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

Mark Miller interprets my argument as 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." Though, actually, I quite clearly stated that we should wait and see what happens in the Netherlands (and, by extension, Belgium and Ontario) over a generation. Let them be our laboratories. Let them be our test cases. But until we see how the next generation in those countries grows up with an androgynized definition of marriage, my argument is that other countries should hold off on it. ...

Mark acknowledges that there is a legitimate debate over how SSM will effect the culture, but categorically dismisses the possibility that the effect could be a devastating one. I'm sorry, Mark, I cannot dismiss that possibility at all. And I'm sorry if you think that my saying that means that there's "no use even furthering the debate." I almost feel the same way about your putting the word 'radical' in quotes as such in reference to SSM, but in fact I'm quite willing to debate that aspect and hear why you think that something which aims directly at the root or foundation of a universal institution, without any real precedent in any culture in history, is not radical.

When people categorically dismiss the possibility that an effect on culture could be devastating, or resort to the all too common 'boy who cried wolf' references to very different past social changes and the fear of cultural collapse that did not occur in those cases, are they not basically saying that culture is so resilient that NOTHING can 'poison' it? Is this what Mark feels? He agrees that culture is very complex, but a complex system depends on all its component parts. An effect on one part can affect the whole system, and sometimes, yes, it can cause the whole system to break down. Please explain how we know beyond a doubt that our culture cannot possibly break down, or how we already know beyond a doubt just which changes will cause this and which will not. Given the unprecedented nature of SSM, to say that we know it will not be devastating to society requires a big leap of faith.

As for the other social changes which Mark mentions, none involved anything as universal to human culture as the idea that marriage is between opposite sexes. Slavery has been with us throughout history, but definitely not in every culture; there have always been many that did not practice it. Cultures have also integrated with other races and ethnic groups (there is no qualitative difference between the two categories) throughout history. As for women's suffrage, yes, that's been a recent advance for the most part (though not historically unprecedented), but then, in most of the world, voting for everyone has only been a recent change, historically speaking. The argument that "because these changes did not damage culture, therefore we know SSM won't either" is a classic example of the boy-who-cried-wolf fallacy I mentioned above.

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?
posted by Eve at 11:56 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home