Been away for a few weeks. Apologies. Busy time @ work and @ home.
Would you, then, say that people who call to "present students with all the sides of the 'debate'" are unreasonable and irrational?
The ultimate point here is, it seems awfully convenient that your personal position is just far enough to the right to be perfectly reasonable (and therefore, people who attack your viewpoint from a position further left may not be being "open-minded people of education, good grooming, and above-average intelligence"), yet you seem to agree that people to your right are just being kooks.
If we want to play the "all political opinions are sacred expressions of personal freedom and how dare you call my position intolerant" game, that's fine. However, it would be disingenuous for me to say that the people who disagree from my left are unreasonable, and the people who disagree from my right are irrational, but I'm in the sweet spot of reasonableness and rationality.
I don't believe the point has any force. We are talking about a matter which is open to all of us: evolution's validity and reliability as a scientific theory. On that point, there simply can be no disagreement. There is no evidence, none whatsoever, to support any creationist theory. None. Creationists have printed, at my last count, zero peer reviewed articles on creationism that have ever made it into a journal. There is no conspiracy regarding this, either. I look @ this debate in the same way that I look at pre-big bang models of the beginning of the universe vs. current models. No one is going back to the steady-state model, ever. The only groups who kept clinging to it subsequent to its acceptance as a theory by the vast majority of physicists were the Russians. This is likely because, at that time, the Russians had a metaphysical issue w/ the Big Bang theory, much as the creationists do w/ evolution today. But that's just it, again, evolution is an open point upon which we can all coolly, calmly review the evidence and conclude, and the evidence is overwhelming here. Therefore, yes, there is a "sweet spot" of rationality, and yes, those individuals who would go outside of it are kooks. Given that, only one set of policies can rationally be adhered to, at least until new evidence warrants a review.
However, when we branch into non science-based politics, we go into a world where the evidence is, at best, squishy. Is [environmental regulation a], whose purpose is to save the whales, better than no regulation, which may make the gas mined from the whales' habitat cheaper? It is impossible to say. Even if there is evidence that the whales are an integral part of earth, and that their distinction would have devastating consequences, this is still conjecture, and always relies on what boils down to educated prognostication.
The same is true in areas like ethics. Should we have laws based on utilitarianism? Natural law? Maybe Kantian ethics? Difficult to say. I know where I stand, and I argue for it. But, I can respect those who differ from me. They may have arguments I don't know of, and which would be convincing to me. Same is true w/ the economy, etc. This is where, I feel, we should all grow in respect for one another. I'm not a bigot. Neither are you, or anyone else on this board (intentionally, anyway).
So, I don't really see that the issue that you bring up is as inconsistent as I believe you're trying to make it seem. As the old saying goes: "In necessary things, orthodoxy, in unnecessary, liberality."
Sorry, I thought you were referring to "natural law" as it relates to biology.
If you're talking about some sort of innate system of morals bestowed upon us by our Creator, you are correct in stating that we have nothing to discuss.
If you're talking about a biologically inherited moral code, I would ask for a clarification: are you claiming that all human societies across all eras of history have a shared idea about what is right and wrong? Because such a claim would be ludicrous on its face.
No, I am not claiming that all human societies across all eras of history have a shared idea about what is right and wrong. I am not claiming that there is "universal moral uniformity." Rather, I am claiming that there is such a thing as objective morals, i.e. morals which are binding on us no matter whether or not we disagree w/ them, or live in a manner contradictory to them. I have not said whether they were "bestowed upon us by our Creator." That question is irrelevant to the debate entirely.
However, 1 point: if there are no objective morals, the kind you call an "innate system of morals" then, why do you argue that it matters that it is bigoted to oppose gay marriage? A bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Fair enough. But, unless there is an innate system of morals in all of us, which requires us NOT to be bigoted, then, who really cares?
Is it "immoral" to eat when you are not hungry, or drink when you are not thirsty? What part of "natural law" assigns morality to biological functions?
I must say I'm very disappointed in this. You had previously made a natural law argument: that the infertile times in a woman's cycle justified non-generative sex. So, I am fairly aware that you know what we are dealing w/ here. However, if you want me to spell it out for you, I am not talking about a "natural law" in the sense of the law of thermodynamics or of gravity. Rather, I am talking about the theory of moral epistemology (and ontology) known as natural law. Now that that is out of the way, allow me to say your objection is off base.
Natural law theory believes there are rational principles we can grasp (w/o relation to divinity or otherwise) and deduce from everyday activity which determine whether an action is moral or not, just as we can grasp the other laws of nature, like gravity, from watching nature.
To start, the natural law theory would build an account of the good based on the ends which nature sets for the "actor" in his or her or its specific circumstances. What is the good of an activity/thing? It is the purpose of the activity/thing which is its good. In other words, a "good" table is one which holds up when objects are placed on it. A "good" car is one which takes you to and fro. Notice that, so far, the examples of "good" things have been inanimate. A good table does not/cannot choose to be good. Lets move up a level. A "good" wild animal is one which fulfills its purpose: to carry and successfully pass on its genes, to self-replicate. A "good" domesticated animal is one which pleases its owner. Thus, a "good" lioness is one which protects its young, and a "good" housecat is one which craps in its box, rather than on the floor. We haven't yet reached the level of moral goodness yet, as, neither the lion nor the housecat does what it does "rationally." A lioness may, intentionally, defend its cubs, but she does not do so rationally - knowing that that is what she is supposed to do and able to choose otherwise. Rather she acts on instinct. Neither does a housecat knowingly give pleasure to its owner. Rather, it just is doing what it does through Pavlovian conditioning. However, when we move up a level, we get into the space known as ethics - moral goodness. Men are both rational, able to grasp the good it is working towards, and choose otherwise, and intentionally. The table/car has neither, the lion/cat has only the intentionality.
A morally good man, therefore, chooses to act in accord w/ what is good - i.e. the purpose or end of the activity in which he is participating. Ok, so, how does that break down amongst a man's various activities: well, we have to act in accord, purposefully, with the ends as they're set for us. In the case of sex, by nature, and in the case of other activities, by our superiors.
So, let's look at this in the case of a man made example: school. The purpose of school is to educate the students. Therefore, when a student, while participating in school, chooses to do something which frustrates the purpose of becoming educated, they have done something morally wrong. So for example, part of school is being tested. If, while a student is being tested, they intentionally cheat, they've done something wrong: even if everyone, teachers included, consent to the cheating. The context may mitigate the degree of the wrongness of the act, but, it doesn't obviate the immoral nature of it entirely.
With the examples you've provided, it would be wrong for a man to, given that the purpose of food is nourishment, chew his food and then spit it out - only wanting the pleasure of the taste, without the nourishment. Or, in another context, it would be wrong for a man to eat solely for the purpose of human respect (to be seen at a party, eating) and then heading to the vomitorium and puking it up so that he can go back for more. The same is true of drink.
In the context of sex, as I said before, given that the purpose is generation, it would be wrong for a man to participate in a sexual act which he knew was categorically not generative.
You object to Buddhagirl's implication that your position is based on religious grounds, but with the kinds of "sex for pleasure is immoral" claims you are making, you are a hairsbreadth away from justifying her implication.
Given the above, I would strongly disagree. Were I an atheist, I could still hold true to all of the above. I think any atheist could agree w/ the article I pasted at the end of my previous post. Remember - there are and have been socially conservative atheists on this matter. What about Julia Gilard? What about the communists of the 50s and 60s?
In addition: when did I ever argue that sex for pleasure is immoral. No, having sex because one desires the pleasure of it is just fine. However, to keep the sex your having, even when it is consented-to, moral, you need to keep it within the framework of generativity. If you fail to do so, you do wrongly.
This is precisely what is so sad about modern politics. Rather than actually read their opponents, people are happy to score political points. Buddha is a prime example and offender in this area. On the conservative side, Run-to-win was horrible about this.
Is it bigotry to say that homosexuality should be criminalized because it is "immoral"? Or does that question depend on whether I say it is immoral according to [religion x] or according to some nebulous, unfalsifiable interpretation of what "natural law" is?
That is precisely why this question should be left to the voters - rather than constitutional amendments. I agree with you - my understanding of natural law may be flawed. I've done as much research on it as my schedule and my intelligence allows for, and I do not believe I am wrong (haven't seen any winning arguments to the contrary) but, I admit, I could be wrong. (However - why nebulous[?] - you obviously understand it, but you disagree w/ it. No need to attach labels to denigrate your opponents position!) Perhaps natural law shouldn't been the impetus behind policy. But that said - let the voters have it out. I am sure some states will go one way, and some will go the other, but that should be the happy coincidence of our country's structure. No, opponents to gay marriage aren't bigots. Neither are its proponents radicalized libertines. As regards the equal protection clause, I just simply do not think this comes into play. It is obvious what that is for: racial equality. That, roughly, has been somewhat achieved.
Then what possible value does this study have in determining whether or not SSM should be permitted? That, not "Are homosexuals good parents?", is the question at hand.
Well, frankly, because it is hard to see how a "piece of paper" as many folks are wont to say, will increase stability. (Does marriage increase stability? Doubtful, anymore.) If children who are raised by gay parents have a more difficult time, then we'd need a study which says that creating a new, specific form of marriage specifically for homosexuals would increase stability (of course this is only helpful if, and only if, it is the instability of such relationships,
and not something else which is causing the increased difficulty of the children of those relationships). However, that a) we don't know whether or not stability is the reason WHY children of SSRs have a more difficult time, and b) we don't know that marriage would increase stability, if it is the reason they have a more difficult time, the fact that children of gay parents alone have a more difficult time in their lives should give us pause.
In South Carolina, the definition of reasonable doubt is "facts which would give a reasonable man pause before acting." Given the paragraph above, I don't see how one wouldn't have reasonable doubt as to SSM as a result of this study.
Every one of these questions applies just as equally to straight relationships. Does that fact complicate the claim that marriage improves the stability and durability of (straight) families?
Absolutely it does apply. Yes, it does complicate the claim that marriage improves the stability and durability of straight families. However, given that, all we are left with is that 1) marriage doesn't necessarily increase stability, 2) if it doesn't increase stability, and instability is the reason why children raised by gay couples do worse, then, 3) what impetus do we have (along the lines of the "think of the children" argument) for SSM anymore?
The point I am driving at is that families which do not fit an ontological form may actually be the issue here (you seem to recognize this in your next responsive paragraph). There is an old, anecdotal argument, thus far not really tested, which would indicate that children need more than just 2 "parents," but rather need a mother and father.
Admittedly there is no research on this, but, suffice it to say, I think the questions regarding SSM and children's welfare go far beyond just the stability of the families involved.
I gave two reasons for prohibition of incest; neither of them rests on a religious (or nebulous "natural law") argument for morality.
If the only rationale I could give against incest was that "it's morally wrong to have sex with your daughter," then I would agree that our positions are equal.
And I responded to them, and you haven't dealt w/ my responses yet at all. Given that other types of couplings produce inferior offspring, why do you single out the incestuous?
How is it that you find denying the desires of one person to victimize another and denying the desires of two consenting adults to be equivalent policies? I suppose next, we can discuss how anti-rape policies are "bigoted" against the desires of rapists?
Because pedophilia is not always non-consensual. Think of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualuaa. Rape, being always non-consensual is an obvious evil. There is no comparison. But, let's ask - if, let's say, if a 9 year old boy, who's hit puberty, consents to a relationship w/ a 54 year old woman (who truly does love the child), would you support it? All the elements you seem to want are there: lack of victimization, consent, and the child is already sexually mature. From your previous comments, you stated you had no issue with tailoring the law to a child's entrance into puberty. But, I think, this presents a problem for you: given this situation, which I think you would admit is possible, why do you not strenuously argue for the repeal (or reform) of pedophilia laws? It would seem that you would think that society's judgment, in this case, is just as wrong and out of touch as society's policies opposing same sex marriage or the criminalization of homosexual sodomy. If not, why not?
"Public morality" has been asked and answered; it's a thinly-veiled appeal to religious beliefs.
If you want to argue against homosexuality on the basis of disease control, have at it! In contrast to vague appeals to morality, that's something that can be objectively measured. Two challenges, though:
1) banning SSM (and not homosexuality itself) does nothing to stop the spreading of disease (in fact, it would seem to worsen the problem)
2) I look forward to arguments as to how lesbian sex is more prone to spread disease than, say, plain old heterosexual intercourse
Your dismissal of public morality is a straw man.
Note that I said laws against homosexuals, rather than SSM. This an argument which would grant one not just the ability to stop SSM, but also to allow individual states to re-criminalize homosexual conduct.
As regards increased risk of STDs, there are a multitude of studies which indicate that there is a higher prevalence of STDs amongst those who practice homosexual sex. If you'd like a list, I can certainly provide you w/ one (it's good to have a scientist wife).
Author