The Dance of the Straw Men

If you're a social conservative, chances are you’ve had a conversation something like this:

Conservative: “But if we accept homosexual behavior as normal, how do we retain other traditional taboos, like the one against incest?”

Liberal: “That’s just a straw man. Nobody’s going to advocate incest.”

Now, read this, from Tauriq Moosa, tutor in ethics, bioethics and critical thinking at the University of Cape Town, South Africa (courtesy of my friend Dale Nelson):

Thirdly, and oddly, people exclaim [incest is] “just” repugnant. We will examine this more closer later. Nonetheless, why should the sexual activities of two consenting adults concern us? This is the same question we can ask those who are ‘against’ homosexuality (which is like being against having blue eyes). It is none of our business what two consenting adults wish to do (as long as no one else is harmed/involved without consent).

Repugnance helped many things we now consider wrong to continue in the past, such racial and sexual inequality. We can’t rely on repugnance to justify our social policies, since our repugnance is simply that: our own. Besides which, people are repulsed by different things – and we cannot leave it up to the whims of our emotions to implement policies and laws which could, unnecessarily, cause suffering to other people, as is the case with gay people, women, and indeed the current brother-and-sister couple.

Pretty lively for a straw man, isn’t it?

Liberals—I want to share a serious word with you, in honesty and without malice. If you have any principles—any at all—I promise you that, if you continue on the Left, you will eventually either have to give them up or move to the Right. Because liberalism is not a position. It is a process. That process evolves continually. Nothing is out of bounds for it, given enough time. That’s why so many ‘60s radicals are Reagan Republicans now.

For years, people have been telling me (to take another example) that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual behavior because homosexuals are born that way (I’m still not convinced of that, but it’s beside the point for this discussion). The argument is, “If it’s inborn, it’s natural and right.” Christian liberals say it must be God’s will.

“Why would anyone choose to be gay?” the liberal says. “It’s penalized in our culture. So it must be inborn, and the gays have no choice in the matter.”

Bear that argument in mind when you read this, from Italy’s La Stampa.

A study conducted by neuroscientists at Turin University and researchers at the department of neurological science of the University of Milan asserts that pedophilia is caused by a defective growth factor called pleiotropic protein Progranulin (PGRN). The results were published in the journal Biological Psychiatry and presented during a recent convention of the Neurological Italian Society in Turin.

Now, if this theory is true, explain to me how the previously stated arguments for homosexuality don’t apply just as well to pedophilia.

And no, “You’re a Nazi,” does not count as a valid counter-argument.

 

Lars Walker is the author of several fantasy novels, the latest of which is West Overesea.

Comments

[Sir Watkin]

"Because liberalism is not a position. It is a process."

So is Conservatism, if you take the original Peelite definition, "Conserving what is good whilst providing relief for proven grievances."

Unlike Toryism it's an explicitly reforming ideology, committed to change. It differs from liberalism in that the balance is in favour of conserving the good (as actual and known) and change is viewed sceptically, but once the case for change is clear (once a "grievance" has been proven) the Conservative changes.

[Lars Walker]

I am a Christian conservative. My principles are based in the Bible and the creeds. Although details may change with our understanding, Christian conservatives have certain moral and philosophical anchors which are not mutable, and are not subject to social or philosophical fashion. If we fail in this, it is a failure, but not an evolution.

[BCody]

Thank you Mr. Walker. I truly appreciate your lucid argument. I wonder how our society has managed to steal logic from the younger generations...it must have something to do with sin--then again, that would be an 'inborn' problem and there's nothing wrong with something 'inborn'...

[Brent]

It's amazing to me how the truth of man’s sin nature is ignored. Whether a person is "born that way" or "became that way" is not the issue. The main problem is not that we sin; rather it is that we are sinners from conception (Ps. 51:5; 58:3). This truth doesn't simply pertain to the topic of this Touchstone article, but is the case with any sin. The only remedy to our sin problem is to be born again in Christ (John 3:3; John 14:6). The argument of not giving ground in the acceptance of one sin because it will only lead to other (worse) sins misses the point because it only deals with the symptoms, not the disease. In all reality we are all born with a bent toward a certain sin. Just because this is the case doesn’t mean that these “natural” behaviors are approved by God and not sinful. It simply means that humans have a sinful nature. Until this is recognized, we will argue the “straw man” back and forth and miss the truth in the process.

[James Bradshaw]

The question of "born this way" is irrelevant to me in terms of gay marriage. I have never personally argued that the government is obligated to sanction or reward every predisposition.

My argument is that just as people have the freedom in our secular democracy to choose idolatrous and heretical faiths that our also sanctioned by the federal government (and religion IS a lifestyle choice), I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to form same-sex relationships that they wish to protect via a civil marriage license. If they should NOT, then you have some obligation to tell us why. All the arguments I've seen, however, have been ludicrous and unfounded, just as the concerns about allowing gays to serve in the military have been unfounded.

[Lars Walker]

And the normalization of incest and pedophilia has no connection to it at all. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Statements at this point in time that concerns about allowing gays in the military are unfounded remind me of the man falling from the top of the Empire State Building who says as he passes the 50th floor, "So far, so good." We have absolutely no idea what the services will look like in five or ten years due to this policy. I suspect at least the concept of "honor" will be redefined.... And the chaplaincy will look different -- if it even still exists.

[Christopher Hathaway]

If they should NOT, then you have some obligation to tell us why. All the arguments I've seen, however, have been ludicrous and unfounded

This is a revealing bit, for you show that you have been told why. The problem is that you will not accept the explanation. So what you are really saying is that WE have an obligation to convince you.

That is wholly irrational unless you propose a system of governance built upon unanimous consent for all decisions. Such a system could never work.

[James Bradshaw]

"So what you are really saying is that WE have an obligation to convince you."

Not really. What I'm saying is that gay couples have petitioned the government to partake of the entity known as the civil marriage license. To reject that request, you need to prove there's a public interest in denying it.

What is that public interest? Gays are, by and large, not going to marry heterosexuals (we've seen how well that works out). Their relationships have no direct impact on the marriages of heterosexuals, and granting a marriage license doesn't imply there's an existing capacity or ability to bear and raise children (if there were, we'd not grant marriage licenses to anyone convicted of a serious violent or sexual crime ... which is not the case).

Several states have allowed gay marriage for a number of years. A recent poll in Iowa by the Des Moines Register found that "92% of Iowans believe that 'gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives.'"

How does this even relate to pedophilia? The notion of consent (required for a marital contract) is integral to any contract in this nation, and I don't see that ever changing. That is, unless we really did want to return to Biblical standards. After all, marriage in Deuteronomy only required the man to say "I do": a woman who was raped often ended up married to the man who raped her, whatever her feelings were about the matter (Deut 22:28-30).

[Arnold]

Yes, but the polls in Iowa show a majority still opposed to the concept and reality of gay "marriage." The poll question you cited is largely irrelevant to the main issue at hand. Most gays could also honestly say that the availability of gay "marriage" has had no real change in their lives either. There is also the connected issue that this all was dictated by a court majority in Iowa and not by the will of the people. That is how nearly all states allowing same sex "marriage" have had it imposed on them rather than willingly chosen. Wherever the people have had a chance to make that determination, they have rejected it, even in such liberal bastions as California, Oregon and Maine.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

This will also not convince you, but for Christians the matter is simple. Even if everything the advocates of same sex marriage or its counterfeit cousin, civil unions, claim was true, and such institutions benefited society, Christians would still have to oppose them, because God has clearly and definitively forbidden them. We know that He knows more than we know or can see, and we are bidden to trust His judgment over our own. Thus, there is no argument to be made that such arrangements are permissible to Christians, because the Lord, the One Who Changes Not, has said no. Now, I would say that there are sufficent reasons to indicate even to our limited understanding why He has done that (and you have offered no substantial reasons in their favor, to boot) but we do not need those reasons to know what conclusions to reach.

[James Bradshaw]

Deacon Harmon, you are entitled to your theological views and interpretation of Scripture. What's intriguing to me is that you feel your theological opinions must be reflected in our body of laws, at least on this issue. If you were of the opinion that unbiblical divorce and remarriage should be illegal (Luke 16:18) as should the practice of any heretical or idolatrous religious faith (Exodus 20:3), I'd say you were at least consistent, and I'd have some degree of respect for that. After all, the Bible is crystal clear on both of those issues as well.

Is that indeed the suggestion you're making?

[Will Linden]

So Mr. Bradshaw, please explain why democratic/liberal principles oblige the government to grant "licenses" for a form of "marriage" which has never existed anywhere, but not to acknowledge plural marriage, which has existed in many cultures and all periods. After all, there is no slippery slope, right? So how can I accept my polygamous friends being treated as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS?

And yes, I know real living breathing polyandrists. So I will ignore any arguments based on treating "polygamy" as a synonymn for "polygyny", as well as arguments-by-assertion that "they don't exist". How many are there *I* don't know about? As the man said, pretty lively for a straw man.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

No, Mr. Bradshaw, I fear you have adopted a form of the straw man argument described by Mr. Walker. You are the one saying society must adopt certain public policies that accord with your physical desires, and you seem to care little or nothing for the revealed truths of God if they conflict with those desires.

You are, of course, as entitled to promote those policies as I am to promote ones I favor. I am saying Christians have no choice but to support certain policies if they wish to be faithful to their God. In doing so, they are entitled to make any truthful argument they wish, either from social science, demonstrated outcomes of previous actions, or the principles of their faith. None of those arguments is illegitmate, but some may be more effective than others at any given time to persuade others to adopt policies favored by Christians.

However, if I were saying society must adopt those policies, that would assume that God's will is determinative in overriding the free will He has granted to mankind. It is not. Adam and Eve could disobey it, and so can we. The only thing that MUST happen -- because in the sovereign will of God it WILL happen -- is that individuals and cultures that defy God's will then will pay the price demanded by Him for that, as described by St. Paul in the first chapter of Romans.

Recall that the principal sin described therein was abandoning God. All the negative outcomes listed thereafter are not that principal sin. They are the punishments imposed on us in the form of the inevitable outcomes of the sins we commit after we have set God and His will aside....

[James Bradshaw]

Mr Linden, I don't see an issue for legal polygamous marriage on the condition that:
a) all members are consenting persons who have reached the age of majority (18+)
b) any federal benefits allocated to spouses do not exceed the amount that would be allocated to a single spouse

Look, the objection to polygamy isn't Biblical: it's based on a post-Enlightenment aversion to misogyny. Most of the patriarchs had multiple wives (including Abraham), and there is no explicit condemnation of polygamy anywhere in Scripture, including Leviticus (the mandate of having but one wife was for religious authorities). Further, the only ones making a to-do about polygamy are fundamentalist Mormon Christians, so it's an issue primarily of religious freedom. Take it up with the Mormons, not me.

***

To Deacon Harmon: this isn't merely about "desires", as much as you'd like to denigrate and trivialize it. It's about a relationship between two adult human beings. I'm sorry if you neither understand it nor feel comfortable with it. Too bad. Personal antipathy, propped up by authoritative sounding yet cherry-picked quotes from religious holy texts, is not the foundation of our legal system in this nation.

You neglected to answer my question as to whether your other religious beliefs regarding marriage (or anything else) also required their enforcement via some sort of civil legislation. I'm taking the lack of response to indicate your acknowledged inconsistency in the matter.

[Priest Leonid]

James,

You act as though the Bible has never been interpreted authoritatively. What have Christians been doing for the last 2000 years?

The Church never held up Old Testament-style polygamy as the ideal or even the norm. In the Garden it was one man and one woman--this is the measure of what God intended. The patriarchs were all living in the fallen world, and succumbing to it in some measure, just as we all do.

Because of the revelation of Christ, the Church sees marriage as a reflection of the Trinity: one man, one woman, one God. As it says in the Scripture, a three-stranded cord is exceedingly hard to break.

God did not make other religions or heresies "illegal"; it simply was forbidden if one wanted to be a member of the Q'ahal, the people whom God had chosen to be His bride. The Scriptures tell us that God is a jealous God, but we are too quick to picture this in a negative sense. The real point of it is that God, in an act of love, delivered these people from bondage, and wanted a relationship of mutual love and trust, as the relationship between a husband and wife.

I understand that you're cherry-picking to match what you think are your opponents' tactics; but in reality, the Church never cherry-picks the Scriptures. The Fathers of the Church were in love with the Scriptures; they lived them and breathed them; they saw their entire world through them. When you read their writings, it seems (to an outsider) that they are making tenuous and unfounded connections; but in reality, they knew the Scriptures better than you or I ever will, because they lived them.

All this is to say: don't act like the Scriptures exist in a vacuum, or that Christians pick and choose and apply passages to meet their whims. There *is* a Tradition of Scriptural interpretation, there *is* a Tradition of Moral Theology, and yes, Virginia, there is an authoritative Christian teaching on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, polyamory and whatever else the modern world has bewitched you with.

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

Mr. Bradshaw: I begin to doubt your skills in reading comprehension. You say I neglected to answer your question about the state mandating Christian doctrines as laws when I answered it clearly and directly. The state can so mandate such doctrines if Christians can, by democratic persuasive methods, gain sufficent public support to pass them into law. Perhaps you have not noted that murder is prohibited by both God's commandment and positive law? Really, you can do better than this. So why not at least try?

[James Bradshaw]

"The state can so mandate such doctrines if Christians can, by democratic persuasive methods, gain sufficent[sic] public support to pass them into law."

Let me clarify: even if the law is passed, the question is whether the law is constitutional.

Traditionalist Catholics believe that the use of contraception, even in marriage, is to commit a grave and possibly soul-damning sin. They could pass a law that made it a misdemeanor to possess or distribute contraceptive devices, but it would be found unconstitutional based on the precedent set forth in Griswold v Connecticut in 1965.

My question to you is twofold:
a) is there a moral obligation to at least strive to enforce Christian ethics regarding marriage and sexuality via some form of civil legislation (e.g., making divorce forbidden except in cases of infidelity, banning marriage between couples who would be denied a religious ceremony due to conflicting faiths such Judaism and Christianity, etc)?
b) are those laws going to likely be upheld as constitutional under even conservative judicial scrutiny?

[Deacon Michael D. Harmon]

a) Of course -- via democratic means, as I noted previously. What kind of Christian would not want to obey God in both public and private spheres? A pretty poor one, I would submit. Still, the advances in morality you allege will probably require a general revival of Christianity, and such things come at God's discretion via the agency of the Holy Spirit. He will act when and how He wishes.

Regarding whether such laws are "going to be likely" to be upheld, two things:

b-1) The Supreme Court changes its mind from time to time (on slavery, school segregation, the Second Amendment, etc.) (Or as Finley Peter Dunn's Mr. Dooley put it, "The Soopreme Court follows the illiction returns.")

b-2) The Constitution can be amended. Did you not recall that in our democratic Republic, the people are sovereign, not the courts? Gotta work on that reading comp, guy!

Of course, the sovereignty of the people is derived from the sovereignty of God. Democracies that assume they can be self-sufficient (like individuals who do) end up in very bad places. In that context, read the new posts on the main page about the barbarians now present in our society. Fr. Jenson's essay you should read twice.

[James Bradshaw]

Very interesting, Mr. Harmon. So your ideal government exists not to ensure the freedoms and liberties of its citizens but to serve as a theocratic fascist enterprise dedicated to enforcing a particular variety of Judeo-Christian ethics (however your particular denomination/sect interprets that). (How well did that work in Calvin's Geneva?)

So let's get to the details, though, because I'm intrigued. Pretend we're starting America anew. The Constitution has yet to be written. You are the king of your own nation and can enforce whatever set of rules you wish.

What should the penalty be for:

- public heresy (and how would you define it)
- idolatry (and what would constitute it)
- fornication (heterosexual or homosexual)

Further, to what lengths could this utopian government go to to determine whether someone was engaging in any of these behaviors? Note that we've already dispensed with the First Amendment as being conducive to heresy and idolatry.