Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[Kerr]

Hey guys,

I made a blog in which I examine critically same-sex "marriage," atheism, and a host of other topics. I'd appreciate any feedback.

Sovereign Dream

I read a little on your case against same sex marriage (I strongly disagree, but thats a topic for another thread) and I found myself jumping to the end because it was a bit too long. One advice would be to, instead of using several examples to illustrate your point, use one and focus on making that one as good as possible.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks. I'm not interested in money, however.

I'm telling you how to attract readers, not money. You obviously want people to read it, or you wouldn't be here saying "Hey everybody, go read my blog! Please please please! Comment on the blog instead of in this thread! Don't try to talk to me about my anti-gay views in the thread I started, go read what I wrote on my blog instead!" Etc.

And yet everybody here who specifically went to your blog to check it out said they didn't bother to read it. I'm telling you, it's because of your writing style, not because of your content. There's a huge public appetite for anti-gay content in the US, even though it's a lost cause. Hell, there's even a modest appetite for anti-miscegenation content in the US, and that story died half a century ago.

Read a few of the articles on copy blogger if you want anybody to read what you're writing. It's a huge help, and everybody is telling you you really need the help.

 

[Alceste]

That's confused. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation...

It isn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(that is, assuming that we are talking about traditional marriage -- whose public purpose is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another or something akin to this)

You know, it's rather hypocritical of you to beg the question right after (falsely) accusing someone of that yourself.

both homosexuals and heterosexuals share the exact kind and amount of restrictions as being allowed to "marry" someone of the same-sex.

My point wasn't about heterosexuals and homosexuals; it was about men and women. When same-sex marriage is illegal, men and women have different restrictions on who each of them can marry.

 

[Kerr]

Regardning the scare quotes.

Right. Note, however, that whether it is in fact "discriminatory" to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man or whether this "discrimination" has no rational basis is something that is in contention in the first place and so to assume that it is discriminatory or to assume that that there is no rational basis for this discrimination is simply to beg the question.

If you say

Note, however, that whether it is in fact "discriminatory" to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man

you would do a lot better by leaving out the scare quotes. Or at least use less of them. For example:

Note, however, that whether it is in fact discriminatory to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man

Removing the " around the word discriminatory didnt harm your argument, nor does it imply that there is reason to think that its discriminatory to not allow men to marry men (which I do think it is, btw ), since that can be understood from the context. Would infact say it helps your argument to remove them since it makes your text come across in a, in lack of better words, milder manner. If you put " around words it comes across with an attitude and that might put people of, or make them unreceptive to what you write. Not sure if that makes sense, but my point is, less scare quotes wouldnt harm and might infact help you.

 

[averageJOE]

I find it hilarious that Sovereign Dream responds to everyones posts by mearly referencing his own blog.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Ok, and? You disputed that it is discrimation; which is ludicrous. It is clearly discrimination, which needn't entail that it is wrong- but the fact that it is unjustifiable discrimination (as the offered justification is completely inadequate) does.

Note that I'm using "discrimination" in a technical sense, viz. something akin to "selective." I'm not sure what instance of discrimination you're claiming is "unjustifiable" either. As I mention in the blog post, disallowing a man to become a member of a women's debate club is, in a technical sense, discriminatory, yet this discrimination has a rational basis, namely, that the club exists for the purpose of accommodating to women, not men. Likewise, if marriage just exists to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then there is a rational basis to disallow, say, two men or two women to "marry," namely, that marriage exists for the purpose of attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Obviously, the supporter of same-sex "marriage" must disagree with the antecedent of the relevant conditional to be consistent and so he must hold that marriage exists for some other purpose, that most popularly being "to recognize loving commitments" or some such supposition. Yet that is enormously problematic for a number of reasons.

Well, you can't really claim your argument stands until you do so. And the fact that one only needs a sentence or two to point out how and why your argument is not sound is sort of instructive; your argument hinges upon some extremely dubious if not patently false claims, claims you have not substantiated (and we shouldn't be holding our breath here, either).

Again, your "objection" missed the point, but I'm not interested in discussing the syllogism with you. There is some more foundational discussion that must be grasped first before we can even go and assess that argument.

Also, you're giving yourself too much credit here; you aren't making very many arguments in your blog entry, and I've pointed out why your argument from your thread is unsound. For instance, this is not an argument:

"Yet the contemptible social movement for the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" that many a "tolerant" teenage ignoramus is eagerly ready to defend on his Facebook against "bigots" by adopting a mathematical symbol as a profile picture just is, for the most part, the by-product of the wholesale accepting of a thoroughgoing materialistic and naturalistic worldview and the rejecting of truths about the nature and applicability of morality, metaphysical truths of all sorts, and certainly the existence of God and the nature of the human individual."

This is all smoke and no fire, but it is unfortunately par for the course. The first few pages of your post drones on and on about how it could, in principle, be just or acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals- but never really gets around to arguing that it is just or acceptable, much less showing that.

Of course its not an argument; it isn't meant to be -- that's from the "Greetings" post which is merely there to serve as a sort of preview, not as an in-depth argument against ssm, atheism, naturalism, etc. I do being to develop a case against ssm in (surprisingly enough) the posts entitled "Building a Case . . ."

Also, if opposition to SSM stems from belief in "truths about the nature of morality", "metaphysical truths", "the existence of God", and the outdated and untenable worldview which naturalism has replaced- so much the worse for opposition to SSM.

I'm referring here to Aristotelian-Thomism, which I find myself committed to. And no, one needn't embrace Aristotelian-Thomism nor theism to be opposed to ssm. Abandoning Aristotelian-Thomism, however, has resulted in the rejecting of the obvious and patently true, I contend. But this is not entirely relevant on the matter at hand (though if you're interested feel free to ask).

And, at the end of the day, you're left without any credible answer to the knockdown argument for SSM I mentioned; its a win-win scenario in which many people stand to gain something (freedom, happiness, equality, tax/adoption/inheritance benefits, etc.), and nobody stands to lose anything (since moral indignation does not count as losing something).

The ssm marriage movement is in the end an effort to redefine marriage and change its public purpose. Separating procreation from marriage and sex even further will only lead to the increase of the sorts of awful social pathologies that have plagued the last 60 years or so of Western thought ever since (and, to be sure, before) the sexual revolution. Moreover, implementing ssm will, instead of attaching children to their mothers and father, institutionally detach children from their mothers and fathers. Changing marriage cannot fail to be of enormous consequences to the future of the social order. And ssm represents nothing but a slew of terrible consequences.

But please, do tell us why discriminating against homosexuals is a good idea (and perhaps you'd like to argue for apartheid and segregation as well?).

Besides my having written some 4 posts or so on the matter of apartheid, abortion, etc., you still haven't gotten the point.

Regarding "discriminating against homosexuals," you hold to an absurd view of marriage that furthers no public interest (namely, that it is merely a "loving commitment" between individuals and that its public purpose is just to recognize these "loving commitments"). Once again, if marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, then we are no more "discriminating" against homosexuals by disallowing them to "marry" someone of the same-sex than we would be "discriminating" against men by disallowing them to join a women's debate club, or disallowing blind individuals from obtaining drivers' licenses, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Skwim]

In as much as I couldn't bring myself to wade through Sovereign Dream's blog I have to thank those of you who did, or at least looked into it. Your comments here are very entertaining, and crafted to provide a good picture of what I missed by staying away.

Thanks

for your sacrifices.

 

[Penumbra]

Hey guys,

I made a blog in which I examine critically same-sex "marriage," atheism, and a host of other topics. I'd appreciate any feedback.

Sovereign Dream

Looks like very long-winded and poorly constructed arguments to me.

Anyway, on the internet, the writing style generally has to be different than one would write in a book or other physical article. Because online, people give an article a couple of seconds before deciding to read it or click away, and if they see a wall-o-text, it'll usually be the latter. Articles can be long, but if they are going to be long, they generally need to be written with numerous headlines and short paragraphs. In other words modular, enjoyable, and compelling.

So if there's, say, a long article with a whole lot of illogical arguments in it, you might want to work on structure at least. That link to Copyblogger that Alceste gave you, where you said that you don't do it for money, is actually a very good link for that sort of thing, as it's all about having a popular and convincing online presence, including things like how to structure posts in a professional way that works.

 

[Alceste]

I find it hilarious that Sovereign Dream responds to everyones posts by mearly referencing his own blog.

Me too! "I couldn't get through your rambling nonsense, but I think you're wrong about gay marriage". "GO READ IT! THEN YOU'LL UNDERSTAND!"

Doesn't work that way. There are no new ideas under the sun. If you want people to read your blog you have to write well. Period.

 

[Alceste]

Looks like very long-winded and poorly constructed arguments to me.

Anyway, on the internet, the writing style generally has to be different than one would write in a book or other physical article. Because online, people give an article a couple of seconds before deciding to read it or click away, and if they see a wall-o-text, it'll usually be the latter. Articles can be long, but if they are going to be long, they generally need to be written with numerous headlines and short paragraphs. In other words modular, enjoyable, and compelling.

So if there's, say, a long article with a whole lot of illogical arguments in it, you might want to work on structure at least. That link to Copyblogger that Alceste gave you, where you said that you don't do it for money, is actually a very good link for that sort of thing, as it's all about having a popular and convincing online presence, including things like how to structure posts in a professional way that works.

I have to say I've enjoyed offering Sovereign Dream free advice that I would ordinarily charge $30 an hour for, just because it's fun to watch him resist it.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Marriage is a social construct that has never had a static definition. Originally, it seemed to be a device to manage inheritance rights. Women were seen as property in this arrangement and it would include slaves, too. For centuries and in many areas, that was "traditional marriage". The sort of marriage we see today in the modern West that consists of a man and a woman who get married because they "love" each other and not because their families have forced them into it because of social benefits, is a very new concept. So the right-wing's definition of "traditional marriage" is less than 200 years old. Marriage changes all the time, as societies change.

Marriage is a pre-political institution that has existed since the dawn of time (or else society would never have continued). Marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation. But suppose that what you say is true. Even if that has not always been the case, that would be irrelevant; we are not concerned with the private purposes of why individuals in Spain in the 1600 got married -- we are concerned (I) with the public purpose of marriage and (II) what it should be, not what it might have been in such-and-such country in such-and-such era.

Also, by including reproduction in your definition of marriage, you leave out heterosexual marriages where they never have children. There is no requirement to reproduce in other to get married. However, there are also many gay and lesbian couples who do have children. So they meet your definition of marriage more than the infertile hetero marriages do.

This is to misunderstand how an infertile opposite-sex couple differs from a same-sex couple. The difference is this: an infertile, opposite sex couple is infertile only accidentally (I'm using the term in a technically sense) whereas a same-sex couple is essentially infertile. Consider a football team: a football team is still ordered towards winning regardless of whether the team has lost ever game they played. Similarly, the procreative act between a man and a woman is intrinsically ordered towards procreation regardless of whether or not the act is successful in resulting in pregnancy. All married couples of the opposite sex –- infertile or not –- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which unites them comprehensively. They are still of a procreative kind even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects. In the same way that a football team remains ordered to the end of winning even if it loses all of its games, the special link toward children present in the unifying act remains even if children do not result. Moreover, upon reflection, it makes no sense to speak of a same-sex couple as itself being "infertile" or "fertile." To be sure, both members of a same-sex couple may be fertile by him/herself. But it doesn't make sense to speak of a same-sex couple qua same-sex couple as "infertile" for a same-sex couple is not merely accidentally not ordered towards procreation; it is essentially not ordered towards procreation.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I read a little on your case against same sex marriage (I strongly disagree, but thats a topic for another thread) and I found myself jumping to the end because it was a bit too long. One advice would be to, instead of using several examples to illustrate your point, use one and focus on making that one as good as possible.

Thanks. I actually pondered that myself. Whether I should include one example and exhaustively build on it or include various and build on each one. Appreciate the input.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

It isn't.

It isn't surprising that you'd disagree; your commitment to same-sex "marriage" demands that you disagree. I think doing so is hugely problematic, however.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

You know, it's rather hypocritical of you to beg the question right after (falsely) accusing someone of that yourself.

Except that I haven't begged the question insofar as I state such claims in the conditional.

My point wasn't about heterosexuals and homosexuals; it was about men and women. When same-sex marriage is illegal, men and women have different restrictions on who each of them can marry.

No they don't; each one can only marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Marriage is a pre-political institution that has existed since the dawn of time (or else society would never have continued). Marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation. But suppose that what you say is true. Even if that has not always been the case, that would be irrelevant; we are not concerned with the private purposes of why individuals in Spain in the 1600 got married -- we are concerned (I) with the public purpose of marriage and (II) what it should be, not what it might have been in such-and-such country in such-and-such era.

My point is that marriage has always been a social construct and its form has taken various manifestations throughout history and cultures. It is society that determines that marriage is for. There is no intrinsic purpose for marriage that all human societies must adhere to.

This is to misunderstand how an infertile opposite-sex couple differs from a same-sex couple. The difference is this: an infertile, opposite sex couple is infertile only accidentally (I'm using the term in a technically sense) whereas a same-sex couple is essentially infertile. Consider a football team: a football team is still ordered towards winning regardless of whether the team has lost ever game they played. Similarly, the procreative act between a man and a woman is intrinsically ordered towards procreation regardless of whether or not the act is successful in resulting in pregnancy. All married couples of the opposite sex –- infertile or not –- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which unites them comprehensively. They are still of a procreative kind even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects. In the same way that a football team remains ordered to the end of winning even if it loses all of its games, the special link toward children present in the unifying act remains even if children do not result. Moreover, upon reflection, it makes no sense to speak of a same-sex couple as itself being "infertile" or "fertile." To be sure, both members of a same-sex couple may be fertile by him/herself. But it doesn't make sense to speak of a same-sex couple qua same-sex couple as "infertile" for a same-sex couple is not merely accidentally not ordered towards procreation; it is essentially not ordered towards procreation.

So what this is all coming down to is penile/vaginal sex. But just because a hetero couple have penis in vagina sex, it does not mean it is ordered toward reproduction because they may be using birth control or be sterile (either naturally or by choice). The point is that we are past the point of policing what married couples do in bed or whether they have children or not. Or are you interested in creating a requirement for production of biological children in order for a couple to be issued a marriage license?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

My point is that marriage has always been a social construct and its form has taken various manifestations throughout history and cultures. It is society that determines that marriage is for. There is no intrinsic purpose for marriage that all human societies must adhere to.

Suppose I grant that. Even then, the issue is what marriage should be. And I would argue that it most certainly should not be what the supporter of ssm contends it should be, namely, an enormous government registry of friendships that will intentionally and institutionally detach children from their mother and father.

So what this is all coming down to is penile/vaginal sex. But just because a hetero couple have penis in vagina sex, it does not mean it is ordered toward reproduction because they may be using birth control;

Notice how this just proves that sexual intercourse is intrinsically ordered towards procreation; the very fact that you have to take measures to prevent a pregnancy -- viz., contraception -- just illustrates that sexual intercourse is ordered towards procreation. (Note further that when I speak of "sexual intercourse," I am not referring to, say, fellatio or anal sex, etc. These are, to be sure, sexual acts as they involve the sexual faculties yet they are not sexual intercourse, so understood to be the conjugal act between a man and a woman).

Consider an eye. An eye is clearly ordered towards seeing. Would covering the eye with my hand and closing it completely to make it so that the eye is not ordered towards seeing? Well, of course not. I have merely prevented the eye from fulfilling the end it is ordered towards (although I suppose you could technically say that one would still be seeing something even in the case of closing it and covering it with your hand). In the same way, a conjugal act that does not result in pregnancy because of contraception does not thereby show that the conjugal act is not ordered towards procreation; all it shows is that, for some accidental reason -- in this case, contraception -- pregnancy did not result from an act that is ordered towards procreation.

or [II] be sterile (either naturally or by choice).

As you'll recall, I addressed this already. Sexual intercourse that does not result in pregnancy is still ordered towards procreation in the same way that a half-legible book is still ordered towards being read, or in much the same way that a football team that wins no games is still ordered towards winning.

The point is that we are past the point of policing what married couples do in bed or whether they have children or not.

Who ever suggested that we should "[police] what married couples do in bed or whether they have children or not"? I think it's none of the government's business what a married couple does in their home or whether they want to have children or not. But both the state and the social order is interested in attaching children to their mother and father because this not only continues society, but it also stabilizes it. And this is what the public purpose of marriage is. As such, it cannot fail to be of the utmost importance to the public good and the state (for, again, it not only stabilizes society -- it makes it possible in the first place).

Note too that, just some decades ago, homosexuals were demanding that something akin to the following:

"Leave me alone with my man/woman! Whatever we do in the privacy of our homes is none of the public nor the state's interest!"

Now, I don't think those demands are at all implausible (indeed, I think they are quite plausible). I don't care whether, say, Bob the homosexual wants to invite Fred and Steve and John for a homosexual orgy in their apartment. That's their business. However, homosexuals have changed their mind. They are no longer asking the government to "mind its own business" or something to the effect. Now, the demands are something to the following effect:

"Actively subsidize with publicly apportioned private funds (viz. taxation) my relationship with Fred/Susan!"

Which I think is absurd for doing so is of no interest to the public good nor to the state. The state could care less whether, say, Fred really enjoys sodomizing Bob, or whether Bob "really loves" Susan. Those are essentially private matters that are of no interest to the social order or the state.

Or are you interested in creating a requirement for production of biological children in order for a couple to be issued a marriage license?

Of course not. However many children a married couple wants to have is their business. Now, I personally find it quite pointless to marry and not have children, for the public purpose of marriage just is to attach children to their mother and father, but I'm not in any way intellectually committed to finding a pitchfork, as it were, and marching down Main St. to demand that married couples must have x number of children.

 

[Alceste]

It isn't surprising that you'd disagree; your commitment to same-sex "marriage" demands that you disagree. I think doing so is hugely problematic, however.

No it doesn't.

If only people who can reproduce are permitted to marry, as you suggest, you must also outlaw marriage for any heterosexual who can't reproduce or doesn't intend to. If that's not part of your plan, you're a hypocrite.

When you're discussing ideas that everyone has already heard a thousand times before, be brief. See bold text above for an example of how to do so.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sovereign Dream, how exactly does allowing same-gender people to marry effect the relationship of married hetero couples to their children? How will it effect their stability at all?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

No it doesn't.

If only people who can reproduce are permitted to marry, as you suggest, you must also outlaw marriage for any heterosexual who can't reproduce or doesn't intend to. If that's not part of your plan, you're a hypocrite.

What rules of inference commit me to that supposition? Of course, not all married couples have children; some are infertile and some choose not to have children. Nevertheless, all married couples of the opposite sex -- infertile or not -- are still capable of engaging in the kind of act which unites them comprehensively. They are still of a procreative kind even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects. In the same way that a football team remains ordered to the end of winning even if it loses all of its games, the special link toward children present in the unifying act remains even if children do not result. The state still takes an interest in these marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end. Infertility is a tragic defect, but calling something a defect only makes sense if it ought to be working a certain way to begin with.

Now, again, on a personal note, I think that marrying without the intention of having children is rather pointless (for reasons I've elaborated in previous responses). In fact, I may even have independent reasons for requiring married couples to attempt to have children (I don't, FYI). But the point is that I'm not in any way whatsoever committed to accepting that supposition.

When you're discussing ideas that everyone has already heard a thousand times before, be brief. See bold text above for an example of how to do so.