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

R.K. Becker accuses me of dismissing the possibility of the devastating effect same-sex marriage could cause.

To an extent, he is correct.

So I will ask him to clarify what he means by "devastating." What are the potential effects of same-sex marriage that would result in the poisoning of or the collapse of our culture?

My argument is that while I can understand concerns over the advent of same-sex marriage, I do not understand how it is "something which aims directly at the root or foundation of a universal institution." 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. As I've said, there is a legitimate debate about whether this inclusion is appropriate and also whether this inclusion should fall under the word 'marriage' or some other term.

Yet I believe in order for R.K. to use the what I call the 'sky-is-falling' argument--that same-sex marriage may result in devastating, poisonous, or the total ollapse of culture--then I'd like to hear some specifics on that harm done since that is a rather serious accusation.

R.K. writes: "And I'm sorry if you think that my saying that means that there's 'no use even furthering the debate.'"

My exact quote was, "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." I stand by it. But I can be clearer. Are you arguing that allowing same-sex marriage to the citizens of a town may be just as harmful as dropping a nuclear bomb on the town?

R.K. wrote: "But, again, I am willing to 'test' SSM in the Netherlands over the next thirty years. (I expected some to argue that that is simply too long, surprised no one did). Other than 'because we can't wait' and 'did you advocate the same for racial integration, etc.?', what's the argument against this?"

The argument against that is .... why should we? What is the value of holding off on an appropriate legal and civil right? I'm not asserting that same-sex marriage is that. But if you want to say that a long-term test is necessary, then you must explain what specific adverse outcomes you are fearful of. All I've heard up to now is assertions that same-sex marriage WILL devastate the institution. I have heard few specifics on how that would occur.
posted by Eve at 3:05 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home