[Vision2020] Another View Point.......

[Art Deco]

Here's some more of today's news from those wonderfully pious folks who
claim that Natural Laws of Morality exist:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-15/legion-of-christ-priest/54976116/1


w.

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:

> The author begins by assuming that there is some "Natural Law" concerning
> morality.  We not not discuss his position much further.
>
> What is a "Natural Law?
>
> There are highly probable, tested, and widely, if not unavoidably used
> statements of physics, for example: The Law of Gravity, Ohm's Law,
> Avogadro's Law, etc that yield constant and true predictions, and most
> likely will continue to do so if the universe keeps chugging along in the
> future as it has done in the past.  Hence given their constancy, such
> highly probable statements might be called "Natural Laws."
>
> The main property of these laws it that it doesn't seem possible to
> disobey them.  If one jumps off a building in an attempt to fly, the
> reality of the Law of Gravity quickly becomes known.
>
> But "Natural Laws" of morality?  What are these laws and how are they
> established?  By observation such laws do not offer the same quick (or any)
> test of reality.  Disobey one of these laws and unlike the Law of Gravity,
> the consequences are not predictable.  Murder someone.  You may be caught
> and punished or you may benefit in some way.
>
> Morality is an area where there is no universal agreement and so far no
> method of establishing verifiable truth; with no forced acceptance like the
> Law of Gravity.  Morality is heterogeneous, ever changing, and evolving, as
> any observant person can see.
>
> Starting an argument for a position which assumes the false premise of the
> existence of "Natural Laws of Morality" is bound to end in failure.
>
> The positing of Natural Laws of Morality" comes from those in authority
> hoping to extend their power and control and to force their narrow minded
> bigotry on others.  These folks are descendents of those for the same
> motives brought you The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trails,  protection and
> enabling of child sexual molesters, etc.  Hardly a credible group, but a
> group of busy bodies snooping and prying into private lives, commenting
> upon matters ignorantly and arrogantly while hiding their own horrible,
> truly contemptible  shortcomings.
>
> While there is as of now no verifiable, universally agreed upon set of
> values, most values have their foundation in quasi-factual beliefs, beliefs
> which are subject to change with the arrival of new evidence, which may
> then change values.
>
> We live in a country under the Rule of Law and one where the establishment
> of a state religion is prohibited.  One of those laws is the Fourteen
> Amendment guaranteeing equal protection.  Allowing gay marriage is not only
> consistent with and driven by such a law, but allowing gay marriage allows
> people the freedom of choosing their own destiny in this important element
> of life.
>
> w.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> *The Same-Sex Marriage Debate: A Third Option?*
>> Same-sex marriage has been a big topic of discussion for about fifteen
>> years. Same-sex marriage has been nearly the *only* topic of debate for
>> the last fifteen days. And frankly, I hate the debate, because, well, most
>> everybody sucks at it. You've got (at least) two sides talking right past
>> each other. I get frustrated when the pro-gay-marriage people presume that
>> their opposition only acts out of bigotry, and I get livid when the one
>> man-one woman people think that it makes sense to make arguments from
>> Christian revelation when debating civil rights in a pluralistic secular
>> democratic republic.
>>
>>
>> I would prefer to not write a blog post to just "address a current
>> topic", especially without greater opportunity to build a common vocabulary
>> and see if there may be some principles that people can agree on. And I'd
>> always prefer a one-on-one conversation in something as heated as this. But
>> I've had about ten people this week ask my opinion on this, or ask how they
>> can address this question without seeming hateful. So, I feel compelled to
>> say my thoughts. And I think I'll be upsetting staunch activists on both
>> sides pretty severely.... so, keep your blood pressure pills handy.
>>
>>
>> I'm first going to lay out a traditional Natural Law argument for keeping
>> the civil institution of marriage available only to a man-woman pair who
>> intend to remain faithfully married to each other alone. It's the position
>> I held all my adult life until the last year or two. This argument is
>> remarkably solid....and it's almost utterly unhelpful in the current
>> scenario. After that, I want to look at another solution that holds the
>> same root Natural Law points, but actually could fit 2012 America.
>>
>>
>> Let's understand first why I am taking the Natural Law angle(s). America
>> might have been founded but a group of Christians and Deists, but it's not
>> a "Christian country". It may have a general history of Judeo-Christian
>> moral fiber, but the precepts of monotheistic revelation are not a
>> legitimate final authority in a pluralistic secular society. Atheists are
>> right when they say the First Amendment's (Non-) Establishment Clause keeps
>> Christian revelation from becoming the standard of the law. Using religious
>> arguments in a secular state's debate over the civil institution of
>> marriage is like bringing a badminton racket to your Jeopardy appearance:
>> you can use it, but it won't score any more points. This is an error of
>> many Christian conservatives.
>>
>>
>> But before the pro-family people declare me anathema, let's clear up a
>> far more widely held error of social progressives: the claim that "you
>> can't legislate morality." Of course you can—and we do, all the time.
>> Making murder, rape, theft, molestation, and plagiarism illegal is
>> definitely "legislating morals". The Affordable Care Act makes the positive
>> declaration that a citizen not having real access to health insurance is
>> moral unacceptable, and therefore is now legally disallowed.
>>
>>
>> So, the real question is: "Which morality should a state be
>> proposing/protecting if it shouldn't be some religion's revealed morals,
>> and not just whatever the majority capriciously wants to declare?" Natural
>> Law is really the only moral philosophy that one can hold to in order to be
>> able to explain why "X is more just than Y" or why "A is a fitting solution
>> for Problem B". Whether one thinks that his thoughts fit into the more
>> traditional systems of Natural Law, this thinking is certainly what people
>> instinctively do. All but the most self-willed people understand on some
>> level that the nature of the thing tells us about what's good for it.
>> Natural Law's process is threefold: 1) look at the nature of the thing, 2)
>> see what's good for it, 3) know how to treat it. A "good pair of scissors"
>> is one that cuts things easily; scissors cut well by remaining sharp and
>> aligned; cutting copper wire with scissors dulls the blades, so we can
>> reasonably declare that "cutting wire is bad for the scissors". Most people
>> agree we can cut down trees and kill cows to get natural resources, but
>> also we recognize that while cutting limbs off a tree and letting it live
>> is okay, hacking steaks out of a living steer and leaving it alive isn't.
>> Why? Because while the natures of both of these have life and bodily
>> integrity, the steer also has pain and motion that would be suffering
>> violence which the tree doesn't suffer when cut.
>>
>>
>> Therefore people ought to, and have, attempted to base laws not on mere
>> desires, opinions, or prejudices, but on human reason's ability to discern
>> justice for things based on their natures. Even the same-sex marriage
>> camp's main argument has been essentially one of Natural Law: "Humans
>> possess personal love and freedom of will; if Bob and Sue can choose to
>> enter a permanent bond of love, so should Bob and Bill." Natural Law
>> (however one calculates its conclusions) should not be seen as the weapon
>> of one side (usually considered the province of the one man-one woman
>> crowd), but rather as the only tool with which one can hold a debate in a
>> pluralistic country. If you think there are real *reasons*—not just
>> religious dictums or personal opinions—for why your side is right, then you
>> believe in a reasoned Natural Law. Ultimately, I'm saying: "If you want to
>> have a worthwhile logical debate on this, then using reason alone is your
>> only route. Put away your Bibles and put away the word 'bigot'."
>>
>>
>> One last thing before my arguments: Let's make sure we keep distinct the
>> questions of
>> 1) same-sex attraction/orientation,
>> 2) same-sex activity, and
>> 3) same-sex civil marriage.
>> The TV and the Internet are currently swarming with people on both sides
>> not keeping these distinct. Someone who opposes #3 does not necessarily
>> hate people in #1, or even necessarily object to #2 done in the privacy of
>> a bedroom. Likewise, a given religion's rejection of #2 does not mean that
>> they think #1 is morally wrong, and that particular religion may have
>> nothing to say about #3 whatsoever, since the debate is over *civil* marriage
>> licensing. I happen to agree with Clint Eastwood<http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201110/leonardo-dicaprio-clint-eastwood-gq-september-2011-cover-story-article> that
>> speaking of the "sanctity of marriage" is fallacious. Some Christian groups
>> believe in a sacrament of matrimony (which is much more narrowly defined),
>> and they can speak of "sanctity" there, but that doesn't speak to the
>> sanctity of civil marriage. And just because civil marriage is an extremely
>> ancient human institution, doesn't make it sacred. Since 2003<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas>,
>> any laws limiting #2 have been abolished, and they hadn't been enforced or
>> retained for decades before anyway, so the subject currently for debate is
>> strictly #3.
>>
>>
>> I'll now present a Natural Law argument against same-sex civil marriage.
>> No, it has nothing to do with whether the bodies of two same-gendered
>> humans "go together right". The question we should ask isn't "Why not gay
>> marriage?", but rather "Why civil marriage at all?" We can, perhaps, see
>> why religions, which often solemnize births and deaths, would want to mark
>> marriage, but why should the state? Why would they care? States don't
>> bother to regulate, legislate, or validate your friendships. You don't
>> mention your siblings, boyfriend, or BFF on your 1040 form. But the state
>> does track marriages and it does ask for your spouse on your tax form. Why?
>> Because states want to protect, encourage, and reward entities that are
>> good for the commonwealth. We give tax breaks to clean energy initiatives
>> because we want more of that. We break up monopolies because business
>> competition is good. We regulate and underwrite public schools to ensure an
>> educated citizenry.
>>
>>
>> Ancient humans learned that a child was brought up best when her parents
>> stayed together (humans are notoriously slow-developing and need years of
>> cooperative rearing) and if her siblings had the same parents too (a family
>> being a better bonder than a boarding house). So they developed some rules
>> to encourage and benefit these pairings, like recognizing the transfer of
>> property and influence, and they made other rules to protect the nascent
>> institution, like forbidding adultery and rape and allowing retribution for
>> injuries to one's family members. Successive generations added greater
>> formality, but all to the same end. States granted privileges to this
>> institution which they didn't grant to other relationships because it
>> benefited the states in a unique way as the institution reared their
>> children and provided great stability in this basic building block of
>> society.
>>
>>
>> Now, many have pointed out that perhaps marriage in the modern context
>> has been over-privileged, to the detriment even of other relationships.
>> That may be true. Marriage lets one spouse inherit all the other's property
>> without a tax, she can collect his social security, he gets to be on her
>> insurance for free, she gets privileged access to his medical data and
>> life-and-death decision making, etc. People who are single, or living with
>> someone, or in a same-sex union are, by comparison, seemingly
>> disenfranchised. Gay partners were denied access to hospital visits that
>> wives' husbands got without question. For at least a decade I've heard a
>> solid rejoinder to this in the form of, "This perhaps is unfair, but that
>> means we should adjust those specific rules, not rewrite the immemorial
>> institution." And many places have done that: allowing all employees to
>> share their health insurance with one other person regardless of
>> relationship, opening up who can have access to medical consultations and
>> visitations. People regularly debate whether the estate tax is good for
>> anyone. This objection by the same-sex marriage advocates is perhaps just,
>> but seems to fight the wrong set of rules.
>>
>>
>> The other counterpoint to a Natural Law "societal good" argument is that
>> a lesbian couple may be just as good of a societal building block as a
>> straight couple. The classic refutation would be: "Perhaps so, but the
>> lesbian pairing doesn't make and rear children, so there's not the reason
>> to privilege it." The immediate response would be that they could get
>> inseminated or adopt. The rejoinder to that will be that since *their* *
>> union* doesn't produce the children, the state still doesn't have the
>> same interest. The obvious rebuff to this will be that, then, infertile
>> straight couples should not be considered married. To which the reply would
>> probably be, "Yes, but to grant a privilege to a couple that should likely
>> be fertile (and later on could still be) and then take it away from them is
>> quite different from granting a privilege to a couple that can never be
>> fertile." This is probably enough to convince some on the fence, but not
>> all, nor will it likely convince the staunch same-sex advocate.
>>
>>
>> This is the most common, and, I think, a pretty darn compelling argument
>> for states enshrining faithful, permanent, childbearing marriage in a
>> protected (and exclusive) status. Religious and non-religious alike have
>> argued it for years. [A recent, much-crisper version of this argument from
>> an economist's point of view comes from Adam Kolasinski<http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html>at
>> MIT.] The argument it reasonable, does not rest on bigotry, nor on
>> religiously-revealed truths, nor does it address anything other civil
>> marriage.
>>
>>
>> And up until about two years ago, I thought it answered the question, and
>> was exactly what the one man-one woman camp needed to use to get over the
>> accusation of trying to make this an imposition of religious moral views.
>>
>>
>> But while I still believe the above argument is utterly valid in theory,
>> I don't think it remotely works in America in 2012. It may have been valid
>> in 1950, but not now. The reason is simple: America is not a country
>> dedicated to preserving marriages or forming children within those
>> families. Given that abortion and no-fault divorce are enshrined rights,
>> and that contraception and sterilization are the *sine qua non* of the
>> "modern family", it's ridiculous to say that civil marriage exists for the
>> procreation, formation, and welfare of children, or that the U.S. values
>> the family as the firm bedrock on which our society rests.
>>
>>
>> It's common to hear things like: "50% of marriages end in divorce, 15% of
>> marriages have physical abuse, Kim Kardashian got divorced after 72 days,
>> and you think gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage?!" And
>> they're right!—civil marriage is a farce. If the state protects your right
>> to not have a fertile marriage and to not have to stick around to raise
>> your progeny, it seems the centuries-old privileges of the civil
>> institution are pointless. I'm amazed at the number of Christians so
>> desperate to protect the "institution of marriage"—amazed either because
>> that entity is already dead, or because they support the things that killed
>> it. Gay-activist (and someone who understands the concepts of Natural Law) Andrew
>> Sullivan <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan> writes<http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/339>:
>> "The heterosexuality of marriage is intrinsic only if it is understood to
>> be intrinsically procreative; but that definition has long been abandoned
>> in Western society." And he's right—at least from the point of civil
>> marriage. There's no small number of Christians who reject same-sex
>> marriage, but accept abortion. There's a colossal number of Christians who
>> despise gay marriage (and sometimes gays) but will defend to the last
>> no-fault divorce and contraception. They must be basing this on Leviticus,
>> because they're not basing it in logic.
>>
>>
>> So what do I suggest? End no-fault divorce and contraception? No, I don't
>> think those genies can go back in their bottles. Granted, the "3rd Way"
>> solution I support instead is, at first blush, only somewhat less radical,
>> but it is still a Natural Law solution, and equivalent in its root
>> principles to the first one. I did reject it for the first 30 seconds after
>> Dr. Jim Madden proposed it as a possibility, but since then I see it as the
>> only thing that keeps those principles, deals with the situation we have,
>> and fits perfectly within the pluralism of the modern secular democracy.
>>
>>
>> The answer is simple: Get the state out of the marriage business.
>> Eliminate, or at least create no more, civil marriages, and then stop using
>> it as a civil category. Let's stop giving any legal privilege (or even,
>> credence) to Kim Kardashian's marriage, or anyone else's for that matter.
>> Allow people to marry privately in whatever form and ceremony they want,
>> but simply cease having a civil institution that means so little, protects
>> so little, and expects so little. Denominations and other "marrying
>> establishments" won't have their consciences infringed upon, and they can
>> be as narrow or broad as they want in the matrimonial services they offer.
>> So now Bob can go to the Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and he'll marry Bob
>> to Sue, the Episcopalian priest will marry Bob to either Sue or Steve, the
>> Mormon bishop will marry Bob to Sue, Sally, and Kate together, and Bob's
>> buddy Bill who got his officiant's license on-line will marry Bob to any of
>> the above, or to a goat. The Elvis wedding chapels would be free to be as
>> traditional or progressive as they wish. Of course, you'll still have
>> lawyers to sort out any separations, but they'll do like they do already
>> for cohabiting boyfriends and girlfriends, joint home owners, and
>> businesses. Taxes, finances, and insurance, would be simplified. There'd
>> still be marriages and families, but the secular and sectarian definitions
>> wouldn't clash any more. Religious groups may actually find this freeing.
>>
>>
>> Europe already kind of does this, not institutionally, but *de facto* because
>> so many don't bother with getting married at all. And if they do, the civil
>> and sectarian ceremonies in Europe are separate. Want a gay marriage? Just
>> don't go to the local Catholic parish. Want a polygamous arrangement? Just
>> don't go to the civil authority about it. My plan would go even one step
>> further, and it avoids the contradictions that currently exist in Western
>> civil marriage. Honestly folks, it's 2012—with so many competing
>> definitions of marriage, why is the state even in the marriage business
>> anymore? America isn't just pluralist in terms of its religions; it's
>> pluralist in its conceptions of marriage.
>>
>>
>> Frankly, I don't think this would actually change much of life. Already a
>> Catholic marriage tribunal doesn't recognize the validity of a civil-only
>> marriage for a Catholic, nor acknowledge the existence of divorce. Already
>> a civil court cares nothing of whether or not a partner is faithful or not.
>> Already anybody can get licensed to be the legal officiant at a wedding,
>> without any training in civil law or in preparing people for marriage.
>> Already there is nothing more required to get married than to be of age, to
>> not be too closely related, and to be not currently married. Heck, there's
>> not even a minimum required form of the modern wedding ceremony or
>> contract. You can say "I like your face and I hope we keep having lots of
>> fun" and that's a legal marriage "vow".
>>
>>
>> Now, I'm sure some same-sex marriage advocates will see this as
>> traditional marriage fans simply "taking their ball and going home because
>> they can't have it their way". It may look a bit like that, but that
>> forgets what has already changed. It's not that it would be taking away the
>> possession that homosexuals wanted, it's an acknowledging that in a mere
>> fifty years this country *has ceased to possess* that institution that
>> humans for millennia called marriage. If the goal of the same-sex marriage
>> initiative is to gain the final mark of equality by laying hold of the
>> beautiful, worthy, centuries-old bond of unshakably stubborn trust,
>> concern, and fidelity, I regret to inform them that the institution they'd
>> gain access to is not *that* ancient treasure of devotion. Frankly, in
>> the future, gays and lesbians, in groups and congregations, may be able to
>> develop for themselves far more worthy notions of mutual support than what
>> "civil marriage" is at the dawn of the 21st century.
>>
>>
>> In the end, I just don't see what the battle is over. The object both
>> sides are fighting over is the burned-out shell of a broken, discarded
>> institution. They are violently fighting for—one side to "save", the other
>> side to "win"— an entity that no longer exists.
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120515/4a96368d/attachment-0001.html>