Gay Marriage: Counter arguments

But it´s tradition.
The argument is that marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. We can ask ourselves where, when, and for whom this has been a tradition. But instead I will concede that this has been the norm for the majority of societies and cultures. However, the argument implies not just that such a thing is tradition, but that tradition must be preserved, and this I take issue with. Tradition is tradition not because anyone says that it should be, but because it is a formula that has worked for multiple generations. However, that hardly makes it sacrosanct. If a tradition isn´t working, then it doesn´t deserve to be a tradition. This has been understood in the past in relation to things such as slavery, monarchy, interracial marriage, etc. There´s no reason to assume at the start that tradition is immaleable and sacred.

Furthermore, we have to ask, what is traditional marriage? Marriage has changed drastically in the last 150 years. We no longer have arranged marriages. We no longer have head-and-master clauses in marital law. Women can now work outside the home. Women and men often expect to share responsibilities. Even socially acceptable sexual practices between spouses have expanded. We marry for love and not for familial connections or property, etc. Really, it seems that one man/one woman is probably the last part of "traditional" marriage that we have left. My argument is not that we should abandon traditional ideas of marriage. My point is that we already have. This argument is an attempt to cling onto a ghost, and it makes the mistake of misdefining the type of marriage we have now.

Marriage is about having children.
This argument states basically that the purpose of marriage is reproduction and thus same-sex couples, which can´t reproduce, can´t have legitimate marriages. Or, that somehow by morally accepting homosexuality we have set the species on a slippery slope toward extinction. I won´t even treat this last one, since I think it is so ridiculous as to be offensive to thinking people.

However, the first needs to be addressed. I reject this argument for a simple reason. This is a standard that we do not apply to heterosexual couples who cannot concieve. If legitimate marriage requires reproduction, then we would have to deny marriage to baron women, infertile men, and anyone who has expressed a desire to remain without children. And yet we do not. As a further case: what should we think about lesbians who use artificial means of fertilization? Are they considered to be reproducing? Should we force everyone (including heterosexual women) who use artificial insemination to marry the donor? The truth is that the argument from reproduction doesn´t work because it can´t differentiate between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who can´t concieve. Thus propponents of this argument have shown their hand, and they appear to have been bluffing, since they don´t actually believe that reproduction is a requisite for marriage.

The Bible says so.
There are a number of passages in the Bible that seem fairly clear reproaches of homosexuality, the clearest being in Leviticus. The obvious problem is that of accepting the Bible as a moral and legal authority. Opponents of same-sex marriage cherry pick their morality from the often strange context of Leviticus. I mean we don´t have people protesting against those who chose to sit in the same chair as a menstrating woman. And we don´t have a lot of sassy kids being stoned either. Read Leviticus. It´s there. What this shows is that the indignation of these people finds its place in a moral structure outside the Bible, through which they decide what parts of the Bible should apply to us and what parts should not.

Secondly, there are a number of passages in the Bible that some would take to be positive images of, if not adamant support for, homosexuality. Also, we have plenty of going to bed with handmaidens, incest, etc. It is clear that the Bible is not our ultimate source of morality, but that we must chose bits and pieces that somehow fit an already constructed social morality.

It is a dangerous and immoral lifestyle.
Other arguments regarding morality tend to claim that a homosexual lifestyle is more promiscuous, less monogamous and so forth. This actually is somewhat true. But, again, we have to explain why such things should be considered immoral. This is a point that I honestly just don´t get. Sexual morality seems to me to be a personal decision that could include anything consensual, and I can´t see any reason that any consensual act should be considered inherently wrong.

Here we are steering close to the idea of moral relativism, where we might say that there is no right and wrong, and anything is acceptable. While I don´t subscribe to such an extreme, I think that objective morality is primarily confined to direct violence. I think moral arguments can be made for social support, compassion, etc., but these don´t seem as clear cut. When it comes to sexuality, objectivity almost completely vanishes. What grounds can we use to say that any specific sex act, or any specific partner, or even any specific lifestyle is inherently wrong if it does not include direct violence against the unconsenting?

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that same-sex marriage will increase the amount of promiscuity and disease. If anything, it will likely decrease it as those who participate in the gay lifestyle will see comittment and monogamy as a more viable option.

It will affect me and my relationship.
I have to admit that this one has always been a bit confusing to me. It is often feared that the legal validation of same-sex relationships will negatively affect heterosexuals. I don´t know exactly how.

First, people are afraid that somehow the will need to add some sort of footnote to their lives to make sure everyone knows that their own relationship is not gay. The is obviously a need to feel that their relationship is superior. Nonetheless, you don´t have people going out of their way to tell people that they aren´t in an interracial marriage, or that they aren´t in a Muslim marriage. I don´t see why their would be such a need. You are in a marriage with your spouse, not with a race, religion, or creed. Why not add gender to this list?

Next, many people are afraid that this will tarnish their own relationships or make them less valuable. A relationship, however, is an intimate thing between two people. And it is these two, and these two alone, who are fit to both create and judge the value of the relationship. The relationships of others could perhaps be used as a guide if the couple so choses. But the relationship cannot be degraded (except by force) without the consent of the couple. Gay marriage will not destroy a heterosexual relationship any more that the divorce of one couple can cause the divorce of another. Each couple must take full responsibility for their own marriage.

Won´t sombody please think about the children!
Aren´t we sending the message to kids that it´s ok to be gay?
Yes. So? It is ok to be gay. It is ok to be straight. It is ok to be somewhere in the middle as I believe most of the population is. So why not teach kids that? I´m not making any specific arguments for talking about sexuality in kindergarten and things like that. But as a society, why do we feel we need to protect our children from this?

Some people fear that it will turn kids gay. My first answer is, so what if it does? My second answer is, I doubt it. Despite the cries of some conservatives, most evidence points to the idea that sexual orientation has little to do with choice. Besides, if both heterosexual, and homosexual orientations are seen as acceptable in society then kids (and here I mean adolescents, since young children probably won´t encounter the issue at a deep level of identity) will tend toward their natural tendencies, and many of them will tend toward heterosexuality.

I don´t think that this will be confusing for children. In fact, I think it could be less confusing. First of all, we won´t have homosexual people being pressured into conforming to a lifestyle they don´t belong in, nor will they be constantly told that there is something wrong with them, but never told exactly why. Heterosexual kids will not have to struggle with the idea that there are so many people (perhaps even their friends) who they are supposed to condemn for doing the "wrong" thing.

Legality and the State
Much of what I´ve said has touched on homosexuality in general or as a lifestyle, which I think was necessary since many arguments against gay marriage delve into this territory. But I think we need to touch on a legal issue too. The U.S. is (supposedly) a liberal democracy based in the principles of personal liberty, quality under the law, separation of church and state, among other things. What does this mean? Well, it means that when it comes to legally recognized marriages, separation of church and state dismisses arguments based on any supposedly divine source. Personal liberty, in conjuction with our melting-pot culture, requires that we be open and accepting of other lifestyles despite the fact that they may be distasteful to us. Equality under the law requires that all people be treated equally under the law, regardless of sex, and that must also be true for sexual orientation. Thus distinguishing between men and women in marriage is like distinguishing between black and white. It shouldn´t be done. Because of this, I don´t think that gay marriage can be denied in a society that claims to espouse these principles.

What´s the problem?
If we reject religious arguments as being irrelevant to a secular state, as we should; and if we reject all of the above arguements, as I also think we should for the counter arguments I have pointed out; then we are left with the questions, what is wrong with homosexuality? and what is wrong with same-sex marriage? If it doesn´t hurt people why are people so adamantly against it.

I can only imagine a few reasons. One is just an irrational discomfort. Some people are just plain weirded out by it. I can´t really argue with that or convince someone that he shouldn´t feel weird. I can only say that this is a feeling and not a valid arguement, despite the fact that many people like to dress their gut reaction up as if it had some rationality.

Another reason I imagine is that people have dedicated their lives to the ideas of marriage, children, and a good-old-fashioned white picket fence, and that the acceptance of a different set of values makes them fear that their own values are being invalidated. One way to react against this fear is to try to invalidate the values of others and to convince yourself that you are superior. I don´t think this is necessary. In order for our own lives and lifestyles to be valid and meaningful does not require them to be accepted by everyone as the one true way. We know this in many other parts of our lives, from minor things such as musical taste, to larger issues such as religion (although here there are still many who haven´t caught on). I don´t see any reason to fear having this attitude toward sexual orientation and marriage.

An Intuition on the Nature of Reality

I would also like to share some wisdom of mine which may be hard to swallow at first, but which I think is a truth. What I´m describing is a metaphysical/spiritual understanding that I think is The Great Understanding which is described in many different ways by the greatest prophets of all of the religions. It is the One Religion, if you will. But don´t get too scared, because you will see that in reality it should not be called a religion at all, but rather that all religions were preversions of this single experienced understanding. I have come to these conclusions starting from the point of an intense personal experience in which my perception of reality was dramatically shifted and I lost my ego and became one with the universe, and thus my life and self-identity were forever changed. Through this experience I understood intuitively several ideas which have also been commonly described by other mystics of all desciplines, and which I have tried to outline briefly below according to my personal understanding of them.

The First Understanding. You are not in the universe, but you are of the universe. Every atom of your being was once a part of another animal, another plant, the soil, the water, the rocks, and the stars. You are a temporary eddy in the constant swirl of moving matter and energy, but no less a beautiful product of it.

The Second Understanding. The Universe is organic. This means that it follows a psuedo-cyclical pattern of destruction and construction, which are forever interdependent, and that there is constant movement between these two brothers, like leaves decomposing and turning into grass. It grows on itself. In this sense it is very much alive. (This does not mean that it has human emotion or motive.)

The Third Understanding. Separateness is only superficially true. Some metaphors will help here.
All of the points on the edge of the snowflake do not realize that they are the snowflake.
The branches are only branches because they are also the tree.
You are a single drop of water inside the ocean.
In one sense you are a drop of water, but in another sense, you are also the ocean. Both senses are not only true, but depend on each other´s truth for their own.

The Fourth Understanding. Knowing Not-knowing. The universe exists because it is a paradox. Everything exists because nothing exists. In the beginning was the void; an inner peace; mu; God. It is the ultimate because it includes everything exactly by being nothing. By being nothing it is infinite and creates everything, which in turn creates nothingness. Not only does god not exist. He non-exists. Which is way way better. I think this last part is the part that needs to be vicerally experienced as true to fully get it, since for the most part our language has trouble describing co-dependent opposites. The concept is basically that the center and ultimate of reality is a void of nothingnes, but a void that is nonetheless positively charged with everythingness.

Thoughts.
The first thing I want to note is that when I say universe, I mean something much deeper than planets, stars and galaxies. But to also include concepts of dimension, sources of forces, and perception, and generally, Reality with a capital R. For I am not just expressing a physical theory, but a metaphysical belief. The physical universe that we can percieve with our normal senses is like an outer coating on many other layers of reality underneath.

In terms of science, I think we are starting to touch on some very exciting ground in the theoretical sciences of quantum physics, chaos theory, and fractals. I believe that reality has something of a fractal and recursive nature that is intimately intertwined with the ideas of sync and chaos. Concepts of the observer in quantum physics opens us up to lots of possibilities when trying to understand the nature of reality. Pay attention to these areas to see greater definition and understanding.

As mention above, I think that this is the ultimate understanding of all religion. I believe it was this idea that was shared by Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, and many other mythological and prophetic figures throughout history. The understanding is that at a deeper level than our separateness we are actually not separate. I think that one of the most confusing but best images of this in western culture is the Christian Trinity. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same person. This trinity actually makes sense if thought about in these terms. The Holy Spirit is "god" traveling from separateness to unity. "God" is the Holy Spirit traveling from unity to separatness. Think of it this way. We all have a soul. But we don´t have a different soul. We all have the same soul. This is what the Holy Spirit is. The Holy Spirit is the recognition that we are each the points of a snowflake, but that if we expand our concept of identity to the whole snowflake, then there is no longer a difference between you and me. The snowflake is the holy spirit because it is our identity expanded to the greatest extent. However, by expanding our identity larger and larger, we also include more of everything and thus because the Alpha and Omega and this is God. So, we are our superficial separate selves at a certain level of reality; at another level of reality, we all share in the same source of existence and have grown out of it, are a part of it; and at another level we can identify ourselves with a great Reality of which we are a part but which includes equally the whole of existence.

I know I use the language of western Christianity, which you are hostile to. But I don´t want that to put you off. I use this language to show that there are kernels of mystic wisdom in this religion as there is in all of them. I could as easily use the language of Vedic texts. I mean only that this is a truth that is beyond the religions we see today, but that they too struggle with the same truth.

I believe--and this may take much discussion to explain--that it is part of the purpose and destiny of humans to have and use consciousness, and to seek the mystical experience. I encourage you to join me in doing this.

A Rant

competition can only happen on common ground. We must preserve certain commons.

A primary enemy of liberty is inequality. Inequality creates envy, and with it desire for wealth and power. Equality, on the other hand, inspires greater comradery(?). This is a great problem with the profit motive. It leads to inequality. Once some wealth and power is gained, it becomes easier to gain more, and more, and so on, and so on. The greater the wealth and power of any group, the greater the control they can exert over others.

Profit motive does increase efficiency because people will want to raise profits by reducing costs. This, however, could lead to a drop in quality of the product, or negative externalities as well as greater efficiency of production.

I question the profit motive, because it claims that we must at all times be growing. Growth without limit is what profit means. This is one great assumption of our social organization, that constant "progress" is necessary. I think that progress in certain areas is positive, but we should more harmoniously define progress and the areas in which we want progress. For example, I don´t think we need lots of progress in terms of innovation and expansion in the area of nuclear weapons. But I would like it in terms of medicine, for example. I think that at this point industrial and technological progress should probably halt while social progress catches up. We should stop increasing food production and with it our population. But we should shift our method of food production to something closer to local communal farming.

The point is that the correct direction for us to be moving in is not one of growth or expansion, but rather one of reflection and reorganization. In this direction, I think that the profit motive will serve us poorly. If we get rid of profit, we will generally reduce inquality and uncontrolled expansion. However, profit is an incentive for innovation and efficiency.

The solution is this. Find a new way to direct human desire for improvement, exploration, adventure away from profit, and probably money in general. The second is to provide new incentives and encouragements for production.

This is not to say that we outrightly prohibit profit. I think that would be impossible to do in a rfee society. However, I think that what needs to be done is to establish a communal/social framework in which profit seeking is a properly subordinated interest to other cultural needs. I think that our society is currently organized in a way that we have a framework of competition in which some cooperation is allowed to take place. What we need is a framework of cooperation in which some competition is allowed to take place. I think that this framework must come from cultural vision as opposed to top-down enforcement.

Anarcho-Democracy in the Lesterian Tradition

How can anarchy improve on the systems already tried?
I see anarchy's main advantage over the system we have now is its decentralization. I think that this will encourage two things, namely personal liberty, as people will generally only be ristricted from agression, and that without a single authority for law, we are unlikely to have enforceable laws that discriminate against any particular minority. The other thing that anarchy could encourage is equality. While I don't think that this is a necessary result of anarchy, I think that in a society without a monopoly of force we will have a reduction in hierarchical organization.

I think that anarchy may be a more natural organization for our species. I envision groups that develop and direct themselves in an organic way. I think that this will, in a way, open social organiztion up to the free market of ideas, and we will thus find groups governing themselves in ways more appropriate for that group. Also, despite what many would argue, I think the principle of non-aggression is generally a natural tendency of our species within groups except in some circumstances.

While I understand that in some ways anarchy seems like idealism as much as communism or democracy does. However, I think anarchy has an advantage here also. The advantage is that anarchy would be a more flexible system and because of this will be better able to move, change, and adapt to new situations.


What are the limitations of anarchy?
I find several limitations with anarchy.

One. I'm not convinced that anarchy could prevent the rise of a new power, such as a warlord. This is not necessarily a mark against it given that what we have now is not any better. However, all of the ideas I heard about how the enforcement industry would be established seem to me prone to creating a state-like monopoly of power. In addition, I don't see a way to prevent corporate trusts.

Two. Although during the Spanish Revolution in the late 30s it was shown that a large population could manage much of a society anarchicly, I still think that anarchy will tend to encourage smaller groups. I think that this might actually be a positive thing. However, I recognize that this may make certain industrial benefits difficult, such as the manufacture of computers, etc. Although libertarians would claim that the free-market would provide such a thing, I'm not convinced. I think that the more people we involve in the process, the less libertarian the process becomes. Thus to produce the types of things that would require large armies of laborers may require an organization that is anti-anarchic.

What are the necessary conditions for an anarchic society?
I think there are a few issues that would prevent us from being able to form an anarchic society. One is nuclear weapons. As long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, it seems to me that people will want them guarded, and not by some small group of anarchists. Another condition may be greater equality. While I don't think we need perfect equality for anarchy, I think that by disolving the government, we would be handing massive amounts of power to giant corporations right now. Also, we would need a better-distributed food production system. Like we've spoken about before, without greater self-sufficiency in food production, we cannot have greater liberty.

How can we avoid the pitfalls of capitalism?
While I recognize the benefits of a free market, and I recognize that any form of anarchy will likely be unable to control a free market; I am wary of capitalism because of some of what I see as its anti-social values. And so what I advocate is something of a free market without capitalism. The free market simply means the freedom for people to enter into contracts and trades under what conditions they mutually agree on. Capitalism, however, is something different. Capitalism is a vision of how we should view the world and our role in it. Capitalism, at its root, is an ideology of constant growth. This leads to a few main problems which lead to many others. Constant growth for our species disrupts the balance of nature, and requires us to become a tyranic force acting to bend nature to our will. At the same time, this fuels population and territorial expansion. But since we live in nature and rely upon it, this is a self-destructive tendency. We see this already around us in nature.

Furthermore, socially this has caused problems such as overcrowding, inequality, crime, standing armies, etc. I think that this fundamentally fuels the profit motive, which I have already expressed my feelings against.

I think this is the fundamental fallacy of capitalism: the myth of constant growth. It is unnatural, and by following this path we are suffering consequences.

However, I feel that capitalism is a mythology that is guiding the market. And that if the market was truly free we would still see it following the path of capitalism. I say that we need to replace capitalist ideology with the ideology of a communal democracy in the Lesterian sense. A Lesterian democracy follows the following principles:

1. Principle of Non-aggression. This is basically the only standard anarchic/libertarian principle. It basically says that no one can initiate force or aggression against another. This is obviously an ideal that will not happen ideally in practice. But as long as it is followed by the vast majority of the population, I think that aggression will not necessarily crash the society.
2. Principle of Free Democratic Association. This principle states that any and all group interactions must be directed by the members of the group through direct democracy. I think that in order to have a freer and more democratic society, democracy in all things must be a fundamental principle of all organization. This includes business also, which I think will be the most dramatic implication of this principle, along with the implication that in this form of organization, we cannot consider human labor to be a commodity, for workers will not be able to sell their labor to employers, since by joining an organization, they will be owners of the organization also. I think that this will significantly mitigate the threat of massive accumulations of power, as well as corporate externalities, etc.
3. Principle of Food Commons. This principle states that food cannot be denied to those who need it. I think this is probably the most radical priciple here. I think it will require a profound rethinking of how we interact with others and how we organize ourselves. I think that this is a necessary social condition for equality and freedom. One, it is simply immoral for us to allow our fellow humans to starve when we are full. Two, only if a person has freedom from starvation, can a person have freedom to do what they would like, including participating in society.
4. Principle of Health Commons. This principle sates that medical attention cannot be denied to those who need it. My arguments for this are basically the same as above.

I put it to you that these principles, instead of describing capitalism, describe tribalism. Meaning, I am look at this from the point of view of Daniel Quinn in his Ishmael books, in which he argues that the tribal structure was an evolutionarily natural organization for our species, and that the "civilization" that we've had for the last 10,000 years is an aberation. I feel that what we have seen as feudalism, mercantilism, communism, fascism, etc. are all forms of systems that are concerned with capital growth primarily, and so I call them capitalist. I think that my principles describe the principles of living in tribal culture, which I see as being the most true opposition to capitalism. So I suppose I am proposing a new tribalism, which I will call anarcho-democracy.