DOES HISTORY MATTER? Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker

The argument here is that the possible effects of even testing something as 'radical' as the legitimization of same-sex relationships may be so devastating to the culture that we should not even take a chance on it.

The problem with this argument is 1) the analogies given are not comparable to same-sex marriage and 2) if this logic were applied equally, one could argue that any social change could be denied on the same grounds.

Regarding 1) - I think the subtle difference is that changes in the environment, ecology or weather may cause the direct death of innocent people. I am willing to admit there is a legitimate debate on how same-sex marriage will affect the culture--either positively or negatively--but if you believe that same-sex marriage may have the same effect as injecting a possible poison in the air then there is no use even furthering the debate.

With regard to the other analogies you mentioned, such as the economy: I think we can safely say that there has been a number of different 'tests' with regard to the economy involving tax increases, tax cuts, cuts in spending and increases in spending over the years. If you are referring to more global definitions such as socialism versus capitalism, there are also examples of countries that have tried that also. Again, I fail to see the analogy of the effect of same-sex marriage to the effect of a political system.

2) Based on your analogy, how do you justify other 'social changes' that have occurred such as the elimination of slavery, women's suffrage, desegregation and the elimination of the interracial marriage ban? Based on your logic, the possible adverse result of ANY social change is too risky to even try. Does this 'too risky to test' argument also apply to other social issues such as criminalizing abortion or elimination of welfare ?

Finally, regarding your comment on the burden of proof, the burden of proof is clearly on the side of the same-sex marriage foes. Those who are advocating same-sex marriage have the 'equal protection' argument. To say that the advocates must prove that there is no harm is a ploy because there is no way to prove 'no harm' of any social change unless it is implemented.

I am not saying that culture is not complex. It is very complex. The point is that it may be complex (and flexible) enough to include the legitimization of same-sex relationships and not have the fatal results you are projecting.
posted by Eve at 1:44 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home