On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> Miles wrote:
>
> > However, I'll stick with what I said: if I had to cede political
> power to some noble, unelected elite or live with the decisions
> of the people, I'd go with the mob every time.
>
> Even if the mob is homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic, racist, etc.?
>
Do you see the ethnocentrism of your claim? "They should live by my beliefs because my beliefs are superior to theirs." Your point of view is more or less the same as any slaveholder who argues that we can ignores the wishes and interests of the slaves because we know what's best for them.
> > Sure, people can be prejudiced; their consensus can challenge
> or contradict the existing laws; the majority decision is not necessarily
> the most rational or "best" decision. --But this is the fundamental
> (moral) point: people should have a say about the things that
> affect their lives.
>
> But do they have the moral right to persecute other people? Gay
> people getting married has no effect on other people. To believe
> that it does is to accept rightwing propaganda. What affects their
> lives is their own hatred. They are captives of their hate.
>
Hey, I agree, it's ugly. I just don't see how we are morally justified in imposing our way of thinking on them. (They think they're morally superior to us, too!) I think the problem is that you perceive your own moral standards as the ones that any reasonable person should live by, and if people don't, we can ignore their voices.
> What you actual support is gay marriage so long as it is
> supported by the majority. If the majority isn't there,
> then you are opposed. You may BELIEVE in gay marriage,
> but you SUPPORT what the majority wants.
Yes, because I believe in democracy. The answer would be the same for the death penalty, funding public libraries, the selection of a state senator, or any other meaningful decision people need to make. If you're making me choose between supporting gay marriage and supporting democracy, I'm in favor of democracy.
> > However, if most people in East Texas do not support gay marriage,
> it's a pretty clear "fuck you" to democratic principles if we say, gay
> marriage is a constitutional right, and most East Texans' deeply held
> beliefs and opinions don't mean shit.
>
> Everyone has the right to their beliefs. What people do not have is the
> right to have their beliefs enacted into law when doing so leads to the
> persecution of others.
This is a bit slippery. Who gets to decide what "persecution of others" is? Opponents of affirmative action claim AA is "persecution of whites". Conservative Christians complain of "persecution" by secular culture and godless college professors. Who gets the political power to decide who is persecuting whom? "We do, of course--because we're right". (Blatant ethnocentrism again.)
> The problem is the fetishization of individuality where everyonme expects
> (totally unrealistically) that their views should hold the day and applied
> universally.
As Kel would say, Reflexivity Alert!
Miles