Prop 8 Lawyers Have No Idea How Same-Sex Marriage Could Harm Anything

[tongodeon]

A while ago ianvass told me that he'd explain why California Prop 8 was a good idea, not religiously, but from a secular standpoint. How Prop 8 would mitigate a public health or safety issue. I'm still waiting, with occlupanid's wager of a tiny amount of foreign currency still unpaid

Comments

Re: if marrage..

[aghrivaine]

I've been looking for a way to rationally engage conservatives and pro-Prop8 types on this. It seems to me their opposition probably isn't based on simple prejudice, because that doesn't really stand up to a rational analysis of one's own motivations. In other words, if someone were against same-sex marriage because of fear or loathing of gay people, then at some level asking them why they're opposed is going to make them do a little soul-searching and, even if they can't bring themselves to stop hating gay people, at least drop out of the political discourse.

So it's got to be more subtle than that - some element of future-shock; to big a change, too fast .. or some threat to their sense of cultural propriety and rightness. So this article goes a long way to explaining that, and is helpful in articulating a response to anti-same-sex-marriage activists; that their valuation of purity, authority and cultural homogeneity doesn't trump the basic human values of freedom, marriage, and committed partnerships. It's the kind of question you can pose, and maybe, just maybe, get some reaction other than venom or obstinacy. So thanks!

Re: if marrage..

[aghrivaine]

"It seems to me their opposition probably isn't based on simple prejudice, because that doesn't really stand up to a rational analysis of one's own motivations."

And that is the judge's point: opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on rational thought. It comes from a place of emotion, not reason.

Re: if marrage..

[xiphias]

To you (and, for that matter, to me), purity, authority, and cultural homogeneity don't trump freedom, fairness, and commitment.

But I can't figure out any way to prove that. I believe it, sure, but I can't make an argument that will convince someone else of it. I can SAY that "these values outweigh those values," but I can't actually go up to them with some sort of virtue-ometer and measure them and demonstrate that it's objectively true.

Re: if marrage..

[aghrivaine]

That's a good point. I suppose you could employ Benthem's Moral Calculus - in that one represents the most happiness for the most people, and the other doesn't?

Re: if marrage..

[xiphias]

Then you need to get into defining "happiness".

And quantifying it. Which requires a happiometer. Which ALSO doesn't exist.

And unless you define "happiness" very carefully, it will lead to incorrect moral assumptions. Historically, people have enjoyed watching bear-bating, gladiatorial combat, cockfighting, hangings, and public torture. Are those things moral or not? They bring entertainment to people -- does that mean that they bring happiness?

It depends on what you mean by "happiness". The definitions I use for "happiness" mean things like "tending to lead toward a Proper Life," which requires defining "proper life", which is defined as "a life full of virtues", which requires defining "virtue", and you're right back where you started.

You can't define "Moral" as "maximizing happiness", without defining "happiness" first. And any definition of "happiness" which excludes "morality" in its definition will rapidly and demonstrably lead to situations where the maximizing of "happiness" requires self-evidently immoral actions. Bentham's work is highly useful -- but it "suffers", in a sense, from the fact that he, himself, was an INHERENTLY ethical person who got joy from right action.

If people gain joy from moral action, then maximizing pleasure leads to moral action. And I think Bentham incorrectly extended that idea to other people.

I mean, it appears to me that whatever Bentham was doing in his own mind WAS leading to him to what I would consider right action. But I just don't see his ideas as completely generalizable.

Re: if marrage..

[aghrivaine]

I would simply refer, for the sake of making a rational argument, to Benthem's definition of happiness, and his defense of his moral calculus. He laid it all out very systematically. Now, subsequently other ethicists and philosophers have pointed out some inherent flaws in the argument, but at least as a rejoinder to the current consideration, I think it's persuasive.

Certainly from a legal standpoint, the state has to have a compelling reason to deny access to any right or privilege class of people. "Conservative values" is not a compelling reason, even if it's emotionally compelling to the conservatives in question.

Now, when confronting conservatives, we can say something like, "Your valuation of purity and tradition are important parts of our culture - but in some cases it becomes clear that those values stand in the way of real equality in the population. There is a way to preserve your values as well as provide equality, but it involves compromise - if your aim is to protect the institution of procreative marriage, let's focus on positive inducements to encourage that, rather than negative inducements to prohibit anything else."

I dunno. Through this whole debate, it's been clear to me that there's an intractable opposition to same-sex marriage that is so widespread that it can't just be simple prejudice, and there has to be a way to deal with it by engaging the core of dispute, rather than just dismissing opponents as bigots. After all, we HAVE to persuade them to modify or lessen their stance in order to make progress! And when has anyone ever been persuaded by being insulted? (No matter how justified or unjustified the insult might be.)

Re: if marrage..

[tongodeon]

I read this as "Batman's Moral Calculus", whose definition I now leave as an exercise to the reader. (Paging crisper.)

Re: if marrage..

[aghrivaine]

As a severely pro-justice and pro-big-business capitalist, I can only imagine that The Batman is a Republican. His moral calculus probably involves five central tenets (knuckles) that when gathered together form a brutally simple rejoinder to any other argument. In the form of a sandwich. A knuckle sandwich, as it were.

Re: if marrage..

[tongodeon]

You can't. It's a value judgement, not an objective fact.