CULTURAL COLLAPSE: Mark Miller replies to R.K. Becker
R.K. has certainly defined what he means by 'cultural collapse' but what I think he has failed to do is clearly state how SSM would result in those scenarios. In other words, how would SSM weaken the resolve of the public to the point that it is no longer able or willing to work to overcome challenges either from inside or outside the society? Does R.K. base this on the fact that the majority of Americans are against SSM? Is R.K. saying that SSM could cause such divisions within the society that it no longer holds together and partitions into a number of smaller and more poorly organized states? Why does that apply to this issue as opposed to other issues where there are deep divisions?
R.K. writes, "If this is what Mark is willing to gamble on it's a very risky gamble, considering all of the fine examples of collective human nature that we have seen over the last century alone." and "... I see no evidence of great improvement of human nature as a whole." My belief is that "human nature" has not changed much over the centuries. It is the culture around us which has changed, and that affects how we, as human beings, adapt to that culture. I guess our definitions of "human nature" are different.
Ultimately, this thread seems to come down to the differences between how R.K. and I view homosexuality. I believe there is a significant difference between homosexual behavior and the other examples R.K. provided, such as allowing 14-year-olds to vote or drive. I agree with R.K. that sometimes concern for the social order does override individual rights. Where we disagree is that I don't believe that the legitimization of homosexual behavior, and thus, same-sex relationships, is cause for "cultural" concern--unlike allowing 14-year-olds to drive.
posted by Eve at
12:21 AM | link
Post a Comment
<< Home