Is the notion of “marriage equality” at odds with the natural sciences?
As I research the idea of male aggression for the chapter in my dissertation on why men need the goddess Athena, I encounter reams of evidence, from the social as well as the natural sciences, which provide substance to my “gut” suspicion of the term, “marriage equality.”
In their 1989 book, Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, Anne Moir and David Jessel write:
A hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden truism, a statement of the yawningly obvious.
Such a remark, uttered today would evoke very different reactions.
But, these differences are real and they go to the very heart of the debate about marriage:
The appreciation, for instance, that sex has different origins, motives and significance in the context of the male and female brains, that marriage is profoundly unnatural to the biology of the male, might make us better and more considerate husbands and wives.
Sex differences are not then a social construct and men and women see marriage in profoundly different terms, at least until their mutual sexual attraction brings them together in a committed relationship.
We know how real those differences are from even such a zealous advocate of gay marriage as Andrew Sullivan. He understands how hard monogamy is for men and offers excuses today for men’s failure to realize that ideal, a failure he refused to countenance when he was writing/debating gay marriage in the 1990s.
Does acknowledgement of these differences mean that gay people should abandon the struggle for state recognition of same-sex marriage? For now, I’ll say, “not necessarily.” It does mean, particularly given the results in Maine this past week, that we need change the way we approach the debate.
72 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
SNORT! It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is! Guard your dictionaries! Here come the redefiners!
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - November 7, 2009
Equality is simply a word that makes lefties feel warm and fuzzy, but doesn’t sway independents.
I am leaning more towards getting as many laws like Washington State just passed and moving the issue of DP to the federal level. The word marrige is just too toxic and for good reason.
As to the differences between the sexes, only an idiot with a PHD can believe that crap. I believe that two men or two women can have just as meaningful and supportive relationship as a hetero couple. But it is because they work hard at it, not because there is some kind of equality at work. btw, any long term couple will tell you, making a good marriage takes a lot of hard work.
Comment by Leah — November 7, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - November 7, 2009
AE, as Dan just said to me in an email:
” and if we weren’t different, the left wouldn’t be clamoring for transgender rights because trans people who believe they were born into the wrong body wouldn’t need alter their natural body to feel less conflicted.”
I keep forgetting that the left really wants to have it both ways.
Comment by Leah — November 7, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - November 7, 2009
“Men are different, therefore, monogamy is impossible.” That is as false statement. Men are naturally capable of great loyalty and fidelity to each other. The idea that science has somehow “proven” maleness somehow equates to promiscuity is simply wrong. Maleness, true, deep maleness, involves a sincere, complete devotion to one’s male partner, forsaking all others, ’til death do them part.
The gay community is toxic to maleness. It tries to replace genuine masculinity with a shallow, hyper-sexualized, exotic form of pseudo-masculinity. Gayness has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you search history, you find men using strong words of passion, loyalty, and fidelity to describe their feelings towards each other.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 7, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - November 7, 2009
Even if these gender differences characterizes the concept of marriage (which is arguable), Blatt doesn’t consider the scientific evidence indicating that gay males have a different brain physiology compared to their heterosexual counterparts, something that the ancients had deducted by coming up with the concept of a ‘third gender.’
Comment by Rob — November 7, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - November 7, 2009
Rob, fair point, but then, will you say unequivocally that gay marriage must needs include monogamy.
And I don’t think it’s the ancients who came up with the concept of a “third gender.” You might best look to Native American Indian traditions for that notion.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 7, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - November 7, 2009
No, because: What about lesbians?
His earlier position was the correct one. Marriage exists in part to civilize human beings. For humans, biology is not and should not be destiny; we have these things called ‘brains’ to give us control over our actions. As Descartes taught, there is no soul so weak that it cannot acquire absolute power over its passions. Not that it can change the nature of its passions, mind you; but it can absolutely refuse to act on them, when action would be immoral. That is part of the discipline of being human.
Now having said all that, please note I just spoke of “human beings”, not men. I must take exception to the whole line of thinking about “how hard monogamy is for men”. Sorry, but monogamy is hard for women too. Though the innate differences between men and women are many, and include some sexual attitudes (e.g., sexuality tends to be more superficial for men), the idea that there is something innately non-monogamous about men – something more so than for women, that should be taken to excuse sexual piggishness done by men – is pure sexism.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2009 @ 7:22 pm - November 7, 2009
LOL – You had me…
…then you lost me.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2009 @ 7:24 pm - November 7, 2009
Leah, the thing is, we have State marriage licenses precisely to create inequality. The whole point is to say “This kind of relationship will be supported in law because it is better for society than that other kind.” A point completely lost on the Gay Left.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2009 @ 7:27 pm - November 7, 2009
Leah, good point. Whats more, if we weren’t different, why do gays insist on being with the same gender? Yes, they insist on having it both ways.
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - November 7, 2009
Were they having sex with each other?
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - November 7, 2009
Yes, indeed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2009 @ 8:34 pm - November 7, 2009
Sorry, this link has more historical info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2009 @ 8:35 pm - November 7, 2009
I believe that sexual exclusivity is the natural state of a homosexual couple. I think of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, which drew on The Symposium. We are looking for our other half, and when we find it, we are complete. We don’t need anyone else.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 7, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - November 7, 2009
Just to make a point–Sullivan says “(The) post-seventies generation – those of us who grew up while our parents were having a sexual revolution – both appreciate the gains for sexual and emotional freedom. . .” Stonewall was not about gay rights. Stonewall was not a group of men in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships who took to the streets so they could marry, raise children, join the military, and minister in churches. Stonewall was about sexual liberation. It had nothing to do with homosexuality. It was part of a larger sexual revolution which wanted to rid the world of patriarchal, oppressive sexual morality.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 7, 2009 @ 9:26 pm - November 7, 2009
Do you actually know any gay men?
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - November 7, 2009
scratch that. do you actually know any men?
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - November 7, 2009
and are we talking about the same Sullivan who was recently arrested smoking pot in what is known to be a veritable outdoor bathhouse?
Comment by American Elephant — November 7, 2009 @ 10:18 pm - November 7, 2009
Yes, I know a lot of men who, because of their commitment to God, have a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship. Every week, our church celebrates the anniversaries of couples who have been together 30, 40, 50 or more years. It’s not that uncommon.
Marriage is not created by society–it is created by God so that people aren’t alone. Once more homosexuals participate in a faith community which supports them in lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationships, then I suspect we will start celebrating anniversaries of same-sex couples with the same regularity as straight couples.
If you want to believe, based on no evidence, that you are the product of evolution and random chance and, therefore, sexual rules are made up by society, go ahead. The reason behind atheism is simple–you get to have sex with whoever you want with no consequences, here or hereafter. Atheists have wonderful, supposedly logical reasons for their noble and superior disbelief in God, but one look at their lives shows it’s all about sex.
As proof, I offer up the examples of the following athiests: Bill Maher, Seth McFarlane, Ricky Gervais, Kathy Griffin, David Cross, Christopher Hitchens, et. al., all brilliant, noble, wise people who have rejected that nasty ol’ patriarchal, oppressive religion for a life of all the sex and drugs they could ever want. Richard Dawkins might not be an atheist for the sex–I think he just enjoys looking down on stupid people.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 7, 2009 @ 10:58 pm - November 7, 2009
here’s something for you Dan:
http://thebutchfactor.com/MAIN.html
Comment by rusty — November 7, 2009 @ 11:55 pm - November 7, 2009
you tube trailer for the butch factor. . .NDT RITA BEADS may even like the bears in this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oTB_NkZjLM
Comment by rusty — November 7, 2009 @ 11:57 pm - November 7, 2009
But you said monogamy was our NATURAL state, not that we must participate in a faith community in order to find the support necessary to do so. You contradict yourself.
As another Christian, not an atheist as you charge, I believe our natural state is sinful, not monogamous, and it is through grace that we are saved and only through faith and great effort that we can even hope to obtain the kind of righteousness you seem to think we are born with.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2009 @ 12:35 am - November 8, 2009
Transsexuals get a triple-whammy: condemnation for being Freaks and Perverts (not to say Homosexuals) from the Religious Right; condemnation for “affirming the gender binary in a masculinist essentialist patriarchal oppression of women” from the Gender Theorists of the Radical Left; and condemnation for being straight by Gays.
The fact is that there’s a huge body of evidence now about the neurological differences between men and women – and transsexual women are neurologically female. That’s why they’re women, and why having a male body is incredibly distressing, even if they’re lesbian.
Gay men should really be able to understand trans men – how many would like to have their body feminised? Would losing your manhood be an adequate compensation for greatly increasing your chance of a date? Somehow I think not….
Lesbians should also really be able to better understand trans women. Would getting into the pants of those hot straight gals be worth losing your boobs and growing a dick? Growing facial hair? Having to behave like the utter Pigs always trying to get in your pants? Not As Such.
Comment by Zoe Brain — November 8, 2009 @ 8:11 am - November 8, 2009
Aren’t we suppose to be better ourselves beyond our “natural state” isn’t that the point of things like religion and government and so on? We have innate differences but that goes to every individual, not just to gender or age or sexual orientation. Some people are better are monogamy than others, its just how some people have been made.
Part of living is to overcome some of our natural flaws, to be better people than what we start out as. I don’t think natural state is a good argument at all, sorry.
Comment by Darkeyedresolve — November 8, 2009 @ 9:08 am - November 8, 2009
I dont think anyone is arguing in favor of our flawed nature, DER, just trying to recognize reality.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2009 @ 9:31 am - November 8, 2009
(Dan via email) ” and if we weren’t different, the left wouldn’t be clamoring for transgender rights because trans people who believe they were born into the wrong body wouldn’t need alter their natural body to feel less conflicted.”
(Leah) I keep forgetting that the left really wants to have it both ways.
Dan, Leah, I can’t speak for all of the gay left. I think the problem is that those on the left and on the right look at things only in their extremes. There are obviously differences between men and women. As such, there are persons who are born who don’t feel natural with the gender they are given. There are also persons while comfortable with their gender, express their sexuality different from the majority of that gender. The question is, are the differences to the point where there should be inequality of opportunity? Perhaps in some cases where there are clear physical differences. But marriage, I’m not sure about.
If you want to believe, based on no evidence, that you are the product of evolution and random chance and, therefore, sexual rules are made up by society, go ahead.
Ashpenaz, there is plenty of scientific evidence for that. The only debate is whether this was orchestrated by God or not.
On the other hand (and I’m a believer of God), there is no evidence in the existence of God. This is a matter of faith, not evidence.
The reason behind atheism is simple–you get to have sex with whoever you want with no consequences, here or hereafter.
No, the reason behind atheism is even simpler. Atheists simply don’t believe in the existence of God. Whether that gives some atheists the excuse to have all the sex without consequences is another thing. On the other hand, there are plenty of believers in God who have plenty of sex either. That may be because they don’t care about the consequences, or believe they will be forgiven, because of their faith. It goes either way.
For what it’s worth, during my atheist stage, I didn’t have any sex at all. For me it had absolutely zero to do with sex, but my questioning about whether God exists or not.
Richard Dawkins might not be an atheist for the sex–I think he just enjoys looking down on stupid people.
Perhaps. Many atheists and religious people do look down on each other for their beliefs, or lack of beliefs. What a waste? Right?
Comment by Pat — November 8, 2009 @ 10:02 am - November 8, 2009
We are designed by God for monogamy, but because of sin, we fall into an unnatural state of sexual amorality–this is the message of Romans 1. Science that studies humanity in its fallen state is always going to be wrong about what is natural and what is unnatural. When men and women reject God, men and women are going to do unnatural things with themselves and each other.
People have misread this passage as if it condemns all forms of homosexuality. What it condemns is homosexual behavior which results from rejection of God. When homosexuals are returned to God by grace through faith, we are led to what is natural for us, which is lifelong, sexually exclusive, publicly accountable relationships.
Pat, you are the only atheist I have ever heard of who did not become an atheist in order to have all the sex he/she wanted. Is there another atheist besides you who does not use “disbelief” in God as an excuse for sex? I can’t think of one.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 8, 2009 @ 10:45 am - November 8, 2009
27.We are designed by God for monogamy, but because of sin, we fall into an unnatural state of sexual amorality–this is the message of Romans 1.
Ashpenaz, maybe God likes monogamy, but I don’t think we were designed for it. I choose monogamy, because it is better than the alternative. We aren’t tempted to sin, because God will get mad at us. We get tempted for sin, because we see a benefit in doing so. If it wasn’t natural, people wouldn’t need God and/or to be accountable to others and/or to themselves in the long run in order to stop the temptations.
Pat, you are the only atheist I have ever heard of who did not become an atheist in order to have all the sex he/she wanted. Is there another atheist besides you who does not use “disbelief” in God as an excuse for sex? I can’t think of one.
Ashpenaz, it’s no wonder why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. You misread my post. I am not an atheist. What I did say is that during a period when I did not believe in God (I can change my mind on this, right?), I did not have sex. One had nothing to do with the other. Yes, I’m sure the atheists I know have sex. However, I don’t see their atheism having anything to do with having sex. In fact, I haven’t noticed any correlation regarding belief in God and having sex.
People have misread this passage as if it condemns all forms of homosexuality. What it condemns is homosexual behavior which results from rejection of God. When homosexuals are returned to God by grace through faith, we are led to what is natural for us, which is lifelong, sexually exclusive, publicly accountable relationships.
That’s all nice and all. Sounds good to me. But you have zero evidence that that was the case. In fact, many people read that passage and say “people misread this passage saying that God accepts homosexuality.”
It looks to me like the following. You appear to have disdain for those who have ever fallen off the path of monogamy. I’m not just talking about those who cheat on their spouses, but those who before they commit, have sex, especially when younger (which happens, by the way, because having sex is a natural urge). And you appear to have disdain for those who don’t believe in God. So it’s convenient to just tie the two together.
Comment by Pat — November 8, 2009 @ 11:42 am - November 8, 2009
I think people reject God because they want to have sex with whoever they want without fearing consequences here or hereafter–so, that might be “disdain,” yes. Trying to justify sin by saying it comes from evolution or nature and we therefore have no choice is something I would disdain, yes. I think that evolution is a theory which has become an idol and to which people attribute all sorts of power it doesn’t have–”Evolution created the universe out of nothing! Evolution created life! Evolution created self-awareness! Evolution lets us have sex with whoever we want!” Natural science as studied in academia worships this idol and part of their worship is freeing themselves from “manmade, oppressive, sexual morality.”
You seem to think people become atheists for noble reasons and then discover sexual amorality as a happy accident. “There’s no God so I can have sex with whoever I want? Really? Who knew?” I think people start by wanting sex, sex, sex and then say, “You know, this would be easier if I could prove that my conscience was an illusion created by evolution and not the way God speaks to me in my deepest self.” Again, name one atheist who does not glory in sexual freedom.
Andrew Sullivan isn’t a very good Catholic if he thinks that monogamy is not the state we were designed for.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 8, 2009 @ 12:19 pm - November 8, 2009
29.I think people reject God because they want to have sex with whoever they want without fearing consequences here or hereafter–so, that might be “disdain,” yes.
Ashpenaz, I think people reject God and/or reject the belief of God for many reasons. Sex could have one reason to do it. Some people excuse their sexual habits on their belief of God, and that they will be forgiven through Jesus Christ.
Trying to justify sin by saying it comes from evolution or nature and we therefore have no choice is something I would disdain, yes.
Maybe you weren’t directing this to me, but I don’t justify sin by saying it comes from evolution or nature. Our inclination is to want to have sex with someone we are attracted to. But we have choice despite this. We can choose not to have sex with every single person we are attracted to, even if we had every opportunity to do so. I am naturally inclined to raid the plastic pumpkin in my house that still has plenty of candy. Yet I haven’t touched a piece of candy in over two months. I am naturally inclined to eat over 4000 calories of food a day, but am sticking with about half or less than that. So we can make choices despite our temptations. I just wish my restraint of food was always as good (and will be as good) as it is with sex.
You seem to think people become atheists for noble reasons and then discover sexual amorality as a happy accident.
Not quite. I think that people become atheists for many reasons. I don’t know if I would classify any of them noble, any more than I would classify anyone who believes in God that their reasons are noble. My belief that 2+2=4, or that the sky is blue isn’t noble. It’s just what I believe.
And one doesn’t have to be an atheist to discover sexual amorality. The two are different issues. Maybe you have stats comparing the two. All I can tell you is that I haven’t noticed any significant difference between believers and non-believers with respect to sexual behavior.
“There’s no God so I can have sex with whoever I want? Really? Who knew?” I think people start by wanting sex, sex, sex and then say, “You know, this would be easier if I could prove that my conscience was an illusion created by evolution and not the way God speaks to me in my deepest self.”
Whether or not you are correct that conscience would be an illusion if created by evolution than if it was solely created by God, I think the thought processes and experiences of people vary. Maybe you would start having all the sex you could if it was somehow irrefutably determined that God does not exist. But as I established to you, it makes no difference to me regarding my own sexual behavior.
Again, name one atheist who does not glory in sexual freedom.
Honestly, I can’t. Then again, I can’t name an atheist that does glory in sexual freedom. What you have appeared to do is to show disdain for atheists who have sex more than you believe they should, but basically excuse believers in God that do, because they supposedly have in the back of their mind that there are consequences in the afterlife.
Andrew Sullivan isn’t a very good Catholic if he thinks that monogamy is not the state we were designed for.
Maybe. But perhaps Sullivan isn’t a very good Catholic because he wasn’t able to keep his natural urges in check and in a responsible way. Then again, according to Catholic doctrine, Sullivan isn’t a good Catholic at all because he doesn’t believe he should remain celibate.
By that measure, I’m not a good Catholic either, because I don’t believe I will ever atone for the relationship that I have now. Further, I’ve had sexual relationships with three other people (yep, that’s right, three). And I won’t atone for any of them. Well, maybe one of them.
I’m not particularly religious, so perhaps my opinion is not much of value here with regard to your statement about being designed for monogamy. But apparently there are more devout Christians who disagree with you.
Comment by Pat — November 8, 2009 @ 1:50 pm - November 8, 2009
Pat, I think you’re a little too sane for this thread.
To say it another way: Every human being, to be human, must and can resolve the conflict between the human brain (neocortex) and the older, more ‘animal’ parts of the brain. (‘Older’ in evolutionary terms.)
Ash, you seriously need to get out more. There are entire communities of atheists that believe in moralities in some ways stricter than yours.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 8, 2009 @ 3:16 pm - November 8, 2009
I am reading and respecting all your comments. Instead of answering each point, I still want to know of a single atheist who did not abandon traditional sexual values. If you start, as this thread started, by examining sexual behavior from a naturalistic perspective, all you can say is that all rules are a result of evolution, as per E. O. Wilson. So, there are no rules. All sex is fine as long as you don’t hurt anyone, as Dawkins would say.
Name a single atheist who would not say something like, “Have all the sex you want as long as you don’t hurt someone.” That’s the only possible atheist morality.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 8, 2009 @ 6:14 pm - November 8, 2009
Again you claim that perfection is our natural state, to which all I can say is, not in this life, baby! We are not born perfect and do not “fall into sin” we are BORN fallen because of original sin and are not forgiven for anything WE do, but for grace that Christ gave to us.
I have heard Christians argue that homosexuality is not inherently sinful before, but I have never heard one argue that homosexuals themselves are not inherently sinful as everyone is, but are instead inherently perfect…
But then you started out arguing that science is evil or something for confirming our flawed nature.
You have some interesting beliefs there Ash. Can’t say that I share them.
Comment by American Elephant — November 8, 2009 @ 6:14 pm - November 8, 2009
Everything I believe can be footnoted to the ELCA website. I’m simply repeating generic Protestantism. Or, you could read C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, which covers all this in detail. I’m sure this thread has been sidetrackted from its original intent, but my point was. if you try to look at sexuality from a purely materialistic point of view, you are going to come to the wrong conclusions.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 8, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - November 8, 2009
If you start, as this thread started, by examining sexual behavior from a naturalistic perspective, all you can say is that all rules are a result of evolution, as per E. O. Wilson. So, there are no rules. All sex is fine as long as you don’t hurt anyone, as Dawkins would say.
We’re talking about two different things, Ashpenaz. One is about natural inclinations towards sex. The other is rules that govern our natural inclinations. If we were naturally monogamous to begin with, we wouldn’t need rules to govern monogamy.
Name a single atheist who would not say something like, “Have all the sex you want as long as you don’t hurt someone.” That’s the only possible atheist morality.
Again, you are making a conclusion that the reason why a person is atheist is because they want to have all the guilt free sex one can want. I just don’t see the evidence. And no, I haven’t heard any atheist say one can have all the sex you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone. I’m sure there are atheists that believe that. Heck, I’m sure there are atheists don’t even care about hurting others part as well. But the same is true for people who believe in God.
Almost all of the people I know about my age have sex (responsibly), and did not wait to get married to have sex. This includes atheists and believers of God. From what I know, atheists don’t seem any more or less promiscuous (or unfaithful, if married) than believers.
And no, it’s NOT the only possible atheist morality. There are reasons other than believing in God to be responsible sexually. In fact, especially years ago, young women waiting to have sex until marriage had more to do with community and family pressure than belief in God. That’s probably why people got married younger in those days.
Also, every atheist I know is an atheist because they don’t believe in the existence of God. Since atheists see that there are plenty of believers of God that have promiscuous sex, they don’t need the excuse of atheism to start having all the sex they want. Besides, although humans are pretty good at rationalization, you can’t make yourself believe or not believe in God simply because you want to have promiscuous sex.
I’m simply repeating generic Protestantism.
Well, that could be the problem. There’s probably many interpretations of what that is.
but my point was. if you try to look at sexuality from a purely materialistic point of view, you are going to come to the wrong conclusions.
You’re probably right. Which is why I am not looking at sexuality with any one narrow view.
Comment by Pat — November 8, 2009 @ 10:35 pm - November 8, 2009
Living or dead?
Dead: Ayn Rand. Living: Her followers in the stricter, “Peikovian” school. (I’m not part of them, I just know who they are).
Challenge met. Next!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 1:15 am - November 9, 2009
Point just disproven, by simple example.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 1:16 am - November 9, 2009
Come to think of it, I haven’t heard any atheist “in real life” say what Ash claims there, either. There must be Communists and child molesters who have said stuff like that. But on the rare occasions when I visit with my local Humanist community (who are more left-wing than the Objectivists just mentioned), I never hear them say stuff like that. Possible second example.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 1:21 am - November 9, 2009
For that matter, there are other reasons than believing in God to be moral in general.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 1:24 am - November 9, 2009
Ash, We sure have gotten sidestracked! But I think I get what you are driving at, and suspect you are talking about what God wants from us, while I am talking about our fallen reality.
My larger points are that
1. We must share policy with people who do not share our faith, and appealing to them with theological arguments is not usually fruitful. And
2. Science is not the enemy of God, it is his creation, and as such, often has the very satisfying ability to illustrate the truth of His word and the wisdom of His laws. As the wisdom of the marriage institution is illustrated by the natural and even social sciences.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2009 @ 1:39 am - November 9, 2009
The sidetracking comes from my response to this phrase from the original post: “from the social as well as the natural sciences.” Why not include revelation, as Andrew Sullivan claims to believe in? Most Americans believe that God created humankind male and female, in His image–therefore, sex differences are part of God’s design. Many in gay community wants to reduce their behavior to evolution and random chance, an idea which allows them to have as much sex as they want without fear of consequences. Their strident atheism (Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, etc.) is a cover for their unashamed amorality. From a purely political standpoint, gay people would make a better case for themselves if they based their insights on sexuality on the Bible. We would then have common ground with most of America.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 9, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - November 9, 2009
It’s not science. It also implicitly assumes that the listener believes your method of applying (contention point 1) your version or account (contention point 2) of your religion’s or God’s (contention point 3) revelation. On the other hand, it’s a free country so say whatever you’re going to.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 12:30 pm - November 9, 2009
From a Peikovian:
“Sadly, the only sound rational objective philosophy is all but unknown by most, and those who know of it, have abandoned its core principles and, in their attempt to make it a political/social movement, have undercut the basis of all values. They preach loudly, “God is Dead,” and the result is exactly what Dostoevsky said it would be, a world that believes, “Everything is permitted,” because nothing matters, and “when nothing is sacred, when nothing is revered, when there is no absolute truth, there is nothing to live for beyond the moment, nothing to inspire one to do or be more than they can get away with, nothing to believe in beyond what one sees and feels,” at the moment. You want to see the result of that kind of secularism, have a look at Europe. God is dead there, and it is about to be enveloped by a theocracy so evil it makes the most repressive of any past Christian theocracy seem innocuous.”
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/articles/article95.php
I read Ayn Rand when I was in 7th grade. I remember arguing with my mother from Atlas Shrugged. She grabbed the book out of my hand, ripped it in half down the spine, and threw it in the fireplace. I moved on to Hermann Hesse.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 9, 2009 @ 12:32 pm - November 9, 2009
And yet, you *didn’t* know at least one (if not both) of the following two basic facts about Rand:
1) That she was an atheist.
2) (More likely) That her sexual morality was neo-Victorian. That there was no way she would ever say something like, “Have all the sex you want as long as you don’t hurt someone.”
Why must it be that you didn’t know one or both of the above? Because you demanded at #32, “Name a single atheist who would not say something like, ‘Have all the sex you want as ng as you don’t hurt someone’”.
You know, Ash – You might really try a simple acknowledgement, with good humor and grace, that I met your challenge. Just think about giving it a try.
As for your link: It’s clear that you missed its point. You’ve quoted an *anti*-Peikovian. One who criticizes the Peikovians as OINOs (Objectivists In Name Only) – In other words, in a sense as not Objectivist enough! LOL
And did you understand what you excerpted? I don’t think you did. It’s not an argument for sexual immorality, nor a claim that God is required for morality. In context, it’s saying:
1) That Objectivism is an atheist philosophy.
2) That Objectivism is a correct philosophy, and as such, a good source of moral values: capable of teaching people “values to know what they are living for and principles that enable them to make the choices by which they achieve those values”. The implication would be that there are indeed reasons to be moral, other than God.
3) That Objectivism need not and should not be militantly atheist; that Objectivism can respect and ally itself with those religionists who promote “the concepts of independence, individualism, moral-courage, a belief in absolute principles and a reverence for life and truth”. (Read a little further down.)
Which, incidentally, has been my own experience. I reject Objectivist atheism, yet I am warmly welcomed by a different branch of the Objectivists which is atheist but not militant about it: the David Kelley, Atlas Society branch. And I reject literalist forms of religion, yet I am welcomed on this blog by many strongly religious people and defend them from leftist attacks. Why? Because of common values that we all share. In the social-political sphere (and in life), I am committed to reason, individualism, achievement and freedom. I get on like gangbusters with non-militant atheists who share those values, and with religionists who share those values. To the extent I’ve had differences with you, it’s where and because you don’t share those values.
Think about all that, Ash, the next time you see Yaron Brook (a full-blown Peikovian BTW) on Glenn Beck’s show, as Glenn and Yaron all but high-five each other and treat each other with great respect.
That may explain a thing or two. You are arguing partly from your mother’s misconceptions of Rand, which you adopted at her insistence.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - November 9, 2009
Um, yes, I knew Rand was an atheist. Yes, I understood the quote. I thought it was a nice bit of deconstruction.
Here’s an interesting quote from Nathaniel Branden:
Well Rand wasn’t entirely consistent on what she thought about these subjects. I remember once being in her apartment when Leonard was there. He had acquired a new girlfriend and Ayn asked him: is it a romance, or is it an affair, or is it an enjoyable sexual encounter? I don’t remember the words verbatim, but she gave him a choice of three. She also said it in a way that implied that any answer was acceptable. And Leonard almost fell off the sofa in shock. He said, “You mean you would approve?” Ayn said, “Why not?”
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Mouhibian/Nathaniel_Branden_Interview,_Pt_4.shtml
So, no, you didn’t really meet my challenge.
Why don’t you realize that there are people who actually, really believe Christianity? Believe the Bible is inspired? Believe Jesus rose from the dead and all that? If one believes those things are true, then one can’t really say one agrees with people who think those things are false. I would love to have the ability to mix with people who have a wide variety of beliefs, but people aren’t happy when you think what they believe isn’t true and that they should believe something else. Of course, that was what got Jesus crucified and Stephen stoned and Paul executed, so I really can’t complain.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 9, 2009 @ 1:56 pm - November 9, 2009
Yes I did. Rand did not take the the position “Have all the sex you want as long as you don’t hurt someone”. If you insist that she did, then you either do not know her ideas like you think you do, or are not being honest.
Your own quotation reveals that. Peikoff knew full well what Rand’s sense of sexual morality was. When, by your story, she playfully suggested to him that a bit of inconsistency might be permissible, “Leonard almost fell off the sofa in shock.” Read and understand your quotations, before you use them.
When and where have I ever – *EVER* – suggested that I don’t think there are people who really believe Christianity?
Perhaps we are in the “Ash zone” now, where it doesn’t matter what I actually believe / have said.
Tell it to Glenn Beck. He’s the Christian running around with Yaron Brook. I’ve already explained my stand and my experience, which again is that:
For me, it’s about shared methods (intellecual honesty, commitment to Reason) and, to a slightly lesser degree, shared values. Or, in cases where I find a person odious or at least boring, the lack thereof.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - November 9, 2009
Many in gay community wants to reduce their behavior to evolution and random chance, an idea which allows them to have as much sex as they want without fear of consequences.
Ashpenaz, perhaps many gay persons do take that tack. The point is that whether sexual differences, etc. comes from evolution (which I believe) or not, does not mean that it gives any of us an excuse to act irresponsibly.
As for your challenge, it seems like you keep on upping the bar. In fact, my sense is that if any atheist ever has said or done anything that implies they are not 100% chaste or did not royally condemn someone else who wasn’t 100% chaste, that it equates to the atheist saying they should have all the sex they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
So you might have won that silly challenge. But not the one you originally stated.
Comment by Pat — November 9, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - November 9, 2009
Glenn Beck and I believe in coexistence. Certainly, we can both work with people on certain issues. I’m sure, however, that he has had his ancestors baptized to make sure they’ll get into heaven. I’m also sure that Beck and I could not cooperate with a piece of legislation which gives public funding to abortions, for instance. We can coexist, but not to the point we undermine our own values.
Gee, I wish you’d read those quotes and understand them. The point is, these atheists undercut their moral system. Each quote shows that there is no absolute foundation to what they believe, just a personal choice. Rand nowhere suggests, anywhere, that there are absolute moral laws beyond man’s own selfishness. She might say promiscuity is bad and love should be the noble meeting of superior minds, but if someone wants to do something different, all she can say is, “Well, good luck with that.” Peikovians don’t say there will be any consequences for promiscuity other than being disliked by other Peikovians.
If there is no God, then everything is permissible. There’s no way to get past that.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 9, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - November 9, 2009
P.S. Also, Branden, though I respect his psychological work, is not altogether reliable as a witness. The Mouhibian interview (I know Alec, he’s a nice guy) was within the last several years with Branden in his 70s, and Branden has been embellishing his stories as he gets older. Earlier in life, he told the same story but there was less to it. In Branden’s earlier version, Rand only suggested to Peikoff that he might conduct a romance with the woman, provided of course that they were not sluts “having all the sex they want” in your expression. Again, Ash, your knowledge of Rand’s ideas is inaccurate if you don’t know that the person who believes they can “Have all the sex they want as long as they don’t hurt someone” is one of the stock types that she railed against.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - November 9, 2009
But of course there is. Why not simply admit that you don’t care to know or understand it?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 3:33 pm - November 9, 2009
Bingo. Challenge met; the fact can’t be admitted; so keep moving the goalposts.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 3:35 pm - November 9, 2009
Ashpenaz I would suggest picking up The Red Queen and read all his books after that, if you want to understand evolutionary psychology. The idea that “anything is permissable” is laughable and goes against everything natural selection and evolution has taught us. There is a reason animals with genetic programming to stop things like incest and indiscrimate murder of their own kind, promote helping others of their own kind, etc, succeed, and animals without those genetic influences tend to fail. It’s also remarkable how much our morality and conscience coincides with things we see in the animal world, who don’t have any concept of god.
If you want to actually understand how you can have ethics without God, I’d also suggest reading “Godless: how an evengelical pastor became one of the countries’ foremost athiests” who has some chapters at the end about all the moral and ethical systems throughout history (as well as the difference between morality and ethics)
Comment by plutosdad — November 9, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - November 9, 2009
First, her morality was based on principles not rules. If you’re looking for a rulebook, that would explain a thing or two.
Second, leaving aside the question of whether Rand’s morality was correct in all particulars, let’s note that she based it on analysis of what she understood to be objective reality. And she held objective reality, and reason which is used to discern it, as absolutes.
In present and past discussions, you have evidenced a belief in a kind of dualism between two approaches morality as the only possible approaches: what Rand would call the intrinsic (revealed by God, not necessarily having logic behind it except that God allegedly wants it); and what Rand would call the subjective (people rationalizing their whims). Rand built up a third approach, as contrasted against both of those: that *morality is an objective requirement* of human survival and flourishing, and the whole point of ethics as a science is to aid people in making good choices – choices that will make them healthier, happier and more human.
Interestingly, St. Paul hinted at such an approach in Romans 1:18-20. Slagging the pagans, he said:
Obviously, Paul is no atheist and no Objectivist, and is offering the pagans as an example of failure – all that is a given. What the above suggests, however, is that morality, to the extent that it is true, SHOULD be plain human beings by studying God’s creation, i.e., by studying reality; lack of Judeo-Christian revelations from God is no excuse for immorality. Rand would be sympathetic to the suggested method – i.e., to deriving morality by studying reality.
Now, whether you like it or not Ash, all of the above means that there are *there are other reasons than believing in God to be moral*. But, you don’t want to hear it, so keep on refusing to understand it. If you refuse to understand it, then it will never be true or possible and you will win the argument.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 4:03 pm - November 9, 2009
Sorry, typo = “SHOULD be plain -to- human beings”
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 4:04 pm - November 9, 2009
Pat – I’ve noticed that Ash also seems to be taking the position (though doubtless he would never describe it this way, or admit it) that if a given moral system would permit any sexual activity that isn’t 100% chaste according to his presentation of chaste (i.e., it’s OK if you’re married or if ELCA and your local church dudes are coming around to the view that you can do it), ipso facto that morality must be wrong. Litmus-test style.
Thus, Ash’s intrinsicism – his emphasis on intrinsic, revealed morality as the only possible morality – is functionally little different from subjectivism. I.e., morality is functionally whatever Ash and the other guys in his Bible group -think- (or truly -feel-) God’s revelation had said it was. After they’ve consulted papal and ELCA documents, of course
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - November 9, 2009
Ok, I apologize, the above comment is maybe a bit trouble-making
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 4:23 pm - November 9, 2009
I’m full of thoughts on this today; it’s hard to stop.
The more so, because morality is meaningless apart from humankind. Morality is not relevant to the lives of dogs or bacteria, for example. Or to rocks. As I said, humans have a unique need for morality as a guide to making choices.
Perhaps your point is that it’s not morality unless the human is submitting himself to something outside himself – for example, unless the human is restraining his whims and animal urges. Well, yeah. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. In Islam, you submit to God (supposedly). In Rand’s system, you submit to reality. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” The rights (a moral term) of others must be respected. Etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - November 9, 2009
Let’s say human beings are the result of evolution. There is no evidence that evolution has produced moral beings. So, no moral system that is based on human thought can be moral. Morality is simply behavior which increases survival. If I don’t want someone’s genes to survive, and I kill them, there is no one to stop me.
That’s what Nietzche meant by the Superman–the man who has gone beyond mere human morality to create his own arbitrary morality and impose it on the world. He knew that was the only possibility once God was dead.
Tennessee Williams explored this in terms of sexuality in A Streetcar Named Desire. What a man wants is his, regardless of the pain it causes.
Woody Allen explored this in Match Point. There is no God, so there is no justice–only luck. If I am lucky enough to get away with murder, I don’t have to feel any guilt or suffer any consequences.
You can show me whatever basis you want for an atheist morality, but if I choose not to obey it, there is nothing you can do to me. Hence–atheism means you can have sex with whoever you want without fear of consequences here or hereafter.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 9, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - November 9, 2009
Funny you should mention Nietzsche. Nietzschean morality is subjectivist, just as your version of Christian morality is intrinsicist (and implicitly subjective in practice). People set up a false dichotomy between the two – as, again, seems to be your wont. Like it’s only one or the other. Rand’s attempt to create an objective morality (discerning the ‘ought’ by analyzing the ‘is’; for example, by studying the requirements of human survival-and-flourishing) was her answer to both sides of that false dichotomy, rejecting both.
…other than the giant fact that it has produced human beings, the only moral beings, the only beings on this planet to have any need of morality and any ability to grasp it. Yeah, that doesn’t count.
That would be Nietzschean morality, which Objectivism rejects. It’s typical of you in my experience, though, that you can’t conceive of *any* other alternative to your version of morality.
What an absurd statement. If (note IF) it’s objectively valid morality, then it can and should rightly be encoded in criminal law.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - November 9, 2009
(i.e., can’t conceive of any *valid* alternative to…)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 6:41 pm - November 9, 2009
“Let’s say human beings are the result of evolution. There is no evidence that evolution has produced moral beings. So, no moral system that is based on human thought can be moral.”
That is called “begging the question”
Comment by plutosdad — November 9, 2009 @ 7:50 pm - November 9, 2009
“You can show me whatever basis you want for an atheist morality, but if I choose not to obey it, there is nothing you can do to me.”
Sure they can, the society you live in can exile you or even execute you. This happens with hunter-gatherers and even animals. If you are a distruptive influence your neighbors will want you gone, not because of any god they believe in, but for purely selfish reasons.
Wolf packs have been known to collectively overthrow an Alpha if that Alpha is cruel and vicious. They kick it out or kill it if it won’t leave. If it breaks their ethical code (to lead with assertiveness and strength, not cruelty) it is punished. Wolves have no god, but they enforce ethics. It’s a looser and smaller set of ethics than we have, but they have them. And it’s purely based on practicality, but that practicality came about through genetic programming. Wolf packs that were not inclined to eliminate the vicious and cruel (sociopathic?) wolves did not reproduce as successfully as those that did, for obvious reasons.
In the same way, sure, you can do whatever you want, but to not expect consequences is silly.
I believed as you did many years ago, but I studied. I began through the study of christian apologetics and from there history, archaeology, anthropology, which lead me to study evolution, animal behavior and evolutionary psychology. You just have to start learning and stop speaking from a position of ignorance. You cannot argue against ideas you do not understand. If you want to engage athiests, you need to learn what they believe.
I had a music ministry, spoke in tongues, felt the spirit, tried to save souls, did it all, until my 30s. I felt god’s presence and knew he was real. But my studies of apologetics and biblical history and arguments against those eventually led me to believe there is no god, which was a period of years, maybe it took a decade of study. So I guess I’m the second person you know who did not become an athiest to have all the sex I want. Dan Barker, who wrote “Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists”. If you want to understand people different than you, go ahead and read that book.
Comment by plutosdad — November 9, 2009 @ 8:08 pm - November 9, 2009
i messed up my 2nd to last sentence, I meant “Dan Barker is a 3rd” his journey was much the same as mine.
Comment by plutosdad — November 9, 2009 @ 8:09 pm - November 9, 2009
plutosdad, I also had quite a bit of Christian background before I moved in my present direction, which is to be more interested in what can be proven objectively. (Though I still respect many Christians and am not an atheist, as I’ve been saying.) That seems to be inconceivable to Ashpenaz; I’ve seen him repeatedly assume that I must be ignorant of Christianity if I don’t believe as he does and give him personal validation about his beliefs, an assumption that is itself ignorant and has on occasion made me LOL.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - November 9, 2009
Atheists always act like they have knowledge that Christians don’t know about. They always seem to think that there is some evidence somewhere that Christians haven’t looked at. If you read the book of Job, you’ll see that all the arguments against the existence of God have already been well stated.
Rather than respond to the shallow, happy atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et. al., I take my understanding of godlessness from Nietzche, Camus, Sartre, Kafka, et. al. I am going to go out on a limb here, but I think Dostoyevsky was a bit better at grasping the complexity of faith or lack thereof than Ayn Rand. I like atheists who live with a noble despair than those who want to pretend there is some meaning to it all.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 9, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - November 9, 2009
That is super interesting and thank you for sharing it. I must point out that, as you suggest, the wolves would be acting on an inbred instinct. Instinct is not quite the same as having or needing a moral code, that is, a code of values upon which the individual reflects, and then applies in decision-making.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 10:27 pm - November 9, 2009
Agreed. Rand could, at times, be every bit as unfair to religionists as you are to her. But now we’re goalpost-shifting again; we weren’t talking about the ability to grasp faith earlier, rather, we were talking about whether or not it is true that an absence of religious faith (in a form you would recognize and approve) necessarily dictates immorality. Dostoevsky got that one wrong.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - November 9, 2009
Fixed it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2009 @ 10:58 pm - November 9, 2009
Dostoevsky might have got it wrong, but Dostoyevsky was right on the money.
Comment by Ashpenaz — November 10, 2009 @ 9:53 am - November 10, 2009
I think I read that bit about wolves in Merle’s Door: lessons from a freethinking dog by Kerasote. 95% of the book is really great, and he quotes tons of animal research.
Or maybe I read it in a Cesar Milan book, the only one I’ve read is Cesar’s Way but I’m pretty sure I read it in the first.
Comment by plutosdad — November 10, 2009 @ 3:12 pm - November 10, 2009
“Like most people, I have personal views about same-sex marriage that everyone may not agree with. However, I am thankful that I live in a country where we can discuss these controversial issues. I do not think this is the proper platform to discuss same-sex marriage, nor do I think it is an issue that Miss USA should advocate either for or against. Thank you.”
Comment by rusty — November 11, 2009 @ 9:23 am - November 11, 2009
via fritz. . .oops
Comment by rusty — November 11, 2009 @ 9:24 am - November 11, 2009