has hurt them tremendously, in more ways than one. Having a wife to care for, in return for sex, might have been a good incentive for these young men. Ooops. That what happens when you break these institutions.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Of course, none of those young men in prison had a married homosexual couple as parents, so the only question is whether or not your belief that ssm will cause heterosexuals not to get married is a rational basis for prohibiting ssm. Your belief that ssm trivializes marriage is simply an expression of your animus towards homosexuality which as Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion is not a rational basis for a discriminatory law. In fact, since young people are much more favorably disposed toward homosexuality than their elders, they are likely to view marriage as a more relevant, attractive institution, rather than cose-minded, rigid and old-fashioned if it does not exclude same-sex couples.

Lee said...

> Of course, none of those young men in prison had a married homosexual couple as parents...

The argument that young men are better off with gay parents than no parents is certainly a plausible one. But it would be hard to measure the impact of what would essentially be a state endorsement of homosexuality.

> ...so the only question is whether or not your belief that ssm will cause heterosexuals not to get married is a rational basis for prohibiting ssm.

Not the only question, but congratulations on finally addressing the real argument. We have come a long way. At this point, at least we are talking about what is good for society rather than what is good for individual gay people.

> Your belief that ssm trivializes marriage is simply an expression of your animus towards homosexuality...

You are correct that I do not like homosexuality. From a Christian perspective, it is wrong. From your perspective, disliking it is natural.

But there are a lot of actual homosexuals that I do like. It's hard not to run into them when you're a musician.

> ...which as Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion is not a rational basis for a discriminatory law

Justice Scalia disagree with him. So much for the argumentum ad verecundiam.

> In fact, since young people are much more favorably disposed toward homosexuality than their elders, they are likely to view marriage as a more relevant, attractive institution, rather than cose-minded, rigid and old-fashioned if it does not exclude same-sex couples.

Argumentum ad populum is no better.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Kennedy's opinion is law. Scalia's opinion is merely a dissent.

"Argumentum ad populum is no better."

Its the mirror image of your argument, which means you have admitted that your argument is mere Argumentum ad unpopulum, and not a sound basis for discriminating against homosexuals.

Lee said...

So every opinion that becomes law was reasoned correctly.

I'll remember that next time Scalia or Thomas writes a majority opinion.

Lee said...

> Its the mirror image of your argument, which means you have admitted that your argument is mere Argumentum ad unpopulum

I admitted to not liking it. I did not admit that it was a cornerstone of my argument. You admitting that for me doesn't count.

Lee said...

> Its the mirror image of your argument, which means you have admitted that your argument is mere Argumentum ad unpopulum, and not a sound basis for discriminating against homosexuals.

You are nothing if not relentless. Actually I admire that trait in liberals and Democrats. There is no such thing as defeat, ever. You guys just keep plugging forward, one foot in front of the other, until you get your way.

E.g., never, ever heard a word that the popularity of SSM counted for anything, when polls were against it and it was losing every vote in the state legislatures.

Now, the polls tilt the other way, and that's about all you hear.

You guys can do a logical about-face faster than I can change shirts. But it's for the cause. As Dee Dee Myers once put it, "That explanation is no longer operative." That was yesterday's line. This is today's line. All hail today's line.

One of the tactical benefits, I suppose, for having a moral code you made up out of the blue yesterday. You can make it up all over again today.

It's much easier to discourage and dishearten conservatives. Just a tiny little thing like one of our own completely reverse himself and betraying the people who supported him will do it, and that happens with sickening frequency. It's about to happen again, with the immigration bill. It will pass the House. The fix is in. You heard it here first.

Lee said...

Reminds me of a line from a song, "Was I Wazir?", from the 1954 Broadway play, "Kismet". It's sung by the wicked Wazir (chief of police), in the original production played by the great character actor Henry Calvin...

"Then at last, in matters neat and deft,

I've hacked, and hatcheted, and cleft,

Until, no one but me is left!"

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"I admitted to not liking it. I did not admit that it was a cornerstone of my argument. You admitting that for me doesn't count."

Your argument against ssm, as I understand it, is that it trivializes marriage and therefore makes it less likely that young heterosexual men will marry. My counter is that among the young people you are concerned about, there is much greater acceptance of homosexuality, THEREFORE, making marriage more inclusive will make it seem less rigid and old-fashioned to young people and make it more, rather than less, likely they will marry. So I wasn't just arguing "its popular, we win", but rather I was specifically addressing your argument about trivializing marriage. Of course, "its popular, we win" is factually accurate, unless So-cons figure out a way to make an argument against ssm that actually makes sense to the younger, less religious generation. I doubt philosophical debates about the nature of marriage are going to do the trick, and I don't think So-cons have a clue about how to talk to irreligious young people.

Andrew said...

Time will settle this argument. If conservatives are right, then natural law will come back with a vengeance (perhaps in the form of sharia law, perhaps through the breakdown of our health care system, perhaps through any number of other strains) and homosexuality will be rejected and driven out by the wider society with revenge in mind. I suspect that will happen within 50 years.

If liberals are right, then whenever the next morality of the future decides that gays are a problem they'll have to go back into their closets.

Or maybe gays will take control of the moral code and fix it in place and then they'll be able to survive any progressive changes. But that sounds like quite the high wire act. And it will only work if homosexuality is not unnatural.

Looking backward through history, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence if I were a progressive gay looking forward.

I consider it desperately naive to regard the moral tone of society today as anything to count on for more than a couple decades given how fast we've seen morality adapt over the past century or two.

The reality is that we have no moral foundations and there is no record of a civilization surviving that condition in world history.

KyCobb said...

Andrew,

"I consider it desperately naive to regard the moral tone of society today as anything to count on for more than a couple decades given how fast we've seen morality adapt over the past century or two."

Well, we've had 47 years since Loving v. Virginia, and we've yet to have a mass movement back towards anti-miscegenation. Homosexuality obviously isn't unnatural, since it occurs in nature. I predict once people see that, like mixed-race marriages, ssm don't cause the kind of problems they imagined, it will simply cease to be controversial.