This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Or file an official form stating that they objected to doing so.
However, the Federal Government would then work with the insurance providers to fill the resulting gap, and some groups wanted to be able to opt out, not only of paying for their employees' contraception, but of anyone covering the cost!
...the 'socially progressive' view being that, the arguments against equal marriage all being rooted in their proponents' metaphysical assumptions, and the imposition of metaphysical beliefs by state power having spilt rivers of blood in 17th-century Europe (more recent to the Founding Fathers than the Civil War is to today), the official elevation of opposite-gender couples over same-gender couples cannot be justified as government policy. (I wonder if 'state government issues Civil Unions for all couples, leaves marriage to whatever church/other religious organisation/other private entity the participants see fit to involve' would have been accepted.)
The reasoning behind that being that they considered it the equivalent of the installers of these water fountains claiming, per some guff about the Curse of Ham or Hex of Corned Beef or Jinx of Turkey or whatever, a Conscientious Objection to letting [hexagrammaton]s use the same water fountain as white people, or a separate but actually equal one off the same production line.
There are many secular arguments for elevating opposite sex marriages. One of the better ones defines marriage as an institution primarily aimed to form families and raise children. It is because of this social good that marriage is elevated, and it gives the couple certain benefits. Marriage is not a certificate that two people love each other and its primary function is not tax benefits or shiny paper or anything like that. This intuitive family/children connection is also behind the fact, that it is not possible to marry your parent or your sibling.
To which the inevitable reply is that, okay, then where's the law banning infertile people from marrying? Because on the axis of "family formation," there's no difference between them and the gays, is there? To ban gays from marrying on the grounds they cannot produce children, but not similarly ban straight couples who cannot produce children, would clearly be anti-gay discrimination.
Now, I have my own secular, philosophical argument against this, complete with toy analogy, that I've posted here before, about teleology in an imperfect, entropic universe. (But I'll admit that sort of Aristotelian thinking is pretty far from most mainstream thought.)
There is a difference between infertile, opposite sex couples marrying and same sex couples doing so. Opposite sex marriage reinforces the norm that you should marry someone of the opposite sex and encourages conformity to traditional morals, same sex erodes those norms and morals. That's why atheistic communist regimes were ok with infertile marriages but not homosexual.
And the gay marriage proponents argue that the norm you posit is bad and discriminatory; that it is contrary to civil rights law, equality, and anti-discrimination; that it is nothing but anti-gay bigotry. They argue that the "traditional morals" you speak of outdated, and motivated purely by religious sentiment — which, again, makes it a violation of the 1st Amendment to enshrine into law. That, contra illiberal communist regimes, liberal Progressivism says we should erode these norms because what reason do you have that we should even want to "encourage conformity to traditional morals," if not some flavor of "because God says so"?
Conformity to traditional morals is supported by perfectly secular reasoning: our society is astonishingly good by historical standards, tinker with its fundamental institutions at your peril.
More specifically to marriage: even infertile hetero marriages encourage property ownership, reduce crime, and generally put couples on the normal, successful path. Homo relationships only achieve some of that same benefit but also erode the desirable pro-fertility, norm that everyone gets married to a member of the opposite sex. More controversially, the visible difference of homo marriages also weaken societal conformity in general.
The progressive is probably tempted to say that this is just a thin secular veneer over what is at core a Christian sentiment. This is flatly contradicted by the fact that Buddhist, Confucian, and Communist societies held essentially the same position (no legal/social recognition of same sex marriage, full recognition of infertile marriage). I think even ancient Rome and Athens, despite being open to same sex dalliances, also allowed infertile but not same sex couples to marry.
Edit: I bring this up mainly to counter the notion that the prohibition on homosexual marriage was not the result of a particular metaphysic, but the widespread consensus of major human societies regardless of their religious beliefs. This supports the upthread assertion that overturning that prohibition was the imposition of a new moral framework with it, not the neutral stripping away of an old one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As mentioned below, there are actually laws saying that some people couldn't marry unless they could show that they were infertile. Your entire frame of reference simply does not make sense, and you need a pretty significant perspective change.
Further, rather than there being "no difference", there is actually quite a huge difference, particularly in terms of intrusiveness to privacy. The government can very very simply look at the government documents which state that they're the same sex. What kind of standards, and what kind of intrusive nightmare would it be to require something like proof of fertility? @WandererintheWilderness would call it "Chinese-style authoritarian social engineering". These examples are worlds apart rather than being "no different".
It's not my perspective — as you'd note if you'd read the part I'd linked — it's just the most common counter-argument the pro-gay-marriage side presents.
What doesn't make sense about it? If you are saying the line between who can marry and who cannot, which puts gay couples on the "cannot" side, is drawn on the grounds of who can produce children and who cannot — that you're barring gay couples because they're non-reproducing rather than because they're gay — then the line has to be drawn between (straight) couples who can reproduce and couples, straight or gay, who cannot.
People made the "privacy" argument you made here, back when the debate was live. The first answer was that age is just as legible to the government "in terms of intrusiveness to privacy" as sex, and yet we let 70-year-old straight couples get married, despite being just as clearly not about producing children as in the case of gay couples.
(My reply to this is my linked argument about teleology, and "inherent" versus "accidental" characteristics in regard to such teleological orientations.)
The other is the argument (a much better one, IMO) that differences in the intrusiveness to enforce a rule between groups do not justify enforcing the rule unequally. Just because it's easier to enforce a ban against gay couples marrying than it is against infertile straight couples without massive state intrusion does not, under modern anti-discrimination law, make it acceptable or non-discriminatory to enforce it in a discriminatory matter, let alone set down such discriminatory enforcement in the law itself. If the rule is "too intrusive to enforce" against a particular group, then it can't be enforced, or a rule, at all.
This "if" is precisely what my example points out is not true. The entire premise of the argument is simply false. The entire frame of reference simply does not make sense. Basically the entire remainder of this comment is sort of pointless from the get-go because of this flaw.
Well then, if the line between who should be allowed to marry isn't about who can produce children, then what is it about? What is the difference that justifies, in purely secular, non-religious terms, treating gay couples differently than straight ones?
This is easy. You can be secular Cultural Christian. You do not believe in God, do not pray and you do not go to church. But you adhere to Christian Ethics purely due to your preference in the same way let's say some secular people prefer libertarianism, other people prefer progressivism and yet other prefer communism or whatnot. So it is purely my preference that stems from my materialist mind in this materialist world, and this preference has equal validity as your preference.
Or if you dislike that argument, I can borrow tankie secular argument against gay relations: it is a result of decadence of bourgeoise and fascist society, it goes against reproduction of worker class and thus it is inherently counterrevolutionary and reactionary.
More options
Context Copy link
Again, the perspective change needs to be pretty deep. It is not about who is "allowed" to marry. It's about what the State is trying to encourage/discourage. Think about the example I gave; see if you can come up with an idea for what it is that they're trying to do.
Speak fucking plainly. No, I'm not going to guess "what it is that they were trying to do" (note the past tense). You tell me exactly what you think the early 21st Century American government (with no-fault divorce, and civil rights and anti-discrimination law for LGB) was "trying to encourage/discourage"; why it's legitimate for them to encourage/discourage; how not legalizing gay marriage both works toward the end goal of that encouragement/discouragement, and is a constitutionally and legally valid means (because in American constitutional law, the US government is limited in the means it may use to secure even good and valid ends, with a number of judicial "tests" and levels of restriction depending on the importance of the ends and the nature of the means) of doing so.
Your continued mix of obtuseness, vaguery, and missing-the-point in this thread have been so frustrating, they've got me defending a position and argument I don't even believe myself here. There's a reason the sorts of arguments you're vaguely-gesturing-toward-but-not-actually-making lost the fight.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This seems rather trivial--create a "provisional marriage" that just signals intent and becomes a legal marriage upon birth of the couple's first child. We already track births, so there would be no new privacy intrusion.
This sounds like needless complexity, and it would invite a whole host of additional complex questions. Is there an expiration on a provisional marriage? Suppose you want to get married early, but delay having children a bit, is that allowed? Why or why not? The outrageous news stories will kill you, too. "This couple has had two miscarriages and is now about to hit the deadline on their provisional marriage!" This kinda thing will never fly with the public.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but as pointed out elsewhere on the thread, that argument is seemingly defeated by any system which allows provably infertile people to marry one another. If you allow that, then you've allowed the expansion of the right to marry to inevitably-childless couples, and withholding it from homosexual couples is just haggling over price.
This is the classical example of exception proving the rule. Let's take another example of a state supported institution - incorporation into limited liability and other companies. The institution is there to support businesses, which are formed to pursue profit. The upside for the society is economic dynamism. Everybody understands, that there are unsuccessful businesses which fail to fulfil the imperative. Nevertheless it does not mean that the institution is without merit.
And it for sure does not mean, that just because there are some failed businesses, the whole institution should be hollowed out, because it is a "discrimination" that people cannot create companies for other things - such as group of bros creating a company in order to drink every Friday, which they can write off from their taxes.
More options
Context Copy link
Marriage originated in a time when it was virtually impossible for medical science to tell ahead of time that someone was infertile. The only way to know was if a spouse proved unable to conceive after several years, and such was grounds for an annulment (a document saying the marriage was never valid in the first place).
That said, if you want to redefine modern marriage to exclude people who are provably infertile in advance, I'm all for it.
This is to large extent already happening, as the institution was hollowed out for decades, many people especially secularists are now questioning the meaning of marriage altogether, as they realize that all these Disney stories about love don't make sense. Nobody needs a paper from government certifying that two people love each other, especially if it is extremely easy to get a divorce and secularists are raving about and supporting "alternative families" anyways. The societal advantages are evaporating every year, less and less people care if somebody is married or not, with or without children. Every year there is less social stigma, but in turn marriage also has less support from communities.
Modern secular marriage is something akin to cargo cult, an idea running on vapors, mimicking the outside appearance of something that worked in the past. I think this was also the main drive behind gay marriages - they wanted to leech off of the legitimacy and high status of the institution in order to normalize their lifestyles. As with everything, each action has a reaction, and all these things changed the institution itself. I am not solely blaming gay marriages for this, the trend began long before that, but legalizing same sex marriages kind of hammered the idea home - do you really want to be in a marriage club with gays and weirdos running various marriage frauds?
As of now the marriage only make sense in religious communities, where it retains its inherent meaning, purpose and where it is seen as a sacrament with sacred vows and everything. The differences are stark enough compared to modern secular marriage, that it should probably get a new name. Maybe something how Catholics use it: secular union is a concubinage, while religious union is sacramental marriage. Then who cares what secularists and atheists declare themselves - they can create a secular union with their gay sex partner or with their polyamorous polycule out in Vegas in front of Elvis or just a two (or three or ten of them) exchanging ribbons under some old tree or whatever as a proof of whatever they want to declare and capture for their TikTok audience. It is still not a marriage from Christian standpoint.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but that just means that definition is obsolete — as science and medicine evolve, the law must evolve with them, no?
I don’t see why that follows. The old law could be perfectly good for humans as it stands, and trying to make adaptations for improved science and medicine could wind up making the law worse.
It is a tough sell to assume that the old law, made with incomplete information, was accidentally so perfect that attempts to improve it with more complete information are going to make it worse.
Without getting into the specific issue here (marriage):
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If requested - but it did not, to my knowledge, equal an annulment in the sense of an infertile marriage being deemed to have no legal value. I've never heard of a third party suing to break up a couple's marriage against their will by seeking to prove that one or both of them were infertile. (I'd be genuinely curious to know if that did ever happen anywhere, but even if it did, I would remain skeptical that this was a broadly-understood principle as opposed to a weird legal loophole.)
This is at least coherent, and I would find it more respectable than the status quo ante. That being said, I doubt you'd get much of a constituency for it even among normie conservatives. It smacks of Chinese-style authoritarian social engineering, and at the human level it'd be fundamentally counterintuitive to say that infertile people can't get married even though people who become infertile can trivially stay married.
(And the same standard would, of course, raise further questions. With rapid advancement in medical science, how definitively can we assert that a currently infertile couple won't be able to use IVF in 10 years using some funky CRISPR stem-cell wizardry? But then by the same token, can we really rule out IVF for homosexual couples as a real possibility within the lifetimes of gay couples currently seeking marriage? For lesbians at least, to set aside the surrogacy problem for M/M couples.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link