I want to blend two previous threads here.
First, it is a hallmark of Millennialist discourse to redefine words in the middle, then use them in their new definitions, often as an ironic commentary on previous ideas in the discourse.
Second, the widespread public endorsement of homosexuality will continue to be a goal both fought for and fought over.
The two threads come together in the current reaction to California's passage of Proposition 8 which limits the definition of marriage to dual gender relationships only.
There is a cry among the proponents of same-gender marriage that the passage of Proposition 8 has removed the rights or affected the civil rights of homosexuals in California. This reasoning is based at least partly on the idea that, since the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that the right of marriage must be expanded to include same gender couples, there is a civil right to marriage that is being removed from same gender couples.
"Civil right" is usually defined as a right granted by the 13-15 amendments to the US Constitution. The 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, and the 15th prohibits limitations on the voting rights of adult males. The only right possibly claimed to have been abridged by Proposition 8 would be those defined in the following clause from the 14th Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The way the argument in favor of same-gender marriage is usually framed implies that the right to marry has been taken away from homosexuals.
This is not true.
If there were laws that sifted homosexuals out of the equation before they were allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender, then there would be a civil rights issue. If, for example, a homosexual man and a lesbian woman chose to marry, and they were asked about their sexual orientation before the ceremony, then were forbidden to marry after confessing their homosexuality, then their civil rights will have been violated.
Marriage has always been defined as a dual-gender relationship, and only recently have modifiers begun to alter the meaning of the word (ie, "gay marriage"). Marriage has never been taken away from homosexuals; same-gender sexual relationships with the same sanction of marriage have only recently been considered and redefined to use the word "marriage."
The entire argument, therefore, is based on redefinition ("marriage," "civil right"), and not on a previously understood definition of either idea.
Related to redefinition are grammatical implications. "It is not a choice," is often say about "being gay." "Being" and "gay" are both redefined in this construct, but "it" is used as a pronoun without a specific antecedent. An argument then becomes impossible. How can the question of choice be debated when what "it" is is not clear?
The same tactic is used in discourse over abortion. The expression, "right to choose," is frequently used in public discourse of abortion, but "choose" is used as an intransitive verb, when the intention of both sides is that it is transitive--in other words, it requires the direct object "abortion" (also in its verbal form "to abort"). Do I believe in the "right to choose"? Of course, in the abstract who in the United States objects to the right of choice. Do I believe in the right to choose abortion, or the right to choose to abort a baby? There, the debate may become more productive.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Millenialist, Mormonism, and Prop 8
It's about time that I identify myself as a practicing, orthodox member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It was not my intention, at the beginning, to allow for the obvious confusion that would arise from a Latter-day Saint writing about Millennialism. I never intended for the trends that I choose to call "Millennialism" to be identified with the Mormon idea of the Millennium, or thousand-year reign of Christ. In fact, it would be better to draw a contrast.
I originally wanted to speak quietly, bridging as well as possible the gap between academic and popular writing, and point out motions that I have seen in American culture in the past thirty years. My academic background is in culture, the arts, and languages, and I believe that I am more than qualified to say, "I've noticed something interesting or different . . ." I expected that only a few of my friends will read this blog, but I confess that I'd hoped that, eventually, it might be heard by others. It's a fantasy, but it's one I share with many, I'm sure.
What has happened to make me explicitly insert my religion into personal academic and cultural meditations?
Proposition 8, the California Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
What is intersecting here is my feeling that it is very likely that a majority of Americans will accept same-gender marriage as normative within a generation, my sincere religious hope that it doesn't happen, and my sincere religious fear that--if it happens--it will be devastating to American life in less than a century.
The wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality is being nurtured through the schools. School children, especially in large urban areas, are carefully groomed by the schools to believe that homosexuality is not unnatural, and that, if two people truly love each other, they should be allowed to marry--or do anything that they deem essential to their sexual happiness. It is very unlikely that, given current movements in the schools, traditional marriage will be able to hold out on a national level. That coupled with the genuine appearance that same-gender marriage causes no (immediate) damage to a culture, will erode the resistance to it.
This, I think, will become one of the hallmarks of Millennialism. Traditional marriage will cease to exist as a cultural phenomenon in America.
I don't think it will go down without a fight, however, and I can easily see a second Civil War on this very issue. Constitutional crises, proposed national amendments, conventions, and political disorder could foreseeably come about in the near future.
Furthermore, within a hundred years if the traditional family continues to erode, or if it ceases to exist, it will very likely become necessary to legislate reproduction, much as is currently happening in China and Italy. Un-reproductive promiscuity will abound.
If there is no Civil War.
As a religionist, however, I am hopeful of many things. I am hopeful, for example, that Millennialism will end at the beginning of the true Millennium. I am hopeful that persecutions will galvanize support for traditional marriage (it is already happening), and that will delay the worst--perhaps indefinitely. I am hopeful that people will see reason in the current arguments, and can agree to disagree--even with love and acceptance of each other as individuals and human beings. I believe in miracles.
It was not my intention, at the beginning, to allow for the obvious confusion that would arise from a Latter-day Saint writing about Millennialism. I never intended for the trends that I choose to call "Millennialism" to be identified with the Mormon idea of the Millennium, or thousand-year reign of Christ. In fact, it would be better to draw a contrast.
I originally wanted to speak quietly, bridging as well as possible the gap between academic and popular writing, and point out motions that I have seen in American culture in the past thirty years. My academic background is in culture, the arts, and languages, and I believe that I am more than qualified to say, "I've noticed something interesting or different . . ." I expected that only a few of my friends will read this blog, but I confess that I'd hoped that, eventually, it might be heard by others. It's a fantasy, but it's one I share with many, I'm sure.
What has happened to make me explicitly insert my religion into personal academic and cultural meditations?
Proposition 8, the California Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
What is intersecting here is my feeling that it is very likely that a majority of Americans will accept same-gender marriage as normative within a generation, my sincere religious hope that it doesn't happen, and my sincere religious fear that--if it happens--it will be devastating to American life in less than a century.
The wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality is being nurtured through the schools. School children, especially in large urban areas, are carefully groomed by the schools to believe that homosexuality is not unnatural, and that, if two people truly love each other, they should be allowed to marry--or do anything that they deem essential to their sexual happiness. It is very unlikely that, given current movements in the schools, traditional marriage will be able to hold out on a national level. That coupled with the genuine appearance that same-gender marriage causes no (immediate) damage to a culture, will erode the resistance to it.
This, I think, will become one of the hallmarks of Millennialism. Traditional marriage will cease to exist as a cultural phenomenon in America.
I don't think it will go down without a fight, however, and I can easily see a second Civil War on this very issue. Constitutional crises, proposed national amendments, conventions, and political disorder could foreseeably come about in the near future.
Furthermore, within a hundred years if the traditional family continues to erode, or if it ceases to exist, it will very likely become necessary to legislate reproduction, much as is currently happening in China and Italy. Un-reproductive promiscuity will abound.
If there is no Civil War.
As a religionist, however, I am hopeful of many things. I am hopeful, for example, that Millennialism will end at the beginning of the true Millennium. I am hopeful that persecutions will galvanize support for traditional marriage (it is already happening), and that will delay the worst--perhaps indefinitely. I am hopeful that people will see reason in the current arguments, and can agree to disagree--even with love and acceptance of each other as individuals and human beings. I believe in miracles.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Debate in the new millennium, part 1
From at least the 1960s, post-modernists began a protracted battle to change the nature of debate so as to ensure outcomes.
It has come to be called "shouting down."
It began with the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s in which peaceful, non-violent means were used to move the question of civil rights for Americans of African descent in the United States. (There is a good argument that it began with Gandhi in the fight for Indian independence from Great Britain, and its seeds were sown in the American and French Revolutions and the writings of the American Transcendentalists, but I'm looking only to contrast current movement with post-modernism.)
"Shouting down," as a form of argument, is just what it says it is. If someone disagrees with you, you shout until they give up, then you declare yourself the winner. As often as not, you can make it appear as if you are correct, though no actual debate was held.
It has come to be called "shouting down."
It began with the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s in which peaceful, non-violent means were used to move the question of civil rights for Americans of African descent in the United States. (There is a good argument that it began with Gandhi in the fight for Indian independence from Great Britain, and its seeds were sown in the American and French Revolutions and the writings of the American Transcendentalists, but I'm looking only to contrast current movement with post-modernism.)
"Shouting down," as a form of argument, is just what it says it is. If someone disagrees with you, you shout until they give up, then you declare yourself the winner. As often as not, you can make it appear as if you are correct, though no actual debate was held.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)