Politics

[IrishinSyria]

That was amazing, especially the video at the end.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Why? Surely you wouldn't argue that liberals believe torturing animals is ok, right?

We do torture animals. I'm sure you're familiar with the horrors of factory farming; which (as Buster is fond of reminding us) is how capitalism has "crushed" the price of consumer goods (in this case, food) for the masses. Never mind the sustainability and ethics involved.

I mean, the animal rights movement sure as hell didn't come from the right.

I'm not criticizing you "from the right". As I've argued here many times, both the right and left are liberal.

So why would any principles of liberalism require anyone to support chicken f*cking?

Because the principles that led to the legalization of contraception, no-fault divorce, and same-sex marriage also logically entail incest, polyamory and beastiality. There's no coherent liberal case for maintaining those taboos once the former have been normalized.

Nope. The incest taboo is and has been one of the most widespread of all cultural taboos, both in present and in many past societies. There's something more fundamental than the ethics of a desert tribe at play here.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have been the making the exact same argument for years (that virtually every society in human history has limited marriage to conjugal unions), and yet that was summarily dismissed as "irrational animus" against the LGBT community. So why shouldn't your argument about longstanding cultural taboos receive similar treatment? We have the technology now to completely avoid the only physical harm associated with the practice (genetic disease), which earlier cultures did not. Doesn't liberal philosophy demand that we "evolve" on this issue now in order to uphold the sanctity of sexual liberty between consenting adults?

I personally believe there is real harm done by incest/polygamy, and that that harm is sufficient to justify restricting people's choices to engage in those activities.

Frederik DeBoer (along with an increasing number of other Progressive pundits) has argued that every "liberal" argument against polygamy is identical to those that were deployed against same-sex marriage. You can't have it both ways.

You seem to be arguing that no, those activities don't cause any harm, but they are bad because of Judeo-Christian ethics and for no other reason.

I do believe there is serious harm involved with such practices--both to the individuals involved and to the society that normalizes them-- but it's of the same sort caused by contraception, no-fault divorce, and same-sex marriage. And since ideology has compelled liberals (on both the left and the right) to completely discount that harm from political consideration, I think they'll end up doing the same on polygamy, incest and beastiality in the near future.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "Pro-Choice Questions, Pro-Life Answers":

Last week I turned a little bit intemperate in arguing about abortion with members of the conflicted center-left. Now I’m going to try to be a little calmer in pursuing a conversation with the not-at-all-conflicted pro-abortion left, by answering some of the questions that Katha Pollitt posed to her pro-life opponents last fall. I wanted to write a response at the time (she wrote up some of the answers she did receive here), but it slipped by the wayside; now that we’re in the throes of the ongoing Planned Parenthood controversy, it seems like an appropriate time to take her challenge up. So here are the first four of Pollitt’s (meaty) questions, in italics, with my (prolix) responses following; I’ll try to handle the remaining five by this time next week.

*

1. Illegal abortion. You often talk as if banning abortion would drastically reduce or even end it. You don’t seem very concerned about death and injury to women who have illegal procedures. (In fact, you tend to discount pro-choice claims about the danger of illegal abortion, while portraying legal abortion as vastly unsafe.) But what about the simple fact that illegal abortion is widespread in countries where abortion is virtually banned? In Brazil, for example, there are between 1 and 4 million abortions a year—at least as many as in the United States in a much smaller population—and more than 200,000 women land in the hospital with injuries or infections. Do you believe illegal abortion can be prevented, and if so, how? If not, what makes criminalization worth so much harm to women?

Abortion cannot be absolutely prevented, no. But there are good reasons to think that restrictions and bans do, in fact, reduce the abortion rate much more substantially than you suggest. The comparison you make to Brazil, like other comparisons between the developed and developing worlds, actually tells us very little about what abortion restrictions would look like in a society like the United States. (Brazil’s murder rate is more than five times as high as ours, but that doesn’t prove that laws against homicide can’t reduce murder rates.) As I’ve argued many times before, if you compare like to like — wealthy countries to wealthy countries, U.S. states to U.S. states — there’s plenty of evidence that abortion restrictions do, in fact, lead to considerably lower abortion rates overall. To take only the most obvious example: the country with the second-lowest abortion rate in Europe is Ireland, which has an outright ban, and that low rate includes the Irish women who go the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe for abortions; even then, the Irish abortion rate is one-fifth the rate in Sweden, and one-fourth the rate in the U.K.

Nor is there clear evidence that in developed societies abortion restrictions would necessarily do the kind of damage to women’s health that your side assumes they must. You and I have gone back and forth on this issue a bit before, but it bears stressing again: If you compare Ireland, the major Western outlier on abortion, to other countries like it, there’s simply no evidence that its laws are imposing the kind of massive, back-alley harms that you deem inevitable; its maternal mortality rate is normal for Western Europe and compares favorably to Great Britain, it has the same female-versus-male health indicators as Sweden and Denmark, etc.

Which is not actually surprising when you look at the history of maternal mortality and deaths from illegal abortion in the United States. The great modern plunge in pregnancy-associated deaths was not accomplished by Roe v. Wade, but by medical advances that substantially predated the legalization of abortion. Ramesh Ponnuru goes into this in more detail in his book on the abortion issue, but a few data points: There were an estimated 1,300 deaths from abortions in 1943 but only 159 in 1966, before any abortion laws were liberalized; by the time Roe was decided, that estimated figure was down to forty-one; today, post-Roe and Casey, it probably stands around ten or fifteen per year. (Even if these figures undercount the actual numbers — and they appear, albeit without the pre-1960s data, in pro-choice analysis as well — the trajectory simply does not support your implied contention that legal abortion was a massive tipping-point moment for female mortality and health.) Overall, the Roe decision and the change in abortion laws that followed had no discernible impact on the maternal mortality rate’s broad downward trajectory. Nor, as Ponnuru pointed out, did it have any obvious effect on female mortality rates overall: Per the CDC, there was no decline in the death rate after Roe for women age 15 to 34, the cohort who have over ninety percent of all abortions.

With that said, you’re clearly right about this much: The reality is that the pro-life side does accept, must accept, that abortion restrictions will lead to some tragic cases, some illegal abortions that accidentally kill the women who obtain them. But I think the evidence I’ve just cited offers good reasons to believe that these tragedies need not be nearly as inevitable and pervasive as the pro-choice side assumes, that they would be horrible exceptions rather than a back-alley rule. I also think that there might be further steps that a pro-life society might take to render them more exceptional still, about which I’ll say more in a later answer.

2. Compromise. You present pro-choicers as intransigent and yourselves as wanting modest restrictions: a twenty-week ban, stricter regulation of clinics, waiting periods. We both know that this is a tactic, and your goal is the end of legal abortion—yet most Americans don’t share this goal. Do you see any chance of a stable compromise? What would it look like?

I suspect abortion politics in this country could (and may yet) stabilize, at least for a time, at a slightly more European place, in which the left’s recent victory, the quasi-universal health insurance guarantee of Obamacare and the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate that’s attached to it, coexists with eventual national-level restrictions on abortion after twenty weeks and the defunding of Planned Parenthood, and then other restrictions (waiting periods, clinic regulations, parental consent) in more conservative states … and with, perhaps, the chance in some states for a ban after 10 or 12 weeks.

I’m not sure the pro-lifers can win those national-level victories (though they seem at least possible), and the scope of state-level restrictions obviously depends on Anthony Kennedy’s whims, and on the future composition of the high court. But that seems like a combination of policies that maps reasonably well onto the muddle that is American opinion on abortion, and it seems at least possible that in a decade or two, after some more thrashing around with health care reform and some more incremental pro-life advances, that’s where we’ll end up.

At which point, yes, my side of the argument wouldn’t be satisfied with that status quo; we would still pursue our more sweeping goal of “protected in law, welcomed in life.” (Though there are more possible compromise points along the path to that goal, with the rape-incest exception being the most-discussed example these days.) Which is a reason for pro-choice absolutists to resist any move in our direction … but then, being absolutists, you have every reason to resist it anyway! What it’s not, I think, is a good reason for people in the mushy middle — to whom pro-life arguments for compromise are usually addressed — to resist that move, because it’s those people, not activists on either side, who ultimately determine where the country actually ends up, and so they will always be able to say “thus far and no further” if they remain unconvinced by the broadest pro-life case.

3. Birth control. It is obvious to most Americans that birth control is the way to lower the number of abortions. Yet the fight over the Affordable Care Act’s no-co-pay birth-control provision is only the most recent demonstration that many abortion opponents want to restrict contraception too. True, a few anti-choice politicians propose putting the pill over the counter, but no major antiabortion organization supports contraception, and many opponents are redefining modern methods—the pill, the IUD and emergency contraception—as “abortifacients.” Is contraception a lesser evil than abortion or just more of the same evil? If the former, would you accept universal provision of birth control to any and all, including teens?

Follow-up: Would you support such a provision if it was limited to condoms, diaphragms and other methods that no one, not even you, can call dangerous or abortion-causing?

I’ve written about this issue from several different angles: Most recently here, and previously here and here. The distillation of those earlier pieces is as follows. 1) While it may seem obvious, to you and many others, that a liberal approach to contraception is the best way to reduce the abortion rate, in the Western/developed context there isn’t actually that much evidence to support that view; instead (as Megan McArdle stresses in this recent piece), abortion rates tend to be higher, not lower, in states and countries that take the policy/cultural approach you urge on the pro-life side. 2) That correlation is a part of why anti-abortion groups aren’t enthusiastic about the public provision of contraception (they fear that the message sent by that provision is effectively permissive in a way that ultimately encourages abortion), though there are many other factors as well: the religious scruples of conservative Catholics, the anti-spending sentiments of Republicans, and as you say, the concern that some contraceptives are actually abortifacients. 3) To speak personally, I am both convinced that the contraceptive “solution” to high abortion rates isn’t really a solution but also skeptical that contraception and abortion are as inextricably linked as some social conservatives fear, so my view has tended to be that the pro-life movement should be willing to support the public provision of non-abortifacient contraceptives (I include the pill as well as barrier methods in that category; I will betray the pundit’s code and confess to ongoing moral uncertainty about emergency contraception and IUDs) to adults as part of a bargain that also further restricts abortion; absent such a deal, not. 4) With the Obamacare mandate, it seems like my view has been somewhat overtaken by events; no matter what religious carve-outs we end up with, contraception coverage is now semi-universal and likely to remain so, so it’s less clear to me what further steps pro-lifers are being asked to support.

Over-the-counter access to birth control pills, as you yourself note, is something that many social conservatives already support, and I would support as well. I generally would not support sex education programs that distribute contraception to teenagers; for a host of reasons I favor a minimalist, just-the-facts approach (neither militantly pro-abstinence nor wildly “sex-positive”) to sex education in public schools, which might need to be vary a bit from locale to locale depending on how much in loco parentis work the schools need to do, but should be set at the local level for precisely that reason.

But I suppose I would put the question back to you: After the Obamacare mandate, what is the next pro-contraception step on your preferred agenda?

4. Poverty. Six in ten women who have abortions are already mothers. More than 40 percent are poor, and many more are on the edge. Maybe some of them would have the baby if they had more support: healthcare, daycare, housing, jobs—and protection from job discrimination for pregnant women and mothers. Charity can’t begin to supply all these needs, and the antiabortion movement is firmly allied with the Republican Party, which cuts social programs wherever it can. What do you offer to women who want to end a pregnancy because they can’t support another child?

First, a necessary caveat: As in other areas related to religion, social conservatism and charitable works, I do think the pro-choice side tends to underestimate just how much non-governmental work people with pro-life convictions really do that supports mothers and families (and promotes adoption), how much they give and volunteer, and how big a difference it actually makes.

With that said, on the policy side, I have two thoughts, one suited to the current paradigm and one more radical. The one suited the current paradigm is basically just my support for what gets termed “reform conservatism,” which is basically the view that conservatives but especially social conservatives (most “reformocons” are also pro-life or at least lean that way) should support policy shifts that tilt the design of the welfare state in a more pro-family, pro-parent and pro-work direction: A larger child tax credit, a larger earned-income tax credit or wage subsidy, and (in a world where Obamacare were repealed or transformed) a reform of Medicaid that doesn’t just gut the program and a new tax credit that makes basic health insurance more affordable for the working class.

I think many anti-poverty programs (including some of the ones you implicitly mention) don’t work particularly well and deserve reform or transformation, and as in the contraception debate I see very little evidence that big government writ large is the key to lowering abortion rates; indeed I think there’s often a bigger government/social breakdown feedback loop that encourages the kind of personal situations that make abortion seem like a necessity. But I also don’t think simply cutting anti-poverty spending (as opposed to reforming entitlements, cutting corporate welfare, etc.) should be central to the right’s domestic agenda at this point, and to the extent that it is, I think the pro-life movement’s tight (and, given where the Democrats have drifted, completely understandable) relationship to the G.O.P. can be a problem for its broadest goals.

In some ways this makes me an outlier among politically-engaged pro-lifers — but not entirely, since many abortion opponents are conservative Catholics who would have been natural Democrats fifty years ago and who, notwithstanding their rightward migration, remain somewhat ill at ease with element in the G.O.P. And then of course the Catholic church’s leadership is both pro-life and often well to my own left on these questions … and some abortion opponents, particularly in minority communities, would never consider voting Republican at all; they just don’t vote on the issue. So there is a pro-welfare state and pro-life constituency, even if it lacks a clear representation in our politics …

… which brings me to the more radical point: When I write about public policy I try work within realistic lines, but if I were arranging our politics from on high I would want the pro-life movement to have near-absolute flexibility in the kinds of policy experiments around pregnancy, motherhood and family life that might accompany real progress toward our goals. And if it were the case that something much bigger than just an abortion ban after twenty weeks were on the table, if we were actually talking seriously about enacting a real nationwide ban on abortion (or a ban with a few genuinely modest exceptions) … well, then you could probably talk me pretty easily into putting aside my skepticism about the efficacy of certain government interventions if they seemed like necessary parts of a pro-life grand bargain.

I come by that skepticism honestly, and I think an abortion ban is compatible, politically and morally, with a redesigned but still limited welfare state. But I also concede that what pro-lifers are aiming for, what we envision, is a major social experiment, one that if it ever came to fruition might well require reshuffling left-right alignments (just as Roe itself did) and examining old debates anew.

This is part of why I’ve written wistfully, on various occasions, about the decline of the pro-life Democrat. The pro-life movement can succeed, I think, in gaining ground incrementally as a mostly one-party force, especially if it can help prod the G.O.P. a little ways away from some of its recent “47 percent”/maker-taker follies, and it can succeed in changing the composition of the Supreme Court in ways that make further incremental progress possible. But to win comprehensive protection for the unborn, to work the larger revolution, it has to have a political foothold outside the Republican Party; it needs some bipartisan leadership and support.

That’s true because of the necessity of policy experimentation and flexibility I just outlined, and of course it’s true for obvious political reasons as well: An abortion ban imposed by one party would more vulnerable than the abortion regime imposed by seven justices in 1972 — and that regime, happily, has proven more vulnerable than its architects and supporters (yourself included) once expected.

Anyway, that’s word count enough for one post. More anon.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Very quickly, let me address each point:

Bestiality. The basis of liberal sexual ethics is consent. Beasts can't consent. There's no comparison to gay rights, but feel free to continue to make this claim because it will inevitably alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.

Incest. Two problems. One: gay marriage is about creating a new relationship. The whole premise for supporting it was that we're encouraging people to form a legal bond that confers soceital legitimacy on their love, and gives them a foundation to build a long term relationship. Incest destroys one relationship and trades it for another. That might not be a problem if it weren't for problem two: the potential for one party to abuse the ties of one type of relationship and turn it into another. Once again, consent is the issue here. Obviously, there can be no real consent in the case of parent/child incest, which is why I think the taboo is strongest with regards to that. I admit that the case is a little dicier with sibling incest, but I think there are still strong reasons to doubt whether there can truly be consent in the case of a sibling relationship.

Polygamy: I want to be on the record that I'm not opposed to any form of polygamous relationship outside of marriage. However, marriage is out of bounds because it confers a set of legal obligations and rights on two people. Once society rejected the idea that gender should differentiate the legal rights of those parties, there was no longer any strong reason for refusing to extend those rights and obligations to homosexuals. The same cannot be said for polygamous relationships. We've gotten into this before, you don't agree, we'll see if the fabric of society falls apart now that gay marriage is legal.

Finally, even if you are right and the logic of liberalism demands that we allow those three things, it does not follow that a liberal society will allow them. With no god to judge me, no overall dogma driving me forward, I am not compelled to slip down the slippery slope, even when logic might say that I must. Liberalism is pragmatic, it's about getting along the best we can. Just because we throw one tradition out doesn't mean we have to throw them all away. I don't have to be perfectly consistent in my beliefs, in fact I think there's a lot of virtue in compromise. A good example would be incest. I believe there's value in the familial relationship and there's value in giving people sexual autonomy. I believe the damage widespread incest would do to the familial relationship outweighs the gains of increasing sexual autonomy. Conversely, I believe that gay marriage is good for sexual autonomy and does almost no harm to the familial relationship. It is not inconsistent for me to favor one and not the other. That's balancing two values, it's not hypocrisy.

 

[wizards8507]

In a first, California agrees to pay for transgender inmate's sex reassignment - LA Times

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Bestiality. The basis of liberal sexual ethics is consent. Beasts can't consent. There's no comparison to gay rights, but feel free to continue to make this claim because it will inevitably alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.

I'm making a philosophical argument about the logical outworkings of liberalism; if SSM is now a sacred cow for liberals, feel free to ignore that and focus on how the case for contraception and no-fault divorce might also necessarily entail various other practices which are currently taboo. I'm obviously not arguing that SSM is uniquely evil, or will lead to undesirable social outcomes any moreso than its liberal precedents regarding sex and marriage. I'm also not running for office, so I'd hope my debate partners here would extend me the benefit of the doubt and simply explore this issue intellectually without the ad hominem. Though your reaction on this issue lends credence to my argument that liberalism is a religion, because if I don't recant of such heresy, no right-thinking liberal will give me a fair hearing, right?

How can "consent" uphold the taboo on beastiality? Liberal societies tolerate the hunting, torture and slaughter of animals en masse, which animals obviously do not consent to. What if a man offers his pet chicken a treat every time he f*cks it, and the chicken thereby comes to enjoy the experience? Surely being used as sexual chattel is preferable to a short miserable life and violent death on a factory farm, no?

Incest. Two problems. One: gay marriage is about creating a new relationship. The whole premise for supporting it was that we're encouraging people to form a legal bond that confers soceital legitimacy on their love, and gives them a foundation to build a long term relationship. Incest destroys one relationship and trades it for another. That might not be a problem if it weren't for problem two: the potential for one party to abuse the ties of one type of relationship and turn it into another. Once again, consent is the issue here. Obviously, there can be no real consent in the case of parent/child incest, which is why I think the taboo is strongest with regards to that. I admit that the case is a little dicier with sibling incest, but I think there are still strong reasons to doubt whether there can truly be consent in the case of a sibling relationship.

Who are you to say that incest "destroys" the relationship between siblings? As Justice Kennedy famously quipped in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life..." If two adult siblings want to marry and start a family, and genetic testing proves that their offspring are not at increased risk of genetic disease, shouldn't "love win"?

Polygamy: I want to be on the record that I'm not opposed to any form of polygamous relationship outside of marriage. However, marriage is out of bounds because it confers a set of legal obligations and rights on two people. Once society rejected the idea that gender should differentiate the legal rights of those parties, there was no longer any strong reason for refusing to extend those rights and obligations to homosexuals. The same cannot be said for polygamous relationships. We've gotten into this before, you don't agree, we'll see if the fabric of society falls apart now that gay marriage is legal.

So consenting adults in polyamorous relationships must endure social stigma and forgo the benefits of legal recognition simply because it would be inconvenient to rework marriage laws for more than two people? Desegregation was extremely impractical, but it was still the right thing to do. Surely you'd agree that if polyamorous relationships are morally equal to monogamous ones, they deserve equality before the law, regardless of the legal difficulties.

A good example would be incest. I believe there's value in the familial relationship and there's value in giving people sexual autonomy. I believe the damage widespread incest would do to the familial relationship outweighs the gains of increasing sexual autonomy. Conversely, I believe that gay marriage is good for sexual autonomy and does almost no harm to the familial relationship. It is not inconsistent for me to favor one and not the other. That's balancing two values, it's not hypocrisy.

Sexual autonomy and familial integrity are usually competing values, so societies can't get away with this squishy "balancing" language. And if you look at our history, liberalism clearly values the former far more than the latter (see "no fault" divorce). For decades our laws have allowed a spouse to destroy his or her family simply because he or she decides they'd rather f*ck someone else; so on what grounds can a liberal say that a sexual relationship between consenting adult siblings does more damage to familial integrity than "no fault" divorce? Unless you're willing to condemn the latter, I don't see how you can coherently condemn the former.

And if you're tempted to argue that there's nothing wrong with incoherence, I'd suggest that incoherent policies (like a mix of liberal and Christian social ethics) are inherently unstable. One will inevitably give way to the other. On matters of sex and marriage, liberalism has consistently supplanted Christianity over the last several centuries, and there's no reason to believe that we will stop sliding down this slippery slope. I'm simply trying to articulate where we're headed, and to see if our resident liberals are comfortable with that. You apparently are not, so I'm curious how you think that slide can be stopped. Or should it be?

On a related note, did you read Laudato Si? Francis did a masterful job of showing how liberalism is continuing to degrade both the environment and our communities. But liberal ideology blinds Republicans to the former, and Progressives to the latter. It's all fruit of the same poisonous tree.

 

[phgreek]

In a first, California agrees to pay for transgender inmate's sex reassignment - LA Times

well, I'm not shocked. But this simply makes no sense. Can someone do that if they have the inclination and money...yea. Self mutilation comes in all forms...and I kinda don't care...at all. If you feel like a woman and chop your member off...and you do it on your time and money...shrug.

But to foist this on taxpayers...there is no rational argument for such... at least that isn't in stark contrast with the idea behind incarceration...

 

[connor_in]

Very quickly, let me address each point:

Bestiality. The basis of liberal sexual ethics is consent. Beasts can't consent. There's no comparison to gay rights, but feel free to continue to make this claim because it will inevitably alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your arguments.

Incest. Two problems. One: gay marriage is about creating a new relationship. The whole premise for supporting it was that we're encouraging people to form a legal bond that confers soceital legitimacy on their love, and gives them a foundation to build a long term relationship. Incest destroys one relationship and trades it for another. That might not be a problem if it weren't for problem two: the potential for one party to abuse the ties of one type of relationship and turn it into another. Once again, consent is the issue here. Obviously, there can be no real consent in the case of parent/child incest, which is why I think the taboo is strongest with regards to that. I admit that the case is a little dicier with sibling incest, but I think there are still strong reasons to doubt whether there can truly be consent in the case of a sibling relationship.

Polygamy: I want to be on the record that I'm not opposed to any form of polygamous relationship outside of marriage. However, marriage is out of bounds because it confers a set of legal obligations and rights on two people. Once society rejected the idea that gender should differentiate the legal rights of those parties, there was no longer any strong reason for refusing to extend those rights and obligations to homosexuals. The same cannot be said for polygamous relationships. We've gotten into this before, you don't agree, we'll see if the fabric of society falls apart now that gay marriage is legal.

Finally, even if you are right and the logic of liberalism demands that we allow those three things, it does not follow that a liberal society will allow them. With no god to judge me, no overall dogma driving me forward, I am not compelled to slip down the slippery slope, even when logic might say that I must. Liberalism is pragmatic, it's about getting along the best we can. Just because we throw one tradition out doesn't mean we have to throw them all away. I don't have to be perfectly consistent in my beliefs, in fact I think there's a lot of virtue in compromise. A good example would be incest. I believe there's value in the familial relationship and there's value in giving people sexual autonomy. I believe the damage widespread incest would do to the familial relationship outweighs the gains of increasing sexual autonomy. Conversely, I believe that gay marriage is good for sexual autonomy and does almost no harm to the familial relationship. It is not inconsistent for me to favor one and not the other. That's balancing two values, it's not hypocrisy.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Mmmmm...compelling argument.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I'm making a philosophical argument about the logical outworkings of liberalism; if SSM is now a sacred cow for liberals, feel free to ignore that and focus on how the case for contraception and no-fault divorce might also necessarily entail various other practices which are currently taboo. I'm obviously not arguing that SSM is uniquely evil, or will lead to undesirable social outcomes any moreso than its liberal precedents regarding sex and marriage. I'm also not running for office, so I'd hope my debate partners here would extend me the benefit of the doubt and simply explore this issue intellectually without the ad hominem. Though your reaction on this issue lends credence to my argument that liberalism is a religion, because if I don't recant of such heresy, no right-thinking liberal will give me a fair hearing, right?

How can "consent" uphold the taboo on beastiality? Liberal societies tolerate the hunting, torture and slaughter of animals en masse, which animals obviously do not consent to. What if a man offers his pet chicken a treat every time he f*cks it, and the chicken thereby comes to enjoy the experience? Surely being used as sexual chattel is preferable to a short miserable life and violent death on a factory farm, no?



Who are you to say that incest "destroys" the relationship between siblings? As Justice Kennedy famously quipped in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life..." If two adult siblings want to marry and start a family, and genetic testing proves that their offspring are not at increased risk of genetic disease, shouldn't "love win"?



So consenting adults in polyamorous relationships must endure social stigma and forgo the benefits of legal recognition simply because it would be inconvenient to rework marriage laws for more than two people? Desegregation was extremely impractical, but it was still the right thing to do. Surely you'd agree that if polyamorous relationships are morally equal to monogamous ones, they deserve equality before the law, regardless of the legal difficulties.



Sexual autonomy and familial integrity are usually competing values, so societies can't get away with this squishy "balancing" language. And if you look at our history, liberalism clearly values the former far more than the latter (see "no fault" divorce). For decades our laws have allowed a spouse to destroy his or her family simply because he or she decides they'd rather f*ck someone else; so on what grounds can a liberal say that a sexual relationship between consenting adult siblings does more damage to familial integrity than "no fault" divorce? Unless you're willing to condemn the latter, I don't see how you can coherently condemn the former.

And if you're tempted to argue that there's nothing wrong with incoherence, I'd suggest that incoherent policies (like a mix of liberal and Christian social ethics) are inherently unstable. One will inevitably give way to the other. On matters of sex and marriage, liberalism has consistently supplanted Christianity over the last several centuries, and there's no reason to believe that we will stop sliding down this slippery slope. I'm simply trying to articulate where we're headed, and to see if our resident liberals are comfortable with that. You apparently are not, so I'm curious how you think that slide can be stopped. Or should it be?

On a related note, did you read Laudato Si? Francis did a masterful job of showing how liberalism is continuing to degrade both the environment and our communities. But liberal ideology blinds Republicans to the former, and Progressives to the latter. It's all fruit of the same poisonous tree.

It's like watching the MMA girl spar with her partners, she just tosses em out of the ring and waits for the next...

 

[connor_in]

Mmmmm...compelling argument.

Didn't realize it was supposed to be an argument. Apparently I missed the memo where we cannot post immediate gut reactions and have to make some sort of compelling case in every post. Of course, it appears that your post is similar to mine in that it doesn't seem to be making an argument either but is simply a reaction. So I guess you are guilty of the same infraction as me?

Look, he is perfectly fine to believe that about liberalism. Most zealots feel that way about THEIR religion.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Didn't realize it was supposed to be an argument. Apparently I missed the memo where we cannot post immediate gut reactions and have to make some sort of compelling case in every post. Of course, it appears that your post is similar to mine in that it doesn't seem to be making an argument either but is simply a reaction. So I guess you are guilty of the same infraction as me?

Look, he is perfectly fine to believe that about liberalism. Most zealots feel that way about THEIR religion.

Heh. Just responding with the same substance you provided.

In any case, I was just jabbing you.

 

[ACamp1900]

Mmmmm...compelling argument.

Heh. Just responding with the same substance you provided.

In any case, I was just jabbing you.

This thread seriously needs this stuff sometimes... lil pressure valve.

 

[pkt77242]

I'm making a philosophical argument about the logical outworkings of liberalism; if SSM is now a sacred cow for liberals, feel free to ignore that and focus on how the case for contraception and no-fault divorce might also necessarily entail various other practices which are currently taboo. I'm obviously not arguing that SSM is uniquely evil, or will lead to undesirable social outcomes any moreso than its liberal precedents regarding sex and marriage. I'm also not running for office, so I'd hope my debate partners here would extend me the benefit of the doubt and simply explore this issue intellectually without the ad hominem. Though your reaction on this issue lends credence to my argument that liberalism is a religion, because if I don't recant of such heresy, no right-thinking liberal will give me a fair hearing, right?

How can "consent" uphold the taboo on beastiality? Liberal societies tolerate the hunting, torture and slaughter of animals en masse, which animals obviously do not consent to. What if a man offers his pet chicken a treat every time he f*cks it, and the chicken thereby comes to enjoy the experience? Surely being used as sexual chattel is preferable to a short miserable life and violent death on a factory farm, no?

I just want to answer this part. You always claim that Liberalism is a religion. If so then one of the key tenets to sexual ethics in Liberalism is consent. Both parties must give consent (and also be capable of giving consent). If no consent is given or can't be given, then it is rape. So someone having sex with a chicken is committing rape since the chicken is incapable of giving consent.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I just want to answer this part. You always claim that Liberalism is a religion. If so then one of the key tenets to sexual ethics in Liberalism is consent. Both parties must give consent (and also be capable of giving consent). If no consent is given or can't be given, then it is rape. So someone having sex with a chicken is committing rape since the chicken is incapable of giving consent.

Did you see how the chicken was wearing those feathers? Damn, that chick was just beggin for it.

 

[Wild Bill]

I just want to answer this part. You always claim that Liberalism is a religion. If so then one of the key tenets to sexual ethics in Liberalism is consent. Both parties must give consent (and also be capable of giving consent). If no consent is given or can't be given, then it is rape. So someone having sex with a chicken is committing rape since the chicken is incapable of giving consent.

My chicken doesn't mind.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I just want to answer this part. You always claim that Liberalism is a religion. If so then one of the key tenets to sexual ethics in Liberalism is consent. Both parties must give consent (and also be capable of giving consent). If no consent is given or can't be given, then it is rape. So someone having sex with a chicken is committing rape since the chicken is incapable of giving consent.

Are you vegan, pkt? Because if animals are incapable of consent (which zoophiles argue isn't true), and all sex without consent is rape, then "meat is murder", right?

You can't argue that consent is sufficient to maintain the taboo against beastiality in liberal sexual ethics when liberal society is simultaneously tolerant of the hunting, torture and slaughter of animals en masse. Murder is worse than rape; so if it's OK to do the latter without consent, then it must be OK to do the former, too.

They're obviously non-persons, right? Just like a fetus during the 1st trimester. Liberals have no problem defining inconvenient creatures outside the realm of legal protection in order to better suit their lifestyle choices. Factory farms are convenient for those who like cheap meat. So why not embrace that position entirely and let zoophiles have their fun?

 

[pkt77242]

Are you vegan, pkt? Because if animals are incapable of consent (which zoophiles argue isn't true), and all sex without consent is rape, then "meat is murder", right?

You can't argue that consent is sufficient to maintain the taboo against beastiality in liberal sexual ethics when liberal society is simultaneously tolerant of the hunting, torture and slaughter of animals en masse. Murder is worse than rape; so if it's OK to do the latter without consent, then it must be OK to do the former, too.

They're obviously non-persons, right? Just like a fetus during the 1st trimester. Liberals have no problem defining inconvenient creatures outside the realm of legal protection in order to better suit their lifestyle choices. Factory farms are convenient for those who like cheap meat. So why not embrace that position entirely and let zoophiles have their fun?

Nope, food and sex are two different things. Why are you trying to compare them?

 

[Cackalacky]

Are you vegan, pkt? Because if animals are incapable of consent (which zoophiles argue isn't true), and all sex without consent is rape, then "meat is murder", right?

You can't argue that consent is sufficient to maintain the taboo against beastiality in liberal sexual ethics when liberal society is simultaneously tolerant of the hunting, torture and slaughter of animals en masse. Murder is worse than rape; so if it's OK to do the latter without consent, then it must be OK to do the former, too.

They're obviously non-persons, right? Just like a fetus during the 1st trimester. Liberals have no problem defining inconvenient creatures outside the realm of legal protection in order to better suit their lifestyle choices. Factory farms are convenient for those who like cheap meat. So why not embrace that position entirely and let zoophiles have their fun?

Point of order..... as omnivores, protein is necessary for survival and animals have always been on the menu for humans. Hunting, cooking, use of hides and bones etc etc all have significant cultural and societal history in the human race. Fucking random animals doesnt. IMO there is a massive gulf between fucking animals and killing them for a source of protein. Many cultures take animals as food except for the most aesthetic ones like Jains. I disagree with this on the grounds that its a false equivalency.

 

[pkt77242]

Also this talk of food and sex reminds me of

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Nope, food and sex are two different things. Why are you trying to compare them?

Because murder is obviously worse than rape?

Point of order..... as omnivores, protein is necessary for survival and animals have always been on the menu for humans. Hunting, cooking, use of hides and bones etc etc all have significant cultural and societal history in the human race. Fucking random animals doesnt. IMO there is a massive gulf between fucking animals and killing them for a source of protein. Many cultures take animals as food except for the most aesthetic ones like Jains. I disagree with this on the grounds that its a false equivalency.

(1) Sexual autonomy is of paramount importance;
(2) The harm of non-persons in the furtherance of one's sexual urges is morally acceptable (abortion);
(3) Animals are non-persons;
(4) Therefore, beastiality is morally permissible.

Show me why that syllogism is incorrect on liberalism's own terms. I don't believe it can be done without recourse to a metaphysical claim (sanctity of nature, Natural Law, etc.)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Alternatively:

(1) Murder is morally worse than rape;
(2) Killing animals for food is morally permissible;
(3) Therefore, beastiality is morally permissible.

Again, I don't think it's possible to coherently explain why it's ok to kill and eat an animal, but not to f*ck it, without recourse to metaphysical claims.

 

[pkt77242]

Because murder is obviously worse than rape?



(1) Sexual autonomy is of paramount importance;
(2) The harm of non-persons in the furtherance of one's sexual urges is morally acceptable (abortion);
(3) Animals are non-persons;
(4) Therefore, beastiality is morally permissible.

Show me why that syllogism is incorrect on liberalism's own terms. I don't believe it can be done without recourse to a metaphysical claim (sanctity of nature, Natural Law, etc.)

Um, what now? Abortion has nothing to do with sexual urges (well at least among us Church of Liberalism believers). So not sure why that is there.

Lets reverse engineer the question. Do you believe that you have to be married to your chicken before you can eat it? Again food and sex have nothing to do with each other. You are trying to make a comparison between two extremely dissimilar things.

 

[IrishinSyria]

This gets back to the compromise thing. You can balance two competing principles when they clash with each other. On the one hand, we like cheap and easily available meat, so we tolerate factory farming. On the whole, averting global malnutrition (or even just letting us eat delicious chicken nuggets) seems like an overall good thing. On the other hand, we don't like the idea of torturing animals. So we have laws against animal crurelty,, which include things like chicken rape. Do I recognize that factory farming is inherently cruel to animals? Of course I do. But just because I sanction that practice (implicitly, by eating meat) doesn't mean I sanction every other incident of animal cruelty.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Um, what now? Abortion has nothing to do with sexual urges (well at least among us Church of Liberalism believers). So not sure why that is there.

Do you disagree that sexual autonomy is of paramount importance within Liberalism? That should be self-evident at this point. Consenting adults should be able to f*ck each other whenever they want, right? Conjugal unions tend to create new human life, and contraception frequently fails or is disregarded. Thus the need for abortion. Sexual autonomy is severely hindered by the natural results of conjugal intercourse. So yes, I'd say abortion is intimately related to sexual urges and Liberalism's commitment to sexual autonomy.

Lets reverse engineer the question. Do you believe that you have to be married to your chicken before you can eat it? Again food and sex have nothing to do with each other. You are trying to make a comparison between two extremely dissimilar things.

Christians have no problem coherently explaining why it's morally permissible to humanely utilize an animal for food, but not for sexual enjoyment. But doing so forces us to reference metaphysical claims about human anthropology and the sanctity of creation that liberalism explicitly rejects. So I'm asking you to explain, on Liberalism's own terms, why it's OK to vivisect a 20-week old human being in utero in furtherance of a woman's sexual autonomy, but it's not ok for that same woman to couple with the family dog. Or why it's OK to kill and eat an animal without its consent, but not OK to keep that same animal as sexual chattel. I don't think you can do it on Liberalism's own terms, which is why this slippery slope is going to take us to some very disturbing places.

 

[Cackalacky]

Because murder is obviously worse than rape?



(1) Sexual autonomy is of paramount importance;
(2) The harm of non-persons in the furtherance of one's sexual urges is morally acceptable (abortion);
(3) Animals are non-persons;
(4) Therefore, beastiality is morally permissible.

Show me why that syllogism is incorrect on liberalism's own terms. I don't believe it can be done without recourse to a metaphysical claim (sanctity of nature, Natural Law, etc.)

Alright, I will take a stab.....

Historically, bestiality and more so zoophillia has been practised by humans, again, for thousands of years and there are even references to it in the OT Bible. It has been depicted by most major cultures including Hindu, Japan, Native Americans and African tribes. It is particularly found in agrarian societies from antiquity right on up to America before the Depression. The Romans were particularly sadistic and violent with it apparently training animals to rape slaves and women for their games.Obviously I dont have its activity relative to populstions lbut we do know it happened and even depicted in litersutre and art for thousands of years.

Nature also has its slew of animals that copulte across families. Of course they tend to have the same anatomy with a penis and vagine or anus.While relatively small in relation to populstion size.

It really wasnt until the Catholic church began demonising it and deeming it immoral that this practice was considered to be well ....witchcraft or against biblical commands.

We all know how Liberalism sprang out of all the great deeds of the Church and how the universities and development of natural rights etc. played out right up until today.

So now that we have a context, I think the real question is not is it morally permissible but is it in fact out of natural order, considering that Liberalism is simply acknowledging a natural fact that The Church tried to prohibit and impose on its followers which has spread into other modern cultures that used to practice it as well. This explains why many modern countries
Around the world have tabooed it (Western Civ influence).

I am not arguing for it, but in this context I think it can be argued it is permissible, although it can be considered irrational. Also I have to run right now and i probably did not elucidate as well as I wanted but I will gladly like opinions on this.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I am not arguing for it, but in this context I think it can be argued it is permissible, although it can be considered irrational.

Agreed completely. We've spent the last hundred years steadily jettisoning Christian ethics (particularly as it relates to sex and marriage) in favor of post-Enlightenment Rationalism. Without reference to Christianity, most current sexual taboos can't be sustained. That fact should either cause Liberals to cheer (freedom from superstition!) or seriously reconsider their moral worldview. There's no coherent alternative that allows one to celebrate the gains Liberalism has thus far achieved, while also insisting that things we still consider "icky" (polyamory, incest and beastiality) will remain beyond the pale.

 

[Cackalacky]

Alternatively:

(1) Murder is morally worse than rape;
(2) Killing animals for food is morally permissible;
(3) Therefore, beastiality is morally permissible.

Again, I don't think it's possible to coherently explain why it's ok to kill and eat an animal, but not to f*ck it, without recourse to metaphysical claims.

Alright point of order again. I disagree that killing an animal for food which is an evolutionary adaption over 100000 years has a moral component to it. Why is it moral or immoral. It's necessary for our survival. Life feeds on life. No metaphysics needed here

To that extent is killing an animal for food murder? What is the distinction in murder and he taking of any life? Why are some lives provided some moral privilege others are not. Outside of religious context there really is no biological distinction without invoking metaphysics. Is killing a sentient animal worse than a non sentient. If it's not then what role does awareness of surrounding play.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Agreed completely. We've spent the last hundred years steadily jettisoning Christian ethics (particularly as it relates to sex and marriage) in favor of post-Enlightenment Rationalism. Without reference to Christianity, most current sexual taboos can't be sustained. That fact should either cause Liberals to cheer (freedom from superstition!) or seriously reconsider their moral worldview. There's no coherent alternative that allows one to celebrate the gains Liberalism has thus far achieved, while also insisting that things we still consider "icky" (polyamory, incest and beastiality) will remain beyond the pale.

I will concede that if you can really prove that there's no rationale basis for the prohibitions on those things, then my own belief system would require me to drop my opposition to them.

I just don't think you can show that. The root of our disagreement seems to be what our estimation is of the importance of sexual autonomy to liberalism. I think it's important, but not preeminent. You seem to believe that liberals (and your conservative cheerleaders in this thread seem to not understand what you mean when you talk about liberalism) value sexual autonomy above everything else. I think that there are a lot of countervailing values (harm, family, consent, efficiency, etc...) that also come into the equation. You're pointing to things like no fault divorce as evidence that liberals don't care about family, but I think that's absurd, having seen families that stay together when they really shouldn't. Our disagreements are legion. Since we're working from different starting assumptions, we're getting to different logical conclusions on almost everything.


edit: Cack's post got me thinking. You (whiskey) seem to be presenting liberalism as a complete philosophical rejection of traditional Catholic values. I disagree. I see it as an expansion and a refocusing, just like I see the New Testament as an expansion and refocusing of Old Testament values. I'm all about philosophy with a sledge hammer, but I think that there are some idols that can take the blow. You believe that gay marriage undermines the concept of family. I believe gay marriage expands the concept of family. I think the traditional focus on the anatomy of the relationship was wrong and weird, but I think that the underlying concepts of love and commitment remain valuable.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Alright point of order again. I disagree that killing an animal for food which is an evolutionary adaption over 100000 years has a moral component to it. Why is it moral or immoral. It's necessary for our survival. Life feeds on life. No metaphysics needed here.

There are moral dimensions to every human activity. Killing an animal for sport is less morally defensible than killing an animal for survival; killing an ape is less morally defensible than killing an ant; etc. Unless one is a hardcore materialist, in which case "morality" is just an illusion. But it still gets back to metaphysics.

To that extent is killing an animal for food murder? What is the distinction in murder and he taking of any life? Why are some lives provided some moral privilege others are not. Outside of religious context there really is no biological distinction without invoking metaphysics. Is killing a sentient animal worse than a non sentient. If it's not then what role does awareness of surrounding play.

These are all great questions, which just goes to prove there is no getting away from metaphysics. Humans are inherently religious creatures.

I just don't think you can show that. The root of our disagreement seems to be what our estimation is of the importance of sexual autonomy to liberalism. I think it's important, but not preeminent. You seem to believe that liberals (and your conservative cheerleaders in this thread seem to not understand what you mean when you talk about liberalism) value sexual autonomy above everything else. I think that there are a lot of countervailing values (harm, family, consent, efficiency, etc...) that also come into the equation.

Can you give me an example of how our cultural drift away from Christianity and toward Liberalism has strengthened familial integrity? I can't think of a single one, but there are countless examples of how it has and continues to atomize our society. One of my biggest problems with Liberalism is its overriding focus on individual autonomy, which necessarily comes at the expense of family, community, etc.

You're pointing to things like no fault divorce as evidence that liberals don't care about family, but I think that's absurd, having seen families that stay together when they really shouldn't.

Hard cases make bad law. There are surely some cases where parents need to separate for the good of the children, but to argue that "no fault" divorce has somehow improved the state of the Western family is ridiculous.

Our disagreements are legion. Since we're working from different starting assumptions, we're getting to different logical conclusions on almost everything.

I agree, and that's OK! Neither one of us is engaging here in a realistic hope of converting the other. But if we can both come to understand how fundamental our differences are, we can more effectively and respectfully debate about politics here. That's been my goal all along; to prove that Christianity and Liberalism are radically incompatible.

Now if you'll just grant that Christian communities shouldn't have Liberal morality imposed upon them via Federal law (and vice versa!), we'd have the beginnings of a glorious new American pluralism here...