Saturday, November 6, 2010

Standards and Effects

Declares a guy with street affectations in this video, "we have got to have a standard, otherwise everyone in our society will be affected":



The legalization of gay marriage is, of course, the foul specter that will affect "everyone in our society" -- somehow. True to the pro-inequality position, the guy with the street affectations and the other speakers in the video don't bother listing the effects, let alone specifying why we should care about the effects, let alone detailing an argument (philosophical, political, sociological, or other) that links the suggested cause with the unnamed effects.

I gather they're bad effects, but are they unjust effects? Oppressive effects? Painful effects? Will our hair fall out, our skin get blotchy? Will our cats fill their litter boxes more frequently? Will Christmas move to an every-other-year schedule? Will more college football programs adopt a garish shade of turf, as they have done in Boise?

With respect to the African-Americans given speaking parts in the video, they mention their offense at comparisons between gay people and racial minorities. They had me at "offense" -- this is not about offensiveness. It is about legal equality -- it is about whether everyone, or only some, may participate in the same obligations and rights under the law, or whether the law will demarcate in-groups and out-groups based on unjust prejudices. Whether people take pride, offense, or some other emotional stake in the achievement of equality is of no final importance, though it does explain why people take notice and get involved in the first place.

Since the guy said we need a standard, here's a standard: free, autonomous people associate, bond, and join together pursuant to their visions of happiness, limited only by the demand not to harm or restrict others in the enjoyment of their pursuit.

4 comments:

Sean G said...

"Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, even before any religion was established." I wonder what her basis for this is? She states it like it's some commonly known fact, when in reality it is no such thing. And of course the ridiculous boogeyman of incest or polygamy is raised, as if those are even on the table.

And how can these "Christians" lie like they are? Six year-old children being forced to learn about gay sex behind their parent's backs, before they change gender identities? Good lord!

And that poor black girl, "I can't change being black, I was born that way." Well, thanks for contradicting your own argument right off the bat there.

Wow. I hope I don't meet any "amazing" Christians like those, as I prefer the Christians who actually follow the ideas of Jesus, that is to love their neighbor and not judge.

Mike said...

Dale, I hate to do this, but....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-17/red-is-the-new-green-for-eastern-washington-s-money-making-football-field.html

Astasia said...

I'm glad Cafe Philos directed me to this blog.

I appreciate that there are people who can see through the hypocrisy that is the anti-same sex marriage arguments.

Dale said...

@Mike, I wish you'd hated doing it a little more. ;-)

@Astasia, thanks -- I have been for marriage equality since long before it was cool.

@Sean, I'm unimpressed with all claims to the effect of "I follow the teachings of Jesus." Jesus's teachings are a mess. It can make sense to cite particular sayings attributed to him -- something something sparrows therefore god totally cares, love thy enemies, give no thought to the morrow, etc -- and connect it with a moral decision, but considered as a whole, there's no coherent body of teachings to follow.

What would a faithful follower of Jesus do? Quit his career, walk around making grandly obscure claims, contradict himself, urge a significant break from existing orthodoxies, attract a lot of attention (pro and con), do a few good deeds here and there. Jesse Ventura comes to mind, and he's about 75% jackass.