Gay Marriage and the Dysfunctions of Modernity
Bruce Thornton
April 1, 2013
G.D.O'Bradovich III
1
The ideology of modernity is that we moderns, armed with superior "scientific" knowledge about human nature and social behavior, can intervene in traditional cultural and social mores, customs, and habits in order to improve or discard them if necessary.
The traditions and wisdom of our ancestors, accumulated over centuries, are flawed, based on irrational superstition, ignorance, and prejudices that created injustice and oppression. Understanding the true, "scientific" mechanisms of human and social behavior, we moderns treat society as a machine that can be modified at will in order to make it function more fairly and efficiently. All we need is the power to make these adjustments over the objections of those still mired in outmoded prejudices and irrational superstitions.
Modernity attempts to to undo human nature and social behavior. Philosophers know that Modernity will fail because Modernity has no patience for Nature's eternal lessons. The "wisdom of our ancestors" indicates the writer is not enamored with innovation. Plato would disagree with the idea that ancient wisdom created "injustice".
This is the belief, of course, that fostered ideologies like communism, whose road to utopia was a dead end littered with millions of corpses. Traditionalist conservatives aren't surprised at such disasters, since they know that a culture is not a machine, but an organism that grows and adapts over time, a repository of all that was learned through the experience and trial-and-error of those who came before us.
That's why Chesterton called tradition the "democracy of the dead." The point is not that our culture should be frozen and unchanging, but rather that we give the benefit of the doubt to those traditions that have persisted and suited large numbers of people for a long time. If changes are necessary, we must have powerful arguments and evidence justifying them, and we must be prudent and respect the law of unintended consequences.
We must acknowledge the limits to what we know of human nature and behavior and the intricate interactions of a vast diversity of people, each unique and endowed with an unpredictable free will. Given this irreducible complexity, the effects of changes can only be roughly estimated, and will be revealed only over time and among large numbers of people. This prudence is vital, for once instituted, these changes will be difficult to reverse, their malign effects impossible to eliminate. Thus caution must be used before interfering in social institutions.
"Traditionalist conservative" describes the neo conservatives and the Straussian school. Modernism is linked to "disasters". A fuller version of Chesterton's quote is "Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes: our ancestors". As we do our own research, we become co conspirators in esoteric writing. Human nature has limits and no amount of wish full thinking or hoping will alter our fundamental nature.
No more scientifically based are the alleged "studies" that purport to show that children reared by gay couples suffer no adverse effects. As Nelson Lund writes in the Wall Street Journal, professional organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics claim that scientific research shows no differences between children growing up with gay couples and those raised by heterosexual parents, a claim parroted recently on NPR.
But these studies are riddled with compromising flaws such as tiny nonrandom samples, a lack of control groups, and reliance on self-report from gay parents, no more an objective source of information than straight parents' estimations of their parenting skills. Moreover, the most comprehensive study that did use a large randomized sample found several disadvantages for children raised in a household where parents were involved in a gay relationship.
But as Lund reports, this study "has been vociferously attacked on methodological grounds by the same organizations that tout the value of politically congenial research that suffers from more severe methodological shortcomings." This is politics, not science. But these pretensions to "science" are typical of the progressive modern, whose ideological preferences and arguments suffer from the irrational prejudices and political self-interests that they routinely claim vitiate the traditionalist perspective.
The writer clarifies that the argument of gay marriage is not about science, but politics. The "progressive modern" possesses "irrational prejudices" brought about, presumably, by ignoring the wisdom of the ancients.
The fact is, no one knows what will be the long-term effects of such a massive redefinition of society's most important social institution. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan thought she scored some points when she demanded that the lawyer defending California's Proposition 8 tell her the exact "harm" gay marriage would cause.
Of course, the point is that we don't know how such a social experiment will turn out, or what specific "harm" will follow, no more than we know the benefits. Nor can Kagan or anyone else assure us that no harm whatsoever will result from redefining an institution thousands of years old. That's why prudence is in order.
Think back to the "liberationist" movements of the 60s that radically reshaped sexual mores and gender roles, which in turn led to easy divorce, abortion on demand, and guilt-free sexual experimentation. No one at the time, except for repressed and despised neo-puritanical squares, said anything about the possible harmful consequences of such massive social experimentation.
We sure know now what they are -- fatherless children, broken homes, illegitimate birth, venereal plagues, sexuality dehumanized in popular culture, women debased into sexual instruments, and a declining birthrate that threatens our economic future.
In typical esoteric fashion, the writer appeals to the masses by describing marriage as "society's most important social institution." Marriage, by becoming more inclusive, is a "social experiment". "Social experiment" and "innovation" are interchangeable. "Prudence" is a characteristic of philosophers. The results of this innovation of morals are listed. The declining birthrate threatens our future since the author is, presumably, against immigration.
Some may argue that there have been benefits to these changes that outweigh those costs. Maybe, but at the time all we heard, as we are hearing now with the sentimental idealization of gay marriage, were the boons of personal freedom and equality and self-fulfillment that would follow the rejection of centuries of human wisdom about men, women, and sexuality.
Moreover, any calculus of the cost-to-benefit ratio will not be scientific, but one that involves ideology, politics, and subjective preferences. It will depend on certain debatable assumptions about human nature and behavior that no scientist can tell us are true or false.
Given how new same-sex marriage is, and given how few children are being raised in such homes, there is very little empirical evidence to help us determine the costs. That means we will in effect be rolling the dice if we transform society's foundational institution.
The use of "equality" followed by the rejection of "human wisdom" indicates the best minds have no use for false idea of equality. Centuries of "human wisdom" or the best minds are clearly meant to be practical or political philosophers and this class must include Plato.
What are these "subjective preferences" the author mentions, but does not detail? It is of no concern what these subjective preferences of the moment may be, because these preferences will change with time. Nature, as the standard of philosophy, is not subjective and changeable , but objective and eternal. The author again appeals to tradition or the wisdom of the ancients when describing marriage as a "society's foundational institution."
What are these "subjective preferences" the author mentions, but does not detail? It is of no concern what these subjective preferences of the moment may be, because these preferences will change with time. Nature, as the standard of philosophy, is not subjective and changeable , but objective and eternal. The author again appeals to tradition or the wisdom of the ancients when describing marriage as a "society's foundational institution."
Finally, if the Supreme Court ratifies this redefinition of marriage, then there will be no rationale for forbidding polygamy or any other configuration of people in a relationship. After all, the couple-centered marriage founded on romantic love and sexual exclusivity is not the universal "natural" form of marriage.
In fact, it's an anomaly in human history, a historical development reflecting particular cultural and social conditions that arose in the West. If marriage is a human right, by what secular logic is one kind of marriage privileged over others? Why would same-sex marriage, virtually unknown among human societies, be a "human right," but polygamy, extensively documented in history and prevalent today all over the world, wouldn't?
The author, no doubt familiar with Natural Law, states the obvious logical and philosophical conclusion-"polygamy or any other configuration of people" will be considered a marriage. The author admits polygamy is traditional marriage and only in the "particular cultural and social conditions that arose in the West" has monogamy become the standard of marriage.
The author intimates, and the careful reader should realize, the crisis of Modernity with the crisis of Western Civilization are the same. Same-sex marriage while "virtually unknown among human societies" does not explicitly state that it can not exist. Why? Same-sex marriage can exist because Natural Law allows people to enter into contracts and marriage is a contract.
By forming the question of marriage in the conditional (" If marriage is a human right"...), the unwary reader will leave the argument of Natural Law and be confronted with "secular logic" and continue down the rhetorical path of polygamy. NB- the author has included human right with quotations and without quotations. Inexact repetition is a hallmark of esoteric writing.
The author intimates, and the careful reader should realize, the crisis of Modernity with the crisis of Western Civilization are the same. Same-sex marriage while "virtually unknown among human societies" does not explicitly state that it can not exist. Why? Same-sex marriage can exist because Natural Law allows people to enter into contracts and marriage is a contract.
By forming the question of marriage in the conditional (" If marriage is a human right"...), the unwary reader will leave the argument of Natural Law and be confronted with "secular logic" and continue down the rhetorical path of polygamy. NB- the author has included human right with quotations and without quotations. Inexact repetition is a hallmark of esoteric writing.
This incoherence is the consequence of modernity's hubristic belief that human nature is infinitely plastic and can be shaped in any way we want. Determining the limits of such changes and redefinitions will ultimately be determined not by morality, knowledge, or argument, but by sheer power -- just as the proponents of gay marriage want to use the power of unelected, unaccountable judges to impose this monumental transformation on 300 million Americans.
And such an abuse of power will be tyrannical, no matter how well-meaning or idealistic the cause for which it is used. That is what's at stake in the litigation over gay marriage -- yet another overreach by the federal leviathan imposing its will over the states and their citizens.
"This incoherence' is a product of not using Nature as the standard, but ever-changing human goals and ambitions. "Modernity's hubristic belief" is an indictment of belief and hope over the accumulated experience of humanity and human society. "Plastic" is not an infrequent word when condemning Modernity and the attempt to change human Nature. The changes will not be brought about by human "knowledge",i.e. philosophy, but by "sheer power" -the masses and the rabble. The careful reader will connect "sheer power" with "tyrannical" to understand the author's and Plato's view of democracy. Once again Modernity is described as "well-meaning" and "idealist".
conclusion
Philosophers may appear as the unstable dual minded man described by Saint James. I assure the Gentle Reader that we are not dual minded. Firstly, we understand Natural Law, to wit, men may enter into contracts and although the contracts may be broken, Natural Law can not be annulled. Secondly, that when the majority of people take the freedom philosophy offers to deny the gods and corrupt the youth, disaster is inevitable. What is good and proper behavior for a handful of people to practice is possibly detrimental or destructive for society. Why would this be? Despite Modern rhetoric, Philosophers know people are human, all too human, and there is not an great range of behavior that will be observed.
Human behavior operates in a narrow range, much to the consternation of Modernists, and is so unlikely to change, that there is no good reason to try experiments with societal structures, that is, the benefits will not outweigh the detriments. Mr. Thornton lists these detriments in the article.
The primary doctrine of the Modernists is that people are equal and, therefore, are interchangeable, regardless of differences. This innovative idea is not found in human experience, human tradition or Nature.
The crisis that is confronting Western Civilization is the innovation that people are equal. The result will either be a defeat of equality or the end of Western Civilization. Unfortunately for those subjected to this ill conceived, but idealist, experiment, the progressive Modernists will not be able to find a middle ground between destruction or renewal.
We do not, Gentle Reader, consign ourselves to nihilism when we confront our situation. Nature, philosophy correctly teaches, is worthless. Only people can give meaning to Nature and their existence. This meaning can only come from possessing values.
Meaning and purpose and are the only values that can confront and defeat the dysfunctional and incoherent result of Modernity: Nihilism.
Human behavior operates in a narrow range, much to the consternation of Modernists, and is so unlikely to change, that there is no good reason to try experiments with societal structures, that is, the benefits will not outweigh the detriments. Mr. Thornton lists these detriments in the article.
The primary doctrine of the Modernists is that people are equal and, therefore, are interchangeable, regardless of differences. This innovative idea is not found in human experience, human tradition or Nature.
The crisis that is confronting Western Civilization is the innovation that people are equal. The result will either be a defeat of equality or the end of Western Civilization. Unfortunately for those subjected to this ill conceived, but idealist, experiment, the progressive Modernists will not be able to find a middle ground between destruction or renewal.
We do not, Gentle Reader, consign ourselves to nihilism when we confront our situation. Nature, philosophy correctly teaches, is worthless. Only people can give meaning to Nature and their existence. This meaning can only come from possessing values.
Meaning and purpose and are the only values that can confront and defeat the dysfunctional and incoherent result of Modernity: Nihilism.
Gay Pride
Apprentice Anon Amos looks at Gay Pride and reaches an unexpected conclusion.
Natural Law and Marriage
Apprentice Graham writes about Natural Law and marriage and comes to a controversial conclusion.