Preserving Culture

Preservation of culture as an excuse for discrimination

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage or euthanasia here (for the record, I support both). I'm looking at how viable preservation of culture is as an excuse for infringements on human rights.


Earlier this week, Australia's openly atheist Prime Minister announced that she would not support the Green party's movements to legalize gay marriage and euthanasia, because “we have a Christian culture that we need to protect.”
A lot of people are suggesting that Bob Brown, leader of the Green Party, is the “real” PM, pulling the strings of Julia Gillard, the leader of the Labor Party and current PM of Australia. It seems to me that this announcement was more of a political play than anything else: PM Gillard wants to prove that she's not just Bob Brown's puppet. If anything, it's just costing her more of her (rapidly declining) support, pushing progressive Labor voters further toward the Greens camp, and more conservative voters toward the Coalition.

Regardless of whatever the political motivation, this argument strikes me as incredibly flawed, for two main reasons: discriminatory aspects of culture aren't worth preserving; and religious culture can (and should be) preserved without conforming to outdated doctrine.


Culture vs. Morality
Is an aspect of a culture that belittles a minority group worth preserving?
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, culture and its preservation isn't an “all or nothing” issue. Any given culture is a composite of lots of little details, most of which are absolutely worth preserving: history, architecture, art, and so on; but when it comes to something that is culturally established but wrong, its preservation does nothing for anyone. The people within the culture are directly affected (in the case of homosexual marriage, the problem is discrimination; for euthanasia, a lack of personal freedom), and it tarnishes the image of the culture to outside observers.
For all the importance of preserving culture, it is dynamic, and subject to evolution. For the better, one would hope.

Prior to 1865, it was a cultural norm in the USA to have African slaves. Obviously this is no longer the case; a negative aspect of American culture was actively not preserved, and the culture as a whole is better off for it. American culture is still American culture, only a more just and, overall, better version.
The same thing happened in 1967, when interracial marriage was made legal in the States. A discriminatory cultural norm stopped being preserved, but the culture was enhanced rather than destroyed.

The best way to preserve culture, as a whole, is to abolish aspects of it that no longer fit the sociology of the time. Not doing so will actually destroy the culture in the long run.



Religious Culture vs. Religious Law
Religion definitely has a major impact on culture (and vice versa, to a lesser extent). If you observe any culture, you can see the depth of religious influence in art, architecture, music, beliefs, opinions, lifestyle in general. If you go to Ireland or Italy, you'll see Catholic imagery. Go to England, USA, or Australia, and see Protestant influence. Islamic culture in the Middle East, Buddhist culture in China and Japan; any culture with a religious history will demonstrate influence from that religion.

However, religious culture and religious law are not directly linked. If you listen to comments like Gillard's about preserving culture, you'll get the impression that not conforming to (usually well outdated) religious law will simultaneously destroy the elements of culture that that religion is responsible for, and consequently the whole culture itself will implode.
This is, simply, not true. Choosing to legalize gay marriage, even though it's wrong according to the Bible, won't suddenly make all the churches in Australia collapse and disappear. It won't change the history that has molded the culture into what it is today.


What does it all mean?
If anything, clinging to outdated concepts is the fastest way to a stale culture. If you want to preserve it, instead protect history so that we may learn from the past, and protect all that religion has offered to culture, without constricting the present, so that the culture doesn't get left behind and forgotten in an ever-changing world.

"Gay is unnatural" is a redundant comment

A lot of anti-gay types will make this statement: "Homosexuality is unnatural." That's the entirety of their anti-gay argument. "Unnatural". I'm not going to talk about about whether or not that's true (its not); but rather demonstrating why it really is irrelevant to the greater issue of gay rights, and why homophobes who use it need to at least come up with something a bit more original.

Lets pretend for a moment that being gay is in fact a personal choice, or a product of environment; that its unnatural. By using this as a reason for why homosexuality is wrong, you're making the (incredibly bold) statement that "unnatural = bad". Very little of what we utilise on a daily basis is natural. Computers, calculators, abacuses; all are man-made. Video games, television, books; the majority of our entertainment is a result of human ingenuity. Aeroplanes, cars, trains; any form of transport aside from walking is unnatural. Anything that makes use of a wheel is not in tune with nature. All of these unnatural developments have contributed so much to our society, that any typical modern person would be at a complete and utter loss without the effects of humans challenging nature. Thats just the tip of the iceberg of what fits into both the "unnatural" and "good/beneficial" categories.

And those are just products. Humanity as a whole is, by nature, selfish and competitive. At the very core, the basic primal goal of any creature, not just people, is to continue its existence. And yet, throughout history there have been countless examples of people going against this natural instinct and sacrificing themselves for the betterment of their peers. Often people who they have no connection with beyond sharing the same opinion on a matter. The aims of a movement supersede the natural instinct.

Of course, this is a direct result of humanity being granted, by nature, the blessing of sentience. However, if you're going to claim that this renders all of the above as being a result of nature, then you'd have to agree that any choice or social conditioning which leads to being gay is also resultant of nature.

By claiming that "unnatural = bad", you're also suggesting that "natural = good".
One only needs to look over the major news headlines of the last few years to see that this is completely false. Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes; all of these are terrible occurrences as a result of nature (they're called "natural disasters" for a reason.)
And no one can argue that nature is exclusively bad, given that at the very least it provides the essential requirements for life; and a lot more on top of that.

Clearly, then, the naturalness of something has absolutely no influence on whether something is right or wrong; the only factor in that is the end result of the product, characteristic or behaviour in question.
From this, I think we can safely assume that anyone who pulls out the "gayness is against nature" statement (I refuse to call it an argument) is simply a bigot for the sake of bigotry, relying on empty clichés because they have no legitimate argument to back up their claim.