Bill's Comments

I received "My Grandfather's Son: a Memoir" by Clarence Thomas as a Christmas present. As far as I am concerned every critic is wrong, liberal, conservative, or other. This is a book to be read not as a political story and not as a typical autobiography. This is a book about what it takes to live a proper life.

Clarence Thomas places no blame on anyone except himself. He presents his successes and his failures in the same even tone that neither apologizes or brags. He simply says, "This is the way it was." Reviewers seem to focus on his version of his confirmation hearings for his appointment to the Supreme Court. I think that is less important than the life he lead and what it can show. To me the high point was marrying his second wife--it showed that it is still possible to have redemption.

Anyone who has never had it hard or never had to struggle will not like this book. They will find it dull, boring, and with little merit. Their politics will color what they read of his life, and they will dislike what they see. Justice Thomas makes it very clear that regardless of political persuasion, politics harms, not helps, its supposed beneficiaries. For those who have had to struggle, this book is a validation that to strive and never give up is not in vain.

Don't take my word for it. Read it yourself.

"...but he'll take it out on his wife."
"...innocent civilians will be killed."
"...if you do that, he will lose his job, and his family will suffer."
"...try to stop me, and I will kill the hostage."

Every day we see or hear versions of the above--an innocent or innocents will suffer if evil is dealt with. The examples can be as trivial as a person's rude behavior being stopped, where the person is a coward and a bully (the first example above) or as deadly as a hostage situation. In every case, there is a hidden sub-text--"and it will be your fault"--an invalid attempt to transfer guilt.

These situations are often presented as moral dilemmas--doing something wrong to correct another wrong. Taken out of the above contexts, it is wrong for the wife to be harmed, children to suffer, people to be killed. And in all these situations our emotions rise strongly in sympathy for the victims. In today's feel-good society, emotions are taken as validation of any position--"If it feels good, do it", on steroids. If we use emotion as a guide, we are lost. Emotion reacts only to the current situation and to limited input.

What all the above versions of the hostage scenario present is not a moral dilemma but an emotional dilemma. The moral issues arise from the actions of the perpetrator not from someone attempting to set the situation right. The boor that bullies his wife, the terrorist that hides among civilians, the deadbeat that will not feed his children, the grafter that cheats his employer, the fugitive with a hostage, all are committing evil acts at the time and their stated consequences, if stopped, are also their responsibility. They created the situation.

Stopping evil requires action. It is not possible to talk nice and expect a result. This is what any evil person counts on--the fear of creating collateral damage. I submit it is equally as immoral to fail to stop or attempt to stop evil as the evil itself. Those who refuse to act out of the fear of creating collateral damage become accomplices in the continuation of the evil. It makes no difference what the motive of the observer is, good intentions towards the victim are cancelled by the continuation of the current harmful situation.

If action is necessary, it is incumbent on the agent of justice to attempt to minimize the collateral damage to that which is necessary to accomplish the purpose, but it is an absolute necessity to act. If circumstances allow a choice of options to fix the situation, the most controlled is to be used, provided it can do the job. E.g. if a terrorist is in a crowd of people and effective choices are a sniper or a rocket attack--pick the sniper. BUT, if the sniper misses use the rocket. Yes, innocents will be harmed and killed, but the terrorist must be stopped. He or she will do far more damage in the long run if allowed to go free.

Failure to act in a hostage situation simply validates it as an effective survival strategy for the evil-doer. Conversely, if a potential hostage-taker (in any of the above scenarios) knows that it is not effective as a survival strategy, then its use will be discouraged and diminished.

Evil-doers count on the victims being more important then stopping their acts. This mindset has to be changed, and only relentless action will change it . A concomittant requirement is that half-measures will not do. Though minimal collateral damage is desired, the force used to act must be sufficient to achieve the result THE FIRST TIME. If not, there will simply be a series of escalations and/or defeats until the price is far higher than would have been paid earlier.

Any tolerance of evil is wrong. Evil not stopped at the outset grows. The problem seems to be a failure to recognize evil for what it is, and then ambivalence as to what to do about it, if recognized.

The first requirement is to have a clear moral code. In today's society that is generally lacking. Decades of public schools' teaching ersatz tolerance and indoctrination with relative and situational ethics and multiculturalism have left many, if not most with no clear guides as to right and wrong. Churches provide moral codes, but often they have a distinct us vs. them flavors as opposed to a generally agreed set of secular standards. Politics does not lead or create moral standards. It simply reflects them. What we see today is certainly conflicting. Take any contentious issue and the morality is nowhere to be seen--laws are created and then either not enforced or selectively enforced.

Ambivalence in action is also a result of no clear moral code. Concern over what other think or appearances weight as heavily or more heavily as the need to correct the evil. "I want to do something but what will [blank] think?" The blank can be filled in by family, neighbors, Mother, the rest of the world. The error is compounded by our refusal to weigh the value of the opinion of concern. Any and all opinions are equally valid, or, in many cases, traditional ones don't count. For believers, God's opinion should weigh more heavily than the neighbors', but we act as of the neighbors' are more important. The prevention of hypothetical harm outweighs the stopping of actual harm. It actually goes so far as to think that not acting will somehow convince an evil-doer to cease acting on their part. Evil-doers count on that to provide time and space to continue their activities.

Evil counts on using our emotions against us. It has no concern for collateral damage, but is aware of our concerns and does everything to maximize collateral damage if attempts are made to stop it. That is the fault of evil, not the fault of justice. The risk of collateral damage is not a cause for inaction, but for greater concern in acting.

This topic is one that I am constantly revisiting. This is the latest effort to deal with these questions. It is a three part series, and the other two parts will be posted over the next few months. I have created links to related posts from the past that were published in Bill's Big Stuff.

PART 1: SCIENCE AND REALITY
Introduction
This will be a three-part set of essays discussing determinism, non-determinism, and free-will. Science, in particular theoretical physics, is often used to justify stating the universe is or is not deterministic and that free-will does or does not exist, based on whether the universe is deterministic or not. The first part of this discussion will show that such claims are beyond the boundaries of science. Science is epistemological, not metaphysical.

The second part will discuss determinism as a metaphysical concept. It will also put some constraints on the issue of whether the universe is or is not deterministic. In doing so, we will use two ideas that were developed in the first section, continuity and reversibility.

Finally we will turn to the question of free-will. As I shall try to show, free-will is actually not contingent on the determinism or non-determinism of the physical universe, and also that non-determinism is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for free-will. [This, in a sense, was the thrust of Daniel Dennett’s, Elbow Room] To do so, we will look at the nature of the brain and touch on the mind/body problem.

This post is quite long and of limited interest to most readers of this blog, so will be posted to Bill's Big Stuff in its entirety.

Labels: determinism, free will, philosophy

This is the season for songs of peace and goodwill.

Let there be peace on earth
and let it begin with me...
Let me walk with my brother
in perfect harmony.
(pop tune)

or

For unto us a son is given...
The Prince of Peace
(Isaiah and The Messiah)

or

Hark the herald angels sing...
peace on earth and mercy mild
(Christmas carol)

It all sounds so wonderful. Enough good will and there will be no problems, no strife, no animosity, no hatred, no war...everybody will be happy.

I think maybe it is time to unpack some of the meaning in the messages. Let's start with Isaiah, because I have talked about this before. The Jewish prophets wanted a warrior king that would give peace through strength, subjugation, and intimidation. "His name shall be called...The Mighty Lord." Isaiah wasn't talking about some soft-spoken, dewy-eyed, all-forgiving pacifist, he was talking about a kick-butt and take names soldier, leader. Peace was to come from power. Leave me alone or I will make you wish you hadn't. This is the kind of peace that resulted from the Civil War. The South was so beaten they had no possibility of rising up again. This was the peace of WW II. Germany and Japan were so beaten they could not rise up. Finally all three were rehabilitated because they had no choice.

Let's look at the Christmas carol. Since this is most likely a 19th century carol, the background would be the teachings of Jesus that are often used to somehow justify pacifism and inaction. This is re-enforced by the phrase "mercy mild." This is a common thread in Christian history, institutionalized in this country by the Quackers. A Hindu version would be Gandhi's leadership in India. "And look, they worked," some would say. Sure, against people who were civilized and sensitive to suffering to start with. All the pacifism in the world will not change the mind of a hungry tiger, or a bear, or for that matter a Jihadist. None of these three entities are open to reason, and that is the only weapon a pacifist has.

Now let's address the first of the examples, the pop tune. This is the most insidious and the most detached from reality. It sounds so simple and reasonable. It also shows no comprehension of what constitutes peace. It also is an appeal to an entity unnamed and undefined and somehow thought to have the power to grant wishes. Look at the syntax: LET there be..., LET me walk..., so who or what is so powerful as to grant such things? The biggest error here is the thought that the singer has any power in any of this. Walk with my brother? What if the brother wants to kill you? Would it make a difference to martyr oneself in a worthless attempt?

There are two forms of peace--slavery and impregnability. People in North Korea have peace--they have no strife, and they have no choices. Until 9/11 the US had peace--everybody was afraid to do anything to them--until we played wusses in Korea, S. Vietnam and multiple small-scale aggressions on our troops and property--the USS Cole, the Kobar Towers, Mogodeshu. We weren't asked into Korea or Vietnam; we went and without a game plan and got our chops busted.

There is nothing magical about being powerful, it is a matter of determination, freedom, and hard work. We squandered our power after WW II, and now are paying the price. The peaceniks and retreatists of the sixties and seventies are in power now, and we are slowly waking up to the fact that what they want is the peace of slavery. That is not what this country was about, and it is a long, hard road ahead to get back where we belong, assuming we still want to and can.

If we truly want peace on earth, we will get serious, kick some serious butt of those who don't and then make sure it doesn't happen again. If we put proportionately half of the effort into our military that we did in WW II, we could clean it all up in about the same time as we did before. The problem is, we are unaccustomed to the least hardship or deprivation, and are unwilling to sacrifice anything now to a better future. I learned a long time ago a bully listens to only one thing--superior strength. Talking is so much wasted effort. When we realize that most of the world is a bully and/or a con man, we will do much better at dealing with it.

Let's just hope we don't learn the hard way.

Put down whatever else you are doing for the next four minutes. Turn on your speakers if they are off or put on your headphones. Turn up the sound to reasonable levels--this is soft. Now link to this and play the video.


This is my Christmas card to you, as apparently it was Gerard's to his blog readers. This particular song moved me like few do.

The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.

Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.

My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear..
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.

My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near..
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.

A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled there in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.

'What are you doing?' I asked without fear,
'Come in this moment, it's freezing out there!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!'
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..

To the window that danced with a warm fire's light
Then he sighed and he said 'Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night.'
'It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at ' Pearl on a day in December, '
Then he sighed, 'That's a Christmas Gra m will always remember.

My dad stood his watch in the jungles of ' Nam ',
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile. '

Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue...an American flag.
I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.

I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..

Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall.'
'So go back inside,' he said, 'harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right.'

'But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
'Give you money,' I asked, 'or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son.'

Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
'Just tell us you love us, and never forget.
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.

For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.
Is payment enough, and with that we wil l trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us.'


Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is
due to our U.S. service men and women for our being able to celebrate
these festivities. Let's try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of
what we owe. Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and
dead, who sacrificed themselves for us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN
30th Naval Construction
Regiment
OIC, Logistics Cell One
Al Taqqadum ,

This was sent to me by a friend. When I received it, it had been obviously forwarded many times. I have fixed the paragraphs back into easy readibility. I changed no words. Read and understand.

The following has been incorrectly attributed to Ben Stein
My confession:

[removed sentence][I, bk, have been an atheist, agnostic and now a renegade Protestant] And it [never bothered] me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. [I also am not threatened by Menorahs or Stars of David.]

It [it never bothered] me a bit when people sa[id], "Merry Christmas" to me. [Sentence removed] In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

[removed sentence]I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

In light of recent events...terrorists attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem [incorrect fact removed]. We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it.no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

Last year in May or June, Malcolm Pollack posted an item on intentionality. It was his response to issues that had arisen in discussions at Bill Vallicella’s The Maverick Philosopher on the philosophy of mind.

To set the stage for the discussion, here is the essence of Malcolm’s post:

One philosophical view holds that there is simply no way that matter – a rock, a cloud, a chunk of brass – can be, on its own, “about” anything. “Aboutness” is exclusively the hallmark of the “mental”, it is said. Our world is full of meaningful artifacts such as books and maps, but these objects only derive the intentional content they do, it is argued, from the fact that they are created and interpreted by other, intrinsically intentional entities (namely us).
…
An obvious question, then, is what sorts of things can have mental (intentional) states? And why those things and not others?

Some argue that intentionality is associated with the phenomenon of consciousness; i.e., that all mental/intentional acts are conscious. But this seems to fall short of the mark; it appears to be a psychological truth that we have unconscious desires, angers, and so on. So, as a fallback position, it has been suggested that all intentional acts and states are potentially conscious. … the idea that mental/intentional states are associated with minds has a persistent appeal.

Bill, in this post written a couple of weeks ago, gave an example of a hiker discovering rock piles left as trail markers. Bill’s argument was that the piles themselves had no intrinsic meaning, but that the fact that they were left by a previous hiker as trail markers, and subsequently read as trail markers by the later hiker, endows them with intentional content, derived from the minds of the two people involved. Now it happens that this sort of thing is done by much simpler organisms that human beings; in fact, even ants, having found food, will mark out a trail that other ants will in turn follow. I asked Bill about this in a comment on the linked post, and he agreed that this was indeed an example of intentional behavior.

So if we are sticking with the identity of the intentional with the mental, we are forced to ascribe mentality to ants. At the very least, if we define the intentional as that which is at least potentially conscious, then we must in turn ascribe consciousness to ants. Are we willing to go this far? It is perfectly reasonable to assume instead that ants might be little zombies, tiny machines that are simply wired up to follow pheromone trails to food. And if we are willing to ascribe intentionality, and therefore potential consciousness, to ants, what about even simpler creatures? Even bacteria have been shown to engage in trail-following behavior. Are we to imagine that they are conscious? Are we seriously willing to talk of a bacterium’s mental states? Even plants engage in complex, purposeful behaviors involving signalling, predator avoidance, etc. Where do we draw the line? Should we draw a line at all, or might it just be, as I have argued, that all living things are equally valid candidates for “intrinsic” intentionality, which does not necessarily have anything to do with mind or consciousness? What I am suggesting is that living things are intentional systems by virtue of their having been designed as such by evolution and natural selection, and that books and maps are intentional, in turn, in virtue of their having been designed by us. We might, on this view, leave the term “intrinsic” for those entities that were not designed by other intentional entities.

After a bit of further discussion, Malcolm then arrives at the following:

1”) Some mental states are intentional, and all intentional states are mental;
2”) All intentional and mental states are conscious, or at least potentially conscious;
3”) Even simple organisms such as ants and bacteria exhibit intentionality.
It seems, though, that any one of these forces us to conclude that:
4) Ants (and perhaps even bacteria and plants) are conscious, or at least potentially so.
I suggest that we may simply say instead:
5) All living things exhibit intentionality;
6) The intentionality of living things does not necessarily depend on mind or consciousness.

From my perspective there are a number of errors in this post, but almost all stem from the agreed position between Bill and Malcolm that ants exhibit intentional behavior when they mark a trail to food. To an outside observer with no knowledge of ant neuroanatomy and physiology, this might indeed be considered to be the result of conscious or purposeful behavior. [To properly discuss this topic we are going to have to delve into what is intentionality below.] However, an ant’s brain is little more than a collection of reflexes. It is much more accurate to consider the behavior as determined by the structure of the ant brain—find food, reverse path, start leaving a trail. Another example of what looks like intelligent behavior is described at the start of Daniel Dennett’s book, Elbow Room. The wasp sphex, stings another insect, paralyzing it, drags it to a location where it starts digging a hole. When the hole is dug, it then drags the prey into the hole, and lays its eggs in it. The prey then feeds the larvae when they hatch. This is quite complex behavior to observe, but if one moves the prey from where it was placed, sphex then simply cycles back and forth between the hole and where the prey was, revealing that the behavior is determined by the structure of the nervous system and not subject to spontaneous modification.

From the preceding paragraph, I would argue that 3” is incorrect. That a biological imperative is not the same as intentionality, when discussed in arguments about the mind. Without 3”, the remaining statements are no longer possible. When we look at where Malcolm wants to go with this argument, it is to consider things that were designed by evolution as being intentional systems, analogous to books and maps being intentional because they were designed by us. However, his final sentence, “We might, on this view, leave the term ‘intrinsic’ for those entities that were not designed by other intentional entities” leads to considerable difficulties. It is both ascribing intentionality to evolution, an ostensibly random process, and either makes all entities intentional, if evolution is intentional, or no entities intentional, since if evolution is not intentional, then nothing that evolved is intentional. [Of course, that assumes that everything evolved. It would not apply to anything created de novo from God.] The back door in this argument is to state that evolution is not an entity. But in so doing he is implying a non-entity can have intention.

Part of the problem here is that we are working with concepts that are very difficult to define. In the case of Malcolm’s argument, I think he is also confusing intentional with being part of a process that has evolved by chance, but is actually determined in its execution. In addition we are working with neural structures on the physical side, and we have no real clue how the physical structure of the brain of humans, or any vertebrate, creates what we see as emotions, intentionality, or consciousness. In discussing this problem several terms come up, mental states, conscious, intention, and—implied by intention—purpose. Malcolm equates intentionality to “aboutness” of mental acts. But in so doing I think he, in effect, introduces two other terms, perception and meaning. Perception can be used two ways, the reaction of nerves to a stimulus, or the interpretation of a stimulus by a conscious mind. The second is closely allied with meaning but is not necessarily identical to it. It would very easy to tie ourselves in knots or to end up in circular reasoning with this.

When talking about intentionality, do we mean something in the artificer that guides the creation of an object, or something that is part of an object. We certainly have little difficulty discussing intention in the sense of purpose, in behavior as action or behavior as creation of an object. That sense lies in the artificer. When we apply the term intention to the object it carries with it the implied, “who’s intent or for what purpose?” Inextricably tied to our use of the word intention is the idea of purpose or end. In the sense of there being an “end” to the pheromone trail, it is leading other ants back to the food source. But if it arose by chance, that some behaviors were more successful than other behaviors in survival of an ant colony, thus propagating them, can they be called purposeful? Especially in light of the changes in behavior being due to changes in the physical structure of the ant brain, not in some choice made by the ants.

Intentionality is a quality. Rather than “aboutness” it implies having a purpose—a use. The use can be to convey meaning or information, or it can be to act as a tool in the modification of other objects. Part of intentionality is its transitive character. It has no value of itself, but in its position of connection. [For the purposes of this discussion, I see no difference between intent and intention.] If we focus on the operational aspects, then the ant trail is intentional. But the difficulty there, is that, when intention is used, it describes conscious purpose not determined behavior, or, in other words, purpose by choice. The ant has no choice about leaving a pheromone trail. It cannot be forced to change its behavior. On the other hand, many animals, in particular vertebrates, can be forced to change behavior, or, more gently, trained.

If we are to decide what is intentional and what is not, one way to approach it is from what entities are capable of intention. Humans are the gold standard for intentionality, since it is from human behavior that the concept arose. But what are some of the qualities that can help determine other species that might exhibit intentions? Two aspects of intentionality are choice in the artificer and an end to be accomplished. Implied are also future-thinking and desire. There is one other implied and very critical aspect, critical to the point of being a defining criterion for intentionality—communication to another being. Operationally, the ant trail fulfills this last criterion, and is an excellent exemplar for it. However, the ant trail fails in a number of other criteria as we discussed above.

The goal now is to try to constrain the range of entities that can be said to exhibit intention in their behaviors. I am going to take a short-cut here and offer as demonstrated that most of the mammals can be said to exhibit intentional behavior. Even if we ascribe most of their behavior to innate neural structure, evidence can still be argued for forms of choice, desire, communication, etc. I would like to consider the white laboratory rat at this point. From what I know of its behavior as it relates to its brain structure, this creature may be on the line separating species capable of intentional behavior from the rest.

If a rat is trained to a high degree of repeatability to a maze, and then a portion of the cortex of its brain is removed surgically. When the rat recovers, its ability to negotiate the maze correctly is in proportion to the amount of brain tissue remaining. It makes no difference from where the brain tissue is removed; it is a function of how much is removed. It is as if the correct pattern of turns is distributed evenly across the rat’s brain cortex, and that the reliability comes from greater and greater numbers of neurons storing the correct information and being able to cause the correct turning. When these are diminished, the wrong turns become more frequent. In other words, the correct behavior, which appears as a choice to the observer, is actually the statistical summation of the neurons associated with the behavior. This is manifestly different from human behavior, where regardless of the number of successful negotiations through a situation, a single major failure can lead to choosing never to do it again.

Since a rat can be trained to change its behavior, and negotiate a maze, yet based on the preceding paragraph cannot be said to exhibit choice in the correct sense, trainability is exhibited by intentional creatures, but trainability does not guarantee intentional behavior or the capability for it. Another criteria above is communication to another entity. I immediately think of dogs and geese. Both species make loud noises when strange animals, including humans, are around. In the case of geese there is absolutely no selectivity. From the apparent result, a warning of potential danger, there is a communication to the other geese. But the lack of selectivity appears to put it in the category of ant trails—a biological imperative. However, dogs may bark at the first sound they hear or the first movement they see, but as soon as they realize it is someone or something that is not threatening, they quit. There is a refinement here. In some cases, they realize a warning is not necessary before even the first bark. Since dogs are trainable, and seem to express choice and communication, they are still in the running for having intention.

A more difficult pair of criteria are the future-thinking and planning. Intentionality always involves transits across time, whether quickly or long periods of time. Bill Vallicella’s trail markers could persist for many years or even centuries, and might be intended to do so. So how far in the future does an entity have to plan to be considered intentional. If we are talking on the order of a few seconds to a few minutes, my dogs could be said to exhibit intentional behavior, in the sense of creating a crude plan to accomplish a goal. My female Dalmatian has been known to act as if she needed to go out, just to get me to get up, so the boxer will get up, so she can have the place the boxer had. And, yes, that is a very subjective example. I would imagine farmers can find equivalent examples in either pigs or goats, both of which are the most intelligent of the common farm animals. I think the conclusion that I would draw is that somewhere around domestic animals, dogs, pigs, and goats, and above in apparent intelligence, we can expect some form of intentionality.

To ascribe intentionality and in turn consciousness to any lesser animal or to plants or bacteria, much less to the inanimate forces of nature, is to render the term meaningless.

In USA Today, Monday, Dec 10, in the Nationline section, Page 3A:

Lawyer for a coalition of business groups say they will continue their legal battle against an Arizona law that will prohibit people from hiring illegal immigrants and require businesses to verify whether applicants are eligible for employment. The law takes effect Jan. 1.

Socialists, liberals, and all other anti-business types have always accused business of caring only for the next dollar. Guess they were right. There is no longer such a thing as principles in business. Look at Enron, Tyco, and all the others.

I'm so p****d, I'm slightly sick to my stomach. Sell our security for a buck.

.....after all what is a little illegal immigration against their profits.

The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily

"The history of ancient and modern republics had taught them that many of the evils which those republics suffered arose from the want of a certain balance, and that mutual control indispensable to a wise administration. They were convinced that popular assemblies are frequently misguided by ignorance, by sudden impulses, and the intrigues of ambitious men; and that some firm barrier against these operations was necessary. They, therefore, instituted your Senate."

-- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 1788)

....which part does not apply to the Senate?

Maybe most casual readers will understand it...if they stick around to read it

[Preface: I also posted this to Bill's Big Stuff, and normally would have only posted the first few paragraphs here. However, I no longer post frequently, so the concern over swamping my blog with a big post is moot. I expect a fair amount of commentary over time, and Bill's Big Stuff doesn't have comments enabled.]

I have posted on this topic before, but think it is time to revisit it with a different emphasis. In some ways the topic of homosexual marriage is a perfect storm. There is the constant pressure to not only tolerate homosexuality but also to accept it and consider it equivalent in every way to a heterosexual relationship. There are the biblical literalists who state that homosexuality is a sin, and that there is only one definition of marriage, a man and a woman joining together, and finally there is the problem of the interaction of religion and government.

Before we get started let’s make things clear for the ad hominum crowd: I am heterosexual. I have and have had in the past homosexual friends. I have had homosexual strangers try to flirt or hit on me and didn’t freak out over it. Actually I found it funny for me, sad for them. I am married and I attend an Evangelical Lutheran Church. However, I have unorthodox religious views, and you have to see my religious archives to know them. I think homosexuality is both innate in some cases and acquired in others. I do not see homosexuals as victims. Honi soi qui mal y pense.

Note that my comments are moderated. If you post a comment that is an attempt to make a point however clumsily, and it is obviously your own thought, not something parroted, I will let it be posted regardless if it agrees or disagrees with me. I may or may not post my own rebuttal or extension. You must deal with my arguments and observations, not attack me. ANY name-calling or denigration of me or another commentor in response to this post will go into the bit bucket. I will also reject any comment, regardless of value, that has R-rated language. I encourage discussion and expansion of knowledge, not emotional bashing—that is reserved for theatres of war.

Cultural Aspects of the Issue

One of the most powerful forces in this whole issue is the combined cultural attitudes towards homosexuality. Let’s start with a simple fact, homosexuals are a minority. This alone creates a set of attitudes; those who are out to protect the underdog immediately want to find some way to protect them or become their champions. Those who hate difference, abhor them simply for their being different. This leads to calling them deviant or perverted. And in the middle are the great mass of people that are anywhere from uncomfortable to fearful with known homosexuals and the idea of homosexuality.

Simply being different is not sufficient explanation for attitudes, however. The attitudes towards homosexuals are every bit or more vicious than those towards different races or religions. Inter-racial and inter-religious relationships have always existed though often hidden and are now quite common. But one rarely, if at all finds relationships between homo- and heterosexual people. This is because we are dealing with THE fundamental drive in all humanity – the drive to reproduce. If there is any purpose to life outside the meanings that God or our own egos give it, it is to “be fruitful and multiply.” It is arguably the fundamental life force. Animals including humans are known to endanger their lives in order to attempt to reproduce.

Given that sex and reproduction are so fundamental to life, it is little wonder that homosexuality, which is sterile biologically, can evoke such strong emotional responses and antipathy. Before I am accused of justifying “homophobia”, let me state that reasons and explanations are not excuses for behavior. Because as humans we have the power to observe and judge ourselves, we can control our behavior and in some cases re-educate our emotional responses. Let me also state that outside of questions of sex and reproduction, whether a person is or is not homosexual should be meaningless.

Where problems arise culturally, it is due to the fear and ignorance of homosexuality, because it is different and unknown to heterosexuals. That fear often leads to the idea that homosexuals are constantly looking to prey upon heterosexuals or children to bring them into their way of life. With extremely rare exceptions, nothing could be more wrong. In cases where this occurs, it is probably more due to the same kinds of forces that lead to heterosexual molestation rather than something specific to homosexuality. It has more impact on perception due to the emotional attitude around homosexuality in the first place.

There needs to be a side note on homosexuals in the military. The military is a sub-culture that has its own mores and perceptions. It also has to have much more stringent behavioral requirements due to the life and death nature of its work. There can be no emotional impediments to its functioning. Further contributing to this particular question is the fact that military duty in its primary function is the ultimate in male behavior – the destruction of threats. Coincident with that is the very strong categorization of what is acceptable and not acceptable, with no questioning. These things are essential to the military as no time can be spent on reasoning when instant reaction is necessary to protect life. To the military mind, the risk that a homosexual will not respond in the accepted way in a combat situation is too great to be risked. The survival of a unit depends on every one of its members.

To a civilian, this way of thinking is not comprehensible, and leads to the constant criticism of military policy on homosexuals. To a civilian, it doesn’t make any difference in most cases what a person’s sexual orientation is. To the military, it does. Just as the military does not allow heterosexual couples to belong to the same unit, so they cannot allow two homosexuals to belong to the same unit. The primary loyalty is to the partner, not the unit. There is a further difficulty in that the hyper-heterosexuality of the other members of the unit will exclude any known homosexuals. This is where the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy fails. A covert homosexual member of a group cannot be protected from reprisal until it is too late. As long a homosexual member of a unit is unknown and can act completely as a member of a unit, he/she can survive. Once they are found out, it will completely disrupt a unit. The military takes the stance that such disruption cannot be tolerated, especially if it occurs during hostilities, and would prefer to prevent homosexuals from being part of the military. This is a utilitarian issue. Regardless of what would feel good to civilians or seem right, the military is a separate culture with a far different function from the rest of society. This is not an issue subject to reason. It operates at a more primitive level. That is hard for non-military people to understand, especially intellectuals, who think reason can control everything.

Another side note: the most asinine use of the English language I can think of is to call a male homosexual gay. It is demeaning because it emphasizes the stereotypical feminine behavior that many heterosexuals ascribe to homosexual males. (It also is meaningless in the normal sense of the word, gay.) For that matter it is equally wrong to refer to heterosexuals as straight. This carries an implied value judgment of heterosexual right, homosexual wrong (bent).

All asides aside, let’s get back to the original discussion. (OK, I simply couldn’t resist that bit.) One of the unfortunate consequences of our federal system, that was built mainly by Protestant Christians, is an outlawing of any sexual behavior in many states not considered oriented towards having children. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, it just gets swept up with the rest. States have outlawed oral and anal sex, and, consistent with this, have also outlawed homosexuality. I think it is important to realize that the outlawing of homosexuality is part of a general attitude and NOT just specifically for homosexuals. That this has led to a persecution of homosexuals is a very unfortunate consequence.

Since we are at the persecution of homosexuals, lets visit the persecution of Senator Craig. This is almost a mini-perfect storm in itself. We have the press howling about a Republican who has been accused of homosexual behavior. There is no examination of the issue as to how the accusation occurred, nor is there any attempt to have sympathy if he is a homosexual. This is in direct opposition to the general stated view of most media that homosexuality is to not only be tolerated but to be all but extolled, being considered the equivalent of heterosexual behavior in any normative judgments. The law in Minnesota outlaws homosexual behavior, and so we have cops that patrol for it. There is something very sickening about a cop that spends his time trolling for homosexuals in the public restrooms. First of all, the behavior he is looking for is so arcane that only another homosexual or he would recognize it. In such a circumstance, where is the crime, other than on the law books? If another homosexual is the only person to read and respond to such signals, then it is definitely a case of mutual consent. So where is the defense of personal and private behavior? It disappeared in the name of politics. A man who may, or may not, have been an excellent Senator has been destroyed over something that has nothing to do with his political accomplishments or lack thereof.

As a result of this persecution of homosexuals and others who are on the margins of sexual behavior, we see the rise of the RESCUER. This is a person or group of people who for various reasons make loud and public displays of defending homosexual behavior, even to the point of demanding special privilege for it, similar to affirmative action. I think the rescuers fall into two major groups, those who are using the homosexuals as a way to advance their own search for power and those who buy into the drama triangle, the most compelling psychological trap I know of, and a minor group, the constant sympathizer who oozes feel-sorry emotion over everything, rather impotently. The first group is the most easily discussed, they are the ones that always are wanting to pass a law. Notice that the law always takes away freedom somewhere by either restricting behavior or by restricting the expression of thought. The most notable example is hate crimes. These are simply various crimes that have been singled out for extra punishment if one can project onto them a state of mind of hatred for an oppressed group and a desire to hurt members of the group just because they belong to the group. The behavior is already illegal as behavior. The imposition of additional punishment is brought about by what amounts to mind-reading in some cases. Of course there are obvious cases where slogans are sprayed onto walls, stones, etc., but there are also other cases where the argument is made that the crime occurred simply because the victim was a member of a protected class. This becomes a perverted form of entitlement—victims are avenged more forcefully if they belong to a particular group, not because of the heinousness of the crime. The net result is a restriction in both behavior and thought, as evidenced in Canada where biblical verse has been deemed hate speech when it is the biblical condemnation of homosexuality. The net result of the imposition of hate crime is a loss of freedom of both speech and behavior, because the intent is what is perceived in the mind of the enforcer not the mind of the actor, and intent is the means to establish hate crime. This is the most dangerous of the three groups because they can easily co-opt the other two to accomplish their ends.

To discuss the second group, we must first briefly describe a drama triangle. The drama triangle consists of a victim, a persecutor, and a rescuer. From the names the roles and their overall behavior are obvious. What is not so obvious is that the roles are fluid and a rescuer can become a persecutor, persecutors become victims, and victims become rescuers or persecutors. Those are the most common switches, but any role can become one of the other two—not always in the same triangle. A rescuer needs a victim, and if there is one ready-made will fasten on it, and if there is not one at hand, create one. I think homosexuals fall into a mixture of the two, in earlier times they were actually victims, but now are really placed in the victim role by those wanting to be rescuers. The problem with rescuers is they don’t want to right wrong, they want to avenge it, self-righteously of course. They make demands in the name of the victims that more than correct the persecution. In effect they want to set the victim higher than the persecutor. Often the victim joins in the retribution, and the persecutor becomes a victim of the combined persecution of the victim and rescuer. The deadliness of the triangle is that every one gets a clandestine emotional payoff. The victim wears the victimhood and milks it until such time as he/she can become vengeful. Then there is the payoff of having made the persecutor PAY. The rescuer has the heady satisfaction of RIGHTING A WRONG, and the illicit pleasure of justifiably (in their own mind) really taking it out on the persecutor. The persecutor has of course the feeling of power from being the persecutor, but when he/she becomes a victim can save up the resentment of being persecuted for when she/he is once again a rescued victim and persecutor.

In the context of this discussion, the rescuers want to create homosexual marriage. It serves a dual purpose, it slaps the face of the perceived heterosexual “persecutors” who don’t want the idea of marriage to change, and it elevates homosexual partnerships to legal parity with a heterosexual family. The rescuers also readily go along with the idea of so-called hate speech being punished. In effect we are left with a double standard in which heterosexuals can be criticized about their sexual and cultural practices, but homosexuals cannot. The problem is that in their zeal to tear down what to them is a symbol of oppression, they are ignoring the internal conflicts in the symbol and the unintended consequences that will ensue.

The third group of people are best exemplified by the quote from the Mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, that was posted by one of my good blogging friends:

“As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage”…” In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships -- their very lives -- were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.” [emphasis in source of quote, bk]

To some degree we see a bit of the rescuer in perceiving homosexuals as victims—less important, less worthy, less deserving—but the emphasis is more on the feel-good, the empathy. There is also the muzzy-headed thinking that somehow relationships get their meaning from what they are called—form is more important than substance. I think what is more important to understand, is that he is totally unaware of the conflicted nature of the word marriage as it is used in our society.

One other cultural issue occurs. Until recent times it was acceptable for 14-years old men and women to marry. When life was simpler and the knowledge needed to survive was learned by age 14, this was a reasonable situation, especially if two 14-years olds were involved. But it also led to situations not tolerated today. Older men would out-live several wives and continually remarry young women, often encouraged and accepted because of the burden of raising children beyond 14 years. In cases where a bride-price or dowry was involved, a young girl could represent a major economic asset to a father, if she were essentially sold to an older successful man, who could pay well to have a young wife. This has definitely changed with modern society, due to the desire to keep children out of the labor force, the longer education requirements, and in the last century birth control. States will now allow marriage before 18, age 16, with parental consent, but in some cases a court approval is still required. Only two states allow marriage before the age of 16, both with court approval.

The Nature of Marriage

In thinking about the nature of marriage, it is useful to consider some of the things it is not. It is not simply living together. Many couples live together, but they do not qualify as married. It is not having children. Unmarried parents have children. Especially in this day of easy and effective contraception, marriage is not a necessity for sex. Yet all of these things are part of marriage. Biblical approaches to marriage will be discussed below, so for now we will confine the discussion to the human and secular aspects of it.

First of all, at its ideal, marriage is a lifetime union. Even in societies with multiple wives, the unions are for life. To my knowledge, separation and divorce are not part of primitive societies. It seems to be something that comes with civilization. One of the primary benefits of this union is survival. It allows the division and specialization of labor so that less energy is expended for two together than for two individuals. Or alternatively, it allows for a better life for two when they expend the same energy as they would singly.

A benefit to the male is the saving of the energy that goes into courtship. In almost all mammals and birds, there are courtship rituals. These can require the expenditure of considerable energy, and in fact become a survival selection factor—those with the most energy win the mates and pass on their genes. It also provides security for the passing on of genes—life unions mean that offspring are given the chance to grow to maturity. In contrast, look at lions. When a new male takes over a pride, the first thing he does is kill all offspring that are not his. Besides humans, there are other species that mate for life. I have heard geese and wolves, and there are others. Interestingly, not primates; they seem to form extended clans ruled by a few males.

For females there are the advantages of protection and no longer the need to select a new mate every season. In humans it also allows for being able to work at home and still have the nutrition that hunting brings in. It also assures assistance or at least protection and food while children are young and unable to assist with the tasks of survival. [Modern society has changed much of this, and we will discuss that a bit later.]

So, one of the attributes of marriage is commitment to the union. The motivations for that commitment were simple at one time but become more complex with civilization. Reproduction is the primary purpose of species (Regardless of our wonderful intellectual powers as humans, we have to reproduce.), and a permanent union is the way to maximize that in humans. Part of this is the length of time it takes to raise a human to independence, about 12-14 years. If the average lifespan before civilization was about 50-55, then a menopause at 40 or so made sense. The last baby would have parenting to independence.

In addition to commitment then, we can add reproduction. In fact in the days of high infant and childhood mortality, women had to basically be baby factories in order for families to flourish. The changes that civilization has made on this grim scenario are far-reaching in their consequences.

As a first approach then, marriage is a formalizing of this committed union. Because marriage evolved in the days when survival of families via their offspring was paramount, the formalization created security for the children. First through religion then through law, marriage became a binding commitment of the two adults to each other and a commitment to the offspring of the union. Rules and laws were generated that said the property was owned in common, or not, who acquired what property in the event of death of a partner, and what children inherited what property (e.g. primogeniture in Great Britain).

This is a good place at which to bring up the romantic side of marriage. First and foremost is sexual attraction. It is the driver in male-female attractions that do not develop from long-standing friendships. It can be an overwhelming lust, an overwhelming non-specific attraction, a mild attraction that grows with interaction, a sudden idea that another person may be “fun” to know. How the attraction is expressed is a function of the person expressing it and the receiver. The variations are as great as there are couples. At some point the attraction becomes strong enough that the couple wants to have sex together. There are several ways this occurs [socially, OK?]. They may simply find a secluded location and mate. This is common in teenagers. They may go to one or another apartment or a hotel room. This is more common in the employed twenties. They may decide to live together, unmarried. Also common among the twenty-years olds, and older couples. They may decide to wait until they are married, which is less common now than earlier. At this point, with the sexual pressure off, they may become closer, stuck in a rut, or break up.

Of these options, all may lead to marriage. However, the success of the marriage may depend on the nature of the interactions before the marriage. Avoiding the inclusion of the casual, one-night stand or casual once-in-a-while relations, the longer the couple is together with or without having sexual relations, the more likely they are to become married, unless they break up in the meantime. At some point they decide to become married and the relationship should change. They need to become serious about how they will solve problems together, how they approach money, kids, etc. This is in addition to maintaining the “fun” of courtship. Regardless of the form it takes this is a courtship phase. Because the commitment is lifelong, the courtship is longer and more grueling on both participants. However, they do eventually get married.

Marriage generally invokes a ceremony. It may be simple or it may be elaborate. Generally it is designed to announce to the world the commitment of the couple to each other and to advertise their social standing. As a side note, from my experience, the size of the ceremony bears no relation to the durability of the marriage. The ceremony is a social event designed to show off and to celebrate. If the commitment and the adjustments during the engagement are good, the marriage will survive regardless of the ceremony or lack thereof. But it is important to note that despite the implied cynicism about the purpose of the ceremony, there really is an element of the bride being her most beautiful, the groom his handsomest, and the wedding the high point in their lives. As much or more as any ceremony marking the change from childhood to adulthood, the marriage is a life-event. It is supposed to happen only once in one’s life, and it is to be as wonderful as possible.


Legal Aspects of the Issue

Marriage law was applied to both the formal religious ceremony, and also in many states of the US to couples that had been together for long periods of time—common-law marriage. I would suspect that common-law marriage grew out of a desire to protect the wife in the event of the death or disappearance of her spouse. By having shared their lives together, she was considered to have earned a part of the assets. Marriage law has many aspects of contract law in spelling out the rules of ownership of property and custody of children. Because marriage became a legal entity, when it fell apart then there had to be laws to deal with that as well so came about divorce law, describing when and on what grounds divorces could occur and how the material goods of the marriage were to be divided.

So another attribute of marriage is a sanction, in this case from the governmental side of the society, and, as we all know and will discuss below, from the religious side as well. These sanctions and rules run counter to the loud politically correct statements of militant feminism, and it is useful to look at them a bit. One of the things that seems to occur in the process of civilizing humans is that at some point males become overly-dominant. A modern extreme is Islam in the Middle East, where the woman is no better than a slave. I think this occurs because as survival becomes less difficult, the role of the woman in the partnership becomes less critical. The man still goes out from the home, but the woman becomes more and more dependent on him for sustenance as her role in providing shrinks from agricultural husbandry, cooking, food preservation, and manufacture of clothing, to simply caring for children and housekeeping. She no longer has a bargaining chip of survival skills. The male can purchase everything he needs.

Conversely, in our modern society, a women is no longer dependent on a man to raise her children, in the survival sense. She can earn an adequate living while hiring others to watch over her child(ren). She can hire housekeepers to maintain her home environment. What is lost is the emotional support of a male which is actually needed for the proper upbringing of a child.

But society has not caught up with feminism, if, indeed, it has too. Let us look at current marriage and divorce law, from a very high level. The approach is one that the male is the earner of the money, and the woman the home-based care-giver, and that marriages should be discouraged from breaking up. From this comes the concepts that the mother is the better custodian for the child, that the father should pay child support and/or alimony, and the concept of fault or reason for a divorce, establishing blame. Though it may have meant that in many cases the husband could buy his way out of a marriage and the wife might have to find a cause to divorce her husband and obtain support, the general intent was to support marriage, even when unpleasant (yes, more so for the woman than the man), and prevent the total loss of home for the woman and the children if the marriage broke up.

But note that most of the function of marriage law is analogous to, and can be provided by, contract law. This is something I want to return to later.

In regard to protecting those unable to protect themselves, the law also forbid unions between humans and animals, and adults and children. In both cases it can be seen as not between two entities capable of informed or knowledgeable consent. But the problem is that these laws come from a generally common concept of what is and is not a marriage and not from an express desire to protect the defenseless. As a consequence unions between persons of the same sex are forbidden.

The Religious Approach to Marriage

Most of what we think about when we consider marriage comes from religion. The ceremonies, the statement of sanction, the formalizing of the union with admonishments to be faithful all come from religion. Missing from the religious approach is any explicit statements concerning property or children. This is because religious marriages are assumed to be lifelong, and such issues should not arise.

Religion wants to secure its believers to itself and binds them with rules and regulations on how to conduct their lives. Hopefully these rules and regulations are actually good guides to living, though sometimes their interpretation in years after they are made can make them detrimental. The members of a religion come to believe they have the only right answer, and often wish to enforce their rules, not just on themselves, but also on the rest of their society. Sometimes the motivation is not one of self-righteousness but one of defensiveness—remove temptation by outlawing it civilly. One is less tempted when no one can do something and is more motivated to abstain if it is also illegal.

Religious rules are designed to promote the stability of the family. They are also designed to maximize the creation of more children—“be fruitful and multiply” as a divine command. To this end, any form of sex other than that which can create children is considered sinful. This includes masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and homosexual sex. It also encourages or demands virginity at the time of marriage. After all, if the first time one has sex is in a marriage, then it will be a powerful force for validating the marriage, because it then is through marriage that one of the most powerful sensations humans have is experienced. In addition, divorce is forbidden or at the least discouraged for obvious reasons. There is also a public health factor in marital virginity, virgins will not have contracted an STD. Other issue arises around virginity. When daughters were considered property, and a man seduced a virgin daughter, the economic value of the daughter was greatly diminished. The father was then entitled to money equal to the economic loss.

It is from religion that the whole concept of marriage derives. From religion we get the sanctioning of the union and the public proclamation that puts the weight of the mosque, church, synagogue or temple behind it. Like everything else in religion, laws and rituals developed to solemnize the promises made, and the promises were worded to be as binding as possible.

One can argue with the apparent unreality of religious proscriptions on marriage. However, as long as we had a predominantly agrarian society, they generally worked. First of all, survival was sufficiently challenging, that there was little energy for other than the basics. Husbands and wives were grateful to survive another day and if one had annoying manners, strange behaviors, a bad temper, or any other bad trait, it was small compared to the survival of the family unit.

In many cases, love never entered into it after the courtship. I am always reminded at this point of the song from “Fiddler on the Roof”, “Do You Love Me?”. The dialogue in the song is done humorously, but there is a definite underlying reality—“Do you love me?” “Do I WHAT?” “Do you love me?” Do I love him? For 25 years I cooked for him, …..for 25 years I milked the cow, after 25 years, why talk about love now?” etc. They never met each other until their wedding day, and then were joined for life. The marriage was arranged by a match-maker. “Fiddler” has a lot of poignancy simply because it was culturally true, and there are close parallels in all early cultures, not just Russian Judaism.

Religious marriage became the model for secular marriage, and as long as we were predominantly a Judeo-Christian society there was little conflict. The forms of Protestant Christian marriage became the forms of secular marriage. The pastor, priest, or rabbi was replaced with a judge or magistrate.

Conflicts and Possible Resolution

The current conflict lies in the overlap of the religious and legal aspects of marriage. The legal portion is the registration of the marriage to validate the rights of the participants and their offspring. After all, in a dispute it is important to show that there are grounds for the dispute – namely a valid marriage, whether ceremonial or common-law. In the case there is not a valid marriage, e.g. palimony suits, then different law must be applied. The law that is applied has as its purpose the best outcome for all parties, though often this is not achieved, simply due to the inability or refusal of lawmakers to craft good law.

From a legal perspective marriage is actually a contract. The problem stems from the fact that the conditions of the contract are being created piecemeal as necessity appears to dictate. With the original model for marriage being religious, with its attendant lack of legal detail, it left to lawmakers to spell out such detail. Generally such efforts, rather than starting from scratch, simply apply more law to existing law, and leave it to the courts to sort it out.

The religious aspects are the ceremony and the sanctions. There is also the specific requirement that a marriage be between a man and a woman. It is not contractual, it is the fulfillment of a divine command, and the command is very specific in its requirements. As noted above, the purpose is less to provide a wonderful life for the bride and groom as to provide a stable environment for the offspring. Superimposed on this was also the early cultural requirement for many offspring. As mentioned abov this created specific rules as to what was a suitable partner and what was acceptable sexual behavior.

[I just realized there is a whole class of marriages I have not touched – political marriage, e.g. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. These fall under the legal contract rubric, and the sanctioning of the church to these unions was not one of its finest hours. ]

What has occurred as a result is that priests, pastors, and rabbis have become ex-officio officers of the state, filling out and validating the legal documents of marriage. Conversely, the state enforces law that mostly stems from religious doctrine. What must occur is the separation of the legal and religious aspects. The state must get out of the marriage business, and the church must quit legally validating unions.

The emotional impact of the word, marriage, carries all the religious sanctions and constraints in the mids of most people. As witness to this, is the number of state constitutional amendments that specifically state marriage is to be between a man and a woman. That is not a problem – the problem is when civil unions are forbidden. Then we have a case of religious doctrine dictating to the state – something I discussed at length before. If the state did not recognize marriage as a legal term, the problem would be moot.

The state laws need to have a definition of civil union that applies to ALL couples, male-female, male-male, female-female. It is important that it disallow child-adult, animal-adult, or any other contract that involves one party not being legally competent. I also think that states should dis-allow both polygamy and polyandry, simply because the enforcement of such contracts would be a nightmare. [Note: business should be free to recognize such unions as the owners or stockholders see fit. Business is private property and not subject to the same restrictions as government. For those who think EEO is good, remember that forcing employment will lead to resentment from the employees and inefficiency. Those companies that are able to see past the stereotypes will harvest a wealth of talent. My own impression is that some very creative people can belong to single-sex unions, and the companies that also see it will compete by offering partner benefits vs. married couple benefits. ]

Churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques would then perform a ceremony called marriage, or in the case of atheists, they would create their own ceremonies as they see fit. If a church chose to solemnize a homosexual union, it is their choice and not a legal requirement, keeping church and state separate. If it chooses not to, the couple is still a legal couple.

Given the emotion surrounding the concept and term “marriage”, I don’t have much hope of an easy resolution. However, I think two things would help considerably. First, keep the legal issues at the state level; do not amend the US Constitution with a definition. Second, and this has been recommended before, create an exception for the legal definitions of marriage and civil union to the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, allowing each state, in the best tradition of Federalism, to determine their solution to this issue. One solution will never fit all in the foreseeable future, but with fifty possible solutions, some good solutions may evolve.

Homosexual relationships can be as fully committed as heterosexual ones. They should be allowed their chance to flourish. At the same time, trying to expand the term marriage beyond its common meaning is the wrong approach. Make it an issue of equal rights and privilege under a common term of civil union, and there will be a greater chance for equality.