Thoughts on discrimination

I've been thinking about the cases recently in which, in order to comply with anti-discrimination legislation, business owners are compelled to provide services which violate their conscience. (e.g. the florist who didn't want to service a gay wedding because she felt that homosexuality is a sin.)

My first thought: arguably, homosexuality is an involuntary condition, such as race or gender, not a specific behavior. Someone is homosexual if they are attracted to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they ever consummate a physical union with a member of the same sex. In the same way, a person can be attracted to members of another race without marrying a person of another race. I think the homosexual marriage/interracial marriage analogy is appropriate, because both have/had a great deal of social stigma attached to them, and both involve the natural culmination of an inherent and natural disposition/personhood, as opposed to any conscious and active perversion. To be clear- I see no justification, morally, scripturally, or in any other way, for prohibiting interracial marriage, though there are those who do. The very idea of prohibiting, or looking askance at, interracial marriage is ludicrous and offensive to me in the extreme, because it presupposes fundamental differences between races that I hold to be entirely false. In the case of homosexual marriage, many more people still believe that it is sin, though many people do not. (I support the right of any two unmarried, consenting adults to obtain a civil marriage at their whim, by the way.) So- to be consistent, I think we must apply the same rules to gender, race, and sexual orientation when it comes to discrimination. If it is wrong to discriminate against a person of another race, then it is wrong to discriminate against a person of another sexual orientation. (I am assuming that any pedophelic behavior is not an orientation, but a predatory, criminal perversion of the most obscene and horrific sort)

That said..... to what degree are the dictates of our conscience subject to civil law? Ought we to be enforcing an enlightened perspective where it does not exist? And another important question- does a business owner, complete with personal conscience, differ as an entity from the owned business? To that, I would say no, unless the business was in some way publically owned and traded, publicly funded, contracted to the government, etc.

Here is where I'd draw the lines of anti-discrimination legislation, if they were mine to draw:

1. No discrimination against customers is allowable based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc in the following places:

• Any government entity of any level or function, or business which contracts with the government at any level or function.

• Any business which is publicly owned, traded, maintained, or funded

• Any business which performs lifesaving services or services the lack of which may leave a customer dead, injured, maimed, deformed, or unable to care for themselves or their dependents. (Examples include hospitals, emergency clinics, homeless shelters, food pantries, grocery stores, utility companies, home health agencies, elder care facilities, etc For things like clothing and auto/mechanics/parts houses and restaurants, I would say that if it's the only one in town, it provides an essential service and may not discriminate. If it is one of several in close proximity, it may discriminate as the owner wishes for all presumably-about-a-day of its commercial life.)

The business situations above are situations in which the private business is not synonymous with its owner.... indeed, I rather like that as a litmus test. :)

So, most businesses would be under anti-discrimination law. Those that would not would be privately owned entities dispensing non-essential goods and services like flowers, candy, event rental facilities, shoes, accessories, etc. Honestly, I think the number of people discriminating against other races, genders, or sexual orientations would hopefully be small at this point, and their businesses easily boycotted.

I think we should recognize that a sole proprietorship business type, particularly, assuming no outside control or civil involvement, should be synonymous with the owner/operator. A business is not an autonomous machine- it is the sum of the people who operate it- just as the government is a group of elected or appointed people, not a faceless entity. (At least it should be!) I am not different as the owner/operator of my Piano Studio- I am the same Mary in both cases. I behave the same, and the law should treat me the same. I would apply this to corporate taxation as well, by the way- there is no such thing as a business tax. There is only a tax on the owners, operators, employees, and customers of that business.

If I were the sort of racist $%$^&%  who wanted to refuse to service people of color in my hypothetical florist shop, I could do that. If I wanted to refuse to sell auto parts to a woman, assuming I wasn't the only one in town, I could do that. I could also deal with the lack of business from the husbands of women and the friends of people of color and deal with my inevitable financial losses. On the other hand, if I were an OB I could not refuse to treat the surrogate carrying the child of a homosexual couple and I could not refuse to sell groceries to that nice interracial couple. I think we can, and should, find a balance between respecting the freedom of business owners to operate their businesses as they see fit and respecting the safety and dignity of those whose life path or person garners the disapproval of some. There are some people who would call me a heretic theologically, or a Jezebel, (thanks, feminism and egalitarianism!) or a homewrecker because I bring in an independent income. As revolting as those sentiments are, the policing of thought required to forcibly eliminate them is more revolting still. 

Thoughts on the shutdown

My feelings on the partial US government shutdown boil down to two thoughts, really:

1. Math. Use it. If you don't have money, don't spend money.

2. Congress- know your job, and do it. The same thing goes for our President. Your job is to make a reasonable, mathematically viable budget and stick to it. If you disagree with your legislative colleagues, your job is to negotiate where you can. Refusal to converse or negotiate is generally immature.


Budget bills originate in our House of Representatives by law. The House decides the budget and submits it to the Senate. The Senate can approve or not, and they may send it back to the House/ suggest changes, but they don't write the budget. Neither does the President. The President can veto a budget bill as long as it doesn't have sufficient votes. It is the job of Congress to negotiate a workable budget, and refusing to cut spending from pet projects when there is a deficit in other places, and wanting instead to simply borrow more money, seems to me a truly irresponsible way to do this. Ahem... <senate.> The President and John Boehner cooperated on a deficit reduction plan in 2011, but now the President and the democrat-controlled Senate are unwilling to abide by it, and have instead been holding 800,000 + federal workers' salaries and large chunks of the government bureaucracy hostage until the House capitulates and the budget goes according to Democratic demands. This is a personal  subject for me, since my husband, the primary breadwinner for our family, will not be getting paid until the shutdown ends. (It is particularly frustrating because other similar jobs he could take in the private sector would be considered a conflict of interest and could result in his being permanently fired from his government job, or in certain other legal consequences. It is as if the government is telling us that he cannot work, cannot be paid, but also cannot go to work in a similar capacity elsewhere. His only option at this point is day/temp labor, as what long term employer outside his field is going to hire him, being both grossly overqualified and unlikely to work for them more than a few days or weeks at most? Hopefully, it will not come to that.) However, we support the House's efforts at fiscal responsibility and hope that they do not capitulate to bullying and intransigence.

An Edit to the Facebook Post

I added the following to my earlier post about how not to embarrass yourself on facebook:

For Religious Folks Who Love their Scriptures (and on a slightly more serious note)

I'm a Christian. That fact is not exactly a secret. I believe that the Bible is inspired and authoritative, and should be my rule of faith and practice. Sometimes, when I'm talking with people, whether on facebook, via email, in person, etc, I reference scripture as a catalyst or justification for something. However, I am not telepathic. I wish that I were, because that would be simply awesome, but I am not. Therefore, I cannot throw out a great scripture passage without any explanation and expect people to understand why I used it and the point I was trying to make with it. Which brings me to:

1. Don't quote a scripture without telling your audience why you quoted it, what you think it says, and how it relates to the subject at hand, unless the literal text speaks directly to your subject so clearly that.... actually, not even then. Never. A few words of explanation will cost you little and foster exponentially better communication. For example: If I'm talking about.....and this is just a hypothetical..... why I left a previous church and someone comes back with "and every man did what was right in his own eyes," I would have no idea whether they were indulging in satire, disapproving of me, or disapproving of someone else. That could mean almost anything, depending on context. Which brings me to

2. Use something that's actually relevant when quoting scripture. Resist the temptation to use Ecc. 11:4  "He who observes the wind will not sow, And he who regards the clouds will not reap" as a justification for your not wanting your child to be a meteorologist, for example. It's also probably not a good idea to use the verse about God's spirit hovering over the waters when you're talking about helicopters. You get the idea.

3. Don't assume that everyone interprets scripture as you do. (one reason why elaboration is so, so necessary) Believe it or not, even within mainstream evangelical/protestant Christianity, there has never been a single, universal interpretation of every verse of the Bible. There are traditional ways to interpret things, but those have never really been entirely unchallenged. Try to remember that your interpretation is just that, and that people can be just as committed to the authority of scripture and to responsible hermeneutics as you are and still come up with a different interpretation. If you disagree with someone's interpretation, by all means tell them, giving sound historical and logical reasons for your take on things. You may still end up in sincere disagreement, but it's no reason why you can't be friends.

4. Don't use scripture to beat your friends over the head with wrongdoing unless you are really close, have a relationship that lends itself to mutual accountability, and are in private.

5. You can be a Christian without using scripture to back up everything you say on the internet. It is ok to argue a rational point. Since your faith should color everything you do, you are not doing it a disservice by occasionally leaving it out of unrelated arguments. Scripture is wonderful, but do you need to cite specific verses in a conversation about teething or immunizations or healthcare? Probably not.

Nature and Essence, Applied To Marriage

To build on the last post- what is the nature and essence of marriage? It's a big question, and I'm not promising a complete answer in this little blog post, but I do have some ideas based on the ” universal/unique” qualifiers from the previous post.


First, to define nature- in this context, I'm not defining it as anything that comes naturally, anything that happens organically, intuitively, or with ease, or as a common characteristic. I'm using it synonymously with ”essence”- the defining characteristic of something, unique/universal predispositions- that sort of thing. Also by way of definition- I realize that marriage has not always been a single, uniform institution. When I reference marriage here, I am speaking of what would fall into legal/socially acceptable practice in America in the present day.


A brief re-cap- my perception of nature/essence is that, for an attribute to be a defining characteristic of an entity, that attribute must be both unique to that entity and universal in all like entities.


For example- a furry mane is part of the essence and nature of adult male lions, because a mane is both unique to adult male lions and universal among all adult male lions. In the same way, abstract thought is part of the essence of humanity, as it is unique, so far as  I know, to our species, and is universal among healthy, mature humans.

So- what things fall into to the "nature/essence of marriage" category?
1. Sex
I'd give this one a no, because sex is neither unique to marriage nor is it universal or requisite for marriage. Sex is a usual, common characteristic, but it does not meet my standards for essence. One could make the argument that sex would be a part of any healthy marriage of normal, healthy people, but even then, since sex is by no means limited to marriage, it fails the test.

2. Procreation/Co-parenting
No. Procreation, too, fails on both counts- it is not unique to marriage nor is it universal in all marriages.

3. Romantic Love
While it should be a characteristic of marriage, and I would hope would be universal within healthy marriages, it is not unique to marriage. It, too, fails.

4. Mutual Commitment based on an Ideal of Affection
While personal commitment can exist outside of marriage, long term legally and socially ratified commitment is both universal to marriages and unique to marriage. So, I would say that long term legal and social commitment is part of the essence of marriage.

5. Legal benefits/Tax status/next of kin rights/etc
Unique/universal? Yes. No other relationship or institution offers the same legal benefits in this country as does marriage.

6. Religious/Social benefits
Many religions offer benefits/considerations to married couples that they do not offer to the unmarried. Those benefits are universal to all married couples (such as allowing more public affection, endorsing sex and cohabitation, etc) and are uniquely offered to married couples. Here, again, I'd say yes, depending on the religious tradition. (Some treat married and unmarried people alike, but I think that that is not the norm) Likewise with various social groups.

7. Financial benefits (excluding taxes, which fall into number 5)
This would be a no, because cohabitation offers all of the same benefits as does marriage, outside of tax/legal benefits, for a reduction of expenses and the convenience of shared finances. (Unmarried people can share a home, bank accounts, etc)

8. Support of an equal partner/Independence mingled with deep community
While this should certainly be a part of any marriage, it is not unique to marriage

9. Friendship/Companionship
Universal, yes, unique, no.

10. Limited in number- only two people
Universal, yes, unique, no.


So..... it seems, outside of matrimony based on biblical dictates, that the defining characteristics of marriage are legal, socially recognized commitment, presumably springing from affection for the other party, various legal benefits, and various social/religious benefits. Additional characteristics which should be part of marriage but are not central to its definition include sex, financial benefits, friendship/companionship, romantic love, and the option of procreation/co-parenting. Thus, in our society, marriage is a legal, social, and if applicable religious contract/commitment, based on assumed romantic affection between two parties. This is what sets marriage apart from cohabitation or platonic friendship, and this is what we should focus on when we talk about what is or is not ok in the context of legalizing same-sex marriage, for example. With the definition above, gender and sexual orientation does not even play a role, outside of the religious aspect of the contract.

How to Keep From Embarrassing Yourself On Facebook, or The Proper Use Of Snopes And Image Searches

I know some really great people on facebook- generally, these people are smart, well-informed, and fun to be around. However, it sometimes seems as though they turn off certain portions of their brains when it comes time to decide what to post/share/like/endorse and what to leave alone. It boggles my mind when I see an otherwise sane and pleasant human reposting conspiracy theories about "Russian infiltration" or "Obama buying guillotines to kill Christians." For all of us- for all our sakes, and the reputations of any groups we are and ever will be associated with, can we just take a big collective breath and trade paranoia and flippant acceptance for a bit o' good, old-fashioned research and consideration? All the silly memes and conspiracy theories and offensive jokes really don't contribute to our credibility or that of any groups with which we are associated.  Here, I am offering a few simple guidelines for saving ourselves the embarrassment of erroneous or inappropriate postings:


For everything:

1. Don't mindlessly repost ANYTHING. It doesn't matter how much you like or trust the person who shared it, or how plausible it sounds at first.
2. Read it. Read it all. Don't post, link, or like things you haven't actually read. It can end badly.
3. Is it extremely personal or sensitive? Privacy settings are not infallible, and people can circumvent them to pass intriguing info around. If your world would end if it were public knowledge, it's better not to post it, no matter the privacy settings.
4. Is it about someone else? If you are posting either 1. A photo or 2. Information about another person, you should get their permission first. Always. This is not optional.
5. Does it have to do with bodily fluids, your own or your children's? If so, then please limit the audience to those who you are sure would love to hear about that.
6. Is it someone else's intellectual property? If so, just put down the mouse or texting finger and walk away.
For news/science/fact posts:
1. Look at the source. Is it a major news network, respected national or global company, or directly from the subject of the news? If not, more research is needed.
2. Go to Snopes.com. Search related keywords. Snopes is not infallible, and sometimes they have inconclusive results, but they easily debunk the most egregious conspiracy theories so you don't have to.
3. Do a basic image search. If you are considering posting a blurb about killer coconuts from Antarctica, for example, google "coconuts" and click on "images." If you find the same image that is portrayed in your proposed article as a killer coconut from Antarctica, sitting blithely in an ordinary article about coconuts on the beaches of Indonesia, you might want to rethink posting about the Killer Coconuts. It's true that some posts use stock photos, but those will usually be non-specific and un-contextualized.
4. Google the basic premise of the article. Worried about an international crime ring posing as vacuum cleaner salesmen in order to scope out your house for carpet thievery? Google Vacuum Cleaner Salesmen. Look at the results. Do you see an alert from BBC or CNN, or do you see paranoid conspiracy sites which cite in the same breath the horrible dangers of Communist Vacuum Cleaners which take photos of your carpets and send them to Moscow (or whatever is the communist outpost du jour in all the conspiracy rags at the moment) and Space Bats that eat your pets and defecate poisonous radiation pellets into your ventilation system? If the latter sort of site is the only one reporting the news in question, you might want to rethink that post.
5. Does the post list any direct sources from which you can substantiate its conclusions? If not, it should be treated as an opinion piece, not a factual piece.


For opinion/theology/religious pieces/memes:

1. Look at the source. Is this a source you want to be affiliated with? Sometimes bad people write good things, but if you are conditionally endorsing only a part of the piece or if you generally disagree with the author but this post is the exception, you should specify that.
2. Are you posting this piece as irony/satire? If so, be kind and specify. Not everyone picks up on that sort of thing.
3. If you are posting from a trusted source, ask yourself- would I post this if it were from a very different source? Do I genuinely affirm this message or am I just parroting the work of a popular figure?
4. Is it rife with any of the following logical fallacies? (see link here) If so, beware- your credibility with your logical friends may plummet if you post it.
5. Is it a "if you love Jesus or hate cancer or love you mom please repost" sort of thing? As a matter of fact, is it any kind of plea to repost? If it is.... just don't. Refusing to embarrass yourself with a stilted meme will not endear you to terrorists or separate you from Jesus or people you love or earn you bad karma with the Cancer Fairy. I promise.
6. Is it sexist, racist, or homophobic? It can still be incredibly funny, but if it is any of those things, you'd do better to take a pass.


For Religious Folks Who Love their Scriptures (and on a slightly more serious note)

I'm a Christian. That fact is not exactly a secret. I believe that the Bible is inspired and authoritative, and should be my rule of faith and practice. Sometimes, when I'm talking with people, whether on facebook, via email, in person, etc, I reference scripture as a catalyst or justification for something. However, I am not telepathic. I wish that I were, because that would be simply awesome, but I am not. Therefore, I cannot throw out a great scripture passage without any explanation and expect people to understand why I used it and the point I was trying to make with it. Which brings me to:

1. Don't quote a scripture without telling your audience why you quoted it, what you think it says, and how it relates to the subject at hand, unless the literal text speaks directly to your subject so clearly that.... actually, not even then. Never. A few words of explanation will cost you little and foster exponentially better communication. For example: If I'm talking about.....and this is just a hypothetical..... why I left a previous church and someone comes back with "and every man did what was right in his own eyes," I would have no idea whether they were indulging in satire, disapproving of me, or disapproving of someone else. That could mean almost anything, depending on context. Which brings me to

2. Use something that's actually relevant when quoting scripture. Resist the temptation to use Ecc. 11:4  "He who observes the wind will not sow, And he who regards the clouds will not reap" as a justification for your not wanting your child to be a meteorologist, for example. It's also probably not a good idea to use the verse about God's spirit hovering over the waters when you're talking about helicopters. You get the idea.

3. Don't assume that everyone interprets scripture as you do. (one reason why elaboration is so, so necessary) Believe it or not, even within mainstream evangelical/protestant Christianity, there has never been a single, universal interpretation of every verse of the Bible. There are traditional ways to interpret things, but those have never really been entirely unchallenged. Try to remember that your interpretation is just that, and that people can be just as committed to the authority of scripture and to responsible hermeneutics as you are and still come up with a different interpretation. If you disagree with someone's interpretation, by all means tell them, giving sound historical and logical reasons for your take on things. You may still end up in sincere disagreement, but it's no reason why you can't be friends.

4. Don't use scripture to beat your friends over the head with wrongdoing unless you are really close, have a relationship that lends itself to mutual accountability, and are in private.

5. You can be a Christian without using scripture to back up everything you say on the internet. It is ok to argue a rational point. Since your faith should color everything you do, you are not doing it a disservice by occasionally leaving it out of unrelated arguments. Scripture is wonderful, but do you need to cite specific verses in a conversation about teething or immunizations or healthcare? Probably not.



I can't promise that following all of these guidelines will save you from any future internet embarrassment, but I can say that I've never seen a horrible post that couldn't have been avoided by following one or more of them.

Modesty, Part 1.- revealing our dignity?

"Modesty is about revealing our dignity."

~ Jessica Rey

The above video is of a talk given by Jessica Rey, a swimsuit designer (who does a fabulous job of promoting her business, by the way- I just wish she didn't use such poor logic to do it!) and modern proponent of "modest" swimwear for women. She basically argues that men objectify women who wear bikinis, as opposed to more "modest" (that term is never defined) swimwear, and that women showing skin is an invention of the modern fashion world. She says that "modesty" is about revealing dignity and being seen as people, rather than attractive bodies.



Normally, I think it is a mistake to judge an argument by its source. This time, I think the correlations between and origins of this argument and a very, very similar one are significant, simply because of the implications for the status of women in a society which adopts them.



"In the ’80′s, most of the religious rhetoric about hijab that I was exposed to stressed religious obligation, as well as women’s dignity. Supposedly, hijab would protect our dignity, by focusing (male) attention on us as believing women, rather than on us as female bodies."
(http://sobersecondlook.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/hijab-empowerment-and-choice-the-darker-side/)


Substitute modesty for the word hijab, and you have Ms. Rey's argument. The only difference is the definition of modesty. The only difference between requiring women to wear full-coverage, one piece swimsuits to "avoid objectification by males"  and requiring them to wear full hijab or even a burqa is one of degrees. The same logic that holds women accountable for rape, even in some cases punishing them as adulteresses if they file rape charges, the same logic that excuses honor crimes and forced marriages and domestic violence, is the same logic that the evangelical Christian world is using to regulate the dress and behavior of women. This should be a sobering thought to those Christians who in all other respects decry the mistreatment of and sidelining of women by Muslims.



Now, to unpack the other ideas here- Ms Rey cites a study, done at Princeton, as evidence for males' inherent tendency to objectify women who are wearing bikinis. For a more in-depth look at the study, try this post. Suffice it to say that this study was of a limited number of male college students. Also, the pictures they were shown were not only women in bikinis, but headless women in bikinis. The only thing the participants could see, unlike real life, was the woman's body. Even if the data from these students led to Ms. Rey's conclusions, (and I do not believe it does) this proves nothing about other demographics, other times, other cultures, or any person who has not been socialized into thinking that an attractive woman in a bikini is an object and fair game. She assumes that the reaction to the bikini is an inherent one in all males, rather than a socially conditioned one, and one which reflects ideas about women and their bodies which may not, in fact be universal. Not all men see a woman in a bikini and immediately turn her into an object. Some men see a woman who is beautiful and exposed in her beauty as the sacred living art of the Creator and as an actual person, with needs, goals, talents, and a mind.


Another thing- women can be, and are, ogled by pervs no matter what we wear. Even if all reasoning for modesty rules was legitimate- folks, it doesn't work. Whether or not I get leered at depends, not on what I wear, but on who I'm around. That's a fact. Those guys in the grocery store who were making catcalls? They would have done so no matter what I was wearing. (A loose tshirt and jeans at the time) The guys who treated me with respect and conversed with my face, not my boobs, or else ignored me altogether, when I was in a two piece swimsuit at my college gym, treated me as they did because they were decent humans, not because I was covered up. When I am objectified, it;s not my form that's at fault- it's the pervs who are viewing me as an object created for their pleasure.

What exactly is modesty, and who gets to define it? Modesty, being completely a function of cultural expectations and norms, is relative. What would be "modest" in Papua New Guinea and what would be "modest" in Norway and what would be "modest" in Lancaster county, PA are all totally different. Modesty varies from occasion to occasion, place to place, and time to time. Women showing skin is nothing new. Belly dancing costumes are little more than bikinis, and they have been around for longer than this country. In Japan, it's weird to wear anything when you go to the hot tub, no matter the company. I could name quite a few societies in which clothes were/are limited or optional for some or all normal occasions. Making the history of modern, western culture perennially normative when it comes to this or any other issue is a mistake- at best, we end up with a very limited perspective, and at worst, incorrect conclusions. I would contend that "appropriate modesty" is synonymous with practicality, a total lack of misplaced shame, and general social acceptability. The most stereotypically "modest" (covered) swimsuit won't be appropriate for a funeral, and long pants and a shirt will be horribly impractical at the beach. In a historical context, I think it's a mistake to glorify the fashion of days gone by- yes, in modern history, women were (a couple of hundred years ago) more covered in general. But- why is that automatically a good thing? Were women more respected, did we have more rights and freedoms, and was our equality more a given then? Did men objectify less, respect more, and treat us as holy sisters, or as valuable persons equal to themselves? Not exactly! I cannot think of another age since perhaps the Minoan or Natchez societies in which women have been as close (we're still not 100% there yet) to equality as in our own.

Good Post on Rational Belief

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/06/believing-for-no-reason/

"Christians need to go against the grain and explore fully all of the reasons for beliefs – our own and those of others, the good reasons and the bad reasons (and the important differences between the two). To float with the postmodern current and make “belief” an intransitive verb – something without an object – is a mistake. Reason is a basic kind of revealed knowledge, maybe the most basic of all. No beliefs can be sensible or of any value without it. John Wesley said that it is “a fundamental principle … that to renounce reason is to renounce religion,” and asserted further that “all irrational religion is false religion.”...........

.........Belief is not just a posture or disposition. Despite the popular media usage of the word, “faith” is not just a generic description (e.g., “I’m a person of faith,” which is just a colloquial way of saying, “I’m religious in some way.”). The noun “faith” and the verb “believe” are the same word in the language of the New Testament, and it is a word with a connotation we’ve lost in our common usage today.  The public, and especially that part that claims to be Christian, has to wise up to the political emasculation of language (as well as of thought itself).  “Believe” is primarily a transitive verb. Without an object, what meaning does the word really convey? Belief has content. Faith does not hang in the open air, but is directed toward and rests upon something or someone. It is the same with the word “trust.” In fact faith is a kind of trust.

So whatever you believe, you should consider the reason(s) for it. There are only a few exceptions, in the rare category of those most basic beliefs (i.e., basic axioms or principles that can’t be derived from any previous ones but must be presupposed at the outset). Any and every other belief you hold, about anything whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously, if it is to be of any value or worth anyone’s consideration, it must have in its favor more than your emotions, personal history or external circumstantial factors. It must have reasons."


Good stuff...... I don't agree with every stance of this blog, (Reclaiming the Mind; they are hard-core complementarians, for one thing) but some of their stuff I really enjoy. 

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 5: Religion in Politics and Legislating Morality

There are three preliminary conclusions which influence everything else I believe on this subject, (the role of religious law and belief in civil government) and  without agreement on which I couldn't really debate it. They are:




 1. Involuntary acts mean nothing in terms of morality.


While actions may be good for us and good for society and generally a good idea, no action pleases God unless it is done with the right motive and is voluntary. If you treat people kindly because someone's going to hurt you if you don't, it's still treating people kindly,  which is an inherently positive thing, but it is very different than treating people kindly because you love God and you view that as part of your faith in action. In both cases you have done something good, but doing it because you choose to is different from doing it because you're forced to. God wants love and unbounded choice to do good, not just lip service and exterior forms of godliness.




2. We cannot, and we should not, try to coerce conversion or religious belief.

To do so would be morally wrong. We are to witness with service, example, and sharing/teaching, but we are not to bully or shame. Ever.




3. It is not the government's job to legislate morality or to shepherd the faith of its people

.
It is the government's job to protect the freedoms and general of its people, to enforce the rule of law, and to facilitate infrastructure in as local as way as is feasible.


That said, I absolutely think Christians have a responsibility to be involved in our government at all levels, in the arts, and/or in whatever ways we have been gifted and enabled to charge our world for the better. Part of our mandate as Christians is to release the captives, comfort the mourning, and bring justice to the oppressed. We can do this through politics, and as it is my belief that a free society is most conducive to this, working for a just and free community can be a big part of fulfilling that mandate. We may also have opportunities to share our faith with those who ask and who we would not have met otherwise, and to witness by our example of service to our communities. Working in politics to make our home free, prosperous, and friendly to the free exercise of our religion is a great and noble work. However, this does not mean that our laws should conform to any specific set of religious dictums. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many problems inherent in an ecclesiocracy/theocracy, such as lack of agreement within faiths, a substitution of rule books for divine relationship, etc. As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to foster a political environment that is friendly to my faith and does not prohibit it, but also does not mandate it or interfere with it unless it harms others or endangers their basic freedoms. I view separation of the state from any one church as an inherently good thing. Of course, the state will be influenced by the faiths and churches of the people who comprise it; after all, what is government but the people to we elect to do the jobs we cannot or do not wish to do? But- to call ourselves a "Christian Nation" can be a bit problematic. What does that mean, exactly? With which flavor of Christianity would we be identifying? Southern Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite? If by Christian Nation we mean a place where Christians and other can freely practice their religions with a few caveats, or a place where the basic values taught by Christ in the beatitudes are a fundamental part of the legal foundation, then I think we can proudly own the term. But if that means that being an American is synonymous with being a member of the Christian faith then I think I'd rather call it (and I can't at this time, not completely) a nation of Religious Freedom, and a nation whose people take responsibility for it. 


 All that said- what should be our foundation for law? Our constitution is based on a value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality. I cannot think of a better starting point. Those things are also part of the Christian faith, but are not necessarily unique to it; many atheists would hold them as a positive foundation for a legal system as well. To hold up such a standard does not interfere with religious freedom, as our constitution is not part of any religion. It contains theistic statements, but I think it is generally understood that theism is not required for citizenship or to uphold the values set out in our founding documents. There are some things required of certain religions which violate our basic legal framework, and that is where religious freedom should end- take honor killings, forced marriages, or state punishment of consensual adult sexual behaviors such as adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality, for example. We could always privilege the Christian faith, but that would be almost impossible due to the diversity within it. I firmly believe that the basic values of our constitution are thus a better framework for our government, and will more likely create a state of religious freedom, than any strictly religious law (Levitical, or Sharia, et c) or religiously mandated form of government.


The fact that our faith requires a position or behavior from us is not sufficient to legislate it for those who do not share that faith. Most of the dictates of the Christian faith are within the "value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality" category, and thus are law not because they are in the bible, but because they reflect our basic legal ideas. Everything from insurance fraud to murder to the abortion debate can be traced back to those basic things. There are, of course, some things that many Christians believe to be morally wrong that do not fall within the confines of proper governmental jurisdiction. Adultery and Homosexuality come to mind- we do not throw people in jail for either one, nor should we. The state is not our parent, and we are not its child; consensual behavior between adults does not negatively affect the general population in a way that merits government interference, and all moral and religious implications are the purview of the parties involved, their church, and their God. There may be consequences- in the name of justice, a spouse may seek a divorce when adultery comes to light, and because marriage involves a contract which in such a case was broken, the offended party may be entitled to a distribution of assets that reflects this. This is very different from jailing the offending parties for their moral sin, however.



There is no reason for the state to discriminate based upon a religious rule that is not necessary under the ideals of the constitution. For example- many Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Still, the state recognizes heterosexual spouses and parents regardless of qualification, and does not (and should not) require that homosexual couples should have to prove their fitness to acquire children any more than should heterosexual couples.

(Also, as a matter of consistency- it makes no sense, biblically, to limit homosexual marriage any more than we limit adulterous marriage. Let's be consistent- if LGBT folk can't really be married, then neither can people in polyamorous relationships or people who cheat on each other. Not the government's business, you say? Mmmm..... exactly.)


If we wish to make a law prohibiting marriage between gay couples, it is then inconsistent to use religious or biblical grounds to do so. If we desire such a law, we should first determine whether same sex marriage violates the principles of liberty, respect for life, justice, and equality. If same sex marriage is not counterintuitive to those things, then we ought to ask whether or not it does quantifiable harm to people outside the relationship and infringes on the rights of others. If it does not, then, irrespective and regardless of its morality, I question the legal justification for such a law.


Because involuntary morality does not count towards true holiness, we are doing our society and the people in it no favors when we legislate religious observance. Making laws which render our home freer and safer is wonderful, but legislating religious morality or observance of biblical law which falls outside of our constitutional purview simply puts our people in a place of observing law from fear of punishment, rather than because they are attempting to love God more fully. (I am in no way saying that I believe Christians are bound by the Levitical law, by the way. I'm just using it here as an example of an extra-constitutional morality code that we could, but should not, adopt.) I can see no end to such a course but useless bondage.


Some may argue that allowing same sex marriage necessitates a fundamental redefinition of marriage. To that, I'd say- 1, that depends upon your definition of marriage, and 2, the definition of marriage is not specified and hallowed in our constitution as are other issues.   Marriage, while it has historically been heterosexual, has not historically been a Christ-honoring, mutual, monogamous relationship, even within the church. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we're going back to the garden of Eden before misogyny reared its ugly head, then we're dealing with a mixed bag that includes a healthy dose of polygamy and a heaping cup of gender inequality. I really see no problem with clarifying its legal definition to include committed monogamous relationships between any two humans.


Then, of course, there is the issue of civil vs. religious marriage- I would support a state-recognized civil union between any two people, and the idea of leaving the religious end of marriage the purview of individuals and churches. That's a rabbit trail for another time, though.

Arbitrary Divinity

This probably isn't exactly surprising, but I don't believe God is arbitrary, and I don't believe God makes arbitrary or unreasonable designations, assignations, or demands. My view of God includes an omnipotent, omniscient, triune Creator who created the universe, math, physics, science, music, logic, reason, and the perfection of every study and discipline. I also believe that, creating these things, (and many others) God delights to work within them. This is not to say that I'm denying the miraculous, or limiting God to my own limited understanding. I simply believe that if God created reason as well as faith, a generally consistent universe, and gave mankind an unquenchable thirst for knowledge of ourselves and of our world, it would make no sense for God to decry our using these gifts to understand God, the Bible, our faith, or ourselves. It would also make no sense for God to create a system in which understanding and knowing why was impossible. As Galileo said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." I believe that God sometimes has reasons which we cannot always grasp, but that God always has reasons and plans behind what God does or commands.


The way we view God spills over into our exegesis of scripture as well. If I believed that God was arbitrary, I could reduce my biblical study to "God made it that way. I don't know why; He just did. Enough said." This would be tragic; not only would I miss much of the nature and character of God through neglecting the study of history and context, but this would lead me to inaccurate scripture interpretations as well. For example: take the issue of women and their roles in the church and home. If you take a strictly literal (ignoring quotations, context, audience, et c) view of certain passages, you'd be led to believe that God intended women for a submissive role in life to men. There could be only two reasons for this: 1. This is the best fit for the created nature and natural capabilities of women, (I think we've debunked that enough- it's BS, plain and simple) or 2. God, knowing women to be capable of and inclined to equality and sharing of leadership in the home, church, and professional world, chose arbitrarily to limit their sphere. If I believed that God dealt in the purely arbitrary, it would make sense that God made me, gave me brains and administrative skills, and then decided that I could serve God best by ignoring my created nature and following arbitrary role designations to prove my devotion. Needless to say, that sounds ridiculous to me. I fully believe that God from the beginning of creation intended me as a woman to have all of the imago dei that my husband has, and that God intends for me to use the gifts and skills God has given me without regard to gender. I believe that God has a reason for everything that made it into our canon, and for every divine action. One of my favorite bible verses is Proverbs 25:2, which says:  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. God created me with a thirst to know creation and to know God, and being content with the arbitrary would destroy that for me. I believe in the unknown, in the imperfection of my human reason compared to the divine, and the necessity of holding in faith things I do not yet know. I do not believe in resigning things, important things, to the sphere of the unknowable and incomprehensible. The God I know and love is in favor of quests to find out, to know, and to understand. This God deals in master plans, grand schemes, and magnificent symphonies of perfectly working things, not arbitrary rules, puppet strings, impossible requirements, or pettily keeping wisdom from my grasp.

An Ethos of Tolerance

I've seen several cases in the news recently about providers of services (photographer, florist, et c) declining to provide their service for a same sex marriage, claiming freedom of conscience, while enduring either civil or criminal suits for violation of anti-discrimination policies. This is a travesty, y'all! A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, unless they are in so doing actively causing harm to that person. For example, the sole proprietor of a medical practice who, seeing a person needing cpr, refuses to give life saving care on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc should absolutely be liable for that neglect, but here it is not so much about government interference in business as about wrongful death. Honestly, I believe that the less government interference we have in the legislation of discrimination in private business the better. (There are, of course, some areas where oversight of business is needed; Truth in advertising laws, basic health and safety codes, etc. ) To go even further: I do not believe that we should have any universal anti-discrimination laws or affirmative action. While this may seem counter-intuitive, I actually believe that the absence of most anti-discrimination legislation is, for this country, now, the most tolerant and logically consistent position.


Historically, we have had periods in our history where discrimination based on unchangeables was not only commonly accepted, but legislated. The racial segregation laws come to mind as an example of one of our nation's most prominent black marks. I think that, due to the previous climate of racist legal frameworks, there was a time when anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action worked well for us, if not ideologically perfect. However, we no longer live in a world where segregation is common and overt bigotry and cruelty are the norm, whether for homosexuals, minorities, or women. Yes, even as a feminist, I think it should be perfectly legal, if abhorrent, for a business owner to refuse me service because I am female. I reserve the right to protest, boycott, and expose that business owner for the bigoted, um... foul knavish varlet.... that they are, but I support their right to be thus foul and knavish. Here's the thing- if we start dictating where personal conscience ends and "approved" conscience begins, where does this lead? I truly believe that a  libertarian ethos is inherently less discriminatory than one in which people are told what to think, what to believe, and what their conscience can dictate.

As a Christian and a feminist, I believe that discrimination based on actual or perceived race, gender, or sexual orientation is morally wrong. However, I don't think lasting, peaceful social change can be forced by legal mandate. I really think that desegregation, integrating people of all sorts into society where they will meet and interact with those different from themselves, and refusing the urge to attempt to force orthodoxy will change a society faster than laws which mandate it, and we have the added benefit of maintaining our freedom in the process. Laws should not segregate or discriminate, of course. The government and it's offices and agencies (what would remain in a gloriously efficient libertarian system ) should be impartial, and any publicly funded or publicly traded entity should be held to a strict policy of non-discrimination. (Yes, this should apply to same sex couples too. I'd say civil-sphere anti-discrimination clauses for: race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, provided the understanding that religious practices which violate other laws are not thus protected) Civic or public functions of any kind must be impartial, as must emergency services and anyone who provides life-or-death care as a part of their business. Individuals, and private business owners, should be free to make knavish varlets of themselves as  long as it does not harm others. I would contend that having to find an alternate florist or photographer or salon or whatever is not such a harm, and I really think that, as of now, businesses that practice discrimination will either cater to a slowly dying relic of a clientele, or go out of business altogether when young people like me refuse to patronize them. At this point, I think that the free market would do a better job of evening the path of opportunity than restrictive legislation.



A lot of this, for me, boils down to my thoughts on the nature and purpose of private businesses. A private business exists for the personal benefit of the owner, primarily, and to provide employment, goods and services as its secondary purpose. I think a privately owned business is inherently private, not public, and is not an entity apart from the owner (for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation.)  So, the freedom of thought, speech, and actions accorded to individuals by our laws should also be accorded to private businesses and their owners.

I also think we sometimes take the concept of tolerance too far. Consider a dictionary's definition of tolerance: "The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior with which one does not necessarily agree."    There is a vast difference between tolerating the existence of something and liking or agreeing with it. If someone dislikes my feminist, egalitarian theology and philosophy and decides they want no relationship with me because of it, I would not necessarily call them intolerant. Live, let live, and good riddance. If they want to refuse to serve me at their business, fine. They should be free to follow the dictates of their conscience as long as they allow me the same freedom. This extends to labels, as well- if I were ordained, I would not force someone who didn't believe in female clergy to call me "Reverend" any more than if I were gay I'd force someone to call my wife, well, my wife. However, if someone beats me up in an alley because they think that I'm "subverting the patriarchy" by being a female minister or "going against natural law" by being a lesbian, well, we have a problem. A legal and criminal problem.

In summation:

1. Equal opportunity for everyone in the public sphere.
2. Personal freedom for private citizens and their private businesses; free market economics.
3. Refusing to condone, accept, or celebrate things you feel are wrong is fine. Forcing those beliefs on others is not.
4. Results may vary. Equal outcomes not guaranteed.

Skepticism

Skepticism is not evil. Questioning is not unhealthy. 

Qualifying is good, and clarifying is helpful. 

It annoys me when I see Christians, specifically, who are afraid or unwilling or too brainwashed into submission to "authority" to question, test, and vet what their leaders say, do, and write. If the Apostle Paul himself appeared in our church, would we question whether what he said was true and vet it thoroughly through reason and the scriptures? If not, we would be unworthy of the accolades he gave the Bereans- Paul preached to them, and they went home and vetted what he said.

Acts 17:10-11 says: Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

 Far from being censured for this, they are recorded in scripture as being "fair minded", (that's the KJV talking) or noble. They were commended because they listened readily to the teaching, and then compared it to their scriptures to vet it for accuracy. Questioning, probing, and testing are healthy, right, and compatible with both faith and trust. (If you're skeptical of that last statement- bravo! Question away, look it up, and push back in the comment section at your leisure.)

Nowhere in scripture are we told to follow any one preacher, doctrine, or idea blindly. Truth should only be strengthened by questioning and criticism. If an idea or position doesn't hold up to questions we would be wise to view it with suspicion. If we truly believe that God is the author of ultimate Truth, the closer we are to truth the closer we are to Truth. A healthy skepticism seeks truth, knowledge, and values these things more than comfort or conformity. I think it actually demonstrates a lack of faith when we view our beliefs as too weak to hold up to questioning, doubts, or skepticism.

Daughters in Law

I've been thinking, lately, about the sort of woman I hope my sons will marry someday. It's a little early, I know; my oldest is all of six. But, you, know, be prepared, know thine enemy, etc. (tongue in cheek there!)
While I'm well aware that I won't have any say in the person they marry, nor truth be told would I wish one, I will have a great deal of say in the sort of women they grow up hearing about, seeing, and hopefully one day searching for. I have a list, a very short list, of qualities that I hope they prioritize; not over faith or personal integrity, because I would hope those would be a given, but qualities that in some circles might not be as universal or intuitive as they should be. If given the chance, I'd advise my sons to look for:

1. A woman who loves;
Unselfish, gentle, kind, fierce, strong, tenacious love. Who shows empathy and compassion, bravery and honor.

2. A woman who thinks;
Who uses her brain, who is good friends with logic and reason, who reads.

3. A woman who won't ”play” them. Ever.
Who thinks ”manipulate” is a dirty word, and who thinks that the closer a relationship is, the more crucial is a commitment to open, honest, uncomfortable, vulnerable communication. Who can confront graciously and boldly and be confronted.

4. A woman who is big enough to admit it when she's wrong;
Who doesn't find her identity in a pedestal of perfection, who knows that she and others are imperfect and human and in need of truthful grace.

5. A woman who is independent;
Who wants them more than she needs them, who could survive, financially and emotionally, without them, who values the riches of personal responsibility, who faces life with them as a team but who neither needs nor wants to be controlled or coddled.

As I ponder the things I want to teach my sons to value and to search for, I feel very challenged- because, of course, it would be unfair to hold my future daughters to a standard that I cannot meet myself. Also, if my sons are to value those qualities, they should see them reflected in me, their first female influence. Some of these are definitely easier than others for my personality; I'd say gentleness, compassion, and empathy with others don't come as naturally to me, nor do meekness or unselfishness. I have my work cut out for me, indeed! Do I ever....

And lest you think my standards for women are impossibly high, it really boils down to this: I want my sons to marry an emotionally and spiritually healthy, thinking woman of personal integrity, responsibility, and loving, intimate, relational faith. Yes...... That's all. :) The women my sons marry need not be beautiful, it even a perfect specimen of physical health. They need not have a certain amount of education, or be intellectually brilliant. They need not be wealthy, have a glamorous career, polished manners, or dazzling social skills. They need not want children, know how to cook or ”manage a home”, be a spotless housekeeper, or be conversant in the ”womanly arts” like sewing, knitting, et c. They need not be smart or musical, though I'd love it if they were. No- all of those things are good, but most of them can be attained by study, practice,  or hiring good people. :) With a deep and personal faith, integrity, love, and love of logical thought, anything else is either gravy, as they say, or can be added later.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, part 3: Gender Essentialism

One issue that I see as central to the question of harm or infringement of rights by same sex marriage is the issue of gender, specifically gender essentialism. I would define gender essentialism as: the belief that there are uniquely feminine and uniquely masculine essences, specifically uniquely masculine and feminine social and behavioral traits, not referring to basic physical differences, which exist independently of cultural/social conditioning.


In my opinion, it is possible to reject gender essentialism and still believe that there are differences between men and women. Gender essentialism is more about behavior and psychological hard-wiring than it is about basic physical, biological, or neurological differences. For my purposes here I will assume that men and women have basic physical and psychological differences, but that those differences are averages, not absolutes (e.g. men are usually stronger and taller than women, but some women are stronger and taller than some men).

I would represent both social and physical traits, reproduction excepted, on a linear scale- meaning that for each trait there is a line, say aggression/compliance for example. On this line, the average female position and the average male position may fall weighted towards one end or the other, but individual positions for either gender could be anywhere on the line. I do not believe that men and women are opposites. I do believe that there are clear and significant statistical differences in physical areas such as upper body strength, though again they are not absolute- uncommon though it may be, some women are stronger than some men. (Also, training and conditioning have a huge effect on situational outcomes- for example, while assuming the same training and fitness level, men seriously have a significant advantage over women in the physical strength department, a woman with superior skill and training can absolutely be more than a match for a man who does not have that training.) In the case of social traits/behaviors, however, I believe that there is as much difference within genders as there is between them; that is to say, there is as much difference, or more perhaps, between two random women as there is between your average man and average woman. I do not think that all men are/should be dominant in certain traits, or that all women are/should be dominant in others. I see anecdotal evidence in my own life which supports my belief that I have more in common with males who share my personality type than with females who do not.

Also, if gender based social behavior was a biological, undeniable constant of the human experience then, except for the tendency towards male rule and oppression of the weaker by the stronger which I believe was the result of the fall, I would expect to see this gender based behavior as a constant across cultures and times, and socio-economic status. I do not see this- in fact, quite the opposite. The cultural norms for acceptable gender behavior may well be consistent in modern, western society, but that is not at all the same thing. For example- consider the view of women's sexual nature at the time of the reformation contrasted with the Victorian era. I would posit that gender norms in history as a whole are actually quite varied and fluid, but that is another post entirely. Also worthy of another post is the influence on our cultural perceptions of gender- not of fundamentally christian teaching, but of greek thought and philosophy.


The reason this issue is at the center of the debate over same sex marriage is, first, that it is reasonable to suppose that both a stable heterosexual couple and a stable homosexual couple could hypothetically bring the same backgrounds, education, experience, moral code, religious knowledge, et c. to their marriage and their parenting- really, the only difference is the gender of one of the parties. Are the genders so unique that a family or couple will lose a vital part of its essence if one gender is missing? No, I really don't think so. May they be different? Yes; but will they "miss out" on something to such a degree that we must refuse to legislate in favor of their marriage in order to protect society and any children they may have from this horrible loss? I really don't think so. This is, of course, merely my opinion; I am aware of no comprehensive studies of children/families/marriages which specifically compare same and cross gender couples, with other major variables being equal, to determine which families, spouses, and children are healthier.

Secondly, while gender differences/gender essentialism and gender roles are not the same thing, they are related- rejecting gender essentialism leads to the questioning of rigid gender roles and societal systems that require them in order to continue functioning. Unless gender-based prescriptive behavior is purely theological or ritual, with no basis in practical good or expediency/efficiency, believing that there are actually not rigid, biological, hard-wired social/behavioral ideals makes implementing rigid gender roles which are based purely on gender without regard to competency seems rather silly. In other words, why make mommies staying home/daddies working a moral/civil prescription if daddies can be just as nurturing as mommies and mommies really have no trouble navigating the wide, scary world of outside careers? Also, if men and women share social traits and differ more from opposite personalities than from opposite genders then the male rule, headship and female submission doctrines become at best a theological ritual with no basis in practicality. I honestly think that some of the more vitriolic rhetoric I've heard condemning same sex marriage comes from a place of fear- a fear that the systems that have supposedly kept society intact will slip away, or that a privileged position will be lost, or that the tidy boxes that we as christians are supposed to fit ourselves into in order to be "Godly" will go away. I honestly think that that would be a good thing, when it comes to gender roles.  We'd be left with freedom, relationships, and personal responsibility, and we wouldn't have to throw out godliness, christlikeness, or holiness to do it.

But.....roles and tidy boxes are easier. Really. They may not fit everyone, and they may chafe unbearably for some, but you're good to go if you can fit into them! It's certainly easier to have litmus tests and checklists for godly masculinity and femininity than it is to have to figure out how to hear the Holy Spirit, follow the guidelines Christ gives all Christians, and find and walk in the purposes, giftings and callings that are a part of each of our unique makeup as people and as followers of Christ. I am not saying, of course, to throw out all rules or commandments- but I think it would behoove us to resist making doctrines and prescriptive procedures of things that are not compatible with the teachings of Christ, the overall message of the gospel, and that don't work.

So- why is it, really, such an issue for gender to take less of a front seat in marriage and family issues? I have yet to see evidence that even reasonably assumes, let alone conclusively proves, that gender is the thing that makes such a difference to family and society that we must legislate it, even for those who believe differently than we do, as a moral and civil harm.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 2: False Dichotomies

There are two things which are pet peeves of mine at the moment- "Straw men" and false dichotomies. I groan inwardly when I see them, and think something like "Really? Are you so incapable of factually proving your assertions that you have to surreptitiously foist illogical, unproven assumptions on this conversation?" If the dichotomy presented is proven/documented/logical, if the two entities really are fundamentally antithetical and mutually exclusive, well and good; otherwise, dichotomies, while dramatic, are annoying. 

 Straw Man/False Dichotomy

"Straw Man" refers to an outlining of an opposing position that is formulated to discredit that position by setting up a caricature of that position that looks obviously faulty or unappealing. A false dichotomy is basically either 1. grouping an issue/position into only two groups, with most of the negative aspects of a position lumped firmly with the stance the arguer is opposing, when there are actually many more possible options, or 2. Asserting that for a particular issue there are only two possible choices, when in fact there are more. For example, saying that by staying home with my kids I am fighting the cultural trend towards the abandonment in daycare by selfish moms who put personal fulfillment above their families would be a straw man- I just labelled moms who put their kids in daycare as selfish and neglectful, and who wants to be associated with that? Never mind that there are actually many reasons that childcare is needed, and that not all moms who work use daycare, and that not all those who do use it out of selfishness, and that not all daycare experiences are the same..... but I digress. A good example of a false dichotomy would be the way I've heard feminists characterized, as I'll lay out here:

•  Feminists (box A)

Pro-choice, selfish, believing in legal and social equality of the sexes, not gender essentialist, never willing to sacrifice their desires for their family, work outside the home wen they do not have to, career focused, neglectful of their children, Pro-gay-marriage, socialist, politically liberal, socially liberal, man-hating, matriarchy-desiring, believe that there are no differences between sexes and/or "anything you can do I can do better," controlling, bitchy, aggressive, unfeminine, not believing in absolute truth, desiring equality in the church and rejecting male rule, and the list goes on

• Good Traditional Women (box B)

Pro-life, politically, socially, and fiscally conservative, believe in complementarianism/female submission in some form, little personal career ambition, believe in distinct gender roles, loving, attentive mothers, unselfish wives,  respect and honor husbands, homemakers, homeschoolers when possible, rejecters of daycare, must want children, family and ministry focused, deeply religious, not desiring any control or official position in the church, tend to not be aggressive, do not desire authority over men, considered "feminine", et c. 

Of course this is a false dichotomy, because a woman can be a complex and individual mix of qualities from both boxes. For example, we could have box C, which looks like this:

• Real Woman X (box C)

Pro-life, fiscally conservative, Pro-gay-marriage, socially liberal, politically libertarian or an eclectic mix of things, believing in legal and social equality of the sexes, not gender essentialist, loving, attentive mothers, unselfish wives,  respect and honor husbands, deeply religious, family and career and ministry focused, desiring equality in the church and rejecting male rule, believing in egalitarian marriage in which control is shared, desiring neither patriarchy nor matriarchy, not man-hating, but affirming men as brothers and equals, homeschoolers, rejecters of daycare,  authors of creative work/home balance so that the priorities of home, family, and a fulfilling career are weighed and attended to, homemakers, working outside the home when they do not have to, aggressive, only sporadically/somewhat feminine,  et c. 

Very seldom, I think, is it possible to accurately reduce any issue/position to two opposing stances/views/results. People and situations are complex and varied, and there's always a third option.

 In fact, I dare say that if you want to present a choice/position as only two different and opposing options you must be able to prove your assertion. To present two positions, stances, or categories as antithetical and mutually exclusive you must be able to accurately assert that every aspect of them is so. Otherwise, you must allow for a more nuanced and specific continuum rather than two tidy, but oversimplified, boxes.

Another example of a false dichotomy comes from a brief on same sex marriage. * This book basically hinges on the idea that there are only two kinds of marriage: (that alone raises giant, red over-simplification flags for me) traditional and revisionist. They assume that traditional marriages are committed attachments composed of a comprehensive union (physical and spiritual) which should include the possibility of procreation and which has been the prop of civilization for millennia and which is not primarily based upon emotional attachment, though it is a good thing to be included. The only alternative the authors present to "traditional" marriage is "revisionist" marriage, which they present as being unfettered by commitment and solely based on romantic feeling and present emotional attachment. Thus they tie a committed, one-flesh relationship irrevocably to procreative, heterosexual unions. This is patently false- I myself exhibit in my marriage aspects of both of their ideas of marriage, and fit neatly into neither. They neither give data to prove that all marriages can be classified in one of their two categories, nor do they show any evidence which supports their assertions that comprehensive union is limited to heterosexual unions or that procreation is or should be a primary consideration in sacred or civil marriage policy. I would like to explore this particular book further, but any additional analysis deserves its own post. :) Suffice it to say that I have yet to see an argument in the marriage debate which accurately/verifiably separates homosexual and heterosexual marriages based on anything other than the physical sex/gender of the marriage partners. (need I point out, too, that it might be construed as a little offensive to assume that homosexual couples are any less committed or stable than their heterosexual counterparts based solely on the fact that they are attracted to someone who shares their gender?)

Another tactic I see is the black-and-white categorizing/ oversimplifying of a person or stance into a complex group based on one action, attribute or opinion. Some things are black and white to that degree, at least according to my paradigm, but most are not. For example, I can unequivocally say that anyone who molests a child is wrong, bad, evil, and deserving of the severest punishment, no matter what the circumstances are, no matter who they are, and no matter what other good they've done. I'm perfectly ok with categorizing anyone who molests a child as pathologically evil and faulty. However, most issues are not so simple or so easy. Many actions could be right or wrong, or more or less appropriate and tasteful, depending on motive and circumstance. People choose their positions, their beliefs, and their actions based on very complex and nuanced data, circumstances, and personalities. I believe it logically follows that if an action is not in itself a sin regardless of circumstances then to generalize it as such is inaccurate. It should also be obvious that  because an action or position is sometimes done/held by those behaving badly does not imply that everyone who holds that position/does that is also behaving badly.  For example, to say that divorce is an indication of weakness, selfishness or lack of commitment or that divorced people are hard, brittle, relationally damaged/inept or selfish would be inaccurate. While it might be true, it might also be completely false- did the person get a divorce because they fell in love with a coworker or were they simply getting out of an abusive or chronically neglectful situation? This logic is seen when anyone who is not categorically opposed to same sex marriage is assumed to also throw out ideas of absolute truth, committed marriages, political conservatism, christian authenticity, et c.

The same logic applies to shading all homosexuals as perverts or anti-religious-freedom activists who will "take a mile if we give an inch." Are there some? To be sure, but there are also plenty of heterosexual perverts and anti-freedom activists, and we don't associate their behavior with their sexual orientation. What does this have to do with same sex marriage? Simply this- I think that, to have a helpful conversation about same sex marriage, we must be clear about the assumptions we are bringing to the table, and be honest and open about how our opinions of what marriage is, and who and what homosexuals are, (and how allowing same sex marriage would affect our paradigm) affect what we view as acceptable legal policy. 

In my opinion, the more we can avoid theoretical and unproven generalizations and tend towards specific, verifiable data, the more accurate our conclusions will be. 



*What is Marriage? Man and woman: a defense", Girgis/Anderson/George

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 1: Framing the discussion

I am often frustrated by some of the more illogical arguments that I see employed in the debate over same sex marriage. Frankly, I find them a little embarrassing, coming as they do from Evangelical Christianity, which is where I place myself as well. Sometimes I want to ask- How do people who believe same sex marriage is evil think they'll ever win their point when their arguments go down in a logical fireball at the slightest test? Why choose shoddy arguments to prove a point that can be addressed with much more reasonable hypotheses, perhaps with similar results? I'd like to propose a few arguments that I think should really never be used in such a policy discussion:

1. It's always been this way

By this logic, the world is flat and women do not contribute DNA to their children. Also, science is evil and germs are not a thing.

2. It was this way in the bible

 (as opposed to endorsed specifically by scripture-the normative/prescriptive
 distinction is important here)

By that logic, marriage does not require consent, monogamy, or female agency. Scary.



3. The Greek Philosophers were for/against this

Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are fun to read. They have a great many very smart things to say, particularly about law and government. Are they, however, infallible, or even universally reliable? Not a chance, as per their draconian views on gender, women, and the origins of the human race. Are they worthy of citation and consideration and thought? Yes! Does their opinion prove anything? No! It is their opinion, nothing more. The most intelligent and forward-thinking opinion, without substantiation, is still just an opinion. And some of their warped views of gender issues (yes, I'm going to get into that in more detail later) have shaped society, even christian society, and its views of the subject from their day to this one. That is not, in my opinion, a good thing.

4. Things we like will magically disappear if this happens

If we were legislating homosexual marriage instead of heterosexual marriage, this would be true. I do not think, however, that anyone wants to do that. All of the heterosexual people that would have gotten married will still, you know, get married. And allowing gay marriage does not automatically remove the commitment aspect of christian marriage, nor does it affect in any way the manner in which I or any other heterosexual christian lives out our marriages. This point is debated sometimes, in that some people say that allowing same sex marriage must completely redefine the institution in a way that damages and cheapens all marriages. I disagree; more on that later.

There are variations of these arguments which I will explore in more detail as time goes on, but the four above are the basis for those arguments which, in my opinion, it would behoove us to dismiss entirely.
So- what questions do I think we should be asking? What arguments should we be making

Assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that American judicial, legislative, an political policy is and should be based upon protecting its citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as they do not cause harm or infringe upon others' said rights:

Does same sex marriage infringe on the rights of others?

Does same sex marriage harm any one outside that marriage, specifically those who cannot advocate for themselves? (and yes, this includes hypothetical children raised in such a household)

Does same sex marriage remove/replace other, more expedient institutions?

What would same sex marriage cost, in resources, the state or community?

Does same sex marriage cause quantifiable harm to any person or institution which is not themselves causing harm?

Does same sex marriage carry any benefits to the state, community, or individuals?

Does the fact that many people believe something to be a moral sin mean that it should be legislated as such, purely for that reason?

Three things I think it's important to remember in discussions like these, particularly as we attempt to define harm and wrestle with what same sex marriage is and what are its implications for society-

 Correlation does not equal causation, 

 Genetic does not equal hereditary, and 

 Statistically likely does not equal universal, superior, or prescriptive.

In framing the discussion about possible harms from same sex marriage, too, I think that it is important to distinguish between data that may indicate a connection between harm (familial instability, for instance) and same sex marriage, and data that demonstrates in a reputable, scientific way a causality between harm of some sort and some aspect of same sex marriage: for example the gender of one's parents. To demonstrate this alleged harm, it would be important that the control parents be equitable in everything but gender. E.G. it would be illogical to cite two bisexual romantic partners who do not cohabit as a same sex couple for the purposes of comparison and statistics. We should try to approach data collecting and interpretation here with the same objectivity that we would any other question, in my opinion.

It should be noted that I have no intention of arguing whether or not homosexuality and same sex marriage are sin or inappropriate for christian practice. Nor do I feel that this series of posts is the appropriate venue to delve into my own opinions on that topic and my interpretations of the scriptures pertaining to it. Most christians believe that the bible clearly vilifies homosexual behavior, so for my purposes here I will equate that with the majority christian view. 

This series of posts is simply about legislating for or against same sex marriage- should we allow it, shouldn't we, or how do we decide?