A Response To a Reader About Gay Marriage

I came across these comments in the Gay Marriage thread...................... I started responding and then I figured I'd share the debate with all of you (the reader's comments are in italics, my rebuttals are bolded)--------

When arguing from the high ground of logical consistency, try to be more careful. You declare the "slippery slope" to be "by definition" fallacious, but provide no rationale. In fact, there is always the danger of reductio ad absurdam, but those who point out that legal opposition to same-sex marriage and legal opposition to polygamous marriage rest on the same philosophical presuppositions are not indulging in the "slippery slope." They're simply pointing out that when the foundation is undermined, the whole legal structure inevitably topples.

It seems you have misread, I spent the entire post destroying the slippery slope and did not just arbitrarily deem it a fallacy (though I did define it as such). In order for me to believe that a slippery slope was a rational possibility there would have to be a logical connection between the starting point and that which we were concerned with slipping towards. In the case of the arguments cited in the post I have demonstrated that said analogy is a non-existent illogical construct.

You make several truth claims quite as dogmatic ("morality is mutable") as the ones you seek to refute for their alleged dogmatism. You raise points irrelevant to the matter at hand, or at least irrelevant to your opponents' argument (i.e., the cost of benefits). You accept your opponents' judgment concerning the greater societal harm of pedophilia, yet reject it concerning marriage, without providing any rational basis for distinction.

The burden of proof is on your side to demonstrate a real discernable compelling interest for the state not to extend the benefits that are federally granted to opposite sex marriage to same sex marriage, not the other way around. How “cost of benefits” is irrelevant (particularly when dwelling upon the constitutionality of the issue) escapes me. When we are talking about equal protection the unequal distribution of unique government benefits to one group above and beyond that of another is extraordinarily relevant. Ultimately, I outlined point for point a distinct societal detriment that pedophilia causes (again I did not just “deem” it so as you have mischaracterized), I outlined how polygamy is in no way analogous to gay marriage (and is therefore a non-issue in terms of the slippery slope), I further demonstrated a unique societal ailment created by incest. All of the above provide a compelling interest for the state to continue their prohibition. Your side has yet to come up with a reason an analogous unit should be denied the benefits of another (aside from your nonsense rhetoric and insistence upon an illogical undermining of the “system”). Be more concrete, what are the ails that would be created by gay marriage?!?!

Your distinction between "excluding" equivalent groups (same-sex) and failing to extend benefits to non-equivalent groups (polygamous) rests only on a mathematical difference, not a difference of kind. Finally, your assertion that the government cannot legislate based on moral concerns is patently ridiculous. Theft is a moral concern. Cheating on your taxes is a moral concern. Religious tolerance itself is a profoundly moral value.

When assessing the constitutionality of the situation the mathematics merits more attention than the alleged morality (which I submit would vary from individual to individual regarding gay marriage) of the situation. However, there is a difference of kind, particularly if we look at the accepted definition of marriage as outlined within the post. Theft and cheating on taxes may be a moral concern for you, but the reason the alleged “morality” is legislated is more for utilitarian reasons than for moral ones. In both theft and tax evasion there is a discernable detriment to society as a whole and social cohesiveness that would be evident by the rampant participation in either of the actions. A society functions best when it functions cohesively, lest the society be swallowed up by another more fit society (simple Darwinian selection). Even religious tolerance has an ultimate utilitarian aspect to it. Were there a society with one creed, such “morality” would never become an issue; therefore we cannot look at this as a moral value as the universal applicability one seeks in morality is clearly absent. However, when there is a multiplicity of religious beliefs within a pluralistic society tolerance becomes necessary, particular in matters of religion, where the belief system becomes intertwined with identity. In order for society to continue to function at a level that outperforms competing societies as it grows in diversity (which will aid said society with the import of ideas) it must function as a cohesive unit encouraging “tolerance” of those members whose diversity the society is benefiting from.

Again the burden of proof falls upon the detractors to demonstrate a distinct and real societal detriment that would provide a compelling interest for the state to not apply the 14^th amendment to Gay Marriage. The slippery slope simply doesn’t cut it.

Evolution Stickers

The evolution versus creationism debate has reared its ugly head again this time taking the form of a precautionary sticker on a Cobb County (Atlanta) High School biology textbook proclaiming evolution to be a "theory not a fact" that needed "critical consideration." A group, lead by the ACLU, sued the school contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from thousands of other scientific theories as suspect. Fortunately, a Federal judge ruled yesterday that since the sticker:

"refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life..........is not that the school board should not have called evolution a theory or that the school board should have called evolution a fact........Rather, the distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case."

(We'll let the judge slide on his use of the term "origin of life" a separate and distinct theory from Darwin's theory---the use of the 2 interchangeably is a common erroneous colloquialism that has taken root via the poor scientific vernacular of the country as a whole---but I digress).

The judge is correct in pointing out that evolution was singled out by a group of individuals who find Darwin's theory upsetting to their personal religious sensibilities (represented more often than not by a fundamentalist protestant group heavily emphasizing biblical infallibility and literalism). However, what must be understood is that all of science continues to exist within the realm of "theory" based upon observation and repeated experimentation. As an example, most individuals accept as fact prima face that all matter is composed of smaller building blocks known as atoms. However, as strong as the evidence for said assertion is, it still is known in the scientific community as "atomic theory" (as it is a common misperception that theories can somehow morph into "laws" if they pass multiple scientific tests---this is simply not the case). Therein lies the relevance of the ruling, and lack of understand by the school-board, highlighting a single theory and placing emphasis on the concept that it is "only a theory" undermines the integrity of one of the most sound and breathtaking achievements in the biological sciences. The school board did not place a sticker within the book to herald the fact that "atoms are only a theory" because atoms in no way conflict with a sacred text in general and a literal reading of Genesis in particular. That critical attention should be paid to any scientific theory is an important lesson that should be taught to students and must be applied universally to the whole body of science not individual theories (lest science languish in the past).

As an alternative to evolution "creation-science" has been proposed as a competing theory to be taught alongside Darwin's theory. There is a large problem with this (in addition to the confusion of terms noted above) the foremost being that creation-science is an oxymoron. Karl Popper, arguably the most important philosopher of science to emerge in the 20th century, has demonstrated that the key element of any true scientific theory is its falsifiablilty (click the link for a discussion about the implications of this). By definition creationism cannot be falsified, hence it is not science, it is at best metaphysics. Recently deceased Christian Theologian Langdon Gilkey understood this; his testimony in favor of evolution instruction in 1981 became a seminal landmark for which to turn in cases of science versus religion:

“Inherently, science has a secular character,” Gilkey testified. “It cannot be appealed to a supernatural cause. By its own rules, [science] rules out discussions of a deity”.........“His testimony in McLean and in his many books and articles reflected a religious sensibility that respected and drew inspiration from science, but which was also true to his vision of the meaning of Scripture” said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.........In fact, Gilkey considered evolution a tool of creation, said his last doctoral student, Berea College philosophy and religion professor Jeff Pool.

The only competing scientific theory evolution has ever had has been the fixity of the species, not creationism.

What troubles so many individuals about evolution is that they either insist upon a word for word literal interpretation of the Bible (which I would argue, particularly the Old Testament, was not the original intent) or they assume evolution carries the metaphysical necessity of a reductionist materialism. This is simply not the case and is the opposite of the situation above. Here we have scientists moving from the comforts of observational science to the arena of speculative metaphysical philosophy (or the philosophy of science) and disguising their conclusion as scientific treatise. There are many individuals (myself included) who do not find there to be an intellectual dissonance between science and theism; in fact, true faith can only be enhanced by the truths that science finds not reduced by them. One of the great ironies lost on this particular lawsuit is that the author of the textbook, Brown evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, is a devout Christian who has written a book on the interplay between science and religion.

The debate will continue to occur within society without a foreseeable end as long as individuals continue to close their minds to the astonishing discoveries science uncovers. The quote below is from Australian physicist Paul Davies, who demonstrates how science can inform a true 21st century theology:

Here then is a wonderful example of how science is increasingly informing theological debate. The question of whether life formed by law or chance can, and I believe will, be settled by observation and experiment. If life is finally made in a test tube, or discovered on Mars and shown to be completely independent of earthlife, then the meaningless fluke theory will be disproved. Life and mind will be revealed as part of the grand cosmic scheme, embedded in the nature of things at the deepest level of reality. Our own existence will be seen as linked to this deep level in an intimate and purposeful way. Instead of us playing a trivial role as incidental cosmic extras, with life on Earth an insignificant accident in a pointless universe, our place in the cosmos will be far more inspiring. True, it wouldn't return us to the centre of the universe or to the pinnacle of creation - our place is far more humble - but nor will it relegate us to the status of mere moving mounds of atoms. In my view, the discovery that life and mind have emerged as part of the natural outworking of the laws of the universe will be strong evidence for a deeper purpose in physical existence. Since it is easy to imagine other universes and other sets of physical laws that would prohibit life, the fact that our universe is so ingeniously bio-friendly would surely be a fact of the utmost significance. I hope you see the drift of my thinking. Invoking a miracle to explain life is exactly what is not needed to see evidence of divine purpose in the universe.

These Bombs Are Making Me Horny

It has recently come to light that the military attempted to develop unconventional non-lethal chemical weapons that directly targeted enemy troop morale. One of the more bizarre research avenues was the proposed development of an aphrodisiac chemical weapon that would cause increased rates of homosexual activity within those exposed to the chemical agent. The cost of the research project through 2000---$7.5 million.

Original document here, (PDF) via the sunshine project.

Armstrong and the GOP

With the recent admission by conservative syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams that he "accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote the No Child Left Behind education-reform law on his TV and radio shows" and his assertion that "there are others" on the administration’s payroll, a demand for complete accountability and disclosure from the White House must be undertaken. Republicans have had a field day with the recent CBS news report detailing the scandals of the forged document story at 60 minutes yet have been curiously quiet on the Williams admission (though the implications of the Williams divulgence are, in my mind, far more troubling).

Further, I agree with FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein that a full investigation into the affair should be immediately undertaken (if Michael Powell can pull himself away from making the Super Bowl safe from Mickey Rooney's rear). As stories like this continue to emerge individuals will maintain their exodus away from the main-stream media and enter into the still untamed and untested blogsphere and the "new" media outlets for their "reliable" news reporting (though the ability to pick and choose news that is in complete synchronicity with one’s extreme political ideologies makes this proposition equally as worrisome as the one that it is attempting to replace.)

For an interesting editorial on this topic click here.

Dowd's Depression and Feminism

The Op/Ed section of The Times never ceases to fascinate me (as might be apparent from recent posts). In her column today, Men Just Want Mommy (an article that I would have assumed came directly from the pages of Cosmo), the histrionic Dowd complains about the inequities of modern male-female relationships, lamenting:

"Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women........I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers."

As we have seen before (here and here) the media in general (and the Times Op/Ed section in particular) loves to cherry-pick evidence in order to advance a thesis assumed a priori while constructing a seemingly cohesive meta-narrative. In this particular case Dowd has drawn direct parallels of her thesis from within pop-culture specifically the relationships established in James Brooks' abysmal Spanglish (yes it was abysmal) and Richard Curtis's Love Actually. Dowd then cites 2 studies which find that:

"Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women..................... a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men."

This then leads us to Dowd’s ultimately painful and horrifying question:

"So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve the less desirable they are?"

Assuming that we believe her supporting evidence (grossly sparse though it is) it appears what Dowd is attempting to tell us is that the ultimate success of the feminist movement can be gauged by the very anti-feminist notion of landing oneself a powerful man. Further, in this one ill-thought line Dowd has excluded the accomplishments of any women in the lowly "service" industry as existing wholly outside of the realm of discernable feminist accomplishments by virtue of their occupations (which last I checked was a feminist accomplishment) and tendencies to:

"......look upon the men they work for as 'the moon, the sun and the stars.' It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods."

However, if we are to take Dowd's logic seriously then these individuals are actually the archetype of rational feminist accomplishment, after all, they are in a position to marry a powerful man.

Misunderstanding Population Statistics

In today's New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff demonstrates a gross inability to adequately interpret the raw data of a population study or the multitude of variables contained therein. In his Op/Ed piece today entitled "Health Care? Ask Cuba," Kristoff cites a CDC report that provides overall infant mortality rates by country. Using the data set, Kristoff attempts to demonstrate that our overall greater infant mortality rate than countries such as Cuba and China is a searing indictment of our public health infrastructure and that

"............. for those on the bottom in America, life in our new Gilded Age is getting crueler."

But do Kristoff's raw numbers tell the whole story? Let's break down what Kristoff states and see what the numbers actually tell us.

"In every year since 1958, America's infant mortality rate improved, or at least held steady. But in 2002, it got worse: 7 babies died for each thousand live births, while that rate was 6.8 deaths the year before."

This must mean that our ability to provide prenatal and antenatal care has declined and that the ravages of the Iraq war, the epidemic of uninsured, and a Republican system of indifference has finally taken its toll. Right? I mean what else to make of this statement that Kristoff slips in:

"Bolstering public health isn't as dramatic as spending $300 million for a single F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet, but it can be a far more efficient way of protecting Americans."

Clearly Kristoff would like us to make this association but could there be another reason for the sudden increase? Well according to experts from the CDC, and a report found here in the New Scientist, there certainly is. The rise in multiple births in the US "42 per cent between 1990 and 2002 - can help explain the increase in premature and low weight babies, write Martin and CDC statistician Kenneth Kochanek." They go on:

"The increased use of assisted reproductive therapies (ART) such as in-vitro fertilization has been strongly associated with the growth in multiple gestation pregnancies and may also be associated with an increased risk of low birth weight among singletons," they write. One per cent of all births in the US in 2001 were a result of ART."

Further associated with infant mortality (leading to birth-defects/low birth weight/multiple gestations) is advanced maternal age which is positively correlated with all the risks for increasing rates of infant death as delineated above. Couples waiting till later in life (>35) to start a family, due to the pressures of career and education, lead directly to increased measured rates of fetal compromise and infant distress/demise.

Yet Kristoff insists:

"Babies are less likely to survive in America, with a health care system that we think is the best in the world, than in impoverished and autocratic Cuba."

Now, this must be true, after all the raw numbers demonstrate decreased incidences of infant deaths in Cuba. However, as Kristoff has done throughout his article, he again does not understand how raw data is obtained (or the variables that need to be assessed in order to adequately compare the 2 disparate health care systems). Put quite succinctly:

"In the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old because the United States has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality the survival rate of "infants" who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation....... in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive -- and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent -- that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth."

Mr. Kristoff never accounts for the disparate means of reporting between the 2 countries, the advanced technology that allows for low-birth weight infants to be born and kept alive in the US, and the differences in the philosophy regarding premature and low birth weight infants in each system.

To give one final example of how population statistic can easily be skewed by factors not assessed by Kristoff let's look at maternal tobacco usage. In recent study by Salihu et Al. ( Matern Child Health J. 2003 Dec;7(4):219-27) it was estimated that about 5% of infant deaths in the United States were directly attributable to maternal smoking while pregnant, with variations by race/ethnicity. That's 5% of Mr. Kristoff startling infant mortality statistic (a large number) directly attributable to actions of the individual and not the failures of the US public health infrastructure.

Kristoff has an agenda to sell, in this particular case, it is to spin the story of increased infant mortality (and its laymen’s misinterpretations) into an indictment of the current administration's policies regarding health-care and to advocate for the (sure to fail) socialized health-care system that the Times has been so intent upon enacting ever since Clinton's failure to do so in '93. But let us take Mr. Kristoff on his word for a moment and allow for the fact that he truly believes what he has written in today's Op/Ed piece. Perhaps then, when his Grandchildren are in need of prenatal and antenatal care, we will find that Kristoff has shipped them to Havana where they can get far superior care in Castro-land as opposed to the desperately lagging US.

Or maybe not.

Bloggers of the world..........

UNITE!

Shortest Movie Reviews Ever………Guaranteed

Against my better judgment, I rented The Village. What an absolutely dreadful movie.

Fortunately, salvaging my faith in movies (at least for today) was Million Dollar Baby......what a wonderfully painful elegantly crafted movie.



Done.

See and I am normally so loquacious.

Short eh?

Intimidation or Academic Freedom?

There is an interesting article in New York magazine here detailing the aftermath of a documentary produced at Columbia University by a group of it's students (and an organization known as the David Project), in which 14 individuals detail what they describe as intimidation and anti-Semitism (anti-Zionism) by professors from the department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures. The documentary, entitled Columbia Unbecoming, has far reaching implications (it has even been seen by Israel’s minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs.)

Though the article goes into great details about the allegations made by the students in the documentary, it must be admitted that aside from one particular incident (described by Tomy Schoenfeld), what the students describe is biased and confrontational but certainly no more than that. Students at the University level should be exposed to dissenting and alternative viewpoints that often do not coincide with the popular normative explanatory model. A professor is free to develop a course that caters to a particular bias (i.e. a view of the Middle East conflict from a pro-Arab perspective), as long as said bias is implicitly explained as such and critical dissent by an individual within the course does not negatively affect the performance of said student. Higher-education is meant to breed critical thinkers who can use the skills they develop at the university setting to rationally asses the merits of an argument based upon logic and reason (while understanding the role bias plays in any individual's position), it is not a breeding ground for autbots who simply mimic the viewpoints that they were indoctrinated with while attending class.

There is an ill-defined line within higher-education that separates intellectual intimidation and a ritual stifling of ideas from academic bias and the free expression of minority ideologies. I am sympatheitc to the plight of the individuals who describe their experiences in the documentary , however that the line was breached by the professors in this particular case is not clearly established by the allegations as described by the article.

For an alternative viewpoint on the article click here then here.

In Defense of Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan has a great article detailing his defense of Gay Marriage, and why he believes that given time the American public, will embrace the institution.

One of the most ridiculous assertions emerging from the opposition is the slippery slope argument, that legalizing gay marriage will lead us down a path of polygamy, incest, acceptance of pedophilia and yes, even marrying our dogs. Close examination of the argument reveals the emptiness of its premises (by definition a slippery slope is a logical fallacy), yet the argument persists. No one, to my knowledge has directly addressed the premises of the slippery slope (instead choosing to reject it outright), so I thought I would undertake a formal rejection of its absurd claims.

To wit:

1) Polygamous marriage: would require the government extend a benefit ABOVE AND BEYOND that extended to traditional marriage.
1) Morality is mutable; when there is no distinct societal detriment diversity in morality should be allowed to flourish. 2) The reason polygamous marriages are regulated by society is that there is a disproportionate amount of resources that would have to be allocated to said unit in excess of a union of 2 individuals (and to the detriment of the surrounding community). 3) I see no reason for polygamous marriages to be banned in this country (individual morality is just that); however, there is every reason that government should not extend benefits to the group above and beyond that of 2 individuals (which by definition would NEED to be done).

2) Pedophilia/Incest: Pedophilia is 1) considered a psychiatric disorder because it is 2) disruptive to society by 3) creating a victim who is 4) not a willing participant or 5) has been deemed by society too immature to make an informed decision regarding sexual choices. Whereas gay marriage/homosexuality is an institution/interaction between 2 consensual adults who are either 1) physically attracted to one another 2) sexually attracted to one another 3) are in love with one another. (Much of the above logic applies to incest as well)

It is the responsibility of government (specifically our government) to legislate actions that would cause specific conditions within society that would either 1) threaten to destabilize that society (murder/theft) 2) impede upon another's ability to live "in the pursuit of life, liberty, happiness" (murder, slander, libel) etc. Homosexual marriage causes NONE of the specific ails mentioned above.

Gay Marriage mimics opposite-sex marriage in every regard other than the gender so that there is no net negative repercussion upon society (as there would be in cases of incest/pedophilia). There is a discernable detriment to society as a whole (a greater redistribution of health-care resources to medically deal with the genetic repercussions), and individuals in particular if incest is allowed to be regularly practiced within society.

3) Therefore :The 14th amendment (guaranteeing equal protection) does not apply to a need for polygamous marriages b/c there is a distinction in the amount of resources that would need to be allocated to said entity changes in tax laws/health care/estate laws/ etc. Further there is a discernable compelling interest for the State to outlaw polygamy and incest (outlined above).

Since traditional marriage is a governmentally recognized institution with distinctive benefits and since that institution is ALREADY legally recognized---1) Pertaining to the constitutionality of the issue---a) there exists a governmentally recognized institution whereby b) 2 adult individuals who are not 1st degree relatives enter into c) a union that is d) recognized by government and conveys unique benefits upon said union. The exclusion of a group wishing to enter into said institution with no GOVERNMENTALLY DISCERNABLE DISTINCTIONS (not moral/not reproductive/not religious) and no compelling reason the state should exclude them are thereby being denied equal protection (equal---polygamy by definition does not equal 2 individuals) under the 14th amendment.