Ted; Mr. Wolfer; Mr. Rockwell;
Thank you for your comments.
Several remarks:
1) I do not disagree with the desirability of government getting out of marriage altogether. My article simply argued that the law should treat homosexual marriages in a manner no different from the way in which it treats heterosexual marriages. If that implies no treatment at all, then so be it. My argument for this kind of equal treatment is that it would assist in the societal legitimization of permanent, monogamous homosexual relationships and would thus render most homosexuals happier and less stigmatized by those who are currently prejudiced against them.
2) However, seeing as the government is unlikely to renounce its power over marriage any time soon, the next best thing that could be done is for this power to be applied as non-intrusively as possible, without the government prying too much into the nature of the marriage, including its composition. Perhaps the amendment proposed by Mr. Rockwell would be a good ultimate solution, while the ability for any two consenting adults to form civil unions would be a good intermediate solution that would incrementally move us in the right direction and perhaps prepare some of the public for the ultimate solution.
3) Regarding the “social desirability” arguments, many of these are addressed at those on the religious right who suffer the consequences of the repression of homosexuality. They are displeased that many of their self-proclaimed leaders have turned out to be utter hypocrites at best and child molesters at worst; it is possible that they are displeased with this even more than they might viscerally dislike homosexuality. To convince them to stop diverting their energies toward fighting homosexuality, it is necessary to convince them that not accepting homosexuality would be worse from their point of view. Arguments regarding individual rights and individual happiness would work for Objectivists, libertarians, and many of the “softly” religious. But the more hard-line religious right (some of whose members hold decent economic ideas, by the way) is generally impervious to such arguments. When confronted with them, a religious rightist might say something along the lines of, “Well, it might make some people happy to kill or hurt other people, and surely we cannot permit that!” While this is an incorrect response and one that misunderstands individual rights and rational egoism, many on the religious right are highly attached to that kind of thinking. To convince them of the benefits of a position, one generally needs to argue that it will somehow increase the prevalence of moral behavior in society, however they define moral behavior.
4) Moreover, while arguments regarding individual rights and individual happiness suffice to show the necessity of the legal toleration of a practice, they do not necessarily suffice to show the necessity of private social toleration of that practice. Let us say, for instance, that some particularly silly individual gets an emotional high from digging holes in the ground and filling them up again – and this is what he does all day for fun. (He admires the make-work programs from FDR’s New Deal.) He is not coercing anyone, so the law should certainly not impose any restriction on him. Digging the holes makes him happy, and is much better for him and for everyone else than many other things he could be doing, so I probably would not criticize him or encourage him to stop. But would I respect that person as much as I would respect someone with a more productive hobby? Probably not. To argue that a homosexual person should be respected as much as a heterosexual person, all other things being equal, one needs to make a stronger case than the individual rights/individual happiness argument – a case that certain beneficial material consequences accrue to everyone, or at least to some people, from such treatment. I have tried to make that case here.
5) As a rational egoist, I have to ask, what are the benefits for me from the more prevalent social toleration of homosexuals? Fewer perverts, fewer broken relationships, less unstable behavior are outcomes that have repercussions on the ways other people will behave toward me – and these repercussions would be quite beneficial for me, so I support the social toleration of homosexuality.
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com
Writer, Associated Content: http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html
Author, The Best Self-Help is Free: http://rationalargumentator.com/selfhelpfree.html
Author, The Progress of Liberty Blog: http://progressofliberty.today.com/
|
