I’m the kind of guy who simply wants to understand the human condition. If we, as a species are to understand ourselves, we need to discuss the issues that relate to the human condition unflinchingly. We cannot fear any possibly uncomfortable discoveries and we cannot shout down those with whom we disagree. Nothing will suffice but total honesty.
Lately, there is one activist group that uses the tactic of shouting down the opposition with great gusto. These are the gay activists. Obviously, not every gay person, nor even every activist for gay causes stoops to that level. I can, right off the top of my head, think of several honorable counterexamples. But many people do support the censorship or punishment of those with whom they disagree. Many, I might add, in influential positions. The rank and file in gay causes, whom I’m presuming are mostly decent people, have not spoken up to put a stop to this type of behavior.
It is mainly because of this climate that I decided to make LGBTQQI topics the major target of my satire in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel.
Anyway, since it was my views on marriage abolition via redefinition that got this humble blog the attention it’s been getting, I’d like to set forth my reasons for my opposition to marriage redefinition.
It has little, if anything, to do with homosexuality or my feelings about the practice of homosexuality.
It’s all about consequences.
Let me list a few points about consequences, all of them undeniable:
All actions have consequences.
Every single event in the history of mankind* has had both good consequences and bad consequences. So will every single act that will be undertaken by mankind in future.
The long term consequences of an action may take a long time to arrive. But those consequences will arrive.
The world is a tremendously complex system. It is impossible for any man to predict all of the consequences that will arise from any change he proposes to a complex system. This includes small changes. This principle applies all the more so to a system as complex as the U.S. economy, Western Culture or the world.
Consequences which are, on balance, painful or harmful are much easier to achieve, and therefore, much more likely to occur in the event of a change to society.
Proposed changes to a complex system should, when possible, be small and limited, and done in a way that enables the specific consequences of those changes to be evaluated to the greatest extent possible. Discrimination might be “wrong” but indiscriminate change in a complex system will almost inevitably result in a disaster of some sort.
In order for mankind to achieve any goal, some action must be taken to achieve it. Many of the consequences of those acts will be unpredictable. All of the consequences will follow the laws of nature. Any goal that depends, for its achievement, on consequences that are contrary to any law of nature will not be achieved.
If we are to achieve beneficial changes to society, we must be able to fully evaluate the consequences of our acts or proposed acts. Full and complete discussion of proposed goals and the means to achieve them must be allowed. Closing down discussion by telling disfavored groups to shut up or by shouting “Racism,” “Sexism,” or “Homophobia” makes the achievement of beneficial change less likely.
Those who yell, “Racism,” Sexism,” or “Homophobia” at others who don’t share their policy goals have failed to consider all of the consequences of their proposed policies. This is inevitable because it is impossible to consider all of the possible consequences of any given policy. That said, it is possible that the possible consequences of policies advocated by shouters of those above epithets would include consequences that the shouters consider nightmarish. This provokes bitter laughter in insensitive people such as myself.
Certain consequences are not impossible, but are so vanishingly unlikely to happen that they are indistinguishable from consequences that are, in fact, impossible. Any goal that depends on these as consequences of the acts necessary to achieve them should be considered impossible, and therefore, not attempted.
Some of the facts about human nature are painful to contemplate. If we are to have any hope of appreciating the consequences of our acts, we must look at these facts about human nature unflinchingly and discuss them without fear of reprisal.
The nature of human society is that it will inevitably change. This being said, it is impossible to predict the form into which future societies will take. Seeing as how modern Western culture in the early part of the 21st century is, given the limitations of human nature, probably as close to the best that humanity can achieve, we should do our best to conserve the best aspects of our society. Were we to, willy nilly, make large scale changes, nasty consequences would likely arise.
Many times during the course of history, changes have happened to societies which led to those societies becoming, on balance, much worse. There is no reason that our society is not immune to similar collapse.
This does not mean that a human society can take any form imagined. Man is limited by his nature and by the laws of nature, economics, etc. Certain limitations on the nature of a society are a given. This fact positively precludes the formation of a utopian society without the direct intervention by the Deity.
The nature of mankind is such so to as to make rapid, large scale improvement in the condition of mankind impossible. The consequences of trying to achieve a rapid, large scale improvement in the condition of mankind inevitably include catastrophic loss of human life.
Nothing could be easier than to look at the events of history and think the consequences of those events to have been inevitable. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nothing could be easier than to look at the events of history and think to oneself about the actors, “How could they have been so stupid?” Future generations will inevitably think the same of us.
The desire to say that certain bad events have had only bad consequences is a manifestation of sentimentality, and is therefore wrong and harmful because sentimentality is, in general, both wrong and harmful. The fact remains that one can find good consequences to the October Revolution, the Atlantic or Indian Ocean slave trades, the Holocaust, the Great Leap Forward or any other catastrophe in the history of mankind. This is not to justify, in any way, any of the above listed events. This also does not mitigate, in any way, the evil of those who perpetrated or participated in these events or those who allowed these events to happen or failed in their efforts to mitigate the evil. This also does not imply that, on balance, mankind benefited from any of these events. This also does not imply that the benefits from any of these events were not vanishingly small. But good consequences, no matter how vanishingly small, are good consequences and ought to be noted as such if we are to evaluate the consequences of any event properly, especially considering how sensitive complex systems are to small changes.
The desire to say that certain policies will have only good consequences or even that they will be free from bad consequences is both sentimental and stupid. It is therefore wrong and harmful because not only is sentimentality wrong and harmful but stupidity is wrong and harmful as well. The explanation of the previous item applies here as well (but in reverse).
I trust that the implications of the above undeniable truths for society’s views on marriage, sexuality, etc need no further elaboration.
* The use of “gender neutral” words is strictly forbidden on this blog.
Sorry, “the implications of the above” do need further elaboration. For example you write:
“If we are to achieve beneficial changes to society, we must be able to fully evaluate the consequences of our acts or proposed acts.”
But you also write: “It is impossible for any man to predict all of the consequences that will arise from any change he proposes to a complex system. This includes small changes.”
And: “In order for mankind to achieve any goal, some action must be taken to achieve it. Many of the consequences of those acts will be unpredictable.”
Ergo, you oppose ANY attempt to achieve a beneficial change to society, because we must first “fully” evaluate the consequences, a task you have deemed impossible.
Nice. If you truly believe what you say, you oppose democracy, the abolition of slavery, allowing Jews to hold electoral office — heck, you’d set society back to our earliest ancestors, for ANY change is forbidden in your view.
RJT,
I think I made it clear that consequences must be evaluated TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. That’s all we can do. But we need to do that evaluation. Carefully.
Okay, so you’ve clarifed the contradiction in your post and are disavowing your criterion that “we must be able to fully evaluate the consequences.”
Good. You might want to fix that error in your original post.
Now, as for your statement that the consequences must be “evaluated to the greatest extent possible.”
You realize that says nothing at all, right? For instance, if we could barely evaluate the consequences with even a tiny degree of confidence, that’d be fine with you — we’d simply evaluate the consequences almost not all, because that would be “to the greatest extent possible.”
Care to clarify? Because your criterion is so fuzzy it opens the door to even those social changes whose consequences are impossible to evaluate…and I suspect that’s not what you intend.
There are techniques that we can use to clarify consequences. That’s part of the genius of the federalist system of our government– instead of one experiment in democratic government, we have fifty. Small experiments done in many different places in many different times are a good way to clarify consequences.
For full details, you might want to check out a book called “The Logic of Failure” by Dietrich Doerner.
As for your assertions of contradiction, you have to realize that wisdom is, in part, the ability to choose correctly between contradictory desires, goals, etc. Life is full of contradiction. The lessons of history are full of contradiction. Decision making is hard. Making decisions that consistently satisfy the greatest number of people is probably impossible.
You might be able to tell that I’m quite a pessimist about the human ability to make things all that much better than we have it in early 21st century America.
Oh, Ari, you wrote a careless piece containing a sloppy contradiction. Just admit you made a mistake (we all do!) instead of trying to pass it off as wisdom.
Regarding your comment about the federalist system — I’m impressed and I frankly misjudged you (my mistake!) if you do in fact support allowing same-sex marriage on a state-by-state basis in order to see the consequences.
So that begs the question: According to your Federalist philosophy, how many states do you think should recognize same-sex marriage? Do we have the proper number right now? Or do we need more?
RJT,
Okay. Let’s consider the lessons we would get if we looked at history. I bring as my example the First World War. What lessons can we derive? Well, the war was started because all of the great powers were so trigger happy. Can we draw the lesson that being trigger happy is a bad thing? Well, yes. But we can also derive the opposite lesson if we look at the events surrounding the chase of the Goben and the Breslau.
Okay. How about other lessons from the War? Well, how about sticking to your plans. The Germans might have won the war if they stuck to their Schleiffen plan. They diverted two units to the Eastern Front. Those units would have come in awful handy on the Marne, which the Germans lost by the skin of their teeth. So, is that the lesson? Stick to your plans? Well, no. How about the French who stuck to their worthless Plan XVII? Sticking to the plan was stupidity. They should have figured out what the Germans were doing and…
Anyway, the lessons of history are contradictory. There are few, if any, general rules that will see you through, other than to know that complex systems are so tough to deal with and several other techniques. None of which will get you all the way home. Not by a longshot.
Marriage redefinition is a bad idea. DOMA cures some of the problems with it. Now that DOMA is under attack, Marriage redefinition seems a still worse idea. If the problems associated with Marriage Redefinition could be confined to states adopting it, and if the people, not the courts could make the choice, I’d say that it’s up to the people of the several states. That said, I think it’s important that the law not allow the type of courtroom bullying I wrote about in my previous post.
I think there are enough anti-Religious folks out there willing to use the law as a weapon.
That said, I would try to persuade others not to try marriage redefinition. (i.e. not forbid it, but convince people that it’s a bad idea).
Ari, if you think the WWII digression has anything to with the type of contradiction I’m talking about, you need to reread my first post. Really, you made a small error that you’re now compounding by trying to evade it.
Regarding the rest of your post:
In other words, you endorse a federalist approach of having several states experiment with same-sex marriage in order to evaluate the consequences…
…except for the part about having several states experiment with same-sex marriage in order to evaluate the consequences.
…except for the part about having several states experiment with same-sex marriage in order to evaluate the consequences.
Not quite. If DOMA is allowed to stand, then each state can decide for itself. But if DOMA falls, (and it likely will) then the decision of one state forces that decision onto all of the other states. Small scale experiment no more.
But you don’t believe that ANY states should permit same-sex marriage. So you have no wish to implement the federalist reasoning on which your whole argument is built. Your rationale zigs, your conclusion zags, and together they shoot each other down.
Let’s be clear,
If one state adopting it means that everybody has to via some court ruling, then I’m against it.
If one state adopting it means that just that state gets the consequences and/or benefits, then I am not quite so much against it. (i.e. I think it’s a bad idea, but my support for federalism trumps my thought that it’s a bad idea).
Or, to put it another way, your post endorses a federalist approach whose implementation you oppose.
It’s kinda funny.
Okay. I think you’re being purposely obtuse here. I think marriage redefinition is a bad idea. Therefore, I think no state should implement it. But seeing as how I’m a federalist, I think that our system should allow states to try bad ideas such as this one.
Nope. I’m looking at the whole post and thread, rather than isolated fragments of it.
You said you have a principled, non-anti-gay objection to same sex marriage: we shouldn’t implement something unless we’ve evaluated its consequences as much as is possible, and when asked how to do that, you invoked the federalist system.
But then it turns out to don’t actually WANT the federalist solution to be implemented — that is, you’re willing to allow it, but you don’t want it to happen — which means you’ve abandoned the principled non-anti-gay reasoning upon that you’ve based your position upon.
Your whole allegedly non-anti-gay position rests on a federalist approach whose implementation you would argue against.
That’s why I said: It’s kinda funny.
Gee Ari, too bigoted for Ruth Blog? I didn’t think there was such a thing. Congratulations… I guess.
Thanks.
Ari,
I also find your statement about DOMA interesting. You write:
“If DOMA is allowed to stand, then each state can decide for itself. But if DOMA falls, (and it likely will) then the decision of one state forces that decision onto all of the other states.”
What you’re saying is that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, all states will be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states if DOMA is repealed. Does this mean that you concede that DOMA is unconstitutional? Since you’re admitting that without this law in place, states will be required to meet their constitutional obligations, I’m not sure how you can claim otherwise.
It really is quite amusing that the same people who have been adamant that DOMA is constitutional for the past 15 years are now highlighting the fact that it is in direct conflict with, and is effectively overriding, the U.S. Constitution. Whatever version of reality is convenient at the moment, right Ari.
Read my post again. If something this radical is to be tried, then the only rational way to do it is small experiments. I’m right now concentrating on the practicalities of the situation. The legalities will have to be discussed elsewhere. Right now, my only point is that a radical experiment, which might have bad long-term results, should be undertaken, if at all, on a small scale.
Appeals to the law and what the law ought to be do not change human nature or the laws of mathematics, demographics, etc. We cannot escape the consequences of our actions.
I’m glad you see so certain that only good things will arise from your proposed policy. Me? Not so much.
Nearly a decade of marriage equality in MA, Ari. What are the negative consequences?
This book doesn’t mention, not even once, marriage redefinition.
However, considering what the book has to say about the problems in western civilization, I doubt redefinition is something that will help.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Civilizations-Die-Islam-Dying/dp/159698273X
And who said ten years is the long term?
How long then? If not ten, then twenty? Thirty? Fifty? After you’re dead?
So long should gay people sit on their hands waiting for your approval?
Who said anything about my approval. The consequences of our actions do not depend on mine or anybody’s approval. They just happen. They don’t care how anybody values those consequences. But there they are.
There is no specific length of time required to wait. You have to figure out what benefits society in the long run. Can society continue indefinitely given the patterns now emerging continuing. (The patterns now emerging continuing is a big assumption, but without a reason to think they will change, we have nothing better to go on…”
Anyway, one thing that needs looking at is the demographic transition. Birthrates are falling to unsustainably low levels. Unsustainable trends will end. They will end if we end them or they will end if our society, as we know it ends. (You did read the Jesse Bering article and the Phillip Longman article I linked in the “Using Law as a Weapon” post, right?) How do we raise those birthrates? If society as we know it ends, what will replace it? What will be teh moral values of the people who inherit us? Nobody can know. The values of our successors might horrify you. They might horrify me.
Anyway, I say we try as hard as we can to maintain society as close to how we have it now. Better the devil you know…
My suggestion
Like in anything in life, it all depends on wisdom.