Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



6/26/2015 10:38 am  #1


Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

The ruling and the discussion that has followed the Supreme Court's ruling make me think of Feser's article "Nudge Nudge, Wink Wink" and his discussion of Michael Levin's useage of the notion of implicature and how you don't get to remain neutral on this issue.

Whoops... this forum is disallowing me from linking Feser's article, but here's a relevant part:

"[L]egislation “legalizing homosexuality” cannot be neutral because passing it would have an inexpungeable speech-act dimension.  Society cannot grant unaccustomed rights and privileges to homosexuals while remaining neutral about the value of homosexuality.  Working from the assumption that society rests on the family and its consequences, the Judaeo-Christian tradition has deemed homosexuality a sin and withheld many privileges from homosexuals.  Whether or not such denial was right, for our society to grant these privileges to homosexuals now would amount to declaring that it has rethought the matter and decided that homosexuality is not as bad as it had previously supposed…  Someone who suddenly accepts a policy he has previously opposed is open to the… interpretation [that] he has come to think better of the policy.  And if he embraces the policy while knowing that this interpretation will be put on his behavior, and if he knows that others know that he knows they will so interpret it, he is acquiescing in this interpretation.  He can be held to have intended, meant, this interpretation.  A society that grants privileges to homosexuals while recognizing that, in the light of generally known history, this act can be interpreted as a positive re-evaluation of homosexuality, is signalling that it now thinks homosexuality is all right… What homosexual rights activists really want [from anti-discrimination laws] is not [merely] access to jobs but legitimation of their homosexuality.  Since this is known, giving them what they want will be seen as conceding their claim to legitimacy.  And since legislators know their actions will support this interpretation, and know that their constituencies know they know this, the Gricean effect or symbolic meaning of passing anti-discrimination ordinances is to declare homosexuality legitimate…"

 

6/26/2015 5:00 pm  #2


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

I am not a legal expert, and I haven't read this ruling, but I can't help but wonder where the civil right of homosexual marriage was found by these jurists. It doesn't seem to me that it could have been the meaning of any of those who drew up the original constitutoin and its amendments. Indeed, it seems a complete transformation of what the legal phrases and terms meant in their original form.

 

6/26/2015 7:06 pm  #3


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

I have rationalized giving homosexuals a marriage like institution on the grounds that first, they seem constitutionally unable to have a psychologically fulfilling natural marriage. That, second, celibacy is sufficiently demanding as to not serve as a practical solution. And that, third, there erotic friendships are, as regularly practiced, quite unstable.

Thus, I understand that this state might have an interest in creating for them an artificial institution which may hold their erotic friendships together long enough to produce habits of stability that are more conducive to the common good and their particular good then the present alternative. I don't know if anyone else has articulated a pragmatic justification for homosexual unions along these lines or not, its where I am right now.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

6/26/2015 7:09 pm  #4


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

If SSM are now the law of the land.... and if churches (say, the Catholic Church) has certain benefits from the federal govt (tax exempt status) what is the likelihood that the Catholic Church will be forced to perform SSMs??

     Thread Starter
 

6/26/2015 7:23 pm  #5


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

I've always thought that to be unlikely. They are already exempt from much more clear and robust laws like equal employment amongst the genders, for instance.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

6/27/2015 12:14 am  #6


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

iwpoe wrote:

I have rationalized giving homosexuals a marriage like institution on the grounds that first, they seem constitutionally unable to have a psychologically fulfilling natural marriage. That, second, celibacy is sufficiently demanding as to not serve as a practical solution. And that, third, there erotic friendships are, as regularly practiced, quite unstable.

Thus, I understand that this state might have an interest in creating for them an artificial institution which may hold their erotic friendships together long enough to produce habits of stability that are more conducive to the common good and their particular good then the present alternative. I don't know if anyone else has articulated a pragmatic justification for homosexual unions along these lines or not, its where I am right now.

But what interest would the state have in such unions? If you remove reproduction and childrearing, at the heart of the traditional family, what reason is there for the state to give recognition to such partnerships?

Also, such recognition seems tantamount to support for homosexual acts. Laws can easily be changed to allow visiting rights and that kind of thing, so I don't see any need for civil unions, let alone so called marriages.
 

Last edited by Jeremy Taylor (6/27/2015 12:53 am)

 

6/27/2015 2:41 am  #7


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

Sugar Ray Leonard wrote:

If SSM are now the law of the land.... and if churches (say, the Catholic Church) has certain benefits from the federal govt (tax exempt status) what is the likelihood that the Catholic Church will be forced to perform SSMs??

This, this has always been my biggest concerns when it came to SSM, other than that, I wished to remain neutral on the subject of the legalities of marriage, even though I considered it wrong and I couldn't stand this being forced upon the church, this is something I fear so very much. Should a Catholic be neutral on the subject of the state's affairs concerning SSM(states affairs)? I want to know how the catholic community responds to this ruling, and how it 'should' respond as well.

 

6/27/2015 4:26 am  #8


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

But what interest would the state have in such unions? If you remove reproduction and childrearing, at the heart of the traditional family, what reason is there for the state to give recognition to such partnerships?

Because it directs them and everyone else to the goods of monogamy, and does not leave a large relatively prestigious urban class whose defacto example to the populous is promiscuity.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Also, such recognition seems tantamount to support for homosexual acts. Laws can easily be changed to allow visiting rights and that kind of thing, so I don't see any need for civil unions, let alone so called marriages.

That bird's already left the nest, and this is not a moral, let alone ecclesiastical regime. Homosexuals are not lying to you. They really do want recognition of their monogamy, and such social recognition leads them in life *less badly* than where they've gone in the past 3 decades- i.e. promiscuous, depressive, instability. Since we won't tell them to stop, we can at least tell them to lead the best possible life, given the circumstance.

If you wanted to censure homosexuality, the church should have led a renewal in sodomy laws over half a century ago. The resistance to gay marriage was nothing but a rear guard effort (pardon the expression). You might as well have spent 25 years double dog daring them to push for marriage.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

6/27/2015 5:09 pm  #9


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

iwpoe wrote:

Because it directs them and everyone else to the goods of monogamy, and does not leave a large relatively prestigious urban class whose defacto example to the populous is promiscuity.

Are you talking ideally or referring to the current developments of civil unions and so called gay marriages? Because I don't think this describes the current situation. Contemporary civil unions have not been drawn up to try and prompt homosexuals to act in traditionally monogamous ways, such as long-term fidelity. They are, in fact, more part of the degradation of traditional monogamy and sexuality in heterosexual marriages -  temporary relationships, open relationships, promiscuity, and the like. The SSM movement is firmly in the camp of the sexual revolution.

Then there is the question of the effect of a parody of traditional marriage, based in affection alone, on marriage.


That bird's already left the nest, and this is not a moral, let alone ecclesiastical regime. Homosexuals are not lying to you. They really do want recognition of their monogamy, and such social recognition leads them in life *less badly* than where they've gone in the past 3 decades- i.e. promiscuous, depressive, instability. Since we won't tell them to stop, we can at least tell them to lead the best possible life, given the circumstance.

Actually, I, firstly, don't think the SSM movement is keen on traditional marriage. Long-term fidelity amongst homosexual couples is negiglible, especially male homosexuals but even female ones as well, whereas it is still as much as 80%+ for heterosexual marriages (though it is getting lower, and there are more and more people not getting married - nevertheless heterosexuals are still far closer to traditional monogamous ideals than homosexuals). I see no evidence homosexuals are going to adapt to the restaints of traditional marriage rather than help, with many others, to adapt (or degrade) the institution to socially liberal views on sexuality. Secondly, I don't have the figures to hand, but my understanding is that, except for an initial upsurge when it is legalised (which will have a not insignificant influence from activism), homosexual couples don't tend to rush to get married,  if their jurisdiction allows them. They have a far lower rate of marriage, even though heterosexual marriage has itself been on a significant decline. This seems to imply the movement is more one of activism, and has to do more with recognition and respect for homosexuals than for giving them traditional marriage. And in some quarters it does seem connected to furthering the goals of the sexual revolution and generally getting one over on social conservatives.

The role of religion and morality, including natural law, depends on one's viewpoint (and nation). I must say, though, I don't really understand the claim that morality and law must be separate. In some sense, surely, society requires people see the laws in a moral light. They cannot rely appeals to consequence alone. And for the most part moral appeals are important in laws. It would be a rare judge who gave his sentencing opinion without making moral references. Indeed, the SSM movement and the movement for civil unions is shot through with explicit or implicit moral appeals, including, it seems to me, your own argument for civil unions (the need to give stability and recognition to homosexuals).  

If you wanted to censure homosexuality, the church should have led a renewal in sodomy laws over half a century ago. The resistance to gay marriage was nothing but a rear guard effort (pardon the expression). You might as well have spent 25 years double dog daring them to push for marriage.

I don't see the need to ban homosexual acts, though I don't think such prohibitions are necessarily wrong, but I agree that if such acts and relationships are considered moral and much the same as heterosexual ones by society at large, it is much harder to fight SSM.
 

Last edited by Jeremy Taylor (6/27/2015 5:50 pm)

 

7/01/2015 5:29 pm  #10


Re: Supreme Court Ruling on SSM

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Are you talking ideally or referring to the current developments of civil unions and so called gay marriages? Because I don't think this describes the current situation. Contemporary civil unions have not been drawn up to try and prompt homosexuals to act in traditionally monogamous ways, such as long-term fidelity. They are, in fact, more part of the degradation of traditional monogamy and sexuality in heterosexual marriages -  temporary relationships, open relationships, promiscuity, and the like. The SSM movement is firmly in the camp of the sexual revolution.

If one was to construct this as a political project, what possible advantage might it offer? Why bother to do this in terms of reasons? So, I'm rationalizing it "ideally" I suppose. Legislators are forwarding it on the motive of political advantage, and the judiciary on the basis of a certain constitutional interpretation and cultural attitude. The populous advocates it on the basis of sentiment.

The idea that this is about degrading marriage is silly- it's to literally attribute satanic or self-consciously perverse motives to the actors. Might the result or origin lie in some kind of direction or background centered in a degradation of marriage? Perhaps. Though I don't quite even know what that's supposed to mean. Marriage is taken by its defenders and a natural state (like breathing), not a mere legal institution. In what sense can a natural state, as such, degrade? And how is that specifically relevant in this case?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Then there is the question of the effect of a parody of traditional marriage, based in affection alone, on marriage.

Well, first, what kind of natural state is heterosexual marriage if you can push it over with a social movement and a couple of laws? Clearly it isn't one akin to breathing in its resiliency.

Second, I can see a lot of possibilities. Maybe people will think that their natural marriages are somehow less desirable as such. I don't see the rout for this, but perhaps. Maybe by directing a large semi-prestigious urban class towards monogamy and commitment who has erstwhile been a visibly quasi-committed quasi-promiscuous morass of contradiction will direct others to more commitment in their own lives.

I can't imagine that a large visible group who include a significant prestige to promiscuity influences heterosexuals particularly well in their marriages. If I think it might be really fun to sleep around, why would I struggle through this marriage I'm in? Maybe now that they finally have the right to marry, we'll see a lot of cultural focus on getting married and making marriage work, even if these marriages aren't natural marriages. Perhaps that could strengthen natural marriages, perhaps not, but at least some class is working on that very visibly. Heterosexuals haven't fought for any kind of visible expansion of the prestige of marriage in culture for over a century, and moaning about the divorce rate isn't going to do anything, since it comes off as nothing but the assertion that 'sure marriage is suffering but suffer anyway.'

I think that the most worrisome possibility will be the thought that marriage is just some arbitrary arrangement for expressing a certain sentiment and that any expression will do. I don't think SSM supporters are generally this explicitly radical about it even in their own thoughts, but if there comes a day when poligamists assert in sufficiently large numbers that they do seriously love one another, what is there to say to them? Hard to see that you *could* say anything other than to call them liars about their own feelings.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Actually, I, firstly, don't think the SSM movement is keen on traditional marriage. Long-term fidelity amongst homosexual couples is negligible, especially male homosexuals but even female ones as well, whereas it is still as much as 80%+ for heterosexual marriages (though it is getting lower, and there are more and more people not getting married - nevertheless heterosexuals are still far closer to traditional monogamous ideals than homosexuals). I see no evidence homosexuals are going to adapt to the restraints of traditional marriage rather than help, with many others, to adapt (or degrade) the institution to socially liberal views on sexuality.

Then why *bother* with this effort? Evidently *someone* wants to get married, and while the idea that marriage is *of necessity* "for life" has certainly degraded (long dead for heterosexuals in general, even Catholics, who are relatively better at not divorcing), the idea is still that it's a more serious and committed arrangement than even mere cohabitation. I think many homosexual couples feel that this move will (1) grant them social legitimacy, (2) that this legitimacy will grant them more security in the relationships they're in, and (3) that this will in turn make them happy.

The kind of audience we have here fears 1, which they clearly think true, thinks 2 unlikely, and thinks 3 intellectually incoherent. I think 1 mostly false, since it largely depended upon legitimacy, 2 unknown, and 3 intellectually confused.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Secondly, I don't have the figures to hand, but my understanding is that, except for an initial upsurge when it is legalized (which will have a not insignificant influence from activism), homosexual couples don't tend to rush to get married,  if their jurisdiction allows them. They have a far lower rate of marriage, even though heterosexual marriage has itself been on a significant decline. This seems to imply the movement is more one of activism, and has to do more with recognition and respect for homosexuals than for giving them traditional marriage. And in some quarters it does seem connected to furthering the goals of the sexual revolution and generally getting one over on social conservatives.

Well, why would it matter re recognition and respect if no one wanted it?

That said, I'd like the numbers. It would be of interest. 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

The role of religion and morality, including natural law, depends on one's viewpoint (and nation). I must say, though, I don't really understand the claim that morality and law must be separate.

No no, that wasn't the claim. The claim is that we are a nation in which there is such a gap- a rather large one in many areas. Rights to freedom of expression and privacy severely limit the possibility of moral legislation in many areas, and our legislative approach to business and economics severely limit it in many others. Morality and legislation most coincide in this state with respect to some aspects of personal property law and with respect to individual violence. But we are largely a pragmatic regime, and merely moral arguments will subordinate themselves to both the cultural and institutional structures that limit them.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Indeed, the SSM movement and the movement for civil unions is shot through with explicit or implicit moral appeals, including, it seems to me, your own argument for civil unions (the need to give stability and recognition to homosexuals).

My argument acknowledges the moral inadequacy of the union, but asks for leniency with respect to their treatment, since they have a constitutional defect, and proposes to channel them, as much as possible, to those goods their psychology might most permit. The argument is not strictly moral, since the strict moral demand is that they live in accords with the Law, but a political one doing its best to approximate society as much as possible to Law.

Maybe this will help, since we're both Platonists of a sort, and it was in reflecting upon Platonism more generally that I came to think this way:

1. The world of becoming is a kind of image of ideal being.
2. Moral law demands that in our worldly lives we most approximate ourselves to ideal being.
3. Because of the gap between image and ideal we will never, in this life, complete this approximation, and because of radical flaws might be constitutionally unable to do so.
:. The goal of politics then, should be the arrangement of the constitutionally flawed as much as possible to the ideal.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I don't see the need to ban homosexual acts, though I don't think such prohibitions are necessarily wrong, but I agree that if such acts and relationships are considered moral and much the same as heterosexual ones by society at large, it is much harder to fight SSM.

Well, how are you to prevent that kind of leveling without restricting the deed? Rare is the kind of man who will, purely by his intellect, see the full deficiency of behavior that is practiced everywhere without censure.

Last edited by iwpoe (7/01/2015 6:32 pm)


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum