Interrogating the Omnicause

[mumblethrax]

See above.

I asked for a good argument. This one completely ignores the fact that same-sex couples have children, too, which makes it a bad argument.

 

[ahhell]

I'm reminded of ancient greek and roman marriage and sex customs. They seemed to not care much about gay sex as long as you were the pitcher and also got married and fathered kids. Not really relevent ot the discussion but that kids were the primary reason for marriage for most of human history and prehistory.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not really relevent ot the discussion but that kids were the primary reason for marriage for most of human history and prehistory.

Marriage (as a formal institution) was not particularly a thing in pre-history, despite the fact that having children was already popular. It was more credibly about property management and stabilizing a society by creating family alliances. There's a reason it arises shortly after civilization does.

 

[ahhell]

Marriage (as a formal institution) was not particularly a thing in pre-history, despite the fact that having children was already popular. It was more credibly about property management and stabilizing a society by creating family alliances. There's a reason it arises shortly after civilization does.

I don't disagree except that formal or not, marriage is a common institution even among societies with less formal property. With your more "civilizied" societies property is more of a factor and marriage tends to be more formal. Even when property is a factor, that's to secure property for the next generation, kids. With less formal societies marriage tends to be a way of ensuring more adults are inventing in the children. To fair, mostly opinion and just so there.

 

[mumblethrax]

I don't disagree except that formal or not, marriage is a common institution even among societies with less formal property. With your more "civilizied" societies property is more of a factor and marriage tends to be more formal. Even when property is a factor, that's to secure property for the next generation, kids. With less formal societies marriage tends to be a way of ensuring more adults are inventing in the children. To fair, mostly opinion and just so there.

Marriage in the informal sense is so diverse that there's very little we can say about its purpose. In some cultures the responsibility for raising children fell to the mother's siblings, rather than the father, despite the fact that mother and father were bonded. In the west, it would be more accurate to say that marriage was about ensuring that a man's children were his children. There's a reason children born out of wedlock were/are called 'illegitimate'. It wasn't about the well-being of your children (the relationship between parents and child was markedly different even as recently as the Victorian era), nor was it about promoting fecundity. You really didn't need marriage for that.

The idea presented by d4m10n on behalf of his hypothetical secularist--that marriage is about ensuring that men care for their children--is particularly ahistorical. The penalties for adultery were far too lopsided for that to be credible.

 

[d4m10n]

This one completely ignores the fact that same-sex couples have children, too, which makes it a bad argument.

If someone was concerned primarily with corralling heterosexual urges—as I stipulated—then they would indeed feel free to ignore couples who would never be presented with the problem of offspring arising from their union.

The idea presented by d4m10n on behalf of his hypothetical secularist--that marriage is about ensuring that men care for their children--is particularly ahistorical. The penalties for adultery were far too lopsided for that to be credible.

No idea which specific time/place/culture you are referring to here, but I don't think historicity really matters when considering a hypothetical secular justification for formalizing heterosexual monogamy.

At any rate, it's still not obvious to me why someone who supports strict church/state separation would necessarily advocate for any policy reforms regarding marriage other than repealing laws which empower clergy to perform those rites while excluding laypersons.

 

[mumblethrax]

If someone was concerned primarily with corralling heterosexual urges—as I stipulated—then they would indeed feel free to ignore couples who would never be presented with the problem of offspring arising from their union.

'Corralling' heterosexual urges is illiberal unless it's justified in terms of better outcomes, which you also stipulated. This means the argument about heterosexual urges is tacitly self-effacing--what is really being argued for are those better outcomes. But better outcomes are also attainable for same-sex couples, and therefore there is not only no reason to exclude them, but strong reasons (if this argument holds) for including them.

You're also just confusing the cowboy for the barn. Marriage doesn't corral anyone, or there never would have been a problem with 'fatherlessness' in the first place--it's not like we abolished marriage at any point in this country's history. What you'll need for that is social pressure to marry, and to stay that way, which is not something the state is particularly well equipped to do, nor would I want it to.

If your hypothetical secularist wants to apply that kind of social pressure, and for breeders only, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. That isn't going to work as a justification for excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution, however.

No idea which specific time/place/culture you are referring to here, but I don't think historicity really matters when considering a hypothetical secular justification for formalizing heterosexual monogamy.

Marriage is primarily a historical, status quo institution. I'm not really interested in justifying it, because any such justification is basically irrelevant to why it exists. What needs to be done is justifying exclusion of some people from the institution, and the argument you presented doesn't come close to doing so.

At any rate, it's still not obvious to me why someone who supports strict church/state separation would necessarily advocate for any policy reforms regarding marriage other than repealing laws which empower clergy to perform those rites while excluding laypersons.

I don't care whether they would 'necessarily advocate' for same-sex marriage (the idea that anyone who supports AU is obligated to do so is still just a weird non sequitur). I'm saying that the onus is on them to argue for unequal treatment, and the argument you came up with is utterly non-persuasive. I mean, you don't believe it, right?

 

[Beerina]

The idea appears to be that there is a suite of causes, all of which you must subscribe to in order to be a True Progressive. The linked GIF lists a number of social issues that have all been opposed by organised religion at one time or another. OP called them "disparate" but I see them all as part of the same pattern.

The point of course being that you can't call yourself a True Progressive unless you support the Omniclause in all of its disparate variety, which is clearly nonsense.

It's a bundling mechanism to get as many as possible to vote for certain people, so they can wield power, to benefit you, pay no attention to their rapidly growing bank accounts, far faster than their income would allow. It's all legal, they assure you.

Look into memes, ideas whose real power is evolving to spread better and better, and memeplexes, groupings of memes that itself evolves, to spread better and better. In politics, the goal is the brass ring of power, because then you can force your selfsame memes onto unwilling hosts, no longer needing to use unreliable seductive patter integral to memes.


Another take: it's good old you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, and we'll gain power together. And fix it. Maybe.

 

[Minoosh]

I have been visiting r/conservative to try to understand some things. Someone posted a meme to the effect that "Palestine" and "trans rights" were inextricably linked as one cause. And some people on the forum were wondering if it that was intended seriously or not. Would this be an example of the "omnicause"?

Facebook is blocked where I work. I did get there through the link but couldn't play the video.

 

[ahhell]

I have been visiting r/conservative to try to understand some things. Someone posted a meme to the effect that "Palestine" and "trans rights" were inextricably linked as one cause. And some people on the forum were wondering if it that was intended seriously or not. Would this be an example of the "omnicause"?

Facebook is blocked where I work. I did get there through the link but couldn't play the video.

I can't speak for many folks other than myself but that one is a bit of a mystery to me, given Hamas's record on gay rights?

As mentioned by others, there isn't an obvious connection between lots of different ways the right and left in the US align, probably true of other countries as well. There is no obvious reason why someone that opposes gun rights would necessary be pro-choice, or pro-gay rights and vice versa. I'm sure there's an exhaustive list of such issues.

 

[d4m10n]

'Corralling' heterosexual urges is illiberal unless it's justified in terms of better outcomes, which you also stipulated. This means the argument about heterosexual urges is tacitly self-effacing--what is really being argued for are those better outcomes.

Yes.

But better outcomes are also attainable for same-sex couples, and therefore there is not only no reason to exclude them, but strong reasons (if this argument holds) for including them.

Any justification grounded in providing a stable upbringing (two parents) for the products of heterosexual activity needn't include any couples who cannot conceive. At best, they are sort of grandfathered in as couples who might well choose to have children in alternative ways, but then we run into the obvious question of why marriage should exclude polycules and communes and all the other ways of childrearing which don't fit the nuclear model.

Marriage doesn't corral anyone, or there never would have been a problem with 'fatherlessness' in the first place--it's not like we abolished marriage at any point in this country's history. What you'll need for that is social pressure to marry, and to stay that way, which is not something the state is particularly well equipped to do, nor would I want it to.

Agreed on all points; minor quibble as to whether offering significant legal and tax incentives counts as "social pressure" or not.

If your hypothetical secularist wants to apply that kind of social pressure, and for breeders only, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. That isn't going to work as a justification for excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution, however.

The justification would be that the same-sex couples don't fall under list the purposes for which the "social pressure to marry" was instituted in the first place, e.g. assurance of resources for the wife and offspring coupled with assurance of paternity to the father. All of these justifications are greatly weakened in the face of modern sexual equality and a robust social safety net, but that's not going to stop people from harkening back to what they see as the original purposes of the institution, especially when they see those purposes being neglected.

Marriage is primarily a historical, status quo institution. I'm not really interested in justifying it, because any such justification is basically irrelevant to why it exists.

It's probably a little off topic, as well, since the advocates of the omnicause have already checked all the boxes they were hoping to check on the marriage front; you hardly hear talk of marriage equality even in progressive spaces these days, except perhaps in congratulatory retrospective.

I'm saying that the onus is on them to argue for unequal treatment...

I'm saying that arguments for equal treatment in the marriage context need to be rooted in the same arguments (or at least grounded in the same premises) that gave rise to the idea of secularism, or else they run the risk of being collateral to the cause of secularism, attached to it like all the little riders which are routinely added to an omnibus spending bill.

 

[d4m10n]

I have been visiting r/conservative to try to understand some things. Someone posted a meme to the effect that "Palestine" and "trans rights" were inextricably linked as one cause. And some people on the forum were wondering if it that was intended seriously or not. Would this be an example of the "omnicause"?

Possibly a better example than my video, since liberating the area which the Romans called Palestine from the yoke of Zionism will almost certainly bode ill for trans folx from the river to the sea.

 

[mumblethrax]

Any justification grounded in providing a stable upbringing (two parents) for the products of heterosexual activity needn't include any couples who cannot conceive. At best, they are sort of grandfathered in as couples who might well choose to have children in alternative ways, but then we run into the obvious question of why marriage should exclude polycules and communes and all the other ways of childrearing which don't fit the nuclear model.

"The products of heterosexual activity" is a very strange way to spell "children", particularly since the can also result from rather less heterosexual activities (artificial insemination, surrogate parenthood), and we don't want to confuse them with, say, a discarded condom. But you're getting the argumentative burden wrong here again. Given the presumption of equality, the question is "why exclude?" rather than "why include?" This argument doesn't work as an argument for exclusion. At best it's neutral with respect to same sex couples, which means the presumption of equality ought to result in marriage equality.

The justification would be that the same-sex couples don't fall under list the purposes for which the "social pressure to marry" was instituted in the first place, e.g. assurance of resources for the wife and offspring coupled with assurance of paternity to the father. All of these justifications are greatly weakened in the face of modern sexual equality and a robust social safety net, but that's not going to stop people from harkening back to what they see as the original purposes of the institution, especially when they see those purposes being neglected.

And that argument is ahistorical, and thus can be safely ignored.

It's probably a little off topic, as well, since the advocates of the omnicause have already checked all the boxes they were hoping to check on the marriage front; you hardly hear talk of marriage equality even in progressive spaces these days, except perhaps in congratulatory retrospective.

Yes, all the more reason to treat as unserious any suggestion that this is a result of the 'omnicause'.

I'm saying that arguments for equal treatment in the marriage context need to be rooted in the same arguments (or at least grounded in the same premises) that gave rise to the idea of secularism, or else they run the risk of being collateral to the cause of secularism, attached to it like all the little riders which are routinely added to an omnibus spending bill.

They are. Egalitarianism implies a flattening of hierarchies--I am not entitled to impose my religious values on you if we are both politically equal. This is the principle source of secularism in liberal democratic societies, and it's also the source of lots of other positions with respect to equality.

 

[d4m10n]

This is the principle source of secularism in liberal democratic societies, and it's also the source of lots of other positions with respect to equality.

Perhaps the founders of Americans United and/or the framers of the First Amendment grounded the case for secularism in egalitarianism, as you say, but you've not yet shown this to be the case.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Possibly a better example than my video, since liberating the area which the Romans called Palestine from the yoke of Zionism will almost certainly bode ill for trans folx from the river to the sea.

So far better to leave them under the yoke of Zionism, then?

 

[dirtywick]

I can't speak for many folks other than myself but that one is a bit of a mystery to me, given Hamas's record on gay rights?

As mentioned by others, there isn't an obvious connection between lots of different ways the right and left in the US align, probably true of other countries as well. There is no obvious reason why someone that opposes gun rights would necessary be pro-choice, or pro-gay rights and vice versa. I'm sure there's an exhaustive list of such issues.

i’d say it’s just infighting on the left. particularly as it pertains to reddit and other linked social media.

it all seems very stupid but if you’re aware of who hasan piker is, i think a lot of that can be traced directly to him and his orbiters. he’s like a living caricature of an obnoxious leftist.

like i said, this all seems very stupid, but keeping an eye on joe rogan seemed stupid too. hasan has a lot of reach

 

[Norman Alexander]

So have we identified this mysterious "omnicause" yet? Seems every time someone does, it changes to be something a bit different. It has become more a bunch of exceptions than some consistent thing.

Or maybe...it doesn't really exist at all! It was just a figment of someone's imagination.

 

[d4m10n]

So far better to leave them under the yoke of Zionism, then?

I believe there is a moderated thread for this question; it would be imprudent for me to answer here.

So have we identified this mysterious "omnicause" yet?

See post #10.

 

[Thermal]

So have we identified this mysterious "omnicause" yet? Seems every time someone does, it changes to be something a bit different. It has become more a bunch of exceptions than some consistent thing.

That's the bitch about it: it's considered very empowering to be hip to the right interpretation and be able to lecture others on the right view before they have even thought it through. It establishes you as the UberOmni.

Or maybe...it doesn't really exist at all! It was just a figment of someone's imagination.

No, I agree, it's a real thing, if a little slippery. I've been treated like a pariah for having a slightly divergent view from the Official Position.

What I'm not clear on is how to interrogate it. It interrogates *you*.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I believe there is a moderated thread for this question; it would be imprudent for me to answer here.

You raised the subject here. It's your thread.

See post #10.

You don't seem to be arguing that now. Something change?

Seems the only real "omnicause" is someone accusing other people of pursuing an omnicause of some nebulous and morphing definition that complies with the accusers preset prejudices.

 

[arthwollipot]

So have we identified this mysterious "omnicause" yet? Seems every time someone does, it changes to be something a bit different. It has become more a bunch of exceptions than some consistent thing.

Or maybe...it doesn't really exist at all! It was just a figment of someone's imagination.

It's whatever you want it to be. Anything that someone you don't like supports is now part of the "omnicause". DEI, LGBTQIA+, CRT, social safety nets, health insurance, immigration... It's the ultimate Rightist badlabel - like how QAnon wrapped up all the various conspiracy theories into one grand overarching omniconspiracy.

 

[mumblethrax]

Perhaps the founders of Americans United and/or the framers of the First Amendment grounded the case for secularism in egalitarianism, as you say, but you've not yet shown this to be the case.

I don't need to, since I made no claim about that. I'm not sure why you're pre-occupied with what these people thought. You're still indulging a genetic fallacy.

 

[Norman Alexander]

It's whatever you want it to be. Anything that someone you don't like supports is now part of the "omnicause". DEI, LGBTQIA+, CRT, social safety nets, health insurance, immigration... It's the ultimate Rightist badlabel - like how QAnon wrapped up all the various conspiracy theories into one grand overarching omniconspiracy.

Can a bagpipe academy be an omnicause? Nobody likes that!