Think about it. If I disagree with someone on foundations, why should I believe them on the consequences they predict? I’m going to use the above example for the purposes of discussion, but it could be any topic.
In the example, the speaker insists that the real reason for marriage equality is to destroy marriage. Unlike many people who have said that, no one has called for her to be boycotted, fired from employment, or excluded from the company of civilized people, so I’m using her for my example.
The example, given …. seriously?
I know a large number of married gay people. All of them are married because they value the institution of marriage. So why believe the activists who insist that they can destroy the institution by making it inclusive? Especially given that the change, so far, seems to have made marriage more regarded and stronger.
That principle extends to a number of other areas. There is not always a good reason to agree with people who you think are wrong. Think about it. You disagree with them because you think they are wrong. Does that mean that you should suddenly agree with their conclusions?
If you were a communist and someone praised flat earth theory as a means of destroying communism, would you think they were any more correct about the results than they were about the earth being flat? Would you conclude that non-communist societies that adopted flat earth theory were the greatest challenge communism could face? Or would you snicker?
[Speaking of communists, the Russian communists thought that civil rights movements would destroy the United States and sent those movements financial and other support. Needless to say, they were wrong and civil rights movements actually strengthened the United States. There were people who believed that the Russians were right. That was a mistake.]
Or think about the people who predicted that wide spread access to marijuana would destroy capitalism and be an end to entrepreneurship.
That spreading drugs would lead to peace and an end to violence.
That effect does not seem to be occurring in places where marijuana has been legalized or to places where drugs have spread.
Questions for our readers:
- When have you found yourself agreeing that someone you thought was otherwise crazy was right about the consequences of what they were arguing but wrong about everything else?
- When did it turn out they were right, and when did it turn out they were wrong?
- Where are other places where you might think people have fallen into the mistake of believing only the negative things that are predicted by those they disagree with?
Afterword. There was a very serious effort by people who wanted to destroy marriage and families to hijack the United Nations entities that they thought would aid them in that goal. It is a little known, and frankly bizarre in many ways, story that played out in New York at the United Nations headquarters.
But, most of their tools and methods, did not work. You don’t see an end to families or marriage as a result of their efforts (which were repulsed at the United Nations level but which were implemented other places). It is a fascinating case study.
Picture from wikimedia commons.
All of the above said, there are times that those who disagree with you are right on all points.
“Especially given that the change, so far, seems to have made marriage more regarded and stronger.”
I’m interested in the basis of this statement. Divorce and marriage rates seem to have continued in the same trajectory since the beginning of the century (both are declining, which are somewhat contradictory indicators of the strength of the institution).
I do find it interesting that those who opposed the ERA were right about expanded women’s rights leading to women combat positions in the military, fewer protections for women in divorce, and same-sex marriage, but were wrong that rejecting the ERA would prevent those things. They were also arguably wrong about how much people would care about those outcomes or the overall effect on society.
I’m very interested in the U.N. story Stephen. More please.
I’m with handlewithcare. You can’t throw out that tidbit and leave us wondering. Sounds so bizarre…
All.
The UN thing is the genesis behind:
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/mflrp/
I need to rustle up more on that point.
But I don’t consider most people who talk about the Church discussions about an attack on the family competent unless they are aware of how that entire event colored thinking.
This group as well was molded somewhat by that event:
https://www.iclrs.org/
More at:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3917
From a non-LDS site
It marks the beginning of the LDS/Catholic cooperation on this issue. (Though this essay doesn’t discuss that, just a growing awareness of the issue).
It is a minor, but significant historical point.
But it had lasting implications for what people believed was at stake and the movements they saw as tools.
I offer no conclusions about where things might have gone, but for coordinated and effective push-back, I’m just noting the historical footnote.
If that makes sense.
It is important context on the issues.
You can see the events around 2001 leading to Prop 8 in 2008 and the agendas and statements as flowing from the pushes that appear to have started in the 1990s.
It is fascinating since the public seems to have missed them all.
Which gets us more than a little off track.
My point was that while the one group saw same sex marriage as a key component to destroying families and marriage, just because they thought that is no more believable than the position that marriage and families need to be destroyed.
Their tools should not be accepted as hostile to families any more than we accept the rest of their arguments or that we agree with the soviets that civil rights will destroy America.
Great points. Thank you.
Great points. Thank you.
I’m trying but not much of this post turns into meaning for me.
“If I disagree with someone on foundations, why should I believe them on the consequences they predict?”
There is no should. People believe other people usually for non-rational reasons anyway. I presume by “believe” that you mean those things the truth of which cannot immediately be known or tested, and which you either take on faith, or reject also on faith.
“In the example, the speaker insists that the real reason for marriage equality is to destroy marriage.”
The word “marriage” no longer has the predictable meaning it once had. Whether than constitutes destruction depends a lot on what for any particular person it once meant. For me the word meant the social institution of human reproduction and I’m pretty sure that’s what it meant for a very long time. Associated with that is quite a lot of cultural norms pertaining to property, inheritance, implied power of attorney, but all of that revolves around its actual purpose which is human reproduction and the aquisition and protection of the assets useful in that purpose.
“I know a large number of married gay people.”
I might, but since I have no idea what *you* mean by “married” it tells me nothing.
“All of them are married because they value the institution of marriage.”
Without knowing what you, or they, think the word means or what the institution is, this means nothing.
“So why believe the activists who insist that they can destroy the institution by making it inclusive?”
It is not destroyed; it simply becomes one of many institutions; some reproductive, some not; impossible to say why an institution with no purpose *exists*. No longer is there a word for the institution whose purpose is human reproduction. That word has been co-opted to now include other purposes. “Gay” once meant happy and carefree. That word also has been co-opted and now it is impossible to say “gay” without at the same time providing some context so that I know whether you mean happy and carefree or homosexual.
For instance: married gay people could be a young man and woman, very happily joined for the purpose of human reproduction. They are married and they are gay. Only knowing the usual context of discussion on this blog suggests it might be something else.
“Think about it. You disagree with them because you think they are wrong.”
That’s a pretty good reason to disagree!
“Does that mean that you should suddenly agree with their conclusions?”
There is no should. If I think a person is wrong it is unlikely I will suddenly agree with their conclusions; but then, that is also not reason to disagree. A conclusion can still be correct even if the argument is faulty.
“If you were a communist and someone praised flat earth theory as a means of destroying communism, would you think they were any more correct about the results than they were about the earth being flat?”
Say what? Communism cannot be destroyed; it is a concept and concepts cannot be destroyed. An implementation can be altered, which in one sense is destruction since the old thing no longer exists, but a new thing exists, sometimes with the same name as the old thing.
“Speaking of communists, the Russian communists thought that civil rights movements would destroy the United States and sent those movements financial and other support. Needless to say, they were wrong and civil rights movements actually strengthened the United States.”
Clearly this depends almost entirely on what you consider a proper “strong” United States. The United States isn’t actually stronger and is rapidly losing its influence in world events. Perhaps you meant that you like it better.
“Or think about the people who predicted that wide spread access to marijuana would destroy capitalism and be an end to entrepreneurship.”
It will for some persons; but capitalism is a concept and concepts cannot be destroyed. Entrepreneurship is also a concept and cannot be destroyed. On the other hand, Millenials hitting the bong in the basement are not likely to be entrepreneurs or capitalists; so the practice of captialism, in aggregate, would seem to be lessened. Combine that with the Green New Deal and watch out.
“That spreading drugs would lead to peace and an end to violence.”
Indeed. It would take many drugs. Widespread use of aggression-inhibiting drugs would lead to peace for a while. The problem would seem to be how to compel the people that would most benefit from aggression reduction to reduce what they likely consider their reason for existing.
“That effect does not seem to be occurring in places where marijuana has been legalized or to places where drugs have spread.”
You have not specified what kinds of drugs (other than marijuana) you had in mind. Many legal drugs, such as methamphetamine salts (Adderal), have substantial side effects likely to provoke aggression and violence.
“When have you found yourself agreeing that someone you thought was otherwise crazy was right about the consequences of what they were arguing but wrong about everything else?”
Never. I do not know anyone that is wrong about everything except only one thing.
“When did it turn out they were right, and when did it turn out they were wrong?”
That presumes upon the correctness of my own judgment, a correctness not established. Thus right and wrong I cannot determine; I can only identify agreement or disagreement. As it happens I am usually right and I don’t worry much about other people being right or wrong.
“There was a very serious effort by people who wanted to destroy marriage and families to hijack the United Nations entities that they thought would aid them in that goal. “
Marxist flavored communism. The state will raise children, there will not be family or marriage. Considerable advances have been made in that direction. It hardly matters to “destroy” these things; it is equally effective to simply change the meaning of these words and dilute the social custom.
For Michael 2, “marriage” means sex. That’s it.
Not a view of “marriage” that I want, but, hey, different strokes for different folks. Fairly easy to dismiss the rest of his long comment if you think “marriage” might still be of value for infertile couples. Or if, say, love, commitment, and all that other stuff matters to you in a marriage.