Political: The Big Six – My Opinions on Gay Rights, Immigration, Abortion & Death Penalty, Drugs, and Global Warming

Gay Rights

(Specifically marriage. I haven't heard of gay people being knocked off voting rolls or anything)
Position: Gay marriage is probably immoral, but still ought to be legalized.

I'm firmly of four opinions on gay marriage. On the one hand, I do think homosexual behavior is immoral. I'm not going to throw out the five Bible passages that get misinterpreted both ways on the subject. If it matters to you, you already know them and I'm not going to change your mind about what they mean and how they should be applied. What I am going to say is that it's only been around 150 years, since Victorian England specifically, that there was any such thing as a homosexual. Victoria's parliament legislated against gay acts between men, and Oscar Wilde was the first famous case tried under the new law. Before that period, monogamy in general wasn't as big a deal as it is today. People got married men and women, and sometimes they took lovers on the side, and sometimes they were lovers of the same sex. There weren't any clear lines yet of what was “normal” and what was “deviant.” When the anti-gay legislation came in, it got really clear really fast. Men either had to stop all the fooling around with other men or at least keep really quiet about it. So what was the law about?

Basically, popular opinion was (and still is) that men having sex with other men is just a gross thing to do. Every argument against it boils down to that. Nobody's really been able to explain why, but they're sure it's a nasty behavior. Laws, customs, and now Bible verses have been applied to rationalize that position. The Victorian era was when the Catholic Church and others adopted their current position on the subject and applied the popular interpretations to the relevant verses. But underlying all of that is that what had been socially acceptable in practice, if not in polite discussion, for many years suddenly wasn't anymore. The majority of the public agreed, and a few decided that it didn't matter what anyone else thought, they were going to carry on anyway.

That's sort of the definition of immoral – there was a consensus on what was right and wrong, and even though it was different from what it had been, it was still standard. The people who decided their own desires were more important than everyone else's, well that's what deviance is. Now, whether it's objectively right or wrong, I don't know, but for all our lives it has certainly been on the contrary side of the cultural morality. To me, that's what “immoral” means. Of course, that opinion only came in 150 years ago and it is beginning to change. If the common morality is changing, it won't be immoral anymore.

My second of the four opinions on the subject though, is that just because something's immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. One of the most common arguments against legalizing gay marriage in the US is that it is going to cheapen the institution of marriage. I don't think that's true. I think divorce has cheapened the institution a lot more than every other factor. People don't take their vows seriously (or any other vows for that matter) anymore, and people get divorced just because they don't like their spouse at the moment. The often-quoted statistic is that half of all marriages end in divorce. This, incidentally, isn't true – the statistic is that there are 2 marriages each year for every divorce. When you count how many people are getting married for the second or third or however many times, and divorced for the same number, that still means it's more common to stay married for life than not.

Apart from divorce, there are already a lot of forms of immoral marriage that are legal, as long as they take place between a man and a woman. The image of a horny old rich guy marrying a sexy young gold digger is positively cliché and is basically a long-term prostitution arrangement. It wasn't that long ago that people thought interracial marriages were wrong, and some people out there still do. People are still allowed to get married for political or other advantage, for money, and under duress (as in “shotgun weddings”). It's pretty stupid and hypocritical to say that gay marriage can't be allowed but all those others are just fine. I say legalize them all or criminalize them all, and since I believe in letting people decide for themselves what's best for them, I vote legalize them all. You can still say snarky things about them behind their back.

On the third hand, marriage isn't a guaranteed right in the US. The idea of picking who you get to marry is still pretty recent as well. Arranged marriages were the norm all over the place for a long time (and probably the reason for all those affairs in history). There's nothing in the national constitution about it, and if it's covered under the tenth amendment, then it's up to the states to decide. And if some states vote one way and you don't like it, move to a state that voted the other way. The borders are open. If enough people migrate into one or the other for that reason, the affect on the economy in those states will be enough to force the others to follow suit.

On the fourth hand, even though marriage isn't a legally defined right in this country, most people seem to think it is and act accordingly. If we're going to say marriage is a right, then it has to be open to any and all, and discriminating against any group goes against the grain of the national conscience. If it's a right, it's more wrong to deny it to a group because the majority doesn't like them than it is for them to do all the nasty stuff that majority doesn't like. We are absolutely not allowed to oppress any minority just because we don't like them.

 

Immigration

(Specficially the illegal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries that's so controversial right now)
Position: There shouldn't be any such thing as illegal immigration. Let them come in.

This one's pretty self-explanatory. Go back 90 years and you could have listened to all the people who already lived here complaining about all the immigrants coming in from Poland, Ireland, Russia, Italy, or what have you. The arguments were exactly the same – we don't know who might be a cirminal, they look a little different, they don't have the same values as the rest of us, and horror of horrors THEY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH!

Get over it. The country survived. We added all those other groups to the pool, the better parts of their cultures became part of the American patchwork and the worse parts went away. Yeah, every now and then a violent criminal sneaks in, and we still need to watch out for those guys, but we're not going to catch all of them. Most people don't come to this country because they see a lot of innocent people to murder. Most of the people with that view were born here. So do what it says on the Statue of Liberty's base. If they're willing to make the trip, let 'em in. Even if they never learn English, their kids will. How far back in your family tree do we have to go to find someone who didn't speak English? Didn't affect your ability at all, did it?

 

 

Abortion & the Death Penalty

Position: Both should be available; both should be a last resort.

I put these two topics together for a reason. I've never met anyone who's in favor of both, or against both. They both involve legalized forms of killing people, and they're both allowed under the current federal laws. The liberal view is that abortion is fine but the death penalty isn't, and the conservative view is the reverse. It looks like one set is based on choices already made and their consequences while the other is on choices not yet made and the opportunities. I don't think either of these is a good basis for policy. Similar to my position on gay marriage, I think both probably shouldn't happen, but I know there are times when both are called for. Therefore they should be legally permitted but we shouldn't be so gung-ho to ring the bell on either.

Abortion has become a “right” in the wrong category in my opinion. It's become an entitlement, like the right to life, freedom, and safety, that people have to go out of their way to make sure everyone who wants one can get it. I think it ought to be more like the right to bear arms – You're allowed to have one, if you can afford it and go through the proper channels to get it, but expect that if you get one some people are always going to say you're a bad person. Nobody has the right to be free from being called names when they do something other people don't like. Roe v Wade gives women the right to get one, but the First Amendment still gives the right to criticize her for it. On the flip side, the anti-abortion view seems to be more based on forcing the screw-up parents to live as screw-up parents as a punishment to them than having anything to do with the baby. There's not a problem in the world that wouldn't be solved with fewer people. Every soul is sacred. Lives on the other hand are frequently a waste of good material.

The death penalty definitely gets pushed more than necessary, but that doesn't mean it needs to be eliminated. Serious, repeat offenders that are never going to stop being violent unless the state kills them first, that's fine. That's basic public defense. Somebody who lost his temper once and beat someone to death, and is now consumed with remorse for it, let him live. Not let him out, but don't kill him back. It isn't going to make anything better at that point. Criminal prosecutors keep up with how many death sentences they can get just like their won/lost ratio, like they're stats on a freakin' baseball card. That's just sick. No matter what they did, nobody should die so someone else can advance their career.

 

 

Drugs

Position: I have no problem with drugs, but I can't stand the users

On this one, I'm going to my Bible. Obviously, if you're not a Christian, this won't really mean much to you. But since a lot of our modern attitudes on the subject come from a religious context, that's where I'm going to start. The New Testament, particularly the liberty doctrine found in Romans 14, is quite clear on personal behaviors, particularly when it comes to what you put into your body.

Matthew 15:17-18 “Know ye not, that whatever enters at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the ditch? Those things which come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.”

Romans 14:1-14 “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believes that he may eat all things. Another, who is week, eats (only) herbs. Let not him that eats despise him that eats not, and let not him which eats not judge him that eats, for God hath received him.

Who art thou that judges another man's servant? To his own Master shall he stand or fall. Yea, he shall be held up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind. He that regards the day regards it to the Lord, and he that regards not the day, to the Lord does he not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, and he gives thanks. He that eats not, to the Lord does he not eat, and he gives thanks.
For none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself. For whether we live, we live to the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord, therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, 'As I live,' saith the Lord, 'that every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another anymore, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Well said, Paul.

This is one of the most overlooked passages in the Bible when it comes to what is an acceptable behavior and what isn't. What gets in the way of one person isn't going to get in the way of another. We're supposed to make our own decisions about what we can handle and what we can't in life. Those who can handle a little more stimulation than others, may, and those who can't may not. Your call. This is probably why it isn't quoted in church much – it's a passage that strips Christians of their right to tell people off for doing stuff they don't like or don't do themselves.

I don't use any form of illegal drugs, and I never have. I used to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, although I've quit both. I can't tell you you should or shouldn't drink, smoke, smoke weed, eat meat, celebrate Christmas, shoot up heroin, or any other form of behavior. And you can't tell me what I should or shouldn't do either. It's up to each of us to make that call. But if you know I don't like a particular kind of thing, you're not to do it around me, and vice-versa.

That said, I do not like being around drunks and stoners. They are some of the most annoying people I've ever been exposed to. At my job, they both make up a lot of my customer base, and I can't tell them not to get drunk or high. But if you're going to, do it at home, and leave the rest of us alone!

Global Warming, Global Climate Change, Global Climate Destabilization, or whatever other label you want to use.

Position: Open-minded skeptic. Neither denier nor believer.

I am still a skeptic where global warming is concerned. I don't actively disbelieve and argue against any and all evidence that might support it, but I haven't been convinced that it's happening yet either.

I am not a scientist. I have to admit that I don't understand the physics behind global warming. I know the basic principle is that light (and other radiation) from the sun passes through our atmosphere and warms the surface of the planet. The underlying argument is that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make it harder for the heat produced by this radiation to escape the planet and therefore the planet is getting hotter.

Why do these gases prevent heat, which is a form of radiant energy, from escaping the planet, but don't prevent light, which is also a form of radiant energy, from escaping it? Why is the planet getting hotter but not brighter? If the increased gases make it harder for heat to get out, why don't they also make it harder for the radiation causing it to get in? I understand that it has been conclusively proven that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be. Regardless of any effect on the planet's temperature, I do know that carbon dioxide is heavier than average air. Why is there a danger of flooding in low-lying areas but no danger that this heavy suffocating gas might accumulate in those areas and kill everyone?

National Geographic's website, which came up first in my initial search, provides lots of concise factoids – the temperature has risen 1.4ºC around the world since 1880. The rate of warming is increasing and the last two decades of the 20^th century were the warmest for several millennia. Eleven of the past 12 years were the warmest since 1850.

Has the temperature risen around the world? What was the temperature where I live twenty years ago? A hundred and twenty years ago? Last week? Even if they provided me with that data, it's pretty hard for me to verify. I have a suspicion that if I dug around in records from 1880 I could probably find numbers indicating “the temperature” that would not agree with each other. I can't even remember what the high was here four days ago. There is a lot of “citation by exhaustion” going on here to back up this claim. Their millions of data points do lend them credibility, but they're all virtually unconfirmable to the average person. And what makes me more cautious is they don't seem to want me to. The argument is “We've looked at the evidence. It says we're right. You'll have to take our word for it.”

My biggest problem with the whole global warming debate is just that – it's a debate. You don't debate scientific principles. They are or they aren't. We can debate what to do about them, but we shouldn't have to argue about whether or not the facts are the facts. If they are true, there should be lots of indisputable evidence backing them up. Instead, what I've seen is a scientist presents findings that support the hypothesis, someone like me questions the findings, and then someone attacks the questioner, impugning the motives of whoever is asking the question instead of answering the question.

Everyone is focused on which side has the most support – who agrees with them – rather than which side has the most evidence – who is correct.

Al Gore and others have said that there's a lot of money to be made in just arguing that he's wrong. That's true. There is a lot of money at stake either way. There's a lot of money to be made in proving or disproving global warming, and there's also a lot of money threatened by proving something that would mean massive, worldwide, and permanent changes in our lives. Whether it's a threat to commerce doesn't change whether global warming is or isn't happening, but any matter with such enormous consequences needs to be given that level of consideration. If the truth really is that destructive either way, then we need to be absolutely positive we have the right answer. Nobody gets to claim that they have the truth just because their side is easier to accept.

Also, there is no distinct separation between the question of fact of global warming and the genuine debate about what to do about it, and all of the debate part needs to wait until the factual question is settled. I know it is settled in the minds of a lot of people, but the muddying of the two issues is a lot of why I can't understand the true/false part of the question. After Hiroshima, there was a lot of debate about the ethics of using atomic weapons, but not whether or not it was possible to split an atom.

There isn't enough evidence to prove that the factual question has been answered because the people who ought to be presenting that evidence have already started arguing for or against the social change they say must follow. What started as a question of fact with a definite right and wrong answer has been transformed into a fight with a victory at the end. What scares me is that the people who think the right answer might permanently disrupt life as we know it act as though that's an added bonus. Proving there's money in burning fossil fuels doesn't prove we need to stop. First you have to prove that burning fossil fuels is part of the problem, and then we can argue about whether the benefit outweighs the cost. From what I remember of college chemistry, when it comes to the scientific method, until the burden of proof is met, until the hypothesis is conclusively and repeatably shown to be true, the status quo is the default conclusion. So why is so much time and effort spent arguing against that rather than objectively proving something right or wrong?

One of the strongest supporting points in any scientific hypothesis as I understand it is that the results should be able to be reproduced. Naturally we can't build another earth but we can build greenhouses. Why hasn't someone built a few hundred greenhouses, carefully controlled the contents and the environment around them, and then filled them with different specified and controlled concentrations of greenhouse gases and measured the temperature? Some sort of duplicable experiment like that would go a long way to cementing the validity of the hypothesis, but none have been presented.

Then there's the constant, vicious mud-slinging and outright intellectual bullying that always goes along with questioning the accuracy of the global warming claims.

The first example of that is the argument that shifts the burden of proof onto the skeptics – that because climate change is such a great threat to the world, action has to be taken even if it's a possibility and it's up to the people who think otherwise to prove so. That argument is not only specious but it's dangerous. That's almost the exact line of reasoning that was used to justify the war in Iraq – Saddam is a threat, and even though we're not exactly sure how, we are sure he is, and we have to act now before it's too late. That's intellectual strong-arming. “I know better than you, and we should do what I say until you can prove otherwise.”

The second example is the suggestion of a bias on the part of the skeptics, which is true but irrelevant. People whose salaries depend on cars stand to lose a lot if everyone stops driving cars. That is a valid objection to sweeping social change that might result if global warming is proved to be a) happening, b) the fault of humans, and c) mostly the fault of cars. It doesn't mean that you no longer have to prove a, b, or c just because people won't like those results. I don't think people will refuse to change jobs, but they will insist you give them a really good reason first. As I said before, proving your own unpopularity doesn't prove you're right.

The third example is the attack that's always made on the intelligence of the skeptics – Either the condescending attitude that we just don't understand what's going on, or the challenge of, anyone who doesn't agree with us is an idiot. I admit I don't understand the physics, I don't know what would make a good solution, and I don't understand how any of the solutions I've heard, like a carbon tax, are going to really solve anything. That doesn't mean I'm stupid. It means you haven't presented and defended your evidence very well.

I am open to the possibility of nearly everything I've heard argued about global warming – the planet might be warming up, it might be our fault, and we might need to do something about it in a hurry. But I remain unconvinced that any of those are true. And I probably will remain unconvinced until someone stops calling me an idiot long enough to enlighten me.

Whew! If you made it this far, you should now know what my personal opinions are on the six most controversial subjects are of the day. Thanks for your patience.