DOES HISTORY MATTER?: R.K. Becker replies to Mark Miller and Arturo Fernandez

Mark asks what I mean by "devastating." In a broad sense, by "devastating" I mean cultural collapse, which can take place in a number of different ways.

But I perceive a belief among many SSM proponents (though certainly not all) that the very idea of "cultural collapse" is merely a chimera; a meaningless scare tactic cooked up by anyone who is resistant to change. Human culture is resilient and malleable by any new thing that comes along. And even if there is such a thing as cultural collapse, it's not the worst thing in the world, certainly not like nuclear war or anything like that.

I'll be glad to give examples of what cultural collapse entails, but rather than do that now, I'll ask Mark what he thinks it entails. I know that he doesn't believe SSM will lead to it, but I'll save that argument for later. I'm just asking--does he believe there is such a thing as cultural collapse? And if so, what is it?

Mark asks me to give specifics as to how SSM might have such a devastating effect on culture. And I will examine some of the possibilities in a longer post shortly. But is he saying that if I do give him examples of some serious possible negative effects of SSM, he will then consider the idea of waiting to see what happens in countries that have already adopted it before advocating it be adopted everywhere? Or will his response be "Nothing but speculation. Prove it!" Well, nothing cause-and-effect related can be proved without a test, can it?

The inherent problem with Mark's approach to the whole issue of change and burden-of-proof is that it assumes we know so much more than we do.

Mark also argues: "One of the issues in this debate is *whether* same-sex marriage does indeed go against the universal definition of marriage. The reality is that it does not change the rules for opposite-sex partners in any way. It does allow for other relationships that were previously not legitimized by law to be included."

The problem, as I see it, is that it does more than just that. It doesn't just extend marriage, it androgynizes it. This does indeed change the rules, though not as much for those currently married as for those growing up in the future. If Gabriel Rosenberg is right (and I believe he is) that allowing sibling marriage would weaken or damage sibling relationships, by the same token couldn't SSM weaken or damage other very important cultural relationships, especially for the young? And I'm not talking just about business contacts as Gabriel was--that's where I believe he was wrong. More on this later.

Arturo Fernandez's argument is essentially that SSM should be adopted without a test period because 1) we know it's fair and right, and 2) because we are the first enlightened generation in human history, all previous ones being just stupid and bigoted. This generation-centric view of human history ignores not only the intelligence of past generations but also the great variation among cultures of the past in their attitudes toward homosexuality, with many quite tolerant or approving of it, yet none going so far as to androgynize the concept of marriage, at least not for any long-term period. Given the diversity of human cultures, this absence is puzzling indeed and suggests something more than such a simplistic explanation.
posted by Eve at 7:49 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home