Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Sexual reactionaries on the loose

Oooh. Look. Someone is sympathetic to "traditional sexuality." You remember that: when males had sex with females. No kidding. And they had children. And were raised by a mother and a father who were married.

I know: It's so retro. I mean, is this Ozzie and Harriet or whut?

As it turns out, there are people who actually believe this is, like, the best thing for children. Like it's natural or something.

Isn't there a law against this somewhere?

We go now to Damon Linker for a report on these outliers:
The objections aren’t trivial. Western civilization upheld the old sexual standards for the better part of two millennia. We broke from them in the blink of an eye, figuratively speaking. The gains are pretty clear — It’s fun! It feels good! — but the losses are murkier and probably won’t be tallied for a very long time.

Is the ethic of individual consent sufficient to keep people (mostly men) from acting violently on their sexual desires? 
What will become of childhood if our culture continues down the road of pervasive sexualization? 
Do children do best with two parents of opposite genders? Or are two parents of the same gender just as good? Or better? How about one parent of either gender? What about three, four, five, or more people in a constantly evolving polyamorous arrangement? 
Can the institution of marriage survive without the ideals of fidelity and monogamy? What kind of sexual temptations and experiences will technology present us with a year — or a decade, or a century — from now? Will people be able to think of reasons or conjure up the will to resist those temptations? Will they even try? Does it even matter? 
I have no idea how to answer these questions. 
What I do know is that the questions are important, and that I respect those who are troubled by them. 
And maybe you should, too.
HT: Rod Dreher.

21 comments:

KyCobb said...

"I have no idea how to answer these questions."

Which, in a nutshell, is why homophobes are losing on marriage equality. Being afraid of the future isn't a rational basis for denying people equal protection of the law.

Martin Cothran said...

So now, in addition to having a corner on truth, your liberal ideology now determines the future? Whatever happened to all the moral relativism you all used to spout? Did you all rethink it and finally decide it was nonsensical or did it just become politically inconvenient?

It must be so easy to be ideologue.

Sigh.

KyCobb said...

No, we don't determine the future. I'm just pointing out that a generalized dread of the future isn't a rational basis for making laws.

Martin Cothran said...

I don't know where you're deriving this idea that the dread of the future is the reason for thinking that traditional marriage should be the norm. I'm having trouble finding that in the legal briefs.

But I'm also wondering about this idea that the future should somehow be normative. It does look like restrictions on polygamy and incest are headed for the historical dustbin, given that they can be justified by the same line of reasoning as same-sex marriage. Does this mean we should just acquiesce to them, since they seem to be the "future"?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Polygamy and incest can't be justified by the same line of reasoning as same-sex marriage. There is no equal protection argument for polygamy because three or more partners is not equal to two. Incest is illegal in many states to prevent the serious risk of birth defects which cause children to suffer, so incestuous marriage violates public policy. But I love the slippery slope argument, because its an admission of defeat. You don't have any legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, so you have to resort to arguing against something else instead.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You really shouldn't be so scared about the polygamous and incestuous future.

There is no equal protection argument for polygamy because three or more partners is not equal to two.

So what. A male is not equal to a female any more that three or more is equal to two.

You keep privileging gender over number without giving any rational justification for it. Just repeating it over and over again is not a justification.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Incest is illegal in many states to prevent the serious risk of birth defects which cause children to suffer, so incestuous marriage violates public policy.

So you would be okay with incestuous marriages where the partners do not intend to have children?

You really need to embrace, not fight the future.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You don't have any legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, so you have to resort to arguing against something else instead.

I'm just drawing out the implications of your argument in favor of same-sex marriage. It's one of the two basic ways of attacking an argument.

But I can perfectly well understand why you don't want to talk about the implications of your own logic. I wouldn't want to either if I were you.

KyCobb said...

Martin, you can take anything to an extreme, and then pretend that it is an argument against the original position. For example, you want to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses because they can't procreate? In that case, shouldn't we prohibit any women who has gone through menopause a marriage license? BTW, Utah allows first cousins who are too old to have children to marry, which made a hash of Utah's argument that marriage is for procreation.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

What you describe as "taking anything to an extreme" is a process called "reductio ad absurdum." You take your opponent's logic to its logical conclusion forcing him to either change his logic or change his assumptions. This has been a part of dialectic since Plato. It's used in arguments over legislation in every legislature ("If this bill is passed what you will see is ...") and every courtroom in the country, where an opposing attorney or a judge will point out to an attorney that if his argument is valid then such and such a thing would have to be accepted or rejected.

In fact, you have employed this procedure repeatedly on this blog.

I find it funny that the people who start whining when their own logic is impugned through this process are the first to turn right around and do to someone else the next day.

If there is some implication I have drawn which does not actually follow or if the assumption I am drawing the inference from is not actually your assumption, the make that argument. But don't pretend as if the process of pointing out the implications of other people's logic is somehow illegitimate.

You are responsible for the implications of your logic. Don't blame other people for pointing it out.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Was is illegitimate is attributing a position to someone that he does not hold: "...you want to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses because they can't procreate?"

I have never said this. Please tell me where you got this from.

KyCobb said...

Martin, The basic position of the states defending same-sex marriage bans has become that the purpose of marriage is procreation. So, as you say, the logical conclusion is that women should not be allowed to marry after menopause. Another logical conclusion of your position is that the voters have the right to prohibit you personally from being married if that is their will. Whereas polygamous and incestuous marriages do not logically follow from same-sex marriage. A logical justification for banning polygamy is to protect the rights of the original spouse and the original spouse's children to the emotional and economic support of the other original spouse. Incest increases the risk of birth defects. There is no similar problem which justifies banning same-sex marriage.

Thomas M. Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Let's take the case of incest. Are you saying that a moral objection to incest cannot be the legal basis for laws prohibiting incestuous marriages?

Say that in 15 years a combination of medical advances and health care reform erases the risk of birth defects. Should incestuous marriage be legal then?

KyCobb said...

Thomas,

The laws of the state should be to promote the public good or prevent harm to people; it should not be to enforce the moral codes of particular religions. In the case of incest, another rational basis for prohibiting it is to protect the integrity of pre-existing family relationships and prevent abusive relationships, since incestuous relationships often start as the abuse of a helpless child by a relative. In the case of homosexuality, the Supreme Court has already held that laws against it based on its supposed immorality are unconstitutional. There are no public policy concerns such as exist in regards to polygamy or incest to justify banning same-sex marriage.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Can you give us an example of a law that is not based on morality?

KyCobb said...

Most tax laws are about generating sufficient revenue to run the government.

Thomas M. Cothran said...

Tax laws aren't based on the notion that there ought to be enough money to run the government? That's a moral principle just like any other.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Every law is prescriptive. That's what it is to be a law. It prescribes what you should or shouldn't do. That is inherently moral. You simply posit your own morality which consists of privileging certain justifications over other and pretend it isn't also prescriptive--despite the fact that (oops!) you used moral language about the law in your own argument against moral prescriptiveness in the law:

KyCobb: "The laws of the state should be to promote the public good or prevent harm to people; it should not be to enforce the moral codes of particular religions."

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

And maybe you could explain how saying that the state should "protect the integrity of pre-existing family relationships and prevent abusive relationships" isn't morally prescriptive and isn't based on a moral belief that these things are wrong.

KyCobb said...

Martin,
If you are going to say that everything is about morality, and therefore its ok to impose the theological beliefs of my religious sect on everyone whether they believe it or not, then you win. However, there is a difference between matters which objectively improve people's lives or harm them, and matters which don't objectively help or harm anyone but are only prescribed or proscribed based on a theological belief. You may claim that you only believe in paying taxes because Jesus said you should, but its a matter of empirical fact that a government can't function without revenue whether you are a christian, jew, muslim, hindu or atheist. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, does no objective harm to anyone, and objectively benefits same-sex couples and their children; the only grounds for banning it is the theological belief that homosexual activity violates God's law. There is no objective reason why the state should impose that theological belief on people who reject it.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

As to your specific examples, it is a matter of observable, empirical fact that sexual abuse of children harms them and that for social animals such as humans familial relationships are beneficial. As a matter of enlightened self-interest, we have formed a government to "promote the general welfare." In the Constitution we also prohibited Congress from respecting establishments or religion, because our founders recognized that it is in our own self-interest to be able to freely follow our own consciences on matters of religion, and avoid the oppression and bloodshed that comes with attempting to impose religious beliefs on others as the bloody history of Europe had demonstrated. If you want to say its all morality, then the morality of our Republic has been established in the Constitution: promote the general welfare, no establishment of religion.