A lot of debates as of late seem to come down to semantics and yet they go on as if the two sides are talking about the same thing, and they're not. Is there something like this listed amongst logical fallacies? Perhaps one can find one or two that apply here but for me it's just some combination of annoying and insulting.
e.g. If one side says there is no such thing as gay marriage, that pretty strongly implies we're trying to argue about two different things as though they're the same thing. So what's the point in not addressing the definition? Is one side intentionally trying to confuse things? Is one side trying to impose a high degree of clarity that just isn't there? I suspect that more importantly there isn't anywhere near as clear a delineation of who is good and who is bad based on the side of this argument they're on.
There isn't a "right side of history" in this. The institution of marriage has been sick for the better part of a century, long before the idea of "gay marriage" came along. If anything this current drive toward something called gay marriage is much more a symptom of a near terminal institution than it is a milestone in the history of civil rights.
It is insulting to everyone to try and make us believe that allowing same sex couples to share space on the deck of this sinking ship is some how a mark of progress. Shame on those who push this issue as though it is some how definitive of an individual's character, where they stand on it. And double shame when they brush aside those who make the point that some semantics are questionable. Are we not to use reason because of "history".
Once one actually begins to discuss the definition one finally begins to see the real problem with marriage today. We've lost our way as a civilization on this. This is strikingly evident in that we can't agree on what marriage is or what it's for.
e.g. Is there any difference between it and a robust civil union? And if so, what are the important ones? Joint property, hospital visitation, medical decisions for the partner, child custody, portability across state lines? Are any of these not possible through civil unions? Is the purpose of marriage to run an end-run around the legal challenges of making civil unions achieve the same? Is that what marriage is, a legal hammer?
There are many who believe marriage is quite a bit more than that, something same sex couples can't achieve. Not because homosexuality is wrong but because only a partnership between a woman and a man can be a mother and father, and whether such a married couple ever actually achieves this is not as important as that they can.
Of course there are those who would argue that families are whatever is there to care for each other and very often are fine functioning families, in spite of not having both a mother and father around. But once again that misses the point. The point is that nothing is ever ideal or perfect but the perfect model is still extremely valuable and often even crucial to civilization. Those families that don't resemble the ideal make-up still benefit from the existence of that ideal. It allows them to know what they need to substitute for. What they can't duplicate makes them no worse than any other family but what they go out of their way to choose not to duplicate is radical, and radical and child-rearing are not good companions. This difference between dealing with what life deals you and choosing to take children along with you into great challenges or risks is a very important one.
I make no judgments here. Parents have to make very tough decisions. Some times exposing the family to risks is necessary or best and far be it for a libertarian like myself to make that decision for anyone else. Some time it's a matter of the lesser of evils, a child growing up without a family verses growing up in a family that doesn't match the "mother and father" ideal model. That's just one of infinite examples.
I'm also not one of those people that believe the nation is going to Hell in a hand-basket if it comes to nationally recognize and allow "gay marriage". I believe all nations are going to Hell in a hand-basket "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Messing up the semantics of what marriage is all about is a symptom of our fallen state but it isn't what condemns us. And fixing it wont redeem us either.
We Christians need to re-read our Gospels if we think either of those two things. Our salvation is through Christ alone and not our own efforts, and most especially not through what we may force others to do or not do through force of law.
But I speak to people on both sides of this issue here. Ignoring the definition of marriage here is a cause of nothing but trouble for all involved, at least those who sincerely care about people and civilization (shouldn't one of these concerns always include the other?).
I propose a new movement in the area of marriage, one aimed at strengthening the institution.
The first step is to remove government as its caretaker. Government should be encouraged to change all of its laws and regulations regarding marriage so that they instead refer to civil unions. Obviously civil unions would have to be made more robust to completely fill the legal and contractual role currently filled by marriage.
Then other institutions like Religious institutions (or whatever an individual voluntarily attaches them-self to) would then issue marriages through whatever ceremony or vows they see fit. Under current marriage laws there are virtually no consequences for violating marriage vows so the potential ostracizing that could come from these other institutions actually carries more enforcement weight than is found in our current system.
And what I like most about my proposed plan is that these institutions don't even need the government to go along with this before they start executing it themselves. Religious institutions for example can publicly declare their definition of marriage and make it clear they will only have 'marriage" ceremonies performed on their property and/or by their clergy that fit that definition.
They can teach their own what marriage is and isn't and in the process will get people thinking about something we haven't thought enough about in decades. Even when the definitions vary from one institution to another it will benefit everyone involved in the discussion.
I think our nation's rural past where out of necessity communities tended to be dominated by religious institutions has spoiled us. We have come to a point of taking it for granted that the fundamental institutions of our civilization will be preserved without our efforts, that some member of the clergy or more recently some judge will do that for us. When outside of the small rural town setting that's no longer practical or even appropriate. It isn't this current system of government's job to do that and our clergy are no longer that powerful. It falls on us, and unlike the largely rural Americans of the 19th century, we have the time and resources to do it.
We don't need laws or public officials, just our words and actions. No one needs to be condemned or attacked, just their ideas identified. We need to take control of our own language. Definitions matter.
e.g. If one side says there is no such thing as gay marriage, that pretty strongly implies we're trying to argue about two different things as though they're the same thing. So what's the point in not addressing the definition? Is one side intentionally trying to confuse things? Is one side trying to impose a high degree of clarity that just isn't there? I suspect that more importantly there isn't anywhere near as clear a delineation of who is good and who is bad based on the side of this argument they're on.
There isn't a "right side of history" in this. The institution of marriage has been sick for the better part of a century, long before the idea of "gay marriage" came along. If anything this current drive toward something called gay marriage is much more a symptom of a near terminal institution than it is a milestone in the history of civil rights.
It is insulting to everyone to try and make us believe that allowing same sex couples to share space on the deck of this sinking ship is some how a mark of progress. Shame on those who push this issue as though it is some how definitive of an individual's character, where they stand on it. And double shame when they brush aside those who make the point that some semantics are questionable. Are we not to use reason because of "history".
Once one actually begins to discuss the definition one finally begins to see the real problem with marriage today. We've lost our way as a civilization on this. This is strikingly evident in that we can't agree on what marriage is or what it's for.
e.g. Is there any difference between it and a robust civil union? And if so, what are the important ones? Joint property, hospital visitation, medical decisions for the partner, child custody, portability across state lines? Are any of these not possible through civil unions? Is the purpose of marriage to run an end-run around the legal challenges of making civil unions achieve the same? Is that what marriage is, a legal hammer?
There are many who believe marriage is quite a bit more than that, something same sex couples can't achieve. Not because homosexuality is wrong but because only a partnership between a woman and a man can be a mother and father, and whether such a married couple ever actually achieves this is not as important as that they can.
Of course there are those who would argue that families are whatever is there to care for each other and very often are fine functioning families, in spite of not having both a mother and father around. But once again that misses the point. The point is that nothing is ever ideal or perfect but the perfect model is still extremely valuable and often even crucial to civilization. Those families that don't resemble the ideal make-up still benefit from the existence of that ideal. It allows them to know what they need to substitute for. What they can't duplicate makes them no worse than any other family but what they go out of their way to choose not to duplicate is radical, and radical and child-rearing are not good companions. This difference between dealing with what life deals you and choosing to take children along with you into great challenges or risks is a very important one.
I make no judgments here. Parents have to make very tough decisions. Some times exposing the family to risks is necessary or best and far be it for a libertarian like myself to make that decision for anyone else. Some time it's a matter of the lesser of evils, a child growing up without a family verses growing up in a family that doesn't match the "mother and father" ideal model. That's just one of infinite examples.
I'm also not one of those people that believe the nation is going to Hell in a hand-basket if it comes to nationally recognize and allow "gay marriage". I believe all nations are going to Hell in a hand-basket "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Messing up the semantics of what marriage is all about is a symptom of our fallen state but it isn't what condemns us. And fixing it wont redeem us either.
We Christians need to re-read our Gospels if we think either of those two things. Our salvation is through Christ alone and not our own efforts, and most especially not through what we may force others to do or not do through force of law.
But I speak to people on both sides of this issue here. Ignoring the definition of marriage here is a cause of nothing but trouble for all involved, at least those who sincerely care about people and civilization (shouldn't one of these concerns always include the other?).
I propose a new movement in the area of marriage, one aimed at strengthening the institution.
The first step is to remove government as its caretaker. Government should be encouraged to change all of its laws and regulations regarding marriage so that they instead refer to civil unions. Obviously civil unions would have to be made more robust to completely fill the legal and contractual role currently filled by marriage.
Then other institutions like Religious institutions (or whatever an individual voluntarily attaches them-self to) would then issue marriages through whatever ceremony or vows they see fit. Under current marriage laws there are virtually no consequences for violating marriage vows so the potential ostracizing that could come from these other institutions actually carries more enforcement weight than is found in our current system.
And what I like most about my proposed plan is that these institutions don't even need the government to go along with this before they start executing it themselves. Religious institutions for example can publicly declare their definition of marriage and make it clear they will only have 'marriage" ceremonies performed on their property and/or by their clergy that fit that definition.
They can teach their own what marriage is and isn't and in the process will get people thinking about something we haven't thought enough about in decades. Even when the definitions vary from one institution to another it will benefit everyone involved in the discussion.
I think our nation's rural past where out of necessity communities tended to be dominated by religious institutions has spoiled us. We have come to a point of taking it for granted that the fundamental institutions of our civilization will be preserved without our efforts, that some member of the clergy or more recently some judge will do that for us. When outside of the small rural town setting that's no longer practical or even appropriate. It isn't this current system of government's job to do that and our clergy are no longer that powerful. It falls on us, and unlike the largely rural Americans of the 19th century, we have the time and resources to do it.
We don't need laws or public officials, just our words and actions. No one needs to be condemned or attacked, just their ideas identified. We need to take control of our own language. Definitions matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment