Flint
Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Ghost,
OK, I'm willing to go this way.
| Quote | | Can a principled objection be made to same sex marriage? |
In an abstract sense, yes it can. What we have here is battling principles. On the one hand, we have equality under the law for all consenting adult citizens. On the other hand, we have the principle that marriage is a compact (sanctioned by the state, to be sure) that *by definition* is between one man and one woman (not necessarily voluntarily, not necessarily adults or (in parts of the world) even *born yet*, policies vary but we call all these marriages). In other words, marriage is a *definition* we are trying to change.
And I can understand the argument that changing this definition means opening it up to change, which might let in all kinds of awful things like group marriages, or coerced marriages, or marriages involving minors, etc. Which in turn is based on the assumption that it's not possible to save the village without destroying it.
| Quote | | the advocate of gay marriage may assume that his opponent is deluded, self-serving, evil, or some combination of the above. |
These terms are excessively harsh, perhaps. As I wrote, from what I've seen, the opponent dislikes change, thinks such a change risks *the unknown!*, which is always terrifying. No matter how clearly it appears that such a change in the definition of marriage will change nobody's behavior, and bestow benefits without cost, this appearance *might* be wrong.
| Quote | | The opponent must assume that gay marriage would increase unhealthy behavior, a position that is prima facie irrational and self-refuting. |
Well, it's certainly a stretch. But I think this sort of argument allows the camel's nose into the tent. Healthy behavior is a matter of public health, not a matter of civil rights.
| Quote | | Do gay people behave badly? |
This question is DOA. Gay people certainly behave in ways straights do not. Some of those ways present different, perhaps even more severe, health hazards. But "badly" is a *purely subjective* assessment. Do sky divers or bungee jumpers behave "badly" in light of the risks they take? What standard are we using here?
Well, let's say that drunk drivers are behaving "badly", because they represent a public danger. If I understand your argument, you find strong parallels here. Gays are like drunks - they recklessly place society in danger by being irresponsible. Where I get confused is, why don't you advocate that drunk drivers lose their right to marry? The punishment is no LESS appropriate.
| Quote | | no one can objectively classify acts as good or evil unless such acts infringe other people's rights. Voluntary sex, no matter how common, clearly infringes on nobody's rights. |
I smell a 'penumbra' argument here, similar to the one made about guns. So long as nobody is hurt, say the conservatives, responsible people should not lose their right to carry because irresponsible people are violent. And the liberal argues, if guns were rare ipso facto gun violence would be rare. No social policy exists in a social vacuum; there's always a tradeoff because there are always indirect downstream effects.
And so we have intelligent, sincere, informed people who feel that morality in the US has been heading downhill for a long time, as society becomes more and more irresponsibly permissive, and equally competent people celebrating the gradual emancipation from the bad old days of institutionalized discrimination and favoritism.
| Quote | | Even if they do, it's no one else's business, and drugs are available to combat most diseases - including AIDS. Infection rates are under control, and the gay community is much more cautious today than in the past. |
Again, this is a different subject, and probably a red herring. We can generalize here and say "Let's deny marriage to anyone *similar to* anyone else who does antisocial things." Whether or not this penalty is even remotely relevant.
What seems to make marriage denial relevant is the a priori conviction that gays are undesirable icky people, that God hates them, that they *deserve* to be denied ordinary civil rights because they are *different* and life is much more pleasant if we keep them in their place, which is as far away from US as possible. NOW, the task is to find a "principled" and at least remotely plausible rationalization for this policy. Good thing gays in the US are still the primary vector for HIV. After all, we needed SOME excuse.
| Quote | | This is because gay feelings are biologically driven to a certain extent. |
By all indications, it's harder to cure being gay than being fundamentalist Christian.
So the argument seems to be:
1) Promiscuity is bad, period. Just bad. Trust me, bad.
2) Gays are more promiscuous than straights, *except* straights with equal access, who behave the same way. But even those straights can marry because, well, because.
3) If we sanction NON-promiscuous gay relationships, gays will become even MORE promiscuous. Trust me on this. I know. Maybe the married gays won't, but we'll send a social signal that being promiscuous is better than it used to be, and *everyone* will become promiscuous, and disease will run rampant, which is the punishment we deserve for becoming LESS moral rather than MORE moral, and just BEING gay is immoral, much less ACTING gay.
Now we continue the elaborate dance. You have presented a fairly long list here of support for civil rights. Clearly, you don't consider this support sufficient to override whatever your reasons are for denying them. And those reasons seem to be "I know this is wrong." And that core conviction being impermeable, all else follows.
|
