1. if one approves of contraception in general, there is no real ground for opposition to homosexual intercourse. this is not original to me [i've seen it bandied about in, among other places, Touchstone [bah] and Anscombe [hurrah]], but it seems intuitively clear even if i can't rigorously argue it.
2. if one approves of legal homosexual marriage, there is no real ground for opposition to legal polygamy. though, frankly, i think the latter ought to be legalized before the former because of the next contention.
3. if one approves of current american divorce laws, there is no real ground for opposition to legal homosexual marriage or legal polygamy. i am trying to track down who first referred to modern "serial monogamy" as "rotating polygamy": i remember leon kass quoting it, but he doesn't cite who called it that.
and this is why we need to turn to a reactionary theocracy.
EDIT: I think I might actually write on this subject for That Other Site - leaving off, of course, the bit about theocracy. But would it be too much like trolling? Because over there they all support contraception, homosexual marriage, and divorce laws, and perhaps even polygamous marriage.
EDIT: I have decided against writing such an article. It would be a singularly poor idea as all it would do is expose other relatively orthodox Christians who have been seduced into playing the culture war game while still joined at the hip with modernity to uneducated mockery by "pagans1" and liberalists. Granted, this would have the salutary effect of making me dislike liberals and liberalism even more, but it is still not a very nice thing to do. I hate That Other Site.
1: There aren't many religions on my "too stupid to respect" list, but modern paganism is one of them. Despite all the weirdnesses of the ancient paganisms, I can respect them if only because they produced good literature. The hallmark of modern paganisms, however, is a morbid shallowness which cripples the creative faculties. Good modern literature can only come from existentialists or Catholics [both broadly conceived]. And maybe magical realists, I'm not sure what box they fit in.
3 comments:
damn that Gramsci!
As for your three assertions that began this post…
I don’t follow the contraception-homosexual intercourse argument if only because of the vagueness of “in general.” There are reasons to use contraception that have nothing to do with the devaluation of sexuality or the revolt against progeny. I realize that steps into the territory of “ethics of intention/ethics of behavior” which is, at best, murky. I suppose one would also have to think further about what “contraception” means. Certainly, there are contraceptive devices that are basically tantamount to self-sterilization (e.g., almost all chemical contraception) and others which are much more situational (e.g., condoms). Then there is the whole dispute over whether or not “gettin’ busy” around a woman’s cycle “counts” as contraception. (I would say ‘no’, but people love splitting hairs.)
The homosexual marriage-polygamy argument has been well-made and I’ve never heard any convincing argument against it. The more controversial thesis (the “Rick Santorum thesis” as I like to call it) is that the approval (i.e. legalization) of homosexual sodomy is tantamount to the legalization of not only polygamy, but incest. (A friend of mine has an interesting, if not irreverent, article coming out shortly on this point with regards to legal challenges for incest in Wisconsin.)
I am trying to get the divorce argument aligned in my head, but I can’t right now. Then again, I did spend all morning with Matt Groh moving 170 bricks for the church courtyard on nothing in the stomach but the Eucharist. (Which, if you think about it, is all you really need.)
A reactionary theocracy probably wouldn’t work because once you’ve fixed the problems, you don’t have much else to build on except self-loathing. Of course, I think half of my classmates now suspect that is what I have been not-so-subtlely arguing for over the course of four semesters of law school. However, I have noticed that when I begin speaking about helping the poor and more laws to protect people on the lower rungs of society, they quickly snap into the belief that I’m as blue-blooded of a Democrat as they are. (Of course, that says nothing about the fact their liberal-leanings are almost entirely predicated on a fetish for “civil liberties” and amorality rather than a concern with “blue collar trash.”)
Modern paganism is a joke. The one thing we can say about classical paganism is that they were at least reaching after something; they sought the Unknown God and once He was revealed by the Son, they eventually came around (stress on the word “eventually”).
1. Quite right, that does need clearing up. Perhaps "the use of a contraceptive with contraceptive intent". I only said "in general" because I did not want to deal with particular situations such as "the spouse has AIDS" or something. I generally buy Anscombe's argument. The point, of course, is that the only principled arguments against homosexual intercourse are based on the natural complementarity of male and female, which depends on the procreative aspect of intercourse. Approval of contraception undermines this argument.
re: Incest. good point.
The point I'm trying to make with marriage/divorce is that if one objects to homosexual marriage on the grounds of "the sanctity of marriage", it has already been compromised by American divorce legislation. Of course, that does not cover all possible objections to gay marriage, so it's a weak contention. However, the case for polygamy could be made independently in that it's more humane in a variety of ways than divorce laws in some states. Suppose a man leaves his wife of 20 years for a younger model. The divorce won't be painless for him, but if he were instead required to be married to both and support the other wife in polygamous fashion, I think she could be better off and there'd be less paperwork.
re: pagans. Indeed, I find that good art/literature is pretty strong prima facie evidence for searching after God or at least the Good.
Post a Comment