In a comment section at FSB a pro-SSM commenter made the following very weak response to a problem created by his own SSM argumentation.
Chris said that SSM is inevitable and -
"Eventually you will have to adopt an argument for why incestuous marriage should be banned even while SSM is legal. I suggest you start working on that argument now."
Putting aside the lack of self awareness displayed in that comment, consider the sheer stupidity of the arrogant attempt to shift the burden from the SSMer to the marriage defender.
The argument in favor of societal regard for the core meaning of marriage has long-been an excellent argument against incestuous marriage. Marriage is two-sexed and not sex-neutral. Its core meaning: 1) the integration of the sexes, 2) the provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole. The boundaries of eligibility and ineligibility are drawn around this core which sustains and justifies the societal preference or special status for the union of husband and wife. Relatedness is clearly entailed in the two-sexed nature of marriage and that has been coherently expressed in marriage law. The line drawn against incestuous marriage is not arbitrary.
The SSMer's goal of inducing societal disregard for that core (the marriage idea) can only mean that the SSMer by dint of insisting on an alternative idea (the SSM idea) must assume the burden of the would-be reformer or agent of change. The SSMer carries the burden of justifying the SSM ban on some same-sex scenarios. If he shirks that responsibilitity then he has belied a lack of faith in the capacity of the SSM idea to provide its own argument against incestuous SSM.
Thusfar SSMers have asserted an arbitrary imitation of the marriage boundary and have failed to show how such a copy-paste arises justly from within the same-sex scenario; that copy-paste is from something the SSMer has rejected as unjust so he needs to make an independent attempt to justify the SSM ban based on relatives - which of course is subject to the pro-SSM terms of argumentation. If those terms are good enough to make SSM inevitable then they are good enough to legalize incestuous SSM. It is up to the SSMer to differentiate the eligible same-sex scenario from the ineligible before imposing a ban. Not after. Before.
The SSM idea is not my idea. Chris cannot fairly shift his burden to me. But he has just admitted to his hoping to kick the can down the road. It was a feeble attempted kick that has left the can untouched and unmoved. The SSMer will keep tripping over it. That is his problem, not mine. It is a profound problem he would knowingly dump onto society and so make it someone else's problem. That exemplifies the arrogant stupidity of SSM rhetoric and argumentation. Perhaps Chris will show that his reasoning can be better than that. I hope so.
It is reasonable to ask the SSMer to justify special treatment for that subset that he'd favor. Given the homosexual emphasis that Chris has insisted upon, he is on the hook for justifying that bias. Most of the same-ex category is not gay and not homosexual. Most of nonmariage is populated by types of relationships that are not homosexual and not gay. Why would he decenter these people from his agumentation and rhetoric?
0 comments,:
Post a Comment