Conscience and Tyranny

A little while ago, I was hiking up a mountain in Lake George, NY with my father, two brothers, and youngest sister.  Happily the mountain was a very small one, for my father and I probably could have handled little more.  As we huffed and puffed in growing fatigue, my sister, then about 5 minutes ahead of us, waited for us to catch up and then told us about some disfavor she had fallen into at her work.  In response, I told her about a tyrant who once showed a visitor to his garden.  Among the plants in the garden, one had grown above the rest.  The tyrant showed his visitor about the garden and as they approached the one plant that grew above the rest, the tyrant pulled out a machete and quickly cut it down to the level of the others.  The message was clear: no subject must be allowed to rise above the rest.  Tyranny can tolerate mediocrity but never excellence. 

The tyrant in question might have been any number of men over the years.  It might have been Napoleon  Stalin, or Henry VIII.  Robert Bolton captured well the attitude of Henry VIII toward the few men that dared raise their heads above the rest, toward the few plants that dared grow above their appointed bounds.  When Henry VIII broke with Rome and declared himself the head of the Church of England, he demanded that everyone follow him.  Nearly everyone did—but nearly was not enough.  When almost everyone else went along, Thomas More, did not.  He did not speak or write against Henry, he simply remained silent.  One silent man perhaps should not have seemed too much of a threat to Henry VIII, but Henry did not want More’s silence, but his approval.  When everyone else supported Henry, why should one silent man have bothered him so much?  Bolton’s Henry, speaking to More, gave the answer:

            Because you're honest... and what is more to the purpose, you're known to be honest. There are those like Norfolk who follow me because I wear the crown; and those like Master Cromwell who follow me because they are jackals with sharp teeth and I'm their tiger; there's a mass that follows me because it follows anything that moves. And then there's you...

The existence of even one good man is a spur in the conscience of the wicked.  The existence of one good man tells the rest of the world what it should be and that it should not be what it is.  Even schoolchildren know this; it is why they dislike excellence in their classmates.  Henry stood condemned not by any word of Thomas More’s, but by his existence.  He stood judged not by a letter of More’s, but by his very life.  Faced with this condemnation, Henry could have beaten his own breast in repentance, or he could have beaten More’s head off.  He did the latter. 

More was not the first to lose his head to the tyrant’s blade.  John the Baptist lost his head in like circumstances to the same sort of petty tyrant.  King Herod had married his brother’s wife while his brother was still living and John forbade him this.  John was only one weak prophet.  He had no armies and was no threat Herod, save that he threatened his conscience.  But that was enough.  John was a good man, known to be a good man and hence by his very existence condemned Herod.  And so Herod (and his wife) had to destroy John.  If there were only one good man (or woman) in a bad world, the world would have to destroy that one man.  How could it not, when on a gibbet before the nations, it unfurled goodness itself (1)? 

The same persecution is still the case even today.  Many supporters of same-sex “marriage” insist they simply want to be “married” and will leave everyone else alone.  But this is not true.  There are multiple examples of bakeries refusing to make a cake in celebration of a same-sex wedding, and being attacked because of it (2).  Why that should be when many other bakeries would happily make such a cake should now be obvious.  It would not matter if 99 bakeries in a city would happily make a cake for such a wedding.  As long as only one would not, that one would be too much.  If one man only refuses to support same same “marriage” and stands on silence, that one man will be too much and it will be for the same reason Henry VIII could not stand for Thomas More’s silence.  As Bolton’s Cromwell put it, “silence can, in fact, speak--” sometimes too much for a guilty conscience to bear.

(1). Fulton Sheen, Life of Christ

http://www.amazon.com/Life-of-Christ-ebook/dp/B001E2NXGG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378058425&sr=8-1&keywords=the+life+of+christ+sheen

(2). http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/31/economic-terrorism-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-gets-threats-could-close-down/

(3) See also the interesting article: http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/08/26/it-is-the-price-of-citizenship-an-elegy-for-religious-liberty-in-america/

Love and Tolerance

As modern society moves toward redefining marriage to include romantic attachments between members of the same sex, the rallying cry of the redefiners is “tolerance” and “acceptance.”  One should tolerate everyone and everything.  One should accept everyone as they are, not as they should be; those who fail to be tolerant and accepting, who obey God rather than man, are hateful, bigots, fit only to be attacked and demonized.  Tolerance is perhaps the highest value of a secular society, but not, however, of a divine one. 

When God walked the earth two thousand years ago, a member of the intellectual elite, wishing to test Him asked Him what was the greatest commandment.  Our Lord replied,  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27).  Later, at His last meal with his disciples before His death and Resurrection, He gave them a last command saying,

            A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another (John 13:34-35).

On multiple occasions Our Lord commanded love, but never once did He command tolerance.  Never did he command his disciples, “tolerate others as I have tolerated you.”  Never did He tell a sinner He forgave, “I accept you as you are.”  He never merely accepted a person as that person was, but sent that person away as he should be.  Recognizing that a person should be a certain way implied that the person as he was, was unacceptable.  But though a person’s actions might be unacceptable and intolerable, that person himself was still lovable.  Hence Our Lord could defend the woman caught in adultery from her attackers, but also tell her to “go and sin no more.”

Tolerance, as a former professor once told me, is simply the other face of indifference.  And Elie Weisel, concentration camp survivor and author of Night, once remarked that the oppossite of love is not hatred, but indifference.  Mere tolerance or acceptance is not simply a lesser form of love, but its oppossite.  No one who loves anyone ever merely tolerates them.  A wife who did not love her husband very much might tolerate his alcoholism (at least until it became inconvenient to her).  She might accept him as he was and not bother trying to change him for the better.  In such a case though, we should have to conclude the woman’s tolerance and acceptance indicated not the greatness of her love for her husband, but its smallness.  

Real love may even entail a significant degree of intolerance and unnacceptance, because love always entails truth.  In The Great Divorce, C.S. Lewis said that one cannot love a lie, he cannot love a thing that is not.   Hence love entails truth and truth always entails not only the recognition of what is, but what ought to be.  It may entail recognizing that a thing that is, should not be.  Thus a woman’s love for her husband will entail recognition of what he should be and hence an unacceptance of him as he is and an intolerance of his alcoholism.  It will be so even if her husband protests about her intolerance, insists that he is happy as he is, and insists that his wife accept him as he is.

Jesus never merely tolerated anyone.  He loved them.  Not the love of a modern secular world that is only sentiment, or romantic attachment,  or a sort of weak tolerance or mere acceptance.  Love is not tolerance.  It is something both higher and holier, more terrible and more splendid.  It is a cross and a crown of thorns, a battle and a fight, but not tolerance and not necessarily acceptance.  

As a Catholic, I Support Marriage Equality

Equality is one of those interesting words that everyone claims to want, but no one is quite sure what it means.  W.C. Fields once proclaimed himself to be free of all prejudices, “I hate everyone equally,” he remarked.  Barry Goldwater, no opponent of “gay rights” himself remarked that “equality... as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty, wrongly understood as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”  I am not entirely certain what Goldwater meant, but as our society debates the question of marriage rights and equality, a man may be hardly certain what he ought to think about it.  Nonetheless, whatever he may think, what a person ought to think is clear enough:  He ought to support marriage equality.

As a Catholic, I strongly support marriage equality.  I support the right of all men to marry women and the right of all women to marry men.  A man should never be prevented from marrying a woman by the color of his skin, nor should a woman be prevented from marrying a man because of the color of hers, or her social or economic status.  An Italian man should not be denied the right to marry an Irish woman if she will have him, though he may do so at his own peril.  As a Catholic, I recognize that there is no basis in natural law (or history) to deny a black man the right to marry a white woman and that those who until recently would have denied this marriage equality were creating a new and artificial definition of marriage where it required spouses to have the same skin color.  Nonetheless, this unequality was an artificial novelty creating a new definition of marriage with no basis in natual or common law.  As such, it was a violation of marriage equality.

Just as a I support marriage equality, I support the right of all children to have a father and a mother.  I support a marriage equality that attaches mothers and fathers for the purposes of raising children, providing each child with a father and mother.  Regardless of the child’s social and economic status, his religion, his race, or any other factor, each child has an equal right to be raised by a father and mother.  This provides children with greater stability than those denied a father and mother, as well as models for the development of their own sexuality (1).  Children all have the equal right to be raised by a father and a mother for their own sakes, not to become tools for the fulfillment of adult desires.

Just as I support marriage equality, I support the right of those with homosexual inclinations to be supported in their struggle with those inclinations.  I support their right to be loved and not merely tolerated, “which parodies love as flippacy parodies merriment” (C.S. Lewis).  No one who loves anyone ever merely tolerates them.  A wife who loves her husband would never merely tolerate his alcoholism, not even were he born that way.  Mere tolerance is always easier than real love.  It is always easier to give alcohol to an alcoholic than to support him in giving it up.  It is always easier to tell a  person he is fine with the way he is, than that he needs to change.  This may be tolerance, but it is not love. 

Finally, because I support marriage equality, I do not support changing the definition of marriage to include sexual relationships by members of the same sex.  There is no basis for it in natural law, common law, or history.  It is a modern, artificial creation, created by the state and needing  a state to defend it, just like laws that changed the definition of marriage so that it only included members of the same race.  But changing the definition of a thing, never changes its nature.  Because I support marriage equality I support the right of persons with homosexual inclinations to be supported in their struggle with those inclinations so that they too may be able to enjoy true marriage in fact, not merely by redefinition.  To do otherwise would be like claiming to help a blind man “see” by changing the definition of “sight.”

(1). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/was-the-regnerus-study-on-gay-parenting-defective

For more on the benefits of a father and mother on a child’s upbringing see the above study by Regnerus and another article responding to debate of it.

Celebrity Divorce, Same-Sex Marriage

“[This] is the huge heresy of Precedent.  It is the view that because we have got into a mess we must grow messier to suit it; that because we have taken a wrong turn some time ago, we must go forward and not backwards; that because we have lost our way, we must lose our map also and because we have missed our ideal, we must forget it.”

—G.K. Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World.

Some time ago, there was a  rather popular  meme running around the internet that went something to the effect of this: “Celebrity A was divorced after only 3 months of marriage, Celebrity B was divorced after 3 weeks of marriage, Celebrity C was divorced after 3 days of marriage, therefore gay marriage will not harm the sanctity of marriage.”  The precise argument (let us call it the Celebrity Divorce Argument) here is sufficiently vague that it is hard to follow and several interpretations are possible.  Those who say it probably mean either:

1. Since divorce happens regularly and does not harm the sanctity of marriage, same  sex marriage will also not harm marriage.  

or

2.  Marriage is already in such trouble from the commonness of divorce, that Christians shouldn’t care if gay marriage makes it any worse.   

or

3. Christians are hypocrites for opposing same sex marriage, but not opposing divorce. 

Part of the challenge of answering the Celebrity Divorce Argument (CDA), lies in knowing exactly what it means.  It could mean several different and logically incompatible things.  The third interpretation may be easily dismissed.  At best it is simply an instance of the ad hominem  fallacy since it tries to judge the truth of a position (the moral permissibility of gay marriage) by attacking the person who holds it.  And at any rate, most people opposed to gay marriage are probably opposed to divorce as well.  This leaves the first two interpretations of the CDA.   

 I have been suspicious of the argument since I first heard it, but have had nothing particularly insightful to say and so took the wiser course and said nothing.  It happens that I still have nothing of value to say, but happily, while reading G.K. Chesterton’s book, What is Wrong with the World, I found that Chesterton did.  He was speaking specifically of another modern error, yet the principle remains the same.  To the man who would claim the CDA, that with divorce so common, we ought not oppose same sex marriage, Chesterton would reply that this is merely the heresy of Precedent, that “because the world is a mess, we should grow messier to suit it.”  One might as well claim that because a man is halfway toward falling off a cliff, he must not resist falling the rest of the way, or that because he has cancer of the lungs, he ought not care about getting disease of the heart as well. 

With common divorce, society fell half off the cliff.  A permanent relationship for mutual love and help, dedicated to the upbringing of children became a temporary relationship and children grew optional.  With the rest of the fall, and the allowance of gay marriage, marriage becomes now solely about the individual adult, a temporary living arrangement based on state recognition of romantic attachment. 

We may be halfway toward falling off the cliff, but that is no reason to fall the rest of the way.  We may have lost our way, but that is no reason to lose our minds as well.   

Four Bad Arguments in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage

Ours is an age that often thrives more on emotion than by reason, more on cliché than rational argument, and more on hot insult than cool logic.  On the question of same-sex marriage, which should especially demand careful thought, proponents are apt to assault opponents with cliché, emotion, and insult.   Here are four popularly used bad arguments and some brief answers.  

A. Those who oppose same sex-marriage are just as bigoted as those who opposed inter-racial marriage.

Answer: This argument is flawed on several grounds.

First,  it compares a person who does not want a black man to marry a white woman to a person to does not want a man to marry another man.  In the latter case, the difference is far greater than in the previous case.  For instance,  the opponent of inter-racial marriage accepts that a white man may marry a white women, but objects to a black man doing to.  Hence, the difference between the acceptable partner and the unacceptable one is on the difference between a black man and a white man, which is not very  substantial. 

On the other hand, the opponent of same-same marriage allows that a man may marry a woman, but objects to a man marrying another man.  In this case, the acceptable partner for a woman is not the difference between a black man and a white man, but the difference between a man and a woman, which is clearly a more substantial difference.  Hence, the comparison fails.  

Second, Francis Beckwith has pointed out a more serious failure with this argument.  Bans on inter-racial marriage were a novelty, having no basis in common law and requiring new laws to defend those bans.  Those who opposed inter-racial  marriage did so because they recognized that the purpose of marriage, inherited from common law, included the procreation of children and development of a family unit. Opponents of inter-racial marriage, with the goal of enforcing racial purity, sought to introduce a new condition to marriage that had no basis in prior common law or custom.   They recognized that men and women of different races naturally had the ability and right to marry each other and wished to introduce a new conditional (same-race) to prevent this.  Opponents of same-sex marriage, however, recognize precisely the opposite, that two men do not naturally have the right or ability (from nature, common law, or custom) to marry (1).

B. Homosexuals were born with their desires, so we should consider them morally acceptable.

Answer: This argument confuses explanation with justification.  C.S. Lewis said that “explanation by cause is not justification by reason.”  That a person was born with same-sex sexual desires may (or may not) explain why a person is attracted to a member of the same sex, but it does not therefore justify action based on that attraction.  Some scientists think that there is a gene that predisposes some people to alcoholism, but while this may help explain why some people become alcoholics, it does not for that reason justify their alcoholic behavior (2).

C. Practicing homosexuals do not hurt or affect anyone else, so they should be left alone.

Answer: This argument seems to run like this:

1. We should not care about what anyone else does unless its affects us.

2. Same-sex practice does not affect us.

3. Therefore, we should not care about same-sex practice.

The problem here is that both assumptions in the argument are patently false.  If my friend becomes an alcoholic and even claims that over-imbibing of drink makes him happy, should I simply shrug my shoulders and conclude “well, his drinking is not affecting me, so I should not care”?  I would be a very poor friend in this case.   But if there is good reason to think that same-sex marriage is harmful, either because it consists of disobedience to God’s plan for human sexuality or because it entails harmful behaviors and consequences, then we should oppose the practice of homosexuality (3).

Second, it is far from obvious that the normalization of same-sex relationships will not affect the rest of society.  As same sex relationships are normalized, those opposed to such relationships on grounds of religion or conscience will be compelled to violate their beliefs and support such relationships.  This has already happened in some cases (4).

D. If two people love each other, they should be able to be together.

Such a claim seems to reduce love to sexual attraction and ask, “if two people are sexually attracted, then they should be able to be together.”  But this is far from obvious and seems clearly wrong.  That a married man feels sexual attraction for a woman other than his wife and even professes himself in love with this woman does not justify his acting on claim that he is acting “for love.”   Real love will seek the best for the other person.  An man with AIDS may “love” an uninfected woman, but if he really loves her, he would never be with her since he would care too much for her well-being.  Since there is good reason to think that homosexual practice is harmful (3), it is an attraction that one should not act on.

(1) Francis Beckwith addresses this in greater detail here:

 http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324

(2) http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene

(3) http://thesparkandtheflame.blogspot.com/2012/05/harm-of-homosexual-practice-medical-and.html

(4) http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/photographers-guilty-of-discrimination-for-refusing-to-shoot-same-sex-weddi/

(5)  For an interesting series of responses to a few other objections to same sex relationships, see the philosopher JP Moreland, here:
http://www.jpmoreland.com/2012/08/05/royal-confusions-about-the-support-of-chick-fil-a/

The Harm of Homosexual Practice: A Medical and Moral Argument

As President Obama has declared his support for “marriage” between members of the same sexes, supporters have warned opponents of gay “marriage” lest they should find themselves on “the wrong side of history” (on which see my previous post here).  As the debate has progressed, however, the quality of arguments on both sides have been disappointing.  Many Christians are not well equipped to explain their objections to same-sex unions, and many supporters of such unions rely on cheap slogans and absurd caricatures of actual Christian reasoning (1).  To them, no rational person could oppose same-sex unions, and opponents are little better than racists or those who once opposed inter-racial marriage.

Yet, to a Christian, one does not oppose same-sex unions and homosexual practices for the same reasons that some people in the past opposed the marriage between a black man and a white woman.  On the contrary, Christians oppose homosexual practice for the same reason that they oppose giving alcohol to an alcoholic or cigarettes to a nicotine addict. 

This line of thinking will be unfamiliar to many whose primary image of same-sex relationships is smiling faces of such people on the evening news, but as is often the case, the cameras do not tell the whole story.

Three Moral Principles

This post will assume three points:

1. It is wrong to engage in self-destructive behavior.

2. It is wrong to encourage others to engage in self-destructive behavior.

3. It is wrong to engage in behavior that harms others. 

I will not argue or defend these points at length; a person who denies them is more in need of moral help than rational argument.  In short, we think it wrong to become an alcoholic because such behavior is harmful to oneself.  As such, we think it wrong to encourage or support others in their alcoholism.  Finally, we all admit that a person’s right to smoke may be curtailed if they risk harming others through their second hand smoke.

The substance of this post, then, will be dedicated to summarizing briefly some evidence for this fourth point:

4. In homosexual practice, a person hurts himself and others.

Presenting the Evidence: There is substantial evidence that homosexual practice is harmful.  Some is summarized below.

1. Promiscuity and short-term relationships (2).  Homosexual behavior involves what one writer called “an almost compulsive promiscuity.”  75% of homosexual men have had more than 100 partners in their lifetime, most of them strangers (3).  A Los Angeles study found that male homosexuals averaged over 20 partners per year (Schmidt 107).  Lastly, only 7-8% of homosexual men and women have ever had relationships lasting more than three years.  This differs vastly from heterosexual sexual practice.  As Schmidt writes: “Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience- it is virtually the only experience” (Schmidt 108). 

2. Increased incidence of drug use.  Researchers also report significantly higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse among male and female homosexuals.  They are more likely to use marijuana (89% vs 25% of heterosexuals), cocaine (50% vs. 6% of heterosexuals), poppers (72% vs 2% of heterosexuals), as well as other drugs including tobacco and abuse of alcohol.  Another Boston study from 1985-88, 81% of homosexual men had used marijuana, 70% poppers, and 60% cocaine (Schmidt 111).

Second, there is a correlation between the number of partners and person has had, and their tendency to use drugs and engage in unsafe sexual techniques (Schmidt 111).

3. Physical damage and complications.  There is no need for explicit details, but mens’ and womens’ bodies are designed for sexual intercourse with each other in a way that mens’ bodies are simply not designed for sex with other men and the consequences are often physically traumatic.  As a consequence practicing homosexuals are at greater risk of prostate damage, ulcers and ruptures, and chronic incontinence (Schmidt 118).  (4)

4. Sexually transmitted diseased and AIDS.  Besides physical trauma, many viral and non-viral infections trouble the homosexual population.  Non AIDS diseases include Amebiasis (affects 25-40% of homosexual men), syphilis (30% of homosexual men), and hepatitis B (65% of homosexual men).  As Schmidt says, even compared to the most promiscuous segment of the general population, the 75% STD incidence rate among homosexuals in remarkable (p.121).  This is to say little of the AIDS epidemic, to which homosexual men are especially vulnerable.  A Canadian study found that half of people living with AIDS are homosexual men (5).

5. Lower life expectancy. As a consequence of these medical issues especially (but not limited to) the AIDS epidemic, homosexual men have a life expectancy that is significantly lower that heterosexual men even, as one Canadian study acknowledges, according to the most liberal estimates (6).

6. Increased incidence of mental illness, depression, and suicide. Lastly, homosexuals suffer from a severely higher incidence of some types of mental illness, especially depression, and suicide (7).  Schmidt gave that number that 40% of homosexual men have a history of major depressive disorder compared to 3% of men generally.

It might be objected that homosexuals are only at greater risk of depression and suicide because they suffer discrimination.  This is implausible for two reasons.  First, as the twentieth century has progressed, society has only become more accepting of homosexual practice, yet these problems remain as big as ever and may even be growing (8).  Second, surely the other factors we have discussed here provide a much clearer and more plausible understanding of why homosexuals are in such greater danger of depression, mental illness, and suicide.  More drug abuse, short-term relationships, numerous medical problems, and a far lower life expectancy surely provide a much more likely explanation of why homosexuals suffer from higher rate of mental illness and suicide. 

In fact, greater acceptance of homosexuality might even make the problem worse!  In encouraging homosexual practice and thereby possibly increasing it, homosexuals will be more likely to suffer from these medical problems and thus more likely to suffer mentally because of it. 

The Practical Conclusion

This has easily been the least pleasant blog post I have written.  I prefer to write about my interests and this is one topic I would prefer to avoid.  Second, much material here will come as a surprise to many and even seem harsh to say, but it is far harsher not to.  The material here should always be presented cautiously and never triumphantly. 

Nonetheless, we cannot refrain from drawing the conclusion that homosexual practice entails many harmful behaviors including medical and mental health problems, promiscuous behavior, increased incidence of drug use, and lower life expectancy.

Because we recognize that drug use harms self and other, we agree that it is wrong to use drugs or to encourage others to use them.  In the same way, we cannot avoid the conclusion that because homosexual practice is harmful, it is wrong to practice homosexual behavior or to encourage others to do so.  It would be like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.

I end with the obvious remark that Christian engagement with people struggling with homosexuality must always be with respect and charity, though this will not entail acceptance of their homosexuality any more than loving an alcoholic entails acceptance of his alcoholism.  Second, there is help for homosexuals who do want to live a chaste life in different Christian ministries (http://www.couragerc.net/Encourage.html). 

Further Reading

William Lane Craig, “A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality.”

Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow?  Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, (1995).

Footnotes

(1) Such as that Christians oppose same sex marriage because gay people are more likely to raise gay children; that opponents of gay marriage fear allowing it will lead people to wish to marry their dogs; and that gay marriage is not “natural” in the same way that high fructose corn syrup is unnatural.

(2) Much of this information is taken from chapter 6 of Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate (InterVarsity, 1995).  I will not cite every study to which he refers, the reader is referred to his footnotes for the specific studies.

(3) Schmidt p.106.  Among others, he is citing A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, Homosexualities, (New York, 1978).

See also, http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1448/raised_under_the_glbt_umbrella.aspx

(4) Another study confirms this as a problem to which physicians must be particularly attentive in young homosexuals: "Medical problems of the homosexual adolescent." Journal of Adolescent Health Care. 6(4):278-85, 1985 Jul.

(5) http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/populations-eng.php 

See also Schmidt (122).  He points out that approximately 30% of homosexual men are infected with AIDs (123).

(6) http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

(7) Schmidt 112-126.  He also points out that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from alcoholism (30%) than heterosexuals (10%).  Second, thought homosexual men make up not more than 2% of the population, 35% of pedophiles are homosexuals.

See also: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/8/70/ , which found that LGB people are at higher risk of substance abuse, depression, and suicide.

(8) In a previous post, I observed that the problem of bullying and youth suicide has only gotten worse over the twentieth century.  http://thesparkandtheflame.blogspot.com/2012/05/bullying-relativism-and-youth-suicide.html

Bullying, Relativism, and Youth Suicide

In September 2010, Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington bridge after a roommate video-taped him having an intimate encounter with another older man.  He became a nationwide symbol of the problem of bullying, especially among homosexual youth, and youth suicide.  The nationwide reaction included anti-bullying campaigns and calls for greater tolerance of homosexuality. 

It was not only Clementi; in the preceding year another thirteen year old girl hanged herself after bullying from peers that included sexting, text messages of a sexual nature.  The problem is not only homosexuality, but bulling and youth suicide more broadly.  The philosopher Peter Kreeft has recently pointed out that since the 1950s, we have seen a 5,000 % increase in youth suicide (1).   Increasing intolerance toward homosexuality simply does not explain this. 

Since the 1950s, American society has only become more tolerant and accepting of homosexual behavior, not less.  Until 1973, the American Psychiatric association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder.  So did the American psychological association until 1975 (which caused my grandfather to leave the APA in 1975).  In the 1950s movie, The Road to Bali, starring Bing Crosby and Bob Hope, a character commented that the gods would never allow the abomination of a marriage between two men.  Today, however, homosexual practice is widely accepted and surely had no stronger supporters than Hollywood itself.  So, on the contrary, as homosexual practice has become more widely accepted, the rate of youth suicide has not decreased, but has actually increased.  Why is this so?  Why has youth bullying and suicide become more of a problem, not less?

Clementi did not commit suicide because he felt bullied because he was gay.  He committed suicide because for some reason, he decided that there was nothing in the world worth living for.  If decreasing tolerance cannot explain youth suicide, what else can?  What else changed at the same time?

The answer is secularism and increasing moral relativism.  If I asked a class of my students today whether objective moral values existed (by which we mean moral values that exist independent of what people think), their answer would nearly be identical.  Most students would reply that of course objective moral values did not exist “because different societies thought different things.”  I do not dwell here on the disastrous lapse in logic, the confusion between moral epistemology (perception of moral values) and moral ontology (existence) of moral values.  Obviously to say that a person does not believe in x is not proof that x does not exist.  Otherwise we would have to say that the fact that 12^th century Europeans did not believe in America was proof that American did not exist, which is absurd.

What really concerns us is the terrible consequences that follow when the youth become convinced, as they are today, that moral values are wholly subjective.  If a person thinks that moral values are subjective, then he thinks that they are wholly dependent on what other people think.  If a person thinks that moral values, including his own moral value are wholly dependant on what other people think, then what other people think becomes of paramount importance.  If moral values depend on society, and if one’s society, whether American, college, fraternity, or high school peers decide that a person does not have moral value (through bullying), then it necessarily follows that that person does not have moral value.  If subjectivism is true, then what is left to such a person save to throw himself off of a bridge?  If moral values are subjective, they depend on what other people think, and if everyone else thinks that that person is worthless, then he really is!  Second, moral subjectivism also provides an enormous incentive to be the bully.  Better to bully other people into thinking they are worthless than risk being thought worthless oneself. 

The cries for greater tolerance will not solve the problem.  Society is more tolerant and accepting than it ever has been, yet the problem of bullying and youth suicide is worse than ever.  The only hope is for people to begin to recognize again that human beings really do have objective moral value.  Modern secular society provides no basis for this.  Having denied God, it has denied any basis for objective moral values.  Without God, morality is just the result of evolutionary conditioning or societal norms- there is nothing objective about it.  As secularism and denial of God has increased since the 1950s, so has bullying and youth suicide. 

Hope for the youth lies not in more secularism, but in less.  For in Christianity a human being knows that they have objective moral value, no matter what anyone thinks.  They know that they have been created by a perfectly good, loving God, who made them in his image, suffered and died on a cross for them, and wants them to enjoy eternal union with Himself.  What bully could have a chance against such knowledge?

(1) http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2011/11/dr-kreeft-how-to-win-the-culture-war/ 

Gay Marriage and the Wrong Side of History

As president Obama has recently proclaimed his support for same-sex “marriage,” supportive commentators have labeled his action “historic.”  One news anchor warned lest opponents of such unions should find themselves on the “wrong side of history.”

The expression is magnificent rhetoric.  Proponents use it to conjure up images of those who opposed civil rights for blacks or resisted the abolition of slavery.  Yet like many slogans in a culture that thrives more on rhetoric than reason and more on emotion than evidence, it is hollow at heart. 

Presumably such  people who warn the backward amongst us not to be on the wrong side of history think that we should make history our moral guide.  History says thus and we must obey.  The tide is flowing and we must follow it, lest we be caught like children in sandcastles.  Where the tide of history goes, so must we.  But this is not sound, for the tide may sweep us out to sea.  In following the tide, we may find ourselves drowned.

 In plain language, history does not always move in a positive direction.  It is not a safe guide for a man’s moral decisions.  The modern world may (or may not) have moved toward greater democracy and civil rights, but it also moved to world war and genocide.  The Middle Ages saw neither world war nor holocaust.  It was left to the modern world to discover those.  Nor should we think that history will always move in a positive direction in the future.   It has not always done so in the past, why should we think it will do so in the future?   History is a fickle mistress.  One century she may command freedom, the next genocide. 

Further still, history is no guide of morality because it is morally neutral.  This is the fallacy of seeking to derive an ought from an is.  History tells us what has happened.  It does not tell us what should happen.  Those who would try to derive their morality from history are in the same position as those who would derive it from science.  Both tell us what is, not what ought to be.  There is no rational inference from the claim “in history, x happened” to “x should have happened,” or “we should do x.”   

Indeed, making history out moral guide would put us in the absurd position of trying to anticipate what will happen in the future and then make it happen faster.  Perhaps, we project greater freedom in the next century.  Then we must work to make this happen even more quickly.  Yet, perhaps we anticipate a move to greater slavery two centuries hence.  If our mistress History commands it, I suppose we must work for it.

This brings us from the absurdity of history as a moral guide to the evil of history as  a moral guide.  If we are to always follow history, to not be on the wrong side of history, then we shall never be able to resist her.  There will be no room for the last desperate stand against the tide, no heroic resistance against inevitable onslaught. 

Only if morality is something beyond history and even beyond society, if it is something transcendent and what is more, divine, will we ever have a firm ground on which to stand, to plant our flag, and to cry “maybe thus far, but no farther.”