Friday, July 29, 2005
Ramifications
Gadfly's Muse had a wonderful piece yesterday addressing some of the arguements offered concerning same-sex marriage. Specficially, he addresses the argument that the prohibition of same-sex marriage causes undue suffering and victimizatiom.
He rightly argues that such suffering is also placed on those who find fulfillment and satisfaction in sexual practices more generally recognized as "wrong" - things like polygamy, incest, and beastiality. This is now a standard arguement in this debate, though GM does a better job with it than most.
The idea of a "victim class" is an entirely legal concept. It springs from the civil rights movement -- which correctly identified blacks as just such a class. Legally, with things like Affirmative Action, we went on to assign extra rights and benefits to memebers of that class. This legal concept was born out of the moral wrong that we did to blacks during the days of slavery and Jim Crow.
Since that time, much of the legal and social action in our nation has been spent trying to assign that same blessed legal designation to other groups - women, hispanics, the handicapped,....As the groups that sought this legal designation grew more and more morally neutral in terms of whether they "deserved" the designation, they begin to "gin up" specious moral arguments to justify themselves.
In light of such a process, it was inevitiable that the legal would begin to operate not just in the area of moral neutrality, but try to change the very boundaries of morality.
To my way of thinking, the root problem here lies in the initial legal definition of anyone as a "victim class." Blacks certainly deserved, morally, such a designation, but by attaching to that designation special legal rights and priviledges, it changed from being a form of societal repentance to just another incentive.
Prejudice still exists in some, but institutional prejudice is all but gone from this country. It is time to do away with the concept of a victim class. Rather than fight over expansion of the concept, let's fight to reduce it.
He rightly argues that such suffering is also placed on those who find fulfillment and satisfaction in sexual practices more generally recognized as "wrong" - things like polygamy, incest, and beastiality. This is now a standard arguement in this debate, though GM does a better job with it than most.
Nothing we have said about the pain of homosexual relationships is any different than the pain that may and often is present in those dealing with the other immoral activities I mentioned. Who is to deny the real desire that an adult may have for a child? Who is to say that an individual cannot find sexual release with an animal more satisfying than with a human? Who is to say that a person cannot truly love multiple partners? Who is to say that denying these individuals a legitimatized access to these pleasures does not cause them pain and suffering in exactly the same sense as that experienced by homosexuals who are denied theirs?He also argues that the legalization of same-sex marriage sets up the same suffering for those opposed to it as those now prohibited experience.
If you pride yourself on being liberal and governed by a rationally grounded principles and you are willing to classify others who disagree with you as bigots and narrow-minded fools - then apply your liberal and rationally grounded principles to the real pain and real suffering experienced by people who are motivated to do these things also. If pain and suffering are to be the criteria for moral decision making then expand it and apply it to every area where it fits. As I have repeatedly asked - if you distinguish between these activities - classifying some as immoral and therefore not to be recognized and others as not - then tell me why. The presence of pain and anguish in the life of the individual will not suffice to do so.
If homosexuality is socially instituted (formally speaking) then the victims become those who disagree that it is morally correct to do so. It is not a neutral act.What I find fascinating in all of this is how legal thought has begun to interact with moral thought. Let me explain what I mean.
The idea of a "victim class" is an entirely legal concept. It springs from the civil rights movement -- which correctly identified blacks as just such a class. Legally, with things like Affirmative Action, we went on to assign extra rights and benefits to memebers of that class. This legal concept was born out of the moral wrong that we did to blacks during the days of slavery and Jim Crow.
Since that time, much of the legal and social action in our nation has been spent trying to assign that same blessed legal designation to other groups - women, hispanics, the handicapped,....As the groups that sought this legal designation grew more and more morally neutral in terms of whether they "deserved" the designation, they begin to "gin up" specious moral arguments to justify themselves.
In light of such a process, it was inevitiable that the legal would begin to operate not just in the area of moral neutrality, but try to change the very boundaries of morality.
To my way of thinking, the root problem here lies in the initial legal definition of anyone as a "victim class." Blacks certainly deserved, morally, such a designation, but by attaching to that designation special legal rights and priviledges, it changed from being a form of societal repentance to just another incentive.
Prejudice still exists in some, but institutional prejudice is all but gone from this country. It is time to do away with the concept of a victim class. Rather than fight over expansion of the concept, let's fight to reduce it.
