Voting dogs

Democracy breeds tolerance — just as repression breeds extremism:

Puppy shoots Florida man, deputies say

Dog put paw on gun’s trigger as owner tried to kill him

PENSACOLA, Fla. – A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver’s trigger.

Jerry Allen Bradford, 37, was being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to his wrist.
…

If you read to the end of Burgess-Jackson’s post it gets quite odd. He ends up saying that he would have no objection to gay ‘marriage’ if it were voted for by a democratic majority. What he objects to is courts themselves deciding independently, because that forces him to accept it. As if a democratic majority wouldn’t, also, be forcing him.

I think his argument, by the way, is missing some steps that I would want to see before deeming it an argument. EG, if a freshman came up with that I would say they didn’t know what constituted an argument, rather than that their argument was bad. But ‘argument’, I realise, is a term of art.

I know Christian from the ANU — we overlapped on the faculty there. He’s very decent, very smart and horrendously productive. I thought you were only allowed choose any two of those characteristics for yourself, but somehow he managed to snag all of them.

He also has the fourth key academic skill of accordion-playing.

In fact, he links approvingly to the map of counties by vote which makes it look like the vast majority of Americans voted for Bush. Oh, and he claims that Islamic terrorism is the most serious threat facing the world today (followed by people eating meat). To laugh is to give far too much credibility.

Yeah! Not to mention all those politically aware possums and alligators and skunks and whatnot. We have met the nonhuman voter and she is us.

Is there another argument out there?

4. Homosexuality is ickky. Anything that lends credibility to it or legitimizes it, such as allowing the government to recognize it on an equal legal footing as traditional marriage, might just encourage our innocent but curious children to start down that dark path of sodomy.

That’s the opponents’ real issue here; all this other stuff is window dressing. They simply don’t want to legitimize homosexuality in any way, lest they or their children be led astray by the temptations of a permissive decadent liberal society.

Marriage is an institution for child-rearing, which homosexuals are incapable of… Marriage is religiously defined.

Bzzt, wrong. Unless you’re living in a theocracy, that is. In no liberal democracy is marriage legislation established on religious principles, or with the defining goal and requirement of child-rearing.

Try again.

In no liberal democracy is marriage legislation established on religious principles.

Are you sure? An Italian friend of mine got married recently and I got an impression that the priest who married them gave them some kind of certificate that he later had to send to his townhall in order to get his marriage license.

I think the quasi-religious nature of marriage is exactly the problem; far fewer people object to civil unions. Every secular marriage – gay or straight or whatever should be called ‘civil union’. In addition, religious folks should be able to get married in their church, and their church can define ‘marriage’ in any way they prefer.

Abb1, I agree with you there that the problem is the religious view of marriage. I was just pointing out that legally speaking marriage has nothing to do with religion.

Rob is right, you got the wrong impression about marriages in Italy, no religious marriage is recognised by the state if the couple hasn’t also already signed the papers in the townhall, with the mayor. People get that done rather quickly before going to church, if they have a religious marriage. If they don’t have a religious marriage, then the main ceremony is the one in the townhall.

So basically it’s priests who require the burocratic procedures from the townhall to be completed before marrying people.

(In theory, you could indeed get married only in church, and of course it’d be only valid for the church, not the state, but nobody does it).

And you wonder why certain sanctimonious portions of the Left are being taken less and less seriously. One would think that the principle of charity applies if one is serious about engaging the opposite argument, no? It’d certainly help if liberals stop assuming that the people they’re arguing with are idiots, for a start.

Burgess-Jackson has written on gay marriage at length and on numerous occasions. Try here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. (There are probably more instances, but I haven’t looked.)

It is plausible that there are genuine public policy reasons for not allowing gay marriages. If we agree that the institution serves particular and important social functions – namely, that of raising children – then it behooves us to look at the arguments con instead of assuming that one position is ‘clearly’ or de facto correct.

One of the consequences of allowing gay marriage is that you’re according to an indeterminate class of people a whole host of pecuniary and legal rights. If you agree that parties to marriage are accorded these rights and benefits for important public policy reasons (i.e., to encourage child rearing), it follows that extending these benefits to a class of people who do not usually have children defeats the public policy purpose of the institution. (Burgess-Jackson addresses this argument and the ‘childless couple objection’ – so read it before you jump the gun). Of course, gay couples may adopt; but one may have reservations because we’re unsure as to the desirability of such deviant family units for children. Are same sex parents optimum for child rearing? Single parent families aren’t, so perhaps it is only prudent to ask questions of deviant family units. This is salient to the aforementioned policy reasons. In the absence of research into such concerns, should we really be rushing pell-mell into legalizing gay marriage? Moreover, would it be fair to the child? If society is not ready, and if stigma still attaches to same sex parenthood; should the state compel a minor into such an arrangement (considering that right of adoption is one such benefit that accrues to marriage)?

Furthermore, if gay marriage, why not polygamous marriage? Why not polysexual polygamous marriage? Or any of the permutations thereof? (Not as if this is entirely far-fetched: see Mormons) And would not the public policy arguments apply with even greater force against such deviant family units? Would not the list of Federal benefits accrue to these as well? What is to stop anyone engaged in a criminal conspiracy from getting married, and thus be protected by the right of spousal evidentiary immunity? What is to stop the Mafia from claiming evidentiary immunity under the auspices of a polygamous marriage? What is to stop any Tom, Dick or Harry exploiting the same right accorded to homosexual marriages? What about the economics of gay marriage? Do the costs exceed the benefits? (Posner on gay marriage I haven’t read but he probably has something interesting to say about this.) As to the pecuniary benefits, should not taxpayers, who fund these benefits – by proxy the electorate – be the ones who decide whether or not we should allow these benefits to accrue to an indeterminate (indeterminate because anyone can claim to be gay, or polygamous) class of people? This accords with Burgess-Jackson’s position – a corollary of the Federalist position on the issue.

I don’t think there are easy answers. Obviously, one may not agree with the aforementioned concerns, but at the least, one should acknowledge that the situation is a lot more complex than it first appears. Dismissing these considerations out of hand – something that the Left seems remarkably adept at nowadays (just note post-election inquests which point to a disconnect with ‘Heartland America’, conservatives, and the Right, and also to the need to re-engage) – just means they go unanswered.

You might even persuade yourself that not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot!

Burgess-Jackson’s prediction of an electoral backlash has some to pass. Push for too much too soon and it might just rebound at you. Might the depressing accuracy of his prognosis indicate that perhaps, he’s not – wait for this – an idiot?

Maybe – just maybe – one of the reasons why the Left is regarded as out of touch with heartland America is because the self-styled liberal ‘intelligentsia’ prefers to denigrate rather than engage. And maybe, just maybe, Burgess-Jackson is right in his prognostication of this tendency of the Left to mock rather than engage. After all, if you think everyone else is an idiot, why bother? You’re just preaching to the choir. As in the instant case when you assume that anyone who disagrees is a bigoted troglodyte. Sure, some bigots oppose gay marriage; just as some racists oppose the war on Iraq. So what? The merits of either position do not hinge on whoever articulates it. To suppose so from the outset is just ad hominem – cheap, expendable invective; easier than going to the substantive core of any position: just take the weakest statement of an opponent’s position, then proceed to caricature and ridicule. Intellectually infirm stuff.

“To suppose so from the outset is just ad hominem – cheap, expendable invective”

As is the dog analogy. That’s kind of the point.

“Maybe – just maybe – one of the reasons why the Left is regarded as out of touch with heartland America”

Gee, do even UK leftists have to be in touch with heartland America? Are US rightists in touch with heartland Britain? Or France?

And more seriously: have you read any Tocqueville or Mill, I wonder? They worried a good deal about precisely this coercive ‘how dare you be out of step with majority opinion’ move. Opinion can be majority opinion and still be wrong.

Ms Benson,

I agree that the analogy is unfortunate; but it’s not unreasonable if read in context: that is, same sex couples do not have the capacity of participating in an institution the purpose of which is to raise children. That is not ad hominem: it goes right to the heart of policy arguments against gay marriage. The jury, I think, is out on this – as I mentioned before; but I don’t think one can dismiss it out of hand.

Gee, do even UK leftists have to be in touch with heartland America? Are US rightists in touch with heartland Britain? Or France?

Sure, if they purport to speak about social phenomena in the US. But that wasn’t my point. My point rather, was that this tendency to dismiss arguments out of hand (not confined to the US Left) may be one reason for the Left’s spectacular failure in trying to unseat the incumbent in the recent elections.

And more seriously: have you read any Tocqueville or Mill, I wonder? They worried a good deal about precisely this coercive ‘how dare you be out of step with majority opinion’ move. Opinion can be majority opinion and still be wrong.

And that is precisely the point. You beg the question when you assume from the outset that so-and-so must be a bigot or a fool if he disagrees with you, thereby necessitating instant dismissal.

Note that I did not say that the majority must be right. I said that it is not wrong for the majority to decide where their money goes, when there may be very good policy reasons for leaving the decision to them. In other words, if there are good policy reasons against allowing gay marriage, _then_ it would be up to the electorate to disregard these policy reasons.

And yes, I’m the idiot now, ignorant about Tocqueville and Mill.

Chappell says: ‘This is the closest I’ve ever seen him get to providing an actual argument to supplement his anti-gay marriage rhetoric.’

Which is unfair, if you’ve been keeping tabs on his ‘anti-gay marriage rhetoric’ and know him to have advanced arguments other than this analogy.

Everyone seems to have too little time for soi-disant philosophers. This fratricidal contempt is probably mutual.

[i]Sure, if they purport to speak about social phenomena in the US. But that wasn’t my point. My point rather, was that this tendency to dismiss arguments out of hand (not confined to the US Left) may be one reason for the Left’s spectacular failure in trying to unseat the incumbent in the recent elections.[/i]

I continue to be amazed that a 3% margin is considered a spectacular failure. I am also stunned at the hypocrisy of expecting the so-called Left to be understanding and, what’s the word, concilatory towards the Right’s point of view, to stop deingrating and mocking it, when the Right seems to be quite willing to deingrate the left as over-intellectual hippies who smoke pot all the time, are obviously immoral, and are probably members of some feminist fascist conspiracy. I hear and have to take enough crap from the Right that I’m not going to suddenly back down from a viewpoint that I think is the correct and moral one; namely that all people are equal regardless of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, that religion should not and was never intended to have a steering hand in our U.S. government, and that morality doesn’t mean beating up somebody else because he or she is different. If that steps on the toes of any number of bigots, even if it’s a majority of bigots, f*ck em, I’m not going to change my mind to something objectionable to me because otherwise I might offend someone, if I did that I’d be a flip-flopper.

So press on with the civil unions, press on with reproductive rights, continue to fight for separation of church and state, and don’t listen when they try to tell you that 51/48 is some vast sweeping overwhelming victory. And happy frigging Thanksgiving.

I think enthymeme is right that there are serious public policy issues at stake concerning gay marriage. The case does need to be argued, and not presumed, and that is one reason to be uneasy about judicial activism on this issue, because it does preempt the kind of serious political debate and winning of hearts and minds that is needed in order for gay marriage — and, more generally, public acceptance of homosexuality as morally on a par with heterosexuality — to become a stable part of the social environment. For this reason I (personally) look very carefully at arguments against gay marriage.

But 2 points. 1) despite looking carefully I am stunned by how poor the arguments tend to be. 2) I struggle to find instances of people who oppose gay marriage taking seriously the best arguments in its favour. If someone can point me to exceptions to either point I’d be grateful. There are lots of bad arguments for gay marriage in the public arena, but lots of them are made up by opponents as far as I can see.

Sorry if this is off-topic.

No, the real *reason* is not that homosexuality is icky and our kids might be tempted. That is a decoy, and while it may be the conscious reason for many it is not the reason for the architects of conservativism, the plutocratic Hegemony which has been running what we see today most efficiently since Bill Buckley got togehter with the Booth Luces and Paul Weyrich and put together a disinformation project, which is currently to be seen in Town Hall, Moral Majority, Independent Women’s Forum, Institute For Justice, and any number of supposed independent, grass roots, nonpartisan think tanks.

The *real* reason is that we are being outbred by them. From the point of view of those for whom “us” = “WASPS” or “assimilated” “ethnic Catholics” to use Huntingdon and Buchanan’s terminology, and “them” = brown people here or in other parts of the world.

This has been explicitly argued in conservative publications for as long as I have been alive – back in the mid-70s when in addition to the Walker Percy-like fear of a Race War, (why is Zulu one of the NRO’s favorite films?) the “declining birthrate of Europe” was always raised in conjunction with the spectre of Islam immigrants, and the godless homosexuals and selfish feminists who contributed to that declining birthrate.

(Overpopulation? No such thing, dear chap, no such thing…)

And homosexuals who adopt children are *not* contributing more warm bodies for the Volk or for assembly-line/cannon fodder (which is why they don’t really want to stop the growth of Third-World nations either: we need millhands in Bangdalesh and enemies to keep the country in a Forever War.)

anticorium,

Absolutely so, enthymeme. Absolutely so. One might even extend the same argument to same-sex marriage, eventually.

Yes, very glib. One wonders why I bothered to write:

“Burgess-Jackson addresses this argument and the ‘childless couple objection’ – so read it before you jump the gun.”

Perhaps anticipating precisely this kind of response. Who knows. Quite the idiot, this enthymeme.

If all these people worried about the sanctity of marriage put half the effort into preserving the marriages between heterosexual couples, they’d do a lot more to protect the institution of marriage then prohibiting people in love from being a part of it would accomplish. Seriously, to say gay marriage isn’t valid in a country where the divorce rates are showing *straight* marriage to be pretty invalid is really just funny.

I recently read a bit of speculation that made sense to me. The theocratic approach to marriage is not a union of equals: there’s a superior partner and an inferior one. In the evangelical Protestant version of this, the one I’m most familiar with, the man’s authority over his wife is a symbolic expression of God’s authority over the Church. There is worth in being the subordinate part of such a pairing, but there’s no question of it being equal with the dominant one.

Now, there’s always been some conservative derision aimed at couples who specifically aimed for an equality of condition in practical terms. But gay marriage pushes it much father. If there are two men…which one is the wife and therefore subordinate? If there are two women…which one is the husband and therefore superior? It’s a challenge to the whole tangle of symbols, raising the ghastly possibility that perhaps if there is no image of Christ and Church in this marriage here, maybe there isn’t in any other.

That seems to me to fit the emotional intensity one sometimes sees applied to the issue, at least.

omg lolz nic you were just kidding i thought you were seriously attempting a counter argument by showing a reductio.

guess not :(

Methinks the anal philosopher really needs to get laid.