Roger Scruton on Same-Sex Marriage
Here.
I really don't know whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or not. What I do know is that I am often stunned by the utter childishness of the many people who think we can change this fundamental social institution and then... absolutely nothing else will be affected.
UPDATE: Another example. Sullivan says all opponents of SSM have is Bible-thumping "or a tortuous reinvention of natural law."
Sullivan is supposedly a Catholic. Why doesn't pointing to scriptural passages condemning sodomy carry any weight with him? Silence. Why is what is going on a "reinvention" of natural law rather than a use of it? Silence.Why is it "tortuous"? Silence.
This is argument by name-calling: only really mean people could possibly oppose me!
I really don't know whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or not. What I do know is that I am often stunned by the utter childishness of the many people who think we can change this fundamental social institution and then... absolutely nothing else will be affected.
UPDATE: Another example. Sullivan says all opponents of SSM have is Bible-thumping "or a tortuous reinvention of natural law."
Sullivan is supposedly a Catholic. Why doesn't pointing to scriptural passages condemning sodomy carry any weight with him? Silence. Why is what is going on a "reinvention" of natural law rather than a use of it? Silence.Why is it "tortuous"? Silence.
This is argument by name-calling: only really mean people could possibly oppose me!
Gene, Institution of marriage/family has been fundamentally transformed over the last 100+ years. Same-sex marriage is a manifestation of other more fundamental change of the social institution, rather than a ground-breaking alteration itself.
ReplyDeleteHume:
Delete1) Because something is a step in the process does not mean it is not a big step: Pearl Harbor was only a step in the process of deteriorating Japanese-American relations, but still...
2) This "more fundamental change" has led to demographic suicide everywhere it has reached it has advanced the most: basically, all of Europe now reproduces at far less than a replacement rate.
That's a wee bit of an unintended consequence, hey?
How would you feel about having a more decentralized system of civil unions that both homosexuals and heterosexuals would be able to qualify for? In my opinion, I really don't think there is a currently a clear or consistent definition of marriage that all parties can really agree with, but people on both sides of the equation are resorting to ad hominem, axiomatic attacks rather than providing an actual argument.
ReplyDeleteJon Huntsman wrote this really interesting article over at The American Conservative talking about gay marriage you might be interested in reading. I also agree that the fertility rates in America are too low and have been declining as of recently. Pat Buchanan pointed this out in an interview that PJs Media conducted with him.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marriage-equality-is-a-conservative-cause485/
Gene,
ReplyDeleteThe realization of gay marriage is much worse than is being let on in America, and also on this blog. It is a fundamental change in the fact that it acknowledges, ultimately, the power of the self in determining sexual morality. It is the beginning of the acceptance of the sexual morality of narcissism.
I go to school here at Texas Tech University, where I major in mathematics and I minor in philosophy. I had an argument a few days ago with a professor (who will remain nameless) over the implications of allowing gay marriage; if we are to say that, more or less, anything goes between two consenting adults, sexually, what is there to stop us from saying that a man can marry his daughter; his son; etc? What is there to restrict, in principle, the consuming and eating of human flesh, of bestiality? Condemning those of us (Christians) who oppose gay marriage based on the objection that we are merely legislating according to what we find to be disgusting and/or debasing just won't do; anyone who says that it should be morally permissible to eat human flesh, marry and have relations with your son/daughter, and engage in bestiality because you "aren't harming" anyone else is a pervert in the literal sense of the world, and has both a corrupted conscience and no understanding of basic human decency.
I had supposed that modern academia, either through fancy trickery with rule-utilitarianism, Kantian deontological ethics, or some other one of their favorite religions (I mean, 'ethical systems') had a reason for allowing gay marriage and condemning, say, voluntary cannibalism and incest. I went to this professor to find out what exactly their argument was; how one could both support gay marriage and condemn these disgusting, indecent behaviors? I wanted to hear their argument.
What proceeded was the most astonishing talk I have ever had with a professor - with possibly any adult. Professor X (as we shall call him) doesn't have any real ethical objection to incest, the consuming of human flesh, and the enjoyment of your dog (or horse; or cow) as your partner in bed. His assertion that these things should be morally permissible simply *floored* me, and sent me reeling. His common objection to anything that I said was 'Where's the harm? Who's being harmed?' I assumed that Professor X was just attempting to get me to formulate my argument as to why these things were wrong, instead of condoning them. So I asked him if he, himself, believed that these things should be illegal, and were immoral. He became increasingly angry, and stated the same question as an apparently answer: 'Who's being harmed? Where is the harm?'
I was floored by this. In between his fits of rage against the Catholic Church for not being a bunch of feminists (his own words), for oppressing gays, women, and other people in other ways, I couldn't gather myself sufficiently to respond well to his argument. (continued...)
(continued...)
ReplyDeleteI don't meant to ramble on about this. And I am not making any of this up. But if this is going on in Lubbock T.X., at Texas Tech University, a 'conservative' and 'Christian' town, I can only imagine what is going on up North.
The move to legalize gay marriage is a public blessing to individual narcissism, and given the statements of some professors (I'm finding that he is in what seems to be a growing minority) don't be surprised when we hear arguments over the legalization of incest, voluntary cannibalism, and bestiality start coming down the pike. You can't endorse a political ideology without also endorsing it's viewpoints, and without also endorsing the implications of those viewpoints.
To make a long story short, America is a diseased country. The ME Generation is actually just a polite way of saying the 'narcissist generation'. It's foolish to think that a narcissist could imagine limits on his own behavior. We are creating a country of narcissists, and providing the bogus intellectual justification for their bad and evil behavior. How long before this narcissism pollutes not just sexual ethics, but the ethics over the just use of force? If you think that you are your own personal god, who is to say that you should be respectful of other folks' property and lives?
And how long before we hear arguments such as the one Professor X used in the public square? I don't know. Give it twenty, thirty years.
But it is coming. In some places, I have found out that it has already started.
~Alex
Yes, Alex, you're quite right.
Delete