About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The sciphi of gay adoption

by Massimo Pigliucci

Gay marriage is rapidly becoming less and less controversial, at least in the Western world. Yes, the battle hasn’t been won just yet, both in Europe and in the US, but we are getting there at a pace that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

The next frontier, it seems, is adoptions by gay parents. When I talk to even some of my somewhat progressive friends and relatives, including those in the Old Country, they seem to resist the idea of gay couples adopting children much more than they resisted (if they ever did) the idea of gay marriage. Why?

Time to deploy some good SciPhi, as I termed a hybrid of science and philosophy to be used to address practical personal or societal questions (rather than relying, say, on “common wisdom” or, worse, religious authority). For more on the sciphi approach, how it works, and a number of examples and applications, you may of course take a look at Answers for Aristotle.

SciPhi is relevant because opponents and proponents of these types of societal changes rely on a mix of (hopefully) logical arguments and (sometimes alleged) empirical evidence to make their respective cases. And as is well known to readers of this blog, I think the best way to build (or debunk) logical arguments is via philosophical analysis, while the best way to assess factual evidence is through the methods of the natural and social sciences. So let’s proceed and see where SciPhi gets us in the specific case of gay adoptions.

To begin with, let’s agree that the issue of gay adoptions is, in fact, intrinsically more complex than that of gay marriage. This is simply because the latter involves only consenting adults, while the former affects the (physical and psychological) welfare of children. Which is, of course, precisely why the notion is more controversial to begin with.

Consider two standard arguments opposing gay adoptions, one a priori, the other one empirical: the a priori argument is based on the idea that children have a right to mixed parents (i.e., a man and a woman). The empirical one alleges that children will be at a psychological disadvantage if they are reared in a single-sex family.

The a priori (i.e., philosophical) argument suffers from a number of — in my opinion fatal — flaws, depending on how the idea is cashed out. If it is a matter of children having a right to a mixed sex family because that is the natural state of affairs for human beings, then this is an argument based on an appeal to nature, which immediately runs afoul of the obvious objection that we do all sorts of other things to children (from education to vaccination) that is not natural at all, and yet to which only lunatics and Jenny McCarthy would object to. Not to mention, of course, that there are plenty of perfectly natural situations where children either have only one parent or no parent at all around during their upbringing. While the latter case is usually precisely why we allow adoptions, should we also put children of single mothers or fathers up for adoption on the grounds that they have a right to two parents of different sex? I doubt anyone would seriously pursue that logic, and yet it seems to follow from the way the objection is formulated. 

Moreover, of course, there is no such thing as a natural right to anything (pace the libertarian myth to the contrary). Rights are stipulations of a society, so society is perfectly entitled to change them if better ideas come along and are accepted by the members of that society. After all, until not long ago residents of some US states had a “right” to own slaves, and until even more recently women did not have a right to vote, in any state. Both those rights have been altered, thankfully, so that the first one has been abolished and the second one has been accepted.

What about the empirical (i.e., science-based) argument, then? It is of course perfectly possible in principle that children raised by gay couples turn out to be on average worse off than children raised by mixed sex parents — other things being equal. That last clause is often left out of the discussion, but it is, of course, crucial. There are plenty of situations in which children are faced with psychological or physical abuse while growing up within a two-sex household; and of course there are plenty of children who are orphan and it is difficult to find a two-sex couple willing to adopt them (for instance because they are too old, or have already developed significant behavioral issues). In these instances “other things” are definitely not equal, so it would seem that even in the worst case scenario there is room for sensible gay adoption (gay couples rarely have children by chance, and are often willing to take on problematic kids: see here).

But what about hard empirical evidence concerning the more general case of gay vs straight adoptions? Isn’t it too early to say anything about it, since gay adoptions are a recent phenomenon? Not exactly. There is mounting evidence that children adopted by gay parents do well compared to those adopted by straight parents according to a variety of psychological, social and educational indicators.

This article, for instance, comments on a report co-authored by Benjamin Siegel of Boston University’s School of Medicine. In part it says: “Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.”

There are, of course, caveats. To begin with, these are not randomized controlled trials. Those are pretty much impossible to do (for practical as well as ethical reasons) for this sort of issue. And the sample sizes are rather small, again by necessity (though this will improve with time). Here is Siegel again: “we’re never going to get the perfect science, but what you have right now is good-enough science. The data we have right now are good enough to know what’s good for kids.”

Then there is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which began as far back as 1986. And the good (or bad, depending on your ideological standpoint) news is that “the self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.”

Another recent study, conducted at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Family Research, found that gay parents are “at least” as good as straight ones at coping with the demands of being a parent. And just in case you are worried about homosexuals imposing their agenda on the human race and turning everyone into gays, there was also no evidence that having a gay parent in any way affects the children’s own gender conception in ways that depart from what is expected for their sex.

Finally, there are even good reasons to think that gay parents actually have parenting skills that are uncommon among straight parents. As mentioned above, they are willing to adopt the neediest children, and of course they are in a good position to instill the value of tolerance in their kids.

There are, naturally, dissenting studies, usually to be found only on the web sites of Catholic organizations. One such study conducted by a researcher at the University of Texas has been discredited after the author admitted that he could not separate his (Catholic) faith from his scientific research.

Now, we are talking empirical evidence here, and moreover evidence concerning long-term effects on complex human behaviors, likely to be the result of countless environmental and genetic interactions. So it is conceivable that the preliminary findings accumulated so far will be overturned by research conducted with more rigorous protocols and on much larger samples. But the most reasonable evaluation of the current evidence clearly weighs against the empirically-minded objection to gay adoptions. And social policy cannot afford to wait for decades of further studies, it has to be based on the best current understanding of any given issue, provided we are willing to alter our policies if and when contrary evidence comes in. Moreover, even if our understanding of these matters should change dramatically (indeed, reverse) in the future, it would still be difficult to argue against gay adoption at the least in those far less than ideal cases that don’t meet the ceteris paribus condition.

So to recap: a SciPhi analysis of the issue of gay adoptions pretty much demolishes the a priori argument (by philosophical analysis), and preliminarily rejects the empirical argument (by scientific analysis) against the practice. It seems therefore reasonable to conclude that, at the moment, objecting to gay adoptions is not rational and it is more likely to be the result of (largely religiously instilled) prejudice. Not that that’s going to change the minds of some of my relatives, or of the Pope, of course.

106 comments:

  1. Massimo, I think you've constructed a false dichotomy. From the research you cited, there is value in the "'parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family,'" and this is exactly what would be undermined by codifying SSM and gay adoption, since it effectively tells the men of society, who are already tempted by their biology to shirk child-raising duties, that "You, man, after all, are 100% replaceable. You are not essential to anything, especially not to the follow-through of your procreative acts." This message, proclaimed by codified SSM and gay adoption, would apply to all men, and so is detrimental to all natural marriages. This could be studied empirically, even though you yourself have argued against pretending science can answer everything, including ethics. Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? That's your argument? That accepting gay adoption would make heterosexual men insecure?

      "Once women are allowed to vote, men are told that they are 100% replaceable, they are not essential to anything, specially not the democratic process."

      Man, you people are grasping at straws!

      Delete
    2. Hi NiqDan135,

      So much wrong!

      >I think you've constructed a false dichotomy<

      You don't actually outline a dichotomy in your comment, as far as I can see.

      >who are already tempted by their biology to shirk child-raising duties<

      Not convinced of this at all. Anyway, it's irrelevant.

      >"You, man, after all, are 100% replaceable.<

      No more than adoption itself does. What about having two men adopt a child tells a man that he is replaceable that a heterosexual couple or single person adopting does not?

      >This message, proclaimed by codified SSM and gay adoption, would apply to all men, and so is detrimental to all natural marriages. <

      No such message is proclaimed by SSM, and certainly not by gay adoption.

      >This could be studied empirically<

      How?

      >even though you yourself have argued against pretending science can answer everything, including ethics<

      So, science can't answer everything, but it can answer some questions, including sometimes empirical questions which have a bearing on ethical questions, like whether gay adoption is harmful to kids or whether SSM and gay adoption are harmful to heterosexual marriages. What's your point?

      Delete
    3. I think that analogy limps in that women really are capable of rational thought and political preference, whereas SSM couples can't factually embody the man-woman good that is unique, incommunicable, and valuable for its own sake in society.

      Delete
    4. Hi NiqDan135,

      >women really are capable of rational thought <
      Gay people are capable of rational thought.

      >SSM couples can't factually embody the man-woman good that is unique, incommunicable, and valuable for its own sake in society.<
      Heterosexual couples cannot factually embody the man-man good that is unique, incommunicable and valuable for its own sake in society.

      In other words, what you are saying is nonsense to me.

      We had this discussion before. I know you think that there is something intrinsically irrational about homosexuality, but you are speaking with people who do not share this view. Conclusions drawn from this position will not be persuasive.

      Delete
    5. DM: I'm glad you found your way through to the trichotomy I had in mind; we should keep things terse on a blog, right? We should consider (a) is it immoral a priori, (b) could it hurt kids, (c) could it hurt adults.

      Delete
    6. @NiqDan135

      (a) No
      (b) Very unlikely
      (c) Very unlikely

      We should consider the same questions for banning gay adoption.
      (a) Yes, but perhaps the lesser of two evils depending on (b) and (c)
      (b) Yes
      (c) Yes

      Delete
    7. @NiqDan135
      Incidentally, that's not a trichotomy.

      A trichotomy would be a situation where we have three mutually exclusive choices, at least one of which can apply. It would be a trichotomy if exactly one of (a),(b) or (c) must apply, but all or none can apply.

      Delete
    8. Of course, I meant a trichotomy with respect to possible objections.

      Delete
    9. If the possibility of same-sex marriage and adoption sends a message to all men, it's already been sent, regardless of whether it's legal, right? Are you saying that making it legal would drive home the inconvenient truth?

      Or, perhaps, you're saying that men naturally want to depart from male/female marriages, and that the law should forcibly stop them by eliminating options outside of these marriages. By making SSM illegal, we *make* men essential, as they are the only legal alternative.

      Let me know if I'm getting anywhere close to your worldview here.

      Delete
    10. But we could expand the discussion further. Do we need to assume that moral liceity always corresponds 1:1 with political liceity? Of course not. Furthermore, a priori considerations don't have a monopoly over intentional and circumstantial considerations. So I see quadchotomies if not sexchotomies expanding before our eyes.

      Delete
    11. @NiqDan135,

      You're losing me a little bit. I'm not sure what you mean about liceity, it seems to be a very specific term to Catholic theology. In any case, I think what you are getting at is there may be other kinds of objections to gay adoption?

      Sure, but are there any good objections? Personally, I don't think so.

      Delete
    12. I was just reading John Wilkins' contribution to Massimo's book on pseudoscience - relevant to several of the recent posts here. NiqDan's thinking fits perfectly into the essentialist, deductivist, anti-modernist, authoritarian category - he views men and women as black and white essences with no overlap. He really can't help himself having gone down a particular path toward anti-science and I am afraid he will be forever frustrated as the humanity passes him by.

      Delete
    13. @miller: Funny you use the word "possibility," since I deny a priori that SSM is possible; if it is an intelligible concept, it's not marriage. Furthermore, making SSM illegal is radically different from refusing to pretend that it's real. Illegality has been no part of my position. Thirdly, you can only "make men essential" if you're a legal positivist, which I'm not. So I don't think you've described my view.

      Delete
    14. @NiqDan
      Well, I'm shooting in the dark here, because of the vast differences between our assumptions.

      So you believe that men are in fact essential, and that legal recognition of SSM sends the *false* message to men that they are not essential?

      And how does same-sex adoption fit in? I mean, if it's not (a) immoral a priori, or (b) hurting kids, I don't understand how same-sex adoption could be sending the *false* message that same-sex couples can raise kids... it seems more like a *true* message, no?

      Delete
    15. @T.Jones: I would hesitate to call maleness 'causal' for shirking, because of the ambiguity of causality, in my view, within philosophy; I mean tempted vis-a-vis their biology, namely that they have a easier time than women in keeping their fecundity out of sight and out of mind, even to themselves. Thus, as a man, I won't speculate on what makes some women want to act like shirking males.

      @miller: Your second paragraph is spot-on, assuming no funny business with the word "fact." I base my objection against SS-adoption on (1) its undercutting the societal pressure that should be placed on hetero-confident males to stick with their girls, (2) its a priori impossibility of letting a kid experience the social unit to which she is attracted and entitled (I probably cannot yet defend against objections to natural rights at this point in my philosophical career, but I'll work on that), and (3) its a priori impossibility of letting spouses become parents exclusively through each other (which is their privately contracted right in which the state has an auxiliary interest). With regular adoption, or adoption by singles, (2) and (3) can at least still possibly be met, even if only in the mode or model of that type of community the state should exclusively promote (coital marriage).

      To fend off possible objections, I don't think contracepting couples should be allowed to adopt, either, because I think contraceptive acts are a rotten way to treat someone. But some laws are too invasive to enforce, and while contraception can be kept a secret, overtly sodomitical relationships cannot.

      Delete
  2. This is an excellent perspective on the gay adoption "issue" (which should really be a non-issue): One minor point I'd raise:

    "Rights are stipulations of a society, so society is perfectly entitled to change them if better ideas come along and are accepted by the members of that society."

    This is certainly true of legal rights, but not a moral rights, as a rights-based theorist, like say a Kantian, would conceive them. What does it mean to say that I have a moral right to something? That I can demand that you give it to me (or allow me to have it). Unfortunately, we still live in a culture that is deeply pro-natalist, where people think that they have the right (and sometimes an obligation) to have "their own" children. Their is already so much need in the world, and adopting children, whether you're gay or straight, is much more morally praiseworthy than creating new children.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Massimo,

    A truly excellent article. Well thought through, well-researched, well argued.

    It's very hard to think of any legitimate criticism, but since that's my raison d'etre I can only suggest the following:

    I suppose you could have addressed the argument that children raised by gay couples are more likely to suffer bullying and discrimination from their peers and others (not that I think it's a good argument). I guess you can deal with it in the comments section if it comes up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is anyone else a little uncomfortable with the idea of using science to support gay issues? I don’t think it should be necessary. I might even venture to say that science is irrelevant.

    Logical and philosophical arguments are sufficient to destroy the anti-gay position. Gay people are human beings, and human beings can have and adopt children. I’ve glossed over things for the sake of brevity, but ultimately, it's as simple as that, isn't it?

    Talking about science in situations where philosophy should be enough makes me uneasy. For example, imagine a well-constructed scientific study finds that children of gay households have worse outcomes than children of straight households. Does this necessarily mean that gay people shouldn’t adopt? Philosophically, it's clear this isn't the case. Conversely, what if children of gay households have *better* outcomes than those straight of households? Does this necessarily mean we ought to fit as many children as practical into gay households? This hardly seems supportable either.

    I understand that science can be used to answer factual claims, and that it can even be illuminating in these conversations. But I’m a little scared – perhaps naively, I don’t know – that it opens the door to the idea that homosexuality needs to be defended scientifically. It doesn’t.

    The logical and philosophical justification of homosexuality is beautifully sufficient. Invoking science is, in a certain light, almost like an indignity. It's like conceding ground, or opening the possibility of conceding that ground (because the scientific evidence might not always be on 'our side'), where none need be given.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can kind of see where you're coming from. I do certainly cringe when I see empirical justifications for social questions where I feel we know the correct answers a priori, regardless of the empirical data.

      For example, feminists may produce data to show that women are just as good at certain jobs as men as a strategy to counter discrimination. I don't much like this because I think discrimination on the basis of prejudice is wrong even if there were statistical differences in performance across different cohorts.

      I do think you're wrong on this specific question though. If gay adoption were detrimental to children, then that would be a matter to consider when arranging adoptions. As Massimo said, it's not just consenting adults we're dealing with. In an extreme case, if it was shown that children brought up by gay parents were very likely to become dysfunctional or homicidal, we might indeed want to ban gay adoption, or at least consider it.

      The fact that there is absolutely no reason to suspect that there is any harm caused by gay adoption is an important consideration in my support of it. But even if there is minor harm, I agree with Massimo's point that the harm caused by a ban would be worse.

      > Gay people are human beings, and human beings can have and adopt children. I’ve glossed over things for the sake of brevity, but ultimately, it's as simple as that, isn't it?<

      I really do think that is too simple. Severely mentally handicapped people are human beings, as are teenagers, as are very old, infirm or terminally ill people, as are convicted child abusers, as are the destitute and unemployed, but I would not support their adoption of children. I don't believe in natural rights anyway. I don't believe anybody has a natural right to anything without social consent, and that's what we're arguing for here.

      >For example, imagine a well-constructed scientific study finds that children of gay households have worse outcomes than children of straight households. Does this necessarily mean that gay people shouldn’t adopt? Philosophically, it's clear this isn't the case.<

      It's not at all clear. It's a matter for debate. It depends on how much worse the outcomes are and what the alternatives are.

      >that it opens the door to the idea that homosexuality needs to be defended scientifically. <

      The issue is not homosexuality itself but homosexual adoption of children.

      Delete
  5. I would also argue that there needs to be much more than a statistically significant difference between children of same-sex couples and male/female couples. We don't bar lower class people from having children, even though I'm sure this affects the children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, but on the other hand you might not be as inclined to allow destitute couples to adopt children even though you do not prevent them from reproducing naturally.

      Delete
    2. Right, there's a point at which the strength of evidence could hypothetically justify adoptee discrimination. However, mere statistical significance is far too low a bar, and it seems we do not even reach statistical significance.

      Delete
    3. Hi Miller,

      Yeah, I'd agree with you there. I tend to adopt a utilitarian perspective when thinking about questions like this. I think banning gay adoption causes harm -- harm to unadopted children, children adopted by unsuitable heterosexual couples, homosexual couples who want children and harm to homosexuals who feel they are being treated as second-class citizens by their society.

      For me to support a ban of gay adoption, the harm done to the adopted children would have to outweigh all this, which is a much higher bar.

      (I don't pretend to be able to quantify any of this empirically, utilitarianism is just a framework for thinking about the question)

      Delete
  6. Massimo

    I'm just going to comment on the things you mentioned about rights in this post since its ridiculous that anybody would think that having two moms or two dads is relevant at all to what would to consider as far as evaluating if someone were ready to raise a child, instead of looking at which virtues, knowledge set, personality, goals, methods, etc. characterize the technique and person of the individuals involved.



    >"Moreover, of course, there is no such thing as a natural right to anything (pace the libertarian myth to the contrary)."<

    I just read your post on the Libertarian myth (and commented). You don't actually give a rebuttal to what you are calling a "natural right"... what on earth are you talking about?




    >"Rights are stipulations of a society, so society is perfectly entitled to change them if better ideas come along and are accepted by the members of that society."<

    Actually, no, if you think that what determines rights is society, those rights don't have to change based on if "better ideas come along", if society suddenly thought that anal gang rape was a right, then that's what you're forced to go with. You have the gun.




    >"After all, until not long ago residents of some US states had a “right” to own slaves, and until even more recently women did not have a right to vote, in any state. Both those rights have been altered, thankfully, so that the first one has been abolished and the second one has been accepted."<

    If you reject the idea that the person with the gun gets to decide what rights are, you can look at slavery 200 years ago as something that was always a violation of those persons rights, as opposed to the dictation of society perspective that see's it as something that was legitimate at that moment of their enslavement since they weren't given that right by the people with the guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jacob,

      I would agree with Massimo that rights are just what society agrees.

      >if you think that what determines rights is society, those rights don't have to change based on if "better ideas come along", if society suddenly thought that anal gang rape was a right, then that's what you're forced to go with. <

      So let's hope society doesn't suddenly decide to go that way.

      >If you reject the idea that the person with the gun gets to decide what rights are<

      I don't reject it, because whether I like it or not, that's what happens.

      >you can look at slavery 200 years ago as something that was always a violation of those persons rights<

      And in a way it is, because our society, even if it's just you and me, has determined that people have the right to be free. So from our point of view, those slaves 200 years ago did have the right to be free, and those rights were violated. From the point of view of the slave-owners, they did not.

      My point and Massimo's is that there is no objective fact of the matter on who is right, us or the slave-owners. There is only subjective opinion. Denying objective natural rights does not for a second mean that I personally have no problem with slavery in other societies.

      Delete
  7. I would wonder that even if homosexuals were worse parents "all other things being equal" whether that's really an argument against it. Presumably the best gay parents are worse than the worst straight parents, yet there's very few cases where there's active intervention among straight families. Unless homosexual care on average is at or below the level where we'd call for intervention among straight couples, then isn't it arbitrary to deny homosexual couples on these grounds?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Niq,

    > This message, proclaimed by codified SSM and gay adoption, would apply to all men, and so is detrimental to all natural marriages. <

    Honestly, I don’t know what to make of this argument. First of all, the phrase “natural marriage” is an oxymoron. Second, I have no idea where you get the notion that allowing gay adoptions will tell “men” (in general? All?) that they are not essential to anything. And lastly, why do “men” find it worth living only if they are “essential,” as opposed to, say, useful, fulfilled, and so on?

    Michael,

    > This is certainly true of legal rights, but not a moral rights, as a rights-based theorist, like say a Kantian, would conceive them. <

    That’s why I’m not a Kantian.

    DM,

    > I suppose you could have addressed the argument that children raised by gay couples are more likely to suffer bullying and discrimination from their peers and others <

    Actually, one of the articles linked touches on that. Apparently, there is no evidence that that is the (systematic) case. And of course one could just as well argue that bullying in general is a problem that we need to deal with, regardless of toward whom it is directed.

    Crescendo,

    > Is anyone else a little uncomfortable with the idea of using science to support gay issues? I don’t think it should be necessary. I might even venture to say that science is irrelevant. <

    I don’t think it is, in this case. Though it isn’t determining either (hence the Sci-Phi approach). It really depends on the specific ethical situation. For instance, if we are talking about women’s rights to vote, or gays’ rights to marry, I don’t think science is relevant at all, because we are talking about adults or relations among consenting adults. But when children are part of the equation, facts become relevant. As in the case of the state having an interest in rescuing the children of Christian Scientist parents from medical neglect.

    > imagine a well-constructed scientific study finds that children of gay households have worse outcomes than children of straight households. Does this necessarily mean that gay people shouldn’t adopt? <

    No, but it may, for instance, mean that we should come up with a set of adoption priorities, where gay couples wouldn’t be at the top. (I don’t think this is the case, I’m just indulging your thought experiment.) This would be no different from preferring to have children adopted by bi-parental households instead of single parent ones. It makes practical sense.

    > it opens the door to the idea that homosexuality needs to be defended scientifically. It doesn’t <

    Agreed. But here the issue isn’t homosexuality per se, it’s gay adoptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Massimo,

      >And of course one could just as well argue that bullying in general is a problem that we need to deal with, regardless of toward whom it is directed.<

      I'm in complete agreement. Nice for a change!

      Delete
  9. Jacob,

    > I just read your post on the Libertarian myth (and commented). You don't actually give a rebuttal to what you are calling a "natural right"... what on earth are you talking about? <

    That link was to my ideas of libertarianism in general, not addressing the specific issue of rights. At any rate, on the latter I’m with Bentham: they are nonsense on stilts. Rights are clearly a human creation. All we have naturally are desires and wants. For them to become rights we need to agree as a society that those desires and wants are acceptable and should be respected or encouraged.

    > if society suddenly thought that anal gang rape was a right, then that's what you're forced to go with. You have the gun. <

    You are forgetting that there are indeed societies were rape is a man’s right, at least toward his spouse. Do I support those rights? Hell no, but I think you just gave an example that supports my point.

    > If you reject the idea that the person with the gun gets to decide what rights are, you can look at slavery 200 years ago as something that was always a violation of those persons rights <

    You could, but that would be anachronistic.

    Kel,

    > Presumably the best gay parents are worse than the worst straight parents, yet there's very few cases where there's active intervention among straight families. <

    Indeed. I did mention this briefly in the post, and it is picked up by one of the articles I linked to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >"Rights are clearly a human creation. All we have naturally are desires and wants. For them to become rights we need to agree as a society that those desires and wants are acceptable and should be respected or encouraged."<

      That's like saying words are clearly a human creation so everything they may refer to, like the Pythagorean theorem, needs to be agreed upon in order to be true. It is true, regardless if someone doesn't agree, that my conscious experience and body is separate from another person's conscious experience and body. Is that nonsense on stilts? If so, WHY?

      Delete
  10. I think the only argument that matters is whether or not children living with same-sex (gay/lesbian) parents do better than children with no parents. My understanding is that in most cases, that's the actual "choice" children are facing, via the state in charge of their care. They don't get to "choose" between having straight opposite-sex parents, and gay same-sex parents.

    While it's great that same-sex parents are as good as straight parents at raising well-adjusted children, and that is the goal, the only meaningful requirement is merely to be better than foster care or orphanages or the street. I don't have current stats, but as of the mid-2000s, only half of the ~100,000 foster kids in the US could expect to be adopted by anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Massimo,

    While I am not an opponent of gay adoption, I think your treatment of the philosophical case against such adoption is enormously simplistic. In particular, regarding rights. If one believes there is some reality to ethics, then rights in the sense relevant to the argument certainly exist (viz, they are just certain ethical constraints). I'm not saying that children have the relevant right, just that the argument cannot be defeated by claiming rights of the relevant kind do not exist.

    Regarding "sciphi," I don't see why this is needed. If you're considering the ethics of gay adoption, for example, then you're doing ethics (i.e. philosophy) period. Philosophers have traditionally looked at the empirical as a (logically) lower-level strata of consideration, so I don't see how doing such suddenly means a new hybrid field.

    It seems it would be correct to call "sciphi" a hybrid field only if it involved original scientific research. But it seems to involve only looking at science, which, again, philosophers have long been in the practice of doing.

    If you want to say that your analysis of gay adoption is both philosophy and science because you conclusion is just about what is rational, I would say that a conclusion about what is rational is philosophical, period, even if it involves looking at science.

    ReplyDelete
  12. then this is an argument based on an appeal to nature, which immediately runs afoul of the obvious objection that we do all sorts of other things to children (from education to vaccination) that is not natural at all, and yet to which only lunatics and Jenny McCarthy would object to.

    So what - educating a child is supernatural? Non-natural? How are you defining 'natural' in this case? Because that definition seems absolutely key to your claims here.

    Not to mention, of course, that there are plenty of perfectly natural situations where children either have only one parent or no parent at all around during their upbringing. While the latter case is usually precisely why we allow adoptions, should we also put children of single mothers or fathers up for adoption on the grounds that they have a right to two parents of different sex? I doubt anyone would seriously pursue that logic, and yet it seems to follow from the way the objection is formulated.

    There's that 'natural' again, and now it looks more unusual. Educating a child = non-natural. A parent dying early = totally natural.

    But you have two more problems here. First, who is saying that a single parent should have their children put up for adoption (presumably by force)? What what's really the issue leads to the second problem: it is, even now, almost universally recognized that a single-parent household is far from ideal.

    What would be more apt is the idea that single individuals perhaps shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or it may be wrong for them to adopt. You disagree? At the very least - are you going to say this is flatly obvious?

    And social policy cannot afford to wait for decades of further studies, it has to be based on the best current understanding of any given issue, provided we are willing to alter our policies if and when contrary evidence comes in.

    Why? It sure seems that social policy can, in fact, wait for decades. Maybe you mean 'people are impatient and they want their results right now, thank you' - but so what?

    In fact, your own stated caveats on the empirical side of things seem like good evidence that opposition to changing social policy on this topic is well-grounded - the 'best evidence we have' is, by a reasonable measure, entirely shaky evidence. And that's before the argument that you have, even while trying to acknowledge the complexities of these studies, drastically undercut their complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Disagreeable Me and Massimo,

    Thanks for the replies.

    I'm not used to this philosophy business, so I appreciate the deconstruction of my post. I see now that my ideas were muddled and incomplete.

    After reading both of your posts, I agree that homosexuality between consenting individuals (and associated issues such as gay marriage) can be defended a priori using Philosophy, but that the matter changes when non-consenting parties are considered. In the latter case, science *can* reasonably be used to identify positive or negative outcomes, after which we can decide what to do about it, if anything. I made the error of conflating the two issues.

    I'll have to remember that I am among friends here, and that I ought not to hastily leap to a defence of homosexuality at the expense of nuance. It’s plain my reflexive instinct resulted in a misplaced objection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Crescendo,

      Honestly, it's a refreshing change to have someone posting here who can change their mind about something (said as one of the people who seems not to).

      Delete
  14. Paul,

    > I think your treatment of the philosophical case against such adoption is enormously simplistic <

    Well, you can’t please everyone, especially in a blog post.

    > If one believes there is some reality to ethics, then rights in the sense relevant to the argument certainly exist <

    If by reality you mean that moral truths are out there, I don’t, so my position is perfectly consistent. And if it is naive, then I’m in good company, beginning with Hume and ending with, say Blackburn.

    > just that the argument cannot be defeated by claiming rights of the relevant kind do not exist <

    I don’t think rights of *any* kind exist, independently of our social discourse and political decisions.

    > Regarding "sciphi," I don't see why this is needed. If you're considering the ethics of gay adoption, for example, then you're doing ethics (i.e. philosophy) period. <

    Ah, this is the mirror mistake to Harris’. No, I don’t think you can do ethics (or any philosophy, except for logic) “period.” If we are talking about matters that are relevant to the world we live in, then factual information better get into it at some level.

    > It seems it would be correct to call "sciphi" a hybrid field only if it involved original scientific research. <

    I’m sorry if I gave you the impression of wanting to establish a new field. I don’t. The term sciphi was coined for a popular audience, within the context of my book, Answers for Aristotle. And has no more pretension than that.

    Crude,

    > So what - educating a child is supernatural? Non-natural? <

    An appeal to nature is a logical fallacy (see link in the main post), it has nothing to do with invoking the supernatural as an alternative, which I certainly don’t.

    > How are you defining 'natural' in this case? Because that definition seems absolutely key to your claims here. <

    Actually, I don’t think it is at all, since it should be clear that what opponents of gay adoption mean by “natural” is the “traditional” bi-parental, mixed sex family. Which of course is not “natural” at all, since it is a rather recent historical invention (before that, human babies were brought up communally, within the tribe/group). And, even if it were, it would be irrelevant because of the above mentioned fallacy.

    > There's that 'natural' again, and now it looks more unusual. <

    In this second context the meaning is different, and I thought it was obvious from the context, but if not, here “natural” just means an everyday occurrence in modern society. No deeper metaphysical meaning implied or required.

    > who is saying that a single parent should have their children put up for adoption (presumably by force)? <

    Nobody, including me. I think you missed the point.

    > What would be more apt is the idea that single individuals perhaps shouldn't be allowed to adopt, or it may be wrong for them to adopt. You disagree? <

    I do disagree. Perhaps single parents are not ideal, but if the alternative is for the child to grow up in an institution, I think single parents should be allowed to adopt. At any rate, it shouldn’t be about categories of people (single parents, gay couples, etero couples). It should be about whether a specific potential adoptive parent(s) is or is not likely to provide adequately for a specific child.

    > Why? It sure seems that social policy can, in fact, wait for decades <

    But it shouldn’t, we are talking about the quality of life of countless children.

    > the 'best evidence we have' is, by a reasonable measure, entirely shaky evidence. <

    I don’t think so.

    Crescendo,

    > I'll have to remember that I am among friends here, and that I ought not to hastily leap to a defence of homosexuality at the expense of nuance. <

    Yes, you are, and your contribution to the discussion are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Massimo,

    An appeal to nature is a logical fallacy (see link in the main post), it has nothing to do with invoking the supernatural as an alternative, which I certainly don’t.

    Maybe, but you said that the claim is problematic because 'we do plenty of things to children that aren't natural at all' and that only a lunatic would disagree with. So I'm asking - how is educating a child 'not natural'? Or giving them vaccinations?

    Or are you just tossing that argument/claim out altogether in favor of the naturalistic fallacy?

    Actually, I don’t think it is at all, since it should be clear that what opponents of gay adoption mean by “natural” is the “traditional” bi-parental, mixed sex family. Which of course is not “natural” at all, since it is a rather recent historical invention (before that, human babies were brought up communally, within the tribe/group).

    There you go again. So again I ask: what is this 'natural' you speak of? You're saying it's not natural - fine. What makes something natural or not?

    In this second context the meaning is different, and I thought it was obvious from the context, but if not, here “natural” just means an everyday occurrence in modern society. No deeper metaphysical meaning implied or required.

    That's still leaving me what the first 'context' was. What makes educating a child unnatural?

    I do disagree. Perhaps single parents are not ideal, but if the alternative is for the child to grow up in an institution, I think single parents should be allowed to adopt.

    Is that sci-phi talking? Do you have empirical and philosophical arguments at the ready here?

    At any rate, it shouldn’t be about categories of people (single parents, gay couples, etero couples). It should be about whether a specific potential adoptive parent(s) is or is not likely to provide adequately for a specific child.

    Then what was the point of citing the evidence that studied categories of people to begin with?

    And alright, let's say we're dealing with specific potential adoptive parents. Two questions here.

    1) Are sexual behaviors relevant to choosing adoptive parents? Let's say a nice couple who are into BDSM.

    2) Do you think a child having a maternal or paternal influence in their life has been clearly established as a non-issue? Maybe you reject there's anything meaningfully called a 'maternal' or 'paternal' influence altogether?

    But it shouldn’t, we are talking about the quality of life of countless children.

    So let me get this straight: "We are talking about the quality of life of countless children. That means we should rush headlong into what I recognize may well be harmful arrangements, based on very recent, largely small-group studies on a politically and socially supremely contentious subject indicating for now that they're kinda-sorta okay - especially if I reject all the other studies because 'socially conservative Catholics boost them'?" That's pretty much what you're saying?

    I don’t think so.

    You say that based on what?

    I'm looking at a group of studies that involves a heavy amount of self-reporting on the part of individuals who - let's be frankly - are supremely motivated to give the best reports they can (when their reports are requests) because they know just what their data is going to be used for. Small groups, early on.

    And shakiest of all - your estimations are based on a variety of value judgments, which pours the whole question right back into philosophy and metaphysics.

    It looks to me like sci-phi is saying that opposing these arrangements is an entirely reasonable conclusion to arrive at, all told.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Crude,

      > So I'm asking - how is educating a child 'not natural'? Or giving them vaccinations?<

      By some definitions it isn't. But then neither is gay sex, or rocketry, or concrete buildings. When these things are described as unnatural, the speakers are usually appealing to a traditional, idyllic past existence which may never have existed. If you think that it is useful to talk about a distinction between natural and unnatural, then vaccinations are certainly unnatural. If you're like me (and actually Massimo, I suspect), you reject that distinction.

      >Then what was the point of citing the evidence that studied categories of people to begin with? <

      Because those who would ban gay adoption are lumping gay parents into one category. Massimo begins by arguing against them on their terms, but then ultimately explains that there is a problem with the way the argument is framed.

      >1) Are sexual behaviors relevant to choosing adoptive parents? Let's say a nice couple who are into BDSM.<

      No, as long as they confine their behaviour to interactions with consenting adults.

      >2) Do you think a child having a maternal or paternal influence in their life has been clearly established as a non-issue?<

      I think (and I think Massimo agrees) that there is no reason to think it is an issue. It hasn't been proven beyond all doubt that it is not an issue.

      >That means we should rush headlong into what I recognize may well be harmful arrangements<

      I think you are exhibiting status quo bias (google it if you haven't heard of it). We may not know for sure that allowing gay adoption is without harm, but banning it certainly does cause harm. On balance, I think the evidence indicates that the better choice is to allow it. Waiting for cast-iron proof seems like it will only serve to increase the harm overall.

      An analogy to your argument:

      John's car engine is spluttering alarmingly and he has a long journey ahead of him so he wants to be confident that it will not break down. It's under warranty, so he takes it to a mechanic. She agrees that the splutter may be a problem but observes that it doesn't necessarily mean the car is going to break down any time soon. Nevertheless, she offers to replace a component for John for free. John refuses to accept the replacement because he can't be 100% sure that it's going to be more reliable than his current component, and he doesn't want to "rush headlong into what [he] recognize[s] may well be harmful arrangements".

      It seems to me that John has been a little irrational in this case.

      Delete
    2. By some definitions it isn't. But then neither is gay sex, or rocketry, or concrete buildings. When these things are described as unnatural, the speakers are usually appealing to a traditional, idyllic past existence which may never have existed. If you think that it is useful to talk about a distinction between natural and unnatural, then vaccinations are certainly unnatural. If you're like me (and actually Massimo, I suspect), you reject that distinction.

      That still leaves me asking 'What makes these things unnatural'? As near as I can tell, pardon - you're erecting some kind of strawman. If the speaker is referring to some idiosyncratic definition of "natural" that they have in mind - something "traditional" - then you're in a bind: apparently, they're the ones who are going to determine whether 'educating a child' or 'getting a vaccination' is "traditional".

      But if it's not - if there's some external standard of natural and non-natural in play - then I'd like to know what it is. Because so far, what I've seen is no answer to that question.

      Because those who would ban gay adoption are lumping gay parents into one category. Massimo begins by arguing against them on their terms, but then ultimately explains that there is a problem with the way the argument is framed.

      Not really. I mean he 'ultimately' didn't do that in his OP. He's moving in that direction in the comments section, but in the OP he treated those studies of broad categories of people as the reason to change 'social policy'.

      No, as long as they confine their behaviour to interactions with consenting adults.

      On what basis do you say this?

      Let's put an even finer point on this with some comedy: Is Doug Thomas what one would call 'mentally healthy'? How about 'sexually healthy'?

      And, if you object to the video portion of that - let's say Doug deals with his fantasies in a totally consensual manner. Maybe he reads comic books where characters engaged in the acts he finds appealing are featured.

      I think (and I think Massimo agrees) that there is no reason to think it is an issue. It hasn't been proven beyond all doubt that it is not an issue.

      Again, let's put a fine point on this: the value of a child having a maternal influence in their family life is basically 'nil'. It really doesn't matter at all, and there's no reason to suspect it does. Correct?

      I think you are exhibiting status quo bias (google it if you haven't heard of it). We may not know for sure that allowing gay adoption is without harm, but banning it certainly does cause harm.

      How do we know that? What is this 'harm' you speak of?

      What I am exhibiting is a bias against making what is acknowledged as a potentially harmful move for little good reason.

      So no, I don't think your example works. I'll offer an example:

      John is about to go on a long journey, so he takes his car in to make sure there's nothing wrong with it. The mechanic tells John that he's got a component that he thinks may possibly make John's car more reliable. John asks the mechanic if he's sure of that. The mechanic mentions he's heard some anecdotes it helps. John asks if it's possible that this component will harm his car. The mechanic isn't sure, and in fact he's heard from some sources that it will harm the car, but the people who said that were mormons and you know how they are. John says he thinks it may be wise to skip that component installation for now.

      It seems to me John is being quite rational in this case.

      Delete
    3. Hi Crude,

      >That still leaves me asking 'What makes these things unnatural'?<

      Nothing.

      >But if it's not - if there's some external standard of natural and non-natural in play - then I'd like to know what it is.<

      There isn't. There are only idiosyncratic definitions that don't make much sense, which is actually Massimo's point.

      >Not really. I mean he 'ultimately' didn't do that in his OP. He's moving in that direction in the comments section, but in the OP he treated those studies of broad categories of people as the reason to change 'social policy'.<

      Ok, so he did it in the comments section rather than the OP. Big deal!

      >On what basis do you say this?<

      Because why should it matter what they get off on as long as they can be responsible parents?

      >Is Doug Thomas what one would call 'mentally healthy'? How about 'sexually healthy'?<

      No, he's not mentally healthy because he's talking about what he gets off on in an advertisement for his fast food restaurant, as well as including clips of him masturbating. I reject the concept of "sexually healthy" outright.

      >Maybe he reads comic books where characters engaged in the acts he finds appealing are featured.<

      Then I don't have an issue with Doug.

      >Again, let's put a fine point on this: the value of a child having a maternal influence in their family life is basically 'nil'. It really doesn't matter at all, and there's no reason to suspect it does. Correct?<

      Parental influence matters. I'm not sure the genital or chromosome configuration of the parents matters a jot.

      >What is this 'harm' you speak of?<

      Quoting myself from another comment I made:

      "harm to unadopted children, children adopted by unsuitable heterosexual couples, homosexual couples who want children and harm to homosexuals who feel they are being treated as second-class citizens by their society."

      As for the car analogy, I can see why you see it that way, and it's not clear which version of the analogy is more appropriate without some attempt to argue about the likely harms of banning or accepting gay adoption. My point is that it is just not enough to say "this is risky, let's not do it until we're sure" unless you are confident that the status quo is better, which is precisely what we are debating because I very much doubt that it is.

      Delete
    4. Nothing.

      Alright. So much for the claim then.

      There isn't. There are only idiosyncratic definitions that don't make much sense, which is actually Massimo's point.

      Respectfully, that doesn't seem to be Massimo's point in the OP, nor even in his comments. He argued in the OP that we do plenty of 'unnatural' things that only crazy people would reject doing. He certainly didn't argue that the definitions of 'natural' that are extant make no sense. Heck, he didn't even describe what definitions of 'natural' anyone is offering.

      Ok, so he did it in the comments section rather than the OP. Big deal!

      Yeah, big deal (as far as comments-section discussions can be a 'big deal' anyway). If he's rejecting an argument he made in his OP, that deserves highlighting.

      Because why should it matter what they get off on as long as they can be responsible parents?

      Because what sexual behaviors someone indulges in, believes is right and justifiable, may - and I argue, does - factor into what makes someone a good and responsible parent.

      No, he's not mentally healthy because

      A) So what? Maybe he gets off on telling people what gets him off.

      B) Again, so what? Maybe he gets off on that too.

      What part there is 'mentally unhealthy'? How do you determine that? And how do you not translate that to 'sexually unhealthy' as well?

      Then I don't have an issue with Doug.

      Alright. Resolved: a man whose sexuality is limited to 'reading comic books about people getting extra packets of ketchup when they order food in a restaurant' has no strikes against him insofar as being a fit parent goes.

      Parental influence matters. I'm not sure the genital or chromosome configuration of the parents matters a jot.

      Alright: mothers and fathers are irrelevant to a child's upbringing. Also, having an extra chromosome is no cause to suspect someone may not be a fit parent.

      Quoting myself from another comment I made:

      It doesn't answers my question, actually. What is this 'harm' you speak of? Define 'harm'. How are they harmed?

      Still, let's go down your list.

      harm to unadopted children,

      Whether children would be harmed by adoption by parents of particular sexual behaviors is precisely what's under discussion. As is whether children are harmed by being taken care of by a 'system'. I asked Massimo whether that was the sci-phi talking again.

      children adopted by unsuitable heterosexual couples

      I haven't advocated the adoption of children by unsuitable heterosexual couples, nor is anyone else that I know of, so this one is right out.

      homosexual couples who want children

      Are people who don't want homosexual couples to adopt children harmed by homosexual couples adopting children? This seems pretty flimsy.

      harm to homosexuals who feel they are being treated as second-class citizens by their society

      A great way to solve that harm is to disabuse them of the notion that their inability to adopt children equates to their being second-class citizens. I feel harmed because I'm not likely to be elected senator anytime soon, perhaps. Maybe the problem isn't with the 'harm' but my perception.

      Delete
    5. My point is that it is just not enough to say "this is risky, let's not do it until we're sure" unless you are confident that the status quo is better, which is precisely what we are debating because I very much doubt that it is.

      Got some sci-phi to back that up?

      Also, a point about the sci-phi. I think Massimo fudges a bit on what part the 'sci' is and what part the 'phi' is. Anytime a value judgment is involved, that's going to lean heavily on the 'phi' rather than the 'sci' - and that is going to include defining 'harm' or positive traits in general.

      And - this is crucial - if importing one's value judgments, one's views about right and wrong and harm and the rest - is legitimate for a 'sci-phi' evaluation, then I come bearing news: Catholics, mormons, christians, jews, and more can use sci-phi to defend their views as well. And they may come to different conclusions than what's defended here.

      Delete
    6. Hi Crude,

      >that doesn't seem to be Massimo's point in the OP<

      There are people who regard homosexuality as unnatural, and specifically homosexual adoption. He made the point that educating children can be considered to be unnatural to illustrate how useless and meaningless the natural/unnatural distinction is. He was not endorsing the distinction. It's not Massimo who needs to defend the meaning of "natural" but those who use it in their arguments against gay adoption.

      >Heck, he didn't even describe what definitions of 'natural' anyone is offering.<
      These definitions are usually not forthcoming. It is assumed that we know what it means. Massimo is exposing the problems inherent in this intuitive, unreflective view of what is "natural".

      >If he's rejecting an argument he made in his OP, that deserves highlighting.<
      He's not rejecting it. In the OP, he argues in the terms of his opponents. In the comments, he elaborated by explaining that framing the conversation in these terms is problematic anyway.

      >Because what sexual behaviors someone indulges [...] does factor into what makes someone a good and responsible parent.<
      Why?

      >A) So what? Maybe he gets off on telling people what gets him off.<
      This advertisement will not be good for his business, which I imagine he wants to succeed. As such, he is behaving in a self-defeating manner, and so I think there is something unhealthy about this.

      >What part there is 'mentally unhealthy'? How do you determine that?<
      He is behaving in a way which is likely to ruin his business, make his employees and customers uncomfortable and make him a social pariah. Unless these are goals he wants, I think there are better ways he could indulge his sexual fantasies.

      >And how do you not translate that to 'sexually unhealthy' as well?<
      I've been thinking about this. I would like to take back my rejection of "(mental) sexual health". I think a sexual fetish or orientation is pathological when it causes harm to the individual or others around him or her. Doug Thomas is such a case.

      >What is this 'harm' you speak of? Define 'harm'. How are they harmed?<

      I think you're getting needlessly fundamental here. I think we know what harm is. It is causing a state of well-being that is less than it could be otherwise.

      >Whether children would be harmed by adoption by parents of particular sexual behaviors is precisely what's under discussion<
      That's not what I said. What I said is harm caused to unadopted children. Even if you think being raised by two gay parents is harmful, why on earth do you think that it is preferable that they be raised by an institution?

      >I haven't advocated the adoption of children by unsuitable heterosexual couples<
      If you ban gay adoption then the pool of available adoptive parents is decreased and children who might otherwise be placed with a suboptimal heterosexual couple. The more adoptive parents to choose from, the better for the children.

      >Are people who don't want homosexual couples to adopt children harmed by homosexual couples adopting children?<
      This makes me very angry. How can you compare the pain of unwanted childlessness to your irritation at the idea that gay people can adopt? It has nothing to do with you. If you are "harmed" by gay adoption that's entirely in your head and you need to get over it.

      > I feel harmed because I'm not likely to be elected senator anytime soon, perhaps.<
      But that doesn't distinguish you from 99% of your fellow citizens the way a ban on gay adoption would discriminate against gays. How would you feel if there were some law that prevented you from even running for the senate, simply because of who you are? That's a much better analogy.

      >Got some sci-phi to back that up?<
      I think this was covered above.

      Delete
    7. Hi again Crude,

      I have requested a clarification from Massimo on natural and unnatural. What I get from that is that he thinks the distinction makes sense in some contexts and not in others. One definition of "unnatural" he accepts is man-made. On this definition, education and vaccination can indeed be viewed as unnatural.

      But the larger point is that whether gay adoption is natural or not has nothing to do with whether it ought to be allowed.

      Delete
    8. I have requested a clarification from Massimo on natural and unnatural.

      Well, I'm waiting for that myself. I sure hope the reply you gave wasn't his response? I think it fails obviously.

      But the larger point is that whether gay adoption is natural or not has nothing to do with whether it ought to be allowed.

      Maybe, maybe not. Rather depends on what one means by 'natural' I imagine. Regardless, if Massimo says that distinctions about 'natural' and 'non-natural' do not matter, that seems to mean at least one point in his OP has been sacrificed. He has other points.

      Why?

      It speaks about their character, their self-control, their use of sex, their justifications of sex, and more. You really don't think the one act upon which the perpetuation of the species and a good share of our lives depends is really a 'Oh well whatever you like at the moment!' affair - and that this is obvious?

      This advertisement will not be good for his business, which I imagine he wants to succeed. As such, he is behaving in a self-defeating manner, and so I think there is something unhealthy about this.

      He's a fictional character. For all we know his business will thrive. And if it did thrive, what - now it's healthy?

      Do you think gays who leave the closet to the detriment of their business indicates something unhealthy about themselves?

      He is behaving in a way which is likely to ruin his business, make his employees and customers uncomfortable and make him a social pariah. Unless these are goals he wants, I think there are better ways he could indulge his sexual fantasies.

      Maybe his goal is to gain acceptance for himself and people like him. Maybe the other people have the problem, eh?

      I've been thinking about this. I would like to take back my rejection of "(mental) sexual health". I think a sexual fetish or orientation is pathological when it causes harm to the individual or others around him or her. Doug Thomas is such a case.

      Splendid. How do you determine 'harm to the individual' or to others around him?

      Because right now you seem to suggest that this turns heavily on social reaction to his sexual interest. I really don't think you're going to want to walk down that particular road too far.

      I think you're getting needlessly fundamental here. I think we know what harm is. It is causing a state of well-being that is less than it could be otherwise.

      I actually don't think I am. I'm on a philosophy blog, am I not? This isn't 'needlessly' fundamental - it's essential. I want to know what the ideal state of well-being is, and how that's determined. It sure seems to me that the classical Aristotilean, the modern naturalist, and others may disagree about this.

      That's not what I said. What I said is harm caused to unadopted children. Even if you think being raised by two gay parents is harmful, why on earth do you think that it is preferable that they be raised by an institution?

      You tell me. I asked already: does sci-phi show that 'being raised by an institution' is harmful? Back to what counts as 'harm' again too.

      By the by - it's not 'two gay parents'. I wouldn't be so hot on a My Two Dads situation either. Or being raised by a single parent. I think the ideal is a mother and father of good moral, intellectual, and economic standing.

      If you ban gay adoption then the pool of available adoptive parents is decreased and children who might otherwise be placed with a suboptimal heterosexual couple. The more adoptive parents to choose from, the better for the children.

      The last part is under question. More than that, that still shows I haven't advocated placing children with bad heterosexual couples.

      Delete
    9. This makes me very angry. How can you compare the pain of unwanted childlessness to your irritation at the idea that gay people can adopt? It has nothing to do with you. If you are "harmed" by gay adoption that's entirely in your head and you need to get over it.

      A) I can compare it pretty easily.
      B) It seems to be 'entirely in the head' whether you're talking about me, or the gay couple. Why am I the one who has to get it out of my head? Why don't they get their pain out of theirs?

      The point is, your standard for 'harm' on this one is something I do not think works.

      But that doesn't distinguish you from 99% of your fellow citizens the way a ban on gay adoption would discriminate against gays.

      My fellow citizens mostly seem uninterested in being a senator. They 'got over it'.

      How would you feel if there were some law that prevented you from even running for the senate, simply because of who you are? That's a much better analogy.

      A man with same-sex attraction can adopt children. Homosexual couples can't (in some areas, anyway.) I know you'll roll your eyes at it, but I don't particularly have a problem with a man who is sexually attracted to men, but who has a wife and a good sense of self-control, self-awareness, etc, adopting. I wouldn't even oppose Doug Thomas, if Doug Thomas had his urges under control and lived a better life, sexually speaking.

      And the funny thing is, we now live in a world where legally, people like me can be fired if it so much as comes out that I oppose gay adoption, gay marriage, etc. I strongly suspect you don't mind this state of affairs.

      I think this was covered above.

      I didn't see it being covered.

      Delete
    10. Hi Crude

      > I sure hope the reply you gave wasn't his response?<

      Sorry to disappoint. You can see his response on this page. It's his last comment, I believe.

      >at least one point in his OP has been sacrificed.<

      No. By arguing that some "good" things such as education are "unnatural", he argues that what is unnatural is orthogonal to what is good. The point he was making is consistent with the view that the distinction is useless for this conversation.

      >It speaks about their character, their self-control, their use of sex<

      It speaks about their use of sex only. I see nothing wrong with the character of someone who gets off on something you or I find strange. Nor of self-control. Where there is no harm caused by a behaviour there is no need to control it.

      >You really don't think the one act upon which the perpetuation of the species and a good share of our lives depends is really a 'Oh well whatever you like at the moment!' affair - and that this is obvious?<

      So, sex has to do with reproduction. I don't see how it follows from this that only reproductive sex is permissable.

      >He's a fictional character.<

      And a comedic one. Don't blame me for taking the sketch seriously, you asked me to after all, so I gave my opinion as if it were a real advertisement.

      >Do you think gays who leave the closet to the detriment of their business indicates something unhealthy about themselves?<

      In that case I think it indicates something unhealthy about the society that would shun them. But gay restaurateurs don't usually feel it is appropriate to film themselves having orgasms for advertisements.

      >Because right now you seem to suggest that this turns heavily on social reaction to his sexual interest.<

      Not exactly. When he displays footage of himself having orgasms to his customers, and when he tells customers that they are the objects of his orgasms, he is involving them in his sex life in a way that is not acceptable, in my view. This is not merely an issue of social acceptance. He is sexually harrassing customers, causing harm that an LGBT restaurateur would not.

      Delete
    11. >This isn't 'needlessly' fundamental <

      There's no need to get to fundamentals unless you really think there is reason to doubt we share an understanding of what constitutes harm. I find that unlikely. Perhaps you can explain why you want to get into it.

      >does sci-phi show that 'being raised by an institution' is harmful? <

      I'm not going to do research right now. But yes, I think it does. A priori, it seems to be far from ideal to me to deprive a child of love and a meaningful stable long-term relationship with an adult figure or figures in their lives. I don't think an institution can provide that. I really can't get my head around the mentality that insists that a child needs a male and female parent but thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to have a child raised by the staff of an institution. That seems to be wildly inconsistent to me.

      >More than that, that still shows I haven't advocated placing children with bad heterosexual couples.<

      I'm not saying you have, but if you try to place the same number of children with the same number of parents then reducing the pool of available parents necessarily means children being adopted by lower quality parents. The alternative is more children being raised by institutions. So either way, it's not a good outcome for the children. The two types of harm could be condensed into one if you like: harm caused to children who would have benefited from the provision of a stable home by gay couples.

      >It seems to be 'entirely in the head' whether you're talking about me, or the gay couple<

      That is just so insensitive and egotistical it shocks me. Your indignation is not a justification for you to interfere in the lives of others. Even if your pain arises out of justifiable concern for the welfare of the child, the issue still has nothing to do with your pain. Base your argument instead on the welfare of the child.

      I passionately believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt, but I am not myself gay. Notice how I don't include myself in the list of parties harmed by a ban on gay adoption. If it is legitimate for you to include yourself then so is my including myself, and it cancels out your indignation precisely.

      >By the by - it's not 'two gay parents'.<

      Of course it is. We are discussing whether gays should adopt children, and we need to look at the alternatives. For some children the alternatives will be being raised in an institution. It's not enough to argue that two gay parents are not ideal because the alternative is not ideal either, and in my view much, much worse.

      >My fellow citizens mostly seem uninterested in being a senator. They 'got over it'.<

      Your analogy still fails because most citizens have not "got over" being denied the right to parent.

      >I don't particularly have a problem with a man who is sexually attracted to men, but who has a wife and a good sense of self-control<

      Ok, so put yourself in his shoes. How would you feel if you had to live with a gay man as a married couple, swear off having sex with women, and possibly even engage in gay sex on a semi-regular basis before you could adopt or run for senator? I doubt you would be happy with that state of affairs. I suspect you would be frustrated and outraged. I think you are sorely lacking in empathy and imagination if you just expect gay people to calmly accept the status quo.

      >I strongly suspect you don't mind this state of affairs.<

      I find your views offensive and repugnant, but personally I would not want you fired if you kept them to yourself in the workplace and were respectful and worked well with people of other orientations.

      Delete
    12. Perhaps you can explain why you want to get into it.

      Because I think we disagree on what constitutes harm, and that the very idea ultimately rests on metaphysical and philosophical premises which are relevant to the discussion.

      I really can't get my head around the mentality that insists that a child needs a male and female parent but thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to have a child raised by the staff of an institution. That seems to be wildly inconsistent to me.

      No, I think a child is ideally placed with a male and female parent involved in a loving heterosexual union. But I'm trying to play the 'sci-phi' game as outlined here. Frankly, I think the responses here have been pretty inconsistent - and I wonder how sincere the standards are.

      I'm not saying you have, but if you try to place the same number of children with the same number of parents then reducing the pool of available parents necessarily means children being adopted by lower quality parents. The alternative is more children being raised by institutions.

      Not really. I mean, there's a wide variety of options we could pursue to raise the number of heterosexual couples raising children as well. We're not limited to strictly binary choices. And we certainly don't need to lower standards.

      Base your argument instead on the welfare of the child.

      That would mean, automatically, ruling out 'harm to the gay couples who desire a child but who can't adopt one' and 'harm to the gay people who think that their being denied adoption rights is an insult' straightaway. Which was part of the point of the reply.

      If it is legitimate for you to include yourself then so is my including myself, and it cancels out your indignation precisely.

      "Canceled out"? It's not a math equation where I'm -x and you just put 'x' on the other side of the = sign and we're good.

      It's not enough to argue that two gay parents are not ideal because the alternative is not ideal either, and in my view much, much worse.

      'In your view'? Based on what? What studies? Or are you rejecting the need for studies, or even philosophical argument? I'm not seeing that either.

      And no - my point was that it's not as if 'gays' are singled out necessarily as unable to adopt. A SSA man married to a wife, in a loving relationship, healthy environment? I'd have no opposition. Two heterosexual men wanting to adopt a child? I'd still oppose it.

      Your analogy still fails because most citizens have not "got over" being denied the right to parent.

      Sounds like they should, eh? And they're denied no 'right to parent'. They can get married, even just plain conceive, quite readily.

      Ok, so put yourself in his shoes.

      Bad comparison, since you're inventing some bizarre world where homosexual couples are the (reproductive? ethical?) norm.

      How about I really put myself in his shoes: what if I were exclusively attracted to people of the same sex, and if I wanted to have or adopt a child I'd have to get married to a woman I loved, have a nice household, etc? Simple: I'd accept that as entirely sensible. But that's me.

      I think you are sorely lacking in empathy and imagination if you just expect gay people to calmly accept the status quo.

      And I think you're putting far too much value in personal outrage and indignation.

      Delete
    13. I find your views offensive and repugnant, but personally I would not want you fired if you kept them to yourself in the workplace and were respectful and worked well with people of other orientations.

      Oh really? 'Kept them to myself in the workplace'? I'm sure you don't mean a special rule singling me out - pro-LGBT people should be expected to keep their views to themselves in the workplace, and be respectful and work well with people who disagree with LGBT organization positions, right?

      Or am I expected to calmly accept that particular status quo?

      Delete
    14. Actually, I suppose I could rack up my last question with another.

      Should people who believe that sodomy is immoral be allowed to adopt? Should that be a strike against them?

      Delete
    15. Hi Crude,
      Sorry, was busy for a couple of days.

      >Because I think we disagree on what constitutes harm<
      Perhaps we do. I think causing harm is causing a sub-optimal state of affairs. It's a pretty broad category. There is physical harm, psychological harm, economical harm. Perhaps you could tell me what you think "harm" means so we can zero in on the disagreement you perceive.

      >I think a child is ideally placed with a male and female parent involved in a loving heterosexual union<
      Understood. But which do you think is preferable, if no such couple is available: placing a child with a gay couple, or placing the child in an institution?

      >Frankly, I think the responses here have been pretty inconsistent - and I wonder how sincere the standards are.<
      Where are the inconsistencies?

      >We're not limited to strictly binary choices. And we certainly don't need to lower standards.<
      I disagree. If there is a shortage of parents, then we should already be taking whatever measures we can to increase the number of parents available. Once that project is underway, we're back at the original question. Given that a bigger pool is better, do we further increase the pool of parents by accepting gay couples or do we not?

      >That would mean, automatically, ruling out 'harm to the gay couples who desire a child but who can't adopt one' and 'harm to the gay people who think that their being denied adoption rights is an insult' straightaway.<

      No, because my point is that your "pain" is only based on concern for the welfare of the child. The pain of gay people in a society that discriminates against them is in addition to considerations about the welfare of the child.

      >"Canceled out"? It's not a math equation where I'm -x and you just put 'x' on the other side of the = sign and we're good.<

      True. Nevertheless if you get to count my pain I get to count mine. My point is that banning gay adoption causes harm. I think that point has been proven.

      >Or are you rejecting the need for studies, or even philosophical argument?<

      I'm not going to do research. Prima facie, it seems to me that being raised by an orphanage is not as ideal as being raised by gay parents. If you want to get into a serious debate about that then tell me why you doubt it.

      >since you're inventing some bizarre world where homosexual couples are the (reproductive? ethical?) norm.<

      Bizarre to you. To a gay couple, where they are discriminated against because of who they love, this world is bizarre.

      >Simple: I'd accept that as entirely sensible. But that's me.<

      You're not really putting yourself in his shoes if you are imagining being gay and having no problem marrying a woman unless you can imagine yourself being straight and having no problem marrying a man. It's the same thing. I think if you see a difference between the two situations then you're not really picturing what it would feel like to be a gay man in that situation.

      >Or am I expected to calmly accept that particular status quo?<
      I'd be pro free speech in general, but in order to fight intolerance we need to be intolerant of it, the same way we need laws to protect liberty and (the threat of) violence to protect against violence. Views which expressly condemn co-workers for their personal lifestyle choices are not conducive to a healthy work environment. I would also be against open advocacy of atheism in the workplace.

      >Should people who believe that sodomy is immoral be allowed to adopt? Should that be a strike against them?<
      Perhaps. Should the adopted child turn out to be gay, then I would want to know how the parents would handle the situation. If they could accept a gay child then I would allow adoption. If not, then I would not.

      Delete
    16. Just a clarification on this last point:

      ==================
      >Should people who believe that sodomy is immoral be allowed to adopt? Should that be a strike against them?<
      Perhaps. Should the adopted child turn out to be gay, then I would want to know how the parents would handle the situation. If they could accept a gay child then I would allow adoption. If not, then I would not.
      ===============

      I wouldn't propose a blanket ban. If the alternative is to place them with an institution or an unsuitable couple, then I would probably allow those who believe sodomy is immoral to be adopt, depending on the depth of the prejudice. But I would see it as sub-optimal.

      Delete
  16. Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. What can be "instilled" by a religion, can nevertheless be fully natural with fully naturalistic roots. Concerns over masturbation & pornography. Concerns over non-procreative sex. Concerns about preserving life. It's simply too easy and lazy to state that all such concerns can be dismissed out of hand because leaders in a given religion express concerns. For me, as an ex-Mormon, it's a matter of balance.

    It's very hard work for an ex-religionist to find what really is of value, from a human perspective, amongst all the chaff & lies in their former religion. With religions like Mormonism this is a particularly hard task because of the incredibly strict & controlling nature of Mormonism. When one leaves such a religion one can naturally feel the need to let it all hang out & to rebel as much as possible. On the other hand, if you let it all hang out for too long, you may either a.) cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father, or b.) spend your life as a morbidly obese virgin who's obsessed with porn & masturbation - to the exclusion of normal & healthy flesh & blood human relations.

    Do humans have a right to marry if they're gay? Perhaps. But regardless enough people now feel as if their "moral zeitgeist" has moved along such that they now feel self-professed gay people should be able to marry legally. Most any opinion can be justified by case law, left or right or otherwise.

    Should gay couples adopt children? Maybe. I suppose if abusive straight ones can adopt & take in foster kids, then more reasonable & kind gay couples probably should be able to. But it's still an open question for me as to whether having a lack of gender balance with parents has a negative or detrimental effect on children. It may, at the very least, allow the brains of children to be drawn more readily into them considering themselves to be “gay,” when they may accurately be more “bi” or a mix, or both, or able to go either way – reasonably. Being "gay accepting" can allow for the brains of children to consider "gayness" as more of an option. There are gradations.

    I’m simply trying to convey that it’s too simplistic to state that conservative views can be dismissed out of hand because people who’re currently religious happen to make such claims. Dennett’s truth about the natural state of religion does cut both ways, and should give pause to the liberal as he may be working to fervently adhere to his own dogma points.

    What comes out of the mouths of humans is always natural. I think we can be more kind & compassionate though, and expand our in group morality. But we also need to be careful. Warnings from religion can have value & can be fully natural & reasonable. It's hard work to separate the lie-infused covering from the nevertheless-naturalistic-truths which may be inside and which need to be considered even if they were inside of the Mormon or Catholic burrito. My apologies to Mexican food. I prefer human free thinker atheist Chinese burritos myself. Much more tasty.

    Longer version of my thoughts: http://goo.gl/bqExBh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi birdman,

      I do think it's a good idea to be very skeptical of ideas promoted by religion. It can be very hard to know which of your values have been instilled by your upbringing and which have rational justification. A case in point, I can see a number of objections to your arguments.

      In particular on masturbation and pornography, I can see how these might be seen as a defense against STDs. You're not going to get AIDS from jacking off, after all. And you're not going to get obese either. You get obese from over-eating and lack of exercise, not from masturbation. There may be some weak correlation there but I think not as much as you assume. You're also not going to fulfil your need for companionship, and no amount of masturbation is going to prevent you from falling in love when you meet the right person.

      I do think that it is good not to cheat on a spouse, but I'd be more concerned about causing emotional harm than I would about STD's. Risk of STD's can be managed. After all, unless you are also against pre-marital sex, then the risk of STD's is a risk that must be managed by all single people who date others.

      I applaud you for leaving Mormonism, but it really does seem to me that you are left with a lot of overly-conservative values that need to be re-examined. Your overly negative stereotype of masturbation, and your hyper-paranoid equation of infidelity=death are good examples of this.

      But so is your argument against gay adoption.

      >Being "gay accepting" can allow for the brains of children to consider "gayness" as more of an option.<

      I think you may be right, particularly for bisexual children who might have otherwise chosen to live straight. The difference is I don't think that's a bad thing. I mean, why should it be? If gay relationships are an option for them you think they wouldn't otherwise have acknowledged, then surely it's good that they now realise that option is there. They've doubled their chances of meeting the right person, and will feel free to nurture an attraction they might otherwise have stifled. Even more importantly, they will not feel guilt or shame for those attractions. I imagine they will be mentally much healthier as a result.

      Your assumption that being straight is better than being gay is to me a clear indicator that you are still overly swayed by your Mormon upbringing.

      Delete
    2. Hi.What I'm advocating for is that the questions of whether elements of conservative thought are actually valid should be *on the table* so to speak, and not swept under the carpet out of fear of offending the new self-appointed leaders of dogmatic liberal de-facto religion. One way of sweeping them under is to try & dismiss them out of hand "because a religion advocated for a given point." It's not that easy or simple is what I'm saying. I added more thoughts at http://goo.gl/1UQlta

      Delete
    3. Hi birdman,

      I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with that core point. Religion advocates against murder. Not even the most rabid atheist nutcase is going to take from this that murder is good.

      I just don't really agree with the examples you gave, and to me they only illustrate why we ought to scrutinise very carefully values derived from religion.

      Delete
  17. There is really nothing to quibble about the philosophy and science argument above, but what has dramatically changed in the past decade on whether adoption is good or bad is attitudes reflected in polls. And this change is due to the influence of media (TV shows, especially) and politics (people speaking out and coming out). So in a way the media and politics "argument" has been more significant than the philosophy and science argument for many people.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Massimo,

    >If by reality you mean that moral truths are out there, I don’t, so my position is perfectly consistent. And if it is naive, then I’m in good company, beginning with Hume and ending with, say Blackburn.<

    I don't think moral truths are "out there" either, if only because I'm not sure what that would mean. I do however believe that there is an aspect of reality that supports the truth/falsity of claims about what is ethically right/wrong. If one does not believe in some such aspect of reality, then it becomes incoherent to assert, e.g.:

    'It would be ethically wrong to deny gay couples the opportunity to adopt'

    The reason is that assertion carries the force "it is true that." This is evident in the fact that it is absurd to assert something then deny its truth.

    Perhaps your position is consistent but I'm don't see how you can navigate the world without any thoughts or statements about what is ethically right and wrong. (Though that you live in Manhattan helps a little (kidding) ;)

    If somehow you do find some sense in statements of ethical right and wrong, the sense of rights talk follows, as rights talk is a part of talk about right and wrong. To illustrate, if it is ethically wrong to deny gay couples the opportunity to adopt then gay couples have an ethical right to an opportunity to adopt. This is just how ordinary ethical language works. And this language has a version in law. A disbelief in legal rights would make it difficult to get through law school.

    While some views about what rights are may be dubious, it actually makes little sense to say generally that rights do not exist. They are not odd entities supposedly "out there" near Saturn. They are along the lines of predicates that function as shorthand for more elaborate claims in ethical or legal discourse.


    >Ah, this is the mirror mistake to Harris’. No, I don’t think you can do ethics (or any philosophy, except for logic) “period.” If we are talking about matters that are relevant to the world we live in, then factual information better get into it at some level.<

    By "doing" philosophy I just mean addressing philosophical/ethical questions. Surely philosophical questions exist and it is possible to address them, no?

    My point about "sciphi" is that considering factual information has generally been a part of doing philosophy so I don't see the need for a hybrid term that indicates such consideration. This suggests a bit of scientific prejudice toward philosophy, I think. Might it not be a bit offensive to philosophers to suggest that philosophy that considers factual information requires a special name?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Paul,

      Perhaps I can make sense of moral non-realist morality.

      "'It would be ethically wrong to deny gay couples the opportunity to adopt'"

      To me, this is just a way of saying:

      "I personally find it repugnant to deny gay couples the opportunity to adopt, and I hope to convince you to share my view by appealing to values we both share".

      For communities and societies that have already effectively had this conversation, this perceived repugnance is likely to be shared, and so this consensus serves to confer rights to individuals. These rights, like laws, exist as a kind of social convention but have no independent existence of their own.

      Where two societies or individuals disagree about what rights exist, neither is right or wrong, just as two individuals may disagree about whether a painting is beautiful without either being objectively correct.

      Delete
    2. Hi DM,

      I appreciate your input, as always, but I find the view you state quite problematic. It implies that there's nothing wrong with anything so long as no one feels repugnance about it. It also suggests that "wrongness" is nothing more than whatever people find repugnant.

      Very often in history societies have regarded homosexuality as repugnant, does that mean it was wrong in those societies?

      In our present times, if no one felt repugnance at the idea of denying gays the opportunity to adopt, would that mean there is nothing wrong with such denial?

      We need ethics precisely because there is a reality of right and wrong that is not tracked reliably by emotions, such as repugnance, traditions, conventions, etc..

      Also consider that your view renders the notion of moral progress nonsense. If there's nothing to morality except social attitudes, then you cannot say that a society has improved morally on such matters as treatment of minorities, women, etc.. Improvement with respect to what? Moralities just change must be your view.

      For a clearer thought experiment, consider black slavery at a time when everyone thought it was just the way things ought to be. At that time was there nothing wrong going on with respect to the slaves? If there was, how can your view explain this?

      Delete
    3. Daniel,

      I see what you mean. I meant: The reason we are compelled to do the inquiry we call 'ethics' is that we sense that there's more to matter than how we happen to feel about it.

      Regarding accepting something as true because we need it, I would never make such an argument. What I claimed was that we need ethical inquiry because there is a truth of the matter.

      Delete
    4. Hi Paul,

      > It implies that there's nothing wrong with anything so long as no one feels repugnance about it. It also suggests that "wrongness" is nothing more than whatever people find repugnant.<
      Precisely!

      >Very often in history societies have regarded homosexuality as repugnant, does that mean it was wrong in those societies?<
      It meant that people in those societies felt it was wrong. I reject the idea of wrongness in an objective sense.

      >In our present times, if no one felt repugnance at the idea of denying gays the opportunity to adopt, would that mean there is nothing wrong with such denial?<
      Again, not believing in objective morality the question doesn't really make sense to me. There is nothing objectively wrong with it. I still feel it to be wrong, and what's important to me, oddly enough, is what feels wrong to me.

      I think your questions indicate you think I'm trying to resurrect the idea of an objective morality by taking as objective the consensus of a society. So, the reductio ad absurdum goes, if there were a society with improper morals then that society would have the effect of making evil good and good evil. That's not my view. I reject the idea of objective good and evil entirely. Rights, societal norms, etc, are descriptive terms. What matters to me is what I personally consider to be right and wrong. Hypothetical societies with improper morality do not affect that.

      >We need ethics precisely because there is a reality of right and wrong that is not tracked reliably by emotions, such as repugnance, traditions, conventions, etc..<
      As Daniel said, this is clearly question begging. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.

      >Also consider that your view renders the notion of moral progress nonsense.<
      Not entirely. There does seem to be a trajectory, with an expansion of empathy and consideration. Even if there is no objective right or wrong we can observe this trajectory and even make predictions about where it will take us in future.

      >Moralities just change must be your view.<
      Yes, objectively speaking. Speaking from my personal point of view, I regard moral improvement as change I agree with. Many religious types feel that we are descending into decadence and nihilism and that our morality is in fact being eroded. Moral progress is, like morality itself, subjective.

      >At that time was there nothing wrong going on with respect to the slaves?<
      Not objectively.

      >If there was, how can your view explain this?<
      Because I find it repugnant and you find it repugnant. That's all we need to call it immoral (from our point of view).

      Delete
    5. >In our present times, if no one felt repugnance at the idea of denying gays the opportunity to adopt, would that mean there is nothing wrong with such denial?<

      Strange example, as it would mean that no gay couple even wants to adopt or would be totally fine with not being allowed to...

      Delete
  19. The Maddox approach to the issue is funny and insightful, albeit crude: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=gay

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Massimo,

    You may be finished with this conversation, but could you perhaps quickly clarify that you do not regard the natural/unnatural distinction as coherent in order to confirm what I'm saying to Crude?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do, actually. Supernatural means outside the laws of nature, and capable of suspending or altering them. I don't see anything incoherent with the notion - as completely unfounded as it is.

      Delete
    2. But I didn't say supernatural, I said unnatural. I agree the natural/supernatural distinction is coherent. Those who say homosexuality is unnatural are not arguing that it is supernatural. They mean "natural" in the sense of "traditional" or "of the past".

      Again, do you think the natural/unnatural distinction is coherent?

      Delete
    3. Oh, sorry, am in a hurry this morning. Preparing for a trip to Italy. Well, yes and no. Meaning: of course human beings are part of nature, so from that perspective there is no meaningful distinction to be made. But I do think that in a number of practical contexts - say the discussion concerning vaccines - it makes perfect sense to separate "natural" from "man made." Hope this makes more sense...

      Delete
    4. DM: I'd object that your account of the meaning of "natural" isn't quite accurate, in my view. It's neither about tradition nor about status quo qua status quo. Aristotle posited that the goodness of a thing corresponds to that thing's unique function (I am not arguing for the teleology of organs, but of humans), and that the unique human function is rationality. Therefore, sodomitical acts would be unnatural (and thus immoral) primarily because there is no intelligible reason to perform them.

      Delete
    5. DM: I'd object that your account of the meaning of "natural" isn't quite accurate, in my view. It's neither about tradition nor about status quo qua status quo. Aristotle posited that the goodness of a thing corresponds to that thing's unique function (I am not arguing for the teleology of organs, but of humans), and that the unique human function is rationality. Therefore, sodomitical acts would be unnatural primarily because there is no intelligible reason to perform them.

      Delete
    6. Hi NiqDan,

      Firstly, "natural" doesn't have one meaning. It means different things to different people and in different contexts, You can define natural according to this meaning if you want to clarify things for a discussion, but you don't get to say that me or Massimo are wrong with ours.

      Secondly, I don't know what you mean by intelligible. We had this discussion before. To me, "intelligible" means "understandable". I understand why gay people have sex, therefore it is intelligible to me. Why is it unintelligible to you?

      Delete
    7. ND,
      > there is no intelligible reason to perform them.<

      that is because you have no imagination.

      Delete
    8. DM: I do get to defend how I think natural law coherently works, by referencing A&T as I've attempted above. I'm aware that other understandings of natural law are popular, but I think they're flawed. I'll leave that for now, to stay on topic. I think the question in my view reduces to why we do things. The claim is that animals respond to instinct, but only humans really choose anything. Maybe you deny that humans choose, or that they do so freely. But if we choose, it must be done with the practical intellect, as Aristotle supposes.

      Now, as the speculative intellect operates from its very beginning with underived and irreducible principles, such as the law of non-contradiction, so the practical intellect operates from a priori principles, the main one being "Good is to be done and evil avoided." Thus, humans only choose that which they think is apparently good. Even the masochist chooses to knowingly harm himself because in the end he thinks his psychological victory (or whatever) in doing so is best for him. But these goods we choose can't just keep instrumenting into other, subsequent goods ad infinatum, or choice would no longer be meaningful. "Why are you doing that?" could always have some subsequent reason, and so we'd lose the very purpose of asking.

      The purpose of asking is rooted in the objects that are required to make any principle intelligible, and yes, here intelligible means understandable, but not necessarily with the speculative intellect of things static. Ultimately, there are goods pursued for their own sakes, such as life, health, play, knowledge, excellent performance. Why do I want to be healthy? Maybe to make it into my retirement condo on the beach, but that reason soon terminates; ultimately I want to be healthy to be healthy.

      Thus, health is a basic good which forms the object of certain practical principles we all have a rational impetus (and not merely an instinct) to follow, such as: "Eat real food, avoid poison." Thus reaching for even a foreseeably worthless candy bar is intelligible as reducing to the rational benefit of health, even if some subjective goal of the agent is to have momentary pleasure and not health per se. Sodomitical acts, on the other hand, might enact multitudinous subjective goals, but are not reducible to something pursued for its own sake; to engage in such acts is like throwing rocks at swans; it just doesn't make any sense.

      MF: I understand imagination to refer strictly to the material part of our minds that stores memories, so I can't yet follow how marshaling a number of memories into a new, irreducible, reason to do something is honest.

      Delete
    9. Hi NiqDan,

      Of course you get to defend whatever vision of natural law you like. I was just objecting to your jumping into a conversation by saying that our definition was wrong.

      So, adopting your definition, it makes sense until the point when you conclude that "sodomitical acts" are not reducible to something pursued for its own sake. I would argue that it is pursued for the sake of sexual pleasure, and that this pleasure is a basic good. We pursue pleasure for the sake of pleasure the way we pursue health for the sake of health.

      But I also see a parallel to your candy bar example. For you, eating a worthless candy bar is intelligible because the desire for the candy is a form of the desire to eat, which reduces to the "rational benefit of health". I don't see how the same argument could not justify "sodomitical acts". The desire for gay sex is a form of the desire for sex, which reduces to the "rational benefit to reproduce". If in the candy bar example it doesn't matter that the candy bar isn't *actually* healthy I don't see why it matters for gay sex that the act is not *actually* going to lead to reproduction.

      But ultimately I would reject the candy bar analogy because I think eating candy is in some sense bad (because it does harm to health) but I don't think the same is true of gay sex. Gay sex provides pleasure and can be an important part of a stable, loving, rewarding relationship, so I see it unambiguously as a basic good.in its own right.

      Delete
    10. Thanks for your thoughts. I would reply that pleasure is only as good as the act to which it's attached, because one could take great pleasure in assaulting people, etc. As opposed to being a "form" of conjugal desire, moreover, I think the homosexually inclined realize that the culmination of their fantasies will not be intrinsically fulfilling, any more so than would be their shaking hands; rather, I think they are some of the most hurting people on the planet (as testimonies on the ItGetsBetter website indicate), knowing their appetites and drives are strong, but also that pursuing them lacks practical inteligibility in itself, even if they were to live in a harassment-free world. Although I don't base my argument on organic teleology, it remains disingenuous, in my view, for science and psychology to acknowledge that many bodily functions can go awry at any point in development, but that it's _impossible_ for someone's sex drive to be anomalously routed. That's science turning a blind eye to the possible truth of a very painful human condition, and so is an unscientific move, special pleading, and unjustified.

      Delete
    11. Hi NiqDan,

      >. I would reply that pleasure is only as good as the act to which it's attached, because one could take great pleasure in assaulting people<

      I would take a utilitarian view of good and bad. Pleasure that causes no harm is unequivocally a good thing to me. Pleasure that comes at the expense of causing harm, as in your example, is not a good thing.

      > I think the homosexually inclined realize that the culmination of their fantasies will not be intrinsically fulfilling<

      I don't think that's true at all.

      > it remains disingenuous, in my view, for science and psychology to acknowledge that many bodily functions can go awry at any point in development, but that it's _impossible_ for someone's sex drive to be anomalously routed. <

      Good point. Again, I would take a utilitarian standpoint. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad except in terms of how it impacts on individuals. There is no objective standard of what constitutes "awry" or "anomalously routed". We determine for ourselves what is considered healthy or pathological. Heart disease is bad because it increases risk of heart attack (and so mortality), not because it's a deviation from some Platonic ideal. Science is not turning a blind eye to a condition - plenty of scientists study human sexuality. But the branding of homosexuality as pathological is a value judgement, not a scientific one.

      Perhaps I might concede that homosexuality is not an ideal condition in that it reduces the opportunity to reproduce, but to me that effect that is better ameliorated through allowing homosexual couples to adopt than it is by encouraging them to live unhappily as heterosexuals. The other downside is prejudice, and your position is contributing to the problem rather than the solution.

      Delete
    12. Hi Daniel,

      Massimo specifically addressed the appeal to nature in his post. NiqDan is trying to defend the appeal to nature by explaining why he thinks homosexuality is unnatural, and I guess sinful. This obviously has a bearing on adoption by gay couples even if it is a distinct issue.

      I agree with you that whether Niq has a point or not, it's hard to see how foster care is preferable to gay adoption. Case closed. But that's precisely why I'm not much interested in that. It's so clearly the right answer there's not much to say about it.

      I'm much more interested in NiqDan's rationalisation of homophobia because I want to understand his viewpoint. I find views different from my own to be very interesting, at least until the point where I have a good grasp of them.

      Delete
    13. Hi Daniel,

      >Since when is "unnaturalness" and "sinfulness" from a religious perspective---or even a moral one---grounds for denying people the ability to adopt children? <

      You're kind of forcing me to devil's advocate here, but:

      If it is immoral, then the parents are knowingly living in an immoral manner. Their morality may let them down in other ways more relevant to parenting. You wouldn't want a serial killer raising kids, for example, even if they have never committed crimes against children.

      If it is sinful, then they are promoting a sinful way of life which might lead their children away from God. From a Christian perspective, you would not want muslims, atheists or satanists to adopt children either.

      Now, I think that's all nonsense because I don't believe in God and I don't think it is sinful or immoral. But given the right premises I don't think it's entirely without foundation.

      >Straight people engage in sodomy in far greater numbers than gay people. When is the last time you heard someone propose that a law abiding, stable, mentally healthy straight couple be denied the ability to adopt a child, because they engage in oral sex, in their bedroom?<

      Tu quoque fallacy. It goes to show how prejudiced society is against homosexual sodomy in particular. It does not actually mount much of a defense against NiqDan's arguments against sodomy in general.

      >People like Niq are simply gay-haters who try to dress it up in philosophical arguments to make is seem credible.<

      Absolutely (although I doubt ND sees this). Nevertheless I enjoy picking the arguments apart. Engaging in civil disagreement is one of my passtimes and a major reason for posting here.

      Delete
    14. > It does not actually mount much of a defense against NiqDan's arguments against sodomy in general.<

      But it is a problem given the claim that same-sex marriage will somehow "harm" straight marriage. If straight marriage already has all the "harms" that same-sex marriage would supposed cause, then that is not a reason for denial.

      Delete
    15. Hi Michael,

      Good point.

      A possible counter-argument could be to argue that the "harms" you mention are the evidence of the damage already caused by the acceptance of homosexuality and general liberalisation of sex in society over the past few decades. We need to get back to a mythical purer time when all sex was procreative and in the missionary position only, and the first step on this righteous path is the demonisation of homosexuality.

      But of course that's all bollocks.

      Delete
    16. DM: I think one of the problems with utilitarianism, which is addressed by the virtue ethics system, is that in the virtue ethics system one supposes that the agent can hurt or harm _himself_ by his choices and acts. Even if the consequentialist grants that possibility, the harm to the agent doesn't seem commensurable with the harm to other sentients. For how could we compare the two harms? The alcoholic might not _really_ regret his choices (while they are still choices) until his liver has failed. More importantly, however, at some point he may not only regret having poor health, but may regret that he became the type of person who would allow his choice-powers to be weakened to the point of addiction. In other words, no one can accuse the virtuous man of being "the type of person who does X," but once the utilitarian once commits X, for whatever reason, he becomes the type of person who does X, and that itself is a separate harm from actually doing X. Therefore, I would ask how happy the practicing homosexual is that he has become the type of person who practices sodomy at the drop of a dime, or at the prompting of media darlings, and who consequently finds his appetite ever more insurmountable, as opposed to becoming the type of person who chooses in accord with practical reason.

      @Fugate: If your analogy's right, then public school has the inextricable "harms" of fistfighting, so we shouldn't deny fistfighting? I think there's a difference between married men feeling insecure, and their feeling insecure directly because of a political policy.

      Delete
  21. Thanks for asking. I would agree that oral sex intended to culminate in anything other than vaginal intercourse would be a sodomitical act and thereby unintelligible. If it's used as foreplay to coitus, however, it's part of an intelligible enterprise.

    I think naturalness bears on the question if we remember that the unique facet of human nature is the use of reason. If we deny that reason makes humans different in kind (and not just in degree) from other animals, our views won't likely converge.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Daniel,

    I would also be skeptical of NiqDan's Aristotelian premises, but it seems to me that the conclusion that gay sex is unintelligible doesn't follow even if we grant those premises. Do you not agree?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Massimo:

    Thank you for a thoughtful and lucid treatment of this issue.

    A purely tangential observation: The apparent harmlessness of gay adoption seems to falsify, or at least challenge, certain sociological theories of gender formation.

    Some theories treat gender identity as roughly analogous to (for example) ethnic identity. I.e., You aren't born with it, but you learn it when you are very young, and it becomes "second nature". Typically the family unit is viewed as a plausible site for the "reproduction" of gender identity, since children spend so much time with their parents and learn from them, both directly and by observing and imitating what their parents do.

    But the research you've linked to suggests that some part of this picture isn't correct:

    "The study concludes "there was no evidence" to support speculation that children's masculine or feminine tendencies are affected by having gay or lesbian parents. Family life and the quality of relationships are very similar for children regardless of their parents' sexual orientation, it says.

    Professor Susan Golombok, director of the Cambridge centre and report co-author, said: "What I don't like is when people make assumptions that a certain type of family, such as gay fathers, will be bad for children. The anxieties about the potentially negative effects for children of being placed with gay fathers seem to be, from our study, unfounded."
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-in-gay-adoptions-at-no-disadvantage-8518004.html

    In that case either gender identity is mostly biologically determined (analogous to sexual orientation), or else can be learned from examples outside of the home (analagous to the way that children of immigrants can learn to speak the language of the dominant culture, even if their parents don't speak it. But in that case, wouldn't it at least be more difficult for children to learn the "social scripts", or whatever?)

    In any case the evidence constricts somewhat the range of plausible theories of gender formation. At the very least, the family unit does not seem a necessary site for socialization into gender roles.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Except that my arguments aren't from teleology per se, but from the objects that self-evidently guide practical reasoning. That the teleological end of reproductive organs happens to impart a moral ought is purely coincidental; no other set of organs imparts this ought.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I take issue with your claim that "rights are stipulations of society", they are claims of individuals . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think individuals have things like needs, wants and desires, and if some of those are agreed upon and legal prescriptions are enacted then they are referred to as rights. So I guess that to say rights are stipulations of society is more accurate than saying rights are claims of individuals.

      Delete
  26. Thanks for sharing the article Thomas, it was edifying and I learned a lot. See my snarky reply as "HenryBowers" in the comments section:

    "This was one of the most eloquent, comprehensive, and consistent displays of question-begging I've ever encountered online. 'Gravity isn't designed because gravity isn't designed.' The article was otherwise really helpful and I'm going to share it with my Natural Philosophy class. Secondly, however, the science community "respecting" materialist naturalism is like an art critic "respecting" oil paintings over chemical bonds. The art critic simply can't see, and never will be able to see the chemical bonds that support his beloved subject."

    Oh well, off-topic now.

    @Daniel: It's tantalizing to imagine I'd have the power to deny anyone the institution that it's already impossible for them to join; that would be a neat trick. All kinds of bad ideas sweep; only live swimmers can go against the flow, unlike dead body bandwagoners who float downstream (badly paraphrasing Chesterton).

    ReplyDelete
  27. ND, if one actually utilized your definition of marriage, then most same-sex couple wouldn't be "married." Seems like you need to clean up the mess same-sex couples have made of marriage - sexless and childless marriages or marriages where procreation is impossible, marriages between spouses of different religions or one spouse without religion - how could they possibly educate their child in the "faith" under such circumstances? And then, divorce and adultery - it is a joke, no? -even amongst those arguing against same-sex marriage (Take a look at the divorce rate in the US Bible Belt). Your ideal of marriage has never occurred anywhere in the real world. Even when royalty were supposedly put in power by god with a capital G - royalty who were supposed to set an example for the rabble - did they live up to your standard? For most people marriage as you define it is impossible. It would seem to me that unless you are willing to deny marriage to same-sex couples who cannot or will not procreate, who are of different faiths or no faith, and who have never been previously married and who have not had sex outside of marriage either while married or unmarried, then you don't really have a leg to stand on. Marriage is a currently a joke compared to your ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  28. That's quite insightful, Michael. I would note that when men and women behave well in their marriages, most of these problems disappear. When SSM-ers muster all the rationality at their disposal, however, and apply it to their relationships, none of these problems are solved.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ND, but they don't and never have. Marriage amongst the hetero-population is so degraded from your ideal as to be unrecognizable. Unless you are prepared to declare all of these "offenders of ideal marriage" not married or unable to marry, then you can't complain about same sex marriage. You have already lost any credibility in the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Michael,

    I don't really like that line of argument because I think NiqDan could plausibly counter that there exist good Christian couples who do live up to the ideal of marriage, and that those other marriages you have identified are indeed degraded to the extent that they engage in "sodomitical acts".

    I think it would be more appropriate to focus on a defense of "sodomitical acts" as perfectly harmless.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Not to mention, in terms of sheer numbers same-sex marriages are a drop in the bucket. If you really want to "save" marriage, then you really should concentrate on the areas where the most "harm" is being done. It is as if your house is on fire and you are more worried about a dust bunny under the bed.

    I am also wondering when your god changed its mind on polygamy? If it was good enough for Abraham.... I have seen the silly rationalization of church fathers on the issue - really fertility and growing the population? That's the best they can do?

    ReplyDelete
  32. I must admit that I screwed up the post from January 21, 2014 1:51 PM. In the first two sentences "same-sex" should have been "different-sex" - that was pretty dumb on my part......

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thankfully.

    "Both those rights have been altered, thankfully, so that the first one has been abolished and the second one has been accepted."

    Why thankfully?

    If "there is no such thing as a natural right to anything", then women have no natural right to vote, and slaves are no more unnatural than pets, so why should we be 'thankful' for the alteration of the social stipulation of rights?

    If rights are pure social stipulations, then no ideas are better than others.

    But it seems that, after all, Massimo, you are 'thankful' for the demostrated ability to recognize and adopt 'better ideas', i.e. you acknowledge human rights in the end.

    Thankfully.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ND, your analogy is like having kids who get into a fight before age 5 not being allowed to go to school, but those who get in one after age 5 getting to stay in school. It makes sense to kick all fighters out of school - zero tolerance - or, if allowing any fighters to go to school, then to allow all fighters the opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi NiqDan,

    >I think one of the problems with utilitarianism, which is addressed by the virtue ethics system, is that in the virtue ethics system one supposes that the agent can hurt or harm _himself_ by his choices and acts<

    Utilitarianism is not blind to that. Anyway, as Massimo has said, the two systems are answering very different questions. Utilitarianism is most appropriate for answering questions of public policy (such as gay adoption) while virtue ethics is targeted at answering the question of how one ought to live.

    >The alcoholic might not _really_ regret his choices (while they are still choices) until his liver has failed.<

    I don't much care whether the alcoholic regrets his choice. What I care is what harm is done by questions of public policy.

    >I would ask how happy the practicing homosexual is that he has become the type of person who practices sodomy at the drop of a dime, or at the prompting of media darlings, and who consequently finds his appetite ever more insurmountable, as opposed to becoming the type of person who chooses in accord with practical reason.<

    I totally reject this phrasing of the question. Practicing sodomy at the drop of a dime is a gross caricature, as much as fucking at the drop of a dime is a caricature of heterosexuals. The prompting of media darlings has nothing to do with it. Sex drive is innate. The appetite of a homosexual is the same thing as the appetite of a heterosexual. If one gets "ever so insurmountable" then so does the other. And you have not demonstrated that homosexual sex is not "in accord with practical reason".

    ReplyDelete
  36. Should.

    Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?

    I agree with Thomas that this is the question.

    Should?

    In my view, if one answers Yes, that’s the same as acknowledging a natural right of gay couples to adopt. If you deny natural rights, all you can say is: “they want to adopt, and we want to allow them”, or “they want to adopt, but we do not want to allow them”. If the ONLY ground to answer the question is “Society dixit”, then there is absolutely no REASON why we (Society) should change our minds. Of course, we can change our minds because we WANT, but nobody can try to convince us, with reasons, to change our mind. Changing is not more reasonable that no changing.

    We cannot think the concept of ‘right to something’ as being equal to ‘Society allows’. The concept of natural right implies that, if Society does not grant it, then Society must change. All this SciPhi investigation of the question is a search for convincing reasons to change or not to change, a search for a better understanding of human nature, of human rights. Otherwise, let’s rise our hands and count.

    So, which one is the question: a) should gay couples be allowed to adopt children, or b) do we want to allow gay couples to adopt children?

    I think that if we abandon the concept of natural right, then question (a) is simply meaningless, and question (b) can be answered only as a summatory of votes, but no result will be worse or better: it will be good, because it is the result of the votes.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Daniel,

    Sorry if you find the conversation insulting. Nevertheless, as long as NiqDan is game, making relevant points and paying heed to mine, then so am I. I'm personally disinclined to ignore any attempt at a rational discourse even if the views being proposed are odious. I am not yet persuaded that NiqDan is being intellectually dishonest, and as long as that remains the case then I think the conversation has value.

    (That's not to say I think NiqDan's argument makes any sense. At all. But I do think it makes sense to NiqDan).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi Gonzalo,

    I very much disagree with your argument.

    When I make an argument for why gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, I do so by attempting to refute any reasons why they should not and appealing to values I hold in common with my interlocutors.

    I am not merely voicing my opinion, nor appealing to a majority vote. I am attempting to show how opposing views are irrational in that they are baseless and internally inconsistent. If we care about human well-being and the welfare of children, which everyone posting here appears to, then gay adoption must be accepted.

    I certainly don't assume that what is right ought to be determined by majority vote. It ought to be determined by reasoned argument based on shared values. However, what rights we have effectively *are* determined by majority vote. Reasoned argument then becomes a means to affect that vote and so establish new rights or quash old ones.

    So, for me, "should" implies neither a natural right nor an acceptance of the majority view.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Disagreeable Me,

    Instead, I very much agree with you, except for a bit in the last paragraph.

    >> I certainly don't assume that what is right ought to be determined by majority vote. It ought to be determined by reasoned argument based on shared values.

    Agreed.

    >> However, what rights we have effectively *are* determined by majority vote. Reasoned argument then becomes a means to affect that vote and so establish new rights or quash old ones.

    Disagreed, because contradictory with the previous, unless we word it this way: "However, what [legal] rights we have effectively *are* determined by majority vote. Reasoned argument then becomes a means to affect that vote and so establish new [legal] rights or quash old ones."

    Natural rights are different from legal rights. The goal of LRs is to approach as much as possible NRs. The measure of righteousness of LRs is NRs, that is, reason caring about human well-being.

    If you don't like the distinction NR/LR, i.e. Reason vs. Law, then you will have serious trouble to provide arguments against whatever law you consider unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi Daniel,

    Actually, you have a point. I probably ought to refuse to engage with ND on the basis of the particular language used while still being available to discuss the ideas if phrased more neutrally.

    The language of "sodomy" is indeed hateful, bringing to mind the "righteous" destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I will keep this in mind in future.

    Thanks for changing my mind.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.