tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post8600260572614923598..comments2023-12-17T16:13:06.670-05:00Comments on In a Godward direction: A different slopeTobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-74096456478994558382014-04-29T11:13:51.018-05:002014-04-29T11:13:51.018-05:00Indeed so, Marshall. Which is why I keep coming ba...Indeed so, Marshall. Which is why I keep coming back to the particular and real and urging less stress on the general and ideal. There is, after all, no such thing as an "ideal" relationship. And the "relationship" any entity has to any other -- which is the force of analogy -- is fraught with a similar lack of cogent connection. We may all be "ships that pass in the night" but few of us possess sails!Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-21362216120869590162014-04-29T10:46:09.301-05:002014-04-29T10:46:09.301-05:00And so critical in the discussions is not simply t...And so critical in the discussions is not simply the logic of the arguments but claiming our own stakes or positions. Carter Heyward's work has been very important for me in reflecting on power in relationships. That said, when she argued for relationships with more than two participants my response was that her logic followed, but that my experience of humans left me to question whether within such a relationship all participants could be truly and equitable just to one another - still my personal reflection, but acknowledging Br. Thomas' point. And even in that I realize that how one understands the relationship changes that challenge. So, relationships of affection are different from formal arrangements of, say, political or economic marriages. "Just" is still the challenge, but "just" arguably has a different meaning and different standards.<br /><br />And then there are those cases (and neither yours nor Thomas' points, really) when the frames only appear to be analogous. The law of motion "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is really helpful in docking my boat. While I can point to events in relationships or in politics that appear analogous, the contexts are really too different for the application.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-89099177056807514342014-04-29T08:29:20.651-05:002014-04-29T08:29:20.651-05:00Thanks, Thomas. That is a good summary, though it ...Thanks, Thomas. That is a good summary, though it took me a while to translate, as I wasn't familiar with the notation of the tilde meaning "not"! It is handy to have a good old ASCII character instead of having to resort to the higher realms of Unicode!<br /><br />In the long run my point is that arguments (or theses) can lead to multiple conclusions. My long range goal is to demonstrate that the anti-SSM position doesn't really have an argument so much as a thesis. And it is true that their "thesis" if accepted does rule out polygamy, SSM, and all sorts of other things; but of course, this leads to the classic fallacy of <i>petitio principii</i> and is ultimately tautological. "Only a man and woman can marry because marrige is only possible for a mixed-sex couple" may be true, but its truth cannot be proven; or at least it hasn't been. Lurking under every supposed "argument" I've encountered against SSM there lies this base premise, unassailed by reason or Scripture.<br /><br />For, in fact, for the Evangelicals in the house, one cannot prove that polygamy is "forbidden" by Scripture. (Even though monogamy is required for clergy, and given approbation, there is no definitive prohibition; and as I noted the drive to procreation even mandates it.) It cannot, therefore, be made an article of faith according to the Article on the relative authorities of Scripture and Church. Which, of course, is why I am bemused by the frequency with which it arises in these discussions.<br /><br />And in the long run, it is quite beside the point in terms of SSM; and those who want to argue either for or against polyamory -- among whom I do not include myself -- will have to frame their arguments along some other line.<br /><br />If, indeed, arguing about other people's lives is an activity that furthers the Gospel! As I observed in another FB thread, "the amazing thing to me is the extent to which moral busybodies who claim to be Evangelical appear to miss the dominical instruction to withhold judgment; to set up rules for others, rather than seeking their own salvation in fear and trembling. Making others fear and tremble is not the Gospel. (See Bonhoeffer's excellent reflection on the mindset of "The Pharisee"; good people gone bad...)"Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-88498651168544423312014-04-29T02:50:24.337-05:002014-04-29T02:50:24.337-05:00So I definitely thank you for the post. I just cou...So I definitely thank you for the post. I just couldn't resist, perhaps for the opposite reason as the folks you're complaining about.<br /><br />However, it is true that from these premises:<br /><br />X -> Z<br />~Z<br /><br />you can conclude:<br />~X.<br /><br />And they want to say:<br />X: your form of pro-gay argument;<br />Z: polyamory is ok.<br /><br />And your point, I think, is that you do not assert merely:<br /><br />X -> Y<br />where Y is "being gay is ok". Rather, you assert:<br /><br />X, W, Q, R -> Y<br /><br />And here you point out that the argument for polyamory is like this:<br /><br />X, W, S, T -> Z<br /><br />And if X, W, S, T -> Z, and ~Z, then we can conclude only:<br /><br />~X | ~W | ~S | ~T<br /><br />Which does not tell us that either X or W is false at all.<br /><br />So you focus on the first of their premises, by showing that "X->Z" is not a fair statement of your argument. I'm focusing on the other, saying that ~Z is something everyone seems to want to assert as a kind of knee-jerk reaction, indeed, as an enthymeme to appeal to the crowd. And real people get ground under that wheel too, people who count too.<br /><br />Indeed, I agree and am very grateful for yours and Charlie's way of putting it, by asking that perhaps we not fret about the forms and patterns, and instead ask about the actual facts of actual situations, which are neither cursed because of their lack of conformity to a given form, nor blessed because of conformity to it.thomas bushnell, bsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182516950814650920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-75191402236757829492014-04-28T08:56:26.434-05:002014-04-28T08:56:26.434-05:00Deacon Charlie and Brother Thomas, ultimately I ag...Deacon Charlie and Brother Thomas, ultimately I agree with what both of you are saying here. I am perfectly happy to apply the moral principle laid out by Jesus ("do unto others as you would be done by") as the touchstone and let all the other chips fall where they may.<br /><br />As I said in my first note, I am not the one who raised the issue of polygamy (in any form) nor is that the intended theme of this post. The theme is that this is an entirely unrelated question -- worthy of debate only to those who feel the need to debate it, which I do not. I have only addressed it to the extent that an assertion is made that it is somehow a logical consequence of the introduction of same-sex marriage. My argument is about the argument -- not the conclusion.<br /><br />The problem is, as even this comment thread shows, one still gets drawn into a debate about the merits or faults of polyamory. I think it possible to have that discussion, but I emphatically reject the notion that it is about some sort of "ranking" of what is tolerable or not. My whole point is that all things need to be weighed on their own merits (or faults). <br /><br />Furthermore, being at heart a nominalist, I would rather move away from the whole idea of "forms" being moral or not, and look to the actual instances to see how well the individuals involved are treating each other, in keeping with the moral touchstone I mentioned above. From a formal standpoint, I merely observe that polyamory is more complex than monogamy; as you rightly observe, Thomas, so is having a child. (Indeed, the playing off of the love of one parent against the other, or sibling rivalry, are notorious issues of stress in family life.)<br /><br />But for this discussion I was really interested in looking to the meta-issue of the argument itself, and the fallacy of "if X for Y then X for Z = X is wrong."Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-21917048927075108872014-04-27T22:39:25.090-05:002014-04-27T22:39:25.090-05:00I suppose I've noticed a troubling dynamic, bo...I suppose I've noticed a troubling dynamic, both in your book and elsewhere, in which pro-gay apologists invoke polyamory as the official thing they are against, in order to prove that they are still against something, and thus deflect the charge that being pro-gay has no limits.<br /><br />But I think perhaps the limits remain where they should be: limits on abuse, limits on oppression, limits on deceit, limits on failure to keep one's commitments, and so forth.<br /><br />Indeed, monogamy-as-ideal with toleration-of-polyamory is as troubling to me as heterosexuality-as-ideal with toleration-of-homosexuality, which was the norm about twenty years ago.<br /><br />Can we not somehow move past the careful ranking of relationships as more or less ideal? Is it <b>ever</b> appropriate to evaluate relationships and identities against abstract ideals? Are we doomed to perpetually measure relationships only in terms of their symbolic value?<br /><br />Are there "problems" with polyamory? The more I learn, the more I become convinced that the answer is "no". At least, we should acknowledge that the problems caused by the addition of a child to <b>any</b> relationship are vastly greater than the problems associated with polyamory, for those, at least, who are called to it.thomas bushnell, bsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182516950814650920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-6004576793290153602014-04-27T21:47:30.932-05:002014-04-27T21:47:30.932-05:00Tobias
I think we spend too much time on things o...Tobias<br /><br />I think we spend too much time on things other than murder, rape, assault and other true crimes and sins.<br /><br />I am a firm believer that Sin carries its own punishment and requires no further action from other sinners. In the case of polygamy the sin is having more than one wife. The punishment is, well, having more than one wife.<br /><br />We play with fire when we make our lives more complicated than they have to be.<br /><br />Bottom line is that unless we see someone being actively harmed by the action or "sin" of another, it would be best that we mind our own sinfulness rather than attempting to punish the sins of others.Deacon Charlie Perrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865504124912476964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-64578722644753547692014-04-27T16:30:08.888-05:002014-04-27T16:30:08.888-05:00Well, I wasn't intending to get into a discuss...Well, I wasn't intending to get into a discussion of polygamy... I think you are partly correct that the pressure for monogamy has much to do with the Graeco-Roman milieu. But there is some contemporary idealism of monogamy in Jewish sectarian movements, which may be reflected in the teaching of Jesus. There's a passage in the Qumran Damascus Document that very nearly echoes Jesus' teaching against divorce but with the explicit call to monogamy. (That may be part of what Jesus was getting at as well.) This became rather fixed in the early church as a pressure towards strict monogamy, even in widowhood -- which may be what the pastoral epistles are really referring to in the case of clerical leaders. Again, it seems a matter of ideals not strict limits, except for the Roman legal restrictions.<br /><br />As to actual arguments against polyamory, I raised a few in my book, but again I see these as idealisms, not a strict prohibition. Obviously, apart from the pastorals re clergy, there is no prohibition on polygamy in Scripture; but there is recognition of an ideal of monogamy, and the possible problems that arise when a duo becomes a trio. Obviously de facto polygamy is a lot more common than most people would like to admit, even among those who feel marriage needs to be "protected."Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6786565.post-37382781342299416442014-04-27T16:21:27.395-05:002014-04-27T16:21:27.395-05:00Perhaps polyamory is also not such a horrific thou...Perhaps polyamory is also not such a horrific thought.<br /><br />Recall that the prohibition on a bishop having more than one wife has always been taken to be about divorce...and we are presumably not talking about infidelity, which is a different matter...<br /><br />So aside from the fact that the early church was in a Greco-Roman milieu, which for cultural reasons practiced monogamy, what exactly is the argument against polyamory supposed to be?thomas bushnell, bsghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182516950814650920noreply@blogger.com