Midlife, Mortality, and Faith

I recently turned 46, which happens to be the average age of onset of midlife crises for American men.  As for signs of this event in my own life, so far so good.  I haven’t experienced any sudden impulses to change my career, purchase a yacht, get a tattoo, or skip out on my wife for a younger woman.  But I must admit that the last five years or so I’ve found myself doing more assessment of my life to this point and my goals for whatever time I have left on this planet.  And being a philosopher, of course, I’ve also been reflecting on just what a midlife crisis is

The phrase “midlife crisis” was first used by psychologist Elliott Jaques in 1965 to describe that phase of psychological and behavioral turmoil which is experienced by about 15% of middle-aged adults in Western societies.  (Interestingly, some Eastern cultures, such as in Japan and India, show no evidence of midlife crises.)  Classic psychological symptoms include feelings of self-doubt, disappointment over goals not achieved, and obsessive preoccupation with staying young.  Such feelings sometimes prompt extreme behaviors, from extravagant purchases to adulterous liaisons.

Psychologists have proposed a variety of theories as to the ultimate causes of midlife crisis, regarding everything from Jungian self-actualization to the “sandwiched caregiver” effect of having to simultaneously care for children and aging parents.  But from what I’ve seen there is insufficient attention paid to the simple fact that it is often during midlife—in one’s 40s and 50s—that one is first acutely struck with the fact of his or her own mortality.  Whether it is hair loss, menopause, loss of youthful appearance, decline of athletic ability or, most likely, some combination of such factors, the imminence of one’s earthly demise becomes increasingly apparent during this period.

So how does one respond?  Obviously, some folks do not respond very well at all—essentially resisting the inevitable in a pathetic, vain, and sometimes laughable or even tragic attempt to hold on to one’s youth (or the Western accoutrements of youth) as long as one can.  As I see it, this is nothing other than a refusal to accept one’s mortality.  It is as if one’s body is declaring “Take note: I am approaching death—very slowly, perhaps, but quite assuredly,” and the midlife crisis prototype replies, “Don’t be silly.  You’ll be young forever.  Come on, body, let’s prove it by doing X, Y, and Z.” 

Other people, for whatever reason, respond very well to midlife physical decline.  They are able to “age gracefully,” allowing their youth to pass without desperately resisting the cosmetic symptoms of the aging process.  Nor, however, do they give up on healthy living.  They practice dietary discipline and get regular exercise but do so more for the sake of maintaining productivity and because they see their body as the sacred gift that it is.

These are, of course, extremes on the spectrum of responses to the midlife symptoms of mortality.  Perhaps most people fall somewhere in the middle, struggling to resist aspects of the aging process without denying it altogether.  One thing that has helped me is the realization that midlife is, like every other stage of life, essentially a moral trial.  Sudden or unexpected physical decline of any kind, whether due to disease or injury, has a way of bringing character issues into sharp relief.  And one can either respond with acceptance or resistance.  The physical decline of midlife just happens to be natural and gradual, but the response options are the same.  The way of wisdom is that of accepting one’s lot while working hard to make the best of it, and the way of the fool is that of resisting it to the point of preoccupying oneself with the impossible task of avoiding it.  So midlife decline presents two basic paths:  1) moral growth and maturing in virtue or 2) moral degeneration and reversion to immaturity and vice.  The classic midlife crisis could be simply defined in terms of the latter, at least from the standpoint of moral development.

Another way of analyzing midlife challenges is as a trial of faith.  Physical decline tends to prompt one to look heavenward or to become obsessed with preserving one’s earthly existence.  Yes, some folks do seem to blithely accept their physical fate, at least for a while.  But this is really just a form of denial.  I have seen such people fall very clearly into one of the other categories—heavenly-mindedness or earthly obsession—with the near approach of the angel of death.  And I suppose it is this way with nearly everyone.

As I see it, the physical decline of midlife is in many ways a gift, a blessed admonition that this world is, as Bob Dylan says, “a passing through place.”  God grants us many signs along life’s road to remind us that we are approaching that final turn, so to speak.  Even the most morally and spiritually devout among us can benefit from these reminders.

The Devil’s in the Details

Greetings from Asia!  Bailey and I are visiting my sister and her family who work at an international school in Taichung, Taiwan. This is Bailey’s first international experience and it has been interesting to watch him processing the sights, sounds, and even the smells of a country so different from his own. One of the things that has made the biggest impression on us both has been the difference in driving styles. Having spent most of his life cruising the back roads of Indiana with few cars in sight, the crowded streets of a big city have taken some getting used to. Here in Taiwan, there are not only cars to contend with but lots and lots (and lots and lots) of scooters. My sister appropriately compared the rules of the road here to the flow of water. Just as water follows the path of least resistance, traffic flows in a rather free-form manner here, without any discernible rhyme or reason. I have been amazed at my sister’s patience with other drivers as they weave in and out of traffic around her. She (and the other drivers on the road) seem unphased by maneuvers that would elicit some unfriendly hand gestures back home.

As we traveled to our destination last night, Bailey pointed to a scooter rider crossing in front of us and said “How rude!” While I have to admit to seeing his point to a certain extent, I tried to explain to Bailey that rudeness is largely a cultural concept. What is rude in one country may be perfectly acceptable in another. (Unfortunately, I made the mistake of illustrating my point with the example of cultures who consider burping a compliment to the chef. I will now be hearing this bit of cultural relativism as an excuse for bad table manners for the next several years, I am sure.)

This idea of perspective-defining behavior has been kicking around in my head for a while. I must confess to often looking at things in black and white terms, but lately I have begun to wonder whether this is a valid approach to take. I don’t want to get all postmodern and revisionistic on you, but I think there is some truth to the idea that there is a great deal of gray in the world when it comes to human interaction. Though I find this realization a bit disorienting considering my natural bent toward defining things in terms of right and wrong, there is some comfort to be gained from viewing things this way as well. Prior to being more open to this way of thinking, when I had a conflict with someone, or was frustrated with the way a situation was handled, someone had to be in the right and someone had to be in the wrong. So I was either the good guy or the bad. Either way, I lost because this meant that either I was in the wrong and had trespassed against a friend or I was a victim of someone else’s wrongdoing. Neither role seemed terribly satisfying. But allowing for shadowy areas where two parties are at odds, not due to some moral failure on their part but simply because they didn’t share the same perspective, means that no one need be diminished in a moral sense. It is a clash of cultures, so to speak, rather than a transgression.

It’s all about giving someone the benefit of the doubt that you hope to be given by others. I am not saying there aren’t plenty of instances where someone is truly in the wrong. The Nazis were bad, cannibals need to cut it out, and serial killers aren’t just misunderstood. There are certainly universals which have been woven into our natures as bearers of the Imago Dei, and those who transgress against them are without excuse. But between the boundaries of the law there is a lot of wiggle room. Like those darned scooters squeezing into minuscule spaces between cars, we are sharing the road with a great many of our fellow humans. If we want to reach our destination in one piece and save ourselves a lot of grief along the way, perhaps it is best to put away our driver’s manuals and allow for a bit of tolerance. If we are lucky, those around us will do the same and all will be made right in the end. After all, Jesus didn’t seem to get bogged down in the little things but was much more concerned with the big picture. As the saying goes, the devil’s in the details and that is certainly company I don’t wish to keep.

Our Economic Mess and Its Moral Implications

So we are in an economic crisis of historic proportions.  The Obama administration, following treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, is addressing the situation with massive spending.  Will the strategy work?  Only the most inveterate optimist would think so.  It doesn’t take a PhD in economics to recognize that you can’t spend money you don’t have in order to solve a financial problem.  Some pundits (including the likes of former Clinton operative Dick Morris) have suggested that Obama actually wants the plan to fail as a pretext for government takeover of the entire banking industry and the final step toward a socialist state.  That’s a rather cynical take on the situation, and I pray it’s not accurate.  But I’m afraid I can’t rule it out.

But aside from the question of cure—how to solve the mess we’re in—there is the question of cause:  How did we get here?  While there were certainly failures of government oversight, in the end it boils down to greed and irresponsibility—personal vice.  In other words, this national crisis, like most of our problems, is the result of immoral behavior.  And even the most ingenious government plan cannot fix the moral faults of the populous.  So what can fix America’s moral problems, whether they regard greed in the marketplace, marital infidelity, racism, sexism, abortion, or the evils of pornography?  Moral renewal is not something that can be legislated, programmed, or solved through education.  Ultimately, it’s a matter of the human heart, and this can only be addressed spiritually.  As critical as federal policy is, our current economic debacle is symptomatic of our deeper moral-spiritual crisis.  And until we reverse course in a moral-spiritual way, we won’t see any long-term economic cures.

Like many Christians, I believe only significant divine intervention can save us from ourselves.  But what form might this take?  Perhaps a revival within the church not unlike what happened during the Great Awakening in the eighteenth century.  Another possibility is the “no pain, no gain” model, where God allows us to “hit bottom” in order to motivate repentance and the moral seriousness we seem to have lost.  An extreme version of this was recently predicted by New York City pastor David Wilkerson who warned about a coming calamity (see his March 7 entry here: http://davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com/).  According to Wilkerson, this is a straightforward case of divine wrath which we deserve because of our extreme rebellion as a nation.  Wilkerson’s announcement is particularly stunning because:  1) he’s not a kook or money-grubbing sensationalist but a humble and reasonable pastor who has demonstrated integrity for five decades of ministry and 2) his now famous predictions from the early 1970s were remarkably accurate—a fact that cannot be fully appreciated without seeing how unlikely his prognostications looked from the perspective of someone in the early 70s.

So will Wilkerson’s prophecy be fulfilled?  It’s scary to think so, but whether or not we believe him, the category of divine wrath should be taken seriously.  Our nation is in state of extreme moral-spiritual rebellion, and we are bound to pay the fiddler, whether this takes the form of natural consequences or special divine wrath.  We all need to consider how we can deepen our moral-spiritual commitment through personal repentance and more earnest pursuit of virtue.  Just as our national economic crisis is a product of many individual vices, national renewal can result from many individual virtues.

The APA Controversy Over Religion and Sexuality

Some members of the American Philosophical Association (APA) are circulating a petition that aims to censure orthodox Christian colleges and universities.  The authors of the petition are requesting that the APA not allow these institutions to advertise open positions in their publication Jobs for Philosophers. The crux of the issue?  The non-permissive stance of these schools regarding homosexual behavior.  You can read the petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/cmh3866/petition.html

The implications of this petition are severe, not only for Christian colleges but for orthodox Jewish and Muslim schools as well.  The petition amounts to a frontal attack on the religious liberty of private educational institutions. In response, some Christian philosophers have drawn up a counter-petition, which you can read here:  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/apa/.  I have already signed this petition and encourage you to consider doing so as well.

Mark Murphy of Georgetown University has drafted a very insightful response to this controversy, which you can see here:  http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/murphym/APAStatement-Murphy.htm. Murphy makes several illuminating observations, many regarding the history of the APA nondiscrimination provisions and other points pertaining to the faulty logic of the petition to change the APA’s advertising policy.  Here I will summarize and embellish some of Murphy’s points:

First, the accused Christian colleges do not single out homosexual activity as unacceptable.  Rather, such colleges prohibit all extramarital sexual practice, which also includes adultery, premarital sex, polygamy, pedophilic sex, and bestiality.  The expectation at these Christian colleges is that their employees and students will refrain from all sexual activity that is outside the bounds of Christian marriage.  While some homosexuals might consider the expectation to refrain from extramarital sexual activity to be a burden, it is not a special burden placed on them, since heterosexuals are also expected to refrain from extramarital sex.

Second, note that this is a behavioral prohibition which is consistent with nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (per the language of the APA nondiscrimination policy).  To be sexually oriented in a certain way, whether heterosexually or homosexually, is to be physically attracted to members of a particular gender.  But to act or not to act on these desires is a matter of choice, just as it is a matter of choice as to whether to have sex at all.  To insist that persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are not free to choose whether or with whom to have sex, assumes a form of hard determinism—a view which, to say the least, is highly contentious.  (See my January 26 post about this.)

Third, the moral norm of confining sex to marriage between one man and one woman is inherent to the religious commitment of these Christian colleges.  Moreover, this is the long-standing belief and practice of all major theisms—Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—and many other religions besides.  So to sanction schools for observing this ideal would be blatant religious discrimination—against, in fact, the religious beliefs of the majority people in the world.

On a Certain Irony in the Case for Gay Rights

When it comes to the debate on human sexuality, typically it is traditionalists who are painted as enemies of freedom.  After all, they are the ones who insist that extra-marital sex is wrong and should be discouraged.  However, the central argument used by many gay rights advocates also opposes freedom but in a much more fundamental sense than traditionalism. 

Let me explain.  Consider the popular gay rights slogan “biology is destiny” and the argument which often accompanies this phrase.  The idea is that some people are “born” homosexuals, due either to certain genetic factors or neurological hard-wiring which strongly predispose them to have a sexual attraction to members of the same sex.  For this reason, the argument goes, the traditionalist view that homosexual relations are immoral is wrongheaded, not to mention insensitive.  For how can people be blamed for what they cannot control?  As Immanuel Kant said (paraphrasing Pelagius a millennium before him), “ought implies can.”  If homosexuals cannot choose to be other than what they are, then there is no sense in telling them they ought to act otherwise.

Notice that the “biology is destiny” argument really amounts to the claim that homosexuals cannot help themselves regarding both their sexual preference and their choice as to whether to have sex at all.  The implication (or at least suggestion) in both cases is that their desires are irresistible.  That is, given their biological (and psychological) make-up, they cannot act otherwise than they do.  Now there is a general name for views such as this:  determinism.  Determinists believe that all phenomena, including human behavior and choices, are caused.  Among determinists there is disagreement as to whether we are, nonetheless, free and responsible for our behavior.  Those determinists who affirm the logical compatibility of determinism and freedom are called compatibilists (or, alternatively, soft determinists).  In contrast, those who maintain that determinism rules out human freedom and responsibility are called hard determinists.

So here’s the point.  In using the “biology is destiny” argument, gay rights advocates tacitly endorse hard determinism, at least as far as human sexuality goes.  That is, they deny that human beings are free when it comes to their sexual choices and behavior.  More than this, they deny we are morally responsible in these matters.  Ironically, then, proponents of the biological argument are enemies of human freedom and in a much more profound sense than their traditionalist opponents.  They deny freedom both morally (in the sense of responsibility) and metaphysically (in the sense of the ability to choose). 

Of course, not all gay rights advocates believe, strictly speaking, that “biology is destiny,” that there is a “gay gene” or some other entirely biological determinant of homosexual orientation.  But even the skeptical gay rights folks almost always accept some sort of determinism in the matter, whether it is psychological, social, or some combination of factors including biology.  How ironic it is that traditionalists are routinely criticized for being anti-freedom when it is gay rights advocates who implicitly deny freedom in a much more radical way.

Carnivores, Herbivores, and Everyone in Between

The holidays are fast approaching. At least, I think we are supposed to believe they are approaching, seeing that a variety of stores have had their Christmas decorations out since they put the blowup pools on clearance. I have begun my seasonal chant to the children. “It’s not about the toys. It’s not about the toys.” If only I could convince them that it’s all about the food. Soon after the pumpkins make their first appearance, the issue of food begins to creep to the forefront of my mind. Okay, it’s always in the forefront, but the issue of holiday food comes to the forefront of this ever-on-the-forefront issue. As mentioned in previous posts, Jim and I have been vegetarians for some years now and holiday gatherings often present a particular challenge to our ethics. You might think that being a vegetarian implies the obvious—that you don’t eat meat—and you would be correct, I suppose, regarding a large number of vegetarians. But we Spiegels always like to make things a little more complicated. Jim timidly suggested one day that we stop eating factory farmed meat after research for his ethics class left him horrified and more than a little queasy. I had flirted with vegetarianism since high school for a number of reasons, one of the more influential of which was probably just to irritate my parents. (In an act of divine justice, our kids as teenagers will probably defy us with pepperoni pizza and ham sandwiches.) So it wasn’t, as many imagine, that we woke up one day with a deep loathing for meat and have shunned it ever since. In fact, sometimes at night we lay in bed whispering sweet nothings to each other about the days of Wendy’s cheeseburgers and hot dogs at the ball park.

What amazes me is that here we are now a decade into that decision and I still feel like I am trying to figure out how to go about it. Again you might be saying to yourself, what is to figure out? You are a vegetarian, so don’t eat meat. What’s so complicated about that? A lot, actually. There are the “What qualifies as meat?” questions. There are obvious answers to this and not so obvious ones. Rump roast? Definitely meat. (I think we could safely qualify as meat anything which refers to a particular part of the body, rump, ribs, wings, etc). Fish we have ruled as non-meat. Contrary to annoying pleas I once made to a college boyfriend, I don’t think fish have enough going on upstairs to register significant pain and suffering. But there are all sorts of tricky, grey areas such as chicken stock and the bacon that comes on top of the salad that you didn’t notice on the menu but it’s already mixed in and you hate to make a fuss. When faced with such a situation, we usually make eye-contact and silently ask one another “Are you going to eat it?” It can, at times, be rather comical. We have good friends who are also vegetarians of the meat loving sort. At a university banquet a few years back, we each had a large portion of country-fried steak placed in front of us. After an embarrassed pause, we began to tentatively eat our dinners. By the end, I was restraining myself from licking the plate clean. Gravy—yummmm.

The holidays, as well as other family gatherings and church potluck dinners, are filled with tension and temptation. You want to be polite, not to make people feel uncomfortable and let’s face it, ethical dilemma aside, flesh can be quite tasty. I feel guilty just piling up on veggies as if my plate is some sort of moral judgment on those around me. I feel guilty adding a slice or two of turkey when (a) I have made the commitment to forego said turkey and (b) if I am honest, I am not just being polite. So I am faced with either being the party killjoy (this makes it sound as if our families sit around, knife and fork in hand, banging on the table and shouting “Argh, give us our meat wench!” which is far from the case) or being the party hypocrite. In reality, probably no one is looking and no one really cares what I put on my plate except for my kids who love to steal the best parts for themselves. So this holiday season, I vow to turn over a new, guilt-free leaf. Be my plate carnivorous, herbivorous, or somewhere in between, I will walk with my head held high. In other words, I will make sure I follow Jim through the line and only get meat if he does. What can I say? I guess I’m just chicken.

Why I Can’t Vote for Obama OR McCain

We are now just five days from Election Day, and most Americans have decided on the presidential candidate for whom they will cast their vote next Tuesday.  I have decided who will get my vote, but it will be neither Barack Obama nor John McCain.  And the reason in both cases boils down to personal integrity.  For all of their considerable talents and leadership skills, the moral character of both of these men is too flawed to justify my support.

In the case of Obama his character flaws are apparent in his questionable associations, the most astonishing of which is his long-time pastor, Jeremiah Wright.  Wright is not just a liberation theologian.  He is a radical anti-American racist, whose rhetoric is more venomous than anything I’ve seen in public life.  Yet Obama sat under his preaching for twenty years?  Unbelievable.  Another disturbing association of Obama’s is Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist with whom Obama served on a Chicago education board. Obama’s claim that he didn’t know about Ayers’ terrorist past at the time is implausible.  Finally, there is Obama’s utter insensitivity to sanctity of life issues.  Set aside his unyielding pro-choice position and his breathtaking assertion that determining when human life begins is “above my pay grade.”  (Come on, Barack.  As difficult as that might be, you must have some belief regarding the matter.  And surely anyreasonable person must admit that a pre-born child is human at least by the point of viability.)  The most astounding thing is Obama’s refusal (four times) to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which simply mandated that babies which survive abortions should receive medical attention to keep them alive.  Intentionally allowing a baby to die is, of course, infanticide.  And Obama’s refusal to support legislation to prevent such is complicity with this heinous act.  To say that this reveals a character flaw on his part is, well, an understatement.

As far as McCain is concerned, I do appreciate the man’s honorable service as a soldier, especially his heroic commitment to his fellow servicemen while a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War.  I also appreciate McCain’s respect for the sanctity of life and his take on several other issues.  But he, too, has a seriously chequered past.  McCain was unfaithful to his first wife, leaving her for his current wife, Cindy, even while his first wife was recovering from a serious automobile accident.  Yes, this was nearly thirty years ago, but there have been whiffs of questionable behavior since, such as regarding McCain’s inappropriate relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.  Adultery is no small matter, as it demonstrates a person’s willingness to flout the most sacred vow two human beings can make.  If a man is willing to break that vow, then why should we trust him when it comes to his commitment to the American people?  And if the Clinton years taught us anything, it is that the so-called “private life” of a President is never just that.  So I cannot cast a vote for McCain.  (In fact, I have a personal rule never to vote for a known adulterer.)

But I do plan to vote in the presidential election.  So for whom shall I cast my ballot?  At this point I plan to write in the name of someone who is consummately qualified and has impeccable character:  Condoleeza Rice.  I will refrain from extolling her virtues here, otherwise this post might never end!  Suffice it to say that she has the moral integrity that I wish either Obama or McCain had.  Oy vey.

Culturally Liberal and Morally Conservative

The recent discussion of gay marriage (see my October 2 post and related comments) has reminded me once again how difficult it is to be both culturally liberal and morally conservative.  It seems that today most folks fall into one of these categories but not the other.  That is, people tend to be either culturally liberal or morally conservative.  By culturally liberal I mean someone who readily recognizes and aggressively pursues truth, goodness, and beauty in culture-from politics and higher learning to art forms such as film, literature, and popular music.  By contrast, a cultural conservative would be someone who does not share this inclination but rather is suspicious of culture and human creative expressions.  A parallel distinction can be made regarding a person’s moral sensibilities.  Moral liberals are those who readily embrace shifts in ethical standards, while moral conservatives are suspicious of such change.

Perhaps it is only natural that people tend to be liberal or conservative generally rather than according to context or subject matter.  That is, our tendency to be liberal or conservative is not isolated to particular areas or issues.  It’s no coincidence that the artistic centers of our culture, from Hollywood and Broadway to art institutes and MTV, are also the most morally liberal communities.  And it’s also not coincidental that the most morally conservative communities tend to have little interest in the arts.  Similarly, the press and media, as well as the most prestigious centers of learning tend to be liberal, while people from the most morally conservative faith traditions are those who are least likely to run in these cultural circles.

Now these are very general observations, I know.  But these tendencies should be obvious enough to all of us.  I consider it to be a tragic trend, as it is the timeless moral truths which made American culture possible in the first place and which will sustain it as long as it lasts.  While it is appropriate to question or reject artistic norms and institutional conventions, moral verities such as the sanctity of human life and sexuality cannot be rejected without devastating repercussions, both in individual lives and culture at large.

So the noble challenge, as I see it, is to vigorously explore the arts and other aspects of contemporary culture while maintaining one’s ethical moorings; to remain committed to abiding ethical principles without sacrificing the will to eagerly pursue truth, goodness, and beauty in human creations-in short, to be a cultural liberal and a moral conservative.  It’s a challenge because somehow, at least at this time in our history, it is unnatural.  And it’s a noble challenge because it is for our own good-both as individuals and as a society.

An Argument Against Gay Marriage

One of the more divisive moral-political issues of our time is gay marriage.  Conservative Christians oppose gay marriage and are often criticized because their only reasons for doing so are biblical in nature.  This rankles some people who complain that Christians want their theological views to be the foundation for civil laws.  (Of course, the Judeo-Christian ethic is the foundation of many of our laws, but this fact seems lost on lots of folks these days.)

For a long time I was convinced that the only conclusive arguments against gay marriage are theological.  Many have proposed philosophical arguments against gay marriage—typically utilitarian in nature—but these tend to be weak, essentially useful only as supplements to arguments from Scripture.  So I set myself to the task of coming up with a strong philosophical argument (preferably non-utilitarian in nature).  I think I might have accomplished just this with an argument which essentially claims that gay marriage is unjust.  Here it is, for your perusal:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

I have shared this argument with many of my friends and colleagues, and the criticisms have consistently missed the point—suggesting, for example, that the argument assumes that the only purpose of marriage is procreation (which it does not) or that it implies a complete denial of the civil rights of homosexuals (which, again, it does not).  Still others have made the more subtle mistake of interpreting me as saying that gay marriage implies a denial of all value of heterosexual unions.  Clearly, the argument does no such thing.  The whole point of the argument concerns the special value of traditional marriage.

At any rate, the lack of strong objections has only strengthened my conviction that the argument is sound.  Now I am curious if anyone can muster a decent criticism (without lapsing into ad hominems, emotional pleas, and other fallacies).  I am also curious as to how many of you, like me, find the argument persuasive.

Media Hypocrisy in Ethics Investigations

The presidential race is approaching the home-stretch now, and the media frenzy to cover every detail of the candidates’ each and every move is becoming circus-like.  But, with as much as there is on the line, I suppose this is to be expected.  I suppose, too, that we should appreciate this fact about American politics.  Today the media is so thorough in its investigation of public figures that it is impossible to rise to national public office without having your private life exposed.  So if you aspire to work on Capitol Hill and have moral skeletons in your closet, then be prepared to see those bones hauled out into the light of day for all America to view.

It wasn’t always like this.  The extent of FDR’s health problems were held under wraps by the press, as were Kennedy’s adulterous liaisons.  But media-enabled cover-ups ended with Watergate.  Although it did not concern a personal indiscretion—it was a conspiratorial Republican plot to sabotage the Democrat political machine—this scandal created (or compounded) public suspicion toward our leaders.  Criminal corruption, we learned, really can go to the top.  Consequently, the media has been vigilant to scour every national politician and candidate for office to keep the American public informed as to their real character.  So I say good job, American media.

But there is something that bothers me, and with every new public scandal my annoyance grows.  While the media are tireless in their investigation of public figures, including the private lives of athletes and celebrities, they have immunized themselves to investigation.  In short, the media protect their own-mainly by not reporting ethical indiscretions of other journalists and reporters.  When was the last time you saw a report about a scandal involving a journalist or television news anchor?  Probably the only ones that come to your mind are those involving the Jayson Blair and Dan Rather or some other media person’s sins against their profession. That’s because this is the lone exception-the media will only “out” those whose immoral behavior undermines the media itself.  Otherwise, it appears, they are given a pass.

So as ethics scandals constantly rock the worlds of politics, business, sports, and entertainment, almost never do we hear of scandals among media personnel.  Not that we need more evidence of media bias, but this is especially exasperating because it doesn’t involve mere spinning of stories but constitutes turning a blind eye to bad behavior.  And the problem is not isolated but systemic.  Shame on you, American media.

What we need is a meta-media agency, a troupe of reporters whose special task is to investigate journalists and reporters to the same degree of rigor that other high-profile professionals are investigated.  How I’d love to see the media get a taste of their own medicine.  And how I’d love to see this effect a greater sense of fairness and discretion when it comes to media reports about personal issues that really have no place in public discussions.

Or maybe all we need is just a few courageous reporters who have the moral will to break this code of silence-to start holding their own profession to the same ethical standards to which they hold everyone else.  Now that would be historic.  Then I really could be proud of you, American media.