Mon 29 Sep 2008
I already wrote about how much Google’s search monopoly worries me. Now there is one more reason to be wary of it – Google is officially, as a company, taking a position in the public debate on a social issue. This is more than unusual.
A few days ago a post appeared on Google’s official blog, signed by Sergey Brin saying that Google officially opposes proposition 8 that is to go under ballot in California.
No matter what we think of the issue at hand I think this is both unusual and very worrying if a corporation takes a stand on a social issue like this. It is even more dangerous if the company in question has a de-facto monopoly on search and strong position in other fields that influence what content gets through to the bulk of Internet users.
It is not to say that I’m sure Google is meddling with its search results or – say – YouTube content. But it is a possibility that is hard to dismiss. If Sergey Brin feels about an issue strongly enough to put the weight of his company behind his private opinion (as opposed to just his name) there will be a strong temptation to extend the “fight” with those holding a different position one step further. And if it happens it will be very hard to fight with. First, it would be very, very difficult to prove. And even if proven it would be fully legal, because being a private corporation Google is under no obligation to provide fair and balanced treatment to Internet content representing all opinions on issues of today.
I think in the long run this is a threat to freedom of opinion and expression on the Internet. For now, though, the only thing I can do is use Microsoft’s Live Search. And think of moving my e-mail off Google’s GMail.
September 29th, 2008 at 19:34
How could Google being in favour of gay marriage POSSIBLY have any effect on your email service? I take the point about search, youtube and so on (although I don’t agree), but Gmail?
September 29th, 2008 at 19:51
i wish i could post on google’s blog, because brin seemed to overlook the fact that while not wanting his company to take a position on a social issue because of the “diversity” of his employees, and then making a decision, he effectively trumped (or showed the “superiority” of his own view over) those who oppose his position within his own company. doesn’t seem like he cares much about diversity to me; only insofar as it advances his own position.
September 29th, 2008 at 20:30
David: directly this has no effect whatsoever. But if a company turns out to have a political opinion or view instead of being just a service provider I’m not sure I want 60% of my life being stored in clear on their servers.
September 29th, 2008 at 20:52
your fears are just that: fears. it makes no sense for a company to put resources behind something like proposition 8. brin is simply stating that prop 8 is no longer about protecting something, it’s now about discriminating against a particular group of people because of your religious beliefs, and google is now recognizing that. i think you need to see that the writing is on the wall. legal acceptance, following social acceptance of gays and lesbians is just a matter of time. just as the miscegenation laws used to make it illegal for blacks and whites to marry (and believe you me, there was very strong opposition to them marrying), people slowly begin to understand that when someone they don’t like with is given the same rights that they themselves have, it doesn’t effect their life… in fact… they (you) are the ones trying to effectively limit their (gays) lives. one would hope that everyone agrees that any union that helps bring more true love into this world is a good thing. take care. =]
September 29th, 2008 at 20:56
Cory: you totally miss the point. Would you say the same thing and feel the same way about Google if they supported proposition 8 instead of opposing it? I doubt it.
September 29th, 2008 at 21:44
There’s no such thing as a “neutral” corporation, and corporations will do whatever they think they can get away with, ethical or otherwise, to further their own motives and views. Since there is also no such thing as a corporation aside from those in charge of it (despite legal precedent to the contrary), this means that the views of those on top are the issue.
If you think corporations don’t fall on one side or the other of propositions all of the time, you are mistaken. If you think that distinction applies to social issues, you are still mistaken. Your social obligation isn’t to run from organizations that show a lack of neutrality, rather it is to support organizations that share your social views.
That google needs to be “more neutral” because it is involved in search and online content hosting is an argument, but not a good one. Google doesn’t have a de facto monopoly, anymore than all search engines are neutral. If you think MSN is neutral, you are more confused than can be solved by a blog commenter.
September 29th, 2008 at 21:48
Scott: I don’t think MSN is neutral, I just think it is biased in a different way as I already explained in another post.
September 29th, 2008 at 22:17
actually, andy, you completely missed my point. please read my previous post. in reference to the single thing you commented on from my post, i didn’t miss your point, i’m simply letting you know that there’s a difference between a corporation being in favor or against a prop, which i well know happens all the time, vs putting resources into effecting the issue it’s commented on, as you insinuate could be happening. you’re just trying to incite fear, plain and simple. google doesn’t have a reason to spend resources trying to bias search results, nor does it have any stake in prop 8 aside from how it’ll effect the lives of some employees. the company pr system is simply coming down on the side of not discriminating against one group of people. hopefully one day you’ll see that for what it is.
as someone who just got married, hopefully you can understand that i hope to marry my partner one day as well, and be legally recognized in an equal way, for if you cut me, do i not bleed, same as you? i can no more control to whom i’m attracted than you can. it just is the way it is, for as long as i have memories… please stop supporting laws that interfere with how i love my partner. let me live my life, andy. give me the same respect i give you and your partner.
September 29th, 2008 at 22:30
Cory: sorry to say, but your emotional engagement in the issue itself blinds you.
My point is not whether prop 8 is good or bad, my point is that I believe this is an issue for people to decide in voting and corporations should stay away from such issues at all. I’m insinuating that Google might be tampering with their results, because it is a legitimate fear if I see company founders have convictions so strong they feel it is right to put their company’s name (as opposed to just their own) behind them. I don’t know if they do it, but I’m afraid they might if what they want to do is shape the society rather than provide useful services. Also, this bit of news is supporting evidence that such practices may be taking place. Even though I believe that they should be free to decide who can advertise on their sites that clearly shows their leaders convictions don’t stay their private opinions but shape company’s policies and operations.
September 29th, 2008 at 22:37
that’s ridiculous. microsoft comes down on various props in washington all the time, and you don’t see them writing something into windows to support that position. google does not have a stake in the prop, and just because one of their founders has an opinion and wants his company to be more open doesn’t mean he’s wasting money making the company try to enforce that opinion. they posted a blog article about the issue… this isn’t a marketing blitz. they’re not putting up signs all over the country. it wouldn’t make economic sense for them to do so. if you seriously think they’re that’s what they’re doing you’re being completely paranoid.
and while i may have emotion about this, it doesn’t stop what i’ve said from being correct, and you know it.
September 29th, 2008 at 22:53
Google has every right to support whatever they want to support. Corporations regularly support propositions and legislation on social issues, but Brin is clear that in this case, Google’s position is to support its workers rather than merely to participate in the social commentary on this issue.
Kevin’s earlier post claiming that Google has trumped the interests of one group of employees over another misses a very basic fact: generally speaking, Google employees who support Prop 103 have nothing to lose if the voters disagree with them. They will just have to continue to live in a world that includes gay marriage, which may offend their sense of decorum. Gay employees of Google, on the other hand, stand to lose a basic constitutional right and numerous everyday human rights that Kevin takes for granted. Regardless of one’s take on the fundamental question of same-sex marriage, it can’t be seriously argued that the proponents have as much at stake as do gay Californians. Google’s stand seems courageous to me.
September 29th, 2008 at 23:07
Reid: my belief is that corporations should stay away from social issues like this one for reasons I outlined above. That other corporations do it doesn’t make it right. That it is legal doesn’t make it fair. Corporations should provide services, not judgments on social issues.
Finally, as I said already: consider whether you’d be supporting their right to do so if their position was against your beliefs? Aren’t you worried that strong beliefs of this company’s leadership might be affecting the content you find and thus your own worldview? Don’t you see they have a potential to be just like CNN or Fox – pretending to be fair, but advancing their own agenda? Maybe that’s unavoidable, but I preferred the Internet where search engine companies just focused on providing good results.
September 29th, 2008 at 23:19
Cory: I’m not discussing the issue of proposition 8 here, which is what you miss. I’m arguing that corporations should stay away from social issues like this one on this example. So whatever you think of proposition 8 is irrelevant to the discussion, which is why you still miss the point.
Also, note that what Brin wrote is clearly marked as Google’s – that is company’s – official position. Given what company this is it has a weight in itself – no marketing campaign needed.
Finally – would you still say Google is right if they supported proposition 8 instead of opposing it? If yes, I respectfully disagree. If not you’re a hypocrite.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:26
It is frankly ridiculous to argue for a ‘neutral’ position on organisations simply to make some kind of point about corporations expressing a moral position.
And it is a moral position, not a ‘social’ one – either you are in favour of equality for human beings, or you are not. Either there is separation of church and state, or there isn’t.
To illustrate the lunacy of this position, consider how many organisations currently adopt a ‘neutral’ position on the integration of black and white workforces. I presume that you wouldn’t argue that they should. In the 1980s, South Africa was sanctioned for its racial discrimination policies, and in May this year, the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling to allow court cases seeking $400bn in damages against US and British companies accused of aiding the implementation of apartheid.
Regardless of such financial implications, there are some issues that are simply moral principles, such as all men are ‘created’ equal; and under the secular basis of the US constitution, the state shouldn’t be favouring an established religious bias over another (or absence of one).
Corporations do have a role to play in adopting moral principles. Taking the morally agnostic position is what IBM did in Nazi Germany, and history rightly condemned them for it.
It is, of course, disappointing that Google has an imperfect record in this regard based upon its acquiescence to the Chinese government’s pursuit of journalists. Perhaps this issue has a greater ethical proximity for Sergey and Larry – affecting people they work closely with and with whom they’ve obviously discussed this issue.
But to argue that corporations have no role to play in moral principles is a slippery slope to an ethical vacuum.
K.
September 30th, 2008 at 2:16
Not only is Google’s political stand not a worrying point, it is extremely refreshing to see that a company is brave enough to come out and take a stand on an issue, regardless of what that stand is.
The American people have been deceived for too long by the likes of companies such as Fox News who claim to be “Fair and Balanced” and are obviously anything but.
Companies, just as people, have a responsibility to act on issues as they feel appropriate. We should all have the bravery and drive to do the right thing as Google has demonstrated for us.
Cheers to Google.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:27
Andy, it is axiomatic that our opinions about social and moral issues such as this are colored by our own belief system. But you didn’t notice the point I attempted to make, which I will try to make more clearly now. There are bystanders on both sides of this issue who have an opinion based on their world-view or their xenophobia or social, religious, constitutional convictions. Then there are people whose lives will be impacted and changed if Proposition 8 passed, people whose constitutional rights will be changed and diminished. Google is clearly standing for this latter group; specifically for those members of that group who are employed by Google. To do so, even at risk to themselves, of attracting the ire of people such as yourself, is a noble endeavor in the greatest tradition of enlightened corporate participation in the moral issues of facing the community in which they exist. Google is not engaging the social issue; they are engaging the civil rights issue.
In specific answer to your question, I do not worry in any way that Google’s decision to take a stand in favor of maintaining constitutional protections for all of its employees will in any way affect the results of their search engine. In fact, a corporation that takes risks based on its culture of supporting human rights seems to me to be far less apt to engage in unscrupulous activities in other areas.
Incidentally, I’m like the ACLU — I support everyone’s right to full protection of the constitution, including groups and people and views that are personally repellent to me. Any lesser standard sets us up at the top of a very slippery slide to fascism.
Reid
September 30th, 2008 at 4:44
Karl:
You hit the nail squarely on the head. This is a moral and not a social issue. Identifying a minority group by its difference from the majority, whether by color of skin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, age or any of a variety of other suspect classifications, and then systematically providing different, lesser constitutional protections to that group, is never permissible and cannot be dismissed through the use of minimizing words like “it’s a social issue”. Depriving a group of its constitutional rights is never a “social issue”; in fact the subtle use of misleading terms that minimize or sanitize immoral behavior is a tacit admission that the behavior cannot be sanctioned when referred to using adequately descriptive terms.
Discrimination is a legal and constitutional issue, it is a moral issue and a reflection of right and wrong as our culture has grown to understand it. The thought that corporations should censor themselves over such basic tenets of civilized endeavor is ludicrous and must be rejected.
Right on, man.
Reid
September 30th, 2008 at 4:57
Andy:
Cory’s passion on this issue does not blind him to the truth, and his position does not make him a hypocrite no matter how many times you say those things as though they are settled fact. He simply doesn’t agree with you, and for very good reason.
As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, you yourself seem to be blind to the difference between a social debate over an issue, such as this, that provokes strong feelings from many people who are otherwise free to go about their lives unmolested, and the attempted deprivation of Americans from the constitutional protections enjoyed by you and other Americans. This isn’t a debate to gay Californians, this is a fundamental attack on their ability to live their lives under the same laws that protect the rest of us, a bigoted attempt to assign them to a status of lesser citizens and lesser people. No person, whether a natural person or a corporation, can ignore his duty to take a stand against this deplorable victimization of a minority group. No decent person can countenance writing discrimination into the constitution. It has never been done before and it must not be done now. That’s not a social issue, it’s a decency issue.
Reid
September 30th, 2008 at 10:29
Andy, I think your argument is wrong, and frankly, a little bit cowardly.
It makes you sound like a 1960s-era southern segregationist–“I’m not for racism, I just believe in states rights” It’s a dodge, designed to make your position sound less bigoted that it is.
Homosexuality is wrong. And therefore, gay marriage is contrary to god’s law.* A company has a moral duty to oppose it, just as they would have a moral duty to oppose theft or murder.
Alternately, there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. And therefore, denying gay couples the right to marry is discrimination. A company has a moral duty to support gay marriage, just as they would woman’s suffrage or integrated schools.
To suggest that a company has a duty to stay out of it seems absurd.
First, because it’s a position you may not take– you asked Cory if he’d feel differently about Google if they’d come out supporting the proposition instead–what about you?
Second, because it’s not always a possibility. Sure, google could technically stay out of this particular battle, but it entered the war as soon as it started providing domestic partner benefits. (And regardless of whether it entered on the right side or the wrong side, it definitely entered on the smart-for-business side. Gays have played a major part in the advancement of computing since Alan Turing was cracking Nazi cyphers)
*The bible scholar in me is compelled to point out that by my reading of I Corinthians 7, Gay Marriage is closer to god’s plan than Gay people having non-marital sex.
September 30th, 2008 at 14:11
Allan, your response is the only worth commenting on.
I don’t think my position is cowardly, I’m just defending a principle that companies as such should stay away from social issues, because companies are business entities that provide services for profit, not humans.
And I find it troubling when I realize that a single company has immense influence over what content gets seen and what gets lost. I was worried about this problem even before this incident (you’d know if had read the other post) and it is just showing that it is even worse, since this company’s leadership is putting certain political position as company’s position.
And yes, I’d have the same comment if they supported prop 8 rather than opposing it. The only difference would be you would be condemning them together with me then.
September 30th, 2008 at 17:12
Andy,
A quick observation, and then I’m going to leave this argument entirely to you. In proclaiming that Allan’s response was the only one worth commenting on, you are dismissing without comment not only the individuals who have taken time to participate in your discussion, but you are dismissing their thoughts as well.
You then proceed not really to comment on Allan’s post, but to merely repeat the same thing you’ve said several times already, as though nobody else has suggested any flaws in your reasoning. So you’ve actually dismissed Allan too, even though you said his comments were worth a response. This is not a very persuasive approach, Andy, nor does it lead to continuing interest in your blog or your thoughts on other issues.
I for one will move on to other places where interesting and open exchanges of ideas are taking place.
Reid
September 30th, 2008 at 17:48
Reid, it’s not about being “open”, it’s about being to the point. All of the posters here are just repeating how great Google is by opposing prop 8. I’m not discussing prop 8. No one notices that, you all keep drumming your beat of how great that Google supports your views in a debate. No one is really discussing the issue I was writing on – so indeed, I’m repeating myself trying to get through.
September 30th, 2008 at 22:16
You say “that companies as such should stay away from social issues, because companies are business entities that provide services for profit, not humans.”
But I just don’t see why you feel this is the case. I don’t see why, from a moral standpoint, companies ought to remain neutral. Certainly they should have the option to do so, but I that doesn’t translate into an obligation.
From a business perspective, on the other hand, it might be wise for a company to shut up on an issue this divisive. But I think Google’s doing better for their investors by speaking up:
-Google’s core demographic is younger technophiles, a group that overwhelmingly supports the proposition. As such, a “no on 8” endorsement helps reinforce their brand image of “Don’t be evil”. And with a major new product on it’s way (Google Chrome), and renewed privacy concerns, that’s something they need.
-Proposition 8 is likely to go down in flames, and while that’s not a huge surprise to anyone who’s been watching the race closely, it’s a major reversal of the larger trends over the last decade. By supporting a winning side that looks like an underdog, Google manages to look smart and ahead-of-its-time to folks who aren’t paying close attention–which might just mean a stock bump.
-It’s in Google’s best interest to keep it’s current employees happy and to be the most attractive employer for potential new recruits. And remember–Google is a California based company. If Proposition 8 passes in November, there will be actual Google employees whose marriages are in legal limbo, which will hurt morale. And the computer world has a relatively high gay contingent, so it’ll likely hurt their recruiting too (especially if NY passes a marriage bill–a distinct possibility depending on the outcome of their state senate races)
In short: Pleases their customers, pleases their investors, and pleases their employees. It’s not just the political rantings of their co-founder–It’s actually good business.
Ultimately, though, your real concern is that Google and it’s owners feel so strongly about this issue that they’re secretly influencing their search results. Personally, I think that’s unlikely, but you’re a lot more suspicious of Google than I am. That’s not something you can really have a debate on, though. It’s something you’ll have to settle empirically. Search for Yes On 8 stuff on Google, MSLive Search, Clusty, and Viewzi. If the others have a bunch of results that don’t show up in google, then you know something’s up. If not, you’re just being paranoid.
(Sorry for taking up your entire blog with my rantings. I tend to write long)
September 30th, 2008 at 22:27
Andy,
I hesitate to continue a conversation that doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere, but to a point I agree that corporations shouldn’t weigh in on social issues. However, the laws in this country classify corporations as individuals in a sense, allowing them to donate to both political candidates and issues as they so choose. In practice, this generally proves that companies that take a stand where the majority stands behind them tend to profit from that stance. As long as a company is not a monopoly, consumers can choose where to send their business if they find a company’s position offensive.
I wonder what your position is on a particular Church or pastor taking a position on a social issue, and the recent group of ministers that chose to violate IRS code and preach politics from the pulpit.
Nate
October 1st, 2008 at 2:42
Andy:
I’m disappointed that you didn’t see fit to try and justify why it is wrong for a corporation to take a position on a clearly ethical issue, rather than taking the moral relativist view that has been so broadly condemned in retrospect. Instead, you’ve tried to frame this as a social issue (whatever that is) and by extension, a political position.
Google hasn’t got an unblemished record in supporting the civil rights of human beings, however in this case it has it right on.
It admirable and entirely understandable for individuals to hold their opinions about the relative rightness and wrongness of others’ behaviour. Some of these opinions might be based on a religious or cultural tradition, and I’m with Voltaire on that. If someone disagrees with the way that homosexuals live their lives, that is their perrogative to maintain that opinion. I might disagree with them, but the marketplace of ideas in our democracies allow for such disagreement.
However, when laws are drafted that seek to emplant those views and opinions on others, by taking away rights from groups of citizens and human beings, we should all be concerned. Civil wars have been fought over just such issues.
Google is merely expressing its solidarity with the broader historical march of universal civil rights and human dignity.
It isn’t adopting a political position per-se, but sees the moral imperative to support human beings’ rights, and has made a statement. That this moral clarity now places it in the position of having to urge a “No” vote isn’t the fault of Google, but the clear fault of this divisive and distasteful proposal.
Our scrutiny should be on those who drafted and proposed this bill, and on those who seek to use prejudices to influence the turn-out in presidential elections. It is a cynical political game using an ostracised group who have been struggling for social acceptance as a football, and does not become the USA in the 21st Century.
K.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:25
reid,
i disagree (if prop 8 and prop 103 are somehow related – i’m not a resident of cali) that the proposition does not affect those who are not active homosexuals.
if there are any Catholics (who believe what the Church teaches) who work at google, who send their kids to Catholic schools, don’t you think that legalizing gay “marriage” by the govt would affect them?
look at what happened in canada. they made the same move and call any voice against homosexuality (it doesn’t even have to be hateful in tone) a hate crime, punishable by fines and jail time. this applies to all bishops, priests, and lay people (the former two are in a more specific way bound to preach what the Church teaches).
so the parents of the kids who send their kids to Catholic schools in order to receive a Catholic education will soon thereafter be hearing about how (against what the Church teaches) homosexuality is ok (and is taught as such in an institution that disagrees, even with a reasonable response; if only the media and the public would only attempt to look it up before spewing out their emotions) because to say otherwise would be offensive to a section of society. so much for free speech.
now, i know i the use of a Catholic example will be on the fringe of this conversation, but that is only to cite one small portion of the population that could work at google and disagree that _will_ be affected by this proposition (and they don’t even have to be faith based, opposition could be argued from an agnostic on other grounds).
it’s not just as simple as “me and my lover”, because they both have an impact on society. their actions have repercussions just as well as the rest of us.
as brin’s illogical “argument” displays on behalf of his employees, the diversity is only insofar as it is in line with what his position (or emotion?) is and he is willing to sacrifice the beliefs of those who disagree with him (while at the same time acting as if he cares what those who oppose him think) in order to advance himself. it’s the same in this situation as it would be if prop 8 passes, and as it already is in canada. sure, they’re free to practice homosexuality, but what are the consequences on the rest of society? how many of the opposing peoples’ rights will be _sacrificed_ in order to bring about such a judgment?
to summarize (brin, legalizing gay “marriage”, canada):
– my belief is superior to your belief
(brin: pretending he cares about diversity and advancing his own position;
lgm: gay “marriage” _is_ not morally wrong, regardless of what you think;
can: it’s ok for gay people to be “married” based on lgm)
– if you don’t believe what i believe, you deserve to be punished
(brin: silencing of the people he employs, whose opinion he could care less about;
lgm: “if you don’t accept that what i am doing is morally ok, then you just keep to yourself about it – i’ll do what i want” and don’t think about challenging me;
can: if you hold beliefs contrary, don’t voice them, or you’ll be facing jail or a substantial loss of money)
– therefore, i will take away your rights in order that you cannot offend me
(brin: don’t support prop 8, with implied support from _all_ of the “diverse” people in his company, thereby imposing his beliefs not only on his employees, but on all upon whom the weight of google will be felt;
lgm: see canada;
can: if you do violate my “right”, i will see to it that your rights are infringed (such as free speech)
– i am the winner.
appears almost as if someone is trying to force their beliefs down my throat, without even a reasonable explanation, besides (the emotive) “i want to” … sounds what some would call … dogmatic. at least dogma comes with a reasonable explanation.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:13
error: i said “if prop 8 passes”…i meant to say: if same sex “marriage” is legalized…. got a little mixed up.
while i’m at it, a little higher up, i said “faith based”, but the example i gave wasn’t really a faith _based_ one. maybe i should have said “faith related.”
October 1st, 2008 at 5:02
Kevin:
I understand you point and applaud you for making it, but I’m afraid I utterly disagree. Proposition 8 (my reference to Prop 103 was a typo — sorry…) seeks to take away the constitutional rights of a group of people. That is what it does; in fact that is ALL it does. People hanging around the sidelines like you and me just don’t have much skin in this game. We have our opinions, but then we go home and our families are still intact and our constitutional rights still exist; nobody has the gall to suggest that the constitution should be amended to remove our rights, because we are not a member of a group that is feared by many and reviled by some. Not so for gays and lesbians, who not only have to endure a public referendum on their status as first or second class citizens, but also have to face the very real possibility that their constitutional rights will be taken away, and even that their marriages will be invalidated by the votes of their neighbors! Imagine that. Their marriages can be invalidated and their families torn asunder, merely because some people who don’t even know them may disapprove or may feel uncomfortable about their differences.
Let’s imagine for a moment that you are ethnically Scottish and that Prop 8, instead of singling out gays and lesbians, is singling you out and putting up for vote the question of whether you will continue to have the right to marry the person of your choice; imagine that the initiative simply reads: “Shall the constitutional right of ethnically Scottish citizens of the State of California be abridged such that they are may no longer legally marry in this State? Yes or No.” Let’s further assume that the biggest church in the state is feverishly anti-Scottish. Whose rights are being decided? Your right to live your life, or a church’s right to hate you? It is well established by an enormous preponderance of scientific evidence, and is beyond question, that sexual orientation is determined before birth and is not a choice that an individual person can make for him or herself. Just like ethnicity and just like race. Imagine that your Scottishness, also something you are born with and that you cannot change, could form the basis for legal discrimination against you? How serious would that be to you?
Karl’s eloquent discussion of the difference between a “social issue” and a moral and civil rights issue, and why a corporation run by moral people has a right and even an obligation to take a stand on issues involving civil rights, above, is right on the money. The fact that the Catholic Church, or any religious organization, has entered into the fray on this issue doesn’t help Proposition 8 very much in the end. I personally don’t understand a religion that calls upon its members to hate others and marginalize them, but I do understand that the Catholic Church has a 2000-year history of such behavior, with the Inquisition, the Crusades, the murder of the Huguenots and the burning at the stake of millions of “heretics” whose only sin was to disagree with Catholic theocracy. As a result of centuries of abuse, religious organizations have no role in the governance of Americans. Unless the religious right has somehow accomplished more in the US than I thought it had, the opinion of a religious denomination does not form a valid constitutional argument in favor of discriminating against a protected class of citizens.
It all lines up pretty simply in the end. In one corner, you have the proponents of Prop 8 who feel that it is their right to direct their government to marginalize another group of people based on fundamental genetic characteristics of that group. In the other corner, you have the group whose rights are being threatened and those who will stand up and say “not again, not in my country or in my state!” Have we learned nothing from slavery, the Holocaust, Japanese interment camps, suffrage, Chinese indentured slavery, and the list goes on and on and on? Isn’t it time to say we don’t want to live that was anymore? Aren’t moral people required to take a stand?
Reid
October 1st, 2008 at 9:00
Kevin, despite your insistence that it’s the opponents of Prop 8 who are being unreasonable and just “spewing out their emotions”, It’s clear to me that you’re letting your own feelings get in the way of the facts.
First, it’s pretty clear that you haven’t actually read what Brin wrote, or have forgotten about it if you have. What else would explain your own comments on diversity. Brin never cited diversity as a reason to oppose Prop 8–He cited it as the reason Google rarely takes sides in such debates. Google opposes 8 despite it’s employees diversity, not because of it.
Second, you’re making some very unclear arguments. Consider the paragraph that begins “So the parents of kids…”. What exactly is it that you’re saying here? Are you suggesting that Catholic schools will be forced to teach their students that gay marriage is acceptable? If so, then you’re incredibly misinformed about the nature of parochial schools in the United States. Or are you simply saying that the parents will be exposed to such views (in which case, why bring up the kids at all). In either case your closing “So much for free speech.” is out of place–Free speech isn’t the freedom to be protected from views you don’t like. In fact, it’s pretty much the opposite.
You seem to be concerned about the erosion of religious liberties and free speech rights. I can see where you’re coming from, and I sympathize–both of those things are important to me as well. But besides vague references to Canada, I’ve yet to hear a single example of anyone’s rights being curtailed following California’s enactment of same-sex marriage. (Examples IN CALIFORNIA, please. While they share an abbreviation, California and Canada are actually two different places with two very different cultures and two very different sets of laws.) Heck, the majority opinion in In Re: Marriage Cases actually states “Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
October 1st, 2008 at 13:38
Alen, no problem with writing long. I do it all the time. As for remarks etc. raised I tried to address them in my last post.
October 2nd, 2008 at 0:15
i’ll to try to be as brief as possible.
reid:
– being scottish and being an active homosexual are two completely different moral arguments.
– and, if i’m not mistaken, millions of people in california (as in massachusetts a few years prior) petitioned to bring this up to a vote (i cannot remember if the vote actually happened or not), but judges decided it was their realm to decide for the people and “voted” it out, losing by only 1.
– there is a deeper argument lying here that i wish i had more time to pursue, but it is on the definition of “rights”, or more so, freedom, and the relation which this has to truth. if freedom is not submitted to truth, that is, the way things are, then what you have is anarchy, and not freedom. you have people running around saying “i’m free and therefore i can do what i want” when the truth about freedom is that it’s more “i’m free to do what i should”, that is, to submit to reality, to the way things are, to the way humans are made, etc. when we act against the way we were made (or if you don’t like that phrasing, the way we are), we are not free, but are enslaved by something within or without, our passions, drugs, etc. (ie, the person who says they cannot control themselves sexually).
– i think there are plenty of scientists psychologists who would disagree with you (and amongst themselves) about the source of homosexuality. suffice it to say that an attraction does not have to be acted upon, and that we are quite capable of controlling ourselves. seeing your thoughts of the Church in your post, you will be undoubtedly tempted to bash more (and, unfortunately for you, without history to back you up) when i say this, but there are millions of people in this world, priests, lay people, monks and nuns, who have the same inclinations to be with someone as do others, but the fact remains that they choose not to and are quite capable of controlling themselves (here would be your point of departure for bashing, but i will forewarn you that it will not likely hold up given history, statistics, etc.).
– you are hilarious and are providing a pristine example of someone who can say “a religion that calls upon its members to hate others and marginalize them” obviously having no clue what the Church actually teaches. if you can slander the organization, why don’t you go ahead and provide proof (from official Church teaching, which is easily accessible on the internet. here’s a hint: search for “Catechism of the Catholic Church”) that that is actually done?
– do you know that in the inquisition, the Church provided way more help for the accused than would have been provided for by the state? they even provided possibilities for the person to recant, options to remove certain people from the jury, and even a defense lawyer? go ahead and tell me of the way the state’s trial system worked at the same time. do you know that someone who had been accused by the state would have requested to have undergone the inquisition by the Church? do you know that it is not possible that millions died by the inquisition? do you know how many inquisitors there were in the whole of europe? which inquisition are you speaking of? you have no idea what you’re talking about. here’s hate speech for you.
– i’ll let you form your own conclusion about what you think my response will be on the rest of your ridiculous accusations.
– maybe moral people are taking a stand. the question lies deeper than the current discussion has gone: the question is, is homosexuality morally wrong? for this answer, i have provided a basis for a response above.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:14
so much for briefness.
alan,
– while i provided proof that brin (and the like) are allowing their own position (which, from the reading of his post, appears to be emotion) to get in the way, you failed to do the same for me.
– you failed to explain how my comments on the way he used diversity were incorrect. i don’t think that it matters whether it’s “despite” or “because”. the fact is that he used the “diversity” of his company to then endorse the position of himself and one part of his company.
– can you tell me the nature of Catholic parochial schools? and, the reason why i think that example still works is that, regardless of canada and california being two different governments, what happens in canada is done in private Catholic institutions, including in the churches themselves, where a concentration of _Catholic_ people are gathered. but, if a priest mentions the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, to jail he goes. also, i think that my use free speech still works, as i was emphasizing that the Church will (eventually) be suppressed from teaching what She always has (in schools or not).
– other than that, i don’t really see anything unclear in my writing (nor did you mention anything else)
– and, as i wrote in my post, it is a concern of mine (free speech, rel lib, etc), but it is just one among many that could be posited. like i said, an agnostic could argue against homosexuality on the basis of morals.
– to be honest, i didn’t know that same-sex marriage was “legal” in california. but, even so, why would you expect the results to happen so suddenly? not that our country is in the best of moral standing (i can’t imagine what our founding fathers would think of us) at this point in history, but erosion is something that takes place over a long period of time, and when it is something so foundational to culture and society as the human family, it will have consequences.
just today i was reading humanae vitae (“on human life”) by pope paul vi in 1968, where he was addressing the contemporary situation of artificial birth control, contraception, abortion. the recommendation of his advisors at the time, and certainly public opinion, was to allow artificial contraception (for various reasons). he didn’t do that. instead, he held up what has been the Church’s teaching from the beginning, and when one reads what he said would be the results of allowing contraception, it’s eery how prophetic he was. for a brief look at this, go here: http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/popepaul.htm
or for the full doc, here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
(while i would recommend the whole thing, the section i am referencing is around section 17).
and, since we’re in this discussion, i wouldn’t think it would be a far stretch to argue that our sense of morality has been eroding for some time now, and that the current debate on homosexuality is directly related to what he wrote in that document (as it was not just a Church problem which he was addressing). but most don’t seem to realize it, nor to care, as we’re all in search of what we want, whatever it may be, when we want it. all the while, the ground which humans have built on for thousands of years is eroding out from under our feet.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:03
Kevin, when you say that “judges decided it what their realm to decide for the people”, you’re dead wrong.
It’s the people of California who decided that it was in the Judges realm to make such decisions–That’s the way we chose to write our State Constitution. Whether or not the judges actually made the right decision, they certainly had the AUTHORITY to do so. The entire focus of Proposition 8 is about whether or not to change our minds about granting that authority to judges.
I also think you fail to understand what “freedom” or “rights” means in the context of US secular law. Freedom explicitly does grant me the right to “do what I want”, even if I’m not doing “what I should”. That’s why, for example, The KKK has a right to march through Washington proclaiming the inferiority of Jews and Black people.
Finally, I’m just want to agree with your assertion that gay people don’t have to act on their attractions. But I have to ask–why should gay people be held to a higher standard than straight people in this regard? According to the Bible, celibacy is the truest path (I Cor 7:1, 7:8). What is it about straight people that they should be excepted from this standard while gay people are held to it?
One final point, in closing. If you ever find yourself defending the Inquisition, then it might be a good Idea to stop, take a breath, and reassess your priorities.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:10
Andy, Kevin, etc.
For a moment, forget Proposition 8. Forget that it addresses gay marriage.
Please explain why it is wrong for a corporation to support the ethical position that it is wrong to legislate away individual freedoms.
Let’s take an example. Say there was a constitutional amendment to remove the right to free speech, say freedom of the press. Would it be wrong for Google to speak out against that?
Back to Proposition 8. Its title is “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry”. It’s there in the title – it is about removing rights from a sub-group, a minority group! For the last time, it is not a “social issue”, whatever that is.
As it is a civil rights issue, I would argue that Google have an obligation to support freedoms that is not diminished by their size and stature, but actually magnified.
For despite kevin’s assertions, an individual’s sexuality is an intrinsic part of what makes them, and it would be as easy for them to change their sexuality or desire to act upon that as it would be for you to do the reverse.
Suggesting that the onus should be upon homosexuals to change their identity and intrinsic desires to fit in with mainstream society is nauseatingly naive and hypocritical. For while individuals are able (in the USA) to change their religion through conviction, individual effort and application, it is absolutely inconceivable that an amendment would be proposed removing Jew’s right to marry, or African american’s right to marry, with its proponents relying on the suggestion that Jewish people ‘stop being Jewish’, or African-americans ‘stop being African-American’.
Being the beacon on the hill for democracy means accepting diversity and respecting others individual beliefs and values. Civil rights and individual freedoms are a natural extension of this.
Homosexuals remain a minority under active discrimination, and their pursuit of equal recognition of their value as individuals and members of society is one of the most important human rights issues in the early 21st Century. Their simple request for equal treatment under the law does not affect others’ rights or access to the law. It is not a zero-sum game.
We do not tolerate organisations practicing segregation, slavery or sex discrimination. Were they to publicly endorse such a position, we would explain to them which century we are living in.
So can someone please explain why is it wrong for Google to express its solidarity with the continuation of the civil rights movements amongst this discriminated minority?
Would that IBM or BMW had taken such an enlightened view in the 1930s and 1940s. Can their action (or lack of action) be justified now, or even then?
Occasionally, corporations have the opportunity or the obligation to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard than the status quo. They then open themselves up to criticism, both from those that hold an alternate view (e.g. the entire Nazi Party) as well as the slippery ethical relativists who hold that organisations should not express an point of view on issues outside of their operational business.
But none of this criticism reduces the clarity of the ethical issue. And if the moral and ethnical point is as clear as it is here, I would argue that history would treat them unkindly for not speaking up.
The proposition itself is designed (quite cynically, I might add) to drive a wedge between political persuasions, and drive a greater turnout for a particular candidate . It is a poor reflection on a mature western civilisation, and we should be enquiring on the political motivations behind its proponents.
We should demand better than this from our government. Cynical political games that ostracise minority groups is beneath the world’s greatest democracy.
K
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:30
– ok, i didn’t realize that that was even an option for a state constitution to change (for judges to legislate), but i’m not going to pretend that i know any better, because i don’t.
– freedom never grants you the right to do what you want. that’s a dangerous statement. if i had the freedom to do what i want, then i could kill people at random with no repercussions. there are limits to freedom, as even can be seen in your example (especially in contrast to what i have just written). freedom, in its truest sense (which “secular” freedom should be based on, if it is to be _truly_ free), will always be to do what we should, because what we should do is conform to the way things are, to reality, to the truth.
– who ever said that straight people are an exception to what i wrote? i even said that there are millions of them who choose this path in their daily lives, and do so faithfully. if you’re referring to promiscuity amongst straight people, then i would disagree with it as morally right as well (on a different level, because it is a different moral question, but all the same).
– i don’t think i so much defended the inquisition as defended what the inquisition really was from something that it was not. in light of the practices of the day (something which reid appears to be ignorant of), one can recognize that the points that i raised are valid as to be praiseworthy in the culture of the time. how uncommon was it for people to be tortured for treason? and in what ways? i cannot remember the exact count, but i want to say it was around or below 50 people (over several _hundred_ years – i mean, look through the history of the time and tell me how microscopic that number is in its contemporary context) that were killed by the inquisition by the Church’s officials. and then you cannot just take our mindset and push it onto theirs. whether we like it or not, this is how people were treated back then, and the point that i was making was simply demonstrating that the Church adopted a position that was _very_ merciful to those who were tried (as their position was to have them give up heretical beliefs [which they could see more clearly than we can at this time had devastating effects on their civilization]) and wanted to bring them back in, not to kill them. and i daresay, from my limited study of this situation, did what She could to refrain from resorting to this measure, even so far as to creating unheard of defense lawyers, etc., that i mentioned before. now (anticipating a response in this area…) what’s more difficult for your non- or anti-Catholic to discern is that not everybody at that time who was carrying out these inquisitions necessarily had the mind of the Church at heart. some of them, from what i understand, were simply sadists. but the problem for me comes in when the Church is blamed as a whole for the actions of a few who weren’t even acting in line with the Church.
asking for someone to present actual history (or silence) rather than inflammatory and provocative words which hold no weight in historical study is fair, i think, and especially so when the historical fluff is linked to a modern piece of fluff that associates the Catholic Church with victimizing active homosexuals. these kind of statements come from someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, but who knows a nice and inflammatory catchphrase (that many people also believe to be true), and throws it out there for who knows what. crowd advantage?
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:59
karl on rights: i think that we have a different understanding of rights.
karl on sexuality: thanks for letting me know that that’s how things really are; could you provide an argument? their sexuality is male or female. their attractions may be to the other or the same sex. attractions, i’m sorry to repeat, can be controlled just as easily (or toughly) as i can refrain from being with someone i want to be with, or from smoking a cigarette, or if i’m an alcoholic, not going after that one shot. if not, then are you declaring another human to be incompetent to control himself? wouldn’t that mean that he’s inferior to someone who can? this could go in dangerous directions.
karl on naive: i never said to change them (though i have heard that some people have changed their orientation through therapy); i am saying that, like the rest of us rational creatures, who experience desires (some good, some bad) just as well as them, they can control them just as well as anyone else.
karl on race: as i said to reid earlier, race and active homosexuality are completely different (especially as moral questions, but so far in the comments of this blog i get the sense that this is not so much a part of the picture. erosion?). how can you compare them?
karl on beaconhood: that is simply cultural relativism. acceptance and difference of beliefs only works up to a point. we can all have a different name or tradition for the color of a stop sign, but in order for traffic laws to work as they should, we all have to stop at the stop sign. when it comes to infringing on morality, especially when one (or the whole society) is harmed by it, we come to realize that there are objective norms which cannot be changed because that is the way things are, that is reality. murder is an example of this.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:24
Kevin:
It follows that defending the Inquisition is a part of the lexicon of someone so oblivious to the evil of subjugating members of our society to special forms of discrimination and marginalization. You cited the teaching of the Catholic Church as authority for the idea that homosexuals are somehow inferior and worthy of being singled out. After all, you argue, they don’t have to be themselves. They can pretend to be someone else. You cite for example the Roman Catholic clergy, which in theory has committed to a life of celibacy. Recent history tells us how successful that commitment has been. In fact, the unfortunate legacy of celibacy and, to some extent, the denial of homosexuality, among RC clergy, has left in its wake the tragedy of shattered lives and, taken all by itself, calls your theory of self denial into serious question. All of that aside, though, what you’re missing is that celibate clergy make a decision to be celibate. It is not thrust upon them by a disapproving public. In contrast, if I’m understanding your argument, you and people who share your opinions have evidently been called upon to make that decision for homosexuals, having been somehow called upon to exercise the judgment I thought was reserved for God alone. You find it somehow distasteful, ergo God wants them to stop, I guess.
Defense of the Inquisition is best accomplished by accusing its detractors of not understanding or of being ignorant, evidently. The facts speak for themselves; in an effort to eliminate opposition to its religious and political views, the Catholic Church dispatched tribunals throughout Europe whose sole purpose was to make an example of those who did not conform to its doctrine. There was no humane treatment of defendants. And to state that 50 people were killed is similar to saying that the Holocaust didn’t exist. It’s an extraordinary position for you to take, and of course opinion on my ignorance is one of the tools that you need to get there. Convictions were obtained generally through rumor and innuendo, and the accused were rarely even allowed to hear the charges against them, much less to confront their accusers. Mass executions were public and dramatic, and specifically designed to terrorize the masses into submission. The Inquisition lasted from the 12th Century to the 19th Century and claimed a vast number of victims. In 8 of those 700 years alone, under the Grand Inquisitor Torquenada, over 700 people were burned in Spain, with thousand of others suffering other dreadful punishment. And he was only one of many, and that was only 8 years of the Inquisition, and only in one place. That’s what happened, Kevin, and even the RC hierarchy has acknowledged this and apologized for it. You alone seem to find it reasonable, and perhaps even somehow noble. Why are we even having this conversation?
As for your Anne Coulterish statement that controversy still rages over whether homosexuality is a choice, I can categorically respond that there is no such controversy in the scientific or psychiatric community, where every major organization without exception has acknowledged that there is no choice and that attempts to alter this essential aspect of a person’s makeup will result in psychological trauma. Controversy may still rage in the same circles that claim that dinosaurs shared the earth with man as recently as 4,000 years ago, but other than the lunatic fringe, it’s an issue that’s been settled.
Your last message to me dramatically illustrates why we need courts and a constitution. The fact that you think homosexuals and the behavior that is natural to them is somehow offensive does not form a rational, moral or legal basis for discrimination against them, including the cruel discrimination of forcing them to deny their true selves in order to satisfy your sensibilities. The majority does not rule on such issues, a basic precept of constitutional law. You don’t get to gather your friends together and decide that you don’t like some group of your fellow humans and impose on them your standards for how they ought to behave. It’s unconstitutional, and courts are responsible for the noble but sometimes lonely task of telling you that you can’t do it. It’s the beautiful thing about the American system of government that conservatives have forgotten about. We have a government with three branches, which our founding fathers in their incredible wisdom empowered to exercise checks and balances over each other. The chief duty of the judicial branch is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from usurping the rights of the minority.
One final comment. Proposition 8 is dramatically behind in the polls. It seems that my neighbors here in California have little tolerance for the sort of discrimination that you advocate.
Reid
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:54
kevin:
It is apparent that you hold some fundamentally different opinions on what consititutes a human right. I would place respect of individual diversity, and freedom from discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender and sexual orientation as being equivalent, but apparently you wouldn’t.
I have clearly shown that this is a ethical issue, of using a law to remove a civil right from a minority. It’s in the title of the bill.
I take it that you wouldn’t support a law that took away the freedom of the press? But as soon as it is about ‘different’ people, people with whom your moral-religious complex disagrees, you are quite happy to deny their rights to self-expression and societal inclusion. The weasel words of “civil union” is a way of excluding them, making them second-class citizens, not worthy of the rights of the majority, and is beneath contempt.
Imagine you were denied marriage because your eyes were blue, but were allowed to have a ‘civil licence’ with your partner? Or because you were Jewish, you could only have a ‘jewish marriage’. Perhaps we could arrange a yellow star to wear so that we’d know who were married, and who were just in a ‘concubine’ relationship. Contemptible.
It is also apparent that you have little to no experience with people of a different sexual orientation to yourself.
Consider if heterosexuals were in the minority, and the onus was upon them to ‘restrain’ themselves. How happy would you be about that? Never able to feel comfortable in your own skin, and enjoy the intimacy of love with someone you are attracted to. How fulfilling would your life be?
Homosexuals have as much right to self-expression as any other human being. If that swings your cat, and you’re not hurting anyone, and not breaking any laws, then I have no right to moderate your behaviour. Consenting adults and all that jazz.
Race is absolutely a valid connection to make – both it and homosexuality are chosen for you in your genes before you are born, are something that you are unable to change yourself, and are the basis for discrimination by the society you are born into.
We used to outlaw inter-racial marriage, citing ‘confusion’ by children born into these relationships, the ‘damage’ to society’s good order, and the ‘moral’ affront to god. Couples were harrassed, outcast, and at the worst, physically abused. The arguments were, of course, ridiculous, and the laws were dismantled. Same-sex marriages are right now receiving the same ridiculous religious-moral verbage.
I couldn’t disagree with your view on ‘freedom to a point’ more. This argument (if rational, and the stop-sign analogy is laughably irrelevant) could have easily defeated the greatest advances of the 20th Century – the civil rights movement, womens’ suffrage, interracial marriage, and so on.
Recognising equality of same-sex marriage does absolutely nothing to reduce the rights of heterosexual marriage. Absolutely nothing, just as womens suffrage did nothing to reduce the voting rights of men.
Proposition 8 explicitly removes the rights of your fellow American citizens to celebrate their love and have it recognised from a legal and financial nature for no good reason outside of quasi religious-moral hogwash.
You are advocating a law that would rescind their marriage, removing rights from another American, simply because it doesn’t fit with your ‘moral-religous’ view.
That seems to me to be the very definition of un-American.
K.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:59
Kevin, I never suggested that judges have the ability to make legislation. What they do have, whether at the state or federal level, is the ability (in fact, the obligation) to strike down laws that they find to be inconsistent with the constitution. Because the majority of California’s court found laws that banned gays from marrying to be unconstitutional, they struck them down.
Freedom does, in fact grant you the right to do what you want, when you want. You can’t kill a random person without repercussions in America because America doesn’t grant or recognize freedom to murder. We do, however, grant the freedom to speak (including the freedom to say evil things) and the freedom to worship (including the freedom to worship false gods). We grant the freedom to vote (including the freedom to vote for the wrong candidate). And in California Freedom to marry is held as a right of the people, of equal importance to speech, religion, and suffrage. Such a freedom by its very nature must include the freedom to marry the wrong people.
(And please note, I use the term “secular freedom” to distinguish my concept of freedom from that of “Calvinist freedom” which denies the freedom to make contrary choices–a position you seem to take. But I’d certainly argue that my version is certainly closer to freedom in its truest sense, and conforms more closely to things as they are. After all, God has clearly given us freedom to murder even if America has not–If he hadn’t murder wouldn’t exist in the first place)
And no, I’m not asking you to defend promiscuity among straight people. I’m asking you to defend MARRIAGE among straight people–after all, the bible clearly states that marriage is inferior to celibacy (I Cor 7). If our laws deny marriage to gay people because homosexual sex is wrong, then why should they not deny marriage to straight people because heterosexual sex is wrong?
And finally, It’s the height of hypocrisy to accuse Karl of cultural relativism when you take the position that Brin is wrong to support Prop 8 because he’s not sufficiently respecting the views of his anti-gay employees. Do you even understand what the term “relativism” means? Or are you just parroting someone else’s conservative diatribe?
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:06
Reid:
Your point on the role of the Courts is absolutely on the mark – I am grateful for the considered opinion of our judicial branch, and their vital role in stabilising the ship in the winds of political partisanship and point-scoring.
It is also incredible to observe the foresight of the founding fathers in their ability to set aside their white, predominantly Christian perspective and see something that surpasses politics and religion, and establish a mechanism for maintaining true freedom. It ain’t perfect, but it is demonstrably better than any of the alternatives. A self-righting system that balances the will of the majority, political populism and opportunism, and the rights and freedoms of the individuals and minorities. A thing of rare beauty.
It is almost inconceivable to see this happening today.
K.
October 3rd, 2008 at 1:48
i have been realizing, and am now at the point that i can no longer carry on this conversation as my personal obligations are too much to continue on. so, i will leave with some concluding responses and remarks and let it be.
reid:
– as i recall, i never cited teachings of the Catholic Church other than to say that some people should actually learn what they are before flashing out comments such as hate crimes (which you still continue on with, with no support) please back this up.
– also, i anticipated (even in my post) that you would reference pedophilia in celibate clergy. but, what i clearly said is this is simply not true for the _majority_ of people (non-priests included) who _choose_ a life of celibacy. statistically, the number of priests in the US alone is (while it can never be justified) minute. and, as you made mention of, of that number of that minority, 81% of the cases were of homosexual nature, not pedophilia. – and i also clearly made the case that it is a choice that we can all make, as we are all capable of self-possession (unless you would like to deny that, which i alluded to in my previous post).
– your arguments on the inquisition are vague and convoluted enough to be ignored. you don’t even mention of those people who were killed, was it done by the Church, or the state? do you distinguish? do you pay attention to the distinctions which i have made more than once? and, if my vague memory that the number of people executed _by Church officials_ was around 50 is absurd, then your catchphrase of millions is ludicrous. how many people were living in that area at that time? which brings to light another question (i have a friend who is doing a research paper on this very subject) which i asked before: how many inquisitors were there? would the number 7 ring a bell? 7 people covering what would be a good portion of europe, on foot or horse, killed millions of people? come on. and, while i’m relying on the research of my friend, pope john paul ii apologized for the actions of the past, and soon thereafter had a committee (because he didn’t know the full implications of what he was apologizing for) search through the vatican archives which unloaded a lot of the history, discovering some of the things which i have been telling to you. not that you should trust the history that came from the vatican though, right?
karl:
– what i have been leading to with “rights” is that they’re only “rights” insofar as they correspond to the truth. (which i said in my first response but preferred the term “freedom” instead). would it make sense to have a “right” to fly (as a bird does)? it is my position that, relying simply on the way things are, the way things have been (how we got here in the first place), we cannot call something a right which, by reflection on history and human nature, is not _true_ as regards who we _are_.
– and, while i’m thinking about it, everyone seems to think as if people with homosexual tendencies are the only ones who are troubled with some form of personal suffering. we all have personal suffering that we all have to deal with. some people have normal sufferings, some people are disabled in some form or fashion. but, you don’t see them requiring a right to have their arm back, for example. but they live with it and they deal with it, even if they don’t want to. i mean, it sucks, it is painful, but all we can do is live with our sufferings and get through them as best we can.
– and your assumption that i don’t know anyone that is actively homosexual (or even someone that has come past being an active homosexual) is out of place and in error.
– if heterosexuals were in the minority in your case, our race would end. i don’t see too many homosexual relationships producing children, do you? and why does there have to be sexual intimacy in order for there to be intimacy?
– i don’t think the gene argument holds up. how many times do you see news articles that blame all kinds of things on “genetic discoveries”. as far as i am aware, and held before, there is still dispute about the origins of homosexuality, and i think it is on all of you who rely on genetic “i’m not responsible for my actions” arguments to prove it.
– other important questions to ask, and that we will likely disagree on: what is marriage? what is (are) the purpose(s) of marriage? what has it been throughout human history? is a homosexual “marriage” really marriage as understood by the previous questions? and if rights/freedom are based on truth, and active homosexuality is a “lie” (though like i said before, i am reluctant to believe that many people defending your position will consider this, as morality appears to be either relative or “eroded”) about human nature (from one to another and from there to society as a whole), about who we are (_all_ of us with _all_ of our problems), then why would someone, understanding this to be a lie, accept it?
alan:
– it would seem to me that these same freedoms have some sort of basis. like isn’t there something objectively wrong (in every culture, in every time) about killing an innocent human being? that is where the law comes from. it’s not because we’re not free to do it, but because it too is based on objective morality.
– i’d be curious to know where you got the idea from me that people aren’t capable of making free bad choices? i mean, it is quite apparent that i’ve been arguing such the whole time.
– well, read the rest of st. paul’s letters and you’ll see just as many praises for marriage. he didn’t say that it was the only way. he said he would prefer if all would follow him, and praised marriage very highly in many of his writings.
– what kind of logic is that? who ever said that heterosexual sex is wrong? st. paul surely didn’t. and if you’re relying on one passage in neglect of the rest of Scripture, then i’ll let you suffer from your own mistake. it’s a whole book, not a proof-text reference.
– i’d likewise like to know your definition of relativism. i never said that i agreed with all of the views of the employees of google, and that all of their opinions were the same and didn’t matter anyway, because _there is no objective truth_. so it’s quite a stretch for you to accuse me of it. brin’s problem is that he _used_ the diversity as a preface (as if he respected the opinions of those who oppose him) to then push his own agenda. so i accused him of being inauthentic, and not relativistic; though i wouldn’t be hesitant to think so of him.
– had i been promoting relativism, it would never have mattered to me what the opinions of the others were, nor would i have wasted my time posting, because what one thinks and believes to be true has no grounding in reality and therefore is unimportant, so each person has their “own truth”. and, after all, who am i to impose “my” truth on someone else? right?
– so, sorry that whole hypocrisy thing didn’t work out for you. maybe try reading what i actually wrote.
– “anti-gay employees,” hah. couldn’t have been something like, people who oppose gay unions (with or without good reason). just a bunch of haters, those anti-gays.
in the end, the question is one of morals, which doesn’t have to be linked to any faith. what we are talking about is simply a matter of looking at reality, saying this is how things are, this is how things have been, and there are certain moral choices that conflict with the way that things are for proper human flourishing. what most of you fail to see (and you will no doubt hold the inverted position from me) is that there _is_ something in active homosexuality that denies (or lies about) who we are as humans. although i cannot say that many people ever get that far in their thought, because it simply remains at the level of “i am attracted, therefore i must act on it” which is simply not the the whole story. we _all_ have the capability to control our passions in any variety of decisions which range from moral neutrality to moral goodness to moral corruption. we do not have to submit to it. to say that we do is only denying the dignity of the human person and the capability to have self-possession. and when you degrade this aspect, just watch (or not notice, whichever) the ability of the human to flourish (because we only do so in acknowledgment of reality) erode. if i’m not responsible for my actions here, then i can’t claim self-control here, and if not there, then somewhere else. where will it stop? this is precisely where humanae vitae’s foresight of moral degradation is right on the mark.
it was a pleasure and an occasional pain to argue with you all. but, as i said at the beginning of what is surely a monstrous post, i don’t have the time to continue this discussion anymore, though i would like to.
October 3rd, 2008 at 4:24
ok, i swear this is my last post. i just thought this link was interesting as regards my point (of _inauthenticity_) about brin:
http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/brins-royal-we/
the end
October 3rd, 2008 at 6:38
Kevin:
Your final incoherent diatribe may signal the end of this debate for you, who can now return to whatever snugly life life you lead when not moonlighting as arbiter of social relativism, secure in your belief that you have laid to rest all of the issues of science, religion, history, morality, philosophy, psychiatry, civics, constitutional law and sociology that more serious minded (and open minded) people have raised on this page. Like your ecclesiastic forebears, you have conclusively decided all of these issues for all of us. For which, I suppose, we ought to be grateful, given the pesky and imprecise process that most of us have to go have to go through to develop our own systems of values and belief.
There’s just one little problem with it. You are narrow-mindedly wrong and oblivious to the truth at pretty much every turn. But that’s OK, as you point out, because as you’ve laid out persistently in your tired arguments, such as clerical celibacy being a model of conduct for homosexuals, you acknowledged that a thinking person will raise the obvious weaknesses in your simplistic views. Oh, I get it. If you knew I was going to respond when you originally said it, the response doesn’t really count. Because you knew your argument was weak when you made it. I guess.
Much more importantly, though, as you declare this chapter of human struggle to be concluded, is that it is not concluded for those for whom it is a fact of life, as opposed to a pedantic exercise. As you sleep soundly tonight, secure in the knowledge that you’ve gone out on a limb, and having been criticized by most everyone here for having done it, to support a position that you have judged to be the moral high ground, others will sleep fitfully trying to figure out if God really made a horrible mistake when he made them the people that they are. Some of those people will endure that torment because they make the mistake of listening to people like you.
One thing upon which we agree is that in the end, this is an issue of morality. You state without support that homosexuality is immoral. I respond that it is you and people like you who are immoral, adding, without reservation, that he who takes it upon himself to judge his fellow man during this life will be judged very harshly in the next. What audacity to decide that God fucked up when He made 10% of the people on this earth, and to conclude that they can atone for His error by denying who they are and pretending to be someone else. I have neither the nerve nor the desire to defy God’s plan for me, and I wouldn’t think that gays or lesbians would feel any differently. Do you suggest that we all just remake ourselves in your image? Is God’s real plan that we all force ourselves to become robotic Kevins, roaming around aimlessly judging each other until we all fall over from the sheer idiocy of it? I don’t think so.
So I’m going to have to reject you and stick with the moral code that feels right to me. Thankfully you and your fanatic monk followers no longer have a mandate to burn me at the stake for disagreeing with you; I would be reluctant to become the 51st victim of the Inquisition.
Kevin, I want to leave you with one final thought, although I understand that you are far too busy for all of this nonsense. The Catholic Inquisition was never actually disbanded, and there have been far, far more than 7 Inquisitors as you inexplicably suggest. In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the current name of the Inquisition, whose charge in the Roman Catholic Church has gone virtually unchanged for 9 centuries. The most recent prefect of the CDF, often referred to as the Grand Inquisitor, in the proud tradition of Torquemada, was none other than Josef Ratzinger. The more the Catholic Church seems to change, the more it really doesn’t. That’s why we have all these unruly protestants everywhere.
Reid
October 3rd, 2008 at 7:16
kevin:
I am at a loss to make sense of your arguments. They are neither coherent, nor based in fact outside of a bizzare parallel universe where rights are equivalent to wishes and individuals told what to feel or do, yet it is still held to be ‘freedom’.
You seem to be reaching for a universal “truth” as the source of morality, and then base all judgements on your unique understanding of this truth. Only your interpretation of truth is acceptable – all others are deviant.
This, my friend, is called fundamentalism, and is (in my opinion) a dangerous path as it condemns every single person holding even a slightly different view to the out-group. Ostracism of the out-group is easily justified.
As the ‘rules’ of the in-group are more and more specifically defined through theological and philosophical argument, the in-group becomes smaller and smaller as more and more people are found to be ‘deviant’.
Eventually the group shrinks to a core set of hardline believers, convinced the rest of the world is ‘evil’ and must be changed to conform to their view of right and wrong.
Inevitably, followers are encouraged to disconnect themselves from external opinion and information, as it threatens their worldview, their rationale and philosophy.
And in the most extreme examples, the isolation becomes physical.
The alternate worldview is to accept difference in others, to seek to understand their diversity, and respect their rights insofar as they do not infringe upon others’ ability to exercise their freedoms within the law.
And that group is getting larger and larger each day.
Oh, and if you truly have personal relationships with gay and/or lesbian friends, ask them how Proposition 8 will affect them, and how they feel about having their rights removed through this law. Explain to them how their exercising of marriage threatens yours. Tell them that your moral code requires them to change who they are, and restrain themselves if they can’t. Slip in that line about them imitating the good example of celibacy of priests and nuns.
Ask them whether passing Proposition 8 would make them feel more or less a part of Californian society. I mean, after all, they could just marry an opposite-sex person and remain secretly gay (as long as they don’t act on it, of course). See if they can understand this as a reasonable request on behalf of of your moral code.
Thanks for the link to that blog. If you read the comments – the first post had a rather simple explanation of why civil unions are a poor cousin to marriage, and a total diversion from the issue of equality:
“Go to a hospital and want to visit your civil union partner? You’ll be denied. Need to make a life or death decision for your civil union partner? You can’t. Its illegal. When your civil union partner dies who inherits their assets and responsibilities? Not you, thats for sure.”
“Yes it is -possible- to make the bazillion individual legal arrangements for all of the above to happen. But it is extremely difficult, costly and not widely recognized or verifiable in an emergency and requires a ton of paperwork that most people when presented with can not and will never understand. Do you carry your marriage license with you at all times? I didn’t think so. Marriage is widely understood and the legal framework exists to recognize it everywhere.”
Then ask yourself whether you can look at yourself in the mirror on November 5 having supported this bill.
K.