Capitalism and MJ

After listening to a podcast with Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman and starting to read Slavoj Zizek's new book, I thought of a disturbing similarity between Michael Jordan and Capitalism.

When Jordan appeared petty and sad during his HOF speech, public perception came to his aid and these negative qualities were turned into positives; they somehow reinforced his image as a winner and the ultimate competitor with a killer instinct etc. etc. Likewise, when Capitalism sputters and collapses and the government has to subsidize the system to keep it afloat, proponents claim that it's because we were living under a perversion of capitalism and we need to return to the basic principles if we're ever to recover from this mess. Capitalism, like MJ, has entered the rare "air" of appearing stronger the weaker it actually becomes. How did this happen?

Gay Marriage Cont.

We've written back and forth with lengthy responses but this is a good representation of what has gone down since my first post. His thoughts are in quotes with my response to follow.

“My point: Unrestrained sexual behavior has huge socio-economic consequences. At the Johns Hopkins University School of Health and Hygiene, the basic course in public health proposes that 80% of our healthcare dollars are spent on conditions related to alcohol & drugs, tobacco, violence and unrestrained sexual behavior.”

"If you do some research on the effectiveness of condom use in anal intercourse for the prevention of disease, you'll find the 'fail' rate is abysmal. You'll also find that anal intercourse, in and of itself, is far more traumatic and more conducive to the transmission of deadlier diseases. In short (and again, comparing risky behaviors), having repeated anal intercourse with multiple partners AND using a condom is like driving drunk with your seat belt fastened or smoking filtered cigarettes. The idea of 'safe sex' is part of the lie that the American society has been told for the last two generations. From a public health perspective, the only absolutely 'safe' sex is no sex -- David Carradine demonstrated that its not even safe if you're a do-it-yourselfer. A monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual relationship is by far the safest sex, next to 'no sex' (which I'm not even considering)."

He goes on to say:

”the best way to stem the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases - especially among young people - and to reduce childhood poverty is to uphold a standard of sexual behavior that reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and creates a stable economic environment for raising the next generation. I believe that standard to be a monogamous, heterosexual lifelong union. I just can't see where the two relationships are exactly the same and believe the term 'marriage' should only apply to the latter.”

"We all have desires, but when we choose to over-indulge in risky behaviors, is that healthy? How many of these health and socio-economic trends do you think are acceptable in this new paradigm of unrestrained sexual behavior?"

My response:

The fundamental difference between us is that you view homosexuality as some kind of fringe behavior, while I just see it as different from what some people are used to. The fact is we cannot ask homosexuals to not be attracted to one another, and to not desire same-sex sexual relationships, any more than we could ask heterosexuals to do the same with respect to the opposite sex. Knowing this to be true, we need to move on and address the issues you have brought up by expanding sexual education to address homosexual issues. Sure, if an infected male has sex with numerous partners, even while using a condom, he is selfish and irresponsible, knowing what we know about the increased risk of infection through anal intercourse. But you’re ignoring the ability of every person, gay or straight to be educated and to get tested.

Again, nothing about the institution of marriage these days is lifelong since half end in divorce. So the ideal you’re fighting to protect DOES NOT exist in the first place. Then looking at marriage in a purely functional way, doesn’t it just make sense, for your argument, that homosexuals are able to join in a monogamous lifelong union. Here’s why. In an earlier response, you said “any two people entering into a relationship where they share financial resources and living quarters, having some sort of contractual agreement is prudent to clarify expectations and to financially protect each individual.” Plus, in order to curb the spread of sexually transmitted disease, doesn’t it just make sense for two homosexuals who are free of STDs to join in attempt at a lifelong monogamous union. Isn’t this the standard for homosexuals as well according to your argument? Then the only issue becomes, what will the economic, legal, social, and religious implications of that union be? So my question remains the same: Why should homosexuals have to settle for a separate but equal institution?

Gay Marriage

The following is a conversation I have been having about gay marriage. Someone on facebook had a status that said, "The California Supreme Court got it right! Marriage will always be one man and one woman, for life!" Knowing this person was an evangelical, I chimed in on the hateful nature of religion in situations like this. After going back and forth with any takers on this guy's wall, someone sent me the following message. My response follows his.

* * * *

The words 'marry' and 'marriage' were derived in about the 12th century from the Latin word 'maritare'. Maritare literally meant the joining of a 'mari' (young female) with a 'maritus' (young male) with the intent of producing an offspring. Originally applied to animal husbandry, the terms were later employed by the Catholic church for the rite of uniting a man and a woman in the hopes of producing offspring. Later, the nomenclature was used in civil courts and legal processes to clearly identify lawfully dependent relationships. As such, the construct of 'marriage' has been determined by custom and generally accepted cultural norms. Over the years, laws have been enacted to govern the construct of the public institution of marriage. Qualifiers such as age, consanguinity, presence of sexually transmitted diseases, qualifications of officiant and others have all been determined as rule of law to protect the man, woman and subsequent offspring and have been determined by each governing domain, such as a state or county. In consideration of the lawful dependencies created by raising children, some institutions, such as medical insurance companies and employers, have afforded special considerations to individuals legally classified as 'married'.

Dictionaries generally define a 'right' as an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature. The framers of the U.S. Constitution took the abstract nature of 'rights' into consideration when they enacted the first amendment to the Constitution - The Bill of Rights. Article 10 of the Bill of Rights states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". In other words, anything not specifically spelled out in the U.S. Constitution is to be determined on a state-by-state basis and is under the authority of the democratic will of the people. On these premises, several questions arise;

1) Can the conjugal union of same-sex individuals with no possibility of naturally producing offspring fit into the historical, legal, and publicly accepted definition of 'marriage' or would the word 'marriage' require a totally new legal definition?

2) Since, by its very nature, marriage is the public declaration and public acceptance of a social construct, and that social construct produces legal, economic and social ramifications on the entire community, doesn't the community have the authority to govern the public institution of marriage?

3) Are the special considerations offered by various institutions to relieve some of the burden of supporting lawful dependencies 'rights', entitlements, or benevolent allowances?

4) Is the formal public recognition of the conjugal union of two individuals a 'right' or is it a social construct based on custom and only legally recognized as a benefit of residing in a country that governs by the rule of law?

5) If the people of California legally voted on the governance of the public institution of marriage and the Supreme Court of California ruled that the people of California had the legal authority to do so, doesn't that just represent the democratic process in action?

* * * *

Everyone is well aware that “marriage” has historically meant the joining of a man and a woman, and this has been based on, as you said, “custom and generally accepted cultural norms.” But people don’t change or resist change based solely on semantics. Popular languages have remained so because they changed to accomodate progress, sophistication, and cultural acceptance. So to say that the meaning of a word, legal or otherwise, would have to be fine-tuned is not uncommon much less without precedent.

Because semantics are not unalterable, the issue then becomes the natural changing of the public perception of marriage over time to include the joining of same-sex partners so that language and law will have no choice but to adapt as they have in the past. The masses are becoming more and more comfortable with same-sex relationships as we learn more and ultimately become more sophisticated. The diffusion of American mainstream culture by same-sex relationships also speaks to the “normalization” of the issue. So the question becomes, what makes marriage, a social construct, impervious to this obvious paradigm shift? What’s stopping the majority of our “democracy” from altering their perception of marriage to include same-sex partners?

This is where religious groups have taken the authority over deciding what “marriage” is and has always been. This is why you were able to refer to the meaning of “marriage” matter-of-factly and the meaning of “right” as an abstract idea. But marriage has transcended religious significance and become, as you said, a social construct. So my question is, with so many economic, social, and legal considerations, why should the religious significance of a word have any weight at all?

The most abstract and popular answer is, because homosexuality is seen as immoral by conservative Christians, opponents think that allowing gays to marry will somehow poison or dillute the term,”marriage” inevitably threatening the institution it symbolizes, an insitution that disintegrates 50% of the time in the U.S. among heterosexual partners (much less so in Massachusetts, the only state with legalized gay-marriage laws for much of the last 5 years).

If you mean this to be a conversation about the democratic process or lawmaking from the bench, then you are not going to get much of an argument from me. This is not because I put a whole lot of faith in our so-called democratic process, or really care about defending it when it is convenient, but because I don’t feel like it is the fundamental issue here.

There is no doubt in my mind that gay marriage will pass in California and elsewhere eventually, and it will be done up to the democratic standards you describe. The only question is, how long will detractors (religious conservatives) keep this from happening?

* * * *

I'm looking forward to his response and I will post it here as soon as I can. If anyone still reads this, please join in.

Some Rambling on Religion and Choice

On Real Time this week, author Jon Meachem said that there has been a long-standing tradition based on a precedent set by God himself not to force obedience. In other words, God gives us the freedom to choose and man should give the same freedom. When Meachem says "long-standing tradition" he refers to freedom of religion in America. I think he’s giving God and the U.S. too much credit. It is true, God does technically give humans a choice. You can believe in God and submit to the bible's teachings, or burn in hell for all of eternity with weeping, teeth gnashing and all the rest. That’s not much of a choice. The same is true to a lesser extent for freedom of religion and the separation of church and state in the United States. Is it even possible to imagine an atheist being elected to major national office? And doesn't the Judeo-Christian God pervade every corner of society from "God Bless America" at baseball games to presidents being sworn in on the bible. It doesn't matter that I, and a growing number of Americans, feel awkward when thousands of fans sing "God Bless America" or ashamed when our president's memos are covered with religious propaganda because Christianity in one form or another is the de facto American religion.

While we’re on the subject of godly obedience, I think this also brings to light a fundamental inconsistency between God and Jesus, who was part of the trinity, namely god in the flesh, or one and the same entity. If Jesus was God in the flesh, and he was this selfless impoverished miracle worker, and God on the other hand, demands that people praise him, obey him, and put nothing above him for fear of everlasting pain described in the "good book"; how is that selfless? The Christ of the new testament taught an exemplary moral system based on helping others and turning the other cheek. This is vastly different from the God who made his first four commandments revolve around his own vanity and jealousy. Isn’t this enormously inconsistent?

On a side note, it is impossible not to see the parallels between the aforementioned arrangement between God and people and the arrangement the United States has with the rest of the world; mainly, do what we say or we place economic sanctions on you, or occupy your country and murder your citizens making them collateral damage in our “spread of democracy.” Again not much of a choice. I warned it was rambling.