John Milbank is a theologian at the University of Nottingham, and is one of the founders of the "Radical Orthodoxy" movement. Here is Milbank on the impossibility of gay marriage:
There was no demand for "gay marriage" and this has nothing to do with gay rights. Instead, it is a strategic move in the modern state's drive to assume direct control over the reproduction of the population, bypassing our interpersonal encounters. This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution.
Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very "grammar" of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction.
Read the rest
here.
13 comments:
More paranoid conspiracy mongering. If this is the best that you've got, you have no hope of changing the minds of the 80% of young Americans who support gay rights and convincing them their homosexual friends, relatives and co-workers are really evil facists bent on world domination. Its laughable.
Singring,
That's a very predictable response from you. Do you have an actual argument or are you just going to caricature him?
'That's a very predictable response from you. Do you have an actual argument or are you just going to caricature him?'
I'm not KyCobb, but obviously I second his comments.
Do you seriously think that an erticle blathering nonsense about the 'grammar of society' and the evil government trying to legislate paternity (apparently Milbank has slept through the past 50 years of Western civilization, I am shocked to learn) that boils down (even by the admission of the author) to nothing more than an argument of semantics is actually going to change the mind of any rational person?
The comments section on the article itself perfectly dissect Milbank's nonsense (e.g. the fact that non-married people have been procreating since time immemorial, without their children becoming 'wards of the state'), so no need to regurgitate it here.
I look forward to future court cases in which this kind of vapant verbosity is laughed out of court again when faced with the actual empirical evidence (i.e. gay marriage improves societal health), as was the case with the recent court case on prop 8 in California.
Oh, sorry KyCobb.
Singring,
apparently Milbank has slept through the past 50 years of Western civilization
Do you mean "slept through the last 50 years of the decline of Western civilization?
Singring,
nothing more than an argument of semantics is actually going to change the mind of any rational person?
This is what people say when they simply fail to grasp what someone else is saying. Sometimes that the fault of the person who is speaking and sometimes it's the fault of the person listening.
In this case I think it's the latter. You are so narrowly focused on empirical science that you can't understand basic philosophical discourse. To someone with only a hammer ...
Martin,
No apology necessary. However, he did articulate a silly conspiracy theory that no-one outside the right wing echo chamber would consider remotely plausible.
'This is what people say when they simply fail to grasp what someone else is saying.'
Here is what Milbank says in his article:
'The suspicion arises that the proposed legislation before the British Parliament seeks only an empty change in nomenclature - this is borne out by the fact that the intended circumscription of gay marriage is so diluted as to render it indistinguishable from gay civil partnership.
Why, then, should Christians worry, if this is all just a matter of terminology?'
So you see, Milbank himself is admitting that this is a debate in semantics.He is literally saying that changing the 'grammar of society' will be enough to see Western civilization unravel. Take that seriously if you will, my response is a long belly-laugh.
'You are so narrowly focused on empirical science that you can't understand basic philosophical discourse.'
Ye olde 'if I can't think of an intelligent response, I'll just claim my argument is too clever for you' ploy.
That one really works well in courtrooms, I hear. No need for empirical evidence there - God forbid we acquit the accused of a murder due to lack of evidence when a good old philosophical argument could have shown he was guilty all along!
It never ceases to amaze me that in the 21st century we have educated, intelligent people proposing we base policy on philosophical 'arguments' in lieu of readily available empirical evidence.
We have a long way to go...
KyCobb,
So the whole thing is just a conspiracy theory? It doesn't contain any argument? He's talking about is personal motivations behind what he says is happening?
Singring,
So you see, Milbank himself is admitting that this is a debate in semantics.He is literally saying that changing the 'grammar of society' will be enough to see Western civilization unravel.
Seriously? You can't recognize when someone is using a word analogously? Is there anything else you want to say that would prove my point about people with a scientistic mindset (one of the basic characteristics of which is almost exclusively univocal thinking) not understanding basic philosophical speech--or plain everyday speech that employs frequent analogical terms for that matter?
As for the rest of your faux analysis, I suggest reading the part after the word "however" in the seventh paragraph, which you either didn't read or intentionally ignored.
Martin,
If the silly conspiracy theory isn't important, why is that the part you put in your original post? The rest of it appears not even to be primarily about homosexual marriage at all, but rather a polemic against medical reproductive services using surrogates and donated sperm and eggs. It seems a uniquely Catholic obsession since millions of heterosexual couples use them to create happy families, and it isn't remotely plausible that such services won't continue to be used.
'Seriously? You can't recognize when someone is using a word analogously?'
A couple comments here:
1.) I will not be lectured on the proper use and identification of analogous language by someone who has repeatedly claimed that a scientist or medical doctor uses the word 'purpose' is committing to a philosophy of teleology. Sorry.
2.) A good analogy should be illustrative of the point one is trying to make. So what exactly is the 'grammar of society' in the sense of redefining marriage supposed to be analogous to? One would think the grammar of language, I presume?
But this analogy makes no sense at all! First, if we decided to change the grammar of language tomorrow, this might have an impact on how we structure sentences - but not what the words in those sentences actually mean. There's a difference between grammar and words (nouns, adjectives, verbs etc.) - maybe this is news to you and Milbank, I don't know. So I can only guess that the analogy Milbank was maybe trying to get at was the 'terminology of society'?
Second, changing the grammar of language in and of itself has no impact on society (or at least I can;t see how it would). If we change the grammar of 'I have a wife.' to 'I has a wife.', how would that impact on marriage, wives - anything?
This is incoherent nonsense, start to finish.
3.) I gave a specific quote where Milbank states frankly that the bill in question is - in his view - nothing more than an exercise is semantics.
In the rambling diatribe that follows, he nowhere - not once - gives any coherent, concrete indication of how changing the 'grammar of society' would actually impact society. As KyCobb points out, most of his points have to do with everything from surrogate motehrhood to identity based on parentage - but nowhere does he even imply how all of this has anything to do with gay marriage.
It's as if he thinks that saying the words 'guns', 'crime' and 'violence' in the same sentence amounts to a coherent argument in support of gun control.
If I am wrong and - as you claim - I am simply not educated or intelligent enough to spot the genius of Milbank's arguments, then please enlighten me. Just saying it over and over is just hand-waving.
Please point me to a specifi paragraph in the article where Milbank makes a coherent case as to how same-sex marriage will concretely negatively impact on society.
Singring,
"Please point me to a specifi paragraph in the article where Milbank makes a coherent case as to how same-sex marriage will concretely negatively impact on society."
Didn't you see it? As certain that night follows day, if marriage equality is legalized, parents will be required to adopt their biological children. So put on your tinfoil hat, get your arsenal together and head for the bunker, cuz the jackbooted thugs iz comin' for your chilluns!
Post a Comment