I've just been challenged by a couple of the thoughtful skeptics who visit this site, both male, progressive, and heteorosexual, on the issue of gay marriage.
This is not my favorite topic -- I'd frankly rather talk about the Mariners. (While they're still a few inches above .500, probably for the last time in the year) But I think this needs to be put in perspective. It amazes me how quickly and completely "progressives" have chosen to conform to an idea that goes against biology, English syntax, and the traditions of thousands of human cultures. It occurred to me this morning to wonder why . . .
Doc Johnny: Also marriage has traditionally been many things. Marriage between 1 man and 1000 women, marriage between 1 man and 1 child,1 man 1 woman only of the same race, and other variations. There is no ethical reason to deny others what boils down to the right to enter into a legal partnership.
Just 45 years ago my marriage would have been prohibited by law in at least 15 states and the staunchest opponents of my marriage would have been people of faith using biblical reasons why races should not mix.
Brian Barrington: The countries where same-sex marriage has been legalised have not collapsed – in fact, it doesn’t appear to have caused problems at all. Overall, it’s a good thing. What’s wrong with homosexuals marrying? Nothing.
So why not legalise it? Well, there are rumours that an invisible, imaginary being once said that it would be wrong to do so …
DM: Gents: If your standard is instant and total societal collapse, I'll grant you both that gay marriage has not yet had that effect. Neither, of course, did human sacrifice for the Aztecs: even if one regards the Spanish as God's instrument of judgement, they took a while to show up. I don't recall predicting that the Martians would invade as soon as Adam first put the ring on Steve's outstretched and eager finger, either. But admittedly, I often forget things.
What strikes me about this phenomena is how instant, sudden, and lock-step the "progressive" consensus seems to be. Ten minutes ago, marriage meant the joining of male and female, as it had for tens of thousands of years, on six continents, in thousands of cultures -- as even the English word "marriage" implies. Five minutes ago, Simon said, "The new progressive doctrine is that the 'mating' of men with men, and women with women, should be blessed by society and called and legally encouraged as marriage -- though also, the baring of children outside of marriage will also be blessed, also the killing of babies unborn, and the saddling of survivors with trillions of dollars in debt. Please step carefully around the pool of common sense: you don't want to get your feet wet."
Having been told "Jump!' far-sighted and free-thinking progressives around the world immmediately responded meekly, "How high? And on which sneaker should we land?"
And now that is the new "humans rights" issue, anyone who differs is a Neanderthal, morally reprobate, and priest-ridden.
Which, of course, is nice for the conscience, troubled (one hopes) by all those millions of babies, some close to term, being killed to placate the Great God Progress, millions more who grow up not knowing what "Daddy" means, and millions more who are saddled with trillions of dollars in debt at the moment of birth. When the conscience accuses, one can always point to the estimable progressive position one takes on "gay marriage," and point your finger (pick which one) at someone else.
A brilliant maneuver, one has to admit.
12 comments:
Yeah, the 'societal collapse' bit is always an interesting throwaway line. Literally, the standard seems to be 'if it doesn't lead to armageddon the moment it's done, then it must be okay!'
Oh, by the way. I love this quote in particular.
There is no ethical reason to deny others what boils down to the right to enter into a legal partnership.
I suppose one could ask if A) Marriage has always been viewed merely as 'a right to enter into a legal partnership', B) if not, does this mean the institution of marriage has at all suffered, and C) if it means it has suffered, then what contributed to this?
My response to David was:
Legalising same-sex marriage has increased the liberty and well-being of many homosexuals without decreasing the liberty and well-being of anyone else.
So it is not just that it hasn’t led to the collapse of civilisation – it hasn’t had any discernable bad consequences at all, and it has had some good consequences.
The plain fact is that homosexuals marrying is no big deal at all. It's one of those things that in the future people will look back and say “How can this have ever actually been an issue? Were there really people who used to be against this?”.
So why should progressives be against it? Why should anyone reasonable, who isn’t a bigot and a homophobe, be against it?
Btw, it might all seem “instant” and “sudden” to you but we progressives are playing a long game – the winning of the propaganda war on this one seems to have been particularly easy, sudden and instant. You right-wingers are a hopeless bunch :-)
Btw, it might all seem “instant” and “sudden” to you but we progressives are playing a long game
Not really. And for good reason - the 'long game' doesn't matter for any progressive, at least if we're talking about the atheist, materialist ones. The 'long game' is 'I'm dead, everything I care about is gone - either quite dead, or (lacking that, momentarily) changed so much it may as well be to me'.
The short game - the game while they, individually, are alive - is the only one which matters. And that's how said game is plaid. A "long-term consequence" for a progressive is "within my lifetime, but not tomorrow".
Now, sometimes one of the things desired is 'to sound and feel like I have a grand vision, or that I'm a very, very moral (whatever that means) person'. So some preening is done. But at the end of the day, everyone knows the game being played.
Mmm, there's that psychoanalysis so loved.
So why should progressives be against it?
If you like it, favor it. If you don't like it, oppose it. That is the progressive recipe - there's nothing more to it.
Of course, if anyone is against gay marriage, you'll automatically brand them as 'not progressive' anyway - the opposition to gay marriage would itself serve as evidence of such. So it's a pointless question.
As far as the 'why be against it?' arguments go, I'm afraid all of them would involve speaking a language you're not conversant in. Everything from objective morality and final causes, images of cultural purpose that go beyond personal preference, arguments about well-being and societal stability. Again, all you're asking here is "Give me, Brian Barrington, a reason to be against it. And that means giving me a reason I subjectively like." Why play that game?
Remember: marriage is nothing more than the right to enter a legal partnership. What "progressives" have acquired is nothing more than that. Really, it can't be anything more than that.
Which is, oddly enough, one reason why you can pass as many laws in favor of gay marriage - hell, in favor of any kind of marriage (if you think it will stop at gay marriage, you're quite ignorant) - as you like. All you'll be doing is legislating about legal contracts.
Marriage - actual marriage - will remain untouched. And in the future, people - maybe even progressives - will look back on this fight and remark, "What a goddamn stupid, childish thing the push for gay marriage was."
Enjoy the future. ;)
In so far same-sex marriage has any effect on societal stability and well-being, that effect will be positive - increasing the liberty and well-being of many homosexuals without decreasing the liberty and well-being of anyone else - quite possibly improving society in general by discouraging narrow-mindedness, cruelty and bigotry.
Overall though, it will be no big deal. That is how it has played out in places where it is legal. People will be bewildered it was ever a controversial issue, as is commonly the case with changes of this sort. The idea of reversing it will seem as bizarre as the idea of reversing the outlawing of slavery, female voting, legalisation of homosexuality, the abolition of racial segregation and so on.
"Enjoy the future."
I intend to.
increasing the liberty and well-being of many homosexuals without decreasing the liberty and well-being of anyone else
Utter nonsense, of course - but as I said, you're not conversant in the language required to really discuss this. What you're engaging in is actually harmful to people with same-sex attraction and without.
But, that doesn't matter. What matters is - as ever - 'Does it make Brian happy?' More directly, 'Does it make Brian happy, right now?' There it is. The "progressive" yardstick. And you're welcome to that of course. It just is a little ego-deflating to have it pointed out.
The idea of reversing it will seem as bizarre as the idea of reversing the outlawing of slavery, female voting, legalisation of homosexuality, the abolition of racial segregation and so on.
I agree with you entirely that eventually, at least given a 'progressive' system, all of these things will be entirely on the table as being open to reversing. I'm glad to see you realize one of the pitfalls of your worldview!
Still, remember: 'marriage' is, under your worldview, a mere contract. That's the beginning and end of it - and all it really can be anyway. Which is why, again, the fight over 'gay marriage' isn't a fight over whether to allow it or not - because there's no such thing as 'gay marriage'. Pass as many laws as you like, and all you'll have gained is the ability to create a certain kind of contract.
Incidentally, 'racial segregation' was not 'abolished'. Hence highly segregated neighborhoods, cultures, and even nations. Even in backwoods places, like Ireland.
I intend to.
Pity that your intention will have very little to do with the outcome, laddie. ;)
The experience in countries where same-sex marriage is allowed does not indicate that it is harmful, either to homosexuals or anyone else.
Nonetheless, you think marriage is mostly or always harmful to homosexuals even if they want to get married. You would need to be VERY sure about that in order to think you have the right to decide on their behalf. Maybe people should be allowed to decide for themselves? If gays decide that getting married is harmful for themselves then they can choose not to do it. If they decide that it is beneficial then they can do it.
I can get married. Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? Why should I object? They don't object to ME getting married. What harm is it doing me or anyone else if they get married? None whatsoever.
The point about slavery, female voting, legalisation of homosexuality, the abolition of racial segregation and so on is that they are NOT seriously on the table for reversal, because nearly everyone can see now that the changes made were beneficial, and that the many people who objected at the time were talking a bunch of crap - just like you are talking bunch of crap about this :-)
Brian: I don't know how you can gage the effects of this change so rapidly and unambiguously. I doubt its because you've considered all the possible negative effects, and ruled them out, even those that might take some time to manifest themselves, and even those that would manifest themselves in such a way that you might not notice.
Why can't polygamists get married? Why not pedophiles? Why not people who love X, fill in the X?
The answer is, homosexuals CAN get married, same as anyone else -- to someone of the opposite sex. That's what marriage means, and can only mean. Same as you can talk about a "man who used to be a woman having a baby," but we're just pretending, to keep up the liberal pieties. Doesn't really mean anything.
The experience in countries where same-sex marriage is allowed does not indicate that it is harmful, either to homosexuals or anyone else.
Funny - I think the experience indicates otherwise. But you're going to run with a customized definition of 'harm' such that, unless upon performance of the ceremony someone spontaneously combusts, no harm was done.
Nonetheless, you think marriage is mostly or always harmful to homosexuals even if they want to get married. You would need to be VERY sure about that in order to think you have the right to decide on their behalf.
No, I said flatly - 'marriage' is not available to homosexual couples, no matter what laws are passed. At best, a contract is established and a ceremony is involved.
Back to the 'harm' issue in any event. It's harmful both to people with same sex attraction as well as those without it.
The point about slavery, female voting, legalisation of homosexuality, the abolition of racial segregation and so on is that they are NOT seriously on the table for reversal,
But who said they were? In recent memory 'gay marriage' was not seriously on the table for reversal. Times have changed.
But that's precisely the problem. Times, they keep on changing - and what's not on the table today may well (really, likely will be) on the table tomorrow.
I'd say 'be ever vigilant', Brian, but you've not interest in being so. And really, it wouldn't help you anyway. Just like it didn't help the death of the Celtic tiger.
Besides - this isn't even about 'homosexuals' for you and many others. It's more about acting out against those mean, mean right-wingers you're obsessed with.
the abolition of racial segregation
Again, you're deluded. Racial segregation was not abolished - if it was, Ireland wouldn't be what it is right now: an ethnically segregated nation. What was abolished was, in the US, legally mandated segregation. The thought at the time was 'This will lead to integrated communities'. For better or for worse, that hasn't happened.
And that's the salient point with regards to gay marriage. You can pass as many laws as you wish, but it still won't be marriage. Even you will take the whole thing less seriously, for all the wild gesturing. Because remember: all (gay) marriage is, like a variety of other marriages, is a contract. A legal agreement, possibly with a fancy party.
And, in any world, it's all it ever can be. ;)
As a general rule, the most just, humane and progressive societies in the world are the ones that are most tolerant of homosexuality; the most unjust, oppressive and backward societies often tend to be the most intolerant of homosexuality – Burma, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and so forth
In the places where same-sex marriage is legalised it has not harmed society and nor is there much plausible indication that it will do so in the future – Canada, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands are getting by just fine, as are Vermont, Massachusetts and Washington State in the US - at least they are getting by relatively well when compared to nearly everywhere else in the world.
All the signs are that legalising same-sex marriage is no big deal, that it increases the liberty and well-being of many homosexuals while decreasing the liberty and well-being of no one, and, if anything, encouraging a less narrow-minded, less cruel, less bigoted society.
The people who argue against same-sex marriage now are mostly the same people who would previously ahve argued against the legalisation of homosexuality. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Now they mostly say, “Well, of course I don’t favour making homosexuality illegal, but legalising same-sex marriage is a step too far”. They nearly always say that – once people get used to the socially progressive measures those measures are seldom reversed, but the same groups always campaign against new socially progressive measures on the basis that they are “a step too far”.
Based on all this, I am strongly convinced that legalising homosexual marriage is not and will not be the disaster that some are prediciting – it will not cause any harm to either individuals, or to society as a whole, and it will be beneficial.
How convinced are you really that it will be harmful?
Crude, obviously I was talking about legal, enforced racial segregation – I was talking about de jure racial segregation rather than de facto racial segregation. That is more than clear from the context of the sentence, as I’m sure you know. Hence, no “delusion” was involved, despite your erroneous claim that it was. But then, this is not the first time you have made incorrect allegations of this sort, like when you attempted to claim that I had “bungled” Spinoza. Does the fact that you have to resort to this kind of nonsense indicate that you struggle to construct a proper argument?
Anyway, I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here - do you think it was a mistake to abolish legal racial segregation, because doing so has not eliminated de facto racial segregation? Or do you think it was correct to abolish legal racial segregation, even though it has not eliminated de facto racial segregation? What exactly are you getting at here?
As a general rule, the most just, humane and progressive
According to your personal metric where you'll consider what is or is not liberty or harm - maybe even a nonsense metric common to people you agree with. But that, as ever, is a metric I simply do not care about it.
In the places where same-sex marriage is legalised it has not harmed society
And again, this only goes if you run with your personal definition of harm. On an objective moral view, not only has the degradation of marriage (which includes but is not limited to gay marriage) caused harm - it is, in fact, harm itself.
Based on all this, I am strongly convinced that legalising homosexual marriage is not and will not be the disaster that some are prediciting
Man, if I valued your opinion as anything more than a kind of self-absorbed bug fart, this may actually matter to me. Alas, it does not.
Crude, obviously I was talking about legal, enforced racial segregation
That's plenty fine - my point still remains.
Anyway, I don’t understand the point you are trying to make here - do you think it was a mistake to abolish legal racial segregation, because doing so has not eliminated de facto racial segregation?
I made my point clear: if the idea was that "by abolishing legal racial segregation we will eliminate de facto racial segregation", that idea was radically mistaken. That was, in fact, one of the rationales behind eliminating legal racial segregation - the idea that it was the laws, in large part, which were responsible for segregation.
But then, this is not the first time you have made incorrect allegations of this sort, like when you attempted to claim that I had “bungled” Spinoza.
You did bungle Spinoza, badly. You carried on talking about how Spinoza valued knowledge as good, but didn't realize it - it was a smack upside your head to read it - that Spinoza's view came part and parcel with what he considered reality to be to begin with. Change Spinoza's metaphysics, or even his 'science', and it's no longer clear that Spinoza survives.
Just as you talked about Aquinas regarding God as Truth, but you didn't realize that Aquinas was not speaking of God univocally, and that Aquinas as well was speaking within a metaphysical system. Your problem is that you read sound bites and cliff notes versions of these things, and think you 'get' them. You, manifestly, do not. You can fake it with people who are about as ignorant as yourself - you can't fake it with people who've bothered to sit down and read up on these guys for even a day.
You seem to have mistaken me not having followed a thread (you do go on for freaking ages) with 'being wrong'. No, Brian - I just get tired of you sometimes. ;)
What exactly are you getting at here?
That the future doesn't tend to play out the way a given person idealizes, first and foremost. And that legislation, many times, does not address the real issue.
As I said, you can pass as many laws as you want in favor of 'gay marriage'. But in the end, what you have is simply what was (accidentally) conceded at the start of this thread: a legal partnership. A contract. And all the things you personally value, or at least claim to value - from gay rights to women's rights to otherwise - are not Eternal Rights which, once granted, cannot be undone. Certainly not on your metaphysics.
Actually, I say that last one, but just as it was clear with your talk of Spinoza and Aquinas, it's more and more clear that you aren't even aware of your own metaphysics, what they logically lead to, and what the results of such can be, or even likely will be, in principle. You get as far as 'Grr! Right-wingers baaaaaaad!', typing "spinoza quotes" into google, and kind of stitching things together from there.
And hey, if that makes you happy, go for it. Just don't be too surprised that it also makes your views rather empty. ;)
Hi Crude,
Regarding racial segregation: You are correct that anyone who thought abolishing legal racial segregation would eliminate de facto racial segregation was mistaken. But given that you seem to think this was their central argument for abolishing it, do you also think that abolishing legal racial segregation was a mistake, or do you agree with it? I agree with it.
Regarding homosexuality and society: Do you think that societies that are intolerant of homosexuals are, on the whole, more just, humane and progressive than those that are tolerant of homosexuals? I think the reverse - for example, Canada and Sweden are more just, humane and progressive than Myanmar, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. What do you think?
Regarding Spinoza I have a question for you: Spinoza rejects the existence of free will, he rejects life after death, he rejects the existence of a personal God concerned with humans, he rejects the existence of miracles, and he rejects that there is any transcendent cosmic justice. That is his view of the nature of reality. Most people would not find it particularly appealing, to say the least – many would regard it as horrific and might even think a person is better off believing a bunch of fairy-tales than that. Yet Spinoza thinks that this is reality and he also thinks that knowing reality is good. He even thinks that knowing this reality is a state of blessedness and salvation. Why do you think he thinks that based on his specific views about the nature of reality?
Regarding Aquinas: obviously anything he says about God (or anything else) takes place within his metaphysical system, and clearly he does not think that all there is to be said about God is that God is Truth. But here is what I said about Aquinas:
“For Aquinas, the greatest Christian theologian, God is Truth. Aquinas says, ‘God is Truth itself’. So to love God (as Jesus commands) means to love the Truth i.e. to strive with all your might to attain and know the Truth about reality. This command to love God (i.e. Truth) taken together with Jesus' command to love your neighbour, is the key to attaining salvation.”
Aquinas uses scripture to justify his statement that God is Truth – Jesus (i.e. God) says, “I am the Truth, the Way and the Life”. And by the way, Augustine, probably the second greatest Christian theologian, also says that God is Truth.
“Behold and see, if thou canst, that GOD IS TRUTH. For it is written that ‘God is light;’ not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth”.
So saying that God is Truth is, from a Christian point of view, hardly an outrageous thing to do.
Post a Comment