I would be remiss if I did not comment here as I did on "Reality's Last Stand."
As a gay man, I become uneasy when I come across passages such as the following:
"In 1943, C.S. Lewis . . . warned about the erosion of moral values and the rise of relativism, which he believed would lead to humanity’s ruin. "
"Today, I believe society has reached . . . an era of subjectivism where concepts of “right” and “wrong” have lost their objective anchor and are instead dictated by personal whims and desires."
In the West, gay people have been stigmatized since at least Old Testament times for our supposed immorality. In the words of the Catholic catechism: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' " '[1]
It is therefore very easy for those on the Christian right and homophobic philosophy bros to misrepresent the activism and victories of the gay civil rights movement (especially marriage equality) and the growing tolerance of gay people as a prime example of an "erosion in moral values." Since our foes strip us of every element of our humanity except our sexuality, and because they equate sex outside of their sectarian vision of marriage (especially gay sex) with capitulation to one's base canal desires, reactionaries hold gay people out as an example of what happens when humans abandon morality for the emotional pursuit of sexual gratification. For good measure they'll kick John Stuart Mill around for having caused everything to go to Hell and long for the day when everyone comported themselves in accordance with the dictates of natural law.
Of course I agree there is a tension there, and there are no easy answers when one gets into this area. But for myself, in a discussion of "values" like beauty, truth, and honor, I wouldn't agree that one needs to give any credence to the homophobia of theobros. Gay people won their place in society by appealing to values like love and equality, IMO. Framing the disgust repsonse to homosexuality as anything skin to timeless values (not *traditional* values) is self-serving and I would debate that with anyone!
The disgust response to homosexuality is the frosting on the cake or, if you will, the kick in the teeth when one is down. It is not essential to leading natural law theorists' defense of discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation. They have us in a classic Catch-22 predicament: Extramarital sex is immoral, yet gay marriage is also immoral because it can never lead to conception. Leave it to the Catholic Church say the quiet part about the gay ick factor out loud.
Let's let the political theorist David L. Pickett guide us through the pernicious reasoning of the original philosophy bro, Thomas Aquinas:
"While Aquinas did not write much about some aspects of sexuality, such as same-sex sexual relations, he did write at length about various sex acts as sins. For Aquinas, sexuality that was within the bounds of marriage and which helped to further what he saw as the distinctive goods of marriage, mainly love, companionship, and legitimate offspring, was permissible, and even good. All sex outside the bounds of marriage, whether pre-marital or extra-marital, is thus immoral (although some acts may be worse than others). In contrast, loving, non-contracepted vaginal intercourse within a marriage is not merely permissible, it is good in itself, even apart from the pleasure and intimacy it brings. In this way, "marital acts" are just sex, where "just" is meant in its moral sense. Aquinas did not argue that procreation was a necessary part of moral or just sex; married couples could enjoy sex without the motive of having children, and sex in marriages where one or both partners is sterile is also potentially just (given a motive of expressing love). As an aside, it is interesting to note that so far Aquinas' view actually need not rule out homosexual sex. For example, up to this point, a Thomist could embrace same-sex marriage, and then apply the same reasoning, simply seeing the couple as a reproductively sterile, yet still fully loving and companionate union."
"That is, since only the emission of semen in a vagina can result in natural reproduction, only sex acts of that type are generative, even if a given sex act does not lead to reproduction, and even if it is impossible due to infertility. The consequence of this addition is to rule out the possibility, of course, that homosexual sex could ever be moral (even if done within a loving marriage), in addition to forbidding any non-vaginal sex for opposite-sex married couples. What is the justification for this important addition? This question is made all the more pressing in that Aquinas allows that the breadth of the moral rules applied to individuals may vary considerably, since the nature of persons also varies to some extent. That is, to take an example using homosexuality, since Aquinas allows that individual natures vary, one could simply argue that one is, by nature, emotionally and physically attracted to persons of one's own gender, and hence to pursue same-sex relationships is "natural."' Unfortunately, Aquinas does not spell out a justification for this generative requirement."[1]
Or, as we lay people like to say, Aquinas was simply making it up on the spot to fit his predetermined outcome.
Aquinas's formulation is all the justification it takes for men at the forefront of natural law theory such as Princeton's eminent and highly respected Robert P. George to "eagerly [insert] themselves into debates about law and sexuality" and argue that it is "permissible to treat gays and lesbians differentially as a matter of law."
Dr. Pickett elaborates:
"Natural law theorists defend a range of policies in this regard, from antisodomy laws, to allowing persons to discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment and housing, to a fierce opposition to same-sex unions or, in their watered-down version, civil unions. In general, natural law theorists believe that it is rational for the state to 'discourage' homosexuality through such policies. Furthermore, they believe that other laws regulating sexuality are permissible and potentially beneficial, such as forbidding the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons." [2]
Unfortunately, for right-wing Christian activists such as Professor George, appealing to values such as love and equality isn't sufficient to win gays their place in society. Only last year, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) showcased Professor George's receipt of the 2023 Defender of Religious Freedom award from the Religious Freedom Institute. Professor George is the homophobic sophisticate's version of Anita Bryant, only orders of magnitude more respectable and unassailable. [3]
In Professor George's topsy-turvy world, to enjoy religious freedom means having the freedom to curtail the legal rights and civil liberties of gay and lesbian Americans. It's not necessary to take my word for it. He said as much in his acceptance speech: [4]
"And here at home, we stand up for the rights of the Evangelical Christian baker or wedding planner threatened with legal sanctions for honoring his or her conscientious belief in marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife . . ."
God forbid that a person whose lawful union with their life partner violates "natural law" and whose sexuality is "intrinsically disordered" and an "act of grave depravity" should be permitted to benefit by doing business with a God-fearing Christian. Ordinarily, the phrase "God forbid" would be a mere figure of speech, but today, when defenders of religious freedom such as Professor George seek to impose their divinely ordained mores and beliefs on the rest of society in the form of law, "God forbid" must be taken literally.
Earlier in his address Professor George articulated an extremist agenda that envisions a society in which the rights of gay people and other religiously unclean groups to engage in purely secular business transactions are curtailed so that religious people may live their intolerant faith untroubled by having to put themselves out for those they consider immoral:
"We insist on the right to shape and run our institutions — be they schools, hospitals, food pantries, shelters, adoption agencies, rehab centers, or what have you — in line with the tenets of our faiths, and we further insist on our right as free and equal citizens to engage in advocacy on terms of equality with our fellow citizens in the formal and informal forums of deliberative democracy."
As an aside, it ill becomes the professor to traffic in the myth that the Christian religion, which has scored momentous victories in the highest court of the land and has the full, powerful and unconditional support of Trump's Republican party, is being persecuted and silenced. What religious propagandists call censorship is what the rest of us consider engaging "in advocacy on terms of equality with our fellow citizens in the formal and informal forums of deliberative democracy."
By the way, FAIR's claim to be apolitical and not to have a position on gay marriage rings false considering that the right-wing Christian anti-gay culture warrior Robert P. George sits on FAIR's board of advisors.
Sometimes those slopes are pretty darn slippery.
[1] Pickett, Brent L. "Natural Law and the Regulation of Sexuality: A Critique." Richmond Journal of the Law and Public Interest. 8 Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int. 40-41 (2004). https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolpi/vol8/iss1/3/
Wow, CS Lewis is really the man of the hour. Saying as he did "that certain attitudes toward the world are really true and good, "
I would be remiss if I did not comment here as I did on "Reality's Last Stand."
As a gay man, I become uneasy when I come across passages such as the following:
"In 1943, C.S. Lewis . . . warned about the erosion of moral values and the rise of relativism, which he believed would lead to humanity’s ruin. "
"Today, I believe society has reached . . . an era of subjectivism where concepts of “right” and “wrong” have lost their objective anchor and are instead dictated by personal whims and desires."
In the West, gay people have been stigmatized since at least Old Testament times for our supposed immorality. In the words of the Catholic catechism: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' " '[1]
It is therefore very easy for those on the Christian right and homophobic philosophy bros to misrepresent the activism and victories of the gay civil rights movement (especially marriage equality) and the growing tolerance of gay people as a prime example of an "erosion in moral values." Since our foes strip us of every element of our humanity except our sexuality, and because they equate sex outside of their sectarian vision of marriage (especially gay sex) with capitulation to one's base canal desires, reactionaries hold gay people out as an example of what happens when humans abandon morality for the emotional pursuit of sexual gratification. For good measure they'll kick John Stuart Mill around for having caused everything to go to Hell and long for the day when everyone comported themselves in accordance with the dictates of natural law.
[1] https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/568/
Of course I agree there is a tension there, and there are no easy answers when one gets into this area. But for myself, in a discussion of "values" like beauty, truth, and honor, I wouldn't agree that one needs to give any credence to the homophobia of theobros. Gay people won their place in society by appealing to values like love and equality, IMO. Framing the disgust repsonse to homosexuality as anything skin to timeless values (not *traditional* values) is self-serving and I would debate that with anyone!
The disgust response to homosexuality is the frosting on the cake or, if you will, the kick in the teeth when one is down. It is not essential to leading natural law theorists' defense of discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation. They have us in a classic Catch-22 predicament: Extramarital sex is immoral, yet gay marriage is also immoral because it can never lead to conception. Leave it to the Catholic Church say the quiet part about the gay ick factor out loud.
Let's let the political theorist David L. Pickett guide us through the pernicious reasoning of the original philosophy bro, Thomas Aquinas:
"While Aquinas did not write much about some aspects of sexuality, such as same-sex sexual relations, he did write at length about various sex acts as sins. For Aquinas, sexuality that was within the bounds of marriage and which helped to further what he saw as the distinctive goods of marriage, mainly love, companionship, and legitimate offspring, was permissible, and even good. All sex outside the bounds of marriage, whether pre-marital or extra-marital, is thus immoral (although some acts may be worse than others). In contrast, loving, non-contracepted vaginal intercourse within a marriage is not merely permissible, it is good in itself, even apart from the pleasure and intimacy it brings. In this way, "marital acts" are just sex, where "just" is meant in its moral sense. Aquinas did not argue that procreation was a necessary part of moral or just sex; married couples could enjoy sex without the motive of having children, and sex in marriages where one or both partners is sterile is also potentially just (given a motive of expressing love). As an aside, it is interesting to note that so far Aquinas' view actually need not rule out homosexual sex. For example, up to this point, a Thomist could embrace same-sex marriage, and then apply the same reasoning, simply seeing the couple as a reproductively sterile, yet still fully loving and companionate union."
"That is, since only the emission of semen in a vagina can result in natural reproduction, only sex acts of that type are generative, even if a given sex act does not lead to reproduction, and even if it is impossible due to infertility. The consequence of this addition is to rule out the possibility, of course, that homosexual sex could ever be moral (even if done within a loving marriage), in addition to forbidding any non-vaginal sex for opposite-sex married couples. What is the justification for this important addition? This question is made all the more pressing in that Aquinas allows that the breadth of the moral rules applied to individuals may vary considerably, since the nature of persons also varies to some extent. That is, to take an example using homosexuality, since Aquinas allows that individual natures vary, one could simply argue that one is, by nature, emotionally and physically attracted to persons of one's own gender, and hence to pursue same-sex relationships is "natural."' Unfortunately, Aquinas does not spell out a justification for this generative requirement."[1]
Or, as we lay people like to say, Aquinas was simply making it up on the spot to fit his predetermined outcome.
Aquinas's formulation is all the justification it takes for men at the forefront of natural law theory such as Princeton's eminent and highly respected Robert P. George to "eagerly [insert] themselves into debates about law and sexuality" and argue that it is "permissible to treat gays and lesbians differentially as a matter of law."
Dr. Pickett elaborates:
"Natural law theorists defend a range of policies in this regard, from antisodomy laws, to allowing persons to discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment and housing, to a fierce opposition to same-sex unions or, in their watered-down version, civil unions. In general, natural law theorists believe that it is rational for the state to 'discourage' homosexuality through such policies. Furthermore, they believe that other laws regulating sexuality are permissible and potentially beneficial, such as forbidding the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons." [2]
Unfortunately, for right-wing Christian activists such as Professor George, appealing to values such as love and equality isn't sufficient to win gays their place in society. Only last year, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) showcased Professor George's receipt of the 2023 Defender of Religious Freedom award from the Religious Freedom Institute. Professor George is the homophobic sophisticate's version of Anita Bryant, only orders of magnitude more respectable and unassailable. [3]
In Professor George's topsy-turvy world, to enjoy religious freedom means having the freedom to curtail the legal rights and civil liberties of gay and lesbian Americans. It's not necessary to take my word for it. He said as much in his acceptance speech: [4]
"And here at home, we stand up for the rights of the Evangelical Christian baker or wedding planner threatened with legal sanctions for honoring his or her conscientious belief in marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife . . ."
God forbid that a person whose lawful union with their life partner violates "natural law" and whose sexuality is "intrinsically disordered" and an "act of grave depravity" should be permitted to benefit by doing business with a God-fearing Christian. Ordinarily, the phrase "God forbid" would be a mere figure of speech, but today, when defenders of religious freedom such as Professor George seek to impose their divinely ordained mores and beliefs on the rest of society in the form of law, "God forbid" must be taken literally.
Earlier in his address Professor George articulated an extremist agenda that envisions a society in which the rights of gay people and other religiously unclean groups to engage in purely secular business transactions are curtailed so that religious people may live their intolerant faith untroubled by having to put themselves out for those they consider immoral:
"We insist on the right to shape and run our institutions — be they schools, hospitals, food pantries, shelters, adoption agencies, rehab centers, or what have you — in line with the tenets of our faiths, and we further insist on our right as free and equal citizens to engage in advocacy on terms of equality with our fellow citizens in the formal and informal forums of deliberative democracy."
As an aside, it ill becomes the professor to traffic in the myth that the Christian religion, which has scored momentous victories in the highest court of the land and has the full, powerful and unconditional support of Trump's Republican party, is being persecuted and silenced. What religious propagandists call censorship is what the rest of us consider engaging "in advocacy on terms of equality with our fellow citizens in the formal and informal forums of deliberative democracy."
By the way, FAIR's claim to be apolitical and not to have a position on gay marriage rings false considering that the right-wing Christian anti-gay culture warrior Robert P. George sits on FAIR's board of advisors.
Sometimes those slopes are pretty darn slippery.
[1] Pickett, Brent L. "Natural Law and the Regulation of Sexuality: A Critique." Richmond Journal of the Law and Public Interest. 8 Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int. 40-41 (2004). https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolpi/vol8/iss1/3/
[2] Ibid. 39.
[3] "FAIR Board of Advisors." Weekly Roundup. Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. 3 December 2023. https://news.fairforall.org/p/weekly-roundup-0e3
[4] George, Robert P. "Championing Religious Freedom: ‘We Must Preserve Our Unity’ Going Beyond Political Disputes." National Catholic Register. 4 November 2023. https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/championing-religious-freedom-rfi-address-2023
I certainly agree that her selection of CS Lewis had its problems. I don't know about what "natural law" means here, though. What is natural law?