First he disclaims that he's making a slippery slope argument, and also writes:
Nor does this equate or associate incestuous marriage with other forms of marriage being proposed today.There's a word in the piece that some might find objectionable, referring to James Dobson as a male organ.Rather, these arguments are called up to see if they're adequate to shake you from your old-fashioned, bigoted traditions, blindly handed down from one generation to the next.
Despite the disclaimers, I'm sure there will be people who will charge that Tennapel equates incest and homosexuality, completely missing the point that arguments for changing law like the ones used to promote marriage neutering can't be restricted just to the activist groups using them for their own particular cause. No activist group owns or controlls all truth.
I love the satirical premise to this. It seems to point out some very good bad arguments used, and spin it, and I do quite enjoy that he understands that its not a serious slippery slope argument being used, but pointing out the flaws in the argument.
ReplyDeleteIts much better than the "smokeophobia" argument (Sorry, On Lawn, or whoever came up with that one), at least in premise.
However, with that said, I do think and still hold to that there are very good points to be made for some form of recognition of homosexual rights, and that while none arguing (okay, so most arguing) are not bigoted hate mongering, nutcases, and inversely, most arguing for SSM are not out to destroy the family or teach your kids how to have sex with the same gender in school.
"Homosexual rights"? Could you tell us what these might be so that we might work together to make certain they are not denied?
ReplyDeleteHaven't you paid attention to anything I've said at any point? I mean, other than the points to which you wish to jump on, demean, attack or down right misunderstand of course. Seriously Jose, I can tell you're a smart guy, but you just don't listen, or don't really seem to care to listen.
ReplyDeleteAs for gay rights, I'd say "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" sound pretty good. Knowing that they're not going to be denied a job, denied respect, or other such things on the basis of homosexuality for one point, knowing that their general well being is taken care of, and that they can live without fear of violence. That they are free to live the life of their choosing without backlash, or naysayers of society accosting them with verbal tirades.
All these sound pretty good. I'm no expert on "the gay agenda" as I've said before, (not that you listen). I don't know if the rights entail marriage. I don't know what should and shouldn't be specifically granted, but I am willing to listen to whatever solutions are reasonable and good.
Yipes Smokezero, you're off on an ad hominem rant. You say you can tell I'm "a smart guy" but I highly question your emotional stability. Talk about "verbal tirades."
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about homosexual rights.
1. They already have the right to life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness every bit as much as I do.
2. They already have the right to hold a job for which they are qualified.
3. This is not heaven or utopia to live without "fear of violence" but they have all of the protections of the law, just as much as I do. I wouldn't be endorsing any special "hate crime laws" for them anymore than I would for Hispanics or other minorities.
4. "That they are free to live the life of their choosing without backlash, or naysayers of society accosting them with verbal tirades"? Who has that right? We have freedom of speech in this country. What we were witnessing after the passage of Proposition 8 is how they were "accosting" people with "verbal tirades." What you are implying is that we be denied Constitutional rights so as to provide special, discriminatory rights to homosexuals.
You have thoroughly failed to identify any rights that they are denied in the US. That's why I asked the question and then you "accost" me with "verbal tirades."
I'm paying very close attention to your words and emotional state. You should also check your words and state.
Smokezero, as a citizen in public discourse (a stakeholder), what is your interest (your stake) in the social institution of marriage?
ReplyDeleteIs it one and the same as the societal interest?
Likewise, what is your interest in SSM and is it one and the same as the societal interest?
Now, I'm not asking these things to put you on the spot. You have said that you are undecided on the SSM issue and that's fair enough. I take it that you would like to become decided. These questions might help provide a framework for discussing with us what you might accept as "reasonable and good" solutions.
* * *
The primary and the initial task, it seems to me, comes down to finding a fair answer to the query: What is marriage?
The secondary task, dependant on the first, comes down to: What is the actual problem raised by supporters of SSM who are appealing to people who are undecided?
[I think the problem they identify is the same problem they describe to everyone -- including their own supporters. Unfortunately, SSM argumentation begins with a predrawn conclusion and then gropes around for problems the solution is supposed to solve. Their goal is to create indecision and then to impose their predetermined solution. This is very different from our defense of the status quo -- of marriage itself. While SSMers will make much hay about what they think marriage is NOT, they abandon the field when the primary task is pursued based on the stated standards they had insisted upon while rhetorically dismantling marriage to mean less and less.]
Nail down the problem, first, then seek the short list of solutions chosen from a range of possibilities that reasonably fit the stated problem and which, are good for society as a whole.
This approach fits the utilitarinism exhibited in SSM argumentation so it might provide, at least for discussion, some common ground. I don't rely solely on utilitarian arguments, but I put that aside when trying to explore the issue with the stated standards of SSMers.
Reasonably, figuring out the problem does not begin with the solution. We don't engineer backwards. The problem first. The solution follows. And if we state standards, we test all solutions by those standards. We don't shift the tests depending on the solution offered.
I think a solution that is offered without a clear statement of the problem makes the offered solution immediately supsect. It taints the reasoning recruited to bolster the predrawn conclusion.
Suspect, but not disqualified, such a solution is weakened by the hop-skip-jump approach to the marriage issue. Standards shift all over the place and that destroys the common ground.
So, what is the problem that you think needs to be solved, reasonably?
Smokezero, I asked about your preception of the problem, first, because I gathered that this is where you find yourself -- undecided because of the pro-SSM solution. But I don't mean to suggest that you are an advocate of that solution, of course, nor that you have yet to answer the question, What is marriage?
ReplyDeleteIf your starting place, where you stand at the moment, is in the midst of the primary task, then, we can proceed from there, instead.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteMy stake in marriage is this: I see it as a very profound institution, one not to be entered into lightly. It is for all intents and purposes, the goal of a real relationship. The culmination of your romantic fantasies, your intellectual and emotional fit, all the things one should be looking for in a companion, ending in the point of new life. It is the end of my life as me, and the beginning of life looking after a collective interest (me + spouse). It is something that has often changed throughout history, yet it means something very important to our society as a whole.
My stake in the institution is that I would like to see it as something more lasting than it has been in the past. Broken homes, bad relationships, coerced and unloving marriages, are all very bad things, and the problem I see is that we as people don't recognize that we deal day to day with a whole person. So, shaping marriage in a way that focuses us to understand the commitment between one whole person and another is vastly important.
My sense to which SSM comes to play is that I do think we need to recognize and appreciate the committed relationships that can be formed outside of our idea of a traditional marriage. That recognizing these, we recognize our differences, and allow what makes us different to make us stronger. I'd hate to see a society of homogenization. Where everyone acts, believes, thinks and behaves in the same manner. To me, that is counterproductive to the Democracy we have established.
Whether or not that ends up being same sex marriage, or some other form of recognition (I.E. a stronger set of Domestic Partnerships) I think we should be happy for the differences we see in others. And we should be happy that people are taking the stance of commitment towards another human being.
"I think a solution that is offered without a clear statement of the problem makes the offered solution immediately suspect. It taints the reasoning recruited to bolster the predrawn conclusion." I would agree with you completely here. This is where I find the most problem with the arguments as a whole. It seems to me that each argument has its "solution" without looking at the actual problem. Or, that it is strictly about "rights" which can't be the entire problem because there usually must be a reason for rights (the right to traditional marriage or same sex marriage).
I think the problem(s) that need to be resolved are twofold. One, we need a strong cultural understanding of what it is to be married. The second is that there are people out there, good honest people, who want to be recognized for finding someone they can spend their life with. Someone who deserves the right to hospital visits, joint property, and a whole host of other things that say "they have committed their lives to each other."
Peripherals to this would be limiting the influence of religion on politics, lowering divorce rates, and what constitutes a civil right. But those each can be addressed without this issue at hand.
I'm sorry if I get off track here, not trying to, you've got a lot of good things to ask, and I'm grateful that you're taking the time to help sort it all out. If I miss something, please say so.
Smokezero, would it be correct to say that you are undecided and that you would like to become decided on the SSM issue?
ReplyDeleteI'd expect that you'd say, yes, but I don't want to misread. If I have misread, please clarify. Thanks.
Yes. This is very accurate. I couldn't tell you how much I talk with On Lawn (who is a personal friend outside of the internet) about this, trying to come to some reasonable solution. I've done school papers on both sides of the issue, trying to come up with a reasonable decision.
ReplyDeleteBetween On Lawn, and several close friends on your side, and my gay cousins and other homosexual friends on the other, I can speak from experience that neither side is full of evil, hate filled people, but people trying to put together a correct solution. I just wish I could reconcile it all into a practical solution.
Smokerzero, please email me (and copy On Lawn). Thanks.
ReplyDelete* * *
In the context of the original bogpost above, and the list of bad arguments at the linked article, could you distinguish from the rest of the nonmarriage category (the nonmarital types of relationships and kinds of arrangements outside of marriage) the relationship type that you have in mind when you referred to " good honest people, who want to be recognized for finding someone they can spend their life with"?
What are the essentials of that type (or types) of relationship?
I'd say the essentials to the relationship is that of two consenting adults, who have found that they are willing to take the other person and not only be there emotionally, but in every way possible. A commitment of fidelity, mutual trust, and a strong bond between two people that is designed to last for as long as life itself (with some perspectives saying longer than that). I would also say an emotionally healthy relationship is important to this (as incestuous relationships are not, nor are abusive relationships of any sexual bent).
ReplyDeleteIn some sense, I do think the defense of marriage would be better suited finding ways to lower divorce rates, perhaps by education of what it means to be married. But again, this is more of a side issue to the issues at hand. A stronger definition of marriage and commitment would be very important, though people in general can behave stupidly, and we live in a real world with real situations.
Smokezero, you did not include sexual relations in your itemized list.
ReplyDeleteYou did rule-out abusive sexualized relationships.
I suspect you might also rule-out other abusive relationships. That is to say, you'd make a moral judgement based on a type of relationship you'd consider harmful. You would not wait for harm to occur before drawing a line based on prudence.
But perhaps you'd put it another way?
In the context of the article, what do you think would make fidelity, mutual trust, and a strong bond between related people an unhealthy type of relationship?
Nope, I would not put this another way. Sexual relationships can fade over time. Just because the couple isn't getting it on anymore doesn't mean that they aren't sharing companionate love, vested in the best interests of the couple.
ReplyDeleteAbuse of another human being for whatever "noble reasons" you may have is still wrong. It violates the Categorical Imperative to treat others as the ends, never the means. It violates theories by Locke, and Hobbes, and John Stewart Mill. All different philosophers, with different ideals who all do agree upon certain moral creeds.
In the context of the article, there is a difference between a two people who are related, and two who are not, because you are adding something to your family. You are in essence reaching outside of the comfortable and the familiar, and bringing in something that in turn can become comfortable and familiar. Part of personal growth and the like.
Related people can and do marry across the United States. And marriage is a sexual relationship, by type.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe this would not apply to the type of relationship you had in mind in your earlier comment. You seem to be describing an abiding friendship.
How would a relationship of related people, as a type of relationship, be incompatable with the what you had in mind in your earlier comment?
You referred to companinate love. What do you have in mind there?
Smokezero, abuse is wrong in all manner of human relationships surely, but I had meant to ask about the type of relationship rather than this or that particular incident of abuse.
I thought you had meant there were abusive types of relationships that categorically would be disqualified. That is to say, you wouldn't wait for abuse to occur before deciding whether or not the people were eligible in the first place. Right?
I don't know about marriage between related people, and yes, by type marriage is a sexual relationship, however that is not the qualifying point to marriage, as people have sex without marriage, and within marriage, sex lives can fade. Though perhaps marriage is more at the "chance" of sex, which points to your comment about friends, as I wouldn't think of having sex with people who were just friends. And come to think of it, that would be the disqualifying factor within the relationship amongst family members too. So perhaps I was wrong on my initial assumption to take sex out of the picture for an opening frame.
ReplyDeleteCompanionate love would fall in with the person you would most like to see first, were you to wake up in a hospital, the person with whom you are wanting to share significant parts of your life, etc. More powerful than a simple friendship. Yet not erotic like romantic love.
And if we're going by type, my original thought was there is no one "type" of relationship, but as soon as I thought of that, instances such as the marriages taking place in polygamist camps, where women are not given the choice on whom or when to marry, or any other such violation. Marrying a child, because they are not old enough or reasoned enough to make a decision like that. Marrying an animal, because it is impossible to understand direct consent, not to mention the other barriers invoked there. And I'm sure there are other instances where the signs of abuse are clear before the marriage were to take place, and as a guideline, I would be for the defense of innocents in that case as well.
Can't companionate love exist outside of marrige? And can't it wane within marriage?
ReplyDeleteThe point about related people, and in the context of the article this is significant, is that the lines drawn are not necessarily black and white but rather shades of grey.
Some related people, but not all related people, are ineligible in every society's marriage system. The shades of grey are understood and treated differently even within the United States. But the lines are not arbitrary.
The lines encircle, or run around the edges of, some core meaning that is shared and for which there is a consensus -- not just amongst us now today but with our ancestors and our predecessor civilizations. Some things have, and continue to, vary, such as the eligibility of different categories of related people, but some things have remain unchanged.
In your comments so far, I detect that you are applying a moral code. Indeed, you've explicitly referred to such standards and hinted at a strong consensus across philosophic inclinations. These lines around the type of relationship you have in mind, these lines may be drawn from the function of law to reflect the public morality of the society. Does that jive with what you have been saying and thinking about this?
Smokezero, it occurs to me that it might be helpful to return to the comment I wrote in response to your first comment @ 6/09/2009 07:22:00 PM.
ReplyDeleteAlso, José first comment @ 6/09/2009 07:34:00 PM.
If nothing else, please keep these in mind as you think about the most recent comment I left for you.
And, just checking-in, has this helped at all, so far, and are you feeling less undecided or is it to early to say? Cheerio.
Sorry for the delay, somewhat of a busy day yesterday. Yes, I would say that there is a moral code that governs what I think. It stems from the idea that we treat others well, the way we would expect to be treated, sometimes sacrificing personal liberties for the sake of the collective liberty. I would say its far from Utilitarian (as our Constitution doesn't say we have the right to pleasure, only the pursuit of happiness), a careful blending of the Social Contract and Natural Rights.
ReplyDeleteSo far, I would say, Chairm, that we are in complete agreement as to the means, method, and understanding of the argument. I'm still by far undecided, but this has been helpful to pull together the collective ideals.
One minor mistake I realized shortly after posting: Not the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence.
ReplyDeleteBut, the Constitution does specify "Promote the General Welfare and Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Which I would also say is valid in the argument for what constitutes not only a moral code, but a strong code of law.