Tradition has no Inherent Value

Every position, whether it be political, moral or merely preferential, should be able to be defended with evidence. This is because positions that cannot be supported with facts are often merely emotional and can be devastatingly dangerous in a polarized world. A prime example of this is changes in traditional norms hindered by nothing more than animosity toward change itself. Take same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general in the United States. Conservative groups that wanted to confine marriage to traditional norms were tasked with presenting evidence to show how same-sex marriage had directly harmed society in a way that should prevent it from being legally recognized. Instead, they presented mere opinions as to what God’s will is and the flawed notion that God created the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman. I say “flawed”, because nothing could be further from the truth. Legal marriage, as opposed to “holy matrimony” (religious marriage, which was not at issue whatsoever), is certainly an institution recognized by the State. No deity need recognize a marriage for it to be considered legitimate. There is no requirement for any kind of connection to religious beliefs or adherence for a marriage to be recognized by the State. Thus, it seems obviously erroneous to claim that God created or must approve of civil marriages, as the State already approves of marriages between atheists without any belief in deities of any kind. These marriages have nothing to do with God and the participants have no desire for their union to be recognized in any religious way. Civil marriage is necessarily a man-made institution recognized by the State, regardless of anyone’s subjective opinion as to what the will of God may or may not be. Religious groups and their members are obviously free to have their own opinions about such marriages, but their approval is in no way meaningful or necessary.

There was an alternative argument based on procreation presented. In short, it contended that marriage was designed for procreation and that children are better off living with their biological mother and father. Unfortunately, this tradition was not based on evidence, but, instead, on unsubstantiated opinion. First, civil marriages have often been recognized where procreation is impossible for various reasons from infertility to personal choices to not have children. Marriage is a legally binding contract recognized by the State regardless of whether children are or will be involved. The argument that children are better off living with their biological parents is also flawed to say the least. It is nothing more than a distraction, as same-sex marriage could not possibly effect who children are raised by, and proponents of this argument were unable to present any rational for it. Sure, for the most part, children are probably better off being raised by their biological parents. But, are same-sex couples going to be taking children away from loving biological parents? If same-sex marriage is not recognized, are homosexuals going to just give up on their sexual orientation and decide to procreate with a member of the opposite sex? Of course not. So, what about children in need of adoption? There are many children without biological parents in the picture. In fact, there are so many of these children that there aren’t nearly enough heterosexual willing would-be parents to adopt them. Thus, the choice is often between willing homosexual couples ready to adopt or to remain in the system and without dedicated parents.

Proponents of traditional marriage claim that children are better off being raised by heterosexual parents. But, when asked for supporting evidence, they were unable to provide any kind of meaningful statistics or facts that showed this to be true. Again, there are far too many children who need to be adopted and far too few parents to adopt them. So, contrary to some fraudulent claims, it isn't a choice between same-sex parents and heterosexual parents, but, rather, a choice between same-sex parents and no parents at all. So, proponents of this argument are burdened with proving that children are better off in foster homes or orphanages than in homes with loving, same-sex parents. And, needless to say, they failed to present any evidence to support this seemingly outlandish claim.

Among many other factors, the Supreme Court recognized the legality of same-sex marriage because proponents of traditional marriage were unable to present any evidence as to why it shouldn’t. On the other hand, the opposition was able to provide fact-based arguments based on their right to be free from discrimination, their ability to adopt children without available biological parents, and their will to enter into consensual marriage contracts for their own reasoning and benefit. The mere fact that traditional marriage was, yes, “traditional” was (surprisingly enough) not sufficient to refuse same-sex couples the right to be married under the law (not God). Because marriage is a legal contract under the state, as opposed to “holy matrimony”, between consenting adults entered into for a plethora of possible and recognized reasons, arguments based on tradition being preserved for tradition’s sake don’t hold up. It is preposterous to claim that something should only be done in a certain way simply because it has only been done in that way for a long time, especially when a couple’s pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon as a result.

Other traditions of the past that have been recognized as unreasonable are racism based on skin-color, segregation based on race, specific roles sexes, sexism, arguments from ignorance for the existence of God (“God of the gaps”), addiction as moral shortcoming, monarchies, among many others. All of these were assumed to be correct simply because they were the “way of the world”, having been done for generations upon generations. But, through the use of reason and a willingness to strive for justice, we realized that these traditions were vastly unfair and we worked to change them. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t allow his movement to be hindered simply because people needed more time to come to their own realization that racism and segregation was morally wrong. He saw that immediate attention and change was necessary, no matter how hard it would be for some to deal with. Those traditions that needed to be abolished had no merit, and, thus, had no value.

My point with this is, again, that tradition has no inherent value; not that all traditions are without merit, but, simply, that the mere fact that something has been done in a certain way for a long time does not support that practice as being justified in any way. Further, we, as a society, should not allow the comfort of those who adhere to certain traditions hinder us from fighting for change we consider to be, not only justified, but necessary. Unjust traditions and traditional standards can’t be changed subtly or with incremental nudges. Successful change is going to be painful for those who cling to such traditions but are unable to defend them with anything more than claims regarding God’s will. So, watch out!

#tradition #religion #samesexmarriage #marriage #God #LeibowsWorld #Philosophy #Culture