Same-Sex Arguments Further The Case For Incestuous Marriage

A commenter at Slate who supports same-sex marriage presents some arguments against incestuous marriage:

State has legitimate interest in preventing consanguination because it can lead to and propagate genetic diseases….

Incest often involves someone who can't give consent or is coerced into consent. State has an interest in preventing that.

Not all incestuous marriages would biologically produce children or not involve consent, so he has to use qualifiers like "often". But if we can withhold state recognition of incestuous marriage based on what would often result from those marriages, why can't we also distinguish between the opposite-sex relationship and the same-sex relationship based on the opposite-sex relationship's often biologically producing children? It seems to me that the common argument used by advocates of same-sex marriage - to the effect that biologically producing children can't be used to distinguish between the opposite-sex relationship and the same-sex relationship, because not all opposite-sex couples biologically produce children - is inconsistent with the arguments those same-sex marriage advocates commonly use against incestuous marriage. If opposite-sex relationships can only be defined by what's universally true of them, then shouldn't the same standard be applied to incestuous relationships? To be consistent, same-sex marriage advocates ought to abandon these arguments they've been using against incestuous marriage. On what grounds would they oppose incestuous marriage, then?

We base laws on generalities rather than universals in many contexts (what's generally the best speed limit for an area, etc.). From a practical standpoint, allowing all opposite-sex couples to marry is the most efficient way to handle the child-bearing issue. Elderly people sometimes have children, but usually don't. Since even elderly people have the potential to produce offspring, though usually only minimal potential, an efficient way to handle the child-bearing issue is to have the state recognize the marital relationship of all opposite-sex couples. It would be impractical to have the state doing things like giving people fertility tests to determine whether their relationship will be recognized by the state as a marriage. By contrast, there's nothing impractical about making the judgment that same-sex couples can't produce children. Even though elderly opposite-sex couples only have a minimal chance of producing offspring, that's still sufficient grounds on which to distinguish their relationship from a same-sex relationship.

Besides, biologically producing children isn't the only reason we have for distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. Opposite-sex relationships promote the unity of the genders in a way in which same-sex relationships can't, and we have good religious grounds for opposing same-sex relationships, for example. The child-bearing issue tends to get the most attention in these discussions, but it's not the only issue involved, and even that issue can't be dismissed as easily as same-sex marriage proponents suggest.

Ridiculous Comments On Same-Sex Weddings From Some Republicans

See here. As you read the comments from Marco Rubio and John Kasich, ask yourself how much sense their approach would make if applied to a different alternative to traditional marriage. Change the references to a same-sex wedding to something like a polygamous wedding, an incestuous one, a wedding between an adult and a child, or an opposite-sex marriage involving a groom you knew to be romantically involved with a woman other than the bride at the time of the wedding. What would you think of Rubio saying that a polyamorous sexual orientation isn't a choice for the "enormous majority" of polyamorists? They're born that way. Or what would you think of John Kasich and his wife speaking so approvingly of attending a wedding between a fifty-year-old man and his twenty-year-old daughter?

Even Ted Cruz is evasive. At least Rick Santorum took the right position and expressed it clearly and publically. He's unelectable as a presidential candidate, but his answer to the question is pleasing to God, can withstand scrutiny, will withstand the test of time, and is the most loving way to handle the situation.

How often will the media be asking Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates to respond to arguments against same-sex marriage? How often will they be asked if their reasoning about homosexuality and same-sex marriage is applicable to polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc.? If a Democrat like Hillary Clinton is asked such a question, will the question and the answer to it receive the same sort of prominent media attention as the Republican equivalents? No, because the allegedly non-partisan media in this country are dishonest, abusive, and unethical on many other levels.

Atheism, Adultery, Polyamory, And Shifting Morals

Richard Carrier has a post up announcing that he's "polyamorous", which he calls his "sexual orientation". He's been adulterous in his relationship with his wife, and they decided to get a divorce after having tried polyamory for a while. In the thread, he refers to how he has "sympathy for people who cheat on their spouses", how he's come across "many" polyamorists, and how he's become more convinced that "monogamy is the actual problem". So far, most of the responses at his blog are positive.

The Behavior Of Richard C. Miller, Author Of Resurrection And Reception In Early Christianity

Richard C. Miller has recently written a book arguing against a traditional Christian view of Jesus' resurrection. Miller has significant credentials, which you can read about at the Amazon page just linked. The book has been getting some attention in skeptical circles, such as in John Loftus' post here. Steve Hays recently wrote a response to it. On one of his Facebook accounts, Miller writes about his upcoming role at an International Society of Biblical Literature meeting later this year:

Deflategate Is Mostly About Entertainment, Not Morality

I have Google News set as my homepage, and the Deflategate story has been at or near the top day after day. I've seen the story getting prominent attention from the Drudge Report, USA Today, CNN, etc. Rush Limbaugh has been discussing it a lot on his radio program. There are a lot of threads about it, and those threads are getting a lot of comments at the web sites I've seen. That includes conservative political sites, where I'd expect the people involved to show more discernment. The story is getting an absurd amount of attention.

The Social Issues And The Electoral College

Here's an excerpt from a good post by Henry Olsen:

More Bad Consequences Of Same-Sex Marriage

Amy Hall has a good post about the effects of same-sex marriage on friendship.

Liberal Hatred And Liberal Priorities

David French, a lawyer who writes for National Review, recently commented:

"I’ve defended Christian campus groups from exactly these kinds of policies for more than 14 years (representing a number of groups, including some impacted by Cal State’s policies), and in that time I’ve heard just about every excuse imaginable for excluding Christian groups from campus. In reality, however, universities are motivated by malice. They hate the Christian message, often despise its messengers, and have literally been casting about for more than 30 years for the right legal argument to exclude the Christian voice from campus."

Philip Bump writes in the Washington Post about a recent study that confirms something that's been found by other studies:

"Of the states that gave the most to charity in 2012, the top 17 all voted for Mitt Romney that year. The bottom seven states in giving all voted for Obama....Religious people give more to charity. And in its annual assessment of the nation's religiosity, Gallup reveals that the states at the top of the giving list -- Utah, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee -- are also at the top in terms of religious devotion."

Be Prepared To Address Polygamy

Polygamy has been in the news lately. As the polygamist movement gains more legal victories and advances in other segments of our culture, we'll have to address the issue more than we have in the past. How prepared are you to do that? Here's an article I wrote several years ago about the Biblical and patristic evidence against polygamy. (I interact with some defenders of polygamy in the comments section of the thread.) And here's an article Matthew Schultz wrote about polygamy and the Bible. I've written some posts about mistakes Christians and their allies have made in the dispute over same-sex marriage, and it's important that we avoid those mistakes when addressing polygamy. See, for example, here, here, and here.

American Pastors Silent On Controversial Issues

See Jim West's post here on a recent Barna study. Contrary to what's often suggested, pastors typically avoid controversial issues like abortion and same-sex marriage rather than saying a lot about those subjects. As I've said before, the claim that churches focus too much on such issues, are overly political, etc. seems to often be a dishonest excuse used by people who rarely or never attend church. They're trying to come up with a justification for something like not attending church or rejecting Christianity, so they cite the common claim that churches are too focused on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. In reality, churches are addressing those issues far too little.

I suspect that a large percentage of pastors are highly ignorant of the issues, and that's part of the reason why they don't say much about them. Other factors are that they're overly concerned about not losing their tax-exempt status, not dividing the church, not losing financial support, not being accused of being too political, etc.

Are theistic ethics subjective?

Here's a common objection:

Sorry buddy, your God isnt objective, because he is a person anything that is based on a person is not objective. If he was objective he would do things that are considered good INDEPENDENT of his own opinion. EVERYTHING in your worldview is just the personal emotional opinion of your god.

This is simply an equivocation with the word "subjective." Objectivity in meta-ethics concerns whether there are objective moral norms, i.e., moral principles that are transcendent, unchanging, and universally binding on humanity. The only basis for such moral norms is theistic. These are based in God’s nature, not in his emotional whims. If ethics were a standard extrinsic to God to which he must submit, he would not be God, which is incoherent.

Christian morality is rooted in the eternal will of God and the unchanging nature of God, both of which he has revealed to us and has made universally binding upon us. Yes, God is personal, but ethics must be personal by necessity in order for them to be normative. Law is an expression of God’s Covenant Lordship. This is not "subjective" in the relevant sense.

The question is how can any morality be normative without a Person who holds individuals accountable? Ethics must be personal. But it cannot merely be based in the human person or culture, otherwise it forfeits objectivity.

Another way of putting this is that ethics must be personal, but they cannot be person-variant in order to be meaningful. That is the important distinction between the two senses of the word "subjective."

"How Awful The Punishment Of Voluntary Ignorance"

Amy Hall recently posted a great quote from William Wilberforce about Christian neglect of intellectual matters.

Lawrence Krauss' Behavior

From William Lane Craig's latest newsletter:

Who's Actually Less Loving?

I just came across a study about the role of the Bible in the lives of Americans, through a link from J. Warner Wallace. You can read about the study in more depth here. Notice, for example, the sections on "Giving to Non-Profit Organizations". Take note of the contrast between how much particular groups give and how often those groups claim that they object to Christianity because it's unloving, divisive, hypocritical, etc. Here's an article by Chris Price on Christianity's historical influence on charity.

"…why do we not observe that it is their [Christians'] benevolence to strangers…their care for the graves of the dead and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [Christianity]?…For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galilaeans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us." (Julian the Apostate, cited in John Cook, The Interpretation Of The New Testament In Greco-Roman Paganism [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], 327)

Steven Hawking’s Moral Black Hole

http://on.wsj.com/18wwR3I

Assistant books editor Sohrab Ahmari on Stephen Hawking’s decision to join the academic boycott of an Israeli conference.



Photos: Getty Images

The man with the muck-rake

BW3 praises the NHS in this post.

BTW, I have a lot of friends and family from the UK. I've lived and studied in the UK. I'm a bit of an Anglophile too. So I hope any remarks I make about the UK and NHS won't sound like an outsider criticizing someone's mom/mum or anything along those lines!

The Brits are fiercely proud of this.

I have to wonder why someone would be so "fiercely proud" of a gov't organization like the NHS? I'd be a bit perplexed if a fellow American told me he's "fiercely proud" of a gov't organization like, say, the IRS or FDA or Homeland Security. It just sounds strange to my ears. Maybe it's because I'm not from the UK.

And rightly so. A country can and should be judged by how it treats its least fortunate, weakest, and most vulnerable members of society. On that scale, America is a pretty selfish country.

1. Why should we judge a country by this standard? Should it be a country's purpose to help the least fortunate and weak and vulnerable? If so, in what sense and to what degree should they be judged? What about judging a nation by how it holds up against crime or national defense?

2. Related, don't private individuals and groups like churches and charities tend to do a better job helping the least fortunate in society than the gov't?

3. America is a country made up of Americans. From what I've read Americans are one of the most generous peoples in the world. I'm not talking simply about money either. I've read American conservatives including American evangelical Christians are especially generous. I think someone like Arthur C. Brooks has studied the matter.

4. Among the least fortunate and weak and vulnerable are infants in the womb. Although Roe v. Wade is current law, and although there's surely tremendous room for improvement, we also have a strong pro-life movement. Can the same be said about the UK?

It would rather have a universal right to have guns of all sorts than universal health care.

1. Why should health care and gun ownership be analogous to one another?

2. This assumes universal health care is a human "right" too. Is it?

3. Gun ownership (or perhaps the right to self-defense via guns) may or may not be a human right. But the right to bear arms is part of our Bill of Rights.

But let’s be clear its [the US health care system] patchwork and piecemeal compared to the British National Health.

1. I'm not exactly sure what BW3 means to imply by "patchwork and piecemeal."

2. But is the US health care system "patchwork and piecemeal compared to the British National Health"?

3. If it is, why should "patchwork" and "piecemeal" necessarily have negative connotations? On the one hand, I think the US health care system could be vastly improved. But on the other hand, I also think it may be good that we have such a diverse health care system. For example, a single centralized gov't entity can't dictate what doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals can and can't do. So I think it's possibly a good thing to be "piecemeal" in this respect, if this is along the lines of what BW3 means by the term.

No, its [the NHS] not a perfect solution to health care problems…. but it’s way better than what we’ve got. I for one would gladly pay lots more in taxes if it meant we had a truly comprehensive healthcare system for everyone in this country. I just would.

I'm sorry to say but that's quite unreflective.

We could debate how best to make that happen, but not, I think, that it would be the most humane thing for it to happen.

1. Why assume the NHS or universal health care is "the most humane thing"? As mentioned above, this assumes universal health care is a basic human right. Is it?

2. BTW, I wonder what BW3 thinks about stuff like:

"Government Control Leads to Denial of Care"

"Patients are denied high cost drugs by NHS trusts"

"NHS waiting list rise prompts government U-turn"

2. A lot of people might have the idea that U.S. hospitals are almost entirely private, and that private entails for-profit (and that for-profit is bad at least when it comes to hospitals).

While it's true most our hospitals are private hospitals, private doesn't necessarily mean for-profit. Let's look at how the numbers breakdown. U.S. hospitals can be more or less divided into three broad categories: non-profit; for-profit; and public aka government. According to the American Hospital Association (2010), there are a total of 5754 hospitals across the nation. Non-profit hospitals number 2904 or approximately 50% of all hospitals. For-profit hospitals number 1013 or approximately 18% of all hospitals. Local and state public/government hospitals number 1068 and federal public/government hospitals number 213 or approximately 22% of all hospitals. (The remaining 556 hospitals or approximately 10% of all hospitals are miscellaneous types of hospitals including prison hospitals, college infirmaries, and most numerous of all psychiatric hospitals.) In short, only 18% of all U.S. hospitals are for-profit hospitals.

As noted, these numbers are based on the most recent AHA data (2010). As far as I can tell, the AHA numbers seem to be on the conservative end. However, other organizations appear to have different numbers. For example, a University of Pennsylvania affiliated source (2005) cites the number of non-profit hospitals as 70% (not 50%) of all U.S. hospitals and likewise claims this 70% has been stable for decades.

If I'm not mistaken, most the non-profit hospitals were originally founded by religious organizations - predominantly Christian but also Jewish.

Of course, in addition to our hospitals, we have other health care providers such as private specialty clinics (e.g. surgical centers). These very often regularly work in tandem with hospitals. Unfortunately, I don't know the numbers of these other health care providers and so I can't compare them to our hospital system.

I'm not sure if military hospitals, VA hospitals, and hospitals for Native Americans (i.e. the Indian Health Service) are included or excluded from the non-profit, for-profit, and public/government numbers.

3. Even if we assume the NHS is more or less on the right track or workable (not that I do assume this), what may work in other nations like the UK may not necessarily work in the US.

4. Anecdotally, here is what one commenter (who favors universal health care) said about the NHS:

I am an American who has married a British national in the UK and currently live in the UK. Because of multiple health situations in the family, we have had frequent use of the NHS health system. This has helped me appreciate the goal of the NHS: to make sure no one is left on their own, but to provide care even for the poorest.

On the flip side, it has helped me appreciate the high quality of care available in the US. The NHS is NOWHERE close to it. Service in the US is much quicker, high quality, and is not strapped by huge government debts and cutbacks. Even elderly people are released here in the middle of the night to free up beds – they are really cutting back. Hospitals are generally clean, but not fresh looking like US hospitals. Capitalism may not be very Christian in the way it motivates healthcare in the US and I would be interested in there being changes, but I haven’t been impressed enough by the NHS to want to switch to that system. I would be more interested in how places like Denmark, Sweden, or Germany are set up. I hear that they are better, but I have no experience of that like I do in the US the UK.

The "Reasonable Doubts" podcast on presuppositional apologetics: Part 3

We continue our review of the Reasonable Doubts podcast on presuppositional apologetics with a few final posts about the alleged deception of the God of the Bible. Since the Doubtcasters mentioned numerous biblical passages to attempt to substantiate their accusation, it will be best to break the review up into more than one post.

The Doubtcasters attempt to level a contradiction between Titus 1:2 and other passages.
Titus 1:1Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, 2in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago...

The DCers believe they are showing that God is guilty of deception.
Perhaps my favorite comment of the entire episode is when Justin Schieber says that there's a rather large discussion of the deception of God at the urbanphilosophy site, and that unfortunately the biblical arguments were never brought up. What a laughable surprise - that the discussion there would avoid the Bible. How about that?


The first pericope I would like to deal with is the account of King Ahab, his court "prophets", and the true prophet of Yahweh named Micaiah in 2 Chronicles 18:12-28 and 1 Kings 22.

The Doubtcasters charge God with stepping in to make other prophets of the king lie about the upcoming battle, and assert that it's clear that God is not just letting Ahab believe what he already wants to believe, but rather God is actively engaged in the deception. A demonic agent who is going to go spread lies is volunteering for a job that God initiates.

In response, let us note the relevant things from the text:
-Obviously it's known that Micaiah is a real prophet of Yahweh and not of the false gods whose worship Ahab and his queen Jezebel had invested decades in instituting in Israel. Jehoshaphat recognises this fact when he asks for Micaiah rather than the sycophants in Ahab's court.

-Even the messenger knew that Micaiah was something of a misfit.

-Even Ahab knew it. It would appear that Micaiah's original line was delivered with some amount of sarcasm, for Ahab adjures him to tell him exactly what he saw.

-The true prophet of God Micaiah tells Ahab exactly what he saw.

-Ahab acknowledges that the prophecy communicated to him from Yahweh was not good: “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?”

-So, to review: Micaiah does tell Ahab exactly what he saw.
God told Ahab the honest truth.
So, right on the face of it, while the Doubtcasters want us to think that God lied to Ahab, here is the exact opposite information.

Scientists are from Vulcan, humans are from Earth

Daniel Dennett writes:

In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does! And I'm not just talking about the standards 'at the top' - among the surgeons and doctors who make life or death decisions every day. I'm talking about the standards of conscientiousness endorsed by the lab technicians and meal preparers, too. This tradition puts its faith in the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry, checking and re-checking, and getting in the habit of asking 'What if I'm wrong?' Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated. Imagine the reception a scientist would get if he tried to suggest that others couldn't replicate his results because they just didn't share the faith of the people in his lab! And, to return to my main point, it is the goodness of this tradition of reason and open inquiry that I thank for my being alive today.

1. I don't agree with Dennett's characterization of the morality of Christians. The Bible doesn't unqualifiedly let people "feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves attain." Dennett has obviously never seriously taken the time to try and understand the Bible.

2. Dennett sets up a false dichotomy. There are many devout Christians serving in science and medicine. There are many Christian nurses, doctors, lab technicians, scientists, meal preparers, etc.

3. Moral standards in the world of science and medicine aren't always as universally rigorous as Dennett makes them out to be. Does Dennett think all mainland Chinese scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers have the same moral standards as all Western scientists and physicians and lab technicians and meal preparers? (With regard to "meal preparers," Dennett could Google something like "Chinese food scandals" for starters.) For that matter, does Dennett think all Western scientists and physicians have the same moral standards when it comes to research or patient care?

4. There could be conformity due to mandated obedience rather than because the person genuinely believes it's the right thing to do.

5. Dennett is inordinately praising if not outright idolizing scientific and medical research "standards of conscientiousness" and "the unlimited application of reason and empirical inquiry." It's as if he believes scientific and medical research is ubiquitously far more motivated by an inner sense of duty and conviction to adhere to the rational pursuit of knowledge such as expressed in the scientific method and the free exchange of ideas than by personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, self-centeredness, fear, anger, hatred, bitterness, a sense of honor, perceived slights or dishonors, jealousies, revenge, and (shall we say) the baser elements of human nature. Dennett has a sterilized, whitewashed image of the lab. I guess Dennett must think scientists and doctors and lab technicians and meal preparers hail from Vulcan rather than Earth.

Dennett should disabuse himself of his airy fairy notions by reading a book like James Watson's The Double Helix. Or by following the day to day activities and work of scientists, physicians, lab techs, and meal preparers. If he's honest, he can find multiple instances of personal rivalries, petty ambitions and passions, pride, and many of the other vices I previously listed. Not to mention their incarnations in such behavior as gossip, trash talk, reluctance to admit mistakes or poor results, and so forth. And let's not forget recent scandals involving people like Andrew Wakefield, Jan Hendrik Schön, or Hwang Woo-suk, whom many other scientists and physicians originally were perfectly fine with in how they conducted their research. At this point Dennett might do well to exchange his rose-tinted glasses for chicken goggles!

6. Dennett asserts "Appeals to faith or membership are never tolerated." On the contrary, my experience has been there are lots of appeals for others to have faith in the prinicipal investigator or research group leader because he or she has membership to this or that prestigious organization or because they won a fancy award or have such and such a degree from this or that Ivy League institution or something along those lines.

Also, check out what Feynman has to say as well:

7. In any case, where's the obligation to behave morally responsibly given Dennett's atheistic, evolutionary, secular worldview?

Polygamy Is Condemned By Scripture And Patristic Christianity

I just listened to Greg Koukl's January 15 radio program. He took a call on why the Bible doesn't say more against polygamy. Koukl made some good points, but didn't say much on the subject. There's a lot more anti-polygamy material in scripture than he suggested, and neither he nor the caller discussed the patristic evidence, which is highly significant in this context. My position is that polygamy is condemned not only by the New Testament and patristic Christianity, but also by the Old Testament. For those who are interested, I wrote a post several years ago addressing all three (both testaments of scripture and the patristic literature). Read the comments section of the thread as well, since a lot of relevant material comes up there, and I interacted with some defenders of polygamy. And here's a post Matthew Schultz wrote more recently.

The Children Parents Are Raising

Tim Challies just linked to a couple of pages that tell us a lot about our culture. Here's an infographic about Millennials, "American teens and twenty-somethings currently making the passage into adulthood". Here are some statistics on pornography and teenagers.