Destruction of Traditional Values Should be Legal, Safe, and Rare

It is my proposal for discussion that social progress must, necessarily, destroy some traditional values. It is my hope that this destruction will only take place where those traditional values are themselves causing destruction, hopefully unintentionally.

Is there anything wrong with being homosexual or bisexual? Is there anything wrong with being polyamorous? Is there anything wrong with being an atheist? Is there anything wrong with these things in themselves?

Is there anything wrong with a society that accepts homosexuals on equal terms? Is there anything wrong with a culture that accepts non-monogamy on equal terms with monogamy? Is there anything wrong with a world that does not care if a person does not believe in spurious metaphysical claims?

Society will change as the individuals that make it up change. And as we see the principles of moral behavior projected onto these new personal behaviors of people, we would be remiss…no, we would be hypocritical…not to apply the same values of fairness and justice upon the similar social structures.

Marriage, through most of history, has been defined as being between the opposing sexes. The reasons make sense, as in order to raise children it is the minimal requirement that one man and one woman get together and make babies. And as society began to complicate and settle, allowing people to explore more complicated relationships, it should be of no surprise that some would create situations, both unintended and eventually intended, that would forgo the status quo of what was done usually.

Question #1:

Is it the case that, purely on an interpersonal level, that relationships can be made to work between two people of the same sex, three people, and can people live fulfilling lives without religion or faith? More generally, can people live happy, productive, and moral lives not following the normal paths? Does eschewing traditional worldviews and values necessitate that life will become difficult, perverse, etc?

I think that the answer is quite clearly that casting off traditional values and lifestyles can often have its difficulties, but that it is very possible to live fulfilling lives. The success of the attempts will vary depending on other social considerations.

Question #2:

Is it reasonable to expect that individuals living their lives according to their values will not be noticed by, inspire, and inform other people of alternative possibilities of life? That is, even if these non-traditional people never write a blog, protest, try to pass legislation, run for office, etc in order to support their non-traditional lifestyle, will they simply go unnoticed?

I think the answer to this question is a mixed bag. I think that their are many things that people do that go unnoticed. The reasons are varied, but it is clear that there are many things that remain unseen, unspoken of at work or at parties (at least mixed parties), and so go largely unnoticed. I think that eventually the general awareness of such things happening is nearly impossible to contain, even if the specific people and places are not known.


When non-traditional ideas spread to so-called “mainstream” culture, what happens? That is, when the cat is out of the bag what do people say? Again mixed bag. Depending on how close to home, emotionally, religiously, and morally (yes, all of these things are related) these non-traditional ideas are. Thus things that challenge “normal” views which people have close emotional associations with such as religion, sexuality, family, etc, the more likely the challenge will be taken personally and thus cause a defensive reaction.

This means that the issue becomes of social consequence, but only because it is a strongly personal issue that challenge ideas of society.


Does it make any sense to believe that changes at the personal level, things that individuals do, should not often change society eventually?

Any change that happens on the personal level has the potential to eventually transform social norms. Why? Personal transformations are the building blocks of social change. Thus as interpersonal relationships change in nature, it is only natural that those people will begin to redefine concepts which their relationships use. Concepts like ‘family,’ ‘marriage,’ and ‘even ‘love’ will take on different meanings in the context of their new experiences.

Atheists have been around for thousands of years. We didn’t always call ourselves that, but we were around. For most of human history, religion, politics, and economics were tied together in ways that they are not any longer in much of the world. One of the many factors of this change is the concept of separation of church and state, which was a radical change in the US Constitution but which was probably inevitable to happen. Thus, the personal changes of small numbers of people that didn’t believe in gods were able, eventually, to demand political representation that would have been nonsensical in prior eras.

Same sex marriage would have been a concept that made no sense hundreds of years ago. Even in times and places where gay sex was acceptable even if it was generally done behind closed doors, the concept of marriage had a meaning surrounded by family and property, and not so much with love, tax breaks, sharing of medical benefits, or simple interpersonal bonding as it does not for many people.

But as these concepts began to be associated with marriage, the institution itself began to change. This was not an intentional effort to change what marriage is, it is just part of the process of history and culture. Thus, when men who wanted to cohabit, adopt children, or just declare to the world their love for one another were able to say so in the open without excessive fear of social reprisal, of course they want to the same legal rights as straight people. It just followed by simply application of human rights to what the concept of marriage had become.

That is, it was not the homosexuals and lesbians that redefined marriage, it was the changing culture that had already done so through changes in women’s rights, economic shifts, and changes to sexual culture in general, and gays simply saw that it naturally applied to them because they were doing exactly what many straight couples were doing.

The fact that certain elements of society had not realized that this change had occurred, realized and disagreed with the changing tides of said change, or simply don’t want people not like them to have the same rights for simple bigotry is an unfortunate aspect of this slow social change.

There will inevitably be some people who are operating under a different set of assumptions, value different and sometimes older concepts, or for whom the older ideas are so important that to see them challenges is a personal, cultural, and possibly theological affront.

But the cultural change is not an attack against them. Rather, the reactionary elements of culture are an attack of a change already in process. And while the change that happens will actually destroy their values in many ways, it is not done in order to achieve this end.

It is somewhat like what happens when a man who has spent a lifetime collecting and adoring vinyl records finds that music is no longer produced in this form. It affects him personally and his offense is understood and we feel for his loss, but the world has moved on. He will still be able to find others who share this love, old stores that still have some left-over copies of a favorite album, but the time has passed. He can try to prevent it, but it is likely in vain.

And certainly there will be true losses, true beautiful tragedies in the loss of certain constraints, values, and of lost traditions, but this is part of the human condition. I lament these looses, but at the same time I celebrate the process of culture, as I hope it will lead to greater personal freedoms and move away from bigotry and fear that are often the result of clinging to traditions, even if said traditions contain their own beauty as well.

Within the lives of people who hold more traditional views are great points of beauty, love, and genuine humanity in its greatest forms. But sometimes to hold onto such ideas, despite their beauty, is to cause unseen and unintended harm that made necessary the change that threatens them.

Traditional concepts of marriage was not originally intended to discriminate against people, but it does. Traditional values of meaning, morality, and society was not, I don’t think, originally intended to create social and cultural difficulties for atheists, but they do. These institutions, with all of their beauty, were not intended to have the consequences they have, but they have those consequences.

By being socially conservative about many things, one is trying to hold onto to beautiful and meaningful things. These are things that define large segments of society in ways that may not be replaced easily, if at all. But as we pull back and look at the affects of traditional policies, definitions, and values, we find that they have consequences that many, and I would hope most, of social conservatives would not want to impose upon people if they understood the affects.

I will continue to hope that the intention behind people is to preserve what is important to them, and not to destroy what is important to others.

I say that because as a social liberal, I do not intend to destroy the values of conservatives, I must admit that this is an unintentional result of the struggle for fairness, liberty, and positive social change. We do not wish to destroy traditional values except where those values threaten greater liberty for all.

I do not challenge tradition blindly. I challenge it because tradition sometimes challenges my freedoms, as well as the freedoms of many others. I encourage people to keep all challenges in check, just in case we overstep our bounds. But I do believe that many traditions will have to be destroyed to make room for improved traditions that cannot live alongside the ones being protected by conservatives.


3 thoughts on “Destruction of Traditional Values Should be Legal, Safe, and Rare

  1. Questions:

    What legitimate State interest is furthered by granting marital rites to same-sex couples? The State interest in hetero marriage is that they are the nurseries of the nation and there is statistically no better method of producing and raising children to healthy adulthood than being brought up by both biological parents. Tax benefits etc. are meant to ease the emotional and financial costs of child-rearing.

    What can be learned about the psycho-dynamics of hetero relationships by observing the interaction of same-sex couples? Is it not possible that hetero children raised by gay parents may have lower social intelligence at least with respect to male-female courtship?

    Are there any limits you would allow the State to place on people otherwise legally allowed to enter binding contracts when it comes to marriage? For example could a gang of thugs get married together so that they could invoke spousal privilege and not testify against each other in court? How for do we go or is the notion of a culture possessing any favored or disfavored forms of behavior abhorrent to you?

    “By being socially conservative about many things, one is trying to hold onto to beautiful and meaningful things.”

    If this is true, why call such opinions “disgusting”?

    “I must admit that this is an unintentional result of the struggle for fairness, liberty, and positive social change.”

    You’re presupposing without a shred of evidence that what you are arguing for is “positive” social change, social conservatives differ and the evidence is on their side, thus they are in effect being more rational here. Technically with respect to SSM it is fair. I can’t marry a man and neither a gay man. And about liberty, gays can live together and have sex and adopt and so on, where is the threat to liberty here? What you are demanding is State sponsorship of SSM, this is only justifiable if you can provide a compelling State interest to do so. All of the evidence from nations where SSM is legal indicates there is none-zip-zero.

    “I challenge it because tradition sometimes challenges my freedoms, as well as the freedoms of many others”

    What freedoms of yours are being challenged? With respect to SSM you are the one demanding that in many cases an unwilling majority fork over monies in the form of the 1049 Federal benefits of marriage to a tiny minority that does not do its fair share of producing future tax-payers that will ultimately be paying for many things including the majority’s social-security (one of those 1049 benefits)

    “But I do believe that many traditions will have to be destroyed to make room for improved traditions that cannot live alongside the ones being protected by conservatives.”

    What evidence can you provide that your “improved traditions” are as advertised?

    Again with respect to SSM in the Scandinavian countries and Canada where it is legal only a paltry minority of gays opt for it. In fact according to several Scandinavian sociologists “The goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark … was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality.” That is not the proper role of public policy, legislating “social approval” is creepy.

    In those countries and the states here where its legal many gays feel its added unnecessary pressure on their relationships (are we or are we not going to get hitched?;If we don’t feel like getting married are we really in love?…) Others feel its too “assimilative” and like the thrill of their outsider status. One thing is for certain nobody can point out how the State benefits from it though its easy to pint out concrete examples of how it harms it.

    You are doing the wrong thing here, you are reasoning from very vague and abstract notions about culture to conclusions about the pragmatic stipulations of public policy. This is why your arguments are so weak. If you want to take a strong opinion on a public policy issue you need to craft logical arguments that follow from the law and that are based on empirical data, otherwise you’re asking people to believe you and take your side based on “faith” and I really don’t think that’s something a guy in your position wants to do.

  2. After your two late night messages to me (please stop calling me), I no longer hold any significant reverence for your opinions. Your personal issues seem to be affecting your conclusions. So you didn’t have a good healthy family life growing up, that doesn’t mean that all alternative experiences with families are bad. It doesn’t mean that “normal” families are always good, either. Just think about how all those gay kids growing up with hetero families will be shorted in not understanding gay relationships….

    This is a blog where I talk about things and propose ideas, not an academic attempt to make an air-tight case. Some of the questions you asked I answered in the original post. This is why I always wonder about your reading comprehension.

    I will no longer debate you on this topic. You need help. Get it, then come back.

  3. I bring every piece of evidence to bear on a subject, even personal. I wanted you to consider some of the personal angles that might effect your judgment but didn’t want to publicize them thats why I called you.

    You never answered a single one of these questions, you never addressed State interests, legitimate marital limits, psycho-dynamics, challenges to your freedoms (which are most likely defended by Traditionals), evidence your new traditions are improvements, and so on. You haven’t made an air-tight case you’ve made no case at all. You presented an opinion, and one that rests almost entirely on faith.

    To be honest its not one that I really disagree with, but the internet has far too many people opining on topics they’ve barely researched and thought about, this phenomenon is increasingly effecting the media, public discourse, culture etc. This is a very disturbing trend which, unlike SSM, will almost certainly have long-term negative consequences. You can do better than be part of the problem, particularly if your commitment to reason is genuine (not everything we’d like to be true or good, is in fact true or good).

    Oh and gays are not at as much of a loss when brought up by straight families with respect to courtship. They already know many of the psycho-sexual subtleties of the objects of their affection because they possess many of those same traits themselves. When they are brought up by bigots that think their lifestyle is immoral they are no doubt unjustly harmed. But that won’t be remedied by SSM, and more importantly statistically the overwhelming majority of gays themselves will have straight children, not vice versa.

Comments are closed.