Monday, June 29, 2015

Marriage and The Matrix


Suppose a bizarre skeptic seriously proposed -- not as a joke, not as dorm room bull session fodder, but seriously -- that you, he, and everyone else were part of a computer-generated virtual reality like the one featured in the science-fiction movie The Matrix.  Suppose he easily shot down the arguments you initially thought sufficient to refute him.  He might point out, for instance, that your appeals to what we know from common sense and science have no force, since they are (he insists) just part of the Matrix-generated illusion.  Suppose many of your friends were so impressed by this skeptic’s ability to defend his strange views -- and so unimpressed by your increasingly flustered responses -- that they came around to his side.  Suppose they got annoyed with you for not doing the same, and started to question your rationality and even your decency.  Your adherence to commonsense realism in the face of the skeptic’s arguments is, they say, just irrational prejudice.

No doubt you would think the world had gone mad, and you’d be right.  But you would still find it difficult to come up with arguments that would convince the skeptic and his followers.  The reason is not that their arguments are rationally and evidentially superior to yours, but on the contrary because they are so subversive of all rationality and evidence -- indeed, far more subversive than the skeptic and his followers themselves realize -- that you’d have trouble getting your bearings, and getting the skeptics to see that they had lost theirs.  If the skeptic were correct, not even his own arguments would be any good -- their apparent soundness could be just another illusion generated by the Matrix, making the whole position self-undermining.  Nor could he justifiably complain about your refusing to agree with him, nor take any delight in your friends’ agreement, since for all he knew both you and they might be Matrix-generated fictions anyway.

So, the skeptic’s position is ultimately incoherent.  But rhetorically he has an advantage.  With every move you try to make, he can simply refuse to concede the assumptions you need in order to make it, leaving you constantly scrambling to find new footing.  He will in the process be undermining his own position too, because his skepticism is so radical it takes down everything, including what he needs in order to make his position intelligible.  But it will be harder to see this at first, because he is playing offense and you are playing defense.  It falsely seems that you are the one making all the controversial assumptions whereas he is assuming nothing.  Hence, while your position is in fact rationally superior, it is the skeptic’s position that will, perversely, appear to be rationally superior.  People bizarrely give him the benefit of the doubt and put the burden of proof on you.

This, I submit, is the situation defenders of traditional sexual morality are in vis-à-vis the proponents of “same-sex marriage.”  The liberal position is a kind of radical skepticism, a calling into question of something that has always been part of common sense, viz. that marriage is inherently heterosexual.  Like belief in the reality of the external world -- or in the reality of the past, or the reality of other minds, or the reality of change, or any other part of common sense that philosophical skeptics have challenged -- what makes the claim in question hard to justify is not that it is unreasonable, but, on the contrary, that it has always been regarded as a paradigm of reasonableness.  Belief in the external world (or the past, or other minds, or change, etc.) has always been regarded as partially constitutive of rationality.  Hence, when some philosophical skeptic challenges it precisely in the name of rationality, the average person doesn’t know what to make of the challenge.  Disoriented, he responds with arguments that seem superficial, question-begging, dogmatic, or otherwise unimpressive.  Similarly, heterosexuality has always been regarded as constitutive of marriage.  Hence, when someone proposes that there can be such a thing as same-sex marriage, the average person is, in this case too, disoriented, and responds with arguments that appear similarly unimpressive.

Like the skeptic about the external world (or the past, or other minds, or change, etc.) the “same-sex marriage” advocate typically says things he has no right to say consistent with his skeptical arguments.  For example, if “same-sex marriage” is possible, why not incestuous marriage, or group marriage, or marriage to an animal, or marriage to a robot, or marriage to oneself?  A more radical application of the “same-sex marriage” advocate’s key moves can always be deployed by a yet more radical skeptic in order to defend these proposals.  Yet “same-sex marriage” advocates typically deny that they favor such proposals.  If appeal to the natural ends or proper functions of our faculties has no moral significance, then why should anyone care about whether anyone’s arguments -- including arguments either for or against “same-sex marriage” -- are any good?  The “same-sex marriage” advocate can hardly respond “But finding and endorsing sound arguments is what reason is for!”, since he claims that what our natural faculties and organs are naturally for is irrelevant to how we might legitimately choose to use them.  Indeed, he typically denies that our faculties and organs, or anything else for that matter, are really for anything.  Teleology, he claims, is an illusion.  But then it is an illusion that reason itself is really for anything, including arriving at truth.  In which case the “same-sex marriage” advocate has no business criticizing others for giving “bigoted” or otherwise bad arguments.  (Why shouldn’t someone give bigoted arguments if reason does not have truth as its natural end?  What if someone is just born with an orientation toward giving bigoted arguments?)  If the “same-sex marriage” advocate appeals to current Western majority opinion vis-à-vis homosexuality as a ground for his condemnation of what he labels “bigotry,” then where does he get off criticizing past Western majority opinion vis-à-vis homosexuality, or current non-Western moral opinion vis-à-vis homosexuality?   Etc. etc.

So, the “same-sex marriage” advocate’s position is ultimately incoherent.  Pushed through consistently, it takes down everything, including itself.  But rhetorically it has the same advantages as Matrix-style skepticism.  The “same-sex marriage” advocate is playing offense, and only calling things into doubt -- albeit selectively and inconsistently -- rather than putting forward any explicit positive position of his own, so that it falsely seems that it is only his opponent who is making controversial assumptions. 

Now, no one thinks the average person’s inability to give an impressive response to skepticism about the external world (or about the reality of the past, or other minds, etc.) makes it irrational for him to reject such skepticism.  And as it happens, even most highly educated people have difficulty adequately responding to external world skepticism.  If you ask the average natural scientist, or indeed even the average philosophy professor, to explain to you how to refute Cartesian skepticism, you’re not likely to get an answer that a clever philosopher couldn’t poke many holes in.  You almost have to be a philosopher who specializes in the analysis of radical philosophical skepticism really to get at the heart of what is wrong with it.  The reason is that such skepticism goes so deep in its challenge to our everyday understanding of notions like rationality, perception, reality, etc. that only someone who has thought long and carefully about those very notions is going to be able to understand and respond to the challenge.  The irony is that it turns out, then, that very few people can give a solid, rigorous philosophical defense of what everyone really knows to be true.  But it hardly follows that the commonsense belief in the external world can be rationally held only by those few people.

The same thing is true of the average person’s inability to give an impressive response to the “same-sex marriage” advocate’s challenge.  It is completely unsurprising that this should be the case, just as it is unsurprising that the average person lacks a powerful response to the Matrix-style skeptic.  In fact, as with commonsense realism about the external world, so too with traditional sexual morality, in the nature of the case relatively few people -- basically, traditional natural law theorists -- are going to be able to set out the complete philosophical defense of what the average person has, traditionally, believed.  But it doesn’t follow that the average person can’t be rational in affirming traditional sexual morality.  (For an exposition and defense of the traditional natural law approach, see “In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument,” in Neo-Scholastic Essays.) 

Indeed, the parallel with the Matrix scenario is even closer than what I’ve said so far suggests, for the implications of “same-sex marriage” are very radically skeptical.  The reason is this: We cannot make sense of the world’s being intelligible at all, or of the human intellect’s ability to understand it, unless we affirm a classical essentialist and teleological metaphysics.  But applying that metaphysics to the study of human nature entails a classical natural law understanding of ethics.  And that understanding of ethics in turn yields, among other things, a traditional account of sexual morality that rules out “same-sex marriage” in principle.  Hence, to defend “same-sex marriage” you have to reject natural law, which in turn requires rejecting a classical essentialist and teleological metaphysics, which in turn undermines the possibility of making intelligible either the world or the mind’s ability to understand it.  (Needles to say, these are large claims, but I’ve defended them all at length in various places.  For interested readers, the best place to start is, again, with the Neo-Scholastic Essays article.) 

Obviously, though, the radically skeptical implications are less direct in the case of “same-sex marriage” than they are in the Matrix scenario, which is why most people don’t see them.  And there is another difference.  There are lots of people who believe in “same-sex marriage,” but very few people who seriously entertain the Matrix hypothesis.  But imagine there was some kind of intense sensory pleasure associated with pretending that you were in the Matrix.  Suppose also that some people just had, for whatever reason -- environmental influences, heredity, or whatever -- a deep-seated tendency to take pleasure in the idea that they were living in a Matrix-style reality.  Then, I submit, lots of people would insist that we take the Matrix scenario seriously and some would even accuse those who scornfully rejected the idea of being insensitive bigots.  (Compare the points made in a recent post in which I discussed the special kind of irrationality people are prone to where sex is concerned, due to the intense pleasure associated with it.)

So, let’s add to my original scenario this further supposition -- that you are not only surrounded by people who take the Matrix theory seriously and scornfully dismiss your arguments against it, but some of them have a deep-seated tendency to take intense sensory pleasure in the idea that they live in the Matrix.  That, I submit, is the situation defenders of traditional sexual morality are in vis-à-vis the proponents of “same-sex marriage.”   Needless to say, it’s a pretty bad situation to be in.

But it’s actually worse even than that.  For suppose our imagined Matrix skeptic and his followers succeeded in intimidating a number of corporations into endorsing and funding their campaign to get the Matrix theory widely accepted, to propagandize for it in movies and television shows, etc.  Suppose mobs of Matrix theorists occasionally threatened to boycott or even burn down bakeries, restaurants, etc. which refused to cater the meetings of Matrix theorists.  Suppose they stopped even listening to the defenders of commonsense realism, but just shouted “Bigot!  Bigot!  Bigot!” in response to any expression of disagreement.  Suppose the Supreme Court of the United States declared that agreement with the Matrix theory is required by the Constitution, and opined that adherence to commonsense realism stems from an irrational animus against Matrix theorists. 

In fact, the current position of opponents of “same-sex marriage” is worse even than that.  Consider once again your situation as you try to reason with Matrix theorists and rebut their increasingly aggressive attempts to impose their doctrine via economic and political force.  Suppose that as you look around, you notice that some of your allies are starting to slink away from the field of battle.  One of them says: “Well, you know, we have sometimes been very insulting to believers in the Matrix theory.  Who can blame them for being angry at us?  Maybe we should focus more on correcting our own attitudes and less on changing their minds.”  Another suggests: “Maybe we’ve been talking too much about this debate between the Matrix theory and commonsense realism.  We sound like we’re obsessed with it.  Maybe we should talk about something else instead, like poverty or the environment.”  A third opines: “We can natter on about philosophy all we want, but the bottom line is that scripture says that the world outside our minds is real.  The trouble is that we’ve gotten away from the Bible.  Maybe we should withdraw into our own faith communities and just try to live our biblically-based belief in external reality the best we can.”

Needless to say, all of this is bound only to make things worse.  The Matrix theory advocate will smell blood, regarding these flaccid avowals as tacit admissions that commonsense realism about the external world really has no rational basis but is simply a historically contingent prejudice grounded in religious dogma.  And in your battle with the Matrix theorists you’ll have discovered, as many “same-sex marriage” opponents have, that iron law of politics: that when you try to fight the Evil Party you soon find that most of your allies are card-carrying members of the Stupid Party.

So, things look pretty bad.  But like the defender of our commonsense belief in the external world, the opponent of “same-sex marriage” has at least one reliable ally on his side: reality.  And reality absolutely always wins out in the end.  It always wins at least partially even in the short run -- no one ever is or could be a consistent skeptic -- and wins completely in the long run.  The trouble is just that the enemies of reality, though doomed, can do a hell of lot of damage in the meantime. 

418 comments:

  1. In general I support the common law tradition of strong forensic legal reasoning and adherence to precede, rather than appeals to abstract philosophical principle. This decision was no in that tradition.

    You wouldn't know that unless you've read it, and it sure doesn't seem like you've read it.

    You have also never answered why there needs to be marriage for anyone.

    You really don't want to get into which one of us has answered more of the other's questions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chad,

    I don't think you of all people should talk of terrible arguments. You keep jumping between political, legal, and philosophical arguments.

    Whatever they thought implicitly and unconsciously isn't really relevant if it's the job of the court to interpret actually written, actually codified law. They have a hard enough job interpreting what the Constitution says, it's absurd to require them to intuit what the framers were thinking. That's not their job.

    Actually, it is a controversial question how much legal rulings should be bound by the intent and not just the wording of past rulings. Some respect for such intent is necessary for legal system that respects precedent. If you removed clear intent, then interpretation would be more philosophical and abstract. Many terms and clauses are ambiguous in themselves. Either you can interpret them according to intent and long-held belief or your interpret them according to current notions (usually of one section of modern society). For someone banging on so much about strict legal reasoning, it is interesting you seem to be advocating such a philosophical, or ideological, kind of jurisprudence.

    The decision argues that there are four reasons the state has had for extending the right to marriage, and it argues that gay couples are as capable of taking advantage of all four reasons as straight couples. The decision doesn't just say "it's all about affection, let's party!" as much as some of you would like to believe that's what it says.

    I have read the decision and cannot see where they deal with the fact that precedent held that the relationship between men and women was different based upon the fundamental nature and ends of that relationship. It ignores this completely, just as it ignores the fact that it was these qualities that saw marriage as essential to the family and therefore social order. If you wish to maintain that only strictly legal reasoning should be used, then this precedent should be respected, and not set aside because of philosophical or ideological beliefs it was wrong about the nature of the relationships.

    If it was so obvious a decision, why was it a 5-4 decision, with 4 of the majority being notorious activists?

    I also noticed, in reading the majority decision, that, contrary to your earlier point, it is full of wider philosophical points, such as the importance of intimate association. Why the natural lawyer cannot respond to these points, as you maintain, and refute them, I'm not sure.

    Finally, I was struck by the fact the majority opinion seemed to, in some ways, have a view of marriage that was at odds with evolving social liberal view of marriage:

    Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage
    offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their
    families are somehow lesser.


    Now here is an argument against no-fault divorce, single parenting, and de facto relationships if ever I saw one. Of course, it is also an argument quite susceptible to critique from a traditional and natural law perspective, and a philosophical argument!


    ReplyDelete
  3. "Again, I think natural law advocates have to be sensitive to the fact that they're inverting the problem..."

    No, no, as Feser brilliantly outlined in this very post, the "inverting" is entirely on the side that has argued against the commonsense realism on marriage that has obtained across cultures and time periods until the day before yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chad,

    I don't think you should be accusing others of terrible arguments, see as you jump between political, legal, and philosophical arguments.

    Obviously, it is hugely controversial question whether original intent and long held legal beliefs are important in jurisprudence. Much written law is ambiguous and needs interpretation. I find it strange that someone claiming to be against philosophising in law would think it a good idea to have judges ignore long held interpretations and just go with their own.

    I have read the majority decision. I didn't see any part where they dealt with the intent and long held precedent. They talk about the intimate nature and special marriage but, as well as a fanciful point about the homosexual's right to sexual intimacy implying they can marry, and quote past rulings without dealing with the fact the past rulings and beliefs saw something peculiar about heterosexual marriages. Indeed, no doubt this distinction was implicitly part of what led them to see marriage as special bond.

    The majority also refer to childrearing and procreation without acknowledging it was not the particular capacity of a couple to have children but the nature and ends of a heterosexual marriage, aimed at procreation amongst other things, that set these relationships apart traditionally. Nor do they deal with the fact that, when it came to childrearing and the place of marriage at the centre of the family and therefore society, the traditional belief, including that of judges and legislators, saw something peculiar I the nature of heterosexual monogamy.

    I also noticed that, contrary to your position, the ruling was shot through with essentially philosophical points, such as the importance of intimacy, which are open to extension and critique by natural lawyers.

    Finally, it was somewhat strange that so many of the points made seemed so out of touch with not just homosexual relationships (where long term fidelity, for example, is negligible) but much that is held true about heterosexual relationships by social liberals. For example:

    Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage
    offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their
    families are somehow lesser.


    Now here is the basis of a critique of no-fault divorce, single parenting, and casual relationships if ever I heard one.

    Chad, have you read the dissenting opinions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. As to the legal precedent, I think that Kennedy's majority is instructive; it simply ignores the common law on marriage and attempts to create a fundamental right out of his orifice<, sorry, through magical incantations of dignity and liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  6. From Chief Justice Roberts:

    The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating
    ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or
    two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of
    these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has
    so long been settled” without showing greater respect for
    all that preceded us.


    Here he seems to be supporting my contention that majority ignored the precedent and intent of pat judges and legislators.

    And on the intent of the Founders, that you said it was absurd a judge would consider:

    Early Americans drew heavily on legal scholars like William Blackstone, who
    regarded marriage between “husband and wife” as one of the “great relations in private life,” and philosophers like John Locke, who described marriage as “a voluntary compact between man and woman” centered on “its chief end,
    procreation” and the “nourishment and support” of children. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *410; J. Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government §§78–79, p. 39 (J.
    Gough ed. 1947). To those who drafted and ratified the Constitution, this conception of marriage and family “was a given: its structure, its stability, roles, and values accepted by all.” Forte, The Framers’ Idea of Marriage and
    Family, in The Meaning of Marriage 100, 102 (R. George
    & J. Elshtain eds. 2006).


    On the clear precedent:

    This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning. Early cases on the subject referred to marriage as “the union for life of one man and one woman,” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 45 (1885), which forms “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,”
    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888). We later described marriage as “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” an understanding that necessarily implies a procreative component. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12
    (1967); see Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). More recent cases have directly connected the right to marry with the “right to procreate.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 386 (1978).


    On the precedents used by the majority to try and support the right to marry, one of the four foundations of their opinion:

    None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The laws challenged in Zablocki and
    Turner did not define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman, where neither party owes child support or is in prison.” Nor did the interracial marriage ban at issue in Loving define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman of the same race.” See Tragen, Comment, Statutory Prohibitions Against Interracial Marriage, 32 Cal. L. Rev. 269 (1944) (“at common law there was no ban on interracial marriage”); post, at 11–12, n. 5 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Removing racial barriers to marriage therefore did not change what a marriage was any more than integrating schools changed what a school was. As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.” Ante, at 11.
    In short, the “right to marry” cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictions on access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right
    to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here. See Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting)


    I hope you didn't read the dissenting opinions, Chad, as it would show you are being deliberately one-sided and deceptive in your presentation of the majority's opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, this is a cultural, not an intelectual war. Even 10 years back, it was obvious to anyone with a brain that LGBTs would eventually win it because the opposition was abysmal. They started off with the argument "We were born this way." Meaning, we are not at fault and the society should take pity on us, like it takes pity on the born blind. Right? We accommodate the born blind as much as we can. We don't want to feel responsible for an innocent's suffering. And so the society bought that argument and slowly started to agree that same-sex marriage may be an evil, but a remedy to a far worse evil. But what does it matter now? Nobody cares if its genetic or choice -- we've reached the point where the majority agrees that same-sex marriage is not evil regardless of the reasons. And the new argument for that is "so long as we are not harming anyone it's none of your business what we do in bed." And that of course applies to some incestors and zoophiles too.

    That is not to say that I'm against same-sex marriage. Personally, I'm undecided. May be there are good arguments in support of it, but these just don't work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. More from Chief Justice Roberts:

    Perhaps recognizing how little support it can derive
    from precedent, the majority goes out of its way to jettison
    the “careful” approach to implied fundamental rights
    taken by this Court in Glucksberg. Ante, at 18 (quoting
    521 U. S., at 721). It is revealing that the majority’s position requires it to effectively overrule Glucksberg, theleading modern case setting the bounds of substantive due process. At least this part of the majority opinion has the
    virtue of candor. Nobody could rightly accuse the majority
    of taking a careful approach.


    But we are told they were so careful with precedent.

    The truth is that
    today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s
    own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to
    marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage
    their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them
    this right.” Ante, at 19.


    And:

    The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a
    tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court:
    If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of
    recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking,
    what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of
    law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental
    rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people
    is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something
    more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only
    overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but
    actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady
    days of the here and now.


    And you, Chad, have the gall to talk about terrible legal reasoning from the anti-SSM side.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Chad,

    One, philosophically speaking, does not have to a natural lawyer to have a reasoned position against same-sex marriage. There probably is a way to formulate the procreation objection in possible worlds semantics or modal terms of logical and metaphysical (im)possibility instead of the biological forms and ends involved in Aristotelian teleology.

    I don't believe it would be hard to find or put forth a non-Thomistic argument against same-sex marriage. One probably just has to be an essentialist (not hard to find), even in regard to social constructs, a sort of legal realist in the terms that law and notion of justice are only useful if they correspond to reality (commonsensical) and maintain the uncontroversial proposition that whatever is logically impossible is not part of "the furniture of the universe," i.e., does not exist. Same-sex marriage is logically impossible is a proposition many opposing-gay marriage non-Thomists, scholarly or otherwise, with little reflection would probably hold. Thereby, it is imprudent to make public policy based on logical and ontological contradiction.

    Moreover, I did not argue that SCOTUS should debate and settle academic metaphysical positions. I argued that the judicial discourse for same-sex marriage, as well as the larger debate in society, completely ignores the highly controversial metaphysical theses its cause smuggles in. Then, its apologists dismiss challenges to these assumptions as purely misapplied esotericism, or when pressed, they tend to posit an untenable anti-essentialism about marriage being a fluid "social construct" that undercuts their own position.

    You write, "what is the basis of the right of marriage in American legal tradition." That claim presupposes an understanding of what marriage is and brings about the need for "the philosophical basis of the right of marriage been throughout the history of time." This account, as tacitly understood by proponents of same-sex marriage, is seemingly a union of love or intense emotional attachment. Among other issues like why is government in the marriage business in the first place, the understanding of marriage is the very thing hotly under contention. Chad, it's not so different, for example, than a hypothetical corporation litigating for nonprofit exemption tax breaks on the basis that it's a charity. To administer a just and fair verdict, an understanding of what a charity is required as well as the knowledge of a difference between a for-profit organization and a non-profit organization. The same applies between marriage, same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples.

    But by swiftly marching through the courts, society has barely had any time to breathe to do the required calculus on whether we should redefine marriage -- if such a thing is possible -- let alone let other disciplines take the time to deliberate and weigh in such as the social sciences or philosophy to inform the debate at large. Contrary to popular belief, the slight incongruities gay couples faced are in no way comparable to the human rights crisis underwent by blacks with Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws. This issue could and should have been tabled for another time.


    ReplyDelete
  10. I have read the majority decision. I didn't see any part where they dealt with the intent and long held precedent.

    You're not looking very hard:

    The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality,
    but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law
    and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity
    and change. That institution—even as confined to
    opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.
    For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement
    by the couple’s parents based on political, religious,
    and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s
    founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract
    between a man and a woman. See N. Cott, Public Vows: A
    History of Marriage and the Nation 9–17 (2000); S.
    Coontz, Marriage, A History 15–16 (2005). As the role and
    status of women changed, the institution further evolved.
    Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married
    man and woman were treated by the State as a single,
    male-dominated legal entity. See 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries
    on the Laws of England 430 (1765). As women
    gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society
    began to understand that women have their own equal
    dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned. See Brief for
    Historians of Marriage et al. as Amici Curiae 16–19. These
    and other developments in the institution of marriage over
    the past centuries were not mere superficial changes.
    Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7
    Opinion of the Court
    Rather, they worked deep transformations in its structure,
    affecting aspects of marriage long viewed by many as essential.



    It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing
    the right to marry presumed a relationship involving
    opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions,
    has made assumptions defined by the world and time of
    which it is a part. This was evident in Baker v. Nelson,
    409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972,
    holding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage
    did not present a substantial federal question.
    Still, there are other, more instructive precedents. This
    Court’s cases have expressed constitutional principles of
    broader reach. In defining the right to marry these cases
    have identified essential attributes of that right based in
    history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent
    in this intimate bond. See, e.g., Lawrence, 539 U. S.,
    at 574; Turner, supra, at 95; Zablocki, supra, at 384;
    Loving, supra, at 12; Griswold, supra, at 486. And in
    assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases
    apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the
    basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected.
    See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454; Poe, supra,
    at 542–553 (Harlan, J., dissenting).


    If rights were defined by
    who exercised them in the past, then received practices
    could serve as their own continued justification and new
    groups could not invoke rights once denied. This Court
    has rejected that approach, both with respect to the right
    to marry and the rights of gays and lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jeremy, I haven't read the dissenting opinion, but I will remedy that. I have read the summations of his opinion, and they basically add up to "we've never done this before, so let's not do it now." And yeah, in my opinion, that's just a terrible legal argument.

    The majority opinion laid out four reasons for why the state has treated marriage as a special institution:

    1. That the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.

    2. The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.

    3. It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.

    4. Marriage is a keystone of our social order.

    They then go on to argue that none of these reasons apply exclusively to same sex married couples, so there's no reason to exclude them from the instition.

    Now, this argument is not great (Number 2 in my opinion is especially dubious, in my view. Even if it's true, why should the state care?), but as an argument, it's a heck of a lot better than "we've never done this, so let's not do it."

    When you add considerations of the kinds of rights denied the couples in question, denial of custody rights to children (the Michigan law requiring that only one partner of a gay couple can be considered the child's parent, such that only one member of the couple can pick the child up from school, sign the child's report card, etc, is particularly absurd) it becomes a very lopsided victory in favor of the SSM advocate's case, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry, the sentence after point 4. should read "They go on to argue that none of these reasons apply exclusively to opposite sex couples, so there's no reason to exclude SSM couples from the institution."

    ReplyDelete
  13. You seem to have a strawman of the Chief Justice's opinion. What he argues is that the long held belief and precedent has held heterosexual marriage to have a distinct nature and ends to other relationships. He then argues that the Court cannot overturn this precedent because of their own philosophical and ideological views about sexuality and human relationships. It is the dissenting judges who are suggesting that we leave aside abstract, philosophical considerations, for the most part, and attend to the precedent and intent of the constitution, laws, and rulings involved.

    As he points out, in number one and two the majority finds no proper precedent for why these protections are meant to allow homosexuals to marry. As the Chief Justice points out, even the majority seems to admit they stretching here. It is hard to see why there is, absent precedent, any strong argument that the definition of marriage must be changed based on 1 and 2. The majority spends some time arguing that marriage supports children and society - in a way glaring at odds with much social liberalism - where is the precedent or close reasoning that this means homosexuals must be able to marry? That the legal definition of marriage can change. Children can exist outside marriage. I am not sure why it being better for children to have married parents (incidentally, they ignore consideration of whether it is better to have two parents, one of each sex, in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship), means that the accepted definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

    Your argument, or that of the majority (which you seem strangely invested in for someone who disagrees with it), is that there are no important differences between heterosexual and homosexual monogamous relationships. But this is philosophical through and through and not a legal argument based on precedent and long held beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jeremy,

    Regarding the majority opinion, this part I think takes the cake - and puts to immediate death the idea the delusion that what carried the day here were superior legal or intellectual arguments:

    No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

    It's hard to know where to begin there. Where did the justices provide an argument for the claim that 'no union is more profound than marriage'? Or that 'fidelity and devotion' were cornerstones to it?

    Good God, where do they get off talking about how the petitioners have demonstrated 'a love that may endure even past death'? That they respect marriage, or that being denied marriage will 'condemn them to live in loneliness'?

    The answer is: Nowhere. It's a complete wad of melodramatic bullshit, and the dissenters - and anyone being honest - realize as much. What carried the day here weren't the superior intellectual and legal arguments for gay marriage, or some supposedly abysmal arguments against it.

    What carried the day was popularity, emotional rhetoric, shameless dishonesty and politics. Not too surprising, since that's precisely what has carried the movement culturally - with a dash of non-stop media pressure. The idea that what changed the public view - particularly the millenial view - was superior argument and deep reasoning is delusional, because reasoning simply never mattered to most people, just as they rarely do.

    And for a good example, take a look at the arguments being leveled here on the 'pro-gay-marriage side'. Look at the counterarguments. 'Go Team #LoveWins!' is getting intellectually shredded, but it doesn't mean a thing - because their minds aren't made up on the basis of any underlying metaphysic. They have their various commitments - usually emotional and personal, sometimes political - and they want what they want. If they have to argue that 2 + 2 doesn't necessarily equal 4 to advance that position, they'll do so.

    Those are the outliers, the intentionally deceptive. For most other people, the whole issue only goes so far as 'Well I keep seeing these people portrayed sympathetically as good guys, and these people portrayed as wicked hateful bad guys. In my opinion, the bad guys should be nice to the good guys and good guys should win.' Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here - you're largely Aristotle fans, and what did Aristotle have to say about rhetoric versus dialectic?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jeremy,

    Your argument, or that of the majority (which you seem strangely invested in for someone who disagrees with it), is that there are no important differences between heterosexual and homosexual monogamous relationships.

    Hahahaha monogamy!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chad,

    Let's look at it from the other direction. If heterosexual marriage was considered fundamentally distinct from other relationships and of particular social importance, what in the majority opinion would make this irrelevant?

    The answer is that nothing would. It would still the case that it would be acceptable to set apart heterosexual unions, declaring them alone as marriages.

    This rather suggests that it is a changed philosophical understanding of marriage that is central to the ruling. And this means it wasn't a forensic legal argument but a philosophical, ideological, and political one, that won the day.

    ReplyDelete
  17. He then argues that the Court cannot overturn this precedent because of their own philosophical and ideological views about sexuality and human relationships.

    Well, he's wrong, because that's not what they did. They tried to look in the law for the reasons why marriage was held as a fundamental right in American law. They found four reasons. They then analyzed those reasons, and found that those reasons do not require the participants in married to be of the opposite sex. That's not a naked appeal to the superiority of one's own philosophy or ideology.

    As he points out, in number one and two the majority finds no proper precedent for why these protections are meant to allow homosexuals to marry. As the Chief Justice points out, even the majority seems to admit they stretching here. It is hard to see why there is, absent precedent, any strong argument that the definition of marriage must be changed based on 1 and 2.

    Well, I agree with him on 2, but on 1, it seems like there's a pretty obvious argument to be made that allowing straight couples to marry who they want while denying gays that right violates the equal protection clause. Is that a legal argument that will hold up? I'm not the person to ask, but it's not "hard to see" how a person could reason to that conclusion.

    The majority spends some time arguing that marriage supports children and society - in a way glaring at odds with much social liberalism - where is the precedent or close reasoning that this means homosexuals must be able to marry?

    The precedent is that states allow gay parents to adopt and have children through surrogacy, so states and courts have already made it clear that gay parents can have children. Therefore, not allowing them access to the protections afforded children by marriage, while allowing children of traditionally married parents that access, could be said to violate the equal protection clause. I'm not arguing these arguments are great, but good grief, you're acting like they're invisible. That's the obvious argument a SSM advocate would make, and it's better than anything I've heard specifically rebutting it.

    I am not sure why it being better for children to have married parents (incidentally, they ignore consideration of whether it is better to have two parents, one of each sex, in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship), means that the accepted definition of marriage is unconstitutional.

    Equal protection clause. Some children have access to the protections offered by marriage, other children, through no fault of their own, and for no good *legal* reason, do not.

    Again, this is not the world's greatest argument. It just looks like the world's greatest argument when it's sat next to the steaming turd that the Chief Justice is presenting.

    Your argument, or that of the majority (which you seem strangely invested in for someone who disagrees with it), is that there are no important differences between heterosexual and homosexual monogamous relationships. But this is philosophical through and through and not a legal argument based on precedent and long held beliefs.

    They listed the cases they were using as precedents for the four reasons they gave for the state's interest in marriage. How you can claim their case was not based in precedent is baffling. They didn't even say that there were no important differences between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. They just said none of those differences mattered with reference to the four reasons the state has a special interest in marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let's look at it from the other direction. If heterosexual marriage was considered fundamentally distinct from other relationships and of particular social importance, what in the majority opinion would make this irrelevant?

    Um, the four reasons for the state's interest in sex that they asserted (referencing precedent), and then analyzed, and then concluded were not exclusive to opposite sex couples?

    Which of the four reasons that they cite for the state's interest in marriage require that the married couples be of the opposite sex?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chad,

    The Chief Justice was not suggesting that the majority gives no reasons to support their position, simply that they are spurious and the actual decision is a stretch.

    Well, I agree with him on 2, but on 1, it seems like there's a pretty obvious argument to be made that allowing straight couples to marry who they want while denying gays that right violates the equal protection clause. Is that a legal argument that will hold up? I'm not the person to ask, but it's not "hard to see" how a person could reason to that conclusion.

    Okay, it is becoming hard to take you seriously when you write stuff like this. This obviously depends on what marriage is. People only have equal rights to what they are equally entitled to. The precedent does not support the idea that marriage is between any two people, rather than a man and a woman. The reasoning you speak of is a philosophical and is not strictly legal.

    The precedent is that states allow gay parents to adopt and have children through surrogacy, so states and courts have already made it clear that gay parents can have children. Therefore, not allowing them access to the protections afforded children by marriage, while allowing children of traditionally married parents that access, could be said to violate the equal protection clause. I'm not arguing these arguments are great, but good grief, you're acting like they're invisible. That's the obvious argument a SSM advocate would make, and it's better than anything I've heard specifically rebutting it.

    Firstly, as the Chief Justice alludes to, you could do this without changing the definition of marriage. Secondly, all sorts of arrangements regarding parenting are possible, why does this mean homosexuals must be able to marry? Do all custody arrangements require marriage?


    Equal protection clause. Some children have access to the protections offered by marriage, other children, through no fault of their own, and for no good *legal* reason, do not.

    Not all children are born in or brought up within marriages. Also, marriages are far more unstable and temporary than they once were. I don't see why any of what you or the majority has said necessitates redefining marriage. The argument just isn't there. The Court is not a legislator. It is not its job to find ways to make society as good as it can be. It is its job to enforce the laws.


    They listed the cases they were using as precedents for the four reasons they gave for the state's interest in marriage. How you can claim their case was not based in precedent is baffling.

    Because I obviously meant the precedents did not support their case - they made great leaps from them.

    I have come to agree with Crude that you have some strange agenda. I cannot understand how someone would so passionately keep putting forward such bad arguments if he wasn't invested in their conclusions.


    ReplyDelete
  20. Chad,


    Um, the four reasons for the state's interest in sex that they asserted (referencing precedent), and then analyzed, and then concluded were not exclusive to opposite sex couples?

    This misses the point, obviously. My point was that the four points would not be enough to support SSM legally if it was held that there was fundamental, and socially important, distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. The points also do no refute the idea that there is such a distinction. This implies, one, that the ruling is a philosophical ruling that redefines marriage as being able to exist between any two people and, two, that, as the actual arguments for this redefinition are not explicitly in the ruling (the four points not showing it), it is based on philosophical assumption and not argument.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jeremy,

    Why are you continuing to argue with chad about whether or not the court used "forensic legal argument"?

    His original contention was that the OP suggested that no positive case had been made for same sex marriage, but that this was false because there were positive arguments made for the institution of such a thing, namely that same sex couples had need of positive rights granted to married couples and that to deny them those rights (e.g. to be named, in ones own home state, as the surviving spouse of a marriage procured in another state) runs afoul of the 14th amendment.

    However, the contention of the OP, if charitably interpreted, is that this so called positive argument for same sex marriage rests on a skeptical attitude toward the notion that marriage has an essential character. This seems to be borne out by the fact that The 3rd reason Chad distilled from the majority opinion (the rights of procreation) is denied to be constitutive of marriage.

    So, the positive case for same sex marriage that Chad outlines rests on a denial of an essential character of marriage, which was just the contention of the OP. The supreme courts majority opinion further confirms this, endorsing, as it does, the idea that the essence of marriage has undergone "deep transformations."

    If this is correct, Chads original claim regarding the OP is false.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Also, Jeremy,

    I finished my comment after you posted several more that I did not see, apologies for the delay and the fact that it certainly will not reflect on what you have further said

    ReplyDelete
  23. Put it this way:

    1.) None of the four points would refute the notion that it was in the nature of things that heterosexual marriage is fundamentally distinct from homosexual relationships, and socially important.

    2.) In order for the ruling to be a legal one, and not philosophical or ideological, and therefore use precedent to show that marriage now must be regarded as open to any two people, the four points would have to refute the notion that it was in the nature of things that heterosexual marriage is fundamentally distinct from homosexual relationships, and socially important.

    3.) Therefore, it was a philosophical or ideological ruling and not a close legal one.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This obviously depends on what marriage is.

    No, it depends on what marriage *as delineated by American jurisprudence* is. It does not require an analysis of all that marriage has historically meant in all cultures.

    People only have equal rights to what they are equally entitled to. The precedent does not support the idea that marriage is between any two people, rather than a man and a woman.

    Whether they equally entitled is what is at question, and the majority's methodology for determining the answer to that question seems sound: look at the reason for the state's interest in marriage and ask whether those reasons require the participants to be of the opposite sex. How else could they decide this.

    One place where I think the majority decision is absolutely right is when it says: "If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied."

    In the face of their reasoned case that the state's interest in marriage do not require the couples to be of the opposite sex, that marriage has always previously been defined as between members of the opposite sex fails to be a compelling argument. You would now have to produce a reason as to why the state should continue to define it that way.

    Firstly, as the Chief Justice alludes to, you could do this without changing the definition of marriage. Secondly, all sorts of arrangements regarding parenting are possible, why does this mean homosexuals must be able to marry?

    As I've said the last six times you've asked this question, and I've answered, and you've ignored the answer: because it's the fastest, easiest, least expensive, least time-consuming, best-understood, and best-established way to ensure those rights.

    Not all children are born in or brought up within marriages.

    Oh, come on, Jeremy. Equal protection wouldn't require that all children be brought up within marriage, it would only require that the state not prevent some children from having the opportunity to be brought up within marriage.

    Because I obviously meant the precedents did not support their case - they made great leaps from them.

    In one of the four cases, I completely agree. In the other three, I don't think it's so obvious. #3 is pretty strong for the SSM advocate's position, in my opinion.

    But anyway, that might have been what you meant, but that's not what you were saying. You were saying the decision was purely ideological and philosophical.

    I have come to agree with Crude that you have some strange agenda. I cannot understand how someone would so passionately keep putting forward such bad arguments if he wasn't invested in their conclusions.

    Because I hate when Conservative Christians blame their own intellectual failings on the world. The fact of the matter is, the traditional marriage proponent is losing the debate because he's getting his ass kicked on the actual legal merits.

    Not because all liberals are stupid, or mean, or inherently irrational, though that's probably true to some extent of most of us.

    The truth is, the majority's argument in this case is just plain better than the minority's. It's just plain better than any legal argument that I've ever seen for denying gays the right to marry.

    And contrary to Feser's argument, this is a positive case. It's a case that cites legal precedent. It's a case that reasons from those precedents to its conclusions.

    The Conservative Christian response has been like the response of a spoiled basketball player complaining that bad officiating cost them the game. No, the game was lost because the other team was better prepared and played a better game.

    Stop whining and get better, or get used to losing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Stop whining and get better, or get used to losing."

    Allegedly, you're as committed to the truth as anyone else here. So technically, this should count as a loss for you as well. We wait in anticipation for the wonderful defense of traditional marriage you'll undoubtedly lay on the weak minded, whiners here.

    Then again, you're no legal expert. Except when it comes to assessing the weakness of the dissent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I cannot understand how someone would so passionately keep putting forward such bad arguments if he wasn't invested in their conclusions.

    Well, I don't know if Chad just missed it, but had a comment earlier asking what specifically he disagrees with regarding same-sex marriage arguments, since he's already stated that he "doesn't necessarily" agree with them and that he doesn't "entirely endorse their reasoning." I would be curious to know actually.

    In any case, as I noted in that comment regarding the Michael Cobb piece at the New York Times, Court decisions like this only end up directly implicating natural law anyway, as people starting wondering what sex even means and why it "orders the world and civilization" (to use Cobb's words).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Chad,

    Chief Justice Roberts clearly does not rest his case on the history of marriage outside the U.S. That is a strawman.

    Whether they equally entitled is what is at question, and the majority's methodology for determining the answer to that question seems sound: look at the reason for the state's interest in marriage and ask whether those reasons require the participants to be of the opposite sex. How else could they decide this.

    But this is precisely the point. In the past, heterosexual marriage was held to have a distinct nature and end, serving a particularly important social role. This is what informs essentially all the precedent the majority used. It is a philosophical and ideological argument, not solely a legal one, that allows them to ignore the distinctions previously drawn and to make the claim that these unions are equal in their characteristics. Now maybe the court should be able to make decisions like these. I am not entirely settled in my views of legal philosophy. But our dispute is about the degree to which this was a case of simple legal precedent and reasoning or was philosophical. And you are essentially admitting that it was a philosophical decision.


    As I've said the last six times you've asked this question, and I've answered, and you've ignored the answer: because it's the fastest, easiest, least expensive, least time-consuming, best-understood, and best-established way to ensure those rights.

    Well, this, firstly, ignores the fact that you'd need a philosophical argument to redefine marriage. One might also ask if it is truly easier for the court to act so strongly, or whether more piecemeal action would not be better.


    Oh, come on, Jeremy. Equal protection wouldn't require that all children be brought up within marriage, it would only require that the state not prevent some children from having the opportunity to be brought up within marriage.

    What opportunity? Some have no such opportunity. You are making great leaps here. You are also, of course, relying on the idea marriage can in fact be open to homosexuals, which is precisely what is at issue.


    But anyway, that might have been what you meant, but that's not what you were saying. You were saying the decision was purely ideological and philosophical. This is nonsense of course. Of course I didn't mean they didn't try and site precedent or try to make legal arguments, just as the Chief Justice didn't mean that either. We simply meant these were tendentious. This is a clear violation of the principle of charity on your part.

    Maybe you should spend less time worrying about the flaws of Christian conservatives and more about your own bad arguments.

    It is in rhetoric and actually getting our best arguments out there, not in the substance of those arguments where social conservatives have failed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. jmhenry,

    I'd be interested in hearing him answer that too. Chad has intimated he believes in divine command theory in the past. But he also seems opposed to important rational arguments that draw distinctions between the heterosexual and homosexual marriages. This would suggest that he sees the divine moral framework for marriage to not only not be rationally supported but to jar with some of our rational conclusions about marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In terms of things being permitted/supported by the legal system, is there something about same-sex marriage that makes it more objectionable than post-divorce marriage? IIRC, a key point in the argument against same-sex marriage is that it is not actually marriage at all. But surely that applies to a post-divorce "marriage" too?

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Jeremy:

    Well, he also said that he's in favor of same-sex marriage because of his "belief in separation of church and state." I wasn't quite sure what to make of that, since it seems to completely ignore all of the non-religious arguments for traditional marriage. Heck, there are atheists who oppose same-sex marriage. So the claim that traditional civil marriage would violate separation of church and state would seem to be yet another question that is precisely at issue.

    Unless the claim being made is that any state promotion of a norm based on natural law represents an "establishment of religion," which would be a heck of a claim to make, since the very idea of human rights and dignitary values carries with it implicit natural law claims on the part of the state.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not much I can add that hasn't already been said, but I think the analogy to a cult of matrix believers is a wonderful way to go about explaining our dilemma with so many of the arguments coming from the left.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Marriage as an institution has been dead for years. SSM is not a finishing blow to the traditional concept of marriage--it is merely the festering of a corpse that has been long deceased.

    Why for centuries have people insisted that marriage has to be between one man and one women (or one man and several women?) Because in a savage state of nature, a woman cannot produce enough food on her own to care for herself and a "replacement level" number of children. Men are different, in that their superior strength, durability and mettle allows them to produce far more food and goods than they themselves can make use of. One man alone can, (under nominal conditions), produce enough food to feed both himself and a woman plus children. But the man cannot reproduce by himself.

    So marriage was invented to facilitate the coming together of male and female so that they can each trade what they have a surplus of (labor in the case of the man, and reproductive ability in the case of the female) for that which they have a deficit of. Marriage, by its very nature MUST be between people of the opposite sex. Men trade labor and provisions and buy the use of the woman's womb. Woman sells the use of her womb and buys labor and provisions. Marriage between two men or two women would (for most of human history) have made as much sense as trying to pay your bills using the color blue.

    Which is not to say that there weren't ways for gays to come together and codify their love for each other. Extra-marital relationships of all stripes existed -some of which were more defined by law than others. Concubines could be as beloved as spouses were, but it was understood that their status was inferior to that of the official wife (or wives).

    So why in the 21st Century are we talking about elevating SSM to the same status that traditional marriage has held for the past few millenia? It's because true marriage has been replaced by a system of State-Sponsored Concubinage. This came about because of

    (a) Technology. Central heating, machinery, lighting and systems of commerce allow women to pursue careers outside of the home. Birth Control allows women to have as much sex as they want while postponing pregnancy.

    (b) Government policy. - The US Government underwrote feminist movements which encouraged women to have careers outside of the home- thus making women's labor taxable (whereas before, the government couldn't touch the income of wives, since it was included in the "family wage" which had been previously paid to husbands by the corporations they worked for.) Once women could get out of the house and earn their own money, the wages of men dropped like a stone thanks to the glut of surplus labor in the Marketplace.

    (c) Social Safety Nets - Women, once they gained suffrage, voted for increased government with increased welfare. This creates a system where women are no longer beholden to a single man for her provisions, but can instead, have all men pay collectively for her children via taxation and transfer payments (while being obligated to give said men nothing in return.)

    (d)Easy Divorce - A marriage contract that can be easily broken by one of its members for any reason (without penalty or having to show proof of guilt) isn't really a contract at all. That's why No-Fault Divorce pretty much placed the last nail in the coffin of marriage.

    Marriage has pretty much become an outdated institution which people only pursue out of nostalgia/symbolic meaning. That's because Concubinage (a system of relationships based on love and feelings) has become the Law of the Land. And since gay people have been allowed to enter into concubine relationships since the beginning of time, there's really no reason not to let them participate in the warped institution of "modern marriage" as we know it today.-->

    ReplyDelete
  33. <---
    You can argue all you want that "Marriage" needs to be saved from SSM, but the truth is, you can't save that which is already dead. The only way you can "save" marriage is to undo the political and technological changes that have been visited upon the world in the last century (or else seize the government and impose a form of Sharia Law on the land.) You can argue that the Seculars who brought this system about will die off and be replaced by the traditionals, but as long as the Seculars have control of the school system and the media, they'll be able to indoctrinate as many children into their way of thinking as they need to.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Troper A

    Than should we do nothing? I'm sure a lot of what you argued can be applied right after Roe v. Wade, but we endured, regrouped and began to steadily change the paradigm back in our favor. As a result, abortions are way down than the time of Roe v. Wade, and it's asserted that my millennial generation is more pro-life than the one prior.

    ReplyDelete
  35. For anyone who is interested, there's an article over at First Things that eviscerates same-sex marriage/Justice Kennedy's decision from a viewpoint in political philosophy that is both criminally neglected in regard to the same-sex marriage debate and Western politics in general: The mediating institution.

    Here: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/happy-canada-day

    ReplyDelete
  36. The expressed opinion of the majority that it was at one time of the essence of marriage that it was an arrangement made by the parents or that the nature of marriage included coverture is tendentious. In either case the traditionalist will argue that arranged marriage or coverture were incidental to marriage. The majority acknowledges briefly that coverture, for instance, was abandoned on account of a change in the understanding of the "role and status" of women, not marriage as such.

    The argument hinges not at whether or not marriage has "stood in isolation from developments in law and society" (no sensible participant in this debate denies that it has not been isolated from such developments), but whether or not marriage just is those developments or is something more.

    To put it another way: is marriage merely an invention, as a recent commenter states, or have we humans by marriage feebly groped at the basic conditions that must be satisfied to establish a just relation between men and women who are united in what is unceremoniously often referred to as vaginal intercourse? What are the goods associated with that activity, and what are the conditions that must be met so that those goods are rightly situated within the social order?

    The decision of the court is indeed based on a legal rationale, but it is hard to reasonably deny that this rationale flowed from the skeptical position that the OP addressed, viz. that marriage does not have any real nature or essence, but only what is given to it by law and society.


    ReplyDelete
  37. Further to Chad's point: the arguments are universally terrible because same-sex marriage opponents cannot be honest about what is really at stake for them in traditional marriage. And what is really at stake is locking women down in a binding contract that codifies their subordination to men.

    Lara

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous,

    Allegedly, you're as committed to the truth as anyone else here. So technically, this should count as a loss for you as well. We wait in anticipation for the wonderful defense of traditional marriage you'll undoubtedly lay on the weak minded, whiners here.

    This actually reminds me of another Christian skeptic I encountered once.

    Over on Victor Reppert's blog, there was a Christian named Zach. Now, Reppert's blog is philosophical - much looser than Ed's, but with a focus on arguments about the mind, particularly the argument from reason. It's had its ups and downs, a bit better nowadays. There are atheists and Christians there.

    One day, Zach shows up, and he's a very interesting Christian: his main contribution to the discussions is to absolutely, unrelentingly mock and attack arguments against materialism. Each and every argument - the AfR, arguments from teleology - is, in his view, bad and putrid and horrible and wrong, and more than that, an unbelievable embarrassment to every Christian around. Indeed, the existence of those arguments, how stupid they are, and how stupid the people who offer them are, actually make him ashamed to be a Christian. His arguments against them were always pretty horrible and brief - mostly he just insisted over and over, if at length, that they were terrible and horrible arguments and no one should ever use them.

    Now and then - particularly when criticized - he'd allude to the fact that he was Christian (he even had a blog, though he posted there rarely) when someone would suggest he was full of it. In fact, he'd even talk about there being "MUCH better arguments for the immateriality of the mind" and how Christians should use these other, unnamed arguments. I and others started to ask - just what ARE these arguments? He'd insist that he'd talk about them eventually, but he was under no obligation to give them, and if we were all so stupid that we couldn't figure them out ourselves that was our problem.

    And on and on it went. Sneering at and attacking every argument against materialism, insisting that Christians were stupid for using them, insisting that they all be given up.

    Until one day, something funny happened. Another person - a long-standing atheist, materialist commenter - made a comment on the site. Except the comment sounded an awful lot like what Zach would normally say (it was very out of character for the atheist) and it was noticed before he could delete it.

    It turned out that Zach - the Christian who was absolutely mortified at these 'horrible' arguments against materialism, whose primary motivating factor in commenting was to attack these arguments - was an atheist materialist in Christian drag.

    I bring Zach/BDK up for the following reason: sock-puppeting is real. For Zach, he didn't have very good or persuasive arguments, so he tried a different approach: mocking and belittling the arguments, and the people who made them, in the hopes that he could convince people to be quiet by attacking and belittling them. And if he pretended to be on 'their' side too, he reasoned, his antics would gain him credibility and pack more punch.

    Never forget that the LGBT movement didn't advance through reasoned, calm argument and rational persuasion. It's advanced almost exclusively through rhetoric, emotional manipulation, and more. Reasoned, rational argument has been frantically avoided at all costs, which is why no sooner did this crappy SCOTUS decision come down than you started to see people declare that arguments against gay marriage were no longer welcome in any capacity whatsoever.

    Keep this in mind during the conversations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Crude,

    Whilst I don't doubt there are some people online acting as you describe, I do think Chad truly is a Christian and probably personally opposed to SSM. I think his aggressive, yet unpersuasive, attacks on opponents of SSM are based on his strong commitment to left-liberalism and even stronger dislike of conservatism.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mr Feser,
    I did not have the time to read all the comments so please forgive if this point was spoken to. It has come to my attention that the SCOTUS ruling in favor of gay marriage was merely a smoke screen to turn our "rights" granted by God into privileges granted by the state.
    If you would render an opinion blue collar folks, such as myself, would appreciate it. If I am mixing apples and oranges with my request it is unintentionl.

    All the best!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hi everyone,

    Back for a very brief comment. Chad Handley writes: "The only position I've endorsed that can actually be attributed to me is the position that any sane, stable, financially-solvent person should be allowed to adopt."

    By that token, the, single people should be allowed to adopt.

    But then Chad also quotes the following argument for allowing same-sex marriage: "3. It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education."

    Chad's argument would therefore imply that a single person should be allowed to marry themselves, in order to confer legal protection on their children. The idea of marrying yourself has been seriously suggested. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-marriage .

    Chad may object that marriage has traditionally been regarded as a union between two people, but he can't have it both ways: if he is willing to set aside tradition for same-sex marriage, then why not set it aside for same-person marriage?

    Finally, same-person marriage would have to be the most stable form of marriage that there could be. After all, you're not likely to divorce yourself, are you?

    Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bang on Dr. Feser.

    @ Chad,
    And the opposing legal arguments to SSM are "terrible"? The fact that SSM isn't and can't be a marriage based on reality and the facts is a "terrible" legal argument and that it can't, therefore, possibly claim to be "equal" to marriage let alone can some have a "right" to a fiction is a "terrible" legal argument? PLEASE! Please return, Chad, to your day to day routine watching HBO and getting talking points from your talking heads on CNN - no one is buying your BS here.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jeremy,

    Whilst I don't doubt there are some people online acting as you describe, I do think Chad truly is a Christian and probably personally opposed to SSM.

    The sincerity of the Christianity isn't my concern here. The 'probably personally opposed to SSM'? Yeah, I think all evidence points to the contrary. Take the dishonesty in his past statements, the obsession with this one topic in particular, the attacking and denigrating of people opposed to SSM. If I told you I was against gun control, but I lied about my opposition to a handgun ban, if I spent 99% of my time arguing why arguments against gun control were all terrible, if I mocked and attacked just about every opponent of gun control, and if I spent practically nil time defending my belief people should be free to own handguns - would you start to reasonably suspect perhaps I was putting on a show?

    I want people to realize what they're dealing with before they expend the energy arguing with a gimmick, and maybe to learn something in the process about the reality of these debates.

    By the way, let me relate a move someone tremendously similar to BDK gave once upon a time. When backed into a corner and asked 'If you think all the arguments against materialism are horrible and terrible and it makes you ashamed to be Christian to see them, then what's your argument?' His response: "Because FAITH! All evidence is against us, we have no rational reasons or arguments to believe what we believe, but FAITH tells us we're right, and that should be our argument!"

    In other words: 'I want you to reject all the other arguments based on metaphysics, philosophy, reason, evidence and experience. Instead I want you to say that the only reason you believe what you do is near pure fideism.'

    Or, put another way - what a surprise. It was a case of a fake Christian who adamantly insisted that the only argument he approved of was no argument whatsoever, but pure fideism. You know, the caricature that Cult of Gnu atheists typically insist Christians subscribe to, for the purposes of strawmanning them.

    Go ahead, press Chad. See if his move differs all that much.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Crude

    Agreed. That's what I was trying to get at. Supposedly, Chad is committed to the orthodox Christian understanding of marriage. Cool. Now, tell me why. It's apparently so irrational that no self-respecting Christian would dare to actually argue for it's promotion in the public domain. Marriage is a private revelation, along with Fatima, and Lourdes, etc...

    ReplyDelete
  45. I would like to encourage all thinking Christians, and especially Thomists, to PLEASE speak up on social media.

    Use some of the arguments and information presented here and elsewhere.

    It may not seem like a big deal.

    It may seem like a waste of time. But over time and across mediums, THESE THINGS ADD UP.

    Post well-reasoned and civil arguments in a comments box.

    I recommend the online magazine The Atlantic. Not only does it have informative articles, but its comments sections *tend* to be marked by civil discourse (which is becoming increasingly rare).

    Who knows? You may have an opportunity to plant at least a seed in somebody's mind and get them to come back to sanity and at least to get them to draw from the 'bank of reality'again as someone here put it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Jeremy and Crude,

    It is difficult to get a handle on where exactly Chad would draw the line between himself and same-sex marriage arguments, the reasoning of which he has said he "doesn't necessarily endorse." Maybe he will explain that at some point, or maybe he won't. I mean, originally he argued that Feser hadn't addressed the positive arguments for same-sex marriage, but those arguments are based on a denial that marriage (1) has the objective, essential features that traditional marriage advocates claim that it does; and (2) that the norms arising from those objective, essential features have consequences for the common good, which the state is supposed to defend. And wasn't that Feser's whole point? That skepticism is, on some level, central to the same-same marriage advocate's claim?

    Am I missing something here, or am I totally confused?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Fideists have always looked down on all the tards that actually attempt to present arguments for their Faith. Remind you of anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anon,

    Agreed. That's what I was trying to get at.

    Yeah, I noticed, and that reminded me of some similarities.

    Note that the problem here isn't 'being pro gay marriage' or even 'being pro gay marriage and being Christian'. Admittedly, I think there are some tremendous hurdles there, but it's a whole other argument where 'being mistaken' is a live possibility. It's the dishonesty schtick.

    Which, it goes without saying, this issue has been awash with. See various politicians who were totally opposed to gay marriage, because marriage has God in the mix and a million other things you guys, for serious back when the polls went one way. Funny how all it takes is a shift of the winds to change people's minds, eh?

    And to the other anon - people are presenting these arguments, talking about it. But honestly, and I say this as a guy with tremendous respect for these arguments - 'good intellectual arguments' only works so well, especially in a climate where any sense of sincere opposition to same-sex marriage is regarded as an offense worthy of harassment and destruction in one's career, etc. The opposition isn't being driven here by calm and reasoned reflection on the arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This thread has convinced me that Crude is right.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Skyliner:
    Crude wrote: "It's a complete wad of melodramatic bullshit." - Yup.
    Of course, that doesn't mean that people don't sincerely buy into this kind of melodramatic bullshit. They do. Further, psychological suffering is something that is framed by the concepts and propositions one affirms ("beings of reason"), regardless of the truth of those concepts and propositions. It may well be the case that there are "besetting delusions" in every age and that those delusions give rise to intense psychological suffering in those who are pathologically afflicted. I think it goes without saying that we need to tread lightly with people who are liable to pathologically delusional states of mind. But the approach of "let's all pretend that this delusion is not delusional" is precisely what makes a given delusion to be one of the besetting delusions of the age; so beware lest you just reinforce the root problem with your compassion (which looks not much different from Crude's melodramatic bullshit - I wonder how you'd analyze cases like that of Shawn Ratigan?). There's the wheat and the tares, sure. But there's also "if it causes you to sin, cut it off, tear it out, cast it away." As for the notion that slavery was a besetting vice, so St Paul didn't come down hard on it, it seems you're necessarily implying that anything St Paul did come down hard on was *not* a besetting vice - and I doubt you have any good reason for thinking that that is true, in which case...

    ReplyDelete
  51. David,

    Of course, that doesn't mean that people don't sincerely buy into this kind of melodramatic bullshit. They do. Further, psychological suffering is something that is framed by the concepts and propositions one affirms ("beings of reason"), regardless of the truth of those concepts and propositions.

    I agree. That said? Even among the people who 'buy into the melodramatic bullshit' - whose number I sincerely question - there's not some corresponding belief that their 'arguments' are airtight logical proofs that they're right, or even particularly good reasons. It's a false front - they are props for a show. However they got where they are, it wasn't because they were reasoned into it with persuasive intellectual appeals, without which their commitment collapses.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Feser writes, "For example, if “same-sex marriage” is possible, why not incestuous marriage, or group marriage, or marriage to an animal, or marriage to a robot, or marriage to oneself? A more radical application of the “same-sex marriage” advocate’s key moves can always be deployed by a yet more radical skeptic in order to defend these proposals."

    In case no one has posted a link to this yet, see the discussion by philosophers about the Obergefell decision. Many of them think we should go further and eliminate marriage altogether (or more precisely: the government should stop recognizing marriage). In other words, now that we have allowed gay marriage, we should wonder, not just "why not polygamy?" (as Freddie DeBoer argues for on another site) but "why marriage at all?"

    The whole thing is rather funny: advocates of traditional marriage were endlessly mocked by advocates of SSM who wondered, "how on earth would legalizing gay marriage affect your marriage?!" Now that advocates of SSM have won, they say to all married people, "let's invalidate your marriage."

    So I think it's now pretty clear how legalizing SSM has affected traditional marriage.

    http://dailynous.com/2015/06/29/philosophers-on-the-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-ruling/

    ReplyDelete
  53. Chad - would you be willing to summarize what you consider to be the "natural law" case against SSM? I've been trying this exercise with others and find it helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ Bobcat

    In case no one has posted a link to this yet, see the discussion by philosophers about the Obergefell decision. Many of them think we should go further and eliminate marriage altogether (or more precisely: the government should stop recognizing marriage). In other words, now that we have allowed gay marriage, we should wonder, not just "why not polygamy?" (as Freddie DeBoer argues for on another site) but "why marriage at all?"

    I mean, the point is obvious: The state has no interest in subsidizing adult romance as such. Yeah, even as an anchor against that "loneliness" under which all unmarried individuals suffer.

    But to redefine marriage is to switch from a conception of marriage as the foundation of society to a conception of marriage that certifies (some) adult romance. Before, the definition of marriage was at least consistent; it excluded some adult romance, but that was not its purpose. Now that is its purpose, for which reason its inconsistent: including both opposite-sex and same-sex couples doesn't cover everyone who might not want their "dignity" to be "demeaned."

    There's no more reason for the state to certify romantic couples as such than there is reason for the state to certify non-romantic (platonic) couples or romantic trouples, quads, whatever. So the natural conclusion is: If we are going to understand marriage in such away that same-sex couples can participate in it, then we will have rendered marriage pointless (at least from the state's perspective).

    Now, we won't actually abolish marriage, because there is a point to marriage, rightly understood, and even same-sex marriages remain parasitic upon natural marriages for their intelligibility. (By that I mean: Humans reproduce sexually. If that weren't the case, then there would be no such thing as marriage; people would not commit to permanent, exclusive romantic unions if that were not a consequence of sex. But given that people do, eventually people who - by what they might regard a terribly unfair accident of biology - can't participate in such a union, want entrance to such a union. So we convince ourselves that marriage exists to make adults happy or protect them from loneliness, and it seems plausible, to some at least, that marriage could be redefined. But nope: No orientation to procreation, and it becomes totally unintelligible.)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Crude,

    Well, we can 't really know. His glee at the defeat of the anti-SSM side is certainly strange, especially as his argument about it being clearly legal and us having bad legal argument is bogus even according to his own statements. Take away the hidden assumptions about what constitutes marriage (two people joined through affection) and what isn't necessary for marriage (the complementary nature of the sexes, the need specific nature of heterosexual marriage, the natural orientation to reproduce, the need for children to ideally have a mother and a father, and so on) and there would be no reason to limit the justification to the four points of the majority or the interpretation of the points the majority makes. It is only with such a highly arbitrary limitation and interpretation, ignoring anything that implicitly or explicitly diverges from it - which occurs again and again as the Chief Justice points out, that the majority can be said to cite precedent. So it is clear the ruling was not based on close legal reasoning alone (I never claimed, contrary to Chad's accusation, that was no legal reasoning or use of precedent, although the arbitrary and partial use of precedent by the majority is a travesty), but philosophy and ideology are at its root. So how the anti-SSM side has terrible legal arguments I don't know. Chad certainly never proved this. In fact, he implicitly admitted the legal arguments of the pro- side are pretty terrible.

    I also, contrary to Chad's accusation, haven't seen many people accuse the pro-SSM people of having no positive arguments per se. They are accused, quite rightly, of often just dismissing their opponents and relying on slogans, and also that when they do make arguments they tend not to examine their assumptions or take their opponent's arguments seriously, but who ever said they didn't have positive arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jeremy,

    Well, we can 't really know.

    In the sense of being utterly certain? No. But I think we can hit a point where it becomes far less prudent and wise to give the benefit of the doubt. 'But I may, against all evidence to the contrary, be sincere!' is defense I'm no longer interested in taking seriously.

    That's not to say that the arguments shouldn't be examined and dismantled, but being aware of what all evidence indicates is going on is important.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Well, it is certainly the case his attacks on the rational distinction between heterosexual marriage and homosexual relationships makes his stated belief that SSM is wrong on Biblical grounds seems to mean the prohibition is contrary to our rational conclusions on the issue, which is a strange position even for someone who believes in divine command theory.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Scott wrote,

    I'm not sure where you're getting that strange disjunction. The decision in Obergefell v. Hodges is quite explicitly based on "forensic legal reasoning"—specifically a Fourteenth Amendment analysis—whether you (or for that matter the Chief Justice) agree with it or not.

    I missed this, sorry. I got it from Chad. Chad was trying to argue to the point that the ruling was simply a legal one. That it followed entirely from a strict use of the precedent without any explicit or even implicit role for philosophical or ideological assumptions about marriage, how it is defined, and the like (though he later seemed to admit this was not the case). He denied that the anti-SSM side could muster this kind of legal reasoning, instead having to rely on philosophical arguments that he ruled as politically not feasible.

    Of course, there are all sorts of discussions about the role of broader considerations in jurisprudence - for many, the majority's reasoning may be perfectly legally valid - but it was Chad who claimed that the majority decision was based only on what he called legal arguments or reasoning and not philosophical ones, unlike I idiotic opponents of the ruling. This seems backwards to me. Chief Justice Roberts, at least, seemed to be far keener to stick to the entire content and spirit of the precedent.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The majority essentially took precedent where those who drew it up clearly had in mind a distinction between heterosexual marriage and other relationships (based on things like complementarism, the nature of the sexes, and so on) and often explicitly indicated as much. The majority then used parts of the precedent to support their case whilst implying the fact the precedent uniformly held there was important distinctions between heterosexual monogamy and other relationships was unimportant.

    The Chief Justice and other dissenting opinions argued that do this is not to strictly follow the precedent but for the court to make social policy, or apply philosophical or ideological judgments, based upon their contemporary, liberal understanding of human sexuality and what legitimately distinguishes traditional marriage from SSM. The dissenting opinions argued this was not for the court to decide but should left to legislators.

    Now, I'm not saying that he majority ruling wasn't legal reasoning in a broad sense or even that it isn't the correct ruling. I am simply challenging Chad's strange allegations that pro-SSM people have excellent, purely legal argument, whereas idiotic opponents (he literally called the Chief Justice's argument a turd) can only make philosophical arguments that are irrelevant to the legal process.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Santi

    Yes, you should be proud to stop suppressing same-sex attracted people from acting on their desires. Hopefully you will then stop suppressing pedophiles from acting on theirs.

    Just because someone has a desire, doesn't make them free to act on it.

    As Dr. Feser's says, our arguemnt is not a slippery slope, but a reducio ad absurdum.

    Anyway, this is my analysis: it seems that the Sexual Revolution is based on Dr. Peter Singer's "sex draws no moral problems," that is, there is no such as Lust, and that erotic stimulation cannot alone be bad, period.

    This is rebelling against the previous idea that sex was about procreation, and any sexual action that frustrated reproduction directly or frustrated its effects was wrong, which makes homosexuality, divorce, etc. wicked.

    I don't see how a same-sex "marriage" advocate can be against incest and pedophilia in themselves. At the same time, I don't see how a pro-marriage advocate can be for contraception and yet reject same-sex attraction. Both groups of people only seem to be making arbritary distinctions.

    It seems that if you think gentile stimulation brings up no moral questions in itself, than you must logically accept pedophilia and incest, else you are holding an irrational prejudice. On the other hand, if a person denys that sex has an intristic end, than they can't rationally deny that gay sex is permissible, unless he invoke Divine Command, which the secular State rejects a priori.

    Why don't the Children of FreeLove™ just come out of the closet and accept incestrials and pedophiles? Or are they too unconsciously bond by prejudice? Or are they just saving face until the prejudice of the culture against these things dies down?

    On another note: When Justice Kennedy said that opponents of same-sex "marriage" have no rational ground, he probably means that, since contraception is rationally accepted, and thus sex is defined as right or wrong externally by ourselves, then there is not reason to be against homosexuality. Interestingly enough, not only does this straight out reject natural law as rational, this implicitly denys the rationally of any religious arguements, as, according to Mr. Kennedy, Bible-arguments against gay "marriage" can't be rational. He doesn't imply that religious arguments are not the concern of the State, he implies that they are irrational, period. Yet Kennedy is Catholic (in name and baptism at least). Doesn't that mean he has an irrational belief like the pro-marriage people? How can he call us irrational when his own words make his own beliefs are irrational?

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Santi

    Yes, you should be proud to stop suppressing same-sex attracted people from acting on their desires. Hopefully you will then stop suppressing pedophiles from acting on theirs.

    Just because someone has a desire, doesn't make them free to act on it.

    As Dr. Feser's says, our arguemnt is not a slippery slope, but a reducio ad absurdum.

    Anyway, this is my analysis: it seems that the Sexual Revolution is based on Dr. Peter Singer's "sex draws no moral problems," that is, there is no such as Lust, and that erotic stimulation cannot alone be bad, period.

    This is rebelling against the previous idea that sex was about procreation, and any sexual action that frustrated reproduction directly or frustrated its effects was wrong, which makes homosexuality, divorce, etc. wicked.

    I don't see how a same-sex "marriage" advocate can be against incest and pedophilia in themselves. At the same time, I don't see how a pro-marriage advocate can be for contraception and yet reject same-sex attraction. Both groups of people only seem to be making arbritary distinctions.

    It seems that if you think gentile stimulation brings up no moral questions in itself, than you must logically accept pedophilia and incest, else you are holding an irrational prejudice. On the other hand, if a person denys that sex has an intristic end, than they can't rationally deny that gay sex is permissible, unless he invoke Divine Command, which the secular State rejects a priori.

    Why don't the Children of FreeLove™ just come out of the closet and accept incestrials and pedophiles? Or are they too unconsciously bond by prejudice? Or are they just saving face until the prejudice of the culture against these things dies down?

    On another note: When Justice Kennedy said that opponents of same-sex "marriage" have no rational ground, he probably means that, since contraception is rationally accepted, and thus sex is defined as right or wrong externally by ourselves, then there is not reason to be against homosexuality. Interestingly enough, not only does this straight out reject natural law as rational, this implicitly denys the rationally of any religious arguements, as, according to Mr. Kennedy, Bible-arguments against gay "marriage" can't be rational. He doesn't imply that religious arguments are not the concern of the State, he implies that they are irrational, period. Yet Kennedy is Catholic (in name and baptism at least). Doesn't that mean he has an irrational belief like the pro-marriage people? How can he call us irrational when his own words make his own beliefs are irrational?

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Great post, and a great imaginative way to demonstrate how disorienting it is to enter into discussions and arguments about this. I find essays and books about, say, whether other minds truly exist to be so preposterous I can't take them seriously. But THIS -- equally proposterous, but these folks are serious, and their arguments are so crazy that after a while you not only wonder if they might be right, but also if ANYONE is or even can be right. It's like standing in the surf when the waves wash the sand away. Yes, there really is ground and ocean. But when you're in the middle, you can't tell where one begins and one ends and if they ocean will come forever...

    ReplyDelete
  63. Yo Chad,
    What's terrible is your mode of argument, as well as the SCOTUS majority's. Kennedy's "define their own identity". What kind of shit is that? Add to that the fact that homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder a little under a quarter century ago, and was only removed from the DSM under duress. The real question is what compelling interest the state has in playing along with a mental disorder by way of encouragement.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Crude
    So I googled Reppert's blog and 'Zach'. Although he's deleted his posts, much of what 'Zach' wrote is still embedded in others' quotes.

    Truth be told, knowing the backstory you've related, and then reading 'Zach's' commentary--the absurdity of it. It's comedy gold!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Daniel D,

    Is there real, tangible, major harm caused by either pedophelia or incest? If so, can you specifically enumerate some of those harms?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Well, coming from Canada, let me warn my American friends about what you are soon going to be facing for anything remotely like denial of legitimacy or anything short of outright approval of homosexuality and all sexual deviance.

    1. Social ostracism:
    - In your workplace, where you are likely to be fired and not hired at all if you are known to have "controversial" views on homosexuality;
    - You family. Friends stick out much longer than they will, but even they will become much, much more quiet and reserved and increasingly hesitant to help you.

    2. Social madness and increased degeneracy:
    - Polite social parties may well include the suggestion, nonchalantly, to consider throwing on some porn for entertainment;
    - Men in women's bathrooms in gym's, and they kick the people who try to intervene or complain about it out of the gym
    - Endless sensitivity training in the workplace so everybody knows what they are and are not allowed to say or suggest to ensure a 'safe and comfortable' working environment 'for everybody'

    3. School torture
    - Kids will begin learning about sex and how two moms and two dads are a normal kind of family as early as 6
    - Sex-ed will begin as early as Grade 6, including descriptions of oral sex
    - Any child who at any time identifies with any sex will be accommodated, whether bathroom or locker room

    And the final stage that is now happening in Canada, the Trannies.

    Transgender people will increasingly agitate that society, government, institutions and businesses facilitate their lies. They will agitate that dating sites and services simply portray them as their chosen sex without any warning to normal, unsuspecting users of services.

    That last line is arguably the scariest for single people, especially single young men. We all know how a man is likely to respond after finding out she isn't actually a he at all - and with gender change surgeries now, this may come later.

    Yes, it was and is a slippery slope. Yes, it does lead to social breakdown; and yes, as the Scripture says, those who approve of these things soon loose even "natural affection" - they become morbidly obsessed with advancing and defending the ostensible "rights" of the sexually confused, and they do not care if children suffer for it or if anyone does. And I hardly even mean homosexuals, bisexuals or "transgenders", etc., I mean the people who become ideological fanatics for them. Expect soon people on your social media - family first, likely, then increasingly friends - to tell you, "you really shouldn't say things like that" or "I'm really worried about you... you should think more before saying such things, it could affect you at a job interview..." The "shutting down" of opposition and dissent begins slowly, but eventually it enfolds society.

    ReplyDelete
  67. lol, sorry, should read: "she isn't actually a she at all" above.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Skyliner: We all had our suspicions before then--very effeminate, seemed more comfortable in his own skin when playing board games with his sisters than watching the 49ers game with the guys, and so on.

    I must admit, I’d be more comfortable playing board games with anyone’s sisters than watching the 49ers. (I don’t even know who the 49ers are. I couldn’t even tell you if there are in fact 49 of them! It sounds a little high for what I speculate to be a sporting team, but they must have understudies and so forth, so who knows….) Anyway, I don’t have much practical advice other than a reminder that prayer never goes to waste. And, to echo some previous responses, neither does humility. If you have the influence to encourage your brother-in-law in prayer and humility also, it will surely be for the good.


    Crude: where do they get off talking about how the petitioners have demonstrated 'a love that may endure even past death’?

    Yes, that part certainly floored me. The court entertained testimony from beyond the grave? How did they manage that, court-appointed medium? No, that would’ve been hearsay. The Witch of Endor was an old college roommate of Sotomayor’s, maybe?? And did they permit Casper to be called as an opposing witness to the trauma of being a spirit-boy raised by a ghostly same-sex trio???


    Chad: The Conservative Christian response has been like the response of a spoiled basketball player complaining that bad officiating cost them the game.

    Good grief. I may not know who the 49ers are, but even I know that sometimes there really are incompetent or biased referees. That’s the whole point of the original article: if the other team was “better prepared”, it was not at playing a better game, but at cheating. Going around saying that you’ve won until people starting believing it does not in reality constitute winning the game. The quotations from the decision — even parts you quoted yourself — show that the reason largely boils down to saying, gee, we already ascribed to same-sex twosomes various rights and responsibilities of marriage in unnatural ways (such as procuring children by means of grotesque forms of prostitution), so we may as well finish the job.

    it would only require that the state not prevent some children from having the opportunity to be brought up within marriage.

    How about the state not preventing some children from having the opportunity to be brought up by their mother and father?!? Don’t give me those won’t-somebody-think-of-the-children crocodile tears. If these people cared for the children so much, they would be doing whatever they could to give them both a mother and a father instead of a misogynistic substitute.


    Vincent Torley: Chad’s argument would therefore imply that a single person should be allowed to marry themselves, in order to confer legal protection on their children.

    Indeed; and that beats my example. I was merely going to ask why a poor widow who is helped to raise her family by her mother cannot marry her? Why, it would practically seem they have a duty!

    Finally, same-person marriage would have to be the most stable form of marriage that there could be. After all, you're not likely to divorce yourself, are you?

    I dunno… what if you made you do all the household chores yourself? And whenever there was trouble, all you could talk about was your own problems? And every time you went out, you made eyes at someone else? …You’d certainly have grounds on the basis of insanity!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Hey, David M,

    As I've stated previously, I'm not entirely comfortable with my own approach to this issue. Any suggestions? I mean, my brother-in-law's brother is a committed Christian and my wife tells me that, every now and then, he puts comments, links, etc., critical of homosexuality on his Facebook page (nothing over the top, as I understand--just holding his ground and championing the traditional point of view in the face of a Babylon that is not in a repenting mood). The result has been alienation. Now, it could be the case that my brother in-law, in being unwilling to face criticism, is being overly sentimental. But, even if that's the case (and, to be honest, I think there's a decent chance that it is), I still have to "play the cards I was given." I very much prefer to deal with people who are open to being criticized and challenged . . . (On this latter point, I mention in passing that I think Timocrates warnings of social ostracism for traditionalists have already come to pass: e.g., a few years ago I was in a graduate seminar on Christian spirituality, and our reading for the week was Evagrius of Pontus' _Praktikos_; when I asked the participants if they thought his critique of desire constituted an implicit challenge to the type of gay theology one finds in Marcella Althaus-Reid, I thought I was going to be stoned.)

    Have you yourself ever been in a similar situation? If so, how did you address it, and did your approach prove successful?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Please people, most of these joke examples about people marrying themselves, marrying their feet et cetera are maximally great islands. Whatever marriage is it definitely involves another party - likewise comparisons with pedophilia don't hold since the issue there is consent rather than the nature of the action itself.

    The polygamy and incest criticisms however are stronger and present far more of a challenge to that kind of reasoning.

    A point I have asked before and to which, as far as I know, no-one has addressed. Let us admit for the moment that the essential point of sexuality is reproduction - why is reproduction in itself a good though? Why should producing another further our own nature? One can of course simply answer that it's good just because it is our nature to perpetuate the species. This fits well with the Pauline dictum about it better not to marry but better to marry than to burn though presents a rather Gnostic byline modern Catholicism typically tries to disassociate itself from ('a religion of the whole person. Soul Body').

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Is there real, tangible, major harm caused by either pedophelia or incest? If so, can you specifically enumerate some of those harms?"

    With straight incest, there is a "risk" of a baby, but many married couples think that pregnancy is a "risk" anyway, rather than a blessing. So they use contraception. I'm inclined to think that because of the existence of legal abortion and contraception, these negatives against incest are accounted for, and so there are no longer any good reason to reject incest. However, I can appreciate an argument here.

    When it comes to pedophilia, age of consent laws are in themselves arbitrary. Since the sexual revolutionaries can only judge a sex act by consent, and age of consent is arbritary, than laws against two, consenting people with at least one that happened to be 13 years old is itself arbritary, similar to the argument against same-sex "marriage."

    But what if a young adolestant can't consent psychologically? On the contrary, they can, as past history has shown. The majority of cultures in the past have girl marrying as young as 13-14 years old. Our culture simply possesses a old prejudice against this kind of realationship. Most of these girls that age have had their period, and so biologically are capable of reproduction, and thus sex.

    At first, when I wrote that post, I included the clarification "12 and over," thinking reasonably that biologically a child younger than that is usually in risk of being hurt in a sex act. However, that got me thinking that "Fifty Shades" style of sexual perversion is legal, and encouraged apparently (otherwise the movie wouldn't have been made), so if the child consents to sex acts that may be painful to him/her, isn't it the same as an adult woman? So I left that out. I can appreciate an argument though. Also, a child can be married and not have intercourse with the spouse, but instead perform non-intercourse sex acts, like oral sex, until the child is physically or mentally ready.

    I guess the question conserning pedophilia is whether the child can consent or not psychologically. I think at least children hitting puberty shouldn't be denied sex and marriage, following this logic, as there is historical proof that the current age of consent are arbritary. We wouldn't want to get in the way of LOVE, right :roll eyes:

    Also of note is that homosexuality in history has ALMOST ALWAYS been pederestry, and I don't think the Sexual Revolution can truly be finished until pederestry is culturally acceptable.

    The most important point however is that marriage is now understood as "mere affection," and so a man can marry is daughter civilly without even the thought of intercourse, maybe for college benefits perhaps. In that case anyone should be able to marry anyone, as marriage is no longer about sex, but "affection." I think the next step, which many people my age (I'm 20) are now arguing for, is the erasing of civil marriage itself (many of them homosexuals). I mean, why does the government need to be a middle man between me and LOVE? Plus, marriage is "obviously" a patriarchal institution that should have died out in the '60s (real people say this). I think even Glenn Beck is arguing to just get rid of civil marriage even, although I don't pay attention to him much (this is a common libertarian viewpoint).

    Right now though, there are still unenlightened people who will attack these poor people, people who just want to LOVE and be recognized, for doing things that they only dislike due to mere taste and historical prejudice. One day FREEDOM and LOVE will prevail! The SCOTUS is already stepping in the right direction.

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dr. Feser, this post was thoroughly satisfying!

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ Daniel

    Many people today seem to think that Paul was some sort of Gnostic. Yet this is a misunderstanding. Paul was and is easily misunderstood (both Paul himself and Peter admit this).

    When Paul writes "spirit" vs "flesh," he actually has in mind the Jewish psychology of yetzer-hatov and yetzer-hara. He uses Greek terms because he was writing to Greeks. These terms are almost interchangeable with St. Thomas's reason and concupiscence. In fact, many cultures and philosophies and religions in the ancient world understood this distinction, like Hinduism and Buddhism.

    It is true that Paul endorsed celibacy, because celibacy is a higher calling. And it's not celibacy per se he is honoring, but rather celibacy "for the sake of the Kingdom." We do not honor Virgins because they are Virgins, but because they are Virgins for Christ. If Christians though celibacy was per se righteous, we wouldn't have had a problem with Origen's actions.

    As St. John Paul the Great explains, one of the purposes of marriage is to conquer concupiscence, so that the will has total freedom over the passions/flesh. The person could then choose to become sexually aroused for the sex act, rather than be sexually aroused, and consent to or resist it. Sex then becomes a free choice determined rationally, and the only rational reason to have sex is for procreation. Thus St. Justin teaches that Christians "have sex for procreation" and the Lord Himself, when Adam still had the original innocence which sub oriented the passions to the intellect, commands Adam to "be fruitful and multiply," a command given not to the Jews in particular, but to all humanity. This is also God's first command to any human ever as well.

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Question - how do we propose to know the teleological "purpose" of sexuality? In a case in which reproduction is not possible (post menopause, during pregnancy, etc) doesn't the purpose become simple pleasure and intimacy? If so, that would seem to re-frame the purpose of the act and seemingly make it no different than what same sex participants are looking for. In what way would this not be part of "natural" theology?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  75. @Daniel

    Also, from the Aristotelean point of view, the whole goal of a life form is to maintain its form, or to be more specific, its final cause is its formal cause. There are two ways to maintain form. The first is to eat and fight and do whatever the life form has to do to keep itself alive (it's life is its form, if you recall. It wants to keep its form in existence, it's life in existence). The first way is then to keep the individual alive. The second way to reproduce, as reproduction propagates the form in a different way. Most humans seem to get the connection between the first way and the second way, because we often find writers connecting children with immortality, like Aegeus in Euripides' Medea. Maintaining the individual in form and matter forever is called immortality, properly speaking, and so maintaining the form through descendants is, in a sense, immortality.

    When Saints choose celibacy, they are taking an act of faith: they do not know through reason that they will be resurrected and thus be immortal, yet they abandon the only worldly way to become immortal (procreation) in order to obtain an uncertain, rationally speaking, immortality. In other words, only those who truly trust in God's Promises of eternal life would volunteer to give up the immortality found in procreation.

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @Anonymous (6/3: 7:24)

    "Question - how do we propose to know the teleological "purpose" of sexuality?"

    There are many here that can explain the mere rational reasoning here, but I can tell you the Christian reason: "be fruitful and multiply" was the first command given by God to humanity.

    "In a case in which reproduction is not possible (post menopause, during pregnancy, etc) doesn't the purpose become simple pleasure and intimacy?"

    I think this reduces down to the understanding of act/potency. There is the potential for a woman to procreate with a man, period. It may not be actual though. Procreation is not even potentially there for a same sex act.

    And from the religious point of view, God can do all things. Sarah was not able to procreate a child, due to her age, yet through the will of God, Isaac was born. Old age does not necessarily deny procreation.

    However, on the other hand, a married couple past child bearing age would do well to conquer concupiscence by overcoming the drive and ordering the passion to the intellect. In Eastern Christianity in the past, many married couples would split apart after childbearing age to join a monastery for the rest of their lives (this wasn't a divorce, just a "separation for the sake of God" that St. Paul talks about. Many Hindus in India do the same thing when they get old, actually). In fact, this way of life seems to be practiced in Ireland during the Medieval times as well.

    The Church Fathers seem to be against sex just for pleasure though (St. Augustine seems to think that it is a venial sin). They don't say that sex shouldn't be enjoyed, but that the pleasure should be coupled with the intent to procreate. To have sex just for pleasure shows a weakness, that the person is still attached to the passions. The goal (which can't completely be reached in this life) is to have that sexual desire completely under the control of the will, so that sexual desire would only be if the will allows it, and the will will only allow it when it intends procreation. Modern teaching doesn't see sex for pleasure's sake as a sin, as long as there is nothing frustrating the sex act (like contraception).

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Daniel:

    Please people, most of these joke examples about people marrying themselves, marrying their feet et cetera are maximally great islands. Whatever marriage is it definitely involves another party - likewise comparisons with pedophilia don't hold since the issue there is consent rather than the nature of the action itself.

    I agree, although in the case of pedophilia I'd say that maturity is a more fundamental issue than consent; the latter depends on the former, and it is marriage we're talking about here rather than only sex.

    The polygamy and incest criticisms however are stronger and present far more of a challenge to that kind of reasoning.

    I agree about incest*, but not about polygamy. As far as I can see, polygamy—or rather, specifically, polygyny—isn't in and of itself altogether contrary to natural law anyway. (Aquinas didn't think so, although he did think (a) it ordinarily hinders the marital goal of community and mutual support and is therefore to that degree secondarily contrary to natural law, and (b) it's contrary to the specifically Christian ideal of marriage as a microcosm of Christ's relationship with His Church and is therefore contrary to revealed law.)

    I would have thought it easier to make a case for polygyny than for SSM in the first place, so I don't see why SSM proponents should bear any special burden here.

    ----

    * Though surely it's not too terribly hard to make an argument that someone like a parent or sibling would irrevocably undermine that important familial/social role by becoming a "spouse" ("too" or "instead"). It's not all about the genetics.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anon,

    So I googled Reppert's blog and 'Zach'. Although he's deleted his posts, much of what 'Zach' wrote is still embedded in others' quotes.

    That started the absolute moment he realized he was outed. Zach's blog, gone. All his comments, gone. A lot of them are caught, yes, and enough people noticed what went on when I blogged about it. Not the first one I've encountered either. But at least it makes for an interesting lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @Skyliner:
    Of course you want to be 'successful.' But we're not consequentialists (I hope). Being faithful is more important than being successful. If you have a genuine relationship of mutual love and affection and esteem with your wife's brother, then he should already be aware of (and be able to handle) the fact that you do not endorse the 'progressive' narrative about homosexuality. If he is interested in the truth, you'll probably find opportunities to discuss it. If he's not, you won't. But if he's offended - or you're worried he will be offended - by the very fact that you don't go along with his views and express your own views freely, then you don't have much of a relationship to begin with, do you? As far as my own experience goes, I tend to be rather unsentimental about alienating 'progressive' bigots. So have I been 'successful'? Who knows? I would consider rather next Sunday's first reading from Ezekiel 2: "Hear they or deny thee hearing, remonstrate with them thou must; they are a defiant brood."

    ReplyDelete
  80. Daniel,

    Whatever marriage is it definitely involves another party - likewise comparisons with pedophilia don't hold since the issue there is consent rather than the nature of the action itself.

    I'm not sure they fail to hold, but I agree that there are better examples. Here's a fun question: if incest is legal, and the only barrier is consent, what's immoral about grooming children - descended or adopted - for sex when they're at the age of consent?

    When it comes to polygamy, I think people may be missing the real issue there. The problem polygamy presents isn't, in my view, 'Oh no, polygamy - even more immoral than sodomy - may be greenlighted next!' Partly because polygamy isn't 'more immoral' by a longshot.

    It's that, I think, the introduction of polygamy is the one thing capable of breaking the system altogether. Try thinking about how spousal coverage for benefits will work in a polygamy environment. Or how custody battles will work. Or inheritance. Or any other number of things.

    That's far afield from the Natural Law/Thomism/Catholicism question, even if it's important in its own right.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @Crude:

    That's far afield from the Natural Law/Thomism/Catholicism question, even if it's important in its own right.

    I'd say those considerations are at the heart of Aquinas's point that polygamy (meaning polygyny) hinders the marital goals of community and mutual support. In fact, in mentioning "custody battles," you've added that, when divorce is available, it can also hinder the function of childrearing. That all sounds pretty "natural law" to me.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Scott,

    Could be. Didn't think of it that way - those considerations seemed too legal and modern to me, but I forgot that such things actually are within the NL scope.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "The polygamy and incest criticisms however are stronger and present far more of a challenge to that kind of reasoning."

    The pebbles on the slippery slope to legalized polygamy are made of religious exemptions and expansion of the reach of the 1st amendment, the stuff that the anti-same-sex marriage crowd (among others) repeatedly push for. We may yet get polygamy, eventually. But it won't be because of same-sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  84. @ Anon. above,

    That's false. I just read a headline yesterday about a man in America who is seeking another marriage license (which would make him married twice at the same time: i.e., he'd be living in polygamy) because "he was encouraged by the Supreme Court ruling" legalizing same-sex marriage. Some people already see that it follows.

    Indeed, the reduction of marriage to some kind of commitment between two persons does nothing in itself to exclude many such unions - i.e., there's not obvious reason for exclusivity. When procreation is involved as an end there begins to make much more sense why exclusivity would be a proper to a marriage; but when it is merely some vague union of "two persons" there's no obvious reason why one of the persons can't enter into as many such unions as they please. My being friends with Joe hardly necessitates I not become friends with John or Sarah or whomever.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Also, from the Aristotelean point of view, the whole goal of a life form is to maintain its form, or to be more specific, its final cause is its formal cause. There are two ways to maintain form. The first is to eat and fight and do whatever the life form has to do to keep itself alive (it's life is its form, if you recall. It wants to keep its form in existence, it's life in existence). The first way is then to keep the individual alive. The second way to reproduce, as reproduction propagates the form in a different way. Most humans seem to get the connection between the first way and the second way, because we often find writers connecting children with immortality, like Aegeus in Euripides' Medea. Maintaining the individual in form and matter forever is called immortality, properly speaking, and so maintaining the form through descendants is, in a sense, immortality.

    A quick reply (sorry if this sounds rather curt; it is isn't intended to):

    Yes, the second form of 'immortality' is discussed by Plato in The Symposium as being the way in which the lesser animals seek something akin to the personal immortality which they lack. Since however we at least do not lack this reproduction need not be considered a good in itself.

    As to the first reason, the one given in the emboldened paragraph, I would hold it's simply wrong. The telos of Man is to achieve transcendence, to see God. This should not be taken as something arbitrarily added from the outside, a super-natural cherry-on-the-top, but the very core of our being.


    ReplyDelete
  86. @Timocrates

    "Some people already see that it follows."

    Some people would be wrong. Plural unions are vastly distinct from pairings, when it comes to their internal dynamics, and more importantly to the state - their well known negative external effects on society (I mean, we think polygamy is bad for *reasons* right?).

    The cornerstone of the polygamist position is and always has been religious freedom, and that we must tolerate those negative external effects for the overriding principle of religious freedom. But the courts have typically found that those externalities override the polygamist's claim to religious freedom.

    However, as more and greater religious exceptions are demanded - it will give the polygamists a stronger and stronger claim that laws against polygamy violate their religious freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Timocrates:

    Some people already see that it follows.

    I'm not at all sure that it does. The co-wives of a polygynous husband aren't married to (and having sex with) each other, after all; they're just all married to the same man. If there are problems with this arrangement (and there are), they don't appear to have much to do with SSM.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I mean, we think polygamy is bad for *reasons* right?

    Yeah, but aren't those reasons of the same species as the reasons leveled against same-sex marriage? Specifically, that certain traditional marital norms should be recognized and promoted by the state for the common good, otherwise bad social effects will follow. It's just that, for the person opposed to same-sex marriage, the male-female union is the sort of union that has as its natural fulfillment the generation and rearing of children, which effects the common good and is therefore the reason why the state cares about marriage at all; from this, then, proceed all of the traditional marital norms. But for the person opposed to polygamy (and not opposed to same-sex marriage), it's merely the two-person union that should be preserved for the common good.

    Both are arguments about preserving particular essential features of marriage for the sake of the common good; it's just that the latter argument has detached the procreative norm from marriage -- indeed, it sees such a state promotion of that norm as causing dignitary harm to same-sex couples who want entrance into the institution of civil marriage. So why doesn't preserving the two-person union also cause dignitary harm, but towards those in polygamous of polyamorous relationships who also want entrance into the institution of civil marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  89. @jmhenry:

    So why doesn't preserving the two-person union also cause dignitary harm, but towards those in polygamous of polyamorous relationships who also want entrance into the institution of civil marriage?

    Actually I think there's a not entirely awful argument that it does. I don't think the argument succeeds (for reasons already noted), but I think it's better than the one for SSM. Again, polygyny isn't just flat-out contrary to natural law, full stop.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ed missed one thing. The argument is now much more fun because I'm the skeptic. I am single and I demand to know why I am not entitled to all the benefits a married couple receives. Happiness is not enough for married people they want me to pay higher taxes and get less back. I'm in the matrix now, making statements along these lines, asking why, and always having a "but" response, such as "but what about me and my roommate who has lived with me for 30 years, while not sexual, it is as loving as any government marriage, why can't he get disability if something happens to me?." I'm getting no responses and when I ask the questions, threads just die.

    H

    ReplyDelete
  91. "The pebbles on the slippery slope to legalized polygamy"
    It's not a slippery slope but the reductio of the premises used to promote gmarriage. People that snigger at slippery slope arguments need to learn what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I am single and I demand to know why I am not entitled to all the benefits a married couple receives. Happiness is not enough for married people they want me to pay higher taxes and get less back. I'm in the matrix now, making statements along these lines, asking why, and always having a "but" response, such as "but what about me and my roommate who has lived with me for 30 years, while not sexual, it is as loving as any government marriage, why can't he get disability if something happens to me?."

    Well, as I noted earlier in the thread, Michael Cobb at the New York Times is asking the same question -- and he supports same-sex marriage:

    And so old questions remain: Why can’t I put a good friend on my health care plan? Why can’t my neighbor and I file our taxes together so we could save some money, as my parents do? If I failed to make a will, why is it unlikely a dear friend would inherit my estate?

    The answers to all these questions are the same: It’s because I’m not having sex with those people. ... For the only thing that truly distinguishes romance and marriage from other loving intimacies like friendships, other familial relationships and close business partnerships is that sex is (or once was) part of the picture.

    So yes, marriage equality erases an odious and invidious distinction among straight and us not-straight citizens for which I’m truly glad and which I celebrate. And it’ll make lots of people’s lives better. But it also leaves unexamined the reason sex seems to give you benefits and recognition — and why it orders the world and civilization.
    [emphasis mine]

    In other words, what does sex even mean anyway and what is it about sex that draws the state's attention in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  93. @ Anon (H?)

    I am single and I demand to know why I am not entitled to all the benefits a married couple receives.

    Quite right. If being unmarried is as terrible as Justice Kennedy makes it out to be, then it's the singles who deserve economic benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Say hey, David M,

    Many thanks for the reply. No, I'm not a consequentialist, but I don't subscribe to a deontological ethics, either. When I spoke about "success," what I basically meant was, "how do I maintain the integrity of the traditional position, effectively convey its intelligibility (and, therefore, also its rightness and internal attractiveness), and not wind up alienating the person I'm talking with." And, to your point, I, too, would have no qualms when it comes to offending narrow-minded, triumphalist bigotry, but a gentle, ostensibly good and sensitive soul is another matter. At any rate, when and if the issue comes up, I'll tell him that I disagree with it and believe it to be a disorder, but that, despite that, he's one of the best young men I've ever known and that he'll always be welcome in our household. More still, I'll tell him that my respect for his character renders me willing to re-think things and seriously consider his counterpoints: I'm neither perfect nor close-minded, and I'm always open to seeing things more clearly. And, hopefully, he'll extend me the same courtesy.

    ReplyDelete
  95. At any rate, when and if the issue comes up, I'll tell him that I disagree with it and believe it to be a disorder, but that, despite that, he's one of the best young men I've ever known[.]

    I know this isn't supposed to be a verbatim recital of what you'll say to him, but if you respect (as you seem to) the way he's struggling with the problem and trying to bear a difficult burden, may I suggest leaving out the "despite that" and adding something along those lines instead?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Yes, of course. Many thanks, Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @Daniel

    "As to the first reason, the one given in the emboldened paragraph, I would hold it's simply wrong. The telos of Man is to achieve transcendence, to see God. This should not be taken as something arbitrarily added from the outside, a super-natural cherry-on-the-top, but the very core of our being."

    I had in mind life in general, and you are correct that "whole" was probably a bad choice of words, but I still hold that continuous existence is an essential goal of lifeforms, including Man. However, I agree with the spirit of your point: this goal of life is derivative from the primary goal of see God face to Face, as I can't see God if I'm dead (I mean in the spiritual sense. Man can be spiritually dead but physically alive, and physically alive but spiritually dead. His spiritual life trumps in importance his physical life though, because to see God, one must be spiritually alive. Physical life is accidental to seeing God). In other words, being alive spiritually is necessary to know God, and ultimately being alive spiritually leads to being alive physically (St. Athanasius makes this point in his On the Incarnation).

    There's actually evidence of man's goal to be alive in Scripture: when God created something, including a living thing, and Man, it follows with Him declaring it "good" (and for Man, he said "very Good." He seems to mean that a lifeform existing is in itself good (this also shows Christian support for the interchangeability of being and goodness).

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  98. @Skyliner

    I think one of the points you must stress to the young man is that homosexuality is not wrong because of some abstract, airy law somehow forces its will onto us, but rather that because it causes concrete harm to those how act in such a way.

    Also, there is a comment on this blog named Joe, and he has a blog where he discusses homosexuality from a gay, celibate, Catholic Thomist: http://beatushomo.blogspot.com/2013/01/greetings.html

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Wow. Add "which" in between "law" and "somehow," remove "that" in between "rather" and "because," replace "how" with "who," add "-er" to "comment," and add "perspective" after "Thomist."

    I feel stupid for having written that. Sorry I killed a couple of your brain cells :-(

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I think one of the points you must stress to the young man is that homosexuality is not wrong because of some abstract, airy law somehow forces its will onto us, but rather that because it causes concrete harm to those how act in such a way.

    And to emphasize I point I made early on and I'm sure is in conformance with what Daniel D. D. intends here:

    Homesexuality is wrong is, without context, an ambiguous statement. What's "wrong" (in the sense of "sinful") is homosexual behavior, and it's wrong for everyone (independently of "orientation") for the same reason: it falls short of the virtuous use of the gift of sex and constitutes an abuse of it. A homosexual "orientation" is "wrong" only in the sense that it indicates a disordering of appetites; it's no more "sinful" than any other sort of temptation is.

    I don't mean to keep harping on this point, but there's a pastoral reason for it. There's no more reason for the poor kid to feel loathesome merely for having certain feelings than there was for Jesus to loathe Himself when He was "tempted in all things just as we are, yet was without sin." We all have temptations; there's nothing special about his that calls for self-hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  101. (…or, I'm sure it would have gone without saying, hatred by others. The shaming he received at the hands of some of his family shouldn't have happened.)

    ReplyDelete
  102. @Scott and Skyliner

    Another fantastic idea is to explain to him the distinction between the will (intellectual appetite) and the emotions/passions/sensible appetite. If he understands that emotions are not right or wrong, but rather how we, our wills, act on them determines such, he will probably go a long way in life. The goal of the virtuous man is to order the passions to the will, and the will to God's will.

    Article 1. Whether moral good and evil can be found in the passions of the soul?

    Objection 1. It would seem that no passion of the soul is morally good or evil. For moral good and evil are proper to man: since "morals are properly predicated of man," as Ambrose says (Super Luc. Prolog.). But passions are not proper to man, for he has them in common with other animals. Therefore no passion of the soul is morally good or evil.

    Objection 2. Further, the good or evil of man consists in "being in accord, or in disaccord with reason," as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Now the passions of the soul are not in the reason, but in the sensitive appetite, as stated above (Question 22, Article 3). Therefore they have no connection with human, i.e. moral, good or evil.

    Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5) that "we are neither praised nor blamed for our passions." But we are praised and blamed for moral good and evil. Therefore the passions are not morally good or evil.

    On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7) while speaking of the passions of the soul: "They are evil if our love is evil; good if our love is good."

    I answer that, We may consider the passions of the soul in two ways: first, in themselves; secondly, as being subject to the command of the reason and will. If then the passions be considered in themselves, to wit, as movements of the irrational appetite, thus there is no moral good or evil in them, since this depends on the reason, as stated above (18, 05). If, however, they be considered as subject to the command of the reason and will, then moral good and evil are in them. Because the sensitive appetite is nearer than the outward members to the reason and will; and yet the movements and actions of the outward members are morally good or evil, inasmuch as they are voluntary. Much more, therefore, may the passions, in so far as they are voluntary, be called morally good or evil. And they are said to be voluntary, either from being commanded by the will, or from not being checked by the will.

    Reply to Objection 1. These passions, considered in themselves, are common to man and other animals: but, as commanded by the reason, they are proper to man.

    Reply to Objection 2. Even the lower appetitive powers are called rational, in so far as "they partake of reason in some sort" (Ethic. i, 13).

    Reply to Objection 3. The Philosopher says that we are neither praised nor blamed for our passions considered absolutely; but he does not exclude their becoming worthy of praise or blame, in so far as they are subordinate to reason. Hence he continues: "For the man who fears or is angry, is not praised . . . or blamed, but the man who is angry in a certain way, i.e. according to, or against reason."


    Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2024.htm#article1

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Say hey, Daniel DD,

    I absolutely agree with Aquinas on this point. Contemporary popular culture would do well to spend some time with _The Philokalia_. So often, we think that we are most free when we can simply do whatever we feel like doing at a given moment on the basis of impulse; but, in point of fact, we become free precisely by learning to overcome our impulses and subordinate our desire to a higher (and, sometimes, unwelcome) principle. E.g., a five year old doesn't *feel* like going through with his swimming lessons, and would *rather* play video games, and he just does what he feels like doing. And, two months later, when the family is on vacation, he is incapable of enjoying swimming with his cousins in the pool. Everyone else is having a blast, but he is stuck on the sidelines. Similarly, it's difficult to learn a new language, and one would rather watch one's favorite sitcom on Hulu; but, if one chooses the latter and fails to rise above one's preferences, one will be incapable of fully entering into the new world of France, Germany, Mexico, or wherever--so many delights and insights are, as such, impossible for the person.

    I fully agree, but, I think this would be a hard sell. I think that, for those of us who are heterosexual, the existentially global ramifications of our attraction to the opposite sex are largely invisible. The guy I'm talking about has been attracted to men ever since he was capable of being attracted, and began praying to be released from it at age six. My sense is that he has settled on the notion that the only way to attain to psychological stability is to believe that this ineradicable desire is not something that is despised by God: if the desire is hateful, something of the innermost self is hateful as well.

    I've been arguing with my wife about this for the past few days. I take the, "however deeply challenging, it should be regarded as an objective disorder" line, and she takes the, "*that's who he is*--he's a good person, let him live his life, and let God judge" approach. But, to me, it is so obviously a *bad* idea to assume that desire ought to go unchecked.

    Would love to say more, but I have to go and prepare dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @jmhenry


    So why doesn't preserving the two-person union also cause dignitary harm, but towards those in polygamous of polyamorous relationships who also want entrance into the institution of civil marriage?


    Simple. It does cause dignitary harm. But that dignitary harm is outweighed by the severity of the probable, negative social consequences of polygamy itself.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Daniel D

    I think one of the points you must stress to the young man is that homosexuality is not wrong because of some abstract, airy law somehow forces its will onto us, but rather that because it causes concrete harm to those how act in such a way.


    I think this is precisely the difficulty, especially as people gain real world experience. The reality simply doesn't jive with that claim in a great number of cases.

    Because what you actually have to confront here is that where the above claim tells us we should observe spiritual suffering, emptiness, selfishness, vice and despair, we are often confronted with obvious spiritual flourishing, richness, selflessness, sacrifice and meaning - in similar proportions to our observances of similarly right-living heterosexuals.

    You then have to convince people, that despite their real world experience, there's just some hidden harm in there somewhere, that they just can't see... because... natural law. That falls flat pretty quickly.

    Or you can say that living as a homosexual is itself, the harm.

    And it may be, in some sense true - a gay person that yearns for marital type love and also yearns to naturally produce children with his/her spouse is necessarily faced with the dilemma the rest of us aren't, so there is "harm" of a kind there. But then one is prompted to ask just what the options are... to cut himself or herself off from one final end or another, each considered to be fundamental parts of the human experience - or both. Its hard to see how living as a homosexual is really a harm in that case, and not just fulfilling his/her natural ends in the best way possible for him/her.



    ReplyDelete
  106. modus,

    "Metaphysics, broadly speaking, is the study of what is the case"

    It is the study of the principles of the case. This or that case by itself is contingent. How can one case be connected to another? Certainly not through the facts of the case since they are posited only as particulars. There must then be some first principles which are to be sought after no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Simple. It does cause dignitary harm. But that dignitary harm is outweighed by the severity of the probable, negative social consequences of polygamy itself.

    Right. But that's partly the same argument traditional marriage advocates use against same-sex marriage: that detaching the procreative norm from marriage will have negative social consequences (as one example, someone earlier in the thread cited this article). The traditional marriage advocate is simply saying that the male-female union is the sort of union which is naturally fulfilled with children, and since the generation of new human beings effects the common good, this serves as the basis for why the state takes an interest in marriage at all. But without this procreative norm, it becomes unclear why the state even cares about marriage, or how sex "orders the world and civilization" (to use Michael Cobb's words again).

    It just seems to me that, when a same-sex marriage advocate says that marital norm X should be preserved from a further radical redefinition, lest bad social effect Y follows, then the person just ends up proving the old saying that "today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives."

    ReplyDelete
  108. @jmhenry


    Right. But that's partly the same argument traditional marriage advocates use against same-sex marriage:
    that detaching the procreative norm from marriage will have negative social consequences (as one example, someone earlier in the thread cited this article).


    Its only the same, in the sense that any argument over what rights exist and what their limits ought to be, is the "same argument". Depending on what those social consequences of policy X, Y or Z are likely to be, and what features of X, Y or Z actually bring about those consequences, one can remain consistent, and justify extending or limiting rights in certain cases, but not others.

    Its possible to support the right to own handguns for self defense, while opposing the right to plant active landmines in your lawn for self defense, for example. Landmines are distinct from handguns, even though they are both types of weapons. If one or the other was to become lawful and popular in our major towns in cities, the results would likely be very, very different.

    So simply put, same-sex marriage advocates (at least this one), disagree to the extent of the distinctions between same-sex marriage, and heterosexual marriage, and polygamy. Same-sex marriage is more alike than different to man-woman marriage - But a wide, wide gulf exists between pairwise unions and plural unions. Same-sex marriage and man-woman marriage are a world apart from polygamy (sort of like hand guns and land mines).


    The traditional marriage advocate is simply saying that the male-female union is the sort of union which is naturally fulfilled with children, and since the generation of new human beings effects the common good, this serves as the basis for why the state takes an interest in marriage at all. But without this procreative norm, it becomes unclear why the state even cares about marriage, or how sex "orders the world and civilization" (to use Michael Cobb's words again).

    It just seems to me that, when a same-sex marriage advocate says that marital norm X should be preserved from a further radical redefinition, lest bad social effect Y follows, then the person just ends up proving the old saying that "today's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives."


    Or maybe when it comes to same-sex marriage, the case for resultant negative externalities is just not very strong (it isn't, IMHO). And maybe who it comes to polygamy, the case for resultant negative externalities IS very strong (it is, IMHO).

    And frankly, I disagree with traditional marriage advocates, that same-sex marriage changes anything about the procreative norms of marriage. Marriage is as much about childrearing as it ever was. I also don't find it hard to find a compelling state interest, when it comes to non-procreative marriages, whether hetero or homosexual. Many of the duties that spouses promise to be able to perform for one another, are of the sort that require enforcement and honoring by the state. So in the end, despite those sorts of traditional marriage arguments, I don't see why it isn't perfectly consistent to oppose polygamy while support same-sex marriage.

    In either case, arguments from natural law, procreative norms, or religious freedoms - those are all oft used to argue *for* polygamy, and actually are far more effective than any argument could be that would say all those things have been *subtracted* from marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  109. @anon

    Yes, thanks. That's right: study of the underlying fabric of reality. As you say, "the study of principles of the case." Sloppy on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  110. But a wide, wide gulf exists between pairwise unions and plural unions. Same-sex marriage and man-woman marriage are a world apart from polygamy (sort of like hand guns and land mines).

    Since all polygamy would have to be same-sex or different-sex,, and polygamy as generally advocated consists entirely of legally recognized non-exclusive pairwise unions, this seems to be just wishful thinking, particularly some heterosexual and many homosexual marriages are known to be open marriages and thus not actually exclusive already. (The same goes for the negative externalities argument; if the negative externalities are there, they already exist in at least some open marriages, and nobody is bothering to regulate them.)

    ReplyDelete

  111. Since all polygamy would have to be same-sex or different-sex, and polygamy as generally advocated consists entirely of legally recognized non-exclusive pairwise unions, this seems to be just wishful thinking, particularly some heterosexual and many homosexual marriages are known to be open marriages and thus not actually exclusive already.


    Polygamy, as its most commonly advocated, currently and historically, is of the usual type - many wives, one husband, in a religious union. I think there's little reason or evidence to believe that more "progressive" versions of plural unions would be common.


    (The same goes for the negative externalities argument; if the negative externalities are there, they already exist in at least some open marriages, and nobody is bothering to regulate them.)


    Actually, they aren't - many of the real society impacting negative externalities of polygamy only become apparent when it becomes wide spread. Shortages of marry-able females, demand for wives continually driving down the age at which women marry, rising populations of men with no marriage prospects, etc.

    Which highlights one other major distinction between the two. Legalized gay marriage can't result in millions of heterosexual marriages becoming gay marriages. Legalized polygamy *can* result in millions of heterosexual marriages becoming polygamous marriages. It is true, all social norms against polygamy *could* remain intact despite a change to the law, but they also might not - and thats a big, big risk.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I think this is precisely the difficulty, especially as people gain real world experience. The reality simply doesn't jive with that claim in a great number of cases.

    My real world experience (as a 20 year old in College) is that sex, especially homosexual sex, is used to indulge in pleasure and lust, and that these people are slaves to their passions. This is a great harm alone, physically, spiritually, and intellectually.

    Because what you actually have to confront here is that where the above claim tells us we should observe spiritual suffering, emptiness, selfishness, vice and despair, we are often confronted with obvious spiritual flourishing, richness, selflessness, sacrifice and meaning - in similar proportions to our observances of similarly right-living heterosexuals.

    This seems like a species of the more general question: why is that some of the wicked don't suffer, but rather seem to be rewarded? However, I do think you are exaggerating the "spiritual flourishing, richness, selflessness, sacrifice, and meaning."

    How can they be spiritually flourishing if they are a slave to their sensible appetites?

    "Richness" is too vague to mean anything. It seems to mean that their lives are emotionally fulfilling. If so, then regardless if it is actually emotionally fulfilling in the short run, it is not in the long run, because no life lived purely in passion is fulfilling in the long run, at least.

    "Selflessness?" They use each other as a sex toy, and often watch pornography, which objectifies human beings!

    "Meaning" seems to be them "making their own purpose," which not only has philosophical problems, but ultimately is unfulfilling. Self-divination alone is the last illusion before despair, as it leads to it.

    You then have to convince people, that despite their real world experience, there's just some hidden harm in there somewhere, that they just can't see... because... natural law. That falls flat pretty quickly.

    Real word experience tells me that homosexuals who live that way are nihilistic in their thought and perverted and addicted in their will.

    There are many harms due to lust. The family is being destroyed, the will enslaved, and the greedy taking advantage of the second in this list. Also, as Dr. Feser recently brought up in a post, lust darkens the mind and enslaves the intellect to "justifying" the lust rather than search for the truth. And we have too much evidence for this: just look at some of the non-arguments for gay "marriage" which lead to absurdity, the pure pathos appeal of the LGBTs, or just read the illogical majority opinion of the recent SCOTUS decision. And this is just the tip of the iceberg!

    But then one is prompted to ask just what the options are... to cut himself or herself off from one final end or another, each considered to be fundamental parts of the human experience - or both. Its hard to see how living as a homosexual is really a harm in that case, and not just fulfilling his/her natural ends in the best way possible for him/her.

    And once again, a homosexual advocate fails to understand the difference between an intimate friendship and sodomy. One can have a deep, emotional bond to someone else and not have sex with them. It's easier when one has control over their passion though.

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @Daniel D. D.:

    And once again, a homosexual advocate fails to understand the difference between an intimate friendship and sodomy.

    Here I have to protest. I know several same-sex couples in long-term monogamous relationships, and what they feel for one another is clearly not simply intimate friendship, nor is it reducible to sexual attraction (let alone using each other as sex toys and watching pornography). And they would still feel it even if they never committed sodomy again.

    Of course 20-year-olds in college may not have relationships of that kind and probably do use one another as sex toys (and even watch pornography). But I suspect something similar is true of 20-year-olds in college generally.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Polygamy, as its most commonly advocated, currently and historically, is of the usual type - many wives, one husband, in a religious union.

    This is not what is primarily advocated by those advocating the legalization of polygamy; they simply advocate the elimination of bigamy laws. Religious polygamists in fact are almost never legalization advocates, precisely because of prejudices against the religious groups in question. The legalization impulse is mostly derived from people in open marriages who want to obtain certain of the standard legal benefits, or from people advocating polyamory contracts as a transitional step. Have you even bothered actually to read up or investigate any of the actual polygamy advocacy that is done?

    Actually, they aren't - many of the real society impacting negative externalities of polygamy only become apparent when it becomes wide spread.

    Setting aside your sudden shift from negative externalities to "negative externalities that become apparent when it is widespread", on what grounds are you claiming that polygamy will ever be widespread, when open marriage itself is estimated at around 4% of heterosexual marriages, which is far and away the largest population? What are your reasons for thinking that there will be a sudden and radical shift in the marriage practices -- not conception, actual practice -- of literally millions of people solely on the grounds of adding an option to have additional legal benefits and obligations associated with the practice?

    Legalized polygamy *can* result in millions of heterosexual marriages becoming polygamous marriages.

    Only in the same sense that legalized same-sex marriage 'could' result in millions of same-sex marriages; that is, it would happen exactly when, and only when, millions of people actually wanted it. There is not, and never has been, any reason to think that the vast majority of people do, even among those in relationships that would already be of the relevant kind.

    The weakness of your arguments simply shows how much they are pulled out of thin air.

    ReplyDelete
  115. @Scott

    Do you mean romantic feelings? I originally wanted to use "romance" instead of "intimate friendship," but I thought it would cause confusion.

    There are certainly 20 something year olds who have a monogamous relationship (despite what some paniced parents think, most college aged people are not going around and having causal sex ever weekend). Generally speaking, their relationships tend to be dominated by sex, by which I mean the sex and the feelings that come from it cause the couple to ignore important details about each other (I will add that there is personal experience talking here too). If an event doesn't cause then to break up though, I find that as the "passion" dies down, they will either 1) seriously try to confront the issues between them that were ignored 2) drift apart, and eventually separate. 1) happens to be rarer than 2).

    And that's even a bit iffy. I know two guys who are dating their hometown sweetheart, and one is absolutely in love with her, and the other started cheating as soon as he got to college.

    Most 20 year old men watch porn, though, period.

    This is just my experience. I definitely acknowledge it is incomplete, and some of it is probably wrong.

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Maybe a distinction between friendship, intimate friendship, romantic friendship, romantic partner, and causal partner is in order?

    A priest once talked to me about a psychologist who, although secular, came up with ways in which those who decided they did not wish to live the homosexual lifestyle for whatever reason could. One of the biggest ways was to develop a very close friendship with another man (who you are attracted to but he isn't) and after a large amount of trust is developed confide your feelings to him (while telling him that you don't wish to develop a sexual relationship). The psychologist taught that this is very effective.

    I don't really know what to think of it. I can see some potential faults (the friend drifts apart, due to discomfort).

    Regardless of what ones views on homosexuality are, I don't think anyone can disagree that living with it is very damn hard.

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I guess the question I've been contemplating is what exactly should a homosexual committed to Church teaching and natural law actually do with his/her feelings? I would ask Dr. Feser to maybe do a post on his thoughts, but I don't know if he would feel qualified to speak on such a topic.

    I've always got this feeling that gay persons tended to be more mystically oriented (don't ask me why). Maybe they should enter the contemplative life?

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Or more specifically, what should Catholic homosexual do with those romantic feelings for others that Scott speaks about?

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  119. @Daniel D. D.:

    Or more specifically, what should Catholic homosexual do with those romantic feelings for others that Scott speaks about?

    Wild guess here: abstain from expressing them sexually?

    ReplyDelete
  120. @Scott

    Would cuddling be wrong then? Would dating a man that one has a sexual attraction to, without having sex of course, be wrong? Would living together (if you've come out) be the sin of scandal? Would pecks on the checks (in the context of American culture) or holding hands go too far?

    Also, did you change your photo recently?

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  121. @Brandon


    This is not what is primarily advocated by those advocating the legalization of polygamy; they simply advocate the elimination of bigamy laws. Religious polygamists in fact are almost never legalization advocates, precisely because of prejudices against the religious groups in question. The legalization impulse is mostly derived from people in open marriages who want to obtain certain of the standard legal benefits, or from people advocating polyamory contracts as a transitional step. Have you even bothered actually to read up or investigate any of the actual polygamy advocacy that is done?


    Eliminating bigamy laws would allow people to obtain marriage licenses to multiple people, in effect legalizing polygamy. So I don't think there's any real distinction there, except that the legal frameworks for dealing with issues involving multiple spouses would be fairly murky.

    And yes, in fact, in the US at least, pushes to legalize polygamy have been and are driven primarily by Mormons, not the few scattered pockets of polyamorous types who engage in an occasional kind of lackluster activism and "me toism" when same-sex marriage is talked about. And they've done so primarily on the grounds of religious freedom, though of course, they will opportunistically use any kind of argument that they can, to see what will stick, regardless if there's a logical connection to their cause or not. But so it is with just about any movement or advocacy group.


    Setting aside your sudden shift from negative externalities to "negative externalities that become apparent when it is widespread", on what grounds are you claiming that polygamy will ever be widespread, when open marriage itself is estimated at around 4% of heterosexual marriages, which is far and away the largest population? What are your reasons for thinking that there will be a sudden and radical shift in the marriage practices -- not conception, actual practice -- of literally millions of people solely on the grounds of adding an option to have additional legal benefits and obligations associated with the practice?


    I don't think it necessarily would, but its a big risk. If it did become widespread, I think it most likely would be through immigration (mostly Muslim), at least initially. But if polygamy wouldn't become widespread after legalization, then sure - those major negative externalities would never manifest... in which case, we don't really have to be concerned about polygamy at all.

    If change to marriage laws X, Y or Z would lead to basically the same state of affairs that exists today, it makes the slippery slope argument completely impotent.


    Only in the same sense that legalized same-sex marriage 'could' result in millions of same-sex marriages; that is, it would happen exactly when, and only when, millions of people actually wanted it. There is not, and never has been, any reason to think that the vast majority of people do, even among those in relationships that would already be of the relevant kind.


    *shurg* If polygamy legalization won't today, or in the future, create more polygamists - then it ceases to be a scary or risky endeavor (but I'm not convinced it would play out that way - and hence have strong reasons to object to it).

    ReplyDelete
  122. @Daniel D. D.:

    Would cuddling be wrong then? Would dating a man that one has a sexual attraction to, without having sex of course, be wrong? Would living together (if you've come out) be the sin of scandal? Would pecks on the checks (in the context of American culture) or holding hands go too far?

    I don't speak with any authority here, but with the possible exception of the sin of scandal, none of those things seem to me to be wrong in and of themselves; nor, again in and of itself, would even sleeping in the same bed. They might, however, be too risky ("occasions of sin") for someone without the self-control to refrain from continuing on to sexual activity, and I wouldn't be surprised if a pastoral counselor advised against some or all of them based on circumstance or case.

    Again, though, that's a first-look personal opinion, without authority.

    Also, did you change your photo recently?

    Yep. My avatar was from a photo over a year old, so I've updated it with something more recent (and taken for that purpose).

    ReplyDelete
  123. @Scott

    Maybe a relationship like Joseph and Mary's would be appropriate? You also have to remember that in different cultures, men holding hands and kissing (not "making out") is not homosexual at all (Jesus greeted people with a kiss, for example).

    Christi pax,

    Lucretius

    ReplyDelete
  124. @Daniel D. D.:

    Maybe a relationship like Joseph and Mary's would be appropriate?

    Yes, that had crossed my mind.

    You also have to remember that in different cultures, men holding hands and kissing (not "making out") is not homosexual at all (Jesus greeted people with a kiss, for example).

    So had that. Still speaking only for my not-yet-Catholic-nor-in-any-way-authoritative self, my impression is that this is all at least on the right track.

    ReplyDelete
  125. 1. Skyliner: I don't see how, in principle, your position is much different from what it would be if he'd divorced and remarried. That doesn't make it any easier to actually walk the line, but then, this isn't a relationships blog, but a philosophy one.

    2."comparisons with pedophilia don't hold since the issue there is consent rather than the nature of the action itself."
    I don't really see the strength of this argument. If we think something good for children, or good in itself, their consent goes out the door. And if we think it bad, then we forbid it, the same way. The resistance to pedophilia is entirely based on the fact that we overwhelmingly think it both bad in itself, and bad for them. But those are precisely the points on which its advocates will disagree. (And ultimately, Kennedy or his successor, will accept their position.)

    3 @ Brandon: Certainly you are right that a shift to a polygamous society wouldn't happen all that fast. But I don't know (I mean that literally) if it couldn't happen pretty quickly. Look at how fast the attitude changed on unwed motherhood - it was radical, and changed in one lifetime. You may be right, I am unsure.

    4. The argument from, e.g., departure of arranged marriage to a protean understanding of marriage itself strikes me as odd. It assumes that the way in which people come to marry is at the core of the nature of marriage. (I guess the "They be in loooove" school must see it that way.) But of course that's silly. I can get a boat by buying it, as a gift, stealing it, salvaging it, or building it. None of which changes what we mean by "boat".

    This is all very disheartening, but not unexpected.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Say hey, George,

    Not sure I'm following you here. Did you mean, "If he had divorced and *wanted to* remarry" (the guy in question is celibate; he is also single and has been so since his attempts to enkindle a desire for the opposite sex by dating women)?

    Also, to Scott, I was wondering the same thing as Daniel D.D. At any rate, I dig the new photo. It suitably evinces your old-school yet idiosyncratic personality (as I have taken it insofar as I have become acquainted with it over the past month or so). I have appreciated your firm but compassionate posts on this matter. As of late, I really have been struggling with this issue, and I'm trying my best to do justice *both* to my own native convictions on the matter as well as the traditional teaching of the Church, *and,* to the evidence that I'm facing in my extended family.

    And, to Daniel D.D., I also think that we may need to distinguish between those whose same-sex attractions are the consequence of a life whose habitus is the result of having constantly indulged passionate appetites, on the one hand; and, on the other, those whose same-sex attractions are simply native. Culpability is far more obvious in the one case than in the other.

    E.g., I cannot--and never could--help the fact that I have in fact been "wired" in such a way that my pancreas does not properly function and that I have been a diabetic since I was a teen (even though I ate well and exercised regularly); but, someone who is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes late in life due to constantly indulging the pleasures of the table and refusing to exercise *can* be blamed for their condition. What makes it difficult here, of course, is the fact that, were I to resist the notion that my pancreas *malfunctions* and endorse the manner in which it behaves, death would come along soon enough to settle the matter (so long, that is, as we are still on the same page and regard the death of a human person as a bad thing). But, as someone pointed out a few posts above, in the case of the homosexual whose same-sex attraction is genuinely native, their life and common experience (today) avail nothing *obvious* which would suggest to them that the endorsement of their desire is wrong, culpable, etc. I myself think that the fact the formal nature of their relationship precludes the possibility of procreation (my brother in law very much wants kids, and will, I believe, be a very good parent); but, contemporary society provides so many ways around that obstacle that it is no longer regarded as constituting a metaphysical fact that bespeaks an ethical problematic. (Similarly, I suppose we will become dull to *the objective moral wrongness* of exploiting nature in order simply to indulge our concupiscence once technology has advanced to the point that our capacity to replace natural resources becomes sufficient to our appetites.)

    ReplyDelete
  127. Should have been, "I myself think that the fact THAT the formal nature of their relationship precludes the possibility of procreation TO BE RATHER SUGGESTIVE [. . .]"

    ReplyDelete
  128. The LGBT advocacy that "we were born this way" is a large part of their argument and opponents were initially appalled not only that 'these people existed' but even more appalled that more and more people were acting out their behavior. We can say that teleology, physiology or common sense biology natural law has been trumped by behavior or behavior is the new natural law.

    Also remember that marriage was not just between man and woman but also between families. In the past in Western Society and today in traditional mid east society most marriage partners knew each other since childhood. Also in traditional American society gays were outsiders that occasionally popped up as outsiders but now they are members of our extended families, nuclear families, neighbor's families, the campus advocacy group that our fellow students belong to etc., or the inevitable outcome of the new social family that we are 'born into' when we enter pre-school and kindegarten.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Old Whig:

    Would you call it obsessive to actively attempt to turn back the clock on a group of people whose lives don't actually impact their own marriages in the least?

    Feser has been a heterosexual publicly riding his anti-gay equality hobby horse at least since his anti-atheism book.

    And gays and lesbians are a tidy scapegoat to distract one from religious hypocrisy--pedophile priests being a most obvious example. When's the last time in posts at this blog or in the threads here has heterosexual pedophilia in the priesthood been addressed--or even pedophilia in the priesthood generally? How about historic antisemitism within Catholicism and the Pope's complicity in the Holocaust? Or how about discrimination against gays in employment in many states?

    Every choice of attention is an existential choice. It says something about you.

    And when's the last time you've seen intellectual religionists at this blog or in these threads show the least concern for the lives of gay and lesbian individuals in Muslim countries or Russia?

    But here's the truth: the days when one could demonize, abuse, and murder gay people, box them in legally, and trivialize their intimate relationships are on their way to becoming as dead as the old Confederacy and the Confederate flag.

    There will always be holdouts—the holdouts are obviously obsessives—but just as the stain of human injustice and bigotry accompanies all revived attempts to dominate and trivialize the lives of black people, the same now goes for attempts to dominate and trivialize the lives of gay and lesbian people.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I don't think it necessarily would, but its a big risk. If it did become widespread, I think it most likely would be through immigration (mostly Muslim), at least initially. But if polygamy wouldn't become widespread after legalization, then sure - those major negative externalities would never manifest... in which case, we don't really have to be concerned about polygamy at all.

    Identifying something as a "big risk" on the basis of no evidence and invisible harms, in the face of explicitly given counter-evidence and someone explicitly pointing these things out, is what is usually called 'wild or irresponsible speculation'. And indeed, all that you have established is that this supposed wide chasm between the two arguments appears to be based either on (1) ignorant prejudice about the actual legalization movement for polygamy and groundless speculation about futures there is literally no evidence for or (2) on such vague and gut-feeling subjective assessments that you have repeatedly shown a complete inability to justify them. And that was explicitly the point: you can't give reasons because your argument appears to be simply made up as you go along.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Gay Marriage has become the conservatives' 'Lump Under The Carpet Problem'.

    ReplyDelete
  132. I think it most likely would be through immigration (mostly Muslim), at least initially

    And, you know, what really, really makes my sides split over this whole argument is the sheer looney-tunes absurdity of the picture: millions of Mormon fundamentalists suddenly appearing and demanding that their wives get legal protections that they have never had before, while millions of Muslim polygamists eagerly flock to the land of no-fault divorce and alimony. If you wrote a story with that plot, people would think it slapstick comedy.

    ReplyDelete
  133. The Church was always about the stability of civilization and especially about the advancement of wealth which are legit causes. But the 'indisolubility' of marriage was tantamount to preserving wealth starting with the monarchs who were notorious for gay lovers, mistresses, out of wedlock births etc. Marriages were dissolved in the cases of no heirs to wealth due to impediments, so the secret testimony taken by canon lawyers during courts of annulment are full of LGBT issues or the church has been putting forth these phony arguments to keep women in repressive relationships for centuries.

    ON the other side of the coin, in modern America the Hollywood, Theater and the TV entertainment industry and media has been a haven for gay people since the early Twentieth Century. Needless to say it is not surprising how we got here.

    Pope Francis 'who am I to judge' remark also came as a result of Bishops and other church officials who are frustrated with dealing with the gay issues and found it as an impediment to dealing with shrinking congregations of traditional churchgoers.

    In America most of the churches have large Hispanic and Asian followers that are followers of traditional marriage, so the bigger problem is protecting the gay minority in these churches from persecution by their traditional parents and peers, which is a bigger moral problem.

    ReplyDelete
  134. George LeSauvage,

    Certainly things can move quickly once they all come together; but as the unwed motherhood case shows, things can take decades to come together in the first place. And the notion of a heavily polygamous society runs into a number of problems: it is not usually favored by male-female ratios, it is much more expensive than monogamy and even in polygamous societies is usually found primarily among the very wealthy, marriage rates are already in steep decline, and so forth. Yes, it could happen; so, too, the United States could have another Great Awakening in the next ten years and start becoming rigidly puritan in its sexual morality, or any number of other things. Arguments based on drastic future consequences (rather than, say, rational consistency) are always weak because they must, if they are reasonable at all, be tied to what we actually have specific reason to think likely in the near future; which is why it's not generally a good idea to put a huge amount of emphasis on just how much this change or that will affect, unless the processes and mechanisms for the change are very well known.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anonymous:

    That lump is a callous, as illustrated by the hardness of Feser’s own position. He can’t seem to walk it back, not even a little bit.

    For example, Feser claims that the secular person’s concern for gays and lesbians isn’t even warranted (!), writing the following: “If appeal to the natural ends or proper functions of our faculties has no moral significance, then why should anyone care about whether anyone’s arguments -- including arguments either for or against ‘same-sex marriage’--are any good?”

    Why care, indeed? Feser is not just being obtuse here, but growing a very hard callous around himself emotionally. This is the danger of abstraction absent the attending to real human beings on the ground. Whatever the truth is, the real suffering of real human beings is part of that truth. The subject needn’t disappear because God or Nature absent themselves from us.

    One balm for softening the Pharisaic callous might be the reading of Camus’ “The Plague”—or Camus’ other writings. God doesn’t care about us (as evidenced by God’s silence during the Holocaust), and Nature doesn’t care for us (as evidenced by the Boxer tsunami of 2004). But we care for the human tribe, and can expand our circle of empathy and incorporation to gay and lesbian people. We have imaginative sympathy for all creatures like ourselves. We suffer, and can see that others suffer.

    Empathy is concrete; a direct experience. Absent God and Nature providing a moral compass, we become the last court of appeal, looking after one another. We don’t need external justification for our own human experience of empathy. If we decide that life’s game is worth the candle—that suicide is not our option—then, even in the face of our mortality and being orphaned on a tiny island planet in a vast cosmic sea, we can still choose to care about one another right now; to relieve suffering now.

    This is Camus’ solidarity and rebellion against the absurd. Recall that Camus was writing in the decades immediately following the Holocaust. Of course we have a right to our empathy. It’s not irrational. What is irrational is pretending that we know that God exists—and what God wants—after the Holocaust.

    That’s the rabbit hole of surrealism and lunacy. It’s not rationally incoherent or crazy to be secular and care about the equality and dignity of real gay and lesbian people in 2015.

    Nietzsche was wrong to call Mill a buffoon, arguing that the decline of religion would mark the decline of kindness in the world. It's actually been exactly the opposite. We're morally clearer headed now than probably at any time in human history--and we're living in a secular age. Compassion for gays and lesbians is a sign of our increasing moral acuteness, not of our confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  136. "the opposing legal arguments are absolutely terrible. They're terrible."


    Four Supreme Court justices evidently did not agree.


    Besides, if the arguments against SSM are so terrible, let's have a vote. I think most people are still convinced by them--even here in Iowa, where we have had judicially imposed SSM for a while.


    "Vote." If only.

    ReplyDelete
  137. @Santi, The callousness is the same as the pol's who rail against Obamacare but had no sympathy for hard working Americans who were driven into bankruptcy by a flawed insurance industry that controlled the lawmakers of this country.

    http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/conclave-of-1958.htm

    The papal conclave of 1958 was about Cardinal Siri being elected and declining because he was from a wealthy family and feared they may be threatened by Communists. This sadly is what the church is about, serving the wealth and advancement of human civilization. Unfortunately the hypocrisy abounds when they deny the scientific ideas, liberal compassion and learning which they actually advanced into human civilization. Needless to say the church is a mess because they don't understand their own human minds and the matrix of Western Civilization which they were so central in creating.

    Unfortunately the conservatives are retreating deeper and deeper into the church by wrapping themselves around these narrow arguments while many of their politicians get caught in incredibly notorious sexual behavior making themselves fodder for the liberal comedians.

    It is very sad to many of us.

    ReplyDelete
  138. One balm for softening the Pharisaic callous might be the reading of Camus’ “The Plague”—or Camus’ other writings. God doesn’t care about us (as evidenced by God’s silence during the Holocaust), and Nature doesn’t care for us (as evidenced by the Boxer tsunami of 2004). But we care for the human tribe, and can expand our circle of empathy and incorporation to gay and lesbian people. We have imaginative sympathy for all creatures like ourselves. We suffer, and can see that others suffer.

    Why, may I ask should this be so? Of course can opt to care about other human beings just as we can opt to torture them for our own delight; that we ought to do one as opposed to the other is a completely different issue. 'What about love, compassion and feeling for one's fellow man? Well in response what about cruelty, beauty and dislike of emotional groping?'

    In fact contra your Camus rhetoric I would argue the reverse is true. Before the Holocaust atheist thinkers were braver and more consistent with their over-coming of all morals. 'Everything is permitted' - Sartre and Camus may well be right to say this yet when it comes to their attitude towards the Holocaust one thinks back to the original context where that phrase originates.

    Smerdyakov: 'You used to be so brave sir'

    ReplyDelete
  139. Atheists sadly did not corner the market on amoral behavior and cruelty. Anti-semitism was endemic to Europe for centuries due to religious teaching. The real issue is wealth for ego's self and utter hypocrisy; as opposed to real wealth that advances civilization. A classical way to control people and make them subservient is by the repression and guilt of sexual feelings, see my remark above about conservative pols who serve as the useful idiots that serve the false wealthy.

    If you knew how much corruption takes place even in Church Diocese, let alone corporations and governments, many conservatives would cease being useful idiots. I think Feser does not have a well examined conscience because he rarely says much about conservative corruption as opposed to striking down liberal causes.

    I think he's too worried about the smaller lump under the rug.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I think Feser does not have a well examined conscience[.]

    How fortunate you are to have been granted the power to peer into men's souls.

    I think he's too worried about the smaller lump under the rug.

    I think he's running a philosophy blog and not a gossip column.

    ReplyDelete
  141. @Brandon


    Identifying something as a "big risk" on the basis of no evidence and invisible harms, in the face of explicitly given counter-evidence and someone explicitly pointing these things out, is what is usually called 'wild or irresponsible speculation'. And indeed, all that you have established is that this supposed wide chasm between the two arguments appears to be based either on (1) ignorant prejudice about the actual legalization movement for polygamy and groundless speculation about futures there is literally no evidence for or (2) on such vague and gut-feeling subjective assessments that you have repeatedly shown a complete inability to justify them. And that was explicitly the point: you can't give reasons because your argument appears to be simply made up as you go along.


    You might take a moment to review the 2011 court decision in Canada to uphold the polygamy prohibition, and the reasonings and facts behind it. And then perhaps (as I have done) take some time to do a little investigation into those facts and reasonings, and see if they seem justified to you. I have (back in 2011) and found myself pretty convinced of polygamy's risk.

    You can start here, with the judges decision: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/11/15/2011BCSC1588.htm

    For the icing on the cake, consider the other part of the context - same-sex marriage had been legal for some time in Canada when this case took place.

    Yea... I'm making it up as I go along :rollseyes:


    ReplyDelete
  142. Well the argument he gives is a religious argument for the creator's intent, sex organs, popular accepted practice and social acceptance as opposed to the SCOTUS opinion. Why we don't we just throw out our the entire US Legal System but don't stop there and go back to the Magna Carta. It's only up to the Pope to decide this, but wait he said, 'who am I to judge'.....

    Ok being a bit sarcastic but unfortunately this is about marriage which has changed not just in the last fifty years in America but even over the centuries. If marriage is just about sex organs, then any marriage can be dissolved legally if no children are bore without recourse by the dissenting party....like some cultures today. But of course marriage is about property and raising children, even if your spouse bore them by another partner. Plus let's add in property rights as well...or this is a civil matter.

    Yes, conservatives who adore corporate America where the Jack Welch's of the world dumped their first wives for trophy wives or made Dad take a job in another state where he met the cute chick in the office while living on his own, well conservatives have little rational connection to these values that changed marriage and family values.

    How about the older person who becomes divorced or widowed and falls in love with a same sex partner and wants to give them health coverage....

    Sorry but in the end it is all about the money and as a civil issue, the liberals have and will continue to get the upper hand.

    Yes this is a philosophy blog and philosophy and civil law go hand in hand...and the Pope agrees with this.

    ReplyDelete
  143. @Brandon


    And, you know, what really, really makes my sides split over this whole argument is the sheer looney-tunes absurdity of the picture: millions of Mormon fundamentalists suddenly appearing and demanding that their wives get legal protections that they have never had before, while millions of Muslim polygamists eagerly flock to the land of no-fault divorce and alimony. If you wrote a story with that plot, people would think it slapstick comedy.



    Fine, lets say you're right - there will be little harm done to the future stability of the country if polygamy were to be legalized, and things will mostly carry on like they are now.

    You've only undermined the state's interest in prohibiting it, especially when polygamy is tied to such strong claims of religious liberty and practice. (You are *gravely* mistaken to think polygamy is mostly some ultra-progressive type of movement - it IS primarily driven by certain religious communities).

    You've also undermined any worries the rest of us would hold if we simultaneously justified polygamy, with our arguments for same-sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  144. "If marriage is just about sex organs, then any marriage can be dissolved legally if no children are bore without recourse by the dissenting party....like some cultures today."

    This makes it clear that you don't actually understand the argument. The argument does not classify infertile heterosexual unions as immoral.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Nor is it "just about sex organs." But I think I'm done taking the other Anon seriously enough to respond even briefly.

    ReplyDelete
  146. But I thought the SCOTUS decisions decide legality i.e. property rights, spousal right to not testify against etc, not morality or that Mrs. Winkelbury in the church group objects..

    Show me where I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  147. So, any bets on how many of these anons are Santi?

    It is actually hard to tell. I have noticed similar phrases and arguments, but it just be the dire state of left-liberal arguments today.

    ReplyDelete
  148. "Show me where I'm wrong."

    Oversimplifying and begging the question, for starters.

    ReplyDelete
  149. "real human ... us ...us ... we ... We ... ourselves ... We ... and ... we become ... We don’t ... our own ... If we ... our ... we can ... Of course we ... our ... we ... surrealism and lunacy ... our increasing ... our confusion." and "Whatever the truth is .."

    The truth is, that as a self-declared nominalist, none of that "we" crap means anything objective by your own standard of ontological analysis.

    Objectively, it's just an effluvium of some kind. Interpretable as signaling that an appetite entity (or "organism" if you and Rorty prefer) has a rhetorical gambit in play in order to manipulate or prey upon other living beings.

    Thus, that "we" talk, has from a logical perspective about the same status as does the stroking behavior of an ant relative to an aphid. Though, ants are many times physically stronger than aphids. Which is just the opposite of the case when comparing "liberal males" to normal specimens.

    But that's all water under the bridge as they say. Like Rorty said: we're just talking about an organism here; a pure historical accident, trying to "cope with" its environment. No more no less.

    Of course, the real "social" or environmental problem arises mainly for those non-left beings which the organisms of the left see as part of "their" (in the genitive sense) environment and as legitimate objects of manipulation. "Legitimate" that is, in the sense that there is no such thing as objective legitimacy; "so what difference does it make", as Hillary might say.

    The associative asymmetry problem, has long presented a challenge when analyzing just how and when and where interpersonal duties arise; and when and in what cases reciprocity became a useful concept in arbitrating the grounds of interpersonal claims among supposed natural kinds.

    Strict reciprocity however, leaves the effed-up, basically the political client class of the left, stranded on the shoals of their own dysfunctions.

    One solution to "cruelty" and indifference, which the left dislikes nowadays, was based on the notion of complementarity, rather than on a capacity for strict reciprocity. It's an obvious approach when good-looking women, winsome children, and the venerable old folks at home are considered. That is, people who reasonably mean more to you than middle-aged male strangers with borderline personality disorders and fecal fascinations.

    But, complementarity calls for real natural kinds to exist if it is to carry the weight of any categorical predications which are developed as entailed imperatives.

    That means, definite "natures" of some kind. And what a teleological predicate grants the organism of the left in a power to stake in some cases, it limits in others by setting up boundaries which obligate respect.

    But Rorty has "solved" this problem for the left; and for the rest of us relative to the left if we do him the honor of taking him seriously. He's done it Gordian Knot fashion, by cutting the supposition of natural kinds away entirely using the sharp blade of nominalism.

    Asking what and when you owe this or that to a member of your "natural kind" is no longer necessary or even sensible.

    Not only can you not draw an "ought" from an "is", but, there is mirabile dictu no categorical "is" in the first place.

    Here's the master himself cluing us in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGvrh0ZgCp8&feature=youtu.be&t=314

    It has been said, presumably by Orwell, that at age fifty every man has the face he [morally] deserves.

    ReplyDelete
  150. I think we should go back to Dr. Feser's post about how lust makes you stupid to discover the real reason same-sex sodomy was upheld.

    Christi pax.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Say hey Santi,

    I, for one, take what seems to me to be the basic premise of your position seriously. But, if I may push back, a few things:

    1) Assuming that SSM and the humanity/dignity as such of persons who identify themselves in terms of their sexual orientation are things that people on this blog ought to be more open-minded about and sympathetic towards, it seems to me that you might have better luck in helping others to become aware of what is true and right in your own position if you adopted a different approach. E.g., when you talk about taking real, concrete human lives and social states of affairs seriously, I really do think that you bring up something that needs to be added to the debate. But, when you surround such insights with insults and what not, things seem rather to go off the rails.

    2) Dialogue, it seems to me, is most fruitful when the opposing parties can take each other seriously. Is there really no point in the traditional position on marriage and sexuality that you can take seriously (e.g., "I got you--I see where you're coming from, and I admit that that does make sense, provided that . . . But, this is where I think you are going wrong," or some such)?

    3) If I understand your position on morality rightly, your claim is that there is nothing outside of ourselves which is concerned for or endorses our moral sensibilities (e.g., if reality at large cared for the three year old as much as its parents did, the ocean would have securely thrust it back into its mothers arms after swallowing it up in the tsunami); and, as such, if those sensibilities are to find a home in this indifferent cosmos, we ourselves must build and secure it. Furthermore, you (rightly, in my opinion) endorse sympathy towards our fellow human beings and a deep affirmation of their humanity and dignity as native to a well-rounded and right-minded conscience. You further claim that the approbation of SSM is an example of the latter, and that opposition to it is a violation of it.

    One of the difficulties that I see here, however, is the fact that ethical sensibilities are extremely malleable; who, then, is to say who's right if there is no transcendent principle of goodness to which an appeal can be made--a transcendent goodness that can *justify* a given moral sensibility, rather than being constituted *by it*? One age or culture "just sees" the rightness or wrongness of something to which another age or culture is oblivious. E.g., it is obvious to me that infant exposure and infanticide are wrong, but it wasn't obvious to many cultures in the past (and even the present). On the issue of the unborn, the West now sees things differently than it used to. It (the West) is beginning to see things differently with regard to homosexuality. And, it does not seem to me to be an obvious instance of alarmism to believe that, soon, we will begin to see differently when it comes to the question of the worth of those born with severe disabilities, or the elderly suffering with something like incurable Alzheimer's.

    To put it more briefly, it seems to me that both our desires and our moral sensibilities need to be cultivated and educated. And this, I believe, is a point implicit in the traditionalists position that deserves to be taken far more seriously. Is it really unthinkable that we ought to be circumspect in acting upon our attractions and desires, even if we were born with them?

    ReplyDelete
  152. Continued:

    True, homosexuals have been treated appallingly in the past. But, the belief that homosexuality is an objective disorder need not lead to such (it never did with me, even back in the old days when pretty much all of society adopted a disdainful posture towards it). Opposition to it doesn't have to go that route. In this sense, I regard the present cultural moment as a blessing--the Christian community, at any rate, is now in a position to be more compassionate, less pharisaically judgmental, etc. I regard homosexuality as wrong, but, I also recognize that I've got my own problems--problems which are, I believe, every bit as grave. We can assist one another in carrying our crosses.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Really folks this is nothing more than "The Definition of Marriage Debate Reloaded" or what do we tell the children? As someone born in the fifties I remember attending church weddings so yes, I agree the concept of marriage is ingrained in me as traditional heterosexual. Even as a young child I remember the concept of divorce as something strange and evil, growing up as a Roman Catholic. As a twelve year old I remember my grandmother died and my seventy five year old grandfather remarried a woman fourty five years old which seemed a bit strange. Debates about divorced catholics remarrying and forbidden to receiving sacraments also taught me about religious marriage and legal marriage etc. The point is children grow and learn to deal with the real world.

    Feser's argument though philosophically sound is a bit naive and can easily be turned around that religions put people in a matrix which is impervious to reason. I remember the stories about the Southern judge in the 60's who struck down interracial marriage because God did not intend the races to mix because he put them in different parts of the world. I'm sure they pray at his statue on "I Hate Darwin Day". I think Feser gives a philosophic argument that can be adopted from either side.

    1) There is a legal status and a religious status / definition of marriage.
    3) Children's minds have high plasticity and they spend their lives learning.
    4) Definition of Marriage Debate was not the purpose of the SCOTUS ruling.
    5) Definition of Marriage depends upon which Matrix you are living in.

    ReplyDelete
  154. "Feser's argument though philosophically sound is a bit naive and can easily be turned around that religions put people in a matrix which is impervious to reason."

    "philosophically sound"

    "impervious to reason"

    It's like saying "I acknowledge that he is correct but I still don't believe him."

    ReplyDelete
  155. Read the next two sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  156. I read your whole post before commenting. I don't see how the next two lines alleviate the apparent contradiction. If the PFA is sound, then the conclusion is true regardless of what the attitudes of some religious folks are like. And if you mean to make a reductio, them show how one argument parallels the other in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  157. @ Anon: >> Definition of Marriage depends upon which Matrix you are living in.

    Eh, an appeal to relativism.

    "Your truth is equal to mine. Whose to say either is 'wrong'?" (The one that is deemed bigoted and supposedly treated the other as a half-human, secondhand-citizen.)

    I grew as a RC as well, supported same-sex "marriage" when a family member "came out" to me but in the past few years I have dropped that stance and now only view marriage between a single man and woman as actual marriage. Before that I never gave thought to whether or not two people of the same sex should be able to marry one another; the plasticity doesn't apply to me because I never had much of an opinion on marriage anyways. Only until I left a rather hedonistic, nihilistic subculture did I slowly redact my stance on same-sex "marriage."

    I also feel your analogy of the judge not believing in interracial marriage to those not believing in two people to of the same sex falls amazingly flat once looked at a critical eye. Your passive-aggressive input of "I Hate Darwin Day" is rather telling as well.

    But tit for tat -- your kind, the "I-grew-up-RC-so-I'm-the-perfect-devil's-advocate" does nothing but say "I'm-lapsed-but-take-me-seriously-anyways." If you are practicing ... Yikes.

    ReplyDelete
  158. My observance on how this discussion evolved: Rather typical once same-sex "marriage" supporters stepped in. I mean, the appeal to past grievances, the appeal to dignity, the appeal to relativism etc.

    I'll just say this: Whenever the future comes where marriage is extended to groups in the US, and where children are given like prizes to "those that want it most," the traditional, original set-up of one-man and one-woman will still remain superior to any man made concocted set-up. Anything else besides the original is inferior. Reality knows it. Those with an once of dignity and honesty knows it. You just have to lie to yourself that anything else is equal or better.

    ReplyDelete
  159. >>One of them says: “Well, you know, we have sometimes been very insulting to believers in the Matrix theory. Who can blame them for being angry at us?<<

    I am sympathetic to some of your post, but this is irresponsible. It's not a matter of "insulting" (as though gays just have "thin skin," or something like that); rather, it's an atmosphere in which same-sex attraction is grounds for harassment, bullying, disproportionately high suicide rates (and on and on).

    I agree that the arguments from the liberal side do fly in the face of a long-established common sense, but we need to grow up if we think we (principled opponents of gay marriage) are the victims here.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Daniel D.D.: Maybe a relationship like Joseph and Mary's would be appropriate?

    No. Joseph and Mary were actually married and had an actual family. And yes, kissing or hand-holding can mean different things in different contexts, but what matters is how they are meant by the person doing them. If two people are doing something in the way that a husband and wife would do them, then they'd better be husband and wife.


    Anonymous: a gay person that yearns for marital type love and also yearns to naturally produce children with his/her spouse is necessarily faced with the dilemma the rest of us aren't, so there is "harm" of a kind there. But then one is prompted to ask just what the options are... to cut himself or herself off from one final end or another, each considered to be fundamental parts of the human experience - or both.

    Despite propaganda to the contrary, love is not a feeling, not even marital love. Nobody is cut of from actual marital love and family because (again, contrary to propaganda) marriage always had been available to everyone. (Well, barring severe physical or mental disabilities, or being stranded on a deserted island, etc.)


    Skyliner: the formal nature of their relationship precludes the possibility of procreation (my brother in law very much wants kids, and will, I believe, be a very good parent); but, contemporary society provides so many ways around that obstacle that it is no longer regarded as constituting a metaphysical fact that bespeaks an ethical problematic.

    I think a previous question asked whether homosexual inclinations would be a good reason to consider a monastic life. While that's certainly a possibility, I doubt there's any particular correlation. As I just noted, simply getting married and having a family is still an obvious choice. Naturally, all sorts of individual factors come into play, but if your brother-in-law wants children and a family, then there is one way to get them! Well, you mention "ways around that", but even if it's possible to get a child e.g. by prostitution or adoption, that still ultimately required a man and a woman for there to be any child in the first place; and your brother-in-law can surely appreciate that depriving any child of both a father and a mother is a serious problem. (You say he'd be a very good parent, and good parents are prepared to make sacrifices for their children... what is he prepared to sacrifice to give his children a mother and father?)

    ReplyDelete
  161. it's an atmosphere in which same-sex attraction is grounds for harassment, bullying, disproportionately high suicide rates (and on and on).

    'Religious belief' is grounds for harassment and bullying as well, especially at this point. As for the suicide rates, here's a thought - maybe the LGBT community has something to do with that. Truth be told, it's a pretty fucking shitty community, and sexual exploitation can slit wrists a lot faster than much of the emotional competition.

    but we need to grow up if we think we (principled opponents of gay marriage) are the victims here.

    The 20th century piled up a humongous body count of religious people dead at the hand of secularists, and the 21st century has any sign of Christian belief or fairly basic sexual morality resulting in a whole lot of scorn heaped on people - bullying, it's apparently called. Anyone who thinks gays have it tough in an age where megacorportions will show up en masse to defend their right to sue people who refuse to service a same-sex wedding, but Christians have it made in a world where Christ is a punchline and a comedy routine on just about every cartoon and comedy show around, is fooling themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  162. @Mr. Green:

    No. Joseph and Mary were actually married and had an actual family.

    They did? I thought it was the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church (the "perpetual virginity of Mary") that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and that Jesus was the first and only fruit of her womb. Or by "family" do you mean family other than children?

    Regardless, I'm sure the Church has blessed marriages that were intended to be spiritual ("Josephite") from the get-go (no children, no consummation), and I took it that that's what Daniel D. D. had in mind. I also don't think he was proposing that such spiritual unions between people of the same sex would constitute "marriages."

    And yes, kissing or hand-holding can mean different things in different contexts, but what matters is how they are meant by the person doing them. If two people are doing something in the way that a husband and wife would do them, then they'd better be husband and wife.

    Perhaps a rule-of-thumb test of any such activity might be: if you were married to one woman, would it be acceptable for you to do this with another woman? (I'm not sure the marriage to another woman is a necessary part of the test, either; it might be sufficient to ask whether it would be acceptable to "do this" with a woman to whom you aren't married.)

    ReplyDelete
  163. I think you touched the core.

    SSM is also an equality issue which gives them equality to their social peers.

    A SS household also undermines the traditional male female relatonship which sets a social order. Now you have household with two males or no males. SS therefore undermines the traditional male role which is why the heterosexual feminists are piling on to the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  164. A SS household also undermines the traditional male female relatonship which sets a social order.

    Just wait until the 'open marriage' nature of a sizable number of same-sex relationships goes from 'dirty little secret, otherwise ignored by the media' to 'just as good, nay, better than the norm'.

    That SCOTUS ruling talk about the life-long exclusivity same-sex couples so desperately seek was one of the biggest laughs for me. If there was a requirement, or even a strong cultural expectation, that same-sex marriages be monogamous, the interest would quite possibly die overnight. LGBT activists would be /demanding/ civil unions as opposed to marriage, insisting that LGBT relationships were fundamentally different from heterosexual unions and any expectation that they be married was itself oppression.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Say hey, Mr. Green,

    I think the reason why your position wouldn't prove overwhelmingly forceful were I to employ it is that, in point of fact, there are many children in orphanages who have been abandoned by (or taken away from) their actual parents. And, yes, it takes sexual union between a male and female to produce a child (or, at least it used to--technology is advancing to the point that the actual person is capable of being regarded as merely a husk out of which its capacity for fecundity can be easily enough isolated and withdrawn), but, even here, there are many progressive couples out there that would, I believe, be more than happy to oblige a gay couple's desire to have their own baby.

    So, in practical terms, I don't think that your argument would prove a home-run. That said, I agree with it, and will bring something up along the same lines when opportunity avails. A whole lot more than just *having* the finished product of a healthy baby, and being able to fulfill one's desires to do the parent thing and bestow love and protection on a child, goes into actually having a family. E.g., hoping month after month to be able to conceive, being there for your wife during morning sickness, the hospital visits, rubbing her back during an 18 hour labor, and so many other quotidian details. Things like that, it seems to me, are part of the holistic process of becoming a parent; such experiences are (in my view) rather unpleasant, but the point is that they are a real-life, concrete *badge* of sorts that testify to the parents love and hope for their child. The momentum of love that brought the child into existence remains identical throughout its life (other things being equal). I've known a few people who grew up apart from their natural parents. Some have come to terms with it, but some haven't--what about my *real* mom and *real* dad? Was I so easy to give up? Was my life, and what I could have brought to theirs, not as significant as their desire to bring happiness to another couple?

    The whole thing would be a lot easier if natural law were common sense. (Would love to say more, but, the little guy just woke up.)

    ReplyDelete
  166. "If there was a requirement, or even a strong cultural expectation, that same-sex marriages be monogamous, the interest would quite possibly die overnight."

    Monogamous, or permanent; I've long been of the opinion that the surest way to prevent same-sex civil marriages actually occurring in any district where they were lawful would be to repeal no-fault divorce laws. A community whose core principles include the primacy of sexual gratification as the criterion of relationship quality, the principle that sexual gratification and emotional intimacy have no necessary correlation, and the irrelevance of fertility to the obtaining of such gratification is not likely to have much interest in fidelity or permanence...

    ...wait, was I talking about LGBT communities, or Western culture in general these days? I forget.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Skyliner wrote: "if the desire is hateful, something of the innermost self is hateful as well" - I would urge caution here in making too-confident assertions about the constitution of 'the innermost self.' What one fix(ate)s upon as one's 'innermost self' may well be something hateful (again, think of people who are profoundly sexually drawn to children). Part of having disordered desires (like we all do) is having disordered (a.k.a. false) beliefs in relation to those disordered desires, beliefs, for example, about the constitution of my 'innermost self' or about the true nature of my desires (my rational willing) in relation to what is required for me to be a virtuous and ultimately happy person.

    ReplyDelete
  168. ...The great challenge for the ordinary same-sex attracted person, as opposed to the pedophile, is that in our society the former have come under massive pressure - or have at least have been given a very strong inducement in addition to the impulsion of their own disordered desires - to affirm their disordered desire as constituting their true and legitimate 'innermost self.' To endorse this narrative about 'innermost selves' is to add to the inherent difficulty for same-sex attracted persons to come to a sound understanding of their own disordered desires. It's the very same thing as adultery-attracted persons who are assured that fulfillment may indeed - and quite legitimately - require abandoning first spouse to seek out fun and games with that new, true soul-mate.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Say hey, David M, again, I agree, but in my case you're preaching to the choir. To switch the metaphor from The Matrix to a holiday cartoon many of us grew up watching, a water gun that shoots jelly and a charlie-in-the-box are less likely to feel defective and in need of repair once they land on the Island of Misfit Toys and Santa shows up to embrace them just as they are. The agreed-upon evidence that traditionalists like us can appeal to in order to make evident the internal logic and coherence of our position is becoming scarcer by the second. It would perhaps be no exaggeration to say that it takes as much courage for a media personality or academic to "come out" nowadays and admit that she or he endorses the traditional view of marriage and the family as it took a gay person to come out to family and friends 20 or so years ago. As a society, we are going off the rails--fast--in my opinion; and, by the time we finally crash and everything has fallen apart, we may well by them have become so insensitive as to be unable to realize that something went wrong.

    Even so, to return to what I think was valuable in Santi and other advocates of the opposing point of view in this thread, I also insist on doing justice to the concrete human persons with whom I'm friends and family, and who happen to be gay. I'll speak my point of view when opportunity avails, but my primary goals are, firstly, to assure that, when they look at me, they see someone who genuinely lives the gospel and is cultivating the virtues in his own life. GK Chesterton once said something along the lines of, "the only good argument against Christianity is Christians." I think that is largely true, but I won't go off on a tirade to try to establish the point. Here, I simply refer to something Hans Urs von Balthasar said, viz., "Holiness is irrefutable." I think he was basically right here; I know that, in my own case, when I was an atheist several years back, it was daily exposure to the saintly existence of a noble and good Christian man (who couldn't argue very well) that opened my eyes to the truth his life was based upon. At any rate, for my part, I get the sense that people have largely forgotten how *attractive* virtue, nobility, striving for excellence, striving to overcome what's basest in us--how deeply *attractive* and *fulfilling* these things really are. And, in bringing such evidence into daylight--to a point where it really does become evident to the bystander--is much more difficult than constructing a sound and valid argument. It is something that will perhaps prove as challenging for us as would be the moral conversion that we are seeking from our brothers and sisters who have same-sex attractions. If we as a Church have the boldness to hope in God's mercy in light of our large-scale failure to be the light of the world, perhaps our gay neighbors can expect from us a degree of empathy, understanding, welcome, and charity as we lead both them *and ourselves* out of the darkness.

    I realize that I said much above that could use more by way of clarification, so, please do employ the principle of charity when interpreting it. I think, however, that I'm content to leave it there for now.

    Best in Christ

    ReplyDelete
  170. Scott,

    > @Mr. Green:

    >> No. Joseph and Mary were actually married and
    >> had an actual family.

    > They did?

    I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists inits operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

    Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mat. 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."

    But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none."
    -- ST 3.29.2

    ReplyDelete
  171. Skyliner, with all due charity:
    The notion of "doing justice to people who happen to be gay" is simply way too vague. Obviously, what this actually means is a hugely contentious issue, so it's entirely useless to appeal to such bromides. I fail to see how Chesterton's quip is actually true. It's cute, maybe thought-provoking, but it's not true. As for von Balthasar, it's true that holiness is irrefutable, perhaps - although one might suspect such talk of committing a category mistake - but in any case, holiness is not more irrefutable than a sound argument.

    ReplyDelete
  172. @Glenn:

    Thanks for the reference.

    And just to be clear (although it's probably sufficiently clear already), my They did? was in response to the part about having an actual family, not the part about their genuinely being married. (Had I been questioning that, I'd have said, "They were?")

    ReplyDelete
  173. Skyliner wrote: "The agreed-upon evidence that traditionalists like us can appeal to in order to make evident the internal logic and coherence of our position is becoming scarcer by the second."

    I have a theory for why this is true: it's because the "agreed-upon evidence" has never been evidence at all, but just an internally consistent "let's pretend" game.

    Let's pretend we've got the ultimate metaphysics worked out accurately.

    Feser is a master at playing this “let’s pretend” game. Here’s the game Feser is playing: he’s saying, LET’S PRETEND that we know, even after the Holocaust, that a personal God is engaged with history in such a way that (S)he is quite worried, in 2015, about gay and lesbian sexual behavior.

    Isn’t that a fun game to play?

    God didn’t worry about saving the Jews from Hitler, but gay and lesbian marriage really has God’s undivided attention right now (as well as the attention of all of his true followers). We KNOW this.

    Now let’s add another level to this pretend game: outrage.

    Let’s pretend to be outraged—outraged!—if someone thinks that knowing the mind of God on sexual matters--or anything else post-Holocaust--is absurd. Let’s call that person in the game a “relativist” and “irrationalist.” Let’s consign that person to the Matrix.

    That's quite a game we’ve got going! It’s called a confidence game. The winner shows 100% confidence that he’s right about metaphysics (or, say, the mechanism behind what causes history's somersaults), casting a spell on the anxious and uncertain.

    It’s how cults start. It's how fanatical religious and political movements gain traction.

    The alpha male infers what’s beyond the next hill better than anyone else in his tribe--or at least claims to--and he becomes a transference object for the tribe, the one who KNOWS; the daddy with the better plan.

    Somebody has to know, right? It’s emotionally intolerable to think that nobody really knows the answers to our most urgent and ultimate questions--and that we can't then deploy those answers to our day-to-day decisions.

    So let's set up a confidence game in which we pretend that we can reasonably do this.

    And if the confidence man castigates outsiders as morons, that makes the seven dwarfs (or dozen apostles) smile. It bolsters their morale, and they proceed to practice and ape his rhetorical style. They get good themselves at playing the confidence game.

    Then reality intrudes. Somebody tries the democratic experiment, as with gay mariage, and nothing the alpha predicted happens. Apocalypse interruptus.

    ReplyDelete
  174. In response to Skyliner's post that began with "Greetings everyone"

    You have hit the nail on the head. That is precisely the problem: How to be charitable to homosexuals without seeming to condone homosexual fornication and without leaving the impression that homosexuality is a positive good rather than a disorder.

    This would be much easier to do if the current political climate was not what it is. Yes, we have to love everyone, especially those with disorders and afflictions.

    It comes down to this for me: I have had two children die of complications from cystic fibrosis. It is a genetic disease. If both parents are carriers of CF, one out of four of their children, on average, will be born with cystic fibrosis. A lot of people think CF kids tend to be gifted intellectually and artistically. That may be so, but if there were a way to contract CF for the sake of these gifts, it would still be wrong to promote CF as a valid alternative lifestyle. It would still be a disorder, not a positive good. Having many wanting to contract CF might have made my CF kids feel better about themselves, but they would have been the first to explain that CF is a disorder, not a positive good.

    So we have to acknowledge the goodness and the gifts that homosexuals possess, but do so in a way that does not condone homosexual fornication and does not leave the impression that homosexuality is a positive good rather than a disorder. Militant, godless homosexuals make this very difficult to do.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Scott,

    And just to be clear (although it's probably sufficiently clear already), my They did? was in response to the part about having an actual family, not the part about their genuinely being married. (Had I been questioning that, I'd have said, "They were?")

    Yes, indeed, the distinction, which is not unimportant, was sufficiently clear at the time. This is why, in quoting the quoting of Mr. Green's statement, I made sure the 'marriage' phrase was on one line, and the 'family' phrase on another line.

    Unfortunately, I did not properly maintain the obvious distinction when quoting St. Thomas.

    It was late and I was tired, and I didn't resist the temptation to be lazy.

    So, I copy/pasted the entirety of "I answer that...", and left it to readers to notice, in the third paragraph of "I answer that...", St. Thomas writing of the marriage of Joseph and Mary that it 'had the second [of two] perfection[s], as to upbringing of the child.'"

    I also left it to readers who did notice that, to reason that a unit comprised of a married couple and a child, the upbringing of which the married couple is responsible for, quite likely qualifies as a family.

    (I wasn't just lazy -- I was lazy.)

    ReplyDelete
  176. Sometimes timing can be kind of funny. I was just talking to a friend this afternoon about how, ever since the 1960s, EVERYTHING that was predicted about the results of the Sexual Revolution and its concomitant detritus has come to pass in a big way. Chesterton: "Man is liable to err, and especially as the result of a movement."

    Then I read Santi's latest post and its conclusion: "Then reality intrudes. Somebody tries the democratic experiment, as with gay marriage, and nothing the alpha predicted happens. Apocalypse interruptus."

    Head firmly buried in sand. Nothing has happened to families, children, society. Nothing to see here. Keep moving along, keep rushing along in the direction of "progress." And if anything bad HAS happened--why then, it's the fault of Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Say hey David M,

    You're right about my imprecision, so I wanted briefly to clarify. By "doing justice to . . .," I meant cultivating a recognition of and appreciation for their dignity and infinite preciousness as bearers of the image of God, listening to their stories and trials with compassion and open-mindedness, etc. This is not to imply capitulation. Granting that it is a genuine disorder, perhaps there are factors involved in the phenomenon in question of which we on the other side are not fully aware (if I recall correctly, I think the most recent edition of the Catechism says as much), and perhaps we could make more progress if we changed our approach.

    With regard to Chesterton's quip, in retrospect, I recognize that I was being rather grandiose and pompous (and vague) in retrospect. But, I think there is a kernel of truth in what I was saying. Christianity rose to prominence within the ancient Roman world not least because of the utterly visible charity and counter-intuitive saintliness of many of its members--a charity and sanctity that deeply impacted the society in which it was born and eventually changed it for the better. But, my sense is that, nowadays, when you see Christians bending over backwards to visit those in prison and in nursing homes, cover the burden of those who are financially insolvent at great personal expense, etc., they are more the exception (albeit a normative and exemplary one) than the rule.

    With regard to the evidential force of holiness, sanctity, etc., I stand by what I said. I value philosophical argument, but I think that there are a number of ways to communicate and express a given truth, and, as Balthasar elsewhere claimed, "the deed is the gravity of the word." Rigorous argument has a part to play, but I think it proves most effective when it is contextualized within a broader rendering of one's entire existence Godward, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Say hey, Santi,

    Perhaps the evidence in question has never been anything more than a subjectively agreeable disposition towards reality had by those in power and imposed upon the masses. Or, perhaps morality is objective and sensitivity to moral truths changes and fluctuates over time and across cultures. You will admit, I think, that some people see homosexuality as "just wrong," and that seeing it as such is simply natural for them. (Case in point, my seven year old. Not being progressive parents, we've never discussed sexuality with him, at all, and he's never heard a disrespectful comment about gays. When he learned of his uncle's sexual orientation, he was confused and asked questions. After we clarified the matter for him, he looked even more confused, and then said, "that's weird! That's gross!" Happily, however, his relationship with his uncle remains in tact.)

    Your indignation in the face of the Holocaust brings up a question I was hoping to have the opportunity to ask you, viz., *how objective* do you take morality to be? From what I can tell, you seem to imply something along the lines of a sentimentalist approach to morality--given our make-up, we find some things agreeable and other things disagreeable. Morality, in this sense, is objective in that by extending our sentiments in the most logically consistent way, we engender a society which avails a maximal degree of happiness for all of its members (and, as such, the wrongness of obstructing a person with same-sex attractions to enjoy a meaningful relationship with someone to whom s/he is attracted is readily apparent--"you know how wonderful and meaning-giving it is to be able to share a life with the person you love: can't you therefore see how wrong it is to frustrate others' capacity to do so?").

    It seems to me, however, that this approach to morality might not be "objective enough," so to speak. That is to say, not as objective as our affective responses to instances of apparent "goodness" and "evil" pretend to imply. On your take, we live in a morally indifferent cosmos, and our ethical sensitivities do not extend beyond ourselves. Opposing same-sex marriage "ought not" happen, and the Holocaust "ought not" to have happened. But, the question is, "Ought not--*or else what?*" Are my actions merely incongruous with the manner in which action is typically correlated with happiness/pleasure within a given subset of biological organisms? Or, are my actions incongruous with something that runs far deeper? And, perhaps *that* is the reason why we rightly become outraged in the face of them.

    Objecting to the existence of God on the basis of the Holocaust makes a lot more sense if there *really is* such a thing as a real (extra-mental) right and wrong--if our ethical sensibilities *really are* in some way tied into and reflective of the countenance of the nature and structure of reality at its deepest levels. If that is the case, we are justified in spitting at the stars in the face of things such as the Holocaust; but, we do so only by virtue of the provocations of an implicit awareness of goodness. In other words, goodness, like truth, is something the reality of which must be *invoked* even it is to be called into question. Take that away, and the argument seems to lose all its force, for, in that case, you seem to be claiming, "If there were a God, we should expect that things would rather more frequently jive with our preferences--*even though* our likes and dislikes don't correspond to anything in reality beyond ourselves." But, if our preferences are really so metaphysically trivial a thing as that, I don't see why a God would need concern itself with respecting them.

    At any rate, and as a final point, I have appreciated your attempts to inspire sympathy towards a traditionally marginalized group. I'm with you on sympathy and open-mindedness, even if I disagree with you in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Harry,

    So sorry for your losses. I can't even imagine such. I hope you are able to keep your head up.

    Also, I appreciated your comparison--very insightful

    ReplyDelete
  180. Craig Payne:

    Along the broad continuum of human sexual behavior, there is wide variation. Some like to have sex a lot, others don’t; some are attracted to one type of person, others aren’t. Variation is the engine of evolution. Nature isn’t cookie-cutter. It doesn’t weed out variation based on a golden mean; rather, it exploits irreducible variation along a continuum based on contingent circumstances.

    So if two percent of the human population is born homosexual (for whatever reason, the trait persists), why isn’t marriage a compassionate, conservative, and ordering reform for their impulses to pair-bonding and coupling (exactly as marriage functions for heterosexuals)?

    And if, as you insist, the sexual revolution has been bad in many ways for women, isn’t it also true that women have used lesbianism as a form of personal and political empowerment?

    Biologists have noted that bonobo females have enlarged clitorises precisely because they rub off on other females, generating lots of pair bonding, and this behavior has empowered them against the males. Biological form followed behavior (as is often the case in nature), and actually changed the bodies of female bonobos over time.

    The bonobo species’ evolutionary strategy thus appears to be less chimp-like (with large and domineering males) and more “hippie” (with greater equality between males and females).

    Maybe evolution is nudging humans in the bonobo direction, where heterosexual females, lesbians, and gay men are developing a broad coalition against the power of aggressive and temperamentally conservative heterosexual males in the tribe. That might be part of the logic of homosexuality’s persistence in our species (greater pair bonding among diverse members of the tribe for purposes of bonding and coalition building). Like when ordering cable television, maybe genetics comes in packages (the gentle channels come with more gay and lesbian channels, etc.).

    I just think that religious conservatives like Feser grotesquely oversimplify human sexuality and variation—and then deploy these oversimplifications to justify the repression and segregation of a whole class of people. They pretend to know what God and evolution are up to; what God and evolution "want" based on form (the penis is made for the vagina, period). He ignores literally a century of biological insight that form follows behavior in evolution.

    So this is the problem: listening to medieval theologians instead of contemporary biologists on homosexuality. Scientists over the past fifty years have unambiguously identified sexual orientation as a biologically determined trait. It is thus a form of bigotry akin to racism for Feser not to take this into account when reasoning about gay and lesbian people. Evolution’s engine (variation) matters—gay and lesbian people are not “disordered”—and Feser ignores this, archaically appealing to Aquinas and Aristotle’s notion of the golden mean as if Darwin never existed at all; as if biologists haven't discovered that, in terms of biological change, form follows behavior (not the other way around).

    ReplyDelete
  181. Skyliner: A whole lot more than just *having* the finished product of a healthy baby, and being able to fulfill one's desires to do the parent thing and bestow love and protection on a child, goes into actually having a family.

    Yes, and of course while it's possible to acquire a child from somewhere, I think it's important for us to emphasise that regarding a woman as an inconvenient genetic requirement, something ultimately dispensable in a child's life, really is a misogynistic view. A mother does provide something essential to her child, boy or girl, and it is grossly unjust to deprive any child of that natural bond. Now, this of course is in no way meant to downplay the hardship it would be for him; but as you also say, it testifies to the parents' love — and from a Christian perspective, it is central to our whole reason for being here that we learn to sacrifice our own desires and self-fulfillment out of love for others (and especially for our own families). Perhaps looking at it from that perspective helps to make it clearer why it is unnatural and harmful to other people.

    The whole thing would be a lot easier if natural law were common sense.

    I always argue that to a large degree it is — that's why it takes such incessant propaganda from the surrounding culture to get people to turn away from it. Unfortunately, we live in an age of very effective propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Scott: Perhaps a rule-of-thumb test of any such activity might be: if you were married to one woman, would it be acceptable for you to do this with another woman?

    Glenn has provided apposite quotations, as usual. And to this part of your response I'll say that it gets at just what I was thinking.


    David M.:I fail to see how Chesterton's quip is actually true. It's cute, maybe thought-provoking, but it's not true.

    Well, it is only a quip, but the point seems clear enough. It's not as though there are all these sound intellectual arguments against Christianity. Skyliner is right to point out that the saints are our best advertising — yet how many of our actions give Christianity a bad name? And a lot of people have trouble walking the fine line between "being a jerk about the rules" and "throwing out the rules altogether". (I'll admit, it's not always easy, but the dichotomy is false nonetheless.)

    ReplyDelete
  183. I haven't read all the comments so I'm sorry if this simply rehashes an above argument against the Matrix theory but...the problem with the theory is one of infinite regress. The hypothesised creator of our Matrix can never be sure that he himself is not living in a Matrix, and the creator of that Matrix can never be sure if he is not living in a Matrix also, and so forth. The argument fails on Occams Razor

    ReplyDelete
  184. Skyliner:

    Thanks for your kindness--even if you disagree with me on same-sex marriage. It's registered.

    You asked me, if I do something wrong, "are my actions incongruous with something that runs far deeper? And, perhaps *that* is the reason why we rightly become outraged in the face of them."

    I take evolutionary psychology seriously, and that means the "deeper" here isn't necessarily a metaphysical deepness that is "right" for all times, but a historical deepness that is contingent on my particular evolutionary lineage. "Outrage"--when I experience it--has been placed in me by the eons of secular "karma"--the long chain of evolutionary events (the births, ripenings, and deaths)--that led to me.

    Evolution is about whatever works.

    No shark feels outrage at, say, injustice. Why? Because a shark has inherited, from a long chain of successful "karmic" births and deaths, a very different evolutionary survival strategy from me (a shark achieves reproductive success when it goes about its business alone).

    So your seven year old's emotion of disgust on learning that there are homosexuals in the world is, from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, "deep" in the sense that, just as he is going to be attracted to sugar and fats, he'll have a repulsion, if he is temperamentally heterosexual, to gay and lesbian sexual otherness.

    But he'll also have (because he's a social animal) the power to hinder that emotion when he starts making friends with gay and lesbian people over the course of his lifetime. One part of his evolution-evolved modular brain (the disgust part) will give way to other evolutionarily evolved parts of his modular brain (the empathy and coalition parts).

    Homosexual behavior persists among many species of social animals, suggesting that it's tied up with the evolutionary success of groups in some manner (perhaps providing coalitional support to females?). In any case, it's not a "disorder."

    ReplyDelete
  185. I thought we were talking about human nature and the human constitution? This is one of the most basic mistakes made by those opposing natural law, and it doesn't seem to matter how often it is corrected.

    Anyway, I'm a bit tired of this. Is there a name for the rhetorical ploy of simply being willing to talk longer than anyone else in an argument? Along with this willingness goes the ability to throw up so much word jello that eventually other participants in the argument realize it would take so much time to analyze and correct every statement, it's not worth wasting their day. Could we call it the "santical" ploy? Could we say someone "santized" a discussion? If someone finally grows tired of it, could we say he is "santipated"?

    One example will do: In response to a post I wrote, Santi writes, "And if, as you insist, the sexual revolution has been bad in many ways for women, isn’t it also true that women have used lesbianism as a form of personal and political empowerment?"

    I searched my post again and again in vain. I never mentioned women, not once. Never mentioned lesbianism. I felt like responding, but the word jello went on--and on--and on--and I realized I have work to do.

    In other words, I was santipated. This thread has been santized. I know it is santical, but sometimes it works. So long.


    ReplyDelete
  186. Craig,

    Anyway, I'm a bit tired of this. Is there a name for the rhetorical ploy of simply being willing to talk longer than anyone else in an argument?

    Also appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Dear Anonymous: Thank you. That immediately goes on my office door.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Craig Payne,

    Is there a name for the rhetorical ploy of simply being willing to talk longer than anyone else in an argument?

    Filibustering.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Along with this willingness goes the ability to throw up so much word jello that eventually other participants in the argument realize it would take so much time to analyze and correct every statement, it's not worth wasting their day.

    The standard online term for this one is gish galloping.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Say hey, Santi,

    Many thanks for the response. Of course, I still do think that your case against God would be much stronger if there really *were* such a metaphysical deepness to the trajectory of our moral convictions (which goes "all the way down," so to speak--and, as I'm sure you know, one need not go the route of Western monotheism to get it), and I also believe that to talk of evolution "working" would make more sense were there some sort of teleology involved (for, in light of the fact that the most basic units of matter continue to crack along in any event, it would seem somewhat arbitrary to identify this or that state of affairs as constituting a unique example of something "working"). But, I'll continue to consider your point of view going forward.

    So long for now. I wish you all the best. I'll make it a point to re-read Camus when I get a chance (I think I have a copy of his _The Myth of Sisyphus_ somewhere). And, if you're ever interested in giving Christianity another shot, I think you might appreciate Karl Rahner's _Foundations of the Christian Faith_. In it, he provides a philosophically respectable articulation of the Christian faith from within an evolutionary view of the world.

    All best.

    ReplyDelete
  191. I'm not a philosopher. Dr. Feser has described my internal psychological dilemma perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I have been as guilty of feeding him as anyone, but haven't we all learnt by now to discuss these issues with Santi is useless?

    ReplyDelete
  193. Mr Green: "It's not as though there are all these sound intellectual arguments against Christianity."

    True. But in all seriousness, quipping aside, "Christians" is surely one of the worst of the bunch (of unsound arguments against Christianity). It seems to be a common argument/trope among today's loud-mouthed atheists, but that just goes to show how shallow and stupid they are.

    ReplyDelete
  194. I have been as guilty of feeding him as anyone, but haven't we all learnt by now to discuss these issues with Santi is useless?

    Some people seem new here. Others usually like to buck the trend and 'give a chance when everyone else has turned their backs', which is often a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Skyliner:

    Thanks for the book suggestion. I'll check that out. Love is patient, love is kind. It doesn't attempt to use the force of law to impose its values on those who do not freely accept them--as some are trying to do with gay and lesbian people. It respects the dignity and autonomy of free individuals.

    I have little inclination to argue with you precisely because you're nice; you're a peace maker. You're not trying to impose your religion on secular gay and lesbian people.

    The recent Supreme Court decision is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Feser and numerous of the others here are politicizing this by fuzzying up the distinction, fomenting bigotry akin to racism, hysteria, and resentment.

    Indulging in self pity, they try to turn the tables, making themselves victims, callous to the unjust abuse that has been cast upon gays and lesbians for millennia--and that is now (at last) being remedied in our generation.

    So what I like about you is that you don't speak to others or of others with disrespect. If the jar gets bumped, out comes honey, not vinegar. You're a Christian of the Jesus sort. (I don't know what sort of Christian many of the others here are. A number of them talk past me and about me like I'm not even present in the thread. Like God didn't make me too.)

    But perhaps it's just part of your inherited temperament to be kind. Nice people practice religion and irreligion nicely, and mean people practice religion and irreligion hatefully.

    Haters gonna hate. They're going to find excuses to hate. They're going to find in holy books and metaphysics a mirror of themselves.

    A rabbi once asked a student the time of day. He said, "Afternoon." The rabbi replied, "Until you stop hating your brother, it's still night."

    ReplyDelete
  196. Gentlemen:

    Translation: Woe is you. The opposition won't shut up.

    You want to be provocative in rhetoric on the Internet, and act hard and contemptuous of gays and lesbians, trivializing their intimate relationships, and to push--but you don't want pushback. You want the supporters of gays and lesbians to be respectful of your bigotry akin to racism; of your ignoring of the deliverances of evolutionary biology over the last century on the issue of homosexuality.

    You want opponents to start their reasoning from the vantage of the guilty petitioner, not acting uppity, or as your equal, confining themselves to your language game and your premises; to not make you work to support your position.

    So when you actually get persistent pushback from someone, you take the easy way around, making it about the person. It's blue pipe smoke blown over the chessboard. That's why your side lost in court. You have to make arguments in court. You have to have good reasons to deny equality to gay and lesbian taxpayers; to justify your religious premises, and not merely presuppose them.

    ReplyDelete
  197. One thing people have to keep in mind when talking about LGBT issues is the following: many times, you're dealing with people who have self-image issues, along with a sense of shame and self-loathing. They've learned to cope with it by lashing out at Christians, partly in the hope that those senses of self-loathing (anal sex is pretty demeaning for both individuals, for example) can be entirely foisted on a third party (I must think that because there are thomists out there!) For others, it's just an intellectual narcotic. Hating, attacking, slighting Christians and people who so much as hold a different sexual ethic (which naturally will mean disdaining their own) functions as temporary therapy. After all, if you spend as much time as you can attacking, mocking, goading or trying to troll Christians, it keeps your mind off other things like "Wow, LGBT culture is really filthy and sad" or "I feel a whole lot of shame."

    The problem is, there's two typical responses to this kind of thing from the better intellectuals. One is, "Ignore all of this and try to have a rational conversation", which doesn't work because the entire exchange fails on the intellectual front (See the pro-LGBT "arguments" in these comments, which are just in shambles), while at the same time putting the real problem aside (which isn't a problem which can be dealt with by calm, rational discussion, and that's literally the only reaction some people know.) Of course, the other alternative is tit-for-tat insult exchanging, which can be entertaining, but really... it's not curing anything. At best you get a rhetorical advantage over the person, they feel even more horrible than they did, which means they'll cope with it by lashing out more whenever they can or worse.

    Neither move works.

    Which is why ignoring those people and moving on is important. No one is doing anyone any favors by pretending to engage with psychologically crippled people obsessed with defending sodomy and limp-wristedly namecalling anyone who criticize 'showing love by violently jamming things into the anus of the target of your affection' or other acts. It's a sign of blindness, not maturity, like walking up to someone who is in the midst of defecating on a cross and trying to engage them on the subject of personal responsibility with regards to free speech.

    ReplyDelete
  198. >>Of course, the other alternative is tit-for-tat insult exchanging

    https://searchingtheclouds.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/guilty-gif-1.gif

    ReplyDelete
  199. GoldRush Apple,

    It's fun, and not always wrong. But some people are just best ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  200. It's hard to find a balance between engaging people, and not wasting one's time on the more intellectually sad version of atheists and LGBT culture warriors.

    ReplyDelete