Archive
The Right of Marriage
Inspired by The Rite of Marriage, on Columbia Faith and Values
So much talk about gay marriage lately with the SCOTUS hearings and this being Pride Month at MU, it is really a blast for someone like myself that loves talking politics, religion, and philosophy, as this can encompass all three. It can, however, be frustrating at times when one comes across opinions like those linked above. For those unwilling to stomach another bigoted editorial, the argument can be summarized to:
- Marriage is only important in the religious sense.
- My religion says homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong.
- Gay marriage should not be allowed because it is wrong in the only important aspect of marriage.
Clearly, I don’t care what anyone’s religion says about homosexuality, there is nothing wrong with it, but I’ll set that aside for now, as I can deconstruct the argument without having to show why it is not wrong. It hinges on the idea that marriage is a solely, or at least foremost, a religious institution. Such a stance was decided upon by first consulting Merriam-Webster’s definition:
“a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>”
But, that included same sex marriage, so it was not good enough (although, the cited reason that it was disregarded was because it also said marriage was consensual and “that is not the case in all cultures, so there must be a better definition”). From there we naturally turn to anthropologists to see how they define marriage….Wait. What’s that? We went to Catholic doctrine afterward? But the MW definition didn’t say anything about religion or spirituality. It talked about contracts and legal recognition. Okay, well what did the Catholic version say:
“Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through centuries in different cultures, social structures and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics”
I’m sorry but I fail to see how marriage is anything but a purely human institution. Currently only humans are capable of getting married or recognizing a marriage. This quote also does not explain what the “common and permanent characteristics” of marriage are. Luckily, the author agrees that this is also an inadequate explanation, although they accept everything stated. From here I’m sure we go on to the anthropologists or sociologist to figure out these common and permanent characteristics, right? NOPE! We turn to the Quran , The Torah (conveniently also considered canon in Catholicism), and the New Testament, where it largely details that marriage is between a man and a woman.
At this point, the argument is incapable of effectively being used to to explain why marriage should not be a right that is extended to homosexual couples. Marriage has existed long before these religions which makes them poor standards for deciding what is common and permanent about marriage. Additionally, this idea of “common and permanent” characteristics reeks of appeal to tradition, especially since no reason is given as to why such characteristics should be adhered to or even a good explanation of what they are. Finally, and most importantly marriage is not solely a religious institution in our culture. In fact, it need not require any religion whatsoever. A couple could simply have a marriage license signed by a government official and get the legal benefits. This is still referred to as a marriage, not some other term. If you want to use this argument to say that the Catholic church should not allow gay marriages, fine. By all means push the church further into irrelevancy. But with what has been provided here, there is no reason not to allow legal marriages for same sex couples recognized by the government. It does not hurt you, your church, or your marriage. You may think it is sinful, but you also think not being a christian is sinful, and you would not advocate for making it illegal to not be christian, would you? If not, then “because my religion says it is wrong” is not a good enough reason to make something illegal.
—————-
Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He interned with the Center for Inquiry On Campus in Amherst, NY and was a volunteer Teacher/Counselor at Camp Inquiry. He is an activist for atheism, secularism, feminism, and LGBT issues. He is in his fourth year at the University of Missouri – Columbia majoring in Philosophy and Sociology.
Twitter: @TonyLakey
On Outing Anti-Gay Bigots That Are Secretly Homosexual
As you may or may not already be aware, Jonathan Merritt, the prominent anti-gay blogger, was recently outed by Azariah Southworth, a gay blogger that identified as an agnostic . Merritt had this to say in regards to his relationship with Southworth:
In 2009, I was contacted by the blogger [Azariah Southworth] in response to an article I wrote about just that–that Christians must love people who experience sexual brokenness. We corresponded several times by email and text for a couple of weeks, some of them inappropriate. When I was traveling through a city near him, we met for dinner because we’d corresponded so recently. As we were saying goodbye, we had physical contact that went beyond the bounds of friendship. I was overcome with guilt, knowing I had put myself in an unwise situation. We never saw each other again and we ceased contact after a period of time. (Joe.My.God.)
Now I am not normally one that would support outing individuals, however I am currently of the stance that it was acceptable in this instance. Furthermore, I believe it is acceptable to out anyone that run a blog purveying an anti-gay viewpoint. If someone is actively perpetuating the system that makes gay people’s lives miserable, then outing them completely negates their ability to spread their bigotry.
It is unfortunate that this will likely cause Merritt to lose his job and whatever following he had. He will have to find a new skill and/or spread a new message. But honestly, I think that is a good thing over all. It will be a difficult time for Merritt, which is a situation I would rather have avoided. However, even if he had not been outed, I would have wanted him to stop spreading hatred and to take up alternative employment. Preferably doing something that actually benefits society, so I consider this a positive.
—————-
Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He is currently interning with the Center for Inquiry On Campus in Amherst, NY. He will be starting his fourth year at the University of Missouri – Columbia in August 2012, majoring in Philosophy and Sociology.
Why it is Important to Discuss the Issues We Disagree About
This post is in response to Dave’s Dear Secular Community: Lest we forget, we’re on the same side.
—————–
Lately in the atheist blogosphere (I can not believe I am using that word non-ironically now; I think I just threw up a little) there has been much conversation about instituting harassment policies at conferences. That is actually only tangential to what I want to discuss in this post. What I actually want to discuss is the idea proposed in Dave’s blog post, including the tweet. The tweet (by Florida State Director of American Atheists, and Vice President of Outreach for Secular Woman, Bridgette Gaudette) read:
“Dear Secular Community: We agree on 95% of the same stuff, can we focus on that and not the 5% that we disagree on?!”
There are a few issues I have with this idea, as well as the suggestions that come of the application of this idea. Firstly, on the most basic level, let me grant the arbitrarily decided on percentages and even then most of that 95% that we agree on is going to be things like gravity, that humans require oxygen, that 2+2=4. There is nothing to discuss with these issues.
I am not setting up a straw-man argument. I realize that what was meant by the original comment were issue about church-state separation, science education, LGBTQ rights, etc. However, I think it is important to point out that that would not make up this full 95%. Most of what we agree on we have no need to discuss because everyone else agrees with it as well. Then there are the “movement issues” that most of us agree on within the movement, but that a large part of the rest of society does not. These get a lot of discussion, as we want to convince those that disagree of our viewpoint in an attempt to mold society into one that shares our values. This is precisely why these things need to be discussed in the movement. The only way to promote positive change in society is by discussing the issues with the rest of society. The only way to promote positive change within the movement is by discussing the issues with the rest of the movement.
I understand the sentiment behind the idea; the whole “let’s be friends” mentality. And I completely agree with it. However, I think we need to tread carefully lest we enable the silencing of complaints and discussion. We can, and should, discuss these ideas respectfully. There should not be long-standing feuds and resentment due to discussion of these issues and we should certainly not have different camps forming. For Thor’s sake people, we have escaped this herd mentality once, lets not jump into it again. So I certainly sympathize with the desire to get along, but I think that can still be done while discussing important issues that people within the movement disagree upon, and I do think it is necessary. The complaints about not wanting to read about it on the blogs anymore are not at all helpful. For one, you have the ability not to read them if you do not care about the issue being discussed. There are titles and tags that can help you with this endeavor if skimming the article first to too time consuming for you. Secondly, and more importantly, these comments seem to me to be showing quite a bit of privilege. ”This does not affect me personally, and I don’t want to feel like I am doing anything wrong, so I don’t want to read about it anymore.” This may all be true, but it does affect other people within the movement, and they just as much of a right as anyone else does to try to keep people safe and treated equally. If you disagree with arguments being made in favor of some of these issues, then engage in the discussion, but to say that we should all stop talking about it is edging towards censorship and is not at all productive.
—————-
Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He is currently interning with the Center for Inquiry On Campus in Amherst, NY. He will be starting his fourth year at the University of Missouri – Columbia in August 2012, majoring in Philosophy and Sociology.
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
200th Blog Post!!
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Hello Everybody! This is our 200th Blog post! I figured I would mark the occasion by discussing some plans for the future of SASHA.
The first thing I want to announce is our now annual conference. The plan is for it to be held in October. It is intended to be a 3 day event starting on a Friday evening. Check back here for speakers, dates, times, and a cool name for the conference in the future.
I also plan on changing up how we do our meetings. I enjoyed the talks we had for meetings this past year, however I feel like they had some problems. It was difficult to organize a new talk every week and I understand that, for many, sitting in a lecture listening to someone talk is the last thing they want to do after all of their classes. This next year, these kinds of meetings will only be held once a month. A schedule will be posted for these talks as soon as it is available.
Do not worry, we will still be having weekly meetings. I will be speaking with the other officers soon to determine exactly how we want these meetings to go, but there will absolutely be at least one meeting a week, and often times more than one as we hope to have many more events this year.
Additionally, we will be starting a book club. As long as it maintains an interested base as it will require work on the part of the organizers to pull it off.
Finally, the change I am most excited about, I would like to transition our current model of elected officers to a board of directors. This is an idea that was toyed with after learning about the system used by the University of Northern Iowa Freethinkers and Inquirers (UNIFI). This way each year members will apply for positions and the current board will decide on who they think is best for the position, hopefully ensuring that our group is able to achieve the most it can. This also eliminates the potential for an antagonistic group to show up to our meetings and vote themselves into positions. As more information is available on this subject it will be posted here.
I hope you all enjoy your summer, and I am looking forward to a fantastic year.
-Tony
Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He is currently interning with the Center for Inquiry On Campus in Amherst, NY. He is a junior at the University of Missouri – Columbia majoring in Philosophy and Sociology.
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
New SASHA Officers
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Congratulations to our 2012-2013 SASHA Officers. For those unaware our officers are:
Tony Lakey (Myself) – President
Max Jersak - Treasurer
Sameer Surampalli - Secretary,
Robbie Macken - Director of Public Relations
Why is there no Vice President listed, you ask? Because that election is still ongoing! Follow this link to get to our ORGSYNC site and vote before before 11:45 tonight (4/30/12)! Aaron Underwood and Dave Muscato are both running for the position.
You will need an ORGSYNC account first, and to join our group on the site, but that is all free and can be done from this link. Be sure to do it early so that you can be approved to vote.
I am very excited about our new officers and look forward to working with them in the upcoming year. We have a lot of big things planned and I feel confident that we can accomplish them successfully with the great members we have in these positions.
NOW GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!
-Tony Lakey
Tony Lakey is the President of MU SASHA. He is a junior at Mizzou majoring in philosophy & sociology.
Embarrassed by PZ!? I think not.
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Moshe Averick, a creationist rabbi, posted a blog entry the other day, asking if we atheists are embarrassed by PZ Myers. His assumption is based off a criticism that PZ gives of Intelligent Design in one of his talks. PZ uses an analogy to show how complex things can come about through natural processes. The analogy he uses is that of driftwood on a shore, a complicated mixed-up pile of driftwood that a person probably could not recreate without looking at it. He juxtaposes this with a brick wall, which has a purpose, is much simpler than the pile of driftwood, and was intelligently designed by man.
Averick’s problem with this, which he struggles to accurately explain, is that PZ is using a straw-man argument. Averick states:
In any case, no self-respecting ID theorist would ever use the term “complexity.” The terms that are always used are “functional complexity” or “specified complexity.” In other words, complexity that achieves some pre-determined goal, complexity that clearly functions towards a specific purpose. The argument is that “functional complexity” and “specified complexity” clearly are the result of intelligent intervention. A pile of driftwood is immediately recognizable for exactly what it is; a random, disorganized, purposeless collection of….well, driftwood! To describe this argument as flawed logic would be misleading; we first would have to dignify it by labeling it as some form of logic in the first place. It is not flawed logic, it is simply ridiculous.
For the moment I will the fact that Intelligent Design proponents do use the term “complexity” and that “functional complexity” or “specified complexity” are therefore, not the always used. I will give him, that PZ Myers’ analogy does not address these “special” forms of complexity. This is, however, no reason to be ashamed of PZ. As I stated earlier, the ID community frequently uses the term complexity without these modifiers, which I have just heard about in this article (Granted, I don’t do much research on Intelligent Design, as I prefer my fiction reading to include more adventure). This would be a straw-man if PZ was directly addressing Averick, or people who regularly use these term, but that is not the case.
Furthermore, these “special” forms of complexity do nothing to help the Intelligent Design Proponent’s cause. They now also have to show that life is complex in a way that “achieves some pre-determined goal”. In order to do so, it would really seem like some consciousness would have to exist already in order to desire such a goal. If so, they must now prove God’s existence, or at least that of a consciousness that created life and wants it to achieve this unknown goal. Both of these seem to be unlikely conclusions to come to given the evidence we are provided with, and in Averick’s own opinion, we should not ignore fact and logic in favor of an agenda.
To answer Rabbi Averick’s question, No, I am not ashamed of PZ Myers. I am in fact proud to have such an intelligent man supporting the causes of skepticism and rational inquiry. In fact, I see nothing in your post that actually gives reason one should be ashamed, unless you think that his use of the word “Fuck” is reason to be ashamed of him. In which case , Fuck no! I am a bit fucking fond of the word myself.
Finally, if you think that functionally or specifically complex things are proof of something having been created, perhaps you should consider that the concept of God seems to clearly function towards a specific pre-determined goal, much like a brick wall…
Granted, brick walls aren’t intended to prevent rational thought.
Tony Lakey, President of MU SASHA, is a sophomore at Mizzou majoring in philosophy & minoring in sociology. He posts updates to the SASHA blog every Friday (He plans to anyway)
Liars for Jesus, The Religious Right’s Alternate Version of American History
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Chris Rodda was so fed up with the religious right’s lies that not only did she write a book in an effort to combat their misinformation, but she also gave it away for free. She explains in this blog post her decision to do so. It came about after she watched an interview with David Barton on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
After watching the interview online (which you should do as well, it is in three parts) I found out that David Barton seems to have much more influence in education than I would like. Especially because he tries to change history, such as making an almost laughable attempt to explain that while the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state, they still wanted the church to influence the government, and this also coincides with his wishes.
The best way to protect the education system from deceit such as this is to keep people informed. Hopefully, it will prevent problems like what we recently saw in Texas, but I doubt it.
You can also still buy the book from amazon if you like it.
SASHA Meeting Summary: Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Tonight we began by very briefly discussing a New York Times article borrowing from an Onion article about President Obama being in a teen magazine. The New York Times later had to print a correction, as the Onion article was obviously not accurate.
Was also continued our Science VS Fiction game, where someone presents 4 science based news articles, one of which has a change to make it false. After a brief discussion everyone votes for which one they think is false.
The 3 true articles were:
Beetle Bling: Researchers Discover Optical Secrets ‘Metallic’ Beetles
Large Galaxies Stopped Growing 7 Billion Years Ago
The the correct version of the article that was made false was:
Chernobyl’s Radioactivity Reduced Populations of Birds of Orange Plumage, Study Finds
We also discussed the lengthy Facebook conversation that took place on Dave Muscato’s wall after a Zombie Jesus Day post. Here is an image of that discussion.
Afterward many of us went to the Heidelberg where there was plenty of open discussion.
Hope to see you next time.
-Tony Lakey
