Today's Top Story: A Pundit Is Reflective!

10/22/2009

Filed under:

In the United States, we’re now accustom to professional talking heads beamed into our living rooms due to their on camera polish rather than the substance of their views or the experience they bring to bear. Intelligent young magazine editors are sent to pundit school. Barack Obama, an enjoyable man to hear speak, is regarded as a historically great orator, though his speeches are intellectually thinner than recent masterpieces, and so obviously inferior to history’s greatest orations that one is tempted to despair at the modern era. A sizable number of Americans regard this as the best speech of 2008.

This facade sometimes slips, like a mistake in the Matrix that hints at the underlying reality. Thus Hillary Clinton reacts in a perfectly human, understandable way to a mistranslated question before a foreign audience, displaying frustration far less dramatic than what you’ll see at rush hour on any freeway, and the anchors freak out, dedicating the lead story at 11 0’clock to her “angry outburst.”

All this is brought to mind by a couple of items I’ve seen an appearance by Ross and Reihan on an N+1 panel. One impressive thing about both of them is their uncanny ability to come across as quite polished public speakers even as they’re articulating very complicated thoughts. I’ve seen them speak in person, watched them on television, heard them on the radio, conversed with them across a table, and seen them on Bloggingheads. They’re invariably so impressive on style and substance — whether complementing one another or speaking on their own — that I’d gladly trade their oratorical ability at this moment for my ability at whatever point in my life I’m best at it.

Okay, cue the New York Observer story that prompted this blog post:

Ross Douthat, conservative op-ed columnist for The New York Times, was made visibly uncomfortable for a moment while onstage last night at the New School’s Tishman auditorium.

I mean, really? That’s your lead? A guy on a panel was “uncomfortable” for “a moment”? Call Drudge and cue the siren! What kind of weird place have we reached when it’s news that a guy, being peppered with the most difficult questions a roomful of smart people can muster, once during a session displays a moment of discomfort? I’ll tell you what kind. We’ve reached a place where a stunning number of folks you see commenting on television or other public venues care so little about the substance of what they’re saying that even when they and everyone else knows their words are utter idiocy, they still refrain from displaying actual discomfort, because to them it’s all a game, unconnected to any sense that words have consequences, or that integrity is partly a matter of challenging one’s own own ideas out of a lingering sense that commenting on public affairs confers some responsibility, and that it is shameful to frivolously and lightly proffer arguments that one isn’t able to defend.

Only a society that long ago reached that place has gossip sheets writing excited leads about a polished speaker feeling a moment of discomfort when challenged with a difficult question, one that is causing him intellectual ferment. Why look, honey, that man is grappling with his thoughts! Let’s all laugh at his quaint display of intellectual honesty! This is particularly noteworthy because, as The Observer makes clear, after that shocking moment of discomfort, Mr. Douthat gathered his thoughts and cogently addressed the subject at hand.

Elsewhere in New York this week, hundreds of makeup slathered pundits spewed forth transparently idiotic talking points on all manner of subjects, without betraying any sign of thought or shame. As yet, the New York Observer hasn’t found that worth remarking upon.

Any idea if there is video available? I’m not interested as to whether or not Ross became “uncomfortable” but would just be interested in seeing the talk.

— Tim Lundquist · Oct 22, 06:34 AM · #
I don’t think there is, at least that’s what Reihan said on Twitter a couple days ago.

— PEG · Oct 22, 08:55 AM · #
I think what’s relevant here is that even the smart and well-spoken opponents of the gay-marriage cannot really justify their position without relying on a religious dogma.
This is clearly recognized and admitted by Douthat, who it seems would be really happy if the Catholic Church changed its views so he could allow himself to do the same.

— Marko · Oct 22, 05:59 PM · #
“I think what’s relevant here is that even the smart and well-spoken opponents of the gay-marriage cannot really justify their position without relying on a religious dogma.”

The reductio of traditional marriage to a “religious dogma” makes it difficult to justify or explain the existence of the civil institution of marriage in the first place without similarly relying on “religious dogma.”

— SDG · Oct 22, 08:12 PM · #
“I think what’s relevant here is that even the smart and well-spoken opponents of the gay-marriage cannot really justify their position without relying on a religious dogma.”

Uh…I believe the piece actually further described his thoughts (beyond his religious convictions) on the matter. AND I believe Ross felt that such a stance wouldn’t fit/work with the American public.

I can’t help but see great irony in this comment since it hits exactly on what Conor was writing about. Apparently the only ACCEPTABLE responses that Ross could have had were a) “I don’t support it on religious grounds. A marriage was meant to be between one man and one woman” which would have fit nicely into the expected “right-wing Christianist prejudiced and irrational” category or b) “I see no legal basis to oppose gay marriage” which would have fit nicely into the “enlightened, libertarian” category.

Either way they still would have gone out for drinks afterword, the only difference would have the unspoken feelings/thoughts of disdain (or lack thereof)

I would hope a liberal on a panel regarding Afghanistan would similarly pause when considering how to respond to the possibility of returning the country to a place where women are not citizens but instead are objects of disdain and abuse.

— C3 · Oct 22, 08:49 PM · #
It’s not just that Ross feels it wouldn’t work with the American public; it’s that he’s actually ashamed to defend his own position in public. As for Afghanistan, that’s a facile comparison. There are real costs to staying in Afghanistan, in dollars and soldier’s lives, even if our troops’ presence is improving the lives of people there, and it’s reasonable to have differing judgements about the trade-offs inherent in that. There are no conceivable costs to legalizing gay marriage.

— Dan Miller · Oct 22, 10:31 PM · #
Despite the post’s ill-intentions and gossipy slant, it accidentally presents a very interesting and fair representation of Douthat’s view on the issue: that the soundness of gay marriage as rational policy simply cannot be reconciled with his faith. He simply doesn’t know what to say on the matter (in public). It’s quite startling to see a pundit (print, Web or network) stop themselves from talking about something – anything. I enjoyed Douthat’s work at The Atlantic, though I feel he has yet to find his voice at the NYT, but this “event” has restrengthened my respect for him.

— ASKlein · Oct 22, 11:14 PM · #
“There are no conceivable costs to legalizing gay marriage.”

Of course there are. Recognizing and privileging marriage carries a cost to society. Marriage brings rights, and rights come at a cost to society. For example, my employer’s health insurance costs are higher because it extends not only to me but to my wife and children. The problem is that that social costs of marriage are largely already borne for same-sex couples because of domestic partnerships.

The question not being asked here is why society has historically recognized and privileged marriage in the first place, what marriage is that it deserves social recognition and status.

Marriage has historically been understood as the privileged context for socially sanctioned sex between men and women, with the understanding that any children that would result were the responsibility of both parents. Children for whom both parents took responsibility were advantaged, and society benefited. Therefore, society privileged marriage because marriage was thought to benefit society.

There would be no such institution as civil marriage if it were not for two salient facts: First, humans reproduce sexually; and second, the rearing of human offspring requires an enormous, long-term investment, ideally involving both biological parents for maximum benefit. Children do best when they are cared for by a mother and a father working together in a stable and committed way, and society does better when children do better.

A society in which fewer children are raised by both biological parents working together is to that extent an impoverished and disadvantaged society. This is the fundamental sociological impetus for the social recognition and privileging of marriage is to benefit society by promoting the long-term commitment of potential parents.

Society does not have this same vested interest in the long-term commitment of same-sex couples. While same-sex couples may be responsible for children, the same evidence is not there for stable same-sex households provides the same sort of advantage for children as a stable household of a mother and father.

In principle, there is no reason why society should have more of a vested interest in the stable relationship of a same-sex couple sharing responsibility for a child than for, say, a mother and daughter raising a child together, or two brothers, or an uncle and nephew. That a same-sex couple shares a bed as well as responsibility for a child is of no added interest or significance to society. If it is a man and a woman sharing a bed, it is of interest to society, because children may result.

The logic behind domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage seems to apply equally to a daughter caring for her widowed mother or a two brothers living together. If a single mother’s sister is caring for the first sister’s child while the first sister is at work, why shouldn’t the second sister have, e.g., health benefits the same as a lesbian partner? Why shouldn’t any two people be able to form a domestic partnership regardless of sexual activity or non-activity?

And if sex does matter, then why — except for religious dogma — should it be limited two two? Why is the dogma of bilateralism imposed on individuals who prefer liaisons of three or more?

The reality is that the prevalence of contraception has largely undermined recognition and acceptance of the sociological function of marriage and even the biological function of sex itself. It would make more sense to do away with civil marriage outright, privatize marriage of whomever to whomever to whatever religious or private groups find the concept meaningful, than to insist on a definition of any two adults of any combination of sexes. The abolition of civil marriage would be harmful to society too, as will the downgrading and decline of marriage that is part and parcel of the present confusion, but at least it would be more consistent.

— SDG · Oct 22, 11:43 PM · #
Thanks, SDG. Well said, on the whole. It’s interesting that, for all the times I’ve heard Dan Miller and others assert that there would be no “social costs” to legalizing gay marriage, they never consider the empirical correlation between developed countries with high acceptance of gay marriage and developed countries with high rates of out-of-wedlock births. That would seem to me to be at least a sign of a potential social cost.

Or, from an evolutionary standpoint: If there were no social benefits to privileging heterosexual unions over homosexual unions (that therefore might possibly be lost if it was no longer privileged), why have all successful human societies evolved some sort of structure to do so?

But I think what Mr. Miller’s argument is really a sign of is a lack of confidence his ability to articulate the benefits of gay marriage. If there are no social costs, then there’s no need to articulate the possible social benefits and weigh them against each other. Accepting Mr. Miller’s premise removes the need for him to actually argue his position.

— Ethan C. · Oct 23, 07:47 AM · #
SDG and Ethan, no doubt. That’s a useful frame, and we should start there.

And I’m sure you’re aware of the gay frame: that marriage confers a status with real benefits, both private and public; that regardless of marriage’s ontogeny, what it is now is a public affirmation of love and commitment, and, again, a legal status with real benefits; that a mission of commitment can only be enhanced by legitimizing and stabilizing gay relationships; that if marriage were, in fact, for the children, it wouldn’t be so damned easy to get out of (e.g., the advent of ‘irreconcilable differences’); that the rise of illegitimacy predates, and/or is unrelated to, the gay movement entirely; that illegitimacy is symptomatic of the unseriousness of heterosexual unions, and allowing gay marriage would if anything work against that trend; that there is, in fact, strong evidence that children raised by gays are perfectly well adjusted; that gay is innate, so children raised by gays aren’t any more likely to be gay, and what’s wrong with gay anyways; that, fundamentally, gay marriage is a question of equality and not a question of cost and benefit.

For me, both frames make sense, but the latter is less theoretical, and has more to do with legitimacy (what Lincoln called ‘the attachment of the people’) than the former. Of course, attachment works both ways; we don’t want the culture to outpace the majority, and loosen their attachment to the State. However, I don’t see that as being a real danger.

— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 23, 02:12 PM · #
“regardless of marriage’s ontogeny, what it is now is a public affirmation of love and commitment”

Of course marriage includes that, but if that’s all it is, then why not recognize “marriage” between a parent and child (of any sex combination), with or without sexual relations? Why not “marriage” of platonic friends? Why not “marriage” of three or more? Why the doctrinaire insistence on giving some sort of special social status to presumptively sexual relationships between two individuals only who are not otherwise closely related?

To the extent that “a public affirmation of love and commitment” (plus sex, minus incest, and a few other details) is an adequate description of how marriage is viewed, i.e., the extent to which marriage is no longer seen as ordered toward children, I agree that the concept is already degraded by the ubiquity of contraception and the contraceptive mentality.

“a mission of commitment can only be enhanced by legitimizing and stabilizing gay relationships”

I see no compelling public social burden for a “mission of commitment” among gays, except perhaps with regard to public health. Redefining marriage for the sake of public health seems a drastically reductive approach. Anyway, it seems at least questionable whether redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will have a “stabilizing” effect on anything. As a primary symptom and engine of the social deterioration of marriage, same-sex “marriage” won’t make gay relationships more stable, it will just make marriage and therefore divorce even less serious.

“if marriage were, in fact, for the children, it wouldn’t be so damned easy to get out of”

Once again, I agree that the advent of no-fault divorce is part of an ongoing deterioration of the concept of marriage, a deterioration significantly inaugurated by contraception and presently careening toward same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage has not occurred in a vacuum, and no-fault divorce is certainly part of the problem.

“that the rise of illegitimacy predates, and/or is unrelated to, the gay movement entirely”

“Predates” might be partially arguable, but “unrelated to” is certainly not. Certainly there is correlation, and while correlation does not prove causation, statistically significant correlation is evidence of relationship.

“illegitimacy is symptomatic of the unseriousness of heterosexual unions, and allowing gay marriage would if anything work against that trend”

The first half has some merit, the second half does not. Stretching the definition of marriage to include relationships where the procreative act is physiologically impossible diminishes the store society sets by marriage, making meaningful marriages less socially normative, not more.

“there is, in fact, strong evidence that children raised by gays are perfectly well adjusted; that gay is innate, so children raised by gays aren’t any more likely to be gay, and what’s wrong with gay anyways;”

Produce the evidence. I believe I’ve seen it argued, and it certainly makes sense in terms of evolutionary psychology, that children raised without parents modeling a male-female relationship are significantly less likely to form successful marriages themselves. “Gay is innate” is certainly an oversimplification; nature may play a factor, but significant evidence exists of a nurture factor as well, and children of gays are more likely to be gay.

“gay marriage is a question of equality and not a question of cost and benefit”

Gays are already completely equal to heterosexuals with respect to marriage. Everyone, gay or straight, is equally entitled to the rights and protections of marriage; any available man, gay or straight, may marry any available woman, irrespective of appetitive quirks.

What gays really want, of course, is not individual equality, but social acknowledgement that two men or two women living together is the same thing as heterosexual marriage. It is not. Strictly speaking, “same-sex marriage” is not so much a bad idea as it is an oxymoron. “Marriage” is a socio-anthropological reality; we can choose to play verbal and legal games and call arrangements marriage that are not, just as we can choose to say that a man in the process of adopting a baby is pregnant. It won’t make him grow a womb.

— SDG · Oct 23, 04:36 PM · #
Everyone, gay or straight, is equally entitled to the rights and protections of marriage; any available man, gay or straight, may marry any available woman, irrespective of appetitive quirks.

Actually, you and society should want this even less than gay marriage. A sham marriage produces no children; if children are brought in artificially, then from your perspective things are even worse for them in that arrangement.

And there’s more. A sham marriage erodes the perceived value of the institution you care so much about. Sham marriages will, according to your reasoning, aggravate illegitimacy. Sham marriages are, in fact, a marriage between platonic friends, which, as your slippery slope bogeyman, is a funny thing for you to present as the ‘road to equality’. And finally, rather than being an earnest attempt to join the club of the married, sham marriages are by definition cynical ploys to reap the benefits. Not good, that.

So your argument is, they are equal because they can do ‘X’, but, on the other hand, ‘X’ shouldn’t be allowed either. That’s an odd argument for equality, specifically since ‘X’ is much worse from your point of view.

Me, I think a life-time commitment to one person is enriching. I’d rather gays be brought into the circle in earnest, on those terms, rather than have them taught to cynically game the system as begrudged outsiders. If the choice either/or and not neither — and i think it is — then it gay marriage is a much better lottery for society than your ‘road to equality’.

And I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the issue of equality. If the state offered a benefit to everybody, but to get the benefit you had to make out with a dude for ten minutes, this benefit would be available equally to everybody, in every way but in reality. Poll taxes come to mind.

— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 23, 06:40 PM · #
“A sham marriage”

“Sham marriage”? Says who? You’re saying men with same-sex attraction can’t be husbands to their wives and fathers to their children? A slight to the many men who have done so, with admirable grace and true virility.

Part of the problem, which for the sake of simplicity I’ve accommodated in my posts above, is the whole model of people thinking of themselves as “straight” or “gay” as a matter of “identity.” I think (the homosexually inclined) Gore Vidal is right to say “There are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts.” Likewise, there are “heterosexual people.” “Straight” is not my sexual identity. My sexual identity is male. I am a man; that is who I am. My appetites don’t tell me who I am.

“If the state offered a benefit to everybody, but to get the benefit you had to make out with a dude for ten minutes, this benefit would be available equally to everybody, in every way but in reality.”

Marriage is not a “benefit offered by the state.” Marriage is a universal socio-anthropological institution privileged by societies because it is beneficial to society. People want it — what it is, not something else that they get to call by the same word — or they don’t.

Following your “benefit” thinking, why should the state offer a “benefit” only for people who want some sort of actual enduring commitment? Why not offer “benefits” to people for picking a “marriage buddy” with whom they get together with once every few months or so? Can’t those sorts of relationships be enriching too? If it’s the state’s business to be rewarding us for enriching behavior.

Or what about the poor souls who would like to marry but can’t find or persuade anyone? Haven’t they suffered enough? Why not offer “benefits” to them too? How is that “equal”?

— SDG · Oct 23, 07:18 PM · #
“there are ‘heterosexual people’”

Argh, the deadly opposite typo. Of course that should be “there are no ‘heterosexual people.’”

— SDG · Oct 23, 07:20 PM · #
Gays are already completely equal to heterosexuals with respect to marriage. Everyone, gay or straight, is equally entitled to the rights and protections of marriage; any available man, gay or straight, may marry any available woman, irrespective of appetitive quirks.

Similarly, you can get the Model T Ford in any color you want, as long as you want black.

— Chet · Oct 24, 06:33 AM · #
“Similarly, you can get the Model T Ford in any color you want, as long as you want black.”

The analogy is telling. Cars are our invention, a tool; we can make ‘em any way we want. Marriage is a human universal, a socio-anthropological constant. Fear the man who wants to tinker with the definition of marriage as he would repaint or soup up a car.

— SDG · Oct 24, 01:18 PM · #
Hey Conor:

Interesting that you allow Reihan and Ross a “deer in the headlights” moment to collect their thoughts when they’ve been ambushed by a questioner, but you don’t have anywhere near the same charity for Sarah Palin when she was intentionally and maliciously ambushed by Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson.

I checked the links in your post. Imagine my surprise that you chose to use conservatives as examples of…well, I’m not exactly sure what, but they were conservatives and they were supposed to represent something bad or stupid or “not on your team…” Do you ever get really sick and tired of your reporting assignment?

— jd · Oct 24, 09:00 PM · #
Miserable parents, other things being equal, raise less confident, less happy children. However much “admirable grace” and “true virility” people in sham marriages exhibit, they are living a lie, in the sense that they are not pursuing an intimate life that corresponds to the deep emotions that define their sexual personalities. Whatever happiness they feel will be grotesquely cramped by living this lie. That diminution of their personal integrity, arranged in deference to anti-gay marriage advocates’ a priori categories and assumptions, will harm them and their children alike.

It’s of little wonder that this cruel agenda is increasingly rejected by Americans, despite the strains of sexual conservatism that are traditional in our culture. Embedded even deeper than such strains in our history and character is a perspective that values personal life and personal happiness. It legitimizes fiercely held, idiosyncratic visions of the personal meaning of the good life and its pursuit. The language of the Declaration of Independence comes to mind here, as does the phrase “the American Dream.” In the largest sense, I think we look skeptically on the paeans to conformity that the opponents of same-sex marriage rights are advancing here. So while some may continue to idealize traditional sex and gender roles and to support a regime of discrimination against their fellow citizens, the evidence is that the tide is turning in favor of real equality (not some fake equality that privileges heterosexuality), not out of politeness or inertia, but in keeping with a resilient and defining American individualism. Good luck fighting that impulse; you’re going to need it.

— jason · Oct 24, 11:42 PM · #
“However much ‘admirable grace’ and ‘true virility’ people in sham marriages exhibit, they are living a lie, in the sense that they are not pursuing an intimate life that corresponds to the deep emotions that define their sexual personalities.”

What would you say to a man who tells you that the “pursuing an intimate life that corresponds to the deep emotions that define his sexual personality” demands liaisons with young children?

Must he “live a lie,” suffer the “diminution of his personal integrity” in the name of “strains of sexual conservatism that are traditional in our culture” regarding Victorian notions of childhood and so forth? Why do you not regard the abhorrence you feel at the notion of pedophilia as no more reliable than the abhorrence that many “straight” males feel at the notion of homosexuality?

What would you say to Kinsey, who is speaking in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male of bestiality when he ridicules those who “believe, as children do, that conformance [to the norm] should be universal, any departure from the rule becomes an immorality” which only “seems particularly gross to an individual who is unaware of the frequency with which exceptions to the supposed rule actually occur,” and expresses surprise at “the degree of abhorrence with which intercourse between the human and animals of other species is viewed by most persons who have not had such experience”?

What would you say to his contention in Sexual Behavior in the Human Female that there seems to be no reason, apart from “cultural conditioning,” that a child should be “disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts,” and that the real danger to children is “the current hysteria over sex offenders” rather than the sex “offenders” themselves?

Many, of course, will reject this and defend the Victorian status quo in contending that children are not emotionally ready for sexual intimacy. Perhaps you would be one of them. If so, you must nevertheless tell the pedophile that he has no recourse for “pursuing an intimate life that corresponds to the deep emotions that define his sexual personality.” He must deny that deep-seated part of himself, must either embrace celibacy or else somehow try to find fulfillment in an adult relationship which seems to him to offer no attraction.

If so, you acknowledge that the “deep emotions that define one’s sexual personality” do not guarantee that actually acting on those “deep emotions” is healthy or appropriate. You acknowledge that there are individuals for whom the healthiest and most appropriate course is not to identify themselves or define their identities with those “deep emotions,” to say “I may have these appetites, but that doesn’t mean I can or should act on them.” You certainly acknowledge that there is no burden on society to validate these emotions by sanctioning such behavior and even privileging it with official status different from other types of liaisons.

I don’t say any of this lightly or easily. Plenty of supposedly progressively minded peple with all the compassion and understanding and even approval in the world for those who self-identify as homosexual easily reject and demonize individuals attracted to sex with children or animals as beyond the pale of legitimate compassion and understanding. I believe (as I’ve argued in previous comboxes) that everyone deserves compassion and understanding.

What a burden and a trial it must be to have sexual and erotic attraction towards children, whether one is a conflicted pedophile with a conscience who tries to be abstinent or a predator who indulges those attractions. Either way, on some level he must be very unhappy.

I can very easily see how a person like that can come to conclude that this is simply the way he is — the way God made him, if you like — and it’s easy for the rest of the world to condemn what it doesn’t understand. Resistance to pedophilia is no less moralistic and ultimately no less rooted in our culture’s religious heritage than resistance to homosexuality. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone. He simply wants … what he wants.

I don’t know about you, but this is the message I would want to send: This may be what you want, but this is not who you are. This is not what really corresponds to your nature. Your appetites are an unhelpful guide in this matter. It doesn’t mean you’re evil. It doesn’t even mean that your feelings are evil. But your feelings are unhelpfully directed, disordered. Yes, children (and animals) are beautiful and lovely, but enjoyment of that beauty cannot take this form. Your desire for erotic fulfillment is good in itself, but nature intended it for another purpose.

And my burden for, e.g., a man with same-sex attraction would take a similar form. Such feelings are not evil, but they are misdirected, disordered. Yes, masculinity is beautiful. It is absolutely right that men should have emotional needs for masculine companionship. But male enjoyment of masculinity should not take this form. The desire for erotic fulfillment is good in itself, but nature intended it for another purpose.

In both cases, you have to look at what sex is. Sex is irreducibly, inexorably, unmistakeably a reproductive function. It is much more than that — it is emotional and psychological and relational and visceral and recreational and perhaps even sacramental and sacred — but it is not less than that. Arousal and orgasm have a telelogy; they are ordered toward propagation of the race, just as appetite for food is ordered toward our organisms well nourished. There are people with conditions that make them want to eat things that are not food, just as there are men who want sex with something other than a sexually mature woman. Where that happens, appetite has gone awry.

What is “living a lie” is for a man to deny his masculine nature on the basis of his disordered appetites, to choose to be penetrated like a woman or to wish to penetrate another man. It may please his disordered appetites, but he will never find true fulfillment that way.

I know, it’s easy for me to say, what do I know? Well, tu quoque: Who are you to tell the man with SSA who says he is living his true vocation as a man as a husband and a father that he is “living a lie”?

— SDG · Oct 25, 03:36 AM · #
“What would you say to a man who tells you that the “pursuing an intimate life that corresponds to the deep emotions that define his sexual personality” demands liaisons with young children?”

Wow. Just wow. I thought people have moved beyond such truly despicable comparisons. We’re talking about consensual adults here.

Also, bonus points for “disordered appetites”. I’ve never heard that one before.

— Marko · Oct 25, 06:55 AM · #
“Wow. Just wow. I thought people have moved beyond such truly despicable comparisons. We’re talking about consensual adults here.”

No, we’re talking about “pursuing an intimate life that corresponds to the deep emotions that define one’s sexual personality.” Your Victorian sensibilities about childhood don’t make the pedophile’s felt needs any less real than the homosexual’s. Even if you’re right about childhood (and of course I agree that you are), it doesn’t make the pedophile’s dilemma any less painful or unfortunate.

It’s easy to throw around words like “despicable” when the constituency in question remains a tiny and maligned minority. (Just goes to show that “cultural conditioning” and “the current hysteria over sex offenders” continue to hold sway, and there are still a lot of people who “believe, as children do, that conformance should be universal, any departure from the rule becomes an immorality” which only “seems particularly gross to an individual who is unaware of the frequency with which exceptions to the supposed rule actually occur.”) I don’t think anyone should be despised merely for his wants.

“Also, bonus points for “disordered appetites”. I’ve never heard that one before.”

Presumably you never thought seriously about things like pedophilia and zoophilia before, then.

— SDG · Oct 25, 11:57 AM · #
Marko wasn’t saying that pedophiles are despicable; he was saying that an argument which treats pedophilia and gays as equivalent, is despicable. He’s right.

I certainly don’t think that a pedophile by desire who chooses celibacy rather than harming others is despicable. Happily, lesbians and gay men aren’t in a situation at all like that, because they can partner with consenting adults.

Your arguments illustrate what Douthat was saying perfectly. On the one side, we have the arguments that gays are “disordered” and similar to pedophiles.

On the other side, we have responsible couples in love, raising children as best they can, who just want equal treatment under the law for their families.

As Douthat says, your argument isn’t going to win the debate.

— Barry Deutsch · Oct 25, 07:39 PM · #
Sex is irreducibly, inexorably, unmistakeably a reproductive function. It is much more than that […] but it is not less than that.

This is one of those arguments that just makes me smile, because suddenly everyone who has sex but doesn’t want kids, or who supports birth control, or any woman having sex past menopause, or probably even anyone who masturbates, is suddenly on my side. You can tell Ross is a smart guy because even if he believes this, he knows better than to say it.

— Bo · Oct 26, 12:00 AM · #
“Marko wasn’t saying that pedophiles are despicable; he was saying that an argument which treats pedophilia and gays as equivalent, is despicable. He’s right.”

Well, I might agree, Barry; at least, it’s an argument I wouldn’t make — and didn’t make. Marko may or may not be able to follow that point (I don’t know him); I’m confident that you are.

“I certainly don’t think that a pedophile by desire who chooses celibacy rather than harming others is despicable. Happily, lesbians and gay men aren’t in a situation at all like that, because they can partner with consenting adults.”

Thus dodging behind Victorian moralism with regard to children, an argument that Kisney’s thinking may ultimately dismantle in the public square yet.

“On the one side, we have the arguments that gays are ‘disordered’ and similar to pedophiles.”

Not at all. First, I never said “gays are disordered,” I said same-sex attraction is a disorder of appetite. Lots of people have appetitive disorders of one kind or degree or another (the Catholic Church teaches that it is a universal condition, a consequence of concupiscence, a result of original sin).

Second, I called active pedophiles predators; I certainly wouldn’t call active gays that, and I don’t make any moral equivalency between abusing children and homosexual acts.

“As Douthat says, your argument isn’t going to win the debate.”

You might be right, frankly. Equally, the day may come when arguments against incest, polygamy and adult-child sex will no longer carry the day. Ultimately, the case for “marriage” as a civil institution itself may no longer commend itself to society. Every step along that road, including same-sex marriage, is to society’s detriment.

But I don’t need to argue that same-sex attraction is disordered to argue that the socio-anthropological purpose of marriage is not to grant special status to any arrangement of two adults who may or may not be caring for children — that marriage is what it is and has always been, the enduring union of a man and a woman. That’s an argument that continues to resonate with a lot of people, which is why the same-sex marriage agenda has had to subvert the democratic process and impose itself by judicial fiat.

— SDG · Oct 26, 12:28 AM · #
Marriage is a human universal, a socio-anthropological constant.

While it’s true that marriage is universal, only someone greatly ignorant of its actual socioanthropology could pretend that any particular form of marriage has been universal.

Indeed, if there’s anything actually universal about marriage, its that in practice it’s a highly local and contingent behavior. Over there same-sex couples are allowed to marry; over here they may not be. Over there marriage is a master-slave relationship more akin to a property exchange; over here it’s a partnership between equals. Up there it’s only allowed between members of the same race; down here we may marry anybody at all. Across the way it’s ok for second cousins, over yonder it’s not allowed. The nobles have it between brother and sister.

An argument that attempts to arrive at the conclusion that this or that cannot be a “real” marriage, according to the “universal custom”, is mal-formed from the start. The only thing universal about marriage is that there is nothing universal about it.

That’s an argument that continues to resonate with a lot of people, which is why the same-sex marriage agenda has had to subvert the democratic process and impose itself by judicial fiat.

Except, of course, for all the places that it’s been installed by democratic process.

— Chet · Oct 26, 01:39 AM · #
“Indeed, if there’s anything actually universal about marriage, its that in practice it’s a highly local and contingent behavior. Over there same-sex couples are allowed to marry; over here they may not be. … The only thing universal about marriage is that there is nothing universal about it.”

This claim is highly exaggerated to the point of outright falsity. Marriage as the enduring union of a man and a woman is a constant found in virtually every culture prior to, like, the 1980s or so.

Within that fixity — the enduring union of a man and a woman — there is room for cultural variation, but the conceit of same-sex marriage — the conceit of an enduring union of two men or two women as the exact same sort of institution as the enduring union of a man and a woman — is a socio-anthropological novelty.

“Except, of course, for all the places that it’s been installed by democratic process.”

As I say, this has not been an effective strategy, at least in the U.S.

— SDG · Oct 26, 02:32 AM · #
“This is one of those arguments that just makes me smile, because suddenly everyone who has sex but doesn’t want kids, or who supports birth control, or any woman having sex past menopause, or probably even anyone who masturbates, is suddenly on my side. You can tell Ross is a smart guy because even if he believes this, he knows better than to say it.”

Ross is a pundit, which imposes on him a certain burden of pragmatic realism. Tilting at contraception in this day and age is approximately as quixotic as agitating for the abolition of slavery at the Continental Congress. All I can say is that quixotic agitating can serve a useful purpose too. Ross argued that pornography is at least tantamount to adultery. The case that contraception also pollutes marriage needs to be made, however few people are prepared to hear it.

Sex past menopause — or sex during infertile periods — is a completely different matter. The loving and generous coital union of a husband and wife, even after menopause or during infertile periods, is a complete union of both partners in all of their reproductive capacity at that moment, withholding nothing. If that reproductive capacity is zero, either due to the phase of a woman’s cycle or the termination of the cycle, then it is zero, but both partners still give to one another all that they have to give.

A man who deliberately withholds his fertility from his wife in the very act of sex by physically separating himself from her with a latex sheath, a woman who withholder her fertility from her husband by taking steps prior to sex to suppress her fertility, literally making chemical warfare on her own sexuality, do not give themselves to one another in this way. Contraceptive sex is not true conjugal union; it is a form of mutual abuse.

This is, I acknowledge, not an argument that will help a pundit. But married people need to hear it, and it will be helpful to some with ears to hear.

Incidentally, to borrow an observation from a (pro-gay-marriage) friend, I like the line in the Milk trailer where Dan White talks of marriage as a man and woman seeking to create a child. Can gay people do that? “No,” comes the answer, “but God knows we keep trying.”

I like that because it helps clarify the real sense in which that there is always a procreative dimension to the conjugal union of a man and a woman; in that sense, every act of male-female intercourse, physiologically speaking, is an act of attempted procreation. Homosexual acts merely parody the procreative act.

— SDG · Oct 26, 02:41 AM · #
every act of male-female intercourse, physiologically speaking, is an act of attempted procreation

Hate to break it to you at this late date, but heterosexual couples also do oral and anal. Not all of them, mind you, but, as the CDC says, 40 percent of men and 35 percent of women have had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. It helps clarify how completely false the claim to there always being a procreative dimension to male-female unions is.

— Bo · Oct 26, 03:49 AM · #
“heterosexual couples also do oral and anal”

Yep. And contracept, fornicate, commit adultery, mutually masturbate, etc, etc. That’s why I earlier specified “the loving and generous coital union of a husband and wife” (“coital union” specifically calling out the union of male and female genitalia). It’s true I wasn’t as specific in my phrase “male-female intercourse”; by “intercourse” I meant coital intercourse.

— SDG · Oct 26, 04:07 AM · #
Well, sure, and there’s also the possibility the man got a vasectomy, or the women had her tubes tied, or one of them lost their ability to procreate via some disease or disorder, or a million other reasons. But yeah, if we ignore all the exceptions you mentioned and then ignore all the exceptions you didn’t mention, you’re completely correct.

I’m still not sure how Christianity got this way. After all, the Bible was about a guy who traveled around with 12 other guys and his mother. It’s pretty obvious no matter how impressive he was, he wasn’t going to author a useful sex guide. And yet, somehow, that’s exactly what some Christians seem most sure their faith speaks truly on.

— Bo · Oct 26, 04:29 AM · #
Don’t be afraid to claim what’s yours, SDG. God wants a ‘coital union’. You want to B your L on somebody’s Ts.

— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 26, 04:32 AM · #
“Well, sure, and there’s also the possibility the man got a vasectomy, or the women had her tubes tied, or one of them lost their ability to procreate via some disease or disorder, or a million other reasons.”

A million is a very big number. Be that as it may, however many reasons you come up with, either there is a loving and generous coital union in which neither partner withholds or sabotages anything of his or her sexuality, or there is not. There is no withholding or sabotage with disease and disorder (unless the disease was deliberately contracted for that very purpose); vasectomy and tubal ligation are a different story.

“I’m still not sure how Christianity got this way. After all, the Bible was about a guy who traveled around with 12 other guys and his mother.”

You seem to be thinking of the last 27 books. A bunch of stuff was written before that, too, and the guy in question went back to that stuff for his teaching on sex: “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Mt 19:4-5).

“And yet, somehow, that’s exactly what some Christians seem most sure their faith speaks truly on.”

Almost anything you might care to say about “some Christians” is probably true, alas. To that I can only say that what Christianity is meant to teach us about is love. The central mystery of the Christian religion, the Holy Trinity, is that God is eternal love, eternal self-giving, life-giving love, and we are made in his image. We are all called to love, to self-giving, and in marriage in particular to life-giving love.

“Don’t be afraid to claim what’s yours, SDG. God wants a ‘coital union’.”

Funny you should say that, Sarge. That’s just what the NT teaches. And he wants his union with us to be fruitful, wants his divine life within us, wants that we should not remain spiritually barren.

— SDG · Oct 26, 12:06 PM · #
There is no withholding or sabotage with disease and disorder

But if there’s no ability to have kids, and they know it, then the act is not an attempt at procreation, nor is there a “procreative dimension”. So, what are they having sex for? Imagine a guy who, for some reason, is unable to produce children; why does it matter whether he sticks his dick in a woman’s vagina or a man’s ass? If a woman can’t bear children, why does it matter whether she has vaginal or anal sex?

To that I can only say that what Christianity is meant to teach us about is love.

Right. But if you’re at the point where you’re blithely throwing around words like sabotage and disordered to describe, say, the 90% of people who engage in oral sex, it might be time to get off the sex kick, and try out the ‘love thy neighbor’ angle for a bit.

— Bo · Oct 26, 01:32 PM · #
SDG:

I’m encouraged by how well you’re arguing with the pagans (that’ll get ‘em) but you are going where angels fear to tread. Or as our Lord said: I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

You are doing well, better than most of us.

— jd · Oct 26, 01:45 PM · #
That’s just what the NT teaches. And he wants his union with us to be fruitful, wants his divine life within us, wants that we should not remain spiritually barren.

Sorry to say, but my spirits regenerate asexually.

It’s like that song: Jesus and I don’t make fruit, twang twang.

— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Oct 26, 02:01 PM · #
jd: Thanks for the kind words. Like I said, it may be quixotic but somebody’s got to do it. Might as well be me. :)

“But if there’s no ability to have kids, and they know it, then the act is not an attempt at procreation, nor is there a ‘procreative dimension’. So, what are they having sex for?”

Thanks for the question. I realize this is an unfamiliar line of thought. It’s been powerfully explored and articulated by minds far more brilliant than mine, but I’ll do my best to illuminate the thinking here.

Like I said above, “Sex is irreducibly, inexorably, unmistakeably a reproductive function. It is much more than that — it is emotional and psychological and relational and visceral and recreational and perhaps even sacramental and sacred — but it is not less than that.”

If we assume a couple and an act fitting the description I gave earlier — a “loving and generous coital union of a husband and wife” — then they may be having sex because they love each other, because they desire intimacy, because it draws them together, because it feels good, because it’s fun. Those are all good reasons.

At the same time, they also share with each other their sexuality in all its fullness, including all of their reproductive capacity (what they have to share, which, again, may be zero). Supposing that the act is necessarily infertile because of, e.g., the phase of the woman’s cycle or post-menopausal status, that doesn’t alter the procreative teleology of the act.

Perhaps the point could be most clearly made by comparison with a potentially fertile act. The woman’s body releases (usually) one ovum; the man’s body releases millions of sperm. The sheer number of sperm attests that they are essentially disposable (the Pythons weren’t entirely wrong, but if they didn’t skew it, it wouldn’t be funny), but still they have a teleology, a purpose: They proceed to flagellate madly about in the woman’s reproductive tract, seeking an ovum that (assuming a potentially fertile act) any of them may find, but certainly the vast majority of them will not find. The woman’s reproductive tract teems with sperm seeking to fulfill their mission. That is the teleology, the purpose of her reproductive tract and of the sperm — it is the procreative process for which they were both designed.

Even if there is no ovum, the union still results in this procreative process: The woman’s reproductive tract teems with sperm, as it and they were designed to do.

Sperm in the digestive tract or the anal tract is obviously a different story. They cannot fulfill their teleology there; there never has been, never can be and is never meant to be an ovum there. This is not what the digestive tract or the anal tract are for. here is no procreactive process there. The act parodies the procreative act.

“But if you’re at the point where you’re blithely throwing around words like sabotage and disordered to describe, say, the 90% of people who engage in oral sex, it might be time to get off the sex kick, and try out the ‘love thy neighbor’ angle for a bit.”

On loving they neighbor, I try, but I could always try more. FWIW, I’ve participated in a number of comboxes here at TAS, and I think if there is any running theme in my participation, it has been urging respect and understanding of everyone, particularly in comboxes where derision and contempt were being thrown around. AFAIK, this is the first combox in which I’ve held forth on sex. I hope that with enough context some people, perhaps even you, might find me a “love thy neighbor” kind of guy.

I am trying, perhaps harder than it looks, not to be blithe. I’m well aware that my comments here are like walking into a crowded theater and throwing a lot of cold water on a lot of unsuspecting people. I am also aware that I might as well be dumping the water on my own head for the impression of me many will come away with. I don’t blame anyone for any reaction they might have to anything I’ve said here, or whatever they might think of me for saying it.

Because I believe this is the truth, I believe it is consistent with love of neighbor to say so. How many men look at pornography? Does the ubiquity of porn consumption make it unloving to say that pornography degrades both men and women? If it is degrading, wouldn’t it be unloving never to say so?

P.S. Kris: The offer is life. Life is good.

— SDG · Oct 26, 03:07 PM · #
(what they have to share, which, again, may be zero)

I realize this has a ‘that’s my story and I’m sticking to it’ point, but how exactly is this different? The idea that the purpose is to flood a woman’s uterus with sperm seems like a dodge: if the purpose after all is to procreate, and if flooding the uterus with sperm can’t accomplish that, it’s not a procreative act. Saying otherwise is a distinction without a difference. It’s like putting gas in the gas tank of a non-working car; just because the tank is designed to hold gas doesn’t mean that putting gas in it is right if the engine is missing.

then they may be having sex because they love each other, because they desire intimacy, because it draws them together, because it feels good, because it’s fun. Those are all good reasons.

Those are all good reasons, even if procreation isn’t possible.

— Bo · Oct 26, 03:22 PM · #
“The idea that the purpose is to flood a woman’s uterus with sperm seems like a dodge: if the purpose after all is to procreate, and if flooding the uterus with sperm can’t accomplish that, it’s not a procreative act.”

I appreciate your serious and thoughtful interaction, and I think I understand how the matter looks to you (I think it’s not too different from how I might have put it myself once).

My story, which I indeed stick to, is this. Coital union is always inherently a mutual, joint exercise of reproductive systems. The act of male-female genital penetration has an inherent teleological dimension, a physiological purpose. Even when actively thwarted by contraceptive methods, not to mention natural factors, it remains intrinsically reproductive behavior. It is a story of teleology, of purpose, of function or design (in a strictly neutral, biological sense; the presence or absence of a Designer is not the point here), a point with which I’m not sure from your objections you’re necessarily entirely engaging.

The contraceptive mentality has so thoroughly penetrated our outlook that it can be hard to be quite clear on this point — especially since sex in its human form is so complex and multifaceted (I agree with you that intimacy, togetherness, ecstasy and fun are all good reasons even if procreation isn’t possible) that it’s easy to slip into thinking of sex as solely about, say, intimacy, togetherness, ecstasy or whatever and lose track of the blindingly obvious nature of the act in question. The couple joins reproductive systems (not just orgasm systems, or intimacy systems). It is a reproductive act.

A thought experiment, or rather imaginative exercise, that might or might not help us to step back from our cultural milieu: Suppose an outside observer (an alien or an angel) with a working scientific knowledge of terrestrial biology were to observe human coital union. Supposing his own nature to be quite different, he might find it odd, or funny, or boring, or primitive, or beautiful; but in any case it would (I submit) be quite natural for him to classify this as reproductive behavior — even if he were able to detect that conception was not in fact possible, or even that the couple was actively thwarting conception with barriers or by chemical means. Nor would it be hard to imagine him classifying other sexual acts — oral or anal intercourse, whether in heterosexual or homosexual pairings — as quasi-reproductive or pseudo-reproductive behavior. Doesn’t prove anything, of course, but it might or might not help clarify the point.

You say “if flooding the uterus with sperm can’t accomplish [procreation], it’s not a procreative act.” Think through the implications. Suppose a couple actively seeks to conceive by having sex at what should be peak fertility, but in fact the ovum is late, or the woman’s body skips a cycle, or the ovum is defective and cannot be fertilized. In that case, flooding the uterus with sperm (unbeknownst to the couple) can’t result in procreation. Would you therefore say it is “not a procreative act”? Obviously there is a sense in which it does not achieve a procreative result, that is, there is no ultimate procreation. But an act of attempted procreation is still, I submit, an act with a procreative dimension, a procreative act.

What about a couple that isn’t necessarily actively seeking to conceive, but is (in the common idiom of Catholic moral theology) “open to life”? They have sex periodically, not particularly tracking the time of month, happy to welcome a child if a child comes but not going, as it were, out of their way to seek one. At any particular coupling they are aware of the open possibility (as opposed to the actual fact) that the woman could be fertile on this occasion, and so as far as they know they could conceive (though in fact if the woman isn’t fertile then there is no possibility of conception. They accept and indeed welcome the possibility of conceiving. Is that a non-procreative act?

What about a couple for whom conception is known to be unlikely, even vanishingly unlikely, who have no particular hope of conceiving on a given occasion, but who would be open to it if it were? They may even have been told “You’ll never have children,” though they also know that doctors can be wrong. They share their sexuality freely, not expecting or even hoping that a child could result, thinking only of their love and the happiness of the moment, but knowing (if not consciously thinking at that moment) and even accepting that it isn’t certain they won’t have a child. Is that a non-procreative act?

What about a couple using contraception? Obviously they actively want to avoid conceiving, though presumably they are uneasily aware that no method of contraception is 100 percent effective. The words “contraceptive sex” are sad ones to me, but at the end of the day the state of our intentions, knowledge and even contraceptive measures can’t change the fact that (not to put too fine a point on it) the union of an erect penis and a receptive vagina is a reciprocal exercise of reproductive function.

FWIW, just as we make love for many reasons, we eat food for many reasons: because it tastes good, because we are hungry, to be sociable, out of habit, etc. We are not necessarily thinking when we eat food about nourishing our bodies. Nevertheless, that is the biological purpose of eating. If you eat food when you aren’t hungry and don’t need nourishment, that’s one thing; if you induce vomiting afterward, that’s another.

It has often been argued that contraception is an act in a way analogous to bingeing and purging: The appetite is indulged, the biological act completed, but the proper physiological function associated with that act is unnaturally prevented. In a similar way, acts of oral or anal sex, whether of heterosexual or homosexual couplings, could be considered in a way analogous to trying to take food into some other bodily orifice (such as snorting it into your lungs). That’s not where food goes.

“Saying otherwise is a distinction without a difference. It’s like putting gas in the gas tank of a non-working car; just because the tank is designed to hold gas doesn’t mean that putting gas in it is right if the engine is missing.”

Heh. A few times in writing I considered but rejected analogies to man-made things. (E.g., Is shooting a shotgun at a flock of geese not an act of hunting if the flock is too high to hit, or if you just enjoy target practice and don’t care about bagging a goose?)

I bailed on every analogy I thought of because I didn’t think any of them really worked, and perhaps if you think about it you’ll agree yours work any better.

Putting gas in a car is an act with one and only one purpose: getting the car to go. If the engine is missing, there’s no point. Coital union is not an act with one and only one purpose, so the analogy doesn’t hold.

— SDG · Oct 26, 05:09 PM · #
That is a long post, but it seems to be mostly dodging the example I gave: What does happen if two people who do know that they’re incapable of bearing children have vaginal sex? It’s not relevant to talk about people who don’t know, or to talk about people who are unsure, or to talk about alien observers. In my mind, none of those examples work because they all dodge the issue of intent, the first two by changing what the intent is, and the third by positing someone unable to observe it. And intent is important; your hypothetical observer would also not, for example, distinguish between miscarriages and abortions. And I think my actual example is important because, whether through age, cancer, injury or genetic disease, this is a situation that effects a lot of people. So, figuring out whether this exact situation is moral is important, even if you’d rather figure out a grayer one. And figuring out why it’s moral (or immoral) is important to all those oral and anal sexing contraceptive wearers.

Putting gas in a car is an act with one and only one purpose: getting the car to go.

Not at all. It also has the purpose of going to the grocery, or visiting Aunt Joan, or getting to work, et al. I chose it because it mirrors the purely procreative view of sex well: one required purpose which is non-negotiable, plus a bunch of ancillary, higher purposes, that depend on the required one to function.

— Bo · Oct 26, 05:59 PM · #
“That is a long post, but it seems to be mostly dodging the example I gave: What does happen if two people who do know that they’re incapable of bearing children have vaginal sex?”

But that’s not what you said, as far as I can see. You said “if flooding the uterus with sperm can’t accomplish [procreation], it’s not a procreative act.” Nothing there about the state of the couple’s knowledge or intent, or whether they’re “incapable” of bearing children — only the brute fact of possibility or impossibility.

My examples were meant to help drive home what should be obvious and even tautological: that, irrespective of the state of the couple’s knowledge and intent, the joining of male and female reproductive systems is by its nature reproductive behavior — and that applies to your couple as well as any other. Coital union is inherently ordered toward procreation — that is what it is, irrespective of our knowledge, feelings or attitudes toward it. The reason penises get hard and vaginas get soft and it feels good to put them together is that this is how we reproduce, just as the reason that food tastes good is that this is how we maintain our bodies. When we do this, whether or not there is any chance that we ourselves will on this occasion reproduce (much less what we may know or how we may feel about that chance or non-chance) doesn’t determine the reproductive character of the behavior in itself. The act itself is inherently and physiologically an act with reproductive significance.

To me this seems not just true but a mere empirical description of observable reality, capable of being missed only if we are somehow or other not looking bang on at the facts. If you’ve read all this, and even tried squinting through the eyes of my imaginary alien observer, and it still doesn’t make sense to you, then whether the issue is with my aim or your eye, I’m not sure I can pitch it any better. The most I could say at that point would be “Think about it.”

“Not at all. It also has the purpose of going to the grocery, or visiting Aunt Joan, or getting to work, et al.”

And yet it is as I said: If the engine is missing, there is no point in putting gas in the tank, no matter how much you want to going to the grocery, visit Aunt Joan or get to work. Imagine someone saying, “I’m not putting gas in the tank to make the car go, I’m putting gas in the tank because I want to visit Aunt Joan, so it doesn’t matter that the engine is missing and the car won’t go.” If the engine is missing, there is no trip to Aunt Joan by car.

“I chose it because it mirrors the purely procreative view of sex well: one required purpose which is non-negotiable, plus a bunch of ancillary, higher purposes, that depend on the required one to function.”

If anyone held a purely procreative view of sex, that might be relevant. But the analogy fails for several reasons. The car gets us to Aunt Joan’s only if internal combustion occurs. Sex does not get us to intimacy and ecstasy and fun only if conception occurs. If we try to get to Aunt Joan’s and internal combustion doesn’t occur, the effort was a complete bust. If a couple has sex even with the express purpose of having a baby, and they don’t have a baby, but they still love each other and had fun, it wasn’t a complete bust. Shall I go on?

— SDG · Oct 26, 06:57 PM · #
P.S. In any case, thanks again for the thoughtful cross-examination. I think my case may have become clearer in my own mind, and possibly in my presentation, under the pressure of your questions.

— SDG · Oct 26, 07:33 PM · #
This is actually kinda disappointing. I have a hard time believing that a 2000 year old theology views sexual morality as so pure a form of hole refereeing. It just seems that you want to make the issue procreation, except when that’s inconvenient, so you end up with weasel words like “ordered toward procreation” and “reproductive significance”, whose only purposes are to mean less than ‘reproduction’ and slightly more than nothing.

The real tragedy though is that it’s obvious why infertile Catholic couples can still have sex: It isn’t an act of atomic-level hairsplitting as you propose; it’s an act of mercy to its laity from the Catholic Church, who know that applying a rule to this situation would only compound the suffering of people who are likely already suffering. But they can’t admit that it was an act of love or mercy, because they’ve got all these other mercies they could be asked to show, and they know which way this slope slips. So they end up discussing “orderings” and “significances” instead of facts or love, and slip further into irrelevance.

— Bo · Oct 26, 11:15 PM · #
Hm. I could almost be disappointed myself. I say things like “loving and generous coital union of a husband and wife,” “a complete union of both partners in all of their reproductive capacity, withholding nothing,” and somehow you contrive to hear “hole refereeing.” Even if I didn’t believe this stuff, I hope I wouldn’t be tempted to so shabby a reductionism. Even if I thought it were misguided, I hope I could bring myself to acknowledge the beauty, at least in principle, of ideals like “loving and generous union of both partners in all their reproductive capacity, withholding nothing.”

That the utterly straightforward, almost tautological observation that the joining of male and female reproductive systems is inherently reproductive behavior — ordered toward procreation — strikes you as “weasel words” and “atomic-level hairsplitting” is hardly comprehensible to me. I can only regard it as a sign of the deep Gnosticism, the profound, almost mystical abstraction from bodily reality that the contraceptive mentality (among other factors) has wrought on our culture.

And then, having elided the notion of loving and generous union, and shaking your head at the plainest of facts, you dismiss Catholics for being hung up on other things “instead of facts or love”!

Your attempt to uncover the thinking behind Catholic principles — an unacknowledged act of mercy, a camauflaged exception to a rigid rule — suggests that as careful as I’ve tried to pitch and as carefully as you may have tried to keep your eye on the ball, something has been lost. Everything represented by words like “open to life” and “withholding nothing” is flattened into “applying rules.”

Perhaps we might talk about another aspect of sex other than procreation: ecstasy. I mentioned earlier that the central mystery of Christian faith is the Holy Trinity, the mystery of divine love, divine self-giving. The Father loves the Son loves the Holy Spirit, and in their eternal self-giving union and knowledge of one another is eternal joy.

God has likewise made us such that to know and to be known by another is be joyful and ecstatic. The apotheosis of this truth is the joy of heaven, in which God shares with us his eternal beatitude in the knowledge of him and in being known by him.

A more earthly manifestation of this truth is the mutual ecstasy of knowing and being known by an earthly beloved. The usual Old Testament word for sexual intercourse is “to know.” Conjugal union is an intimate form of knowing and being known by another, an ecstatic union of selves in which body as well as soul takes delight. Catholic teaching sees an image of divine beatitude in the ecstasy of orgasm.

Ideally, the loving and generous coital union of a husband and wife who give themselves completely to one another culminates in a shared ecstasy in which giving and receiving merge and the union of selves brings mutual joy in one and the same act. In practice, it doesn’t always work out that way for both partners every time, but that’s the goal, the ideal.

And this too illustrates the beauty of coital union in contrast to other forms of intercourse. Not only is coital union ordered toward procreation (sorry, but it is), it is also ordered toward mutual ecstasy in one and the same act. Both spouses pursue their own orgasm and each other’s at the same time and in the same act. It is an invitation to mutual generosity and a loving mutual self-surrender in which no distinction can be made between giver and receiver, or between my gift to you and your gift to me.

Penetration of other orifices to the point of orgasm, or manipulation to orgasm by other means, deliberately separates one partner’s ecstasy and surrender from another’s. There are two programs, not one. It is no longer a shared act of simultaneous self-giving and ecstatic mutual knowledge in which both partners are total gift of self, but separate acts of pleasure given and taken in a fragmented gift of self.

This is the most beautiful accounting of human sexuality I have ever encountered. There is no room for half measures, for selfishness, for withholding anything of oneself. Beside this the sexual revolution looks dreary and enervating.

— SDG · Oct 27, 02:53 AM · #
That the utterly straightforward, almost tautological observation that the joining of male and female reproductive systems is inherently reproductive behavior — ordered toward procreation

Look, if there’s no chance of reproduction, and you know that, it just ain’t so. I realize that at bottom to be Christian, you’ve got to believe a lot of really stupid, patently untrue things, but this is as straightforward as it gets. The word procreation does not mean putting the penis in the vagina; neither does reproduction. They mean the creation of children. And when you start talking about ‘ordered to procreation’ and ‘reproductive significance’, it’s like the difference between ‘cheese’ and ‘cheese-flavored food product’. The modifiers reveal the lie of the words you’re using; that’s what I mean by weasel words.

It is no longer a shared act of simultaneous self-giving and ecstatic mutual knowledge in which both partners are total gift of self, but separate acts of pleasure given and taken in a fragmented gift of self.

Wow, that’s a windy way of saying that the way you enjoy sex is obviously the one god-intended way; as long as you prefer vanilla ice cream too, then you’re probably would enjoy theocracy. I should of course point out that male anal sex does actually work as a shared act; you see it stimulates the prostate, which pleasures the bottom partner, and there’s 69 and some nice toys that’ll do all this for the lesbians. All this information is available to you, but you still insist on throwing bogus distinction after bogus distinction out.

— Bo · Oct 27, 03:48 AM · #
Wow. I return to this comment thread and encounter arguments I did not remotely anticipate.

Evolution or, if you prefer, a supreme being working through evolution, has clearly designed most of us to feel sexual desire and satisfaction from all sorts of interactions that are manifestly not “ordered toward reproduction.” If God or nature had a problem with our partaking, or if doing so was not in our interest, we could have been designed otherwise or evolved to preclude these options. Obviously this observation will persuade few people who insist on condemning sexualities that diverge from conservative norms. Perhaps it would be more fruitful and more honest to acknowledge that, leaving God and nature aside, we ourselves may have positive or negative emotional reactions to various sexual scenarios, as well as—some of us, that is—intellectual justifications for attaching moral meaning to some of those emotions and not others. Indeed, some of us work out reasons for regarding some sexual activities as unhealthy or unfair regardless of what our emotions might be. The stubborn fact is that particular emotions, even strongly felt, do not always serve the cause of sound or just decision-making. One of the great things about being a person is the capacity to actually reflect on one’s emotions, some of which may embody prejudice—to put them into perspective, even to change our attitudes through reflection and life experience. When one leaves aside discussions of God, then, and of nature, and of emotionsdisconnected from thought, one is left with the conclusion, shared by an ever-larger proportion of Americans, that there is no good reason why consenting persons should not partake of sexual experiences they find enjoyable or meaningful, and to form intimate relationships corresponding to their sexual orientation if they choose. The comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality highlight the apparent inability of opponents to make a persuasive intellectual case why same-sex marriage itself, and other sexual civil rights, considered on their own terms, ought not to be embraced as a common-sense matter of equality and justice. (Such comparisons also probably drive many ambivalent people toward the cause of civil rights, since they seem to say more about the emotions of opponents than they do about the actual people whose rights they would deny.)

Even if trends correlating same-sex marriage with the decline of heterosexual marriages were shown to have some causal directionality, this fact would seem to me an insufficient reason to deny people their proper rights. There are many ways to pursue one’s vision of a better society. Now if you think that a society in which more straight people are married would be a better one, there are plenty of creative ways you might encourage such marriages that do not involve subordinating your fellow citizens. As you contemplate means of persuading others about such questions, I confess that I cannot guarantee you success; people find happiness and live productive, caring lives in their communities in all sorts of ways. Here’s a tip, though: you might want first to relinquish the project of denying gay people their right to pursue their dreams as first-class citizens; it turns out that presuming your emotions ought to be enacted into public policy loses you massive amounts of credibility with countless straight people inclined toward fairness and a broad notion of community. They think such presumptuousness is obnoxious, cruel, and—believe it or not—shallow.

— jason · Oct 27, 10:57 AM · #
“The word procreation does not mean putting the penis in the vagina; neither does reproduction. They mean the creation of children.”

I realize this has a ‘that’s my story and I’m sticking to it’ point, and I’m almost tempted to leave it there — the point is clear enough by now — but it occurs to me that I might be able to make “The sky is blue” even simpler and clearer, so I’ll give it one more shot.

Okay. Take, say, ovulation. Ovulation is a function of the female reproductive system. It is something the female reproductive system does in order to make reproduction possible. Doesn’t matter if the female is a cloistered nun, an 11-year-old girl, a lesbian separatist or the last human being on earth. Biologically speaking, the process of ovulation in itself is a function, how you say, ordered toward reproduction, a reproductive function, a function that is reproductive in nature or with reproductive significance — take your pick. To me they’re synonymous, but I offer different ways of saying the same thing because I’m trying not to trip you up with a particular choice of words. It’s the reality I’m concerned with.

Are you with me there, at all? If all of the foregoing still strikes you as weasel words — if you contend that ovulation isn’t a reproductive function since you don’t get an actual child just by ovulating — then perhaps the weasel is in the eye of the beholder, and you must stick to your story while I stick to mine. At that point I don’t know how to communicate any more clearly.

Erection and ejaculation are likewise functions of the male reproductive system, functions that are biologically ordered toward reproduction. They are something that the male reproductive system is able to do in order to make reproduction possible. Even if it’s only a wet dream or an act of masturbation, the power itself exists for the sake of reproduction. It has a reproductive teleology, a reproductive purpose or nature. It’s just biology 101 (human biology, as well as weasels).

Any function of the male or female reproductive systems that makes possible or facilitates and promotes reproduction, from the production of sperm to arousal and orgasm, might be said to be biologically ordered toward reproduction. Some of these functions can be deliberately exercised in a variety of ways, from masturbation to oral and anal sex.

Among these acts, though, coitus has a unique status. Not only the individual male and female functions, but the behavior itself, the physical complementarity of male and female organs and the union thereof, exists in order to make reproduction possible. This act, and only this act, is a joint reproductive function, a reproductive exchange in which male and female reproductive functions are not just simultaneously exercised, but form a single, shared reproductive act, an act ordered toward reproduction.

To contend that it is not a reproductive act unless a baby results, or even unless a baby is possible, is analogous to denying that ovulation or ejaculation is ordered toward reproduction unless it results or could result in a baby. In reality, ejaculation is always ordered toward procreation, whether it is in the context of an act that is ordered toward procreation (i.e., coitus) or one that is not (e.g., masturbation).

“Wow, that’s a windy way of saying that the way you enjoy sex is obviously the one god-intended way”

I wasn’t talking about enjoying sex. I was talking about love and mutual gift of self. You could call masturbation “enjoying sex,” but it’s not a loving mutual gift of self. Adultery can also be enjoyable, and the adulterers may well experience the emotional state called “being in love,” but it’s contrary to the total and irrevocable gift of self that conjugal love requires. The same is true of sexual acts in which the partners can’t or won’t share themselves completely, including their reproductive capacity.

P.S. From the heat of your recent responses I wonder whether I’ve tried as hard as I should have to avoid unnecessary offense, as opposed to necessary offense. I’m thinking probably not. Despite my comment about trying to avoid blitheness, I make mistakes. I’ve tried harder in this comment, though I realize that what I have to say is contentious even if I say it perfectly, which I don’t always.

— SDG · Oct 27, 12:06 PM · #
“Evolution or, if you prefer, a supreme being working through evolution, has clearly designed most of us to feel sexual desire and satisfaction from all sorts of interactions that are manifestly not ‘ordered toward reproduction.’”

This is Kinsey’s argument: The “frequency with which exceptions to the supposed rule actually occur” tells against the normative character of the supposed “rule.” Note that in explicitly extending this argument to pedophila and zoophilia, Kinsey is not attempting to bury gay rights, but to exonerate pedophila and zoophilia. This is not the fevered connection of a reactionary social conservative, it is a progressive argument for tolerance and acceptance of all sorts of minority sexual desires.

“If God or nature had a problem with our partaking, or if doing so was not in our interest, we could have been designed otherwise or evolved to preclude these options. … The stubborn fact is that particular emotions, even strongly felt, do not always serve the cause of sound or just decision-making.”

The second sentence is a useful and valuable corrective to the first sentence.

“One of the great things about being a person is the capacity to actually reflect on one’s emotions, some of which may embody prejudice—to put them into perspective, even to change our attitudes through reflection and life experience.”

Absolutely. Wholehearted agreement here.

“When one leaves aside discussions of God, then, and of nature, and of emotions disconnected from thought, one is left with the conclusion, shared by an ever-larger proportion of Americans, that there is no good reason why consenting persons should not partake of sexual experiences they find enjoyable or meaningful, and to form intimate relationships corresponding to their sexual orientation if they choose. The comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality highlight the apparent inability of opponents to make a persuasive intellectual case why same-sex marriage itself, and other sexual civil rights, considered on their own terms, ought not to be embraced as a common-sense matter of equality and justice.”

This sounds initially plausible — but is it really the case that reflection, perspective and reason are responsible for increasing social acceptance of homosexual acts but not of pedophilia and zoophilia? Have Americans dispassionately considered and thoughtfully rejected Kinsey’s argument that there seems to be no reason, apart from “cultural conditioning,” that a child should be “disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts,” and that “the current hysteria over sex offenders” rather than the sex “offenders” themselves is the real danger to children? Or is it simply or primarily feelings that are responsible for the ongoing shaping of attitudes?

“Even if trends correlating same-sex marriage with the decline of heterosexual marriages were shown to have some causal directionality, this fact would seem to me an insufficient reason to deny people their proper rights.”

What do you mean by “proper rights”? Who says that there is a “right” to redefine a universal human institution foundational to every culture and society in history in a way opposed to all known precedent? Who says that’s a right?

— SDG · Oct 27, 01:57 PM · #
Or is it simply or primarily feelings that are responsible for the ongoing shaping of attitudes?

This hypothesis neglects the fact that people’s emotions about equality are changing; why? Well, clearly they are digging beneath their initial reactions and considering the merits of the issue of equality, as well as interacting with avowedly gay people enough to undermine their prior stereotypes.

I say that people—real human beings—are more important than “universal human institutions,” which actually aren’t alive even a little bit, not even as much as paramecia. Social institutions should therefore serve human beings, not the other way around. To claim straight-only marriage has been foundational to every society in history is (if foundational means necessary) grandiose and unlikely; your apparent belief that these societies could not have thrived, or perhaps even existed, without discriminating against a small minority of their citizens is downright bizarre, to put it gently.

— jason · Oct 28, 10:23 AM · #
“This hypothesis neglects the fact that people’s emotions about equality are changing; why?”

On the contrary, far from neglecting changing emotions, that was precisely my point.

I’m not sure it is persuasive to say that emotions about “equality” are changing, though. What is clear is that people have become more comfortable emotionally with homosexuality, or at least less comfortable with negative moral judgments and with social constraints on individual autonomy, not only regarding homosexual acts but on a broader scale.

Is this because people are “digging beneath their initial reactions” in a thoughtful and reflective way? I don’t think so. I think people have been made to feel bad about rendering moral judgments and persuaded that homosexuality is innate, and who wants to blame someone for who or what he or she is? And, then, having embraced contraception, no-fault divorce and serial monogamy, they can no longer see why there is anything about what we call marriage that would not apply to same-sex couples.

While incest, polyamory and adult-child relationships still command strong emotional reactions, I suspect very few people could offer anything remotely resembling a compelling intellectual case against incest or polyamory, and already there are early indications that movement toward legitimacy is coming. I can’t see anything like a real roadblock capable of withstanding a determined push on behalf of either.

The minor status of children does constitute an impressive obstacle to acceptance of adult-child relationships, although interestingly there is a strong effort to protect minors’ “rights” with regard to “reproductive freedom” (i.e., access to abortion without parental notification or consent, even when far more trivial medical procedures could not be legally performed without parental consent) as well as access to contraception. I’m sure there are pointy heads somewhere who would argue that the minor status of children is a paternalistic equivalent to the pre-emancipation status of women and the pre-civil rights status of blacks. Who knows where the rubric of “equality” may be taken next? Certainly the NAMBLA constituency has an uphill battle, but I’m not sure it’s unwinnable.

“I say that people—real human beings—are more important than ‘universal human institutions,’ which actually aren’t alive even a little bit, not even as much as paramecia. Social institutions should therefore serve human beings, not the other way around.”

Glad we agree on that.

“To claim straight-only marriage has been foundational to every society in history is (if foundational means necessary) grandiose and unlikely; your apparent belief that these societies could not have thrived, or perhaps even existed, without discriminating against a small minority of their citizens is downright bizarre, to put it gently.”

The rubric of “straight-only marriage” is problematic for two reasons. First, if by “straight” you mean to exclude individuals with same-sex attraction, I am aware of no culture in which such individuals have been excluded from marrying. I suppose you mean something like “male-female marriage” or “heterosexual marriage” (“heterosexual” here in the sense of differently sexed spouses (a man and a woman) rather than anything so potentially slippery as “orientation”).

Even then, “heterosexual marriage” or “male-female marriage” in a historical context is essentially a redundancy, like saying “female-only motherhood” or “male-only patriarchy.” The enduring union of a man and a woman as the privileged context for socially sanctioned male-female sexual relations is what marriage as a socio-anthropological reality is.

And, as I noted above, this sociological reality of marriage as a human universal is driven by two facts: Humans reproduce sexually, and the rearing of human offspring, upon which the future of society depends, requires an enormous, long-term investment, ideally involving both biological parents for maximum benefit.

As a broad rule, when a man and a woman sleep together, children may result; until quite recently, that was pretty much the only way to get children for the next generation. Historically speaking, a society in which there are no obstacles to a man copulating with any female he can persuade any time he likes and taking no responsibility for the consequences would be a society at a severe disadvantage. It is not clear evolutionarily that would be a bad strategy for the individual man (his offspring as individuals may be disadvantaged, but he can potentially have a great many more of them than his faithful and responsible counterpart), but it is clearly a bad strategy for the welfare of the group.

Society must discourage this sort of behavior and generally encourage a state of affairs in which men and women work together to raise the children they bring into the world. Society must, in a word, regulate the sexual behavior of men and women. In all known societies, this regulation is accomplished by the social recognition of an enduring bond of a man and a woman, a bond that is vested with moral and often religious significance and that comes with rules, taboos, proscriptions.

It is precisely the delimitation of individual autonomy for the good of society that drives marriage. Not as a matter of “freedom” or “equality,” but precisely to say “Here are things that we as a society tell you as an individual may not do,” societies recognize, celebrate and privilege marriage. If you want to sleep with this woman, if you want to sleep with this man, tie the knot, make it official. No, you mustn’t sleep with that woman — she’s bound to another. Etc.

This is not to say that all societies have historically had the same exceptionless proscriptions against nonmarital sex as Abrahamic morality, but AFAIK all societies have moral strictures in that direction, privileging sex within marriage and generally discouraging sex outside of it. If they didn’t regulate male-female sexual behavior in this way, they would be severely disadvantaged and quite possibly would not endure.

So, the good of society is thus indeed bound to the institution of marriage as an enduring bond of a man and a woman. What two men or two women do together is of no comparable interest to society, unless it leads to the breakup of marriages and families. Society per se has no comparable reason to elaborately regulate homoerotic behavior. There are public health concerns, but there are other ways of addressing that.

I think it is interesting that some individuals who self-identify as gay view marriage as a “hetero thing,” an ideal alien to homosexual behavior. Some of them support the “right” of gays to “marry” anyway and some of them don’t, but I think they have a valid insight that “same-sex marriage” doesn’t make sense. For the good of society, I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.

Incidentally, I want to be clear that I don’t “blame” same-sex advocates for the hard knocks that marriage has taken of late. Contraception, no-fault divorce, serial monogamy and the rise of cohabitation and illegitimacy are ills embraced and perpetrated by the heterosexual majority. No argument. I see the campaign for same-sex marriage first of all as a symptom of a larger issue rather than the cause — though symptoms can have consequences of their own. The good of society is bound to marriage, and further blurring society’s understanding of what marriage is will only facilitate further damage.

— SDG · Oct 28, 01:54 PM · #
While describing legal and cultural sexual rules at considerable length, you haven’t proven that interference with adult freedom protects society; you’ve simply assumed it. It’s as though Hobbesian anarchy is the only alternative to intense pressure for sexual conformity. Yet increasing numbers of us generally hostile to social hierarchy are confident that our society can adapt to a regime of equality and will, in fact, be stronger once the transition is made. Because whatever benefits you speculate that it produces, millions of women and gay men can testify with first-hand knowledge that the old regime was palpably cruel and harmful not just to them but to the country’s productivity and social fabric, not to mention its families. My earlier point stands: miserable parents really aren’t good for kids.

— jason · Oct 29, 07:26 AM · #
The dynamic is not Hobbesian, but Darwinian. It is a remarkable fact of human and social evolution that there is no society is known to history or anthropology in which marriage as the enduring of a man and a woman as the privileged context for sexual activity is recognized as a unique social institution. The biological imperative, and its relationship to the such potentially successful individual reproductive strategies as, e.g., male “bad-boy” behavior, is not just a speculative construct.

That’s “bad behavior” according to the “cruel regime” you wish to overthrow — the regime that throughout human history has successfully protected the common good against behaviors that might be successful for the individual but are harmful to the group. You profess your “confidence” that the experiment in social engineering you propose will help rather than harm society — a society already suffering from the erosion of marriage — but offer no evidence for your seeming irrational exuberance.

Is traditional morality a “cruel regime”? In many cases, certainly, it has taken unnecessarily cruel forms. Other times, irrationally exuberant casting off of restraints has proved to have cruel results. At the risk of a note of unintentional glibness, life is cruel. Babies die in utero. People are born with extra chromosomes. Some people are sexually attracted to children. It sucks to be them. I’m not being glib; the harshness of word choice is meant to acknowledge the harshness of the reality.

I’m not even arguing, here, against homosexual acts or relationships. All I’m arguing is that society needs marriage, and that marriage is what it is. Redefining it to include other arrangements that are not really marriage may seem compassionate to individuals, but society already suffers for the erosion of the understanding of marriage, and that seems likely only to increase.

— SDG · Oct 29, 02:41 PM · #
P.S. There goes the dreaded opposite typo again; it’s my dratted penchant for excessively elaborate sentence structure. Of course the second sentence above should read something like “It is a remarkable fact of human and social evolution that there is no society is known to history or anthropology in which marriage as the enduring of a man and a woman as the privileged context for sexual activity is not recognized as a unique social institution.”

— SDG · Oct 29, 02:44 PM · #
P.P.S. Yikes, there are still two typos in my corrected sentence. Let’s actually read it all the way through before clicking submit: “It is a remarkable fact of human and social evolution that there is no society known to history or anthropology in which marriage as the enduring union of a man and a woman as the privileged context for sexual activity is not recognized as a unique social institution.”

Too much jargon, not enough green tea…

— SDG · Oct 29, 02:48 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.

↑ Oh, to have a license to shoot hippies on sight...

↓ From the American Scene Projectionist's Booth

An ongoing review of politics and culture