Stand to Reason Blog

Same-Sex Marriage Is the New Ideal

Continuing on the theme of yesterday’s post: Because our culture values equality, and because we (not believing in intrinsic human value anymore) think sameness is necessary for equality of value to exist, this also explains the anger many have towards the existence of gender roles in marriage. Why despise patriarchy? Because it entails one member of the marriage having a “higher” position than the other. If our value is determined by roles, and one role is deemed more valuable than the other, then the roles by nature are an expression of inequality. Equality can never exist as long as there are differences between “husband” and “wife.”

But it’s hard to deny the existence of natural gender roles when biological realities force those roles upon us. A woman gives birth, a woman nurses the child, a woman is naturally separated from the role of provider for a time. So in order to keep an equality of roles (since it’s believed equality of value depends on it), it’s argued that we need free contraception, abortion, child care, and whatever else can protect women from their unique womanly ability to have and raise children. They must be able to live their entire lives as men. That’s how equal value must be maintained in a society where intrinsic human value is rejected.

Now we come to the next step in this reasoning. If the highest ideal for marriage is sameness between the partners (not to mention barrenness), then it naturally follows that the new ideal is same-sex marriage. And in fact, I have seen articles that imply this. For example, this article from Slate argues that, unlike polygamy (which the writer considers to be a step backwards from the ideal due to increased inequality), same-sex marriage “builds upon and further strengthens the norm of spousal equality within marriage.” It does more than just “further strengthen” sameness. If sameness is the goal for marriage partners, then same-sex marriage embodies an ultimate sameness that opposite-sex marriage can never achieve, even though it strives for it.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has observed, marriage as it now exists is egalitarian: The spouses have become equal under law…. This is indeed a revolution in the law, and a recent one at that: Full spousal equality was achieved as a matter of law only in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, it is still a work in progress.

Marriage is only appealing to same-sex couples because marriage under our Constitution is now equal. As a union of equal spouses, marriage is very well suited to same-sex couples. And because the older pattern of gender-differentiated roles makes a lot less sense in same-sex marriages, the extension of marriage to gays entrenches its egalitarian aspect.

In other words, from a constitutional perspective that takes as its lodestar an ordered system of equal liberty, same-sex marriage is a very important but not a radical reform that builds on, extends, and further entrenches marriage’s egalitarian and constitutional character. This is why women’s groups have so long championed the cause of same-sex marriage. It is why patriarchal societies despise gay rights and know nothing of same-sex marriage.

It “further entrenches marriage’s egalitarian character” because it takes it a step further along the “historical trajectory” the writer claims marriage is on. It embodies what this Slate writer believes all marriages should aspire to—sameness. If sameness (what they call “equality”) is the ideal, then same-sex marriage is the ideal of the ideal. Gone are the differences between the sexes that might disturb that “equality,” the differences that result in fertility and its unequal demands on the two sexes, the differences that reality keeps forcing into our lives, disrupting our dream of sameness.

At the root of much of the craziness in our society today is the desire for equality. We have a deep human thirst for equality of value, but having removed its foundation, we have no way to ground it. Since we have denied the reality of God as the grounding of human equality, we must now deny many more obvious realities in order to enforce a cheaper equality of sameness.

This is the result of a secular worldview. Only within a worldview where God created us in His image can we affirm and celebrate both equal value and the diversity of reality.

When (and Why) Feminism Is Anti-Feminine

Alastair Roberts has a really interesting article at Mere Orthodoxy titled “Why We Should Jettison the ‘Strong Female Character,’” in which he argues that the current trend of strong female characters in pop culture, while attempting to be feminist, actually degrade the value of women and their femininity because they subtly teach a woman’s value lies in how well she succeeds in acting like a man.

The article is quite long, so here are a few of the relevant quotes to give you an overview (and hopefully inspire you to read the rest):

The female action heroines may have many relatable personal traits, interests, and concerns for the typical girl or woman—as I have already noted, few of these heroines are merely clumsy gender-switches of male characters. However, all too often, their prominence and the recognition of their importance in the narrative rests almost entirely upon the fact that they have in some crucial respects followed a typically male path, or that they exhibit relatively male tendencies, interests, and aptitudes in key areas. Their claim to strength and the stature of their personhood lies, less in the confident development and pursuit of determined and unapologetically womanly character—with the considerable scope that provides for resisting flat stereotypes—than in their capacity to prove themselves on men’s terms, as fighters who can excel at typical male interests and activities.

Were such characters rare or occasional exceptions, it could fairly be claimed that they serve to resist the closure of certain possibilities to women—a worthwhile end indeed. However, when they increasingly represent a norm among the most prominent female characters in popular culture, they cease to be a message of empowerment and become something closer to an indictment upon the natural strengths and tendencies of women relative to men as a sex….

The recurring characterization problems with such Strong Female Characters arise in no small measure from the struggle to show that men and women are interchangeable and can compete and cooperate with each other on the same terms. As I have already noted, this falsehood serves no one. It sets women up for frustration and failure as they have to justify their agency on men’s terms and it produces an embarrassment about male strengths that should be celebrated rather than stifled. It reflects a drive towards intense gender integration and de-differentiation in the wider world….

The fact that women’s stature as full agents is so consistently treated as contingent upon such things as their physical strength and combat skills, or upon the exaggerated weakness or their one-upping of the men that surround them, is a sign that, even though men may be increasingly stifled within it, women are operating in a realm that plays by men’s rules. The possibility of a world in which women are the weaker sex, yet can still attain to the stature and dignity of full agents and persons—the true counterparts and equals of men—seems to be, for the most part, beyond people’s imaginative grasp….

The problem also lies with the lack of female characters that teach men to respect women as women, not only to the extent that they can play to male strengths. Without denying that some women can and do effectively play to male strengths, they should not have to do so in order to be valued as full agents.

Roberts then explains how the Bible succeeds in showing the value of women in their full, unapologetic femininity. I encourage you to read what he says.

I’ve been thinking for a while about our culture’s push to make everyone and everything the same. We have confused equality with sameness—believing that equality can only result from sameness (and in this case, everyone must be the same as a man). I’m convinced this is a result of our society’s loss of belief in intrinsic human value. If we are all made in the image of God, then we are all equally intrinsically valuable, regardless of our traits and natural abilities. This means we can recognize and embrace our differences without fearing any loss of dignity and value. But if we deny intrinsic value, if we believe our value comes from the characteristics we express, then how will we argue that men and woman are equally valuable? The only way to get to equality, on that view, is to deny all differences.

And that is what our culture has been feverishly doing for a while now. The denial of differences doesn’t reflect reality, and it leads to a loss of appreciation for the diverse male and female traits, squeezing everyone into the same mold, but it’s the only bulwark against inequality of value a godless society can offer.

Surprise! Life Does Begin at Conception

It seems that sometimes, when it serves the story, the fact that life begins at conception is perfectly clear to both scientists and the media. Sarah Knapton, Science Editor at the UK Telegraph, writes in an article titled “Bright Flash of Light Marks Incredible Moment Life Begins When Sperm Meets Egg”:

Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film.

An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.

Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.

As I’ve explained before, as much as people say they deny the fact that life begins at conception, there really is no scientific controversy over when human life begins; the controversy is over when human life is valuable. Unfortunately, when people use the word “life” in this context to mean only what they consider to be valuable human life, they quietly smuggle this crucial distinction out of their claim via the misuse of language, thereby covering up the claim they’re really making—that is, the claim that some human life isn’t valuable.

I’m convinced there are many people who don’t realize they’re doing this—better to convince yourself there really is no human life at conception than to recognize it and then have to justify killing that human life. I don’t think people want to admit the distasteful truth to themselves that they’re dividing human beings into two groups: those whose lives we respect and those we don’t (a move that has never ended well for human rights—see here, here, and here for more on this). This article at least blows the smoke away from the issue.

In truth, though, the article is bad news. Listen to how they intend to use this information:

Researchers from Northwestern University, in Chicago, noticed that some of the eggs burn brighter than others, showing that they are more likely to produce a healthy baby.

The discovery could help fertility doctors pick the best fertilised eggs to transfer during in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

In other words, they’re planning to use this knowledge to aid in their eugenics (see here and here for more on the eugenics of our day)—creating many new human lives (as the science editor above affirms) and then implanting those that display the brightest light while disposing of the rest.

Links Mentioned on the 4/27/16 Show

The following is a rundown of today's podcast, annotated with links that were either mentioned on the show or inspired by it:

Commentary: Consideration, Gender Identity, and Bathrooms (0:00)

• Target, Transgender, and the Use of Bathrooms and Fitting Rooms (Video) by Alan Shlemon
• Ryan Anderson explains what the North Carolina bathroom law actually says: “The bill accomplishes two main objectives. First, it says that private schools, restaurants, stores, and businesses are free to establish whatever bathroom policies they’d like, but that access to government bathrooms will be determined primarily by biological sex. Second, it says that North Carolina will have one set of regulations for the entire state when it comes to employment and public accommodation, rather than additional piecemeal regulations city by city.”
• Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue by Amy Hall
• Federal Court: Schools May Not Provide Separate Bathrooms Based on Biology by Ryan Anderson
• Slate: Don't Let the Doctor Assign a Gender to Your Newborn by Amy Hall
• Transgenderism Fragments the Human Person by Amy Hall (Quoting Nancy Pearcey)
• University of Toronto Alters Bathroom Policy after Two Reports of Voyeurism by Ramisha Farooq
• Discrimination Is Legitimate when the Distinction Is Relevant by Amy Hall

Questions:

– Announcements:

• Upcoming events with STR speakers 

1. Were the people with demons Jesus cast out really mentally ill? (0:51)

2. How do you evaluate compatibility for marriage? (0:53)

• Finding the Love of Your Life by Neil Clark Warren

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To take part in the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–6:00 p.m. PT), follow @STRtweets and use the hashtag #STRtalk.

How Neuroscience Points to Dualism

Michael Egnor has a fascinating post on neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s evidence-based conversion from materialism to dualism:

Penfield began his career as a materialist, convinced that the mind was wholly a product of the brain. He finished his career as an emphatic dualist.

During surgery, Penfield observed that patients had a variable but limited response to brain stimulation. Sometimes the stimulation would cause a seizure or evoke a sensation, a perception, movement of muscles, a memory, or even a vivid emotion. Yet Penfield noticed that brain stimulation never evoked abstract thought….

Penfield noted that intellectual function – abstract thought – could only be switched off by brain stimulation or a seizure, but it could never be switched on in like manner. The brain was necessary for abstract thought, normally, but it was not sufficient for it. Abstract thought was something other than merely a process of the brain….

Furthermore, Penfield noted that patients were always aware that the sensation, memory, etc., evoked by brain stimulation was done to them, but not by them. Penfield found that patients retained a “third person” perspective on mental events evoked by brain stimulation. There was always a “mind” that was independent of cortical stimulation.

It’s worth reading the rest of the post to see the relevant quotes from Penfield himself.

If I Believe Abortion Is Murder, Why Don't I Say That?

After speaking on abortion at a recent event, a Christian man asked me why I didn't say, "Abortion is murder." For the record, I did state that abortion kills an innocent human being, that it's wrong, and that it should be illegal. It's true, though, I never used the word "murder," even though I believe abortion is a type of murder.

When I teach on abortion, I'm not merely conveying facts or giving a motivational speech. I'm trying to train my audience in the art of pro-life persuasion. In other words, I'm teaching pro-lifers how to convince others of the pro-life view. In order to do that effectively, one must understand abortion-choice advocates, their thinking, and how they might respond to what we say.

Simply saying abortion is murder might be personally satisfying and get you high fives from other pro-lifers, but it isn’t likely to help a person move towards the pro-life view. They may not believe the unborn is a human being or that she has the same right to life. Therefore, the claim that abortion is murder skips a few logical steps.

For example, imagine an atheist tells you, “Christianity is a fairy tale.” Obviously that wouldn’t be persuasive, but you definitely wouldn’t think his statement was reasonable because it came out of the blue. There were no logical steps that led to that conclusion. Their statement assumes that Christianity is false, but they haven’t shown that to be the case. In that situation, you might be unwilling to continue the conversation. If they want to claim Christianity is a fairy tale, they have to first give reasons why Christianity is false.

In the same way, pro-lifers must first show that the unborn is a human being and that abortion kills that being before they can claim it’s murder. Jumping to the rhetorically explosive claim (from the perspective of someone who favors abortion) that abortion is murder is more likely to shut down their willingness to dialogue.

The same is true when referring to abortion as a holocaust. Between pro-lifers, we can all agree that the 50+ million innocent human beings killed through abortion is a holocaust. People not persuaded by the pro-life view, though, don’t see it that way. To them, it sounds like an unjustified claim. If we want to say abortion is a holocaust, we should first show that abortion kills an innocent human being and present data that indicates how many abortions have occurred in a particular time period. If they believe your evidence, then taking the next step by claiming abortion is a holocaust will be more believable.

Again, I think abortion is murder and believe its legalization has resulted in a holocaust. When I’m training pro-lifers how to dialogue with people who aren’t pro-life, though, I usually teach them not to use terminology that will alienate our friends who disagree.

Shattering the Icons of Evolution – Live Event Tonight

Tonight’s the night! Join me right here, on Google+, or on YouTube at 6:30 p.m. (PT) to see the live video feed of “Shattering the Icons of Evolution.” I’ll be talking about how to recognize and respond to the different categories that arguments for macroevolution fall into: exaggerated extrapolations, egregious errors, and equivocal evidence.

(Don’t worry if you can’t watch it live. After tonight, you’ll be able to watch the video here anytime.)

What Did Jesus Mean When He Said to Love Your Enemy?

Alan explains what Jesus meant when he said to love your enemy and how that relates to governments protecting citizens.

 

We Perceive the Moral Reality around Us

In Brett’s monthly letter, he points out the similarity between our ability to perceive (and have knowledge of) moral reality and our ability to perceive physical reality:

[T]he idea of self-evident moral truths represents the ground floor of moral reasoning. Such truths are known to us by way of our moral intuitions. An intuition is a faculty of knowing. It’s a reflective way of seeing something. It’s a way of knowing that is immediate and direct. You see something, you reflect for a moment, and you simply come to see the truth of the matter….

To help students grasp this concept better, I compared their moral perception to their sense perception. Sight via the eyes is the faculty we use to see the physical reality around us. If a dog walks in front of me, I see it and know it exists. If you asked me how I know, I would respond, “Because I see it. It’s self-evident. I just see that dog walking in front of me.” If you asked me to prove it, I would simply point to the dog and say, “Look! It’s right there. Can’t you see it?” If you said, “No, I don’t see any dog,” I would conclude there is something wrong with your sense perception, that your eyesight is not working properly. However, I would not conclude that I was not actually seeing a dog.

In the same way, our moral intuitions are a faculty we use to “see” the moral reality around us. I see that torturing children for fun is wrong, or murder is wrong, or dishonesty is a vice, and thus apprehend moral truth. If you asked me how I know, I would respond, “Because I see it. It’s self-evident. I just see that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong.” If you asked me to prove it, I would simply point to the action of torturing young children and say, “Look! The truth is right there. Can’t you see it?” If you said, “No, I don’t think torturing babies for fun is wrong,” I would conclude there is something wrong with your moral perception. However, I would not conclude that it was not actually wrong to torture babies for the pure pleasure of it.

Read the rest here.

Target, Transgender, and the Use of Bathrooms and Fitting Rooms

Target recently stated: "We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. Everyone deserves to feel like they belong." Here are my quick thoughts about their comments and this question.