Friday, March 19, 2004
Re: Christianity and Homosexuality [Rick Barry]
Hey Vedant, it was great to see your post. I want to comment on some of the specific things you said. Sorry, I got a little out of control again and went on and on!
++i don't know if i agree with psychological argument with respect to homosexuality; it's probably correlated but probably not the entire cause of it.++
My blog was rather brief, and I didn’t spell everything out in appropriate detail. I did not take the time in the blog to really articulate the argument for homosexuality having a psychological cause. You recognize that there is probably some element of developmental psychology in homosexuality, but you are not sure of the extent. Let me mention that psychologists who have studied the causes of homosexuality and believe it is predominantly “nurture” (or lack there of) rather than nature, agree biology has some impact. But this impact is more along the lines of a boy being naturally more sensitive, or possibly uncoordinated athletically, or any other feature that would set him apart. This would make the boy feel different from other men. I will leave it at that, since to go into detail here would take a long time. But there is no evidence that sexual preference for the same sex is somehow genetically predestined. Indeed, I do not think that it is.
++as for causing harm to themselves, i don't see any harm, except the harm from being ostracized by the majority of christians and rejecting the way because of that alienation.++
First of all, we can both agree that Christians should not ostracize anyone, and surly the experience of being ostracized would be hurtful and harmful to anyone. You also say that being homosexual is not harmful. I agree: being homosexual is not necessarily harmful in and of itself. However, engaging in homosexual sex acts is harmful to oneself. Why? Because such actions are engaged in in an effort to compensate for a profound and deep feeling of inadequacy as a man. (I use the example of male homosexuality because it is much more common than lesbianism. Lesbianism, by the way, is developed somewhat differently). The sexual contact with a member of one’s own sex is an attempt to compensate for what one feels they are internally missing. Those features that are distinctly male (sex organs, muscles, etc) become symbolic of masculinity and sexualized. Sexual contact therefore becomes an effort to internalize someone else’s masculinity because that individual feels their own masculinity lacking. However, this effort will always end in failure since one will never truly internalize another’s masculinity. This process, continually attempting and failing to internalize another’s masculinity, is indeed harmful and, as I said last time, a form of self-mutilation of the soul (Joe liked that line).
++the proposed marriage amendment, in my opinion, is one of the more regressive uses of law and government to adminster and halt the evolution of american society.++
This is a curious statement. Let’s break it down. First, you consider the proposed amendment to be regressive. Naturally, this indicates that you believe there is a certain progress to society, and same-sex marriage is a part of that progress—the next step in the “evolution” of our society. Same sex marriage, of course, is a radical redefinition of the term “marriage”. Indeed, words have meaning, and the word marriage has always had a meaning rooted in a biological reality. This biological reality is well articulated in the phrase “two-in-one-flesh union.” When a man and a woman come together in sexual intercourse they become, quite literally, two in one flesh. This is a biological reality insofar as reproduction is the only biological process that requires two human beings acting together rather than one acting alone. In heterosexual intercourse two individuals literally become one flesh performing one biological action. This biological action is the only environment in which new life can emerge. The state therefore has reasonable interest in promoting, sealing, and protecting the “two-in-one-flesh union” known as marriage. If marriage is defined as such, then same sex marriage would be a profound redefining of the institution, and I would ask you, Vedant, upon what grounds you would redefine it? If we are to lift the definition from its biological foundations, upon what foundation shall it be placed?
Second, I think most conservatives would mourn along with you the necessity of an amendment to the constitution to spell out the definition of marriage. Such “spelling out” should not be necessary since marriage defines itself as a heterosexual institution, as I argued above. However, because marriage is the foundation of society—since it is within a marriage that children are afforded the best environment in which to grow and prosper, and children are the next generation of Americans—then this nation has the obligation to take extraordinary measures to protect the integrity of that institution. It is the preference of conservatives that this protection not require amendment to the constitution, however if it does require such an act, then so be it.
++it seems that christians are wasting time and energy with all this, because the legality of gay marriage seems to be irrelevant if you take the love approach.++
The love approach is based on the “agape” definition of love. This definition of love seeks that which is in the best interest of others. Of course, that which is in the best interest of others is not always what others want. Observe a child in a candy store. The love approach argues that it is, in fact, against homosexual’s best interest to engage in homosexual sex acts because these sex acts are tantamount to “self-mutilation of the soul”. If this is true—and of course it is this point which is most debatable—then for the state to promote homosexual sex acts by making same-sex marriage legal would be a most irresponsible undertaking. You are right in saying the love approach has nothing to say about the legality of same-sex marriage, since this is an issue of reading the laws as they are on the books. It does have a great deal to say about the wisdom of same sex marriage, however. And on this point it rules that same-sex marriage is an unloving idea, despite everyone’s best intentions.
++your approach, rick, is much more intricate and well-thought out than most i've heard, but i'd like to know how it works, and how well it works.++
Vedant, I really enjoyed thinking about your comments. I am afraid that I have hit you with exactly the arguments I find ineffective in national debate: natural law arguments. I believe these arguments to be true and very enlightening, but also somewhat heartless. The theory I am trying to build, the “Christian Offensive in the Same Sex Marriage Debate” is a theory that leaves much of the natural law argumentation aside and emphasizes love and compassion. However, it is a love and compassion based on the psychological understanding of homosexuality. If the “I was born that way” argument falls through, then the debate shifts dramatically. I think the weight of the available evidence very much opposes the biological argument for homosexuality, and therefore we should recognize the psychological understanding of homosexuality, and consider what such an understanding adds to the debate about same-sex marriage. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you Vedant, and anyone else who wants to jump in.
++i don't know if i agree with psychological argument with respect to homosexuality; it's probably correlated but probably not the entire cause of it.++
My blog was rather brief, and I didn’t spell everything out in appropriate detail. I did not take the time in the blog to really articulate the argument for homosexuality having a psychological cause. You recognize that there is probably some element of developmental psychology in homosexuality, but you are not sure of the extent. Let me mention that psychologists who have studied the causes of homosexuality and believe it is predominantly “nurture” (or lack there of) rather than nature, agree biology has some impact. But this impact is more along the lines of a boy being naturally more sensitive, or possibly uncoordinated athletically, or any other feature that would set him apart. This would make the boy feel different from other men. I will leave it at that, since to go into detail here would take a long time. But there is no evidence that sexual preference for the same sex is somehow genetically predestined. Indeed, I do not think that it is.
++as for causing harm to themselves, i don't see any harm, except the harm from being ostracized by the majority of christians and rejecting the way because of that alienation.++
First of all, we can both agree that Christians should not ostracize anyone, and surly the experience of being ostracized would be hurtful and harmful to anyone. You also say that being homosexual is not harmful. I agree: being homosexual is not necessarily harmful in and of itself. However, engaging in homosexual sex acts is harmful to oneself. Why? Because such actions are engaged in in an effort to compensate for a profound and deep feeling of inadequacy as a man. (I use the example of male homosexuality because it is much more common than lesbianism. Lesbianism, by the way, is developed somewhat differently). The sexual contact with a member of one’s own sex is an attempt to compensate for what one feels they are internally missing. Those features that are distinctly male (sex organs, muscles, etc) become symbolic of masculinity and sexualized. Sexual contact therefore becomes an effort to internalize someone else’s masculinity because that individual feels their own masculinity lacking. However, this effort will always end in failure since one will never truly internalize another’s masculinity. This process, continually attempting and failing to internalize another’s masculinity, is indeed harmful and, as I said last time, a form of self-mutilation of the soul (Joe liked that line).
++the proposed marriage amendment, in my opinion, is one of the more regressive uses of law and government to adminster and halt the evolution of american society.++
This is a curious statement. Let’s break it down. First, you consider the proposed amendment to be regressive. Naturally, this indicates that you believe there is a certain progress to society, and same-sex marriage is a part of that progress—the next step in the “evolution” of our society. Same sex marriage, of course, is a radical redefinition of the term “marriage”. Indeed, words have meaning, and the word marriage has always had a meaning rooted in a biological reality. This biological reality is well articulated in the phrase “two-in-one-flesh union.” When a man and a woman come together in sexual intercourse they become, quite literally, two in one flesh. This is a biological reality insofar as reproduction is the only biological process that requires two human beings acting together rather than one acting alone. In heterosexual intercourse two individuals literally become one flesh performing one biological action. This biological action is the only environment in which new life can emerge. The state therefore has reasonable interest in promoting, sealing, and protecting the “two-in-one-flesh union” known as marriage. If marriage is defined as such, then same sex marriage would be a profound redefining of the institution, and I would ask you, Vedant, upon what grounds you would redefine it? If we are to lift the definition from its biological foundations, upon what foundation shall it be placed?
Second, I think most conservatives would mourn along with you the necessity of an amendment to the constitution to spell out the definition of marriage. Such “spelling out” should not be necessary since marriage defines itself as a heterosexual institution, as I argued above. However, because marriage is the foundation of society—since it is within a marriage that children are afforded the best environment in which to grow and prosper, and children are the next generation of Americans—then this nation has the obligation to take extraordinary measures to protect the integrity of that institution. It is the preference of conservatives that this protection not require amendment to the constitution, however if it does require such an act, then so be it.
++it seems that christians are wasting time and energy with all this, because the legality of gay marriage seems to be irrelevant if you take the love approach.++
The love approach is based on the “agape” definition of love. This definition of love seeks that which is in the best interest of others. Of course, that which is in the best interest of others is not always what others want. Observe a child in a candy store. The love approach argues that it is, in fact, against homosexual’s best interest to engage in homosexual sex acts because these sex acts are tantamount to “self-mutilation of the soul”. If this is true—and of course it is this point which is most debatable—then for the state to promote homosexual sex acts by making same-sex marriage legal would be a most irresponsible undertaking. You are right in saying the love approach has nothing to say about the legality of same-sex marriage, since this is an issue of reading the laws as they are on the books. It does have a great deal to say about the wisdom of same sex marriage, however. And on this point it rules that same-sex marriage is an unloving idea, despite everyone’s best intentions.
++your approach, rick, is much more intricate and well-thought out than most i've heard, but i'd like to know how it works, and how well it works.++
Vedant, I really enjoyed thinking about your comments. I am afraid that I have hit you with exactly the arguments I find ineffective in national debate: natural law arguments. I believe these arguments to be true and very enlightening, but also somewhat heartless. The theory I am trying to build, the “Christian Offensive in the Same Sex Marriage Debate” is a theory that leaves much of the natural law argumentation aside and emphasizes love and compassion. However, it is a love and compassion based on the psychological understanding of homosexuality. If the “I was born that way” argument falls through, then the debate shifts dramatically. I think the weight of the available evidence very much opposes the biological argument for homosexuality, and therefore we should recognize the psychological understanding of homosexuality, and consider what such an understanding adds to the debate about same-sex marriage. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you Vedant, and anyone else who wants to jump in.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
The Soul and Bioethics [Rick Barry]
Hi Kyle,
As I was reading your blog I was wondering if you had read anything about the philosophy of dualism and its implications on bioethics. I don't know if this is something Kass has addressed, or any of the other authors you have read, but it is something that Robert George discusses in The Clash of Orthodoxies. However, I would be interested in reading much more.
Basically, it seems, dualism (or at least the modern version of it) holds the soul and the body as distinct, and pretty much thinks the soul "uses" the body. Once the body because useless to the soul, the soul should cast off the body. Therefore, when a patient has a sick body, the body is no longer useful to the soul, then the body should be discarded. This also has implications on sexual morality: our bodies are to be used by our souls for sexual pleasure. However, George argues that this is a inaccurate view of the relationship between the body and the soul. Even so, I don't think he intends to argue for monism, which I believe would suggest that the body and soul are inseparable. I think he intends to argue for a less extreme version of dualism. Anyway, since you are much more familiar with these sorts of issues relating to bioethics, I wonder if you know anything about the different views of the body/soul relationship, and what repercussions that has on this debate.
As I was reading your blog I was wondering if you had read anything about the philosophy of dualism and its implications on bioethics. I don't know if this is something Kass has addressed, or any of the other authors you have read, but it is something that Robert George discusses in The Clash of Orthodoxies. However, I would be interested in reading much more.
Basically, it seems, dualism (or at least the modern version of it) holds the soul and the body as distinct, and pretty much thinks the soul "uses" the body. Once the body because useless to the soul, the soul should cast off the body. Therefore, when a patient has a sick body, the body is no longer useful to the soul, then the body should be discarded. This also has implications on sexual morality: our bodies are to be used by our souls for sexual pleasure. However, George argues that this is a inaccurate view of the relationship between the body and the soul. Even so, I don't think he intends to argue for monism, which I believe would suggest that the body and soul are inseparable. I think he intends to argue for a less extreme version of dualism. Anyway, since you are much more familiar with these sorts of issues relating to bioethics, I wonder if you know anything about the different views of the body/soul relationship, and what repercussions that has on this debate.
