WHAT IS CULTURAL COLLAPSE?: Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker

What I think 'cultural collapse' entails -- my first thought came up with absolute lawlessness. For example, if all criminals were set free and all laws were no longer enforced. Of course I have doubts about the cultural collapse of even that chaos since I believe that through faith, human nature (as a whole) is guided towards good.

So what I am really saying is that yes, the phrase 'cultural collapse' (which R.K. coined, not me) is essentially a red-herring used in the context of this debate.

In response to "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?": It depends on whether the examples of those negative effects make sense.

I am not saying there will be no negative effects on the culture. The questions is, as it is with most socially related issues, whether the equal or civil rights issues involved trump the potential negative effects. R.K. may argue that there is no 'rights' issue just as there are those who would argue that there will be no negative effects.

There are other examples of these types of issues across cultures ranging from China's one-child limit rule to laws against polygamy and marriage between siblings in this country. The government of China obviously feels the negative effects of unlimited population growth outweighs reproductive freedom.

R.K. misunderstood the analogy between what Gabriel Rosenberg said about allowing sibling marriage and SSM. Prof. Rosenberg said allowing sibling marriage would weaken or damage sibling relationships--in other words, allowing marriage between siblings would affect other sibling relationships. Using the analogy correctly, SSM would then weaken or damage the relationships between homosexuals who chose not to marry. Does that make any sense?

In response to "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": The same can be said of R.K.'s approach in that the same 'change and burden-of-proof' argument can be applied to any change. Should we not make ANY changes until we know the exact effect of these on the culture or does this 'wait-and-see' only apply arbitrarily to SSM ?

In response to "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": I agree. SSM does change the definition of marriage and that will affect those growing up in the future. The question is whether this change is justified by equality under the law and whether possible negative effects outweigh the benefits to the change.
posted by Eve at 4:50 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home