Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
An atheist once rung up on the Atheist Experience, claiming to be an "atheist homophobe". He then spent the rest of the call explaining that the definition of homophobe is wrong, and doesn't properly describe him, even though he chose the word in the first place.
Takes all sorts to fuck up a planet!
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
(August 30, 2015 at 7:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My husband left for a trip and I'm bored. Meaning It's one of those evenings where I look for any excuse to post lol.
I was browsing my facebook news feed today and came across this article called The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, posted by an acquaintance on my friend's list. I thought it was very out of character and was curious to hear you guys' opinions/comments/counter arguments on the points being made. Fire away!!
If that surprises you, check out this interesting argument against gay marriage (written in the late 90s or early 00s, I think) by philosopher Claudia Card, a LESBIAN: https://pol285.blog.gustavus.edu/files/2...rriage.pdf
Her basic argument is something like, if males had only been allowed to own slaves in the 19th century, it would have been dumb for females to fight for that right rather than abolishing the institution itself. And she then makes the case that marriage is a flawed institution which cannot be fixed for the following reasons:
1. Employer benefits are limited to married persons, punishing those that choose not to be married.
2. Pressures not to divorce because of consequences keep people trapped in abusive relationships.
3. The idea of monogamy bars possible loving relationships with others.
4. Legal right of access makes the state a third party to your marriage.
Hence, gays and lesbians should not support the right to marry.
I have read similar (though much less developed) arguments from people at this site regarding marriage. The position is fundamentally different from the opening post, as it is not advocating treating people differently based on sexual orientation, but is an argument in favor of abolishing marriage. Her position is more radical, in that it is an argument for restructuring society.
Not that you have asked for it, but
point 1 is not always correct, as some companies have provided benefits for "domestic partners." (Claudia Card recognizes this on pages 5-6.) Of course, in doing so, they are a "third party" to the relationship (see 4), which she seems to regard as somehow objectionable (unless she is okay with private companies being third parties to personal relationships, but not the government, though I rather doubt that and it would require some sort of explanation to justify). Regarding 3, some people choose to have "open" marriages in which sexual fidelity is not part of their personal agreement. (She seems to recognize that on page 6, though she does not there propose how to deal with the legal implications of plural marriage.)
Part of 2 could be corrected by having some things taken care of by the government instead of through benefits from employment (e.g., if the government provided health care for all and if a minimum income were provided by the state).
Claudia Card states (page 3, paragraph 4):
Quote:Many contemporary lesbian and gay partnerships, households, and friendship networks fit no patriarchal stereotypes and are not sanctified by legal mar‐ riage, although their members still regard themselves as ‘‘family.’’ 3 But should they? Many social insti‐ tutions, such as insurance companies, do not honor such conceptions of ‘‘family.’’ Family, as understood in contexts where material benefits tend to be at stake, is not constituted totally by noncontractual rela‐ tionships.
The reason for that is that the material benefits are themselves a contractual matter, and consequently who gets them needs to be specified contractually. So this is something that cannot be any other way, if there is to be insurance at all. To put this another way, to name someone as a beneficiary to an insurance policy is to contractually connect the people involved. Without the contractual connection, there is no payout and therefore no insurance.
Claudia Card states (page 12, last paragraph):
Quote:By contrast, children raised by lesbian or gay parents today are much more likely to be in relationships carefully chosen and affirmed by their caretakers. 4 Even though that would no doubt continue to be true oftener of the children of lesbian and gay parents in same‐sex marriages than of the children of heterosexual parents, marriage would involve the State in defining who really had the status of ‘‘par‐ ent.’’
She provides no evidence for that first statement (I have no idea if it is true or not). With the second statement, the state already defines who has the status of "parent" in same-sex relationships. So marriage is irrelevant to that aspect. It only affects who the state recognizes, not whether the state defines who has the responsibilities of parenthood.
Claudia Card states (page 13, paragraph 2):
Quote:The ‘‘revolutionary parenting’’ that bell hooks describes (1984) dilutes the power of individual parents. Although children retain special affectional ties to their ‘‘bloodmothers,’’ accountability for children’s waywardness is more widely distributed. With many caretakers (such as ‘‘othermothers’’), there is less pressure to make any one of them constantly accessible to a child and more pressure to make everyone somewhat accessible. With many caretakers, it is less likely that any of them will get away with pro‐ longed abuse, or even be tempted to perpetrate it.
She does not provide evidence for that last statement. And she neglects the fact that it exposes a child to more potential abusers.
The question that she does not seem to properly deal with is this: What would be the consequences of the abolition of marriage? I do not know of any modern culture that lacks marriage (though I know of an old one that, in a way, lacks marriage), so it is somewhat understandable that she does not explain what the consequences would be of the abolition of marriage. But that in itself makes it seem irresponsible to advocate its abolition, when one does not know what the consequences of that would be. It might be a good thing if it could be worked into society, but it is far from clear that the overall impact would be positive.
It would be interesting if a society made such an experiment, but I do not wish to be part of it, and would rather look at it from the outside, to see how it works, than to be one of the guinea pigs in the experiment.
The article to which you post a link was published in 1996. If you click on your link and read the first line under her name, you will see which journal as well as the date.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
(August 31, 2015 at 11:38 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, it just means gays are no different from the rest of us. We all have temptations, we all do things that are immoral sometimes. This applies to everyone everywhere.
The actual feelings of attraction towards the same sex are not sinful because they are not freely chosen. Whether they stemmed from genetics, from environmental factors, or from a little bit of both depending on the person, the important part is to remember that it is not voluntary. So being gay, in and of itself, is not immoral because it is not chosen.
While softly worded, I do have to point out that in practice this still means that gay people must deny huge parts of themselves in order to obey Catholic doctrine. That the church isn't directly, overtly hounding and discriminating against them (anymore) doesn't change the fact that what they are demanding of gay people, if they want to avoid hell and be in god's good graces, is amazingly cruel and callous. All the while, of course, the church offers a way out of that blanket, untenable denial to straight people, and they just studiously work to deny that same escape route to gay people for no real reason.
In reality, this new Catholic position on homosexuality is just a way to wrap a more subtle homophobia in nicer language; it's nothing more than a way for the church to continue demanding what it has of gay people for decades, while attempting to slip the charge of bigotry that they rightly deserve for doing so.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(August 31, 2015 at 11:38 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No, it just means gays are no different from the rest of us. We all have temptations, we all do things that are immoral sometimes. This applies to everyone everywhere.
The actual feelings of attraction towards the same sex are not sinful because they are not freely chosen. Whether they stemmed from genetics, from environmental factors, or from a little bit of both depending on the person, the important part is to remember that it is not voluntary. So being gay, in and of itself, is not immoral because it is not chosen.
While softly worded, I do have to point out that in practice this still means that gay people must deny huge parts of themselves in order to obey Catholic doctrine. That the church isn't directly, overtly hounding and discriminating against them (anymore) doesn't change the fact that what they are demanding of gay people, if they want to avoid hell and be in god's good graces, is amazingly cruel and callous. All the while, of course, the church offers a way out of that blanket, untenable denial to straight people, and they just studiously work to deny that same escape route to gay people for no real reason.
In reality, this new Catholic position on homosexuality is just a way to wrap a more subtle homophobia in nicer language; it's nothing more than a way for the church to continue demanding what it has of gay people for decades, while attempting to slip the charge of bigotry that they rightly deserve for doing so.
No one is saying that it's easy, or that God does not have mercy on those who fall short. It is a very tall order. Yes, ideally, we believe they should try to live a chaste life style. But we should not judge those who don't, because like you said, it is a very difficult thing to do. I don't think it's "bigoted" to have the belief that sex outside husband and wife is immoral. People can still do what they want in their sex life, and we should respect all people. But it doesn't mean we have to think it's moral. That's not bigoted.
On a semi unrelated note, do you think that it's wrong in general to believe someone should deny a huge part of themselves? Or only in certain cases?
Because there are other cases where all of us, as a society, believe a person should deny huge parts of themselves.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
(August 31, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: While softly worded, I do have to point out that in practice this still means that gay people must deny huge parts of themselves in order to obey Catholic doctrine. That the church isn't directly, overtly hounding and discriminating against them (anymore) doesn't change the fact that what they are demanding of gay people, if they want to avoid hell and be in god's good graces, is amazingly cruel and callous. All the while, of course, the church offers a way out of that blanket, untenable denial to straight people, and they just studiously work to deny that same escape route to gay people for no real reason.
In reality, this new Catholic position on homosexuality is just a way to wrap a more subtle homophobia in nicer language; it's nothing more than a way for the church to continue demanding what it has of gay people for decades, while attempting to slip the charge of bigotry that they rightly deserve for doing so.
No one is saying that it's easy, or that God does not have mercy on those who fall short. It is a very tall order. Yes, ideally, we believe they should try to live a chaste life style. But we should not judge those who don't, because like you said, it is a very difficult thing to do. I don't think it's "bigoted" to have the belief that sex outside husband and wife is immoral. People can still do what they want in their sex life, and we should respect all people. But it doesn't mean we have to think it's moral. That's not bigoted.
On a semi unrelated note, do you think that it's wrong in general to believe someone should deny a huge part of themselves? Or only in certain cases?
Because there are other cases where all of us, as a society, believe a person should deny huge parts of themselves.
![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
