Massive resistance
CommentsI have a column in today’s Jerusalem Post which suggests some ways Jewish dating Web sites can retaliate if subject to eHarmony-style lawsuits. I write:
I DON’T SEE any reason why - with the eHarmony precedent - the Orthodox Jewish dating and marriage sites cannot be sued in New Jersey and forced to shut down, pay massive damages or create a similar gay Jewish service. All three options are of course anathema to the owners of these Web sites and, I hope, to the Jewish community. Even pro-gay Jews should realize that court cases forcing Jewish business owners to violate their consciences are not “good for the Jews.” So what should the Jewish sites do if sued? I’d like to suggest that they go ahead and form Jewish gay dating Web sites, but then use their freedom of speech to make clear what Torah Judaism thinks of gay dating.
First of all, the names of the sites can reflect Jewish attitudes toward the whole situation. Two possibilities are SawYouAtSodom.com and OnlyToevas (abominations) .com.
Second, there can be banner ads sprinkled heavily throughout the sites quoting Jewish sources - not all of which are necessarily Jewish law today - condemning same-sex relations. These can include biblical verses: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). Rabbinic texts can also appear: “It is forbidden for women to enmesh [play around] with one another… It is appropriate to subject such women to disciplinary lashes since they committed a prohibited act” (Shulhan Aruch, Even Haezer 20:2). Finally, the site can include quotes from great rabbis showing Judaism’s aversion to gay relations: “Evildoers… lust for this repugnant indulgence, which is one of the greatest abominations. Even the nations of the world consider that homosexual conduct is unparalleled in its loathsomeness” (Rav Moshe Feinstein).
Third, there can be links to yeshivot, seminaries and Jewish outreach organizations like Chabad and Aish Hatorah, encouraging the Jewish gay and lesbian site users to return to a more traditional Jewish lifestyle. There could also be some links to responsible (read: not “ex-gay”) Orthodox literature specifically discussing homosexuality, like Rabbi Chaim Rapoport’s book Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View and my pamphlet, isjudaismhomophobic.com.
But I’ll go a step further and call for massive resistance if the gay movement continues to figure out ways to force traditionalist people to treat gay “marriages” as if they were real marriages. Because of freedom of speech, I don’t see how gays can stop:
• Wedding caterers from wearing T-shirts with Biblical verses (He who lieth down with man…) or even “I Hate Fags” (well, maybe not) on them while forced to cater gay “marriage” affairs.
• In vitro fertilization clinics from having posters on the wall emphasizing the importance of fathers in children’s lives while forced to inseminate lesbians who plan to raise their children without fathers.
• Teachers from driving to school with bumper stickers that read “Marriage = One Man, One Woman” if forced to read “King and King” and other gay propaganda to her students.
In fact, I would urge anyone forced by law to support gay “marriage” against their beliefs to find a way to use their First Amendment rights to express disagreement with and even distaste and disgust at the notion of gay “marriage” and/or homosexuality in general. If the left continues to assault traditional institutions, it’s the least we can do to let the world know we disagree.
DB: “In fact, I would urge anyone forced by law to support gay “marriage” against their beliefs to find a way to use their First Amendment rights to express disagreement with and even distaste and disgust at the notion of gay “marriage” and/or homosexuality in general.”
Oh please, make my day. It’s not that I particularly want the atmosphere at my wedding poisoned by renegade caterers, but the one thing that will solidify support for gay people faster than anything else is more Fred Phelpses.
Actually, Mark, only one of my three suggestions can be interpreted as anything Phelps-like by anyone but the most extreme ideologue. And if we find the in-your-face tactic of Bible T-shirts to be ineffective there are other techniques, such as wearing handcuffs to show we’re being forced to “peform” against our will, telling anyone we encounter as we photograph a fake marriage or fold napkins for one that we believe marriage is between a man and a woman. In any event, you’re right that it will poison the atmosphere at many events, which is appropriate because statists like you are poisoning the freedom of those of us who are appalled by men pretending to marry men and women pretending to marry women. I imagine some guests will be angry, which serves them right because people like me are angry by the government and the gays forcing us to violate our consciences.
DB: “Actually, Mark, only one of my three suggestions can be interpreted as anything Phelps-like by anyone but the most extreme ideologue.”
You can spin it that way it you like. I’ll point out that, rather, between your three examples and the rest of 600 words about “anathema”, “abomination” (or in modern English, “abhorrent thing”), “aversion”, “repugnant”, “loathsomeness”, “distaste” and “disgust”, there’s only one allusion to a substantive reason for opposing anything, and to the extent it has any force, it’s a reason for opposing artificial insemination, not ‘the notion of gay “marriage” and/or homosexuality in general’.
I shouldn’t have to state *any* substantive reasons for my beliefs in order not to be forced by the government to comply with their restrictions on my freedom. I oppose seatbelt laws, anti-declawing laws, helmet laws, mandatory recycling, etc. for precisely that reason. I shouldn’t have to give a reason why I don’t recycle (other than aluminum cans) but I do have a good reason and it’s not the government’s business or anyone else’s if I don’t choose to share it. Finally, you have been a constant reader of this blog, and I don’t have to re-hash for you my many substantive (secular) reasons for opposing gay marriage. But those should be irrelevant to whether the government forces me to do things I personally think are wrong, just because the gay community suffers from EqualityMania™. There are other values in society, like freedom, that sometimes must overrule equality. (Remember the French Revolution slogan had Liberté as well as Egalité.)
DB: “I shouldn’t have to state *any* substantive reasons for my beliefs in order not to be forced by the government to comply with their restrictions on my freedom.”
If your behaviour inconveniences others then of course you have to give a substantive justification.
DB: “I oppose seatbelt laws, anti-declawing laws, helmet laws, mandatory recycling, etc. for precisely that reason.”
We could have an interesting digression about some of those, but I’d rather keep the focus on denial of service attacks, for which I suggest you need a pretty substantive justification.
DB: “Finally, you have been a constant reader of this blog, and I don’t have to re-hash for you my many substantive (secular) reasons for opposing gay marriage. ”
Indeed, you don’t need to rehash anything, you need to hash quite a lot of stuff for the first time. Seriously, if you have any secular reasons for opposing either homosexuality or gay marriage at all, I have no idea what they are. This blog is pretty much entirely you whining about how victimized you would be if you were hampered in your supposed mission from God to victimize gay people. The closest thing to a secular reason for opposing same-sex relationships that I’ve gotten from you is that ludicrous suggestion that it would complicate relationships between brothers. (And even then I had to goad you, and since it was as stupid as all that and you didn’t care to defend it, I charitably assume that you’re retired it.)
Mark, by your standard of what “inconveniences others,” it is far more inconvenient to have to do something that violates your conscience than it is to simply pick another caterer.
As for my secular reasons for opposing gay marriage, they’re in the blog (especially the notion that gay marriage will change the nature of marriage itself, for everyone, for the worse).
DB: “Mark, by your standard of what “inconveniences others,” it is far more inconvenient to have to do something that violates your conscience than it is to simply pick another caterer.”
No, I wouldn’t describe it as inconvenient. It’s both too little and too much. I don’t doubt that the distress from not being able to abide by the prescriptions and proscriptions of one’s religion can be extreme - much more than suggested by calling it an “inconvenience”. And as stupid as I think religion is, I’d normally be prepared to suffer some inconvenience to spare you that. But when your conscience starts advocating malicious acts (including denial of service) against other people, especially me, I entirely stop caring, and I don’t see that anyone is obliged to care, anymore than we care about the frustration of burglars when we put locks on doors.
DB: “As for my secular reasons for opposing gay marriage, they’re in the blog (especially the notion that gay marriage will change the nature of marriage itself, for everyone, for the worse).”
Without a whole lot more detail than you or anyone else has given, I’m afraid I don’t regard that as a reason, more of a proclamation of religious faith that there _must_ be a reason. (Or, in the case of more purely politically conservative people like RK, an expression of paranoia that there _might_ be a reason.)
Mark: Without a whole lot more detail than you or anyone else has given, I’m afraid I don’t regard that as a reason, more of a proclamation of religious faith that there _must_ be a reason. (Or, in the case of more purely politically conservative people like RK, an expression of paranoia that there _might_ be a reason.)
Philosophically conservative much more than politically. The two may overlap sometimes, but they so frequently do not I cannot be a member of any across-the-board “conservative” political organization. I am a terrible team player.
Speaking of religious faith, though, Mark, I’d like to hear a general explanation of how you can have faith in mankind’s (or any segment of mankind’s, for that matter) ability to change things for the better, and how you justify your general belief that “if no one can tell you just how things will go wrong, we should assume it will work for the better”….without some kind of “faith” to back it up. What is it you have faith in, Mark, that tells you this? And no, this is one area where a tu quoque response won’t work. Really, faith is not required to be skeptical about anything, it is required to be optimistic (at least when the innovation is totally new to human experience). So, if your faith is not religious, Mark, then what is it?
I will have more responses to some previous threads later. I will also go over some of the more specific things which I think will go wrong with same-sex “marriage” (which I have given over the years, and I know you have read them, too). But I know the response, it’s always “prove it, prove it”, or an argument, or even a “so what?”, which shows that the “if you can’t give me a reason” argument is bogus. The argument for SSM is all based on faith, the question is, faith in what exactly?
And I still want to know just what you are going to advocate doing to “authoritatively slap down” religious or other objections to SSM once its legalization proves to not be enough for you.
Mark doesn’t care whether I am forced by the government to facilitate something that is wrong. Well, I don’t care whether Mark is forced to use another caterer. In a free society each of us should be free to make our own decisions with the minimum of government interference. In most cases, there will be another photographer or caterer or in vitro fertilizer (!). And if there’s not, tough. There is no constitutional right to a caterer; many celebrations have taken place without one. There actually is a constitutional right to an abortion, but in many places the nearest abortion clinic is many miles away, and the government doesn’t force people to set up abortion clinics just because women have a constitutional right to an abortion.
Mark seems to want me to repeat old arguments that are very well represented on this blog. Perhaps he then wants to give his reason again why he doesn’t agree that it’s a legitimate argument. Given that the blog exists filled with such conversations, I’m going to give only one: Gay “marriage” will change marriage because gays and lesbians by and large do not think that sexual fidelity is an essential part of marriage. Rather, they think “sexual compacts” regarding what each partner may do sexually outside the relationship are entirely compatible with the state of being married. Straight people by and large do not agree. (I hope I don’t have to go through what I’m not saying - that straights don’t cheat, that all gays and lesbians cheat, etc. My point is about what gays and lesbians believe about the nature of marriage when it comes to sexual fidelity.)
RK: “Philosophically conservative much more than politically.”
Fair enough.
RK: “Speaking of religious faith, though, Mark, I’d like to hear a general explanation of how you can have faith in mankind’s (or any segment of mankind’s, for that matter) ability to change things for the better, [...]”
Note first that to the extent I believe anything like that, I wouldn’t describe it as being because of _faith_. At least before Christian theologians debased the word it didn’t mean any old believing despite lack of 100% epistemological certainty, it meant believing for moral reasons, i.e., because someone (or Someone) had a moral obligation to make something true. So if faith is being talked about but there’s no logical possibility of a _breach_ of faith, then someone is confused and I won’t cooperate with the use of the word. At least as far as I’m concerned, allowing SSM is a bet, one made confidently on the best available information, but still a bet, pure and simple, with no guarantees of any sort assumed.
That out of the way, to the extent the question means why do I believe that people can _sometimes_ change things for the better, then the answer is past history. We’ve improved all sorts of things. To the extent it means why do I believe that people can _always_ change things for the better, then there’s no answer. And if the question is why do I believe that people can change things for the better in the case of SSM, it’s that the benefit to gay people is obvious and the opponents of SSM are really really incoherent about the supposed problems.
RK: “And I still want to know just what you are going to advocate doing to “authoritatively slap down” religious or other objections to SSM once its legalization proves to not be enough for you.”
I think I already told you that. I sense you didn’t believe the answer, but it stands nonetheless.
DB: “Mark doesn’t care whether I am forced by the government to facilitate something that is wrong. Well, I don’t care whether Mark is forced to use another caterer.”
Well, sure, we’d established that. And the reason I invite the readers to reject the suggested symmetry, to judge your lack of concern more harshly than mine, and to support me over you, is that your side attacked first, and that your attempts at offering substantive reasons for wanting to judge and punish are rubbish, as might be expected from someone who doesn’t think they should have to give substantive reasons in the first place.
DB: “In a free society each of us should be free to make our own decisions with the minimum of government interference.”
That sounds good, but in my experience, people who talk like that have just narrowly lost a struggle to pick my pocket or take away my freedom via the government, and are now zealous for their freedom to continue to pick my pocket or take away my freedom without interference from the government.
DB: “In most cases, there will be another photographer or caterer or in vitro fertilizer (!). ”
Indeed, despite your best efforts to inconvenience me, I might not be seriously inconvenienced in particular cases. I’m supposed to be mollified by this why exactly?
DB: “There is no constitutional right to a caterer; many celebrations have taken place without one.”
I don’t suggest there’s a constitutional right to a caterer. I don’t even suggest there’s a constitutional right to even-handed treatment from caterers. Rather, I suggest that there should be (as there is) statute law giving protections in the same spirit as the constitution. The government is not by any means the only source of oppression, and any one fixated on it as if it were is probably fixing to oppress someone.
DB: “Mark seems to want me to repeat old arguments that are very well represented on this blog.”
I don’t want you to repeat anything. I want _you_ to give some of _your_ reasons why gay sex and/or gay relationships and/or gay marriage is wrong.
DB: “Perhaps he then wants to give his reason again why he doesn’t agree that it’s a legitimate argument. ”
No, I’d rather do that for fresh arguments, or at least hear your counter-arguments as to why the very few attempts you’ve made don’t have the blatant and clearly fatal flaws that I’ve suggested they do. Of course, it’s your blog and you don’t have to make counter-arguments to my criticisms if you don’t want to, but if you don’t, then I make no apology for assuming that you’ve conceded my point. After all, it’s not that you never make counter-arguments, it’s just that the only arguments you can be drawn on are in the religious freedom line.
DB: “Gay “marriage” will change marriage because gays and lesbians by and large do not think that sexual fidelity is an essential part of marriage. Rather, they think “sexual compacts” regarding what each partner may do sexually outside the relationship are entirely compatible with the state of being married. Straight people by and large do not agree. ”
Well, where’s the rest of the argument? This is a bad thing why exactly? There seem to be three possibilities: negotiated extra-marital sex is bad, period, negotiated extra-marital sex is bad for straight couples but not for gay ones, or negotiated extra-marital sex is OK all round. Which is it according to you, and whichever it is, why does that mean that SSM is a bad idea?
Another ‘missed’ quote related to massive resistance :
Women’s vote will undermine the government, destroy the constitution, and wreck the nation.
This was an actual poster from the days of Washington’s Women’s Suffrage movement a little over a hundred years ago.
DAVID DAVID DAVID. are you done now with that foot stomping, hands on hip tantrum?
Yes if gehys and les’ get the right to marry and become federally recognized as married, there are going to be folk with twisted undies. Fer F#(& sake, there are still people objecting to women holding positions of power in faith institutions and corporate institutions. There are still active KKK folk and Aryan POWER Huggin’ freaks out there spewing out hate toward folk o’ color and even Jews.
Yes, as a citizen, you can rant and rave against gays and lesbians. You certainly have done that quite well. But GLBT folk are securing the Freedoms they seek. It may be awhile for GAY MARRIAGE to be welcomed but it is coming. GLBT are seeking equal treatment and want to secure the same Freedom to pursue life, liberty and their personal happiness.
It may be awhile for GAY MARRIAGE to be welcomed but it is coming.
Oh, I agree, in much of the world anyway, and only AFTER it comes to much of the world (probably most of Westrern Europe, most of the Northeastern U.S. and West Coast and perhaps some of the Midwest, as well as scattered other countries) and becomes accepted we’re going to discover what a disaster it is, and we’ll discover the real reason no previous society ever had it, at least in the androgynous form now proposed. So my question to you and Mark, Rusty, is, when that happens, who is going to clean up the mess? And, if you refuse to accept the word “when”, then okay, “if”.
Let’s see RK, who B cleaning up the mess of the solid institution of hetero marriage?
Now is that glass house you live in . . . is the glass opaque, translucent or crystal clear?
more fun quotes: from Jacob Erikson, a Lutheran Christian student studying theology and currently in seminary:
I recognize that not all Christians or those in other religions will agree about how to understand homosexuality. Many churches are in discussion right now about how to understand sexuality-indeed, many churches support people with variety of sexualities as a gift and example of God’s grace. My own church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, is in such a discussion right now. Presbyterians, Episcopalians and others are in similar processes and dialogues. But I turn to the example of the American Lutheran Church, one of the ELCA’s predecessor bodies, which, even though it believed homosexuality was contrary to God’s will, in 1980 decided that the church should begin publicly advocate for the full humanity of those who understand themselves as gay, lesbian or those with other gender identities, regardless. The social statement “Human Sexuality and Sexual Behavior” read as follows:
“Truth, mercy, and justice should impel members of congregations of The American Lutheran Church to review their attitudes, words, and actions regarding homosexuality. Christians need to be more understanding and more sensitive to life as experienced by those who are homosexual. They need to take leadership roles in changing public opinion, civil laws, and prevailing practices that deny justice and opportunity to any persons, homosexual or heterosexual. We all need recognition and acceptance as human beings known to and loved by God.” minot daily news 526124.html
To paraphrase the common Rusty-type argument (or, rather, implication):
“They (or people like them) were wrong about proposal A then, therefore that shows that they are wrong about proposal B now.”
Totally fallacious reasoning.
maybe it might be people of faith who will help guide not disparage.
but you go RK. . .remember hands on hips
So, Rusty, is it just a “bet” with you, too (like Mark) or is it faith that tells you everything will work out just dandy. If it’s faith (and you talk more like it is), what is the faith in, and what is it based on? What tells you that humanity can only make changes for the better? Where does this faith in humanity come from?
but you go RK. . .remember hands on hips
But of course, if you can’t or don’t want to answer people, you can always try the game of driving them into frustration by not answering them, eh?
RK, my faith is rooted in my Catholic upbringing (baptized, 1st communiun & confirmed) , although I consider my self a Recovering Catholic, for I have chosen to forgive the CHurch for it’s sins. . .but along with life lessons and experiences I have faith, because of my time in DC with a Jewish family working as their nanny, because of my time working in a AIDS (Sisters of Providence) hospice for 6 years tending to the needs of folk in the last stages of their lives (this was pre-cocktail), because of my time working on race relations (as an openly gay member) with a multi-faith group, because of my time coordinating World AIDS day events for over 5 years with multi-faith leaders and civic leaders, because of my connections and relationships with Jesuit priests over the last 25 years, because of my 20 plus years working as a advocate/educator/mentor to young children and their families. . .
“I met Russ several years ago
through our mutual volunteer
work with the Spokane AIDS
Network’s Walk For Life. A
couple of years later, Russ accepted
the leadership role organizing
and directing SAN’s
Oscar Night Gala.
“I was most impressed by Russ’
effective leadership skills. His
style is what I would define as
unassuming, yet direct. He was
always well prepared and organized.
His approach with people
was inclusive, respectful and
warm. He encouraged participation
and creative thought from
everyone. Through Russ’ leadership,
the Oscar Gala has been
elevated to one of the largest
and most successful fund-raising
events in Spokane – certainly
the most unique. More
importantly, it has created an
additional avenue for dialogue
and greater understanding between
the GLBTQ community
and mainstream Spokane,
which serves to lift up our entire
community.
“Russ is a good friend whom I
greatly admire. He is a kind and
loving man who cares deeply for
his community, his family and his
partner. I will miss his presence
in Spokane.”
Barrie Ryan
President, Board of Directors
Spokane AIDS Network
“Few people have had the positive
effect on the LGBT community of
Spokane as Russ. His
ability to inspire collaboration and
enthuse those around him in creating
a better community will be
sorely missed.”
Kevan Gardner, Regional Outreach
Manager, Pride Foundation
So RK, I have my faith, with HANDS on HIPS.
All that is very nice, Rusty. I have no doubt that you are a ver nice person. But if you really think about it, what you just posted doesn’t answer my question at all. Faith IN what?.
in people. . .humanity
RK: ‘To paraphrase the common Rusty-type argument (or, rather, implication): “They (or people like them) were wrong about proposal A then, therefore that shows that they are wrong about proposal B now.” ‘
Note that that’s not the argument. The argument is, “They (or people like them) were making hopelessly vague/silly/hypocritical arguments out of paranoia and/or vested interests and were wrong about proposal A then, and they are making hopelessly vague/silly/hypocritical arguments now, therefore that shows that they are probably wrong about proposal B now.” ‘
It is unnatural for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized and united for specific action, and a minority can. rousseau
Mark: Note that that’s not the argument. The argument is, “They (or people like them) were making hopelessly vague/silly/hypocritical arguments out of paranoia and/or vested interests and were wrong about proposal A then, and they are making hopelessly vague/silly/hypocritical arguments now, therefore that shows that they are probably wrong about proposal B now.”
And it’s still fallacious.
Rusty: {My faith is] in people. . .humanity.
Exactly what I expected you’d say. (I had predicted something like “My faith is in, and I believe SSM will work because of, not logic or argument, but the people who believe in it and are working for it, and my general faith in humanity”).
The same humanity that brought us World War II? The same humanity that brough us Global Warming? The same humanity that brought us the Gulag Archipelago? The same humanity that brought us the Great Depression? The same humanity that brought us the current economic crisis? The same humanity that brought us a divorce rate approaching 50 percent (perhaps exceeding it)? The same humanity that brought us the out of control inflation of the Weimar Republic (which in turn helped feed the support for what came later)? The same humanity that brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers? I could go on and on. Yes, history gives us a real basis for a general “faith in humanity”.
Of course, what I think you really mean is faith in a certain good segment of humanity. (And I don’t doubt that you are one of them, Rusty). But all humans are in the same world, and the bad affect the good just as much as vice versa. And thus the “bad” can very easily ruin things that the “good” have started or proposed.
Most human advances can be essentially attributed to two things, 1) discovery (the uncovering of facts or things formerly hidden), and 2) trial and error (figuring out what doesn’t work and going through many trials before something works). SSM is not a “discovery”…..the concept is too utterly easy for it to be anything but ludicrous to think that no culture before has ever thought of it. Thus, it is more than likely that it already has gone through “trial and error”, though we don’t have the “notes on the experiments”. But in any case, the proposal now is not that it be given a “trial” to see if it works, but to simply advance it in as many places as possible, as soon as possible, and to hell with whether or not it works.
Anyway, saying you have “faith in humanity”, you need to explain what exactly that faith comes from. What about humanity, or, for that matter, the universe, gives you reason to believe that humanity is more likely to make good choices than bad ones? Religion? See, David can actually make that argument, but you, Mark and Rusty, you have nothing to back up your faith (though in Mark’s case he’s not claiming faith, but his confidence in SSM sounds very much like it in that particular case).
I guess it sounds like I don’t have faith in humanity. And you’re right, in a nutshell, I don’t. At least I would not call it anything near “faith”. Things could get slowly better, or they could get a lot worse. I do believe, though, that with trial and error we can slowly improve our lot, but that requires both patience and caution. And we can also make discoveries, but don’t expect too much too soon.
More to come. Sometimes I have plenty to say but just don’t feel like spending the time at the computer when I have other things to do. And, Mark, I am sure others feel the same way, so if your game here is to see who wears out sooner so you can assume they have no response to give, or to give them that message, don’t make such an assumption (From your response to David 3/29/09 18:07 I believe that is your game here). Many of your arguments are getting repetitive and we’re really down to a basic difference regarding burden of proof. What’s more, both you and Rusty fail to appreciate the complexities of cause and effect and how this effects culture (indeed, any complex system) with time. (Did anyone back in, say, the 1920s, predict that the divorce rate would get as high as it has recently, and if so, who were they?)
Rusty, just to be clear, from what you quote, I think what you have done for those suffering from AIDS is absolutely wonderful and I commend you for it.
Okay, enough of my rambling for now.
Mark, when you claim that “My side attacked first” what exactly do you mean? Thanks.
“Well, where’s the rest of the argument? This is a bad thing why exactly? There seem to be three possibilities: negotiated extra-marital sex is bad, period, negotiated extra-marital sex is bad for straight couples but not for gay ones, or negotiated extra-marital sex is OK all round. Which is it according to you, and whichever it is, why does that mean that SSM is a bad idea?”
It’s bad for straight couples and I really don’t have an opinion if it’s good for gay couples, that’s like saying should a Jew make a blessing on a cheeseburger. He shouldn’t be eating the cheeseburger in the first place.
I take it you’re saying that you acknowledge that gay marriage will change marriage, but just not in a way that you think matters. Well, of course you don’t think it matters, you’re gay and gay people by and large approve of the very thing we’re talking about. Now, since you’re the one advocating the change, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why sexual compacts are good (for gays and straights), and not on me to show why they’re bad.
I’m relocating from CA to WA by car, so probably no replies for a couple of days.
I wish you well in relocating, Mark, and have a safe trip.
Oh, those silly naysayers of the past that made all those silly, vague hypocritical predictions that were proven so wrong:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262
RK [4/2, 14:02]: I wish you well in relocating, Mark, and have a safe trip.
Thanks. Got here OK.
RK [3/31 19:52]: “And it’s still fallacious.”
“Fallacious”? You seem confused. You speak as if it were a deductive argument and we were assessing whether there was any logical possibility at all of the conclusion not following. But that would be a stupid exercise because it’s not a deductive argument, it’s an inductive argument. In fact one of the changes I made to your straw man version was to add the word “probably”, to make quite clear that it was inductive.
With an inductive argument, it’s always _possible_ that the conclusion does not follow. Inductive arguments are _always_ deductively fallacious. The future could _always_ be different from the past. It’s just that, (i) with a good inductive argument, it’s not very _likely_, and, (ii) whether you like it or not, as a finite and fallible human being, _every_ argument you can make about the real world is inductive. You have two choices: be clear-eyed about the fact that you’re doing induction and use what we know of best practice for doing induction, or go into denial and blunder through.
There are stronger inductive arguments than my improved version, but my point was that it’s rather better than your straw man version because it’s clear-eyed about the fact that we’re doing induction and because it invokes more and better information. It’s not perfect, and indeed explicitly disclaims perfection (”probably”) but if your only rebuttal to it is that it’s not perfect, you’re the one committing the fallacy: of spurious absolutism, of confusing (potentially) 99% with 0%. In particular, in holding out for an impossible certainty, you’re implicitly discounting any risk associated with leaving realizable gains on the table and with not reacting appropriately to external change.
RK: ” And, Mark, I am sure others feel the same way, so if your game here is to see who wears out sooner so you can assume they have no response to give, or to give them that message, don’t make such an assumption (From your response to David 3/29/09 18:07 I believe that is your game here).”
Indeed I _was_ going to wait a few days and then point out that if the subject is how Jews are being persecuted if they’re not allowed to persecute gay people, you can get a post and four follow-ups out of David in two days, but you make one criticism about his vanishingly rare attempts to make an argument on the merits of SSM itself and there’s radio silence. David half-surprised me by responding at all, but sure enough, it was still light on the substance (see forthcoming reply) and heavy on the martyrdom.
RK: “Many of your arguments are getting repetitive [...]”
Oh, I’ve got lots more material, but I can’t get you or David to engage on substance at all.
RK: “[...]and we’re really down to a basic difference regarding burden of proof.”
Yes and no. We do differ on where the burden of proof lies, and your position does seem to be an irreducible axiom not susceptible to further analysis for you. My position is not a basic tenet for me, rather it follows from various other principles that I’ve tried to explain. But hey, if “Something might go wrong!!!” is where your philosophy starts and ends there’s only so much I can do. Hopefully any lurkers who may be reading have profited.
RK: “What’s more, both you and Rusty fail to appreciate the complexities of cause and effect and how this effects culture (indeed, any complex system) with time.”
Yes and no. I’m a professional scientist - I analyze complex systems for a living. I appreciate the complexities in the sense that I acknowledge they’re there, and they’re, well, complex. I don’t appreciate them in the sense of being so awestruck that I want to sit down in the middle of the road and despair of ever understanding or exploiting them, which is the impression I get of how conservatives regard them. That’s why I refer rather derisively to cargo-cult conservatism. The cargo-cultists are the canonical example of people who wanted to restore prosperity by bringing back elements of the past but who had no idea of which elements of the past were important, or why.
RK: “(Did anyone back in, say, the 1920s, predict that the divorce rate would get as high as it has recently, and if so, who were they?)”
I don’t know. I certainly don’t trust you or David to tell me. And in any case, who cares? What would it prove either way? The core of the argument for making divorce more available was that some marriages were very unhappy. If more couples took advantage of the new flexibility than anyone had anticipated, all that tells you is that more couples were unhappy than anyone had anticipated. Thus all you have a preaching-to-the-converted argument for moralistic conservatives who never regarded marital unhappiness as a cost to be weighed in the balance with other factors in the first place. Everyone else sees that the benefits scale roughly with the costs, and that the exact take-up rate is not any sort of paradigm altering surprise.
DB: “It’s bad for straight couples [...]”
So you say, but is there a substantive reason that it’s bad for straight couples? I can think of substantive reasons that it might be bad, at least on certain assumptions, but I’m curious as to whether you can. I’m betting you’ve never actually thought about it.
DB: “[...] and I really don’t have an opinion if it’s good for gay couples, that’s like saying should a Jew make a blessing on a cheeseburger. He shouldn’t be eating the cheeseburger in the first place.”
In particular, if you’re going to compare gay relationships to cheeseburgers, it seems to me you’ve tacitly conceded that there is no substantive reason. After all, the prohibition on cheeseburgers is the ultimate non-substantive reason - it’s an arbitrary hoop that God supposedly requires Jews (but only Jews) to jump through as their side of a covenant that God has entered into with them (and only them). If it were intrinsically immoral or universally bad it would be universally required. But conversely if it were universally bad, you ought to be able to give a substantive reason why.
In any case, since you obviously haven’t thought about it, you can hardly say with any credibility that including gay couples will change traditional opposite-sex marriage for the worse. After all, if there really is a substantive reason why it’s bad for opposite-sex couples, then why not just point it out? Maybe it’s the same for same-sex couples, in which case you can point it out to them as well. Or maybe it’s good for same-sex couples, in which case you can point out why two different approaches should coexist. But I put it to the readers that you don’t care enough about the substance to be bothered, you only care about pursuing a mindless religious vendetta against gay people and collecting martyr points if you can’t.
First of all, the cheeseburger restriction applies to anyone who chooses the Torah and accepts the covenant with God. The Jews (myself included) are the chosen people not because God chose us, but because we chose God. In fact, the Talmud states that the Jews were offered the Torah LAST. It also makes it clear that Jews are not any better than any other nation. This is just our special relationship with God.
Second of all, while I am pro gay marriage, I do not think that dating sites should be forced to cater to relationship types they do not believe in. If gay dating sites are allowed to not cater to heterosexuals, religious sites should be allowed to do the opposite. It’s only fair.
As far as your examples, a caterer and his staff would be stopped from wearing those shirts at a wedding. Freedom of speech only extends so far, and the owner of a private property has the legal right to not allow things like that. Your other two examples are fine legally, but who really gives a crap? I see things like that, and I just pity the ignorance of the people who put that crap on their cars.
MG: “First of all, the cheeseburger restriction applies to anyone who chooses the Torah and accepts the covenant with God. The Jews (myself included) are the chosen people not because God chose us, but because we chose God.”
I appreciate the humility in wanting to turn the idea of the chosen people on its head, but my understanding is that it’s not a particularly mainstream or scripturally supported idea. I can see that there’s reasonable doubt about what it entails to be chosen, but Deuteronomy says flatly, “For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth.”
MG: “If gay dating sites are allowed to not cater to heterosexuals, religious sites should be allowed to do the opposite. It’s only fair.”
Note that it’s not symmetrical: gay sites aren’t trying to express disapproval of or punish people seeking the opposite sex, just specialize in a particular niche. Some straight dating sites are probably just specializing in a niche as well, and I have no particular problem with that, but at the same time, I don’t see why I should put up with religious sites actively trying to inconvenience me. Since that would be a tricky line to draw I have a better idea: I’m perfectly OK with dating sites (and bars and other commercial enterprises) that aspire to cater to the gay market being prevented from doing so by banning people seeking the opposite sex if the same is true in reverse. If enterprises want to specialize they’ll have to do it by advertising their competences and/or providing services of particular interest to straight or gay people. By way of example, the L.A. Gay Men’s Chorus freely accepts straight men, it just sings repertoire of particular interest to gay men.
MG: “As far as your examples, a caterer and his staff would be stopped from wearing those shirts at a wedding. Freedom of speech only extends so far, and the owner of a private property has the legal right to not allow things like that.”
Sure, but I can’t always depend on the kindness of strange private property owners. That said, if some conservatively religious caterers want to be jerks at my wedding, I’m inclined to accept it as free speech and leave the power of government out of it (even though I could make an argument that it had gone beyond free speech into harassment), but work to build a consensus that they were jerks and deserved to be treated socially like jerks. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
Mark, with your move you probably missed this question: What exactly do you mean by “[My] side attacked first”?
Non-exclusive marriages between men and women are a bad idea (and yes I’ve thought of it) because of confusion over paternity, because sex can be the glue that holds relationships together, and society (for the sake of children) has an interest in holding relationships together without the jealousies and confusions that can come with sexual non-exclusivity. That’s just two for now.
Moshe:
You’re simply wrong about the cheeseburger restriction. It applies to anyone with a Jewish mother or who converts to Judaism according to Jewish law. It doesn’t matter if you “choose” Judaism or not.
DB: “Mark, with your move you probably missed this question: What exactly do you mean by “[My] side attacked first”?”
Oh, I thought I had addressed that ages back: Judaism incorporated arbitrary hatred of gay sex into its scriptures 3000 or so years ago (Jews were considered odd in the Roman empire for their homophobia), and Christianity actively chose to keep it even when it was cleaning out a lot of other cruft from Judaism. And I’m afraid I don’t believe, and I invite the readers to disbelieve, that the current anti-SSM marriage is anything but a lame retrospective rationalization of that deeper hatred.
DB: “Non-exclusive marriages between men and women are a bad idea (and yes I’ve thought of it) because of confusion over paternity, [...]”
I don’t doubt for a moment that traditional marriage had an awful lot to do with paternity. It’s the idea that it’s ever been consistently about anything much _other_ than paternity that you’ll need to convince me of if it comes up. And more specifically, paternity from the point of view of the male, as opposed to any of the other stakeholders (women, children, society in general).
DB: “[...]because sex can be the glue that holds relationships together, and society (for the sake of children) has an interest in holding relationships together without the jealousies and confusions that can come with sexual non-exclusivity.
Sure, (i) sex can be the glue that holds relationships together, (ii) society (for the sake of children) has an interest in holding relationships together, and (iii) jealousies and confusions can come with sexual non-exclusivity. And these are perfectly good reasons for a default understanding of sexual exclusivity unless specifically negotiated away.
On the other hand, (i) sex can be stale or just plain bad and not hold relationships together, (ii) society, for the sake of people, also has an interest in not trapping people in unhappy relationships unnecessarily, and (iii) non-exclusivity can also defuse jealousies and confusions and make livable relationships that are satisfactory in areas other than sex.
Moreover, paternity is much more easily confirmed or denied than traditionally, contraception is much more reliable than traditionally, and women have many more options than traditionally, and these facts undermine some of the secondary arguments that might have been advanced.
Oh, I thought I had addressed that ages back: Judaism incorporated arbitrary hatred of gay sex into its scriptures 3000 or so years ago (Jews were considered odd in the Roman empire for their homophobia), and Christianity actively chose to keep it even when it was cleaning out a lot of other cruft from Judaism. And I’m afraid I don’t believe, and I invite the readers to disbelieve, that the current anti-SSM marriage is anything but a lame retrospective rationalization of that deeper hatred.
Oh, and this is why all those other societies that were neither Jewish nor Christian never had a neutered definition of marriage either! What’s their excuse, Mark?
I don’t doubt for a moment that traditional marriage had an awful lot to do with paternity. It’s the idea that it’s ever been consistently about anything much _other_ than paternity that you’ll need to convince me of if it comes up. And more specifically, paternity from the point of view of the male, as opposed to any of the other stakeholders (women, children, society in general).
So, once paternity is taken out of the equation, Mark, what biological incentive is there then for sexual exclusivity? Really, I can only think of one….spread of disease. Which we’d all prefer to eradicate as a threat. So what’s left, then? But, of course, you don’t care. You are essentially arguing, are you not, that the desire for sexual exclusivity in marriage is outmoded and should be thought of that way as well? Was there ever a real purpose for it, in your opinion?