RE: the Redefinition of Marriage in Canada
A few weeks ago, I read on Matt’s blog a couple of fascinating letters regarding this divisive issue on our national consciousness. Matt, I applaud you for your letter and for your attempt to clear away some of the misinformation and half-baked ideas that always seem to float around on an issue as big as this one. I didn’t agree with everything that was expressed, however, and my debating nature just wanted to share constructive criticism, that will hopefully lead both of us to a deeper understanding of the issue… that’s what debate’s all about, right?
I totally agree that it’s imperative to find some common ground between believers and unbelievers that’s based more on logical argumentation than on scriptural interpretation and ethical assumption. Yet finding that common ground is often difficult – because to a believer, what’s contained in the scripture is a deeper truth far beyond the rational capabilities of a logically expressed argument. No matter how arbitrary and inconceivable his/her beliefs may seem to an unbeliever, one can do more by beating one’s head against a wall than demonstrating the illogic of those beliefs. Logic, the believer would reply, is simply fallible human judgment – and what irreverence for one to dare reason against the precepts of the Almighty!?
What we’re up against is a fundamental clash of two worldviews. So how do we find the common ground? I don’t know if telling the author to “call a spade a spade and admit that her so-called ‘naturally-established laws’ are merely a pretext for the social construct of organized religion” is really the best answer, though. Telling a Catholic that the Catholic Church is “a social construct” may not seem that far from the truth to a non-believer, but it’s a pretty charged term that could really offend someone who looks to the church as a divine power. It almost sounds like an attack of religion in general – and rather than finding common ground – using a charged criticism like that may only widen the chasm between belief and non-belief that exists today. Don’t worry, it didn’t offend me personally.
I do agree, however, that Canada is a secular country, and we must find a way to ensure equal rights for all without allowing one school of thought to unfairly dominate our notions of justice and equality. The trick is finding an argument that appeals to both sides without inflaming the one side through an attack that obscures the argument at hand.
I happen to have several good friends who are openly gay (and no, I don’t think Mac has an over-representation of homosexuals) and I think I make far fewer insensitive comments than I did in the past. I am all for equal rights for homosexuals – whom I feel we have totally discriminated against in several ways – and yet I am still opposed to the redefinition of marriage in Canada… Why? Let’s try an argument that doesn’t rely on Religious scripture. This has been spinning around in my head for a bit, and it’s nothing more than a thought experiment:
What happens when society redefines a word? Not much some may say, let’s just change the definition of marriage, include gay couples and everyone will go home happy. Well, that approach may work for some words, but perhaps not all. Let’s think about words for a second. Words enable far more than communication – they enable thought. We don’t think in random, abstract images, we think in words. Try imagining freedom without the word, and it’s going to be pretty tough. Where do the definitions of these words come from? Well, it doesn’t happen overnight; “marriage” for one, has been defined since the dawn of human history as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Period. Aside from the odd exception here and there, we’re talking about virtually every single culture, in virtually every single time in history. I’m not saying whether that’s right or wrong, I’m just saying that that’s the established definition of the word that we've inherited.
What happens when governments start messing around with the definitions of words? George Orwell illustrates this scenario vividly in what has become one of the most famous works of world literature: 1984. The rulers of this repressive society realized that thought control could be achieved simply through the removal of words. By gradually eliminating words from the dictionary, they were in effect committing the genocide of thoughts. Does the concept of freedom exist once the word no longer does? It’s a bit of an extreme case to compare our situation to the repressive dictatorship of 1984, but it serves as a useful analogy that is not too far from the truth. George W. Bush loves to use this technique – designating the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay “Enemy Combatants” as opposed to “P.O.W.’s” so he doesn’t have to abide by the Geneva Protocol for the fair treatment of prisoners.
Whether it’s used for good propaganda or bad propaganda, redefining a word as complex as marriage overnight amounts to just that – propaganda. Definitions must grow organically and over time. Gay couples have been in the public consciousness for a quarter-century at most. How can society redefine a 5000-year-old tradition pretty much overnight? One can argue that traditions are nothing more than outdated social indoctrinations that can be wiped away like chalk off a blackboard – but does human nature really work in such a cold, calculated way? History is littered with examples of governments taking coldly rational measures completely in the face of millennia of tradition. Particularly tragic were measures such as the Great Leap Forward, or the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that forced cultural change overnight to a populace that simply could not abandon it’s time-honoured traditions that quickly – even if the ideas may have looked good on paper.
I admit that some of my examples are extreme, but they are for illustrative purposes. The point is that cultural change is dangerous to impose. The recent split vote in the House of Commons shows that this nation is totally divided on the issue of gay marriage. Progress has definitely been made, but it’s clear that more must follow – and the only way for that to occur is a gradual, organic process of cultural evolution. People like change and often like it to be rushed, but sometimes what's best is patience. Remember there's only a couple other countries in the world who have approached this issue in a similar way.
In the meantime, what can be done? I like Paul Martin’s initiative to legislate a more neutral gay union that gives equal rights to gay couples without touching the inflammatory issue of marriage. Maybe one day the definition of marriage will evolve, but now is perhaps a bit optimistic.
A few weeks ago, I read on Matt’s blog a couple of fascinating letters regarding this divisive issue on our national consciousness. Matt, I applaud you for your letter and for your attempt to clear away some of the misinformation and half-baked ideas that always seem to float around on an issue as big as this one. I didn’t agree with everything that was expressed, however, and my debating nature just wanted to share constructive criticism, that will hopefully lead both of us to a deeper understanding of the issue… that’s what debate’s all about, right?
I totally agree that it’s imperative to find some common ground between believers and unbelievers that’s based more on logical argumentation than on scriptural interpretation and ethical assumption. Yet finding that common ground is often difficult – because to a believer, what’s contained in the scripture is a deeper truth far beyond the rational capabilities of a logically expressed argument. No matter how arbitrary and inconceivable his/her beliefs may seem to an unbeliever, one can do more by beating one’s head against a wall than demonstrating the illogic of those beliefs. Logic, the believer would reply, is simply fallible human judgment – and what irreverence for one to dare reason against the precepts of the Almighty!?
What we’re up against is a fundamental clash of two worldviews. So how do we find the common ground? I don’t know if telling the author to “call a spade a spade and admit that her so-called ‘naturally-established laws’ are merely a pretext for the social construct of organized religion” is really the best answer, though. Telling a Catholic that the Catholic Church is “a social construct” may not seem that far from the truth to a non-believer, but it’s a pretty charged term that could really offend someone who looks to the church as a divine power. It almost sounds like an attack of religion in general – and rather than finding common ground – using a charged criticism like that may only widen the chasm between belief and non-belief that exists today. Don’t worry, it didn’t offend me personally.
I do agree, however, that Canada is a secular country, and we must find a way to ensure equal rights for all without allowing one school of thought to unfairly dominate our notions of justice and equality. The trick is finding an argument that appeals to both sides without inflaming the one side through an attack that obscures the argument at hand.
I happen to have several good friends who are openly gay (and no, I don’t think Mac has an over-representation of homosexuals) and I think I make far fewer insensitive comments than I did in the past. I am all for equal rights for homosexuals – whom I feel we have totally discriminated against in several ways – and yet I am still opposed to the redefinition of marriage in Canada… Why? Let’s try an argument that doesn’t rely on Religious scripture. This has been spinning around in my head for a bit, and it’s nothing more than a thought experiment:
What happens when society redefines a word? Not much some may say, let’s just change the definition of marriage, include gay couples and everyone will go home happy. Well, that approach may work for some words, but perhaps not all. Let’s think about words for a second. Words enable far more than communication – they enable thought. We don’t think in random, abstract images, we think in words. Try imagining freedom without the word, and it’s going to be pretty tough. Where do the definitions of these words come from? Well, it doesn’t happen overnight; “marriage” for one, has been defined since the dawn of human history as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Period. Aside from the odd exception here and there, we’re talking about virtually every single culture, in virtually every single time in history. I’m not saying whether that’s right or wrong, I’m just saying that that’s the established definition of the word that we've inherited.
What happens when governments start messing around with the definitions of words? George Orwell illustrates this scenario vividly in what has become one of the most famous works of world literature: 1984. The rulers of this repressive society realized that thought control could be achieved simply through the removal of words. By gradually eliminating words from the dictionary, they were in effect committing the genocide of thoughts. Does the concept of freedom exist once the word no longer does? It’s a bit of an extreme case to compare our situation to the repressive dictatorship of 1984, but it serves as a useful analogy that is not too far from the truth. George W. Bush loves to use this technique – designating the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay “Enemy Combatants” as opposed to “P.O.W.’s” so he doesn’t have to abide by the Geneva Protocol for the fair treatment of prisoners.
Whether it’s used for good propaganda or bad propaganda, redefining a word as complex as marriage overnight amounts to just that – propaganda. Definitions must grow organically and over time. Gay couples have been in the public consciousness for a quarter-century at most. How can society redefine a 5000-year-old tradition pretty much overnight? One can argue that traditions are nothing more than outdated social indoctrinations that can be wiped away like chalk off a blackboard – but does human nature really work in such a cold, calculated way? History is littered with examples of governments taking coldly rational measures completely in the face of millennia of tradition. Particularly tragic were measures such as the Great Leap Forward, or the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that forced cultural change overnight to a populace that simply could not abandon it’s time-honoured traditions that quickly – even if the ideas may have looked good on paper.
I admit that some of my examples are extreme, but they are for illustrative purposes. The point is that cultural change is dangerous to impose. The recent split vote in the House of Commons shows that this nation is totally divided on the issue of gay marriage. Progress has definitely been made, but it’s clear that more must follow – and the only way for that to occur is a gradual, organic process of cultural evolution. People like change and often like it to be rushed, but sometimes what's best is patience. Remember there's only a couple other countries in the world who have approached this issue in a similar way.
In the meantime, what can be done? I like Paul Martin’s initiative to legislate a more neutral gay union that gives equal rights to gay couples without touching the inflammatory issue of marriage. Maybe one day the definition of marriage will evolve, but now is perhaps a bit optimistic.
posted by Anonymous at 2:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home