There’s all truth about politics, which is presumably too large for the human mind to encompass, and then there are the truths we need in our current situation. There’s a lot of that too, but more manageable. One of the big names you need here is Hayek.
Hayek is not as well known as he should be, which is a fierce indictment of so-called “education” in our society. He devoted a lot of attention to, and provided thorough intellectual grounding for, the idea that is often summed up with two words: Chesterton’s Fence. The brief version: A “reformer” comes across a fence in a road and says, “I see no reason for this fence; we should knock it down now!” Chesterton says, “No, you fuckwit, because someone probably put it there for a reason. Fences don’t just spring out of the ground at random.”
A fence is produced by human beings purposefully, but the metaphor of Chesterton’s Fence generalizes to human institutions that arise and are selected through a non-purposeful process of cultural evolution. The phrase “Chesterton’s fence” is more memorable than Hayekian phrases like “spontaneous order,” “cultural evolution,” “dispersed knowledge,” “the results of human action but not human intention,” etc. But you haven’t really understood Chesterton fully until you’ve absorbed a certain measure of Hayek.
Exposition like Hayek’s is necessary to satisfy people who are concerned about careful arguments, as opposed to vivid metaphors. And it is needed when our enemies— totalitarians of all kinds— demand such arguments. (They don’t actually care about arguments, but they often pretend they do for tactical reasons.)
There are irrefutable arguments that are summed up in the phrase Chesterton’s Fence. Some of the social phenomena for which the Fence metaphor is relevant are things we understand in detail, but some we can’t understand in full detail— or at least we don’t yet— and so we must rely on the Fence as a general principle.
Two examples of such phenomena we understand in detail are the ways that market economies work— see Hayek’s essay The Use of Knowledge in Society — and the red-pill Darwinian explanation of traditional institutions to deal with female behavior.
An example of a recent social innovation whose effects are not understood in detail is homosexual “marriage.” This has never existed in the western world and has been a very rare thing indeed in the world in general, if it has existed at all (discussion below). Why? The obvious response is, “Because it’s fucking absurd!” Yes, of course it is. But why should it be harmful? It doesn’t hurt the society, right? No, wrong. At least that must be the presumption. It must be the presumption on Darwinian grounds, because until around 1990, no one on planet Earth had ever seriously proposed the idea.
“Gay marriage” may be harmful because it dilutes the seriousness with which people regard all marriage. (It may be like shampoo commercials that tell you that you have a “right” to glossy, wavy hair: By trivializing the concept of rights, they weaken it.) Or it could just be that no one ever thought of it before now because such a manifestly idiotic idea was unthinkable. (A married couple is a formally recognized mating pair, and obviously this is absurd for two members of the same sex.) But if it has been thought of and tried before, it was obviously lethal to the societies that tried it.
When it comes to such radical innovations we must rely on Chesterton’s Fence or we’ll uproot institutions that are necessary to our society’s survival. Social institutions that facilitate and protect reproduction are vital. A society cannot tamper with them and remain viable.
Some of these institutions may be impossible to replace if we destroy them. We may be dooming our societies to death if we uproot them. Chesterton’s Fence says to social innovators, “All the presumption is against you. And the fact that you don’t see any objections to your social engineering plans is not a point in their favor. Rather the opposite.”
The reason the lack of apparent objections presses against your pet social innovation is this: If there were known objections, you could, possibly, refute them. Chesterton himself allowed for this possibility. But the actual situation is this:
(1) You can see no objection to your pet innovation (“gay marriage” or whatever),
(2) No society has ever had it and survived.
That’s a daunting pair of facts, because (2) means there’s some reason not to have it, and (1) means whatever the reason is, it’s too subtle for you to understand it. In other words, this is above your intellectual pay grade. It may, indeed, be above all human beings’ pay grade.
Furthermore, homosexual marriage is not the kind of change that one could support by arguing that, say, technological change makes it viable now. What technological change? How is that relevant?
Some try to attack Chesterton’s Fence by saying it proves too much; if it were followed seriously it would preclude all innovation. But one, Chesterton himself explicitly disavowed this, and two, the Fence can be used to support practices that are universal or near-universal and to reject ideas that have never been followed.
You can’t use the Fence to oppose languages with loose word order because such languages have actually existed for thousands of years. You can use it to oppose e.g. women in fighting positions in the military, homosexual marriage, open borders, etc., because those things haven’t.
Discussion of the politically correct “History of same-sex unions” article at Wikipedia:
Summary: Hilariously desperate propaganda.
Wikipedia wants to convince you that same-sex marriage is reasonably common, or at least not unheard-of, in human history, but time and again they put forth an example, then are forced to qualify it as being explicitly temporary— i.e. not a marriage— or not actually condoned by religious authorities of the society, or— and this is so hilariously desperate— they just basically cave in and admit that it was just men fucking boys in the ass in ancient Greece, and involved no marriage whatsoever, and they try to finesse the issue by using the weasel word “union.” Or we get, “In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of ‘enbrotherment’ (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults…”
“In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.” This could mean anything, e.g. an apprenticeship, an adoption, a teacher accepting in loco parentis for a student.
My favorite example, though, is this: “Michel de Montaigne, a 16th-century French philosopher and prominent essayist, reports having heard a third-party description of a same-sex wedding occurring some years earlier…” In other words, “This one guy said he heard a rumor of a gay marriage…” When the advocates of a view are forced to resort to a single example which is third-hand hearsay, it’s because the verifiable facts do not support their claim.
The article also states,
“There are records of same-sex marriage dating back to the first century A.D. Nero was the first, though there is no legal provision for this in Roman Law, and it was banned in the Roman Empire in the fourth in a law of 342 A.D., but the text is corrupt, ‘marries a woman’ nubit feminam might be cubit infamen ‘goes to bed in a dishonorable manner with a man’ as a condemnation of homosexual behavior between men.”
This refers to Wikipedia’s claim that the Emperor Nero “married” a slave boy (or two), but provides only that example from Rome, and Nero anyway was insane. (He “married” the slave boy to replace a woman whom he, Nero, had murdered. He had his own mother killed. And he died by suicide by his own hand or by asking one of his courtiers to kill him.) This does not substantiate the claim that homosexual “marriage” was a normal part of that society. And indeed, below that the article just gives up and admits,
“Conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).”
[I am quoting Wikipedia’s citation for this last passage against the inevitable erasure of it by censorious SJW leftists:
Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford, 1969), pp. 24–28; Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford, 1991), pp. 43–49.; “Marriages where the partners had conubium were marriages valid in Roman law (iusta matrimonia)” [Treggiari, p. 49]. Compare Ulpian (Tituli Ulpiani 5.3–5: “Conubium is the capacity to marry a wife in Roman law. Roman citizens have conubium with Roman citizens, but with Latins and foreigners only if the privilege was granted. There is no conubium with slaves”; compare also Gaius (Institutionum 1:55–56, 67, 76–80).]