I generally agree with you, but I’ve heard reasonable arguments like
polygamy is patriarchy, gay marriage isn’t
incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn’t
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don’t think they’re equivalent discussions.
First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren’t equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.
Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. “Patriarchy is bad” says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is “bad” isn’t it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren’t compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it’s lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.
incest is bad for the gene pool, gay marriage isn’t
Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?
Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us “comfortable” undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?
Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why “modern marriages” should exist at all. “Taxes” is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)
Ok let’s just focus on the sciencier one for a second. Say someone doesn’t like incest because it’s bad for the gene pool. Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
That isn’t a slippery slope to eugenics. Inbreeding depression is real, but eugenics is discredited as unscientific. We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
The problem with this line of thinking is that you’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing. And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
You’re going to have to prove that one because religion has existed alongside humanity for all of known history and marriage of first cousins is still common in the Arab world.
We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
Says who? We’ve only just started our journey down the path of total secularity. We have no idea how this is going to play out. China’s CRISPR program has already demonstrated that gene editing is possible and Canada is letting people kill themselves. Brave New World already imagined how these ideas will run wild once free of the baggage of the past. Secularity has no moral construct. All options are on the table including the sterilization of people with hereditary defects.
You’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing.
No I’m saying that gay marriage crosses the rubicon. It is a complete departure from what marriage means in any historical or religious context. Which begs the question of what it is and why it even exists. If gays can marry despite prohibition across all cultures for all of human history then where are the limits? Who sets those limits and why to they get to be in charge of who gets to be married? It all falls apart you see.
And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
Don’t dismiss the argument because you are uncomfortable with the possible implications. Contend with the premise. You drew that conclusion not me.
I generally agree with you, but I’ve heard reasonable arguments like
These raise their own questions of how to dismantle patriarchy, or if governments should have a say in our genes, etc. But I don’t think they’re equivalent discussions.
First of all this is a self-refuting assumption. It assumes out of the gate that women aren’t equally capable of leveraging polygamy to the subjugation of men. If women are not equally capable of abusing polygamy then patriarchy is naturalistic. If they ARE equally capable then this objection collapses.
Secondarily modernity leverages nothing but subjective feelings to make a moral claim about why something like patriarchy is wrong in the first place. “Patriarchy is bad” says who? And why should anyone care? Most of the world and history disagrees with that characterization. If cultural imperialism is “bad” isn’t it culturally imperialist to wholly reject all surviving traditions that predate the last 150 years because they aren’t compatible with an emergent value system? I could go on but hopefully you get my point about rootless modernism and it’s lack of justification for ought claims. Not to mention the lack of logical consistency for their ever-changing framework.
Should people with genetic defects be able to reproduce? To what extent are we just acting as eugenicists?
Marriage and the rules around it are inherited from traditions that modernism rejects. The attempt to continue PARTS of these traditions by arbitrarily picking and choosing rules because of what makes us “comfortable” undermines the authority of marriage in general. Why even continue it?
Modernist takes on marriage are anathema to the entire point of marriage in the first place. Furthermore modernism offers no satisfactory reasons for why “modern marriages” should exist at all. “Taxes” is often cited but this could be managed in many other ways. (e.g. legal contractual relationships that enable many of the same benefits ala power of attorney)
Ok let’s just focus on the sciencier one for a second. Say someone doesn’t like incest because it’s bad for the gene pool. Their icky emotions about it predate religion.
That isn’t a slippery slope to eugenics. Inbreeding depression is real, but eugenics is discredited as unscientific. We already know that rules against incest don’t lead to rules against people with defects reproducing.
The problem with this line of thinking is that you’re expecting people who support gay marriage to convince you about some other thing. And if any of these social taboos are actually a good idea, then you’re lumping gay marriage in with them, like comparing gays to pedophiles.
You’re going to have to prove that one because religion has existed alongside humanity for all of known history and marriage of first cousins is still common in the Arab world.
Says who? We’ve only just started our journey down the path of total secularity. We have no idea how this is going to play out. China’s CRISPR program has already demonstrated that gene editing is possible and Canada is letting people kill themselves. Brave New World already imagined how these ideas will run wild once free of the baggage of the past. Secularity has no moral construct. All options are on the table including the sterilization of people with hereditary defects.
No I’m saying that gay marriage crosses the rubicon. It is a complete departure from what marriage means in any historical or religious context. Which begs the question of what it is and why it even exists. If gays can marry despite prohibition across all cultures for all of human history then where are the limits? Who sets those limits and why to they get to be in charge of who gets to be married? It all falls apart you see.
Don’t dismiss the argument because you are uncomfortable with the possible implications. Contend with the premise. You drew that conclusion not me.