The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[woot]

I've listened to part of the podcast Tim linked. One interesting thing Cary Crall said was in answer to the question of whether he was worried about his standing at BYU. He basically said that he was confident he hadn't said anything to place himself in jeopardy but that he was trying to be very conscious in that interview not to say anything that promotes the idea that homosexuality is morally acceptable. This because it is against the honor code. I was a little incredulous that the honor code really says that or that his interpretation is correct, but sure enough:



http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2009-201...ficeInvovement

Am I the only one who didn't know this?

That's very sad; I didn't realize it was so explicitly included in the HC.

[oxcoug]

I am calling BS on this story.

I don't know about THAT story but I do know for a fact that a Catholic adoptive services agency shut itself down because it knew it couldn't conform to state requirements on gay adoption.

[oxcoug]

It isn't meaningless, it is just incomplete. I hope I don't have to outline a complete framework for a 'liberty valuing people' every time I point out the obvious, that anyone who values liberty should support the expansion of the marriage civil right to gay people.

A more complete version:

1. People own their own body and should be able to do anything they want to it as long as they cause no direct harm to others.

2. Same for people's property that is not their body.

3. A society should only create privileges that can be meaningfully available to all members, regardless of sex, race, income, sexual orientation, etc.

4,5,6,7... Etc.

Your third point is flimsy. Society didn't "create" a "privilege." Multiple civilizations formed an institution which, across centuries, has had one common denominator - the possibility (whether or not it was the outcome or intent) of procreation.

It's inapt to call a thing "discriminatory", in the politicized usage of the word as it's taken shape in the last 50 years, when the institutional practice simply adheres to a definition of a thing (marriage) as it's always been. And when it doesn't deny the group in question any right to be together and live lives together or preclude their right to pursue a legal institution of their own that gives them rights and recognition comparable to marriage.

[LA Ute]

I've listened to part of the podcast Tim linked. One interesting thing Cary Crall said was in answer to the question of whether he was worried about his standing at BYU. He basically said that he was confident he hadn't said anything to place himself in jeopardy but that he was trying to be very conscious in that interview not to say anything that promotes the idea that homosexuality is morally acceptable. This because it is against the honor code. I was a little incredulous that the honor code really says that or that his interpretation is correct, but sure enough:



http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2009-201...ficeInvovement

Am I the only one who didn't know this?

No. I thought the HC only regulated conduct, not speech. Would a professor have to warn a guest lecturer not to advocate certain political positions?

[UtahDan]

Your third point is flimsy. Society didn't "create" a "privilege." Multiple civilizations formed an institution which, across centuries, has had one common denominator - the possibility (whether or not it was the outcome or intent) of procreation.

It's inapt to call a thing "discriminatory", in the politicized usage of the word as it's taken shape in the last 50 years, when the institutional practice simply adheres to a definition of a thing (marriage) as it's always been. And when it doesn't deny the group in question any right to be together and live lives together or preclude their right to pursue a legal institution of their own that gives them rights and recognition comparable to marriage.

Why does it matter how the privilege came about? Our society has incorporated it. Plus in all of those civilizations you are referring to men owned not only their wives property, their wives were their property too. That is the truly traditional definition of marriage that was the norm for thousands of years of our history as human beings. What people now think of as the norm hasn't been around that long. Are you persuaded that we should go back?

[UtahDan]

No. I thought the HC only regulated conduct, not speech. Would a professor have to warn a guest lecturer not to advocate certain political positions?

Well, just you be careful when you go there LA.

[oxcoug]

Why does it matter how the privilege came about? Our society has incorporated it. Plus in all of those civilizations you are referring to men owned not only their wives property, their wives were their property too. That is the truly traditional definition of marriage that was the norm for thousands of years of our history as human beings. What people now think of as the norm hasn't been around that long. Are you persuaded that we should go back?

As I said, there has been a common denominator across civilizations even as marriage has acquired and then shed other trappings, that core purpose and definition has always been retained and that common denominator remains as relevant in the 21st century C.E. as it was in the 21st century B.C.E.

Things like male ownership of wives have come and gone, surfaced and disappeared but procreation - with the obvious social and state/church interest in managing it - has always been central to the institution.

[UtahDan]

As I said, there has been a common denominator across civilizations even as marriage has acquired and then shed other trappings, that core purpose and definition has always been retained and that common denominator remains as relevant in the 21st century C.E. as it was in the 21st century B.C.E.

Things like male ownership of wives have come and gone, surfaced and disappeared but procreation - with the obvious social and state/church interest in managing it - has always been central to the institution.

Do I have to make the obvious response to this argument?

[oxcoug]

Do I have to make the obvious response to this argument?

By all means.

But let it be one like "not everyone that's getting married is doing it to procreate - should we ban those people from getting married?"

Can it be that one?

[woot]

As I said, there has been a common denominator across civilizations even as marriage has acquired and then shed other trappings, that core purpose and definition has always been retained and that common denominator remains as relevant in the 21st century C.E. as it was in the 21st century B.C.E.

Things like male ownership of wives have come and gone, surfaced and disappeared but procreation - with the obvious social and state/church interest in managing it - has always been central to the institution.

Are you sure about any of this? Do you know when marriage started and what it entailed then? More importantly, who cares about any of that? The point that gets made every time you start in with your argumentum ad troglodytum is that it doesn't matter what primitive people did. We have the ability to decide what's best for ourselves.

[oxcoug]

Are you sure about any of this? Do you know when marriage started and what it entailed then? More importantly, who cares about any of that? The point that gets made every time you start in with your argumentum ad troglodytum is that it doesn't matter what primitive people did. We have the ability to decide what's best for ourselves.

I'm sure that to the best of our collective knowledge about the recorded history of marriage - as opposed to the recorded history of people doin' it and doin' it and doin' it well - procreation was the centerpiece of the institution from its inception. At its highest levels it also served as a ceremonial legitimation for chieftans or heads of state, but even that came back to its role in managing and legitimating procreation.

As for "argumentum ad troglodytum" I'd just say (a) I wouldn't say that pointing out a universal consistency that spans ancient Chinese, Enlightenment European, Second Temple Judaism, Iberian Islam and the homosexually tolerant Hellenic civilizations can be reduced to an argument "ad troglodytum." (I do like the phrase though).

And of course - we're still free to decide what's right for us and I think we should do that. My point is that as long as marriage is defined as bt a man and a woman I don't consider it "discrimination" (in its current political sense) to exclude units (no pun intended) who don't fill the pre-requisites for belonging to the institution. The group in question, in my view, isn't being denied any enjoyment of life, being forbidden to do anything in private, or being denied the pursuit of other legal remedies for their perceived inequality.

[UtahDan]

And of course - we're still free to decide what's right for us and I think we should do that. My point is that as long as marriage is defined as bt a man and a woman I don't consider it "discrimination" (in its current political sense) to exclude units (no pun intended) who don't fill the pre-requisites for belonging to the institution. The group in question, in my view, isn't being denied any enjoyment of life, being forbidden to do anything in private, or being denied the pursuit of other legal remedies for their perceived inequality.

I understand your point, I just don't view it as more than semantics. Another aspect of marriage from time immemorial was that you only marry your own tribe, race etc and that was codified both in scripture and in the laws of virtually every nation. So marriage between a black man and a white woman was not a marriage, it was an abomination as BY and others said.

From my perspective the weakness of what you are saying is that you are relying on the "traditional" meaning of a word that has been a moving target. The further problem which you concede is who cares? We should consult history but not be its hostage.

I think the other problem is that "discrimination" is so commonly used in connection with race that it has taken on a connotation that it shouldn't have. In other words, many people say discrimination and what they mean is inappropriate or unlawful discrimination. For example it is clearly age discrimination that we don't let 9 year olds drive cars, vote or drink booze. So not all discrimination is bad. But we would all agree that race discrimination is wrong. The distinction between the two is that there are authentic measurable reasons why the 9 year old and the adult are different, but no authentic measurable reason the white and the black are different. The question is which example is homosexuality more like? (EDIT: There is a further argument I am assuming away here of whether there has to be some difference based on more than a religious view, for my purposes I assume there must be but I know others disagree).


I think the argument you are wanting to have is whether it is right or wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. There is no question that it is discrimination, but is it right? I don't think you answer the "is it right" question is answered by looking to what the answer to the question has been formerly, though I do think it is right to ask what the wisdom of the past is and whether it still makes sense. In other words, it isn't wrong simply because it is old either.

[woot]

I'm sure that to the best of our collective knowledge about the recorded history of marriage - as opposed to the recorded history of people doin' it and doin' it and doin' it well - procreation was the centerpiece of the institution from its inception. At its highest levels it also served as a ceremonial legitimation for chieftans or heads of state, but even that came back to its role in managing and legitimating procreation.

As for "argumentum ad troglodytum" I'd just say (a) I wouldn't say that pointing out a universal consistency that spans ancient Chinese, Enlightenment European, Second Temple Judaism, Iberian Islam and the homosexually tolerant Hellenic civilizations can be reduced to an argument "ad troglodytum." (I do like the phrase though).

And of course - we're still free to decide what's right for us and I think we should do that. My point is that as long as marriage is defined as bt a man and a woman I don't consider it "discrimination" (in its current political sense) to exclude units (no pun intended) who don't fill the pre-requisites for belonging to the institution. The group in question, in my view, isn't being denied any enjoyment of life, being forbidden to do anything in private, or being denied the pursuit of other legal remedies for their perceived inequality.

Good answer, but I still don't think you have an argument. Marriage has been used for various purposes for a long time, and procreation hasn't actually always been a part, and it has rarely been considered the main reason for it. Male and Female being paired in some combination or other seems to have been the standard, but who's to say this fact, if it is indeed true, isn't the result of human consciousness not yet being raised regarding the rights of homosexuals? Wouldn't it be just as easy to argue that voting is defined by the ability of white male landowners to influence government, so therefore it isn't "discrimination to exclude units who don't fill the prerequisites"? That homosexuals don't fill the prerequisites if you define marriage such that homosexuals don't fill the prerequisites is not an argument.

But to get past all that, you've said yourself that we have the ability to choose what is right. It is my view, and that of a large and growing number of people, that it is our moral imperative to change the legal definition of marriage so as to allow all consenting adults the opportunity for marriage, and that those who attempt to impede progress in this domain will be viewed harshly by future generations.

[Tim]

I don't know about THAT story but I do know for a fact that a Catholic adoptive services agency shut itself down because it knew it couldn't conform to state requirements on gay adoption while still taking public funds.

There, I fixed it that for you.

[LA Ute]

Do I have to make the obvious response to this argument?

UD, let me cut to the chase here: Do you put the church's position on same-sex marriage in the same category as the priesthood ban, i.e., wrong, a mistake? Or do you think only that it is wrong for the church to get involved in the political issue of same-sex marriage?